MINUTES - Committee of Adjustment - 20201008 1
Town of Aurora
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Date:
Time:
Location:
Thursday, October 8, 2020
7:00 p.m.
Video Conference
Committee Members: Tom Plamondon (Chair)
Clarence Lui (Vice Chair)
Daniel Lajeunesse
Steven D'Angeli
Michele Boyer
Other Attendees: Brashanthe Manoharan, Secretary-Treasurer
Matthew Peverini, Planner
_____________________________________________________________________
1. Procedural Notes
This meeting will be held electronically as per Section 19. i) of the Town's
Procedure By-law No. 6228-19, as amended, due to the COVID-19 situation.
This meeting will be live streamed at
https://www.youtube.com/user/Townofaurora2012/videos.
Revised agenda now includes attachments to item 4.1 and 5.2
2. Approval of the Agenda
Moved by Daniel Lajeunesse
Seconded by Steven D'Angeli
That the Agenda as circulated by the Secretary-Treasurer be approved.
Carried
2
3. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act.
4. Receipt of the Minutes
4.1 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes of September 10, 2020,
Meeting Number 20-06
Moved by Clarence Lui
Seconded by Steven D'Angeli
That the Committee of Adjustment Minutes from the Meeting Number 20-
06 be adopted as printed and circulated.
Carried
5. Presentation of Applications
5.1 MV-2020-18 - 2351528 Ontario Ltd. - 305 & 325 Addison Hall Circle
The applicant is requesting relief from the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning
By-law 6000-17, as amended, to accommodate two one-storey industrial
buildings, each with a total GFA of 9,604 square meters (103,377 square
feet) for a combined total GFA of 19,208 square meters (206,753 square
feet).
The following relief from the requirements of the Town’s Zoning By-law
6000-17, as amended, is requested:
325 Addison Hall Circle (Block 2)
a) Section 5.5.4 d) of the Zoning By-law shall not exceed two (2)
driveways in number and shall be a width of seven decimal
five (7.5) metres at both street line and edge of pavement.
The applicant is proposing two (2) driveways in number
having a width of 8.04 metres and 8.54 metres;
305 Addison Hall Circle (Block 3)
a) Section 5.5.4 d) states that driveways shall not exceed two (2)
in number and shall be a width of seven decimal five (7.5)
metres at both street line and edge of pavement. The
applicant is proposing two (2) driveways with one having a
width of 8.04 metres.
3
The Chair invited the Applicant or Agent to address the Committee. In
attendance was the owner Mai Somermaa and the applicant Joseph De
Cicco. Joseph stated that the proposed variance meets the intent of the
Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, is considered a desirable
development, and is minor in nature.
The Chair invited members of the public to provide comments. There were
no live delegates present to provide comments.
The Chair asked staff if the driveway in Block 2 (8.54m), is in fact 9m.
Through the chair, staff stated that because it is a shared point of ingress
and egress between the two blocks, the Zoning By-law interprets it as a
driveway on each property.
Moved by Steven D'Angeli
Seconded by Michele Boyer
1. That the Minor Variance Application MV-2020-18 be APPROVED,
subject to the conditions in Appendix “A” of the staff report.
Carried
5.2 MV-2020-19 - Ward - 88 George Street
The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of the Town of
Aurora Comprehensive Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended, to permit an
increased driveway width, as outlined below:
• Section 5.6.1(a)(ii) of the Zoning By-law permits a maximum driveway
width of 6.0 metres if the lot frontage is greater than or equal to 9.0
metres and less than 18.0 metres. The applicant is proposing a
driveway width of 7.4 metres.
The Chair invited the Applicant or Agent to address the Committee. In
attendance was the owner, Glenn Ward. Glenn provided a presentation
that outlined the purpose of the variance, to address the access concerns
in and out of the north bay of the garage.
The Chair invited members of the public to provide comments. There were
no live delegates present to provide comments.
The Chair asked staff if the application fees had been paid. Staff
confirmed. The Chair also asked staff if the Town has previously
waived/reimbursed application fees. Staff stated that there was one
instance last year where there was a request to consider waiving the
4
application fee. Staff further stated that as per Section 69 (2) of the
Planning Act, the Committee has the ability to reduce or waive the
requirement of payment of a fee in respect to an application where the
Committee is satisfied that it would be unreasonable to require a payment.
The Chair called for a recess to discuss.
The Chair stated that they will call for a motion on the application prior to
discussing the applicant’s request to waive the application fee. Following
the motion on the application, the Chair brought forward another motion
regarding the applicant’s request, in which it was denied. Through the
Chair, Steven stated that if the applicant had went through the process
2019 to widen the driveway, a variance would have still been required,
along with additional permits and fees that would require the Town to do
the curb cuts.
Moved by Steven D'Angeli
Seconded by Clarence Lui
1. That the Minor Variance Application MV-2020-19 be APPROVED.
Carried
5.3 MV-2020-01 - HE - 75 Stemmle Drive
The owner/applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of the
Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended, to permit a
3rd storey addition to the existing dwelling. The following relief is being
requested:
• Section 24.113.1.3 of the Zoning By-law allows a maximum height of
10.0 metres (32.08 feet). The applicant is proposing a height of 11.65
metres (38.22 feet).
The Chair invited the Applicant or Agent to address the Committee. In
attendance was the applicant, Yue Feng. Yue stated that proposed
addition is not visible from the street, and that the Shadow Study
demonstrates that the proposed addition does not affect the neighbouring
properties.
The Chair invited members of the public to provide comments. In
attendance was Cynthia and Bob MacWilliam, Nick Rushton, and Chris
Vander Kooij. Their comments are noted below:
5
• Cynthia and Bob MacWilliam (79 Stemmle Drive): Bob stated that
there are access and noise concerns to the property during the
construction of the proposed addition. He also stated that because the
basement is at grade, the existing home is significantly larger than the
surrounding ones, and that this addition will appear as a fourth-storey
addition.
• Nick Rushton (83 Stemmle Drive): Nick stated the existing house is
already the largest home on the street, and that the proposed addition
at the back will affect the privacy of his home.
• Chris Vander Kooij (73 Stemmle Drive): Chris stated that the existing
home fails to fit into the neighbourhood, and that the proposed addition
will tower over their backyard and will reduce their daily sunlight by
hours. He further stated that he views the addition to be a fire hazard,
and that there will be drainage concerns.
The Chair invited the applicant to address comments from the delegates.
Yue stated that the intention of the addition is not to convert the existing
single family dwelling into an apartment building, and that it is meant for
the owner and his family. He further stated that the Shadow Study took
one month to complete and in his opinion, is accurate.
Through the Chair, Steven asked Yue to clarify how the construction
would be done should the application be approved. Yue stated that the
materials and equipment could be moved through a large opening in the
garage and through the house. Steven further asked what the purpose is
for the proposed addition, to which Yue stated that the existing home only
has 3 rooms and will not have enough space to accommodate the owner’s
parents. Steven requested the applicant to characterize the existing home
and if it is consistent with the general intent of the Official Plan and the
neighbouring houses. The applicant stated that the proposal does not
have an effect, as it is not visible from the street. Steven asked staff to
clarify if this proposal will be subjected to the Stable Neighbourhoold Site
Plan review. Staff stated that it is not because it does not fall within the
site plan control area.
The Chair asked the applicant for the reason of the addition, and why it is
not possible to maintain the existing roofline and comply. The applicant
stated that it was not possible as per the owner's direction.
Through the Chair, Clarence asked the applicant how the proposal meets
the general intent of the Official Plan, Zoning By-law, if it is a desirable
6
development, and if it is minor in nature. The applicant did not have an
answer.
The Chair asked the applicant if the floor plan drawings have changed
since they were submitted for Preliminary Zoning Review. The applicant
stated that the lot coverage in their original application did not comply with
the zoning provisions, and had to update the drawings to bring it into
conformity, but not have changed since.
Moved by Clarence Lui
Seconded by Michele Boyer
That the Minor Variance Application MV-2020-18 be DENIED.
Carried
6. New Business
None.
7. Adjournment
That the meeting be adjourned at 9:15 PM.
Moved by Steven D'Angeli
Seconded by Clarence Lui
Confirmed in open session this 8th day of October, 2020.
Carried