HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 11 2015Committee of Adjustment
Agenda
Meeting Number: 4 .
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2015
-----------------
(I)
(II)
(Ill)
(IV)
Committee of Adjustment
Agenda
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
7:00pm
Main Committee Room
Page Number
Adoption of Agenda
Adoption of Minutes from February 18, 2015 1-12
Reports
1. Deferred at the February 18, 2015 meeting 13-20
PICA 08115
1154786 Ontario
1438 Rougemount Drive
2. PICA 11115 21-26
C. Willson
485 Whitevale Road
3. PICA 12115 27-32
2218053 Ontario Corp.
900 Brock Road
4. PICA 13115 33-39
K. Hamoui
860 Strouds Lane
5. PICA 14115 40-46
N. Kalmoni
858 Strouds Lane
6. PICA 15115 47-52
Mattamy (Seaton) Limited
Block 1 on
Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13
7. PICA 16115 to PICA 32115 53-58
Mattamy (Seaton) Limited
Block 2 and Block 20 on
Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13
Adjournment
Accessible For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
-P-1 (_K_E_R i NN-G Lesley Dunne
·· • ~ T. 905.420.4660, extension 2024
· TTY 905.420.1739
Email ldunne@pickering.ca
Pending Adoption
Present:
Tom Copeland-Vice-Chair
David Johnson -Chair
Eric Newton
Sean Wiley
Also Present:
Melissa Markham, Secretary-Treasurer
Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
Absent:
Denise Rundle
(I) Appointment of Chair
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Tom Copeland
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
7:00pm
Main Committee Room
That David Johnson be appointed as Chair for the 2015 term.
(II) Appointment of Vice Chair
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Sean Wiley
Carried Unanimously
That Tom Copeland be appointed as Vice-Chair for the 2015 term.
(Ill) Appointment of Secretary-Treasurer
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Sean Wiley
Carried Unanimously
That Melissa Markham be appointed as Secretary-Treasurer.
Carried Unanimously
Page 1 of 12
01 "
02
(IV)
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
7:00pm
Main Committee Room
Appointment of Assistant Secretary-Treasurers
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Tom Copeland
That Lesley Dunne and Devin Poole be appointed as Assistant Secretary-
Treasurers.
Carried Unanimously
(V) Adoption of Agenda
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Tom Copeland
That the agenda for the Wednesday, February 18, 2015 meeting be adopted.
(VI) Adoption of 2015 Meeting Schedule
Moved by Tom Copeland
Seconded by Eric Newton
Carried Unanimously
That the Committee of Adjustment Meeting Schedule for 2015 be adopted.
(VII) Adoption of Minutes
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Tom Copeland
Carried Unanimously
That the minutes of the 2nd meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held
Wednesday, January 28, 2015 be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
Page 2 of 12
(VIII) Reports
1. (Tabled at the January 28, 2015 meeting)
PICA 06115
M. Modica
557 Marksbury Road
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Tom Copeland
Committee of Adjustment 0 3
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
7:00pm
Main Committee Room
That application PICA 06115 by M. Modica be lifted from the table.
Carried Unanimously
The applicant requests relief from the following provisions of Zoning By-law 2511:
• to permit a minimum front yard depth of 7.3 metres; whereas the by-law
requires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres
• to permit a minimum north side yard width of 1.2 metres; whereas the by-law
requires a minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres
• to recognize an existing flankage side yard width of 1.1 metres to the ground
floor of the existing dwelling and to permit a minimum flankage side yard
width of 2. 7 metres to a proposed second storey;· whereas the by-law requires
a minimum side yard width of 4.5 metres
• to permit uncovered steps not exceeding 1. 7 metres in height to project a
maximum of 1.4 metres into the required flankage side yard from the
proposed addition; whereas the by-law permits uncovered decks or platforms
not exceeding 1.0 metre in height to project a maximum of 1.0 metre into the
required flankage side yard
• to permit a covered porch to project a maximum of 1.0 metre into the required
front yard; whereas the by-law permits uncovered decks or platforms not
exceeding 1.0 metre in height to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the
required front yard
• to permit a maximum lot coverage of 37 percent; whereas the by-law permits
a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building
permit to demolish portions of the existing single-storey dwelling and reconstruct
a new two-storey dwelling.
Page 3 of 12
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
7:00pm
Main Committee Room
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City
Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions.
Written comments were also received from the City's Engineering & Public
Works Department expressing no objections to the proposed development. The
revised grading plan·demonstrates that grading can be completed without
creating a negative impact on adjacent properties. The applicant must provide a
common swale along the north property line.
Marco Modica, owner, 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, Marco Modica explained
the swale along the north property line will be provided for drainage of the site.
Moved by Tom Copeland
Seconded by Eric Newton
That application PICA 06/15 by M. Modica, be Approved on the grounds that a
minimum front yard depth of 7.3 metres, a minimum north side yard width of
1.2 metres, an existing flankage side yard width of 1.1 metres to the ground floor,
a minimum flankage side yard width of 2.7 metres to a proposed second storey,
uncovered steps not exceeding 1. 7 metres in height to project a maximum .of
1.4 metres into the required flankage side yard, a covered porch to project
maximum of 1.0 metre into the required front yard and a maximum lot coverage
of 37 percent are minor in nature, 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:
1. That these variances apply only to the proposed two-storey detached
dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.
2. That the applicant provides a grading plan to the satisfaction of the
Engineering & Public Works Department which illustrates the removal of the
existing retaining wall, located on the north side of the property or the decision
affecting the north side yard width variance shall become null and void.
3. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by
February 17, 2017 or this decision shall become null and void.
Carried Unanimously
Page 4 of 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PICA 07115
D. & C. Kokkotas
1820 Appleview Road
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
7:00pm
Main Committee Room
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, to permit a minimum
south side yard width of 1.4 metres; whereas the by-law requires a minimum side
yard width of 1.8 metres on both sides, where a garage is attached to a dwelling.
The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building
permit to construct a two-storey detached dwelling.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City
Development Department recommending refusal. The Secretary-Treasurer also
outlined if the applicant were to amend the application to allow a south side yard
width of 1.5 metres, staff recommendation would be approval subject to
conditions. Written comments were also received from the City's Engineering &
Public Works Department expressing no concerns.
Nick Racanelli, agent, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Nick Racanelli provided an overview of site plan drawings he submitted to the
Committee Members. The drawings illustrated the difference between a
1.43 metre south side yard width, being proposed, and a 1.5 metre south side
yard width. He also stated the proposed detached dwelling is a custom built
home that provides larger rooms, double car garage which provides a more
marketable product. He stated that his clients wanted to maintain a large
setback beside the proposed garage to provide access to the rear yard.
Five letters of support from surrounding neighbours were also provided for the
Committee Members to review.
Nick Racanelli stated that his clients would prefer the 1.4 metre south side yard
setback but could revise the plan to accommodate a 1.5 metre setback.
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Sean Wiley
That amended application PICA 07115 by D. & C. Kokkotas, be Approved on the
grounds that minimum south side yard width of 1.5 metres is minor in nature 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, subject to the
following conditions:
Page 5 of 12
05
,-------------------------------
fG
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
7:00pm
Main Committee Room
1. That this variance applies only to the proposed detached dwelling that will be
revised to reflect the 1.5 metre setback, as generally outlined on the
applicant's submitted plans.
2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by
February 18, 2016, or this decision shall become null and void.
Carried Unanimously
3. David Johnson, Committee Member, stated that he has known the agent for
application PICA 08115 for many years, however that would not impact his
decision on the application.
PICA 08115
1154786 Ontario Ltd.
1438 Rougemount Drive
The applicant requests relief from the following provisions of Zoning By-law 3036,
as amended by By-laws 2912188:
• to permit a minimum front yard depth of 11.9 metres; whereas the by-law
requires a minimum front yard depth of 15.0 metres
• to permit a covered porch to project a maximum of 1.8 metres into the
required front yard; whereas the by-law permits uncovered decks or platforms
not exceeding 1.0 metre in height to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the
required front yard, and
• to permit a minimum north side yard width of 1. 5 metres; whereas the by-law
requires a minimum side yard width of 1.8 metres
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building
permit to construct a two-storey dwelling.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City
Development Department recommending the application be deferred. Written
comments were received from Marc Charette of 1450 Rougemount Drive in
favour of the application. Written comments were received from Simon Hunter of
1436 Rougemount Drive in objection to the application. Written comments were
received from the City's Engineering & Public Works Department expressing no
concerns.
Page 6 of 12
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
7:00pm
Main Committee Room
Correspondence received from Simon Hunter expressed several concerns with
the proposed dwelling; too wide for the subject property; window and door
openings should not be permitted on the south side; the condition of vehicular
access and servicing easement if development is too close to the right-of-way;
provide appropriate fencing to protect the existing south vehicular access; and
overhang encroachment over the north easement.
Kevin Cahill, agent, Tim Sanderson, owner, were present to represent the
application. Simon Hunter of 1436 Rougemount Drive was present in objection
to the application.
Kevin Cahill stated that the location of the proposed dwelling is to preserve three
large mature trees in the rear yard. He also stated that relocating the dwelling
further from the front lot line will infringe on these trees and tree canopy that he is
trying to preserve. Kevin Cahill spoke to a letter that was received by Cressman
Tree Maintenance & Landscaping Ltd. which stated that if the proposed house
was moved back any further, the first two trees would not be able to be
preserved as there would be too much root loss.
Simon Hunter expressed a concern with the size and location of the proposed
dwelling stating that it is too close to his easement and the road. He was
concerned that the construction of the proposed dwelling too close to his
easement would cause the access to his property to collapse and therefore he
would not be able to access his property. He was also in opposition to the
reduction in front yard setback.
The Secretary-Treasurer explained that a tree inventory and preservation plan is
required before a recommendation can be made for the Committee to consider.
The letter, which was provided to the Committee Members, did not have enough
detail to determine the impact of the proposed dwelling on the trees.
Moved by Tom Copeland
Seconded by Eric Newton
That application PICA 08/15 by 1154786 Ontario Ltd., be Deferred to allow the
applicant to provide a tree inventory and preservation plan to the satisfaction of
the City. This plan is required to be prepared by qualified persons and
demonstrate whether the proposed location of the dwelling can accommodate
the protection of existing mature trees currently located in the rear yard.
Carried Unanimously
Page 7 of 12
07
ns ·-·
4. PICA 09115 & PICA 10115
G. & R. Kerum
1423 Rougemount Drive
PICA 09115 (Proposed Retained Parcel)
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
7:00pm
Main Committee Room
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 as amended, to permit a
minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres and a minimum side yard width of 1.2 metres
where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, whereas the by-law
requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres and a minimum side yard width of
1.8 metres where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling.
PICA 01 0115 (Proposed Severed Parcel)
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 as amended, to permit a
minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres and a minimum side yard width of 1.2 metres
where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, whereas the by-law
requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres and a minimum side yard width of
1.8 metres where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling.
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to create one
additional lot through the Region of Durham Land Division Committee and obtain
a building permit to construct a two-storey detached dwelling on the proposed
severed parcel and to replace an existing dwelling with a new two-storey
detached dwelling on the proposed retained parcel.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City
Development Department recommending approval for lot frontage subject to
conditions and refusal for the minimum side yard width of 1.2 metres. The
Secretary-Treasurer outlined if the applicant were to amend the minimum side
yard width to 1.5 metres, staff recommendation would be approval subject to
conditions. Written comments were also received from the City's Engineering &
Public Works Department expressing no concerns.
Brian Moss, agent, was present to represent the application. Virginia & Jan Szott
of 1421 Rougemount Drive and Luis Sinn of 1409 Rougemount Drive were
present to obtain additional information.
Brian Moss stated that an application for land severance for the subject lands has
been tabled at the Durham Region Land Division Committee in order to prepare
reports requested by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA).
Page 8 of 12
--------------
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
7:00pm
Main Committee Room
He stated that there are lands to the rear of the properties that are to be
maintained by the TRCA. He also stated that staff at the TRCA have accepted
the 1.2 metre side yard setbacks as acceptable to access the rear of the
properties, for their purposes. No written confirmation of the TRCA approval was
provided at the meeting.
Brian Moss stated that it was his planning opinion that the 1.2 metre side yard
setbacks were in keeping with character of the neighbourhood as the dwellings
are proposed to be setback 15.0 metres from the front lot line. He stated that the
unique character of the street with traffic calming is unique to the area and these
dwellings would be compatible. He mentioned that the applicant has built similar
dwellings in other areas of the City with a 1.2 metre side yard setback. He also
stated that this size of dwelling provides for a preferred room layout and design
within the dwelling.
In response to a question of a Committee Member, Brian Moss stated that the
proposed dwellings would be approximately 3,000 to 3,500 square feet.
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Sean Wiley
That application PICA 09/15 by G. & R. Kerum, be Approved on the grounds
that the minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres for the proposed retained parcel to
be minor in nature, 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:
1. That the variance apply only to the proposed lot configuration for the
proposed retained parcel, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's
submitted plans.
2. That the applicant obtains final clearance for Land Division Application
LD 086/12 by February 17, 2016, or this decision shall become null and void.
3. That the applicant submits a preliminary site plan indicating proposed
driveway locations to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering & Public Works
Department.
4. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction on
the proposed retained parcel by February 17, 2017, or this decision affecting
the proposed detached dwelling shall become null and void.
and
Page 9 of 12
09
10 Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
7:00pm
Main Committee Room
That application PICA 09115 by G. & R. Kerum, be Refused on the grounds that
the minimum side yard width of 1.2 metres where a garage is erected as part of a
detached dwelling is a major variance that is not considered to be desirable for
the appropriate development of the land, al"!d not in keeping with the general
intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
Vote
David Johnson
Eric Newton
Sean Wiley
opposed
in favour
in favour
Moved by Sean Wiley
Seconded by David Johnson
Carried
That application PICA 09115 by G. & R. Kerum, be Approved on the grounds
that the minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres for the proposed retained parcel
is minor in nature, 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:
Vote
David Johnson
Eric Newton
Sean Wiley
in favour
opposed
in favour
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Sean Wiley
Carried
That application PICA 10115 by G. & R. Kerum, be Approved on the grounds
that the minimum lot fro.ntage of 15.2 metres for the proposed severed parcel to
be minor in nature, 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·:
1. That the variance apply only to the proposed lot configuration for the
proposed severed parcel, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's
submitted plans.
Page 10 of 12
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes 11
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
7:00pm
Main Committee Room
2. That the applicant obtains final clearance for Land Division Application
LD 086112 by February 17, 2016, or this decision shall become null and void.
3. That the applicant submits a preliminary site plan indicating proposed
driveway locations to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering & Public Works
Department.
4. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction on
the proposed severed parcel by February 17, 2017, or this decision affecting
the proposed detached dwelling shall become null and void.
and
That application PICA 10115 by G. & R. Kerum, be Refused on the grounds that
the minimum side yard width of 1.2 metres where a garage is erected as part of a
detached dwelling is a major variance that is not considered to be desirable for
the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general
intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
Vote
David Johnson
Eric Newton
Sean Wiley
opposed
in favour
in favour
Moved by Sean. Wiley
Seconded by David Johnson
Carried
That application PICA 10115 by G. & R. Kerum, be Approved on the grounds
that the minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres for the proposed severed parcel
is minor in nature, 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:
Vote
David Johnson
Eric Newton
Sean Wiley
in favour
opposed
in favour
Carried
Page 11 of 12
12
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
7:00pm
Main Committee Room
(IX) Adjournment
Date
Chair
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Tom Copeland
That the 3rd meeting of the 2015 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at
7:56 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on
Wednesday, March 11, 2015.
Carried Unanimously
Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
Page 12 of 12
From:
Subject:
Application
Report to
Committee of Adjustment 13
Application Number: PICA 08115
Meeting Date: March 11,2015
(Deferred at the February 18, 2015 Meeting)
Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner, Development Review
Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 08115
1154786 Ontario Ltd.
1438 Rougemount Drive
The applicant requests relief from the following provisions of Zoning By-law 3036, as
amended by By-law 2912188:
• to permit a revised minimum front yard depth of 13.0 metres; whereas the by-law
requires a minimum front yard depth of 15.0 metres
• to permit a covered porch to project a maximum of 1.8 metres into the· required
front yard; wherea$ the by-law permits uncovered decks or platforms not
exceeding 1.0 metre in height to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required
front yard, and
• to permit a minimum north side yard width of 1.5 metres; whereas the by-law
requires a minimum side yard width of 1.8 metres
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit
to construct a two-storey dwelling.
Recommendation
The City Development Department considers the revised minimum front yard depth of
13.0 metres, a covered porch to project a maximum of 1.8 metres into the required front
yard and a minimum north side yard width of 1.5 metres to be minor in nature, 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. Thafthese variances apply only to the proposed two-storey detached dwelling, as
generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.
2. That the applicant make every effort to protect the existing Sugar Maple trees
located on the north side of the property, situated behind the proposed dwelling in
accordance with the Arborist's Report prepared by Cressman Tree Maintenance &
14
Report PICA 08/15 March 11, 2015
Page2
Landscaping Ltd., dated February 26, 2015, or the decision affecting the revised
minimum front yard depth shall become null and void.
3. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by
March 10, 2017 or this decision shall become null and void.
Background
On February 18, 2015, the Committee of Adjustment deferred the Minor Variance
Application at the request of the City Development Department to allow the owner to
provide a tree inventory and preservation plan to the satisfaction of the City. The City
Development Department required the plan to demonstrate that the proposed location
of the dwelling could accommodate the protection of existing mature trees located in the
rear yard.
On February 26, 2015, the applicant submitted an Arborist's Report prepared by a
qualified person, which contained a tree inventory and preservation plan for the subject
property. The Report highlighted mitigation measures to protect three mature Sugar
Maple trees located along the north property line to the rear of the dwelling. As a result,
the applicant has revised their application to increase the minimum front yard depth
from 11.9 metres to 13.0 metres by redesigning the rear of the dwelling to
accommodate the trees. After reviewing the details of the plan, the City Development
Department is satisfied with the justification.
Comment
Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Pickering Official Plan-"Urban Residential -Low Density Areas" within the
Rougemount Neighbourhood
Zoning By-law 3036 as amended by By-law 2912/88-"R3"-Third Density Residential
Zone
Appropriateness of the Application
Front Yard Depth Variance
• the intent of a minimum front yard depth is to ensure that an adequate landscape
area, parking area and significant separation distance is provided between the
dwelling and the street to compliment Rougemount Drive's unique streetscape
• the zoning by-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 15.0 metres
• the existing dwelling on the subject lands has a front yard setback of 11.9 metres
Report PICA 08/15 March 11, 2015
· Page 3 15
• the applicant's original application was to remove the existing dwelling and to
construct a new detached dwelling with the existing minimum front yard setback
of 11.9 metres, in order to preserve mature trees located in the rear yard
• City staff requested that the proposed dwelling have a greater front yard setback
than the existing dwelling,. unless the applicant could demonstrate that
accommodating the required 15.0 metre front yard setback would cause the
removal of the mature trees
• the applicant submitted an Arborist's Report demonstrating that the revised plan
could increase the minimum front yard setback to 13.0 metres and still
accommodate the preservation of the trees in the rear yard
• the applicant has made alterations to the proposed dwelling to accommodate the
existing Sugar Maple trees in the rear yard, which has increased the proposed
front yard setback from 11.9 to 13.0 metres
• an adequate soft landscaped and parking area would be maintained on the
subject property
• the proposed dwelling would maintain a separation distance and streetscape that
is in character with the surrounding neighbourhood
• the requested variance is minor in nature, is desirable for the appropriate
development of the property and maintains the purpose and intent of the Official
Plan and Zoning By-law
Uncovered Platforms Projecting into the required Front Yard Variance
• the by-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in
height above grade to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required front
yard
• the intent of this provision is to provide the opportunity for any stairs and/or a
landing platform to encroach into the front yard when needed, to ensure an
adequate buffer space between buildings and street activity is provided, and to
ensure an adequate landscaped area within the front yard is also provided
• the applicant is proposing a covered porch to project an additional 1.8 metres into
the 13.0 metre minimum front yard depth
• an adequate buffer space between the proposed covered porch and street
activity along Rougemount Drive will be maintained
• the proposed covered porch will enhance the residential streetscape along
Rougemount Drive
• the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate
development of the property and maintains the purpose and intent of the Official
Plan and Zoning By-law
Side Yard Width Variance
• the intent of a side yard width is to provide an appropriate separation between
structures on abutting properties in order to maintain pedestrian access, and to
accommodate grading, drainage and residential services such as air conditioning
units and utility meters and to compliment Rougemount Drive's unique streetscape
16
Report PICA 08/15 March 11, 2015
Page4
• the proposed 1.5 metre north side yard width will provide an appropriate
separation between dwellings on adjacent properties and sufficient access into
the rear yard
• the proposed side yard setbacks can accommodate roof overhangs iri
compliance with the zoning by-law and will not encroach onto the existing
easement to the north
• an area to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services will also be
maintained
• the required side yard setbacks could be maintained on the subject property,
however concerns raised by the neighbour to the rear, related to the vehicular
access to his property along the south easement, has been addressed through
an increased setback from 0.9 of a metre to 1.2 metres from this easement
• the proposed dwelling would maintain a streetscape that is in character with the
surrounding neighbourhood
• the requested variance is minor in nature, is desirable for the appropriate
development of the property and maintains the purpose and intent of the Official
Plan and Zoning By-law
Input From Other Sources
Simon Hunter
(1436 Rougemount Drive)
Tim Sanderson
(1442 Rougemount Drive)
Marc Charette
( 1450 Rougemount Drive)
• the proposed design of the dwelling is too wide for
the subject property
• window and door openings should not be permitted
on the south side of the proposed dwelling
• concerned about the condition of vehicular access
and servicing easement if development is too close
to the right-of-way
• development should provide appropriate fencing to
protect existing south vehicular access easement in
favour of 1436 Rougemount Drive
• concerned about overhang encroachment over the
north easement
• concerned about the potential loss of several large
trees if the new house is sited in compliance with
the front yard depth requirements of the zoning
by-law
• supports the proposal
• existing structure is out of character with the
streetscape established along Rougemount Drive
Report PICA 08/15
Date of report: March 6, 2015
Comments prepared by:
AY:MM:Id
J:\Documents\Oevelopment\0·3700\2015\PCA 08-15\Report\PCA 08-15.doc
Enclosures
March 11,2015 l?
Page 5
Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner, Development Review
18
ST. MONICA :S
SEPARATE SCHOOL
City Development
Department
."'-------f-----1 f---1-------z ~--t---------161--------,
)---------'-------1 3t-------,------1
C) \1-------16!==:=!---1---y---------------J.
0::
Location Map
FILE No: PICA 08/15
APPLICANT: 1154786 Ontario Ltd
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1438 Rou emount Drive (Plan 228 Pt Lot 16,
17, 40R-16833 Part 1 , 2, 3) DATE: Jan. 27, 2014
ata Sources: Teranet Enterprlaea Inc. and Ita auppllera. AH right. Reserved. Not a plan of aurvey.
2013 llotPAC and Its su liera. All ri hts Reaerved. Not a lan of Su . SCALE 1 :5,000 N-5
To permit a minimum
north side yard width of
1.5 metres To permit a minimum
front yard depth of 13.0
metres
19
. ~ 45.7m ~ \ ~
City Development
Department
45.7m
Submitted Plan
FILE No: P/CA 08/15
APPLICANT: 1154786 Ontario Ltd
To permit a covered porch
to project a maximum of
1.8 metres into the front
yard
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1438 Rougemount Drive (Plan 228 Pt Lot 16,
17, 40R-16833 Part 1, 2, 3)
w > a:
0
1-z :::>
0 ~ w
(!J
:::>
0 a:
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. I DATE: Jan. 9, 2015
20
City Development
Department
FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION
Submitted Plan
FILE No: P/CA 08/15
APPLICANT: 1154786 Ontario Ltd
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1438 Rougemount Drive (Plan 228 Pt Lot 16,
17, 40R-16833 Part 1, 2, 3)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: Jan. 29, 2014
From:
Subject:
Application
Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP
Report to
Committee ofAdjustment
Application Number: PICA 11115
Meeting Date: March 11, 2015
Principal Planner-Development Review
Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 11115
C. Willson
485 Whitevale Road
The applicant requests relief from the following provisions of Zoning By-law 3037, as
amended by By-law 2677188:
• to permit detached dwelling residential uses; whereas the zoning by-law does not
permit residential uses
• to recognize an existing front yard depth of 1.7 metres; whereas the zoning by-law
requires a minimum front yard depth of 9.0 metres
• to recognize an existing west side yard width of 0.1 of a metre; whereas the zoning
by-law requires a minimum side yard width of 1.8 metres
• to recognize an existing uncovered porch and steps not exceeding 0.6 of a metre
in height projecting to the front lot line; whereas the zoning by-law permits
uncovered decks or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height to project· a
maximum of 1.5 metres into the required front yard
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to permit detached dwelling
residential uses as an additional use on the subject property.
Recommendation
The City Development Department considers detached dwelling residential uses, an
existing front yard depth of 1.7 metres, an existing west side yard width of 0.1 of a metre
and an existing uncovered porch and steps not exceeding 0.6 of a metre in height
projecting to the front lot line to be minor in nature, 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 the variance affecting the existing building setbacks and uncovered porch and
steps apply only to the existing footprint, as generally sited and outlined on the
applicant's submitted plans.
21
22
Report PICA 11/15 March 11, 2015
Page 2
2. That the owner provides a minimum of 1 parking space on the subject property to
accommodate detached dwelling residential uses in compliance with the general
provisions of Zoning By-law 3037.
3. That the owner submits a signed Record of Site Condition (RSC) to the Ministry of
Environment (MOE), which includes the MOE's Acknowledgement of Receipt of the
RSC to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering or this decision affecting detached
dwelling residential uses shall become null and void.
4. That the owner obtains a building permit to facilitate the proposed development or
this decision affecting detached dwelling residential uses shall become null and void.
Background
On February 15, 1988, the City of Pickering passed a City-initiated Zoning By-law
(By-law Number'2677/88), which updated and established new zone categories,
permitted uses and lot area requirements for the Hamlet. of Whitevale. The by-law also
permitted domestic businesses to operate from residential uses and recognized some
existing residential, commercial and other uses unique to the hamlet.
Prior to the passing of Zoning By-law 2677/88, the subject property was zoned "V"-
Village Zone. This zone permitted a range of uses complementary to a hamlet setting
including a detached dwelling.
The subject property is located within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District. The
Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide states that the existing building on the
subject property contains heritage attributes. A heritage permit is required if any
changes are made to the exterior of the existing building.
The applicant has owned the subject property since 1976. The subject property was
used as an arts and craft studio until 2011, at which time the building became vacant.
The owner has requested residential uses be permitted on the subject lands to allow for
uses previously permitted on the lands and provided for elsewhere in the Whitevale
Heritage Conservation District.
Comment
Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Pickering Official Plan -"Rural Hamlets-Hamlet Residential" within the Whitevale
Settlement Area
Zoning By-law 3037-"HMC8" -Hamlet Commercial Zone
Report PICA 11/15
Appropriateness of the Application
Variance to Permit Detached Dwelling Residential Uses
March 11,2015
Page 3 23
• the current zoning by-law permits an arts and craft shop, and does not allow for
any additional uses
• the current zoning by-law is restrictive related to the permitted uses on the
subject lands
• the owner is requesting detached dwelling residential uses be permitted on the
subject lands, as the previous zoning by-law permitted such uses prior to 1988
• the owner has advised that the existing arts and craft building has remained
vacant since 2011
• the proposed detached dwelling residential use will facilitate the future
occupancy of the building and is a desirable use within the Hamlet of Whitevale
• the subject lands can accommodate a parking space, which is required for a
residential use on the lands
• the residential use of the subject lands would be in keeping with the Whitevale
hamlet
• the requested variance is minor in nature, is desirable for the appropriate
development of the property and maintains the purpose and intent of the Official
Plan and Zoning By-law
Front Yard Depth, Side Yard Width and Uncovered Platform and Steps Variances
• the general intent of performance standards in a zoning by-law is to ensure that
buildings maintain appropriate height, massing and setbacks that are
complimentary to the character of the surrounding neighbourhood
• the existing building on the subject lands was constructed and has remained on
the same footprint since 187 4
• the existing uncovered platform and steps are required in order to enter into the
building
• the existing building contains historical attributes in its current location that is in
keeping with the hamlet's historical character
• the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate
development of the property and maintains the purpose and intent of the Official
Plan' and Zoning By-law
Report PICA 11/15
24
Input From Other Sources
Heritage Pickering Advisory
Committee
Date of report: March 5, 2015
Comments prepared by:
March 11,2015
• supports the proposed application to include a
residential use
Page4
• the building was originally used as a residence
and would like to see it occupied
ll1fL. trlfPlw~
Melissa Markham; MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner-Development Review
MM:Id
J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2015\PCA 11-15\Report\PCA 11-15.doc
Enclosures
25
VAL] r? .,
l..:J Cl <( 0 0:::
I I-0::: 0 ---z
I b __ II I ~ I Ul ,\et;] STREET f---------,
ill1 r-WHITEVALE
tnl l~f---l ~UNITED ~ \~f---I CHURCH
I I l :::;; lc::
WHITEVALE ROAD u I ~ ~ Ul
~ r---.. ~ WHJTEVALE 0 p:: COMMUNIT'r I u I I'D CENTRE I~ ~ ..,__.
& PARK J Cl ~ <(
"'-0 0::: I ~ (I)
___/ ~ SUBJECT :::J
PROPERTY ~
I LL _j
0
<..::>
""' I\ 1'
ea.-Location Map
FILE No: PICA 11/15
APPLICANT: C. Willson ~b PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:485 Whitevale Road(Con 4, Part of Lot 31)
City Development DATE: Feb. 12 2014 Department oto Sou,..ces:
SCALE 1 :5,000 lPN·RU ~-~bf;e~P~cie~:~s~ra l:~~~i~~-'tA11s~r!~~~rsRe~~~~gd~tsN~e~e~fod,; ~fts~r!:;" of survey.
26
WHITEVALE ROAD
~}]2iS:~~~:S{i~i---_J To recognize an existing
uncovered porch and
steps projecting to the
front lot line
To recognize an existing
front yard depth of
1.7 metres
To recognize an existing
west side yard width of
0.1 of a metre
...
::..
E.i ""' ..
t-eo.
Submitted Plan
15.3m
FILE No: P/CA 11/15
APPLICANT: C. Willson
. ,.
· ........
::,I . 'l.
'•.
;:·;·.s,.···,:·'.· '.·.
; ·' .
. ... .. ,.
. . . '~ .
·,·
\
To permit detached
dwelling residential uses
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 485 Whitevale Road( Con 4, Part of Lot 31)
City Development
Department
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb. 23, 2015
From:
Subject:
Application
Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP
Report to
Committee of Adjustment 2 7
Application Number: PICA 12/15
Meeting Date: March 11, 2015
Principal Planner-Development Review
Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 12/15
2218053 Ontario Corp.
900 Brock Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a retail
sales outlet accessory to a wholesale/distribution depot use; whereas the by-law does
not permit retail sales and accessory retail sales outlets.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to establish a
retail sales outlet accessory to a wholesale/distribution depot.
Recommendation
The City Development Department considers the requested variance to permit a retail
sales outlet accessory to a wholesale/distribution depot use, to be minor in nature,
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 variance, subject to the following conditions:
1. That only one accessory retail sales outlet not exceeding a gross floor area of
460 square metres be permitted within the existing building on the subject property.
Comment
Official Plan and Zoning By-law
The subject property is designated "General Employment" within the Official Plan, which
permits a range of uses, including but not limited to wholesale/distribution uses and·
retail sales as a minor component of an industrial operation.
The subject property is currently zoned "M2" within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended,
which permits a wholesale/distribution use, however retail stores and retail operations
are not permitted uses and can not be interpreted to exist as accessory uses. The
applicant is requesting to permit a retail sales outlet accessory to a wholesale/distribution
use.
28
---------------------------------
Report PICA 12/15 March11,2015
Page2
Appropriateness of the Application
• retail sales and accessory retail sales outlets are currently not permitted in an
industrial zone category
• the intent of the zoning by-law in prohibiting retail sales and accessory retail
sales outlet uses is to ensure that retail sales do not become the primary use on
the subject property
• in recent years Council has approved zoning by-law amendments to permit
accessory sales outlets within the General Employment designation if they
comply with the following provision:
• the gross leasable floor area (GLFA) of a sales outlet shall not exceed 25% of
the GLFA of the associated employment use; however, the GLFA of a sales
outlet may increase to 40% of the GLFA of the associated employment use
providing the GLFA of all sales outlets in the building does not exceed 25% of
the GLFA of the building
• the applicant recently purchased the subject property and is intending to occupy
the entirety of the existing building for their wholesale/distribution use and
accessory retail sales outlet
• the applicant currently owns the property at 901 Dillingham Road, which directly
abuts the subject lands, which supports the operation of the proposed "Plumbers
Supply" company
• the applicant is proposing to occupy vacant units within the existing building, for a
total gross floor area of 1 ,550 square metres, however it is their intent to occupy
the entire building, approximately 3,000 square metres, as other lease
agreements expire
• the proposed wholesale/distribution establishment intends to utilize a maximum
gross floor area of 460 square metres for an accessory retail sales outlet
• the maximum 460 square metre accessory retail sales outlet would occupy a
total of 16% of the total floor area of the existing industrial building when all units
are occupied by the applicant
• sufficient parking is provided on the subject property to accommodate the
accessory retail sales outlet
• the maximum gross floor area of 460 square metres for an accessory retail sales
outlet will not create a situation where the retail use becomes the primary use on
the subject property
• this variance recognizes the evolving nature of employment activities, which over
the past decades have shifted from primarily land-consumptive manufacturing
operations, to smaller service-type businesses
• the requested variance to permit a retail sales outlet accessory to a
wholesale/distribution depot use is minor in nature and maintains the general
intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law
• the requested variance conforms to, and is compatible with, the designation and
policies of the Official Plan
Report PICA 12/15
Input From Other Sources
Engineering & Public Works
Date of report: March 5, 2015
Comments prepared by:
Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP
March 11,2015 29
Page 3
• no comments or concerns with the application
/
J
Principal Planner-Development Review
Niles Surti, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review &
Urban Design
MM:Id
J:\Documents\Development\0·3700\2015\PCA 12·15\Report\PCA 12-15.doc.
Enclosures
30
<t: ~ 0 0:::
0::::
0
0 DON 0 I c <t: -BEER 0 0:::: ARENA 0::: I<
0::::
0 \. u QUIGLEY STREET
1--
xxxxxxxx
~UBJE9h ROPER
~ ~xxxx
2 <t: I
0 ::,:: z 0 ::::::; 0 _j
0 0::: m
'-.... CLEMENTS ROAD
/
....._ 0
) <t: 0 0:::
0 \.. FELDSPAR COURT
0:::: loti ~ 0 r 'I :~
>-'\. fJ! "' ::r:: McPHERSON COURT r---
~ Location Map
FILE No: PICA 12/15
APPLICANT: 2218053 Ontario Corp.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:900 Brock Road (Con BF Range 3 N Pt Lot 19,
City Development 40R-1 045 Part 1, 3) DATE: Feb. 12 2014 Department Data Sources: SCALE 1 :5,000 IPN-4 B · Teranet Enterprises Inc. and Its suppliers. All rights Reserved. Not a plan of survey. 2013 t.APAC and its suppliers. All rights Reserved. Not a plan of Survey.
E 0
("I) en
--1.1..._.._-..-.....,.----.-
City Development
Department
' ,... I 108.8m
108.8m
Submitted Plan
FILE No: P/CA 12/15
APPLICANT: 2218053 Ontario Corp.
To permit a retail sales
outlet accessory to a
wholesale/distribution
depot use not exceeding
460 square metres
II -1
31
0
<(
0 a:
~
0
0 a:
Ill
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 900 Brock Road (Con BF Range 3 N Pt Lot 19,
40R-1045 Part 1, 3)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. I DATE: Feb. 23, 2014
32
City Development
Department
.... ----=--.... -= ""·"····················
WAREHOUSE
AREA
RETAIL
SALES
SHOWROOM
Submitted Plan
FILE No: P/CA 12/15
APPLICANT: 2218053 Ontario Corp.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 900 Brock Road (Con BF Range 3 N Pt Lot 19,
40R-1045 Part 1, 3)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: Feb. 23, 2014
From:
Subject:
Application
Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP
Report to
Committee of Adjustment
Application Number: PICA 13115 3 3
Meeting Date: March 11, 2015
Principal Planner, Development Review
Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 13115
K. Hamoui
860 Strouds Lane
The applicant requests relief from the following provisions of Zoning By-law 3036, as
amended:
• to permit a minimum front yard setback of 4.5 metres; whereas the by-law
permits a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres
• to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 5.0 metres; whereas the by-law permits
a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres, and
• to permit a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent; whereas the by-law permits a
maximum lot coverage of 33 percent
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit
to construct a two-storey detached dwelling.
Recommendation
The City Development Department considers the minimum front yard setback of
4.5 metres to be minor in nature, 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 variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the variance apply only to a revised detached dwelling, illustrating a minimum
4.5 metre front yard setback.
2. That the applicant submits a revised grading plan to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering & Public Works Department.
3. That the applicant obtain a building permit for a revised dwelling sited at a minimum
front yard depth of 4.5 metres by March 10, 2017, or this decision shall become null
and void.
and
Report PICA 13/15 March 11, 2015
34 Page 2
The City Development Department considers the minimum rear yard setback of
5.0 metres and the maximum lot coverage of 45 percent to be major variances that are
not considered to be desirable 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 variances.
Background
On April14, 2014, the Region of Durham Land Division Committee conditionally
approved two Land Division Applications (LD 026/2014 and LD 027/2014) which
permitted the creation of two new lots with frontages onto Strouds Lane, while retaining
a lot with an existing one-storey detached dwelling with frontage onto Spruce Hill Road.
City conditions included submission of an Architectural Design Statement (ADS), to
address future development performance standards such as building setbacks and
height; a preliminary siting and grading plan; a noise assessment, due to vehicular
traffic noise on Strouds Lane (Type C Arterial Road); and, a tree inventory and
protection/removal plan.
Through the Land Division Application process, a 5. 79 metre road widening was
required to be conveyed to the City across the entire frontage of the property abutting
Strouds Lane, in compliance with the municipal right-of-way width requirements of the
Pickering Official Plan.
The previous owner submitted a minor variance application (PICA 62/14) to permit a
front yard depth of 4.5 metres to a proposed two storey dwelling and maximum lot
coverage of 41 percent. On May 21, 2014, the Committee of Adjustment approved the
variances subject to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on
the applicant's submitted plans. The current minor variance application is seeking
additional permissions with a new site plan and building layout.
Comment
Official Plan and Zoning By-law
The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as 'Urban Residential -Low
Density' within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. The property is also subject to the
Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines.
Section 11.9 (a) of the Pickering Official Plan states that City Council shall, in the
established residential areas between Spruce Hill Road and Appleview Road, including
Fairport Road and Dunbarton Road, encourage and where possible require new
development to be compatible with the character of existing development.
The subject property is currently zoned "R4" -Fourth Density Residential Zone within
Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. The subject property has a frontage of 21.3 metres,
a lot depth of 24.7 metres, and lot area of approximately 526.8 square metres.
Report PICA 13/15
Appropriateness of the Application
Front Yard Depth Variance
March 11,2015 35
Page 3
• the intent of a minimum front yard depth is to ensure that an adequate
landscaped area, parking area and separation distance is provided between the
dwelling and the front lot line
• the owner is requesting a reduction in the minimum required front yard depth
from 7.5 metres to 4.5 metres
• the City does not anticipate a road widening to Strouds Lane in the immediate
future, as such the requested front yard variance will allow the dwelling to be
sited closer to the street, which will create an attractive built form and residential
streetscape along Strouds Lane in keeping with other dwellings in the
neighbourhood
• the current zoning by-law on the south side of Strouds Lane, across from the
subject property, permits a minimum front yard depth of 4.5 metres
• the requested front yard depth variance is minor in,nature and meets the intent
and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law
Rear Yard Depth and Lot Coverage Variances
• the intent of the zoning by-law is to regulate the size, scale and massing of
dwellings on a lot
• the zoning by-law provisions provide separation from abutting properties to
ensure privacy, protect views, ensure openness and to provide an adequate
amenity area uncovered by buildings on a lot
• the intent of requiring a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres and permitting
a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent is to encourage a style of development on
the subject property which is similar to, and compatible with the existing
development in the neighbourhood
• the proposed rear yard variance does not provide an appropriate setback or
separation from abutting properties
• the proposed development does not provide an appropriate outdoor amenity
space, as provided on similar properties within the neighbourhood
• staff are concerned that the requested variance to permit a minimum 5.0 metre
rear yard depth would negatively impact adjoining properties to the north with
respect to privacy, views and openness
• the impact of the reduced rear yard depth and increased lot coverage would not
be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area, and would result in an
inappropriate scale of development in relation to the built form that has been
established in the neighbourhood
• staff are of the opinion that the proposed variances represent an
overdevelopment of the property
• staff are of the opinion that the requested variances for the reduced rear yard
depth of 5.0 metres and maximum lot coverage of 45 percent are major
variances that are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and
not in keeping with the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law
Report PICA 13/15
36
Input From Other Sources
Engineering & Public Works
Department
M. Zwicker
866 Strouds Lane
Date of report: March 6, 2015
Comments prepared by:
Lalita Paray, MCIP, RPP
Planner I
LP:MM:Id
March 11, 2015
Page4
• a preliminary grading plan was submitted and
approved for Land Division Applications LD 26/14
and LD 27/14
• the current proposal is different from the previous
siting plan and grading plan submitted for review
and approval; therefore prior to approval of this
application, a new grading plan must be
submitted for review and approval
• the request for a front yard setback of 4.5 metres
is not in keeping with the rest of the
neighbourhood; reduced front yard depth will
result in an encroachment on the existing buffer
between dwellings and street
• the request to permit a maximum lot coverage of
45 percent is unreasonable for this area; variance
will result in a 12 percent increase from other
previously approved houses in the area
• construction vehicle and traffic impacts; disruption
in traffic flow on Strouds Lane
• Environmental impact -the balance between
building and landscape area would be comprised
Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner, Development Review
J:\Documents\Deve\opment\0-3700\2015\PCA 13-15\Report\PCA 13-15.doc
Enclosures ·
~
City Development
Department
37
w 1-----+------tu
~-4------l~~------~-------+--------~
f----+----lBi~------~-------f---------~
Location Map
FILE No: P/CA 13/15
APPLICANT: K. Hamoui
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:860 Strouds Lane (Plan 1041 Pt Lot 63,
40R-28441 , Part 1) DATE: Feb. 17 2014
a~:r~crtrc~.\erpriaea Inc. and ita euppliera. All righte Reserved. Not a plan of survey. SCALE 1 :5,QQQ N-7
2013 t-APAC and tts au liera. All ri hts Reserved. Not a lon of Su .
38
To permit a
maximum lot
coverage of 45
percent
perm a
minimum front
yard setback
of 4.5 metres
1') N 71*35'10" E
~
City Development
Department
E "'" c:i (')
21.3m
PROPOSED
TWO STOREY BRICK & STONE
DWELLING HOUSE
21.3m
Requested City Road ning
STROUDS LANE
Submitted Plan
FILE No: P/CA 13/15
APPLICANT: K. Hamoui
E
"'" c:i (')
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:860 Strouds Lane Plan 1041 Pt Lot 63,
40R-28441 , Part 1)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb. 24, 2015
39
FRONT (SOUTH) ELEVATION REAR (NORTH) ELEVATION
SIDE (EAST) ELEVATION SIDE (WEST) ELEVATION
Submitted Plan
FILE No: P/CA 13/15
APPLICANT: K. Hamoui
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:860 Strouds Lane an 1041 Pt Lot
City Development
Department
DATE:Feb.24,2015
40
Report to
Committee of Adjustment
Application Number: PICA 14115
Meeting Date: March 11, 2015
From: Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP
Subject:
Application
Principal Planner, Development Review
Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 14115
N. Kalmoni
858 Strouds lane
The applicant requests relief from the following provisions of Zoning By-law 3036, as
amended:
• to permit a minimum front yard setback of 4.5 metres; whereas the by-law
permits a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres
I
• to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 5.0 metres; whereas the by-law permits
a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres, and
I
• to permit a maximum lot coverage of 44 percent; whereas the by-law permits a
maximum lot coverage of 33 percent
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit
to construct a two-storey detached dwelling.
Recommendation
The City Development Department considers the minimum front yard setback of
4.5 metres to be minor in nature, 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 variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the variance apply only to a revised detached dwelling, illustrating a minimum
4.5 metre front yard setback.
2. That the applicant submits a revised grading plan to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering & Public Works Department.
3. That the applicant obtain a buildit1g permit for a revised dwelling sited at a minimum
front yard depth of 4.5 metres by March 10, 2017, or this decision shall become null
and void. · :
and
·--------------------------------------------------
Report PICA 14/15 March 11,2015 41
Page 2
The City Development Department considers the minimum rear yard setback of
5.0 metres and the maximum lot coverage of 44 percent to be major variances that are
not considered to be desirable 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 variances.
Background
On April14, 2014, the Region of Durham Land Division Committee conditionally
approved two Land Division Applications (LD 026/2014 and LD 027/2014) which
permitted the creation of two new lots with frontages onto Strouds Lane, while retaining
a lot with an existing one-storey detached dwelling with frontage onto Spruce Hill Road.
City conditions included submission of an Architectural Design Statement (ADS), to
address future development performance standards such as building setbacks and
height; a preliminary siting and grading plan; a noise assessment, due to vehicular
traffic noise on Strouds Lane (Type C Arterial Road); and, a tree inventory and
protection/removal plan.
Through the Land Division Application process, a 5. 79 metre road widening was
required to be conveyed to the City across the entire frontage of the property abutting
Strouds Lane, in compliance with the municipal right-of-way width requirements of the
Pickering Official Plan.
Comment
Official Plan and Zoning By-law
The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as 'Urban Residential -Low
Density' within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. The property is also subject to the
Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines.
Section 11.9 (a) of the Pickering Official Plan states that City Council shall, in the
established residential areas between Spruce Hill Road and Appleview Road, including
Fairport Road and Dunbarton Road, encourage and where possible require new
development to be compatible with the character of existing development.
The subject property is currently zoned "R4"-Fourth Density Residential Zone within
Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. The subject property has a frontage of 21.3 metres,
a lot depth of 24.7 metres, and lot area of approximately 526.8 square metres.
Appropriateness of the Application
Front Yard Depth Variance
• the intent of a minimum front yard depth is to ensure that an adequate
landscaped area, parking area and separation distance is provided between the
dwelling and the front lot line
42
Report PICA 14/15 March 11, 2015
Page 3
• the owner is requesting a reduction in the minimum required front yard depth
from 7.5 metres to 4.5 metres
• the City does not anticipate a road widening to Strouds Lane in the immediate
future, as such the requested front yard variance will allow the dwelling to be
sited closer to the street, which will create an attractive built form and residential
streetscape along Strouds Lane in keeping with other dwellings in the
neighbourhood
• the current zoning by-law on the south side of Strouds Lane, across from the
subject property, permits a minimum front yard depth of 4.5 metres
• the requested front yard depth variance is minor in nature and meets the intent
and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law
Rear Yard Depth and Lot Coverage Variances
• the intent of the zoning by-law is to regulate the size, scale and massing of
dwellings on a lot
• the zoning by-law provisions provide separation from abutting properties to
ensure privacy, protect views, ensure openness and to provide an adequate
amenity area uncovered by buildings on a lot
• the intent of requiring a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres and permitting
a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent is to encourage a style of development on
the subject property which is similar to, and compatible with the existing
development in the neighbourhood
• the proposed rear yard variance does not provide an appropriate setback or
separation from abutting properties
• the proposed development does not provide an appropriate outdoor amenity
space, as provided on similar properties within the neighbourhood
• staff are concerned that the requested variance to permit a minimum 5.0 metre
rear yard depth would negatively impact adjoining properties to the north with
respect to privacy, views and openness
• the impact of the reduced rear yard depth and increased lot coverage would not
be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area, and would result in an
inappropriate scale of development in relation to the built form that has been
established in the neighbourhood
• staff are of the opinion that the proposed variances represent an overdevelopment
of the property
• staff are of the opinion that the requested variances for the reduced rear yard
depth of 5.0 metres and maximum lot coverage of 44 percent are major
variances that are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and
not in keeping with the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law
Report PICA 14/15
Input From Other Sources
Engineering & Public Works
Department
Date of report: March 6, 2015
Comments prepared by:
~
Lalita Paray, MCIP, RPP
Planner I-
LP:MM:Id
March 11, 2015
Page4
• a preliminary grading plan was submitted and
approved for Land Division Applications LD 26/14
and LD 27/14
• the current proposal is different from the previous
siting plan and grading plan submitted for review
and approval; therefore prior to approval of this
application, a new grading plan must be
submitted for review and approval
Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner, Development Review
J:\Documents\Development\0-3700\2015\PCA 14-15\Report\PCA 14-15.doc
Enclosures
44
em,~~ ~b
City Development
Department
Location Map
FILE No: PICA 14/15
APPLICANT: N. Kalmoni
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:858 Strouds Lane (Plan 1041 Pt Lot 63,
40R-28441 , Part 2) DATE: Feb. 17 2014
SCALE 1 :5,000 PN-7
Paved0rivew9y
21.3m
PROPOSED
STOREY BRICK & STONE
DWELLING HOUSE
City Road Widening
STROUDS E
City Development
Department
Submitted Plan
LE No: P/CA 14/15
E
""'" ci C')
45
To permit a
minimum front
yard setback
of 4.5 metres
1041 Pt Lot
DATE:Feb.24,2015
46
FRONT (SOUTH) ELEVATION REAR (NORTH) ELEVATION
SIDE (EAST) ELEVATION SIDE (WEST) ELEVATION
Submitted Plan
APPLICANT: N. Kalmoni Me PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:858 Strouds Lane Plan 1041 Pt Lot 63
City Development
Department
Feb.24,2015
From:
Subject:
Application
Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP
Report to
Committee of Adjustment
Application Number: PICA 15115 4 7
Meeting Date: March 11, 2015
Principal Planner-Development Review
Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 15115
Mattamy (Seaton) Limited
Block 1 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364114 (Seaton Zoning By-law) to
permit a temporary sales facility, whereas the by-law does not permit a temporary sales
facility within a residential high density zone.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to permit a
temporary sales facility on the subject lands for a maximum of 10 years.
Recommendation
The City Development Department considers the temporary sales facility to be minor in
nature, 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 variance, subject to the following. conditions:
1. That this variance apply only to the temporary sales facility, as generally sited and
outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.
2. That the decision of the Committee shall be null and void after March 11, 2025.
Background
Mattamy (Seaton) Limited has received draft plan of approval for three draft plans of
subdivision. Given the relatively long-term nature of the sales program anticipated for
Seaton, Mattamy requires a sales centre associated with their model homes for up to a
maximum of 1 0 years. The City is currently processing a concurrent site plan
application (S 01115) to establish the location, built form, access, landscaping and other
performance standards for the temporary sales facility.
Comment
Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Pickering Official Plan-Residential High Density (HD) Zone
Zoning By-law 7364114-"HD"-High Density Zone
48
------------------------------------------
Report PICA 15/15
Appropriateness of the Application
March 11, 2015
Page 2
• the zoning by-law has no specific provisions related to sales facility uses,
however the owner would like to market their development through the use of a
temporary sales facility and associated model homes
• the owner is proposing a 400 square metre temporary sales facility to be located
on the north side of Street 2, in Block 1, directly across from seven proposed
model homes referenced in PCA 16/15 to PCA 22/15
• the proposed location is suitable for a temporary sales facility as this is an area
which is most easily accessible and serviceable
• the lands are currently zoned "HD" -High Density, however given the nature of
high density uses, and their building program, the owner does not anticipate the
subject lands to be developed in the 10 year time period in which the temporary
sales facility will be required
• the proposal to locate the temporary sales facility in Block 1 is appropriate for the
development of the land in the short-term, and will not preclude high density
development from occurring in the future
• the request to allow a temporary sales facility on the subject lands zoned is minor
in nature and maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-
law as the prescribed land use can ultimately be achieved -
Date of report: March 5, 2015
Lalita Paray, MCIP, RPP
Planner I
LP:MM:RP:Id
J;\Oocuments\Development\D-3700\2015\PCA 15-15\Report\PCA 15-15.doc
Enclosures
Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner-Development Review
City Development
Department
Location Map
FILE No: PICA 15/15
SUBJECT
LANDS
APPLICANT: Mattamy (Seaton Limited)
TAUNTON
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Block 1 on SP-2009-13
ata Sources:
Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its auppllers. All rights Reserved. Not a plan of survey. 2013 MPAC and Ita su llers. All rl htc Reserved. Not a plan of Surve .
49
ROAD
DATE: Feb. 19,2015
SCALE 1:10,000 PN-RU
50
City Development
Department
TAUNTON ROAD
Submitted Plan
FILE No: P/CA 15/15
APPLICANT: Mattamy (Seaton Limited)
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Block 1 on SP-2009-13
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
g.
__.:::.:.::.::~.-... 6
I') ..!..
DATE: Feb. 23, 2015
City Development
Department
TAUNTON ROAD
""'" ......
Submitted Plan
FILE No: P/CA 15/15
,,
~---
~~~~-,rt~-r--~
en ~ m m -i
APPLICANT: Mattamy (Seaton Limited)
-,--
1
I
I
I
I
I
~ I :.., "'
I
I
I
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Block 1 on SP-2009-13
51
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. . DATE: Feb. 23, 2015
52
' ·~---'it
-;,( HVAC } '0
1 "'·' I ·~.
City Development
Department
HI/AC
l
!£i$ lr;:~ ·~ ! --:: r;\,;;
REAR EL~VATION (SOUT_, Sl DE)
LEFT SIDE ELEVATION (~-lEST SIDE)
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION (EAST SIDE)
Submitted Plan
FILE No: P/CA 15/15
APPLICANT: Mattamy (Seaton Limited)
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Block 1 on SP-2009-13
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Feb. 23, 2015
From:
Subject:
Applications
Report to
Committee of Adjustment 53
Application Number: PICA 16115 to PICA 32115
Meeting Date: March 11, 2015
Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner-Development Review
Committee of Adjustment Applications PICA 16115 to PICA 32115
Mattamy (Seaton) Limited
Block 2 and Block 20 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13
Block 2 (PICA 16115 to PICA 22115)
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364114 (Seaton Zoning By-law):
• to permit detached dwellings in a "Mixed Corridor Type 1 Exception 2 and 3
(MC1-2-3)" Zone; whereas, the by-law does not permit detached dwellings within
the "Mixed Corridor Type 1 Exception 2 and 3 (MC1-2-3)" Zone, and
Block 20 (PICA 23115 to PICA 32115)
• to permit street townhouse dwellings in a "Low Density 1 (LD1)" Zone; whereas,
the by-law does not permit street townhouse dwellings within the "Low Density 1
(LD 1 )" Zone
The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to permit
detached dwellings on Block 2 and street townhouse dwellings on Block 20 in order to
locate future model homes near a proposed temporary sales facility.
Recommendation
Block 2 (PICA 16115 to PICA 22115)
The City Development Department considers these minor variance applications to
permit detached dwellings on Block 2 in a "Mixed Corridor Type 1 Exception 2 and 3
(MC1-2-3)" Zone to be minor in nature, 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 Block 2 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision
SP-2009-13, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.
2. That the proposed detached dwellings be constructed in accordance with Zoning
By-law 7364114 "Low Density 1 (LD1)" Zone performance standards.
54
Report PICA 16115 to PICA 32115 March 11,2015
Page 2
3. That prior to submitting building permit applications for the proposed detached
dwellings the owner must execute a Model Home Agreement to the satisfaction of
the City of Pickering.
Block 20 (PICA 23115 to PICA 32115)
The City Development Department considers these minor variance applications to
permit street townhouse dwellings on Block 20 in a "Low Density 1 (LD1)" Zone to be
minor in nature, 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 Block 20 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision
SP-2009-13, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.
2. That the proposed street townhouse dwellings be constructed in accordance with
Zoning By-law 7364114 "Mixed Corridor Type 1 Exception 2 and 3 (MC1-2-3)" Zone
performance standards, with the exception of the flankage yard requirement which
shall be a minimum of 1. 7 metres.
Background
The owner of the subject lands is proposing to build seven model homes in conjunction
with a proposed temporary sales facility in order to promote the sale of units within the
Mattamy (Seaton) Subdivision (SP-2009-13). The current zoning by-law on the subject
lands does not include specific requirements for model homes. In order to build these
model homes the owners are required to relocate an approved street townhouse block
of dwelling units with an approved detached block of dwelling units.
The intent of minor variance applications PICA 16115 to PICA 22115 is to allow for seven
model homes to be constructed in Block 2, which is in close proximity to a proposed
temporary sales facility. The intent of minor variance applications PICA 23115 to
PICA 32115 is to allow for the development of ten street townhouse dwellings in Block 20.
The current zoning by-law requires a minimum number of medium density units to be
located in this plan of subdivision. To ensure that the required number of medium
density units is provided in the plan, the applicant must relocate the street townhouse
dwellings from Block 2 to an alternative location within the same plan. The residential
density required is being maintained through the proposed exchange of unit types on
Block 2 and Block 20.
Report PICA 16115 to PICA 32115
Comment
Official Plan and Zoning By-law
March 11, 2015 5S
Page3
In 2006, the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) came into effect providing a
policy framework for a sustainable urban community (Seaton) integrated with a natural
heritage system. The CPDP resulted in Amendment 22 to the Pickering Official Plan
(OPA 22).
Pickering Official Plan-Block 2 (PICA 16115 to PICA 22115) is designated "Mixed
Corridor Type 1", and Block 20 (PICA 23115 to PICA 32115) is designated "Low Density
Area Type 1" within the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood
Zoning By-law 7364114-Block 2 (PICA 16115 to PICA 22115) is zoned "MC1-2-3 ... -
Mixed Corridor Type 1 Exception 2 and 3, and Block 20 (PICA 23115 to PICA 32115)
"Low Density 1 (LD1 )" Zone
Appropriateness of the Application
Variance to Permit Detached Dwellings in a "MC1-2-3" Zone (Block 2)
• a variance is required to allow for the development of detached dwellings in a Mix
Corridor Type 1 Zone
• the intent of the zoning by-law is to permit higher density uses in close proximity
to major roads
• the zoning by-law does not permit detached dwellings in this location
• the owner is proposing to construct seven model homes as detached dwellings
where street townhouse dwellings are currently proposed
• model homes are not identified in By-law 7364114 nor are any regulations
established for this use
• the owner is proposing Block 2 for the location for a temporary sales facility and
model homes as this is an area which is most easily accessible and serviceable
• the proposed model homes will be constructed in two phases (phase 1 set of 3
and phase 2 set of 4)
• the proposed variance will be compatible with the surrounding proposed
neighbourhood
• the intent of the zoning by-law is being maintained as the required number of
medium density units are still being provided in an appropriate location within the
plan of subdivision
• the requested variances to permit detached dwellings in a "MC1-2-3" Zone is
minor in nature and maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and
Zoning By-law given the exchange of density proposed in the associated
applications
56
Report PICA 16115 to PICA 32115 March 11, 2015
Page4
Variance to Permit Street Townhouse Dwellings in a "LD1" Zone (Block 20)
• a variance is required to permit street townhouse dwellings in a Low Density
Type 1 Zone
• the intent of the zoning by-law is to permit lower density residential uses behind
higher intensity mixed corridor blocks
• the zoning by-law does not permit street townhouse dwellings in this location
• these variances are the result of seven model homes being proposed within the
Mixed Corridor Block (Block 2)
• in order to maintain the number of medium density units required in this plan the
owner is proposing to exchange the unit types between Block 2 and Block 20
• the proposed location of street townhouse dwellings within Block 20 is
appropriate as this block is abutting Block 19, which is also intended for street
townhouse dwellings
• the owner has also requested a variance to the "MC1-2-3" Zone to reduce the
minimum flankage yard from 2.4 metres to 1.7 metres in order to locate these
units on Block 20
• the requested variances are compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood
• the intent of the zoning by-law is being maintained as the required number of
medium density units are still being provided in an appropriate location within the
plan of subdivision
• the requested variances to permit street townhouse dwellings in a "LD1" Zone is
minor in nature and maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and
Zoning By-law given the exchange in density proposed in the associated
applications
Date of report: March 5, 2015
Comments prepared by:
~~ <
Lalita Paray, MCI~P
Planner I
LP:MM:RP:Id
Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner-Development RevieW
J:\DocumentsiDevelopment\D-3700\2015\PCA 1 &-15 to PCA 32-15'Report\PCA 16--15 to PCA 32-15.doc
Enclosures
City Development
Department
57
Location Map
FILE No: PICA 16115 to PICA 32115
APPLICANT: Mattamy (Seaton Limited);
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Block 2 & Block 20 on SP-2009-13
DATE: Feb. 19,2015
SCALE 1:10,000 PN-RU
58
o permit street townhouse dwellings in
a "Low Density 1 (LD1 )" Zone
TAUNTON
! II
I I
I
f/ ( '
I SP-2009-13 //
I
I I ----~-/
I I -~---------
1 I ------1 I ---1 ---~-----1 J.--\
1,! ' ~ f ~
I I .. I 1 • I I 1
I I I ! I I I ~ I I •• I I • ; 1 io I I •
I I ~ ' I
! I ~--~ f I
Submitted Plan
ROAD
FILE No: P/CA 16/15 to P/CA 32/15
APPLICANT: Mattamy (Seaton Limited)
i l \\
\ \ I I
/ ! l l I I I ! , I
To permit detached dwellings in a
"Mixed Corridor Type 1 Exception 2
and 3 (MC1-2-3)" Zone
! I
! I II II II II
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Block 2 & Block 20 on SP-2009-13
City Development
Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE:Feb.25,2014