Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 9, 2020c/z1,6 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Agenda Meeting Number: 7 Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 pickering.ca Cf 4 DICKERING Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 1. Disclosure of Interest 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from August 12, 2020 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 44/20 S. Kathiravel 1290 Old Orchard Avenue, Unit 10 4.2 P/CA 45/20 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. 520 West Shore Blvd. 4.3 P/CA 46/20 W. & D. Steinwall 120 Woodview Drive 4.4 P/CA 47/20 A. & O. Grignon 1795 Pine Grove Avenue 4.5 P/CA 48/20 to P/CA 52/20 Oak Ridges Seaton Inc. Lots 86, 93, 94, 95 and 96 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision (SP -2008-06) 4.6 P/CA 53/20 to P/CA 56/20 Zavala Developments Inc. Block 156, Lots 157 & 158, and Block 161 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision (SP -2008-06) 5. Adjournment For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Lesley Dunne Telephone: 905.420.4660, extension 2024 Email: Idunne@pickering.ca Page Number 1-17 18-21 22-30 31-41 42-46 47-52 53-59 Ci/g 4 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland — Vice -Chair David Johnson — Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary -Treasurer Samantha O'Brien, Assistant Secretary -Treasurer Due to minor technical difficulties, the Chair was only able to join the meeting through visual connection, thereby instructing the Vice -Chair to commence the meeting and moderate the first application. 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the agenda for the Wednesday, August 12, 2020 meeting be adopted. Carried 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the minutes of the 5th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, July 8, 2020 be adopted. Carried Page 1 of 17 Ci/g DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 35/20 L. Kraljevic 1472 Highbush Trail 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 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. 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 Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing the need to 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. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating 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). As part of review of an associated severance application, TRCA verified that the proposed new dwelling would be adequately setback from the ravine corridor. TRCA staff have no objections to the proposal in principle and support the requested variances. TRCA staff received an Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application 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). Page 2 of 17 2 Ci/g DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Luka Kraljevic, 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 a Committee Member, Luka Kraljevic stated acknowledgement of the City's Engineering Services concerns that are required to be addressed at the Building Permit stage. Additionally, Luka Kraljevic noted drainage is intended to be directed towards the ravine at the rear of both properties. After consideration of the City Development Department's Report, reviewing the comments from the City's Engineering Services, approval from the TRCA, and the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 35/20 by L. Kraljevic, 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 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 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated August 12, 2020). Carried The Chair was able to reconnect to the meeting both auditory and visually and was able to moderate the remainder of the meeting, thanking the Committee for their extra assistance and apologizing for the technical difficulty. 4.2 P/CA 36/20 M. & M. Bosnjak 1474 Highbush Trail 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. Page 3 of 17 -3- GGa oii DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 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 Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing the need to 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. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating 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). As part of a review of an associated severance application, TRCA verified that the proposed new dwelling would be adequately setback from the ravine corridor. TRCA staff have no objections to the proposal in principle and support the requested variances. TRCA staff received an Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application 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). Josip Bosnjak, representing the applicant, and Luka Kraljevic, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Josip Bosnjak sated his acknowledgment of the City's Engineering Services concerns that are required to be addressed at the Building Permit stage and is willing to work with staff to have it rectified. After hearing the comments from the applicant regarding Engineering Service's concerns to be addressed at the Building Permit stage, the support received from the TRCA and the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, as documented and noted by the City Development Department, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Page 4 of 17 4 Ci/g 4 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 36/20 by M. & M. Bosnjak, 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 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 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated August 12, 2020). Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 37/20 C. Malvankar & S. Tomar 938 Wingarden Crescent 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. 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 Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Chandan Malvankar, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After reviewing the application it appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Page 5 of 17 5 Ci/g DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 4.4 Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 37/20 by C. Malvankar & S. Tomar, 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 covered deck, 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 August 12, 2020). Carried Unanimously P/CA 38/20 J. Flora 792 Eyer Drive 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. The Secretary -Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending refusal. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing they do not support the application due to the narrowness of the driveway. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham Works Department expressing no objections to the application. Written comments were received from the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) express no objections or comments and a MTO clearance is not required. Written comments were received from Metolinx indicating the subject site is within 300 metres of Metrolinx's Kingston subdivision, which carries Lakeshore East GO Train service. Metrolinx indicated no objections to the application. 6 Page 6 of 17 Ci/g 4 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting The Owner shall provide confirmation to Metrolinx that a 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: CN Rail was circulated the Notice of Application and to date the City has not received any comments in return. Written comments were received from the owners of 789 Eyer Drive in objection to the application. Floyd Heath, agent, was present to represent the application. Erik Retz of Eyer Drive was present to receive additional information on the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Floyd Heath spoke in support of the application describing the history of the property, outlining the application met the four tests of the Planning Act and that City staff advised the property owners of the subject site to attempt to acquire land from the adjacent church. Attempts to acquire land from the church were unsuccessful. Erik Retz requested additional information and clarification regarding the interpretation of the site plan as it pertains to the lot frontage and side yard setback requirements, which City staff spoke to. Erik Retz also questioned if this application would create utility servicing and drainage concerns. In response to the questions raised by Erik Retz, Tanjot Bal, Planner II, advised the applicant has been working with the Region of Durham to receive approval for sanitary services and water connections where this will be evaluated more closely at the building permit stage. In response to questions raised by Committee Members, Floyd Heath advised the applicant did not do a full due diligence review on the property prior to purchasing from the City of Pickering and it is his belief that the property is legal non -conforming. When asked by the Chair for further clarification on the history of the property and interpretation pf the by-law regarding this, Tanjot Bal, Planner II advised that Floyd Heath was referring the Section 6.2 of Zoning By-law 2511, where the provision applies to lots that were created before By-law 2511 was in effect. Since By-law 2511 came into effect in the 1960s, and this lot was created through a draft plan of subdivision in the 1970s, this lot is not considered legal non -conforming. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Isabel Lima, Planner I advised that the City's Engineering Services staff had concerns with the narrowness of the driveway causing difficulty when entering and exiting the property. Page 7 of 17 7 Ci/g 4 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting After reviewing the staff report, and considering matters such as driveway access and safety, the impact on privacy of adjacent home owners, the proposed front yard setback being almost 50 percent more than the adjacent dwelling to the west, and the proposed detached dwelling not appearing to have regard for the existing neighbourhood character along Eyer Drive, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 38/20 by J. Flora, be Refused as the requested variance to permit a minimum lot frontage of 6.0 metres is not 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. Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 39/20 R. Keeler 1442 Finch Avenue 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. 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 Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Page 8 of 17 8 GGa oii DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) expressing 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. Written comments were received from the owner of 2508 Linwood Street in objection to the application. Rebecca Keeler, applicant, was present to represent the application. Jane Long of Finch Avenue was present in opposition to the application. Lisette Leveille & Raymond Cotnoir of Linwood Street were present in objection to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Rebecca Keeler spoke in support of the application stating the process began after the Finch Avenue sewer line was installed. Due to the old age of the existing dwelling, there was fear that the foundation was cracked since the home has experienced flooding on five separate occasions. After discussion with City staff, it was determined that the best course of action was not to restore the existing dwelling, but rather build a new dwelling while keeping with the overall plan for future development in the area. In response to drainage, tree preservation, natural vegetation and animal species concerns raised by Jane Long and Lisette Leveille, Tanjot Bal, Planner I, advised that grading and drainage would be evaluated more closely at the building permit stage. Additionally, the application has been circulated to TRCA where they do not have any objections to the approval of this application. The subject site is adjacent to a natural heritage system and does have significant woodlands for tree protection. Jane Long believes the application is not in keeping with the existing homes along Finch Avenue or Linwood Street and not in character based on the orientation of the dwelling and the length of the driveway. Lisette Leveille is concerned with potential damages incurred on her property from the removal of the trees located near the property line where the roots have overgrown onto her property. In response to the concerns raised by Jane Long and Lisette Leveille, Rebecca Keeler stated, upon thorough review by City staff and TRCA there have been no issues raised regarding underground septic lines or drainage issues. The pre -development process triggered the arborist to recommend removal of the trees due to their age and health which have the potential to fall and cause significant damage. Page 9 of 17 9 Ci/g 4 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting New trees will be replanted and the property will be designed to foster a conducive environment for the natural habitat and surrounding animal species. Furthermore, Rebecca Keeler agreed that any damages incurred on neighbouring properties would be repaired. When asked by a Committee Member if the TRCA permit may alleviate some concerns raised by neighbours, Tanjot Bal, Planner II, advised any drainage related concerns would be addressed at the building permit stage and TRCA permit stage. Taking into consideration the questions and concerns from the neighbours and the responses and dialogue from the applicant, the report from the City Development Department, the 13.5 metres setback that appears to be aligned with other properties in the neighbourhood and the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 39/20 by R. Keeler, 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 August 12, 2020). 2. The applicant obtain a permit from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the proposed detached dwelling. Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 40/20 1739592 Ontario Ltd. 905 Sandy Beach Road 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. Page 10 of 17 -10- GGa oii DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the development of a multi -tenant industrial building. 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 Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority expressing no objections to the variances pertaining to parking. Robyn Stebner and Michael Testaguzza, Planners with the Biglieri Group, and Christian Hepfer, applicant, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, Robyn Stebner stated this application is part of a site plan application currently with the City of Pickering. The purposed building is required to have a 30 metre setback from the west property line to provide an appropriate setback from the residential neighbourhood on the west side of Sandy Beach Road. A proposed landscape buffer that is 10 metres in width will significantly reduce visual impacts of the purposed parking area. When the landscape buffer is subtracted from the required 30 metre setback to the building, 20 metres is left which has been filled with parking to sufficiently make good use of the space, resulting in a minor increase of 5 percent. Robyn Stebner went on to describe the second variance is to facilitate 3 parking spaces at the rear south-east corner of the property to be located closer than 7.5 metres to the side lot line. The majority of the parking that is located along the south side, meets the 7.5 metre requirement, and the purposed 3 spaces in the rear south-east corner will not be highly visible. Both requested variances are believed to be minor in nature and the recommendation report by City staff is supported by the Biglieri Group. When asked by a Committee Member why the snow storage area was designed on the north --east corner of the parking lot rather than the south-east corner to eliminate the need for a variance, Robyn Stebner advised additional parking has been provided as a proactive measure and this design was created to accommodate any potential floor plan changes in the future. Snow storage is also located in the south-east corner, an area along the north property line and a location south-west of the subject site. Additionally, Michael Testaguzza further clarified that the hatching for the snow storage on the submitted drawings are different on the north-east corner than the south-east corner, however both locations are designed for snow storage. Page 11 of 17 -11- GGa oii DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting When asked by the Chair what provisions will be put in place to accommodate traffic and inconvenience during construction, especially with a residential area across from the subject site and a senior's residence nearby, Christian Hepfer advised that the entire site has been designed to be self-contained. Michael Testaguzza added that part of the site plan process was to provide erosion and sediment control, where typical measures and requirements from the city are to be implemented so that construction should not spill onto the roadway. After consideration of the City Development Department's Report, the responses heard from the applicant and agents present, as well as the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 40/20 by 1739592 Ontario Ltd., 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 these variances apply only to the proposed industrial building, 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 August 12, 2020). Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 41/20 F. Molinaro 1771 Woodview Avenue 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. 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 Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Page 12 of 17 -12- Ci/g DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Written comments were received from Dave Comery, from IBW Surveyors, indicating 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. Grant Morris, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Grant Morris spoke in support of this application stating the purpose of the application was to correct an error after construction that was determined to be the fault of the surveyor. This was discovered approximately two weeks ago and the surveyor has taken full responsibility for the error which will be rectified financially. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary -Treasurer stated the deficiency was discovered when the surveyor was preparing the as -built drawings, which occurred after the foundation has been poured. The exact timeline of the remaining construction remains unknown. In response to a question posed by a Committee Member, Grant Morris advised the dwelling to the south has already been constructed and is occupied by residents who have no objections to this application. After reviewing the staff report as documented and outlined by the City Development Department, considering that the two dwellings are setback a minimum of 2 metres from one another allowing for sufficient room for the structures to accommodate drainage and maintenance, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 41/20 by F. Molinaro, 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 existing dwelling on the subject site, 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 August 12, 2020). Carried Unanimously -13- Page 13 of 17 Ci/g 4 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 4.8 P/CA 42/20 P. Bekarovski 405 Frontier Court 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. 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 Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) express no objections or comments and a MTO clearance is not required. Philip Bekarovski applicant was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. When questioned which level of the dwelling the upper level deck is on, Philip Bekarovski stated the dwelling is a raised bungalow where the upper level of the deck projects directly out of the kitchen as a landing. After reviewing the City Development Department's Recommendation Report, hearing from the applicant, and the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 42/20 by P. Bekarovski, 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, 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 August 12, 2020). Carried Unanimously Page 14 of 17 -14- Ci/g 4 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 4.9 P/CA 43/20 M. & L. Giampietri 176 Bralorne Trail 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. Isabel Lima, Planner I, outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) confirming TRCA Permit will not be required. Written comments were received from Parks Canada (landowner), expressing they agree with the proposed Minor Variance, requesting that the applicant consider a number of matters during construction. Megan Giampietri applicant, and Cheryl Shindruk, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Cheryl Shindruk spoke in support of the application stating the staff report has been reviewed and they concur with the analysis and the recommendations provided by City staff. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Cheryl Shindruk advised they are aware of comments provided by Parks Canada and that the applicant will have regard for clauses 1 to 5 and support the implementation of clauses 6 and 7 during the building permit stage. After review of the staff Recommendation Report prepared by the City Development Department, hearing the comments from the applicant, and the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Page 15 of 17 -15- Ci/g 4 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 43/20 by M. & L. Giampietri, 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, 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 August 12, 2020). Carried Unanimously -16- Page 16 of 17 GGa oii DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 12, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the 6th meeting of the 2020 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:46 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, September 9, 2020. Date Chair Assistant Secretary -Treasurer -17- Carried Unanimously Page 17 of 17 PICKERING cdy Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 44/20 Date: September 9, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 44/20 S. Kathiravel 1290 Old Orchard Avenue, Unit 10 Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 6375/04 and By-law 7201/12, to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 6.0 metres for an uncovered deck, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth 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). 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 Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. The subject site is zoned MD -S -SD within Zoning By-law 2511, amended by By-law 6375/04 and By-law 7201/12. The applicant is proposing to construct an uncovered deck that connects to the rear first floor entrance of the detached dwelling, with a rear yard depth of 6.0 metres. The intent of a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres is to ensure that sufficient amenity space is provided in the rear yard. The requested variance is to facilitate the construction of a deck that will contribute towards the total usable amenity space in the rear yard. -18- Report P/CA 44/20 September 9, 2020 Page 2 The applicant has indicated that the purpose of the proposed deck is to allow access to the backyard from the dwelling. Access to the rear yard from the dwelling does not currently exist. There is also more than sufficient amenity space to the north of the proposed deck, as the deck is small. 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 and provide access from the dwelling to the rear yard. The proposed structure is therefore desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Minor in Nature Unlike the front and side yard depth, Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 6375/04 and By-law 7201/12, does not permit uncovered platforms to project into the required rear yard depth. The proposed uncovered deck is to be 1.21 metres in depth, which is small relative to the size of the dwelling and the property. The request to construct an uncovered deck with a rear yard depth of 6.0 metres is not anticipated to have any significant impact on the surrounding area. A decrease in the rear yard depth of 1.5 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 Engineering Services Date of report: August 31, 2020 Comments prepared by: • No concerns with the application. • No comments on the application. Isabel Lima Planner I IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 44-20\Report\PCA 42-20 Report.doc Attachments Deborah Wylie, CIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration -19- Exhibit 1 L \PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA 44-20 S. Kath !ravel \PCA44-20_Loc tionMap.mxd Douglas 1 Ravine Radom Street N • Patmore Lane in alevard Antonio Douglas Park 4 ' m /�o o ca c z 'c co o a ca 11111111: Halle Avenue , o = ;a5c) c o Q o-� Balsdon Park c i LL n I I pro Subject Old Orchard Avenue s/2 Oe0PGdrO Lands II "!!cookpIace _ Luna Court / Avenue — Browning Foxglove Avenue �J Ilona Park Road o \)\o oio _ A/ li li Frenchman's Bay Rate \ \ I I I I 1 1 1 1 Payers Memorial Park 1 1 Location Map C44 File: P/CA 44/20 PICKERING Applicant: S. Kathiravel City Development Property Description: Plan 40M2494 Pt Blk 1 Now 40R27923 Part 10 Department (1290 Old Orchard Avenue, Unit 10) Date: Aug. 10, 2020 The Corporaeon of the city of Pmkedng Produced on part) under ricanse from: © Queens Protep ontado Ministry of Natural Resources. �rig h[s reserved.;© Her Majesty [he Gueen In Right of Canada Department of Na[uml Resources. All rights reserved.; O Terane[ Enterprises Inc. and Its su ppllert all rights reserved.; O ( �perty Assessment Corporation and Its suppliers all rights reserved„ SCALE: 1:4,000 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. L \PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA 44-20 S. Kath !ravel \PCA44-20_Loc tionMap.mxd E E 45 E c (S- al al -o o, E Q- C D O L0.9 00 '-i St L m:f . .7rI N } r • 4C Y to M t U 0 E • CN O N Q O 0 Existing Dwelling c ; 0 ( c a) E Q 0 w • as U p o • • 00 a N 2 E N O N U a 0 z a) u- O (0 a M N O ti N O 0 z m O N O (0 E c 0 yr. 0.0 D ami a 0 L a Date: August 20, 2020 CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. -21- PICKERING cdy Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 45/20 Date: September 9, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 45/20 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. 520 West Shore Boulevard Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • Minimum lot frontage of 7.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres; • Minimum front yard setback of 2.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • Minimum rear yard setback of 1.5 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres; • Maximum lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • An uncovered platform (second -storey balcony) not exceeding 5.0 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 yard and not more than 1.0 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 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 Exhibit 2). 2. That the variance for lot coverage apply only to the proposed new lot (with land to be conveyed to the Toronto Region Conservation Authority for trail connection and land to be conveyed to 501 Marksbury Road for a new driveway), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 3). -22- Report P/CA 45/20 September 9, 2020 Page 2 Background Proposed Land Conveyance The submitted proposal for the subject property includes a proposed conveyance of lands at the north of the site to be transferred to the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for trail connection and to the abutting property to the west (501 Marksbury Road) for a new driveway (refer to Exhibit 3). TRCA has stated that there is no agreement neither formal nor in principle between the applicant and TRCA for any such conveyance (refer to Input from Other Sources). The requested variance for lot coverage is based on the proposed new lot, wherein land is conveyed to both TRCA and to the lot to the west. Due to the configuration of the lot, any replacement dwelling on the subject site would require variances to lot frontage, front yard setback and rear yard setback, regardless of land being conveyed. TRCA Acknowledgement Agreement The shoreline property owned by TRCA (south of the subject site, refer to Exhibits 2 & 3) was conveyed to TRCA from the Fairport Beach Ratepayers Association in 1993. There is an Acknowledgement Agreement between TRCA and the Ratepayers Association in consideration of the conveyance, which restricts the use of the shoreline property. TRCA Permit The subject property is regulated entirely by TRCA. As such, any development of the subject site must receive approval and a permit from TRCA prior to the City of Pickering issuing a building permit. Previous Application Minor Variance Application P/CA 26/03 was approved for the subject lands to recognize a front yard setback of 1.5 metres for the existing dwelling; to recognize a rear yard setback of 2.2 metres for the existing dwelling and a porch addition; to recognize a 0.4 metre side yard setback for the existing detached garage; and to permit the existing detached garage to be located partially within the north side yard of the subject property. However, the applicant did not obtain a building permit or construct the covered porch addition within two years of the date of the decision, which was a condition of approval. As such, the decision became null and void. Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated primarily Open Space System — Natural Areas, and Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Areas within the Pickering Official Plan. The subject site is within the Natural Heritage System and the Shorelines, Significant Valleylands, Stream Corridors and Hazardous Lands Area. Existing lawful residential dwellings are a permitted use within the Open Space System designation. -23- Report P/CA 45/20 September 9, 2020 Page 3 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 find it consistent with development standards along West Shore Boulevard. 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 R4 within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18. A detached dwelling is permitted within the R4 Zone. It is important to note that due to the configuration of the lot, any replacement dwelling on the subject site would require variances to lot frontage, as well as to the front and rear yard setbacks. Lot Frontage Variance 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 requested variance is to permit a minimum lot frontage of 7.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres. The intent of this provision is to ensure a useable lot size that is compatible with the neighbourhood. Please note, the proposed lot frontage of 7.6 metres is measured from the new proposed lot line, wherein land is conveyed to TRCA for trail connection and to 501 Marksbury Road for a new driveway. The existing lot frontage without the proposed conveyances is approximately 11.4 metres. Without the conveyances, a variance to lot frontage is still required. The minimum proposed lot frontage of 7.6 metres will provide adequate space for a car to navigate to and from the property. Furthermore, from the street, the lot appears to have a much greater frontage. As shown in Exhibits 2 & 3, the TRCA owns the land directly to the south and east of the subject property. Because the small portion of TRCA land that is east of the subject property and that fronts onto West Shore Boulevard is highly landscaped, the subject property appears to have a much greater lot frontage from the street. As such, the proposed lot appears to be consistent with the existing lotting pattern established along West Shore Boulevard. Front & Rear Yard Variances These requested variances are to permit a minimum front yard setback of 2.4 metres and a minimum rear yard setback of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front and rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. -24- Report P/CA 45/20 September 9, 2020 Page 4 The intent of the front yard setback is to provide an adequate separation distance between the building and the street activity in the front yard, and to provide landscaping and sufficient parking space in front of the building. Due to the configuration of the lot, the north side yard functions as the front yard. The north side yard provides sufficient separation distance between the proposed dwelling and the street. As well, the north side yard provides more than sufficient space for the required parking area, as well as areas for landscaping. The intent of the rear yard setback is to ensure useable amenity space is provided in the rear yard. Similarly, due to the configuration of the lot, the south side yard functions as the rear yard. The south side yard provides amenity space on the proposed ground -floor deck and on the land to the south of the deck. The front and rear yard setbacks of 2.4 metres and 1.5 metres are sufficient to function as the side yards. The setbacks will allow for appropriate separation to accommodate drainage and for the maintenance of the dwelling. Lot Coverage Variance The proposed detached dwelling, covered front porch and covered ground -floor deck account for a lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent (the second -storey balcony is not calculated in the total lot coverage, as it is not a covered structure). The proposed dwelling and covered front porch account for 33 percent of the total lot coverage, whereas the covered ground -floor deck accounts for 7 percent of the total lot coverage. The ground -floor deck is covered by the deck floor of the second -storey balcony, and as such, if the ground -floor deck was not covered, a variance for lot coverage would not be required. 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 provides amenity space on the proposed ground -floor deck and on the land to the south of the deck. Staff is of the opinion that an increase of 7 percent lot coverage will not result in a great loss of amenity space. Staff is of the opinion that the size of the proposed dwelling is appropriate relative to the size of other dwellings along West Shore Boulevard. Please note, the proposed lot coverage of 40 percent is calculated based on the proposed new lot, wherein land is conveyed to TRCA for trail connection and to 501 Marksbury Road for a new driveway. The total proposed lot coverage without the conveyances is approximately 24 percent. Without the conveyances, a variance to lot coverage is not required. Deck Height Variance The proposed uncovered balcony connects to the second floor entrance of the detached dwelling and is 5.0 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. The abutting property to the east on the other side of West Shore Boulevard is vacant land owned by TRCA. The dwelling to the west is set forward closer to the waterfront and is mostly located in front of the proposed dwelling, which will help mitigate privacy issues. -25- Report P/CA 45/20 September 9, 2020 Page 5 The applicant has indicated the proposed second -storey balcony is located 5.0 metres above grade for the following reasons: • To account for the 3.0 metre ground -floor ceiling; • To account for 1.5 metres between the finished ground floor height and the ground -floor level due to grading conditions, particularly as the ground slopes away from the home on the south-east and south-west corners of the deck. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Given the configuration of the lot, staff consider the minimum proposed lot frontage of 7.6 metres, the proposed front yard setback of 2.4 metres, and the proposed rear yard setback of 1.5 metres to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Additionally, due to the lot configuration, any replacement dwelling on the subject site would require these variances. If the proposed conveyances are implemented, the size of the subject site will decrease significantly (approximately 329.6 square metre of land area conveyed). As such, an increase in lot coverage is required to accommodate the dwelling and to accommodate the covered front porch and ground -floor deck for outdoor amenity purposes. Staff consider an increase in lot coverage of 7 percent to be minor in nature. As the variance required for the second -storey balcony is due to grading conditions and ground to floor ceiling height, and that the balcony will have minimal impact on the neighbouring property, it is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit the construction of a 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 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 at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. • No objections to the proposal. Region of Durham Works Department Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • The subject site contains a flood or erosion hazard associated with Lake Ontario. TRCA staff are unable to determine the location of the natural hazard without a peer review of a Coastal Hazard Study prepared by a qualified Coastal Engineer. The location of the natural hazard is critical to determine if the proposed new dwelling is adequately setback from that natural hazard in order to reduce the risk to life and property, and to determine whether TRCA can support the proposal from a conservation authority regulatory perspective. -26- Report P/CA 45/20 September 9, 2020 Page 6 We are concerned that the proposed variances, if approved, may be moot if the proposal changed to accommodate TRCA regulatory requirement. • In addition, the application appears to be predicated on a conveyance of land to the TRCA. Please be advised that there is no agreement neither formal nor in principle for any such conveyance and we advise that that the conveyance of lands to TRCA should not be considered in the review of any minor variance application unless the conveyance is approved by TRCA's Board of Directors. • As such, TRCA staff cannot determine if the proposed dwelling is adequately setback from the natural hazard, whether the lot configuration as proposed is appropriate and, therefore, whether we can support the issuance of a TRCA permit. Further details of the proposal are required to determine if TRCA can support the minor variances. • A TRCA permit application has not been received for the proposed replacement detached dwelling. The applicant is advised to pre - consult with TRCA staff prior to submitting an application. • Given the above, TRCA staff opinion is that the application is premature. We request tabling of Minor Variance Application No. P/CA 45/20 until we have had the opportunity to review a Coastal Hazard Study, identified the appropriate location and size of a new dwelling, and completed any land conveyance agreements that may be supported by TRCA's Board of Directors. TRCA staff would be pleased to meet with the various parties involved, including the City of Pickering, to discuss an overall approach for this portion of the waterfront. Date of report: September 1, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Planner I IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 45-20\Report\PCA 45-20 Report.doc Attachments Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration -27- Exhibit 1 L\PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA 45-20 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd\PCA45-20_LocatIonMapanyd `" — LJ Sandcastle Court • / ....-C Tullo Street Rotary Frenchman's e • Bay West Park m ---i > toad West Shore Bogy J v Surf Avenue � de a a -liffview Roa \ Marks) m � .o\cPtoeRotary ch eaFrenchman's = — Bay West Park • ►�1 Wiltir•—L— Subject Lands Cliffview Park N A Location Map C44 File: P/CA 45/20 P1CKE R1 NG Applicant: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd City Development Property Description: Lot 7 and Pt Lot 8, Plan 270 Now Parts 1-3, 40R22834 Department (520 West Shore Blvd) Date: Aug. 12, 2020 © The Corporation of the City of Plckedng Produced (In part) under license from ©Queens Pdmer. Ontario Mlnlstry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Canada. Ce artment of Natural Resources. All lights reserved.; or Teranet Enterprises Inc. and Its suppliers all n lits reserved.: r roperty Assessment Corporatlon and Its suppliers all rghts reserved.: SCALE: 1:4,000 THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY. L\PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA 45-20 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd\PCA45-20_LocatIonMapanyd Exhibit 2 ■ Existing jj Ded 9 PR 'POSED NEW PROPERTY LINE 7. Garage to be nolished SIDE Y ,R' ,.. I , (1161IN) /eI /('"r N 0 /fit '1/40J e90� / ti>.\ ,/ /r e� /1 of `r � /,;:c\`'3'�a� 10.46 [34'-4"] 2 CAR GARAGE INT. 20 X 2( /roc` 1�0 O / /fie ' • •Oi / �a to permit a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent / to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 1.5 metres to permit an uncovered platform (second -storey balcony) not exceeding 5.0 metres in height above grade ► 1.5-, p � u 0 I ST:4= 1404 ft2 92ND. = 1844 ft2 Q -TOTAL= 3248 ft2 / 9.16 [30'-0"] M 1.33 {7.83 [25'-a"] 5- "] N m w00D DECK 25'-B" x 14'-0" SIQYARD 7 7 7 Z Lands Owned by the Toronto to permit a minimum lot frontage of 7.6 metres WEST SHORE BOULEVARD to permit a minimum front yard setback of 2.4 metres Region Conservation Authority PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 45/20 Applicant: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Property Description: Lot 7 and Pt Lot 8, Plan 270 Now Parts 1-3, 40R22834 (520 West Shore Boulevard) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: August 24, 2020 -29- M t W 0 Lf) c O O 2 W y N C N c N G O pC C U U a UN n T n o n' 3 ° 0 D '- U J 2 U J F n - TRCA Property Parcel Fabric z oE Date: September 1, 2020 CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. -30- PICKERING cdri Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 46/20 Date: September 9, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 46/20 W. & D. Steinwall 120 Woodview Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • An accessory building (garage) which is not part of the main building to be erected in the front yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building to be erected in the rear yard; • An accessory building (garage) with a maximum height of 6.35 metres, whereas the By-law requires no accessory building to exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone; • An accessory structure (shed) to be setback a minimum of 0.2 metres from the east side lot line, whereas the By-law requires accessory structures to be setback a minimum of 0.6 metres from all lot lines. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached garage and to recognize a deficient side yard setback for an existing shed. 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 garage and existing shed, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7). Background There is currently an existing one -storey detached garage located in the front yard on the subject property. The applicant is looking to reconstruct a two-storey detached garage in the same location and building footprint as the existing garage. The proposed detached garage is located in front of the dwelling and appears to be attached to the dwelling from the street. The applicant has also stated that they bought the house in 2016 with the existing shed already on the property. -31- Report P/CA 46/20 September 9, 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 Rougemount Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings and accessory structures are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. The subject site is zoned R3 within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. Detached Garage — Front Yard Variance The By-law requires detached garages to be erected in the rear yard to ensure visual impact on the streetscape is minimized. However, when a garage is attached to a dwelling, it is permitted to be erected in the front yard. From the street, the proposed detached garage will appear to be attached to the dwelling. The garage will be located in front of the dwelling on the west side of the lot, and will have a consistent front yard setback with the east side of the dwelling (just under 15.0 metres from the front lot line, refer to Exhibit 2). The proposed detached garage will match the building footprint and architectural style of the existing detached garage. Moreover, the applicant has ensured that the proposed garage will match the architectural style of the dwelling to appear as though it is attached, which will further minimize visual impact on the streetscape (the same stone architecture found on the dwelling is proposed for the detached garage, and the height of the proposed garage will match the height of the east side of the dwelling). The adjacent property to the west also has an attached garage located along the west property line, which will ensure no privacy issues for the subject property owner or the west adjacent landowner. The adjacent neighbours to the west and east, as well as the neighbours on the other side of Woodview Drive have no objections to the proposed detached garage (refer to Input from Other Sources). Detached Garage — Height Variance The proposed detached garage has a height of 6.35 metres, whereas the By-law limits detached garages to a maximum height of 3.5 metres. The intent of the provision is to minimize the visual impact of accessory buildings on the streetscape, and to ensure abutting yards are not obstructed by these structures. When a garage is attached to a dwelling, the maximum permitted height is 18.0 metres. From the street, the proposed detached garage will appear to be attached to the dwelling. The height of the proposed garage will match the height of the east side of the dwelling, which will create a balanced view from the street. The proposed garage will have a consistent front yard setback with both dwellings on the adjacent properties to the west and east, which will ensure no abutting yards are obstructed by the structure. -32- Report P/CA 46/20 September 9, 2020 Page 3 Existing Shed Though the existing shed is permitted, it does not meet the minimum east side yard setback required in the By-law. The purpose of the 0.6 metre setback is to ensure that adequate space is available for maintenance, to ensure that the eaves/overhangs of the structure do not encroach on the adjacent properties and to minimize the visual impact that their location may have on adjacent properties. The proposed reduction from 0.6 metres to 0.2 metres provides sufficient distance to maintain the shed. The eaves/overhangs of the shed do not encroach onto the adjacent properties. Moreover, the closest structure on the east adjacent property is located approximately 11.0 metres from the existing shed. The small size of the shed (less than 10 square metres in area) helps to reduce the visual impact on the adjacent neighbour. The applicant has submitted a letter from the adjacent property owner to the east, which states they have no objection to the location of the existing shed (refer below to Input from Other Sources). The neighbours have no complaints regarding roof drainage or visual impact affecting their properties as a result of the existing structure. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed detached garage is desirable for the appropriate development of the land as it will provide 3 indoor parking spaces and storage space for the applicant. The adjacent property to the west also has a garage located along the west property line, which will ensure no privacy issues for the subject property owner or the west adjacent landowner. The minimum east side yard setback of 0.2 metres for a shed is an existing situation that has not negatively impacted adjacent properties, as the structure has existed for more than 4 years without complaint. The request to vary the east side yard setback by 0.4 metres is considered a minor variation to the required side yard setback. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit the construction of a detached garage in the front yard with a height of 6.35 metres and to recognize a deficient side yard setback for an existing shed 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 Engineering Services • No comments on the application. Building Services • No concerns with the application. Owner of 118 Woodview Drive • No objection to the proposal. (west side) -33- Report P/CA 46/20 September 9, 2020 Page 4 Owner of 130 Woodview Drive (east side) Owner of 105 Woodview Drive (across the street) Owner of 107 Woodview Drive (across the street) Date of report: September 1, 2020 Comments prepared by: • No objection to the proposal. • No objection to the proposal. • No objection to the proposal. Isabel Lima Planner I IL:jc J'\ Documents \ Development \D-3700\2020\PCA 46-20\Report\PCA 46-20 Report.doc Attachments Deborah Wylid'MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration -34- Exhibit 1 L\PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA 46-20 W. & D. Steinwall\PCA46-20_ ocatIonMap.mxd ITF 1..I 22 m cn Valley Ridge Crescent o Valley Ridge Open Swee briar Court <awson Stree m v o Space --> ill Woodview a Tot Lot Q' of T Twyn Rivers Drive a) oca 0 0 BflmW N ood Court I 4, a)o ` ::.o Howell Crescent 'Illir I 4Lit leford Street ct Subject _ —Lands _ 1 li* Rouge Valley Park c is— a 0 cu o o t Ct a 1110 0)II v Location Map C44 File: P/CA 46/20 PICKERING Applicant:W. & D. Steinwall City Development Property Description: Lot 13, Plan 434 Department (120 Woodview Drive) Date: Aug. 12, 2020 tP The Corporation of the City of Plckedng Produced on part) under license from:O Queens Printer. Ontario Kimsey of Natural Resources. Allrights reserves,. Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Canada, De artment of Natural Resources. Alllights reserved.; Teranet Enterprises Inc. and Its suppllert all rlq lits reserved.; c roperty Assessment Corporation and Its suppliers all rglits reserved.: SCALE: 1:4,000 THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY. L\PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA 46-20 W. & D. Steinwall\PCA46-20_ ocatIonMap.mxd Exhibit 2 to permit an accessory building (garage) with a maximum height of 6.35 metres N 73'19. 40 E 21.3$m N 17' 06' 40' W 6084 m PROPOSED CARACE ( DEMOLISH AND BUILD IN SAME FOOTPRINT ) 1.7 m to permit an accessory building (garage) which is not part of the main building to be erected in the front yard f EXIST. POOL EXIST. SOD E rn o Cr) EXIST. INTERLOCK ti cY, 2.51 mi to permit an accessory structure (shed) to be setback a minimum of 0.2 metres from the east side lot line I 117 Ex15T, 10-2 m SHED 1 EXiSTINC DWELLING NO 120 EXIST. INTERLOCK EXIST. DRIVEWAY 15m E PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 46/20 Applicant: W. & D. Steinwall Property Description: Lot 13, Plan 434 (120 Woodview Drive) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: August 20, 2020 -36- M t W -37- [ww aL91 „c -,ZZ ;lug��E I I I ? [Wan] 5 -Ll I �J A' E E 0 a a CL a r n \ — 0 w , v n '(If1lr__i_?1ji) [Lu0c'S] ,S -,Ll n t1 1 ,__I__. -37- .c W 1HOI3H ONla1Ene [w 9] ,,o —,OZ [vitro] „9-2 TOP OF PLATE TOP OF UPPER LEVEL [ti'LZ L] „Z -,ti [wl4 Z] „ll -,L TOP OF LOWER LEVEL FINISHED FLOOR O E z oX x U • C6 L C E o E0 Q- (6 co O C9 0 N c0 U d z0 d it Ct, 0 yc5 J c 0 ,a 0 0 0 0 a 0 a •L 0 0 73 0 0 0 Date: August 20, 2020 CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. -38- 1H013H ONIO1In9 [Lu g] ,.o[ -,oz [wLL'o] [mow z [11.417] s L) u9 0 a 0 Q zo 00 Q • p V zz 0o o� 0 Y W V 0L 0o 4" STONE FACE •L 0 .> 0 0 0 CV Date: August 20, 2020 CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. -39- c0 2 t W -40- [u'LL.01 ,9-,l 1 w L] g TAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: August 20, 2020 in w c_D .J a CP ¢ w 1— a w LL D O 1- J w ww J LU °- w D O O r f [wLl'l] „l -,ti 1( [Lu J w J ct LIJ o J D O r cn u~i LIZ] „ll -,L o O O 2 cn Z w a Z E O z N ? w z 4 J <z Dz _ a Q DU o m 0 z O a � a �E 1--e5!•_m-li E m - --=E i 0 �;==1rc id 11 I IN aJ_ i - II o �j z m-mME1 w!JIIiIflII i. as Q Lii0 NE -1•ffai �� t4 - 111■' �� L" mill w ='ILS a a o GE- 1rag-. pi1 ition (Deta( Lot 13, Pla ING CITY DEVEI .16.E.=-• ; 1 immi iC��a li 11! C6 vs • > w 1111111 11 C _ aQ H ' EmEsms pm MEITMEma 1,& File No: 1 Property CONTACT TF •:i Is •Q 11111 O ■-d N perm 0 = Q . - -i in i n PICKERIN( City Development Department -40- - 41 - PUT z [u w J O a 7 AL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: August 20, 2020 / 2 \ { ¥ L. } o ƒ \ \ § = / o ƒ R!e]z- f @ *d Lu \ z » \ ui 2 C3 u G .1 \ S §I ± ( PP (n } 6 a (k f§ §2 j\ 3§ j} ) m J7 om.« -_ ' \ -- -- � gy T FOR DIGIT � I _ =-p1 I- _1 , 1 / \ §� § -: e « & I — c© _ 1 _ _ \\e\ \ y __ s- § mom«_ -_ e /_ - - ,= \ m=- )etached 3, Plan 43 'DEVELOPME -,=,=. _\ _ -_ \�» — d \\ -- = :\ - 3 — ' °\��« �/_ - 0 \ . . § 2 !- - g z .:meq-= - _C �w �_ O o > o _ - . LI / \ ��- . ' 06 c c o . = \y W U m { �— - 22 > A. w -2 9am- -= n DC 0( \j_5/ . O e -y i' E 2 � a / ==3y i �^ 1§ CD z -- . = R D. 2 3_2E. __ u- a,r m « o - . , �= _ e u PICKERING City Development Department - 41 - PICKERING cdri Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 47/20 Date: September 9, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 47/20 A. & O. Grignon 1795 Pine Grove Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a commercial vehicle with a maximum height of 3.5 metres and a maximum length of 8.25 metres to be parked on a residential lot, whereas the By-law permits vehicles parked on any residential lot to be a maximum height of 2.6 metres and a maximum length of 6.7 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit the parking of a commercial vehicle used for the operation of a home-based business in a residential driveway. 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 8.25 metre x 3.5 metre commercial vehicle, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). 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. Home occupations are a permitted use within the designation. The subject site is zoned R4 within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. The applicant currently parks an 8.25 metre x 3.5 metre commercial vehicle on the driveway, whereas the By-law permits vehicles that are a maximum of 6.7 metres x 2.6 metres. The intent of this provision is to accommodate vehicles commonly associated with residential uses while restricting the location, number and size of the vehicles in order to preserve and maintain the residential appearance of the neighbourhood. The subject site is a large lot (1,114 square metres in area) with a front yard depth of 17.6 metres and a frontage of 18.3 metres. The commercial vehicle will be parked closest to the dwelling, providing an approximate setback of 8.5 metres from the front lot line and an approximate setback of 13.0 metres from the public road. -42- Report P/CA 47/20 September 9, 2020 Page 2 The existing driveway is also of sufficient width and length (7.8 metres in width and 28.9 metres in length, which includes the length of the driveway located in the public boulevard) to accommodate an additional vehicle on-site. The commercial vehicle does not restrict parking on the property, as there is sufficient space on the driveway for other vehicles. In addition, the garage accommodates two parking spaces. The applicant has indicated that the total number of vehicles parked at the property at one time would be two, including the commercial vehicle. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The commercial vehicle is visible from the road; however, it does not appear to visually dominate the principle residential use or appearance of the property. The impact of an 8.25 metre long vehicle versus a 6.7 metre vehicle (as permitted in the By-law) parked in the same location on the driveway, would not significantly change the appearance of the vehicle from the road. Additionally, the commercial vehicle is partially screened from the adjacent neighbours to the north and south through landscaping (cedar hedges that are 5.18 meters in height and mature trees that are approximately over 9.0 metres in height). The dwellings on the adjacent properties to the north and south are equally setback as the dwelling on the subject site, which ensures the driveway is not in line with any windows on the side of the dwellings. Furthermore, the location of the parked commercial vehicle will not impede the sight triangle of any adjacent driveway. The requested variance 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 a commercial vehicle with a maximum height of 3.5 metres and a maximum length of 8.25 metres to be parked on a residential lot 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 Engineering Services Date of report: August 31, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Planner I IL:jc J'\ Documents \ Development \D-3700\2020\PCA 47-20\Report\PCA 47-20 Report.doc Attachments • No concerns with the application. • No comments on the application. Deborah " lie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration -43- Exhibit 1 L \PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA 49-20 A. &O. GrIgnon\PCA49-Z0_L catIonMap.mxd l l l l ) . Sandcherry Court • /?• I I _ . , Copley Street Prohil Street I` a) 0 Secord Street 0 • c o Q O ct a) Thicket Crescent ro o_ 0 fn 2 N 0 D C a> a> m i T o To ► -0 of > o Waterford Gate Subject i Lands I I • White Pine Crescent West Lane / \ \ Valley Ridge ` Open Space Hogarth Street J ` J briar Court \ IlleSwee Woodview Tot Lot N - Location Map C44 File: P/CA 47/20 PICKERING Applicant:A. & 0. Grignon City Development Property Description: Pt Lt 4, Plan 282, Now Pt 10, 40R-25121 Department (1795 Pine Grove Avenue) Date: Aug. 24, 2020 O The Corporation of the CM/ of Plckedng Produced (In part) under Imense from ©Queens Pdmer. Ontado M I., of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen In Right of CanadaCe rtment of Natural Resources. All hghts reserved.; Teranet Enterprises Inc. and Its scepters all rights reserved.; ©)Iclroperty Assessment Corporation and Its suppliers all rights reserved.: SCALE: 1:4,000 THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY. L \PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA 49-20 A. &O. GrIgnon\PCA49-Z0_L catIonMap.mxd on a residential lot £9'0 ••••.t •••••...”, :••••••••• 41 190 91 (Id .0s) M„Oc,kI.9rN rc"• :3 •4; El '1 d 140104 paJonai Ns" NNNN' NNN A 8 L() OC; (er id)6• E-91. V Fr • E If 6VG IN3P111,111SNI `L6/ 6 L;C't• Jiff d (14I Id) 6138G-69E9E Nid ail 43S 6rEt 1 099' ld)M,Q,Lj.6uV fit') --Ur, co 0 c\i co c\I LL 0 0 0) • • 0 co GE' 2W pr 5103 N33M/ 38 30NVA40711/ OVOel laNipiao 3AV .3A080 3N!d CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. - 45 - E l0 N co E co a) Y c)- O C 2 c� Q) C C X � • N E O O L a) U � ▪ E � X ▪ E E E -o O C U f0 (B V) E a� E a Lc) O co on a residential lot N ti U a 0 z a) LE N 10 N ca d O z N CO CN CD ET_ r - O J d 0 Q .i V N O a) a O a Date: August 20, 2020 CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. L7 E � O• E O L.I.J > m a ❑ a) (—} ❑ 0— U -46- PICKERING cdy el Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 48/20 to P/CA 52/20 Date: September 9, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications P/CA 48/20 to P/CA 52/20 Oak Ridges Seaton Inc. Lots 86, 93, 94, 95 and 96 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06 Applications The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit street townhouse dwellings in the Low Density Type 2 (LD2) Zone, whereas the LD2 Zone in the By-law only permits detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit nine street townhouse dwellings on Lots 86, 93, 94, 95 and 96 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06. 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 conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to Lots 86, 93, 94, 95 and 96 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). 2. That the proposed street townhouse dwellings be constructed in accordance with Zoning By-law 7364/14, Low Density Type 2 — Multiple (LD2-M) Zone performance standards. Background The owners of the subject lands are requesting to modify unit types within the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06. Draft Approval was granted in 2014 to permit five detached dwelling lots on Lots 86, 93, 94, 95 and 96. This has now been modified to propose nine street townhouse dwellings over two townhouse blocks on the subject lots. Because Zoning By-law 7364/14 was tailored to the specific Draft Approved Plan at the time, relief to the Zoning By-law is now required to permit the proposed street townhouse dwellings. -47- Report P/CA 48/20 to P/CA 52/20 September 9, 2020 Page 2 Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law In 2006, the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) came into effect providing a policy framework for the Seaton Urban Area. The CPDP resulted in Amendment 22 to the Pickering Official Plan (OPA 22). The subject lots are located within the Seaton Urban Area and are designated Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Areas. Section 11.1(b) of the Pickering Official Plan states that the Seaton Urban Area shall develop mixed use areas, which support a mix of higher density residential uses. The proposed variance would result in an increase of four units (five detached dwellings modified to nine street townhouse dwellings on the subject lots), which results in a minor increase in density. The subject lots are zoned LD2 within Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended. The general intent of the Zoning By-law is to implement the Official Plan by prescribing appropriate development standards. The proposed variance would result in an increase of four units, which implements polices regarding density in the Official Plan, and therefore conforms to the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The LD2 Zone permits only detached and semi-detached dwellings. The proposed variance is to permit street townhouse dwellings in the LD2 Zone, which maintains the residential use of the Zone. The proposal will modify the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision from five detached dwelling lots to permit nine street townhouse dwellings on the subject lots. The townhouse dwellings are proposed in an appropriate location within the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision, as all other units Draft Approved for this property are townhouse dwellings (refer to Exhibit 3). Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed variance to permit street townhouse dwellings in the LD2 Zone for the subject lots will result in a minor increase in density. This implements policies in the Official Plan that encourage a mix of higher density residential uses in the Seaton Urban Area. As such, the proposed variance is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The modification of five detached dwellings to nine street townhouse dwellings (resulting in an increase of four units) is considered minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit nine street townhouse dwellings on Lots 86, 93, 94, 95 and 96 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06 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. -48- Report P/CA 48/20 to P/CA 52/20 September 9, 2020 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Building Services • No concerns with the application. Engineering Services • No comments on the application. Toronto Region Conservation Authority • No objections. (TRCA) Date of report: August 31, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Planner I IL:jc Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 48/20 to P/CA 52/20\Report\PCA 48/20 to P/CA 52/20 Report doc Attachments -49- Exhibit 1 L'.\PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA 47-20 Oak Ridges Seaton Inc\PCA47-20_LocatlonMap mxd CO ►iiiiiiiiiii4 ������������i ►�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i ►�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i ►�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i i ' i ' 4 4 4 4 CN Subject4 Lands • 4. i i i i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i� . 4 Taunton Road W kites Road place o N U D Silk d t Location Map C4 File: P/CA 48/20 to P/CA 52/20 a' PICKERING Applicant:Oak Ridges Seaton Inc. City Development Property Description: Pt Lot 26, Con 4 S, now Pt of Part 2, 40R24218 Department (Taunton Road, Lots 86 and 93-96) Date: Aug. 19, 2020 k The Corporation of the Cly of Pickering Produced (In pad) under license horn'. () Queens Printer Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources_ 0 All fights reserved ©Her Ma,esy the Queen In Right of Canada Oe f Natural Resources_ All rights reserved.', ©Tera net Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserv=tl_;©�ogperry Assessn en[Corporatlon and Ls suppliers all rights raservetl.. SCALE: 1 .5, 000 SISUOAI J THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY. L'.\PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA 47-20 Oak Ridges Seaton Inc\PCA47-20_LocatlonMap mxd O N N U 0 O N co U 0 0 z a) LL CO O co O O N 0 c O .(7) U) 9- O 0 ^o W i O L Q Q 0 c O rn c C6 LC)rn 0) Cr) rn co CO 0 J Date: August 20, 2020 CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. E 0E N . co ❑ a) U ,?-.,❑ a.-: L, -51- OWNER'S CERTIFICATE SCHEDULE OF LAND USE a d d a s 3 Min ILI" •`t V ✓ 1 1` a - " •Ke+'14n w grammni, gammon 9 co O N a N a N 9- 0 i R a a) 0 L 0. co E z N N U_ 0 0 N co U 0 0 z w LL L7 z co N (Ni 0 0 0 0 0 U N 0 cn J 0 0 t.) w CI t a) 0. 0 a c0 O co O N i a 0) 0 � .> 0 d a) 0 0 0_ 1 0 c 0 c0 0) 0) 0) ai 0) co co 0 J •• E Q a)L Q 0 a) >0 0 Date: August 28, 2020 CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. -52- PICKERING cdy el Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 53/20 to PCA 56/20 Date: September 9, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications P/CA 53/20 to PCA 56/20 Zavala Developments Inc. Block 156, Lots 157 & 158 and Block 161 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06 Applications Block 156 (P/CA 53/20) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a maximum of 9 street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building in the Low Density Type 2 — Multiple (LD2-M) Zone, whereas in the By-law the maximum number of street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building shall be 8 in the LD2-M Zone. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit 9 street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building on Block 156 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06. Lots 157 & 158 (P/CA 54/20 and P/CA 55/20) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit street townhouse dwellings in the Low Density Type 2 (LD2) Zone, whereas the LD2 Zone in the By-law only permits detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit 5 street townhouse dwellings on Lots 157 and 158 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06. Block 161 (P/CA 56/20) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a maximum of 9 street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building in the Mixed Corridor Type 2 (MC2) Zone, whereas in the By-law the maximum number of street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building shall be 8 in the MC2 Zone. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit 9 street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building on Block 161 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06. -53- Report P/CA 53/20 to PCA 56/20 September 9, 2020 Page 2 Recommendations Block 156 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06 (P/CA 53/20) 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 Block 156 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). Lots 157 & 158 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06 (P/CA 54/20 and P/CA 55/20) 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 conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to Lots 157 and 158 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). 2. That the proposed street townhouse dwellings be constructed in accordance with Zoning By-law 7364/14, Low Density Type 2 — Multiple (LD2-M) Zone performance standards. Block 161 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06 (P/CA 56/20) 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 Block 161 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). Background The owners of the subject lands are requesting to modify unit types and the number of units within the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06. Draft Approval was granted in 2014 to permit 4 semi-detached dwellings on Lots 157 and 158, and to permit 8 street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building on Blocks 156 and 161. -54- Report P/CA 53/20 to PCA 56/20 September 9, 2020 Page 3 This has now been modified to propose 5 street townhouse dwellings on Lots 157 and 158, and to propose 9 street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building on Blocks 156 and 161. Because Zoning By-law 7364/14 was tailored to the specific Draft Approved Plan at the time, relief to the Zoning By-law is now required to permit the proposed street townhouse dwellings. Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law In 2006, the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) came into effect providing a policy framework for the Seaton Urban Area. The CPDP resulted in Amendment 22 to the Pickering Official Plan (OPA 22). The subject lots and blocks are located within the Seaton Urban Area and are designated Mixed Use Areas — Mixed Corridor. Section 11.1(b) of the Pickering Official Plan states that the Seaton Urban Area shall develop mixed use areas, which support a mix of higher density residential uses. The proposed variances would result in an increase of 3 units (4 semi-detached dwellings on Lots 157 and 158 modified to 5 street townhouse dwellings, and 8 street townhouse dwellings on Block 156 and 161 modified to 9 street townhouse dwellings), which results in a minor increase in density. Block 156 is zoned LD2-M, Lots 157 and 158 are zoned LD2, and Block 161 is zoned MC2 within Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended. The general intent of the Zoning By-law is to implement the Official Plan by prescribing appropriate development standards. The proposed variances would result in an increase of 3 units, which implements polices regarding density in the Official Plan, and therefore conforms to the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Lots 157 & 158 The LD2 Zone permits only detached and semi-detached dwellings. The proposed variance is to permit street townhouse dwellings in the LD2 Zone, which maintains the residential use of the Zone. The proposal will modify the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision from 4 semi-detached dwelling lots to permit 5 street townhouse dwellings on the subject lots. The townhouse dwellings are proposed in an appropriate location within the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision, as the majority of units Draft Approved within this area are townhouse dwellings (refer to Exhibit 3). Block 156 and 161 The LD2-M and MC2 Zones permit a maximum of 8 street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building. The proposed variances are to permit 9 street townhouse dwellings within a townhouse building on each block. The purpose of this provision is to limit the number of townhouse dwellings in a townhouse building to provide mid -block connections and access to the rear yards. The applicant has indicated that the proposed increase in townhouse dwellings from 8 to 9 will still maintain an overall comparable building length, as the width of each dwelling unit is less than originally proposed in the Draft Approved Plan. -55- Report P/CA 53/20 to PCA 56/20 September 9, 2020 Page 4 Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed variances will result in a minor increase in density. This implements policies in the Official Plan that encourage a mix of higher density residential uses in the Seaton Urban Area. As such, the proposed variance is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The modification of 4 semi-detached dwellings to 5 street townhouse dwellings and 8 street townhouse dwellings to 9 street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building (resulting in a total increase of 3 units) is considered minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit 5 street townhouse dwellings on Lots 157 & 158 and to permit 9 street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building on Blocks 156 and 161 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP -2008-06, 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 • No objections. (TRCA) Date of report: August 31, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Planner I IL:jc Deborah Wy`ie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration J:\ Documents \ Development \D-3700\2020\P/CA 53/20 to PCA 56/20\Report\P/CA 53/20 to PCA 56/20 Report.doc Attachments -56- Exhibit 1 L \PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA 48-20 Zavala Developments Inc\PCA48-20_LocationMap.mxd / :�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i� Di�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i� ►�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i� ►�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i� ►•' '.. !•• .O' 7" Subject Lands Taunton Road — P , ... 11111 ■nnllllllllYll■nn . -- �mu„,11111 ■uu' ■ p 1111111111111111111 I-- Location Map C44 File: P/CA 53/20 to P/CA 56/20 PICKERING Applicant: Zavala Developments Inc. City Development Property Description: Pt Lt 27, Con 4 S, Now Pt of Pt 5, 40R-24218 Department Date: Aug. 24, 2020 © The Corporation of the city of Pickering Produced (In part) under license from:© Queens Primer. Ontado Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Canada. Department of Natural Resources. All dghts reserved.; TeranetEnterpnses Inc. and its su papers all rights reserved.; © opertv Assessment Cor poraton and its suppliers all rights reserved.: SCALE: 1:8,000 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. L \PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA 48-20 Zavala Developments Inc\PCA48-20_LocationMap.mxd ca c c 3 fs E -.5� = N U E w o X o O (t OC N o — 2 112 Q "rn 2 0 N Lf) 0 a 0 N M Lf) 0 O Z LL co co N N L 0 4- O a^--' 0 O /c ( J c O 0 ti N O J a c O V N a) a) Q O L a C0 O co O N 0 (/) c O .7) .> (/) O c co d 4) O L Q Q 4- L 0 c O C.O U O c (. L) U O co Lf) ti Lf) O J N O O 0 io CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. -58- M t w O a) c O N N 0 J 00 Ln o (/) ti EY) m -0 J CO Lf) U O m O a) O N 0 06 N 0 J P A SCHEDULE OF LAND USE a 5 a • d S A 0 0 * * b 8 0 5 A Ilrwilgk 4' -1 rry e�� tio O 1a rr: ; i4Cdl+ tadixamal����� ►���+r CI, A` ,-: - . A : ��.. 40_140-0 LiJi I4 17. wttp- �'- �L .L� mer'-� ' �fty, ft . �.�� . EUSHAIEN ir 40 FrA WNW '`1 ��G'SW lal -IOW 1 Era EU 411. CO 0 0 N a 0 N z U) O O N aQ cucu U oa O Q N o oQ E z0 � Q) �U (3 a) o_ 0 m co m 0 (B c .Q a O i O O O N d (1)0 .U) O CO N O N oa LC) > -C o (0 Q O o O o v c - O Um C N oca J � Lr) E 0 0 0 m Q .c 03 0 06 't Lc) 04 0 0 L Apr ni CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. -59-