Ms. Sthamann introduced the application. She noted one letter of concern included as correspondence in the addendum.
Vincent Varghese, Applicant, was present. He indicated that there would be no further construction on the property, and this application requests a relief for parking.
The Chair asked staff to address the questions outlined in the letter of concern received as correspondence. In response to the concerns outlined in the letter, Ms. Eusebio stated that the second residential unit is located in the basement of the property and will be accessed through a side entrance as a result of the minor variance. She added that there will be two zone compliant parking spaces, and it is anticipated there will be no visual impact on the neighborhood. She explained that the property is not located in a constrained area for second residential units and no concerns were identified throughout the technical review by Utilities Kingston or Hydro services. She added that parking will be on private property and there is no anticipated impact to on street parking.
In response to concerns regarding noise and privacy, Ms. Eusebio explained that construction has already been completed internally, and there are no external changes proposed for the second residential unit. She added that the second residential unit was reviewed through the building permit process zoning provisions, including the area of the dwelling unit, the walkway, servicing, and the requirement for bicycle parking. She clarified that the only zoning deficiency identified through this process was the reduction in the driveway width from 3 meters to 2.4 meters at midpoint of the driveway. She added that it was determined to be a tandem parking arrangement for the second residential unit.
Ms. Eusebio noted in response to setting precedence for similar developments in the area, that there were three building permits issued for basement apartments in properties south of 1441 Montreal Street. She added that these were reviewed under the building permit review and there was no need for relief through the minor variance process. She addressed a concern with respect to the dwelling being built at grade and backfilled with large rocks, and clarified that all development is happening internally within the existing semi-detatched house and there are no external additions required. She explained that the minor variance is to reduce the width at the midpoint of the driveway to facilitate tandem parking arrangements.
The Chair afforded members of the public an opportunity to speak.
Catherine Nolan, 1447 Montreal Street, stated that many houses in this area face structural concerns, and any changes past the back corner of the house should be evaluated by an engineer. She voiced her concern in maintaining traffic safety in this neighborhood as there are often children playing outside.
In response to the public comments Mr. Bar explained that the applicant went through a building permit process for the second residential unit, where no structural issues were flagged and therefore do not have an impact on the minor variance. He added that the homes in this area are zoned to have additional residential units in accordance with the zoning regulations passed by Council. He added that Transportation, Parks, and Engineering departments have not identified any safety concerns with the addition of a second residential unit.
Mr. Dakin added that the addition of a residential unit in the basement with tandem parking is permitted as-of-right in the Official Plan. He clarified that the variance is only dealing with a car being able to pass through the width of 2.4 metres rather than 3 metres. He stated that there is a condition of approval that there are no adverse impacts with respect to changes to grading and drainage of the property, which should address some of the public concerns regarding the physical changes of the property.