COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, :00 P.M., COUNCIL CHAMBERS

Transcription

1 Ms. Wenda Allicock in the Chair ROLL CALL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, :00 P.M., COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT WITH REGRETS: ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Wenda Allicock, Mr. Daniel Namisniak, Mr. Jay Shewchuk, Mr. Stephen Hertog, Mr. Chris Markell, Ms. Lesley Ann Bowen Mr. Paul Myers Danette Dalton, Reporting Planner/Secretary-Treasurer Barb Day, Recording Secretary 1. ADOPTION OF PROPOSED MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Moved by Mr. Jay Shewchuk Seconded by Mr. Stephen Hertog THAT the minutes of April 16, 2014 BE ADOPTED. 2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND ITS GENERAL NATURE Chris Markell declared a disclosure of pecuniary interest for A8/ Colborne Street. He stated that the owner is his neighbour. 3. MATTERS TO BE ADJOURNED There were no matters to be adjourned. 4. CURRENT APPLICATONS Herbert Street Severance Submission B2/2014 and Variance Submission A3/2014 Applicant: Dico Spadafora Agent: J.H. Cohoon Engineering within Planning Staff Report CD [copy of which is attached to and forms part of the Original Minutes]. In attendance was Rob van Poorten of J.H. Cohoon Engineering

2 Committee of Adjustment - Minutes Page 2 Limited. This application was previously heard at the March 18, 2014 Committee of Adjustment meeting and was deferred in order for the neighbours to discuss their concerns with the developer and ward councillors. Mr. van Poorten advised that the zoning permits single detached and semi-detached dwellings and duplexes up to three units. The lot could establish a single detached as well as a duplex and would not need approvals. The R2 zone for semi-detached requires that each half has an area of 275 square metres. A variance is required for the reduced width. A maintenance easement is also necessary due to the staggered design and the roof eaves of one unit intruding onto the adjacent property. The proposed dwelling will be a two storey set back 11 metres from Herbert Street. It will allow for two parking spaces plus a driveway and garage. The buildings will be setback 1.9 metres from the side yard. All development requirements of the R2 zone are being met, and Mr. van Poorten advised that they were in agreement with conditions in the Planning Report. Site Plan Control (SPC) will require the owner to submit plans including, elevation, site grading and landscaping to be approved by the Municipality and contained in a registered agreement with securities provided. The neighbours were provided with elevations at the public meeting to illustrate what is proposed by the applicant. Mr. van Poorten provided members of the committee with the elevations. In answer to questions by the committee, Mr. van Poorten confirmed that the zoning allows semi-detached and fourplexes in the area. The highest use the developer could build would be semi-detached with one unit above the other, and this would only require a building permit. The dwellings would then likely become rentals. Carol Verge of 96 Herbert Street advised that she lives next to the subject property and provided a letter from three of the neighbours involved. She advised that the neighbours are still opposed to the variance and severance and attended the meeting in March to raise their concerns. The meeting was deferred to meet with the builder to address these issues. Ms. Verge advised that no compromises were made. Questions regarding airborne mold were not answered. Drainage concerns were somewhat answered with respect to drywells. Ms. Verge questioned how this development could be built without infringing on neighbouring properties. The proposed structure is too large for the lot and does not fit the neighbourhood. The neighbours are requesting that two lots be created, as the total lot size does not allow for semi-detached without bylaw changes. Ms. Verge also expressed concern with the plans showing three windows on each side, as the builder stated there would be no windows. He also stated that large trees would not be removed, but the tree in the back must be taken down, as the roots would be in jeopardy, and the branches would overhang the new structure. Half of the trees would have to come down. Ms. Verge felt that the development would depreciate their homes and also cause concerns with privacy and snow clearance. She stated that large structures should not be allowed on small lots in an established neighbourhood. Lawrence Bell of 21 Eddy Avenue advised that he lives around the corner from the

3 Committee of Adjustment - Minutes Page 3 subject property. Mr. Bell felt there would be excessive drainage compared to what has been there. Mr. Lawrence questioned who would be responsible for flooding and property damage. Mr. van Poorten explained that the majority of issues would be addressed through Site Plan Control. Storm water management or the retention of water on the lot is a requirement of the bylaw, and there will be swales on the property. Damage from rainwater to abutting property owners would be a City litigation measure. Trees to be taken down will be identified and preserved where possible, and trees that are removed will be replaced. A grading plan will be provided to the Municipality showing how the development will impact neighbouring properties. The builder will not install windows on the sides if the neighbours do not want them, and this will also be regulated through Site Plan Control. Fencing will be determined through SPC, and the owner will work with neighbours to establish the fencing to their satisfaction. Snow could be stored on the front yard. Through Site Plan Control, the neighbourhood will have a say in what the development will look like. The overall height of the building will be 30 feet from ground to peak. The roof peak is fairly high and could be reviewed through Site Plan Control. The zoning allows a 10 metre high building. The Official Plan and zoning bylaw ensures that this infill development is compatible. Moved by Dan Namisniak Seconded by Chris Markell THAT Application A3/2014 to permit the severed lot to have a minimum lot width of 8.52 m (27.95 ft) and the retained lot to have a minimum lot width of 8.83 m (28.97 ft) BE APPROVED. REASON: The proposed variance will facilitate appropriate development of the lands which is considered compatible with the surrounding land uses. The relief requested is considered minor in nature and the application complies with criteria set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Wenda Allicock was opposed. Moved by Dan Namisniak Seconded by Chris Markell THAT Application B2/2014 BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. Receipt of a registered reference plan showing the severed and retained parcel and the proposed easement; 2. Receipt of payment to the City for cash-in-lieu of the 5% contribution of land for public purposes; 3. Receipt of confirmation that all taxes are paid up to date;

4 Committee of Adjustment - Minutes Page 4 4. Receipt of confirmation that the applicant shall submit to the Secretary- Treasurer a draft of the Transfer deed for review (Upon registration a final copy of the Transfer deed shall be provided to the City); 5. Receipt of confirmation that the required Site Plan Control Bylaw for the severed lot is in full force and effect; 6. That a Letter of Undertaking is provided from the applicant s solicitor ensuring that the easement will be registered on title for the properties; 7. Receipt of confirmation from the Engineering Department indicating that their requirements have been satisfied concerning the removal of curbs, construction of new curbs, the driveways, boulevard sodding and sidewalks; 8. Receipt of confirmation that the lands to be severed and retained have been, or will be, independently serviced with water and sanitary sewer service by the owner, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering and Operational Services; 9. Receipt of confirmation that the required Minor Variance Application A3/2014 has been approved; 10. That the above conditions be fulfilled and the Certificate of Consent be issued on or before May 16, 2015, after which time the consent will lapse. REASON: The application is in conformity with the general intent of the policies of Section 18.9 of the Official Plan respecting the creation of residential lots within the City of Brantford. Wenda Allicock was opposed Waterloo Street Severance Submission B7/2014 and Variance Submission A9/2014 Applicant: Amber Scott/James Guest Agent: West & Ruuska Ltd. within Planning Staff Report CD [copy of which is attached to and forms part of the Original Minutes]. In attendance was Jim Johnson of West & Ruuska Ltd., 17 Nelson Street, Brantford. Mr. Johnson advised that the proposed lot was previously a separate parcel that merged with the property to the west. The previous residence was destroyed by fire.

5 Committee of Adjustment - Minutes Page 5 The proposed lot meets the frontage requirements, and there are many parcels this size in older areas, including the property next door. The severance will provide affordable infill housing and will fit with the neighbourhood. Ms. Dalton advised that 69 Waterloo Street was constructed in 1895 with an addition built in The addition is encroaching onto the proposed severed lands, and the encroachment is a land titles issue. The current owners would have to legally clear the title in order to sell the property. The building that was on the proposed severed lands was torn down in 1978, and the two properties merged on title in Moved by Mr. Stephen Hertog Seconded by Mr. Jay Shewchuk THAT Application A9/2014 BE NOT APPROVED. REASON: The proposed variance will not facilitate appropriate development of the lands. The relief requested is not considered minor in nature and the application does not comply with criteria set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Moved by Mr. Stephen Hertog Seconded by Mr. Jay Shewchuk THAT Application B7/2014 BE NOT APPROVED. REASON: The application is not in conformity with the general intent of the policies of Section 18.9 of the Official Plan respecting the creation of residential lots within the City of Brantford Richardson Street Severance Submission B8/2014 and Variance Submission A10/2014 Applicant: Rick Albrecht within Planning Staff Report CD [copy of which is attached to and forms part of the Original Minutes]. In attendance was Rick Albrecht of 64 Richardson Street, Brantford. Mr. Albrecht passed around photographs and a map of the property and advised that the variance for the frontage is comparable to lot frontages directly across from subject property. The property at 97 Mount Pleasant Street has less frontage than the proposed. Mr. Albrecht advised that he has owned the property for one year. He talked to neighbours and approached the Municipality about purchasing the property to add to

6 Committee of Adjustment - Minutes Page 6 the lot, but was informed that everyone has to buy their own portion, and the railway will be left abandoned for now. Justin O Conner of 62 Richardson Street inquired where the driveway would be situated and how it would impact his property. Ms. Dalton advised that the existing driveway that faces Catharine Street will become the driveway for the proposed lot. There will be a curb cut and the driveway for the existing home will be next to the property line. The Traffic Dept. is in support. There is a hydro pole to the left of the tree, but there should be sufficient room for a curb cut. If there is an issue with the hydro pole, it will be removed and the owner will be responsible for the cost of removal. The abandoned railway is maintained by the City. Moved by Mr. Jay Shewchuk Seconded by Mr. Chris Markell THAT Application A10/2014 BE APPROVED. REASON: The proposed variance recognizes the location of the existing dwelling which is considered compatible with the surrounding land uses. The relief requested is considered minor in nature and the application complies with criteria set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Moved by Mr. Jay Shewchuk Seconded by Mr. Chris Markell THAT Application B8/2014 BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. Receipt of a registered reference plan showing the severed and retained parcel; 2. Receipt of payment to the City for cash-in-lieu of the 5% contribution of land for public purposes; 3. Receipt of confirmation that all taxes are paid up to date; 4. Receipt of confirmation that the applicant shall submit to the Secretary- Treasurer a draft of the Transfer deed for review (Upon registration a final copy of the Transfer deed shall be provided to the City); 5. Receipt of confirmation that the required Site Plan Control Bylaw for the severed lot is in full force and effect; 6. Receipt of confirmation from the Engineering Department indicating that their requirements have been satisfied concerning the removal of curbs,

7 Committee of Adjustment - Minutes Page 7 construction of new curbs, the driveways, boulevard sodding and sidewalks; 7. Receipt of confirmation that the lands to be severed and retained have been, or will be, independently serviced with water and sanitary sewer service by the owner, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering and Operational Services; 8. Receipt of confirmation that the required 4.5 metre daylight corner with 0.3 metre reserve has been dedicated to the City, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of the Public Works Commission; 9. Receipt of confirmation that elevation drawings and calculations are provided to the Chief Building Official verifying that the spatial separations requirements of the Ontario Building Code are meting met relative to the severance line; 10. Receipt of confirmation that the Grand River Conservation Authority requirements have been met; 11. Receipt of confirmation that the required Minor Variance Application has been approved; 12. That the above conditions be fulfilled and the Certificate of Consent be issued on or before May 16, 2015, after which time the consent will lapse. REASON: The application is in conformity with the general intent of the policies of Section 18.9 of the Official Plan respecting the creation of residential lots within the City of Brantford. 4.4 Hwy. 403/Garden Avenue Variance Submission A11/2014 Applicant: Vicano Developments Limited within Planning Staff Report CD [copy of which is attached to and forms part of the Original Minutes]. In attendance was Cynthia Johnson of Vicano Developments Limited, 225 Paris Road, Brantford. Ms. Johnson advised that Vicano Developments wants to reduce the lot coverage for the entire lot. The proposed development is a phased industrial business park under the M2 zoning. Phase 1 will have two buildings. The property is currently zoned General Industrial with M2 zoning. 10% relief is requested. The easterly side of the property is

8 Committee of Adjustment - Minutes Page 8 unusable due to sanitary sewers being too shallow, and the area within the hydro easement is undevelopable. The grades will vary, and a large amount of fill will be required. Discussions were held with the City and the Grand River Conservation Authority. Part of the property backs onto city land, and drainage for this land will be protected. It was questioned what road would service the property. Ms. Johnson advised that Abbott Court will be a private road. There are no tenants at this time. Ms. Johnson stated that the property conforms to the Official Plan and is compatible with adjacent land uses. The variance is minor and has no impact on the abutting properties. It is desirable for the development of the land. Moved by Mr. Jay Shewchuk Seconded by Mr. Chris Markell THAT Application A11/2014 BE APPROVED. REASON: The variance will not have an effect on the municipal roadway, adjacent property owners and it is a desirable use of the lands and it is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaw and Official Plan St. George Street Variance Submission A7/2014 Applicant: Berean Baptist Church Agent: Aaron Smith within Planning Staff Report CD [copy of which is attached to and forms part of the Original Minutes]. In attendance was Aaron Smith representing Berean Baptist Church at 256 St. George Street. Mr. Smith advised that the height of the addition is shown as 35 feet on the application, but is 26 feet. Ms. Dalton advised that the recommendation would need to be amended, as the height was not circulated to City Departments or the public. Tom Selinger of 72 Hillier Cres. inquired the purpose of the addition. Ms. Dalton advised that the addition was required for barrier free access and accessibility. Mr. Selinger also inquired regarding window height and the elevation on the south side. He suggested the speed limit be reduced from Tollgate Road to Hillier Cres. to 40 km. Ms. Dalton advised Mr. Selinger to contact Norma Wood in the Engineering and Transportation Dept. Mr. Smith advised that there are no windows on the south side of the building.

9 Committee of Adjustment - Minutes Page 9 Moved by Mr. Chris Markell Seconded by Mr. Jay Shewchuk THAT Application A7/2014 BE APPROVED to seek relief of the required front yard setback of 15 metres to provide a front yard setback of 10.5 metres to permit a new addition with a height of 7.92 metres (26 feet). REASON: The variance is considered minor in nature given the adjacent and surrounding land uses, the use is compatible and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaw and Official Plan Colborne Street Variance Submission A8/2014 Applicant: Brian Raddick within Planning Staff Report CD [copy of which is attached to and forms part of the Original Minutes]. In attendance was Brian Raddick of 694 Colborne Street, Brantford. Chris Markell declared a conflict of interest. Mr. Raddick advised that the garage would be used for storage purposes only and would not be heated. There would be no water or hydro services. Ms. Dalton noted that an objection letter was received. Mike Rhodes of 8 Park Road North was in attendance and advised he was against the variance due to concerns with the increase in square footage and building height. Mr. Rhodes explained that the garage would be 10 feet from his house and would shadow his main living space. He listed other concerns: loss of privacy blocking view to the street mass height parking streetscape less curb appeal driveway access ice from the roof causing damage to parked vehicles drainage storm water management flooding in driveway no overhang to his property setback not sufficient could be used as living space

10 Committee of Adjustment - Minutes Page 10 windows on the side Mr. Rhodes added that his biggest concern was that the garage would be the same height as his home and may not be used as intended. Ms. Dalton advised that zoning would not allow for other uses. The property could not be severed, as the lot is not large enough. A site alteration permit is granted through the Engineering Dept. prior to the issuance of a building permit. This would ensure grading and drainage does not affect other properties. The driveway will be reviewed through the permit process, and water would drain out to the road. Mr. Rhodes advised that he did not receive the circulation letter, but it may have been sent to his neighbor by mistake. Mr. Raddick clarified that the roof design would maximize his storage space in the attic area. The dwelling would not be suitable for living space. The Building Dept. will not allow a residence, and there will be no sewer or water services. The garage was designed facing Park Road North rather than facing Colborne to reduce shadow. It was questioned why the garage was designed so close to the lot lines. Mr. Raddick advised that if the garage was not designed in this fashion, he would have to shift the position of his driveway. Moved by Mr. Stephen Hertog Seconded by Mr. Jay Shewchuk THAT Application A8/2014 BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: 1. Confirmation from the Traffic Engineering Department that their requirements have been met prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. REASON: The variances are considered minor in nature given the adjacent and surrounding land uses, the use is compatible and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Bylaw and Official Plan. Mr. Markell returned to the meeting. 5. OLD BUSINESS Ms. Dalton advised that roll call would be removed from the Committee of Adjustment agendas. Members indicated that they would like to keep it on the agenda, as it is of benefit to the public. 6. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business.

11 Committee of Adjustment - Minutes Page INFORMATION ITEMS 8. NEXT MEETING Reminder: The next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment will be held on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 9. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Mr. Chris Markell Seconded by Mr. Stephen Hertog THAT the meeting BE ADJOURNED. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Wenda Allicock, Chairperson Danette Dalton, Secretary-Treasurer