Agenda - City of Brampton

2020 07 07 of 8

JULY 7, 2020 9:00 A.M.

COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4TH FLOOR, CITY HALL

MEMBERS: Ron Chatha, Chair

Desiree Doerfler, Vice Chair

Ana Cristina Marques

David Colp

Rod Power

STAFF: Shelby Swinfield, Development Planner

Nitika Jagtiani, Development Planner

Noel Cubacub, Development Planner

Nasir Mahmood, Development Planner

Kelly Henderson, Development Planner

David Vanderberg, Manager, Development Services

Elizabeth Corazzola, Manager, Zoning and Sign By-Law Services

Jeanie Myers, Secretary-Treasurer

ADOPTION OF MINUTES: Minutes of meeting held March 3, 2020 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT:

WITHDRAWALS/DEFERRALS:

NEW MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS

(1)

A18-167 9352791 CANADA INC. PT. OF LOT 14, CONC. 4 EHS

10788 BRAMALEA ROAD

WARD 9

The applicant is requesting the following variances:

1. To permit a dental office and two additional offices whereas the by-law does not permit a dental office and permits only one office;

Agenda

Committee of Adjustment

Committee of Adjustment Agenda

2020 07 07 of 8

2. To permit a maximum gross floor area of 297 square metres whereas the by-law permits a

maximum gross floor area of 258 square metres;

3. To permit a canopy to encroach 1.5m (4.92 ft.) into the required front yard setback whereas the by-law permits a maximum encroachment of 0.5m (1.64 ft.) into the required front yard setback;

4. To permit a 0 metre landscape strip (in the area of the shared access) adjacent to a residential zone whereas the by-law requires a minimum 0.6 metre wide landscape strip adjacent to a residential zone;

5. To permit a 0.3 metre and a 0.6 metre wide landscape strip adjacent to an institutional zone whereas the by-law requires a minimum 1.2 metre wide landscape strip adjacent to an institutional zone.

(2)

A-2020-0012 BRAMALEA ROAD PHASE TWO PT. OF BLOCK C, PLAN 636

HOLDINGS LIMITED 68 BRAMALEA ROAD

WARD 7


1. To permit a Day Nursery and associated outdoor play area whereas the by-law does not permit

the proposed use;

2. To provide no additional parking spaces for the proposed new use (Day Nursery) whereas the by-

law requires parking to be provided at a rate of 1 parking space for each employee plus 1

additional parking space for each 10 children capacity.

(3)

A-2020-0024 JATINDERPAL SINGH RUPAL LOT 31, PLAN M-296

PTS. 15 & 16, PLAN 43R-7828

26 DAFOE CRESCENT

WARD 4


1. To permit an exterior stairway leading to a below grade entrance in the required interior side yard

whereas the by-law does not permit exterior stairways constructed below established grade in the

required interior side yard;


2020 07 07 of 8

2. To permit an interior side yard setback of 0.3m (0.98 ft.) to the exterior stairway leading to a below

grade entrance whereas the by-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback of

1.2m (3.94 ft.);

3. To permit a 0.3m (0.98ft.) path of travel from the front wall of the dwelling to an existing side door

to be used as a primary access to a registered second unit whereas the by-law requires an

unobstructed 1.2m (3.94 ft.) path of travel from the front wall of the dwelling to a primary access to

a second unit.

(4)

A-2020-0025 HARPREET LUTHRA AND PT. OF LOT 5, CONC. 9 N. D.

AMARJIT BADWAL 8888 THE GORE ROAD

WARD 8

The applicants are requesting the following variances:

1. To permit a home occupation (medical office) to occupy 30% of the gross floor area of the dwelling

whereas the by-law limits the area associated with a home occupation to a maximum of 15% of

the floor area of the dwelling;

2. To permit a medical office as a home occupation in a two-unit dwelling whereas the by-law only

permits a medical office as a home occupation in a single detached dwelling.

(5)

A-2020-0026 JAMES MEDEIROS LOT 44, PLAN 43M-1314

62 PORCHLIGHT ROAD

WARD 5


1. To permit an existing accessory structure (shed 1) having a gross floor area of 24.6 sq. m (264.80

sq. ft.) whereas the by-law permits a maximum gross floor area of 15 sq. m (161.46 sq. ft.) for an

individual accessory structure;

2. To permit an existing accessory structure (shed 1) having a maximum building height of 3.17m

(10.40 ft.) whereas the by-law permits a maximum building height of 3.0m (9.84 ft.) for an

accessory structure;

3. To permit an existing accessory structure (shed 3) having a setback of 2.4m (7.87 ft.) to a

Floodplain zone whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of 5.0m (16.40 ft.) from a

Floodplain zone;


2020 07 07 of 8

4. To permit three (3) existing accessory structures (sheds 1, 2 and 3) having a combined gross

floor area of 35.7 sq. m (384.27 sq. ft.) whereas the by-law permits two (2) accessory structures

with a combined gross floor area of 20 sq. m (215.28 sq. ft.).

(6)

A-2020-0027 JAGVINDER LALLY PT. OF LOT 14, CONC. 6, EHS

GURMIT KAUR LALLY 10705 TORBRAM ROAD

SAJJAN SINGH LALLY WARD 10


1. To permit a home occupation (stamped concrete business) to occupy an area within a dwelling

that is equal to 10% of the floor area within the existing dwelling plus an additional 112 square

metres of storage area in the existing barn whereas the by-law limits the area associated with a

home occupation to a maximum of 15% of the floor area of the dwelling;

2. To permit outside storage in conjunction with the home occupation limited to two (2) utility trailers

whereas the by-law does not permit outside storage;

3. To permit a fence in the front yard having a height of 1.8m (5.90 ft.) whereas the by-law permits a

maximum height of 1.0m (3.28 ft.).

Note: The variances authorized by the Ontario Municipal Board (PL131028) by an Order issued on

December 16, 2014 for a temporary period of five (5) years have expired.

(7)

A-2020-0028 ALI ZAYED PT. OF LOT 7, CONC. 6, WHS

9362 HERITAGE ROAD

WARD 6


1. Relief from Interim Control By-law 306-2003 to permit construction of a new (replacement) 2 storey dwelling whereas Interim Control By-law 306-2003 prohibits the erection of new buildings or structures;

2. To rebuild and enlarge a legal non-conforming dwelling (destroyed by fire) whereas the by-law

does not permit the expansion of the existing non-conforming residential use in a Floodplain zone.


2020 07 07 of 8

(8)

A-2020-0029 BARTOLOMEO Di GIOVANNI LOT 242, PLAN 43M-820

CONNIE Di GIOVANNI 27 LEEWARD DRIVE

WARD 7


1. To permit an existing exterior stairway leading to a below grade entrance in the required interior

side yard whereas the by-law does not permit exterior stairways constructed below established

grade in the required interior side yard;

2. To permit an interior side yard setback 0.77m (2.53 ft.) to an existing below grade entrance

whereas the by-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.2m (3.94 ft.);

3. To permit an existing open roofed porch to encroach 2.65m (8.69 ft.) into the required rear yard

resulting in a setback of 5.1m (16.73 ft.) whereas the by-law permits a maximum encroachment of

1.8m (5.91 ft.) resulting in a rear yard setback of 5.95m (19.52 ft.);

4. To permit a side yard setback of 1.02m (3.35 ft.) to an existing accessory structure (shed) whereas

the by-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.2m (3.94 ft.);

5. To permit a lot coverage of 36.5% whereas the by-law permits maximum lot coverage of 30%.

(9)

A-2020-0030 SURINDER KOHLI PT. OF LOT 5, CONC. 4, WHS

HARPREET KOHLI 8892 CREDITVIEW ROAD

HASMEET SINGH KOHLI WARD 4

The applicants are requesting the following variance:

1. To permit interior side yard setbacks of 3.0m (9.84 ft.) for both side yards whereas the by-law

requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 7.5m (24.60 ft.).

(10)

A-2020-0032 VIKRAMDITYA MAITY PT. OF LOT 18, PLAN M-524

MALINI ROY 9 VALONIA DRIVE

WARD 1



2020 07 07 of 8

1. To permit an exterior stairway leading to a proposed below grade entrance in the required interior

side yard whereas the by-law does not permit exterior stairways constructed below established

grade in the required interior side yard;

2. To permit an interior side yard setback of 0.9m (2.95 ft.) to the exterior stairway leading to a

proposed below grade entrance whereas the by-law requires an interior side yard setback of 1.2m

(3.94 ft.).

(11)

A-2020-034 939805 ONTARIO INC. PEEL CONDOMINIUM PLAN 298

LEVEL 1, UNITS 13 & 14

20 STRATHEARN AVE., UNITS 13 & 14

WARD 7

The applicant is requesting the following variance:

1. To permit motor vehicle sales in conjunction with the existing motor vehicle repair shop, exclusive

to Units 13 and 14, limited to three (3) vehicles stored inside whereas the by-law does not permit

motor vehicle sales.

(12)

A-2020-035 MINUK DEVELOPMENTS INC. PT. OF LOTS 9 & 10, CONC. 6, EHS

PT. 3, PLAN 43R-33490

2700 NORTH PARK DR

UNITS 13, 14 AND 15

WARD 8


1. To permit a third dining room restaurant on site (Units 13, 14 and 15) whereas the by-law permits

a maximum of two (2) dining room restaurants.

(13)

A-2020-0036 PARKSIDE BUILDING GROUP INC. PT. LOT 10, CONC. 2 WHS

165-235 FLETCHER’S CREEK BLVD.

WARD 5

The applicant is requesting the following variance(s):


2020 07 07 of 8

1. To permit a Day Nursery and associated play area whereas the by-law does not permit the

proposed use.

(14)

A-2020-0037 RAJESH BATRA, RAMINI BATRA PT. OF BLOCK 44, PLAN 43M-829

DUDAHANSHU BATRA AND 105 NAPERTON DRIVE

NAYANK BATRA WARD 9

The applicants are requesting the following variance:

1. To permit a proposed below grade entrance between the main wall of the dwelling and the

flankage lot line whereas the by-law does not permit a below grade entrance to be located

between the main wall of the dwelling and the flankage lot line.

(15)

A-2020-0038 GURSHARAN TOOR LOT 13, PLAN 378

PARMINDER TOOR 8188 GOREWOOD DRIVE

WARD 8

The applicants are requesting the following variance(s):

1. To permit outside storage on vacant lands (storage of truck trailers, trailer chassis and

construction material whereas the by-law does not permit the proposed use.

(16)

A-2020-0039 QUADSPRING INC. PT. OF LOT 16, CONC. 2 WHS

756/766 WANLESS DRIVE

WARD 6

1. To permit a Gross Floor area of 1806 square metres whereas the by-law permit a maximum gross floor area of 1470 square metres;

2. To permit an outdoor play ground associated with a permitted day nursery to encroach into the required setback to the west property line, whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback from the west property line, including an outdoor play area associated with a day nursery, of 2 metres;


2020 07 07 of 8

3. To permit an outdoor play ground associated with a permitted day nursery to encroach into the required rear yard depth, whereas the by-law requires a minimum rear yard depth, including an outdoor plan area associated with a day nursery, of 34 metres.

DEFERRED MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS

(17)

A19-200 3713442 ONTARIO INC. BLOCK 3, PLAN 43M-1907

0 ACE DRIVE

WARD 9

The applicant is requesting the following variance(s):

1. To permit motor vehicle sales and leasing establishments with accessory motor vehicle repair and the outdoor display and storage of vehicles for sale whereas the by-law does not permit the proposed use;

2. To permit a free standing motor vehicle body shop/collision centre (within Area “C” as depicted on

the public notice sketch) whereas the by-law does not permit the proposed use.

(18)

A-2020-0003 SUKHDEV SINGH PANDHER PT. OF LOTS 10 & 11, CONC.6 WHS

2838 BOVAIRD DRIVE WEST

WARD 6


1. To permit an educational camp to operate year-round, including use of the existing buildings on

the property, whereas the by-law does not permit the use.

Note: Approval was granted under application A19-051 to permit a summer educational camp to operate throughout the months of July and August and also on those weekdays that the Peel District School Board and the Dufferin Peel Separate School Board have no classes scheduled, including but not limited to professional development days and March Break. ADJOURNMENT:

+

+`

000000

COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATIONS FOR JULY 7, 2020 HEARING

A-2020-0024

A-2020-0034

A-2020-0025

A-2020-0038

A-2020-0036

A18-167

A-2020-0026

Deferred

A-2020-0003

A-2020-0032

A-2020-0030

A-2020-0012

A-2020-0029

A-2020-0027

A-2020-0035

A-2020-0028

Deferred

A19-200

A-2020-0037 A-2020-0039

2020 03 03 Page 1 of 34

MARCH 3, 2020 9:00 A.M.

COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4TH FLOOR - CITY HALL

MEMBERS: Ron Chatha, Chair

Desiree Doerfler, Vice Chair

Ana Cristina Marques

David Colp

Rod Power

STAFF: Shelby Swinfield, Development Planner

Tejinder Sidhu, Development Planner

Nasir Mahmood, Development Planner

Stephen Dykstra, Development Planner

Kevin Freeman, Development Planner

Carmen Caruso, Central Area Planner

Krista Walkey, Manager, Development Services

Elizabeth Corazzola, Manager, Zoning and Sign By-Law Services

Jeanie Myers, Secretary-Treasurer

ADOPTION OF MINUTES:

Moved by R. Power Seconded by D. Doerfler

THAT the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment hearing held February 11, 2020 be approved,

as printed and circulated.

CARRIED

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST UNDER THE MUNICIPAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT: None WITHDRAWALS/DEFERRALS: A-2020-0010 10179469 CANADA INC. PT. OF BLOCK 2, PLAN M-863

73 SUN PAC BOULEVARD

WARD 8

Committee was in receipt of a letter dated March 2, 2020 from Aryan Sharma, authorized agent for

the applicant, requesting a deferral of application A-2020-0010 to the hearing scheduled for April

Minutes

Committee of Adjustment

Committee of Adjustment Minutes

2020 03 03 Page 2 of 34

14, 2020. Mr. Sharma was in attendance to acknowledge the request for a deferral advising that

they are not asking for approval in perpetuity but rather for a limited time. He requested a deferral

to amend the application to reflect the request for a temporary period.

Staff advised that the application should be heard today and that a refusal is recommended

expressing that it does not seem like a temporary request but rather a permanent request.

Mr. Sharma responded that securities were posted and released in 2017 adding that they were

under the impression that all the work had been completed. He commented that if not complete

then the securities should not have been released. He advised that there is only the landscaping

that remains and if approval is granted construction will proceed.

Committee noted that it has been ten years of temporary approvals and that things have not

changed a lot. Staff expressed that site improvements have not been implemented in seven years

noting that the required accessible parking has not been implemented.

Committee commented that the site has been poorly managed and that staff have been lenient

over ten years. It was noted that the property is in the middle of the City and the character of the

neighbourhood has changed.

Mr. Sharma explained that in 2017 the previous owner sold to the current owner noting that the

new owner was unaware that the work was incomplete. Committee suggested that the application

be deferred for one month noting that it would be realistic if the applicant can provide something

tangible for committee to work with. Mr. Sharma advised that he will put something together.

Timelines were discussed for a deferral following which committee reached the following decision:

Moved by D. Colp Seconded by A. C Marques

THAT application A-2020-0010 be deferred to the hearing date of May 5, 2020.

CARRIED

A-2020-0013 KARAN JOSHAN/ LOT 117, PLAN 43M-1386

GURNISH HOTHI 1 RIGGS DRIVE

ROJINDER HOTHI WARD 6

The Chair announced that staff recommends deferral of application A-2020-0013. Mr. Mazhar

Raja, authorized agent for the applicant, addressed committee advising that they are aware of

proposed changes to the by-law but his client has some restrictions and is requesting to proceed

with the application.

Staff advised that it is recommended that the application be deferred to the meeting of June 16,

2020 informing committee that policy staff are currently working on putting a report forward to


2020 03 03 Page 3 of 34

council which would eliminate the requirement for a third parking space as part of the registration

for a two unit dwelling. Staff advised that the matter has gone to a public meeting and is expected

to proceed to council for adoption in June. Staff expressed that if council does not lift the

restriction staff will have more information at that time to make a better decision.

In response to a questions raised by Committee staff confirmed that the landscaping does not

comply and the applicant does not satisfy the minimum size requirement for a third parking space.

Mr. Mazhar advised that there have been similar applications considered by the committee for the

same circumstances advising that he recalls three such applications. The Chair pointed out that

each application is evaluated separately. In response to a question posed by committee staff

advised that if the application proceeds it would be the recommendation of staff that the application

be refused. Discussion continued on whether to defer the application or proceed. Mr. Mazhar

reluctantly consented to a deferral of the application.

Following discussion committee reached the following decision:

Moved by R. Power Seconded by D. Doerfler

THAT application A-2020-0013 be deferred to the hearing date of June 16, 2020.

CARRIED

NEW CONSENT APPLICATIONS (1) B-2020-0005 FORESTSIDE ESTATES INC. BLOCK 7, PLAN 43M-2068

NORTH OF ATTMAR DRIVE, EAST OF PALLESCHI DRIVE

WARD 8

The purpose of the application is to request the consent of the Committee of Adjustment to sever

approximately 0.025 hectares (0.062 acres) from a parcel of land currently having a total area of

approximately 1.167 hectares (2.88 acres). The effect of the application is to provide for a lot addition

to the adjacent land legally described as Block 8, Plan 43M-2068 currently owned by Forestside

Estates Inc. to facilitate future residential development.

Mr. Erik Mirtsou, Candevcon Limited, authorized agent for the applicant, appeared before

committee presenting application B-2020-0005 explaining that the proposed lot addition will result

in a portion of land being severed from one block to be merged with the adjoining block on

registered Plan 43M-2068

Committee was informed that City of Brampton planning staff had no objection to the approval of

application B-2020-0005 from a planning land use perspective with conditions including those of

the Secretary-Treasurer.


2020 03 03 Page 4 of 34

Mr. Mirtsou indicated that the proposed conditions were acceptable.

The Committee, having regard to those matters under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act

R.S.O. 1990, c P.13, as amended and having considered the comments and recommendations of

the commenting agencies, the proposed draft conditions and the evidence heard at the meeting,

reached the following decision:

Moved by A. C. Marques Seconded by R. Power THAT application B-2020-0005 to sever approximately 0.025 hectares (0.062 acres) from a parcel

of land currently having a total area of approximately 1.167 hectares (2.88 acres) to provide for a

lot addition be approved for the following reasons and subject to the following conditions:

1. A Secretary-Treasurer’s certificate fee shall be paid, in the amount current at the time of the

issuance of the Secretary-Treasurer’s Certificate. 2. 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.

3. Subsection 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 as amended, shall apply to any

subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the parcel of land that is the subject of this consent.

4. A solicitor’s undertaking shall be received indicating that the “severed” land and the abutting

land, being Part of Block 7, Plan 43M-2068, shall be “merged” for Planning Act purposes at the time of the registration of the Transfer to which the Secretary-Treasurer’s Certificate is affixed.

5. An undertaking shall be received from a solicitor confirming that the legal description of the

“resultant” lot and the legal description in any mortgage(s) encumbering the “resultant” lot will be identical within four (4) weeks of the date of the Secretary-Treasurer’s Certificate under the Planning Act; or alternatively, that no part of the “resultant” lot is encumbered by any mortgage(s). (The “resultant” lot is the “severed” land and the land to which the “severed” land is to be merged.)

REASONS: 1. This decision reflects that regard has been had to those matters to be regarded under the

Planning Act, in as much as the dimensions and shape of the lot are adequate for the uses proposed.

2. Subject to the imposed conditions, the consent to the conveyance will not adversely affect the

existing or proposed development. CARRIED


2020 03 03 Page 5 of 34

(2)

B-2020-0006 1214446 ONTARIO INC. PART OF LOT 4, CONC. 2 EHS 89 HEART LAKE ROAD SOUTH

WARD 3

The purpose of the application is to request consent to sever a parcel of land currently having a total

area of approximately 15,500 square metres (3.83 acres). The proposed “severed parcel” has a depth

of approximately 72.7 metres (238.52 feet), a width of approximately 71.63 metres (235 feet) and an

area of approximately 2,751 square metres (0.68 acres). The effect of the application is to provide for

a lot addition to the adjacent lands, currently owned by 2494747 Ontario Ltd. to facilitate a condition

of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

Ms. Neil Davis, Davis Webb LLP, authorized agent for the applicant, appeared before committee

presenting application B-2020-0006 advising that his client has owned the property from which

business is conducted since 1996. He explained that the subject site backs onto the property

owned by 2494747 Ontario Limited and that there is a tributary which goes through the property as

well as an easement in place in favor of the City for storm water management.

Mr. Davis advised that the purpose of the application is to provide a lot addition to the neighbouring

property on Rutherford Road informing Committee that the neighbours have had use of the

property without permission and they have come to an agreement to sell the proposed severed

parcel. He confirmed upon question from Committee that there is an agreement of purchase and

sale conditional on the approval of the subject application.

Committee sought clarification on the municipal address of the adjacent property noting the

reference to difference addresses by the applicant and staff. Mr. Davis responded that they have

made attempts to verify the address and he accepts that the property is addressed as 98 – 100

Rutherford Road South.

Mr. Davis made reference to a letter submitted by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in

which it is stated that TRCA has no objection to the application.

Committee acknowledged receipt of a letter dated February 25, 2020 from Toronto and Region

Conservation Authority indicating no objection to application B-2020-0006.

Committee was informed that City of Brampton planning staff recommends deferral of application

B-2020-0006. Staff referenced the letter from TRCA advising that staff requires time to evaluate

the comments regarding a 10 metre buffer of any new development to the greatest extent of the

Natural System.

Mr. Davis stated that staff are recommending a deferral to create a new severance line pointing out

that TRCA has stated in the commenting letter that they have no objection to the application. He

informed Committee that he spoke with the person who provided the commenting letter and noted

that TRCA is not looking to change the severance line and that within the regulatory framework

TRCA has authority to enforce the required buffer for any new development. He explained that to


2020 03 03 Page 6 of 34

change the severance line would create a buffer area that they could not get to or police pointing

out that he would no longer have a contract.

Committee posed a question to staff inquiring if they could put together a condition that would

allow the applicant to move forward and address the comments pertaining to the buffer. Staff

responded that they are unable to impose a condition on the severed lands and that they can only

impose a condition on the retained lands.

Mr. Davis submitted that it would be a reach for the City to impose a condition on behalf of the

Conservation Authority. He informed Committee that the comments from TRCA have been

provided to the adjacent property owner who is well aware.

Discussion took place on a condition to include with the draft conditions of approval prepared by

the Secretary-Treasurer. A condition requiring an acknowledgement letter from the property owner

at 98 – 100 Rutherford Road South confirming they are aware of the requirement from Toronto and

Region Conservation Authority of a 10 metre buffer setback from any new development to the

greatest extent of the Natural System was suggested as well as an additional condition pertaining

to commenting fees be provided to TRCA.

Following discussion, Mr. Davis indicated that the proposed conditions, as amended, were

acceptable.

The Committee, having regard to those matters under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c P.13, as amended and having considered the comments and recommendations of the commenting agencies, the proposed draft conditions and the evidence heard at the meeting, reached the following decision: Moved by D. Colp Seconded by A. C. Marques THAT application B-2020-0006 to sever a parcel of land to provide for a lot addition to the adjacent

lands, currently owned by 2494747 Ontario Ltd. to facilitate a condition of an Agreement of Purchase

and Sale be approved for the following reasons and subject to the following conditions:

1. A Secretary-Treasurer’s certificate fee shall be paid, in the amount current at the time of the

issuance of the Secretary-Treasurer’s Certificate;

2. 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;

3. Subsection 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 as amended, shall apply to any

subsequent conveyance or transaction involving the parcel of land that is the subject of this consent;

4. A solicitor’s undertaking shall be received indicating that the “severed” land and the abutting

land, being Part of Lot 4, Concession 2 EHS, shall be “merged” for Planning Act purposes at


2020 03 03 Page 7 of 34

the time of the registration of the Transfer to which the Secretary-Treasurer’s Certificate is affixed;

5. An undertaking shall be received from a solicitor confirming that the legal description of the

“resultant” lot and the legal description in any mortgage(s) encumbering the “resultant” lot will be identical within four (4) weeks of the date of the Secretary-Treasurer’s Certificate under the Planning Act; or alternatively, that no part of the “resultant” lot is encumbered by any mortgage(s). (The “resultant” lot is the “severed” land and the land to which the “severed” land is to be merged.);

6. That an acknowledgement letter from the property owner at 98 – 100 Rutherford Road

South be provided confirming they are aware of the requirement from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority of a 10 metre buffer setback from any new development to the greatest extent of the Natural System; and

7. That the applicant provide the required $1400.00 review fee to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

REASONS:

1. This decision reflects that regard has been had to those matters to be regarded under the Planning Act, in as much as the dimensions and shape of the lot are adequate for the uses proposed.

2. Subject to the imposed conditions, the consent to the conveyance will not adversely affect the

existing or proposed development. CARRIED

NEW MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATIONS

(3)

A-2020-0007 ERJIE ZHAO LOT 8, PLAN 43M-771

12 NEW LONDON COURT

WARD 4


1. To permit an exterior stairway leading to a below grade entrance in the required interior side yard whereas the by-law does not permit exterior stairways constructed below established grade in the required interior side yard;

2. To permit an interior side yard setback of 0.83m (2.72 ft.) to the exterior stairway leading to a below grade entrance whereas the by-law requires an interior side yard setback of 1.2m (3.94 ft.);


2020 03 03 Page 8 of 34

3. To permit an accessory structure (shed) having a rear yard setback of 0.0 metres whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of 0.6m (1.97 ft.) to all property lines.

Mr. Erjie Zhao, applicant and owner of the property, appeared before committee, briefly outlining

the variances requested. Mr. Zhao was accompanied by his brother and sister.

Committee acknowledged receipt of a letter dated February 25, 2020 from Credit Valley

Conservation indicating no objection to application A-2020-0007.

Committee was informed that City of Brampton planning staff was in support of this application with

conditions.

Mr. Zhao indicated that the proposed conditions were acceptable. The Committee, having considered the comments and recommendations of the commenting agencies, the proposed draft conditions and the evidence heard at the meeting, reached the following decision: Moved by R. Power Seconded by D. Doerfler THAT application A-2020-0007 to permit an exterior stairway leading to a below grade entrance in

the required interior side yard; to permit an interior side yard setback of 0.83m (2.72 ft.) to the

exterior stairway leading to a below grade entrance and to permit an accessory structure (shed)

having a rear yard setback of 0.0 metres be approved for the following reasons and subject to the

following conditions:

1. That the extent of the variances be limited to that shown on the sketch attached to the Public Notice;

2. That drainage on adjacent properties shall not be adversely affected;

3. That the below grade entrance shall not be used to access and unregistered second unit; and

4. That failure to comply with and maintain the conditions of the Committee shall render the

approval null and void.

Reasons: The decision reflects that in the opinion of the Committee:

1. The variance authorized is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure referred to in the application, and

2. The general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law and City of Brampton Official Plan are maintained and the variance is minor.

CARRIED


2020 03 03 Page 9 of 34

(4)

A-2020-0008 DIONE McPHERSON LOT 374, PLAN M-817

156 MAJOR WILLIAM SHARPE DRIVE

WARD 5


1. To permit an exterior stairway leading to a below grade entrance in the required interior side yard whereas the by-law does not permit exterior stairways constructed below established grade in the required interior side yard;

2. To permit an interior side yard setback of 0.42m (1.38 ft.) to the exterior stairway leading to

a below grade entrance whereas the by-law requires an interior side yard setback of 1.2m (3.94 ft.).

3. To permit an existing driveway width of 7.67m (25.16 ft.) whereas the by-law permits a maximum driveway width of 6.71m (22 ft.);

4. To permit a rear yard setback of 3.73m (12.24 ft.) to an existing deck whereas the by-law

requires a minimum rear yard setback of 4.66m (15.29 ft.); 5. To permit an interior side yard setback of 1.06m (3.48 ft.) to an existing deck whereas the

by-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.2m (3.94 f.t).

Mr. Kyle Hosseini, KBK Architects Inc., authorized agent for the applicant, appeared before

committee presenting application A-2020-0008 explaining that the applicant purchased the

property in 2008 with the existing below grade entrance, an attached shed and a deck. He advised

that they were surprised to learn the construction occurred without the benefit of a building permit

noting that the applicant is agreeable to demolish the shed. It was his submission that it makes

sense to keep the entrance and stairs in terms of cost and functionality.

Committee was informed that City of Brampton planning staff was in support of this application, in

part, with conditions. Committee noted that during site inspection to the property the stairs were

not maintained and were not safe.

Ms. Dione McPherson, owner of the property, addressed committee advising that the stairs are not

maintained as they are not currently being used noting that she wants to bring the property into

compliance. With respect to the driveway width she advised that they would like an approval as

they don’t want vehicles overhanging the driveway or sidewalk.

Committee inquired if there are any orders to comply on the property. Staff confirmed that there

were earlier orders against the previous owner and prosecution was withdrawn. Staff clarified that

the nature of the variance is not to reduce the path of travel noting that the applicant does have

four feet. Staff advised that the entrance would qualify as an entrance to a second unit.


2020 03 03 Page 10 of 34

Committee noted that the applicant is trying to improve the property and looked to staff for

conditions that could be imposed if the application is approved. Staff revisited the proposed

conditions and suggested modified wording.

Mr. Hosseini indicated that the proposed conditions, as amended, were acceptable. The Committee, having considered the comments and recommendations of the commenting agencies, the proposed draft conditions and the evidence heard at the meeting, reached the following decision: Moved by R. Power Seconded by D. Doerfler THAT application A-2020-0008 to permit an exterior stairway leading to a below grade entrance in

the required interior side yard; to permit an interior side yard setback of 0.42m (1.38 ft.) to the

exterior stairway leading to a below grade entrance; to permit an existing driveway width of 7.67m

(25.16 ft.); to permit a rear yard setback of 3.73m (12.24 ft.) to an existing deck and to permit an

interior side yard setback of 1.06m (3.48 ft.) to an existing deck be approved for the following

reasons and subject to the following conditions:

1. That Variances 1 and 2 be approved and the existing roofed structure above the existing

stairway leading to a below grade entrance be removed within 180 days of the final date of

the Committee’s decision, and the owner shall demonstrate said reinstatement to the

satisfaction of the Director of Developments Services;

2. That Variance 3, to permit an existing driveway width of 7.67m (25.16 ft.) be refused and the

driveway be reinstated to the maximum permitted 6.71m (22 ft.) width within 180 days of the

final date of the Committee’s decision, and the owner shall demonstrate said reinstatement

to the satisfaction of the Director of Development services;

3. That the owner shall obtain a building permit for the rear yard deck, existing stairway and

below grade entrance within ninety (90) days of the final date of the Committee’s decision;

4. That drainage on adjacent properties shall not be adversely affected;

5. That the extent of the variances be limited to that shown on the sketch attached to the Public

Notice;

6. That the below grade entrance shall not be used to access an unregistered second unit; and





2020 03 03 Page 11 of 34


2. The general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law and City of Brampton Official Plan are

maintained and the variance is minor. CARRIED

(5)

A-2020-0009 RAVI BHUSHAN LOT 248, PLAN 43M-792

100 GATESGILL STREET

WARD 5


1. To permit an existing at grade side door having a setback of 0.9m (2.95 ft.) to an interior side

lot line whereas the by-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.2m (3.94 ft.);

2. To permit a 0.9m (2.95 ft.) path of travel from the font wall of the dwelling to an existing side

door to be used as a primary access to a second dwelling unit whereas the by-law requires

an unobstructed 1.2m (3.94 ft.) path of travel from the front wall of a dwelling to a primary

access to a second unit.

Mr. Ravi Bhushan, applicant and owner of the property, appeared before committee presenting

application A-2020-0009. He explained that he is in the process of legalizing his basement noting

that the entrance is existing with a setback that does not meet the by-law requirements.


part, with conditions.

Mr. Bhushan responded that he understands the recommended conditions but requests

consideration for approval of variance 2. He remarked that he has a lot of things to do at the rear

of the property and an entrance at the rear would impact his privacy as it will be shared with the

tenants.

Committee explained for the benefit of Mr. Bhushan that staff are supportive of the entrance but

the path of travel is reduced and not supported by staff. Mr. Bhushan was advised that he could

not use the entrance as a primary access to a second unit.

Staff advised that a requirement for a principal entrance is that a 1.2 metre path of travel be

provided explaining that staff are O.K. with the door being used as a secondary entrance but not

as a primary entrance.

Following discussion, Mr. Bhushan indicated that the proposed conditions were acceptable. The Committee, having considered the comments and recommendations of the commenting agencies, the proposed draft conditions and the evidence heard at the meeting, reached the following decision:


2020 03 03 Page 12 of 34

Moved by R. Power Seconded by A. C. Marques THAT application A-2020-0009 to permit an existing at grade side door having a setback of 0.9m (2.95 ft.) to an interior side lot line and to permit a 0.9m (2.95 ft.) path of travel from the font wall of the dwelling to an existing side door to be used as a primary access to a second dwelling unit be approved for the following reasons and subject to the following conditions:

1. That Variance 2 be refused;

2. The at-grade side door entrance shall not be used as the primary entrance to access a second dwelling unit;

3. The owner shall obtain a building permit within sixty (60) days of the decision of approval;

and,

4. That the extent of Variance 1 be limited to that shown on the sketch attached to the public notice.




CARRIED (6)

A-2020-0011 INZOLA CUMBERLAND INC. PT. OF LOTS 15 TO 18,

AND LOTS 44 TO 48, PLAN BR-5

145 QUEEN ST. EAST/

15 LYNCH STREET

WARD 3

The applicant is requesting a variance to permit a rear yard setback of 1.0m (3.28 ft.) to a

proposed transformer whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of 2.0m (6.56 ft.).

Mr. Marc De Nardis, Gagnon Walker Domes Ltd., authorized agent for the applicant, appeared

before committee presenting application A-2020-0011 explaining that the project dates back to

2016 and the variance is requested in order to secure site plan approval. Mr. De Nardis advised

that the building is under construction and displayed a rendering showing the future perspective

explaining that the hydro transformer will be located behind a 25 storey condominium tower.


conditions.


2020 03 03 Page 13 of 34

Mr. De Nardis indicated that the proposed conditions were acceptable. The Committee, having considered the comments and recommendations of the commenting agencies, the proposed draft conditions and the evidence heard at the meeting, reached the following decision: Moved by A. C. Marques Seconded by D. Colp THAT application A-2020-0011 to permit a rear yard setback of 1.0m (3.28 ft.) to a proposed transformer be approved for the following reasons and subject to the following conditions:


2. That the owner finalize site plan approval under City File SP17-036.00 execute a site plan

agreement, and post any required financial securities and insurance to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services within 180 days;

3. That landscape treatment be provided to screen the hydro transformer from John Street, and

landscape details shall be confirmed through site plan approval to the satisfaction of the Director of Environment and Development Engineering; and


approval null and void Reasons: The decision reflects that in the opinion of the Committee:




(7)

A-2020-0014 760298 CANADA INC. PT. OF BLOCKS C, D, K and M,

PLAN 848; PT. OF BLOCK K, PLAN

720, PTS. 1 TO 5, PLAN 43R-194

131 EAST DRIVE

WARD 7

Neither the applicant nor the authorized agent representing the applicant was in attendance when

the application was called. In accordance with Committee procedure the application was placed at

the end of the agenda to be recalled.


2020 03 03 Page 14 of 34

(8)

A-2020-0016 GHULAM JOWIA/ PT. OF LOT 5, CONC. 6 WHS

SHUMAIZA JAVED 2611 EMPLETON ROAD

WARD 6


1. To permit a landscaping business with associated outside storage as a home occupation whereas the by-law does not permit the use and the home occupation does not maintain compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Section 6-12 provision for home occupations;

2. To permit an existing accessory structure (Shed 1) having a gross floor area of 61 sq. m

(656.60 sq. ft.) whereas the by-law permits a maximum gross floor area of 23 sq. m (247.60 sq. ft.) for an individual accessory structure;

3. To permit an existing accessory structure (Shed 2) having a gross floor area of 60 sq. m

(645.83 sq. ft.) whereas the by-law permits a maximum gross floor area of 23 sq. m (247.60 sq. ft.) for an individual accessory structure;

4. To permit two (2) existing accessory structures (Shed 1 and Shed 2) having a combined gross floor area of 121 sq. m (1,302.43 sq. ft.) whereas the by-law permits a maximum combined gross floor area of 40 sq. m (430.56 sq. ft.);

5. To permit two (2) existing accessory structures (Shed 1 and Shed 2) located wholly or partially within the interior side yard whereas the by-law only permits an accessory structure to be located in the rear yard.

Mr. Ghulam Jowia, applicant and owner of the property, appeared before committee briefly

outlining the variances requested.




conditions.

Mr. Jowia indicated that the proposed conditions were acceptable. The Committee, having considered the comments and recommendations of the commenting agencies, the proposed draft conditions and the evidence heard at the meeting, reached the following decision: Moved by R. Power Seconded by D. Doerfler THAT application A-2020-0016 to permit a landscaping business with associated outside storage

as a home occupation; to permit an existing accessory structure (Shed 1) having a gross floor area


2020 03 03 Page 15 of 34

of 61 sq. m (656.60 sq. ft.) to permit an existing accessory structure (Shed 2) having a gross floor

area of 60 sq. m (645.83 sq. ft.); to permit two (2) existing accessory structures (Shed 1 and Shed

2) having a combined gross floor area of 121 sq. m (1,302.43 sq. ft.) and to permit two (2) existing

accessory structures (Shed 1 and Shed 2) located wholly or partially within the interior side yard be

approved for the following reasons and subject to the following conditions:

1. That Variance 1 be approved for a temporary period of three (3) years;

2. That any outdoor storage shall be screened from Embleton Road, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services;

3. That the extent of the variances be limited to that shown on the sketch attached to the

Public Notice; and,

4. That failure to comply with and maintain the conditions of the Committee shall render the approval null and void.





(9)

A-2020-0018 AMIR SYED & LOT 19, PLAN M-1192

UL ANN QURAT 8 LENT CRESCENT

WARD 4

The applicants are requesting a variance to permit a below grade window in the side wall of the

dwelling having a setback of 0.91m (2.98 ft.) to the side lot line whereas the by-law does not permit

a below grade window where the interior side yard depth is less than 1.2m (3.94 ft.);

Mr. Mazhar Raja, authorized agent for the applicant, appeared before committee presenting

application A-2020-0009 pointing out a minor correction in the conversion from metric to imperial

for the setback to the lot line. He advised that he has reviewed the staff recommendation report

and commented that it is not realistic to secure a building permit in 60 days requesting

consideration for 120 days.

Mr. Emanuel French, resident of Lent Street appeared before Committee seeking clarification on

whether the proposal was for a window or for an entrance into the basement commenting that he

has lived on the street for 22 years. He made reference to properties in the area with second units

and spoke of parking issues resulting from the number of vehicles parked on the properties and


2020 03 03 Page 16 of 34

along the street. Staff confirmed that the variance is related to a window only noting that the intent

is for a second unit.

Committee explained that the City is in the process of legalizing second units advising Mr. French

that he should call 311 if he has any complaints or contact could be made with his local councillor.


conditions proposing an amendment to reflect 120 days in which to obtain a building permit.

Mr. Raja indicated that the proposed conditions were acceptable. The Committee, having considered the comments and recommendations of the commenting agencies, the proposed draft conditions and the evidence heard at the meeting, reached the following decision: Moved by R. Power Seconded by D. Doerfler THAT application A-2020-0018 to permit a below grade window in the side wall of the dwelling

having a setback of 0.91m (2.98 ft.) to the side lot line be approved for the following reasons and

subject to the following conditions:

1. That a building permit be obtained for the proposed window within 120 days of the final date

of the Committee’s decision;

2. That the extent of the variances be limited to that shown on the sketch attached to the Public Notice; and,


approval null and void. Reasons: The decision reflects that in the opinion of the Committee:



CARRIED (10)

A-2020-0019 JASON BASSELS & PART OF LOT 11, CONC. 6 WHS

RHODERIEZL SAMSON 2977 BOVAIRD DRIVE WEST

WARD 6

The applicants are requesting permission for a legal non-conforming single detached dwelling to

be relocated on lands zoned Floodplain whereas the by-law does not permit the proposed use.


2020 03 03 Page 17 of 34

Mr. Jason Bassels, applicant and owner of the property, appeared before committee presenting

application A-2020-0019.



Committee acknowledged receipt of e-mail correspondence received on March 2, 2020 from

Upinder and Kamaljeet Bajwa, residents of Bovaird Drive West, indicating support for application

A-2020-0019.


conditions.

Mr. Bassels indicated that the proposed conditions were acceptable. The Committee, having considered the comments and recommendations of the commenting agencies, the proposed draft conditions and the evidence heard at the meeting, reached the following decision: Moved by D. Colp Seconded by A. C. Marques THAT application A-2020-0019 to permit a legal non-conforming single detached dwelling to be relocated on lands zoned Floodplain be approved for the following reasons and subject to the following conditions:


2. That the accessory building (art studio) shall not be used as a separate dwelling unit;

3. That any required permits from the Credit Valley Conservation Authority shall be obtained

prior to any development occurring on site; and





CARRIED

COMMITTEE RECESSED AT 10:50 A.M. AND RECONVENED AT 11:00 A.M.


2020 03 03 Page 18 of 34

(11)

A-2020-0020 AHMED ELBASIOUNI LOT 252, PLAN M-174

443 CENTRE STREET NORTH

WARD 1

The applicant is requesting the following:

A permission for a transition from a legal non-conforming use to a compatible and similar use

allowed in Brampton’s Zoning By-law, as directed by Brampton Official Plan Policy 5.18.

AND WHEREAS the list of permitted uses in the applicable R1B (3) – Section 153 zone include:

1. a single detached dwelling

2. a group home type 1

3. an auxiliary group home

Mr. Ahmed Elbasiouni, applicant and owner of the property, appeared before committee presenting

application A-2020-0020. Mr. Elbasiouni began his presentation stating that he is obligated to

bring to the Committee’s attention that there is a severe deficiency in our application commenting

that he is happy to see new identities running the committee.

Mr. Elbasiouni proceeded by stating that our application has a heading called Minor Variance or

Special Permission. He expressed that we all know the jurisdiction of the committee comes from

section 45 which specifies (I) and (2), (1) for minor variances and (2); not for minor variances but

for special permission. He expressed that when it comes to the relief requested our application

limits it to minor variance only in the relief requested.

Mr. Elbasiouni made reference to copies of application forms from neighbouring municipalities

including the Town of Halton Hills, the City of Vaughan and City of Niagara which he stated make it

easier for their staff. He expressed that this saves staff from misunderstanding the request and

misadvising the committee. He noted that this deficiency was previously brought to the attention of

the former committee as well as staff.

Staff responded that staff certainly understand the intent of this application and being that this

particular make-up of the committee has not considered a special permission previously, staff have

legal counsel in attendance to provide a brief overview of what is being asked today given that it is

not a typical minor variance with the four part test. Staff acknowledged Mr. Steve O’Melia from

Miller Tompson LLP who was available to provide a brief overview of the process commenting that

the committee will then be more informed as they get into the discussion.

Mr. Elbasiouni noted that his submission was with respect to the application in general and not his

application for the property.


2020 03 03 Page 19 of 34

Mr. Steve O’Melia, Miller Tompson LLP addressed committee advising that he acted for the City as

legal counsel on two Ontario Municipal Board hearings relating to the subject property in 2016 and

2017. Mr. O’Melia stated that Mr. Elbasiouni is correct in that this isn’t the four part test that the

committee is used to dealing with under 45(1) and made reference to a copy of an extract from the

Planning Act, Section 45(2)(a)(ii) under the heading Other powers. He read aloud the following:

“In addition to the powers under subsection (1), the committee, upon any such application (a) where

any land building or structure, on the day the by-law was passed, was lawfully used for a purpose

prohibited by the by-law may permit, (ii) the use of such land, building or structure for a purpose

that, in the opinion of the committee, is similar to the purpose for which it was used on the day the

by-law was passed or is more compatible with the uses permitted by the by-law than the purpose for

which it was used on the day the by-law was passed, if the use for a purpose prohibited by the by-

law or another use or another use for a purpose previously permitted by the committee continued

until the date of the application to the committee;”

Mr. O’Melia explained that the test to be applied is a two part test; firstly, would granting approval

of the application be appropriate for the desirable development of the land; and secondly, would

the proposal, if approved create any unacceptable adverse impact. He advised that committee is

not measuring the application against the Official Plan or the Zoning By-law as the committee

would for a normal minor variance.

The Chair recalled that both he and Member Doerfler served on the Committee of Adjustment

when the previous applications were considered in 2015 and 2017, both of which proceeded to the

Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. Elbasiouni commented that Mr. O’Melia made no submission with respect to the deficiency in

our application noting that the importance of this change will be more valued when going through

the application. He commented that he appreciates that clarification has been provided with

respect to the law.

Mr. Elbasiouni stated that there is a statutory approval initiated by the Planning Act for those who

meet the criteria requirements noting that he does meet that. He expressed that in general it is

called phasing out of a non-conforming use and that phasing out is completely different than re-

zoning or any other process the building division may have. He referenced page 1 of the staff

report stating that the report explains that he has a legal non-conforming use and that he is trying

to make the committee decide whether a duplex is permitted within R1B (3). He commented that it

did not make sense to him and that he did not ask for that.

Mr. Elbasiouni explained that he asked the committee to make the finding that a duplex is a

compatible and similar use to a legal non-conforming use and it is a conforming use that is called

Section 15.5 R2B (1) enacted by the City of Brampton by the force of the Ontario Provincial Policy

Statement in order to make such a zone for those who have a legal non-conforming uses and want

to phase out of it.


2020 03 03 Page 20 of 34

Mr. Elbasiouni made reference to Section 5.18 which states that all those who have legal non-

conforming use shall be encouraged to phase out of such non-conformity so that the lands may

continue to be used in conformity with the general provisions. He submitted that he has a big

problem with staff in that staff mistyped the official plan in the report. He expressed that it has been

changed to give committee a different understanding.

Committee posed a question to staff inquiring if the property has legal non-conforming use that still

exists for a second dwelling unit.

Staff explained that as outlined in the staff report legal non-conforming status had previously been

granted for the building that existed dating back to 1995 when the use was previously not

permitted. Staff confirmed that this property as well as all lands containing singles, semis and

detached dwellings within Brampton today are permitted to contain a second dwelling unit whether

it be legal non-conforming or permitted as of right. Staff added that when this was previously

adjudicated it was legal non-conforming by necessity because prior to 2015 it would not have been

a permitted use but with the introduction of the two-unit dwelling provisions into the zoning by-law

as a permitted use as of right it is an as of right land use permission for a two unit dwelling in

compliance with section 10.16 of the by-law.

Committee made reference to Page 3 (a duplex two unit within a single detached) and inquired

would both units have a different civic address and could a property owner sell one and keep one

or would you have to sell both at the same time.

Staff responded that it is a duplex dwelling, a two unit structure on a single parcel of land and that

the sale of one unit without the sale of the other would not be permitted unless there was some

sort of division or severance or condominium.

Mr. Elbasiouni pointed out that section 5.18 gives the general goal and objective and section

5.18.1 gives other direction with respect to the application being encouraged. He commented that

what he was trying to do was cross reference the paragraph of the staff report that says that the

objective or goal would be to relocate to permit such lands to be used in conformity with the

applicable land use documents.

Mr. Elbasiouni continued to explain that the policy provides for the continued operation of the legal

non-conforming use which in the long term will be discontinued or relocated to permit such lands to

be used in conformity with the applicable land use documents. He expressed that for staff to come

here to mention that it has to discontinue to be used in conformity with the applicable land use

document, it is stripping out something that has grandfathering power and that the policy says that

the objective is that we strip out the legal non-conforming uses from any property. He commented

that this is not what the Provincial Policy Statement has directed and that it is directed that uses

phase out of the non-conformity to something else that is compatible and similar.

Mr. Elbasiouni stated that staff have indicated that there is a duplex use permitted within Brampton

and he is happy with that. He made reference to how staff describes a duplex building as a single

detached dwelling separated by one unit above the other which he expressed is what he had.


2020 03 03 Page 21 of 34

Committee noted that Mr. Elbasiouni had legal non-conforming use for a second unit dwelling

noting that the City has started legalizing basement apartments. Committee added that he could

apply to have a second unit legalized noting that City Council is considering lifting the criteria for a

third parking space explaining that currently there is a requirement for three parking spaces for a

second unit dwelling unit versus mid-June where Council is reviewing that criteria.

Staff confirmed that a two unit dwelling is a permitted use as of right subject to the two unit

dwelling provisions.

Mr. Elbasiouni confirmed that he wants to transition to a duplex. He stated that it appears that

according to staff as indicated in the report and according to the new by-law introduced in 2015

that he can follow a different route to get there but unfortunately this is not advice in good faith

made by staff. He commented that the committee is very well aware of the by-law and he knows

the other process, a transition. He commented that his dwelling was not a two unit dwelling within

a single family home in terms of a specific square footage of the entire unit. He remarked that it

was detailed by a Superior Court judge that said it was two different units, one above and one

below as a legal non-conforming duplex. He explained the differences in a two unit dwelling

versus a duplex and went into detail on building setbacks and lot coverage.

Staff clarified that the land today is zoned R1B (3), section 153 with established requirements and

restrictions within that zone. Staff advised that in 2013 the City of Brampton passed what is now

referred to as the Mature Neighbourhood provisions explaining that the land is now within a mature

neighbourhood where a maximum lot coverage of 30% is permitted compared to the R2B (1) zone

where the established lot coverage requirement says “no requirement”. Staff noted that there are

required setbacks in that zone. Staff emphasized that this property is not zoned R2B (1). Staff

added that although the R2B (1) zone is a zone category in the City of Brampton that applies to

lands zoned R2B (1) on Schedule ‘A” of the by-law, this land is not zoned R2B (1) on Schedule ‘A’

of the by-law.

Committee posed a question inquiring if the request is for a duplex. Mr. Elbasiouni confirmed that

his request is for a duplex drawing committee’s attention to question 3 on Page I of the application

wherein he requests a special permission for a transition from a legal non-conforming use to a

compatible and similar use allowed in Brampton’s Zoning By-law, as directed by Brampton Official

Plan Policy 5.18.

Committee made reference to Question 12 on Page 2 of the application with Mr. Elbasiouni

confirming a duplex, two unit within a single detached and that he is proposing to continue his legal

non-conforming use. He commented that the Brampton Official Plan directs through the

Committee of Adjustment and he is following what the City has put in the Official Plan.

Committee noted that the subject property falls under the mature neighbourhood by-law. Mr.

Elbasiouni responded that the staff report shows that a duplex does not have a maximum lot

coverage noting that the committee is empowered to apply conditions and that we can all work

together. He asked is there any reason why there is no indication of mature neighbourhood in the

staff report pointing out that it is not there. He expressed that the committee is empowered to save


2020 03 03 Page 22 of 34

a lot of hassle. He remarked that to build a duplex with 30% lot coverage with respect to the test of

being appropriate and desirable, if the City encourages that, would that not be appropriate?

Ms. Peggy Ronayne, neighbouring property owner on Hinchley Wood Grove addressed committee

expressing concerns with parking arrangements for a duplex. She commented that they had heard

the last time that the rear yard was going to be a parking lot. Ms. Ronayne stated that they have

lived at the property for 41 years and that there always was a bungalow on the subject property.

She also spoke of bedroom windows facing her dwelling.

Committee advised that this is a new application and that a 2 storey 2 unit dwelling is a permitted

use under the current by-law and that bedrooms may face her dwelling. Ms. Ronayne inquired if a

duplex would include a basement.

Staff explained that the by-law permits a house that doesn’t include a basement noting that the

maximum building height of 8.5 metres is measured from the ground. Staff explained that there is

no requirement that a second unit be located in the basement and that it can be located in any

portion of the dwelling. Staff confirmed that two units are permitted within 30% lot coverage.

Committee posed a question to staff inquiring what the difference is between a second dwelling unit and a duplex. In response to committee’s question staff summarized that all duplexes are 2 unit dwellings but all 2 unit dwellings are not necessarily duplexes. Staff stated that a duplex is a defined term that has an established configuration with one unit above the other and a 2 unit dwelling can be in any configuration. Staff advised that there are different requirements and restrictions that apply to a 2 unit dwelling that would for a duplex dwelling, including parking requirements, path of travel to the principal entrance for a 2 unit dwelling for the second entrance. A 2 unit dwelling is permitted in any single, semi or detached dwelling throughout the City provided they comply with Section 10.16 of the Zoning By-law whereas a duplex is only a permitted use in lands zoned R2B (1) unless there is a site specific zone that applies to the property.

Mr. Elbasiouni provided his explanation on the difference between a duplex and a 2 unit dwelling

stating that if he wanted to build at 30% coverage for a duplex he could have each floor as a

separate unit with separate utilities and separate meters. In comparison he explained that a

second unit has to be a certain percentage based on the gross floor area of the entire building.

Staff clarified that there is no requirement for a prescribed percentage for I unit to be a certain

percentage of the other unit. Staff explained that in 2017 Council amended the limitation on the

size noting that the only requirement is that one of the units be smaller than the other and that for

the most part there be no restriction on the size of a secondary unit in a 2 unit dwelling. Mr.

Elbasiouni responded that with a duplex he can have 2 units of the exact size.

Staff advised that it is the recommendation of staff that the application be refused drawing

committee’s attention to the Ontario Municipal Board decision dated September 26, 2017 which

specifically dealth with section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act. Staff commented that the OMB has

already made a decision specific to the request before committee. Staff summarized that they do


2020 03 03 Page 23 of 34

not feel it is appropriate and feel that it will have adverse effects in the neighbourhood. It was

staff’s submission that the OMB has already made a decision specific to the request before

committee. Staff expressed that they would be happy to sit down with the applicant to have a

discussion reiterating that the application before committee has already been decided on.

Mr. Elbasiouni expressed that the decision rendered by the OMB in 2017 cannot be conclusive as

the OMB proceeded in his absence, did not visit the issues and it was not a proper and fair

hearing. He stated that it is a matter of tests and that the previous decision did not mention policies

or applicable tests.

The Chair summarized that it is good to have legal counsel and also good to have the history on

the property advising Mr. Elbasiouni that he is more than welcome to come at any time to sit and

discuss with staff when he plans the layout of his house. Mr. Elbasiouni was advised that he could

return to committee if he is not meeting the requirements whether it be for building height, lot

coverage or setbacks. It was also noted that council will be lifting the third parking space criteria

for a second unit.

Mr. Elbasiouni expressed that the person who came to speak inquiring if the building will have a

basement and a question pertaining to windows did not have reasonable grounds. He remarked

that he is ready for a refusal decision but on reasonable grounds.

Committee requested legal counsel to review the applicable tests noting that committee is used to

applying the four tests. Mr. O’Melia revisited the two tests applicable to the application before

committee, firstly; would granting approval be appropriate for the desirable development of the

land and secondly; would the proposal create any unacceptable adverse impacts.

Committee expressed that it would be beneficial for the applicant to meet with staff to establish

common ground and that it would be easier for everyone to work in that general direction.

The Committee, having considered the comments and recommendations of the commenting agencies, and the evidence heard at the meeting, reached the following decision: Moved by D. Colp Seconded by R. Power THAT application A-2020-0020 requesting permission for a transition from a legal non-conforming

use to a compatible and similar use allowed in Brampton’s Zoning By-law, as directed by Brampton

Official Plan Policy 5.18 be refused for the following reasons:

Reasons: The decision reflects that in the opinion of the Committee: The permission requested under section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act is not appropriate for the

desirable development of the land and would create unacceptable adverse impact.

CARRIED


2020 03 03 Page 24 of 34

(12)

A-2020-0021 CARLO CUNTI PART OF LOT 13, CONC. 12 EHS

10562 HIGHWAY 50

WARD 10

The applicant is requesting the following:

1. To permit manufacturing, cleaning, packaging, processing, repairing, or assembly of goods,

foods or materials within an enclosed building, but excluding motor vehicle repair shop and a

motor vehicle body shop as a principal or accessory use, a printing establishment, and a

warehouse, whereas the by-law does not permit the uses.

2. To permit outdoor storage, associated with a business operating from the existing building, but

not including a transport truck parking lot whereas the by-law does not permit the use.

Ms. Loredana Cunti, authorized agent for the applicant, appeared before committee presenting

application A-2020-0021 briefly outlining the variances requested. She explained that her parents

purchased the property in 1972 and conducted a business, Emery Woodworking from the property

which at one time was recognized as the largest manufacturer of wood trim.

Ms. Cunti explained that the property was always zoned M4 (Industrial) and when the by-law was

enacted the use of the property was restricted to woodworking. She advised that following the loss

of her brother in 2017 her father was faced with a decision on what to do noting that since 2019

they have been operating with only 50% of the building used for woodworking.

Ms. Cunti made reference to excess land noting that they have been in discussions with the City

about additional uses advising that originally they were going to request all the uses permitted in

an M4 zone but have since excluded motor vehicle repair and body shop. She commented that

they would like to see the property looking good.

Ms. Cunti made reference to the staff recommendation report and a condition restricting the

number of vehicles to a maximum of ten. She expressed concerns in the event they sublet that the

restriction might pose an impediment.


conditions. Staff proposed minor changes to the conditions to include accessory uses permitted in

Section 34.1.1(c).

Ms. Cunti stated that delivery trucks stay overnight and that if the 40,000 square foot building is

utilized then ten vehicles would be too restrictive noting that currently only 20,000 square feet of

space is being used. She noted that the neighbouring property owner who has access onto

Coleraine Drive has the same uses and also a contractor’s yard with outside storage. Ms. Cunti

added that the City is looking at changes to the access down the road and there are talks about


2020 03 03 Page 25 of 34

purchasing a portion of the property. She reiterated that they need to put something in to utilize

the building.

Mr. Carlo Cunti, owner of the property addressed committee providing background history of the

property summarizing that they would like the number of vehicles increased to at least twenty.

Staff made reference to the staff report advising that they have been lenient and are trying to

accommodate the applicant noting that they have not requested a full blown site plan. Ms. Cunti

requested consideration for thirty parking spaces.

Staff provided context explaining that the storage area was given to be a permitted use for 500

square feet and that in calculating the requested uses could accommodate a maximum of thirty

vehicles recognizing that staff want to keep the site as not a transport related use. Staff requested

that if committee considers anything more than ten spaces that the condition be amended to

include “oversized” motor vehicles. Ms. Cunti inquired if any other non-industrial could be

permitted and could they get that approval now. Staff explained that public notice has been given

for the uses requested and that further approval would be required including a full site plan.

Following discussion, Ms. Cunti indicated that the proposed conditions, as amended, were acceptable. The Committee, having considered the comments and recommendations of the commenting agencies, the proposed draft conditions and the evidence heard at the meeting, reached the following decision: Moved by R. Power Seconded by D. Colp THAT application A-2020-0021 to permit manufacturing, cleaning, packaging, processing, repairing, or assembly of goods, foods or materials within an enclosed building, but excluding motor vehicle repair shop and a motor vehicle body shop as a principal or accessory use, a printing establishment, and a warehouse and to permit outdoor storage, associated with a business operating from the existing building, but not including a transport truck parking lot be approved for the following reasons and subject to the following conditions:

1. That the permitted uses shall include:

a. manufacturing, cleaning, packaging, processing, repairing, or assembly of goods, foods

or materials within an enclosed building;

b. a printing establishment;

c. outdoor storage associated with a business operating from the existing building;

d. a warehouse; and

e. accessory uses permitted in Section 34.1.1(c) .

2. That the permitted uses shall exclude:

a. motor vehicle repair shop, as a principal or accessory use; and


2020 03 03 Page 26 of 34

b. motor vehicle body shop, as a principal or accessory use.

3. That the maximum number of motor vehicles permitted within the “outdoor storage” use shall be

thirty (30) including any oversized motor vehicles;

4. That any outdoor storage shall be screened from Highway 50, to the satisfaction of the

Director of Development Services and,

5. That failure to comply with and maintain the conditions of the Committee shall render

the approval null and void.




CARRIED (13)

A-2020-0022 KERRY’S PLACE LOT 90, PLAN 43M-702

RESIDENTIAL SERVICES 58 NEWBURY CRESCENT

WARD 7


1. To permit a Supportive Housing Facility (Group Home Type 1) whereas Interim Control By-

law 286-2019 does not permit the proposed use;

2. To permit an existing driveway width of 7.9m (25.92 ft.) whereas the by-law permits a

maximum driveway width of 6.71m (22 ft.);

3. To permit 0.0m permeable landscaping between the driveway and the property line whereas

the by-law requires a minimum of 0.6m (1.97 ft.) permeable landscaping between the

driveway and the property line.

4. To permit an interior side yard setback of 0.2m (0.65 ft.) to an existing accessory structure

(shed) in the rear yard whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of 0.6m (1.97 ft.) for

an accessory structure from any lot line.

Mr. Mark Kemerer, Devry Smith Frank LLP, authorized agent for the applicant, appeared before

committee presenting application A-2020-0022 briefly outlining the variances requested. He


2020 03 03 Page 27 of 34

explained that his client is Kerry’s Place which provides independent living for individuals with

autism noting that at this location there will be six individuals living with autism supported by four

support workers during the day. Mr. Kemerer explained that four of the individuals have been

waiting over two years and are currently housed in emergency housing in Toronto.

Mr. Kemerer advised that he wanted to proceed with the application as there are six individuals

who require housing on an urgent basis. He informed committee that Kerry’s Place Residential

Services operates five houses and rents out five apartment buildings within the Brampton area with

no complaints. He added that they also operate eighty facilities across Ontario advising that his

client works closely with the community to ensure there are no issues.

Mr. Kemerer explained that his client purchased the property in 2019 and filed an application for a

Type 1 Group Home and that controversy surrounding a seniors residence led to the adoption of

an interim control by-law. He made reference to a staff report attached to the application

submission where the professional opinion of staff was that council not implement an interim

control by-law and that council exempt any properties that had already applied. He explained that

the use would be permitted except for the interim control by-law currently in place.

Mr. Kemerer further explained that a number of additional variances have been identified by staff

advising that the staff recommendation report identifies variances that are no longer required. He

summarized how the application meets the four tests explaining that the interim control by-law

expires in May however council always has the ability to extend for another year. Mr. Kemerer

advised that there will be no changes to the house or structure and an application for a Group

Home Type 1 has been submitted. It was his submission that the proposal will not impact the

stability of the neighbourhood.

Committee acknowledged receipt of e-mail correspondence received in the City Clerk’s Office on

March 2, 2020 from the following area residents indicating opposition to application A-2020-0022:

Nina Malhi; Kim Johnstone; Stuart Johnston; and Tara Alonso.

Mr. Amric Ahluwalia, resident of Newbury Crescent addressed committee with concerns about the

proposal submitting a petition signed by 53 area residents. He spoke of increased traffic resulting

from the support workers and families that will be visiting. He commented that it is not a minor

variance and the interim control by-law was put in place for a purpose.

Ms. Norma Deacon, resident of Newbury Crescent addressed committee advising that she

purchased her home in 1987. She expressed that a group home will change the character of the

area and expressed concerns with melting snow and drainage on paved surfaces. She spoke of

noise pollution and increased traffic including emergency vehicles. Ms. Deacon submitted two

letters of opposition from neighbouring property owners

Mr. Mark Bryant, resident of Newbury Crescent addressed committee advising that he previously

operated a group home, confirming that it was an illegal group home because he was unaware of


2020 03 03 Page 28 of 34

the requirements. He commented that there were problems with police, a rash of break-ins and

fires.

Ms. Kara Quigley, resident of Newbury Crescent addressed committee and expressed concerns

with drainage from parking. She commented that she can foresee a problem with traffic.

Ms. Tara Alonzo, resident of Newbury Crescent addressed committee expressing that there are a

lot of small children in the neighbourhood which is nice to see commenting that she would hate to

see that disappear.

Committee was informed that City of Brampton planning staff was recommending deferral of the

application to the May 26, 2020 hearing given the concerns of council prior to completion of a

study of the City’s Supportive Housing policies. Staff noted that the applicant did point out that the

by-law can be extended for 1 year however by that date the study will be advanced and the

expectation is that the by-law will not be extended. Staff added that if the by-law is not extended

they will have more information for committee.

Committee expressed that they would like to defer the application to May 26, 2020 but recognizes

the urgent need and the strong opposition from the neighbours. Mr. Kemerer responded that

three months may not seem like a long time but there is uncertainly and they may be in the same

position in three months.

Committee expressed that if the study is there they would rather deal with more information. In

conclusion, Mr. Kemerer expressed concerns with an additional mortgage and a delay for several

clients in emergency housing.

Following discussion, committee reached the following decision: Moved by D. Colp Seconded by D. Doerfler THAT application A-2020-0022 be deferred to the hearing date of May 26, 2020.

CARRIED

(14)

A-2020-0023 3550 QUEEN STREET EAST INC. PART OF LOT 6, CONC. 8 N.D.

3550 QUEEN STREET EAST

WARD 8


1. To permit a hotel use, including required parking, to extend into the Highway Commercial 2

– Section 1527 (HC2 -1527) zone whereas the by-law does not permit the proposed use;

2. To permit an increase in building height to a maximum of five storeys for a hotel use

whereas the by-law restricts building height to a maximum of three storeys in the Highway


2020 03 03 Page 29 of 34

Commercial 2 – Section 1527 (HC2 -1527) zone and a maximum of two storeys in the

Highway Commercial 1 (HC1) zone.

Mr. Colin Chung, authorized agent for the applicant, appeared before committee briefly outlining

the variances requested explaining that the owner of the property wishes to develop the subject

site for a future hotel. Mr. Chung advised that there are 2 zones applicable to this property, 1 zone

which permits a hotel while the other does not. Mr. Chung explained that both zones are highway

commercial however one of the zones does not permit a hotel use.


conditions. Staff advised that they have had discussions with the agent and propose an amended

condition number 1 which has been agreed to by staff.

Mr. Chung responded that he had no concerns with the amended condition and provided copies of

the amended wording to the committee.

Staff explained that they felt it was important to include a condition pertaining to access because

the existing access off of Queen Street East and Humberwest Parkway is outside the limits of the

owner’s property. Staff added that they wanted to flag it as an issue to be addressed at a later

date didn’t want to create the perception that there are no access issues on the site.

Mr. Chung explained that he is satisfied with the revised wording of the condition and that as part

of a future process and that as part of the formal pre-consultation process to the site plan he didn’t

want to preclude a condition that that there was only one option for access and that this will allow

them to pursue the best option for access to the hotel development in the future.

Committee acknowledged receipt of a letter dated February 25, 2020 from Toronto and Region

Conservation Authority indicating no objection to application A-2020-0023.

Mr. Chung indicated that the proposed conditions, as amended, were acceptable. The Committee, having considered the comments and recommendations of the commenting agencies, the proposed draft conditions and the evidence heard at the meeting, reached the following decision: Moved by R. Power Seconded by D. Doerfler THAT application A-2020-0023 to permit a hotel use, including required parking, to extend into the

Highway Commercial 2 – Section 1527 (HC2 -1527) zone and to permit an increase in building

height to a maximum of five storeys for a hotel use be approved for the following reasons and

subject to the following conditions:

1. That the owner provide confirmation satisfactory to the City and the Region of an appropriate vehicular access to the hotel development as part of the formal pre-consultation to the Site Plan application; and


2020 03 03 Page 30 of 34





CARRIED

DEFERRED MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION

(15)

A18-099 693316 ONTARIO LIMITED PT. OF BLOCK 4, PLAN 43M-880

PT. 11, PLAN 43R-15629

PTS. 2, 3, PLAN 43R-16885

98 WENTWORTH COURT

WARD 8


1. To permit an accessory structure (waste enclosure) having a height of 15m (49.21 ft.) whereas the by-law permits a maximum height of 4.5m (14.76 ft.);

2. To permit an accessory structure to be located 1.0m (3.28 ft.) from the rear and side lot lines

whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of 3.0m (9.84 ft.) from any lot line;

3. To permit an accessory structure having a gross floor area 886.3 sq. m (9,540.05 sq. ft.) whereas the by-law permits a maximum gross floor area of 100 sq. m (1076.40 sq. ft.).

Ms. Samrah Haq, authorized agent for the applicant, appeared before committee presenting

application A18-099 explaining that a site plan application was submitted and staff are supportive

of the site plan subject to approval of the minor variance application.

Committee acknowledged receipt of a letter dated March 2, 2020 from Toronto and Region

Conservation Authority indicating no objection to application A18-099.


conditions. Staff requested an amendment to proposed condition number 2 to provide that a

building permit be obtained within 90 days of the approval of the site plan.

Mr. Suppa indicated that the proposed conditions, as amended, were acceptable.


2020 03 03 Page 31 of 34

The Committee, having considered the comments and recommendations of the commenting agencies, the proposed draft conditions and the evidence heard at the meeting, reached the following decision:

Moved by D. Colp Seconded by A. C. Marques THAT application A18-099 to permit an accessory structure (waste enclosure) having a height of 15m (49.21 ft.); to permit an accessory structure to be located 1.0m (3.28 ft.) from the rear and side lot lines and to permit an accessory structure having a gross floor area 886.3 sq. m (9,540.05 sq. ft.) be approved for the following reasons and subject to the following conditions:

1. That a Site Plan (Basic review stream) approval be obtained for the proposed site within

ninety (90) days of the date of decision of the Committee or as extended at the discretion of

the Director of Development services at the City of Brampton upon receipt of a written

request for extension from the owner;

2. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit within ninety (90) days of the approval of the

site plan; and,






CARRIED (16)

A19-214 2466482 ONTARIO INC. PT. OF LOT 1, CONC. 2, EHS

26 BRAMSTEELE ROAD

WARD 3


1. To permit a motor vehicle sales establishment having a gross floor area of 365 square metres (3,928.83 square feet) whereas the by-law does not permit the proposed use;


2020 03 03 Page 32 of 34

2. To permit the existing convenience restaurant having a commercial gross floor area of 250 square metres (2,690.97 square feet) whereas the by-law permits a maximum commercial gross floor area of 102 square metres (1,097.92 square feet);

3. To permit a total of 33 parking spaces whereas the by-law requires a total of 50 parking spaces.

Mr. Colin Chung, Glen Schnarr & Associates Inc., authorized agent for the applicant, appeared

before committee presenting application A19-214 advising that the application was before

committee in January at which time they sought deferral, with support from staff for the deferral to

seek support for motor vehicle sales. He stated that based on the updated staff recommendation

report, they have not come to an agreement.

Mr. Chung explained that the tenant has not been operating motor vehicle sales in compliance with

an approved site plan. It was his request that committee allow a temporary approval for 12 months

to prove to the City that the owner can comply with the approved site plan.

Committee acknowledged receipt of e-mail correspondence from Zully Jaffer of QBD International

Inc., a neighbouring business at 31 Bramsteelee Road, detailing concerns with the introduction of

motor vehicle sales.


part, with conditions noting that staff are not supportive of variance number 1 related to motor

vehicle sales. Staff informed committee that the previous approval expired a few months ago and

staff have had discussions with the consultant about how cars are being parked on site as well as

concerns raised at the last meeting. Staff explained that the site has mostly been brought into

conformity noting that visits to the site reveal that this has been off and on and that staff are not

confident the site will remain in compliance. Staff summarized that the variance for motor vehicle

sales does not meet the four tests of the Planning Act and should be refused.

The Chair noted that it was communicated at the last meeting that the site is not functioning in

compliance with cars parked in the landscape area as well as other areas making it difficult to

maneuver and exit the site. Mr. Chung was reminded that committee granted approval for 3 years

previously however the site has not been maintained the way it should be.

Committee suggested that maybe this is not an ideal location and they may not want to support

something that isn’t functioning properly. With respect to the 12 months requested committee

commented that the applicant needs to show some commitment to rectify.

Staff advised that they want to see the site brought into compliance noting making reference to

fencing, sodding and damaged trees.

Mr. Chung responded that the site has been substantially cleaned up advising committee that he

informed the owner/tenant that he was not going to attend the hearing today if the site wasn’t

cleaned up.


2020 03 03 Page 33 of 34

Committee discussed conditions to incorporate in the event approval is granted for a temporary

period of 12 months. Staff assisted committee with conditions.

Mr. Chung indicated that the proposed conditions, as amended, were acceptable. The Committee, having considered the comments and recommendations of the commenting agencies, the proposed draft conditions and the evidence heard at the meeting, reached the following decision:

Moved by D. Colp Seconded by A. C. Marques THAT application A19-214 to permit a motor vehicle sales establishment having a gross floor area

of 365 square metres (3,928.83 square feet); to permit the existing convenience restaurant having

a commercial gross floor area of 250 square metres (2,690.97 square feet) and to permit a total of

33 parking spaces be approved for the following reasons and subject to the following conditions:

1. That Variance 1 (to allow a motor vehicles sales establishment of 365 square metres as

indicated in the Public Notice) be allowed for a temporary period of 12 months from the final

date of the decision of the committee;

2. That the approved Limited Site Plan (dated September 9, 2016) be adhered to and that the

site be brought into compliance with the approved site plan within ninety (90) days and

remain in compliance thereafter;

3. That the motor vehicle sales establishment only be permitted to operate on the site if there

is a motor vehicle repair establishment operating on the site;

4. That any derelict/scrap vehicles not on site for the purpose of repair be removed from the

property; and

5. That failure to maintain and comply with the conditions of the Committee shall render the

decision null and void.




CARRIED


2020 03 03 Page 34 of 34

NOTE: MEMBERS D. DOERFLER AND R. POWER DISSENTED TO COMMITTEE’S DECISION ON

APPLICATION A19-214

APPLICATION A-2020-0014 WAS RECALLED

Mr. Sanheev Kumar, Sanpro Engineering Inc., authorized agent for the applicant, appeared before

committee presenting application A-2020-0014 advising that a site plan application was submitted

in 2018 for a warehouse addition before enforcement of the Interim Control By-law.


no conditions proposed. Staff explained that Counsel directed a study for land use uses within the

Bramalea Mobility Hub adding that these lands will be excluded.

The Committee, having considered the comments and recommendations of the commenting agencies and the evidence heard at the meeting, reached the following decision: THAT application A-2020-0014 to permit a warehouse expansion whereas Interim Control By-law 224-2017 prohibits the expansion of any existing use of land, building or structures be approved for the following reasons:





ADJOURNMENT: Moved by A. C. Marques Seconded by D. Colp That the Committee of Adjustment hearing be adjourned at 1:50 p.m. to meet again on Tuesday,

March 24, 2020.

__________________________________ COMMITTEE CHAIR _________________________________ SECRETARY-TREASURER

A18-167.#1

A18-167.#2

A18-167.#3

A18-167.#4

A18-167.#5

A18-167.#6

A18-167.#7

A18-167.#8

A18-167.#9

A18-167.#10

A18-167.#11

A18-167.#12

A18-167.#13

A18-167.#14

A18-167.#15

A18-167.#16

A18-167.#17

A18-167.#18

A18-167.#19

A18-167.#20

A18-167.#21

A18-167.#22

A18-167.#23

A18-167.#24

A18-167.#25

A18-167.#26

A18-167.#27

A18-167.#28

A18-167.#29

A18-167.#30

A18-167.#31

A18-167.#32

A18-167.#33

A18-167.#34

A18-167.#35

A-2020-0012.#1

A-2020-0012.#2

A-2020-0012.#3

A-2020-0012.#4

A-2020-0012.#5

A-2020-0012.#6

A-2020-0012.#7

A-2020-0012.#8

A-2020-0012.#9

A-2020-0012.#10

A-2020-0012.#11

A-2020-0012.#12

A-2020-0012.#13

A-2020-0012.#14

A-2020-0012.#15

A-2020-0012.#16

A-2020-0012.#17

A-2020-0012.#18

A-2020-0012.#19

A-2020-0012.#20

A-2020-0012.#21

A-2020-0012.#22

A-2020-0012.#23

A-2020-0012.#24

A-2020-0012.#25

A-2020-0012.#26

A-2020-0012.#27

A-2020-0012.#28

A-2020-0012.#29

A-2020-0012.#30

A-2020-0012.#31

A-2020-0012.#32

A-2020-0012.#33

A-2020-0012.#34

A-2020-0012.#35

A-2020-0012.#36

A-2020-0012.#37

A-2020-0012.#38

A-2020-0012.#39

A-2020-0012.#40

A-2020-0012.#41

A-2020-0012.#42

A-2020-0012.#43

A-2020-0012.#44

A-2020-0012.#45

A-2020-0012.#46

A-2020-0012.#47

A-2020-0012.#48

A-2020-0012.#49

A-2020-0012.#50

A-2020-0012.#51

A-2020-0012.#52

A-2020-0012.#53

A-2020-0012.#54

A-2020-0012.#55

A-2020-0012.#56

A-2020-0012.#57

A-2020-0012.#58

A-2020-0012.#59

A-2020-0012.#60

A-2020-0012.#61

A-2020-0012.#62

A-2020-0012.#63

A-2020-0012.#64

A-2020-0012.#65

A-2020-0012.#66

A-2020-0012.#67

A-2020-0012.#68

A-2020-0012.#69

A-2020-0012.#70

A-2020-0012.#71

A-2020-0012.#72

A-2020-0012.#73

A-2020-0012.#74

A-2020-0012.#75

A-2020-0012.#76

A-2020-0012.#77

A-2020-0012.#78

A-2020-0012.#79

A-2020-0012.#80

A-2020-0012.#81

A-2020-0012.#82

A-2020-0012.#83

A-2020-0012.#84

A-2020-0012.#85

A-2020-0012.#86

A-2020-0012.#87

A-2020-0012.#88

A-2020-0012.#89

A-2020-0012.#90

A-2020-0012.#91

A-2020-0012.#92

A-2020-0012.#93

A-2020-0012.#94

A-2020-0012.#95

A-2020-0012.#96

A-2020-0012.#97

A-2020-0012.#98

A-2020-0012.#99

A-2020-0012.#100

A-2020-0012.#101

A-2020-0012.#102

A-2020-0012.#103

A-2020-0012.#104

A-2020-0012.#105

A-2020-0012.#106

A-2020-0012.#107

A-2020-0012.#108

A-2020-0012.#109

A-2020-0012.#110

A-2020-0012.#111

A-2020-0012.#112

A-2020-0012.#113

A-2020-0012.#114

A-2020-0012.#115

A-2020-0012.#116

A-2020-0024.#1

A-2020-0024.#2

A-2020-0024.#3

A-2020-0024.#4

A-2020-0024.#5

A-2020-0024.#6

A-2020-0024.#7

A-2020-0024.#8

A-2020-0024.#9

A-2020-0024.#10

A-2020-0024.#11

A-2020-0024.#12

A-2020-0024.#13

A-2020-0024.#14

A-2020-0025.#1

A-2020-0025.#2

A-2020-0025.#3

A-2020-0025.#4

A-2020-0025.#5

A-2020-0025.#6

A-2020-0025.#7

A-2020-0025.#8

A-2020-0025.#9

A-2020-0025.#10

A-2020-0025.#11

A-2020-0025.#12

A-2020-0025.#13

A-2020-0025.#14

A-2020-0025.#15

A-2020-0025.#16

A-2020-0025.#17

A-2020-0025.#18

A-2020-0025.#19

A-2020-0026.#1

A-2020-0026.#2

A-2020-0026.#3

A-2020-0026.#4

A-2020-0026.#5

A-2020-0026.#6

A-2020-0026.#7

A-2020-0026.#8

A-2020-0026.#9

A-2020-0026.#10

A-2020-0026.#11

A-2020-0026.#12

A-2020-0026.#13

A-2020-0026.#14

A-2020-0026.#15

A-2020-0026.#16

A-2020-0027.#1

A-2020-0027.#2

A-2020-0027.#3

A-2020-0027.#4

A-2020-0027.#5

A-2020-0027.#6

A-2020-0027.#7

A-2020-0027.#8

A-2020-0027.#9

A-2020-0027.#10

A-2020-0027.#11

A-2020-0027.#12

A-2020-0027.#13

A-2020-0027.#14

A-2020-0027.#15

A-2020-0027.#16

A-2020-0027.#17

A-2020-0027.#18

A-2020-0027.#19

A-2020-0027.#20

A-2020-0027.#21

A-2020-0027.#22

A-2020-0027.#23

A-2020-0027.#24

A-2020-0027.#25

A-2020-0027.#26

A-2020-0027.#27

A-2020-0027.#28

A-2020-0027.#29

A-2020-0027.#30

A-2020-0028.#1

A-2020-0028.#2

A-2020-0028.#3

A-2020-0028.#4

A-2020-0028.#5

A-2020-0028.#6

A-2020-0028.#7

A-2020-0028.#8

A-2020-0028.#9

A-2020-0028.#10

A-2020-0028.#11

A-2020-0029.#1

A-2020-0029.#2

A-2020-0029.#3

A-2020-0029.#4

A-2020-0029.#5

A-2020-0029.#6

A-2020-0029.#7

A-2020-0029.#8

A-2020-0029.#9

A-2020-0029.#10

A-2020-0029.#11

A-2020-0029.#12

A-2020-0029.#13

A-2020-0029.#14

A-2020-0029.#15

A-2020-0029.#16

A-2020-0029.#17

A-2020-0029.#18

A-2020-0029.#19

A-2020-0029.#20

A-2020-0029.#21

A-2020-0029.#22

A-2020-0029.#23

A-2020-0029.#24

A-2020-0030.#1

A-2020-0030.#2

A-2020-0030.#3

A-2020-0030.#4

A-2020-0030.#5

A-2020-0030.#6

A-2020-0030.#7

A-2020-0030.#8

A-2020-0030.#9

A-2020-0030.#10

A-2020-0030.#11

A-2020-0030.#12

A-2020-0032.#

A-2020-0034.#1

A-2020-0034.#2

A-2020-0034.#3

A-2020-0034.#4

A-2020-0034.#5

A-2020-0034.#6

A-2020-0034.#7

A-2020-0034.#8

A-2020-0034.#9

A-2020-0034.#10

A-2020-0034.#11

A-2020-0034.#12

A-2020-0034.#13

A-2020-0034.#14

A-2020-0034.#15

A-2020-0034.#16

A-2020-0034.#17

A-2020-0034.#18

A-2020-0034.#19

A-2020-0035.#1

A-2020-0035.#2

A-2020-0035.#3

A-2020-0035.#4

A-2020-0035.#5

A-2020-0035.#6

A-2020-0035.#7

A-2020-0035.#8

A-2020-0035.#9

A-2020-0035.#10

A-2020-0035.#11

A-2020-0035.#12

A-2020-0036.#1

A-2020-0036.#2

A-2020-0036.#3

A-2020-0036.#4

A-2020-0036.#5

A-2020-0036.#6

A-2020-0036.#7

A-2020-0036.#8

A-2020-0036.#9

A-2020-0036.#10

A-2020-0036.#11

A-2020-0036.#12

A-2020-0036.#13

A-2020-0036.#14

A-2020-0036.#15

A-2020-0036.#16

A-2020-0036.#17

A-2020-0037.#1

A-2020-0037.#2

A-2020-0037.#3

A-2020-0037.#4

A-2020-0037.#5

A-2020-0037.#6

A-2020-0037.#7

A-2020-0037.#8

A-2020-0037.#9

A-2020-0038.#1

A-2020-0038.#2

A-2020-0038.#3

A-2020-0038.#4

A-2020-0038.#5

A-2020-0038.#6

A-2020-0038.#7

A-2020-0038.#8

A-2020-0038.#9

A-2020-0038.#10

A-2020-0038.#11

A-2020-0038.#12

A-2020-0038.#13

A-2020-0038.#14

A-2020-0038.#15

A-2020-0038.#16

A-2020-0038.#17

A-2020-0038.#18

A-2020-0038.#19

A-2020-0038.#20

A-2020-0038.#21

A-2020-0038.#22

A-2020-0038.#23

A-2020-0038.#24

A-2020-0038.#25

A-2020-0038.#26

A-2020-0038.#27

A-2020-0038.#28

A-2020-0038.#29

A-2020-0038.#30

A-2020-0038.#31

A-2020-0038.#32

A-2020-0038.#33

A-2020-0038.#34

A-2020-0039.#1

A-2020-0039.#2

A-2020-0039.#3

A-2020-0039.#4

A-2020-0039.#5

A-2020-0039.#6

A-2020-0039.#7

A-2020-0039.#8

A-2020-0039.#9

A-2020-0039.#10

A-2020-0039.#11

A-2020-0039.#12

A-2020-0039.#13

A19-200.#1

A19-200.#2

A19-200.#3

A19-200.#4

A19-200.#5

A19-200.#6

A19-200.#7

A19-200.#8

A19-200.#9

A19-200.#10

A19-200.#11

A19-200.#12

A19-200.#13

A19-200.#14

A19-200.#15

A19-200.#16

A19-200.#17

A19-200.#18

A19-200.#19

A19-200.#20

A19-200.#21

A19-200.#22

A19-200.#23

A19-200.#24

A19-200.#25

A19-200.#26

A19-200.#27

A19-200.#28

A19-200.#29

A19-200.#30

A19-200.#31

A-2020-0003.#1

A-2020-0003.#2

A-2020-0003.#3

A-2020-0003.#4

A-2020-0003.#5

A-2020-0003.#6

A-2020-0003.#7

A-2020-0003.#8

A-2020-0003.#9

A-2020-0003.#10

A-2020-0003.#11

A-2020-0003.#12

Agenda - City of Brampton

Documents

Transcript of Agenda - City of Brampton