HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 23, 2017
pickering.ca
Committee of Adjustment
Agenda
Meeting Number: 11
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2017
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Lesley Dunne
T. 905.420.4660, extension 2024
Email ldunne@pickering.ca
Agenda
Committee of Adjustment
Wednesday, August 23, 2017
7:00 pm
Main Committee Room
Page Number
(I) Adoption of Agenda
(II) Adoption of Minutes from August 2, 2017 1-11
(III) Reports
1. P/CA 62/17 to P/CA 75/17
Mattamy (Seaton) Limited
Part of Block 45, and Block 47 with Lane on
Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision (SP-2009-13)
12-15
2. P/CA 77/17
D. Naumovski
1953 Spruce Hill Road
16-19
3. P/CA 79/17
Squires Beach Holding Ltd.
1325 Squires Beach Road
20-25
4. P/CA 80/17
M. Strasic
662 Pleasant Street
26-34
(IV) Adjournment
Pending Adoption
'
Present
Tom Copeland-Vice-Chair
David Johnson -Chair
Eric Newton
Denise Rundle
Also Present
Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment 1
· Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
7:02pm
Main Committee Room
Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
. Absent
Sean Wiley
(I) Adoption of Agenda
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Tom Copeland
. .
That the agenda for the Wednesday, August 2, 201? meeting be adopted.
(II) Adoption of Minutes
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Tom Copeland
Carried Unanimously
That the minutes of the 9th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday,
July 12, 2017 be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
. David Johnson, Chair stated that he will abstain from voting ori all applications heard for the
Wednesday, August 2, 2017 Committee of Adjustment meeting.
Page 1 of 11.
2 . 04 bf--'---
P1CKER1NG
(Ill) Reports
1. PICA 47117
D. Barkey
1712 Central Street
)
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
VVednesday,August2,2017
7:02pm
Main Committee Room
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640106:
• to permit a minimum distance of 2.4 metres from .the-proposed gas bar canopy to the
street lines. of Central Street and 'Brock Road, whereas the by-law requires a minimum
distance of 12.0 metres between any building or structure and any street line
• to permit a proposed gas bar canopy to be erected 11.0 metres from the centerline
of Brock Road, whereas the by-law does not permit no building or s~ructure to be
erected· closer than 19.5 metres to the centerline of Brock Road ·
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain site plan approval
for a proposed gas bar canopy.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development
. Department recommending approval subject to conditions .
. Gil Shcolgar, ag~nt, was present to represent the application. No further representation
·was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
In response to questions from Committee Members, Gil Shcolgar explained the
· proposed gas bar canopy is to cover the two existing pumps to provide protection from
rain and snow and LED lights will .not emit onto the street or surrounding· neighbours.
In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer indicated
the Site Plan Committee have discussed the measures to minimize the light'pollution
from the proposed gas bar canopi ·
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Tom Copeland
That application PICA 47117 by D. Barkey, be A~proved on the grounds that the
requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for th(3 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 gas bar canopy, as generally sited
and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.
2. That the applicant obtain site plan approval for the proposed\construction by
. July 12, 2018, or this decision shall become riull and void.
Carried
Page 2 of 11
-·c~()f
P1CKER1NG
2. PICA 50117
P. Cummins
1796 Fairport Road
a· Committee of Adjustment
. . Meeting Minutes.
VVednesday,August2,2017
7:02pm
Main Committee Room·
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By:.law 3036, as amended, to permit a
minimum side yard width of 1.2 metres, where a garage is erected as pa.rt of a detached
dwelling; whereas the by-law requires 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 this variance in order to obtain a building permit for
the construction of a 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 appli<?ation to allow side yard widths of 1.5 metres, s~aff
recommendation would be· for approval subject to conditions.
Fermin Pamintuan, agent, was present to .represent the application. No further
representation '!"as present in favour of or in objection to the application.
In response to a question from a Committee Member, Fermin Pamintuan stated he does
·not want to Tevise the application to reduce the side yard widths to 1.5 metres and
stated he would like to maximize th,e size ofthe proposed detached dwelling on the
subject property. ·
Moved by .Tom Copeland
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That application PICA 50117 by P. Cummins, be Refused on the grounds that the side
yard width of 1.2 metres, where a garage, is erected as part of a detached dwelli,ng, is a
major variance that is not considered. to be desirable· for the appropriate development of
.the l~md, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.·
Carried
I
Page 3 of J 1
4 -C~()~
p](KERJNG
3. PICA 51/17
K. Storey & R. Kay
5049 Brock Road
Committee of Adjustment.
Me.eting Minutes
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
7:02pm
Main Committee Room
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06:
• to permit a maximum lot coverage of 22 percent; whereas the by-law requires a
maximum lot coverage of 20 percent·
• to permit an accessory building with a maximum height of 4.2 metres in a residential
zone; whereas the by-law requires that no accessory building shall exceed a height
of 3.5 metres in any residential zone
• to recognize a minimum lot area of 1,180.3 square metres; whereas· the by-law
requires a minimum lot area of 1 ,390.0 square metres ·
' • to recognize a minimum front yard depth of 0.0 metres; whereas the by-law requires
a minimum front yard depth of 9.0 metres
• to recognize .a minimum exterior side yard depth of 0.0 metres; whereas the by-law .
requires a minimum ·eXterior side yard depth of 4.5 metres
The applicant requests approval of this minor ·variance application in order to obtain
building permits to construct an addition to the existing detached dwelling and to
construcfan accessory building (detached garage). ·
The Secretaiy-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development
Department recommending approval subject to conditions.
. .
Kevin Storey, owner, was present to represent the application. No-further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Kevin Storey agrees with staff recommendations. In response to questions from
Committee Members, Kevin Storey stated he had met with Building Services staff since
the last Committee meeting to discuss the demolition of the exi~ting dwelling prior to a
building permit being issued for the proposed addition. Kevin Storey also stated the
height of the proposed detached garage would be in keeping with the surrounding
· buildings and will be-using it for addition·al storage. ~
· Page 4 of 11
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Tom Copeland
Committee of Adjustment 5,
Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, August 2; 2017
· . 7:02pm
Main Committee Room
That application PICA51117 by K. Storey & R. Kay, be Approved on the grounds that
the requested variances 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 ·detached dwelling and accessory building
(detached garage), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted
plans.
2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by
July 12, 2018, or this decision shall become null and void.
3. That prior to obtaining a building permit the applicant completes the demolition of
the dwelling and accessory structure located on the east portion of the property.
For clarity this is the building denoted on the applicant's submitted plan as
"Existing Dwelling to be Demolished-House B".·
4. PICA 52117 to PICA 54117
M. Casey
1307 Commerce Street .
Carried
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended:
• to permit a minimum lot frontage of 12~0 metres, whereas the by-law requires a.
minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres
• to permit a minimum lot area of 324 square metres, whereas the by-law requires a
minimum lot ar(3a of 460 square metres
• to perm.it a maximum lot coverage of 48 percent, whereas the by-law requires a
·maximum lot coverage of 33 percent
• , to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the by-I;:Iw requires
a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres
• · to permit a minimum front yard setback of4.5 metres, whereas the by-law
require's a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres
• to-permit a covered platform to project a maximum of 1.8 metres into the required
front yard, whereas the by-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding
1.0 metre in height to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required front yard
Page 5 of 11
6 -C~o~~
.P1CKER1NG
Committee of Adjustment·
Meeting Minutes
VVednesday,August2,2017
7:02pm
Main Committee Room
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the creation of a
total of three lots through the Region of Durham Land Division Committee, and obtain
building permits for the construction of three detached dwellings.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development
Department recommending refusal. Written comments were also received from the
City's Engineering Services Department expressing· no comments on the applications.
Craig Marshall, agent, was present to represent the application. Karen Keating of
1314 Broadview Street and Gloria Pinkney of 1315 Commerce Street were present in
objection to the applications. Steven Karpouzis of 1308 Broadview Street was pre.sent
to obtain additional information on the applications. ·
Craig Marshall provided an overview of the applications by presenting a PowerPoint
presentation for the Committee Members; Craig Marshall stated the applications should
, have been considered using the Established Area (Bay Ridges Neighbourhood) instead
of the "Immediate Area", the streets surrounding the subject property .. Craig Marshall
stated there have been several minor variance applications in the surrounding area that
have been approved for variances such as: side yard reductions, reduced frontages,
porch projections and even a 0.0 metre front yard setback.-Craig Marshall stated
Commerce Street should l:;le developed to be consistent with the Bay Ridges
Neighbourhood.
Karen Keating expressed a concern with the height of the proposed dwellings. Karen
Keating is also concerned with the ircrease in traffic and congestion once the new
developments that are currently under construction are completed and new families
start moving in. Karen Keating also questioned what the new dwellings will look like
and if there are any elevation drawings available for review.
Gloria Pinkney is not opposed to severing the lot, however would prefer two lots,
opposed to three. Gloria Pinkney expressed a concern with_ the height al")d the front
yard sE3tback of the proposed dwellings. Gloria Pinkney noted she would like to see
them in line with the other dwellings and not to close to the street.
Steven Karpouzis questioned the type of fence that will be installed during construction
and ifthe builder will be providing a permanent fence once the construction is
completed.
In response to questions from the concerned residents, Craig Marshall provided
examples of the proposed dwellings, and expla.ined a construction fence will be erected
during construction and will not be installing a permanent fence once construction is
completed and that it will up to the new homeowner.
. Page 6 of 11
Committee of Adjustment 7
Meeting Minutes·
Wednesday, August2,_ 2017
7:02pm
Main Committee Room
A Committee Member stated Committee of Adjustment is for small minor.adjustments to
' the zoning by-laws and that the Committee considers the impacts on the immediate
area. Also that the requested variances raise matters that should more appropriately be
considered by a Council decision,
Moved by Tom Copeland
Seconded by
That applications PICA 52117, PICA 53117 and PICA 54117 by M. Casey, be Approved
·on the grounds that the variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the detac~ed dwellings include two car garages and the height not to exceed
12.0 metres.
2. That the applicant obtains land severances to create three lots through the Region
of Durham Land Division Committee by August 2, 2018.
3. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the ·proposed construction of the
· three detached dwellings by August 2, 2019, or this decision shall becom~ null and
void. · ·
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Eric Newton
Motion Lost
That application PICA 52117 by M. Casey, be Refused on the grounds that the
minimum frontage of 12.0 metres, a minimum lot area of 324 square metres, a
maximum lot coverage cif 48 percent, a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres, a
minimum front yard setback of 4.5 metres, and a maximum covered platform projection
of 1.8 metres are 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 Official Plan _and the Zoning By-law.
. .
That application PICA 53117 by M. Casey, be Refused on the grounds that the
minimum frontage of 12.0 metres, a minimum lot area of 324 square metres, a
maximum lot coverage of 48 percent, a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres, a
minimum front yard setback of 4.5 metres, and a maximum covered platform projection
of 1.8 metres to be maJor variances that are not considered to be desirable for the
appropriate development-of the land, and. riot in keeping with the general intent and
purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law.
Page 7 of 11
8 -Oft;of-' -
P1CKER1NG
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes .. ·
VVednesday,August2,2017
7:02pm
Main Committee Room
That application PICA 54117 by M. Casey, be Refused on the grounds that the .
minimum frontage of 12.0 metres, a minimum lot area of 324 square metres, a
maximum lot coverage of 48 percent, a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres, a
minimum front yard setback of 4.5 metres, and a maximum covered platform projection
of 1.8 metres 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 Official Plari and the Zoning By-law. · ·
Vote
Tom Copeland
Eric Newton
Denise Rundle .
5. PICA 59117
S. Mikhail
opposed
in favour
in favour
1815 Fairport Road, Unit 10
Carried
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7284113 to
permit an uncqvered deck and steps not exceeding 3.0 metres in height above .
established grade, to encroach a maximum of 4.1 metres into the required rear yard,
where the lot abuts the OS-HL zone; whereas the by-law requires uncovered decks,
platforms or steps not exceeding 3.0 metres in height above established grade, to encroach
a maximum of 3.0 metres into the required rear yard, for lots abutting the OS-HL zone.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a
building permit to construct a deck and associated steps in the {ear yard.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the. City Development
Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were
received from the City's Engineering Service.s Department expressing no comments on
the application. Written comments were also received from the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating they have reviewed the requested variances
and1they have no impact on TRCA's policies and programs, as such they have no'.
objections to the application.
Sandra Mikhail, owner, was present to reprf?sent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. .
. . .
Sandra Mikhail submitted two letters of support from the adjacent neighbours for the
Committee Members to review. ·
Page 8 of 11
J
-04of-
PlCKER1NG
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by D~nise Rundle
Committee of Adjustment 9
Meeting Minutes
VVednesday,August2,2017
7:02pm·
Main Committee Room
That application PICA 59117 by S. Mikhail, be Approved on the grounds that the
subject variance 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: ·
1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck and steps, as
generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.
2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by
August 2, 2018, or this decision shall become null and void.
Carried
6. PICA 60117
T. & M. Kuteyi
1815 Fairport Road, Unit 8
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7284113 to
permit an uncovered deck and steps not exceeding 3.0 metres in height above
established grade, to encroach a maximum of 4.8 metres into the required rear yard,
where the lot abuts the OS-HL zone; whereas the by-law requires uncovered decks,
platforms or steps not exceeding 3.0 ·metres in height above established grade, to encroach
a maximum of 3.0 metres into the required rear yard, for lots abutting the OS-HL zone.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in ord~r to obtain a
building permit to construct a deck and associated steps\ in the rear yard.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation ·from the City Development
Department recommending. approval subject to conditions. Written comments were
received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on
the application. Written comments were also received from the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating they have reviewed the requested variances.
I and they have no impact on TRCA's policies and programs, as such they have no
objections to the application.
Samantha Bateman, agent, was present tq represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Samantha Bateman agrees with staff recommendations. In response to a question from
a Committee Member, Samantha Bateman indicated they do not have a problen:t if the
condition fulfillment date was revised to a shorter timeframe.
Page 9 of 11
,o ·--CdiJ (}f-.,....--
p](KERlNG
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded .by Tom Copeland
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
VVednesday,August2,2017
7:02pm.
Main Committee R9om.
That application PICA 60117 by T. & M. Kuteyi, be Approved on the grounds that the
subject variance 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:
1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck and steps, as
generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted pla~s.
2. That the applicant obtain a building pe~mit for the construction by August 2, 2018,
or this decision shall become null and void.
7. PICA 61117
P. & J. Kukic
1815 Fairport Road, Unit 8
Carried
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7284113 to . , ,
permit an uncove·red deck and steps not exceeding 3.0 metres in height above ·
established grade, to encroach a maximum of 5.0 metres into the required rear yard,
where the lot abuts the OS-HL zone; whereas the by-law requires uncovered decks,
platforms or steps not exceeding 3.0 metres in· height above established grade, to encroach
a maximum of 3.0 metres into the required rear yard, for lots abutting the OS-HL zone.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a ·
building permit to construct a deck and associated steps in the. rear yard.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development
Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were
received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on
the application. Written comments were also received from the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating they have reviewed the requested variances
and they have no impact on TRCA's policies and programs, as such they have no
objections to the application.
Samantha Bateman, agent, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Page 10 of 11
---'---04 of-·· -
PICKE.RING
Committee of Adjustment 11
Meeting Minutes -
Wednesday, August ·2, 2017
7:02pm
Main Co.mmittee R~om
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Tom Copeland
That application PICA 61/17 by P. & J. Kukic, be Approved on the grounds that the
subject variance 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:
1. Th?t this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck and steps, as
. generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.
2. · That the applicant obtain a building permit for the construction by August 2, 2018,
or this decision shall become null and void.
Carried
(IV) Adjournment
Date
Chair
Moved by Eric Ne~on
Seconded by Demise Rundle
That the 1Oth meeting of the 2017 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at
8:18pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on
Wednesday, August 23, 2017.
Carried Unanimously
Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
Page 11 of 11
12 ~~~ .
P1CKER1NG
~·
From: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP
Report to·
Committee of Adjustment
Application Numbers: PICA 62117to PICA 75117
Date: August 23, 2017
Manager, Dev~lopment Review & Urban Design
, Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications PICA 62117 to PICA 75117
· Mattamy (Seaton) Limited .
Applications
Part of Block 45 & Block 47 with Lane on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision
SP-2009-13, Phase 2
Block 45 (PICA 62117 to PICA 66117) .
The applicant requests relief from-Zoning By-law 7364114 (Seaton Zoning By-law) to permit
street townhouse dwellirgs in a "Low Density Type 1 (LD1 )" Zone; whereas, the by-law does
not permit street townhouse dwellings within a "Low Density 1 Type (LD1)" Zo.ne.
Block 47 with Lane (PleA 67117 to PICA 75117)
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364114(Seaton Zoning By-law) to permit
detached dwellings in a "Low Density Type 2 -.Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone; whereas, the by-law
does not permit detached dwellings within a "Low DensitY Type_ 2-~ultiple (LD2-M)" Zone.
The applica.nt requests app~oval of these minor variance applications in order to permit eight
townhouse dwellings in a "Low Density Type 1 (LD1)" zone, and six single detacheddwellings
in a "Low Density Type 2-Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone within the Matl;amy·(Seaton) Draft ·
. Approved-Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13, Phase 2.
Recommendation ·
. · The City Development Department recommends that minor variance applications PICA 62117
to PICA 75117 be Deferred· to the next available meeting, .september 13, 2017, to allow staff to
· recirculate a revised Public Notice as it relates to the variances. requested.
ReportPICA 62117 to PICA 75117
Background
August 23, 2017 . 1 3
Page 2
To facilitate changes during the implementation of the Mattamy (Seaton) Draft Approved Plan
of Subdivisio~ (SP-2009-13, Phase 2), the owners· of the subject lands are reque~ting to
relocate unit types within the Draft Approved Plan. 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 is
requesting to relocate the detached dwellings and street townhouse dwellings to an alternative
location within the same draft plan; To accommodate these minor red-line revisions to the
Draft Approved Plan, a number of minor adjustments are required resulting in the need for
· variances to the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364114. The requested minor variances maintain the
same over all unit count. (14 units) as in the Draft Approved Plan and the density permitted in
the Official Plan (Official Plan Amendment 22). ·
On August 9, 2017, the City pevelopment Department provided an incorrect Public Noti"ce, and
therefore recommends that minor variance applications PICA 62117 to PICA 75117 be· deferred
to the next.available meeting, September 13, 2017 to allow staff to prepare and recirculate a ·
new. public notice with the correct legal description of the respective Blocks within the. ·
Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision, SP-2009-13, Phase 2.
Date of report: August 17, 2017
Comments prepared'by:
-. . . ~~:1
Lalita Paray, ~P, RPP Ni es Surti, CIP, RPP
Planner I · Mana r, Development Review & Urban Design
LP:NS:jc
J:\Documents\Development\D-370012017\PCA 62-17to PCA 75-17\Report\pca 62_17 &pea 75_17_def Aug 23.doc
Attachments
-04Jof-· -.
PICKERING
City Development
· Department
.---~--~-------------------------,TAUNTONROAD
/" . Phase 1
Block45
Phase 2
...,. __ _ B/ock47
with Lane·
-a~()i-
PJCKERlNG
City Development
Depa'rtment
to permit 8 street townhouse
dwellings in a ·"Low Density 1
(LD1)" zone·sul:>ject to the zone
standards· of the "Low Density
Type 1 -(LD1)" zone
BLOCK 50
Sing!e;Oetached . max units= 5
SP-2009-13
Phase 2
STREET15
-BLO¢K49
single Oei!!Ch~d ma)(Uliits = 16·
mirLwidth == 9.15in
BLOCK46
Street Townhouses
max units= 6 min. width =,7.01m
min. 'Width =11..01'11 \-----""-----~~.----··~--..,
Submitted Plan
File No: . PCA 62/17 to PCA 75/17
BLOCK 54
FUTURE RESIOENTIAL
Single Detached .0.29:·ha.
to permit 6 detached dwellings in a
"Low Density Type 2 -Multiple
(LD2-M)" zone subject to the zone
standards of the "Low Density Typ
2 -Multiple (LD2-M}" zone
Property Description: Part of Block 45, Block 47 with Lane, on Draft A roved Plan of Subdivision
(SP-2009-13)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: August3, 2017
From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP
Report to
Committee of Adjustment
Application Number: PICA 77/17
Date: August 23, 2017
Principal Planner-Development Review
Subject:
Application·
Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 77/17
D. Naumovski
1953 Spruce Hill Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum
north side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum side yard
setback of 1.5 metres.
The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to
construct a two-storey detached dwelling. ·
Recommendation
The City Development Department considers a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 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 this variance apply only to the two-storey detached dwelling, as generally sited and
outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.
I .
2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by August 23, 2019,
or this decision shall become null and void.
Comm.ent ·
Official Plan and Zoning. By-law
Pickering Official Plan -"Urban Residential Areas -Low Density Areas" within the
Dunbarton Neighbourhood
Zoning By-law 3036-"R4"-Fourth Density Residential Zone
Report PICA 77/17 August23,2017 17
Page 2
Appropriateness of the Application
• the intent of a minimum side yard setback requirement is to provide an appropriate
separation distance between structures on abutting properties in order to ensure
compatibility with the existing neighbourhood, provide appropriate pedestrian access
between dwellings, and to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services-
• the Zoning ~y-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres
• the applicant has requested to reduce the minimum north side yard setback from
1 .5 metres to 1 .2 metres
• the applicant is unable to meet the north side yard setback requirement as the TRCA
has requested a more gracious south side yard setback of 1.93 metres due to the·
grading along the south property line
• the proposed north side yard setback of 1.2 metres will provide an adequate
separation distance between the proposed dwelling and lot line to accommodate
pedestrian access, grading, drainage and residential services
• the proposed north side yard setback will be compatible with the existing
neighbourhood as other redeveloped properties along Spruce Hill Road have been
approved to have minimum side yard setbacks of 1.2 metres
• the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development
of the land and maintains the purpose and intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Input From Other Sources
Engineering Services • no comments on the application
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • no .objections to the application
Date of report: August 16, 2017
Comments prepared by:
CM:DW:jc
Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner-Development Review
J:\Documenls\Development\D-3700\2017\PCA 77·17 ·D. Naumovski\Report\PCA 77·17 Report.doc
Attachments
-Ciftjoff-
PJCKERJNG
City Development
Department
Location Map
File: PICA 77/17
Applicant:D. Naumovski
0
(§
0:::
~ 0 a. 0::: ~
-
:____
-
-----'------1----l--1~
1----l----l w 0:: 1---1-----l > 0
1---1-----l 0:: w 1---1-----l 0 ()
1----l----l ~ ~
1----l----l (5 (/)
1---1----1 ...J ffi ·~ =:i
1---1----1 Ul CJ)
1---1----1
Prooertv Descriotion:Pian 1041 Part Lot 89, 88A Now 40R2255 Part 1
&40R7419 Part 1 (1953 Spruce Hill Road)·. Date:Auo. 02,2017
C The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (iQ part) under license from:@ Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, e0.:!~~:~~~;~;:~~~.~~~~~ :~~~:~~:"l~~:r~~C~~~~ ~tn~~ma~n~~~o~~~~::,~e~~~~~:nr!~~~:~~oc!Jers all rJ his rese~ved.: SCALE: 1:5,000
T;:IIS IS NOT PLAN 0~ SUR\n::y PN-RU
--Cdt;oi·--
PJCKERJNG
City Development
Department
to permit a minimum north
side yard setback of 1.2
metres
Submitted Plan
File No: PICA 77/17
Applicant: D. Naumovski '
!7.2
Property Description: Plan 1041 Part Lot 89, BBA Now 40R2255-Part 1 & 40R7419 Part 1
(1953 Spruce Hill Road)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
B9.0.
DATE: July 24, 201~
20
Report to. -0/J;bf-
PlCKERlNG Committee of Adjustment
From:
Subj~ct
Application
Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP
Application Number: PICA 79117
Date: August 23, 2017
Manager, Development Review & Urban Design
Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 79117
Squires Beach Holding Ltd.
1325 Squires Beach Road
. .
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit two accessory
buildings to be erected in the front yard; whereas the by-law requires all accessory buildings
which are not part of the main building. shall be erected in the rear yard.
The applicant requests.approval of this minor variance application in order to allow for two
accessory buildings for salt and waste storage in the front-yard and to obtain site plan approval
for a concrete facility.
Recommendatio·n
The City Development Department considers the two accessory buildings located in the front ·
yard 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 Minor Variance apply only to the proposed development (concrete facility), as
generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.
2. That the applicant obtain site plan approval for the proposed development by August 23, 2018, ·
or this decision shall become null.and void.
3. That the applicant obtain a Permit under 0. Reg. 166106 from the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority for the proposed development by August 23, 2018, or this decision
will become null a·nd void.
4. That' the applicant obtain a building permit for the propo'sed construction by August 23, 2018,
or this decision shall become null and void.
Report PICA 79117 August 23, 2017 21
Page 2
Background
On December 7, 2016,· the Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application
PICA 66116 for the subject lands in order to permit front yard parking to be limited to 56 percent of
the total required parking area, and an accessory building (scale house) to be located in the
front yard; whereas· the by-law requires front yard parking to be limited to 20 percent of the ..
total required parking area, and all accessory buildings which are not part of the rriain building
to be erected in the rear yard.
·On December 13,2016, the related site plan application was considered and endorsed by the
Site Plan "Committee.· The applicant ha·s recently submitted a ·revised site plan based on
comments received by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the City
through the site plan review process. As a result; an additional variance has been identified to
permit two accessory buildings, having a total gross floor area (GFA) of 1 ,338 square metres,
for salt and waste storage to be located. in the front yard. ·
. Comment
Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Pickering Official Plan -"Employment Areas -General Employment" within the Brock
Industrial Neighbourhood.
Zoning By-law 2511, as amended -"M2S"-Heavy Manufacturing
Appropriateness of the Application
. \ . .
Accessory Buildings within the Front Yard Variance
• · the intent of requiring accessory buildings to be located in the rear yard is to minimize
their visual impact on the streetscape and adjacent properties
• the applicant is requesting to permit two accessory buildings (salt and waste storage) to be
located in the front yard '
• the applicant has indicated that the prhposed location of the salt and waste storage
buildings within the front yard is for functionality purposes and will allow for efficient·
circulation of' concrete trucks on the subject site, and protect the salt and waste from
inclement weather
• the subject property is surrounded by existing industrial and .manufacturing land uses
• .due to the unique configuration of the subject property,. the proposed location of the
two access"Ory buildings will have minimal impact on abutting properties
• the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of
the land and maintains the intent and purpose of t~e Official Plan and the Zoning By-law
22 ·Report PICA 79/17
Input From Other Sources
~ngineering Services
Date of report: August 16, 2017
c~/By
Lalita Paray, MCIF/ RPP .
Planner I
LP:jc
August23,2017
Page' 3
• no comments on the application
Nilesh -urti, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review & Urban Design
J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA ApP.Iications)\2017\PCA 79-17 Squires Beach Holding Ltd\Report\PCA 79_17.doc
Attachments
-· -Cdt;of-
PJCKERJNG
City Development
Department
D
/
Cl (§
0::
51-----------:...
Lti al en w 0:: 5 0 en
Location Map
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
!
COPPERSTONE DRIVE
SILICONE DRIVE
File: PICA 79/17 ,
Applicant:Squires Beach Holding Ltd.
n
BAYLY STREET
l
=
Prooertv Descriotion:BFC Ram:Je 3 Part Lot 15,16 Now RP 40R22677
Parts 19, 23-28 1325 Squires Beach Road) Date: Auq. 08, 2017
~ ~geh~or:e~~~~~:r ~~:;:~~e~u~:::~;t(:f~aa~a~~~~~;:~~f~::~~~e~:~=~~~~~~~~~~:~.~atural Resources. S GALE: 1 :5 J QQQ I
@ Teranet Entemrises Inc. and Its ~~~oli~rs an riahts reserved.; <0 Munlclcal Pro~~;,-Assessment Corcarallon and Its sullll!Jers an rlnhls reserved.; T'I-IS s "'OT A PLAN Ql:' SURVF;Y p N-RU
.3
\ . . \
--~~~·-
PlCKERlNG
City Development
·Department
Submitted Plan
File No: P/CA 79/17
Applicant: Squires Beach Holding Ltd.
to permit two accessory
buildings to be erected in
the front yard
P.roperty Description: BFC Range 3 Part Lot 15,16 Now RP 40R22677 Parts ·19, 23-28
(1325 Squires Beach Road)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. . .
......
1' N.
[ DATE: August 2, 2017
·City Development
Department
3D. MODEL
SCALE~~=1'-0"
Submitted Plan
File No: P/CA 79/17
Applicant: Squires Beach Holding Ltd.
Property Description: BFC Range 3 Part Lot 15,16 Now RP 40R22677 Parts 19, 23-28
(1325 Squires Beach Road)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PlAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: August 2, 20101
26 . /IhA j -~ ()ff-----'-
P1CKERlNG
From: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP
Report to
Committee of Adjustment
Application Number: PICA 80117
Date: August 23, 2017
Manager, Development Review & Urban Design
Subject:
Application
Committee of Adjustment Applicatio"n PICA 80117
M. Strasic
662 Pleasant Street
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended:
• to permit a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent; whereas the by-law requires a
maximum lot coverage of 33 percent·
• to permit a minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres; whereas the by-law requires a
minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres
The· applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building
permit to construct a detached dwelling. ·
Recommendation
The City Development Department considers a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent and a
minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres to be major varianc~s that are not desirable for the
appropriate development of the land, and are not in keeping with the general intent and
purpose of the Official Plan, and therefore recommends Refu~al of the proposed variances.
Comment
Official Plan and Zoning By-law
The subject property is designated "Urban Residential-Low Density Areas" within the
Bay ~idges Neighbourhood. in the Pickering Official Plan. ·
The Pickering Official Plan contains policies to protect and enhance the character of
established neighbourhoods, considering such matters as building height, yard setback, lot
coverage, and access to sunlight. The Official Plan also contains policies which further
encourage developments to be designed to fit their contexts ·by considering the mix of uses,
and the massing, height, scale, architectural style and details .of existing adjacent buildings.
Report PICA 80117 August 23, 2017-27
Page 2
The subject property is recognized under the "Liverpool Road Waterfront Node" Development
Guidelines as being_ situated within the historic Village of Fairport. The guidelines recognize
the need to protect the character of the historic village. ·
The subject property is zoned "R4" -Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone under Zoning
By-law 2511, as amended.
Background
In 1968, the Cqmmittee of Adjustment approved a Minor Variance Application PICA 10168 ·for
the subject property to permit a reduced lot area of 408.8 square metres and a reduced lot
frontage of 12.8 metres. ·
Past Variances in the Neighbourhood
The area west of Liverpool Road, between Commerce Street to the north and Annland Street
to the south, has a mixed parcel fabric which ~as resulted in a large number of requests for
minor variances. The properties along Pleasant Street consists of lots that ·generally meet or
fall just below the "R4" zone requirements (refer to Location Map attached). A number of
variances have been proposed in the past along Pleasant Street that are relevant to this
application.
In 1977, several variances were proposed for an addition to an existing dwelling at
668 Pleasant Street (including to recognize an existing front yard depth of 5.7 metres), which
were approved conditional on the removal of a porch in the front yard and the submission of a
lot grading pl~n. ·
Several variances have been applied for at 661 .Pleasant Street. The earliest variances
requested were in 2009 (PICA 13/09) to recognize existing reduced side and flankage yards, a
maximum lot coverage of 37 percent and a minimum rear yard of 5.4 metres for an addition to
an existing dwelling (now demolished). The Committee approved these vari.ances on the
condition that the addition not exceed a height of two storeys and 6.5 metres in height.
In 2015, several variances· were proposed for a new dwelling at 661 Pleasant Street (including
to reduce the front yard depth to 6.0 metres and to increase the lot coverage to-38 percent),
which the Committee refused on the grounds that the variances were major, not desirable, and
not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
Since 2015, a new dwelling has been constructed at 661 Pleasant Street thatcomplies with
the lot coverage and setback provisions of the Zoning By-law. The only variance received for
the new dwelling was for a projection for a deck and stairs into the rear yard.
Numerous variances have been approved for properties on Front Road, however the small lot
sizes and narrow parcel fabric along Front Road creates a hardship for the reasonable
development of those properties. Without variances, the developable area of those lots would
be substantially ·restricted. ·
c.
28 Report PICA 80/17 August23,2017
Page 3
· 2016 City Council Resolution
.In November 2016, City Council adopted· Resolution 236/16 to commence a community
engagement process to establish guidelines to encourage developers and builders to be
mindful of established community character. A forthcomir:tg report recommending a course of
action, the feedback from two focus groups, and an overview of practices undertaken in other
municipalitie.s, will be brought to Planning and Development Committee for the September 5, 2017
meeting (refer to Notice of Motion attached).
Appropriateness of the Application
Lot Coverage Variance and Front Yard Variance
• the intent of the maximum lot coverage provision is ~o ensure that the size, scale and
massing of a dwelling, and accessory buildings is appropriate for the lot size and to
ensure an adequate amount of outdoor amenity space remains .uncovered by buildings
on a lot
• the intent of a minimum front yard depth is to ensure that an adequate landscaped area,
parking area and setback is provided between the dwelling and the front lot line to
maintain the. character of the streetscape
• the applicant has requested a variance to increase the maximum lot coverage from
33 percent to 35 percent, and a variance to reduce the front yard depth from 7.5 metres
to 6.0 metres ·
• ·the applicant is proposing a detached dwelling 12.0 metres in height and 4 storeys
(refer to Submitted Plan attached) ·
• the Pickering Official Plan contains policies pertaining to protecting and enhancing the
character of established neighbourhoods by considering such ·matters. as height, yard
setbacks, lot coverage, access to sunlight, and the context of the existing adjacent
buildings
• front yard depths in the immediate area along Pleasant Street vary between less than a
metre and approximately 24.0 metres
• the adjacent property to the south (660 Pleasant Street) has a front yard depth of 6.0
metres to the garage, while the property to the north (664 Pleasant Street) has a front
yard depth of approximately 12.2 metres ·
• with the exception of the new dwelling at 661 Pleasant Street which is 3 storeys and
12.0 metres in height, existing dwellings along Pleasant Street vary in height from
1 storey to 2.5 storeys and up to approximately 8.0 metres in height
• variances were granted for the property at 661 Pleasant Street, including a variance to
increase lot coverage to 37 percent for an addition to an ·existing dwelling (now demolished)
on a lot with an area of approximately 356.0 square metres (whereas the by-law
requires a minimum lot area of 465.0 square metres), conditional on the height being
limited to a maximum of 2 storeys and 6.5 metres ..
Report PICA 80/17 August23,2Q17 29.
Page4
• existing lots along Pleasant Street generally exceed or fall just below the "R4" zone
requirements, including the subject property (with a lot area of 408.8 square metres)
which is of sufficient size to permit a reasonably sized dwelling that complies with the
zoning by-law
• the proposed detached dwelling with a height of 12.0 metres, a reduced front yard depth
of 6.0 metres and a lot coverage of 35 percent will likely obstruct the street view of the
adjacent dwelling to the north (664 Pleasant Street) and may cast shadows onto the
front and rear yards of the adjacent properties to .the north and west
• when considered together, the proposed increased lot coverage, reduced front yard
depth and proposed 12.0 metre ta!l dwelling, will result in a development considered to
be out of scale with adjacent buildings, and will neither protect nor enhance the .
character of the neighbourhood along Pleasant Street
• staff are of the opinion that the requested variances are major variances that are not
desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and are not in keeping with the
general intent and purpose of the Official Plan
• if the applicant were to reduce the height of the proposed dwelling to 2.5 storeys and a
maximum of 8.0 metres, the requested variances would be considered minor in nature,
desirable for the appropriate development of the lands and would meet the general
· intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law
/
If the applicant was to amend the application to restrict the proposed detached dwelling to a
maximum of 2.5 storeys and 8.0 metres, and should the Committee find merit in the
· application, we· recommend Approval of the proposed variances to be subject to the following
conditions:
1. That these variances apply only to a detached dwelling having a maximum building
height of 8.0 metres (2.5 storeys). ·
2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by August 23,2019
or this decision shall become null and void.
30 Rep~rt PICA 80/17
Input From Other Sources
Engineering .Services
Councillor Bill Mclean
Resident of 668 Pleasant Street
Date of report: August 17, 2017
Comments prepared by:
Rory McNeil ·
Planner I
RM:NS:Id
J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2017\PCA 811-17 \Report\PCA 811-17 Report.doc
Attachments
August 23, 2017 .
Page 5
• no comments on the application
• does not support the application
• . would like to wait until Staff's report in response to
Councillor Brenner's Notice of Motion is complete
• opposes any variances which may be requested
for a building of the height proposed
• concerned the building would be an eyesore on a
street of mostly bungalqws
• concerned the proposal will look like the tall
building erected at 661 Pleasant Street
• concerned that the residents had no say in what
was built at 661 Pleasant Str~et
• concerned that the proposed dwelling will be built
whether the residents like it or not
• commented that some larger homes have been
built nearby that look nice
• concerned with other developments in the area
and the impact it has had on traffic
• would like to a see a plan put together by the City
determining what can be built in the area
i, MCIP, RPP
evelopment Review & Urban Design
-~~~
P1CKER1NG
City Development
Department
Location Ma
File: PICA 80/17
Applicant:M. Strasic
1
COMMERCE STREET
PN-RU
-Cdt;of·-
PJCKERJNG
City Development
Department
Submitted Plan
File No: P/CA 80/17
Applicant: M. Strasic
Prop~rty Description: Plan 65 Block E Part Lot 11,12
ITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
(662 Pleasant Street) ~ULL SCALE COPIES 01= THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWIN~ AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
to permit a maximum lot I
coverage of 35 percent
-Cl)'
Cl)
:1--en -s:::: m UJ m CIJ
D.
1'
I DATE: August 3, 201.7
--Cd;; od--
'PJCKERJNG
City Development
Department
Submitted Plan.
File No: P/CA 80/17
Applicant: M. Strasic
Property Description: Plan 65 Block E Part Lot 11,12
(662 Pleasant Street)
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. ·
View from Pleasant Street
DATE: August 3, 2
34
-----%~1-
PlCKERlNG·.
Notice of Motion
a) Guidelines to Protect Community Character (lnfill)
Moved by Councillor Brenner
Seconded by Councillor Ashe
November 21,2016
Whereas the .City. of Pickerin.g recognizes the importance of community character and
its_preservation where infill construction takes place;
Whereas the Planning Act enables approvals when it involves.Draft Plans of
Subdivision, but provides no jurisdiction to enable municipalities to impose conditions
for individual building permits not subject to Draft P~an Conditi_ons;
Now Therefore be it res·olved that the City Development Department commence a
community engagement process via the establishment of a focus group that will
. enable Pickering to establish the creation of guidelines that will encourage
developers and builders to be mindful ofestablished community character when
bringing forward draft plans and/or individual building permits in communities such as
Fairport Beaqh, South Rosebank and others within Pickering.
And that City staff forwa·rd copies of this resolution to all City of Pickering community
associations and ratepayer groups s·eeking appointments to this focus group.