License and Variance Board - Regular Meeting

D'accord, il est 10 heures. Nous allons commencer. C'est la réunion de la commission des licences et dérogations du 26 août 2026. Environ 8 points. Can you give us the context, let's say, of A.F. which concerns all the 2007-39 Frazier Street. Kevin Rucker, the questioner, is present.

Okay, go ahead. Oh, hello. Thank you, Caitlin Crow, coordinator of the territorial development services. As you mentioned, we have a lot of points to address for this presentation. We will start with B26-073 to allow a new construction on a terrain registered below minimum requirements. B26-073 to increase the maximum impermeable surface by 35% to 50%. B26-073 to reduce the retreat before 35 feet to 23 feet. C4 B26-073 to reduce the north lateral retreat from 10 feet to 8.4 feet. I will read them all to you, and then you will vote on each one separately. Keep in mind that the stipulations at the end will apply to each of these delegates. This property is located on Frazier Street and was registered in 1954. Our current zoning ordinance was only implemented in 1974, so it was well before our current regulations. Thus, most of these revocations could not be necessary if the property was correctly zoned today with a minimum of 15,000 square feet for R15 lots. The first revocation for this file allowed a new house on a non-comfortable lot. This property is only about 9,500 square feet, while, as I said, the minimum is 15,000 square feet. Many of these retreats and the impermeable surface could not be applied if the surface was larger. Most of them seem quite excessive, but keep in mind that this is a very small area. Another point to note, we have had many derogations of similar portals along Fraser Street, due to the size of the lots, especially for the reduction of the front retreat. This house already exists, with about 960 square feet currently. With demolition and reconstruction, they will try to keep the same footprint on the ground. Thus, the front retreat is already in distress, They will therefore overflow a little more to add a Porsche in advance, which corresponds to the majority of the previous derogations approved on Fraser Street. Thus, once rebuilt, this property will include a swimming pool at the back, as well as a car shelter on the south side of the house. There is already a car shelter, but they will install a new one with the new house, because it will take care of the southern side retreat, just like today. They needed this derogation. The reduction of the return of the water is linked to this in order to be able to access it fully because there would be no other. The community development service is also favorable to these demands. Regarding the increase in the impermeable surface, again, if the surface was not 15,000 square feet, this derogation would not apply. This property will have a rainwater management project in the court before taking charge of the management of the rainwater on the site. I have Clara Hodges from our engineering service here with me. If you have specific questions about this work, but after having examined all these derogations for this property, the personnel is in favour and recommends your approval with the following five stipulations. The first is our standard stipulation. The approval of the derogations requested will be conditioned by a substantial compliance with the site plan and the elevations submitted with the request for derogation. Number 2, a relief such as constructed should be submitted before the collapse of the foundations due to the proximity of the withdrawal limits. Number 3, an inspection and maintenance agreement of rainwater should be filled and registered with the Superior Court of the Comté de Cobre before the delivery of the construction permit. Number 4, a declaration of certification of rainwater such as constructed should be submitted to the community development for approval before the delivery of the occupation certificate. And finally, number 5, any damaged or broken border during construction should be replaced before the delivery of the occupation certificate.

On this, I can answer your questions. With the minimum size of the current water of 15,000 square feet, would we, or would we consider, if this land, or the land of anyone, wanted to obtain a size of this size, This reduction is an important reduction in the impermeable zone. or rather an important increase in the impermeable zone, but I understand that it is more related to the size of the field than elsewhere.

Can you describe the attenuation measures in place? Is it just for that?

No, it's slightly oversized.

However, it is difficult not to shoot that. Claire, does anyone else have any questions?

Thank you Claire.

So there are six points here. Does anyone in the council want to withdraw?

Otherwise, we will vote 11.

I will open the public hearing, but before that, if the owner wants to move forward.

This looks like your council.

You are aware of the five conditions that Caitlin described and you accept them as they are.

Go ahead. My question, looking at the plans, is that there is nothing, except the house and the pool. Is there a sidewalk or a... It could just be a green space.

Another question. Thank you, sir. I'm quoting a public audience for V-26. 068. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor or against this motion? No one. I will submit a motion on V-273, 075, 075, 076, 067 and 078. Motion passed. I second the motion.

A motion is adopted. All in favor? The motion is adopted for these six derogations.

Jill will take care of regularizing this.

The point G, in the order of the day, concerns two derogations that affect 362 Dunn Street.

Myriam, I...

I'm sorry.

Very good. We have someone here to speak. Caitlin, can you give us the context of these two requests? And if you could explain the derogation amendment for the relevant file.

Yes, of course. Again, Caitlin Crowe, Community Development. So yes, as you mentioned, the first one here is B26. The derogation amendment for the derogation file B26. This means that you previously approved a derogation earlier this year concerning the increase in the height of an accessory structure from 15 to 16 feet. The applicant is here today to increase this height further, hence the amendment to reach 20 feet. This will therefore be a total increase of 15 to 20. We also have V26-081, excuse me. V26080 to increase the size of the accessory building from 25% to 55% of the main housing. These two derogations concern a proposed structure that you have already approved earlier this year. This is a detached garage that will have a living space above. The biggest difference here is that it is simply a matter of increasing the size of the second floor. Previously, it was about one storey. The second floor had to have a small mezzanine. But now they are increasing the size of this second floor to include a bathroom and a more complete living space. There will be no kitchen in order to be able to simply welcome family members or guests. This increase in the area will not change the floor arrangement previously approved. This is only to add more space to this second floor. The transition from 25% to 50% is rather misleading. Rather than having a much larger structure, they will simply enlarge the second floor. The technical services support these two demands because we have had similar derogations in the lot of Forest Hills where this property is located. This increase in height would also allow a harmonization with the surrounding properties.

There should therefore be no difference in architectural facades by looking at the world there.

Because of the additional living space on the second floor, we will add some conditions in relation to what had been approved. The technical services therefore recommend your approval with the following seven conditions. The first five were all defined conditions during the previous approval, two derogations, and the last two are the new ones that we add. The first standard condition is that the approval of the requested derogations will be subject to substantial compliance with the site plan and the elevation submitted during the request for derogation. Number 2, the current gravel entry along Hunter Street will have to be removed and replaced by a curb and a ridge before the delivery of the compliance certificate. Number 3, the proposed concrete walkway will have to comply with the technical specifications of the COBE county during its installation. Number 4, garage doors must be opened electronically. And number 5, before the foundation falls, the corners of the independent garage will have to be tiled and a construction site will have to be submitted and approved. Then, the two new conditions. Number 6, the proposed annex structure will not be able to be rented or occupied for lucrative purposes, except for authorizations provided in Chapter 22 concerning short-term rental operation. And number 7, these conditions will remain perpetually attached to the property and will therefore be applicable to all future owners. These last two are quite common for independent garages with habitable spaces in order to prevent them from becoming permanent housing units. On this, I am ready to answer your questions.

Kaitlyn, can you confirm that the construction of this structure has not yet begun?

They actually received a building permit. A few weeks ago, according to the initially approved plan with the first derogation. If these derogations are approved today, they will revise the plans to increase the size, but they do have a building permit. As for the stage of work progress, I don't know, but the applicant will certainly be able to...

I remember this derogation and one of the points of friction concerning its proximity to the road.

Exactly.

We do not modify the location.

Let's build without height.

That's right. Although it has been approved for a reduction of 0.5. It was only about half a foot from the street side. At the time of the derogation, they in fact moved back by an extra foot compared to the street, because it did not increase the derogation. It did not need to be advanced, but a little further away than it had initially been.

Any other questions? Katelyn has read the five previous conditions that were assigned to the VVNIS 159 file. The previous file. And we have added two additional stipulations. Do you agree with this? Any questions for the requestor?

As for a public hearing, is there anyone here to speak in favor or against this?

I propose to examine separately the VVNIS 169 file. A request for modification of derogation. Le dossier de dérogation V.26.159. Law 133, 3062 Rudin. Motion proposé.

Motion. Motion est seconde. La motion est adoptée. Je propose une motion pour le V.26.159. A request for derogation to increase the size of the annex building by 25%, 55% of the main housing, also at the rate of 523, 3062.2. I propose a motion.

Second motion.

I press. The motion.

The last point in the order of the day is the approval of the verbal trial of the meeting of the Council of Licences and Derogation of August 12. Is there a motion on this subject?

Motion for approval.

There is no other case to submit to this council.