MINUTES - Committee of Adjustment - 20201112 1
Town of Aurora
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Date:
Time:
Location:
Thursday, November 12, 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
Rosanna Punit, Planner
Samantha Yew, Deputy Town Clerk
_____________________________________________________________________
1. Procedural Notes
This meeting was 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.
2. Approval of the Agenda
Moved by Daniel Lajeunesse
Seconded by Michele Boyer
That the Agenda as circulated by the Secretary-Treasurer be approved.
Carried
3. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
2
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 October 8, 2020,
Meeting Number 20-07
Moved by Clarence Lui
Seconded by Steven D'Angeli
That the Committee of Adjustment Minutes from the Meeting Number 20-
07 be adopted as printed and circulated.
Carried
5. Presentation of Applications
5.1 MV-2020-20 - 5011097 Ontario Inc. 150 Addison Hall Circle
The owner/applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of the
Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended, to permit
the construction of a one-storey industrial building. The following relief is
being requested:
a)Section 5.5.4 d) of the Zoning Bylaw 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 proposed two (2) driveways in
number with a width of nine (9.0) metres.
The Chair invited the Applicant or Agent to address the Committee. In
attendance were the applicants Tom Gluck and Paul Arruda, and Garry
Lee. Through the Chair, Tom stated that the application was brought
forward to the Committee of Adjustment due to an inconsistent provision in
the Zoning By-law. He further stated that there are existing curbs that
have been poured for 9 metres, which was reviewed through the
subdivision application process, and does not believe that it is the function
of the owner to make an application to fix an inconsistency that is in the
by-law. For the reasons stated, Tom requested that the application fee be
waived.
The Chair invited members of the public to provide comments. There were
no live delegates present to provide comments.
3
Through the Chair, Daniel asked staff when a commenting agency does
not provide their comment, how it is interpreted. Staff stated that if a
commenting agency does not provide comment, it is to be taken that they
are satisfied with the application as it is, and that if there was a concern,
they will provide their comments.
Through the Chair, Steven asked Tom to expand on his comment
regarding the inconsistency with Section 5.5.4 if the Zoning By-law. Tom
stated that the driveway width provision contradicts with the rest of the
provisions on Section 5. He also stated that the loading provisions in
Section 10 does not limit the width of the access for loading, making it
unclear how loading access and parking access are to be interpreted.
Steven and Clarence asked staff to provide a response to Tom's
comments, and inquired whether staff acknowledges this inconsistency.
Staff stated that the provision is set to be reviewed by the Building
Department as part of their house-keeping amendment.
Steve asked staff is there was a possibility to defer the payment of the
application fees pending the outcome of the zoning review. Staff stated
that there is no definitive timeline for the review, and will hinder the
building permit issuance for the application. Staff further clarified that the
applicant has paid the fees for the application and that it goes towards
staff's time to review the application.
The Chair asked the applicant if all the curb cuts for this subdivision are in
place, the owner confirmed. The Chair stated that the fees are in place to
cover staff's time to do the review, but because the requested variance is
to allow fire truck access, that the Committee is in a position to waive the
fee.
Moved by Clarence Lui
Seconded by Michele Boyer
1. That the Minor Variance Application MV-2020-20 be APPROVED.
Carried
Moved by Clarence Lui
Seconded by Daniel Lajeunesse
2. That the request to waive the application fee be APPROVED.
Carried
4
5.2 MV-2020-21 - Dham & Ramsinghani - 183 Kennedy Street West
The applicant is requesting the following relief from the Town’s
Comprehensive Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended, to permit a reduced
interior side yard setback for a newly proposed two -storey detached
dwelling:
a) Section 7.2 of the Zoning By-law requires a minimum interior
side yard setback of 4.5 metres. The applicant is proposing
an interior side yard setback of 1.02 metres to the interior side
property line.
The Chair invited the Applicant or Agent to address the Committee. In
attendance was the owner, Rajat Dham and Sangeeta Ramsinghani.
Rajat provided a presentation outlining the proposal and stated that the
design of the dwelling is in keeping with the recommendations provided by
the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.
The Chair invited members of the public to provide comments. There were
no live delegates present to provide comments.
Through the Chair, Daniel asked the owner to clarify why the dwelling
requires the extra frontage and if the design can be accomplished with the
provisions of the by-law. Rajat stated that they would have preferred the
location of the dwelling to be more to the east of the lot, but due to the
presence of the creek and existing driveway, locating the dwelling further
east will disturb the natural features and present further drainage issues.
Through the Chair, Michele asked the owner how he intends to protect the
mature trees and vegetation that is present on the property. Rajat stated
that they have retained an arborist to ensure that the vegetation remains
protected.
Through the Chair, Steve asked the owner if intention is to main the
existing trees on the west side, the owner confirmed. Steve further asked
if the application was for a carport, that the required side yard setback
would be 1 metre. Rajat stated that the proposed loggia does not meet the
requirements because it is not labelled as a carport. Steve asked staff to
provide a side yard setback interpretation for the difference between
garages and carports. Staff read Section 7.5.1 and Section 7.5.1.1 of the
Zoning By-law, and that the variance is required because it has been
identified by the Building Department through the Preliminary Zoning
Review that the proposal is not in compliance with the by-law.
5
The Chair asked the Rajat to clarify why the design of the proposed house
could not meet the requirements of the by-law. Rajat stated that in order to
maintain the floodplain, the LSRCA recommended that proposed dwelling
does not go beyond the top of the slope. He stated that near the front of
the house (where the garage is located), he has maintained the required
4.5 metre setback.
Moved by Steven D'Angeli
Seconded by Clarence Lui
1. That the Minor Variance Application MV-2020-21 be APPROVED,
subject to conditions as outlined in Appendix “A” of the staff report.
Carried
5.3 MV-2020-22 - Eng - 117 Bridgepointe Court
The owner is requesting the following relief from the requirements of the
Town’s Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended, to permit an existing deck in
the rear yard.
a)Section 24.407.3 of the Zoning By-law allows decks to
encroach maximum 3.5 m into the minimum required rear
yard of 7 m. Hence, a minimum of 3.5m setback is required
from the rear property line to the edge of the deck. The
applicant is proposing 3.12 m setback from the rear property
line to the edge of the deck.
b)Section 13.1 of the Zoning By-law does not allow buildings or
structures other than the prescribed uses in the EP Zone. The
subject deck partially encroaches into the EP Zone.
The Chair invited the Applicant or Agent to address the Committee. In
attendance was the owner, Annie Quach. Annie provided a presentation
that outlined the purpose of the application and stated that the size of the
deck does not compromise the rear yard amenities.
The Chair invited members of the public to provide comments. In
attendance was Ken Wang and Shuyuan Cao of 123 Bridgepointe Court.
Ken stated his opposition for the following reasons: 1) the size of the deck
is much larger than what is referenced in the staff report, 2) that the
projection of the existing deck does not comply with the Deck Guideline
established by the Building Department, and 3) that the deck is a violation
6
of privacy as there is a clear line of vision from the deck to the kitchen
area.
The Chair requested staff to clarify the size of the deck that is referenced
in the staff report. Staff confirmed that the dimensions in the staff report
comes from the application form under the existing structure section, and
confirmed that the size of the deck is 440 square feet. Through the Chair,
Steven asked staff for clarification on behalf of the delegates, why the
Deck Guidelines were not referenced in the staff report. Staff stated that
the variance before the Committee is for a 3.5 metre encroachment into
the required rear yard, not a projection variance.
The Chair asked the owner if the deck was built by a contractor and if
there was consultation with the Town to obtain a permit. Annie stated that
they did hire a contractor and was under the assumption that a permit was
not required if the deck was built to code or if it was an enclosed deck.
Through the Chair, Steven asked staff if the maximum height for the deck
to comply is 3 metres. Staff stated that the Preliminary Zoning Review
would have identified it as a deficiency if it did not comply with the
requirements.
Moved by Michele Boyer
Seconded by Steven D'Angeli
1. That the Minor Variance Application MV-2020-22 be APPROVED,
subject to the conditions in Appendix “A” of the staff report.
Carried
6. New Business
None.
7. Adjournment
That the meeting be adjourned at 9:20 PM.
Moved by Michele Boyer
Carried