The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApril 14, 2021Committee of Adjustment Agenda Meeting Number: 4 Date: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page Number 1. Disclosure of Interest 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from March 10, 2021 1-18 4. Report 4.1 Deferred at the March 10, 2021 meeting 19-23 P/CA 12/21 K. & T. Acciaccaferri 4975 Sideline 20 4.2 P/CA 18/21 24-30 M. & N. Kagdi 212 Twyn Rivers Drive 4.3 P/CA 22/21 31-35 R. Sedara 422 Sheppard Avenue 4.4 P/CA 23/21 & P/CA 24/21 36-41 Tower Hill Homes Holdings Inc. 2434 & 2448 Florentine Place 4.5 P/CA 25/21 42-46 M. & R. Leclair 239 Lawson Street 4.6 P/CA 26/21 47-59 J. & J. Gray 819 Fairview Avenue 4.7 P/CA 27/21 to P/CA 29/21 60-66 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Whitevale Road (Lots 72, 101 & 181) 4.8 P/CA 30/21 67-73 A. De Guzman & M. Morales 1981 Treetop Way 4.9 P/CA 31/21 & P/CA 32/21 74-77 P. Ambalavanar 1964 Southview Drive 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, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 1 of 18 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Kevin Ashe, Regional Councillor, Ward 1 Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Tanjot Bal, Planner II Isabel Lima, Planner I Felix Chau, Planner I 1.Disclosure of Interest Sean Wiley, Committee Member, indicated he would recuse himself from participating in application P/CA 15/21 having potential interest in the application. To avoid a tie vote on the item, David Johnson, Chair stated he will abstain from voting on application P/CA 15/21. 2.Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the agenda for the Wednesday, March 10, 2021 meeting be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3.Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the minutes of the 2nd meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, February 10, 2021 be adopted. Carried - 1 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 2 of 18 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 65/20 (Deferred at the February 10, 2021 meeting) 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd. 606 Annland Street 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. - 2 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 3 of 18 Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should 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. Written comments from the residents of 661 Front Road stating the proposed dwelling is too large for the size of the lot. There is new construction in the City of Pickering, that has enhanced the beauty and character of the neighbourhood, however, the current proposal does not enhance the neighbourhood. Helen and Atif Qamar, applicants, and Joe Battaglia, agent, were present to represent the application. Alanna Turney of 660 Pleasant Street, Maureen Metcalfe of 667 Front Road, and Corey Leadbetter of 604 Annland Street, were present in objection to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Joe Battaglia spoke in favor of the application stating they agree with staff’s recommendation for approval and are seeking approval from the Committee. They believe the variances are minor, and meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Atif Qamar spoke in favour of the application stating, it appears to be minor in nature, and indicated they are seeking the Committee’s approval to build their family dream home by providing additional space for the children. Alanna Turney, resident of 660 Pleasant Street, spoke in opposition to the application stating concerns with: the large size of the proposed dwelling, the basement apartment being a misrepresentation of the application, the proposed rear yard setback, the height of the proposed dwelling being 3-storeys, the shadow impact, lack of privacy, driveway sizing and location in proximity to adjacent dwellings, drainage related to the slope of the roof, and lack of proposed greenery and landscaping. Alanna Turney stated the totality of variances appear not to be minor. Maureen Metcalfe, resident of 667 Front Road, spoke in opposition to the application stating concerns with: the application appearing major given the amount of requested variances, lot coverage setting a precedence for future redevelopment in the neighbourhood, the shadow impact, lack of privacy, the proposed basement apartment related to parking, the application is not in keeping with the design of the nautical village, the lot size appears to be too small for this proposal, and the creation of sightline issues. Corey Leadbetter, resident of 604 Annland Street, spoke in opposition to the application stating concerns with: the front yard setback should be similar to other 1-storey dwellings on the street, this would assist with air flow and sunlight. - 3 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 4 of 18 Additional concerns were raised regarding lot coverage, height and the proposal being too large given the size and location of the lot. In response to questions from a Committee Member, Isabel Lima, Planner I, stated the plans show an existing easement for hydro purposes, and that the proposed building is sited beyond the easement. Furthermore, the current lot coverage of the existing dwelling exceeds the maximum 33% lot coverage and is approximately 50%. In response to questions from a Committee Member, Helen Qamar stated that a basement apartment is not proposed. The cedar hedge and front yard landscaping will remain. The maximum height requested was determined based on discussions with the City Development Department. The additional height is due to lot size restrictions and is intended to create a third bedroom and a laundry room. In response to questions from a Committee Member and the concerns raised by the neighbours, Joe Battaglia stated the requested 3-storey height is believed to be in keeping with the current neighbourhood and streetscape having a similar design located across the subject property. The application has undergone revisions of the design based on the recommendations from the City’s Engineering Department which included a turning radius to assist with visibility. Based on the orientation of the proposed dwelling and the existing hedge already creating a natural shading, the sunlight exposure will not be negatively impacted. After much appreciation for the City Development’s contribution to the Report, and compromises made by the applicant after the application was originally deferred, and taking into account the comments made by the neighbours while assessing the total variances combined, as well as the failure to comply with the Urban Design Guidelines in not meeting a 2-storey requirement, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 65/20 by 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd., be Refused on the grounds that when the requested variances are considered together the variances are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Carried Unanimously - 4 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 5 of 18 4.2 P/CA 12/21 K. & T. Acciaccaferri 4975 Sideline 20 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). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending deferral of the application to recirculate the appropriate elevation drawings (Refer to Exhibit 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated March 10, 2021). The applicants were not present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Based on the recommendations from the City Development Department, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 12/21 by K. & T. Acciaccaferri, be Deferred to recirculate the appropriate elevation drawings (Refer to Exhibit 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated March 10, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 13/21 C. & C. Florea 2017 Bloomfield Court 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. - 5 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 6 of 18 Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section stating no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating 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. Cristian Florea, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Cristian Florea spoke in support of the application stating he has not heard from any neighbours who are against the application, and it is believed the proposal will add to the aesthetic and value of the neighbourhood. In response to questions from Committee Members, Cristian Florea stated the reason for garage doors at both ends of the addition is to assist with total height clearance of seasonal equipment such as kayaks. The existing garage will remain, it does have a bedroom located above it. The purpose for this request is to facilitate additional storage, it will not be to accommodate any work, mechanical repairs, or business of any kind. After reading the City Development Department’s Report, listening to the applicant’s responses based on questions posed by Committee Members, and understanding that the application appears to be more of an oversized shed with doors on both ends, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 13/21 by C. & C. Florea, 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 attached private garage, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated March 10, 2021). Carried Unanimously - 6 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 7 of 18 4.4 P/CA 14/21 D. & T. Leue 1447 Rougemount Drive 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 stating no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should 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. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) stating 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. Derrick Leue, applicant, and David Rolfe, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, David Rolfe, agent, stated the application appears minor in nature and the applicant is seeking approval of variances resulting from the topography of the site. In response to questions from Committee Members, the Secretary-Treasurer stated the application submitted is for a 2-storey dwelling and the TRCA comments have been shared with the applicant. Tanjot Bal, Planner II, indicated there was an error in the Urban Design Guidelines attachment. Item 3 on the Checklist should have been marked down as “Yes” instead of “No”, confirming the 2-storey height with a slopped roof away from the adjacent dwellings. After reviewing the application, seeing the approval from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), noting that the 7.7 metre setback is consistent with the current streetscape on Rougemount Drive, and that the height of the deck is due to the sloping of the rear yard configuration, the proposal appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, as documented and cited by the City Development Department, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: - 7 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 8 of 18 Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 14/21 by D. & T. Leue, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed new detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (Refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated March 10, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 15/21 L. & L. Taylor 472 Churchwin Street Sean Wiley, Committee Member, indicated he would recuse himself from voting on application P/CA 15/21 having potential interest in the application. To avoid a tie vote on the item, David Johnson, Chair, stated he will abstain from voting on application P/CA 15/21. 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). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. - 8 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 9 of 18 Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should 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 450 millimeter topsoil will be required, which is to be addressed with the building permit. Written comments were received from the City’s Heritage staff outlining the construction and renovation history of the property and it being protected under the Ontario Heritage Act. At the January 27, 2021 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee meeting, the Heritage Committee passed a motion recommending approval of the Heritage Permit HP 01-21 to construct a 66.9 metre two car garage (issued February 25, 2021), and that the Heritage Committee support a minor variance application for an increased height of 4.6 metres (with a peak of 6.14 metres) for a garage and a decreased flankage set back 4.11 metres. Laura and Lee Taylor, applicants, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Laura Taylor spoke in support of the application stating the purpose of the accessory building (detached garage) height variance is to create additional dry storage space. The lot line variance is due to the heritage significance, zoning and lot line orientation of the subject property; where the existing dwelling is setback further than the “Bunkie” which is to be removed. The accessory building (detached garage) will not be used for habitation or business related purposes. After reading the staff recommendation, the elevation seems to fit and be appropriate development of the land, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and after hearing the applicant’s comments related to heating, plumbing, habitation and business, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 15/21 by L. & L. Taylor, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: - 9 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 10 of 18 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 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated March 10, 2021). 2. That no human habitation be permitted within the accessory building (detached garage), as confirmed through the issuance of a building permit. Carried 4.6 P/CA 16/21 J. & J. Gray 819 Fairview Avenue 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. - 10 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 11 of 18 The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should 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. Written comments were received from residents of 809 Fairview Avenue, 817 Fairview Avenue, 844 Fairview Avenue, 723 Simpson Avenue, and 1244A Bayview Street in support of the application. Jesse Gray, applicant, was present to represent the application. Alex Seres, resident of 815 Fairview Avenue was present in objection to the application. Michael Harris, resident of 821 Fairview Avenue spoke in opposition to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Jesse Gray spoke in support of the application stating he agrees with the comments from the City Development Department, and the home design was based on the neighbourhood’s existing landscape and architecture. Alex Seres, resident of 815 Fairview Avenue, spoke in opposition to the application stating he has no concern with the overall appearance and proposed frontage of the subject property. Alex Seres’ concerns are with: the overall proposed height and depth of dwelling, appearance of not having a rear yard, impact on sunlight exposure, impact on privacy, appearance of building being too large for the size of the lot and not being in keeping with overall streetscape. Michael Harris, resident of 821 Fairview Avenue, spoke in opposition to the application stating concerns with: the minimum rear yard reduction, the requested height negatively impacting the sunlight, the requested height of the roof being 11 metres in total, the reduction of side yards, the future plans for the mature trees on the property, and the increase in lot coverage infringing onto adjacent properties. - 11 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 12 of 18 Michael Harris also discussed the Urban Design Guidelines checklist that was completed as part of the Report to the Committee of Adjustment, and Item Number 10 states that the proposed dwelling has similar dwelling depth to adjacent dwellings along the street – this would not be correct, this property will have an extra 8-10 metres if approved, compared to adjacent dwellings. Item Number 12 on the checklist states that shadows on adjacent dwellings have been mitigated by a greater setback – this too would not be correct. Lastly, Michael Harris had concern with Items 18-20 of the checklist that address a potential tree preservation plan to only be determined at the building permit stage. When asked about how the height is evaluated in the Urban Design Guidelines checklist, the Secretary-Treasurer stated, the reason for the discrepancy in requested height, is due to the design created for this dwelling which includes a mechanical room located at the top storey which is exempted from calculation of height within the Zoning By-law. When asked if the applicant has met with neighbours to go over their concerns, Jesse Gray advised that has not happened yet. A Committee Member posed the idea of having the applicant revise their design. In order to appeal to the neighbours, the applicant could consider removing the covered rear deck which would accommodate concerns around the lot coverage and setback variances requested. When asked if the applicant is willing to redesign some components of the application, Jesse Gray expressed no desire to amend the application or design. It was indicated that a significant amount of time and work went into creating the current proposal of the home to best enjoy the lot. Furthermore the equipment being stored in the mechanical room located at the top storey is a hot water tank and small furnace. It has been more ideal and beneficial for the applicant to have these amenities located upstairs instead of being traditionally stored in a basement. A Committee Member commented on the application stating a 25 foot wide (7.6 metres) rectangular lot with a depth of 38 metres does not appear to be overtly unique especially in urban settings. It is quite common to see side yard reductions to be in line with adjacent houses. A minimum 25 foot (7.6 metres) rear yard is not difficult to achieve and this dwelling exceeds it on one side. It is understood that the applicant has already gone through a redesign and is not in favour of another one that would increase amenity space by removing the covered rear yard deck. The Committee Member stated she agrees with the neighbour having concern for three variances: rear yard, building height, and lot coverage. The current design illustrates the appearance of a fourth- storey projecting out of the front of the dwelling with a terrace. As previously stated there could be merit in having the applicant redesign their proposal to address some of the concerns from the neighbours. - 12 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 13 of 18 However, as the applicant has already indicated they are not interested in this arrangement and feel that they have submitted proper responses to address all of the neighbours concerns. The applicant had lost connection with the electronic meeting and was reconnected. The Chair of the Committee of Adjustment asked the applicant if they heard all of the comments from the Committee Member and would be willing to review the application again. The applicant indicated they would not be willing to do so. Based on the massing of the property, the south side elevation causing visual impact to the north and south property owners, hearing the applicant’s responses to concerns raised, and evaluating the variances cumulatively, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 16/21 by J. & J. Gray, be Refused on the grounds that when the requested variances are considered together the variances do not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 17/21 G. Belcastro 781 Oliva Street 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. - 13 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 14 of 18 The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for an addition to an existing detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Section stating the applicant should 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. Giuseppe Belcastro, applicant, was present to represent the application. Elena Walmsley, resident of 784 Oliva Street and Lori Matorcevic, resident of 782 Oliva Street, were present in opposition of the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Giuseppe Belcastro spoke in support of the application stating if granted approval the terms of the conditions will be satisfied. Elena Walmsley, resident of 784 Oliva Street, spoke in opposition to the application stating concerns with: the subject property being larger than 3,500 square feet (325 square metres) which is approximately three times the size of the average dwelling on the street. Elena Walmsley expressed support for the site to be rebuilt or have an addition, so long as it is in keeping with the existing streetscape and neighbourhood, which this application does not appear to do. Most homes in the area are single or two-storey dwellings that are quite different in design compared to the current proposal. There is concern for construction vehicles crowding the narrow street, where exiting and entering personal driveways have been obstructed in the past. Furthermore raising safety issues for emergency vehicles, it is requested these construction vehicles be parked on Breezy Avenue along subject property. Lastly, Elena Walmsley questioned why the Urban Design Guideline checklist has not been applied to this property. Lori Matorcevic, resident of 782 Oliva Street, spoke in opposition to the application addressing concerns with: presumed asbestos in the siding of the subject property as many of the homes on Oliva Street were originally constructed in the 1960s. Additionally, there are concerns with sewage and flooding on the street. - 14 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 15 of 18 It is requested that any changes made to the site would not negatively impact drainage in the neighbourhood. Concern was also raised regarding the size of the dwelling more than doubling from approximately 1,100 square feet (102 square metres) to almost 4,000 square feet (372 square metres). Lori Matorcevic described concern for this application being overbearing and setting a precedence for future development in the neighbourhood. Overall Lori Matorcevic believes this application does not appear to be minor, or desirable for the appropriate development of the land. In response to the concerns raised by neighbours, Giuseppe Belcastro stated the proposal is to create an addition that is approximately 700 square feet (65 square metres), and enclosing the carport to be a garage and repair the property which was in poor condition. Giuseppe Belcastro believes the architectural design to be similar to others along the street and the additional space is to be enjoyed with his family. In response to question from Committee Members, the Secretary-Treasurer stated this property was not subject to the Infill and Replacement Housing Study, and therefore is not subject to the Guidelines referred to by other properties earlier. Furthermore, the Secretary-Treasurer indicated the size of the dwelling is primarily regulated by the maximum lot coverage provision. The By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 per cent and the applicant is requesting 35 per cent. In response to questions from Committee Members, Giuseppe Belcastro stated the final square footage of the dwelling will be around 4,000 square feet (372 square metres). The existing dwelling will remain, an addition will be added and the carport will be enclosed. Giuseppe Belcastro indicated they were not aware of any asbestos siding and will take full measures to remove safely if asbestos is found to exist. A Committee Member indicated that based on the revised designs submitted with the floor plans, it appears that there will be a 2-storey addition on the second floor over the existing house containing a total of 6 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, 2 front entrances, 2 separate staircases inside home and 3 parking spaces all presumably for one family. The Committee Member questioned if this proposal is to facilitate a second unit. In response to this, Giuseppe Belcastro stated the second entrance will be used as a mud room for the family dog and the addition will not be for a second unit. After hearing and appreciating the comments from the neighbours, having reviewed the City Development Department’s Report to the Committee of Adjustment, listening to the commentary made by the applicant, evaluating the three requests for relief of minor variances, and evaluating the application as a whole, it appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Sean W iley moved the following motion: - 15 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 16 of 18 Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 17/21 by G. Belcastro, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed addition to an existing detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2 and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated March 10, 2021); 2. That the applicant submit a draft R-Plan to convey a corner rounding with a radius of 5 metres at the intersection of Oliva 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. Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 19/21 S. & S. Persaud 1985 Guild Road 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the Engineering Services Section stating the applicant should ensure reduced side yard depth does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. - 16 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 17 of 18 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. Yaso Somalingam, agent with Cantam Group Ltd., was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Yaso Somalingam, agent with Cantam Group Ltd., spoke in support of the application stating the applicant is seeking the side yard setback reduction by 1 foot on each side (0.3 of a metre) in order to build the applicant’s desired home on the lot. When a Committee Member asked why the dwelling cannot be built within confines of the current By-law, Yaso Somalingam stated the garage is 22 feet wide (6.7 metres) with access to the living room on one side, having the extra 1 foot (0.3 of a metre) on each side will better accommodate this. After reading the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment, reviewing the subject site and the exhibits contained, the application appears to meet all four tests of the Planning Act, and Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 19/21 by S. & S. Persaud, 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 detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated March 10, 2021). Carried Unanimously - 17 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 18 of 18 Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 3rd meeting of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:57 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, April 14, 2021. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer - 18 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 12/21 Date: April 14, 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. 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 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 accessory building (cabana), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 and 3). Background The subject application was deferred at the March 10, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting. The application was deferred because an incorrect elevation was submitted and subsequently circulated as part of the Notice of Public Hearing. The appropriate elevation has been submitted, recirculated to the public and is attached as Exhibit 3 to this report. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates this property as “Rural Settlements – Oak Ridges Moraine Rural Hamlets” within the Settlement of Claremont – South Section. Permitted uses within this designation include a variety of uses including residential, employment, commercial, community, cultural and recreational uses. Within Schedule IV – 10 Settlement 10: Claremont – South Section of the Official Plan, the property is designated for “Hamlet Residential”. Residential uses are permitted within this designation. - 19 - Report P/CA 12/21 April 14, 2021 Page 2 The rear of the subject property abuts the Natural Heritage System (NHS), however the subject property is located outside of the NHS. TRCA staff have confirmed that there are no issues with the location of the accessory building as an adequate buffer has been provided from the Natural Heritage System on the abutting property. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned ORM-R3 and ORM-EP as per Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06. The entirety of the accessory structure is within the ORM-R3 zone. 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 4.7 metre height is intended to facilitate a cabana structure at the rear of the subject property. The structure is not enclosed, with only one wall at the rear of the structure. The building is setback considerably from any residential dwellings thus will not create an adverse visual impact. The structure is also setback significantly from the street and will not negatively impact the streetscape. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The accessory structure is intended to enhance the amenity area in the rear yard of the dwelling. The structure immediately abuts an existing swimming pool and will supplement the accessory use. Given the large lot (4,763.2 square metres) and the separation from existing residential structures, the proposed increase in height for the accessory structure is minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit a maximum height of 4.7 metres for an accessory structure (cabana) in a residential zone 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 •no comments on the application. Building Services •no comments on the application. Date of report: April 7, 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 - 20 - 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.- 21 - 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: Mar. 26, 2021 to permit a maximum height of 4.7 metres for an accessory building (cabana) - 22 - 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: Mar. 26, 2021 - 23 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 18/21 Date: April 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 18/21 M. & N. Kagdi 212 Twyn Rivers Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum east side yard of 0.9 metres, whereas the By-law states where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard for a Residential Zone shall be 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an attached 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 garage, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are the primary built-form in the Rougemount Neighbourhood. 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 R4 within Zoning By-law 3036. The requested variance is to permit a minimum east side yard of 0.9 metres for an attached garage, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres. The intent of this provision is to provide appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties, to accommodate drainage and to provide sufficient room for maintenance of the dwelling. - 24 - Report P/CA 18/21 April 14, 2021 Page 2 The abutting property to the east has a detached dwelling that is setback approximately 1.1 metres from the east property line. The two dwellings are setback 2.0 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. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The applicant has indicated that the proposed garage is required to achieve the desired parking within the garage. Additionally, area within the garage is allocated for stairs to enter the dwelling. The applicant has indicated that the additional width of the garage is necessary to accommodate the stairs and to provide space for human circulation around parked vehicles. Staff consider a 0.6 metre encroachment into the east side yard to be minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit a minimum east side yard of 0.9 metres for an attached 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 • Ensure the proposed garage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Building Services • No concerns with the application. Canadian National Railway • Comments not received as of writing this report. Date of report: April 7, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc \\FS\CSDC\Amanda\docs\templates\CA\programmed\CA Report.doc Attachments - 25 - Twyn Rivers Drive FawndaleRoadValleyview DriveWoodview AvenueOakburnStreetLittleford S tre e tHogarth Street Ashwood GateLawson Street WaterfordGate WilcroftCourt Sweetbriar Court Forestview DriveStarview Court HooverDriveCastle StreetRouge Valley DriveLancrest Street Rockwood DriveR ichardson St reet Stover Crescent Howell CrescentWoodviewDrive RougeValley Park WoodviewTot Lot St. Monica'sSeparateSchool © 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 18/21 Date: Feb. 17, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EM. & N. KagdiPt Lot 33 Con1 S, Now Pt 9 40R-4767 and Pt 95 40R-4433 (212 Twyn Rivers Drive) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 18-21 M. Kagdi\PCA18-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 26 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 18/21 Applicant: M. Kagdi Property Description: Pt Lot 33 Con1 S, Now Pt 9 40R-4767 and Pt 95 40R-4433 (212 Twyn Rivers Drive) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: March 22, 2021 Proposed Attached Garage to permit a minimum east side yard of 0.9 metres - 27 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Front Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 18/21 Applicant: M. Kagdi Property Description: Pt Lot 33 Con1 S, Now Pt 9 40R-4767 and Pt 95 40R-4433 (212 Twyn Rivers Drive) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: March 22, 2021 - 28 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 18/21 Applicant: M. Kagdi Property Description: Pt Lot 33 Con1 S, Now Pt 9 40R-4767 and Pt 95 40R-4433 (212 Twyn Rivers Drive) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: March 22, 2021 - 29 - Exhibit 5 Submitted East Side Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 18/21 Applicant: M. Kagdi Property Description: Pt Lot 33 Con1 S, Now Pt 9 40R-4767 and Pt 95 40R-4433 (212 Twyn Rivers Drive) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: March 22, 2021 - 30 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 22/21 Date: April 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 22/21 R. Sedara 422 Sheppard Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • an accessory structure greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback 0.5 of a metre from the north lot line, whereas the By-law requires a setback of 1.0 metre from all lot lines; • an accessory structure greater than 1.8 metres in height to be setback 0.5 of a metre form the north lot line, whereas the By-law requires a setback of 1.0 metre from all lot lines. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to recognize an accessory structure (detached garage). Recommendation The City Development Department recommends that Minor Variance Application P/CA 22/21 be Deferred to the May 12, 2021 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment to be recirculated with revised variances and a revised site plan (Exhibit 2). Background The applicant requested relief from the Zoning By-law in order to obtain a building permit to recognize an existing accessory structure (detached garage) constructed by the previous owner of the subject property. In reviewing the application for the Staff Report, Staff recognized that the north arrow provided on the submitted site plan (Exhibit 2) is incorrectly oriented. As a result, the notice inaccurately indicates that the north lot line is the lot line affected by the variances, whereas it is the east lot line that should be recognized in the requests. The updated requests should read as follows: • an accessory structure greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback 0.5 of a metre from the east lot line, whereas the By-law requires a setback of 1.0 metre from all lot lines; • an accessory structure greater than 1.8 metres in height to be setback 0.5 of a metre form the east lot line, whereas the By-law requires a setback of 1.0 metre from all lot lines. - 31 - Report P/CA 22/21 April 14, 2021 Page 2 Staff are recommending a deferral of this application to the May 12, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting in order to recirculate a revised notice and an updated Exhibit 2. Date of report: April 7, 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 - 32 - Sheppard Avenue Fox w o o d T ra ilAutumn Crescent Ol d F o r e s t R o a d Calvington Drive Pineview Lane Rougemount DriveHi g h b u s h Trail Rosebank RoadSouth PetticoatRavine SouthPetticoatRavine SouthPetticoatRavine © 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 22/21 Date: Mar. 12, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯ER. Sedara Pt Lot 31, Con 1 S, Now Part 1, R.P. 40R17618 and Parts 3-4, 40R20797 (422 Sheppard Avenue) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 22-21 R. Sedara\PCA22-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.Rosebank Road- 33 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 22/21 Applicant: R. Sedara Property Description: Pt Lot 31, Con 1 S, Now Part 1, R.P. 40R17618 and Parts 3-4, 40R20797 (422 Sheppard Avenue) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Mar. 26, 2021 to permit an accessory structure greater than 10 square metres and greater than 1.8 metres in height to be setback 0.5 of a metre from the north lot line - 34 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Elevation File No: P/CA 22/21 Applicant: R. Sedara Property Description: Pt Lot 31, Con 1 S, Now Part 1, R.P. 40R17618 and Parts 3-4, 40R20797 (422 Sheppard Avenue) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Mar. 26, 2021 - 35 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 23/21 & P/CA 24/21 Date: April 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications P/CA 23/21 & P/CA 24/21 Tower Hill Homes Holdings Inc. 2434 & 2448 Florentine Place Application P/CA 23/21 (2434 Florentine Place) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a box window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres to encroach into the required front yard a maximum of 1.3 metres, and to encroach into the required north flankage side yard a maximum of 0.8 metres, whereas the By-law permits a bay, box or bow window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres to encroach into any required yard to a maximum of 0.6 metres. Application P/CA 24/21 (2448 Florentine Place) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a box window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres to encroach into the required front yard a maximum of 2.2 metres, and to encroach into the required south flankage side yard a maximum of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law permits a bay, box or bow window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres to encroach into any required yard to a maximum of 0.6 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to recognize deficient front yards and flankage side yards to the corner rounding on each lot. 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 existing townhouse dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 and 3). - 36 - Report P/CA 23/21 & P/CA 24/21 April 14, 2021 Page 2 Background Existing Conditions In 2020, building permits were issued for the construction of the townhouse dwellings on the subject properties. During the review of the as-built surveys, a zoning compliance issue was identified with the setback of the dwellings from the corner rounding. Approval of these variances is required to close the building permits. City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment (A 04/21) The requested variances are to permit a reduced setback to a corner rounding in the front and flankage yards of residential lots located in the Seaton Area. This is a result of corner rounding zoning provisions being omitted from Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 when approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 2014. A corner rounding zoning provision establishes a smaller building setback requirement for a corner lot, to the front, side or rear lot lines. Due to an influx in the submission of minor variance applications to address the setback of proposed dwellings from a corner rounding in the Seaton Area, the City has recently initiated a Zoning By-law Amendment Application (File Number A 04/21) to propose an amendment to Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 to include a corner rounding definition and zoning provisions. The amendment application was presented at the April 6, 2021 Planning & Development Committee Meeting to provide preliminary information. The applicant is aware of the ongoing City initiated application to amend Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, however has decided to proceed with a minor variance application for the requested variances as the timeline of the City application does not align with the applicant’s timelines. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Area within the Seaton Neighbourhood. Townhouse dwellings are a primary built-form in the Seaton Neighbourhood. 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. For P/CA 23/21, the requested variances are to permit a box window to encroach into the required front yard a maximum of 1.3 metres, and to encroach into the required north flankage side yard a maximum of 0.8 metres, whereas the By-law permits a box window to encroach into a yard a maximum of 0.6 metres. For P/CA 24/21, the requested variances are to permit a box window to encroach into the required front yard a maximum of 2.2 metres, and to encroach into the required south flankage side yard a maximum of 1.5 metres. - 37 - Report P/CA 23/21 & P/CA 24/21 April 14, 2021 Page 3 The intent of these provisions is to ensure dwellings are adequately setback from street activity and sufficient landscaped area is maintained between dwellings and the street. The proposed increase in the front and flankage yard projection is necessary due to the irregular shape of the properties. The lot lines round at the corners where the box windows are located, which reduces the distance between the corner of the townhouse dwellings and the closest point of the corner lot lines. Notwithstanding, the townhouse dwellings maintain the required setbacks at all other points on the properties. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances are desirable for the development of the land as they facilitate the development of townhouse dwellings in the Seaton Area, which is in keeping with the policies of the Official Plan that promote a range of housing types and densities that meet the needs of the Seaton Area. The requested variances are a result of corner rounding zoning provisions being omitted from Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14. The requested variances maintain the intent of the By-law and are considered minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit reduced front yards and flankage side yards for townhouse dwellings are desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • No comments on the application. Building Services • No comments on the application. Date of report: April 7, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc \\FS\CSDC\Amanda\docs\templates\CA\programmed\CA Report.doc Attachments - 38 - EnchantedCrescent HibiscusDrivePurusPathSap p h i r e D r i v e FlorentinePlacePelican TrailPeterMatthewsDriveSepiaSquare © 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 23/21 & P/CA 24/21 Date: Mar. 16, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯ETower Hill Homes Holdings Inc.Pt Blk 264 Plan 40M-2625 Now Pt 14 and Pt 1, 40R-31102 (2434 and 2448 Florentine Place) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 23-21 & PCA 24-21 Tower Hill Homes Holdings Inc\PCA23-24-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,500 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.E- 39 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan (P/CA 23/21) File No: P/CA 23/21 & P/CA 24/21 Applicant: Tower Hill Homes Holdings Inc. Property Description: Pt Blk 264 Plan 40M-2625 Now Pt 14 and Pt 1, 40R-31102 (2434 and 2448 Florentine Place) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: March 22, 2020 P/CA 23/21 – to permit a box window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres to encroach into the required front yard a maximum of 1.3 metres P/CA 23/21 – to permit a box window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres to encroach into the required north flankage side yard a maximum of 0.8 metres 2434 Florentine Place - 40 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Site Plan (P/CA 24/21) File No: P/CA 23/21 & P/CA 24/21 Applicant: Tower Hill Homes Holdings Inc. Property Description: Pt Blk 264 Plan 40M-2625 Now Pt 14 and Pt 1, 40R-31102 (2434 and 2448 Florentine Place) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: March 22, 2020 2448 Florentine Place P/CA 24/21 – to permit a box window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres to encroach into the required front yard a maximum of 2.2 metres P/CA 24/21 – to permit a box window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres to encroach into the required south flankage side yard a maximum of 1.5 metres - 41 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 25/21 Date: April 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 25/21 M. & R. Leclair 239 Lawson Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2964/88 to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 15.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 17.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct a sunroom addition and a rear yard platform. 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 sunroom addition, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 and 3). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates the property as “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” within the Highbush Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including single detached dwellings. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the provision that requires a rear yard setback of 17.0 metres is to ensure sufficient amenity space in the rear and to maintain an adequate buffer from the CN Rail, located immediately south of the subject property. The proposed setback of 15.5 metres maintains a significant area of rear yard amenity space and maintains a buffer greater than 50 metres from the rail corridor. As such, the reduced rear yard setback conforms to the intent of the Zoning By-law provision. - 42 - Report P/CA 25/21 April 14, 2021 Page 2 Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The rear yard addition for a sunroom and deck are intended to provide a more usable amenity area in the rear yard. The property owner has received emails in support of the variance from the property owners at 235, 237 and 241 Lawson Street, with 241 Lawson Street being the adjacent property that will be most impacted by the sunroom addition. Given the existing large rear yards of the lots along the south side of Lawson Street, there will be no detrimental effects the adjacent properties with respect to privacy and shadowing. The proposed variance is minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance 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 • 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 comments. CN Rail • No comments received as of the date of this report. Owners of 235, 237, and 241 Lawson Street • Provided emails in support of this application. Date of report: April 7, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:DW :jc \\FS\CSDC\Amanda\docs\templates\CA\programmed\CA Report.doc Attachments - 43 - Littleford StreetHooverDriveTwyn Rivers Drive Valleyview DriveAshwood GateLawson Street WaterfordGate Hogarth Street WilcroftCourt Forestview DriveStarview Court Sweetbriar Court Oakburn StreetCastle StreetWoodview AvenueSenator Street Lancrest Street R ichardson StreetHowell CrescentRockwood DriveWoodviewDriveWoodviewTot Lot St. Monica'sSeparateSchool © 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 25/21 Date: Mar. 18, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EM. & R. LeclairLot 160, Plan 40M-1630(239 Lawson Street) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 25-21 M. & R. Leclair\PCA25-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 44 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 25/21 Applicant: M. & R. Leclair Property Description: Lot 160, Plan 40M-1630 (239 Lawson Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Mar 26 2021 to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 15.5 metres - 45 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Elevations File No: P/CA 25/21 Applicant: M. & R. Leclair Property Description: Lot 160, Plan 40M-1630 (239 Lawson Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Mar 26 2021 - 46 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 26/21 Date: April 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 26/21 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 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 lot coverage of 42 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • permit covered steps and a platform (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and 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. 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 and 6). - 47 - Report P/CA 26/21 April 14, 2021 Page 2 Background March 10, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting The applicant submitted a minor variance application to permit a detached dwelling on the subject property, requiring variances for the lot area, lot frontage, rear and side yard setbacks, building height, lot coverage, projection of the front porch and projection of the chimney breast. The Committee of Adjustment refused this application at the March 10, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting on the grounds that when the requested variances were considered together, the variances did not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and were not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The original proposed dwelling had a lot coverage of 45 percent, a building height of 9.5 metres, and a rear yard setback of 5.6 metres. The applicant has redesigned the dwelling to no longer require variances to building height or rear yard setback, and the proposed lot coverage has been reduced to 42 percent. The total depth of the dwelling was reduced from 22.2 metres to 19.9 metres, including a reduction to the size of the rear deck. 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, and projection of the front porch. Historical Application Minor Variance Application P/CA 08/91 submitted by a previous owner of the property was approved in 1991, 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. - 48 - Report P/CA 26/21 April 14, 2021 Page 3 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. 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 and size 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 is similar in size having 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. 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. 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. 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. - 49 - Report P/CA 26/21 April 14, 2021 Page 4 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. Lot Coverage Variance The proposed dwelling accounts for a lot coverage of 42 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The dwelling and garage account for 35.2 percent of the lot coverage, whereas the rear deck, front porch and basement walkout account for 6.7 percent of the total lot coverage. The intent of this provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (amenity area) uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of the building. The proposed dwelling allows for a large rear yard that 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. - 50 - Report P/CA 26/21 April 14, 2021 Page 5 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 with the application. Date of report: April 7, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 26-21\7. Report \PCA 26-21 Report.doc Attachments - 51 - 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) - 52 - 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. - 53 - 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 26/21 Date: Mar. 18, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EJ. & J. Gray Lot 18, Plan 814(819 Fairview Avenue) SubjectLands Frenchman's Bay L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 26-21 J. & J. Gray\PCA26-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 54 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 26/21 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: Mar 22, 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 lot coverage of 42 percent to permit covered steps and a platform (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and 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 - 55 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Front Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 26/21 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: Mar 22, 2021 - 56 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 26/21 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: Mar 22, 2021 - 57 - Exhibit 5 Submitted North Side Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 26/21 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: Mar 22, 2021 to permit covered steps and a platform (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and 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 - 58 - Exhibit 6 Submitted South Side Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 26/21 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: Mar 22, 2021 to permit covered steps and a platform (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard - 59 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 27/21 to P/CA 29/21 Date: April 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications P/CA 27/21 to P/CA 29/21 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Whitevale Road Application P/CA 27/21 – SP-2009-11 Phase 1 Lot 72 The applicant requests relief from the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a minimum flankage yard of 1.8 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum flankage yard 2.4 metres. Application P/CA 28/21 – SP-2009-11 Phase 1 Lot 101 The applicant requests relief from the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a minimum flankage yard of 2.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum flankage yard 2.4 metres. Application P/CA 29/21 – SP-2009-11 Phase 1 Lot 181 The applicant requests relief from the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a minimum flankage yard of 2.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum flankage yard 2.4 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to construct detached dwellings. 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 Lots 72, 101 and 181, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5). Background These lands were the subject of a Draft Plan of Subdivision (SP-2009-11) and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/09 to permit the development of detached dwellings, townhouse dwellings, blocks for parks, schools and open space. Draft Approval for the proposed Plan of Subdivision was granted in 2018. The implementing zoning by-law to permit the above mentioned dwellings on the subject lands was passed by City Council on September 17, 2018. - 60 - Report P/CA 27/21 to P/CA 29/21 April 14, 2021 Page 2 Comment Lots 72 and 181 are designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas within Pickering’s Official Plan and zoned Low Density Type 2 (LD2) within the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14. Lot 101 is designated Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas within Pickering’s Official Plan and zoned Medium Density – Detached & Semi (MD-DS) within the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14. Detached dwellings are permitted uses. The Zoning By-law requires a minimum flankage yard of 2.4 metres to maintain a sufficient setback from the road. The applicant is requesting the minimum flankage yard for three lots adjacent to Whitevale Road (future Alexander Knox) be reduced, to accommodate a change to the Regional Right-of-Way (ROW) design for the turning lanes. The ROW has been expanded further north and south, to accommodate the new turning lane design. Even after reducing the flankage yard to 1.8 metres, there will be a minimum 5 metres from the property line to the sidewalk and roadway, which provides a safe buffer from pedestrians to vehicular traffic along Whitevale Road. In addition, the requested variances will not change the use of the land and will permit construction of detached dwellings that are suitable and consistent with the surrounding area without risking the safety of future residents. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to reduce the minimum flankage yard for Lots 72, 101 and 181 from Phase One of Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 are desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • No comments on these applications. Building Services • No comments on these applications. Date of report: April 7, 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 27-21 to PCA 29-21 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited\7. Report\PCA 27-21 to 29-21 Report.doc Attachments - 61 - Whitevale Road Sideline 20 © 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 27/21 to P/CA 29/21 Date: Mar. 17, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EMattamy (Seaton) LimitedPt Lt 21 & 22, Con 4 N, Now Parts 1-4, 40R8396 & Part 1,40R24146 & Pt Lt 21, Con 5 S, Now Part 3, 40R24337 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 27-21 to PCA 29-21 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited\PCA27-21_to_PCA29-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:5,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.E (Lots 72, 101 & 181) - 62 - Exhibit 2 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (Phase 1) File No: P/CA 27/21 to 29/21 Applicant: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Property Description: Part Lots 21 and 22, Con 4 North, Now Parts 1 to 4, 40R-8396 and Part 1, 40R-24146 and Part Lot 21, Con 5 South, Now Part 3, 40R-24337 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Mar 22, 2021 Lot 101 Lot 72 Lot 181 - 63 - Exhibit 3 Lot 72 Siting Plan File No: P/CA 27/21 to 29/21 Applicant: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Property Description: Part Lot 21 and 22, Con 4 North, Now Parts 1 to 4, 40R-8396 and Part 1, 40R-24146 and Part Lot 21, Con 5 South, Now Part 3, 40R-24337 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Mar 22, 2021 - 64 - Exhibit 4 Lot 101 Siting Plan File No: P/CA 27/21 to 29/21 Applicant: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Property Description: Part Lot 21 and 22, Con 4 North, Now Parts 1 to 4, 40R-8396 and Part 1, 40R-24146 and Part Lot 21, Con 5 South, Now Part 3, 40R-24337 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Mar 22, 2021 - 65 - Exhibit 5 Lot 181 Siting Plan File No: P/CA 27/21 to 29/21 Applicant: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Property Description: Part Lot 21 and 22, Con 4 North, Now Parts 1 to 4, 40R-8396 and Part 1, 40R-24146 and Part Lot 21, Con 5 South, Now Part 3, 40R-24337 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Mar 22, 2021 - 66 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 30/21 Date: April 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 30/21 A. De Guzman & M. Morales 1981 Treetop Way Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4508/94, to permit a covered patio not exceeding 3.5 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.9 metres into the required rear yard, 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 metres in any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit an existing roof over a patio within the rear yard. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to the existing covered roof over the patio, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2, 3 and 4). 2. That the applicant obtain a Building Permit for the existing roof by April 14, 2022, or this decision shall become null and void. Background The applicant has constructed a roof over a patio and a deck in the rear yard without a building permit. After discussions with City staff, the applicant has agreed to remove the deck as it is constructed within the required rear yard setback, and has submitted a building permit application for the roof over the patio. Through the review of the building permit drawings, staff identified that the roof requires relief from the Zoning By-law’s encroachment provisions. - 67 - Report P/CA 30/21 April 14, 2021 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject property is designated as Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas within the Highbush Neighbourhood. The neighbourhood consists of primarily detached dwellings. The subject property is zoned RM2-1 within site-specific by-law 4508/94, as amended. A townhouse is a permitted use within the RM2-1 Zone. The applicant is requesting relief from the obstruction of yard provisions within Zoning By-law 3036 in order to permit an existing roof over a patio in the backyard. The roofed patio is approximately 21 square metres in size, 3.5 metres in height and projects 2.9 metres into the required 7.5 metre rear yard. The subject lot is an irregular shaped corner lot with a large rear yard amenity space. Once the applicant removes the existing deck, there is sufficient uncovered amenity space in the rear yard. Staff are of the opinion that the roofed patio area conforms to the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land Majority of the lots along Treetop Way and Strouds Lane have constructed decks or patios within their rear yards. In addition, some of these decks and/or patios appear to be covered. Since the existing roofed patio is a consistent feature within the rear yards of surrounding properties, staff are of the opinion this is an appropriate development of the land. Minor in Nature The roof over the patio decreases in height as it extends from the rear wall of the dwelling to the rear lot line, from 3.5 metres to 2.4 metres in height, extending 2.9 metres into the required rear yard. The lot is irregular in shape and has an increased rear yard width, therefore there is sufficient private amenity space for the subject property. Given the lot configuration and reduction in height of the roof over the patio, staff are of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit a roof over a patio 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 • 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. - 68 - Report P/CA 30/21 April 14, 2021 Page 3 Building Services • No comment on this application. Date of report: April 7, 2021 Comments prepared by: Tanjot Bal, MCIP, RPP Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration TB:jc \\FS\CSDC\Amanda\docs\templates\CA\programmed\CA Report.doc Attachments - 69 - Strouds LaneFox wood Tr a ilTilsonCourtAutumn CrescentC a lvi ngt onDriveT re e to pW ayGr a n byCour t Pineview Lane Silver Maple DriveWhite Cedar DriveS.m.WoodsmerePark St. ElizabethSeton CatholicSchool © 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 30/21 Date: Mar. 18, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EA. De Guzman & M. MoralesPt Blk 15, Plan 40M-1943 Now Pt 3,5, 40R-19182(1981 Treetop Way) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 30-21 A. De Guzman & M. Morales\PCA30-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 70 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 30/21 Applicant: A. De Guzman & M. Morales Property Description: Pt Blk 15, Plan 40M-1943, Now Pt 3 and 5 40R-19182 (1981 Treetop Way) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Mar 22, 2021 Covered Patio 4.6 m Existing Townhouse (end unit) - 71 - Exhibit 3 Existing Covered Patio within the Rear Yard File No: P/CA 30/21 Applicant: A. De Guzman & M. Morales Property Description: Pt Blk 15, Plan 40M-1943, Now Pt 3 and 5 40R- 19182 (1981 Treetop Way) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Mar 22, 2021 to permit a covered patio not exceeding 3.5 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.9 metres into the required rear yard Existing deck to be removed Existing Covered Patio - 72 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Elevations File No: P/CA 30/21 Applicant: A. De Guzman & M. Morales Property Description: Pt Blk 15, Plan 40M-1943, Now Pt 3 and 5 40R-19182 (1981 Treetop Way) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Mar 22, 2021 - 73 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 31/21 & P/CA 32/21 Date: April 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications P/CA 31/21 & P/CA 32/21 P. Ambalavanar 1964 Southview Drive Applications The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: P/CA 31/21 (Part 1) • a lot frontage of 15.24 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres. P/CA 32/21 (Part 2) • a lot frontage of 15.24 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate a future Land Division Application with the Region of Durham Land Division Committee. Recommendation The City Development Department recommends that Minor Variance Applications P/CA 31/21 and P/CA 32/21 be Tabled until the applicant provides additional information to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Background The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) advised City staff and the applicant over the phone that TRCA requires additional information prior to providing comments on the requested variances. City staff recommends tabling this application to provide the applicant with sufficient time to provide the TRCA with the requested information and to allow TRCA to provide comments. - 74 - Report P/CA 31/21 & P/CA 32/21 April 14, 2021 Page 2 Input From Other Sources Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • The subject site municipally described as 1964 Southview Drive in the City of Pickering is entirely within the TRCA Regulated Area of the Duffins Creek watershed. The site is regulated as it is within the Regulatory Storm Floodplain associated with the Duffins Creek to the north of the site. As such, a TRCA permit would be required prior to development taking place and prior to any municipal building approvals. The subject site is also within the Pickering Town Centre Special Policy Area (SPA) which are Provincially designated areas which identify existing urban areas which are prone to flooding and allows for a lower level of flood protection in some circumstances. • At this time TRCA staff recommend the applications be tabled until such time that we have had the opportunity to review the floodplain implications associated with 1964 Southview Drive through the TRCA Concept Development Application process. Concept Development Application requirements were provided to the applicant on March 31, 2021 however we have not received an application to date. Date of report: April 7, 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 - 75 - Bainbridge DriveBe e c hlawn Drive AshfordDriveB a n bury Court Kingston Road W Fairfield CrescentFinch Avenue Marshcourt DriveNotion RoadBurnside DriveK in g s to n R o a d B luebird Crescent SouthviewDriveBeechlawnPark © 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 31/21 & P/CA 32/21 Date: Mar. 23, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EP. AmbalavanarLot 8, Plan 469(1964 Southview Drive) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 31-21 & PCA 32-21 P. Ambalavanar\PCA31_32-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 76 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 31/21 & P/CA 32/21 Applicant: P. Ambalavanar Property Description: Lot 8, Plan 469 (1964 Southview Drive) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Mar. 26, 2021 to permit minimum lot frontages of 15.24 metres Southview Drive P/CA 31/21 P/CA 32/21 - 77 -