Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 12, 2020 - Revised Revised Committee of Adjustment Agenda Meeting Number: 6 Date: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page Number 1. Disclosure of Interest 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from July 8, 2020 1-13 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 35/20 L. Kralijevic 1472 Highbush Trail 14-21 4.2 P/CA 36/20 M. & M. Bosnjak 1474 Highbush Trail 22-29 4.3 P/CA 37/20 C. Malvankar & S. Tomar 938 Wingarden Crescent 30-35 4.4 P/CA 38/20 J. Flora 792 Eyer Drive 36-42 4.5 P/CA 39/20 – Revised R. Keeler 1442 Finch Avenue 43-52 4.6 P/CA 40/20 1739592 Ontario Ltd. 905 Sandy Beach Road 53-58 4.7 P/CA 41/20 F. Molinaro 1771 Woodview Avenue 59-65 4.8 P/CA 42/20 P. Bekarovski 405 Frontier Court 66-69 4.9 P/CA 43/20 M. & L. Giampietri 176 Bralorne Trail 70-74 5. Adjournment For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Samantha O’Brien Telephone: 905.420.4660, extension 2023 Email: sobrien@pickering.ca Revised Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 1 of 13 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Tanjot Bal, Planner II Felix Chau, Planner I Isabel Lima, Planner I Absent David Johnson – Chair 1.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2.Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the agenda for the Wednesday, July 8, 2020 meeting be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3.Adoption of Minutes Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That the minutes of the 4th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, June 10, 2020 be adopted as amended. Carried Unanimously - 1 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 2 of 13 Tom Copeland, Vice-Chair stated that he will abstain from voting on all applications heard for the Wednesday, July 8, 2020 Committee of Adjustment meeting in order to prevent a tie vote. 4. Reports 4.1 (Tabled at the June 10, 2020 meeting) P/CA 22/20 M. & M. Snedden 2022 Trailwood Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1228/81 and By-law 1308/81, to permit an uncovered deck and attached pergola not exceeding 2.7 metres in height and not projecting more than 3.8 metres into the required rear yard , whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered deck and attached pergola. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating that the rear portion of the subject site is regulated by TRCA and confirmed that the proposed attached pergola and uncovered replacement rear deck will not be located any closer to the ravine than the existing limits of development. As such, TRCA staff have no objections to the proposal in principle and support the requested variances. The drawings circulated to TRCA as part of this minor variance application are consistent with the plans received with the TRCA permit application . Written comments were received from Parks Canada expressing no comments on the application. Joey Fletcher, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. - 2 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 3 of 13 Joey Fletcher spoke in support of the application stating the purposed variance is to facilitate replacement of an existing rotting deck with an expansion. Given that there are no objections from TRCA, Parks Canada or neighbours, and the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 22/20 by M. & M. Snedden, be Approved on the grounds that the requested 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck and attached pergola, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated July 8, 2020). Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 29/20 P. Szkwyra & N. McKeown 494 Rougemount Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit an accessory structure (shed) greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback 0.5 metres from the south side lot line, whereas the By-law requires accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback a minimum of 1.0 metre from all lot lines. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize an existing shed with a deficient side yard setback. 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 received from the City’s Building Services Section stating the structure has been built without a permit. Committee of Adjustment approval is required prior to issuing a building permit. - 3 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 4 of 13 Written comments were received from the TRCA indicating the required TRCA permit for the existing shed was issued on February 24, 2020, and that TRCA has no objections to the approval of the variance. Written comments were received from the owner of 492 Rougemount Drive expressing no objection to the structure. Written comments were received from the owner of 496 Rougemount Drive expressing no objection to the structure. Paul Szkwyra & Nancy McKeown, applicants, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from a Committee Member, Paul Szkwyra stated the accessory structure (shed) was previously setback approximately 8 inches from the property line and was replaced roughly 5-6 years ago. At that time the new shed was relocated from 8 inches to approximately 20 inches from the property line. Paul Szkwyra indicated he is unaware of how the deficiency was identified however, he did have a City By-law Enforcement Officer and an Inspector visit the property. Additionally, the TRCA did provide permission for the proposal and indicated a minor variance would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Given that the application is replacing an existing shed and increasing the building setback, there are no objections from neighbours, TRCA issued approval, and the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 29/20 by P. Szkwyra & N. McKeown, be Approved on the grounds that the requested 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 existing shed, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated July 8, 2020). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the existing shed. Carried Unanimously - 4 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 5 of 13 4.3 P/CA 30/20 D. Clarke & A. Bates 1480 Old Forest Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit:  a minimum front yard setback of 5.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres;  a minimum north side yard setback of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum north side yard setback of 1.5 metres;  a maximum lot coverage of 34.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department suggesting grading and roof design changes to mitigate the amount of water flowing to the rear of the property and potentially affecting the property on Highbush Trail. Additional measures such as extra depth topsoil and soak away pits may be req uired. These changes will be addressed at the building permit stage. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. David Clarke, applicant, 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, David Clarke stated he is prepared to incorporate changes in grading and drainage to satisfy the City’s Engineering Services Department, at the building permit stage. Regarding the design of the property, David Clarke indicated 4-storeys containing 2 dwellings is proposed due to the existing grading of the property. The top 2-storeys are allocated for his family. An in-law suite is proposed on the next level which will walk-out at the rear, followed by an unfinished basement which will also walk-out at the rear. When asked if a duplex is permitted at this location under the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the Secretary-Treasurer advised the proposal and application was reviewed and interpreted as an Accessory Dwelling Unit, which is permitted on site. - 5 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 6 of 13 When asked about the maximum permitted size for an Accessory Dwelling Unit within detached dwellings under the Zoning By-law, Isabel Lima, Planner I, advised that the maximum permitted size for an Accessory Dwelling Unit is 100 square metres (approximately 1,100 square feet), identified under the Zoning By-law. David Clarke advised that the current design for the Accessory Dwelling Unit is approximately 111 square metres (1,200 square feet) or less, and they can alter the plans to accommodate the requirements of the Zoning By-law. The Secretary-Treasurer has advised that an open Building Permit is with the Building Services Section, where a zoning review has been conducted and no additional variances appear to be required. Furthermore, Building Services has expressed no comments on this application. Based on the recommendations of City staff outlined in the Report to the Committee of Adjustment, the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act and taking into account the friendly amendment made by Committee Member Sean Wiley to include a condition of a building permit, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 30/20 by D. Clarke & A. Bates, 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 proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated July 8, 2020). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction. Carried Unanimously - 6 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 7 of 13 4.4 P/CA 31/20 R. Helgesen 940 Mink Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit:  minimum front yard depth of 3.2 metres, whereas the by-law requires 7.5 metres;  minimum rear yard depth of 3.4 metres, whereas the by-law requires 7.5 metres;  maximum lot coverage of 36.5 percent, whereas the by-law requires 33.0 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to facilitate the construction of a residential addition and an attached garage. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department to ensure that the increase in lot coverage does not adversely affect the existing drainage patterns in the surrounding area. Consideration for rain harvesting and other LID measures should be made to maintain pre-development runoff volumes. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Robin Helgesen, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of her application, Robin Helgesen stated the property currently does not have a garage/carport. Additionally, the main floor of the existing dwelling is approximately 46.5 square metres (500 square feet) or less, and does not contain a laundry or bathroom facility on the main floor. The requested variances are in keeping with the existing neighbourhood streetscape. The proposal will accommodate an attached two-door garage and addition for a laundry facility and a bathroom to be located on the main floor. Moreover, due to the dwelling being on a corner lot, the interpretations of the side yard and front yard are unique, which is the reason for the minor variance application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Robin Helgesen stated there is adequate usable amenity space on the east side of the property, which acts as a “rear yard” being approximately 3.5 metres (12 feet) in depth or less. There is an existing fence surrounding this location currently, which will be extended to the proposed garage. - 7 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 8 of 13 After taking into consideration the Recommendation Report from the City Development Department, hearing the comments made from the applicant, having no comments from the neighbours particularly to the north where a majority of the construction will take place, and the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 31/20 by R. Helgesen, 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the residential addition and attached garage, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer t o Exhibits 2, 3, 4, & 5 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated July 8, 2020). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 32/20 E. & A. Barron 279 Waterford Gate The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2964/88, to permit an uncovered platform (deck) measuring 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 1.0 metre into the required rear yard (for a total projection of 2.5 metres from the rear wall of the house and setback 5.1 metres from the rear lot line), whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to an uncovered deck in the rear yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. - 8 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 9 of 13 Evita Barron, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, Evita Barron advised the intent of the dwelling is to be used as a multi-generational home for her family and parents who reside in the basement. At this time, the rear yard is only accessible through the basement. The application will facilitate a walk-out deck to enjoy the rear yard’s usable amenity space while maintaining the privacy of her parents in the basement. Additionally, the height of the deck is similar to others in the neighbourhood. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Evita Barron advised the height of the uncovered platform (deck) is at the main floor of the dwelling. Given that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 32/20 by E. & A. Barron, be Approved on the grounds that the requested 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the rear yard uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated July 8, 2020). Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 33/20 P. & S. Keller 1965 Spruce Hill Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.2 metres into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered deck. - 9 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 10 of 13 The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending refusal, however if the applicant were to request the application to amend the uncovered deck not projecting more than 0.9 metres into the required south side yard staff would recommend approval subject to conditions. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing that any structure proposed near a lot line must be setback a minimum of 0.6 metres and not the proposed 0.3 metres. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating the property is regulated by the TRCA and that Minor Works Permit was issued in March. TRCA have no objections to the approval of the variances. Paul & Sandra Keller, applicant, and Robert Reid, agent with Durham Decks Inc., were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After taking into consideration Building Services and their recommendations via the Engineers, Robert Reid advised that the applicants wish to amend the proposal to no longer require a variance to the south side yard setback and the height of the deck to be the only requested variance. The applicant was unable to provide the revised drawings to City staff prior to the meeting and was therefore unable to share the document electronically with the Committee Members. In response to questions from Committee Members, Robert Reid advised the rear yard maintains a setback of approximately 12 metres (42 feet) from the property line to the existing dwelling. The stairs can now be relocated to only encroach the rear yard without being in violation of the Zoning By-law’s rear yard setback requirements. In response to questions from the Committee Members, the Secretary-Treasurer advised that based on the amended proposal from the applicant; there is no foreseeable concern with this new request. The amended proposal is to have a requested variance in height and no projection into the south side yard. By relocating the stairs to encroach the rear yard, it should comply with the Zoning By-law for the rear yard setback requirements. This change in request would trigger an alteration to their building permit application and a new zoning compliance review to determine if this is the only variance required. Taking into account the comments and recent changes in the amended proposal from the applicant, and the comments and answers to questions from the City Development Department, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: - 10 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 11 of 13 Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That amended application P/CA 33/20 by P. & S. Keller, be Approved on the grounds that an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height and not projecting into the south side yard 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 the submitted plans be revised to show an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting into the south side yard. 2. That the applicant obtain a permit from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the uncovered deck. 3. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction. Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 34/20 Unique AT Holding Corporation 1470 Bayly Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-laws 7707/19 and 7728/19 to permit a parcel of land that does not have frontage on a street, whether or not occupied by a building or structure, whereas the By-law requires a parcel of land to front on a street. The applicant requests approval of this variance to permit the creation of a parcel of land (Universal City – Phase Two) without frontage on a public street. The proposed variance is to facilitate the phased comprehensive development known as Universal City (refer to Exhibits 1 & 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated July 8, 2020). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City De velopment Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) expressing no objections to the approval of this variance. - 11 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 12 of 13 Written comments were received from Ministry of Transportation (MTO) expressing no comments or concerns regarding this application, and have no objection to this variance application. The site is within the MTO permit control area and a MTO building permit will be required prior to constructing anything on this site. Written comments were received from Metrolinx expressing no objections with the application. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham , Planning Division expressing no objections to the application, subject to a condition: that the reque sted variance will expire once the Universal City – Phase 2 development is provided legal frontage onto a year-round maintained municipal public road. Ryan Guetter, agent with Weston Consulting, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions raised by Committee Members, Ryan Guetter stated a detailed engineering submission of the proposed road has been provided to the City. The Master Plan Development Agreement has been finalized. This Agreement will be signed off and executed after final discussions with the City’s Legal Department are complete. Furthermore, there are a number of commitments in place similar to subdivision agreement, to ensure the infrastructure of the road is delivered appropriately. After reviewing the application and having some concern with land-locked parcels, it appears that through the Master Development Agreement and Consent Application there are safeguards in place to ensure construction of the public road; and due to discussions with City staff, having no objections from residents or agencies, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion after a friendly amendment by Sean Wiley to include the second condition: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 34/20 by Unique AT Holding Corporation, be Approved on the grounds that the requested 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to Universal City – Phase Two, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated July 8, 2020 ). 2. That the requested variance expire once the Universal City – Phase Two development is provided legal frontage onto a municipal public road. Carried Unanimously - 12 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 13 of 13 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the 5th meeting of the 2020 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:12 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, August 12, 2020. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Vice-Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer - 13 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 35/20 Date: August 12, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 35/20 L. Kraljevic 1472 Highbush Trail Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit:  a maximum lot coverage of 41.5 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent;  a covered platform (deck) not exceeding 2.4 metres in height above grad e, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres into any required side yard . The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances 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 condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Background A land division application was submitted for the subject site to sever 1472 Highbush Trail (P/CA 35/20), while retaining 1474 Highbush Trail (P/CA 36/20). The application was approved in October of 2018. - 14 - Report P/CA 35/20 August 12, 2020 Page 2 Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Woodlands Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Woodlands Neighbourhood. The City is currently undertaking an Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Study), which looks at how to guide the future evolution of the City’s established neighbourhoods by recommending an appropriate scale of infill and replacement housing, and how the City can ensure that neighbourhood character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. The Study will result in additional policies, guidelines and zoning provisions to ensure the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood character. Staff have reviewed the proposed development standards for the proposed detached dwelling, and find it consistent with existing development standards along Highbush Trail. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject site is zoned R4 within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. A detached dwelling is permitted within the R4 Zone. Lot Coverage Variance The proposed detached dwelling, front porch and rear deck account for a lot coverage of 41.5 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The dwelling accounts for 35.4 percent of the total lot coverage, whereas the covered front porch and rear deck account for 6.0 percent of the total lot coverage. The intent of this provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (amenity area) uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of the building. The proposed dwelling allows for a large rear yard that far exceeds the minimum required rear yard setback of 7.5 metres (the proposed rear yard setback is 10.0 metres). Additionally, the proposed rear deck will enhance the outdoor amenity space. Staff is of the opinion that an increase in 8.5 percent lot coverage will not result in a great loss of amenity space. Further, as a condition of the land division application , 833.0 square metres of land to the west of 1472 and 1474 Highbush Trail was conveyed to the City of Pickering for Natural Heritage System/Valley Land purposes (see Exhibit 2). As a result, 416.5 square metres, or approximately 40 percent of the land, was conveyed to the City of Pickering for each lot. Staff is of the opin ion that the size of the proposed dwelling is appropriate relative to the size of the property and other dwellings along the west side of Highbush Trail. Height of Deck Variance The proposed covered deck connects to the rear first floor entrance of the detached dwelling and is 2.4 metres above grade, whereas the By-law permits platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade. The intent of this provision is to protect the privacy of abutting properties. - 15 - Report P/CA 35/20 August 12, 2020 Page 3 Due to the drop in grade from the front lot line to the rear lot line, a greater height is required to provide access from the rear first floor entrance to the deck. Neighbouring properties to the south also have existing decks greater than 1.0 metre in height that connect to the rear first floor entrances. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land The other properties along the west side of Highbush Trail have not been required to convey hazard land to the City of Pickering, however would be required to do so if redevelopment occurs. The size of the subject site decreased significantly as a result of the land to the west being conveyed to the City. As such, an increase in lot coverage is required to accommodate the dwelling and to accommodate the front porch and rear deck for outdoor ame nity purposes. Neighbouring properties appear to have existing decks greater than 1.0 metre in height as the rear first floor entrances are constructed more than 1.0 metre above grade. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Minor in Nature The request to construct a detached dwelling on the subject property is not anticipated to have any negative impact on the surrounding area and is therefore considered minor in nature. Staff consider an increase in lot coverage of 8.5 percent and an increase in deck height of 1.4 metres to be minor. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit the construction of a detached dwelling are desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Building Services  No concerns with the application. Engineering Services  Ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other LID measures should be made if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. This will need to be considered and shown on the plans at the Building Permit stage. Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)  The subject site is regulated by TRCA with respect to the slope feature associated with the Petticoat Creek Ravine located at the rear of the subject property (west). TRCA staff previously staked the top of bank and dripline of vegetation in 2018 as part of the review of the proposed severance application at the time. As part of this review, we verified that the proposed new dwelling(s) would be adequately setback from the ravine corridor. - 16 - Report P/CA 35/20 August 12, 2020 Page 4 Based on a review of the proposal, TRCA staff can confirm that the proposed detached dwellings maintain the previously agreed upon setback. As such, TRCA staff have no objections to the proposal in principle and support the requested variances. An Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application was received by TRCA staff on March 6, 2020 to facilitate the construction of a detached dwelling. The drawings circulated to TRCA as part of this minor variance application are consistent with the plans received with the TRCA permit application (CFN 62979). Date of report: August 5, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 35-20\Report\PCA 35-20 Report.doc Attachments - 17 - Sheppard Avenue Autumn Crescent Ol d F o r e s t R o a d Fiddlers CourtPineview Lane Rosebank RoadRougemount DriveHi ghbushTr a il South PetticoatRavine SouthPetticoatRavine SouthPetticoat Ravine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 35/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jul. 21, 2020 Exhibit 1 L. KraljevicPt Lot 131, Plan 813 Now, Pt 2, 40R-30548(1472 Highbush Trail) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 35-20 L. Kraljevic\PCA35-20_LocationMap.mxd - 18 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 35/20 Applicant: L. Kraljevic Property Description: Pt Lot 131, Plan 813 Now, Pt 2, 40R-30548 (1472 Highbush Trail) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 21, 2020 1474 Highbush Trail (P/CA 36/20) 1472 Highbush Trail (P/CA 35/20) to permit a maximum lot coverage of 41.5 percent to permit a covered platform (deck) not exceeding 2.4 metres in height above grade - 19 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Front & Side Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 35/20 Applicant: L. Kraljevic Property Description: Pt Lot 131, Plan 813 Now, Pt 2, 40R-30548 (1472 Highbush Trail) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 21, 2020 to permit a covered platform (deck) not exceeding 2.4 metres in height above grade - 20 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear & Side Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 35/20 Applicant: L. Kraljevic Property Description: Pt Lot 131, Plan 813 Now, Pt 2, 40R-30548 (1472 Highbush Trail) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 21, 2020 to permit a covered platform (deck) not exceeding 2.4 metres in height above grade - 21 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 36/20 Date: August 12, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 36/20 M. & M. Bosnjak 1474 Highbush Trail Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit:  a minimum north side yard of 1.45 metres and a minimum south side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law states where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.5 metres;  a maximum lot coverage of 41.5 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent;  a covered platform (deck) not exceeding 2.4 metres in height above grade, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the gener al intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Background A land division application was submitted for the subject site to sever 1472 Highbush Trail (P/CA 35/20), while retaining 1474 Highbush Trail (P/CA 36/20). The application was approved in October of 2018. - 22 - Report P/CA 36/20 August 12, 2020 Page 2 Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Woodlands Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Woodlands Neighbourhood. The City is currently undertaking an Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Study), which looks at how to guide the future evolution of the City’s established neighbourhoods by recommending an appropriate scale of infill and replacement housing, and how the City can ensure that neighbourhood character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. The Study will result in additional policies, guidelines and zoning provisions to ensure the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood character. Staff have reviewed the proposed development standards for the proposed detached dwelling, and find it consistent with development standards along Highbush Trail. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject site is zoned R4 within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. A detached dwelling is permitted within the R4 Zone. Side Yard Setback Variance The proposed detached dwelling allows for a north side yard setback of 1.45 metres and a south side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. The intent of this provision is to provide appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties, to accommodate drainage and to provide sufficient room for maintenance of the dwelling. The abutting property to the north has a detached dwelling that is setback approximately 0.5 metres from the north property line. The 2 dwellings are setback 1.95 metres from each other. The proposed detached dwelling to the south (P/CA 35/20) is setback the required 1.5 metres from the south property line. The 2 proposed dwellings are setback 2.7 metres from each other. As such, there is sufficient room between the structures on each abutting property to accommodate drainage and for the maintenance of each dwelling. Lot Coverage Variance The proposed detached dwelling, front porch and rear deck account for a lot coverage of 41.5 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The dwelling accounts for 36.6 percent of the total lot coverage, whereas the covered front porch and rear deck account for 4.8 percent of the total lot coverage. The intent of this provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (amenity area) uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of the building. The proposed dwelling allows for a large rear yard that far exceeds the minimum required rear yard setback of 7.5 metres (the proposed rear yard setback is 9.5 metres). Additionally, the proposed rear deck will enhance the outdoor amenity space. Staff is of the opinion that an increase of 8.5 percent lot coverage will not result in a great loss of amenity space. - 23 - Report P/CA 36/20 August 12, 2020 Page 3 Further, as a condition of the land division application , 833.0 square metres of land to the west of 1472 and 1474 Highbush Trail was conveyed to the City of Pickering for Natural Heritage System/Valley Land purposes (see Exhibit 2). As a result, 416.5 square metres, or approximately 40 percent of the land, was conveyed to the City of Pickering for each lot. Staff is of the opinion that the size of the proposed dwelling is appropriate relative to the size of the property and other dwellings along the west side of Highbush Trail. Height of Deck Variance The proposed covered deck connects to the rear first floor entrance of the detached dwelling and is 2.4 metres above grade, whereas the By-law permits platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade. The intent of this provision is to protect the privacy of abutting properties. Due to the drop in grade from the front lot line to the rear lot line, a greater height is required to provide access from the rear first floor entrance to the deck. Neighbouring properties to the south also have existing decks greater than 1.0 metre in height that connect to the rear first floor entrances. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land The other properties along the west side of Highbush Trail have not been required to convey hazard land to the City of Pickering, however would be required to do so if redevelopment occurs. The size of the subject site decreased significantly as a result of the land to the west being conveyed to the City. As such, an increase in lot coverage is required to accommodate the dwelling and to accommodate the front porch and rear deck for outdoor amenity purposes. The proposed side yard setbacks provide sufficient room to accommodate drainage and maintenance of the building on the subject site and the abutting properties. Neighbouring properties appear to have existing decks greater than 1.0 metre in height as the rear first floor entrances are constructed more than 1.0 metre above grade. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Minor in Nature The request to construct a detached dwelling on the subject property is not anticipated to have any negative impact on the surrounding area and is therefore considered minor in nature. Staff consider a 0.05 metre decrease in the north side yard and a 0.3 metre decrease to the south side yard to be minor in nature. An increase in lot coverage of 8.5 percent and an increase in deck height of 1.4 metres is also considered minor. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit the construction of a detached dwelling are desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. - 24 - Report P/CA 36/20 August 12, 2020 Page 4 Input From Other Sources Building Services  No concerns with the application. Engineering Services  Ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other LID measures should be made if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. This will need to be considered and shown on the plans at the Building Permit stage. Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)  The subject site is regulated by TRCA with respect to the slope feature associated with the Petticoat Creek Ravine located at the rear of the subject property (west). TRCA staff previously staked the top of bank and dripline of vegetation in 2018 as part of the review of the proposed severance application at the time. As part of this review, we verified that the proposed new dwelling(s) would be adequately setback from the ravine corridor. Based on a review of the proposal, TRCA staff can confirm that the proposed detached dwellings maintain the previously agreed upon setback. As such, TRCA staff have no objections to the proposal in principle and support the requested variances. An Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application was received by TRCA staff on March 6, 2020 to facilitate the construction of a detached dwelling. The drawings circulated to TRCA as part of this minor variance application are consistent with the plans received with the TRCA permit application (CFN 62980). Date of report: August 5, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 36-20\Report\PCA 36-20 Report.doc Attachments - 25 - Sheppard Avenue Ol d F o r e s t R o a d Autumn Crescent Fiddlers CourtPineview Lane Rosebank RoadRougemount DriveHi ghbushTr a il South PetticoatRavine SouthPetticoatRavine SouthPetticoat Ravine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 36/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jul. 21, 2020 Exhibit 1 M. & M. Bosnjak SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 36-20 M & M Bosnjak\PCA36-20_LocationMap.mxd Pt Lot 131, Plan 813 Now, Pt 1, 40R-30548(1474 Highbush Trail) - 26 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 36/20 Applicant: M. & M. Bosnjak Property Description: Pt Lot 131, Plan 813 Now, Pt 1, 40R-30548 (1474 Highbush Trail) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 21, 2020 1474 Highbush Trail (P/CA 36/20) 1472 Highbush Trail (P/CA 35/20) to permit a minimum south side yard of 1.2 metres to permit a minimum north side yard of 1.45 metres to permit a maximum lot coverage of 41.5 percent to permit a covered platform (deck) not exceeding 2.4 metres in height above grade - 27 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Front & Side Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 36/20 Applicant: M. & M. Bosnjak Property Description: Pt Lot 131, Plan 813 Now, Pt 1, 40R-30548 (1474 Highbush Trail) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 21, 2020 to permit a covered platform (deck) not exceeding 2.4 metres in height above grade - 28 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear & Side Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 36/20 Applicant: M. & M. Bosnjak Property Description: Pt Lot 131, Plan 813 Now, Pt 1, 40R-30548 (1474 Highbush Trail) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 21, 2020 to permit a covered platform (deck) not exceeding 2.4 metres in height above grade - 29 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 37/20 Date: August 12, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 37/20 C. Malvankar & S. Tomar 938 Wingarden Crescent Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4873/96, to permit a covered platform (deck) not projecting more than 2.9 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for a covered deck. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed covered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. The subject site is zoned S3-7 within Zoning By-law 3036, amended by By-law 4873/96. The applicant is proposing to construct a covered deck that is 0.4 metres above grade and projects 2.9 metres into the required rear yard. The intent of provision 5.7(b), restricting the rear yard projection to 1.5 metres, is to ensure sufficient amenity space is provided in the rear yard. The requested variance is intended to facilitate the construction of a covered deck that will contribute towards the total usable amenity space in the rear yard. There is also sufficient amenity space to the west and south of the proposed deck. - 30 - Report P/CA 37/20 August 12, 2020 Page 2 Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land The proposed deck intends to enhance the outdoor amenity space in the rear yard, as it will provide a covered area for outdoor activities. The required rear yard setback for the zone is 7.5 metres and the deck is 2.7 metres in depth. A minimum rear yard setback of 4.6 metres from the edge of the proposed deck to the rear lot line will be maintained. Minor in Nature The covered deck is proposed to be 2.7 metres in depth which is appropriate relative to the size of the dwelling and the property. The deck will not have an impact on a residential property to the west, as the subject property is adjacent to a municipal road. The deck is permitted to encroach into the required rear yard 1.5 metres. The additional encroachment of 1.4 metres is not anticipated to have any significant overlook or shadowing impact on the adjacent residential property to the east. The requested variance is considered minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit the construction of a covered deck is desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Building Services  No concerns with the application. Engineering Services  No comments on the application. Date of report: August 5, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 37-20\Report\PCA 37-20 Report.doc Attachments - 31 - Fairport RoadSpruce Hill RoadBonita Avenue Eastbank RoadGrayabbeyCourtHelmStreetWingarden CrescentStrouds Lane Jacqueline Avenue Holbrook CourtShade Master DriveGoldenridge Road Voyager Avenue Welrus Street Falconwood WayNew StreetBonita Park DalewoodRavine DalewoodRavine 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 37/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jul. 22, 2020 Exhibit 1 C. Malvankar & S. TomarLot 28, Plan 40M-1936(938 Wingarden Crescent) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 37-20 C. Maluankar & S. Tomar\PCA37-20_LocationMap.mxd - 32 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 37/20 Applicant: C. Malvankar & S. Tomar Property Description: Lot 28, Plan 40M-1936 (938 Wingarden Crescent) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN.Date: July 21, 2020 to permit a covered platform (deck) not projecting more than 2.9 metres into the required rear yard - 33 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 37/20 Applicant: C. Malvankar & S. Tomar Property Description: Lot 28, Plan 40M-1936 (938 Wingarden Crescent) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN.Date: July 21, 2020 - 34 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Side Elevation File No: P/CA 37/20 Applicant: C. Malvankar & S. Tomar Property Description: Lot 28, Plan 40M-1936 (938 Wingarden Crescent) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN.Date: July 21, 2020 - 35 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 38/20 Date: August 12, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 38/20 J. Flora 792 Eyer Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit a minimum lot frontage of 6.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance to permit a minimum lot frontage of 6.0 metres to not be minor in nature, not 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, and therefore recommends Refusal of the proposed variance. Background The residential subdivision along Eyer Drive was created through Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 18T-23706. Within the plan of subdivision, the subject site is identified as Block D (see Exhibit 3, Plan M-1007). The Subdivision Agreement states that Block D is required to be developed only in conjunction with adjoining lands. As such, there is potential to build on the lot, provided the subject lands are merged with an adjacent parcel. This wording was added to the subdivision agreement as it was established that Block D did not have sufficient frontage to be a building lot. It was determined that the subject site could be developed in the future, in conjunction with the lands to the east (the Church). Alternatively, the lot frontage could be increased by purchasing a portion of the lands from the Church. Planning staff have discussed both options with the applicant prior to receiving this application. The current landowner purchased the subject site (Block D) from the City of Pickering in April 2019. When purchasing a parcel of land, it is the purchaser’s obligation to complete any due diligence required prior to purchasing a property, to be satisfied that the property can be used for the purchaser’s intended use (in this case, used to build a detached dwelling). Through the due diligence of a purchaser, the Subdivision Agreement registered on title would have been identified and reviewed to determine if there were any terms and conditions which may have impacted the decision to purchase and use the property. - 36 - Report P/CA 38/20 August 12, 2020 Page 2 Comments Does Not Conform to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas within the established West Shore Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the West Shore Neighbourhood. Section 3.9(c)(i) of the Official Plan states that Urban Residential Areas must have particular regard for protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods, considering such matters as yard setback. The proposed dwelling is setback 17.4 metres from the front property line (due to the narrow frontage of the lot), whereas existing detached dwellings along Eyer Drive are setback approximately 6 to 8 metres from the front lot line. The detached dwelling on the property directly west of the subject site (790 Eyer Drive) is setback approximately 8.5 metres from the front lot line. In this case, the proposed dwelling is setback almost 50 percent more than the dwelling to the west. A consistent front yard setback helps to reinforce the desired streetscape for a neighbourhood. The large front yard setback proposed for the dwelling interrupts the current established setback along Eyer Drive, which ranges between 6.0 and 8.0 metres. Additionally, Section 14.2(a) of the Official Plan states that new development must enhance the specific character of existing neighbourhoods. The proposed detached dwelling does not have regard for the existing neighbourhood character along Eyer Drive and therefore does not conform to the intent of the Official Plan. The City is currently undertaking an Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Study), which looks at how to guide the future evolution of the City’s established neighbourhoods by recommending an appropriate scale of infill and replacement housing, and how the City can ensure that neighbourhood character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. Section 2.2 of the Study speaks to the importance of reinforcing the established pattern of front yard setbacks on the street. The proposed front yard setback of 17.4 metres does not reflect the established lot pattern of the neighbourhood. The purpose of the requested variance is to facilitate the construction of a detached dwelling on the subject site. Staff do not consider the proposed dwelling to conform to the intent of the Official Plan. Does Not Conform to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject site is zoned R3 within Zoning By-law 2511, amended by By-law 7610/18. Though the proposed detached dwelling is permitted, the subject site does not meet the minimum lot frontage requirement within By-law 2511. The intent of this provision is to ensure a usable lot size that is compatible with the neighbourhood . - 37 - Report P/CA 38/20 August 12, 2020 Page 3 The existing lots along Eyer Drive have lot frontages ranging approximately between 18 to 20 metres. The proposed lot frontage of 6.0 metres on the subject site is not consistent with the existing lotting pattern established in this neighbourhood. Additionally, due to the narrow lot frontage, a detached dwelling must be constructed significantly further from the front lot line, in comparison to the neighbouring dwelling to the west. This results in a large portion of the proposed dwelling being visible from/aligned with the rear yard of the adjacent residential property. This will create privacy issues for the adjacent landowner. Where lot lines are not parallel, lot frontage is measured as the distance between the side lot lines measured on a line 7.5 metres back from the front lot line and parallel to it, as required in Zoning By-law 2511. As such, the lot frontage for the site is 6.0 metres, however the front lot line along Eyer Drive is only 2.57 metres (see Exhibit 2). Staff have concerns with a car navigating to and from the property safely, as Engineering Services has indicated that the minimum width for a single car garage is typically 3.5 metres. In addition, the narrow entrance does not meet the minimum parking size requirements in Zoning By-law 2511 (2.6 metres wide by 5.3 metres in length). Staff are concerned that a vehicle would have issues entering the site. Staff does not consider the requested variance to conform to the intent of the Zoning By-law. Is Not Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Is Not Minor in Nature The request to construct a detached dwelling on the subject property is anticipated to have negative impacts on the surrounding area, including privacy issues for adjacent landowners and inconsistency with the streetscape along Eyer Drive. Additionally, Engineering Services has concerns with the narrowness of the driveway (see Input from Other Sources). Staff do not consider a decrease in lot frontage by 12.0 metres to be minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit the construction of a detached dwelling on a lot with deficient lot frontage is not desirable for the appropriate development of land, does not maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By -law, and is not minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Building Services  No concerns with the application. Engineering Services  Engineering does not support the application due to the narrowness of the driveway. Region of Durham Works Department  No objections to the application. Ministry of Transportation (MTO)  MTO has no objections or comments. MTO clearance is not required. - 38 - Report P/CA 38/20 August 12, 2020 Page 4 CN Rail  No comments received at the time of writing this report. Metrolinx  The subject site is within 300 metres of Metrolinx’s Kingston subdivision which carries Lakeshore East GO Train service. We have no objections to the application. The Owner shall provide confirmation to Metrolinx that the following warning clause is inserted in all development agreements, offers to purchase and agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease of each dwelling unit within 300 metres of the railway right-of-way: “Warning: Metrolinx, carrying on business as GO Transit, and its assigns and successors in interest has or have a right-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the rail facilities on such right-of-way in the future including the possibility that GO Transit or any railway entering into an agreement with GO Transit to use the right-of-way or their assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand their operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). Metrolinx will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid right-of-way.” Date of report: August 5, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 38-20\Report\PCA 38-20 Report.doc Attachments - 39 - Whites RoadVicki DriveKingstonRoadHillcrest RoadSanokDriveHighway 401 P a t i o L a n e Eyer DriveHillview CrescentEdge LaneBreda Avenue Moretta Avenue Hampton Court Marinet CrescentBayly StreetBidwellTot Lot Fairport BeachPublic School Our LadyOf The BaySeparate School 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 38/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jul. 22, 2020 Exhibit 1 J. Flora Block D, Plan M1007(792 Eyer Drive) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 38-20 J. Flora\PCA38-20_LocationMap.mxd - 40 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 38/20 Applicant: J. Flora Property Description: Block D, Plan M1007 (792 Eyer Drive) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 21, 2020 6.0 m to permit a minimum lot frontage of 6.0 metres 2.57 m - 41 - Exhibit 3 Plan M1007 File No: P/CA 38/20 Applicant: J. Flora Property Description: Block D, Plan M1007 (792 Eyer Drive) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 30, 2020 Block D (729 Eyer Drive) - 42 - Revised Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 39/20 Date: August 12, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 39/20 R. Keeler 1442 Finch Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6578/05, to permit: a minimum lot frontage of 13.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 60 metres; a minimum rear yard setback of 3.0 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 12.0 metres; a maximum lot coverage of 11 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 10 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances 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 condition: 1.That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5). 2.The applicant obtain a permit from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the proposed detached dwelling. Background Future Redevelopment Potential The applicant pre-consulted with the City of Pickering to discuss the redevelopment of the subject site. The potential for infill development, similar to the adjacent residential subdivision to the west, was identified. Through the pre-consultation process, it was determined that the subject site may accommodate building lots (one lot along Linwood Street, and lots along the future east extension of Parkdale Street (refer to Exhibit 2)). - 43 - Revised Report P/CA 39/20 August 12, 2020 Page 2 Current Proposal The applicant is proposing to relocate the current dwelling (located on the south end of the property with frontage onto Finch Avenue) to the northern portion of the lot with frontage onto Linwood Street, due to significant flooding issues with the current dwelling. This relocation will allow for the future extension of Parkdale Road and the future redevelopment of the lands f or residential lots. Previous Approval Minor variance applications P/CA 99/87 and P/CA 11/90 were approved for the subject lands to recognize a deficient lot area of 3,080 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 8,000 square metres. Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation. The Pickering Official Plan encourages infill development of vacant or underutilized blocks of land. The proposed new detached dwelling is considerate of the potential to redevelop the subject lands along the future extension of Parkdale Street. The City is currently undertaking an Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Study), which looks at how to guide the future evolution of the City’s established neighbourhoods by recommending an appropriate scale of infill and replacement housing, and how the City can ensure that neighbourhood character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. The Study will result in additional policies, guidelines and zoning restrictions to ensure the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood character. Staff have reviewed the proposed development standards for the proposed detached dwelling, and it is consistent with the development standards for the subdivision to the west. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances conform to the intent of the Official Plan and the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject site is zoned A within Zoning By-law 3036, amended by By-law 6578/05. A detached dwelling is permitted within the A Zone. Lot Frontage Variance Two new municipal roads (Linwood Street and Parkdale Street) were created when the subdivision to the west of the subject site was developed. As a result, the subject property now has frontage onto three roads (Linwood Street, Parkdale Street and Finch Avenue). Through this application, Linwood Road will be defined as the lot frontage. This will help facilitate the future redevelopment of the lands for residential lots along Parkdale Road. - 44 - Revised Report P/CA 39/20 August 12, 2020 Page 3 Additionally, the Region of Durham does not want driveway entrances onto Finch Avenue due to traffic and safety concerns. The requested variance is to permit a minimum lot frontage of 13.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 60 metres. The intent of this provision is to ensure a useable lot size that is compatible with the neighbourhood. The required frontage of 60 metres is not necessary for the residential use of the site. The proposed lot frontage of 13.5 metres will allow for the construction of a detached dwelling that is in keeping with the existing dwellings along Linwood Street. The existing lot frontages along Linwood Street range between approximately 13.0 and 15.0 metres. The proposed lot frontage will be consistent with the existing lotting pattern established in the neighbourhood. Rear Yard Variance The requested variance is to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 3.0 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 12.0 metres. The intent of this provision is to ensure useable amenity space is provided in the rear yard. Due to the configuration of the lot, the south side yard functions as the rear yard. The south side yard provides more than sufficient space for amenity and outdoor activities. In the future, if the southern portion of the site is redeveloped to create residential lots along Parkdale Street, the south side yard will still provide sufficient amenity space (approximately a 7.5 metres setback). Similarly, the rear yard setback of 3.0 metres is sufficient to function as the side yard. The setback will allow for appropriate separation to accommodate drainage and for the maintenance of the dwelling. Lot Coverage Variance The requested variance is to permit a maximum lot coverage of 11 percent, whereas the By law permits a maximum lot coverage of 10 percent. The intent of this provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (amenity area) uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of the building. The proposal provides a large yard to the south of the dwelling for amenity space, which will be maintained in the future if the southern portion of the site is redeveloped. Additionally, the size of the proposed dwelling is in keeping with the scale and size of dwellings along Linwood Street. Staff is of the opinion that an increase in 1.0 percent lot coverage will not result in a great loss of amenity space. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed dwelling is desirable for the appropriate development of the land as it will help facilitate the future extension of Parkdale Road and the future redevelopment of the land for residential lots. To mitigate concerns with privacy for the adjacent dwellings to the west and north, the applicant has proposed the following landscaping plans (refer to Exhibit 5):  Two new trees located north of the adjacent property to the west to provide a landscape buffer between the neighbour’s rear yard and the driveway of the subject site. - 45 - Revised Report P/CA 39/20 August 12, 2020 Page 4 A number of trees located at the northeast corner of the site to provide a landscape buffer between the subject site and the adjacent property to the north. A number of trees to the south of the dwelling to provide a landscape buffer between the adjacent dwelling to the west and the amenity space on the subject site. To further combat privacy concerns, the attached garage is located on the we st side of the proposed dwelling. Because this is a non-habitable space, privacy will be maintained. There are also no windows proposed on the west side of the attached garage (refer to Exhibit 4, West/Right Side Elevation). Given the residential use of the property and the configuration of the lot, staff consider the proposed lot frontage of 13.5 metres the proposed rear yard of 3.0 metres to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land. An increase in lot coverage of 1 percent is also minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit the construction of detached dwelling is desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources No concerns with the application. No comments on the application. TRCA staff confirm that the proposed replacement dwelling and ancillary structures are adequately setback from the existing top of slope. TRCA has no objections to the approval of this application. A TRCA Permit application has not been received for the proposed replacement detached dwelling. Building Services Engineering Services Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Owner of 2508 Linwood Street Concerned with the public notice sign, as it is located more than 400 metres walking distance from the proposed minor variance location. Preference for the notice sign to be placed on Linwood Street where the variance applies over Finch Avenue. Planning Department should consider the Region of Durham may expand the side walk along Finch Avenue in the future. The subject site is one of the three lots that is missing the property to expand the side walk on Finch Avenue (refer to Exhibit 1). - 46 - Revised Report P/CA 39/20 August 12, 2020 Page 5 Date of report: August 10, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 39-20\Report\PCA 39-20 Report.doc Attachments Concerned with the proposed frontage of the dwelling facing north-west where a long term preference should be facing south-east. The plan currently allows for the expansion of Parkdale Street in the future, where the landowners should be held financially responsible. This could potentially allow the adjacent four lots to the east to be severed in the future. Furthermore, the use of land on Linwood Street appears to be an inexpensive solution that could result in an unusual curb appeal of the neighbourhood with the future expansion of Parkdale Street. - 47 - Lodge Road Finch Avenue P ark dale Stre etCornellCourtLinwood Street RosefieldRoadValleyFarmRoadEverton Street B ridle Path Circle BloomfieldCo urtRedwood LaneBeverleyMorgan Park 1:3,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 39/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jul. 23, 2020 Exhibit 1 ¯ E R. Keeler Pt Lot 21, Con 2 S, now Part 1, 40R12777 & Plan 40M1682, Blk 37(1442 Finch Avenue) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 39-20 R. Keeler\PCA39-20_LocationMap.mxd - 48 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 39/20 Applicant: R. Keeler Property Description: Pt Lot 21, Con 2 S, now Part 1, 40R12777 & Plan 40M1682, Blk 37 (1442 Finch Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2020 Lot Frontage 13.5 m to permit a minimum lot frontage of 13.5 metres to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 3.0 metres to permit a maximum lot coverage of 11 percent Future east extension of Parkdale - 49 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Front & Rear Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 39/20 Applicant: R. Keeler Property Description: Pt Lot 21, Con 2 S, now Part 1, 40R12777 & Plan 40M1682, Blk 37 (1442 Finch Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2020 - 50 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Side Elevations File No: P/CA 39/20 Applicant: R. Keeler Property Description: Con 2 S Pt Lot 21 Now RP 40r12777 Part 1 And Plan 40m1682 Blk 37 (1442 Finch Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2020 West Elevation East Elevation Attached Garage - 51 - Exhibit 5 Submitted Tree Plan File No: P/CA 39/20 Applicant: R. Keeler Property Description: Con 2 S Pt Lot 21 Now RP 40r12777 Part 1 And Plan 40m1682 Blk 37 (1442 Finch Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2020 - 52 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 40/20 Date: August 12, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 40/20 1739592 Ontario Ltd. 905 Sandy Beach Road Ap plication The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit: front yard parking to be limited to 25 percent of the total required parking area, whereas the By-law requires front yard parking to be limited to 20 percent of the total required parking area; side yard parking to be 0.0 metres from the south side lot line, whereas the By-law permits side yard parking to be no closer than 7.5 metres from the side lot line on one side and 1.5 metres on the other side. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the development of a multi-tenant industrial building. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances 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 condition: 1.That these variances apply only to the proposed industrial building, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). Background The applicant has submitted a Site Plan Application for the subject property to facilitate the development of a multi-tenant industrial building. These variances are required to obtain Site Plan Approval. - 53 - Report P/CA 40/20 August 12, 2020 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject site is designated as “Employment Areas – Prestige Employment” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate concentrations of light manufacturing, assembly and warehousing uses and related employment opportunities. The subject site is zoned “M1” within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended. The applicant is proposing to construct a 15,990.02 square metre multi-tenant industrial building with 295 parking spaces on site. Front Yard Parking Variance The proposal limits front yard parking to 25 percent of the total required parking area (73 parking spaces in the front yard), whereas the By-law requires front yard parking to be limited to 20 percent of the total required parking area (maximum of 58 spaces in the front yard). The intent of this provision is to minimize the visual impact of parking areas on the streetscape. The proposal ensures that the front yard parking area has minimal visual impact from the street, as there is a 10.0 metre landscape buffer that fronts onto Sandy Beach Road (see Exhibit 2). Though there are residential lots on the west side of Sandy B each Road (the rear yards abut the municipal road), the parking area maintains a 30.0 metre setback from the residential lots, as required in the By-law. Additionally, the streetscape along Sandy Beach Road will be maintained, as the subject site is surrounded by industrial uses, each with parking areas located in the front yard. Additional parking spaces in the front yard will also allow for loading functions to occur in the north side yard, rather than the front yard. This will reduce the conflict of pedestrians walking through the loading/truck traffic areas and reduce visual impact from loading activities on the street. Side Yard Parking Setback Variance Side yard parking is setback a minimum of 0.0 metres from the south side lot line and a minimum of 1.5 metres from the north side lot line, whereas the By-law permits side yard parking to be no closer than 7.5 metres from one side lot line and 1.5 metres from the other. The intent of this provision is to maintain an appropriate buffer between parking areas and abutting properties. The majority of the parking area in the south side yard is setback the required 7.5 metres. However, 3 parking spaces in the southeast corner of the property are setback a minimum of 0.0 metres (see Exhibit 2). The abutting property to the south has a parking area located along the south property line, which is setback 3.0 metres from the lot line. As such, there is a 3.0 metre separation distance between the 3 parking spaces on the subject site and the parking provided on the abutting property, and a 10.5 metre separation between the rest of the parking area in the south side yard and the abutting property. The subject site and the abutting property to the south are owned by the same property owner. - 54 - Report P/CA 40/20 August 12, 2020 Page 3 Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land The proposal for a multi-tenant industrial building is in keeping with the range of industrial uses along Sandy Beach Road. The requested variances will allow for 295 parking spaces (1 space per 55 square metres of gross floor area) to be provided on site, which exceeds the minimum number of required spaces in the By-law (286 parking spaces, or 1 space per 56 square metres of gross floor area). As such, the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Minor in Nature The variance to the south side yard parking setback applies only to 3 parking spaces on the site, whereas the majority of the parking area in the south side yard is setback the required 7.5 metres. An increase of 5 percent of parking located in the front yard is considered minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit the development of a multi-tenant industrial building are desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Building Services  No concerns with the application. Engineering Services  No comments on the application. Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)  TRCA staff have no objections to the variances pertaining to parking. Date of report: August 5, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 40-20\Report\PCA 40-20 Report.doc Attachments - 55 - Krosno Boulevard Alliance RoadSandy Beach RoadAlyssum Street Drava Street Reytan BoulevardMorden Lan e Lublin AvenueBayly Street DonBeerArena 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 40/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jul. 23, 2020 Exhibit 1 ¯ E 1739592 Ontario Ltd.Pt Lot 20, Con B.F.C., Range 3, Now Part 1, 40R9617(905 Sandy Beach Road) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 40-20 1739592 Ontario Ltd\PCA40-20_LocationMap.mxd - 56 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 40/20 Applicant: 1739592 Ontario Ltd. Property Description: Pt Lot 20, Con B.F.C., Range 3, Now Part 1, 40R9617 (905 Sandy Beach Road) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2020 to permit front yard parking to be limited to 25 percent of the total required parking area to permit side yard parking 0.0 metres from the south side lot line - 57 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Building Elevations File No: P/CA 40/20 Applicant: 1739592 Ontario Ltd. Property Description: Pt Lot 20, Con B.F.C., Range 3, Now Part 1, 40R9617 (905 Sandy Beach Road) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2020 - 58 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 41/20 Date: August 12, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 41/20 F. Molinaro 1771 Woodview Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum south side yard of 0.8 metres, whereas the By-law states where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.5 metres . The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize a deficient side yard setback. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the existing dwelling on the subject site, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5). Background In March of 2020, a building permit was issued for the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling on the subject site, which was in keeping with the required side yard setback of 1.5 metres. During construction of the dwelling, an error was found with the south side yard. The surveyor (see Input from Other Sources) laid out the dwelling on the property at an angle, providing a minimum south side yard setback of 1.28 metres at the front of the dwelling, and a setback of 0.82 metres at the rear of the dwelling. As a result, the property requires relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to recognize a deficient side yard setback. Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Highbush Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are the primary built-form in the Highbush Neighbourhood. - 59 - Report P/CA 41/20 August 12, 2020 Page 2 The subject site is zoned R4 within Zoning By-law 3036. A detached dwelling is permitted within the R4 Zone. Though the existing detached dwelling is permitted, it does not meet the minimum south side yard setback required in the By-law. The purpose of the side yard setback is to provide appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties, accommodate drainage and provide sufficient room for maintenance of the dwelling. The abutting property to the south has a detached dwelling that is setback 1.23 metres from the south property line. The 2 dwellings are setback a minimum of 2.03 metres from each other. As such, there is sufficient room between the structures on the abutting properties to accommodate drainage and for the maintenance of each dwelling. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land Given that the detached dwelling is being constructed with a building permit and it is consistent with development along Woodview Avenue (detached dwellings), staff consider the development appropriate. Minor in Nature The side yard setback of 0.8 metres applies only to the rear of the detached dwelling, whereas the front of the dwelling is setback 1.28 metres from the south lot line. Staff consider a 0.7 metre encroachment into the south side yard to be minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit a south side yard setback of 0.8 metres is desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Building Services  No concerns with the application. Engineering Services  No comments on the application. Dave Comery, IBW Surveyors  An error was made and the house was set in the wrong location. The south side yard setback was supposed to be 1.52 metres, however it was laid out in the survey as 1.28 metres and 0.8 metres. Date of report: August 5, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 41-20\Report\PCA 41-20 Report.doc Attachments - 60 - Twyn Rivers DriveWoodview AvenueOakburnStreetHogarth Street WilcroftCourtSenator StreetLawson Street Waterford Gate Hoover DriveWoodview DriveAshwood GateSweetbriar Court Castle StreetRockwood DriveWoodviewTot Lot 1:2,500 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 41/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jul. 23, 2020 Exhibit 1 ¯EF. Molinaro Part of Lot 8, Plan 282, Now Part 1, 40R19015(1771 Woodview Avenue) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 41-20 F. Molinaro\PCA41-20_LocationMap.mxd - 61 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 41/20 Applicant: F. Molinaro Property Description: Part of Lot 8, Plan 282, Now Part 1, 40R19015 (1771 Woodview Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2020 to permit a minimum south side yard of 0.8 metres - 62 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Rear & Front Elevations File No: P/CA 41/20 Applicant: F. Molinaro Property Description: Part of Lot 8, Plan 282, Now Part 1, 40R19015 (1771 Woodview Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2020 - 63 - Exhibit 4 Submitted South Side Elevation File No: P/CA 41/20 Applicant: F. Molinaro Property Description: Part of Lot 8, Plan 282, Now Part 1, 40R19015 (1771 Woodview Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2020 - 64 - Exhibit 5 Submitted North Side Elevation File No: P/CA 41/20 Applicant: F. Molinaro Property Description: Part of Lot 8, Plan 282, Now Part 1, 40R19015 (1771 Woodview Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2020 - 65 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 42/20 Date: August 12, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 42/20 P. Bekarovski 405 Frontier Court Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 5688/00, to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 5.7 metres for an uncovered deck, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered deck. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance 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 condition: 1.That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Rosebank Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Rosebank Neighbourhood. The subject site is zoned R4-13 within Zoning By-law 2511, amended by By-law 5688/00. The applicant is proposing to construct an uncovered upper deck that is 2.0 metres above grade and an uncovered lower deck that is 1.4 metres above grade, with a rear yard setback of 5.7 metres. - 66 - Report P/CA 42/20 August 12, 2020 Page 2 The intent of a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres is to ensure that sufficient amenity space is provided in the rear yard. The requested variance is intended to facilitate the construction of a deck that will contribute towards the total usable amenity space in the rear yard. The applicant has indicated that the lower deck will also contribute to the usability of the existing pool. There is also sufficient amenity space to the south of the proposed deck. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land The proposed deck intends to enhance the outdoor amenity space in the rear yard of the property. The proposed structure is therefore desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Minor in Nature Unlike the front and side yard setbacks, Zoning By-law 2511, as amended By-law 5688/00, does not permit structures to project into the required rear yard setback. The uncovered deck is proposed to be 3.35 metres in depth, which is appropriate relative to the size of the dwelling and the property. The request to construct an uncovered deck with a rear yard setback of 5.7 metres is not anticipated to have any significant impact on the surrounding area and is therefore considered minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit the construction of an uncovered deck is desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Building Services  No concerns with the application. Engineering Services  No comments on the application. Ministry of Transportation (MTO)  MTO has no objections or comments. MTO clearance is not required. Date of report: August 5, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 42-20\Report\PCA 42-20 Report.doc Attachments - 67 - Toynevale Road Lekani CourtChantilly RoadFrontier Court Rougemount DriveOakwood DriveHighway 401 1:2,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 42/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jul. 23, 2020 Exhibit 1 ¯EP. BekarovskiPlan 40M2014, Lot 5(405 Frontier Court) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 42-20 -P. Bekarovski\PCA42-20_LocationMap.mxd - 68 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 42/20 Applicant: P. Bekarovski Property Description: Plan 40M2014, Lot 5 (405 Frontier Court) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2020 Upper Deck (6.13 m2) Lower Deck Existing Dwelling 1.28 m 4.75 m 5.79 m Existing Pool 9.1 m 3.35 m to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 5.7 metres - 69 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 43/20 Date: August 12, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 43/20 L. Giampietri 176 Bralorne Trail Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7537/17, to permit an uncovered deck to encroach into the required rear yard a maximum of 2.4 metres, whereas the By-law permits a porch or uncovered deck to encroach into any required rear yard to a maximum of 2.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered deck. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2). Background This application was circulated to Parks Canada as the agency owns property within the 65 metre public notice radius of the subject site. Parks Canada submitted comments on this variance application (see Input from Other Sources) as a landowner within the circulation area, not as a commenting agency. The subject site is not located within the Rouge Urban Nati onal Park boundary that is regulated by Parks Canada. It is noted that a deck requiring a building permit and complying with all zoning provisions would not be circulated to Parks Canada for their review or comment. Considerations 6 and 7 of Parks Canada’s comments are enforced through the City’s building permit process. Considerations 1 through 7 have been forwarded to the attention of the applicant for their consideration (see Input from Other Sources). - 70 - Report P/CA 43/20 August 12, 2020 Page 2 Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood. The subject site is zoned S3-17 within Zoning By-law 3036, amended by By-law 7537/17. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct an uncovered deck that connects t o the rear entrance of the detached dwelling and projects 2.4 metres into the required rear yard. The intent of provision 3(d), restricting the rear yard projection to 2.0 metres, is to ensure sufficient amenity space is provided in the rear yard. The requested variance is intended to facilitate the construction of a deck that will contribute towards the total useable amenity space in the rear yard. There is also sufficient amenity space to the west of the proposed deck. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land The proposed deck intends to enhance the outdoor amenity space in the rear yard of the property. The required rear yard setback for the zone is 7.0 metres and the deck is 4.4 metres in depth. A minimum rear yard setback of 4.6 metres from the edge of the proposed deck to the rear lot line will be maintained. Minor in Nature The request to construct an uncovered deck that projects more than 2.0 metres into the required rear yard is not anticipated to have any significant impact on the surrounding area. The deck will not have an impact on the large residential property to the south, as the dwelling on the adjacent lot is located approximately 90 metres from the subject property. Further, an increase to the rear yard projection by 0.4 metres is considered minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit the construction of an uncovered deck is desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Building Services  No concerns with the application. Engineering Services  No comments on the application. Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)  Based on a review of the parcel location on Bralorne Trail, TRCA staff can confirm we do not need to be circulated on the Minor Variance Application and no TRCA Permit will b e required. - 71 - Report P/CA 43/20 August 12, 2020 Page 3 Parks Canada (Landowner)  Parks Canada agrees with the proposed Minor Variance, if the following could be taken into consideration by the applicant: 1. If active nests, dens or roosts are discovered, stop work and contact designated Parks Canada staff immediately for direction. 2. Cover or fence hazardous areas when left unattended to reduce the potential for wildlife injury. 3. Never approach or harass wildlife (e.g., feeding, baiting, luring). 4. If wildlife is observed at or near the work site, allow the animal(s) the opportunity to leave the work area. 5. Designated Parks Canada staff must be alerted immediately to any potential wildlife conflict (e.g., aggressive behaviour, persistent intrusion), distress or mortality. In the case of aggressive behaviour or persistent intrusion, stop work and evacuate the area. 6. If heavy equipment is required, please restrict its use to within the property boundary. 7. If the work area is occurring on bare soil that is adjacent to the watercourse to the north, or other open water, please install suitable erosion and sediment control to prevent soil mobilization into open water. Date of report: August 5, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 43-20\Report\PCA 43-20 Report.doc Attachments - 72 - Finch Avenue B r alorne Trail Woodview Avenue1:3,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 43/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jul. 24, 2020 Exhibit 1 ¯EM. & L. GiampietriLot 1, Plan 40M2643(176 Bralorne Trail) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 43-20 M. & L. Giampietri\PCA43-20_LocationMap.mxd - 73 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 43/20 Applicant: L. Giampietri Property Description: Lot 1, Plan 40M2643 (176 Bralorne Trail) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 24, 2020 REAR LOT LINE 4.64 m 8.61 m 1.22 m 4.42 m 1.27 m 1.24 m to permit an uncovered deck to encroach into the required rear yard a maximum of 2.4 metres BRALORNE TRAIL Open Space Lands Owned by Toronto Region Conservation Authority - 74 -