MISSISSAUGA COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA Location ... · • mississauga committee of adjustment...

MISSISSAUGA

• COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT

AGENDA '

a

Location: COUNCIL CHAMBER Hearing: APRIL 2, 2015 AT 1 :30 P .M.

1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCLOSURES OF DIRECT OR INDIRECT PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. REQUESTS FOR WITHDRAWAL/DEFERRAL

File Name of Applicant Location of Land Ward Disposition

NEW APPLICATIONS - (CONSENT}

B-015/15 MUKESHBHAI & BINABEN PATEL 3164 PARKERHILL RD 7 Approved

B-016/15 W.C. - 401 DEVELOPMENT LTD. 3017 ARGENTIA RD 9 Approved

NEW APPLICATIONS - (MINOR VARIANCE)

A-169/15 AUREL MERSINI 452 LYND AVE. Approved In Part

A-170/15 KEE GROUP INC 512 BRISTOL RD W 5 Approved 3 Years

A-171/15 JOHN & DO ROT A HO DUR 1489 BLANEFIELD RD Approved

A-172/15 KIM BAUMGART 109 VISTA BLVD 11 Approved

A-173/15 ONTARIO POWER GENERATION INC 800 HYDRO RD April 16

A-174/15 GRACE TRIGIANI 1249 GREENOAKS DR 2 Approved

A-175/15 CHRISTOPHER AND VANESSA FRIAS 251 HILLSIDE DR 11 May14

A-176/15 VALERIE LEIPER 86 HAMMOND RD 11 Approved

DEFERRED APPLICATIONS - (MINOR VARIANCE)

A-012/15 ST. MARY ANTIOCHIAN ORTHODOX 280 TRADERS BLVD E 5 May 7 CHURCH ·

A-138/15 JAMIA I SLAM IA CANADA LTD 2380 TEDLO ST 7 May 7

A-141/15 MARCO FERREIRA 1065 DETA RD Approved In Part

A-147/15 JEFF KIRKWOOD & TATIANA DEBREY 1873 BONNYMEDE DR 2 Approved

A-153/15 JULIE ELAINE ROCCA 236 QUEEN ST S 11 June 4

C:\Users\ma~av\4pp0ala\local\Mlctosoft\Windows\Temporary lnlemel Files\Conlenl.Oullook\6KYV4T18\Dlsp-2015-04·02·BA130.doc: 2015/04/06; 2:01 :50 PM Page: 1 of 1

M MISSISSaUGa

COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 50(3) AND/OR (5) of The Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended

- and -IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

MUKESHBHAI & BINABEN PA TEL

on Thursday April 2, 2015

File: "B" 015/15 WARD7

Mukeshbhai & Binaben Patel are the owners of part of Lot 6, Registered Plan B-25, located and known as 3164 Parkerhill Road, zoned R3, Residential. The applicants requests the consent of the Committee to the conveyance of a parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 15.71m (51.54 ft.) and an area of approximately 610.20 m2 (6,568.35 sq. ft.). The effect of the application is for the creation of a new residential lot on Rolling Stone Court.

Mr. G. Callaghan, authorized agent, attended and presented the application to convey a parcel of land for the creation of a new lot fronting onto Rolling Stone Court. Mr. Callaghan advised the Committee that the subject property was substantially deep and that the property would be partitioned within the existing rear yard area to create two lots that had a similar lot depth and as the abutting properties along Parkerhill Road and Rolling Stone Court. He noted that the rear lot line would be positioned to allow for the retention of an existing detached garage.

The Committee reviewed the information submitted with the application.

The Committee received comments and recommendations from the following agencies:

City of Mississauga, Planning and Building Department (March 31, 2015), City of Mississauga, Transportation and Works Department (March 26, 2015), City of Mississauga, Community Services Department, Park Planning (April 1, 2015), Region of Peel, Environment, Transportation and Planning Services (March 30, 2015),

A letter was received from C. Dicarlo, a resident of 3179 Parkerhill Road, stating support for the subject application.

A letter was received from A. Torchia, a resident of 3160 Parkerhill Road, stating support for the subject application.

No other persons expressed any interest in the application.

The Secretary-Treasurer reviewed the recommended conditions for the Committee's consideration should the application be approved.

Mr. Callaghan consented to the imposition of the proposed conditions.

The Committee, after considering the submissions put forward by Mr. Callaghan, the comments received and the recommended conditions, is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly developrnent of the municipality.

Page 1of3

M MISSISSauGa

File: "B" 015/15 WARD?

The Committee, having regard to those matters under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13., as amended, resolves to grant provisional consent subject to the following conditions being fulfilled:

1. Approval of the draft reference plan(s), as applicable, shall be obtained at the Committee of Adjustment office, and; the required number of prints of the resultant deposited reference plan(s) shall be received.

2. An application amendment letter shall be received from the applicant or authorized agent confirming that the conveyed land shall be together with and/or subject to services easement(s) and/or right(s)-of-way, if necessary, in a location and width as determined by the Secretary-Treasurer based on written advice from the agencies having jurisdiction for any service or right for which the easement or right-of-way is required; alternatively, a letter shall be received from the applicant or authorized agent confirming that no services easement(s) and/or right(s)-of-way, are necessary.

3. A letter shall be received from the City of Mississauga, Manager of Zoning Plan Examination, indicating that the conveyed land and retained lands comply with the provisions of the Zoning By-law, or alternatively; that any variances are approved by the appropriate authorities and that such approval is final and binding.

4. A letter shall be received from the City of Mississauga, Transportation and Works Department, indicating that satisfactory arrangements have been made with respect to the matters addressed in their comments dated March 26, 2015.

5. A letter shall be received from the City of Mississauga, Community Services Department, indicating that satisfactory arrangements have been made with respect to the matters addressed in their comments dated April 1, 2015.

Page 2 of 3

M MISSISSaUGa

MOVED BY: R.Bennett SECONDED BY:

Application Approved on conditions as stated.

Dated at the City of Mississauga on April 9, 2015.

S. Patrizio


CARRIED

THIS DECISION IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD BY FILING WITH THE SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT A WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, GIVING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL, ACCOMPANIED WITH THE PRESCRIBED FEE ON OR BEFORE MAY 3, 2015.

Date of mailing is April 13, 2015.

S .. PATRIZ~ R. BENNETT GOt:lAs

ABSENT

D. KENNEDY L. DAHONICK

J. ROBINSON

I certify this to be a true copy of the Committee's decision given on April 9, 2015.

DAVID L. MARTIN, SECRETARY-TREASURER

NOTES:

The decision to give provisional consent shall be deemed to be refused if the conditions of provisional consent, have not been fulfilled on or before April 13, 2016.

See "SUMMARY OF APPEAL PROCEDURES" and "FULFILLING CONDITIONS & CERTIFICATE ISSUANCE" attached.

Page 3 of 3

M MISSISSauGa


IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 50(3) AND/OR (5) of The Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended

- and -IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

W.C. - 401 DEVELOPMENT LTD



W.C. - 401 Development Ltd is the owner of Part of Lots 13 & 14, Concession 11, NS, located and known as 3017 Argentia Road, zoned C3-17, Commercial. The applicant requests the consent of the Committee to a lease in excess of twenty-one (21) years of a parcel of land having an area of approximately 2060.00 m2 (22174.38 sq. ft.). The effect of the application is a long term lease for the LCBO.

Mr. M. Thorpe, authorized agent, attended and presented the application to convey a parcel of land for the creation of a lease in excess of 21 years. Mr. Thorpe advised the Committee that the subject property would be fully developed with various commercial uses and that the proposed leased lands would facilitate the operation of a liquor store.

The Committee reviewed the information submitted with the application.

The Committee received comments and recommendations from the following agencies:

City of Mississauga, Planning and Building Department (March, 2015), City of Mississauga, Transportation and Works Department (March 26, 2015),


The Secretary-Treasurer reviewed the recommended conditions for the Committee's consideration should the application be approved.

Mr. Thorpe consented to the imposition of the proposed conditions.

The Committee, after considering the submissions put forward by Mr. Thorpe, the comments received and the recommended conditions, is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.

The Committee, having regard to those matters under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act R.S.0. 1990, c. P.13., as amended, resolves to grant provisional consent subject to the following condition being fulfilled:

1. Approval of the draft reference plan(s), as applicable, shall be obtained at the Committee of Adjustment office, and; the required number of prints of the resultant deposited reference plan(s) shall be received.

Page 1of2

MISSISSaUGa

MOVED BY: R.Bennett SECONDED BY:

Application Approved on condition as stated.


J. Thomas


CARRIED

THIS DECISION IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD BY FILING WITH THE SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT A WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, GIVING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL, ACCOMPANIED WITH THE PRESCRIBED FEE ON OR BEFORE MAY 3, 2015.


S.PAT#lf=-R. BENNETT ?TH{);AS

ABSENT


~ll?J-·---J. ROBINSON



NOTES:

The decision to give provisional consent shall be deemed to be refused if the conditions of provisional consent, have not been fulfilled on or before April 13, 2016.

See "SUMMARY OF APPEAL PROCEDURES" and "FULFILLING CONDITIONS & CERTIFICATE ISSUANCE" attached.

Page 2 of 2

M MISSISSaUGa


IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 45(1) OR (2) of The Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended

- and -IN THE MATTER OF ZONING BY-LAW 0225-2007

as amended - and -

IN THE MATTER OF AN AP.PUCA TION BY

AUREL MERSINI


File: "A" 169/15 WARDl

Aurel Mersini is the owner of Lot 18, Registered Plan M-373, located and known as 452 Lynd Avenue, zoned R3-l, Residential. The applicant requests the Committee to authorize a minor variance to permit the construction of a new 2 storey detached dwelling on the subject property proposing:

1. a height of eaves of 7.31 m (23.98 ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum height of eaves of 6.40 m (20.99 ft.) in this instance;

2. a dwelling height of 9.67 m (31.72 ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum dwelling height of 9.00m (29.52 ft.) in this instance; and,

3. a gross floor area - infill residential of 379.42 m2 (4,084.17 sq. ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum gross floor area - infill residential of 355.78 m2 (3,829.70 sq. ft.) in this instance.

Mr. I. Andriyovych, a representative of the authorized agent, attended and presented the application to permit the construction of a new two storey dwelling on the subject property. Mr. Andriyovych indicated that a portion of the second storey of the dwelling would be open below to the first storey to allow for a substantially tall ceiling height. Mr. Andriyovych explained that this area was included in the gross floor area calculation even though there would be no actual floor. It was Mr. Andriyovych's opinion that the requested gross floor area was appropriate as it allowed for a suitable dwelling to be constructed that was similar in size and scale of other dwellings in the area. He noted that the dwelling would provide sufficient yard widths and depths resulting in adequate separation distances and reduced massing effects on adjacent neighbours.

Mr. Andriyovych noted that the requested relief for the proposed dwelling height was measured to a portion of the roof that was recessed towards the centre of the dwelling. Mr. Andriyovych explained that this height was well masked by the lower portions of the roof and that the additional height was positioned to deemphasize any massing that would be viewed from the street. Mr. Andriyovych requested for the variance request for the height of the eaves to be deleted as the roof would be altered to allow for the e·aves to comply with the Zoning By-law.

Mr. Andriyovych advised the Committee that concerns had been raised by a neighbour with respect to a second floor balcony at the rear of the dwelling. He confirmed that there would be no balcony projection and presented an elevation plan of the rear of the dwelling to confirm.

The Committee reviewed the information and plans submitted with the application.

Page 1of4

M MISSISSaUGa


The City of Mississauga Planning and Building Department commented as follows (March 30, 2015):

"1.0 RECOMMENDATION

The Planning and Building Department recommends that the application be deferred for the applicant to redesign the proposal to address concerns outlined below.

2.0 BACKGROUND

Mississauga Official Plan

G:haracter Area: Designation:

Discussion:

Mineola Neighbourhood Residential Low Density II

We note that the subject property is located in the Mineola Neighbourhood, and as such, is subject to the foll.owing Mississauga Official Plan policies:

16.18.1.1 For development of all detached dwellings on lands identified in the Site Plan Control By-law, the following will apply: ·

c. encourage new housing to· fit the scale and character of the surrounding area, and take advantage of the features of a particular site, i.e. topography, contours, mature vegetation;

e. ensure that new developme~t has minimal impact on its adjacent neighbours with respect to overshadowing and overlook;

f. encourage buildings to be one to two storeys in height. The design of the building should de-emphasize the height of the house and be designed as a composition of small architectural elements, i.e. projecting dormers and bay windows;

k. the building mass, side yards and rear yards should respect and relate to those of adjacent lots.

Zoning By-Jaw 0225-2007

Zoning: "R3-1", Residential

Discussion:

The intent of the Zoning By-law provisions regarding dwelling height and gross floor area -infill residential is to ensure that proposed dwellings do not have a negative massing impact to the streetscape and adjacent properties.

3.0 OTHER APPLICATIONS

· [gJ Site Plan File: SPI 14-180

4.0 COMMENTS

Based on a review of the Site Plan application, we note that variances #1 and #2 are correct. However, we advise that more information is required to verify the accuracy of variance #3.

In regards to variances #1, based on a review of the front elevation drawings, it appears that the applicant is proposing architectural features within the front facade of the dwelling that provides various eave height levels and breaks up the ·massing effect of the roofline. Therefore, we have no objection to variance #1.

In regards to variance #2, based on a review of the front elevation drawings, we note that the difference between the finished grade and average grade is 0.17 m. (0.56 ft.). It is our opinion that the dwelling height can be reduced to mitigate the massing effect of the dwelling height.

Page 2 of 4

File: "A" 169/15 M1ss1ssauGa wARD 1

In regards to variance #3, although the request is for 23.64 m2 (254.47 sq. ft.) above the maximum gross floor area permitted by the Zoning By-law, we note that 25.45 m2 (273.94 sq. ft.) has been excluded from the gross floor area calculation as a portion of the second floor is proposed to be "open to below". This would allow for a greater massing effect of the dwelling to adjacent neighbours and the streetscape.

It is our opinion that the gross floor area, coupled with the request for dwelling height would have a negative massing impact on the streetscape and adjacent neighbours. We recommend that the applicant consider redesigning the proposal to mitigate these impacts."

The City of Mississauga Transportation and Works Department commented as follows (March 26, 2015):

"We note for Committee's information that the City is currently processing a Site Plan Application for this property, Reference SP 14/180. Transportation and Works Department concerns/requirements for this property will be addressed through the Site Plan Process."

The Region of Peel, Environment, Transportation and Planning Services, commented as follows (March 30, 2015):

"Please be advised that service connection sizes shall be in compliance with Ontario Building Code and Region of Peel Design Criteria. An upgrade of your existing service may be required. Please note that site servicing approvals will be required prior to building permit."

A letter was received from A. Beaumont, a representative of the property owners of 468 Lynd Avenue, expressing her client's concerns with respect to any balconies that would be constructed at the rear of the proposed dwelling.

Ms. A. Beaumont, a representative of the property owners of 468 Lynd Avenue, expressing her client's concerns with the construction of a second floor balcony at the rear of the proposed dwelling. Ms. Beaumont explained that her client had a pool within the rear yard of their property and suggested that a balcony would create an undesirable overlook condition on the private use of their pool. Ms. Beaumont suggested a condition prohibiting any second floor balcony at the rear of the proposed dwelling was appropriate.

Me. J. Lee, a Planner for the Planning and Building Department, attended and suggested that it was appropriate to consider the interior open space within the dwelling as floor area. He explained that exterior building mass would still be created even with the absence of a floor. Mr. Lee advised that a floor could be constructed at a later date.


The Committee consented to Mr. Andriyovych's request to delete the variance with respect to. eav.es height. The Committee after considering the submissions put forward by Mr. Andriyovych and having reviewed the plans and comments received, is satisfied that a portion of the amended request is desirable for the appropriate further development of the subject property. The Committee was satisfied that the portion of the roof that exceeded the Zoning By-law height was recessed sufficiently to deemphasize the height and help conceal it from view. ·

The Committee is satisfied that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained in this instance.

The Committee is of the opinion that the amended request is minor in nature in this instance.

The Committee is not satisfied that the request for the proposed gross floor area. The Committee preferred Mr. Lee's professional opinion that the open space would still create additional exterior massing to that of Mr. Andriyovych's suggestion that the proposed yards and separation distances would minimize massing. The Committee indicated that open space

Page 3 of 4

M MISSISSaUGa


was included within the gross floor area calculation as it had a direct effect on the size of the dwelling and resultant exterior building mass. It was the Committee's opinion that the proposed dwelling was too large for the subject property and would have an undesirable amount of building mass that was not reflective of the character of the neighbourhood.

The Committee is not satisfied that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained in this instance.

The Committee is of the opinion that the requested variance is not minor in nature in this instance.

Accordingly, the Committee resolves to 'authorize anq grant the request to permit the construction of a new 2 storey detached dwelling on the subject property proposing a dwelling height of 9.67 m (31.72 ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum dwelling height of 9.00m (29.52 ft.) in this instance.

MOVED BY: S. Patrizio SECONDED BY: J. Thomas CARRIED

Application Approved, in Part.

Dated at the City of Mississauga on April 9,2015.

THIS DECISION IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE.ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD BY FILING WITH THE SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT A WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, GIVING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL.~ ACCOMPANIED WITH THE PRESCRIBED FEE ON OR BEFORE APRIL 29, 2015.

R. BENNETT ·

D.KENNEDY L. DAHONICK

DISSENTED

J. ROBINSON

I certify this to be a true copy of the Committee's dee' ·

A copy of Section 45 of the Planning Act, as amended, is attached. NOTES:

ABSENT

- A Development Charge may be payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. - Further approvals from the City of Mississauga may be required i.e. a Building Permit, a Zoning Certificate, a License, etc.

Page4of4

M MISSISSaUGa




as amended - and -

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

KEE GROUP INC


File: "A" 170/15 WARDS

Kee Group Inc. is the owner of Block 19, Registered Plan M-1073, located and known as 512 Bristol Road West, zoned Cl-16 - Commercial. The applicant requests the Committee to authorize a minor variance to permit the existing restaurant to remain proposing:

1. parking to be provided at a rate of 4.30 spaces per 100.00 m2 (1,076.42 sq. ft.) gross floor area for the restaurant use; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires parking to be provided at a rate of 16.00 spaces per 100.00 m2 (1,076.42 sq. ft.) gross floor area in this instance,

2. providing no additional parking spaces for persons with disabilities; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires four (4) parking spaces for persons with disabilities in this instance; and,

3. a restaurant to be located within 60.00 m (200.00 ft.) of a residential zone; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires that any building or structure containing a restaurant use must be a minimum of 60.00 m (200.00 ft.) from the closest lot line of ' a residential zone in this instance.

Mr. M. Rogers, authorized agent, attended and presented the application to permit the continued operation of a restaurant on the subject property. Mr. Rogers advised the Committee that the subject property had been developed under a former Zoning By-law and that the existing parking supply was designed to comply with that by-law. He confirmed that the subject property had historically contained various restaurant uses.

· Mr. Rogers noted that there had been some concerns expressed by adjacent property owners with the current operator of the restaurant. He explained that there had been some concerns with· loud live music being performed on the property. Mr. Rogers suggested that the frequency of musical performance would be limited to one (1) night a week and that his client would be willing to accept any additional conditions of approval to help mitigate any audible impact on the adjacent property owners.



"1.0 RECOMMENDATION

. The Planning and Building Department has no objection to the requested variances, as amended:

Page 1of4

2.0 BACKGROUND


Character Area: Designation:

M MISSISSaUGa

Hurontario Neighbourhood Convenience Commercial


Zoning: "Cl-16", Convenience Commercial


No other applications currently in process.

4.0 COMMENTS

File: "A" 170/15 WARDS

Based on a review of the information submitted with the minor variance application, we advise that it appears the variance should be amended as follows:

"2. providing no additional parking spaces for persons with disabilities; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires five (5) parking spaces for persons with disabilities in this instance;"

We note that the subject application is a continuation of a previous approval under 'A' 291/09. At the time, this Department stated that we had no objection to the requested variances.

Based on the preceding information, we have no objection to the requested variances, as amended."

. ,, The City of Mississauga Transportation and Works Department commented as follows (March 26, 2015):

"This Department has no objections, comments or requirements with respect to C.A. 'A' 170/15."

A letter was received from J. Hart, a resident of 53-460 Bristol Road West, expressing her objection to the subject application. She noted specific concerns with the loud music that was played within the restaurant at late hours of the night.


Mr. Rogers upon hearing the comments of the Committee and the Planning and Building Department, requested that the application be amended in accordance - with their recomm.endations.

The Committee consented to the request and, after considering the submissions put forward by Mr. Rogers and having reviewed the plans and comments received, is satisfied that the amended request is desirable for the appropriate temporary use of the subject property.


The Committee is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature in this instance.

Page 2 of 4

MISSISSaUGa File: "A" 170/15

WARDS Accordingly, the.Committee resolves to authorize and grant the amended request to permit the existing restaurant to remain proposing:

1. parking to be provided at a rate of 4.30 spaces per 100.00 m2 (1,076.42 sq. ft.) gross floor area for the restaurant use; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires parking to be provided at a rate of 16.00 spaces per 100.00 m2 (1,076.42 sq. ft.) gross floor area in this instance,

2. providing no additional parking spaces for persons with disabilities; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires five (5) parking spaces for persons with disabilities in this instance; and,

3. a restaurant to be located within 60.00 m (200.00 ft.) of a residential zone; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amerded, r,equires that any building or structure containing a restaurant use must be a minimum of 60.00 m (200.00 ft.) from the closest lot line of a residential zone in this instance.

This decision is valid for a temporary period of three (3) years and shall expire and terminate on or before April 30, 2018 and is subject to the following conditions:

.1. There shall be no music played on the patio.

2. There shall be no televisions on the patio.

3. The patio shall close by ll:OOp.m. nightly.

4. All windows and doors of the building shall remain closed during the duration of any live music being performed within the restaurant.

Page 3 of 4

M MISSISSaUGa

MOVED BY: S. Patrizio SECONDED BY: J. Robinson

Application Approved, as amended, on conditions as stated.


File: ~'A" 170/15 WARDS

CARRIED

THIS DECISION IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD BY FILINc:i WITH THE SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT A WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, GIVING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL, ACCOMPANIED WITH THE PRESCRIBED FEE ON OR BEFORE APRIL 29, 2015.


R. BENNETT

ABSENT


J/P@· J. ROBINSON



A copy of Section 45 of the Planning Act, as amended, is attached.

NOTES: - A Development Charge may be payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. - Further approvals from the City of Mississauga may be required i.e. a Building Permit. a Zoning Certificate, a License, etc.

Page 4 of4

MISSISSauGa




as amended - and -


JOHN & DOROTA HODUR



John & Dorota Hodur are the owners of Part of Lot 197, Registered Plan B-19, located and known as 1489 Blanefield Road, zoned R3-1 - Residential. The applicants request the

. Committee to authorize a minor variance to permit the construction of a second storey ·addition within the roofline of the existing dwelling providing a combined width of side yards of 3.33 m (10.92 ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum combined width of side yards of 3.80 m (12.46 ft.) in this instance.

Mr. J. Hodur, a co-owner of the property, attended and presented the application to permit the construction of habitable space within the attic of the existing dwelling. Mr. Hodur advised the Committee that he wished to construct a dormer within the existing roofline to accommodate the stairs required to access the attic space and a bathroom. Mr. Hodur advised that relief was required for the existing deficiency for the combined widths of the side yards.



"1.0 RECOMMENDATION

The Planning and Building Department has no objection to the requested. variance, as amended.

2.0 BACKGROUND


Character Area: Designqtion:

Mineola Neighbourhood Residential Low Density II


Zoning: "R3-l", Residential


iZJ Building Permit File: BP 15-4333

Page 1of3

MISSISSaUGa 4.0 COMMENTS


Based on a review of the Building Permit application for the proposed second storey addition, we advise that additional information is required to ensure that all required variances have been identified.

Further, we advise that requested variance should be amended as follows:

" ... providing a combined width of side yards of 3.25 m (10.66 ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum combined width of side yards of 3.60 m (11.81 ft.) in this instance." -

Based on the information provided in the minor variance application, it is our understanding that the applicant is proposing to utilize existing attic space for additional living space. Aside from a roof dormer at the rear, no construction will occur to the exterior of the dwelling.

Based on the nature of the proposal, we have no objection to the requested variance, as amended."

The City of Mississauga Transportation and Works Department commented as follows (March 2~2015): .

"This department has no objections to the applicants request to permit the construction of a second storey addition. We are noting that ariy Transportation and Works Department concerns/requirements will be addressed through the Building Permit process."


"Please be advised that service connection sizes shall be in compliance with Ontario Building Code and Region of Peel Design Criteria. Please note that site servicing approvals will be required prior to building permit."


Mr. Hodur upon hearing the comments of the Committee and the Planning and Building Department, requested that the application be amended in accordance with their recommendations.

The Committee consented to the request and, after considering the submissions put forward by Mr. Hodur and having reviewed the plans and comments received, is satisfied that the amended request is desirable for the . appropriate further development of the subject property.

The Committee is satisfied that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained in this instance. ·


\

Page 2 of 3

~ MISSISSaUGa


Accordingly, the Committee resolves to authorize and grant the amended request to permit the construction of a secohd storey addition within the roofline of the existing dwelling providing a combined width of side yards of 3.25 m (10.66 ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum combined width of. side yards of 3.60 m (11.81 ft.) in this instance.

MOVED BY: S. Patrizio SECONDED BY: D.Kennedy CARRIED

Application Approved, as amended.


THIS DECISION IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD BY FILING WITH THE SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT A WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, GIVING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL, ACCOMPANIED WITH THE PRESCRIBED FEE ON OR BEFORE APRIL 29, 2015.


D.G£J;AIR)

R. BENNETT

ABSENT


JJIS,J_· -J. ROBINSON

I certify this to be a true copy of the Committee's d~cision given on April 9, 2015.



NOTES: - A. Development Charge may be payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. - Further approvals from the City of Mississauga may be required i.e. a Building Permit, a Zoning Certificate, a License, etc.

Page 3 of 3

M MISSISSaUGa




as amended - and -


KIM BAUMGART


File: "A" 172/15 WARD 11

Kim Baumgart is the owner of Lot 30, Registered Plan M-556, located and known as 109 Vista Boulevard, zoned R2-50 - Residential. The applicant requests the Committee to authorize a minor variance to permit the construction of a detached garage in the rear yard of the subject property, proposing an easterly side yard of 0.61 m (2.00 ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum side yard of 1.20 m (3.93 ft.) in this instance.

Mr. D. Downey, authorized agent, attended and presented the application to permit the construction of a detached garage within the rear yard of the subject property. Mr. Downey indicated that the reduced side yard allowed for the garage to be located towards the rear of the house rather than recessed further into the rear yard. He explained that this was preferable as it would enable the garage to be better aligned with the existing driveway and to provide the necessary room for manoeuvrability.



"1.0 RECOMMENDATION

The Planning and Building Department has no objection to the requested variances, as amended.

2.0 BACKGROUND



Streetsville Neighbourhood Residential Low Density I


Zoning:


[8J Building Permit

4.0 COMMENTS

"R2-50", Residential

File: BP 14-3868

Based on a review of the Building Permit application for the proposed· detached garage, we advise that the requested variance is correct. However, an additional variance will be required for the following:

Page 1of3


WARDll "2. a driveway with a minimum distance of 0.3 m (0.98 ft.) to the easterly side lot line; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended requires the nearest part of a driveway or any other parking area to be a minimum of 0.6 m (1.97 ft.) from any side lot line in this instance".

We note that detached garages in the rear yard and driveways at the side of dwellings are common in this neighbourhood. The existing driveway is legal non-conforming, but any extension of the driveway must comply with the current Zoning By-law requirements.

Recognizing the current legal non-conforming conditions on the property, we are satisfied that the requested variances, as amended, would not have a negative impact to neighbouring properties and the streetscape.

Based on the preceding information, we have no objection to the requested variances, as amended."


"This department has no objections to the applicant's request to permit a detached garage in the rear yard of the subject property. From our site inspection of this property we note that the topography of the lands are suet\ that a significant portion of the drainage from the rear yard of the subject lands is currently directed in a southerly direction towards the rear of the abutting property to the south. Our observations made on site also indicated that the grades on the abutting property to the south are such that the drainage from the subject lands will not impact these lands (111 Vista Boulevard) as all drainage from this property is also directed towards the south into the larger property (church/institutional use) which has a large parking lot which is also graded such that the drainage is directed out towards the municipal road. In view of the above, in particular having regard for the existing topography and existing grading pattern which has existed on the subject and abutting properties for years, we have no objections to the applicant's request. We are also noting that any Transportation and Works Department concerns/requirements will be addressed through.the building permit process."


Mr. Downey upon hearing the comments of the Committee and the Planning and Building Department, requested that the application be amended in accordance with their recommendations.

The Committee consented to the request and, after considering the submissions put forward by Mr. Downey and having reviewed the plans and comments received, is satisfied that the amended request is desirable for the appropriate further development of the subject property.

The Committee is satisfied that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By~law and the Official Plan will be maintained in this instance.


Page 2 of 3

M MISSISSaUGa

File: "A" 172/15 WARD 11

Accordingly, the Committee resolves to authorize and grant the amended request to permit -the construction of a detached garage in the rear yard of the subject property proposing:

1. an easterly side yard of 0.61 m (2.00 ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum side yard of 1.20 m (3.93 ft.) in this instance; and,

2. a driveway with a minimum distance of 0.3 m (0.98 ft.) to the easterly side lot line; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended requires the nearest part of a driveway or any other parking area to be a minimum of 0.6 m (1.97 ft.) from any side lot line in this instance.

MOVED BY: R. Bennett SECONDED BY: D,Kennedy CARRIED


Dated at _the City of Mississauga on April 9, 2015.



R. BENNETT

ABSENT

-D.KENNEDY L. DAHONICK

J. ROBINSON


·~ DAVID L.-MARTIN, SECRETARY-TREASURER


NOTES: - A Development Charge may be payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. . - Further approvals from the City of Mississauga may be required i.e. a Building Permit, a Zoning.Certificate, a License, etc.

Page 3 of 3

M MISSISSaUGa




as amended - and -


GRACE TRIGIANI


File: "A" 174/15 WARD2

Grace Trigiani is the owner of Lot 29, Registered Plan M-692 and Part of Lot 45, Registered Plan 725, located and known as 1249 GREENOAKS DRIVE, zoned R2-4 - Residential. The applicant requests the Committee to authorize a minor variance to permit the construction of a below grade garage on the subject propert.y proposing:

1. a garage floor area of 454.14 m2 (4888.48 sq. ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum garage floor area of:75.00 m2 (807.31 sq. ft) in this instance,

2. a gross floor area - infill residential of 947.02 m2 (10193.97 sq. ft.); whereas By-Jaw 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum gross floor area - infill residential of 884.80 m2 (9524.21 sq. ft.) in this instance, .

3. a dwelling depth of 26.93 m (88.35 ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum dwelling depth of 20.00m (65.61 ft.) in this instance; and,

4. a garage projection of 8.63 m (28.31 ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amende_d, does not permit a garage to project beyond the main front wall of the dwelling in this instance.

Mr. E. Van Groll, a representative of the authorized agent, attended and presented the application to permit the construction of an underground garage on the subject property. Mr. Van Groll advised the Committee that they have previously approved a similar application that saw the expansion of the existing dwelling at grade to accommodate a larger garage. He noted that those plans had been abandoned in favour of an expansive multi-car underground garage. He explained that the dwelling depth and gross floor area calculations for the dwelling included the underground construction and that it was his opinion that the requested variances were appropriate as there would be no new construction at grade and that the variances would be wholly imperceptible from view.



"1.0 RECOMMENDATION

The Planning and Building Department has no objection to the requested variances.

Page 1of5

2.0 BACKGROUND




M-M1ss1ssauGa

Clarkson-Lorne Park Neighbourhood Residential Low Density I, Greenbelt

<

Zoning: "R2-4", Residential


~ SiteP/an

4.0 COMMENTS

File: SPR 15-24 W2 - Satisfactor~


Based on a review of the Site Plan, we advise that the variances as requested are correct.

We note that the Committee previously approved a similar variance for the subject property under 'A' 161/14. The proposal has been altered to increase the area of the underground parking garage. At the time, this Department stated that we had no objection.

Further, we note that the proposal is to construct a vehicle lift within the existing garage area with the intent of lowering vehicles into the basement. Due to this, our Zoning section has identified the basement area, dedicated for vehicles, to be garage area and as such, variances to the Zoning By-law regarding maximum garage area, gross floor area, garage projection and dwelling depth are required. Given that the proposed basement addition to accommodate the vehicles will be wholly underground and not visible at grade, this Department has no objection to the requested variances."


"We note for Committee's information that .the City is currently processing a Site Plan Application for this property, Reference SP 14/12. Transportation and Works Department concerns/requirements for this property will be addressed through the Site Plan Process."


"Please note the Region relies on the environmental expertise of the Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) staff for the review of development applications located within, or adjacent to the Greenlands Systems in Peel and their potential impacts on the natural environment. The Region recommends that the City of Mississauga consider comments from the eve and incorporate any of their conditions.of approval appropriately.

- .

This property is within the vicinity of Birchwood Park. This site was used for the disposal of flyash and bottom a_sh from the Lakeview Generating Stati6n. Leachate has been detected. A park is located on the site. It is catalogued by the M.O.E as A220105."

Credit Valley Conservation commented as follows (April 1,2015):

"PROPOSAL: The applicant requests the Committee to authorize a minor· variance to permit the construction of an underground garage on the subject property proposing:

1. A garage floor area of 454.14 m2 (4888.48 sq.ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum garage floor area of 75.00 m2 (807.31 sq.ft.) in this instance,

J ~aQe 2 of 5 .


WARD2 2. A gross floor area - infill residential of 947.02 m2 (4,888.48 sq.ft.); whereas By-law 0225-

2007, as amended, permits a maximum gross floor area - infill residential of 884.80 m2 (9,524.21 sq.ft.) in this instance,

3. A dwelling depth of 26.93 m (88.35 ft.); where.as By-law 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum dwelling depth of 20.QO m (65.61 ft.) in this instance; and,

4. A garage projection of 8.63 m (28.31 ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, does· not permit a garage projection beyond the main front wall of the dwelling in this instance.

SITE rnARACTERISTICS:

ONT ARIO REGULATION 160/06: This property is subject to the Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines & Watercourses Regulation (Ontario Regulation 160/06). This regulation prohibits altering a watercourse, wetland or shoreline and prohibits development in areas adjacent to the Lake Ontario shoreline, river and stream valleys, hazardous lands and wetlands, without the prior written appro.val of Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) (i.e. the issuance of a permit).

Floodplain The subject property is located partially within the Regulatory Storm Flood Plain associated with Birchwood Creek. A permit may be required from CVC for any construction activity in this area. Our primary concern is the protection of life and property from the flood hazard. We have sp~cific criteria and requirements for construction in the flood plain.

VALLEY SLOPE: Based upon our existing mapping, it appears that the subject property is traversed by a valley slope. CVC does not support construction on a valley slope, and will require setbacks from the top of slope for new construction or lot grading. This includes ,.any overhangs or cantilevered structures and is to ensure that new development is protected from potential slope instability or erosion and to protect the environmental integrity of the valley system.

Mississauga NAS: The subject property is adjacent to the Mississauga Natural Areas System (NAS). CVC provides technical support to this agency with respect to delineation of natural features and reviewing potential impacts from subsequent development within and adjacent to these lands.

Municipal Greenlands: The subject property is partially within an area designated as Core Greenlands by the Region of Peel. It is the policy of the Region of Peel to protect the form and function of these natural areas. CVC provides technical support to this agency with respect to delineation of natural features and reviewing potential impacts from subsequent development within and adjacent to these lands.

COMMENTS: -CVC is currently reviewing the proposed development through Site Plan Application SP 15/024. eve staff have outstanding comments that must be addressed. Based on the nature of this minor variance application, eve staff have no objection to its approval at this time. Given that outstanding comments will be addressed through the site plan process.

By way of forwarding this letter to the applicant, CVC staff request"that the applicant provide the following in relation to SP 15/024:

The outstanding comments for file SP 15/024 are related to the stable slope line and CVC's technical review of the proposed development. eve requires that the proposed foundation be located below the stable slope line and be confirmed by a Professional Geotechnical Engineer. To this effect, plans and an updated geotechnical report are required.

Page 3 of 5


WARD2 The proposed development is located within a CVC Regulated Area and as such a permit from CVC is required prior the issuance of a building permit from the City of Mississauga."

Mr. J. Lee, a Planner for the Planning and Building Department, attended and confirmed that the calculation of the gross floor area and dw-elling depth included the below grade portions of the structure.


The Committee after considering the submissions put forward by Mr. Van Groll and having reviewed the plans and comments received, is satisfied that the request is desirable for the appropriate further development of the subject property.


The Committee is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature in this , instance.

Page4of5

M MISSISSauGa


Accordingly, the Committee resolves to authorize and grant the request as presented.

MOVED BY: S. Patrizio SECONDED BY: R. Bennett CARRIED

Application Approved.


THIS DECISION IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD BY FILING WITH THE SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT A WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, GIVING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL, ACCOMPANIED WITH THE PRESCRIBED FE;:E ON OR,BEFORE APRIL 29, 2015.


R. BENNETT KTHDMAs

ABSENT

D. KENNEDY L. .DAHONICK

~-J. ROBINSON




NOTES: - A Development Charge may be payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. - Further approvals from the City of Mississauga may be required i.e. a Building Permit, a Zoning Certificate, a License, etc.

Page 5 of 5

M MISSISSaUGa




as amended - and -


VALERIE LEIPER


File: "A" 176/15 WARD 11

Valerie Leiper is the owner of Lot 41, Registered Plan M-477, located and known as 86 Hammond Road, zoned R3-69 - Residential. The applicant requests the Committee to authorize a minor variance to permit the construction of a one (1) storey addition to the rear of the subject dwelling, proposing:

1. an exterior side yard of 1.20 m (3.93 ft.); whereas By-Jaw 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum exterior side yard of 6.00 m (19.68 ft.) in this instance; and,

2. an existing lot frontage of 18.29 m (60.00 ft.); whereas By-Jaw 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum Jot frontage of 19.50 m (63.97 ft.) in this instance.

Mr. S. Greer, authorized agent, attended and presented the application to permit the construction of a small one storey addition to the rear of the existing dwelling on the subject property. Mr. Greer advised the Committee that the property was a corner lot and that the existing dwelling did not comply with the ihcreased side yard requirement for a corner lot. He confirmed that the addition would be constructed to be flush with the existing side wall of the dwelling that abutted the exterior side yard.

Mr. Greer noted that the relief required for the deficient lot frontage was a historical condition.



"1.0 RECOMMENDATION

The Planning and Building Department has no objection to the requested variance. However, the applicant may wish to defer the application to submit the required Building Permit application to ensure that all required variances have been identified.

2.0 BACKGROUND



Streetsville Neighbourhood Residential Low Density I

Zoning By-law 0225-2007

Zoning: . "R3-69", Residential

Page 1of3


D Building Permit

4.0 COMMENTS

M MISSISSaUGa

File: Required - No application received

File: "A" 176/15 WARDll

We note that a Building Permit is required and in the absence of a Bt.,Jilding Permit application, we are unable to verify the accuracy of the requested variance and determine whether additional variances will be required

. Further, we note that the lot frontage is legally existing and therefore variance #2 is not required.

We note that the proposed addition will be an extension located at the rear of the existing dwelling, and aligns with the existing deficient exterior side yard of the dwelling. Based on . the site plan provided with the minor variance appliCation, it appears that the proposed addition will be limited in size.

Based on the preceding information, we have no objection to the requested variance."


"We are noting for information purposes that any Transportation and Works Department concerns/requirements for the proposed one storey addition at the rear of the subject dwelling w·ill be. addressed through the Building Permit process."


"Please be advised that service connection sizes shall be in compliance with Ontario Building . Code and Region of Peel Design Criteria. An upgrade of your existing service may be required. Please note that site servicing approvals will be required prior to building permit."


The Committee •after considering the submissions put forward by Mr. Greer and having reviewed the plans and comments received, is satisfied that the request is desirable for the appropriate further development of the subject property.


The Committee is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature in this instance.

Page 2 of 3

M MISSISSaUGa

File: "A" 176/15 WARD 11

Accordingly, the Committee resolves to authorize and grant the request as presented.

MOVED BY: S. Patrizio SECONDED BY: R. Bennett CARRIED

Application Approved.


THIS DECISION IS SUBJECT TO APPEAL TO THE ONT ARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD BY FILING WITH THE SECRETARY-TREASURER OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT A WRITTEN NOTIFICATION, GIVING REASONS FOR THE APPEAL, ACCOMPANIED WITH THE PRESCRIBED FEE ON OR BEFORE APRIL 29, 2015.


s~ R. BENNETT VJ. THOMAS

,~~· ... ABSENT


~· J. ROBINSON




NOTES: - A Development Charge may be payable prior to the issuance of a Building. Permit. - Further approvals from the City of Mississauga may be required i.e. a Building Permit, a Zoning Certificate, a License, etc.

Page 3 of 3

M MISSISSaUGa




as amended - and -


MARCO FERREIRA



Marco Ferreira is the owner of Lot 6, Registered Plan A-22, located and known as 1065 Deta Road, zoned R3 - Residential. The applicant requests the Committee to authorize a minor variance to permit the construction of a second storey addition to the existing dwelling, a two storey addition in the rear of the existing dwelling and a detached garage in the rear yard of the subject property, proposing:

1. a northerly side yard setback of 1.01 m (3.31 ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.81 m (5.94 ft.) in this instance;

2. a southerly side yard setback of 0.60 m (1.97 ft.) to the proposed detached garage; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.21 m (3.97 ft.) in this instance;

3. a rear yard setback of 0.61 m (2.00 ft.) to the proposed detached garage; whereas Bylaw 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.21 m (3.97 ft.) in this instance; and,

4. a southerly side yard setback of 0.00 m (0.00 ft.) to the proposed driveway; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum side yard setback of 0.60 m (1.97 ft.) in this instance;

5. a garage height of 3.35 m (10.99 ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum garage height of 3.00 m (9.84 ft.) in this instance.

On March 5, 2015, Mr. E. Peres, authorized agent, attended and presented the application to permit the construction of additions to the existing dwelling and the construction of a new detached garage within the rear yard of the subject property. Mr. Peres advised the Committee that a majority of the existing ground floor walls of the dwelling would remain and therefore the proposal was for an additions and not a new dwelling. He noted that the deficiency in the northerly side yard setback of the dwelling was an existing condition and that the second storey addition would be aligned with this side wall.

Mr. Peres confirmed that the proposed detached garage would be used for the parking of a vehicle and for storage purposes. It was the opinion of Mr. Peres that the reduced setbacks for the detached garage would not have any adverse impact on the abutting property as the rear abutting property was developed with a residential apartment building.


Page 1of6

~ MISSISSauGa


The City of Mississauga Planning and Building Department commented as follows (February 27, 2015):

"1.0 RECOMMENDATION

The Planning and Building Department has no objection to variances #4 and #5, as amended. However, we recommend that variances #1, #2 and #3 be refused. The applicant may wish to defer the application to provide the requested information in order to verify the accuracy of variance #5.

2.0 BACKGROUND



Lakeview Neighbourhood Residential Low Density I


Zoning: "R3", Residential


[ZJ Pre-Application Zoning and Applicable Law Review File: P-ZONE 14/3578

4.0 COMMENTS

Based on the information provided with the associated Pre-Zoning Review application, variances #1 - #4 are correct. However, more information is required to verify variance #5. In addition, without an engineer's certification letter to confirm the structural stability and integrity of the existing walls to remain, the variance application should be amended to permit a new two (2) storey dwelling and not a second storey addition to an existing dwelling as indicated.

With regard to variance #1, we note that this Department has a concern with the requested relief for northerly side yard setback. Although we acknowledge that the proposed development will not encroach further into the side yard in comparison to the existing one (1) storey dwelling, in review of the "west (side) ·elevation" and recognizing that the neighbouring properties contain one (1) storey dwellings, we are of the opinion that the requested variance will facilitate a negative massing impact on the adjacent property to the north. As such, we recommend that the applicant redesign the dwelling to mitigate the imposed massing impacts.

With regard to variance #2 and #3, given that the proposed detached garage is new construction, this Department is unclear as to the rationale for the relief required for the side and rear yard setbacks. Furthermore, in review of the site plan provided with the minor variance application, it appears that the detached garage will result in the removal of several trees located in the rear of the property. In addition, it is our understanding that the Transportation and Works Department has identified a potential drainage and grading issue in relation to the location. of the detached garage. Given this information, we are of the opinion that the detached garage should be relocated in order to mitigate the impacts on the items identified above. ·

With regard to variance #4, we advise that this variance is required to recognize the existing portion of the driveway and therefore, we believe the request to be minor in nature.

With regard to variance #5, in review of the elevations, it appears that the excessive height only applies to a portion of the garage. As such, we have no objections to the relief required for garage height."

Page 2 of6

M MISSISSaUGa


The City of Mississauga Transportation and Works Department commented as follows (February 26, 2015):

"Acknowledging that this department has no objections to the proposed construction of a second storey addition to the existing dwelling and the two storey addition to the rear of the existing dwelling, this department does not support the location where the detached garage is being proposed in the rear yard. In this particular instance and from our observations made on our recent site inspection of this property we note that the rear yard is at a significantly lower elevation than the roadway and this would result in the additional surface drainage from this proposal being directed to the abutting properties. It should be noted that at the time of our site inspection there was a significant amount of snow cover and it is difficult to fully evaluate the existing drainage pattern on this property, however, with a significant amount of new hard surface area being introduced in the rear yard (both detached garage and significant driveway area) we would require additional grading and drainage information to properly evaluate the request for a detached garage at the rear of the property.

In view of the above we strongly request that this application be deferred until such time that the owner reconsiders the location of the proposed detached garage, or alternatively a Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a Consulting Engineer be prepared and submitted for our review/approval. The Grading and Drainage Plan would also have to be reviewed/approved by the Development Construction Section of the Transportation and Works Department to ensure that any proposed works will not have any drainage impacts on the adjacent properties. The applicant/owner is also to be advised that if an acceptable grading and drainage plan is reviewed/approved, a grading security deposit may also be required to ensure that the garage and driveway area will be constructed in accordance with any approved plan."

Mr. J. Lee, Planner for the City of Mississauga attended and advised the Committee that the staff required additional information to confirm the structural stability and integrity of the existing walls. With respect to the relief for northerly side yard setback for the dwelling, Mr. Lee noted staff's objection. He explained that the existing housing stock within the neighborhood comprised of one storey dwellings and the proposed dwelling would create a negative massing impact on the adjacent property to the north.


The Committee indicated concerns with respect to the excessive height and reduced rear yard and side yard setbacks proposed for the detached garage in the rear yard of the subject property. The Committee referred to the areas of concerns and outstanding information on the application identified by the Transportation & Works Department and Planning & Building Department. The Committee showed preference for the applicant to discuss the proposal further with staff to mitigate any concerns and to verify the accuracy of the requested variances.

Mr. E. Peres, upon hearing the comments of the Committee requested that the application be · deferred. He noted that additional time was required to further discuss the proposal with staff as well as to provide them with any outstanding information.

The Committee consented to the request and deferred the application to the April 2, 2015 hearing.

On April 2, 2015, Mr. E. Peres, the authorized agent, attended and presented the application to permit the construction of additions to the existing dwelling and for the construction of a detached garage within the rear yard of the subject property. Mr. Peres confirmed that a majority of the existing first storey walls were to remain and therefore the proposed alterations were considered an addition and not a new dwelling.

Page 3 of6

M MISSISSaUGa


Mr. Peres noted that the grading of the property would be altered to the satisfaction of the Transportation and Works Department staff to ensure that the drainage of the property was functional.

Mr. Peres indicated he wished to delete the variances for the reduced yard setbacks for the garage.



"1.0 RECOMMENDATION

The Planning and Building Department recommends that variance #1 be refused and we have no objection to requested variances #4 and #5. However, the applicant may wish to defer the application to submit the requested information for the Pre-Zoning Review application to ensure that all required variances have been accurately identified.

2.0 BACKGROUND



Lakeview Neighbourhood Residential Low Density I


Zoning: "R3", Residential


IZJ Pre-Zoning Review File: PZONE 14-3578

4.0 COMMENTS

Based on a review of the Pre-Zoning Review application, we advise that variances #1-4 are correct. However, additional information is required to verify the accuracy of variance #5.

Further, we advise that additional information is required to determine whether additional variances will be required.

Based on correspondence received from the applicant on March 25, 2015, it is our understanding that variances #2 and #3 will be withdrawn as the proposed detached garage will be located in accordance with the necessary setbacks.

With regard to variance #1, we note that this Department has a concern 'with the requested relief for northerly side yard setback. Although we acknowledge that the proposed development will not encroach further into the side yard in comparison to the existing one (1)

storey dwelling, in review· of the "west (side) elevation" and recognizing that the neighbouring properties contain one (1) storey dwellings, we are of the opinion that the requested variance will facilitate a negative massing impact on the adjacent property to the north. As such, we recommend that the applicant redesign the elevation to mitigate the imposing massing impacts.

With regard to variance #4, we advise that this variance is required to recognize the existing portion of the driveway and therefore, we believe the request to be minor in nature.

With regard to variance #5, in review of the elevations, it appears that the excessive height only applies to a portion of the garage. As such, we have no objections to the relief required for garage height.

Based on the preceding information, we recommend that variance #1 be refused and we have _ no objection to variances #4 and #5."

Page 4 of6

M M ISSISSaUGa



"Further to our comments provided for the March 5, 2015 hearing of this application we are advising that we have recently had an on-site meeting with city staff and the applicant/owner to discuss the proposal which includes the construction of a detached garage in the rear yard. As we previously indicated this department does not have any objections to the proposed construction of a second storey addition to the existing dwelling and the two storey addition to the rear of the existing dwelling, however, we have concerns with the location of the proposed detached garage which is being proposed in the rear yard. In this particular instance and from our observations made on our recent site inspection of this property we note that the rear yard is at a significantly lower elevation than the roadway and this would result in the additional surface drainage from the detached garage and significant new driveway area being directed to the abutting properties. Without the proper review of a detailed Grading and Drainage Plan it would be difficult to fully evaluate the request. As a significant amount of new hard surface area is being introduced in the rear yard (both detached garage and significant driveway area) additional grading and drainage information must be submitted in order for us to properly evaluate the request for a detached garage at the rear of the property.

In view of the above we would we would suggest that the owner reconsiders the location of the proposed detached garage and resubmit a revised proposal. Should the applicant want to continue with the submitted proposal and the Committee saw merit in the request we would strongly request that a condition of approval be that the Transportation and Works Department be in receipt of a Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a Consulting Engineer be prepared and submitted for our review/approval. The Grading and Drainage Plan would also have to be reviewed/approved by the Development Construction Section of the Transportation and Works Department to ensure that any proposed works will not have any drainage impacts on the adjacent properties. The applicant/owner is also to be advised that if an acceptable grading and drainage plan is reviewed/approved, a grading security deposit may also be required to ensure that the garage and driveway area will be constructed in accordance with any approved plan."

Mr. J. Lee, a Planner for the Planning and Building Department, attended and confirmed additional information was required to confirm the accuracy of the requested variances.


Mr. Peres confirmed the accuracy of the requested variances and indicated that he wished to proceed with the application.

The Committee consented to amend the application to delete variances with respect to the southerly side yard and rear yard setbacks to the proposed garage. After considering the submissions put forward by Mr. Peres and having reviewed the plans and comments received, is satisfied that the request for the southerly side yard setback to the driveway and height of the proposed garage is desirable for the appropriate further development of the subject property.



The Committee is not satisfied that the request for a reduced northerly side yard in this instance. The Committee indicated that additional separation distance to the adjacent neighbour was required to mitigate the massing impact on the adjacent neighbour. They explained that the properties to the north of the proposed dwelling were all small single storey dwellings and that the proposed reduced side yard would introduce an inappropriate amount of building mass towards these dwellings.

Page 5 of 6

~ MISSISSaUGa


The Committee is not satisfied that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan will be maintained in this instance.

The Committee is of the opinion that the requested variance is not minor in nature in this instance.

Accordingly, the Committee resolves to authorize and grant the request to permit the construction of a second storey addition to the existing dwelling, a two storey addition in the rear of the existing dwelling and a detached garage in the rear yard of the subject property proposing:

1. a southerly side yard setback of 0.00 m (0.00 ft.) to the proposed driveway; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum side yard setback of 0.60 m (1.97 ft.) in this instance; and,

2. a garage height of 3.35 m (10.99 ft.); whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, permits a maximum garage height of 3.00 m (9.84 ft.) in this instance.

MOVED BY: S. Patrizio SECONDED BY: J. Robinson CARRIED

Application Approved, in Part.



D.~HAIR) R. BENNETT ~THOMAS

DISSENTED ABSENT

L. DAHONICK

J. ROBINSON

I certify this to be a true copy of the Committee's decisio

DAVID L. MARTIN, SECRETARY-TREASURER A copy of Section 45 of the Planning Act, as amended, is attached. NOTES: - A Development Charge may be payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. - Further approvals from the City of Mississauga may be required i.e. a Building Permit, a Zoning Certificate, a License, etc.

Page 6 of6

M MISSISSaUGa




as amended - and -


JEFF KIRKWOOD & TA TIANA DEBREY



Jeff Kirkwood & Tatiana Debrey are the owners of part of Lot 148, Registered Plan M-914, located and known as 1873 Bonnymede Drive, zoned RM-1 - Residential. The applicants request the Committee to authorize a minor variance to permit an existing pool and an accessory structure (shed) to remain located in the rear yard of the subject property, proposing:

1. a setback of 0.50 m (1.64 ft.) measured from the interior wall of the pool to the southerly side lot line; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum setback of 1.50 m (4.92 ft.) measured from the interior wall of the pool to the side lot line in this instance;

2. a setback of 0.80 m (2.62 ft.) measured from the interior wall of the pool to the rear lot line; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum setback of 1.50 m (4.92 ft.) measured from the interior wall of the pool to the rear lot line in this instance;

3. two accessory structures (sheds) in the rear yard of the subject property; whereas Bylaw 0225-2007, as amended, permits one accessory structure in the rear yard of the subject property in this instance;

4. a northerly side yard setback of 0.00 m (0.00 ft.) to the accessory structure; whereas By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum side yard setback of 0.61 m (2.00 ft.) in this instance; and,

5. an rear side yard setback of 0.00 m (0.00 ft.) to the accessory structure; whereas Bylaw 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum rear yard setback of 0.61 m (2.00 ft.) in this instance.

On March 5, 2015, Mr. J. Kirkwood and Ms. T. Debrey, the owners of the subject property, attended and presented the application to permit an existing pool and an accessory structure (shed) to remain located in the rear yard of the subject property. Mr. Kirkwood noted that the pool was originally installed in 2007. He noted that an additional structural support was recently added to the side of the above ground pool to enhance its stability. He explained that these renovations to the pool resulted in non-compliance with the Zoning By-law with respect to a deficient setback measured from the interior wall of the pool to the southerly side and the rear lot lines.


Page 1of6

M MISSISSaUGa


The City of Mississauga Planning and Building Department commented as follows (February 27, 2015):

"1.0 RECOMMENDATION

The Planning and Building Department recommends that the application be deferred as per the comments below.

2.0 BACKGROUND



Clarkson Lorne Park Neighbourhood Residential Low Density II


Zoning:


IZ! Building Permit

4.0 COMMENTS

"RMl", Residential

File: BP 14/0131 - (Pool Enclosure)

Based on the review of the associated Pool application, we advise that the variance request should be amended to include to the following additional variances:

"5. to permit a rear yard setback of 0.41 m (l.31 ft.) to the accessory structure; whereas Zoning By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a rear yard setback of 0.61 m (2.00 ft.) in this instance; 6. to permit an interior side yard of 0.00 m (0.00 ft.) to the accessory structure; whereas Zoning By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a side yard setback of 0.61 m (2.00 ft.) in this instance."

With regard to variance #1 (interior side yard setback for pool), we advise that the intent of providing a 1.50 m side yard to the pool is to allow for an appropriate area to provide pavers to facilitate an in-ground pool. However, given that the subject pool is above ground, we are of the opinion that granting relief in this instance is appropriate.

With regard to variance #3, we are of the opinion that the establishment of two accessory structures in the rear yard of the subject property will not create any additional impacts.

With regard to variances #4 and #6 (side yard setback of both accessory structures), we are of the opinion that locating accessory structures on the side lot lines with a 0.00 m (0.00 ft.) setback adjacent to a neighbouring property does not maintain the intent of the Zoning Bylaw and is not appropriate in this instance. We recommend that the applicant move the accessory structures to provide for an appropriate setback to the property lines.

With regard to variances #2 and #5 (rear yard setback for pool and accessory structure), we note that this Department has no objection to the requested variances given that the subject

. property is adjacent to a railway corridor. However, based on the information provided, it appears that the accessory structure and above ground pool are located on an existing easement. As such, we recommend that the applicant remove the structures from encumbering the easement or alternatively, the applicant shall provide a letter from the proponent in favour of the easement indicating their satisfaction with the location of the structures: To provide an. opportunity for the applicant to obtain this letter, we recommend that the application be deferred."

Page 2 of 6

M MISSISSaUGa

File: "A" 147 /15 WARD2

The City of Mississauga Transportation and Works Department commented as follows (February 26, 2015):

"We are noting from our review of the application and also as depicted on the sketch survey plan submitted that a portion of the above ground pool and vinyl shed are located within the limits of an easement. It's our understanding that the easement is in favour of the Bell Telephone Company and the Hydro-Electric Commission of the Town of Mississauga as in VS170663. In view of the above we would suggest that the applicant/owner provide confirmation to ensure that satisfactory arrangements have been made with the appropriate utility company for any encroachment or alternatively any encroachment be removed (i.e. Pool/shed be relocated)."


The Committee showed concerns with respect to the accessory structure and pool being located on an existing easement. The Committee indicated a preference for the applicant to remove the structure from the easement or provide a letter from the benefactor of the easement confirming their satisfaction with the location of the structure.

Mr. Kirkwood noted that additional time was required to provide outstanding information to staff for review.

The Committee consented to the request and deferred the application to the April 2, 2015 hearing.

On April 2, 2015, , Mr. J. Kirkwood and Ms. T. Debrey, the owners of the subject property, attended and confirmed that letters had been filed with the Committee of Adjustment office from the benefactors of the easement located on the property confirming their acceptance of the encroachment encumbering the easement. Mr. Kirkwood and Ms. Debrey confirmed that they were willing to remove the encroachment should access to the easement be required.



"1.0 RECOMMENDATION

The Planning and Building Department has no objection to variances #1, #2, #3 and #5, but recommend that variances #4 and #6 be refused.

2.0 BACKGROUND



Clarkson-Lorne Park Neighbourhood Residential Low Density II


Zoning:


IZ! Building Permit

4.0 COMMENTS

"RMl", Residential

File: BP 14-0131 - Pool Enclosure

Based on the review of the associated Pool application, we advise that the variance request should be amended to include to the following additional variances:

Page 3 of 6

M M1ss1ssauGa

File: "A" 147 /15 WARD2

"5. to permit a rear yard setback of 0.41 m (1.31 ft.) to the accessory structure; whereas Zoning By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a rear yard setback of 0.61 m (2.00 ft.) in this instance;

6. to permit an interior side yard of 0.00 m (0.00 ft.) to the accessory structure; whereas Zoning By-law 0225-2007, as amended, requires a side yard setback of 0.61 m (2.00 ft.) in this instance."

With regard to variance #1 (interior side yard setback for pool), we advise that the intent of providing a 1.50 m side yard to the pool is to allow for an appropriate area to provide pavers to facilitate an in-ground pool. However, given that the subject pool is above ground, we are of the opinion that granting relief in this instance is appropriate.

With regard to variance #3, we are of the opinion that the establishment of two accessory structures in the rear yard of the subject property will not create any additional impacts.

With regard to variances #4 and #6 (side yard setback of both accessory structures), we are of the opinion that locating accessory structures on the side lot lines with a 0.00 m (0.00 ft.) setback adjacent to a neighbouring property does not maintain the intent of the Zoning Bylaw and is not appropriate in this instance. We recommend that the applicant move the accessory structures to provide for an appropriate setback to the property lines.

With regard to variances #2 and #5 (rear yard setback for pool and accessory structure), we note that this Department has no objection to the requested variances given that the subject property is adjacent to a railway corridor. In addition, based on correspondence received on March 31, 2015, we note that Enersource Hydro Mississauga and Bell Canada have indicated that at this time, they have no objections to the encroachment of the pool and shed into the easement at the rear of the property. Therefore, we have no objection to variances #2 and #5.

Based on the preceding information, we have no objection to variances #1, #2, #3 and #5, but recommend that variances #4 and #6 be refused."


"Please refer to our comments submitted for the March 5, 2014 hearing of this application as those comments are still applicable."

Mr. Kirkwood and Ms. Debrey submitted letters from Enersource and Bell Canada confirming their acceptance of the subject application and that any encroachment may need to be removed at the expense of the property owner should either company require access to the easement.

A letter was received from L. Brown, a resident of 1877 Bonnymede Drive, expressing privacy concerns with respect to the deck within the rear yard of the subject property.


Mr. Kirkwood and Ms. Debrey upon hearing the comments of the Committee and the Planning and Building Department, requested that the application be amended in accordance with their recommendations.

The Committee consented to the request and, after considering the submissions put forward by Mr. Kirkwood and Ms. Debrey and having reviewed the plans and comments received, is satisfied that the amended request is desirable for the appropriate further development of the subject property. The Committee indicated that relief from the Zoning By-law was not required for the deck and therefore was not a matter for their review.



Page4of6

.,

M MISSISSauGa


Accordingly, the Committee resolves to authorize and grant the amended request to permit an existing pool and an accessory structure (shed) to remain located in the rear yard of the subject property, proposing:

1. a setback of 0.50 m (1.64 ft.) measured from the interior wall of the pool to the southerly side Jot line; whereas By-Jaw 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum setback of 1.50 m (4.92 ft.) measured from the interior wall of the pool to the side Jot line in this instance;

2. a setback of 0.80 m (2.62 ft.) measured from the interior wall of the pool to the rear Jot line; whereas By-Jaw 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum setback of 1.50 m (4.92 ft.) measured from the interior wall of the pool to the rear lot line in this instance;.

3. two accessory structures (sheds) in the rear yard of the subject property; whereas Bylaw 0225-2007, as amended, permits one accessory structure in the rear yard of the subject property in this instance;

4. a northerly side yard setback of 0.00 m (0.00 ft.) to the accessory structure; whereas By-Jaw 0225-2007, as amended, requires a minimum side yard setback of 0.61 m (2.00 ft.) in this instance;

5. to permit a rear yard setback of 0.41 m (1.31 ft.) to the accessory structure; whereas Zoning By-Jaw 0225-2007, as amended, requires a rear yard setback of 0.61 m (2.00 ft.) in this instance; and,

6. to permit an interior side yard of 0.00 m (0.00 ft.) to the accessory structure; whereas Zoning By-Jaw 0225-2007, as amended, requires a side yard setback of 0.61 m (2.00 ft.) in this instance.

Page 5 of 6

. '

M MISSISSauGa

MOVED BY: S. Patrizio SECONDED BY: J. Robinson



File: "A" 147 /15 WARD2

CARRIED



S.P~ R. BENNETT -1.THOMAs

ABSENT


J. ROBINSON



A copy of. Section 45 of the Planning Act, as amended, is attached.

NOTES: - A Development Charge may be payable prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. - Further approvals from the City of Mississauga may be required i.e .. a Building Permit, a Zoning Certificate, a License, etc.

Page 6 of6

MISSISSAUGA COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA Location ... · • mississauga committee of adjustment...

Documents

Transcript of MISSISSAUGA COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA Location ... · • mississauga committee of adjustment...