Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 10, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Agenda Meeting Number: 3 Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page Number 1. Disclosure of Interest 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from February 10, 2021 1-18 4. Report 4.1 Deferred at the February 10, 2021 meeting 19-34 P/CA 65/20 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd. 606 Annland Street 4.2 P/CA 12/21 35-39 K. & T. Acciaccaferri 4975 Sideline 20 4.3 P/CA 13/21 40-44 C. & C. Florea 2017 Bloomfield Court 4.4 P/CA 14/21 45-54 D. & T. Leue 1447 Rougemount Drive 4.5 P/CA 15/21 55-60 L. & L. Taylor 472 Churchwin Street 4.6 P/CA 16/21 61-75 J. & J. Gray 819 Fairview Avenue 4.7 P/CA 17/21 76-81 G. Belcastro 781 Olivia Street 4.8 P/CA 19/21 82-88 S. & S. Persaud 1985 Guild Road 5. Adjournment For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Samantha O’Brien Telephone: 905.420.4660, extension 2023 Email: sobrien@pickering.ca Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 1 of 18 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Absent Denise Rundle 1.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2.Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, February 10, 2021 meeting be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3.Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 1st meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, January 13, 2021 be adopted as amended. Carried Unanimously David Johnson, Chair stated that he will abstain from voting on all applications heard for the Wednesday, February 10, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting in order to prevent a tie vote. -1- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 2 of 18 4. Reports 4.1 Tabled at the December 9, 2020 meeting P/CA 65/20 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd. 606 Annland Street Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 65/20 be lifted from the Table. Carried The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to: • recognize a minimum lot frontage of 8.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres; • recognize a minimum lot area of 130 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres; • permit a minimum front yard setback of 2.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum rear yard setback of 1.7 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum east side yard setback of 0.3 metres, and a minimum west side yard setback of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres on one side, 2.4 metres on the other side; • permit a maximum lot coverage of 52 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and • permit an uncovered platform (front porch) not projecting more than 6.9 metres into the required front yard, 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending deferral. -2- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 3 of 18 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 stating to ensure reduced front/side/rear yard depth and additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other low impact development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. The City requires a corner rounding, with a radius of 5.0 metres, to be provided at the intersection of Annland Street and Pleasant Street. The applicant will be required to provide a draft R-Plan showing the corner rounding and will then need to pay all the fees associated with conveyance of the lands to the City for road dedication purposes. Helen Qamar, applicant, was present to represent the application. Maureen Metcalfe of 667 Front Road and Corey Leadbetter of 1290 Commerce Street were present in objection to the application. Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton To dispense with reading of the application and move that application P/CA 65/20 by 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd., be Deferred to the March 10, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow the applicant to revise the submitted site plan to include a 5.0 metre radius corner rounding at the intersection of Annland Street and Pleasant Street, to be conveyed to the City of Pickering. Carried 4.2 Deferred at the January 1, 2021 meeting P/CA 02/21 C. & J. Cagna 2615 Cerise Manor The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a maximum driveway width of 6.0 metres, whereas the By-law established a maximum driveway width of 3.0 metres for lots having lot frontages less than 9.0 metres with attached private garages associated with a residential use that are accessed only by a driveway from a street. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to widen the driveway. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department. -3- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 4 of 18 Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing they reviewed the updated plans submitted in support of the application and provide the following comments: 1.Original Comment: Widening the driveway will increase the impermeable area of the lot having a negative impact on the overall stormwater management scheme for the development. Response to Updated Submission: The applicant is proposing the use of permeable pavers for the driveway widening, which addresses our stormwater management concerns. 2.Original Comment: The proposal includes widening within the City’s road allowance, which is not permitted. Response to Updated Submission: The widening is now located entirely on private property. 3.Original Comment: Widening the driveway will require the removal of a City owned boulevard tree. Response to Updated Submission: The driveway located on private property ensures the required minimum 1.0 metre clearance to the tree is provided. Based on the applicant’s response to our previous comments, we have no further engineering related concerns with this application. Michael Annarilli, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Michael Annarilli spoke in support of the application stating he has satisfied all City comments and provided any additional information as required. Additionally, he has a compact SUV and is confident the vehicle would fit within the recommended minimum driveway size width requirement provided from Engineering Services staff of 2.6 metres x 5.3 metres. When a Committee Member posed the question of reverting the lands back to the original state upon sale or change of ownership, the Secretary-Treasurer indicated this would be difficult to enforce. That is based on the fact that the City is not informed when a change of ownership or property sale occurs, and that the proposed addition of hard landscaping would require removal and restoration. After considering the support received from neighbours, Engineering Services having no further concerns on the application where the original concerns have been addressed, and the applicant demonstrating a willingness to work with the City, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: -4- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 5 of 18 Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 02/21 by C. & J. Cagna, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, subject to the following condition: 1.That the variance only apply to the proposed driveway widening located entirely within private property, be setback 1.0 metre from the existing municipal tree and constructed with permeable paving to the satisfaction of Engineering Services, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 3 contained in staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 10, 2021). Carried 4.3 P/CA 03/21 C. & L. Eliopoulos 737 Aspen Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 942/79: •to permit a platform less than 1.0 metre in height to project a maximum of 7.3 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires establishes a maximum projection of 1.5 metres into the required rear yard; •to permit a platform less than 1.0 metre in height to project a maximum of 1.0 metre into the required southerly side yard, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum projection of 0.5 of a metre into the required side yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to recognize an existing rear yard 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 comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the deck is slightly elevated which should not cause any drainage issues and have no concerns with this application. Written comments were received from the owners of 756 Pebble Court and 735 Aspen Road in support of the application. -5- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 6 of 18 Written comments were received from the owner of 754 Pebble Court in opposition to the application. Chris Eliopoulos, applicant, was present to represent the application. Thomas Robert of 754 Pebble Court and Midori Fujita of 758 Pebble Court were present in objection to the application. Chris Eliopoulos spoke in support of the application stating he has provided all the necessary documents required for the application as well as received comments from the neighbours directly affected who are in support of the application. Thomas Robert spoke in objection to the application reiterating concerns addressed in the comments and photographs he submitted regarding the difference in grading and heightened fence line of the rear yard properties. Midori Fujita spoke in objection to the application mirroring the same position as Thomas Robert and expressing a concern with the increased amount of rodents in the neighbourhood, particularly related to the increased projection of a platform in the rear and side yard. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Felix Chau, Planner I, indicated that the maximum permitted height for a fence is 2 metres in the rear and side yards. The applicants will have to apply to the Property Review Committee which is administered by the City’s By-law Enforcement team. In response to questions from Committee Members, Chris Eliopoulos stated the platform (deck) was constructed in the summer of 2020 by a local handyman and a small group of friends all of which were unaware that a building permit was required. Additionally, the platform height has been reduced and is sealed with cement so not to allow animals to reside underneath it. The property does not have any trees or shrubs on it so maintenance of debris is minimal. After considering the comments received by the neighbours, and the concerns for the height of the fence being able to be addressed by the Property Review Committee, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 03/21 by C. & L. Eliopoulos, 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: -6- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 7 of 18 1.That these variances apply only to the uncovered platform, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 10, 2021). Carried 4.4 P/CA 06/21 B. & N. Sukra & W. Bain 312 Dyson Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 to permit a maximum building height of 11.35 metres, whereas the by-law permits a maximum building height of 9.0 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 approval subject to a condition. 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 no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) stating they have been working the landowners at 312 Dyson Road regarding this new build. The landowners have satisfied all of TRCA’s requirements and are waiting for these variances to be reviewed to receive a TRCA permit. TRCA staff have no objections to the variance pertaining to building height as it does not impact the TRCA’s policies or programs. Written comments were received from a resident of 317 Dyson Road on behalf of themselves and the property owners of 313 & 319 Dyson Road, in objection to the application. Written comments were received from Parks Canada identifying the proposal to have negative impacts on the Rouge Natural Urban Park where species at risk were identified and request for certain mitigation measures to be implemented by the subject property. Bobby Sukra, applicant, Atif Aqeel, agent, were present to represent the application. John Miron of 314 Dyson Road was present in objection to the application. -7- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 8 of 18 Atif Aqeel spoke in support of the application stating the subject site is uniquely situated at the end of Dyson Road with the view of the Rouge River as well as Lake Ontario. There is only one neighbour directly adjacent to the property which is also three-storeys in height. The proposal has been designed to be compatible with the location, and cause the least amount of impact on the neighbourhood. The developable footprint of the site is significantly less due to the lot configuration and the setback requirements outlined by the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). The application is believed to be compatible with the intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law and is supported by City staff. John Miron, owner of the property immediate adjacent to the subject site addressed some concerns with the development. He stated his concern with the elevation on west property line appearing to have four-storeys facing Rouge River when no other dwelling facing the Rouge River is of similar design. John Miron questioned what the necessity is for a dwelling of such a height. In response to the concerns raised by the adjacent neighbour Atif Aqeel stated the design is in fact only three-storeys in height where the third-storey is quite small and significantly setback from the primary elevation. The Rouge River view appears to be two-storeys high or a penthouse type structure that has a very unique architectural design which “funnels” the view. There is a partial basement walkout where a small portion of basement has a step-up design. It has been created to have a desirable visual perspective. In response to questions posed by a Committee Member, Atif Aqeel indicated the elevation drawings submitted are accurate and can be viewed in the Report to the Committee of Adjustment. Additionally, Atif Aqeel stated both him and the applicant are in receipt of the letter from Parks Canada, dated February 9, 2021, and will be working in collaboration with Parks Canada and the City to ensure the natural habitat and species at risk are protected. Moreover, Atif Aqeel noted that if required by Parks Canada, an environmental consultant will be retained by the owner. After reading the comments submitted by Parks Canada, the neighbours, the City and listening to the neighbour’s concerns being addressed during the Hearing, it is encouraged the applicant follow the requests and guidelines provided by Parks Canada, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: -8- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 9 of 18 Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 06/21 by B. & N. Sukra & W. Bain, 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 detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 10, 2021). Carried 4.5 P/CA 07/21 V. & V. Joshi 1519 Avonmore Square The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, to permit a total of 2 parking spaces on a property where an accessory dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires a total of three parking spaces provided on a property where an accessory dwelling unit is located. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit an accessory dwelling unit within a street townhouse dwelling with two parking spaces on the lot. 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 comments on 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 expressing no concerns with the application. Veena & Vijay Joshi, applicants, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Veena & Vijay Joshi spoke in support of the application stating they have currently applied for a building permit and submitted all necessary drawings, and they will continue to complete the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as requested by the City. -9- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 10 of 18 In response to questions from Committee Members, Veena & Vijay Joshi stated the property currently has two parking spaces for both of their vehicles: one located inside the garage and one outside on the driveway. The prospective tenant will not have a vehicle and will be able to utilize local transit and retail shops in the area. Eric Newton moved the following condition: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 07/21 by V. & V. Joshi, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to the subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 10, 2021). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed accessory dwelling unit as determined by Building Services. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland opposed Eric Newton in favour Sean Wiley in favour 4.6 P/CA 08/21 P. Therucheelvam 2150 Saffron Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7384/14: • to permit an uncovered platform less than 1.0 metre in height to project 0.6 of a metre into the south side yard, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum projection of 0.5 of a metre into an required side yard; • to permit an uncovered platform less than 1.0 metre in height to project 4.7 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum projection of 1.5 metres into the required rear yard; -10- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 11 of 18 • to permit an accessory building 3.15 metres in height to be set back 0.1 of a metre from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum setback of 1.0 metre from all lot lines; and • to permit an accessory building 3.15 metres in height to be set back 0.1 of a metre form the flankage (north) lot line, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum setback of 1.0 metre from all lot lines. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain building permits to recognize an existing platform (deck) and an accessory building (shed). 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 comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating to ensure reduced rear/side yard setbacks do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. The resident should be aware that they may be held liable for any damages to adjacent properties caused by blocked drainage. Prakash Therucheelvam, applicant, and Akaljan Kanagaratnam, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Akaljan Kanagaratnam spoke in support of the application stating the subject property has a difference in grading which caused the owners to construct a platform (deck) to allow for recreational space for children. The accessory building (shed) is also located on the lot for storage of recreational equipment. In response to questions from Committee Members, Akaljan Kanagaratnam indicated the platform (deck) and accessory building (shed) were constructed in 2020 by a friend of the owner. The owner is aware of the comments provided by Engineering Services addressing the property owner’s responsibility of being held liable for potential damages caused by blocked drainage that may occur to adjacent properties. When asked about the ability to maintain the area in between the accessory building (shed) and the lot line, the agent stated there is approximately four inches in between that would allow the owner to tidy up the area with the necessary yard maintenance equipment. Moreover the 3.15 metres in height has been requested to account for the difference in grading of the lot which has a significant slope. -11- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 12 of 18 In agreement with the City Development’s Report to the Committee of Adjustment in that the platform serves as an enhancement to the usable amenity area and that the variances appear to have no significant adverse affect on neighbouring properties, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 08/21 by P. Therucheelvam, 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 platform (deck) and accessory building, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 10, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 09/21 S. Muthulingam 945 Third Concession Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 10.5 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 10.0 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending the application be Tabled until an amendment to the Minister Zoning Order 154-03 is obtained through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), or arrangements are made to the satisfaction of the MMAH. 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 no comments on the application. -12- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 13 of 18 Written comments were received from the owners of 2365 Fairport Road expressing concerns with the requested variance. They believe the proposed dwelling would be the largest along Third Concession Road and would not conform to the average lot size of homes along the street. They noted the property recently changed ownership and the public notice for this information was received less than two weeks from the scheduled Committee of Adjustment date, indicating there is little opportunity to discuss the proposal with neighbours or the Committee due to COVID-19 restrictions. Written comments were received from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) stating that an amendment to the MZO is required for the subject proposal. No representation was present to discuss the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 09/21 by S. Muthulingam, be Tabled until an amendment to Minister’s Zoning Order 154-03 is obtained through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), or arrangements are made to the satisfaction of the MMAH. Carried 4.8 P/CA 10/21 1329575 Ontario Inc. 1030 Salk Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a trucking terminal and associated outdoor storage, whereas in the By-law a trucking terminal and associated outdoor storage is not listed as a permitted use within the M1 Zone. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize an existing trucking terminal and associated outdoor storage of vehicles on the subject property. 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 comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the drawings that have been provided show two proposed additions to the existing building. However, the applicant has indicated these additions were not constructed and there is no intent to construct them. Engineering Services has reviewed -13- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 14 of 18 this application based on the aforementioned information. Based on the above, we have no comments. Written comments were received from the Ministry of Transportation expressing no concerns with the application. Angela Sciberras, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from Committee Members, Angela Sciberras stated the use has existed since approximately the 1970’s where the current owner had purchased the property around the mid-1980’s. Additionally the previous owner applied for Site Plan approval for an addition to the existing building, however they chose not to move forward with that application. When asked if there are any future plans for restoration and enhancements made to the subject site, Angela Sciberras noted the owner does have an individual interested in potentially purchasing the property and understands it is advisable to replace the fence and enhance the site. At this time there is no intent to change the use of this site, thus a Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Study would not be required. After considering the City’s staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment and listening to the responses made by the agent on behalf of the property owner, and 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 10/21 by 1329575 Ontario Inc., 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 trucking terminal and associated outdoor storage on the subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 10, 2021). Carried -14- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 15 of 18 4.9 P/CA 11/21 Nuteck Homes Ltd. 516 Oakwood Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a minimum side yard depth of 1.0 metre on the northerly side yard, whereas the by-law requires 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate a Land Division application through the Region of Durham’s Land Division Committee. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Felix Chau, Planner I, provided clarification on the proposed road allowance that is illustrated on Exhibit 5 of the P/CA 11/21 Report. He stated the road allowance is not reflective of what is shown on the Official Plan map. The road allowance shown is based on a Pre-Consultation meeting with the applicant that is not before the Committee of Adjustment. The applicant was given a recommendation from the City’s Fire department to include that road allowance as part of a previous application, independent of the Committee of Adjustment. 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 stating to ensure the reduced side yard setback does not adversely affect the drainage patterns of the lot or limit the requirement for a side yard swale with the building permit. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Grant Morris, agent, was present to represent the application. Rene Vince of 512 Oakwood Drive, Michael Bigioni of 520 Oakwood Drive, Istvan Szolocsinszki of 513 Oakwood Drive, Greg and Deborah Carkner of 515 Oakwood Drive, James and Lorie Phair of 522 Oakwood Drive and Chris Can of 458 Oakwood Drive were present in objection to the application. Grant Morris spoke in support of the application stating the owner has a frontage of 30.48 metres on Oakwood Drive with an existing dwelling on that parcel. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and build one dwelling on the northerly property while retaining the balance of the land. The applicant is in the process of working with the City to create a Plan of Subdivision that will be heard by City Council. Neighbours will have an opportunity to speak to the proposed plan of subdivision at that time. Currently P/CA 11/21 is separate from that application. -15- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 16 of 18 Rene Vince, property owner to the south of the subject lands, spoke in opposition to the application stating, it is deemed a corner lot and not currently part of the Master Plan. Michael Bigioni spoke on behalf of Frank and Donna Bigioni of 520 Oakwood Drive which is on the north side of the subject site, and who are in opposition to this application. It is believed that this application is not minor in nature, and does not coincide with the character of the neighbourhood. Additionally, the proposed structure will adversely impact the amount of sunlight that is exposed to their property. Michael Bigioni went on to describe that if the repositioning of the dwelling one-third the distance to the property line is in fact independent of the Plan of Subdivision, there appears to be no merit in the relocation of the existing structure. Greg Carkner resident of 515 Oakwood Drive spoke in opposition to the application stating the information provided to residents in the public notice was misleading and did not provide enough time to review. The report appeared different to the original public notice that did not contain the exhibit showing the proposed road allowance. It is not believed this application conforms to the Official Plan. The intent of the Official Plan is not to have two east-west roads 200 feet apart facing out onto Oakwood Drive. Moreover it is believed that the City of Pickering Engineering Services deems a typical cross-section, to have a minimum of 15.35 metres of road allowance, which the applicant would not have if this road was to be created. The applicant has the required side-yard depth to fulfill the creation of a new dwelling where a minor variance would not be required. This application appears to facilitate the Plan of Subdivision should the proposed road allowance be approved. Deborah Carkner, spouse of Greg Carkner also spoke in opposition to the application, reiterating the concerns noted by her partner. She indicated the application appears to be related to the Plan of Subdivision and corresponding road allowance which is not minor. The Master Plan has guided all previous development and subdivisions including the one submitted by Geranium Homes which has followed the Plan and created a design in keeping with the community. The current land owner of the subject property is land-locked on both sides and is attempting to in-fill. There is much concern for this potential approval setting the precedence for other larger lots in the vicinity to also be approved and create unnecessary networks of streets and inappropriate in-fill. James Phair spoke in opposition to the application stating the subject lands can accommodate the construction of a new dwelling without having to apply for a minor variance application. This request is an eyesore and should not be deemed minor in nature. Furthermore, James Phair indicated the Pickering Official Plan for the Rosebank Neighbourhood, issued in July 2018, has no mention of a road proposed in this location. Chris Cann spoke in opposition to the application stating he does not agree with the City’s recommendation meeting the four tests of the Planning Act. The subject lands can facilitate the construction of a new dwelling without the need for a minor variance. -16- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 17 of 18 The minor variance application has been submitted to accommodate the future road allowance. This application appears to be a major variance and if approved, will adversely impact the whole neighbourhood. Lastly the discrepancies in the road allowances and extensions within the Official Plan map and the Plan of Subdivision associated with this application are concerning. Istvan Szolocsinszki of 513 Oakwood Drive, spoke in opposition to the application stating the approval of this request will cause an increase in traffic that is unsafe to the residents in the neighbourhood. In response to the residents’ concerns Grant Morris stated the Mountain Ash Drive extension into a cul-de-sac was proposed by the City’s Fire Department. He went on to describe that this application is independent of the Plan of Subdivision application. Moreover, extensive steps have been taken to ensure that staff, the Committee and the neighbourhood has not been misled in any way. Grant Morris indicated that this type of minor variance request has been approved in various locations throughout the City, previously. This application is before the Committee of Adjustment to facilitate the creation of a lot with one variance deemed as minor in accordance with the Planning Act. When asked by a Committee Member if this proposal would be better suited through a Master Plan application, Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer stated, the schedule in the Official Plan does attempt to provide a Master Plan in terms of road design. It is understood that recent Pre-Consultations with City staff and the Fire Department has identified that the road extension proposed in the Official Plan exceeds their current maximum road length. Through the Pre-Consultation, there has been some review of looking at the area as a whole. At this time it does not appear that the City Development Department has requested the applicants or adjacent landowners to submit a Master Plan application that this proposal could be assessed against. In response to questions from Committee Members, Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer stated the Official Plan’s explanatory Schedule illustrates Mountain Ash Drive extending southerly to a point that would connect to an east-west road that would be in a similar alignment as Staghorn Road. There is an east-west road shown on Map 11 Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank that connects from Rougemount Drive to Oakwood Drive. No lands have been purchased by the City to facilitate the creation of this. It would be completed through a Subdivision application where the lands would be created and conveyed to the City. It is believed that the City will not be purchasing lands to extend either Mountain Ash Drive or a proposed east-west road. After considering the requested variance, the Report prepared by the City Development Department and reviewing the comments from the neighbours, the overall request does not appear to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: -17- Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 18 of 18 Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 11/21 by Nuteck Homes Ltd., be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Carried 5. Adjournment Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That the 2nd meeting of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:48 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, March 10, 2021. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer -18- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 65/20 Date: March 10, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 65/20 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd. 606 Annland Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to: • recognize a minimum lot frontage of 8.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres; • recognize a minimum lot area of 130 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres; • permit a minimum front yard setback of 0.3 of a metre, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum rear yard setback of 1.7 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum east side yard setback of 0.3 of a metre, and a minimum west side yard setback of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres on one side, 2.4 metres on the other side; • permit a maximum lot coverage of 52.5 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • permit an uncovered platform (front porch) not projecting more than 6.9 metres into the required front yard, 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; and • recognize a vehicle parked in the rear yard to be setback a minimum 0.3 of a metre from the rear lot line and 0.0 metres from the east side lot line, whereas the By-law requires in any Residential Zone, vehicles parked in a side or rear yard be setback a minimum 1.0 metre from the nearest lot line. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. -19- Report P/CA 65/20 March 10, 2021 Page 2 Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). Background December 9, 2020 Committee of Adjustment Meeting The Committee of Adjustment tabled this application at the December 9, 2020 Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow the applicant to consider design elements that address the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The original proposal included a 3-storey, flat roof dwelling, with rear wall windows at all three floors. The revised proposal includes a 3-storey dwelling with a combination of a flat and gable roof, with rear wall windows at the first and second-floors only. The revised proposal also reduces the size of the windows along the west side wall, and reduces the size of the roof terrace. February 10, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting At the February 10, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting, the Committee deferred this application to the March 10, 2021 Meeting to allow the applicant to revise the submitted site plan to include a 5.0 metre radius corner rounding at the intersection of Annland Street and Pleasant Street. The submitted site plan now includes a conveyance of a corner rounding to the City of Pickering (see Exhibit 2). The conveyance of the corner rounding altered the requested variances to lot coverage and front yard setback. Existing Conditions The subject property and existing dwelling do not conform to the zoning provisions in the By-law. For the property and existing dwelling to conform to the By-law, variances would be required for lot area, lot frontage, front, rear and side yard setbacks, lot coverage, and vehicle parking. Encroachment Agreement There appears to be a registered Encroachment Agreement (V9705) on title with the subject property, as the existing dwelling is located beyond the east property boundary and encroaches onto a City-owned right of way. -20- Report P/CA 65/20 March 10, 2021 Page 3 Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. City Council has recently endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which provides direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. In addition, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts to support and enhance neighbourhood precinct characteristics. City staff are preparing an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to implement the recommendations of the Study to help ensure that the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood precinct character. Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. Staff recognize that development on the subject site is greatly restricted as a result of the existing size of the lot. Staff also acknowledge that the applicant has revised the proposed dwelling to comply with the Guidelines to the best of their ability, despite the limitations of the lot (including revisions to the roof pitch, maintaining the established front and rear yard setbacks of dwellings along Annland Street, and increasing the depth of the east side yard setback). 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 size of the lot, the existing dwelling and any replacement dwelling on the subject site would require variances to lot frontage, lot area, front, rear and side yard setbacks, lot coverage, and vehicle parking. Lot Frontage & Area Variances 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. The requested variances are to recognize a minimum lot frontage of 8.6 metres and a minimum lot area of 130 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres and a minimum lot area of 460 square metres. The intent of these provisions is to ensure a useable lot size that is compatible with the neighbourhood. -21- Report P/CA 65/20 March 10, 2021 Page 4 The existing lot frontages along Annland Street range between approximately 8.0 metres and 8.5 metres. The existing lots to the west of the subject property have lot areas of 134 and 211 square metres. The size of the subject property is consistent with the existing lotting pattern established along Annland Street, and allows for the construction of a detached dwelling that is appropriate relative to the size of the lot. Front & Rear Yard Variances These requested variances are to permit a minimum front yard setback of 0.3 metres and a minimum rear yard setback of 1.7 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front and rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. Due to the conveyance of a corner rounding, the requested variance to the front yard was reduced from 1.3 metres setback to 0.3 metres setback. Nonetheless, the proposed dwelling will still appear to be setback 1.3 metres from the front property line, which is similar to the other dwellings along Annland Street. The proposed front and rear yard setbacks are similar to the existing setbacks currently on the lot. 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 maintain a consistent lotting pattern with abutting properties to mitigate views and privacy concerns. The size of the lot greatly restricts the allowable size of the front yard setback. Nonetheless, the proposed dwelling is situated in line with the dwellings along Annland Street. The two abutting properties to the west have a front yard setback of approximately 2.9 and 3.7 metres, whereas the existing dwelling is setback approximately 2.3 metres. The proposed front yard setback is appropriate relative to the size of the lot and is not anticipated to diminish views or privacy. The intent of the rear yard setback is to ensure useable amenity space is provided in the rear yard. Due to the size of the lot, the rear yard setback is significantly restricted. To rectify this issue, the applicant is proposing a roof terrace, which will provide sufficient amenity space for the property. The abutting property owner to the north submitted comments to the Committee to be considered at the December 9, 2020 Committee of Adjustment meeting. The resident indicated concerns with the proposed rear yard setback, as the proposed dwelling would tower over the resident’s side yard. In response to the comments received, the applicant has revised the roof pitch to slope towards the north property line, with a height of 8.84 metres. This design is in keeping with the dwelling to the north, which was recently approved through a minor variance application (P/CA 59/20) to permit a 2-storey dwelling with a sloped roof and an approximate height of 7.5 metres. This revision also addresses other comments received from the property owners to the north and west, regarding concerns with the roof terrace overlooking the residents’ yards. The revised roof combines a flat and gable roof design, which eliminates the terrace along the north side of the dwelling and reduces the size of the terrace along the west side of the dwelling (see Exhibits 4 & 6). The neighbour to the north also had concerns with the number of windows proposed at the rear of the dwelling that will look into the resident’s home. The original proposal had two windows proposed at each the first, second and third-floors. In response to the comments received, the applicant revised the dwelling to have two windows proposed at each the first and second-floors only, and no windows proposed at the third-floor (see Exhibit 4). -22- Report P/CA 65/20 March 10, 2021 Page 5 This design is in keeping with the dwelling to the north, which was approved through the minor variance application with three windows at the first-floor and one window at the second-floor at the south side of the dwelling. East & West Side Yard Variances These requested variances are to permit a minimum east side yard setback of 0.3 metres, and a minimum west side yard setback of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres on one side, and 2.4 metres on the other side. The intent of this provision is to accommodate drainage and to provide sufficient room for maintenance of the dwelling. The subject property is a corner lot with no abutting structures to the east. As such, no issues with drainage or the maintenance of the dwelling are anticipated. Further, the existing dwelling is located beyond the east property boundary and encroaches onto City owned property. The proposed dwelling provides an east side yard setback of 0.3 metres, which will rectify this issue. The proposed dwelling and abutting dwelling to the west are both setback 1.3 metres from the shared west property line. In total, the dwellings are setback 2.6 metres from each other. There is sufficient room between the structures on the abutting properties to accommodate drainage and for the maintenance of each dwelling. During the December 9, 2020 Committee of Adjustment meeting, comments were received from the abutting property owner to the west in regards to privacy concerns. In response to the comments received, the applicant has reduced the size of the windows along the west side wall to help mitigate privacy concerns. The applicant has also indicated that the existing trees that border the shared west property line will be preserved to maintain privacy. Lot Coverage Variance The proposed dwelling accounts for a lot coverage of 52.5 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The intent of this provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (amenity area) uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of the building. Due to the conveyance of a corner rounding, the requested variance to lot coverage was increased from 52 percent to 52.5 percent. The proposed roof terrace will provide sufficient amenity space for the property. Considering the small size of the lot, staff consider the size of the proposed dwelling to be appropriate, and the proposed building footprint to be in keeping with the footprint of the existing dwelling (the existing dwelling without the conveyance of a corner rounding has an approximate lot coverage of 50 percent, whereas the proposed dwelling has a lot coverage of 52.5 percent). An increase in lot coverage from the permitted maximum would be required for any replacement dwelling in order to achieve a desirable, usable floor area. Additionally, as stated in Engineering staff’s comments (see Input from Other Sources), consideration for rain harvesting or other low impact development measures will be made at the building permit stage for any increase in the imperviousness of the lot surface. -23- Report P/CA 65/20 March 10, 2021 Page 6 Front Porch Projection Variance The proposed front porch connects to the main entrance of the detached dwelling and projects 6.9 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits platforms not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard. The intent of this provision is to ensure adequate buffer space is provided between buildings and street activity, and to provide an adequate landscaped area within the front yard. The proposed dwelling is situated in line with the dwellings along Annland Street, and is setback appropriately relative to the size of the lot. The porch and associated steps are required to provide access to the main entrance of the dwelling. Considering the size of the lot, opportunities for landscaping are limited; however, the applicant has indicated that grass will be planted at the front of the property. The applicant has also indicated that the existing trees along the west property boundary will be preserved. Vehicle Parking Variance The existing parking space to remain is located in the rear yard and is setback 0.3 metres from the rear lot line and 0.0 metres from the east side lot line, whereas the By-law requires vehicles parked in the rear yard be setback a minimum 1.0 metre from the nearest lot line. The intent of this provision is to ensure a vehicle is not parked adjacent to a neighbouring backyard. While the existing parking space is situated in the rear yard of the subject property, it is located adjacent to the front and side yard of the abutting property to the north. A driveway located within/adjacent to a front and side yard is common along Annland and Pleasant Street. Due to the size of the lot, there are no other options on the lot for a vehicle to be parked. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The variances to lot area, lot frontage, and vehicle parking are existing conditions that have existed prior to the passing of By-law 2511. Staff acknowledge that the applicant has aimed to comply with the general intent and purpose of the zoning provisions, despite the limitations of the lot. Given the size of the lot, staff consider the requested variances to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Additionally, due to the lot size, any replacement dwelling on the subject site would require these variances. As such, staff consider the requested variances to be minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit the construction of a detached dwelling are desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. -24- Report P/CA 65/20 March 10, 2021 Page 7 Input From Other Sources Date of report: March 4, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 65-20\7. Report\PCA 65-20 Report - March 10.docx Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist Exhibits Building Services • No concerns from Building Services. Engineering Services • Ensure reduced front/side/rear yard depth and additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Property Owner of 661 Front Road • The proposed dwelling is too large for the size of the lot. While there are circumstances in which variances benefit neighbourhoods and property owners, this project is beyond the scope of the lot it is being built on. • Do not wish to discourage new construction; however, has lived in the neighbourhood for a long time and wishes to see it progress in a manner that is respectful to its fellow residents. • There is a lot of new construction in the City of Pickering, both currently and recently finished, that has overall enhanced the beauty and character of the neighbourhood. Hopes to see the same from 606 Annland, however its current proposal is not in line with the overall enhancement of the neighbourhood. -25- Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1. Does the proposed dwelling have a sloped roof proposed such as a Hip, Gable, Mansard or Gambrel? (see Figure 5) The applicant is proposing a combination of a flat and gable roof. The surrounding dwellings have hip and gable roofs, while the dwelling to the east has a flat roof. The proposed dwelling is consistent with the established streetscape. X 2. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) The flat and gable roof combination allows for a roof pitch that is compatible with surrounding dwellings, while also providing amenity space through the roof terrace. The proposed 3-storey dwelling has a height of 8.84 metres. The dwelling to the north was recently approved through a minor variance application (P/CA 59/20) to permit a 2-storey dwelling with an approximate height of 7.5 metres. To the west are 1-storey dwellings and to the east is a 3-storey dwelling. X 3. For dwellings with a height greater than 8.5 metres – is the dwelling a maximum two storeys with a sloped roof back from the adjacent dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) The size of the lot demands a 3-storey dwelling in order to achieve a desirable, usable floor area. The revised proposal includes a sloped roof. X 4. Does the front entrance have 6 or less steps? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) -26- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 5.Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 6.Is the design of the main entrance consistent with the architectural style of the dwelling? (Section 2.2: Guidelines 3 and 4) X 7.Does the main entrance include a porch, portico or other weather protection in keeping with the design of the dwelling? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 4) X 8.Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) 9.Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (Section 2.2: Guideline 9) Not applicable; a garage is not proposed. X 10.Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) X 11.Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) X 12.Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) The size of the lot greatly restricts the allowable size of the yard setbacks. The existing dwelling and any replacement dwelling would require variances to all setbacks. Nonetheless, the proposed dwelling provides as large of setbacks as possible given the lot restrictions. 13.If a projecting garage is permitted, does it have a sloped roof? (see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) Not applicable; a garage is not proposed. -27- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 3 Yes No Comments 14.If a double car garage is proposed, does it have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) Not applicable; a garage is not proposed. 15.Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) Not applicable; a garage is not proposed. 16.Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) Not applicable; a garage is not proposed. 17.Are sustainable design features or resilient landscaping proposed as part of the site design? (Section 3.3: Guideline 2 and Section 4.1: Guideline 5) To be addressed at building permit stage. X 18.Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1)The applicant has indicated that the existing trees along the west property boundary will be preserved. X 19.Does the plan include tree planting on private property? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) Given the small size of the lot, additional trees (excluding existing trees) are not proposed to be planted. 20.Does the plan include one or more native species street trees? (Section 4.2)Unknown. -28- Broadview Street Annland Street Commerce Street Wharf Street Liverpool RoadF r o n t R o a d Pleasant StreetProgressFrenchman'sBay East Park © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 65/20 Date: Oct. 27, 2020 Exhibit 1 ¯ 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd.Part of Lot 12, Block E, Plan 65(606 Annland Street) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 65-20 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd\PCA65-20_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.E-29- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 65/20 Applicant: 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd. Property Description: Part of Lot 12, Block E, Plan 65 (606 Annland Street) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Feb 19, 2020 Area of Proposed Dwelling to permit an uncovered platform (front porch) not projecting more than 6.9 metres into the required front yard to permit a minimum front yard setback of 0.3 of a metre to permit a maximum lot coverage of 52.5 percent to permit a minimum east side yard setback of 0.3 of a metre to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 1.7 metres to permit a minimum west side yard setback of 1.3 metres to permit a minimum lot area of 130 square metres to permit a minimum lot frontage of 8.6 metres to permit a vehicle parked in the rear yard to be setback a minimum 0.3 metres from the rear lot line and 0.0 metres from the east side lot line -30- Exhibit 3 Submitted Front Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 65/20 Applicant: 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd. Property Description: Part of Lot 12, Block E, Plan 65 (606 Annland Street) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jan 21, 2021 -31- Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 65/20 Applicant: 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd. Property Description: Part of Lot 12, Block E, Plan 65 (606 Annland Street) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jan 21, 2021 6.26 m -32- Exhibit 5 Submitted East Side Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 65/20 Applicant: 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd. Property Description: Part of Lot 12, Block E, Plan 65 (606 Annland Street) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jan 21, 2020 8.52 m 8.52 m 10.53 m -33- Exhibit 6 Submitted West Side Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 65/20 Applicant: 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd. Property Description: Part of Lot 12, Block E, Plan 65 (606 Annland Street) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jan 21, 2020 9.91 m 8.84 m to permit an uncovered platform (front porch) not projecting more than 6.9 metres into the required front yard -34- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 12/21 Date: March 10, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 12/21 K. & T. Acciaccaferri 4975 Sideline 20 Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06 to permit a maximum height of 4.7 metres for an accessory building in a residential zone, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to recognize an accessory building (cabana). Recommendation The City Development Department recommends that Minor Variance Application P/CA 12/21 be Deferred to be recirculated with the appropriate elevation drawings (Exhibit 3). Background The applicant constructed two accessory buildings (a cabana and a pavilion) prior to obtaining the appropriate building permits from the Building Services Department. Subsequently, the applicant submitted building permit applications to recognize both accessory buildings. In the review of the building permit applications, it was determined that the cabana exceeded the 3.5 metre height maximum for accessory buildings in residential zones. The pavilion structure meets all zoning parameters and is not the subject of this application. The applicant applied for the current minor variance application seeking relief to the height maximum. In submitting this application, the elevation drawings for the pavilion were submitted and circulated, rather than the elevations for the cabana. As a result, Staff are recommending deferral of this application so that the appropriate elevation drawings for the cabana can be circulated. Date of report: March 3, 2021 -35- Report P/CA 12/21 March 10, 2021 Page 2 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:jc \\FS\CSDC\Amanda\docs\templates\CA\programmed\CA Report.doc Attachments -36- Sideline 20AcornLaneCarpenter CourtNinth Concession Road Kodiak Street Central Street © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 12/21 Date: Feb. 12, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EK. & T. AcciaccaferriPt Lot 20, Con 8 Now Pt 4 and 5, 40R-18856(4975 Sideline 20) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 12-21 K. & T. Acciaccaferri\PCA12-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.-37- Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 12/21 Applicant: K. & T. Acciaccaferri Property Description: Pt Lot 20, Con 8 Now Pt 4 and 5, 40R-18856 (4975 Sideline 20) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Feb. 22, 2021 to permit a maximum height of 4.7 metres for an accessory building -38- Exhibit 3 Submitted Elevations File No: P/CA 12/21 Applicant: K. & T. Acciaccaferri Property Description: Pt Lot 20, Con 8 Now Pt 4 and 5, 40R-18856 (4975 Sideline 20) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Feb. 22, 2021 -39- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 13/21 Date: March 10, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 13/21 C. & C. Florea 2017 Bloomfield Court Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 5632/00 to permit a minimum north flankage side yard width of 1.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum flankage side yard width of 2.7 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an attached private garage. 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 attached private garage, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). Background There is an existing attached garage located on the south side of the dwelling. The existing garage has a single-car garage door and accounts for one parking space. The proposed attached garage is located on the north side of the dwelling and is proposed to have garage doors at the front and rear of the structure. The proposed garage is not large enough to park a vehicle and will be used for storage purposes only. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. -40- Report P/CA 13/21 March 10, 2021 Page 2 The subject property is not located within one of the established Neighbourhood Precincts in which the Urban Design Guidelines for the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study applies. The subject site is zoned S5-1 within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 5632/00. A minimum of one attached private garage per lot is required within the S5-1 Zone. The proposed attached garage allows for a north flankage side yard width of 1.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum flankage side yard width of 2.7 metres. The intent of this provision is to provide an adequate separation distance between buildings and street activity in the flankage side yard, and to provide an adequate landscaped area. The lot has an existing fence located along the rear lot line, the north flankage lot line and at the north side of the dwelling along the front yard. The proposed garage would be located 1.0 metres from the fence along the north flankage lot line and behind the fence in the front yard. The proposed structure is 2.75 metres from grade to the top of the roof, whereas the applicant has indicated that the fence is approximately 2.4 metres high. The majority of the proposed structure would be hidden behind the fence and not visible from the street. The proposed structure would be located sufficient distance from the Canada Post mailboxes located on City-owned property adjacent to the north flankage lot line. There are also four trees located on the City-owned property adjacent to the north flankage lot line, which provides sufficient area for landscaping. The trees will also help to minimize the view of the garage from the street. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed garage will provide the applicant with an area to store outdoor equipment within an enclosed structure. Due to the existing fence and landscaping abutting the north flankage lot line, the view of the garage will be minimal from the street. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit the construction of an attached private garage 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 Engineering Services It appears the existing driveway has been significantly widened, more than doubling the impervious surface, generating more run-off. The proposed private garage would further increase the run-off, and therefore Low Impact Development measures must be provided at the Building Permit stage. Building Services No concerns. -41- Report P/CA 13/21 March 10, 2021 Page 3 Date of report: March 4, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 13-21 C. & C. Florea\7. Report\PCA 13-21 Report.doc Attachments -42- Parkdale Street Rosefield RoadF i eldlight Boulevard Finch Avenue ValleyFarmRoadCornellCourtLi n wo o d StreetLodge Road P oppy Lane WildwoodCrescent BloomfieldCou rt Valley FarmRavine BeverleyMorgan Park © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 13/21 Date: Feb. 12, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EC. & C. FloreaLot 26, Plan 40M-2002(2017 Bloomfield Court) HydroLands SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 13-21 C. & C. Florea\PCA13-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. HydroLands -43- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 13/21 Applicant: C. & C. Florea Property Description: Lot 26, Plan 40M-2002 (2017 Bloomfield Court) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Feb 17, 2021 BLOOMFIELD COURT Existing Dwelling Proposed Attached Garage (2.75 m height) 5.5 m 2.4 m 1.23 m Existing Attached Garage to Remain 1.0 m 6.0 m 3.44 m 8.64 m BLOOMFIELD COURT North Property Line (Fence) to permit a minimum north flankage side yard width of 1.0 metre -44- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 14/21 Date: March 10, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 14/21 D. & T. Leue 1447 Rougemount Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88 to permit: • a covered deck not exceeding 9.2 metres in height above grade, whereas the by-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metres 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 of a metre in any required side yard; • a minimum front yard depth of 7.7 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 15.0 metres; and • a maximum building height of 9.6 metres, whereas the by-law requires a maximum building height of 9.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to construct a new detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed new detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. -45- Report P/CA 14/21 March 10, 2021 Page 2 The primary built form in this neighbourhood is detached dwellings on large lots. The neighbourhood policies encourage, where possible, new development along Rougemount Drive to be compatible with the character of existing development. City Council has endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which provides direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. In addition, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts to support and enhance neighbourhood precinct characteristics. City staff are preparing an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to implement the recommendations of the Study to help ensure that the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood precinct character. Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix 1 to this report. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law and is Appropriate Development of the Land The western portion (front) of the site is zoned R3 – Residential and the rear of the property is zoned G – Greenbelt in Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88. A detached dwelling is permitted within the lands zoned R3. Buildings and structures related to recreational uses are permitted within the G Zone. The site-specific By-law 2912/88 increased the minimum front yard depth for lots along Rougemount Drive from 7.5 metres to 15 metres. In the past, the subject property and other lots along Rougemount Drive have received variances to reduce the front yard setback. The request to reduce the front yard setback to 7.7 metres will result in a consistent streetscape along Rouegmount, therefore staff support the requested reduction. The property has a significant grade difference from the front lot line to the rear lot line. The grade of the lot is higher at the street and slopes down towards the Petticoat Creek. The applicant has worked with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to stake the dripline and identify the limits of development (as identified on Exhibit 2 to this Report). Due to the significant grade difference, the height of the dwelling is greater at the rear of the lot. As such, the applicant requires variances to the maximum height provisions for a detached dwelling and deck within the rear yard. In addition the height of the proposed deck will not cause privacy issues for adjacent dwelling to the north, as there is a landscape buffer comprised of mature trees along the north side lot line. Staff believe the increased height is appropriate since the property backs onto the creek and the increased height will not cause privacy issues for neighbouring dwelling. -46- Report P/CA 14/21 March 10, 2021 Page 3 Minor in Nature Since the applicant’s requested variances are due to the significant change in grade from the front lot line to the rear lot line and the proposed development will have no negative impact on the streetscape along Rougemount Drive and will not create privacy issues for the neighbouring dwellings, staff are of the opinion that the requested variances are minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit a new detached dwelling are desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • Ensure additional percentage of lot coverage due to the covered deck and reduced front yard depth does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services • No comments Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • TRCA staff have reviewed the requested variances and have no objections. The applicant will be required to obtain a TRCA permit for the proposed new dwelling. Date of report: March 4, 2021 Comments prepared by: Tanjot Bal, MCIP, RPP Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration TB:DW:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 14-21\7. Report\PCA 14-21 Report.doc Appendix A Urban Design Guidelines Checklist Exhibits -47- Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1. Does the proposed dwelling have a sloped roof proposed such as a Hip, Gable, Mansard or Gambrel? (see Figure 5) The applicant is proposing a mansard roof (see Exhibit 3). X 2. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) Yes X 3. For dwellings with a height greater than 8.5 metres – is the dwelling a maximum two storeys with a sloped roof back from the adjacent dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) Yes the roof slopes away from adjacent dwellings X 4. Does the front entrance have 6 or less steps? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) Propose three steps X 5. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) The front entrance has enhanced architectural design, making it visible from the street. X 6. Is the design of the main entrance consistent with the architectural style of the dwelling? (Section 2.2: Guidelines 3 and 4) Yes X 7. Does the main entrance include a porch, portico or other weather protection in keeping with the design of the dwelling? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 4) The applicant is proposing a portico. X 8. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) The front stairs are designed to enhance the entrance and front façade. -48- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 9. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (Section 2.2: Guideline 9) Yes, the entrance projects from the rest of the main front wall. X 10. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) Yes X 11. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) Yes and is consistent with the required setbacks within the Zoning By-law. X 12. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) Yes 13. If a projecting garage is permitted, does it have a sloped roof? (see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) N/A X 14. If a double car garage is proposed, does it have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) The garage has been designed as 2 single doors separated by a slight setback from the front lot line. X 15. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) The 2 garages are setback from the front entrance of the dwelling. X 16. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) Yes. 17. Are sustainable design features or resilient landscaping proposed as part of the site design? (Section 3.3: Guideline 2 and Section 4.1: Guideline 5) N/A X 18. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) Propose to protect existing mature trees on or in front of the lot. 19. Does the plan include tree planting on private property? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) N/A 20. Does the plan include one or more native species street trees? (Section 4.2) N/A -49- Altona RoadDalewood Drive Fiddlers CourtTomlinson Court Old Forest RoadSheppard Avenue Hi ghbushTr a il Rougemount DriveEast Woodlands Park South PetticoatRavine SouthPetticoatRavine South Petticoat Ravine Elizabeth B.Phin PublicSchool © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 14/21 Date: Feb. 12, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯ED. & T. Leue Pt Lot 29, Plan 228(1447 Rougemount Drive) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 14-21 D. & T. Leue\PCA14-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.-50- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 14/21 Applicant: D. & T. Leue Property Description: Pt Lot 29, Plan 228 (1447 Rougemount Drive) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Feb. 12, 2021 to permit a minimum front yard depth of 7.7 metres -51- Exhibit 3 Elevation of Proposed Dwelling File No: P/CA 14/21 Applicant: D. & T. Leue Property Description: Pt Lot 29, Plan 228 (1447 Rougemount Drive) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Feb. 12, 2021 to permit a maximum building height of 9.6 metres -52- Exhibit 4 Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 14/21 Applicant: D. & T. Leue Property Description: Pt Lot 29, Plan 228 (1447 Rougemount Drive) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT to permit a covered deck not exceeding 9.2 metres in height above grade -53- Exhibit 5 North Side Elevation File No: P/CA 14/21 Applicant: D. & T. Leue Property Description: Pt Lot 29, Plan 228 (1447 Rougemount Drive) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT -54- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 15/21 Date: March 10, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 15/21 L. & L. Taylor 472 Churchwin Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2677/88 to permit: • a maximum height of 4.6 metres for an accessory building in a residential zone, whereas the By-law requires a maximum height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone; • an accessory building to be erected 4.1 metres from the flankage lot line, whereas the By-law requires on corner lots that no part of any accessory building detached from the main building be erected closer to the lot line of the flanking street than the required front yard of the abutting lot on the flanking street (15.0 metres). The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to construct an accessory building (detached garage). 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 accessory building (detached garage), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). 2. That no human habitation be permitted within the accessory building (detached garage), as confirmed through the issuance of a building permit. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates this property as Rural Settlements – Rural Hamlets within the Settlement of Whitevale. This designation permits a variety of uses including residential, employment, commercial, community, cultural and recreational uses. Within Schedule IV – 2: Settlement 2: Whitevale of the Official Plan, the subject property is designated Hamlet Residential. Residential uses are permitted within this designation. -55- Report P/CA 15/21 March 10, 2021 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned HMR3 as per Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2677/88. Maximum accessory building height variance The intent of the maximum accessory building height provision of 3.5 metres is to minimize the visual impact of accessory buildings on abutting properties and on the streetscape. The proposed accessory building is located at the end of an existing cul-de-sac. The detached garage will be visible from the street, however it will not adversely impact any abutting properties. The subject property is the only property along the east side of Gladstone Street, and will not negatively impact the streetscape. Flankage yard setback variance The intent of the flankage yard setback requirement is to provide an adequate separation distance between buildings and street activity in the flankage yard, and to provide an adequate landscaped area on the lot. Section 5.21 (Corner Lots) of Zoning By-law 3037 establishes that no part of any accessory building shall be erected closer to the lot line of the flanking street than the required front yard of the abutting lot on the flanking street. The abutting lot on the flanking street is a 117.2 hectare property owned by Infrastructure Ontario. The property is zoned Rural Agricultural - A as per Zoning By-law 3037, with parts of the property zoned Pit and Quarry – Q and Greenbelt Conservation - G. In consultation with zoning staff, the required front yard setback of 15.0 metres from the A zone was established as the required flankage yard setback. The proposed garage is setback 4.1 metres from the flankage lot line. The garage doors will face Gladstone Street and will be accessed by a driveway from the Gladstone Street cul-de-sac. As a result, a 4.1 metre setback provides an adequate separation distance between buildings and street activities. Adequate landscaped area will be maintained on the lot. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed detached garage will provide an appropriate parking area on the lot. The increased height of the detached structure is to facilitate a storage area on the second floor of the detached garage. No human habitation is permitted within the detached garage. For this reason, the proposed detached garage is appropriate development of the land. The accessory building is isolated from all other residential buildings and therefore, the proposed variances are minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances 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. -56- Report P/CA 15/21 March 10, 2021 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Engineering Services Ensure locating the proposed garage closer to the lot line of the flanking street does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot, or increase the volume of water draining to the Gladstone Street right-of-way. Consideration for Low Impact Development (LID) measures should be made at the Building Permit Stage. Restoration on a minimum of 450mm topsoil will be required, which is to be addressed with the building permit. Building Services No concerns. Heritage No comments submitted as of the preparation of this report. Date of report: March 3, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:jc \\FS\CSDC\Amanda\docs\templates\CA\programmed\CA Report.doc Attachments -57- GladstoneStreetWhitevale RoadMillStreet North RoadCh u rchwin Street Factory StreetGolf Club RoadWhitevalePark © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 15/21 Date: Feb. 12, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EL. & L. TaylorLot 72, Plan 21(472 Churchwin Street) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 15-21 L. & L. Taylor\PCA15-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.-58- Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 15/21 Applicant: L. & L. Taylor Property Description: Lot 72, Plan 21 (472 Churchwin Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Feb. 22, 2021 to permit a maximum height of 4.6 metres for an accessory building to permit an accessory building to be erected 4.1 metres from the flankage lot line -59- Exhibit 3 Submitted Elevations File No: P/CA 15/20 Applicant: L. & L. Taylor Property Description: Lot 72, Plan 21 (472 Churchwin Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Feb. 22, 2021 -60- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 16/21 Date: March 10, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 16/21 J. & J. Gray 819 Fairview Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 to: • recognize a minimum lot frontage of 7.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres; • recognize a minimum lot area of 295 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres; • permit a minimum rear yard of 5.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres and a minimum south side yard of 0.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres; • permit a maximum building height of 9.5 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 9.0 metres; • permit a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • permit covered steps and a platform (front porch) not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metres into any required side yard; and • permit a chimney breast not projecting more than 0.6 of a metre into the required north side yard, whereas the By-law states no person shall obstruct in any manner whatsoever any front yard, side yard or rear yard required to be provided by this By-law, but this provision shall not apply to chimney breasts not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into the required yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. -61- Report P/CA 16/21 March 10, 2021 Page 2 Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). Background Existing Conditions The subject property and existing dwelling do not conform to the zoning provisions in the By-law. For the property and existing dwelling to conform to the By-law, variances would be required for lot area, lot frontage, front and side yard setbacks, lot coverage, and projection of the front porch. Previous Application Minor Variance Application P/CA 08/91 was approved in 1991 for the subject property, to permit the existing lot frontage and lot area, as well as a number of other variances associated with the existing dwelling. A condition of the approval was that a building permit be obtained within two years of the final and binding date of the decision or the decision become null and void. Staff are unable to confirm if a building permit was obtained for the proposed work within the imposed timeframe to satisfy the condition of approval. Potential Encroachment Based on a survey provided by the applicant, the existing front porch on the property appears to be located beyond the front lot line and is encroaching onto a City-owned right of way. There does not appear to be a registered Encroachment Agreement on title. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. City Council has recently endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which provides direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. -62- Report P/CA 16/21 March 10, 2021 Page 3 In addition, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts to support and enhance neighbourhood precinct characteristics. City staff are preparing an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to implement the recommendations of the Study to help ensure that the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood precinct character. Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. 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 narrowness of the lot, the existing dwelling and any replacement dwelling on the subject site would require variances to lot frontage, lot area, side yard setbacks, and lot coverage. Lot Frontage & Area Variances The requested variances are to recognize a minimum lot frontage of 7.6 metres and a minimum lot area of 295 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres and a minimum lot area of 460 square metres. The intent of these provisions is to ensure a useable lot size that is compatible with the neighbourhood. The existing lot frontages along Fairview Avenue vary significantly, ranging between 7.0 and 23.0 metres. The existing lot to the south of the subject property has a lot frontage of 7.6 metres and a lot area of 296 square metres. The size of the subject property is in keeping with the varied lot pattern established along Fairview Avenue, and allows for the construction of a detached dwelling that is appropriate relative to the size of the lot. Rear Yard Variance The requested variance is to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 5.6 metres for a basement walkout, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. The intent of the rear yard setback is to ensure useable amenity space is provided in the rear yard. Though the basement walkout is located 5.6 metres from the rear lot line, the dwelling and rear ground-floor deck are located 8.11 metres from the rear lot line. This exceeds the required rear yard setback of 7.5 metres and provides for sufficient amenity space. Side Yard Variances The requested variances are to permit a minimum south side yard setback of 0.6 metres, and a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. The intent of this provision is to accommodate drainage and to provide sufficient room for maintenance of the dwelling. -63- Report P/CA 16/21 March 10, 2021 Page 4 The subject property is greatly constrained for building on the lot due to the narrowness of the site. In order to achieve a reasonable ground floor area and to provide a parking space in the garage, the side yard setbacks are required to be reduced. The abutting dwelling to the south is setback 0.8 metres from the shared side property line, which was approved through a minor variance application in 2012. The landowner to the south has stated they have no objections to the proposal (see Input from Other Sources). Additionally, the existing dwelling on the subject property is setback a minimum of 0.35 metres from the south side lot line. The proposed dwelling is therefore improving an existing situation of a reduced south side yard. The abutting dwelling to the north is setback 2.2 metres from the shared side property line. In total, the proposed dwelling and the dwelling to the north are setback 3.4 metres from each other. There is sufficient room between the structures on the abutting properties to accommodate drainage and for the maintenance of each dwelling. Height Variance The requested variance is to permit a maximum building height of 9.5 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 9.0 metres. The intent of this provision is to minimize the visual impact of new buildings on the existing streetscape and to ensure new development is compatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood. The proposed dwelling has a combination of a gabled and flat roof (the flat roof is required for the proposed roof terrace). Within By-law 2511, building height is measured as the vertical distance between the average grade and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a gabled roof, the mean height level between eaves and ridge. The gabled roof measures 8.87 metres, whereas the flat roof measures 9.5 metres. As such, the requested height variance is to permit the roof terrace. To mitigate concerns with privacy and the proposed roof terrace, the applicant has: • setback the dwelling significantly from the front and rear lot lines; • located the roof terrace at the front of the dwelling only, to ensure no overlook onto neighbouring rear yards; and • provided structural barriers at the front, rear and sides of the roof terrace, to further mitigate overlook. The dwellings along Fairview Avenue range between 1 and 3-storeys. Additionally, the abutting dwelling to the south of the subject property is 9.2 metres in height. The proposed dwelling is considered to be in-keeping with the surrounding residential neighbourhood. Lot Coverage Variance The proposed dwelling accounts for a lot coverage of 45 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The intent of this provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (amenity area) uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of the building. -64- Report P/CA 16/21 March 10, 2021 Page 5 The proposed dwelling allows for a large rear yard that exceeds the minimum required rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. Considering the small size of the lot, staff consider the size of the proposed dwelling to be appropriate, and the proposed building footprint to be in keeping with the footprint of existing dwellings along Fairview Avenue. Front Porch Variance The requested variance is to permit a front porch projecting not more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits only uncovered steps/platforms to project 1.5 metres into the front yard. The proposed covered front porch provides weather protection at the main entrance of the dwelling and is in keeping with the intent of the By-law. Chimney Brest Variance The requested variance is to permit a chimney breast to project 0.6 metres into the required north side yard, whereas the By-law permits chimney breasts to project 0.5 metres. The chimney breast is projecting an additional 0.1 metres into the north side yard as a result of the reduced north side yard setback of 1.2 metres. The proposed setback still allows for drainage and for the maintenance of the dwelling. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The variances to lot area and lot frontage are existing conditions that have existed prior to the passing of By-law 2511. Staff acknowledge that the applicant has aimed to comply with the general intent and purpose of the zoning provisions, despite the constraints of the lot. Given the size of the lot, staff consider the requested variances to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Additionally, due to the narrowness of the lot, any replacement dwelling on the subject site would require these variances. Staff consider the requested variances to be minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit the construction of a detached dwelling are desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services Ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services No concerns from Building Services. -65- Report P/CA 16/21 March 10, 2021 Page 6 Abutting property owner to the south (817 Fairview Avenue) In support of the application and agreeable with the plans for the project. Built a new home on 817 Fairview Avenue in the recent past. The previous dwelling at 817 Fairview Avenue is similar to what currently exists on 819 Fairview Avenue. It is difficult and uncomfortable to raise a family in a home without a basement, as these dwellings were built as cottages in the 1920s. There are several new homes on the street and the proposed dwelling appears to be consistent with the new emerging aesthetic. Neighbouring property owner to the south (809 Fairview Avenue) In support of the proposal. The variances required are acceptable, minor in nature and necessary for the adequate development of the lot. Neighbouring property owner to the south (811 Fairview Avenue) In support of the proposal. Neighbouring property owner to the south (723 Simpson Avenue) In support of the proposal. Neighbouring property owner to the south (1244A Bayview Street) In support of the proposal. Neighbouring property owner to the north (844 Fairview Avenue) Building on this lot comes with unique challenges that, in times, requires variances to design a home that meets the needs of the current family lifestyle and to invest into a community. This project brings value to the community, while maintaining respect for area guidelines and building restrictions such as height and lot usage. This home will cause no undue concerns for the community and will be a great addition to the area. -66- Report P/CA 16/21 March 10, 2021 Page 7 Date of report: March 4, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 16-21\7. Report \PCA 16-21 Report.doc Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist Exhibits -67- Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1. Does the proposed dwelling have a sloped roof proposed such as a Hip, Gable, Mansard or Gambrel? (see Figure 5) X 2. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) X 3. For dwellings with a height greater than 8.5 metres – is the dwelling a maximum two storeys with a sloped roof back from the adjacent dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) X 4. Does the front entrance have 6 or less steps? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) X 5. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 6. Is the design of the main entrance consistent with the architectural style of the dwelling? (Section 2.2: Guidelines 3 and 4) X 7. Does the main entrance include a porch, portico or other weather protection in keeping with the design of the dwelling? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 4) X 8. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) -68- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 9. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (Section 2.2: Guideline 9) X 10. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) X 11. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) X 12. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) 13. If a projecting garage is permitted, does it have a sloped roof? (see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) N/A – the proposed garage is not projecting. 14. If a double car garage is proposed, does it have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) N/A – a single car garage is proposed. X 15. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) X 16. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) 17. Are sustainable design features or resilient landscaping proposed as part of the site design? (Section 3.3: Guideline 2 and Section 4.1: Guideline 5) To be determined at building permit stage. 18. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) To be determined at building permit stage. 19. Does the plan include tree planting on private property? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) To be determined at building permit stage. 20. Does the plan include one or more native species street trees? (Section 4.2) Unknown. -69- Liverpool RoadCommerce Street Browning Avenue Front RoadDouglas AvenueIlona Park RoadFairview AvenueTrellisCourt Haller Avenue Monica Cook PlaceChapleau DriveOld Orc hard A venue Douglas Park Progress Frenchman'sBay East Park © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 16/21 Date: Feb. 18, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EJ. & J. Gray Lot 18, Plan 814(819 Fairview Avenue) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 16-21 J. & J. Gray\PCA16-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.-70- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 16/21 Applicant: J. & J. Gray Property Description: Lot 18, Plan 814 (819 Fairview Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Feb 17, 2021 to recognize a minimum lot frontage of 7.6 metres to recognize a minimum lot area of 295 square metres to permit a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres to permit a minimum south side yard of 0.6 metres to permit a maximum building height of 9.5 metres to permit a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent 5.6 to permit covered steps and a platform (front porch) not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard to permit a minimum rear yard of 5.6 metres 0.9 to permit a chimney breast not projecting more than 0.6 of a metre into the required north side yard -71- Exhibit 3 Submitted Front Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 16/21 Applicant: J. & J. Gray Property Description: Lot 18, Plan 814 (819 Fairview Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Feb 17, 2021 9.45 m 11.02 m to permit a maximum building height of 9.5 metres -72- Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 16/21 Applicant: J. & J. Gray Property Description: Lot 18, Plan 814 (819 Fairview Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Feb 17, 2021 9.45 m to permit a maximum building height of 9.5 metres -73- Exhibit 5 Submitted North Side Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 16/21 Applicant: J. & J. Gray Property Description: Lot 18, Plan 814 (819 Fairview Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Feb 17, 2021 to permit covered steps and a platform (front porch) not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard to permit a chimney breast not projecting more than 0.6 of a metre into the required north side yard -74- Exhibit 6 Submitted South Side Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 16/21 Applicant: J. & J. Gray Property Description: Lot 18, Plan 814 (819 Fairview Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Feb 17, 2021 to permit covered steps and a platform (front porch) not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard -75- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 17/21 Date: March 10, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 17/21 G. Belcastro 781 Oliva Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit: • uncovered steps and a platform not exceeding 1.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.0 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, nor 1.0 metre into any required side yard; • a main building on a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the front of such lot, with a minimum side yard width of 3.0 metres facing the street upon which the lot flanks, whereas the By-law requires where a main building is erected on a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the front of such lot, such main building shall have a full front yard as required in this By-law, but the minimum width of the side yard facing the street upon which the lot flanks shall be 4.5 metres and the other side yard shall comply to the requirements of the zone in which the lot is located; and • a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for an addition to an existing detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed addition to an existing detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2 and 3); -76- Report P/CA 17/21 March 10, 2021 Page 2 2. That the applicant submit a draft R-Plan to convey a corner rounding with a radius of 5 metres at the intersection of Olivia Street and Breezy Drive within 1 year of the decision; and 3. That the applicant convey the corner rounding to the City for road dedication purposes, and associated fees, prior to obtaining a building permit for an addition to the existing detached dwelling. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density within the Westshore Neighbourhood. The neighbourhood consists of a mix of detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings. Olivia Street consists primarily of bungalows and two-storey detached dwellings. The applicant is proposing an addition to the existing bungalow, by increasing the ground floor by approximately 73 square metres and constructing a second storey. The proposed development conforms to the intent of the Official Plan. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned R4 – Residential within Zoning By-law 2520. A detached dwelling is permitted within the R4 Zone. In order to obtain a building permit for the proposed addition to the existing detached dwelling, that applicant requires relief from the encroachment provisions, minimum required flankage and maximum lot coverage provisions. The subject property is located at the corner of Breezy Drive and Olivia Street. The By-law states that for a corner lot, the shorter front lot line shall be deemed to be the front lot line and the longer lot line shall be deemed the flanking lot line. The By-law requires a minimum flanking side yard of 4.5 metres and the applicant has requested to reduce the flanking side yard to 3.0 metres in order to construct the addition. Similar variances have been granted for corner lots and more recent developments require a minimum flanking side yard of 3.0 metres. By-law 2520 does not permit encroachment within the rear yard, therefore the applicant has requested relief to allow the construction of a deck within the required rear yard. After the deck is constructed, there is still sufficient amenity space (over 5.5 metres). The applicant has also requested a variance to the maximum lot coverage provision to increase the maximum coverage from 33 percent to 35 percent. The applicant is maintaining the same setback from the neighbouring dwelling to the north, therefore existing drainage patterns will not be impacted. In addition, this slight increase in lot coverage will not cause any negative impacts to the character of the neighbourhood. The proposed development conforms to the intent of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature As previously mentioned, the existing streetscape is comprised of bungalows and two-storey detached dwellings. In order to convert the existing bungalow to a two-storey detached dwelling, the applicant has requested minor relief from the By-law, to allow appropriate development for this area. -77- Report P/CA 17/21 March 10, 2021 Page 3 Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit an addition to an existing detached dwelling is 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 Ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. The City requires a corner rounding, with a radius of 5 metres, to be provided at the intersection of Olivia Street and Breezy Drive. The applicant will be required to provide a draft R-Plan showing the corner rounding and will then need to pay all the fees associated with conveyance of the lands to the City for road dedication purposes. Building Services No comments. Date of report: March 3, 2021 Comments prepared by: Tanjot Bal, MCIP, RPP Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration TB:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 17-21 G. Belcastro\7. Report\PCA 17-21 Report.doc Attachments -78- VistulaDrive Sanok DriveP a rk C r e s c ent West Shore BoulevardTim m i n s G a r d e n s BreezyDrive Vicki Drive Batory AvenueOklahoma Drive Chipmunk StreetGreycoat LaneBreda Avenue Samford Lane Lynx Avenue Hillcrest Road Bayshore Court MarksburyRoadVictory DriveCecylia Court Moretta Avenue Leaside StreetYeremi StreetMink StreetOliva StreetEssa CrescentBruceHanscombePark GlenRavinePark Frenchman's BayPublic School © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 17/21 Date: Feb. 18, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EG. BelcastroLot 530, Plan M18(781 Oliva Street) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 17-21 G. Belcastro\PCA17-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.-79- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 17/21 Applicant: G. Belcastro Property Description: Lot 530 Plan M18 (781 Olivia Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Feb 16, 2021 to permit uncovered steps and a platform not exceeding 1.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.0 metres into the required rear yard to permit a main building on a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the front of such lot, with a minimum side yard width of 3.0 metres facing the street upon which the lot flanks to permit a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent -80- Exhibit 3 Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 17/21 Applicant: G. Belcastro Property Description: Lot 530 Plan M18 (781 Olivia Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Feb 16, 2021 -81- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 19/21 Date: March 10, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 19/21 S. & S. Persaud 1985 Guild Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • a minimum north side yard depth of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard depth of 1.8 metres; • a minimum south side yard depth of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard depth of 1.8 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to construct a detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, & 4). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates the property as Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas within the Village East Neighbourhood. Residential uses including single detached dwellings are permitted within this designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned R3 within Zoning By-law 3036. This By-law requires minimum 1.8 metre side yard setbacks on both side yards provided there is an attached garage. -82- Report P/CA 19/21 March 10, 2021 Page 2 The intent of the side yard with is to provide an appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties in order to maintain pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading, drainage and other residential services such as air conditioning units and utility metres. The proposed 1.5 metre side yard setbacks provide adequate separation between structures. The abutting dwelling to the north (1987 Guild Road) was approved for a minor variance to permit a 1.5 metre side yard, whereas the By-law required minimum 1.8 metres on the abutting side yard (P/CA 42/15). Additionally, the abutting dwelling to the south (1983 Guild Road) was approved for a minor variance to permit 1.5 metre side yard setbacks whereas the By-law required 1.8 metres on the abutting side yard (P/CA 27/76). As such, a consistent side yard setback with both side yard neighbours will be maintained. Adequate space for pedestrian access, and accommodate for grading, drainage, and other residential services will be available. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The subject property is within the Village East Neighbourhood Precinct within the Council endorsed Infill & Replacement Housing Study. The proposed dwelling appears to be within the parameters of the recommended guidelines. Although the neighbourhood predominantly consists of one-storey dwellings, the immediate neighbour to the north is a two-storey dwelling of a similar height as the proposed dwelling. As previously mentioned, the proposed side yards are consistent with the immediate side yard neighbours. The proposed dwelling is desirable for the appropriate residential development of the land, and the reduction from 1.8 metres to 1.5 metres for both side yards is minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances 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 Ensure reduced side yard depth does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development (LID) measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. The builder will be required to direct a minimum of 50% of the roof area to the front of the lot. This may require a revision to the lot grading/roof layout with the building permit. Building Services No concerns. Date of report: March 3, 2021 -83- Report P/CA 19/21 March 10, 2021 Page 3 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:jc \\FS\CSDC\Amanda\docs\templates\CA\programmed\CA Report.doc Attachments -84- BeatonWay Kingston Road DenmarRoadFinch Avenue Jaywin Circle Br ockRoadRoyal RoadGuild RoadDiana PrincessOf Wales Park Denmar Park BrockridgeCommunityPark © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 19/21 Date: Feb. 17, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯ES. & S. PersaudLot 31, Plan 316(1985 Guild Road) HydroLands SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 19-21 S. & S. Persaud\PCA19-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. HydroLands -85- Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 19/21 Applicant: S. & S. Persaud Property Description: Lot 31, Plan 316 (1985 Guild Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Feb. 22, 2021 to permit a minimum north side yard depth of 1.5 metres to permit a minimum south side yard depth of 1.5 metres GUILD ROAD -86- Exhibit 3 Submitted Front and Rear Elevations File No: P/CA 19/21 Applicant: S. & S. Persaud Property Description: Lot 31, Plan 316 (1985 Guild Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Feb. 22, 2021 -87- Exhibit 4 Submitted Side Elevations File No: P/CA 19/21 Applicant: S. & S. Persaud Property Description: Lot 31, Plan 316 (1985 Guild Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.Date: Feb. 22, 2021 -88-