Ms. Evans summarized Report COA2025-014. The purpose and effect is recognize an existing gazebo. Relief sought: Section 8.2 j) of the Zoning By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33% of the lot area; the existing lot coverage is 35%; and, Section 5.1.4 b) of the Zoning By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback for accessory structures of 1.2 metres; the existing setback is 0.1 metres.
Ms. Evans gave a brief summary of the public concerns received from the neighbouring property, 42 Pavilion Road, regarding setbacks and impacts to privacy, which were provided to the Committee. Ms. Evans stated that the platform for the gazebo is classed as landscaping due to the height and does not require a setback. The applicant is seeking relief for the gazebo. Ms. Evans indicated that the fence attached to the platform is entirely contained on 55 Hazel Street. The fabric curtain attached to the gazebo is for privacy purposes between 55 Hazel Street and neighbouring property. The curtain has been secured to the gazebo to prevent it blowing over to the neighbour’s property.
The applicant, Ms. Ewing was present in person and available for questions. Ms. Ewing made the Committee aware that she owned the fence that is built within the subject property and not on the lot line.
In opposition to the application, Mr. D'Alessandro spoke to concerns, which were previously provided to the Committee disputing the definition of the platform classed as landscaping and hazards pertaining to the gazebo.
The Committee asked Mr. Lorenzo if the gazebo roof affects his sight lines. Mr. Lorenzo responded.
The Chair asked Ms. Evans if she had any response to comments made. Ms. Evans had no further comments.
Committee motioned to approve the application as recommended by staff.
Mover: E. Finn
Seconder: L. Robertson
The applicant, Ms. Ewing is of the opinion that she is being compliant. The complaint referred to the setback from the fence, which is contained on her property, and not from the lot line. Ms. Evans clarified Ms. Ewing's comments as to the gazebo being placed on the flattest portion of the property and explained that with the retaining wall, there are limitations as to how far the gazebo could be moved.
In opposition to the application, Ms. D'Alessandro was present in person and spoke to her concerns with the minor variance and that she had filed complaints with the Building Division and Municipal Law Enforcement.
The Chair asked Ms. Evans if she would like to respond. Ms. Evans indicated that when a complaint has been filed through the Municipal Law Enforcement Office and or Building Division, when appropriate the next step is to apply for a minor variance for non-compliance to be brought to the Committee of Adjustment for a decision.
The Committee asked staff, in order to rectify the concern, apart from expense, would there be an issue to build a new retaining wall closer to the house that would meet the Zoning By-laws. Ms. Evans responded that the owner would need a Site Alteration Permit to change the grade of their property and to see how it would affect neighbouring properties. Ms. Evans was of the opinion that the minor variance meets the four tests.
The Chair asked members who were in favour and opposed.
For: E. Finn, L. Robertson
Opposed: S. Strangway, S. Richardson and G. Erickson
Motion Failed.
Committee discussed the possibility of building a new retaining wall and move the deck and gazebo a metre away from the fence.
A new motion was proposed to defer the application to allow the owner time to inquire as to what is involved to move the retaining wall/gazebo and costs. The Committee discussed a time line of two (2) months.
There were no further questions from the Committee or other persons.