Transcript - Controversial Applications Deferred - Committee of Adjustment Thursday, April 9, 2026 Meeting

Controversial Applications Deferred - Committee of Adjustment Thursday, April 9, 2026 Meeting

Good evening everyone and welcome to Richmond Hills committee of adjustment. This evening we are joined by our secretary treasurer uh Miss Courtourtney Cullum and her assistant Lisa Patara. From the planning department we have Melissa Gardinia Papa joining us this evening. We are gathered on lands that have been home to First Nations people from time and memorial. We acknowledge that what we now call Richmond Hill is on the treaty lands and territory of the Missagas of the Credit First Nation and Missaga and Chipawa nations of the Williams treaty. We also recognize that we are on part of the traditional territories of the Hundi and Huran Wendat. We would also like to acknowledge all First Nations, Inuit, and Matey people from all across North America, also known as Turtle Island, who now reside in the city of Richmond Hill. We are committed to rebuilding constructive and cooperative relationships with everyone. We'll continue with our preamble. Good evening. In the event of an emergency, please exit this room. Outside of the double doors are two stairwell exits. The one on the right exits to the south side of the building and the one on the far side of the elevators exits to the main lobby. Do not use the elevators or return to the building until directed. We ask all committee members, city staff, and members of the audience to please silence your cell phones. The committee of adjustment for the city of Richmond Hill has been appointed by council to consider applications for minor variance and consent within the jurisdiction of the planning act. The chair will call the applicant to the podium to present their application and will allow members of the public to comment. When members of the public approach the podium, please do so one person at a time. Please note the public deputation form beside the podium. Please clearly write your name, address, and email address while indicating on the form if you wish to be added to the notification list for the application you are speaking for. State your full name and address to the committee before speaking. When speaking, please address all comments through the chair. Once the committee makes a decision on an application, no further discussion is allowed inside council chambers. No one other than the applicant, the municipality, certain public bodies, and the minister will be allowed to appeal municipal decisions to the tribunal within 20 days of the making of the decision. All appeals and associated fees must be filed directly with the secretary treasurer in accordance with the planning act. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any conflicts of interest uh this evening? Seeing none, any requests for adjournments or withdrawals through you the chair. There are none. In that case, we will start with our new applications. So, we'll start with agenda item number one, which is item A, consent application CN-26-00003, located at 132 33 Young Street. Um, good evening chair and members of the committee. My name is Adam Shipwick. I'm here on behalf of the owners regarding the consent application for 13233 Young Street. This application is required under section 50 sub3 subf of the planning act as it seeks to permit a lease in excess of 21 years. The purpose is to facilitate the continuation and extension of the existing lease with McDonald's restaurants of Canada which currently operates on the site. Um there are no changes proposed to the property, no new lots, no construction and no change of use. The site remains fully compliant with the official plan and zoning bylaw. This is a technical application with no land use impacts. Uh I respectfully request the committee's approval. Uh thank you so much. Does anyone in the audience wish to address this application for extension of lease located at 13233 Young Street? Seeing none, any comments from the planning department? Through you, Mr. Chair. No comments. Okay. My only question is what's the duration of the lease proposed? It's more than 21 years, but do you know the we're the uh current the lease commenced in 2017. So, we're about halfway through to the 21-year period. So, this is to extend it beyond that. There are two um extension agreements within the lease for 5year extensions beyond that 21 years. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone want to address this application from our committee? If none, I would request a motion. Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Gossi. Through you, Mr. Chair, I feel uh compelled to uh um through my daughters that we visit McDonald, this McDonald's, which is right next to our home, a few times a week probably to approve item A on this week's agenda, file number CN-26-00003 at 13233 Young Street, subject to terms and conditions on the staff report. Thank you. Moved by Mr. Gossi, seconded by Mr. Deretszi. All in favor? Unanimous approval. Thank you. Thank you. Our next applications on the agenda are agenda items B, C, and D located at 135 Center Street West. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Michael Per. I'm from the design firm MP Design and Associates and I will be the acting agent for my clients at 135 Center Street West. Go ahead. Yeah. Okay. So, I guess I will address some of the departments and uh and just let you know that we're aware of the conditions that they're asking. So, um our street, our section is uh there is a road widening infrastructure underway. So the engineering department along with the transportation department had some comments which we have satisfied and are aware of their conditions and we're okay with them. Um heritage and urban development from that area from the village core have also had comments which we had addressed and satisfied them. Hydro has sent in with no um with no conditions their approval and forestry. So there are some large trees on the property. So, we have submitted an arburish report and a tree protection plan and forestry is satisfied and we are aware of their conditions and we're okay with that. Um, next would be a letter of concern from a neighbor directly to our right, our immediate neighbor at 129 Center Street. So, their letter doesn't have any concerns with the the consent or any of the variances that we're asking for. their main concern was their trees and the protection of their trees. Um, which we do have the arbor tree protection plan in place and have satisfied forestry. So, with our concerns of the tree protection, we have considered that and we fully intend to comply. Um, which brings us to the neighbor to the immediate left, which would be 139 Senn Street. Um they are an existing two-story dwelling with the sideyard of 1.22 m. And that brings us to our variance on the west side is we are also at 1.22 m setback. Um then there's other list of variances which is uh some of them get technical um because as the house sits and as we designed it on the existing lot our front yard setback does comply but with the road widening um and um engineering department transportation they have expropriated some of our land. So by them doing so they have taken 3.4 m away from our front yard. So which is now creating the front yard variances for both the first and second story where without the the expropriation for the road widening we would comply to the front yard setbacks. Um and then so that brings us to the planners report and the planning department. Um this is one admittedly the planning department had a hard time with. um they were on the fence and had seesawed back and forth a couple times. Um we were actually scheduled for a February meeting but in order to satisfy um transportation and engineering with the exprop expropriation of the land at that point I believe the feasibility study covered more of the village core area and it looked like their their letter their study was going to be in favor of our project. Something happened since then where they reduced the area of the study and it seems to be that their study was just directly to our neighbors, seven seven lots to the west, seven lots to the east and their main issue is the frontage. So we are asking for uh 11.3 meter frontage and according to well there's a whole bunch of bylaws in the tribunal right now and uh the goal is to maintain a 12 m frontage. So we're at 11.23 which to me seems pretty close. Um and if we look at the village core as a whole, there actually are a lot of lots that um are less than ours or fall into that. So just outside of their study is um we have Elizabeth Street. So for one example, 28 Elizabeth Street and they're all multiple others. They're at a 25 ft frontage where we're asking for 37'4. Um if you go down Elizabeth Street to Hall Street, there are multiple lots there. one for example at 44 Hall Street with all its neighbors where they are at a 33 foot frontage. Um backing on to us so immediate neighbors just slightly adjacent to the west at 148 150 Richmond Street they are at 25 ft sidey yards or frontage. So, um, with the planners letter, they looked at our immediate neighbors, especially focusing across the street where there are some larger lots and their study says that there are no lots as little as ours, but when you look at the village core as a whole, that is not the case. There are a lot um, which is, I believe, why they revised their study to a smaller location. Um, so in talking about the larger lots across the street, we do have one letter from a neighbor of uh hoping for approval and they're actually on one of the larger lots 14 Center Street and um they state that it's particularly refreshing to see new construction contributing to the revigoration of the village core area and a thought thoughtful redevelopment such as this plays a critical role and bringing new life, renewed energy, and long-term investment into the established neighborhood. Um, so like I said, stuck in the tribunal right now under appeal. There are there are a lot of bylaws that are being revamped for the revitalization of the village core as well as a lot of Richmond Hill. And so a lot of these here get technical um with the front yard setback. Um, even the frontage, the the new uh the new goal is a 12 m frontage. And I believe even with our sideyards when they're talking about a the twotory house sideyard, um, it's showing here that we should have three meters. We're asking for 1.24. So even the second story sideyard is something that's stuck in tribunal and being revamped which I'd imagine some of these bylaws at some point this summer towards end of the summer will come into effect and yeah I'm open to any questions if anybody has any. Thank you so much. Does anyone in the audience wish to address this application located at 135 Center Street for severance? Yes sir. If you can you you can come to the podium state your name and address and uh state your concern. Good evening esteemed members of the committee and all of us are co-residents of this town but I actually my name is William Ble uh and I have been living with my family for the last 35 years in 136 center street west which means basically total office on the other south side of the applicant's property. Um I'm quite familiar with the neighborhood also with the city have been before this committee before and enjoy being a citizen uh in this country and this town. Uh to my knowledge there is no property on center street west which would have a frontage of less than 40 ft. Most of the properties there we looked at into it when the development for 114 center street west came up are 70 ft some of them even under 10 uh but no property below 40 ft. There are in the wider neighborhood on Richmond Hill uh on Richmond Street three properties which are smaller due also part to the roads north going there there wasn't nothing anymore left uh the applicants the application is in my feeling a way to change the overall rule for the village core neighborhood and I think if at all I know applying building permits and so on is under the pressure of change but it shouldn't be hidden and I sorry to quote my 8-year-old granddaughter it shouldn't be sneaky if this application gets granted the character is stuck structure of the center of Richmond Hill is I have to say it destroyed. It's what settle example where everybody can refer to I really like to ask you to consider this and uh keep the treasure we have in the center of rich material. I know smaller properties due to property crisis uh have developed and the outskirts of our town but it should be considered really this is not just a single adjustment it would be a hidden revolution. Uh okay that's it. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Does anyone else wish to address this application from the audience located at 135 Center Street? Seeing none, any comments from the planning department for you, Mr. Chair. No comments. Okay. Oh. Would the applicant like to respond to the concerns raised by the neighbor? Yes. In response, I'd like to say the village core as a whole is very diverse in lot sizes and the houses. Um, with the goal in mind being at 12 m frontage, which is the 40 ft, us being at 11.3 is very close and I feel is minor variance within relation to that. And uh, we've taken the village core heritage into consideration. Um, a lot of effort went into these houses and we strongly considered their input and these houses will fit in with this neighborhood. They have the front porches. Um, at first they were concerned with the massing oversized garages. All that was taken care of. These will be very very appropriate houses in the neighborhood and will actually I think inspire some other people if they're doing renovations or other projects to do something. And I I believe as a benchmark this sets the bar very high. Appreciate it. Does anyone else in the audience wish to address this application in that case? Seeing none. Oh, we did that. So we come back to our members. Do we have any comments from our team? Uh we'll start with Miss Payne. for you Mr. Chair. Um I will um take note that village core and discussion of village core is um discussed in the report under official plan. Um there is mention that um a number of designated heritage buildings and listed heritage properties are in this area. Um the subject lands are not currently listed or designated in the uh Richmond Hill inventory. Um through you to planning uh are you aware if this property has ever been listed through you Mr. Chair to member pain and planning staff don't have that information as of right now. I see. And um I think for all the reasons that planning staff have expressed in this report, it would be very difficult um certainly for me and I hope for any other members of the committee to support this application. I I I think uh we owe it to the residents of Richmond Hill to protect the jewels in our city. Um once they're gone, they're gone. And I think we can do better. So, um yeah, thank you, Mr. Garci. Through you, Mr. Chair. Um so with with all these types of files I always find it difficult. I always kind of give uh the residents a bit of a speech where you know oftent times there's there's many many you know uh um variances that people are looking to obtain and some of them are small and cumulatively they may even add up. Um, and I I you know I I have a tendency if you look at my history as far as how we vote to probably approve most of them because I do actually find for it to be minor. This particular file I think is just maybe pushing the line a little bit too much in my opinion. Right. I think it's a great opportunity perhaps to create a couple of brand new homes that I'm sure are beautiful that will fit nicely from a stylistic perspective, you know, into the neighborhood. But uh there's already as you had mentioned yourself a high variability of lot frontages uh in the village core and there is the risk that people or residents come in and always continue to reference past files as justification for obtaining approval for just another couple meters. Right? And this has happened quite often although typically it's not not supposed to happen. we're not supposed to, you know, set that kind of precedence. Um, but honestly I'm having a little bit of difficulty with this file just because you know um like I've I've been in Richmond Hill I don't know 30 some odd years and I've been in that neighborhood I don't know how many times especially through the committee of adjustments and having that that disjointed you know lot frontage and style of homes um is acceptable to a degree but as you mentioned yourself there are other properties that you reference. The next person is going to come in and reference this property, right? And they're going to be looking for 32 feet. So, personally, I have trouble accepting this file. Thank you. Any other comments from my right hand side? Yes, Mr. Detsy. Go ahead. Through the chair. Um, I'll tell you what I think and uh how I assessed it and and uh I have some recommendations. Um, you know, whether you take those or not, it's totally up to you. Uh, given the sentiment on the committee, um, I think you're a little hardressed to obtain approval this evening. So, you may wish to consider other options. I don't particularly have a big issue with what you're requesting. Um, but yet we have staff reports from the municipality that are advising this committee to not approve your applications, but yet you're here before us seeking to get approval. So, under these circumstances, um, there seems to be a disconnect in my opinion. And I've seen this before with your opinions and staff's opinions, and I I don't believe that the discussions between both parties have evolved enough um to to warrant this committee to approve you this evening. Um I I did review the letters of support. Both of them uh very well written in my opinion. The sentiment is clear and I don't necessarily object with what has been written in those letters. One is to uh advise the committee to approve. The other one is essentially not opposed with some concerns and and some issues that I believe could be addressed through the process. I'm a little confused that the citywide parent bylaw that's in the process of being approved has kept the requirement for minimum lot frontage at 15 meters. You had mentioned several times that 12 m is the intention but yet the bylaw the parent bylaw um that has yet to be enacted 9325 is stating 15 m which is consistent with what the current bylaw uh indicates. I believe it's a 15.24. So I would have expected in this area that staff might have chosen a frontage a little bit less 13 1.5 or maybe 12 m like you are suggesting in which case your request wouldn't be that far-fetched. Uh in terms of that new bylaw if it is enacted the only variance that you would require is frontage. everything else would have been covered off in my opinion and it's clear in the table that's there. Um if you look at the key plan which is on page nine clearly there to to suggest that there is a lot fabric that's consistent with 15 meter lots I think is a stretch because you have a lot of varied frontages uh in that in that area. uh particularly on Richmond Street which is north and just west of the subject property you have 150 and 148 Richmond Street which appear to be quite normal um and those are existing lots of record so I mean there is justification for what you're proposing in my opinion um the lots adjacent to you uh to the east appear to have reduced frontages as Well, um so these type of things in my opinion it comes down to um the impact of what essentially is going to be approved and there were some comments about sideyards um the massing etc. Um, I would note that these are deeper lots. So, uh, there is opportunity to extend into the rear yard and maybe soften the massing along the, uh, frontage of the properties. Well, regarding the setbacks, um, we were told no. So we offered to push the houses back further to create more of a front yard and they said for the village core there's that like that wall they didn't want houses set back way further understood and even when I look at this appendix a this study zoning actually planning department actually had another study for this one which encompassed a larger scope at that point a month ago actually going back at some point down to basically seven acres to our east, seven acres to our west. And according to that production of study the village court that's came up with study. So and in the report they say oh we don't see many lots less than 12 meters right here's the study neighbor that scope okay I list it off you I will uh I will uh uh finish what I'm saying and provide you with uh what I think um might be some alternatives to what you're currently proposing and get you closer perhaps to an approval with with a lifeline um which is typically in the form of a deferral and you come back to this committee. But anyway, having said that, um I see opportunities to maintain 1.5 m sideyards on your exterior and even narrow the interior sideyards if you put the driveways together. Instead of having the driveways apart, you flip one and you put the driveways together. It appears more of like it's just one building with 1.5 meter sideback sideyard setbacks on both exterior lines. Okay, that's a way to kind of soften it a little bit. Um, so the interior sideyards would be 94 on each side. So a combined uh 1.8 approximately 1.9 in between the units. That's an option. The other option is perhaps to consider a semi- detached unit. So you're still looking at two units, but now you you'd be one building and you could even again maintain those exterior sideyards or even go a little bit larger if you had to reduce the massing because you're making up for it in the middle of the property. So that's still an option to produce two units but as a semi- detached product. I don't know if that's an option. So, I I mean, at this point this evening, I can't recommend it as is, even though I don't agree entirely with the city's position, but I understand where they're coming from with the application. I think there's room for improvement. So, you might wish to consider a deferral and uh have some real dialogue with staff and sit down and and and maybe come back with some concessions. That would be my suggestion. Thank you. Any other comments, Miss Kalbus, or shall I go in? Okay, no problem. So, in my opinion, um I cannot believe that you went this far and you didn't consult the city, which you So, you did and a month ago they approved they were on your side. So, that to me does not sit well. So, I'm on your side on that. I'm also on your side that as Mr. Deretszi pointed out 150 and 148 are smaller than what you are proposing most likely. Um I don't know their exact size which is really close to your property. So based on that I I have a couple of other options. If you get refused tonight, you can go to OM and most like uh or the appeal board now as they call it and you'll most likely win. The other option is to get a deferral and I'm not sure if a semi- detached house is permitted under the zoning in this area. If it's only single family, then your semi- detached won't work. But uh if you want to go back to the drawing board and talk to the city again, then you have the deferral option. If you want to be bold and get a rejection tonight and go to the appeal board, that's your second option. And you take your chances. That's all I can tell you right now. Okay. And like I said, this getting the center last week when we thought we had your approval because study in size. So, we've been at this for months and months, I'm sure. Yeah. Okay. No, I I don't blame you. Okay. So, with that, I don't have anything else to say except that I would recommend a deferral just like Mr. Deretszi did if you agree to that. And uh based on that, if there's no other comments, well, would we move for a deferral with with or without costs because there is a cost associated to a deferral through the chair. Would you like me to make a motion and I'll deal with cost? You can go ahead. Yes, please go ahead. Okay. Through the chair. I would like to make a motion. uh application file numbers CN-25-05, MV-25-23 and MV-2524, all located at 135 Center Street West that items B, C, and D on the agenda be deferred till the end of the year or sooner without cost. Moved by Mr. Deretszi seconded by do I have a seconder? Oh yes, Mr. Garci sorry I didn't see all in favor unanimously approved. Thank you. Deferred. You have a nice day. Moving on to our next item which is item E on the agenda. That's application MV25-000064 located at 21 Maven Street Maven Crescent, excuse me. It's Yeah. Yeah. Good evening, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Abhishek Rajgore of MEM Engineering located at 2355 Derry Road East, Miss Saga. Um I'm here before you um for the application at 21 Maven Crescent and with reference to an um below grade staircase um as built in the sideyard um where the bylaw requires the the minimum sideyard setback to be at least 1.83 83 m and we are asking for the relief to be at 0.58 m and that is the only variance I'm here today. Thank you. Does anyone in the audience wish to address this application located at uh 21 me? Thank you. Yes. if you can state your name and address and then go. Thank you. My name is Sandra Dishi and I am the resident and owner of 23 Maburn Crescent. This is my primary residence since 2008 and I have lived there for 18 years. Can my husband do the pictures? Thank you. Okay. Did you put them on the podium? They can we can see them. Oh, sorry. Yeah, we're we're trying to get it. Yes. Where do you want here? Can we see them? Oh, it's upside down. Oh, yeah. Okay. Good. Okay. So, I'm here tonight to express my concern regarding the illegal built stairway on 21 Mayburn Crescent. Our properties share a sideyard. And last winter in 2025, I returned home from my vacation and I was shocked to see a gigantic stairwell built down the side of my property. This construction was done without a permit, without notice, and it does not fall within the city bylaws regulations. The space between the property line and and the stairwell is 1 foot n in. Now that it's been built, I have observed the basement occupied space by tenants and visitors. They walk across my property line and to access the basement from the sideyard. My concerns are twofold. Firstly, privacy. There has been people sitting outside on the stairwell smoking and drinking. This sideyard is my only access to the backyard except through my home. I have a side entrance on that side of my property where I sit and I barbecue and I enjoy my property. Now I no longer feel safe as there is no barrier between the property of 21 Mayburn and they do not access their backyard from the sideyard. It was strictly built for a basement apartment. But it's my entry point and my safety concerns have been violated and I feel my privacy has been violated. My second concern is I have counting and counting zero 10 grandchildren ages 0 to 10. The stairwell has a large opening and is very dangerous. Prior to my to this proper to the uh structure being built, my grandchildren could move freely back and forth from the backyard to the front yard using the side property. And now I cannot allow them to use the sideyard without supervision for fear of them falling down the stairwell. This is an accident waiting to happen. The security and safety of my family is at risk. The enjoyment of my home has been compromised and the value of my property I feel has been diminished. Last summer I inquired about putting up a fence. The cost, which is here, was the quote was $9,398. Unfortunately, the gas line runs right underneath the property line. So, between the cost of the fence and the fact that the property line is has a gas line right underneath it, I was not able to proceed. This fence would have provided safety and security to me and my grandchildren to play in front in the sideyard of my home and enjoyment. Ideally, I feel the fastest and best solution would be to remove and fill in the stairwell as soon as possible. If the committee has a better solution, I would appreciate your direction. Thank you. Really appreciate it. Thank you so much. Does anyone else wish to address this application? Yes. Pat. Good evening. My name is Pat Pollock and I'm the chair of the Maverin Area Residents Association. I want to speak to this application because I am very concerned about the lack of permits, approvals, and inspections that are required but not obtained for this build. I queried by law about this and received a reply on May the 23rd, 2025. May I have my sorry may I have my first slide please? In order to comply directing the resident to get a building permit has been issued. The stairwell was constructed without benefit of a permit. The own the owner now has two options. Apply for the permit which will then be investigated or remove it if a permit cannot be obtained both the stairwell and entry point to be removed. Followup is ongoing. Should we fail to gain compliance, we will escalate the matter. A permit is required. When a project must be reviewed for safety, zoning, zoning compliance, and adherence to the Ontario building code. A permit ensures structural integrity, protecting current and future occupants from unsafe construction. It makes sure zoning bylaws are followed, preventing issues like this one, building too close close to the lot line. It provides legal protection for homeowners, not only for the current occupant of the property, but also for neighbors. It sets community standards and safety for others against hazards such as flooding and heaven help us damage to gas, utility lines, etc. Was the gas line that runs close to this stairwell even surveyed? And it protects your own investment. Permits are required for this application before the structure is built. I am appalled at the lack of diligence in this build, lack of consideration for the neighborhood in which this homeowner owns and rents out a property, and the lack of caring about his neighbors. Can I have my second slide, please? As it turns out, this stairway built, this stairway built is only 1.9 ft away from the lot line, not 6 feet in the as in the existing bylaw, nor 4t in the comprehensive zoning law bylaw. A 68.33% deficiency. I want to point out five additional concerns that I refer and I refer to the staff report. May I have the next slide, please? Quote from the staff report. Permission for an existing st basement stairwell. End of quote. Can we be honest here and call it what it is? An illegally built structure that doesn't abide by the bylaws of Richmond Hill. My next slide, please. A quote from the staff report. planning staff have reviewed dwellings along Mavering Crescent. End of quote. I guess they missed the dwelling pertaining to this application. Otherwise, they would know that the location of this nonpermitted stairway is on the east side of the house, precisely 60° northeast, not the west side of the house, as is stated in this staff report. My next slide, please. Another quote from the staff report. Planning staff have reviewed dwellings along Maver Crescent and the surrounding local streets. End of quote. It is stated that this stairway is consistent with what is going on in the neighborhood. I know of only one other exterior stairwell permitting access to the basement in our area of four streets, approximately 220 homes. And that was permitted at the back of the house. It had a permit on it. Next slide, please. Quote from the staff report. Given that the west sideyard set back to the main wall of the existing twostory dwelling remains at 1.83 m in brackets 1.90 ft. End of quote. So 1.83 83 m is equal to 1.90 ft. Really? Next slide, please. Quote from the staff report. Sufficient setback is maintained for access, maintenance, and drainage. End of quote. Question. What if the next door labor erected a fence? Is a 1.9 foot sideyard setback sufficient for emergency access and maintenance? As a teacher for 30 years, I have graded many reports. I would assign this one an F for failure. Too many factual errors. The planning department claims they did their homework. The written report proves they didn't. Next slide, please. and the following one close shortly after. Finally, I want to report that the sign on the property was not displayed as required. These are photos from April the 3rd to April the 8th and today the sign was on the street. This application sets a troubling precedent. is built illegally, suffering no penalty and having neighbors in the community bearing the consequences. In conclusion, from the neighbor, you have already heard the impact this build has had on her family personally. Please don't dismiss her concerns. The last slide, please. This structure should never have been constructed. It violates zoning provisions. Bylaws need to be followed. They are there for a reason. Does not have approvals. No permits were issued before construction. I hope this committee will find that this structure needs to be removed or filled in. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to address this application on 21 May Crescent? If not, I would like to give the applicant an opportunity to address these comments. Thank you for you, Mr. Chair. Um while I appreciate the concerns um put forth by the neighbors, um the application is before you um that it was built um without the fact that there was a building permit taken and uh we are here before you to ask for relief as per the bylaw requirement. um understanding that there is still um some setback from the property line and there is sufficient setback on the east side of the house to be able to have emergency access. So thereby not completely um blocking the blocking the access to the backyard of this property. And I believe the concerns related to the drainage um I think they would be they would be sort of presented in the building permit application as well cuz um it would be up to us and the homeowner um to ensure that there's no impact of drainage on the neighbor's house neighbor's property in any case. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh any other comments from the planning department here? Thank you, Mr. Chair. No comments. Okay. Before I go to the members, I would just like to say that I agree that coming to us after the built is actually a negative on the part of the applicants in all cases. And uh this committee can either approve or deny this application. it cannot force the applicant to either fill in the stair or remove it. That's a decision that the building department has to take. And uh with that, I I am really uh concerned about the privacy and safety issues raised by the adjacent neighbor and who is the most impacted by this. My suggestion would be to revisit a fencing solution to her satisfaction at the applicant's cost and do a deferral if applicant so wishes or he may face a denial and choose to go to the appeal board. But with that I let my other members speak. Thank you. Yes. Go ahead Mr. Garson. Through you Mr. Chair. Uh question for the applicant. Um I imagine you didn't construct this and that you had paid somebody to do the construction. Do you know did they get any service locates even before digging this hole uh through you Mr. Chair um sorry me member I we had no information because we were only informed once they received the order to comply and that's how we got introduced to this. We got very lucky right? Yeah. Um, I mean, I I I think my sentiments, you know, uh, echo our chairs, which is if you guys can work out some sort of fencing solution here. I mean, of course, this would have to be your expense. Often times people do this and, you know, sometimes they get lucky to be honest with you and I guess nobody knows or nobody complains and they can come in and, you know, they can get their variance and everything, you know, is is is fine. you got a little you took a bit of a chance and you got unlucky in this particular case and unfortunately you have to remedy the situation. um you know so from my perspective right uh to put up a fence here with that gas line in that ground right you know there may be a relocation of that gas line I mean I don't know uh you know if somebody in engineering or the gas company would have to determine that but you know I I support or chair's uh comments on this and I would support a deferral where you can have that discussion and uh hopefully you can return with some sort of amicable solution that you know is is beneficial to both of view. Uh I imagine hopefully the you know a fence solution would be would be good for her. Um you know I do like supporting applicants and their their uh uh u ability to make decisions for their own properties but you know we do need to consider the neighbors. So I hope you guys have a fruitful conversation. Okay I understand. Yes Mr. Detszi go ahead through the chair. Uh a couple of questions first before I I I state a few things. So, um, does the building code require a certain width for that stairwell into the basement? Yeah. If so, what is the minimum width requirement for that stairwell? Yes. Through you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, 2T 10 in. 2T 10 in. Yes. And what do you currently have? I think you're three plus if I'm not mistaken, but maybe you can just Yeah. 3T 3 in. You're 3 feet 3 in. 3 in. Yes. Okay. Whose gas line is it? Does it belong to the homeowner, your uh client? I am I am not sure about that because I we I found it just now. Okay. The neighbor is advised that it it is their gas line. Okay. So, yeah, you did get pretty lucky if that thing is on the property line. Um, the way I see this, um, in order to, uh, maintain this stairwell after if you were to get approved with conditions and then you get a building permit, the only way to allow it, that gas line needs to be moved and it'll have to be moved at your expense. This is how I'm just going to tell you the way I see it. You need to install a wood privacy fence from the back of the property up to the front uh facade of the home with a return gate so they have privacy and safety for their grandchildren. So if we are able to uh grant approval with those conditions, I would be okay with that. The question is as a committee, are we allowed to add a condition that they move the gas line at their expense and that they install a wood privacy fence? I believe we can. I have a comment on that. There is another option is that you build the fence on your property and let them have the extra lane. Then you lose access. Excuse me. then you lose that proper access to the backyard and you lose the ability to put in a proper drainage swale which you need a minimum 600 millimeters and you're already 2 cm shy of that. So yeah I had that question in in my mind just now that if we were to build that but then that would be it would have to come through the property owners if they if they are wishing to do that. So, having said my suggestion, I would uh maybe suggest that you defer if you have to or we've got to impose those conditions and it'll be at your expense in order to keep that stairwell otherwise it needs to be removed. Mhm. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. The other option is also to narrow the stair which means they can build. I think that's a good option. You could you could shave a portion. Well, but we still have the issue with the fence that needs to be installed for privacy in in my opinion. I mean, people are hanging out in the front of that stairwell smoking and I would be pretty upset as a neighbor, too, especially if I have grandchildren. So, yeah, you could do that. I don't see any way around not moving that gas that would fancy. But in instead of a property fence, I could suggest that if you reduce the width of the stair and instead of the railing, build a solid fence. Yep. But that'll be on your property. It's not a it's not a property fence. It's like a 8ft high uh thing going around your stairwell, narrow stairwell on both sides. So they cannot see the people smoking. They cannot see them coming in. They don't see anything. and the kids cannot get into the stairwell and you put a gate on the other side of the fence which is not a property fence. It's on your property and then you don't have to do anything with the gas line if you do that through the chair if if I may. I'd like to hear from your adjacent uh neighbor as to what they would prefer to happen in terms of seeking some form of privacy and safety. uh if you're looking at a fence along the lot line with a returned gate on your property and the moving of that gas line at all at their expense or building something along the access stairwell to the basement if you don't mind coming up and advising what your preference would be. Thank you. Thank you. Um, putting a gate to the access down into the stairwell is I think punitive. Um, not I don't think that would work because gates remain open. People go up and down. I I won't have any security in knowing there's a gate there that flings open and can be opened by anybody including grandchildren. So for me, I I believe that to move the gas line and for the fence to be erected all the way from the back to the front and I don't have to see um my neighbors going on and I have privacy and the kids could be freely going back and forth. I think that would be the best solution at the uh at the um my neighbor's expense. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you. Can I add to that? Um, putting it along the prop putting the fence along the property line would retain the value or the size of each of those properties if anyone sold. That would be a better recommendation. Sure. So, uh, yes. Go ahead, Mr. Gossi. Through you, Mr. Chair. For the applicant, you may want to investigate various, you know, fence types and technologies. There may be types of fences that will allow you to have less posts, like perhaps if it's a steel fence or something along those lines. And given the specifics of where that gas pipe is, you working with the gas company and where the gas meter is. So where the pipe actually bends off and enters into the property, uh um you may find yourself maybe having to dig less or maybe be strategic to try and save some money there and also put up a very nice fence as well because I imagine the majority of the cost is not going to be the fence. So just a point that you might want to consider. Yes. No, really. Thank you. I really appreciate everyone's recommendations on that. But yes, I would like to um uh just through everyone here just say that I think relocating um the gas line would be a bit of an overreach um because that that's a project that nobody would have imagined how much it costs. So, and it's the fact that it's maybe sitting inside of the neighbor's lot or whether right on the property line something to find out through the locates. But I believe the option in front of us would be is to having an adequate fencing uh that would provide the privacy um to both the neighbors or alternatively maybe providing a staircase enclosure um that would completely just block the view of the staircase altogether and that would just be restricted to the stairwell itself. Uh from what we heard from the neighbor it would have to go all the way to the front of the property so they don't see anybody coming in or going out from the street. I would like to so through you Mr. Chair you might want to do a deferral and come back with a solution through yeah through you Mr. Chair the question would be is that would would a neighbor have a right on actually commenting on whether how they see someone coming in or not because that would also apply to the main door of the dwelling. So what I see it here is is that if a comment about having their own grandchildren not being you know safety issue safety issue is very much understandable which can be addressed through a well-designed staircase enclosure which would also solve the problem of visual as well as safety and that would just be limited to the staircase enclosure itself. I don't think well anyway Pat has to say something. Go ahead. Just some additional information. Um our area is being um surveyed etc. to have the gas lines changed. So um we're in that particular area now. So, if the build the homeowner wanted to go through the gas company, maybe he can get that gas line moved at the time that the um work is being done to replace those gas lines and that would help. Excellent point. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yes. So, why don't we make a Oh, sorry. Yeah. Sorry. No, that's a very point. Thank you. Yeah, I think that's some these are points to consider. we would relay back to the homeowners and if you have any um feedback for us that'll be very helpful. I think we have given you more than enough feedback at this point. Uh you you have a choice. You can do a deferral or you can do a conditional approval. But I don't think the condition we put in will be I think a deferral is in more in both of your interests. But go ahead Mr. Gari. through you, Mr. Chair. Um, I think when you come back, you should definitely have consulted uh with the gas company. Get the locates and consult with the gas company because either way, they're going to be involved, right? They're either going to tell you, okay, um, well, no, it absolutely has to be moved and this is the process and this is the cost and you can have that information or they say it doesn't have to be moved, but these are the tolerances of of where we're going to put ore or or the safety around that pipe and where you can place it. So, I don't think you can come back here just after a conversation. You definitely indeed come back here with the data from the from the gas company. Sorry. Yeah. And I while I appreciate, Mr. chair and the committee that you everyone's caring about the fact that yes you we may relocate we may consider about moving the gas line. However, I'm suggesting that if we not go in that direction at all and consider just having the fence away from the gas line or constructing a because when I say an enclosure, enclosures are built will on the top of the retaining wall. So there is no disturbance to the to the ground more than what has already been done. Oh, why don't you re do your homework, get a deferral done, find out exactly where the gas line is, maybe you can build the fence. Yes, that's maybe just a little off the property line. Not not so much that you can't get the swale or the access. Correct. No, I mean, just have to move a few inches and maybe you make the stair smaller so you can still walk between the fence and the stair. You can do all those things and then come back to us. Okay. So, at this point, Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. through the chair. I just I just have one final uh comment. We have to acknowledge the fact that you went and did this without a permit. There's no guarantee that if you applied for a permit this for this basement entrance, you would have gotten it. So, now that you're here, I think the neighbors uh request for a fence along the property line to give them not only safety uh privacy, but visual privacy from looking at that stairwell down there that you built without a permit. I think is fair. That's So having said that, if there's isn't any more comments, I can defer uh make a motion to defer if everyone Okay. Yes. Go ahead, M. Make the motion. No problem. I'm Miss Calbas, it's the first time you're speaking. Take their time. Through you, Mr. Chair. My question or comment is actually to the planning department. Um, if this is deferred and the staff report does come back, I just want to um I note that the staff report says that this is in compliance with the new zoning bylaw 9325. Uh Pat Pollock did note that there's a 4 foot uh requirement. Uh if you could just please clarify. I I just want to make sure which one is correct. But with that, I'm happy to make a motion. That's okay. Great. Uh through you, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion then to defer application MB-25-0064 located at 21 Maburn Crescent uh to come back to this committee before the end of the year or sooner uh at cost to the applicant. Moved by Miss Kalbus, seconded by Mr. Deretszi. All in favor? Sorry, did you say at cost? At cost. Yeah. All in favor. So it's moved to be deferred at cost to the applicant. I just uh again remind you Miss Pollock's comment about the gas company revamping everything may be in your interest. It's a very good suggestion. Okay. Sorry. Our last application of the day is application number MV25-000061 located at 10 Clarage Drive. Go ahead. Good evening, Mr. Chair, committee members, and city staff. My name is Christine Dan and my address is 27104th Avenue, city of Markham. I'm the agent representing 10 Clarish Drive. I do have a presentation would like to bring up today. The first page shows the east elevation facing the Clarish Drive. The proposal is for a twostory single detached drawing. The application before you today sees relief from the zoning bylaw 2523 and 93-25 in the form of three minor variances related to the rear yard setback and the exterior sa setback. Next slice please. The subject property is a corner lot with dual frontage. The lot light along orange crescent is technically considered the front lot light as it's slightly softer than the exterior side lot light due to this corner lot condition. The property has more a more constraint building envelope compared to a typical interior interior lot. In our proposal, the reduced rear yard function most like a site yard with a setback of 1.9 meters from the property line will still have earthquake separation from the adjacent dring. The rear yard above the neighbor neighboring site yard and no primary windows are proposed along the rear wall to minimize any privacy or overlook concerns. In addition, the interior side is widened to 5.87 meters which functions as the rear yard. As a result, there will be no adverse impacts on the neighboring rear yard in term of the sunlight enjoyment or views. With respect to the exterior site ya back varants, this applies only to the porch and the steps. The main building wall fully comprised with the 9.1 by14 meters requirements maintaining the established setback pattern and the overall streetscape. Next slide please. This slide illustrates how the proposed drawing fits with in the surrounding contest in terms of the scale and massing. The design is consistent with the existing neighborhood character and will not appear oversized. The setback pattern along both carriage drive and orange crescent is maintained. The next build slice shows examples of some recently built homes in the surrounding area. Most of them are along Cravage Drive and Orange Crescent that are similar to the style and scale to what we are proposing today. Given this context, we believe the requested varants are minor in nature, maintain the intent of both the official plan and zoning bylaw and represent appropriate and desirable development for this corner lots. The proposal fits well within the established neighborhood. We respectfully requires committee's approval. Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any question committee and may have. Thank you. Thank you so much. So obviously it seems like you have read the letter of opposition and you responded to all those points. Uh does anyone in the audience wish to address this? You must be the owners I guess. No. Okay. Any comments from the planning department through you Mr. Chair? No comments. Okay. Did you want to say something? Yeah. Come. You'll just state your name and your ad. Prepared. because we're expecting to see our neighbors here, but they didn't appear here. So, um we want to explain to them because um from us your name. Yeah, I think Oh. Oh, yes. Sorry. Uh Ping. Ping. Okay. Yeah. I'm I'm one of those. Yes. You're one of the husband. Uh we we wanted to explain to them because from the the letter they sent to the uh to us uh it's very obvious that they didn't realize that uh the rare well how how should I say it's the side that your rear yard is actually a side yeah it's actually and they realized that so they planning department explained that yes yeah maybe that's the main reason they they sent that letter so we want to yeah But because it's a side setback and there will be very minimal windows openings proposed, I think uh the uh impact to them will be very minimum. Thank you. Um yes, thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. Any comments from our members on this particular application? Yes, Miss Pin, go ahead. On Yeah. Um I note in the uh co additional comments section that the uh parks and natural heritage pointed out that there were several errors in the arborous yes report. So yeah I circled that. Yeah. So I'm just wondering how we can build that into the conditions perhaps or um yeah we could I mean we could say to satisfy the to basically the tree preservation has to be is revised to the satisfaction. Okay. Forestry department. Thank you. Any other comments? No. So I would request a motion and taking in uh view of Miss Page's comment about the pre-preservation, we should include that as an extra condition. Go ahead, Miss P. Oh, no. Miss Kalbus. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve application MV-25-0061 located at 10 Clarage Drive. Uh, subject to the terms and conditions in the city staff report with emphasis to the comments from the parks and natural forestry department. I butchered that. Oh, natural heritage. My apologies. Uh, to to correct the errors that were in the arburest report. Moved by Miss Calbus, seconded by Mr. Rashi. All in favor? Four. All five. Okay. Unanimously approved. Thank you very much. Have a nice evening. Thank you. Have a good evening. The minutes. It's on again. It's back on. It wasn't there when she took a picture, but it was back again today. The rule is it should No, it should have been that time. I know. Sorry. Uh anyway, they have to put a new I just uh Mr. fair if we may proceed to the approval of the minutes. Yes, go ahead. Yeah, I wasn't there but you guys go ahead. Do I have to leave as of last meeting? Yes. Any any comments? Uh corrections. What did you say? I appear twice. I guess they like writing my name. Sorry to Mr. Chair. It's on page three and the committee members present. I just noted that Carlo's written twice as the acting chair and at the bottom. He was here just once. I don't have I don't have any other comments. Thank you. Any have comments? Nope. Um just to confirm I had sent in some markup. Yeah. Yes. That will be included in the adoption member pane. So we just need a motion to adopt the minutes with the revisions that we just mentioned. Yes. I'd like to make a motion to adopt the minutes uh with the revisions um mentioned and uh sent to you. Thank you. Okay. Moved by member Payne, seconded by member Albus. All in favor? Adopted. And perhaps a motion to adjourn before the new business. Do you had some comments? Yes. Yeah, we do. Okay. Okay. Yes. So, I I would like to move to adjourn the meeting. How's that? Can we do that? Everyone is in favor. Who is this? We need a seconder. Carlos. Second. Second. You can. He did. I'm dead.

Full Transcript