City Council Committee of Adjustment Meeting

The Committee of Adjustment approved a variance allowing the Orthodox Church of St. Peter and St. Paul to use 109 Sabella Drive for church-related meetings, teaching and youth activities, subject to a two-year zoning-certificate condition. It unanimously denied the proposed redevelopment at 82 First Street after residents and committee members raised concerns about the home's scale, setbacks, height, tree impacts, privacy, drainage and compatibility with the First and Second Street Heritage Conservation District.

Topics Discussed

Church-related use at 109 Sabella Drive

The committee reviewed Application A1 132 2026 for the Orthodox Church of St. Peter and St. Paul's properties at 454 Rebecca Street and 109 Sabella Drive. The applicant sought a Section 45(2) variance under the Planning Act to convert the vacant two-storey house into space for study, meetings with clergy and congregation members, teaching and youth activities.

Applicant representative David Nelson said the property had been purchased from the United Church and that the proposed uses would be similar to those already permitted on the church property. Planning staff said the building's size would limit activities to "small gatherings and meetings, just a few people at a time."

The committee approved the application unanimously. The approval allows the property to operate in association with the neighbouring church for administrative, teaching, meeting and youth-related uses. It expires after two years if a zoning occupancy certificate has not been issued.

Proposed redevelopment at 82 First Street

The committee considered Application 133 of 2026 for demolition of the existing home and construction of a two-storey dwelling in the First and Second Street Heritage Conservation District. The property is designated non-contributing to the district.

The applicant requested seven variances, including:

• Height of 9.88 metres, compared with the nine-metre limit;
• A north side-yard setback of 1.66 metres, compared with the required 2.4 metres;
• A front-yard setback of 10.97 metres, compared with the calculated requirement of 13.28 metres;
• Increased lot coverage and floor-area ratio, including a proposed FAR of 46 per cent compared with the permitted 35 per cent.

The applicant said the second storey was incorporated into a semi-flat roof to reduce the building's perceived massing. The design was also revised after a site meeting with the Heritage Advisory Committee.

Neighbour concerns about scale, privacy and sunlight

Eight letters of objection were submitted, and residents including Lindsay Sparks, Jerry Denny and Claudia Fullerton spoke against the proposal.

Sparks of 86 First Street said the variances would permit a building that "creates a materially larger building envelope in a very old style street." She also argued that the application failed to maintain the intent of the official plan and zoning bylaw because of its combined "scale, height setbacks and potential impact on the mature trees."

Denny of 88 First Street said the seven requested variances were "certainly not minor" and that the property was subject to "a very high standard of scrutiny because it's an heritage area." He raised concerns that the height and elevation could reduce sunlight for neighbouring properties.

Fullerton of 87 First Street said, "The house is lovely. The design is great. It just needs to be smaller. you're building on a small lot."

Committee member Mr. Towski said the application was not too large because of one measurement, but because of "the cumulative result of the numbers." He said the proposal was incompatible with the neighbourhood's character and that it was "in no way desirable for the development of the property in this neighborhood."

Residents also raised concerns about north-facing windows, privacy and the effect of reduced setbacks on nearby homes.

Trees, drainage and heritage considerations

Residents and committee members questioned the impact of excavation on mature cedar trees along the property lines. They cited potential root-zone damage and said the proposed 1.66-metre setback would not provide adequate protection. The meeting material also indicated that Forestry staff opposed the reduced north side-yard setback.

The applicant said a private arborist believed protective measures could preserve some boundary trees. Committee members noted, however, that an arborist report had not been submitted with the variance application. Drainage and the absence of a development engineering permit application were also discussed.

Mr. Towski said the application failed the four statutory tests because the combined variances did not maintain the intent of the official plan or zoning bylaw. The committee then denied the application unanimously.

Motions

• Application A1 132 2026 — 109 Sabella Drive: Approved unanimously. The variance permits the property to operate in association with the neighbouring church for administrative, teaching, meeting and youth-related uses. Approval expires after two years if a zoning occupancy certificate has not been issued.
• Application 133 of 2026 — 82 First Street: Denied unanimously. The committee found that the requested variances failed the statutory tests and that the proposal was incompatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.
• Subsequent agenda item: Deferred. The supplied meeting material does not identify the item or the terms of the deferral.

Attendees

Committee members identified in the meeting material:

• Mr. Dicki
• Mr. Hardcastle
• Mr. Towski

The material does not provide a complete attendance list of councillors or committee members.