Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 12, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Agenda Meeting Number: 5 Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page Number 1. Disclosure of Interest 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from April 14, 2021 1-16 4. Report 4.1 P/CA 21/21 17-22 Universal City Six Development Inc. 1010 Sandy Beach Road 4.2 (Deferred at the April 14, 2021 Meeting) 23-27 P/CA 22/21 R. Sedara 422 Sheppard Avenue 4.3 P/CA 33/21 28-32 P. Raju 1561 Oakburn Street 4.4 P/CA 34/21 & P/CA 35/21 33-42 T. Luong & L. Lu 566 West Shore Boulevard 4.5 P/CA 38/21 43-50 S. Milanovski 1789 Spruce Hill Road 4.6 P/CA 39/21 to P/CA 41/21 51-60 GHR Investment Corp. 1856 Pinegrove Avenue (Lots 1, 2 & 3) 4.7 P/CA 42/21 61-66 W. Liu 3615 Markham-Pickering Townline Road 4.8 P/CA 43/21 67-75 K. Deol & F. Dirani 642 Annland Street 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, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 1 of 16 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair – arrived at 7:05 pm Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present 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 No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the agenda for the Wednesday, April 14, 2021 meeting be adopted. Carried 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held W ednesday, March 10, 2021 be adopted, as amended. Carried Due to technical difficulties Dave Johnson, Chair, joined the meeting at 7:05 pm and advised there are no Disclosures of Interest, and concurs with the adoption of the Agenda and the amended Minutes. - 1 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 2 of 16 4. Reports 4.1 (Deferred at the March 12, 2021 Meeting) 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. 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 approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Tony Acciaccaferri, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from Committee Members, Tony Acciaccaferri advised the purpose of the chimney in the accessory building (cabana) is to accommodate a pizza oven. The cabana was constructed in May 2018 and is approximately 800-850 square feet (74-79 square metres). The cabana will serve as a pool house, and contains interior and exterior electrical lighting and plumbing for water. After considering the Report to the Committee of Adjustment, seeing no objections from the City’s Engineering Services Department, the Building Services Section, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, as well as no comments from neighbours, and agreeing with the comments from the City Development Department, given the large lot size, and separation from existing residential structures, the application appears to meet all four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: - 2 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 3 of 16 Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 12/21 by K. & T. Acciaccaferri, 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 accessory building (cabana), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 18/21 M. & N. Kagdi 212 Twyn Rivers 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure the proposed garage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Written comments were not received from the Canadian National Railway as of April 14, 2021. Sina Zekavaty, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from Committee Members, the Secretary-Treasurer stated the City Development Department has not received comments from the circulation to the Canadian National Railway (CNR), an adjacent landowner; that any condition imposed - 3 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 4 of 16 by the Committee is to be enforceable, and an Application for a Building Permit would be circulated to CNR. In response to questions from Committee Members, Sina Zekavaty advised the dwelling was constructed without a garage. Additionally Sina Zekavaty noted the applicants were unaware of the recommendation from Engineering Services regarding drainage patterns of the lot. After consideration of the Report to the Committee of Adjustment and the comments discussed between the applicant, City staff and the Committee Members, Eric Newton suggested a condition be added to the recommended Decision regarding drainage patterns on the lot and moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 18/21 by M. & N. Kagdi, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed attached garage, 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 April 14, 2021). 2. That the drainage patterns within the lot are not adversely affected, to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle opposed Sean Wiley in favour - 4 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 5 of 16 4.3 P/CA 22/21 R. Sedara 422 Sheppard Avenue 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). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending deferral to the May 12, 2021 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment to be recirculated with revised variances and a revised site plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). No applicant or agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer and Planner I, Felix Chau, advised that based on discussions between staff and the applicant, the May 12, 2021 meeting date is sufficient enough time to circulate the new materials. Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 22/21 by R. Sedara, be Deferred to the May 12, 2021 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment to be recirculated with revised variances and a revised site plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously - 5 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 6 of 16 4.4 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Billy Tung, agent with KLM Planning Partners Inc., was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of application, Billy Tung stated the applicant has reviewed the Report to the Committee of Adjustment and is in agreement with the recommendation and condition for approval. After reviewing the application and understanding that the variances are required as a result of the shape of these two properties and the distance from the dwelling to the - 6 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 7 of 16 curve of the road, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 23/21 & P/CA 24/21 by Tower Hill Homes Holdings Inc., 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 existing townhouse dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 25/21 M. & R. Leclair 239 Lawson Street 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the 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 seven residents in the surrounding area on Lawson Street and Oakburn Street, in support of the application. Written comments were not received from the Canadian National Railway as of April 14, 2021. - 7 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 8 of 16 Michael Leclair, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, Michael Leclair stated the purpose of this application is to facilitate the construction of a sunroom and upgrades made to the existing platform (deck). Michael Leclair went on to state the request is based on the existing shape of the dwelling with a bump-out style kitchen. Michael Leclair indicated this request does not encroach into any neighbouring lot lines and several letters of support were obtained from adjacent residents. When asked by a Committee Member; Michael Leclair stated he believes no negative impact on drainage will result from this application, having no change to the existing lot coverage. After reviewing the application and thanking the applicant for their efforts particularly with obtaining the letters of support from multiple neighbours, considering the recommendation from City staff, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 25/21 by M. & R. Leclair, 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 sunroom addition, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously - 8 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 9 of 16 4.6 P/CA 26/21 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 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 facilitate construction of a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department 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. - 9 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 10 of 16 Written comments were received from residents of 821 Fairview Avenue expressing concerns with the requested variances to the minimum rear yard, maximum building height, maximum lot coverage, and the Urban Design Guidelines Checklist Items 10 and 12. Jesse Gray, applicant, was present to represent the application. Mike Harris of 821 Fairview Avenue, Alex Seres of 815 Fairview Avenue, and Lisa Jones of 823 Fairview Avenue, were present in objection to the application. Jesse Gray outlined the nature of the application. Mike Harris, 821 Fairview Avenue, reported that he and the applicant spoke the day following the Committee meeting held on March 10 2021, and have had no further discussions. Mr. Harris’ concerns with the present application include that the proposed dwelling has not been shortened, it is 1 centimetre taller, the angle of the front sloped roof line has been adjusted, the area of the mechanical room has increased from 12 square metres to 16 square metres, the roof top terrace has been revised to wrap around to the north side, the requested variances impact the size of the dwelling resulting in a massive home that will have shadow impacts, and the rear wall of the dwelling extends 24 feet beyond any other home on the street. In addition, he is of the opinion that Item 10 on the Urban Design Guideline Checklist is not a ‘Yes’, and Item 12 is not a ‘Yes’. Alex Seres, 815 Fairview Avenue, indicated that he supports the comments made by Mr. Harris. His concerns include that the slope of the roof was adjusted slightly to remove the requirement for a height variance. He understands that while it is not in the power of the Committee to deal with by-law interpretation, he reviewed the definition of ‘Building Height’ in By-law 2511 and is of the opinion that a mechanical room is to only house mechanical equipment and not serve other functions. It appears to Mr. Seres that the proposed mechanical room will house the furnace and water equipment, access, and a storage area. The wrap around terrace now presents a privacy risk for 821 Fairview Avenue. Lisa Jones, 823 Fairview Avenue, indicated her concerns are similar to the previous two speakers, that she believed the 9 percent increase in maximum lot coverage was not minor, and the proposed dwelling does not fit in with the street. Jesse Gray, the applicant, responded that it is difficult to reduce the size of the house, the mechanical room is not bigger but now includes an elevator, when the mechanical room is considered the proposed height is similar to 817 Fairview Avenue, and the redesign of the roof top terrace was due to trusses required by the design and was not intended to overlook 821 Fairview Avenue. - 10 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 11 of 16 In response to a question from a Committee Member, Jesse Gray responded that the mechanical room does not contain amenity space, storage area, or a sunroom, and there is no habitable space. An elevator and hallway are locateded within the mechanical room. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer, responded that ‘No’ should have been checked for Item 10 of the Urban Design Guideline Checklist which asks: Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? After acknowledging the removal of some variances, noting that zoning review interpretation is completed at the building permit stage, recognizing the variance to permit the porch to encroach the front yard is minor, noting that lot coverage is the footprint of the ground floor of the building and doesn’t address gross floor area or number of storeys, noting that the Committee is to consider how a building fits, noting that other homes in the area have front balconies, noting the house and garage comprise a lot coverage of 36 percent, noting that a modified variance decision of approving all the requested variance along with a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent may help reduce the penetration of the dwelling into the rear yard and address the neighbours’ concerns, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 26/21 by J. & J. Gray, be Approved as requested by the applicant and as modified by the Committee of Adjustment to permit a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously - 11 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 12 of 16 4.7 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a conditions. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Max Gargaro, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Max Gargaro spoke in support of the application stating the Report to the Committee of Adjustment has been reviewed and is believed to have captured the intent of application. After reviewing the application, and noting the reduction in flankage yard to accommodate a 5 metre safety buffer for pedestrians and vehicles from the property line to the sidewalk and roadway, it is believed that the applications meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: - 12 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 13 of 16 Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 27/21 to P/CA 29/21 by Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, 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 Lots 72, 101 and 181, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 30/21 A. De Guzman & M. Morales 1981 Treetop Way 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department 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 1985 Treetop Way expressing no objections to deck size, however, objections were noted regarding the height and positioning of the covering of the deck as views are obstructed, aesthetics, impact on property value, possibility of animal and rodent habitation, safety concerns related to string winds, and late night social gatherings. - 13 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 14 of 16 Allen Kevin De Guzman, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application Allen Kevin De Guzman thanked City staff for all of their assistance with the application and apologized for not seeking a Building Permit in advance. Allen Kevin De Guzman stated the intent was to create additional outdoor space that was similar to other neighbours. Furthermore efforts have been made to address any concerns from neighbours, where the existing deck is to be removed. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Allen Kevin De Guzman stated the covered patio was constructed in June 2020. After having read the Report to the Committee of Adjustment and agreeing with the comments, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 30/21 by A. De Guzman & M. Morales, be Approved on the grounds that 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, 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 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). 2. That the applicant obtain a Building Permit for the existing roof by April 14, 2022, or this decision shall become null and void. Carried Unanimously 4.9 P/CA 31/21 & P/CA 32/21 P. Ambalavanar 1964 Southview Drive 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. - 14 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 15 of 16 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending the application be Tabled until the applicant provides additional information to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Written comments were received from the TRCA stating, the subject site is entirely within the TRCA Regulated Area of the Duffins Creek watershed. The site is within the Regulatory Storm Floodplain associated with the Duffins Creek to the north of the site. 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 is Provincially designated area identifying existing urban areas which are prone to flooding and allows for a lower level of flood protection in some circumstances. TRCA staff recommend the applications be tabled until such time that the TRCA has 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 TRCA has not received an application. Written comments were received from residents of 1609 & 1613 Burnside Drive who wish to receive notice of any future meetings that pertain to this application. No applicant or agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer stated the applicant is currently working with the TRCA. The application can be lifted from the table once comments are received from TRCA. Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 31/21 & P/CA 32/21 by P. Ambalavanar, be Tabled until the applicant provides additional information to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Carried Unanimously - 15 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 16 of 16 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 4th meeting of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:31 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, May 12, 2021. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer - 16 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 21/21 Date: May 12, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 21/21 Universal City Six Development Inc. 1010 Sandy Beach Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-law 7810/21 to permit: • a maximum building height of 79.5 metres (27-storeys), whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 78.0 (26-storeys); and • a 0.0 metre stepback between the top 6.0 metres and 18.0 metres of the point tower for buildings equal to and greater than 73.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum 3.0 metre stepback between the top 6.0 metres and 18.0 metres of a point towner for buildings equal to and greater than 73.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to construct a 27-storey residential building. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances (refer to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3). Background On April 26, 2021, City Council granted an exemption to the 2 year time out period for applying for a minor variance following the passing of an applicant initiated zoning by-law amendment (A 01/20) permitting the Committee of Adjustment to consider Minor Variance Application P/CA 21/21. - 17 - Report P/CA 21/21 May 12, 2021 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated as Mixed Use Areas – City Centre within the City Centre Neighbourhood. High density residential development is a permitted use within the City Centre designation. City Centre has guidelines providing direction on the design of new development within the City Centre. The applicant is proposing a signature building that provides a gateway condition with increased heights, massing and high-quality architectural design at the corner of Sandy Beach Road and Bayly Street. This site has been identified as a gateway location and is appropriate for increased building heights. For tall buildings, the Guidelines recommend the top of towers to be attractively designed using setbacks, articulation and other means to contribute positively to the skyline. The applicant is proposing a high-quality architectural design of the building, including the upper storeys of the point tower, by creating a waved design of balconies and canopies to create a bold entry point into the City Centre. The proposal is consistent with the building design objectives of the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject site is zoned City Centre Two - CC2 within Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-law 7810/21. High-density residential development is permitted within the CC2 Zone. No Additional Non-compliances Will be Created by the Increase in Building Height The City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-law 7810/21, requires a minimum parking ratio of 0.71 parking spaces per dwelling unit and 0.15 visitor parking spaces per dwelling unit. The applicant is proposing to provide a total of 269 parking spaces for Universal City Phase Six by reconfiguring the underground parking to accommodate an additional 9 vehicular parking spaces for the 10 additional residential units. The applicant has indicated that the original configuration of the 3-level underground parking structure was located outside of the 10.0 metres by 10.0 metres Region’s daylighting triangle at the intersection of Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road. After discussions with the Region of Durham Works Department, it was determined that parking on levels P2 and P3 of the underground parking garage can be located within this daylight triangle, subject to the applicant entering into a stratification agreement with the Region of Durham. As a result, the applicant has redesigned the 3-level underground parking to accommodate the additional parking. In addition to minimum vehicle parking requirements, the City Centre Zoning By-law has minimum requirements for indoor and outdoor amenity spaces and bicycle parking. The applicant has indicated that the additional 10 dwelling units will require 5 bicycle parking spaces, and 40 square metres of indoor and outdoor amenity space, which can all be provided on-site. The additional 10 residential units will not require any further exceptions to the City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17. - 18 - Report P/CA 21/21 May 12, 2021 Page 3 Requested Variance to Building Stepback When drafting the site-specific exception for the proposed development, the zoning requirement for point tower stepbacks for tall buildings within the City Centre Zoning By-law was not applied. This requested variance does not represent a change in the architectural design of the building as previously presented to the Planning & Development Committee on December 7, 2020, which has always shown the siting of the building in its current design and did not include stepbacks at the upper levels. Staff are supportive of granting relief from Section 4.2 j) ii) of the City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17, requiring a minimum 3.0 metre stepback in the main wall of the point tower between the top 6.0 metres and 18.0 metres for buildings equal to and greater than 73.5 metres in height. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The applicant has submitted sufficient information to demonstrate that the increased building height and request to recognize the 0.0 metre stepback for the tower portion of the building will result in the appropriate development of the land. The requested variances to permit the development are considered minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit an increase in building height 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: May 3, 2021 Comments prepared by: Tanjot Bal Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration TB:DW :jc \\FS\CSDC\Amanda\docs\templates\CA\programmed\CA Report.doc Attachments - 19 - Pickering P a r k w a y Tatra Dr i ve Drava StreetKrosno Bou leva rd Reytan Bou leva rd SandyBeachRoadBayly Street Morden L a n e Poprad AvenueAlliance RoadFordon A v e n u e Highway 40 1 Mitchel Park Bayview Heights Public School © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 21/21 Date: Mar. 02, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯ E Universal City Six Development Inc. Part Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 21-21 Universal City Six Development Inc\PCA21-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 20 - Exhibit 2 Conceptual South Elevation File No: P/CA 21/21 Applicant: Universal City Six Development Inc. Property Description: Part Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2, 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 12, 2021 to permit a maximum building height of 79.5 metres (27 storeys) to permit a 0.0 metre stepback between the top 6.0 metres and 18.0 metres of the point tower for buildings equal to and greater than 73.5 metres - 21 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\S\2020 Mar 30, 2021DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Revised Rendering FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department P/CA 21/21 Universal City Six Development Inc. Part of Lot 21, Concession 1 South, Now Part 2, 40R-18785 (1010 Sandy Beach Road) Exhibit 3 - 22 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 22/21 Date: May 12, 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 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. 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 considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the accessory structure (detached garage), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 and 3). 2. That no human habitation or home business be permitted in the accessory structure. Background The subject application was deferred at the April 14, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting because the north arrow on the submitted site plan was incorrectly oriented after the application was circulated. As a result, the previous notice inaccurately described the north lot line being the lot line impacted by the variances, whereas it is the east lot line that should have been recognized. Revised notices were circulated with the accurate variances and site plan in anticipation for the May 12, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting. - 23 - Report P/CA 22/21 May 12, 2021 Page 2 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 Woodlands Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including single detached dwellings and any associated accessory structures. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the provision that requires accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area and greater than 1.8 metres in height to be setback 1.0 metre from all lot lines is to ensure that adequate space is available for maintenance, to ensure that eaves/overhangs do not encroach on the adjacent properties, to ensure roof drainage stays on the subject property, and to minimize the visual impact that the location may have on adjacent properties. The existing garage is adequately screened from the easterly neighbour by a wooden fence. The City’s Engineering Services comments address mitigating potential runoff issues with the 0.5 of a metre setback by directing downspouts away from the shared easterly lot. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The detached garage is supplementary to the main residential use on the lot. The main dwelling does not have an attached garage. The structure provides sheltered parking as well as additional storage space on the lot. The requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services Downspouts should be directed away from the shared lot line with 426 Sheppard Avenue. Building Services No comments on the application. Date of report: May 5, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:jc \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 22-21 R. Sedara\7. Report\PCA 22-21 Report.doc Attachments - 24 - Sheppard Avenue Fox w o o d T r a ilAutumn Crescent Old Fo res t Road Calvington Drive Pineview Lane Rougemount DriveHi ghbus h Trail Rosebank RoadSouth Petticoat Ravine South Petticoat Ravine South Petticoat Ravine © 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 Development Department 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- 25 - 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: Apr. 20, 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 east lot line - 26 - 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 - 27 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 33/21 Date: May 12, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 33/21 P. Raju 1561 Oakburn Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2964/88, to permit a minimum south side yard width of 0.6 of a metre, whereas the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard width of 1.2 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to construct a roof over the below grade stairs within the south side 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed roof, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). Background The applicant submitted a building permit application in May 2020 to construct a below grade entrance. The applicant has revised the Building Permit drawings to propose a roof over the below grade entrance. At this time, this roof has not been constructed. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas within the Highbush Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use and a primary built form within the Highbush Neighbourhood. - 28 - Report P/CA 33/21 May 12, 2021 Page 2 The property is zoned S1 within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2964/88. The By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres, to ensure sufficient setbacks are maintained from neighbouring dwellings, allow enough space to maintain the side of the dwelling, and to maintain existing drainage patterns. Staff are of the opinion that a horizontal distance of 1.6 metres between buildings on adjacent lots is sufficient. In addition, only a small portion of the side yard setback is reduced to 0.6 of a metre. The landowner will have sufficient room (1.2 metres) to maintain the south side of the dwelling. Engineering has reviewed the proposed variance and has no concerns for the existing drainage patterns with a reduction in the south side yard setback. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The applicant has constructed a below grade entrance to the basement. To prevent pooling of water or flooding within the basement, the applicant proposes to construct a roof over the below grade entrance. The roof is proposed to be 1.96 metres in height, which is the typical height of a fence between two residential properties. This roof is intended to prevent water damage within the basement, and will have no negative visual impacts on the subject property or the neighbouring property to the south. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance for a reduced south side yard in order to permit a roof over a below grade entrance 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 • Building Services has no concerns. The Application for Building Permit has been revised to show the constructed roof over the below grade entrance. Date of report: May 5, 2021 Comments prepared by: Tanjot Bal Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration TB:jc \\FS\CSDC\Amanda\docs\templates\CA\programmed\CA Report.doc Attachments - 29 - WilcroftCourt ValleyviewDrivePineGroveAvenueOakburn StreetW aterford Gate Westcreek DriveForestview DriveButternut CourtNordane DriveTranquil Court Prohill Street Rouge Forest Crescent Woodview AvenueLancrest Street Moss brookSquareRockwoodDriveSenator StreetValleyview Park Westcreek Public School © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 33/21 Date: Mar. 23, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EP. Raju Lot 75, Plan 40M-16299 (1561 Oakburn Street) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 33-21 P. Raju\PCA33-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 30 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 33/21 Applicant: P. Raju Property Description: Lot 75, Plan 40M-16299 (1561 Oakburn Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 13, 2021 to permit a minimum side yard width of 0.6 of a metre proposed roof over side entrance to the basement - 31 - Exhibit 3 Diagram of Proposed Roof over Side Entrance to Basement File No: P/CA 33/21 Applicant: P. Raju Property Description: Lot 75, Plan 40M-16299 (1561 Oakburn Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 13, 2021 - 32 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 34/21 & P/CA 35/21 Date: May 12, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 34/21 & P/CA 35/21 T. Luong & L. Lu 566 West Shore Boulevard Application P/CA 34/21 – Part 1 on Proposed Site Plan The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit a minimum lot frontage of 10.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres. Application P/CA 35/21 – Part 2 on Proposed Site Plan The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit a minimum lot frontage of 10.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to sever the property and construct two detached dwellings. Recommendation The City Development Department does not consider the requested variances to be minor in nature and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Refusal of the proposed variances. Details on Proposal The applicants have submitted applications to vary the minimum lot frontage requirement, to facilitate future land division applications. The new lots would have a minimum lot area of 517.18 square metres and a minimum lot frontage of 10.6 metres. No additional variances are required to facilitate the severance. - 33 - Report P/CA 34/21 & P/CA 35/21 May 12, 2021 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas within the West Shore Neighbourhood. The neighbourhood consists of a mix of detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings. The proposed development conforms to the intent of Pickering’s Official Plan. 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. The subject property is within the West Shore Neighbourhood Precinct. Staff have reviewed and commented 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. The proposed development conforms with the intent of the Official Plan. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The R4 zone within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres and a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres. The intent of the minimum lot frontage requirement is to maintain a consistent lotting pattern within established residential areas. The West Shore Neighbourhood is an established residential area, where majority of the lots have a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres. A few lots that pre-date the passing of Zoning By-law 2511 have reduced frontage lots and do not conform to the intent of the By-law. For instance, the three lots immediately to the south (560, 562 & 564 West Shore Boulevard) and the two lots immediately to the north (568 and 572 West Shore Boulevard) of the subject property, do not comply with the minimum lot frontage requirement of 15 metres. Staff are of the opinion that permitting a reduction in lot frontage will result in a deviation from the established lotting pattern, which does not conform to the intent of Zoning By-law 2511. - 34 - Report P/CA 34/21 & P/CA 35/21 May 12, 2021 Page 3 Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land The applicant has designed the two new dwellings to be consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The proposed dwellings will form part of the established streetscape along West Shore Boulevard, by maintaining consistent front yard setbacks, appropriate dwelling heights, appropriate dwelling depths, and reduced lot coverages. In addition, the subject property is located between lots having reduced lot frontages of between 9 to 12 metres. As such, staff is of the opinion that the proposed lot frontages of 10.6 metres would result in appropriate development of the land. Minor in Nature The applicant is requesting a significant reduction in the minimum lot frontage requirement in order to sever the subject property into two residential lots. Staff is of the opinion that these variances are not minor in nature, as the variances will result in a lotting pattern that is significantly different from majority of the lots within the established residential neighbourhood. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to reduce the minimum lot frontage to 10.6 metres do not maintain the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and are not 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 and surrounding area. 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 on the application. Date of report: May 4, 2021 Comments prepared by: Tanjot Bal Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration TB:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 34-21 & PCA 35-21\7. Report\PCA 34-21 & 35-21 Report.doc Attachments - 35 - Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1.Does the proposed dwelling have a sloped roof proposed such as a Hip, Gable, Mansard or Gambrel? (see Figure 5) The proposed dwellings include a hip and gable roof. X 2.Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) The proposed dwellings are approximately 8.8 metres in height. A newly constructed dwelling 2 lots north is almost 9 metres in height. X 3.For dwellings with a height greater than 8.5 metres – is the dwelling a maximum two storeys with a sloped roof back from the adjacent dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) The proposed roof is sloped away from the adjacent dwellings to the north and south. X 4.Does the front entrance have 6 or less steps? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) The proposed dwellings include less than 6 steps. X 5.Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) Yes X 6.Is the design of the main entrance consistent with the architectural style of the dwelling? (Section 2.2: Guidelines 3 and 4) Yes X 7.Does the main entrance include a porch, portico or other weather protection in keeping with the design of the dwelling? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 4) Yes X 8.Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) Yes - 36 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 9.Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? Section 2.2: Guideline 9) Yes X 10.Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) The dwelling depth of neighbouring dwellings range from 13 to 21 metres. X 11.Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) The proposal maintains the minimum side yard setback required in the zoning by-law. X 12.Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) Yes 13.If a projecting garage is permitted, does it have a sloped roof? (see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) N/A 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 X 15.Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) The proposed garages slightly recess from the main front wall. X 16.Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) Yes 17.Are sustainable design features or resilient landscaping proposed as part of the site design? (Section 3.3: Guideline 2 & Section 4.1: Guideline 5) Details to be determined through the review of the future Land Division applications and/or Building Permit applications 18.Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) Details to be determined through the review of the future Land Division applications and/or Building Permit applications - 37 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 3 Yes No Comments 19.Does the plan include tree planting on private property? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) Details to be determined through the review of the future Land Division applications and/or Building Permit applications 20.Does the plan include one or more native species street trees? (Section 4.2) Details to be determined through the review of the future Land Division applications and/or Building Permit applications - 38 - Hillcrest RoadHillviewCr escent Victory DriveWest Shore BoulevardOklahoma Drive Park CrescentYeremi StreetLeaside StreetBeach p oi nt Pr o m e n a d eChipmunk StreetSunrise Avenue Tullo Street Surf Avenue Marksbury RoadSandcastle Court Mink Street CliffviewRoadCliffview Park Frenchman's Bay Public School © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 34/21 & P/CA 35/21 Date: Mar. 25, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯ET. Luong & L. Lu Part of Lot 3 S and Part of Lot 4, Plan 311 N (566 West Shore Boulevard) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 34-21 & PCA 35-21 T. Luong & L. Lu\PCA34-21&PCA35-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 39 - Exhibit 2 Proposed Site Plan File No(s): P/CA 34/21 & P/CA 35/21 Applicants: T. Luong & L. Lu Property Description: Part of Lot 3 S and Part of Lot 4, Plan 311 N (566 West Shore Boulevard) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 19, 2021 P/CA 35/21: to permit a minimum lot frontage of 10.6 metres P/CA 34/21: to permit a minimum lot frontage of 10.6 metres - 40 - Exhibit 3 Proposed Elevation for Part 1 File No(s): P/CA 34/21 & P/CA 35/21 Applicants: T. Luong & L. Lu Property Description: Part of Lot 3 S and Part of Lot 4, Plan 311 N (566 West Shore Boulevard) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 19, 2021 - 41 - Exhibit 4 Proposed Elevation for Part 2 File No(s): P/CA 34/21 & P/CA 35/21 Applicants: T. Luong & L. Lu Property Description: Part of Lot 3 S and Part of Lot 4, Plan 311 N (566 West Shore Boulevard) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 19, 2021 - 42 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 38/21 Date: May 12, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 38/21 S. Milanovski 1789 Spruce Hill Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum side yard of 1.2 metres on the south side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance to 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 detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, & 4). Background The requested variance was previously approved by the Committee of Adjustment on October 5, 2016 (P/CA 56/16). A south side yard of 1.2 metres was approved whereas the By-law required 1.5 metres. As a condition of approval, the applicant was required to obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by October 5, 2018. However this condition was not met, which rendered the decision null and void. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates this property as “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including detached dwellings. - 43 - Report P/CA 38/21 May 12, 2021 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned R4 within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. The intent of the minimum interior side yard width of 1.5 metres provision is to provide adequate separation between structures on abutting properties in order to maintain pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services. The requests for a side yard setback of 1.2 metres will maintain the intent of this provision. Furthermore, there is an easement along the north side yard of the property, which restricts the developable area on this lot. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed dwelling fills a vacant lot in an established neighbourhood, and will provide consistency with the neighbouring lots and the general character of the neighbourhood. The requested side yard would be consistent with the north side yard setback of the adjacent neighbour to the south (1787 Spruce Hill Road), which was permitted a 1.2 metre side yard setback through the Committee of Adjustment (P/CA 57/16). The requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land and 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 reduced side yard setback 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 on the application. Date of report: May 5, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 38-21 S. Milanovski\7. Report\PCA 38-21 Report.doc Attachments - 44 - 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) 8 steps are required to reach the main floor to accommodate for the drop of grade towards the rear of the dwelling. 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) - 45 - 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) X 14. If a double car garage is proposed, does it have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) 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) X 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) X 18. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) X 19. Does the plan include tree planting on private property? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) X 20. Does the plan include one or more native species street trees? (Section 4.2) - 46 - Fairport RoadCr ic ke t Lane S p r u c e H i l l R o a dEastbank RoadS t roud s La n e MinstrelManorS h a d ybrookDriveEdgewoodRoadCobblers Court Goldenridge Road Rushton Road Dunbarton Road A s p e n RoadKates Lane Wingarden CrescentHedgerow Place Jacqueline Avenue Ada CourtShade Master DriveMeadowview Avenue Welrus Street Shadybrook Park Dalewood Ravine © 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 Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 38/21 Date: Apr. 15, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯ES. Milanovski 1789 Spruce Hill Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 38-21 S. Milanovski\PCA38-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 47 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 38/21 Applicant: S. Milanovski Property Description: Pt Lot 51, Plan 1041 RCP, Now Part 1, 2, 40R29606 (1789 Spruce Hill Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 21, 2021 to permit a minimum side yard of 1.2 metres on the south side yard Spruce Hill Road - 48 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 38/21 Applicant: S. Milanovski Property Description: Pt Lot 51, Plan 1041 RCP, Now Part 1, 2, 40R29606 (1789 Spruce Hill Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 21, 2021 North Elevation Front/West Elevation - 49 - Exhibit 4 l Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 38/21 Applicant: S. Milanovski Property Description: Pt Lot 51, Plan 1041 RCP, Now Part 1, 2, 40R29606 (1789 Spruce Hill Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 21, 2021 South Elevation Rear/East Elevation - 50 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 39/21 to P/CA 41/21 Date: May 12, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 39/21 to P/CA 41/21 GHR Investment Corp. 1865 Pine Grove Avenue Applications P/CA 39/21 (Lot 1) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: •minimum interior side yard of 1.2 metres on the south side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 1.5 metres •maximum lot coverage of 36.5 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent •minimum flankage yard depth of 2.5 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum flankage yard depth of 4.5 metres P/CA 40/21 (Lot 2) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: •minimum side yard of 1.2 metres on the north side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres •maximum lot coverage of 37 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent P/CA 41/21 (Lot 3) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: •minimum side yard of 1.2 metres on the west side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres •maximum lot coverage of 37.5 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to in order to facilitate the construction of three single detached dwellings. - 51 - Report P/CA 39/21 to P/CA 41/21 May 12, 2021 Page 2 Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the detached dwellings, 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 Pickering’s Official Plan designates this property as “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” within the Highbush Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including detached dwellings. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “R4” as per Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. Interior Side Yard Variances The intent of the minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres on the interior side yard is to provide adequate separation between structures on abutting properties in order to maintain pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services. The requests for side yard setbacks of 1.2 metres will maintain the intent of this provision. Lot Coverage Variances The intent of the maximum building lot coverage requirement is to maintain an appropriate amount of amenity area uncovered by buildings on a lot, to regulate the scale and size of the building, and to accommodate appropriate lot drainage and grading. The maximum lot coverage permissible through this By-law is 33 percent. The application proposed maximum lot coverages of 36.5 percent for Lot 1, 37 percent for Lot 2, and 37.5 percent for Lot 3. As shown on the overall site plan, adequate amenity space is preserved throughout this proposal. Flankage Yard Variance Lot 1 (P/CA 39/21) is a corner with the northerly lot line flanking onto Pine Grove Avenue. The intent of the minimum flankage yard setback of 4.5 metres is to provide an adequate separation distance between buildings and the flanking street activity, and to provide an adequate landscaped area. Majority of the flanking wall is setback 3.15 metres from the flanking lot line. Only a small section, approximately 2 metres, of the flanking wall is set back 2.5 metres from the lot line. As such, the variance requests maintain the intent of flankage yard setback provision. - 52 - Report P/CA 39/21 to P/CA 41/21 May 12, 2021 Page 3 Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances are intended to facilitate the residential development of three lots recently created through two approved Land Division applications (LD 36/2021 and LD 37/2021). The applicant has proposed dwellings that fit into the low density detached dwelling characteristic of the existing neighbourhood. As such, the proposed variances represent appropriate development of the land and are minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • No comments on the application. Please note that the applicant is to ensure all approved variances are reflected on the plans submitted for clearance of conditions of the land severance applications. Building Services • no comments on the application Date of report: May 5, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 39-21 to PCA 41-21\7. Report\PCA 39-21 to PCA 41-21 Report.doc Attachments - 53 - 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) - 54 - 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) X 13. If a projecting garage is permitted, does it have a sloped roof? (see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) X 14. If a double car garage is proposed, does it have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) 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) X 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) X 18. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) X 19. Does the plan include tree planting on private property? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) X 20. Does the plan include one or more native species street trees? (Section 4.2) - 55 - SandhurstCre sc en tPineGroveAvenueValley Ridge CrescentNordane DriveProhill Street Woodview AvenueRockwood DriveCopley Street Secord Street Thicket Crescent Rouge Forest Crescent Sandcherry Court Pinegrove 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 Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 39/21 to P/CA 41/21 Date: Apr. 15, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EGHR Investment Incorporation 1865 Pine Grove Avenue Hydro Lands SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 39-21 to PCA 41-21 GHR Investment Corp\PCA39_41-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 56 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 39/21 to P/CA 41/21 Applicant: GHR Investment Corp. Property Description: Pt Lot 6, Plan 282 and Pt 4, 40R-16978 Now, Pt. 1, 40R-22744 (1865 Pine Grove Avenue) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 22, 2021 P/CA 39/21 P/CA 40/21 P/CA 41/21 - 57 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 39/21 Applicant: GHR Investment Corp. Property Description: Pt Lot 6, Plan 282 and Pt 4, 40R-16978 Now, Pt. 1, 40R-22744 (1865 Pine Grove Avenue) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 22, 2021 to permit a minimum side yard of 1.2 metres on the south side yard to permit a maximum lot coverage of 36.5 percent to permit a minimum flankage yard depth of 2.5 metres Pine Grove Avenue Pine Grove Avenue - 58 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 40/21 Applicant: GHR Investment Corp. Property Description: Pt Lot 6, Plan 282 and Pt 4, 40R-16978 Now, Pt. 1, 40R-22744 (1865 Pine Grove Avenue) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 22, 2021 Pine Grove Avenue to permit a minimum side yard of 1.2 metres on the north side yard to permit a maximum lot coverage of 37 percent - 59 - Exhibit 5 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 41/21 Applicant: GHR Investment Corp. Property Description: Pt Lot 6, Plan 282 and Pt 4, 40R-16978 Now, Pt. 1, 40R-22744 (1865 Pine Grove Avenue) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 22, 2021 to permit a minimum side yard of 1.2 metres on the west side yard to permit a maximum lot coverage of 37.5 percent Pine Grove Avenue - 60 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 42/21 Date: May 12, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 42/21 W. Liu 3615 Markham-Pickering Townline Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2676/88 to permit: • a maximum lot coverage of 23 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 20 percent; and • an accessory building with a maximum height of 4.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone and 4.5 metres in any commercial zone. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached garage. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached garage, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject property is designated Rural Hamlet – Hamlet Residential within the Green River settlement area. Residential uses and associated accessory structures are permitted within this designation. - 61 - Report P/CA 42/21 May 12, 2021 Page 2 The property is zoned HMR1 within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2676/88. The applicant is requesting relief from the maximum lot coverage requirement, in order to construct a detached garage that can store up to six personal vehicles and/or boats. Due to the height of the vehicle used to transport the boat, the applicant is also requesting to increase the maximum height of an accessory building requirement by 1.0 metre. The purpose of the maximum lot coverage provision is to limit the area of a lot covered by structures, to maintain adequate landscaped areas and consistent level of development for the area. The property has a large rear yard, and therefore by constructing this large garage, it will not significantly reduce the landscaped area or limit the functionality of the rear yard amenity space. The By-law restricts the height of accessory structures within residential areas, to ensure these structures do not negatively impact adjacent residential properties. The proposed detached garage will have no impact on the property to the east, as existing mature trees will screen the garage. The neighbour to the north has indicated that they have no concerns with the height and location of the proposed detached garage, therefore staff have no concerns. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The applicant is proposing to remove the existing one car garage and construct the new detached garage in the rear yard. In order to facilitate the construction, the applicant requires an increase in height and lot coverage. The 22-metre long garage is proposed to be constructed within the rear yard, and only a portion of the garage will be visible from the road. The property to the east is sufficiently screening by vegetation, and the property to the south also has the private detached garage located in the rear yard. The private detached garage is located more than 1 metre from the property to the north, and the property owner has no concerns with the proposed development. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed detached garage is appropriate development for this property and the requested variances are minor. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit the construction of a detached garage is desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • Ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. 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. - 62 - Report P/CA 42/21 May 12, 2021 Page 3 Building Services • Building Services has no concerns. An Application for Building Permit has been submitted. Heritage Planner • Property is not listed or designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Date of report: May 3, 2021 Comments prepared by: Tanjot Bal Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration TB:DW :jc \\FS\CSDC\Amanda\docs\templates\CA\programmed\CA Report.doc Attachments - 63 - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!! !! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Highway 7 Markham-Pickering Townline RoadSideline 34York Durham Line © 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 Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 42/21 Date: Apr. 15, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯ E W. Liu GreenRiver 3615 Markham-Pickering Townline Road SubjectLands City of MarkhamL:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 42-21 W. Liu\PCA42-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.City of Pickering- 64 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 42/21 Applicant: W. Liu Municipal Address: 3615 Markham-Pickering Townline Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 19, 2021 to permit a maximum lot coverage of 23 percent - 65 - Exhibit 3 Conceptual Elevations File No: P/CA 42/21 Applicant: W. Liu Municipal Address: 3615 Markham-Pickering Townline Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Apr 19, 2021 4.5 m Front Elevation Side Elevation to permit an accessory building with a maximum height of 4.5 metres - 66 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 43/21 Date: May 12, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 43/21 K. Deol & F. Dirani 642 Annland Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a maximum building height of 9.9 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 9.0 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and • a covered platform and uncovered steps (front porch and associated steps) not exceeding 1.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.7 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits 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, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of a detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department recommends that Minor Variance Application P/CA 43/21 be Deferred to the June 9, 2021 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment to be recirculated with a revised variance to building height. Background The applicant requested relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit a building height of 9.9 metres for a detached dwelling that appears to have a mansard roofline. The applicant calculated the height of the dwelling as the vertical distance between grade and the mid-point of the roof. However, in the case of a mansard roof, the By-law calculates building height as the vertical distance between established grade and the deck line. Additionally, the third-floor of the dwelling is proposed to be habitable space, and is therefore not considered to be part of the roof architecture (a typical mansard roof has empty space). - 67 - Report P/CA 43/21 May 12, 2021 Page 2 As a result, the proposed dwelling has a flat roofline (see Exhibit 7, Submitted Roof Plan). The correct calculation of the height of the proposed dwelling is the vertical distance between established grade and the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall. The public notice requirements for this minor variance application were fulfilled prior to Staff identifying the incorrect calculation to building height. As such, City staff recommend that this application be deferred to the June 9, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting in order to recirculate a revised notice and updated exhibits that reflect the height of the proposed dwelling. Date of report: May 04, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 43-21\7. Report\PCA 43-21 Report - Deferred.doc Attachments - 68 - Balaton AvenueColmar Avenue Liverpool RoadIlona Park Road Krosno Boulevard A nnland St r ee t Foxglove Avenue Shearer Lane Luna Court Monica Cook Place Commerce Street Pleasant StreetWharf StreetFrontRoad Hewson DriveBroadview Street Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park Alderwood Park Frenchman's Bay Rate Payers Memorial 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 Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 43/21 Date: Apr. 16, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EK. Deol & F. Dirani 642 Annland Street SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 43-21 K. Deol & F. Dirani\PCA43-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 69 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 43/21 Applicant: K. Deol & F. Dirani Municipal Address: 642 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: April 27, 2021 to permit a covered platform and uncovered steps (front porch and associated steps) not exceeding 1.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.7 metres into the required front yard to permit a maximum building height of 9.9 metres to permit a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent - 70 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Front Elevation File No: P/CA 43/21 Applicant: K. Deol & F. Dirani Municipal Address: 642 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: April 27, 2021 to permit a maximum building height of 9.9 metres - 71 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 43/21 Applicant: K. Deol & F. Dirani Municipal Address: 642 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: April 27, 2021 - 72 - Exhibit 5 Submitted West Side Elevation File No: P/CA 43/21 Applicant: K. Deol & F. Dirani Municipal Address: 642 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: April 27, 2021 to permit a covered platform and uncovered steps (front porch and associated steps) not exceeding 1.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.7 metres into the required front yard - 73 - Exhibit 6 Submitted East Side Elevation File No: P/CA 43/21 Applicant: K. Deol & F. Dirani Municipal Address: 642 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: April 27, 2021 - 74 - Exhibit 7 Submitted Roof Plan File No: P/CA 43/21 Applicant: K. Deol & F. Dirani Municipal Address: 642 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: May 3, 2021 - 75 -