Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 1 Wednesday, January 24, CITY OF MARKHAM 101 Town Centre Boulevard January 24, Minutes.

Transcription

1 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 1 CITY OF MARKHAM 101 Town Centre Boulevard January 24, 2018 Markham, Ontario 7:30 p.m. Council Chambers COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes The 1 st regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment for the year 2018 was held at the time and place above with the following people present: Philip Gunn, Chair Gary Muller, Vice Chair Michael Visconti Arun Prasad Tom Gutfreund Arrival Time 7:30pm 7:30pm 7:30pm 7:30pm 7:30pm Rick Cefaratti, Acting Secretary-Treasurer Regrets, Gregory Knight and Jeamie Reingold MINUTES THAT the minutes of Meeting No. 21 of the City of Markham Committee of Adjustment, held November 29, 2017, be a) Approved as submitted, on January 24, 2018 Moved By: Gary Muller Seconded By: Michael Visconti Carried DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST - none

2 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 2 PREVIOUS BUSINESS 1. A/120/17 Owner Name: Mario Barbaro & Lori Morgado Agent Name: Gregory Design Group (Russ Gregory) Address: 23 Sir Bodwin Pl, Markham PLAN M1392 LOT 219 The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of By-law 1229, as amended to permit: a) Table 11.1: a minimum front yard setback of 6.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.62 metres; b) Infill By-law 99-90, Section 1.2 (vi): a maximum net floor area ratio of percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum net floor area ratio of 45 percent; c) Infill By-law 99-90, Section 1.2 (i): a maximum building height of metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 9.8 metres; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling. (East District, Ward 4) The Secretary-Treasurer introduced the application. Agent, Russ Gregory presented the application using exhibits. He explained that the variances had been reduced from the previous submissions. Susan O Neil (63 Sir Bodwin), Richard Crawford (65 Sir Bodwin) and Laura Flaty (15 Sir Constantine Drive) attended in opposition to the application, stating that the proposal had not been scaled back as directed by the Committee. Ms. O Neil expressed concern with setting precedent in the area, and felt that the applicant should build according to the By-law. Mr. Crawford felt that the staff report had underrepresented the magnitude of the net floor area ratio FAR variance. Ms. Flaty stated that the net floor area ratio (FAR) for the development is actually 51.3 percent and not the percent stated in the application. Rick Chaseman, 43 Sir Bodwin, read letters of objection, expressed concern about the scale of development and flooding impacts, and recommended deferral of the application until these issues are resolved. Barbara Simpson, a nearby neighbour, expressed concern about shadowing impacts from the development.

3 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 3 Ward Councillor Karen Rea expressed concern about the scale of the development, stating that it was significantly above the By-law requirement, incompatible with the neighbourhood, and that it had not been scaled back from earlier submissions. Councillor Rea referred to the Infill Development Criteria in the Official Plan 2014, noting that all infill on the street was built according to the By-law and two minor variance applications were denied against the opinion of City staff. Committee member Philip Gunn asked how close the proposed dwelling is to the neighbouring house. Mr. Gregory responded that it is 14.5 feet from the house to the north and 13 feet from the house to the south. Committee member Gary Muller asked the applicant to respond to the concerns expressed about site statistics, drainage and shadowing. Mr. Gregory explained that the FAR had been reduced from 54.4 percent based on Committee direction. The previous submission was for 50.4 percent FAR. Subsequently, the figure was confirmed to be percent using AutoCAD. Mr. Gregory stated that the City s Engineering Department has no concerns regarding drainage, and grading will be addressed as a condition of approval. Committee member Michael Visconti asked if the clients would consider a FAR of 47 or 48 percent. Mr. Gregory stated that the FAR could be reduced to 50 percent. Mr. Visconti asked if not building the proposed dwelling would help the flooding issue on the street. Mr. Gregory responded no; the proposed building might help ease flooding issues because the engineering will be carried out according to current standards. Mr. Visconti expressed support for the application, stating that the scale of the development was reasonable, the design was attractive, and the four tests of the Planning Act were met. Arun Prasad expressed support, noting that that the next door neighbour at 21 Sir Bodwin Place supported the application. Moved by: Michael Visconti Seconded by: Arun Prasad THAT Application No. A/120/17, submitted by Mario Barbaro and Lori Morgado, owner(s) of 23 Sir Bodwin Place Markham, PLAN M1392 LOT 219, requesting relief from the requirements of By-law No. 1229, as amended, to permit the following: a) Table 11.1: a minimum front yard setback of 6.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.62 metres; b) Infill By-law 99-90, Section 1.2 (vi): a maximum net floor area ratio of percent, whereas the Bylaw permits a maximum net floor area ratio of 45 percent; c)infill By-law 99-90, Section 1.2 (i): a maximum building height of metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 9.8 metres; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling.

4 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 4 These variance requests be approved for the following reasons: (a) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the By-law will be maintained; (b) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan will be maintained; (c) In the opinion of the Committee, the granting of the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot; (d) In the opinion of the Committee, the requested variance is minor in nature. Subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances apply only to the proposed development as long as it remains. 2. That the variances apply only to the subject development, in substantial conformity with the plan(s) attached as Appendix A to this Staff Report to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his/her satisfaction. 3. Submission of a Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, prepared by a qualified arborist in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual (2009), as amended, to be reviewed and approved by the City, and that the Secretary- Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his/her satisfaction, and that any detailed Siting, Lot Grading and Servicing Plan required as a condition of approval reflects the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan. 4. That prior to the commencement of construction or demolition, tree protection be erected and maintained around all trees on site in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual, including street trees, in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual (2009) as amended, and inspected by City Staff to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or their designate. 5. That tree replacements be provided and/or tree replacement fees be paid to the City if required in accordance with the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate. The Committee, in making its decision on this matter, took into consideration the oral and written comments submitted on the application. Resolution Carried 2. A/132/17 Owner Name: ENDEEN INVESTMENTS LTD. (Dino Quarin) Agent Name: MGL & Co. Inc. (Maggie Low) Address: th Ave, Markham

5 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 5 PLAN 65M2481 LOT 24 The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of By-law 28-82, as amended to permit: a) Parking By-law 28-97, Section 4.0: a minimum of 121 parking spaces with 9 accessible spaces, whereas the bylaw requires a minimum of 174 parking spaces with 9 accessible spaces; as it relates to the expansion of a badminton club. (West District, Ward 8) The Secretary-Treasurer introduced the application. Agent, Maggie Low presented the application using exhibits. Ms. Low explained that a traffic study was done and the peak usage was calculated at 71 spaces. She stated that there was no history of parking shortages at the site, and that by operating from 4 pm to 9 pm, the badminton club uses the parking lot during off-peak hours and does not impact industrial uses in the building. There were no members of the public present to speak to the application. Committee member Tom Gutfreund asked what other types of uses are in the area. Ms. Low stated that the building includes offices, a television broadcaster and a furniture warehouse. Mr. Gutfreund asked if the parking study had confirmed there would be no impact from the proposal. Ms. Low responded yes; the peak usage is 71 parking spaces. Mr. Gutfreund expressed support for the application, stating that he liked the idea of maximizing the use of the facility. Committee member Gary Muller expressed support for the application, noting that it makes efficient use of the parking lot and that the hours of operation are compatible with other uses. Moved by: Gary Muller Seconded by: Arun Prasad THAT Application No. A/132/17, submitted by ENDEEN INVESTMENTS LTD. (Dino Quarin) owner(s) of th Avenue Markham, PLAN 65M2481 LOT 24, requesting relief from the requirements of By-law No , as amended, to permit the following: Parking By-law 28-97, Section 4.0: a minimum of 123 parking spaces with 5 accessible spaces, whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 174 parking spaces with 9 accessible spaces, as it relates to the expansion of a badminton club.

6 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 6 These variance requests be approved for the following reasons: (a) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the By-law will be maintained; (b) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan will be maintained; (c) In the opinion of the Committee, the granting of the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot; (d) In the opinion of the Committee, the requested variance is minor in nature. Subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances apply only to the proposed development as long as it remains; 2. That the applicant submit revised plans which demonstrate compliance the City of Markham s Accessibility Design Guidelines and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his or her satisfaction. The Committee, in making its decision on this matter, took into consideration the written comments received on the application. There were no persons in attendance at the meeting who spoke on the matter. Resolution Carried 3. A/133/17 Owner Name: Ontario Limted (Sylvester Chuang) Agent Name: Matthews Planning & Management Ltd (David Matthews) Address: Hwy, Markham CON 5 PT LOT 11 RP 65R28640 PART 1 The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of By-law , as amended to permit: a) Amending By-law , Section 3.2 a): repair and service of motor vehicles, whereas the by-law does not permit repair and service of motor vehicles; b) Amending By-law , Section 3.3 a): an automobile sales establishment to operate as three (3) premises within a single building, where as the by-law prohibits an automobile sales establishment unless operated as a single premise within a single building; c) Section 3.3 a) iii): a minimum west side yard setback of 7.44 m, whereas the by-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 12 m;

7 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 7 d) Section 3.3 a) iv): a maximum building height of 14.3 m, whereas the by-law permits a maximum building height of 6.5 m within 25 m of the rear lot line and 11 m for the remainder of the lot; e) Section 5.13: zero (0) loading spaces, whereas the by-law requires a minimum of two (2) loading spaces; as they relate to three new interconnected automobile dealerships. (Central District, Ward 3) The Secretary-Treasurer introduced the application. Agent, Dave Matthews presented the application. Mr. Matthews noted that he had worked proactively with City staff on the design and siting of the building in order to limit impacts on surrounding land uses. He explained that variance e) was no longer required because the required two loading spaces had been added to the proposal. There were no members of the public present to speak to the application. Committee member Michael Visconti asked whether or not the subject property was one parcel. Mr. Matthews responded that it is one parcel. Mr. Visconti asked if the individual dealerships could sell their portions of the property separately. Mr. Matthews responded that they could not, although this is possible through a severance. Mr. Visconti asked about issues regarding unloading of vehicles on Highway 7. Mr. Matthews responded that the design accommodates trucks driving into the site to deliver one or two cars at a time. Committee member Philip Gunn asked how vehicles would be unloaded if the property were sold. Mr. Matthews responded that they would be unloaded the same way. Committee member Michael Visconti expressed concern about whether this development could be sustained while the Official Plan calls for higher density mixed use development. Mr. Matthews responded that the Official Plan calls for three to six storeys and the proposed development is within that range. He noted that the proposed development is compatible with the area. Committee member Gary Muller noted that land use is not the issue in this application; it is about intensification along a significant corridor. Although there might be a change in use long-term, the proposal is appropriate. Committee member Tom Gutfreund asked how tall the wall surrounding the rooftop parking is, and whether cut-off lighting is proposed. Mr. Matthews responded that the wall is six feet tall, and cut-off lighting was planned for the site and this would be dealt

8 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 8 with in the Site Plan Control process. Mr. Gutfreund expressed support for the application. Committee member Arun Prasad asked about accessible parking. Mr. Matthews responded that the required accessible parking spaces were provided at the rear of the building. Moved by: Tom Gutfreund Seconded by: Gary Muller THAT Application No. A/133/17, submitted by Ontario Limted (Sylvester Chuang) owner(s) of Highway E Markham, CON 5 PT LOT 11 RP 65R28640 PART 1, requesting relief from the requirements of By-law No , as amended, to permit the following: a)amending By-law , Section 3.2 a): repair and service of motor vehicles, whereas the by-law does not permit repair and service of motor vehicles; b) Amending By-law , Section 3.3 a): an automobile sales establishment to operate as three (3) premises within a single building, where as the by-law prohibits an automobile sales establishment unless operated as a single premise within a single building; c)section 3.3 a) iii): a minimum west side yard setback of 7.44 m, whereas the by-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 12 m; d)section 3.3 a) iv):a maximum building height of 14.3 m, whereas the by-law permits a maximum building height of 6.5 m within 25 m of the rear lot line and 11 m for the remainder of the lot; These variance requests be approved for the following reasons: (a) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the By-law will be maintained; (b) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan will be maintained; (c) In the opinion of the Committee, the granting of the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot; (d) In the opinion of the Committee, the requested variance is minor in nature. Subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances apply only to the proposed development as long as it remains; 2. That the variances apply only to the subject development, in substantial conformity with the plan(s) attached as Appendix C to this Staff Report dated January 22, 2018, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate; 3. That the repair and servicing of motor vehicles be associated with an automobile sales establishment; 4. That the loading and unloading of vehicles be prohibited on Highway 7 East and be undertaken in accordance with the loading spaces designated on the Site Plan included as an attachment in Appendix C ; and,

9 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 9 5. That the owner submit to the Secretary-Treasurer a copy of the Site Plan Endorsement memo for the proposed development. The Committee, in making its decision on this matter, took into consideration the written comments received on the application. There were no persons in attendance at the meeting who spoke on the matter. Resolution Carried NEW BUSINESS: 1. A/149/17 Owner Name: AILING WANG Agent Name: Bill Ross & Associates (Bill Ross) Address: 9 Fairway Heights Cres, Thornhill PLAN 6350 LOT 70 The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of By-law 1767, as amended to permit: a) Infill By-law ; Section 1.2(vi): a maximum floor area ratio of 49.5% (7,426 sq. ft.); whereas, the By-law permits a maximum floor area ratio of 47% (7,050 sq. ft.); b) Infill By-law ; Section 1.2(i): a maximum building height of metres; whereas, the Bylaw permits a maximum building height of 9.8 metres; c) Infill By-law ; Section 1.2(iii): a maximum building depth of metres; whereas, the By-law permits a maximum building depth of 16.8 metres; d) Section 15(i)(e): a minimum rear yard setback of 32-9 ; whereas, the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet; e) Section 9 (i): a maximum (window well) side yard encroachment of 24 ; whereas, the By-law permits a maximum yard encroachment of 18 into the required side yard; as it relates to a proposed residential dwelling. (West District, Ward 1) The Secretary-Treasurer introduced the application. Agent, Bill Ross presented the application. There were no members of the public present to speak to the application.

10 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 10 Committee member Tom Gutfreund stated that he has no issue with the variances but inquired about the trees to be removed due to the circular driveway. Mr. Ross responded that four trees are to be removed, and that an arborist report would be prepared as a condition of approval. Mr. Gutfreund asked about whether the driveway would be hard or porous. Mr. Ross responded that it would be interlocking pavers. Moved by: Gary Muller Seconded by: Arun Prasad THAT Application No. A/149/17, submitted by AILING WANG owner(s) of 9 Fairway Heights Crescent Thornhill, PLAN 6350 LOT 70, requesting relief from the requirements of By-law No. 1767, as amended, to permit the following: a) Amending By-law ; Section 1.2(vi): a maximum floor area ratio of 49.5 percent (7,426 sq. ft.); whereas, the By-law permits a maximum floor area ratio of 47percent (7,050 sq. ft.); b) Amending By-law ; Section 1.2(i): a maximum building height of metres; whereas, the Bylaw permits a maximum building height of 9.8 metres; c) Amending By-law ; Section 1.2(iii): a maximum building depth of metres; whereas, the By-law permits a maximum building depth of 16.8 metres; d) Section 15(i)(e): a minimum rear yard setback of 32-9 ; whereas, the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet; e) Section 9 (i): a maximum (window well) side yard encroachment of 24 ; whereas, the By-law permits a maximum yard encroachment of 18 into the required side yard; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling. These variance requests be approved for the following reasons: (a) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the By-law will be maintained; (b) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan will be maintained; (c) In the opinion of the Committee, the granting of the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot; (d) In the opinion of the Committee, the requested variance is minor in nature. Subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances apply only to the proposed development as long as it remains; 2. That the variances apply only to the subject development, in substantial conformity with the plan(s) attached as Appendix B to this Staff Report and dated September 14, 2017 and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his or her satisfaction. 3. Submission of a Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, prepared by a qualified arborist in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual (2009), as amended, to be reviewed and approved by the City, and that the Secretary- Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban

11 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 11 Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his/her satisfaction, and that any detailed Siting, Lot Grading and Servicing Plan required as a condition of approval reflects the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan. 4. That prior to the commencement of construction or demolition, tree protection be erected and maintained around all trees on site in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual, including street trees, in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual (2009) as amended, and inspected by City Staff to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or their designate. 5. That tree replacements be provided and/or tree replacement fees be paid to the City if required in accordance with the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate; 6. Submission of a detailed Siting, Lot Grading and Servicing Plan designed and stamped by a Professional Engineer/Ontario Land Surveyor/Landscape Architect satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, and that the Secretary- Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering or designate; The Committee, in making its decision on this matter, took into consideration the written comments received on the application. There were no persons in attendance at the meeting who spoke on the matter. Resolution Carried 2. A/151/17 Owner Name: VIDYA THAKUR Agent Name: Shekar Thakur Address: 31 Castle Rock Crt, Markham PLAN 65M4457 LOT 32 The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of By-law 90-81, as amended to permit: a) Section 5.2.1: a secondary suite in the basement, whereas the By-law permits no more than one single detached dwelling on one lot; as it relates to a basement apartment. (East District, Ward 7) The Secretary-Treasurer introduced the application. Gabriella Lopez-Forte, a representative of the applicant, presented the application.

12 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 12 There were no members of the public present to speak to the application. Committee member Gary Muller expressed support for the application. Moved by: Gary Muller Seconded by: Arun Prasad THAT Application No. A/151/17, submitted by VIDYA THAKUR owner(s) of 31 Castle Rock Court Markham, PLAN 65M4457 LOT 32, requesting relief from the requirements of By-law No , as amended, to permit the following: a) Section 5.2.1: a secondary suite in the basement, whereas the By-law permits no more than one single detached dwelling on one lot. These variance requests be approved for the following reasons: (a) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the By-law will be maintained; (b) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan will be maintained; (c) In the opinion of the Committee, the granting of the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot; (d) In the opinion of the Committee, the requested variance is minor in nature. Subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances apply only to the proposed development as long as it remains; 2. That the variances apply only to the subject development, in substantial conformity with the plan(s) attached as Appendix A to this Staff Report and dated October 14, 2017, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his or her satisfaction. 3. That, if required by the Chief Building Official, the owner submit a third-party report prepared by an architect or professional engineer licensed in the Province of Ontario, to assess compliance of existing construction with the provisions of the Ontario Building Code, and in particular relating to the change of use from a dwelling containing a single suite to a dwelling containing more than one suite. 4. That the Owner register the home as a two-unit house with the City of Markham Fire & Emergency Services Department, and satisfy any and all conditions for registration, to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. The Committee, in making its decision on this matter, took into consideration the written comments received on the application. There were no persons in attendance at the meeting who spoke on the matter. Resolution Carried

13 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page A/155/17 Owner Name: Neda Tajik Agent Name: F & A Associate Ltd. (Ali Shakeri) Address: 22 Woodward Ave, Thornhill PLAN 2446 LOT 231 The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of By-law 2237, as amended to permit: a) Infill By-law , Section 1.2 (vii): a maximum net floor area ratio of 53.9 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum net floor area ratio of 50 percent; b) Infill By-law , Section 1.2 (i): a maximum building height of 9.3 m, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 8.6 m; c) Section 1.2 (iv): a maximum building depth of m, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building depth of 16.8 m; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling. (West District, Ward 1) The Secretary-Treasurer introduced the application. Agent, Ali Shakeri presented the application. There were no members of the public present to speak to the application. Committee member Tom Gutfreund expressed support for the application. Moved by: Tom Gutfreund Seconded by: Michael Visconti THAT Application No. A/155/17, submitted by Neda Tajik owner(s) of 22 Woodward Avenue Thornhill, PLAN 2446 LOT 231, requesting relief from the requirements of By-law No. 2237, as amended, to permit the following: Infill By-law , Section 1.2 (vii): a maximum net floor area ratio of 53.9 percent whereas the By-law permits a maximum net floor area ratio of 50 percent; Infill Bylaw , Section 1.2 (i): a maximum building height of 9.3m whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 8.6m; Infill By-law, Section 1.2 (iv): a maximum building depth of metres; whereas, the By-law permits a maximum building depth of 16.8 metres; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling.

14 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 14 These variance requests be approved for the following reasons: (a) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the By-law will be maintained; (b) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan will be maintained; (c) In the opinion of the Committee, the granting of the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot; (d) In the opinion of the Committee, the requested variance is minor in nature. Subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances apply only to the proposed development as long as it remains; 2. That the variances apply only to the subject development, in substantial conformity with the plan(s) attached as Appendix B to this Staff Report and received on January 2, 2018 and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his or her satisfaction; 3. Submission of a Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, prepared by a qualified arborist in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual (2009), as amended, to be reviewed and approved by the City, and that the Secretary- Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his/her satisfaction, and that any detailed Siting, Lot Grading and Servicing Plan required as a condition of approval reflects the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan. 4. That prior to the commencement of construction or demolition, tree protection be erected and maintained around all trees on site in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual, including street trees, in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual (2009) as amended, and inspected by City Staff to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or their designate. 5. That tree replacements be provided and/or tree replacement fees be paid to the City if required in accordance with the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate; 6. Submission of a detailed Siting, Lot Grading and Servicing Plan designed and stamped by a Professional Engineer/Ontario Land Surveyor/Landscape Architect satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, and that the Secretary- Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering or designate; The Committee, in making its decision on this matter, took into consideration the written comments received on the application. There were no persons in attendance at the meeting who spoke on the matter. Resolution Carried

15 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page A/156/17 Owner Name: Shabnam Mostafavi Agent Name: F & A Associate Ltd. (Ali Shakeri) Address: 70 Highland Park Blvd, Thornhill PLAN 2446 LOT 150 The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of By-law 2237, as amended to permit: a) Infill By-law , Section 1.2 (vii): a maximum net floor area ratio of 53.9 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum net floor area ratio of 50 percent; b) Infill By-law , Section 1.2 (i): a maximum building height of 9.3 m, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 8.6 m; c) Infill By-law , Section 1.2 (iv): a maximum building depth of m, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building depth of 16.8 m; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling. (West District, Ward 1) The Secretary-Treasurer introduced the application. Agent, Ali Shakeri presented the application. There were no members of the public present to speak to the application. Committee member Tom Gutfreund expressed appreciation for the application being close to the By-law requirements. Moved by: Tom Gutfreund Seconded by: Michael Visconti THAT Application No. A/156/17, submitted by Shabnam Mostafavi owner(s) of 70 Highland Park Boulevard Thornhill, PLAN 2446 LOT 150, requesting relief from the requirements of By-law No. 2237, as amended, to permit the following: a) Infill By-law , Section 1.2 (vii): a maximum net floor area ratio of 53.9 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum net floor area ratio of 50 percent; b) Infill By-law , Section 1.2 (i): a maximum building height of 9.3 m, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 8.6 m; c) Infill By-law , Section 1.2 (iv): a maximum building depth of m, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building depth of 16.8 m; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling.

16 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 16 These variance requests be approved for the following reasons: (a) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the By-law will be maintained; (b) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan will be maintained; (c) In the opinion of the Committee, the granting of the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot; (d) In the opinion of the Committee, the requested variance is minor in nature. Subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances apply only to the proposed development as long as it remains; 2. That the variances apply only to the subject development, in substantial conformity with the plan(s) attached as Appendix B to this Staff Report and received on November 7, 2017 and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his or her satisfaction. 3. Submission of a Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, prepared by a qualified arborist in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual (2009), as amended, to be reviewed and approved by the City, and that the Secretary- Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his/her satisfaction, and that any detailed Siting, Lot Grading and Servicing Plan required as a condition of approval reflects the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan. 4. That prior to the commencement of construction or demolition, tree protection be erected and maintained around all trees on site in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual, including street trees, in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual (2009) as amended, and inspected by City Staff to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or their designate. 5. That tree replacements be provided and/or tree replacement fees be paid to the City if required in accordance with the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate; 6. Submission of a detailed Siting, Lot Grading and Servicing Plan designed and stamped by a Professional Engineer/Ontario Land Surveyor/Landscape Architect satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, and that the Secretary- Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering or designate; The Committee, in making its decision on this matter, took into consideration the written comments received on the application. There were no persons in attendance at the meeting who spoke on the matter. Resolution Carried

17 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page A/157/17 Owner Name: Payman Berjis Agent Name: Arcica Inc. (Mr Ali Shakeri) Address: 73 Meadowview Ave, Thornhill PLAN 2446 LOT 370 The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of By-law 2237, as amended to permit: a) Infill By-law , Section 1.2(vii): a floor area ratio of 53.9 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum floor area ratio of 50 percent; b) Infill By-law , Section 1.2(i): a building height of 9.6 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum height of 8.6 metres; c) Infill By-law , Section 1.2(ii): a front yard setback of 9.18 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 10.7 metres; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling. (West District, Ward 1) The Secretary-Treasurer introduced the application. Agent, Ali Shakeri presented the application. There were no members of the public present to speak to the application. Committee member Arun Prasad asked the applicant how many trees are proposed to be removed. Mr. Shakeri responded that they originally planned to remove the tree in the middle of the property but are keeping it in place at the direction of City Planning staff. Moved by: Arun Prasad Seconded by: Tom Gutfreund THAT Application No. A/157/17, submitted by Payman Berjis owner(s) of 73 Meadowview Avenue Thornhill, PLAN 2446 LOT 370, requesting relief from the requirements of By-law No. 2237, as amended, to permit the following: a)infill By-law , Section 1.2(vii): a floor area ratio of 53.9 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum floor area ratio of 50 percent; b)infill By-law , Section 1.2(i): a building height of 9.6 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum height of 8.6 metres; c)infill By-law , Section 1.2(ii): a front yard setback of 9.18 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 10.7 metres; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling.

18 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 18 These variance requests be approved for the following reasons: (a) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the By-law will be maintained; (b) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan will be maintained; (c) In the opinion of the Committee, the granting of the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot; (d) In the opinion of the Committee, the requested variance is minor in nature. Subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances apply only to the proposed development as long as it remains; 2. That the variances apply only to the subject development, in substantial conformity with the plan(s) attached as Appendix B to this Staff Report and received on November 7, 2017 and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his or her satisfaction; 3. Submission of a Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, prepared by a qualified arborist in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual (2009), as amended, to be reviewed and approved by the City, and that the Secretary- Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his/her satisfaction, and that any detailed Siting, Lot Grading and Servicing Plan required as a condition of approval reflects the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan. 4. That prior to the commencement of construction or demolition, tree protection be erected and maintained around all trees on site in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual, including street trees, in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual (2009) as amended, and inspected by City Staff to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or their designate. 5. That tree replacements be provided and/or tree replacement fees be paid to the City if required in accordance with the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate; 6. Submission of a detailed Siting, Lot Grading and Servicing Plan designed and stamped by a Professional Engineer/Ontario Land Surveyor/Landscape Architect satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, and that the Secretary- Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering or designate; The Committee, in making its decision on this matter, took into consideration the written comments received on the application. There were no persons in attendance at the meeting who spoke on the matter. Resolution Carried

19 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page A/159/17 Owner Name: Kamal Kamali & Pershang Kamali Agent Name: Hamid Kashani Architects (Hamid Kashani) Address: 20 Hammok Cres, Thornhill PLAN M941 LOT 160 REG'D SURVEY R-1726 PARTS 2 The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of By-law 1767, as amended to permit: a) Section 12(iv)(a): a minimum front yard setback of 33 feet 2 inches (cold cellar); whereas, the By-law requires the front yard of any dwelling being erected between two existing buildings shall comply with the corresponding yards of the two existing buildings 34 feet; b) Section 15(i)(e): a minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet 6 inches; whereas, the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling. (West District, Ward 1) The Secretary-Treasurer introduced the application. Agent, Hamid Kashani presented the application, noting that the variances result from the irregular shape of the lot and unusual By-law requirements. Mr. Kashani explained how the proposal is designed to be more compatible with the surrounding area when compared to the existing development. There were no members of the public present to speak to the application. Committee member Tom Gutfreund expressed support for the application. Moved by: Tom Gutfreund Seconded by: Arun Prasad THAT Application No. A/159/17, submitted by Kamal Kamali Pershang Kamali owner(s) of 20 Hammok Crescent Thornhill, PLAN M941 LOT 160 REG'D SURVEY R-1726 PARTS 2, requesting relief from the requirements of By-law No. 1767, as amended, to permit the following: a) Section 12(iv)(a): a minimum front yard setback of 33 feet 2 inches (cold cellar); whereas, the By-law requires the front yard of any dwelling being erected between two existing buildings shall comply with the corresponding yards of the two existing buildings 34 feet; b)section 15(i)(e): a minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet 6 inches; whereas, the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling.

20 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 20 These variance requests be approved for the following reasons: (a) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the By-law will be maintained; (b) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan will be maintained; (c) In the opinion of the Committee, the granting of the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot; (d) In the opinion of the Committee, the requested variance is minor in nature. Subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances apply only to the proposed development as long as it remains; 2. That the variances apply only to the subject development, in substantial conformity with the plan(s) attached as Appendix B to this Staff Report and received on November 8, 2017 and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his or her satisfaction. 3. Submission of a Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, prepared by a qualified arborist in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual (2009), as amended, to be reviewed and approved by the City, and that the Secretary- Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his/her satisfaction, and that any detailed Siting, Lot Grading and Servicing Plan required as a condition of approval reflects the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan. 4. That prior to the commencement of construction or demolition, tree protection be erected and maintained around all trees on site in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual, including street trees, in accordance with the City s Streetscape Manual (2009) as amended, and inspected by City Staff to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or their designate. 5. That tree replacements be provided and/or tree replacement fees be paid to the City if required in accordance with the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate; 6. Submission of a detailed Siting, Lot Grading and Servicing Plan designed and stamped by a Professional Engineer/Ontario Land Surveyor/Landscape Architect satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, and that the Secretary- Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering or designate; The Committee, in making its decision on this matter, took into consideration the written comments received on the application. There were no persons in attendance at the meeting who spoke on the matter. Resolution Carried

21 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page A/161/17 Owner Name: Forest Bay Homes Ltd. (Lorne Leibel) Agent Name: RN Design Ltd. (Jamie Lopes) Address: 6350 Steeles Ave, Markham CON 8 PT LT 3 65R15734 PT PT 1 & PT 2 The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of By-law 90-81, as amended, to permit: a) Section 4.6(a): a roofed porch encroachment of 1.52 metres, whereas the By-law permits a roofed porch encroachment of 0.45 metres into any required yard; b) Section 4.6(a): a step encroachment of 2.02 metres, whereas the By-law permits a step encroachment of 0.45 metres into any required yard; c) Section 4.6(a): a bay window encroachment of 0.5 metres, whereas the By-law does not permit bay window encroachment; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling on an approved Draft Plan of Subdivision. This application is for part of Lot 74 on approved Draft Plan of Subdivision 19TM Minor Variance Applications A/162/17, A/163/17, A/164/17, A/165/17 and A/166/17 are related. (East District, Ward 7) The Secretary-Treasurer introduced the application. The application was heard concurrently with Minor Variance Applications A/162/17, A/163/17, A/164/17, A/165/17 and A/166/17. Agent, Jamie Lopes presented the application, noting that the relief is similar to the provisions of a newer City of Markham By-law , and that the design facilitates a better streetscape. There were no members of the public present to speak to the application. Committee member Michael Visconti asked if the subdivision was under construction. Mr. Lopes responded no; they are awaiting approval for the minor variance applications, and then will apply for building permits. Moved by: Michael Visconti Seconded by: Gary Muller THAT Application No. A/161/17, submitted by Forest Bay Homes Ltd. (Lorne Leibel) owner(s) of 6350 Steeles Avenue E Markham, CON 8 PT LT 3 65R15734 PT PT 1 &

22 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 22 PT 2, requesting relief from the requirements of By-law No , as amended, to permit the following: a)section 4.6(a): a roofed porch encroachment of 1.52 metres, whereas the By-law permits a roofed porch encroachment of 0.45 metres into any required yard; b)section 4.6(a): a step encroachment of 2.02 metres, whereas the By-law permits a step encroachment of 0.45 metres into any required yard; c)section 4.6: a bay window encroachment of 0.5 metres, whereas the By-law does not permit bay window encroachment; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling on an approved Draft Plan of Subdivision. This application is for part of Lot 74 on Draft Plan of Subdivision 19TM These variance requests be approved for the following reasons: (a) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the By-law will be maintained; (b) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan will be maintained; (c) In the opinion of the Committee, the granting of the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot; (d) In the opinion of the Committee, the requested variance is minor in nature. Subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances apply only to the proposed development as long as it remains; 2. That the variances apply only to the subject development, in substantial conformity with the plan(s) attached as Appendix B to this Staff Report to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his or her satisfaction. The Committee, in making its decision on this matter, took into consideration the written comments received on the application. There were no persons in attendance at the meeting who spoke on the matter. Resolution Carried 8. A/162/17 Owner Name: Forest Bay Homes Ltd. (Lorne Leibel) Agent Name: RN Design Ltd. (Jamie Lopes) Address: 6350 Steeles Ave, Markham CON 8 PT LT 3 65R15734 PT PT 1 & PT 2 The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of By-law 90-81, as amended, to permit:

23 Committee of Adjustment Minutes Page 23 a) Section 4.6(a): a roofed porch encroachment of 1.52 metres, whereas the By-law permits a roofed porch encroachment of 0.45 metres into any required yard; b) Section 4.6(a): a step encroachment of 2.02 metres, whereas the By-law permits a step encroachment of 0.45 metres into any required yard; c) Section 4.6(a): a bay window encroachment of 0.86 metres, whereas the By-law does not permit bay window encroachment; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling on an approved Draft Plan of Subdivision. This application is for part of Lot 75 on approved Draft Plan of Subdivision 19TM Minor Variance Applications A/161/17, A/163/17, A/164/17, A/165/17 and A/166/17 are related. (East District, Ward 7) Moved by: Michael Visconti Seconded by: Gary Muller THAT Application No. A/162/17, submitted by Forest Bay Homes Ltd. (Lorne Leibel) owner(s) of 6350 Steeles Avenue E Markham, CON 8 PT LT 3 65R15734 PT PT 1 & PT 2, requesting relief from the requirements of By-law No , as amended, to permit the following: a)section 4.6(a): a roofed porch encroachment of 1.52 metres, whereas the By-law permits a roofed porch encroachment of 0.45 metres into any required yard; b)section 4.6(a): a step encroachment of 2.02 metres, whereas the By-law permits a step encroachment of 0.45 metres into any required yard; c)section 4.6: a bay window encroachment of 0.86 metres, whereas the By-law does not permit bay window encroachment; as they relate to a proposed residential dwelling on an approved Draft Plan of Subdivision. This application is for part of Lot 75 on Draft Plan of Subdivision 19TM These variance requests be approved for the following reasons: (a) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the By-law will be maintained; (b) In the opinion of the Committee, the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan will be maintained; (c) In the opinion of the Committee, the granting of the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the lot; (d) In the opinion of the Committee, the requested variance is minor in nature. Subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances apply only to the proposed development as long as it remains;