Discussion:
Chair noted pertinent details outlined in the application and on the plans and evidence received.
Agent appeared on behalf of the owners and provided evidence in support of the application.
Kevin Zeran representing Bette Zeran and Lyle Zeran of 885 Glenwood Avenue appeared before the Committee in opposition to the request.
Chair asked if any Members had any questions: J. Riddell, E. Westerhof, B. Ursel and Chair asked questions of the agent, staff and neighbour.
Comments from Committee:
Chair asked Members if they had comments on the application:
P. Calleja supported the application; noted for the following reasons: appreciated all presentations provided at the hearing and noted that all six variances were minor in nature; the proposed development was designed to contribute to the evolving character of the area, and that the designer had maintained compatibility with the neighbouring property by incorporating similar gable features on the garage; also acknowledged that the forestry concern was not within the Committee’s purview, as it fell under the responsibility of a different City department; believed the application met the 4 test under the Planning Act for the aforementioned reasons and those noted in the staff report.
J. Riddell supported the application; noted for the following reasons: noted that the delegate’s concerns focused on trees, which were not a matter the Committee could adjudicate on, as the variances before the Committee related instead to building height, building depth, the proposed 2.2‑metre garage projection, and the encroachments of the roof and walkway width; acknowledged that there had been extensive dialogue regarding the proposal and that the public’s democratic right to express concerns was a valid reason for placing the item on the regular agenda; further acknowledged that when neighbours were concerned about a development, the Committee owes it to the public to listen and understand those concerns; noted that while the proposed development initially raised questions, the lot coverage was approximately 26%, and the floor area ratio—although removed through the new Zoning By-law but still applicable in this instance—was below the permitted maximum; all six variances were minor in nature, and that the porch design cleverly disguised the projecting garage; noted that staff were supportive of the proposal; member concurred with the staff report and concluded that the application satisfied the four tests of the Planning Act.
E. Westerhof partially supported the application; noted for the following reasons: the member reviewed the application and conducted a site inspection, noted the evolving neighbourhood character as smaller homes transition to larger, more modern dwelling styles; had not heard sufficient information to support Variance 2, which sought an increased dwelling depth of 2.3 metres (7 feet); the increased depth raised concerns related to overlook and privacy for both the applicant and surrounding properties, as well as potential impacts on the maintenance and usability of the rear-yard amenity area; did not believe Variance 2 was minor and did not support the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law; Variances 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 satisfied the four tests of the Planning Act, but could not support Variance 2.
B. Ursel supported the application; noted for the following reasons: the member noted that variances 3, 4, 5, and 6 met the four tests of the Planning Act, as confirmed through the review of the staff report and the delegation at the hearing; primary concern related to Variance 1, the proposed building height, which raised questions about building massing; acknowledged the architect’s clever design work to mitigate perceived massing through angular distortion and expressed interest in seeing the development constructed; noted that variance 1 involved only a 10‑centimetre increase, which he agreed was minor in nature; with respect to Variance 2, member observed that the increased dwelling depth represented a significant change to the overall size of the structure compared to the existing home; noted that no variances were required for building footprint or the amount of space the structure was permitted to occupy; ultimately, member concluded that all variances satisfied the four tests of the Planning Act.
Chair partially supported the application; noted for the following reasons: was supportive of variances 1 through 5, noted that the lot was large and could comfortably accommodate the proposed development, each of which were considered minor in nature; expressed concern with variance 6, stating that it was not minor; acknowledged that the proposed development maintained a large square footage and represented an increase in built form, yet also noted that the proposal had not reached maximum permitted capacity; concern with Variance 6 remained significant and was unable to support it as it introduced a significant amount of hardscaping in the front yard that was not desirable or an appropriate use of the land.
Chair asked the Committee for a Motion for variances 1, 3, 4 and 5. Member Westerhof moved for approval with condition; Member Ursel seconded. All in favour; Carried.
Chair asked the Committee for a Motion for variance 2. Member Ursel moved for approval with condition; Member Riddell seconded.4 members supported; 1 member did not; Carried.
Chair asked the Committee for a Motion for variance 6. Member Ursel moved for approval with condition; Member Riddell seconded. 4 Members supported; 1 member did not; Carried.
Majority of Committee members voted that the variance application met the four tests of the Planning Act for similar reasons as the staff reports in the agenda and evidence presented at the hearing.
Chair read the decision; advised of the conditions and 20 day appeal period.