Ms. Barrie, Manager of Planning presented Report COA2022-017 on behalf of Mr. Stainton, Planner II, in his absence.
The purpose and effect is to request relief from Section 3.1.3.2 to increase the maximum allowable height for an accessory building (detached garage) in a residential zone from 5 metres to 6.5 metres.
The Committee had the following question:
Was the garage constructed without a building permit and brought forward as a result of a complaint? Ms. Barrie, Manager of Planning responded.
Ms. Murchison, Chief Building Official stated that a garage permit was issued and that the garage was constructed, then brought to the Building and Septic Division’s attention that the garage was taller than permitted by the Zoning By-Law. An investigation commenced to work with the property owner to correct the deficiency. The outstanding building permit mentioned in the report refers to the dwelling.
The Committee noted a letter of objection received by Mr. and Mrs. Barbosa, referencing their minor variance application for 15 Rockway Trail filed in 2020, was denied and asked on what grounds. Now a similar application is brought to the Committee looking for approval. The Committee asked staff to comment.
Ms. Barrie welcomed the member of public who raised the issues to articulate them and Staff will clarify and answer to the best of their knowledge during the meeting. Ms. Barrie brought to the Committees' attention that each application is evaluated on its own merits with policies as well as site specific circumstances of that property.
The applicant, Mr. deBoer of TD Consulting Inc. was present via electronic participation and summarized events, noting that the garage was constructed through a building permit. Mr. deBoer confirmed that the outstanding building permit on the property is for the dwelling and are dealing with the issues to rectify the deficiencies.
The Committee asked the applicant if there is habitable space in the upstairs of the proposed garage and was the gym and washroom addressed on the original applications. Mr. deBoer responded.
Committee asked staff if accessory buildings permit washrooms. Ms. Murchison replied a bathroom is permitted in an accessory structure.
In opposition to the application, Ms. Tracy Barbosa representing her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Barbosa of 15 Rockway Trail was present and spoke to the Committee via electronic participation. Ms. Barbosa asked the Committee to provide comment on the following:
1. How did the permit inspection department overlook the height of the structure of 285 Omega Road that is already built?
2. What are the ethical standards that the City departments have to meet and uphold for approving processing and denying these applications?
Ms. Barbosa requested that the application for 285 Omega Road be denied because of the incorrect message it sends to the public.
Ms. Barbosa finished by saying should this Committee approve this variance, her parents will exercise their legal rights in relation to their application being denied.
Ms. Barrie, Manager of Planning responded to Ms. Barbosa in terms of exercising the legal rights on denial of their application. The opportunity to exercise their rights on that refusal was through the 20 day appeal period following the decision made by the Committee of which no appeal was filed.
When reviewing minor variance applications, the planners are required to assess the circumstances as though the structure was not yet built. Various considerations are taken into account, geography, environment impact, municipal function, surrounding land uses and neighbours as well as is the proposal desirable and appropriate, maintaining the intent of the Zoning-By-Law and the Official Plan.
The Committee questioned comments from the Supervisor of Part 8 Sewage Systems, Building and Septic Division, asking if the septic system is adequate to include the washroom. Ms. Murchison advised she would speak with Ms. Elmhirst, Supervisor of Part 8 Sewage Systems for clarification.
Ms. Barbosa noted to the Committee that when her parent’s minor variance application was brought before the Committee, it was noted that the use for upstairs in the garage was for storage and without plumbing and was denied. The balcony was used to hang para-sails to dry.
The applicant, Mr. deBoer stated that speaking with the owner and contractor that the extra bathroom was discussed at the time with the Health Unit in order to accommodate the structure.
The Chair called for a break at 2:55pm.
The Chair resumed the meeting at 3:06pm.
The Chief Building Official spoke with Ms. Elmhirst, Supervisor of Part 8 Sewage Systems and reviewed the nature of her comments. Two points to note, whether the Planning Staff deem the upper floor habitable space or whether it remains as accessory space. That will dictate the route to address the plumbing question.
The applicant has to go through the application process with the septic team to recognize the plumbing and if this is considered habitable space, a full review may impact on the sewage system. If it is considered accessory space then a quick review of the system on site will accommodate it, but would have to go through the record update by going through a septic review.
The Committee asked the applicant and Chief Building Official if the height of the garage was included in the original plan.
Ms. Murchison replied that is correct.
Ms. Archer motioned to approve the application as amended to include a Condition 2.
That the Secretary-Treasurer receive confirmation from Building and Septic Division-Supervisor, Part 8 Sewage Systems that should a septic approval be required, that it be obtained.
Member Marsh spoke in opposition to the application. Member Strangway concurred with Member Marsh.
Councillor Yeo spoke in support of the application. The Chair agreed.