HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 23, 2011• �TiTiiTi �i - • � �!
.
Committee of Adjustment
Agenda
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
7:00 pm
Main Committee Room
��)
(II)
(III)
(IV)
Adoption of Agenda
Adoption of Minutes from March 2, 2011
Reports
1
(Deferred at the March 2, 2011 meeting)
P/CA 07/11 & P/CA 08/11 — W. Jeschke
1449 Old Forest Road
(Part Lot 59, Lot 60, Plan 816, Part 1, 40R-7048)
City of Pickering
2. P/CA 09/11 — C. Daniell
1979 Woodview Avenue
(North Part Lot 18, Plan 329)
City of Pickering
3. P/CA 10/11 — T. Kerr
1731 Spruce Hill Road
(Part Lot 30, Plan 820, Part 1, 40R-9425)
City of Pickering
Adjournment
Page Number
1-4
5-8
9-13
14-20
�4CCessibl� For information related to accessibility requirements please contact
� Lesley Dunne
P I C I� E� 1�N G T. 905.420.4660, extension 2024
TTY 905.420.1739
Email Idunne@cityofpickering.com
C�t� o¢�
Pending Adoption
Present:
Tom Copeland
David Johnson
Eric Newton
Bill Utton
Also Present:
Ross Pym, Secretary-Treasurer
Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
Absent:
Shirley Van Steen
(I)
(II)
Adoption of Aqenda
Moved by Bill Utton
Seconded by Eric Newton
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
7:00 pm
Main Committee Room
That the agenda for the Wednesday, March 2, 2011 meeting be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
Adoption of Minutes
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Bill Utton
That the minutes of the 2"d meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held
Wednesday, February 9, 2011 be adopted as amended.
Carried Unanimously
�
l'
�' �
Q�
C�� o�
(III)
Rep�rts
1. P/CA 06/11 - T. & R
1931 Glendale Drive
(Lot 50, Plan 492)
City of Pickering
Charbonneau
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
7:00 pm
Main Committee Room
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to permit a front yard depth of
6.5 metres to an existing enclosed porch and a side yard width of 0.5 metres to
an existing shed, whereas the by-law requires a minimum front yard depth of
7.5 metres and minimum side yard width of 1.0 metres to an accessory building.
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building
permit.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the City of Pickering
Planning & Development Department recommending approval subject to
conditions. Written comments were also received from the City's Development
Control Manager expressing no concerns.
Trevor Charbonneau, owner, was present to represent the application. No
further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Trevor Charbonneau explained the previous property owner received approval
for a Committee of Adjustment last year and failed to obtain a building permit
and the application lapsed. Trevor Charbonneau also explained he fully intends
to obtain a building permit if this new application is approved. In response to a
question from a Committee member, Trevor Charbonneau indicated the
construction of the enclosed porch is complete.
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Tom Copeland
That application P/CA 06111 by T. & R. Charbonneau, be Approved on the
grounds that the front yard depth of 6.5 metres to the existing enclosed porch
and side yard width of 0.5 metres to the existing shed are minor variances that
are desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with
the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law,
subject to the following conditions:
r.
C�r.r o¢�
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes � �
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
7:00 pm
Main Committee Room
1. That these variances apply only to the front yard depth of 6.5 metres to the
existing enclosed porch and a side yard width of 0.5 metres to the existing
shed, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans
with this application.
2. That the applicant obtains a building permit for the enclosed porch by the
September 2, 2011 or this decision shall become null and void.
Carried Unanimously
2. P/CA 07/11 & PCA 08/11 — W. Jeschke
1449 Old Forest Road
(Part Lot 59, Lot 60, Plan 816, Part 1, 40R-7048)
City of Pickering
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to permit a lot frontage of
14.7 metres (P/CA 07/11) and a lot frontage of 14.8 metres (P/CA 08/11),
whereas the by-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres.
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to finalize a land
severance application and to obtain building permits.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the City of Pickering
Planning & Development Department recommending approval subject to
conditions. Written comments were also received from the City's Development
Control Manager expressing no concerns.
No representatian was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer
explained the Region of Durham Land Division application process and how it
relates to condition #2 of staff recommendations.
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Bill Utton
That applications P/CA 07l11 & P/CA 08/11 by W. Jeschke, be Deferred to the
next meeting to allow the owner or agent to be present for the decision.
Carried Unanimously
K'
Cify o�
�
(IV) Adiournment
Moved by Bill Utton
Seconded by Tom Copeland
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
7:00 pm
Main Committee Room
That the 3�d meeting of 2011 the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at
7:09 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on
Wednesday, March 23, 2011.
Carried Unanimously
Date
Chair
Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
n
Q�
Report to
Committee of Adjustment
Application Number: P/CA 07/11 & P/CA 08/11
Meeting Date: March 23, 2011
(Deferred from the March 2, 2011 Meeting)
From: Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner — Development Review
Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications P/CA 07/11 & PICA 08/11
W. Jeschke
1449 Old Forest Road
(Part Lot 59, Lot 60, Plan 816, Part 1, 40R-7048}
City of Pickering
Application:
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to permit a lot frontage of
14.7 metres (P/CA 07/11) and a lot frontage of 14.8 (P/CA 08/11), whereas the by-law
requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres.
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to finalize a land severance
application and to obtain building permits.
Recommendation:
The Planning & Development Department considers the lot frontage of 14.7 metres and
14.8 metres to be minor variances that are desirable for the appropriate development of
the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the OfFicial Plan and the
Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That these variances apply only to the proposed severed properties, as
generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans with this
application.
2. That the owner receives final approval for land severance applications
LD 001/11 and LD 002/11 or this decision shall be null and void.
� �i
Report P/CA 07/11 & P/CA OS/11
(Deferred from the March 2, 2011 meeting)
Background:
March 23, 2011
Page 2
Land Division applications LD001/11 & LD002/11 were conditionally approved by the
Region of Durham Land Division Committee on January 12, 2011 for the proposed
severances. One of the conditions of approval was the applicant obtain approval from
the City of Pickering's Committee of Adjustment to allow for the reduced proposed lot
frontages.
This application was deferred from the March 2, 2011 Committee meeting to the
March 23, 2011 because the applicant was not present.
Comment:
Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Pickering Official Plan —"Urban Residential — Low Density Area" within the Woodland
Neighbourhood
Zoning By-law 3036 —"R4" — Fourth Density Zone
Appropriateness of the Application
Lot Frontage Variances
• the intent of the minimum 15.0 metres lot frontage requirement in the by-law
is to establish a lot width that will ensure compatibility of housing forms and
an attractive streetscape for an area
• the proposed lot frontages of 14.7 metres and 14.8 metres will be compatible
with the existing lots fronting onto �Id Forest Road
• the intent of the zoning by-law would be maintained
Date of report: March 16, 2011
Comments prepared by:
`
��
Mila Yeung
Plannerl
MY:RP:Id
cofelre{wtls/M11/pca07-11 d pca08-11 dnterrod.doc
Enclosures
�
G�
Ross Pym, MCIP, PP
Principal Planner — Development Review
Q7
Information Compiled from Applicant's
(� $ Submitted Plan
P/CA 07111 & P/CA 08/11
W.Jeschke
� ���
O °'
4 � �
�
�
�
�O
a
LOT 61
69.99=
' Retained Lot
7.37!� 972.1.3 sy.m
� ; -63. 37-
� ;� LOT 60
� �
� "rn 1 �
To permit lot frontage
of 14.7 metres
(P/CA 07/11)
�
�
T
To permit lot frontage
of 14.8 metres
(P/CA 08/11)
Seve��ed Lot
900. 36 sq. m
2.11-
Seve�ed Lot
LOT 58
�
�
�
�
iY
This map was produced by the City of Pickering Planning & Development Depahment,
Planning Informa[ion Services Mapping and Design, Feb. 16, 2011.
��
C[�y D¢�
Report to
Committee of Adjustment
Application Number: P/CA 09/11
Meeting Date: March 23, 2011
From: Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner — Development Review
Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 09/11
C. Daniell
1979 Woodview Avenue
(North Part Lot 18, Plan 329)
City of Pickering
Application:
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 3537/05
and 7060/10 to permit a lot area of 440 square metres, whereas the by-law requires a
minimum lot area of 460 square metres.
The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to finalize Land Division
applications (LD 122/10, LD 123/10 and LD 124/10) for the creation of four residential
lots on Woodview Avenue.
Recommendation:
The Planning & Development Department considers the lot area of 440 square metres
to be a minor variance that is desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and
in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning
By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the
following conditions: �
1. That this variance apply only to the proposed lot as generally sited and
outlined on the applicanYs submitted plans with this application.
2. That the owner receives final approva� for Land Division applications LD 122/10,
LD 123/10 and LD 124/1� or this decision shall become null and void.
Report P/CA 09/11
�
Background:
March 23, 2011
Page 2
Pickering City Council approved Zoning By-law Amendment application A 03/10 on
June 21, 2010, to amend the zoning of the subject property to facilitate the creation of
four residential lots having a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres. On December 13,
2010, Land Division applications LD 122/10, LD123/10 & LD124/10 were conditionally
approved by the Land Division Committee for the creation of four residential lots. As a
condition of approval, a Committee of Adjustment application is required for proposed
Lot 4 in order to permit a lot area of 440 square metres, whereas the by-law requires a
minimum lot area of 460 square metres.
Comment:
Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Pickering Official Plan —"Urban residential — Low Density Area and Open Space
System — Natural Areas" within the Rouge park Neighbourhood
Zoning By-law 3036 as amended by By-law 6537/05 and 7060/10 —"S1-14"
Appropriateness of the Application
• the intent of the minimum lot area requirement is to ensure a usable lot size
that is compatible with the surrounding area
• the proposed 440 square metres for the proposed lot is in keeping with the
developing Woodview Avenue streetscape and the surrounding area
• the proposed lots backs onto buffer lands and the Townline Provincially
Significant Wetland Complex and the reduced lot area will not have adverse
impact other residential lots
• the intent of the zoning by-law would be maintained
Input From Other Sources
Development Control
Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority
• no comments
• no objection
• the proposed minor variance will facilitate
the protection of the adjacent wetland
complex by allowing proposed Lot 4 to be
configured in such a way so as to provide
an appropriate environmental buffer from
the wetland
Report P/CA 09/11
Date of report: March 16, 2011
Comments prepared by:
.,����,,
Mila Yeung
Planner I
k
\ �
\
MY:RP:Id
cofa/reports/2017 /pca09-11.doc
Enclosures
March 23, 2011
Page 3
�
Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
Principal Pfanner — Development Review
1 �.
i�
W
�
z
W
Q
�
W
�
�
0
�
�
4
� : . "...
0
�
�
E
0
�
�
� LOT 3
0
�ri
�
.�■
. 28.5m
LOT 4
,+°�;•f`. , �•;;:x�^»e�i
��+: r
Information Compiled from Applicant's
Submitted Plan
P/CA 09111
C. Daniell
73.9m
LOT 1
RETAINED LOT
72.4m
LOT 2
SEVEREDLOT
51.1m
h� `��
�' a;'
,
, r, , .,,
y`, / / ' �
..��, f�
��� �\��uwe
,
�� .�..�
..,..._._..,-t
To permit a lot area of
440 square metres
�-i
� "��
w
�. ....,
. ,r,
,,_ _ _.
%
, ,.• �.. �� �
,'' � �
<�'
13
� P�
�' � �
;,
��
jV
This map was produced by the Cily of Pickering Plannfng 8 �evebpment Department,
Planning Infametion Services Mapping and �esign, Mar. 8, 2011.
, ,;_
.. 'u"'������'��
'a ""' •'• il':�.�� � � .m,.�' .
��i � C \ !�
Report to
Committee of Adjustment
Application Number: P/CA 10l11
Meeting Date: March 23, 2011
From: Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner — Development Review
Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 10/11
T. Kerr
1731 Spruce Hill Road
(Part Lot 30, Plan 820, Part 1, 40R-9425)
City of Pickering
Application:
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to permit an existing north side
yard width of 0.3 metre and a proposed south side yard width of 1.0 metre to a
proposed addition onto the detached dwelling, whereas the by-law requires a minimum
side yard width of 1.8 metres.
The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit.
Recommendation:
The Planning & Development Department considers the existing north side yard width
of 0.3 metre to be a minor variance that is desirable for the appropriate development of
the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and
zoning by-law and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject
to the following conditions:
1. That this variance apply only to the existing dwelling unit, as generally sited
and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans with this application.
:,•
The Planning & Development Department considers the south side yard width of
1.0 metre to the proposed addition onto the detached dwelling to be a major variance
that is undesirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with
the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends
Refusal of the proposed variance.
Report P/CA 10/11
March 23, 2011
Page 2 � �
Comment:
Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Pickering Official Plan —"Urban Residential Area — Low Density Area" within the
Dunbarton Neighbourhood
Zoning By-law 3036 —"R3" — Third Density Residential
Appropriateness of the Application
North Side Yard Width Variance
• the intent of the minimum side yard widths of 1.8 metres on both sides of a
dwelling are to provide an appropriate buffer space between structures on
abutting properties and to provide appropriate access to the rear yard
• the side yard width of 0.3 metres to the existing dwelling is an existing
situation that would maintain the character of the surrounding area and
provide an appropriate buffer between the existing dwelling and the abutting
property
• the intent of the zoning by-law would be maintained
South Side Yard Width Variance
• the intent of the minimum side yard widths of 1.8 metres on both sides of a
dwelling is to provide an appropriate buffer space between structures on
abutting properties and to provide appropriate access to the rear yard
• the side yard width of 1.0 metre to a proposed new addition to the existing
dwelling would not provide appropriate buffer between the abutting property
and it would not provide appropriate access to the rear yard given the existing
north side yard width is 0.3 metre
•"R3" zoning requires a significant side yard width to the create a sense of
openness between the dwellings that have significant lot frontages of 18
metres or greater
• the lot standards in the by-law are proportional to the size of a lot, the subject
property has a lot frontage of 21. 3 metres with an existing reduced north side
yard width of 0.3 metre, therefore, there is no justification or support for a
further reduced side yard of 1.0 metre on the other side
• the applicant provided no planning rationale for the proposed south side yard
width variance with the exception of wanting to save the existing south wall of
the existing detached garage to which the City's Chief Building Official has
expressed significant construction concerns (see attached)
• the applicants proposed elevations for the dwelling do not appear to
demonstrated that the existing south wall of the detached garage is being
maintained
• the intend of the zoning by-law would not be maintained and is not
appropriate development of the property
• the variance for a reduced south side yard width is not a minor variance
Report P/CA 10/11
��
Input From Other Sources
Chief Building Official
Date of report: March 17, 2011
Comments prepared by:
✓1 V������
Mila Yeung
Planner I
MY:RP:Id
cafelrePohs/201 Vpca10-11.tloc
Enclosures
March 23, 2011
Page 3
concerned with the appropriateness of
demolishing the garage with the exception of
the south wall during construction of the addition
concerned with the feasibility and practicality of
saving the south wall of the existing one storey
garage through underpinning of the south wall
to suit the proposed rear basement
concerned with the proximity of the
neighbouring building and the potential of
undermining adjacent foundations
a professional engineer must be retained to
address all building design and construction
which exceeds the scope of Part 9 of the
Ontario Building Code
the applicant should provide full details
regarding the existing site conditions and the
proposed construction procedures where
adjacent properties may be impacted. In the
absence of this information, it would be
inadvisable to approve this application for a
building permit or a minor variance (see
attached)
�O-�
�
Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner — Development Review
��
0
Q
�
�
J
J
= E
M
U "
�
�
�
�
Information Compiled from ApplicanYs
Submitted Plan
P/CA 10/11
T. Kerr
1.Om
To permit a south side
yard width of 1.0
metre
jY
This map was produced by the City of Pickering Planning & Development DepaAment,
Planning Information Services Mapping and Design, Mar. 6, 2017.
To:
From
�
�'_" -�..
.�,�� ��, �
;�� �
�'ICKERIN{�...,
ia�i BICENTFNNIAL 20��
Mila Yeung
Plannerl
Kyle Bentley
Chief Building Official
Copy: Manager, Development Review & Urban Design
Subject: Building Comments .
1731 Spruce Hill Road
- File: P/CA 10/11
t :)
. �
March 16, 2011
Further to your request for comments on the minor variance application for 1731 Spruce Hill Road,
my comments are as follows:
1. The application appears to include the construction of a one-storey addition to the existing
one-storey dwelling, which currently has a walk-out basement to the rear of the property.
2. There is one window identified on the south wall of the addition, which is recessed by 8
inches. The window area limits appear to conform with building code window size limit
requirements for walls close to the property line.
3. Further review of the preliminary drawings indicates an existing garage to the south of the
property. It is unclear from the drawings whether or not the garage has a basement level.
Drawing A2 notes that the garage will be demolished, with the exception of the south wall. I
would be concerned how the applicant intends to keep this wall in place during construction
of the addition. If the existing garage is only one-storey, it would be necessary to underpin
the existing south wall to suit the proposed rear basement. Underpinning is a very
expensive and potentially impractical approach for the sake of preserving a one-storey wall.
4. The neighbouring residential dwelling south of 1731 Spruce Hill Road is close to the
property line. It is unclear whether or not this neighbour's home has a basement or not.
Construction for the proposed addition must take into account the proximity of the
neighbouring buildings so as not to undermine adjacent foundations.
5. It would be necessary for the applicant to retain a professional engineer to address all
building design and construction which exceeds the scope of Part 9 of the Ontario Building
Code.
��
6. The applicant should provide full details regarding the existing site conditions and the
proposed construction procedure where adjacent properties may be impacted. In the
absence of this information, it would inadvisable to approve this application for a building
permit or a minor varianee.
If there are any questions or concerns, please contact me.
� �G�� �
�� %
/
KB:jf '
J\Documentsl8uilding Serviceslbuilding comments -1731 Spruce HIII - 3-16.doc
March 16, 2011 � Page 2
Building Comments — P/CA 10/11