/!f.m. liiiiiiii COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA. Location: COUNCIL CHAMBER Hearing: FEBRUARY 26, 2015 AT 1:30 P.M. A-132/15 ANDREW/PATRICIA AZIZ

Transcription

1 ISSISSAUGA /!f.m liiiiiiii COITTEE OF ADJUSTENT AGENDA Location: COUNCIL CHABER Hearing: FEBRUARY 26, 2015 AT 1:30 P.. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCLOSURES OF DIRECT OR INDIRECT PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. REQUESTS FOR WITHDRAWAL/DEFERRAL File Name of Applicant Location of Land Ward Disposition NEW APPLICATIONS - CINOR VARIANCE) A-132/15 ANDREW/PATRICIA AZIZ 778 CANYON ST 2 Approved A-133/15 ARIA SORONG 1280 LEWISHA DR 2 Approved A-134/15 JAN & WIESLAWA KAZULA 1326 KENUIR AVE ar. 26 A-135/15 HIGH TECH PET PRODUCTS INC 320 DERRY RD W 11 Approved A-136/15 ANSOUR & ISIS TADROS 1539 WA TERSEDGE RD 2 Approved DEFERRED APPLICATIONS - CINOR VARIANCE) A-412/14 JONATHAN CHEUNG 26 COTTON DR Apr. 16 A-426/14 WIESLAW KONOPKA 110 PINEWOOD TR Approved A-044/15 NAINESH KOTAK 3843 O'NEIL GATE 8 Approved A-046/15 KANCHAN & PARDEEP KHANNA 806 CALDWELL AVE 2 Approved A-055/15 SOVEREIGN ASSET ANAGEENT INC EGLINTON AVE E 3 Approved C:\Userslrna~av~ppData\local\lcrosoltlWindows\Tomporary Internet Files\Contenl.Outlook\6KYV4T18\Dlsp BA130.doc; 2015/02/27; 11 :51 :04 A Page: 1 of 1

2 ISSISSaUGa File: "A" 132/15 WARD2 COITTEE OF ADJUSTENT IN THE ATTER OF SECTION 45(1) OR (2) of The Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.p.13, as amended - and - IN THE ATTER OF ZONING BY-LAW as amended - and - IN THE ATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ANDREW & PATRICIA AZIZ on Thursday February 26, 2015 Andrew & Patricia Aziz are the owners of Lot 107, Registered Plan -1565, located and known as 778 Canyon Street, zoned R Residential. The applicants request the Committee to authorize a minor variance to permit the construction of an accessory structure (pavilion) within the rear yard of the subject property proposing a floor area of m 2 ( sq. ft.); whereas By-law , as amended, permits a maximum floor area of m 2 ( sq. ft.) for an accessory structure in this instance. r. S. Albanese, authorized agent, attended and presented the application to permit the construction of an accessory structure (pavilion) within the rear yard of the subject property. r. Albanes~ advised the Committee that the accessory structure would be open on all sides. He noted that the rear yard of the subject property had limited shade and a minimal tree canopy, which necessitated the need for a covered space for the residents. He confirmed that the installation of the accessory structure would not require re-grading of the site, The Committee reviewed the information and plans submitted with the application. The City of ississauga Planning and Building Department commented as follows (February 20, 2015): "1.0 RECOENDATION The Planning and Building Department has no objection to the requested variances. 2.0 BACKGROUND ississauga Official Plan Character Area: Designation: Clarkson Lorne Park Neighbourhood Residential Low Density I Zoning By-Jaw Zoning: "R3-51", Residential 3.0 OTHER APPLICATIONS ~ Building Permit File: BP 15/ COENTS Based on the information provided with the associated Building Permit application, the requested variance is correct. Page 1of3

3 File: "A" 132/15 ISSISSaUGa WARD2 It is our understanding that the applicant is proposing to construct an accessory structure for the purposes of providing an open, covered amenity area within the rear yard of the subject property in conjunction with the existing pool. In review of the proposal, we advise that the construction of the accessory structure will not require relief for excessive lot coverage, height or side yard setbacks. Given the location of the proposed accessory structure, we are of the opinion that granting relief for floor area will not create any additional impacts on the adjacent properties and as such, we have no concern." The City of ississauga Transportation and Works Department commented as follows (February 19, 2015): "Should Committee see merit in the applicant's request to permit the construction of an accessory structure (pavilion) within the rear yard we would request that the existing drainage pattern in the area of the addition be maintained." The Region of Peel, Environment, Transportation and Planning Services, commented as follows (February 23, 2015): 'This property is located in the vicinity of a private landfill site with.o.e. # A It is an inactive landfill. There are two locations on the northwest corner of ississauga Rd. and Lakeshore Blvd. It has been cleaned to.o.e. standards. No further information is available." No other persons expressed any interest in the application. The Committee after considering the submissions put forward by r. Albanese and having reviewed the plans and comments received, is satisfied that the request is desirable for the appropriate further development of the subject property. The Committee is satisfied that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained in this instance. The Committee is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature in this instance. Page 2 of 3

4 File: "A" 132/15 ISSISSauGa WARD2 Accordingly, the Committee resolves to authorize and grant the request as presented subject to the following condition: 1. The accessory structure (pavilion) shall be the only accessory structure on the subject property. OVED BY: S. Patrizio SECONDED BY: L. Dahonick CARRIED Application Approved on condition as stated. Dated at the City of ississauga on arch 5, THIS DECISION IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO UNICIPAL BOARD BY FILING WITH THE SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE COITTEE OF ADJUSTENT A WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, GIVING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL, ACCOPANIED WITH THE PRESCRIBED FEE ON OR BEFORE ARCH 25, Date of mailing is arch 9, R. BENNETT J. THOAS D. KENNEDY ABSENT L.~A-- L.DAHONI~/ J. ROBINSON ABSENT I certify this to be a true copy of the Committee's decision given on arch 5, /J.iilld DAVID L. ARTIN, SECRETARY-TREASURER A copy of Section 45 of the Planning Act, as amended, is attached. NOTES: - A Development Charge may be payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. - Further approvals from the City of ississauga may be required i.e. a Building Permit, a Zoning Certificate, a License, etc. Page 3 of 3

5 ISSISSaUGa File: "A" 13.3/15 WARD2 COITTEE OF ADJUSTENT IN THE ATTER OF SECTION 45(1) OR (2) of The Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.p.13, as amended - and - IN THE ATTER OF ZONING BY-LAW as amended - and - IN THE ATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ARIA SORONG on Thursday February 26, 2015 aria Smorong is the owner of Lot 70, Registered Plan -587, located and known as 1280 Lewisham Drive, zoned R3 - Residential. The applicant requests the Committee to authorize a minor variance to permit the construction of a detached garage within the rear yard of the subject property proposing a driveway having a width of m (8.13 ft.); whereas By-law , as amended, requires a minimum driveway width of 3.20 m (10.49 ft.) in this instance. r;. Smorong, authorized agent, attended and presented the application to permit the construction of a detached garage within the rear yard of the subject property. r. Smorong advised the Committee that there was a shared access and driveway area between the subject property and the property to the south. He noted that the subject property backed on to lands within Sheridan Creek, zoned G - Greenbelt. He explained that the eve staff had no objection to the proposal, as the proposed detached garage would maintain the required setback to the lands zoned G - Greenbelt. The Committee reviewed the information and plans submitted with the application. The City of ississauga Planning and Building Department commented as follows (February 20, 2015): "1.0 RECOENDATION The Planning and Building Department has no objection to the requested variance. 2.0 BACKGROUND. ississauga Official Plan Character Area: Designation: Clarkson Lorne Park Neighbourhood Residential Low Density II Zoning By-law _7 Zoning: 3.0 OTHER APPLICATIONS IZI Building Permit "R3", Residential File: BP 14/ COENTS Based on a review of the associated Building Permit application, we advise that the variance request should be amended as follows: Page 1of3

6 File: "A" 133/15 ISSISSaUGa WARD2 "... to permit the construction of a detached garage within the rear yard of the subject property proposing a driveway having a width of 1.88 m (6.16 ft.); whereas By-law , as amended, requires a minimum driveway width of 2.60 m (8.53 ft.) in this instance." We advise that based on a recent site visit to the subject property, it appears that there is a shared access and driveway area in conjunction with the property to the south. We further advise that the smallest width is only applied to the portion of the driveway located at the rear of the dwelling. As such, we are of the opinion that the requested relief for insufficient driveway width is minor in nature and we have no concerns." The City of ississauga Transportation and Works Department commented as follows (February 19, 2015): "We note from our recent site inspection of this property that the proposed detached garage within the rear yard is being proposed in an area where there should be no drainage related impacts. The topography of the property is such that there is a sight grade on the existing driveway such that drainage from the driveway area is directed out towards Lewisham Drive and the grades at the rear of the property are such that drainage will be directed to the west into a buffer landscape area which is also in close proximity to an existing watercourse." A letter was received from D. & B. Anderson, residents of 1284 Lewisham Drive, stating that they had no objection to the requested variances. No other persons expressed any interest in the application. r. Smorong upon hearing the comments of the Committee and the Planning and Building Department, requested that the application be amended in accordance with their recommendations. The Committee consented to the request and, after considering the submissions put forward by r. Smorong and having reviewed the plans and comments received, is satisfied that the amended request is desirable for the.appropriate further development of the subject property. The Committee is satisfied that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained in this instance. The Committee is of the opinion that the amended request is minor in nature in this instance. Page 2 of 3

7 ~ ISSISSauGa File: "A" 133/15 WARD2 Accordingly, the Committee resolves to authorize and grant the amended request to permit the construction of a detached garage within the rear yard of the subject property proposing a driveway having a width of 1.88 m (6.16 ft.); whereas By-law , as amended, requires a minimum driveway width of 2.60 m (8.53 ft.) in this instance. OVED BY: R.Bennett SECONDED BY: L. Dahonick CARRIED Application Approved, as amended. Dated at the City of ississauga on arch 5, THIS DECISION IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO UNICIPAL BOARD BY FILING WITH THE SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE COITTEE OF ADJUSTENT A WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, GIVING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL, ACCOPANIED WITH THE PRESCRIBED FEE ON OR BEFORE ARCH 25, Date of mailing is arch 9, 2015., R. BENNETT ABSENT.D. KENNEDY J. ROBINSON ABSENT I certify this to be a true copy of the Committee's decision given on arch 5, A copy of Section 45 of the Planning Act, as amended, is attached. D NOTES: - A Development Charge may be payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. - Further approvals from the City of ississauga may be required i.e. a Building Permit, a Zoning Certificate, a License, etc. Page 3 of 3

8 ISSISSaUGa File: "A" 135/15 WARD 11 COITTEE OF ADJUSTENT IN THE ATTER OF SECTION 45(1) OR (2) of The Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.p.13, as amended - and - IN THE ATTER OF ZONING BY-LAW as amended - and - IN THE ATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY HIGH TECH PET PRODUCTS INC on Thursday February 26, 2015 High Tech Pet Products Inc is the owner of part of Lot 10, Concession 1, WHS, located and known as 320 Derry Road West, zoned D - Development & Gl - Greenbelt. The applicant requests the Committee to authorize a minor variance to continue to permit the use of the subject property for the purposes of operating a dog kennel for boarding dogs and dog training, as previously approved pursuant to Committee of Adjustment File 'A' 089/10; whereas By-law , as amended, does not make provision for such uses in a 'D' Development zone in this instance. s. A. Hutka, authorized agent, attended and presented the application to continue to permit the operation of a dog kennel for boarding dogs and dog training. s. Hutka advised the Committee that the property had been utilized for this purpose since She explained that there would be no horse boarding at the subject location. The Committee reviewed the information and plans submitted with the application. The City of ississauga Planning and Building Department commented as follows (February 23, 2015): "1.0 RECOENDATION The Planning and Building Department has no objection to the requested variance, subject to the conditions under 'A' 89/10 and approved for a temporary period. 2.0 BACKGROUND ississauga Official Plan Character Area: Designation: eadowvale Village Neighbourhood Business Employment, Residential Low Density 11,Greenbelt Zoning By-law Zoning: "D", Development; "Gl", Greenbelt - Natural Hazards 3.0 OTHER APPLICATIONS ~ Rezoning ~ Plan of Subdivision File: OZ File: 21T-l3007 Page 1of4

9 4.0 COENTS ISSISSaUGa File: "A" 135/15 WARDll We note that the subject application is a continuation of several previous approvals, the most recent being 'A' 89/10, which was temporarily approved and expires on arch 31, At the time, this Department stated that we had no objection to the requested variance, subject to conditions #1 and #2 under 'A' 96/07 and for a temporary time period. Conditions #1 and #2 were as follows: 1. All dogs shall be housed in the kennels after 9:00 p.m. daily. 2. There shall be no boarding of horses or horse training on the subject property. We advise that the subject lands are currently subject to applications for Rezoning and Plan of Subdivision to permit 37 detached and 8 semi-detached dwellings, as well as a parcel of land for employment uses. The proposed zoning for the property would include permissions for the animal boarding establishment in the employment area. Based on the preceding information, we have no objection to the requested variances, subject to conditions #1 and #2 under 'A' 89/10, and for a temporary period." The City of ississauga Transportation and Works Department commented as follows (February 19, 2015): "Should Committee see merit in the applicant's request we would recommend that the application be approved for a temporary period of time in order to ensure that the use does not impede on any future redevelopment of the subject and adjacent properties." The Region of Peel, Environment, Transportation and Planning Services, commented as follows (February 23, 2015): "Please note the Region relies on the environmental expertise of the Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) staff for the review of development applications located within, or adjacent to the Greenlands Systems in Peel and their potential impacts on the natural environment. The Region recommends that the City of ississauga consider comments from the eve and incorporate any of their conditions of approval appropriately." The Credit Valley Conservation commented as follows (February 4, 2015): "SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The subject property is traversed by Fletchers Creek, the associated valley system and Regulatory Floodplain. It is the policy of eve and the Province of Ontario to conserve and protect the significant physical, hydrological and biological features and functions of the above noted characteristics and to recommend that no development be permitted which would adversely affect the natural features or the ecological functions of these areas. ONTARIO REGULATION 160/06: The subject property is partially within the Authority's Regulated Area. As such, the property is subject to CVC Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 160/06). This regulation prohibits altering a watercourse, wetland or shoreline and prohibits development in areas adjacent to the Lake Ontario shoreline, river and stream valleys, hazardous lands and wetlands, without the prior written approval of Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) (i.e. the issuance of a permit). The property is regulated due to its location within the valley system and the regulatory floodplain. The subject property is partially designated Core Greenlands and Natural Area by the Region of Peel and the City of ississauga respectively. The subject property may contain or provide habitat for a known Species-at-Risk. Page 2 of4

10 ISSISSaUGa File: "A" 135/15 WARD 11 PURPOSE OF APPLICATION It is our understanding that the purpose of this application is to request a minor variance to continue to permit the use of the subject property for the purposes of operating a dog kennel for boarding dos and dog training, as previously approved pursuant to Committee of Adjustment File 'A' 089/10; whereas By-law , as amended, does not make provision for such uses in a 'D' Development zone in this instance. CONCLUSION eve staff have no objection to the approval of the minor variance. The applicant is to note that the property is regulated and a permit under Ontario Regulation 160/06 may be required for any future proposed works." A letter was received from E. Di Iorio, resident of 346 Derry Road West. stating that they had no objection to the requested variance. No other persons expressed any interest in the application. The Committee after considering the submissions put forward by s. Hutka and having reviewed the plans and comments received, is satisfied that the request is desirable for the appropriate further development of the subject property. The Committee indicated that the application is to be approved for a temporary period of five years which was an appropriate time frame to ensure that the future development potential of the surrounding lands was not jeopardized. rhe Committee i:; satisfied that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained in this instance. The Committee is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature in this instance. Page 3 of 4

11 ~ ISSISSauGa File: "A" 135/15 WARD 11 Accordingly, the Committee resolves to authorize and grant the request for a temporary period of five (5) years and is to expire and terminate on or before, arch 31, 2020 and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All dogs shall be housed in the kennels after 9:00 p.m. daily. 2. There shall be no boarding of horses or horse training on the subject property. OVED BY: S. Patrizio SECONDED BY: R.Bennett CARRIED Application Approved on conditions as stated. Dated at the City of ississauga on arch 5, THIS DECISION IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO UNICIPAL BOARD BY FILING WITH THE SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE COITTEE OF ADJUSTENT A WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, GIVING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL, ACCOPANIED WITH THE PRESCRIBED FEE ON OR BEFORE ARCH 25, Date of mailing is arch 9, ABSENT R. BENNETT J. THOAS ;.;/Lt,..- D. KENNEDY L. DAHONICK J. ROBINSON ABSENT I certify this to be a true copy of the Committee's decision given on arch 5, A copy of Section 45 of the Planning Act, as amended, is attached. DAVID L. ARTIN, SECRETARY-TREASURER NOTES: - A Development Charge may be payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. - Further approvals from the City of ississauga may be required i.e. a Building Permit, a Zoning Certificate, a License, etc. Page 4 of4

12 ISSISSaUGa File: "A" 136/15 WARD2 COITTEE OF ADJUSTENT IN THE ATTER OF SECTION 45(1) OR (2) of The Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.p.13, as amended - and - IN THE ATTER OF ZONING BY-LAW as amended - and - IN THE ATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ANSOUR & ISIS TAD ROS on Thursday February 26, 2015 ansour & Isis Tadros are the owners of part of Lot 66, Registered Plan -333, located and known as 1539 Watersedge Road, zoned Rl-2 - Residential. The applicants request the Committee to authorize a minor variance to permit the construction of a new dwelling on the subject property proposing: 1. a Gross Floor Area - Non-residential of m 2 (6, sq. ft.); whereas By-law , as amended, permits a maximum Gross Floor Area - Non-residential of m 2 (5, sq. ft.) in this instance; 2. a dwelling depth of m (70.86 ft.); whereas By-law , as amended, permits a maximum dwelling depth of m (65.61 ft.) in this instance; and, 3. a combined width of the side yards of 9.20 m (30.18 sq. ft.); whereas By-law , as amended, requires a minimum combined width of the side yards of m (39.37 ft.) in this instance. r. R. ateljan, authorized agent, attended and presented the application to permit the construction of a two (2) storey dwelling on the subject property. r. ateljan advised the Committee that a minor variance application for the subject property had been withdrawn previously. He noted that the subject application proposes a redesigned dwelling that mitigated some of the concerns expressed by the neighbors as well as was appropriate for the further development of the subject property. He noted that the subject lot curved along Watersedge Road. He explained that the proposed dwelling incorporated a curve within its architectural design such that it was complimentary to the lot shape. r. ateljan requested the Committee to amend the application for a Gross Floor Area - Nonresidential of m 2 (6, ft2). He advised the Committee that the plans had been modified to incorporate a three car garage which led to an overage in the overall GFA, He. explained that this change in the GFA was necessary to enhance the functionality of the interior design of the dwelling and that the redesigned garage allowed an opportunity to minimize the paved surface on the subject property. It was the opinion of r. ateljan that the unique architectural design of the dwelling was compact and effectively utilized space to minimize any adverse impact on the streetscape and the adjacent properties. r. ateljan showed elevations and floor plans for the proposed dwelling. With respect to minor variance request for an increased dwelling depth, r. ateljan noted that it was triggered by the second storey of the dwelling only. He noted that the first storey of the dwelling complied with the maximum permitted dwelling depth requirement. Page 1of5

13 ISSISSauGa File: "A" 136/15 WARD2 The Committee reviewed the information and plans submitted with the application. The City of ississauga Planning and Building Department commented as follows (February 24, 2015): "1.0 RECOENDATION The Planning and Building Department has no objection to variances #2 and #3. However, we recommend that variance #1 be refused. 2.0 BACKGROUND ississauga Official Plan Character Area: Designation: Clarkson Lorne Park Neighbourhood Residential Low Density I Discussion We advise that the subject property is located within the Clarkson Lorne Park Neighbourhood in ississauga Official Plan and is subject to special infill policies to ensure that new development maintains the character of the area and to mitigate negative impacts. The following policies are applicable in this instance: i. house designs which fit with the scale and character of the local area, and take advantage of the particular site are encouraged. The use of standard, repeat designs in strongly discouraged; Zoning By-law Zoning: "Rl-2", Residential 3.0 OTHER APPLICATIONS No other applications currently in process. 4.0 COENTS We note that in the absence of a Site Plan Approval application or a Building Permit application, we are unable to verify the accuracy of the requested variance or determine whether additional variances will be required. We further advise that based on the drawings provided with the minor variance application it appears an additional variance will be required for excessive driveway width. In order to confirm the accuracy of the requested variance, the applicant may apply for a Pre-Zoning Review application and submit working drawings in order that a detailed zoning review may be completed. We note that the applicant previously withdrew a minor variance application for the subject property, under file 'A' 2Sl/14, which originally requested a number of variances. We note that this Department has a concern with the requested relief in Gross Floor Area (GFA). In review of our records, there have been no similar minor variance requests for GFA that this Department has supported within the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Furthermore, in review of the application, we also compared the GFA permissions of the lots to the west of the subject property on the north side of Watersedge Road to the GFA permission of the subject lot in order to gain a sense of how the proposed dwelling would fit into the existing character. Although we recognize that the subject lot is smaller in size and the proposed dwelling is currently 10% over the GFA permission as identified in the variance request, if the proposed dwelling were to be constructed on one of the adjacent, regular shaped lots, the proposed GFA would still be 4% over the GFA permission. Page 2 of 5

14 File: "A" 136/15 ISSISSaUGa WARD2 Based on the preceding information, we are of the opinion that the proposed GFA does not fit the scale and character of the area, is not desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property and is not minor in nature. With regard to variance #2, in review of the site plan and drawings provided, we are of the opinion that the request is minor in nature and will not create any additional impacts on the adjacent properties. With regard to variance #3, it is our understanding that the proposed dwelling maintains the individual side yard setbacks however, due to the pie shaped nature of the lot, relief is required for combined width of side yards. As such, this Department believes the request to be minor in nature and we have no objections." The City of ississauga Transportation and Works Department commented as follows (February 19, 2015): "We are noting for Committee's information that this property will be subject to the Site Plan and Building Permit Process where any Transportation and Works Department conditions/requirements will be addressed." The Region of Peel, Environment, Transportation and Planning Services, commented as follows (February 23, 2015): "Please be advised that service connection sizes shall be in compliance with Ontario Building Code and Region of Peel Design Criteria. An upgrade of your existing service may be required. Please note that site servicing approvals will be required prior to building permit." A memorandum was received from Ward Councillor K. Rass expressed concerns with respect to the excessive nature of the proposed Gross Floor Area. She advised the Committee that the applicant had taken active measures to mitigate the concerns of the local community within the revised plans for the subject property. r. P. Quinn, a resident of 1338 Watersedge Road, attended and expressed his support for the subject application. r. Quinn advised the Committee that the plans for the subject property were revised to mitigate the concerns expressed by the neighbours as well as minimize the impact on the streetscape and adjacent properties. No other persons expressed any interest in the application... The Committee consented to the request and, after considering the submissions put forward by r. ateljan. and having reviewed the plans and comments received, is satisfied that the amended request is desirable for the appropriate further development of the subject property. The Committee referred to the irregular shape of the subject lot and indicated that the proposed dwelling design was appropriate. The Committee acknowledged the community engagement efforts made by the applicant to revise the proposal. The Committee noted that the revised plans proposed a development design that was complimentary to the existing character of the neighborhood. The Committee is satisfied that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained in this instance. The Co_mmittee is of the opinion that the amended request is minor in nature in this instance. Page 3 of 5

15 ISSISSauGa File: "A" 136/15 WARD2 Accordingly, the Committee resolves to authorize and grant the amended request to permit the construction of a new dwelling on the subject property proposing: 1. a Gross Floor Area - Non-residential of m 2 (6, sq. ft.); whereas By-law , as amended, permits a maximum Gross Floor Area - Non-residential of m 2 (5, sq. ft.) in this instance; 2. a dwelling depth of m (70.86 ft.); whereas By-law , as amended, permits a maximum dwelling depth of m (65.61 ft.) in this instance; and, 3. a combined width of the side yards of 9.20 m (30.18 sq. ft.); whereas By-law , as amended, requires a minimum combined width of the side yards of m (39.37 ft.) in this instance. Page 4 of 5

16 ISSISSaUGa OVED BY: S. Patrizio SECONDED BY: R.Bennett File: "A" 136/15 WARD2 CARRIED Application Approved, as amended. Dated at the City of ississauga on arch 5, THIS DECISION IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO UNICIPAL BOARD BY FILING WITH THE SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE COITTEE OF ADJUSTENT A WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, GIVING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL, ACCOPANIED WITH THE PRESCRIBED FEE ON OR BEFORE ARCH 25, Date of mailing is arch 9, S. PATf!/lk ~ R. BENNETT l.~~. D.KENNEDY ABSENT J. THOAS /_.~/~-~ L. DAHONICK J. ROBINSON ABSENT I certify this to be a true copy of the Committee's decision given on arch 5, A copy of Section 45 of the Planning Act, as amended, is attached. DAVID L. ARTIN, SECRETARY-TREASURER NOTES: - A Development Charge may be payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. - Further approvals from the City of ississauga may be required i.e. a Building Permit, a Zoning Certificate, a License, etc. Page 5 of 5

17 ISSISSaUGa File: "A" 426/14 WARDl COITTEE OF ADJUSTENT IN THE ATTER OF SECTION 45(1) OR (2) of The Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.p.13, as amended - and - IN THE ATTER OF ZONING BY-LAW as amended - and - IN THE ATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY WIESLAW KONOPKA on Thursday February 26, 2015 Wieslaw Konopka is the owner of part of Lot 1, Range 2, CIR & Lot 8, Registered Plan -318, located and known as 110 Pinewood Trail, zoned Rl-2 - Residential. The applicant requests the Committee to authorize a minor variance to permit the construction of a two (2) storey detached dwelling and attached accessory structure (outdoor fireplace) on the subject property proposing: 1. a dwelling height of m (33.92 ft.) measured to the highest ridge of the roof; whereas By-law , as amended, permits a maximum dwelling height of 9.50 m (31.17 ft.) measured to the highest ridge of the roof in this instance; 2. a height of 6.73 m (22.08 ft.) measured to the underside of eaves; whereas By-law , as amended, permits a maximum height of 6.40 m (21.00 ft.) measured to the underside of eaves in this instance; and, 3. an height of 8.23 m (27.00 ft.) for the proposed accessory structure (outdoor fireplace and chimney); whereas By-law , as amended, permits a maximum height of 3.00 m (9.84 ft.) in this instance. On December 4, 2014, r. D. Brown, the authorized agent, attended and requested a deferral of the subject application. r. Brown advised the Committee that he required additional time to address the concerns raised by staff and the residents that expressed an interest in the application. The Committee reviewed the information and plans submitted with the application. The City of ississauga Planning and Building Department commented as follows (November 28, 2014): "1.0 RECOENDATION The Planning and Building Department recommends that the application be refused. 2.0 BACKGROUND ississauga Official Plan Character Area: Designation: ineola Neighbourhood Residential Low Density I ineola Neighbourhood Page 1of7

18 File: "A" 426/14 ISSISSaUGa WARDl The subject property is located within the ineola Neighbourhood character area of the ississa~ga Official Plan and is subject to special site policies. The intent of these policies is to ensure that infill development maintains the character of the area and does not create an impact on the streetscape or neighbouring dwellings. The following policies apply in this instance: f. encourage buildings to be one to two storeys in height. The design of the building should de-emphasize the height of the house and be designed as a composition of small architectural elements, i.e. projecting dormers and bay windows; k. the building mass, side yards and rear yards should respect and relate to those of adjacent lots. Zoning By-Jaw Zoning: "Rl-2", Residential 3.0 OTHER APPLICATIONS [8J Site Plan File: SP 14/120 Wl 4.0 COENTS Based on the review of the associated Site Plan application, we advise that it appears that additional variance will be required for accessory structure height for the outdoor fireplace. We note that at the time of Preliminary Site Plan meeting, this Department indicated that we would not be in support of the variances proposed at that time. Although the applicant has revised the proposal to eliminate some variances identified at that time, we maintain a concern with the current proposal in relation to the subject minor variances. According to our records, we note that there have not been similar variances granted for dwelling height, eave height or dwelling depth relief on Pinewood Trail. In review of the elevations, we recognize that the average grade calculation effects the overall dwelling height and eave height dimensions, however the proposal is still in excess of the Zoning By-law requirements when referencing the established grade. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the design of the proposed dwelling does not de-emphasize the height of the house and creates a massing impact on the streetscape and neighbouring dwellings. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the requested relief in dwelling height and eave height in conjunction with the design of the dwelling does not maintain the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and is not appropriate for the development of the property. Wit~ regard to the variance relating to the proposed dwelling depth, we advise that it is our understanding that the applicant is proposing to construct an enclosed pool within the rear yard of the subject property. Although we recognize that the need for relief is attributed to the enclosed pool extending from the dwelling into the rear yard, we are of the opinion that the massing impact incurred from this excessive extension does not respect and relate to the rear yard of the neighbour to the west and creates a negative impact. Therefore, given that majority of the properties on Pinewood Trail do not contain dwellings that are excessive in dwelling depth and given the degree of relief required, we believe the variance to be excessive in nature and does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law." The City of ississauga Transportation and Works Department commented as follows (November 27, 2014): "We note for Committee's information that the City is currently processing a Site Plan Application for this property, Reference SP 14/120. Transportation and Works Department concerns/requirements for this property will be addressed through the Site Plan Process." Page 2 of7

19 File: "A" 426/14 ISSISSaUGa WARDl The Region of Peel, Environment, Transportation and Planning Services, commented as follows (November 27, 2014): "An upgrade to your existing service may be required. Service connection sizes must be in compliance with the Ontario Building Code and the Region of Peel Design Criteria. Please note that site servicing approvals are required prior to building permit approval." A memorandum was received from Ward Councillor J. Tovey, expressing concerns for the subject application. He requested the Committee to refuse the subject application. A letter was received from N. & A. Stiernholm, residents of 100 Pinewood Trail, stating their objection to the subject application. A letter was received from. Yiptong, a resident of 109 Hollyrood Heights Drive, stating his objection to the subject application. A letter was received from F. & J. Bergnach, residents of 131 Hollyrood Heights Drive, stating objection to the subject application. A letter was received from J. Santomero, resident of 120 Pinewood Trail, stating his objection to the subject application. A letter was received from A. & E. Crawford, residents of 117 Hollyrood Heights Drive, stating their objection to the subject application. A letter was received from J. ckinnon, Chairman of Credit Reserve Association, stating his objection to the requested variances. He noted that variance # 1 & 3 were excessive in nature and requested the Committee to refuse the subject application. A petition was received from the residents of 82, 89, 129, 130, 137, 140 Pinewood Trail & 1461 Goldthorpe Road, expressing their objection to the subject application. No other persons expressed any interest in the application. The Committee consented to the request and deferred the application to the February 5, 2015 hearing. On February 5, 2015, r. D. Brown, the authorized agent, attended and presented a substantially revised proposal to the Committee. r. Brown noted that the proposed enclosed swimming pool had been deleted and that the dwelling depth had greatly been reduced. He confirmed that the height of the dwelling and eaves had been reduced from the initial proposal and that a new variance for the height of the chimney for the proposed outdoor fireplace was required for compliance with the Ontario Building Code. r. J. Petrykowski, the architect of the proposal, attended and confirmed that several revisions had been made to the proposal and that the revised material had been recently provided to the Committee of Adjustment office. The Committee reviewed the information and plans submitted with the application. The City of ississauga Planning and Building Department commented as follows (January 30, 2015): "1.0 RECOENDATION The Planning and Building Department recommends that the application be refused. 2.0 BACKGROUND ississauga Official Plan Page 3 of7

20 Character Area: Designation: ineola Neighbourhood ~ ISSISSaUGa ineola Neighbourhood Residential Low Density I File: "A" 426/14 WARDl The subject property is located within the ineola Neighbourhood character area of the ississauga Official Plan and is subject to special site policies. The intent of these policies is to ensure that infill development maintains the character of the area and does not create an impact on the streetscape or neighbouring dwellings. The following policies apply in this instance: f. encourage buildings to be one to two storeys in height. The design of the building should de-emphasize the height of the house and be designed as a composition of small architectural elements, i.e. projecting dormers and bay windows; Zoning By-law Zoning: 3.0 OTHER APPLICATIONS!ZI Site Plan "Rl-2", Residential File: SP 14/120 Wl 4.0 COENTS Based on the review of revised drawings submitted to the Site Plan application, we advise that the original minor variance application should be amended to eliminate variance #3 for dwelling unit depth. Furthermore, it appears there is an additional variance required for accessory structure height for the outdoor fireplace, however, without the revised information being submitted to the associated Site Plan application, we cannot confirm the variance. We note that at the time of Preliminary Site Plan meeting, this Department indicated that we would not be in support of the variances proposed. Although the applicant has revised the proposal to eliminate some variances identified, we maintain a concern with the current proposal in relation to the subject minor variances. According to our records, we note that there have not been similar variances granted for dwelling height or eave height relief on Pinewood Trail. In review of the elevations, we recognize that the average grade calculation effects the overall dwelling height and eave height dimensions, however the proposal is still in excess of the Zoning By-law requirements when referencing the established grade. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the design of the proposed dwelling does not de-emphasize the height of the dwelling and creates a massing impact on the streetscape and neighbouring dwellings. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the requested relief in dwelling height and eave height, in conjunction with the design of the dwelling, does not maintain the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and is not appropriate for the development of the property." The City of ississauga Transportation and Works Department commented as follows (January 29, 2015): "Please refer to our comments submitted for the December 4, 2014 hearing of this application as those comments are still applicable." The Region of Peel, Environment, Transportation and Planning Services, commented as follows (February 2, 2015): "The service connection sizes shall be in compliance with the Ontario Building Code and Region Design Criteria. An upgrade of your existing service may be required. Site servicing approvals will be required prior to the building permit." Page 4 of 7

21 ~ File: "A" 426/14 ISSISSaUGa WARDl A letter was received from F. & J. Bergnach, residents of 131 Hollyrood Heights Drive, expressing their concerns with the subject application. A letter was received from J. & K. Santomero, residents of 120 Pinewood Trail, stating their support for the subject application. A letter was received from N. & A. Stiernholm, residents of 100 Pinewood Trail, stating their support of the amended application. r. D. Ferro, a Planner for the City of ississauga, attended and noted that the height of the dwelling was partially the result of the uneven topography of the property where the proposed dwelling was to be situated. No other persons expressed any interest in the application. The Committee was of the opinion that the appropriate notification of the significantly revised proposal should be provided to the adjacent property owners in accordance with the Planning Act. r. Brown concurred with the Committee and requested a deferral to allow for such notification to occur. The Committee deferred the application to the February 26, 2015 hearing. On February 26, 2015, r. J. Petrykowski, a representative of the authorized agent, attended and presented the application to permit the construction of a two (2) storey detached dwelling and attached accessory structure (fireplace) on the subject property. r. Petrykowski advised the Committee that during the interim of the deferral, the development plans had been revised to remove the swimming pool and eliminate the related minor variance request for dwelling depth. He confirmed that the proposed development design complied with the permitted lot coverage and overall GFA requirements. r. Petrykowski noted that the overage in dwelling height was due to the average grade of subject property being lower than the established grade. He noted that there was a considerably high water table within the area and the grade was raised at the front of the house to allow adequate drainage on site. r. Petrykowski noted that the lower average grade also triggered the request for an increase in the height measured to the underside of eaves. The Committee reviewed the information and plans submitted with the application. The City of ississauga Transportation and Works Department commented as follows (February 19, 2015): "Please refer to our comments submitted for the December 4, 2014 hearing of this application as those comments are still applicable." The Region of Peel, Environment, Transportation and Planning Services, commented as follows (February 23, 2015): "Please be advised that service connection sizes shall be in compliance with Ontario Building Code and Region of Peel Design Criteria. An upgrade of your existing service may be required. Please note that site servicing approvals will be required prior to building permit." A letter was received from T. Paine & S. Collacott, residents of 129 Pinewood Trail, stating his objection to the requested variances. He expressed his concerns with respect to the excessive nature of the variances pertaining to dwelling height, eaves height and outdoor fireplace. He noted that the subject application created excessive massing impact on the streetscape and Page 5 of 7

22 File: "A" 426/14 ISSISSaUGa WARDl adversely impacted the adjacent properties. He requested the Committee to refuse the subject application. No other persons expressed any interest in the application. The Committee after considering the submissions put forward by r. Petrykowski and having reviewed the plans and comments received, is satisfied that the request is desirable for the appropriate further development of the subject property. The Committee indicated that the proposed dwelling is appropriately set back from the street which mitigated the massing impact on the streetscape. The Committee noted that the sloping of the grade in the front yard would further minimize the visual impact of the proposed dwelling. The Committee is satisfied that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained in this instance. The Committee is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature in this instance. Page 6 of7

23 ~ ISSISSauGa File: "A" 426/14 WARDl Accordingly, the Committee resolves to authorize and grant the request as presented subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall proceed in accordance with the plans reviewed by the Committee. OVED BY: S. Patrizio SECONDED BY: D.Kennedy CARRIED Application Approved on condition as stated. Dated at the City of ississauga on arch 5, THIS DECISION IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO UNICIPAL BOARD BY FILING WITH THE SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE COITTEE OF ADJUSTENT A WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, GIVING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL, ACCOPANIED WITH THE PRESCRIBED FEE ON OR BEFORE ARCH 25, Date of mailing is arch 9, R. BENNETT J. THOAS ABSENT ~~. D. KENNEDY L. DAHONICK J. ROBINSON ABSENT I certify this to be a true copy of the Committee's decision given on arch 5, A copy of Section 45 of the Planning Act, as amended, is attached. NOTES: - A Development Charge may be payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. - Further approvals from the City of ississauga may be required i.e. a Building Permit, a Zoning Certificate, a License, etc. Page 7 of?

24 ISSISSaUGa File: "A" 44/15. WARDS COITTEE OF ADJUSTENT IN THE ATTER OF SECTION 45(1) OR (2) of The Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.p.13, as amended - and - IN THE ATTER OF ZONING BY-LAW as amended - and - IN THE ATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY NAINESH KOT AK on Thursday February 26, 2015 Nainesh Kotak is the owner of Lot 29, Registered Plan -1169, located and known as 3843 O'Neil Gate, zoned G2-1 - Greenbelt & R Residential. The applicant requests the Committee to authorize a minor variance to permit the construction of a pool and extension of an existing deck in the rear yard of the subject property, proposing: 1. a rear yard setback of 5.53 m (18.14 ft.) for the proposed deck to lands zoned G2-1 - Greenbelt; whereas By-law , as amended, requires a minimum rear yard setback of 8.50 m (27.89 ft.) to lands zoned G2-1 - Greenbelt in this instance; 2. a rear yard setback of 0.00 m (0.00 ft.) from the inside walls of the swimming pool to lands zoned G2-1 - Greenbelt; whereas By-law , as amended, requires a minimum rear yard setback 1.50 m (4.92 ft.) from the inside wall of the swimming pool to lands zoned G2-1 - Greenbelt in this instance; and, 3. a side yard setback of 1.20 m (3.94 ft.) to the deck stairs; whereas By-law , as amended, requires a minimum side yard setback of 2.41 m (7.91 ft.) in this instance. On January 22, 2015, s.. Khidhr, authorized agent, attended and presented the application to permit the construction of a pool and extension of an existing deck in the rear yard of the subject property. s. Khidhr advised the Committee that there was an existing two (2) storey detached dwelling on the subject property with an amenity space in the rear yard. She noted that it was a preference of her client to develop the amenity space further for personal use. s. Khidhr noted that the varying topography of the lot attributed to the rear yard being considerably lower than the front yard of the subject property. She explained that the wooden deck extension in the rear yard of the subject property would be located at the established grade level, with a stairwell access from the basement level. She noted that the proposed swimming pool would be accessible from the basement level. The Committee reviewed the information and plans submitted with the application. The City of ississauga Planning and Building Department commented as follows (January 21, 2015): "1.0 RECOENDATION The Planning and Building Department has no objection to the requested variances. However, the applicant may wish to defer the application to submit the requested information in order to ensure that all variances have been accurately identified. Page 1of7