COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT

Transcription

1 Minutes of a Meeting of the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Peterborough held Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 7:00 p.m., in the General Committee Room, City Hall. PRESENT: Mr. Paul Dorris, Chairperson Mr. Claude Dufresne Mr. Alan Porteous Ms. Brenda Campbell Mr. John Duncan ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Richard Straka, Planner, Policy and Research Mrs. Carolyn Jobbitt, Secretary Treasurer 1. FILE NO. A48/11 ADDRESS: 1587 Ravenwood Drive APPLICANT: LLF Lawyers (Emily Whetung) This matter relates to a minor variance application submitted by Emily Whetung, solicitor with LLF Lawyers, 332 Aylmer Street North, P. O. Box 1146, Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 7H4, on behalf of Engelbertus Johannes Vissers and Maria Anna Vissers, 1587 Ravenwood Drive, Peterborough, Ontario, K9K 2P8, being the owners of the property subject to this application. The purpose of this application is to request a variance to reduce the minimum building setback from the rear lot line from 7.6 metres (24.9 ft) to 7.14 metres (23.4 ft) to recognize the location of a covered, elevated deck attached to the rear of the dwelling on the property. This application was adjourned to this Committee of Adjustment meeting to permit the applicant and the owner an opportunity to review the survey submitted with their application and provide staff and the Committee with further details regarding the dimensions and location of a sun room addition to the dwelling established within the elevated, covered deck area. Ms. Whetung attended the meeting and addressed the Committee as follows: A further adjournment to the next Committee of Adjustment meeting is requested to provide additional survey information regarding the structure on the property. At the request of the Committee, she will request the owner of the property to attend the next meeting to address any history / design questions the Committee may wish to have addressed. The Committee reviewed the applicant s request and agreed to adjourn the application to the next Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 22, 2012, to permit the owner an opportunity to have a location survey prepared by on Ontario Land Surveyor.

2 Meeting Date: January 24, 2012 Page 2 2. FILE NO. A01/12 ADDRESS: 1400 Crawford Drive APPLICANT: Roshan Holdings This matter relates to a minor variance application submitted by Roshan Holdings, 161 Chisholm Drive, Milton, Ontario, L9T 4A6, being the owner of the property subject to this application. Mr. Jordan Struk, a representative from Roshan Holdings, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee as follows: In 2007, the Committee granted a variance (File Number A03/07) to increase the maximum height of a hotel building from 2 storeys to 5 storeys on the subject property and the portion of the property across the Crawford Drive road extension along The Parkway. A variance is now requested to increase the maximum height of the building to 7 storeys with a proposed setback of 30 metres from the property line. Mr. Richard Straka, Planner, Policy & Research, presented staff comments with respect to the application on behalf of the Building and Planning Division of the Planning & Development Services Department, City of Peterborough. The following people attended the meeting to address the Committee in opposition to this application: 1. Richard Taylor, Barristers & Solicitors, Box 1963, Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 7X7 2. Brad Smith, Aon Inc., P. O. Box 296, Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 6Y8 3. Sheila McConkey, 2450 Ashburnham Drive, P. O. Box 494, Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 6Z6 In response to questions from the Committee, staff advised as follows: The variances requested are to the regulations of the commercial zoning district applied to this property. He has reviewed this matter with his colleagues in the Planning Division who are in agreement with that this is a minor variance to the regulations of the Zoning district. The subject property enjoys a dual zoning. The M-2.2 industrial zoning would anticipate a 7 storey high, industrial building or even a regional office building to be established on the property in accordance with the setback regulations of the zoning district. The SP.268 Commercial District zoning applied to the property allows a wider range of Service Commercial uses than the typical C.4 commercial zoning that would permit a 4 storey hotel on the property. Setback requirements of the industrial zoning of the property would anticipate a 4.3 metre setback per storey and the conceptual site plan provided with the application illustrates the expected setback requirements. If the Committee elects to grant this minor variance, the Decision can reference the proposed 135 suites, the required setback and configuration of the building design illustrated by the conceptual plan offered as a condition for approval.

3 Meeting Date: January 24, 2012 Page 3 He cannot comment on the maximum possible height of an industrial building that could be constructed on the property because he would need to know where the building could be located on the property and how large the footprint of the building would be in relation to the parking requirements and layout. The setback would have to be a minimum of 4.3 metres per storey therefore a 7 storey high building on the site is possible with a setback of 30 metres from the property line. It is staff s opinion that because of the dual zoning on the property, a building, as illustrated in the application, can be achieved in compliance with the height of the building anticipated by the zoning of the property and therefore the impact of the variance requested would be minor. Staff determined that it was not absolutely necessary for the property to be rezoned in that the variance requested would not be introducing a significant change to the development potential of the property that is not anticipated by the zoning of the property. If the Committee elects to deny the application, the Applicant could appeal the Committee s decision to the Ontario Municipal Board or file an Application for a Zoning By-law Amendment by City Council. This application was circulated to all necessary City Departments and agencies, including Utility Services all of whom had no concerns with this application or its servicing requirements. Site Plan Application has not yet been filed, but this property will be subject to Site Plan control. When the Site Plan Application is filed, the Planner of Urban Design will review the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment, observing any conditions imposed by the Committee, including the number of units and the setback requirements. All future owners will be subject to the conditions imposed by the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment. This will be further enforced by the Chief Building Official when the building permit is issued. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Struk advised as follows: Because of poor soil conditions, they are unable to construct a hotel in the manner that they presented to Committee of Adjustment in 2007 when they requested the increase in the number of floors to 5. They are now proposing to make the footprint of the building smaller, but by creating two additional floors, they will still be able to have the same number of suites in the hotel. Storm water management on the property will be addressed in the same manner whether the hotel is 5 storeys or 7 storeys. In response to questions from the Committee, Richard Taylor, advised as follows: In his opinion, a decision that would reference the conceptual site plan would not be an effective mechanism to control development. If, for example, the current owner sold the property, the new owner could construct a 7 storey hotel with a much larger footprint then what is currently being proposed. In his opinion the only method to control construction appropriately is for the owner of the property to rezone the property.

4 Meeting Date: January 24, 2012 Page 4 The Chairman of the Committee reminded the Committee to remember the four tests that needed to be complied with for a variance to be passed by the Committee. Further, the Chairman advised the Committee that the Applicant and those who had expressed an opinion are able to file an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board of any Committee of Adjustment Decision. The Committee reviewed this application and determined that the variance to increase the number of storeys for a commercial hotel on the property from the two storeys to five storeys granted by a previous decision of the Committee (file A03/07) was reasonable and to vary the building height permitted by the zoning by-law further was not a minor variance and would result in development of the property not considered to be appropriate or anticipated by the general intent of the commercial zoning of the property. The Committee felt that a more comprehensive presentation of the site plan would have helped to determine the impact of the proposal. More information would have also helped determine if more enforceable mechanisms would be necessary to control what may be established on the property considering the future. The variance to increase the maximum height of a commercial hotel on the property to 7 storeys as requested is therefore DENIED. 3. FILE NO. B01/12 ADDRESS: 135 Ridgewood Road APPLICANT: LLF Lawyers This matter relates to severance application submitted by Peter Lawless, Barrister & Solicitor with the law firm of LLF Lawyers, 332 Aylmer Street north, P. O. Box 1146, Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 7H4, on behalf of Kevin John MacDonald and Jocelyne Marie Stone, 135 Ridgewood Road, Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 1G7, being the owners of the property subject to this application. The purpose of this application is to request permission to sever the westerly 38 metres of the subject property to create two new building lots with frontage on Oakwood Crescent Staff advised that the applicant is requesting an adjournment to the next available Committee of Adjustment meeting in order to permit staff and the applicant an opportunity to further review the application. The Committee reviewed the applicant s request and agreed to adjourn the application to the next Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 22, 2012, to permit staff and the owner an opportunity to further review the application.

5 Meeting Date: January 24, 2012 Page 5 4. FILE NO. A02/12 ADDRESS: 33 Crescent Street APPLICANT: David McGee This matter relates to a minor variance application submitted by David McGee, 1053 Clonsilla Ave., Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 5Y2, on behalf of Courtney Anne McGee,1053 Clonsilla Ave., Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 5Y2, being the owner of the property subject to this application. Mr. David Sweeney, from Coach Lamp Homes, Box 576, Bobcaygeon, Ontario, K0M 1A0, the contractor for the proposed addition, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee as follows: The owner is seeking relief from the required setback from the west side lot line to acknowledge the partial construction of a two storey addition to the rear of the building and the dormer in the attic of the building on the property. A variance is therefore requested to reduce the minimum building setback from the westerly side lot line from 1.2 metres to 0.57 metres (1.9 ft). The City granted a building permit, however, it was discovered after a survey was produced, that the building is located less than 1.2 metres from the property line. Accordingly, the permit was issued in error and the dormer is not allowed. His resolution would be to push the face wall back so that it is four feet off the property line. The dormer would have a glass door with a step out to a balcony that would only permit you to stand, with a railing. Mr. Richard Straka, Planner, Policy & Research, presented staff comments with respect to the application on behalf of the Building and Planning Division of the Planning & Development Services Department, City of Peterborough. Staff further advised the Committee that the Planning Division is not in support of a variance to permit a dormer in the attic on the west side of the building. The Building Division thought the dormer was to be on the east side of the dwelling, where a variance would not be required. The building permit was issued in error. Notwithstanding the zoning regulations, the partially completed dormer established on the west side of the dwelling is not in compliance with the fire code and the building code. In response to questions from the Committee Mr. Sweeney responded as follows: He simply wants to give his client what they have asked for. He has been in the contracting business for 20 years. The error in constructing the dormer on the west side was an oversight on his part as well as he is aware of the building and fire code regulations. The Committee reviewed the application and determined that notwithstanding the issuance of a building permit for construction of a dormer on the west side of the building, the dormer would add inappropriate height and building massing in close proximity to the building on the adjacent property. Further, the dormer is not in

6 Meeting Date: January 24, 2012 Page 6 compliance with the fire and building code regulations. Accordingly, the Committee determined that: 1. the variance is not minor; 2. the proposal is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; 3. the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is maintained; and, 4. the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is maintained. Therefore, a minor variance is DENIED. However, the Committee reviewed the application and determined that the variance requested to reduce the minimum building setback to 0.7 m to permit a two-storey addition to the rear of the building in line with the west wall as it was in-keeping with the standard of development in the neighbourhood and would have minimal impact on the adjacent property. Accordingly, the Committee granted a variance to reduce the minimum building setback from the westerly side lot line to 0.57 metres to permit an addition to the rear of the existing dwelling CONDITIONAL UPON removal of the partially constructed dormer on the west side of the building by November 30, 2012, failing which this variance will be null and void. 5. FILE NO. A03/12 ADDRESS: 550 McDonnel Street APPLICANT: Trevelyan Architect Inc. This matter relates to a minor variance application submitted by Treveylan Architect Inc., 148 Hunter Street West, Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 2K8, on behalf of Dawson and Catherine Bick, c/o Bick Properties Ltd., 1616 Champlain Drive, Peterborough, Ontario, K9L 1N6, being the owners of the property subject to this application. Mr. Ken Trevelyan attended the meeting and addressed the Committee as follows: The subject property is zoned for a multi-unit apartment building that, with variances granted in 2001, could accommodate up to 42 units subject to the provision of parking at a rate of 1.5 parking spaces per unit and site plan approval. Further variances to the by-law are now being requested, to provide 33 parking spaces on the property to support the 42 units. The variances requested are to: i) reduce the parking required to 0.78 parking spaces per apartment unit instead of the 1.75 parking spaces per unit originally required by the by-law; ii) iii) reduce the minimum dimensions of a parking space from 2.7 by 5.7 metres to 2.5 metres by 5.5 metres; and reduce the minimum aisle width of 6.4 metres to 6 metres in relation to the proposed layout of the parking area. The tenants of this apartment building generally do not have motor vehicles and, accordingly, the parking is not required for this building. In order to comply with the parking requirement, it would be necessary to expand the parking area into the green space at the rear of the building.

7 Meeting Date: January 24, 2012 Page 7 His clients would like to preserve the green space, especially given the fact the additional parking will not be used by the tenants. If necessary, his client is willing to provide a parking study. Mr. Richard Straka, Planner, Policy & Research, presented staff comments with respect to the application on behalf of the Building and Planning Division of the Planning & Development Services Department, City of Peterborough. In response to questions from the Committee staff advised as follows: The site plan prepared in 2001 was not completed by the owner. The motor vehicle parking spaces that would have been created by the 2001 site plan would be expensive to create. The City still holds a performance security for this uncompleted work. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Trevelyan advised as follows: The owner is applying for this variance in order to finalize this matter and have the property comply with the Zoning By-law. Apartments are very small and it is not likely that the demographics will change for this apartment building affecting the demand for more parking spaces. The Committee reviewed the application and noted that in 2011 (File A76/01) the Committee of Adjustment already granted relief to the parking requirement associated with the apartment building. The Committee further noted that the neighbouring properties at 526 and 544 McDonnel Street also enjoy reduced parking requirements and further, that relief has been granted for onsite parking associated with the redevelopment of the facilities at the expanded Peterborough Lawn Bowling Club located across the street. The Committee noted that there is space on the property to accommodate the parking required to support the proposed use of the building in accordance with the variance granted in The Committee determined that a further variance based on the number of units in the building would not be minor and could contribute to the stress on the parking in the neighbourhood. There is space on the property that could be developed to accommodate the parking required to support the use. Accordingly, the Committee determined that: 1. the variance is not minor; 2. the proposal is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; 3. the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is maintained; and, 4. the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is maintained. Therefore, a minor variance to further reduce the number of parking spaces required per unit is DENIED. The Committee determined that a variance to reduce the minimum width of an aisle to a parking space would be reasonable to facilitate the design of the

8 Meeting Date: January 24, 2012 Page 8 parking layout as appropriate. Accordingly, the Committee granted the following variance: i) reduce the minimum width of an aisle to access a parking space at 90 degrees to 6 metres; and ii) reduce the minimum number of required barrier free parking spaces from 3 to 2. PROVIDED THAT the owner enter into an amended Site Plan Agreement to the satisfaction of the Planner of Urban Design by August 30, 2012 failing which the decision affecting these variances is null and void. 6. FILE NO. A04/12 ADDRESS: 522 Charlotte Street APPLICANT: Allison Crowhurst This matter relates to a minor variance application submitted by Allison Crowhurst, 522 Charlotte Street, Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 2W5, being the owner of the property subject to this application. Ms. Crowhurst attended the meeting and addressed the Committee as follows: She would like to establish a parking space in the front yard between the dwelling and the Charlotte Street property line. A variance is therefore requested to reduce the minimum dimensions of a parking space from 2.7 metres by 5.7 metres to 2.7 metres by 5.45 metres, and reduce the number of parking spaces required in relation to the single unit dwelling from 2 to 1. She is unable to access the rear laneway because there is a pool installed in the backyard of her property. The driveway will be mostly in front of her dwelling and she intends to have it professionally finished with appropriate landscaping. There are 2 3 other houses along Charlotte Street that also have driveways at the front of the house. However, these houses do have wider lots. Mr. Richard Straka, Planner, Policy & Research, presented staff comments with respect to the application on behalf of the Building and Planning Division of the Planning & Development Services Department, City of Peterborough. The Committee reviewed the application and noted that there is limited opportunity to accommodate on-site parking space as required in accordance with the by-law on the subject property. The Committee determined that the requested variance would have minimal impact on the abutting property owners. Accordingly, the Committee determined that: 1. the variance is minor; 2. the proposal is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; 3. the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is maintained; and,

9 Meeting Date: January 24, 2012 Page 9 4. the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is maintained. Therefore, a minor variance is granted to: i) reduce the minimum dimensions of a parking space to 2.7 metres by 5.45 metres; and ii) reduce the number of parking spaces required in relation to the single unit dwelling from 2 to FILE NO. A05/12 ADDRESS: 1161 Crawford Drive APPLICANT: Peterborough Land Development Corp. This matter relates to a minor variance application submitted by Peterborough Land Development Corporation, 484 Richmond Street, London, Ontario, N6A 3E6, being the owner of the property subject to this application. Endri Poletti, the Architect for this project, 355 Oxford Street East, London, Ontario, N6A 3E6, and Steve Clark, the Design Engineer for this project, 973 Crawford Drive, Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 1G7, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee as follows: A new office building is under construction on the site and to accommodate the parking on the property required to support the building, a variance is requested to reduce the minimum required width of the landscaping strip from 6 metres to 3.36 metres in relation to the north property line. The building has been relocated to accommodate the flood plains and now meets with Otonabee Conservation Authorities approval. They have been dealing with many issues regarding this property and unfortunately this issue was missed. They considered applying for a variance for a reduction in parking, however, they would prefer to request a reduction in the landscaping to permit them to provide the necessary motor vehicle parking spaces on site. The Otonabee Region Conservation has been involved extensively with this project to date. Mr. Richard Straka, Planner, Policy & Research, presented staff comments with respect to the application on behalf of the Building and Planning Division of the Planning & Development Services Department, City of Peterborough. Mr. Brad Smith, Aon Inc., P. O. Box 296, Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 6Y8 attended the meeting to address the Committee in opposition to this application: Mr. Richard Taylor, Barristers & Solicitors, Box 1963, Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 7X7 attended the meeting and addressed the Committee raising concern with municipality allowing development on the property to proceed without an approved site plan agreement for development of the property and without a plan to accommodate access to the site by public transit. In response to questions from the Committee, staff advised as follows:

10 Meeting Date: January 24, 2012 Page 10 The reduced width of landscaping in relation to the Crawford Drive street line would only be for a distance of 14 metres relative to 5 parking spaces. The location of the building and parking was established with attention to flood plain issues but before the finalization of the details of the site plan. The final site plan has not been circulated and the Otonabee Conservation is still in a position to comment on the site plan. Otonabee Conservation has been consulted and have provided sufficient comments to assist in the location of the building and parking to this stage. This site plan does not require Council approval. A condition regarding the installation of a bus stop in proximity to the site is not an appropriate condition of a variance. Comments regarding access by public transit and side walks to the site would be more appropriately addressed as a part of site plan review. The Committee reviewed the application and considered the context of development and land use in the proximity to the subject property at the bend in the roadway and is of the opinion that the impact of the variance over a distance of 14 metres would be minor if mitigated by attention to enhanced landscaping along the front of the property in relation to the streetscape. The Committee determined that: 1. the variance is minor; 2. the proposal is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; 3. the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is maintained; and, 4. the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is maintained. Therefore, a minor variance is granted to reduce the minimum required width of the landscaping strip to 3.36 metres for a distance of 14 metres in relation to the Crawford Drive street line. 8. FILE NO. B02/12 ADDRESS: 293 London Street and 554 Reid Street APPLICANT: Peterborough Land Development Corp. This matter relates to a minor variance application submitted by Peterborough Housing Corporation, 526 McDonnel Street, Peterborough, Ontario, K9H 0A6, being the owner of the property subject to this application. Staff advised the Committee that the Applicant had elected to withdrawn their application at this time.

11 Meeting Date: January 24, 2012 Page 11 NEXT MEETING: The next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment is scheduled for Wednesday, February 22, ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm. Dated the 3rd day of February, Paul Dorris Chairman Carolyn Jobbitt Secretary-Treasurer