The Minutes of the 7th.Meeting of the Vaughan Committee of Adjustment for the year 2009 THURSDAY, APRIL 15, :00p.m.

Transcription

1 The Minutes of the 7th.Meeting of the Vaughan Committee of Adjustment for the year 2009 THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2010 Present at the meeting were: 6:00p.m. L. Fluxgold Chair J. Cesario S. Krcmar M. Mauti M. S. Panicali Members of Staff present: Todd Coles, Secretary-Treasurer Lenore Providence, Assistant to the Secretary-Treasurer Erika Ivanic, Planner Mike Ridgwell, Plans Examiner INTRODUCTION OF ADDENDUM REPORTS MOVED by M. Mauti Seconded by J. Cesario That the addendum reports be incorporated into the minutes and be on view at the back of the room in the Report Book. CARRIED DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST None. ADOPTION OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES MOVED by M. Mauti Seconded by J. Cesario THAT the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment Meeting of Thursday, MARCH 25, 2010, be adopted as circulated. CARRIED ADJOURNMENTS AND/OR DEFERRALS On April 15, 2010, an was received from David Eccleston, the agent, requesting that Item # 28, File No. A080/10 York Catholic District School Board, be ADJOURNED, to the APRIL 29, 2010 MEETING, to allow time for the school board to meet separately with the Local Councillor and concerned area residents to discuss the project and address their concerns. MOVED by J. Cesario Seconded by S. Krcmar THAT Item # 28, File No. A080/10 York Catholic District School Board, be ADJOURNED, to the APRIL 29, 2010 MEETING Prior to the vote on the motion, Mr. Rick Florio CET, 529 Fossil Hill Road, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4H 2S8, stood before the Committee and stated that he would not be able to attend the April 29, 2010 meeting and wished to be present when the application was heard. There were discussions regarding the next meeting date between the Committee, Mr. Florio and the applicant s representative. It was agreed to re-schedule for the May 13, 2010 meeting instead. MOVED by J. Cesario Seconded by S. Krcmar That the above motion to adjourn the application to April 29, 2010, be WITHDRAWN. MOVED by J. Cesario Seconded by S. Krcmar THAT Item # 28, File No. A080/10 YORK CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, be ADJOURNED, to the MAY 13, 2010 MEETING. Page 1 of 26

2 ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTIONS NONE (Previously adjourned from the February 11, 2010 and February 25, 2010 meetings) Item # 1 FILE NUMBER: A032/10 GIUSEPPINA BATTISTA Part of Lot 14, Concession 6, (Lot 96, Registered Plan No. 65M-2701, municipally known as 134 Mellings Drive, Woodbridge). The subject lands are currently zoned R2, Residential by By-law 1-88 subject to Exception 9(769) as amended. PRIOR to the agents submission it was agreed to REMOVE the existence of the greenhouse and amend the Application, Sketch, and Notice of Application by deleting the variances pertaining to the greenhouse as following: 1. Minimum interior side yard setback to greenhouse =.67m 2. Minimum rear yard setback to greenhouse = 1.26m 3. Maximum height of accessory structures greenhouse = 2.97m To permit the maintenance of the existing greenhouse and tool shed. PROPOSAL: 1. Minimum interior side yard setback to greenhouse =.67m 2. Minimum rear yard setback to greenhouse = 1.26m Minimum rear yard setback to tool shed = 1.42m 3. Maximum height of accessory structures (tool shed/greenhouse) = 2.97m REQUIREMENT: 1. Minimum interior side yard setback = 1.5m 2. Minimum rear yard setback = 7.5m 3. Maximum height of accessory structures = 2.5m Gary Templeton, the agent appeared on behalf of the applicant and told the Committee that they met with the neighbour Mr. Wahba, and were able to come to an agreement. Mr. Joe Wahba, 183 Village Green Drive, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4L 9R2, appeared and confirmed that his concerns were addressed. There was no one else in attendance either in support of or in opposition to the request. Requests for decisions were received from Mr. Youssef Wahba, 183 Village Green Drive, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4L 9R2. There were no new correspondence received from the public. During the discussions between the Committee, Mr. Templeton and Mr. Wahba it was agreed to add a condition that the greenhouse be removed. There were no new comments/objections from any Departments or Agencies any conditions requested are listed below. The Committee is of the opinion that the variances sought can be considered minor and are desirable for the MOVED by S. Krcmar Seconded by M. Mauti THAT Application No. A032/10, GIUSEPPINA BATTISTA, be APPROVED, in accordance with the attached sketch and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall appropriately screen the existing tool shed from the properties to the immediate north with year-round landscaping to be shown on a Landscape Plan for review and approval by the Development Planning Department. The property will be subject to a landscape inspection by the Development Planning Department, if required, to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Department; Page 2 of 26

3 (Previously adjourned from the February 11, 2010 and February 25, 2010 meetings) Item 1. FILE NUMBER: A032/10 GIUSEPPINA BATTISTA 2. That the existing greenhouse be removed, to the satisfaction of the Building Standards Department; 3. That if the condition(s) listed above is/are not fulfilled and the Building Permit is not applied for within twelve (12) months of the date this decision becomes final and binding, the said decision shall expire and shall be deemed to have been annulled and rescinded by the Committee.(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS TIME PERIOD CANNOT BE EXTENDED IN ANY WAY, FAILURE TO MEET THIS DEADLINE WILL RESULT IN REQUIRING A NEW APPLICATION AND FEE.) (Previously adjourned from the March 25, 2010 meetings) Item# 2 FILE NUMBER: A060/10 JOSEPH J. DI BIASE Part of Lot 14, Concession 7, (Lot 85, Registered Plan No.65M-2514, municipally known as 67 Paddington Place, Woodbridge.) The subject lands are zoned R1, Residential, subject to Exception 9(763), under Bylaw 1-88, as amended. Prior to the hearing the Applicant s agent amended the Application, Sketch and Notice of Application to read as follows: 2. To permit a minimum interior side yard setback of 0.6m to an accessory structure. NOT 2. To permit a minimum interior side yard setback of 0.21 m to an accessory structure. PROPOSAL: REQUIREMENTS: THEREFORE, the applicant is requesting variances to permit the maintenance of a rear yard shed/ accessory structure and chimney pilaster to a two storey single family detached dwelling with attached garage, as follows: 1. To permit a minimum rear yard setback of 0.38 m to an accessory structure. 2. To permit a minimum interior side yard setback of 0.6m to an accessory structure. 3. To permit an accessory structure with a maximum floor area of 14.7 m 2, a maximum area of 28.9 m 2 with roof overhang. 4. To permit an accessory structure with a maximum height of 3.35 m. 5. To permit a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.15 m to a chimney pilaster. 1. A minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 m is required to an accessory structure. 2. A minimum interior side yard setback of 1.5 m is required to an accessory structure. 3. A maximum floor area of 10 m 2 is permitted for an accessory structure. 4. A maximum height of 2.5 m is permitted for an accessory structure. 5. A minimum interior side yard setback of 1.2 m is required JOSEPH PLUTINO, the agent appeared on behalf of the applicant and gave a lengthy submission regarding the request stating the applicant is willing to make the necessary amendments to concur with the Engineering and Development Planning Departments comments. Mr. Silvano Zamparo, 109 Rossmull Crescent, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4L 7E2 appeared and gave a lengthy submission in opposition to the request. There was no one else in attendance either in support of or in opposition to the request. On April 14, 2010, Mr. Joe Plutino, the agent, ed an amendment to the application which moved the shed to a 0.6m interior side yard setback. A request for decision was received from Christopher Tickner, Weston Consulting Group, Inc., 201 Millway Ave., Unit 19, Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 5K8 and Anna Zamparo, 109 Rossmull Crescent, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4L 7E2. Page 3 of 26

4 (Previously adjourned from the March 25, 2010 meetings) Item 2. FILE NUMBER: A060/10 JOSEPH J. DI BIASE On April 15, 2010, a copy of a proposed agreement between the applicant and neighbour was hand delivered by Mrs. Anna Zamparo, 109 Rossmull Crescent, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4L 7E2. There were no other new correspondence received from the public. During the discussions between the Committee, Mr. Plutino, Mr. DiBiase and Mr. Zamparo, regarding the screening of the shed, it was agreed to stand the application down to be heard later in the agenda. This would allow the applicant and his agent as well as the neighbour and his representative an opportunity to continue discussion amongst themselves and to later return to the Committee with a mutually agreeable solution. The Development Planning Department made the following written comments: A site visit was conducted on March 11, 2009, which included photo documentation of the existing site conditions. The Development Planning Department is of the opinion that the proposed rear and interior side yard setbacks to the shed do not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law, as the shed is located too close to the property line. The shed should be relocated at least 0.6 m from the property line in the rear and interior side yards. The Development Planning Department supports the increased floor area and increased height of the shed as well as the reduced interior side yard setback to a chimney pilaster requested in Minor Variance Application A060/10. The Development Planning Department does not support the reduced rear and interior side yard setbacks to the shed requested in Minor Variance Application A060/10. The Engineering Department made the following written comments: The Engineering Department cannot support this application due to the fact that the proposed shed location is encroaching onto a shared drainage swale. As a result, drainage from adjacent properties will be adversely affected. The Engineering Department requires a minimum of 0.6m sideyard setback for a drainage swale. There were no other new comments/objections from any Departments or Agencies. MOVED by M. Mauti Seconded by J. Cesario THAT Application No. A060/10 - JOSEPH J. DI BIASE, be STOOD DOWN, to allow the applicant and his agent as well as the neighbour and his representative to continue discussions amongst themselves and return to the Committee with a mutually agreeable solution. Item# 3 FILE NUMBER: A062/10 DARREN McNAIR Part of Lot 25, Concession 8, (Lot 4, Reg. Plan 3755, municipally known as 10 Windrush Road, Kleinburg). PROPOSAL: REQUIREMENT: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The subject lands are zoned RR, Rural Residential, under By-law 1-88, as amended. The applicant is requesting variances to permit the construction of a cabana as follows: 1. To permit a second accessory structure (cabana) with a maximum floor area of m 2. Total area of all accessory structures = m To permit an accessory structure (cabana) with a maximum height of 5.84 m to the highest point. 1. A maximum total area of 67 m 2 is permitted for all accessory structures. 2. A maximum height of 4.5 m is permitted for an accessory structure. The land which is subject to this application is/was also the subject of another application under the Planning Act: Minor Variance File No. A043/09 Appr. March 5, 2009 (Construction of a detached garage). (Max. area m 2, Max. height 3.58m to the nearest part of roof and 7.39m to the highest part of roof ). Page 4 of 26

5 Item 3. FILE NUMBER: A062/10 DARREN McNAIR Darren McNair, the applicant appeared on his own behalf. The Building Standards Department made the following written comments: Lands may be subject to Ontario Regulation 166/06 (TRCA). TRCA approval may be required. The lands are located within the Kleinburg Nashville Heritage Conservation District and subject to DA There were no other comments/objections from any Departments or Agencies and any conditions requested are listed below. The Committee is of the opinion that the variances sought can be considered minor and are desirable for the MOVED by M. S. Panicali Seconded by J. Cesario THAT Application No. A062/10 - DARREN McNAIR, be APPROVED, in accordance with the attached sketches and subject to the following conditions; 1. That the applicant submit the variance application fee of $350 payable to the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority, if required, to the satisfaction of the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority; 2. That if the condition(s) listed above is/are not fulfilled and the Building Permit is not applied for within twelve (12) months of the date this decision becomes final and binding, the said decision shall expire and shall be deemed to have been annulled and rescinded by the Committee.(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS TIME PERIOD CANNOT BE EXTENDED IN ANY WAY, FAILURE TO MEET THIS DEADLINE WILL RESULT IN REQUIRING A NEW APPLICATION AND FEE.) Item# 4 FILE NUMBER: A063/10 JOSEPH AND MELISSA FIERRO Part of Lot 19, Concession 4, (Lot 200, Registered Plan No. 5590, municipally known as 20 Gosling Road, Maple). The subject lands are zoned R1V, Old Village Residential under By-Law 1-88 as amended. To permit the construction of a proposed two-storey single family detached dwelling with the garage attached. DURING, the applicants submission it was agreed to AMEND the Application, Sketch, and Notice of Application as follows: 1) A maximum lot coverage of 24.3% NOT 24.94% (23% dwelling, up to 1.3% as unenclosed covered porch) PROPOSAL: 1) A maximum lot coverage of 24.3% 2) Minimum interior sideyard of 1.3m. 23% lot coverage with up to an additional 1.3% as unenclosed covered porch. REQUIREMENT: 1) A maximum lot coverage of 20% 2) Minimum interior sideyard of 1.5m. Melissa and Joseph Fierro, the applicants appeared on their own behalf and gave a brief submission regarding the request. Page 5 of 26

6 Item 4. FILE NUMBER: A063/10 JOSEPH AND MELISSA FIERRO Jean Geddes, 30 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1S3 appeared in opposition to the request. Frank Mustacato, 6 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1S3 and Michael Guerra, 8 Weller Crescent, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1E4 appeared in support of the request. Mr. Donald Gould, 24 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1S3 appeared with concerns. There was no one else in attendance either in support of or in opposition to the request. Requests for the decision were received from the following people: Gerry Schiller, 48 Lancer Drive, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1C9; Mr. and Mrs. Donald Gould, 24 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1S3, Michael Guerra, 8 Weller Crescent, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1E4, Jean Geddes, 30 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1S3 and Ms. Marinka Nupoort and Mr. Doug Pope, 20 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1E2 Letters of objection were received from the following people: Gerry Schiller, 48 Lancer Drive, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1C9; Joan Saunders, 28 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1E2; Jean Geddes, 30 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1S3; Ross and Jean Geddes, 20 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1S3. Ms. Marinka Nupoort and Mr. Doug Pope, 20 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1E2 submitted a letter of concern. On April 14, 2010, the applicant submitted a letter and a petition in support of the application from the following people: Michael and Patty, 8 Weller Crescent, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1E4; Pia and Francesco DeGasperis, 4 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1E2, Anna Maria and John Bonaccorso, 8 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1E2; Anna Mirko DiSabatino, 12 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1E2; Mike Pellegrino, 14 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1E2; Anthony Vecchiato, 16 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1E2 and Ron Lambert, 18 Gosling Road, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1E2; During the discussions between the Committee and Mrs. Fierro, it was agreed to amend the application to a 24.3% lot coverage where 23% applies to the dwelling with up to an additional 1.3% for covered and unenclosed porches. The Building Standards Department made the following written comments: The lot coverage calculations have not been reviewed as dimensioned floor plans and elevations are not available. The rear porch is not to exceed 0.6m in height above grade and shall not be covered or enclosed. If the porch is covered or enclosed or exceeds 0.6m in height it shall be included in lot coverage. The Development Planning Department made the following written comments: The Development Planning Department is of the opinion that the proposal is not minor in nature and does not meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law. In addition, the proposal is not desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands, which is characterized by bungalows and two-storey dwellings on large lots. The Development Planning Department advises the applicant that a minor variance for increased lot coverage in an R1V Old Village Residential Zone should not exceed 23%. The only exception for greater lot coverage is if a covered, unenclosed porch is included in the total calculation. The Development Planning Department does not support the construction of a single family dwelling with increased lot coverage and a reduced interior side yard setback as requested in Minor Variance Application A063/10. There were no other comments/objections from any Departments or Agencies. The Committee is of the opinion that the variances sought can be considered minor and are desirable for the MOVED by M. S. Panicali Seconded by J. Cesario THAT Application No. A063/10, JOSEPH AND MELISSA FIERRO, be APPROVED, as amended, in accordance with the attached sketch. Page 6 of 26

7 Item# 5 FILE NUMBER: A064/10 ELIA BREDA Part of Lot 23, Concession 8, (Lot 9, Plan No.M-5300, municipally known as 17 Daleview Court, Woodbridge.) The subject lands are zoned R1V, Residential, under By-law 1-88, as amended. The applicant is requesting a variance to permit the construction of a two storey single family detached dwelling, with attached garage, as follows: PROPOSAL: 1. To permit a maximum lot coverage of 25.15% (22.92% for dwelling and 2.23% for covered porches). REQUIREMENTS: 1. A maximum lot coverage of 20% is permitted Steve Hunt, of Hunt Design Associates Inc., 40 Vogell Road, Suite 52, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4V 3N6 appeared and spoke as the agent and gave a brief submission regarding the request. Mr. Gary Breda was also present. Mr. Robert Klein, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0 appeared in opposition to the request. Both, Victor Addesa, 83 Cardish Street, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0 and Fabrizio Cichella, 32 Art Drive, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0, appeared in support of the application. There was no one else in attendance either in support of or in opposition to the request. Requests for decision were received from the following people: Robert Klein, 8 Daleview Court, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0; Steve Hunt, of Hunt Design Associates Inc., 40 Vogell Road, Suite 52, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4V 3N6; Victor Addesa, 83 Cardish Street, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0 and Fabrizio Cichella, 32 Art Drive, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0 Robert Klein, 8 Daleview Court, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0 submitted a letter requesting this item be heard earlier on the agenda. On April 14, 2010, Mr. Klein also submitted a letter of objection and a petition of opposition from the following people: George and Rita Boustany, 44 Pennon Road, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0; Jack and Grace Royce, 54 Pennon Road, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0; Joe and Elizabeth Antal, 64 Pennon Road, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0; Bab and Tiiu Klein, 8 Daleview Court, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0; Norman and Olive Watson, 53 Pennon Road, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0; Fabiola DiNardo, and Luciano DiNardo, 63 Pennon Road, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0; Sty Giapaolo, 81 Pennon Road, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0; Ingrid Pohler, 75 Pennon Road, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0; Oscer and Gisela Bauer, 43 Pennon Road, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0, tony and Paula Perri, 35 Pennon Road, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0; Lisa Moretto, 15 Pennon Road, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0; Jean and Art Schleifer, 5 Pennon Road, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0; Steve and Marsha Kindree, 22 Daleview Court, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0; John Capone, 31 Daleview Court, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0 and Lisa Rea, 32 Daleview Court, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0. On April 15, 2010, an was received from Nadia Lazzarino, requesting that her name be removed from the above petition. During the discussions between the Committee, Mr. Klein, and Mr. Hunt, the Committee asked Mr Klein to describe the area. At this time Mr. Hunt, submitted two letter sized pages with photographs of the homes in the immediate area. The Committee informed Mr. Breda, that his petition was not acceptable unless it had signatures and instructed him to submit a copy with signatures to the Secretary-Treasurer. At the time of preparing these minutes, Mr. Breda did not provide signatures for the names listed on his petition as result those names are not mentioned. The Building Standards Department made the following written comments: 1. Based on information provided by Gary Breda, Bremont Homes Corporation, the proposed dwelling appears to comply with the relevant height requirement. 2. A demolition permit must be obtained for the existing dwelling. There were no other comments/objections from any Departments or Agencies and any conditions requested are listed below:. The Committee is of the opinion that the variance sought can be considered minor and is desirable for the Page 7 of 26

8 Item 5. FILE NUMBER: A064/10 ELIA BREDA MOVED by S. Krcmar Seconded by J. Cesario THAT Application No. A064/10, ELIA BREDA, be APPROVED, in accordance with the attached sketch and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the covered porches be unenclosed, to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Department: 2. That if the condition(s) listed above is/are not fulfilled and the Building Permit is not applied for within twelve (12) months of the date this decision becomes final and binding, the said decision shall expire and shall be deemed to have been annulled and rescinded by the Committee.(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS TIME PERIOD CANNOT BE EXTENDED IN ANY WAY, FAILURE TO MEET THIS DEADLINE WILL RESULT IN REQUIRING A NEW APPLICATION AND FEE.) M. S. Panicali opposed the above ELIA BREDA application. Item# 6 FILE NUMBER: A065/10 PROPOSAL: REQUIREMENT: PETER AND SHARON MACHADO Part of Lot 19, Concession 5, (Lot 64, Registered Plan No. 65M-3422, municipally known as 31 Redtail Drive, Woodbridge). The subject lands are zoned RV4(WS), Residential under By-Law 1-88 as amended and further subject to exception 9(1019). To permit the maintenance of an existing air conditioning unit and a existing side door entrance to the existing two-storey single family detached dwelling. 1) Minimum interior sideyard setback of 0.0m to steps. 2) Minimum interior sideyard setback of 0.3m to AC unit. 1) Minimum interior sideyard setback of 1.2m to steps. 2) Minimum interior sideyard setback of 1.2m to AC unit. Sharon Machado, the applicant appeared on her own behalf. Mark Charnis, 27 Redtail Drive, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4H 2K3, appeared to clarify the nature and location of the variances. Requests for decision were received from Eric Hakomaki, 50 Chipmunk Trail, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4H 2K4 and Mark Charnis, 27 Redtail Drive, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4H 2K3. A letter in opposition was received from Eric Hakomaki, 50 Chipmunk Trail, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4H 2K4. There were discussions between the Committee and Mrs. Machado. The Building Standards Department made the following written comments: A second dwelling unit is not a permitted use. The Development Planning Department made the following written comments: A site visit was conducted on March 18, 2010, which included photo documentation of the above-noted variances. The existing side door entrance is located below grade; there is no fence situated between the applicant s property and the neighbour to the immediate west. The Development Planning Department is of the opinion that the proposed 0.0 m interior side yard setback to the side door stairs is not minor in nature and does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The stairs are located directly on the property line and have an adverse impact on the neighbours to the immediate west. Page 8 of 26

9 Item 6. FILE NUMBER: A065/10 PETER AND SHARON MACHADO The Development Planning Department made the following written comments cont d The Department advises the applicant that the interior side yard door cannot be used for access to a basement apartment, as basement apartments are not permitted in the City of Vaughan. The Development Planning Department does not support the reduced interior side yard setback to the side door stairs requested in Minor Variance Application A065/10. The Development Planning Department supports the reduced interior side yard setback to an air conditioning unit requested in Minor Variance Application A065/10. The Engineering Department made the following written comments: Site visit was conducted on March 29, The Engineering Department cannot support this application due to the fact that the existing steps location is encroaching onto a shared drainage swale. As a result, drainage from adjacent properties maybe adversely affected. The Engineering Department requires a minimum of 0.6m setback for a drainage swale. The Engineering Department has no objection to the location of the air conditioning unit, located along the side yard of the property is elevated above the existing interlock walkway. As a result there is no impact on the drainage flow in the swale. There were no other comments/objections from any Departments or Agencies. The Committee is of the opinion that the variance sought for the air conditioning unit, can be considered minor and are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land. The general intent and purpose of the By-law and the Official ALSO, the Committee is of the opinion that the variance sought to the steps to the side entrance, can not be considered minor and is not desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land. The general intent and purpose of the By-law and the Official Plan will not be maintained. MOVED by M. S. Panicali Seconded by M. Mauti THAT Application No. A065/10, PETER AND SHARON MACHADO, for the air conditioning unit be APPROVED, in accordance with the attached sketch ALSO THAT Application No. A065/10, PETER AND SHARON MACHADO, for the steps to the side entrance be REFUSED. Item# 7 FILE NUMBER: A066/10 APPLICANTS: BHADRES & ALLISON PATEL Part of Lot 2, Concession 2, (Lot 195, Reg. Plan 65M-2299, municipally known as 283 Charlton Avenue, Thornhill). PROPOSAL: REQUIREMENT: The subject lands are zoned R4 Residential Zone and subject to the provisions of Exception Number 9(491) under By-Law 1-88 as amended. The applicants are requesting variances to permit the maintenance of an existing side door entrance, air conditioner and deck as follows: 1) To maintain a minimum interior side yard setback of 0.3 metres to a door. 2) To maintain a minimum interior side yard setback of 0.3 metres to an A/C unit. 3) To maintain a minimum rear yard setback of 4.4 metres to a deck. 1) A minimum interior side yard setback of 1.8 metres is required to a door. 2) A minimum interior side yard setback of 1.2 metres is required to an A/C unit. 3) A minimum rear yard setback of 5.7 metres is required to the deck. Bhadres and Allison Patel, the applicants appeared on their own behalf and gave a brief submission regarding the request. Page 9 of 26

10 Item 7. FILE NUMBER: A066/10 BHADRES & ALLISON PATEL There were discussions between the Committee and Mr. and Mrs. Patel. The Building Standards Department made the following written comments: A building permit has not been issued. Please note, the side entrance must meet the minimum standards of the Ontario Building Code. Please contact the technical section of the Building Standards Department to insure the entrance is permitted. The Development Planning Department made the following written comments: A site visit was conducted on March 18, 2010, which included photo documentation of the above-noted variances. The existing side door entrance is located one step above grade; there is no fence situated between the applicant s property and the property to the immediate west. The Development Planning Department is of the opinion that the proposed 0.3 m interior side yard setback to the side door is not minor in nature and does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. As the side door is located only 0.3 m from the property line, it has an adverse impact on the neighbours to the immediate west. The Department advises the applicant that the interior side yard door cannot be used for access to a basement apartment, as basement apartments are not permitted in the City of Vaughan. The Development Planning Department does not support the reduced interior side yard setback to a side door requested in Minor Variance Application A066/10. The Development Planning Department supports the reduced interior side yard setback to an air conditioning unit as well as the reduced rear yard setback to a deck requested in Minor Variance Application A066/10. The Engineering Department made the following written comments: Site visit was conducted on April 1, The Engineering Department has no objection to this application as the existing location of the A/C unit is located on top of a concrete slab and setback 0.6m from the side yard swale. As a result there is no impact on the drainage flow in the swale. There were no other comments/objections from any Departments or Agencies and any conditions requested are listed below. The Committee is of the opinion that the variances sought for the deck and air conditioning unit can be considered minor and are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land. The general intent and purpose of the By-law and the Official ALSO, the Committee is of the opinion that the variance sought for the side door entrance, can not be considered minor and is not desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land. The general intent and purpose of the By-law and the Official Plan will not be maintained. MOVED by S. Krcmar Seconded by M. S. Panicali THAT Application No. A066/10 - BHADRES & ALLISON PATEL, for the deck and air conditioning unit be APPROVED, in accordance with the attached sketch, subject to the following conditions; 1. That the applicant submit the variance application fee of $350 payable to the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority, if required, to the satisfaction of the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority; 2. That if the condition(s) listed above is/are not fulfilled and the Building Permit is not applied for within twelve (12) months of the date this decision becomes final and binding, the said decision shall expire and shall be deemed to have been annulled and rescinded by the Committee.(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS TIME PERIOD CANNOT BE EXTENDED IN ANY WAY, FAILURE TO MEET THIS DEADLINE WILL RESULT IN REQUIRING A NEW APPLICATION AND FEE.) ALSO that Application No. A066/10 - BHADRES & ALLISON PATEL, for the side door entrance be REFUSED. Page 10 of 26

11 Item# 8 FILE NUMBER: A067/10 PROPOSAL: REQUIREMENTS: SANDRA BERKAL Part of Lot 31, Concession 1, (Block 112, & Block 82, Registered Plan No.65M-2220, 65M-2236, municipally known as 53 Binscarth Cres., Thornhill.) The subject lands are zoned R4, Residential Zone Four and subject to the provisions of Exception 9(484) & 9(485) under By-law 1-88 as amended. The applicant is requesting a variance to permit the maintenance of a rear yard deck, to a two storey single family detached dwelling with attached garage, as follows: 1. To permit a rear yard setback of 3.89 metres to a deck. 1. A minimum rear yard setback of 5.7 metres is required to a deck. Sandra Berkal, the applicant, appeared on her own behalf. On March 12, 2010, the applicant submitted a petition of support from the following people: Fanny Ceresney, 51 Binscarth Crescent, Thornhill, Ontario, L4J 4S4 and Karen Jacobs, 25 Green Acres Road, Thornhill, Ontario, L4J 4S1. The Building Standards Department made the following written comments: The applicant shall be advised that additional variances may be required upon review of detailed drawings for building permit/site plan approval. An A/C unit and/or pool equipment shall be setback a minimum of 1.2 metres from the interior side lot line; and may encroach a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required rear yard or exterior side yard. There were no other comments/objections from any Departments or Agencies. The Committee is of the opinion that the variance sought can be considered minor and is desirable for the MOVED by J. Cesario Seconded by S. Krcmar THAT Application No. A067/10, Sandra Berkal, be APPROVED, in accordance with the attached sketch. Item# 9 FILE NUMBER: A068/10 SONIA COMMISSO Part of Lot 27, Concession 8, (Lot 91, Registered Plan No. 65M-3895, municipally known as 24 Wishing Well Court, Kleinburg). R1, Residential under By-law 1-88 subject to Exception 9(1162) as amended. To permit the construction of a proposed cabana. PROPOSAL: 1. Minimum rear yard setback to accessory structure =.6m 2. Maximum height of accessory structure = 2.4 to the nearest part of the roof and 4.5m from average finished ground level to the highest point of the roof. 3. Eaves and gutters shall not encroach more than 0.6m into the required yard (resulting in a rear yard setback of.0m for the eaves and gutters) 4. Maximum area of an accessory structure = 26.48m 2 (cabana and roof) REQUIREMENT: 1. Minimum rear yard setback to accessory structure = 7.5m 2. Maximum height of accessory structure = 2.5m 3. Eaves and gutters shall not encroach more than 0.3m into the required yard. 4. Maximum area of an accessory structure = 10m 2 Page 11 of 26

12 Item 9. FILE NUMBER: A068/10 SONIA COMMISSO Joe Commisso, the agent appeared on behalf of the applicant and gave a brief submission regarding the request. Mr. Commisso submitted a petition in support of the application from the following people: Joe Nudi, 15 Rainbow s End Court, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0 and Nick Lomanno, 11 Rainbow s End Court, Kleinburg, Ontario, L0J 1C0. During the discussions between the Committee, Mr. Commisso and the Development Planning Department staff, it was agreed to adjourn the application to the next meeting to allow Mr. Commisso time to meet with the Development Planning Department staff to discuss the possibility of a mutually agreeable solution. The Development Planning Department made the following written comments: The Development Planning Department is of the opinion that a cabana with an area of m 2 and a height of 4.5 m should be located further from the rear property line to minimize the impact on the rear (westerly) property. A minimum rear yard setback of 1.5 m would provide sufficient space to buffer the proposed cabana from the rear neighbours with year-round landscaping. The Development Planning Department does not support the above-noted variances requested in Minor Variance Application A068/10. The Engineering Department made the following written comments: Site visit was conducted on March 30, The Engineering Department has no objection to this application as the proposed location of the accessory structure is located 0.6m from the rear yard of the property. As a result there is no impact on the drainage flow in the swale. There were no other comments/objections from any Departments or Agencies. MOVED by J. Cesario Seconded by M. S. Panicali THAT Application No. A068/10, SONIA COMMISSO, be ADJOURNED to the April 29, 2010 meeting. Item# 10 FILE NUMBER: A070/10 APPLICANTS: NICK SERIO & LILY PAROLIN Part of Lot 19, Concession 4, (Lot 103, Reg. Plan 5590, municipally known as 43 Goodman Cres., Maple). The subject lands are zoned R1V, Old Village Residential under By-Law 1-88 as amended. The applicants are requesting a variance to permit the construction of a two storey single family detached dwelling as follows: PROPOSAL: 1. Maximum lot coverage of 22.98% REQUIREMENT: 1. Maximum lot coverage of 20% Nick Serio, the applicant, appeared on his own behalf. Requests for decision were received from the following people: David and Teresa Domenegato, 41 Goodman Crescent, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1E8 and Gerry Schiller, 48 Lancer Drive, Maple, Ontario, L6A 1C9. The Building Standards Department made the following written comments: Rear porch not to be enclosed or covered. Page 12 of 26

13 Item 10. FILE NUMBER: A070/10 NICK SERIO & LILY PAROLIN There were no other comments/objections from any Departments or Agencies. The Committee is of the opinion that the variance sought can be considered minor and is desirable for the MOVED by M. S. Panicali Seconded by J. Cesario THAT Application No. A070/10, NICK SERIO & LILY PAROLIN, be APPROVED, in accordance with the attached sketch. Item# 11 FILE NUMBER: A071/10 APPLICANTS: VIKTOR & TETJANA MUSHKA Part of Lot 23, Concession 5, (Lot 102, Reg. Plan 65M-3899, municipally known as 225 Venice Gate Drive, Woodbridge). The subject lands are zoned RS1, Residential under By-Law 1-88 as amended and further subject to exception 9(1224). DURING the applicant s submission it was agreed to DELETE the side yard variance on the Application, Sketch, and Notice of Application as follows: 2. Minimum sideyard setback to deck 0.0m. PROPOSAL: REQUIREMENT: THEREFORE, the applicants are requesting variances to permit the maintenance of a widened driveway and existing deck as follows: 1) Maximum driveway width of 5.08m. 3) Minimum rear yard setback to deck 3.5m. 1) Maximum driveway width of 3.5m. 3) Minimum rear yard setback to deck 5.7m. Viktor and Tetjana Mushka, the applicants appeared on their own behalf. On March 19, 2010, the applicant submitted photographs showing the driveway and neighbourhood. Letters of support were received from the following people: Lisa and Anthony D Alessandro, 227 Venice Gate Drive, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4H 0G1; Bruno and Nadia D Arcangelo, 229 Venice Gate Drive, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4H 0G1; Jose Avelino De Freitas, 223 Venice Gate Drive, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4H 0G1; Figaj Eugeniusz 221 Venice Gate Drive, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4H 0G1; During the discussions between the Committee, Mr. and Mrs. Mushka, it was agreed to delete the variance for the side yard setback to the deck. The driveway s width was also discussed. The Development Planning Department made the following written comments: The Development Planning Department is of the opinion that the proposed variances are not minor in nature and do not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The driveway width covers 5.08 m of the 5.70 m lot frontage, which is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The deck should be located at least 0.6 m from the property line in the interior side yard to provide appropriate drainage as per the Engineering Department s comments. The Development Planning Department does not support the increased driveway width and reduced interior side yard setback to the deck requested in Minor Variance Application A071/10. The Development Planning Department supports the reduced rear yard setback to the deck requested in Minor Variance Application A071/10. Page 13 of 26

14 Item 10. FILE NUMBER: A071/10 VIKTOR & TETJANA MUSHKA The Engineering Department made the following written comments: The Engineering Department cannot support this application due to the fact that the existing deck location is encroaching onto a shared drainage swale. As a result, drainage from adjacent properties maybe adversely affected. The Engineering Department requires a minimum of 0.6m setback for a drainage swale. Engineering Department staff has visited the site in response to the application to widen the driveway and curb cut. There are no existing boulevard items that would be adversely impacted by the proposed widening; however, the Engineering Department cannot support this application because the widened driveway and required curb cut are not in conformity with By-Law 1-88 (as amended by By-Law ). There were no other comments/objections from any Departments or Agencies. The Committee is of the opinion that the variances sought can be considered minor and are desirable for the MOVED by M. Mauti Seconded by J. Cesario THAT Application No. A071/10, Viktor & Tetjana Mushka, be APPROVED, as amended, in accordance with the attached sketch. Item# 12 FILE NUMBER: A072/10 LEONARD MANN Part of Lot 28, Concession 1, (Lot 84L, Plan No.M-2005, municipally known as 32 Rockford Court, Thornhill.) PROPOSAL: REQUIREMENTS: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The subject lands are zoned RM1, Multiple Residential Zone One and subject to the provisions of Exception 9(471) under By-law 1-88 as amended. The applicant is requesting a variance to permit the construction of a one storey rear addition, to an existing two storey single family detached dwelling, with attached garage, as follows: 1. To permit a rear yard setback of 5.84 metres to a one storey addition. 1. A minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres is required. The land which is subject to this application is/was also the subject of another application under the Planning Act: Minor Variance Application File No. A024/89 Approved February 8, 1989 for the construction of an enclosed glass porch addition/solarium. This current application will replace the solarium. Leonard Mann, the applicant, appeared on his own behalf. The Building Standards Department made the following written comments: The applicant shall be advised that additional variances may be required upon review of detailed drawings for building permit/site plan approval. An A/C unit and/or pool equipment shall be setback a minimum of 1.2 metres from the interior side lot line; and may encroach a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required rear yard or exterior side yard. Page 14 of 26

15 Item 12. FILE NUMBER: A072/10 LEONARD MANN There were no other comments/objections from any Departments or Agencies. The Committee is of the opinion that the variance sought can be considered minor and is desirable for the MOVED by M. S. Panicali Seconded by J. Cesario THAT Application No. A072/10, Leonard Mann, be APPROVED, in accordance with the attached sketch Item# s 18 & 19 FILE NUMBERS: A073/10, A074/10 BALPORT ESTATES CORP. Part of Lot 1, Concession 4, (Lot 13 & 12, Registered Plan No.65M-4155, municipally known as 29 & 51 Stallions Court, Kleinburg.) The subject lands are zoned ORM, Oak Ridges Moraine under By-Law 1-88 as amended and further subject to Exception 9(1239). Prior to the hearing the Applicant s agent amended the Application, Sketch and Notice of Application as follows: 1) Minimum side yard setback (NOT setback ) to OS5 zone 5m. THEREFORE, the applicant is requesting a variance to permit the construction of a single family detached dwelling with attached garages, as follows: PROPOSAL: 1) Minimum side yard setback to OS5 zone 5m. REQUIREMENTS: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1) Minimum setback to OS5 zone 15m. The land which is subject to this application is/was also the subject of another application under the Planning Act: Zoning By-Law Amendment File Z Adopted by Council June 27, Submitted by Robintide Farms Ltd. By-law Passed June 27, Daniel Belli, the agent appeared on behalf of the applicant. A request for decision was received from Fran Ridgway, Keele Street, King Street, Ontario, L7B 1A3. Mr. Belli expressed a concern with meeting the one year deadline for fulfilling the condition. The Committee agreed to remove the twelve month clause. The Development Planning Department made the following written comments: Prior to the amended sketch which better illustrated the request, Planning was requesting adjournment. Post amendment Planning Department supports the application with the revised sketches. There were no other comments/objections from any Departments or Agencies and any conditions requested are listed below. The Committee is of the opinion that the variances sought can be considered minor and are desirable for the Page 15 of 26

16 Item s 13. & 14. FILE NUMBERS: A073/10, A074/10 BALPORT ESTATES CORP. MOVED by M. Mauti Seconded by J. Cesario THAT Application Nos. A073/10 and A074/10, Balport Estates Corp., be APPROVED, in accordance with the attached sketch 1. Before grading or construction works commence on the subject site, the proponent successfully obtain a permit under Ontario Regulation 166/06, if required, to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; 2. The applicant submit the variance application fee of $350 payable to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for this variance application, if required, to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; Item# 15 FILE NUMBER: A075/10 PROPOSAL: REQUIREMENT: MONTESANO CONSTRUCTION LTD. Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, (municipally known as 2000 Kirby Road, Maple). The subject lands are zoned ORM, Oak Ridges Moraine Zone and OS5, Open Space Environmental Protection Zone under By-Law 1-88 as amended. The applicant is requesting a variance to permit the construction of a two storey single family detached dwelling with attached garage, and a barn as follows: 1) A minimum setback of 37m to House/ garage and 34m to Barn from the OS5, Open Space Environmental Protection Zone. 1) A minimum setback of 90m from an OS5, Open Space Environmental Protection Zone. Paul Batra, the agent appeared on his own behalf and gave a brief submission regarding the request. Fausto Sacchetti, 39 Glacier Court, Maple, Ontario, L6A 2V3 and Lott Martin, 33 Glacier Court, Maple, Ontario, L6A 2V3, appeared in opposition to the request. There was no one else in attendance either in support of or in opposition to the request. A request for decision was received from Fausto Sacchetti, 39 Glacier Court, Maple, Ontario, L6A 2V3; Lott Martin, 33 Glacier Court, Maple, Ontario, L6A 2V3. During the discussions between the Committee, Mr. Batra, Mr. Sacchetti and Mr. Martin, concerns were raised regarding possible illegal landfill on the property. Mr. Batra, submitted a coloured copy of the Environmental study and site concept plan the was submitted prior to the hearing. Mr. Batra stressed that the Toronto Region and Conservation Authority has walked the site, and supports the application. The Building Standards Department made the following written comments: 1. Further deficiencies may be found upon review of construction drawings. 2. Barn to be used for Oak Ridges Moraine Agricultural uses only. There were no other comments/objections from any Departments or Agencies. The Committee is of the opinion that the variance sought can be considered minor and is desirable for the MOVED by S. Krcmar Seconded by J. Cesario Page 16 of 26

17 Item 15. FILE NUMBER: A075/10 MONTESANO CONSTRUCTION LTD. THAT Application No. A075/10 - MONTESANO CONSTRUCTION LTD., be APPROVED, in accordance with the attached sketch, subject to the following conditions; 1. That the Natural Heritage Evaluation be revised to include plans for restoration of natural self-sustaining vegetation to the west of the proposed access road, if required, to the satisfaction of the Development Planning Department; 2. The NHE is revised to clarify if the wetland is or is not a KNHF and a correction is made on page 4 to note that wetlands on the Oak Ridges Moraine are subject to a 120 metre Ontario Regulation 166/06 regulation limit, if required, to the satisfaction of the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority; 3. The applicant successfully obtain a permit under Ontario Regulation 166/06 for the proposed barn, if required, to the satisfaction of the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority; 4. The applicant submit the variance application fee of $350 payable to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for this variance application, if required, to the satisfaction of the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority; 5. That if the condition(s) listed above is/are not fulfilled and the Building Permit is not applied for within twelve (12) months of the date this decision becomes final and binding, the said decision shall expire and shall be deemed to have been annulled and rescinded by the Committee.(PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS TIME PERIOD CANNOT BE EXTENDED IN ANY WAY, FAILURE TO MEET THIS DEADLINE WILL RESULT IN REQUIRING A NEW APPLICATION AND FEE.) M. S. Panicali and M. Mauti both opposed the above MONTESANO CONSTRUCTION LTD. application. It should be noted that J. Cesario left the Council Chambers at this time. Item# 16 FILE NUMBER: A076/10 LAURA M. VECCHIARELLI Part of Lot 9, Concession 7, (Lot 1, Plan No.4134, located on Waymar Heights Blvd., S/W corner of Gamble St., and Waymar Heights Blvd., Woodbridge.) R1V, Old Village Residential under By-law 1-88 subject to Exception 9(1302) as amended. The applicant is requesting variances to permit the construction of a two storey single family detached dwelling, with attached garage, as follows: PROPOSAL: 1. Maximum Lot Coverage for a two-storey structure = 23% 2. Minimum Front Yard Setback = 9.0m 3. Minimum Exterior Side Yard Setback = 6.0m REQUIREMENTS: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1. Maximum Lot Coverage for a two-storey structure = 20% 2. Minimum Front Yard Setback (12.13m 10%) = m 3. Minimum Exterior Side Yard Setback = 9.0m The land which is subject to this application is/was also the subject of another application under the Planning Act: Consent Application File No. B017/08 Approved July 17, 2008, for an addition to an existing lot to the NORTH. (from 146 Waymar Heights) Consent Application File NO. B018/08 Approved July 17, 2008, for an addition to an existing lot to the SOUTH. (from 160 Waymar Heights) Creating a centre lot. Certificates issued July 23, Laura M. Vecchiarelli, the applicant, appeared on her own behalf. Page 17 of 26