Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 14, 2021Committee of Adjustment Agenda Meeting Number: 7 Date: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page Number 1.Disclosure of Interest 2.Adoption of Agenda 3.Adoption of Minutes from June 9, 2021 1-15 4. Report 4.1 P/CA 53/21 16-22N. Nedelcu1107 Ridgewood Court 4.2 P/CA 55/21 23-30P. Fuselli1505 Whitevale Road 4.3 P/CA 56/21 31-37M. Russell 1770 Liatris Drive 4.4 P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 38-52Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. 1383 Rougemount Drive 4.5 P/CA 62/21 53-61 H. Gray & A. Ferreira689 Liverpool Road 4.6 P/CA 63/21 62-67C. & M. Antaris 1888 Rockwood Drive 4.7 P/CA 64/21 68-72J. Saunders132 Highway 7, Green River 4.8 P/CA 65/21 73-78 P. Shevnandan 1641 Hollyhedge Drive 5. Adjournment For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Samantha O’Brien Telephone: 905.420.4660, extension 2023 Email: sobrien@pickering.ca Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 1 of 15 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Absent 1.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2.Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric NewtonSeconded by Tom Copeland That the revised agenda for the Wednesday, June 9, 2021 meeting be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3.Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric NewtonSeconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 5th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, May 12, 2021 be adopted. Carried Unanimously - 1 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 2 of 15 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 43/21 K. Deol & F. Dirani 642 Annland Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a maximum building height of 11.3 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, nor 1.0 metre into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an Application for Building Permit for the 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 comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure the 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 (LID) measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no objections to the proposal. Pamir Rafiq, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. - 2 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 3 of 15 In support of the application, Pamir Rafiq stated he believes the application to be minor and meets the general intent of the By-law, and it is similar to adjacent properties in height and design. The proposal does not encroach into neighbouring properties. If not approved, the site would fall subject to privacy concerns from existing neighbouring dwellings. City Zoning indicated building height is calculated to the midpoint for two-storeys. This design has three-storeys with dormers, where building height is calculated to the highest point of the roof. It is for that purpose that the requested height is up to 11.3 metres, which is in line with adjacent properties. Regarding the maximum lot coverage variance request from 33 to 36 percent, Pamir Rafiq indicated this is similar coverage that exists on adjacent properties. The proposed projection into the rear yard appears similar to the furthest point of the adjacent property, however most of the rear wall is placed further back. The Chair noted that when the neighbouring dwellings were constructed, they were in keeping with the By-law at that time. In response to questions from Committee Members, Pamir Rafiq stated the third floor contains outdoor space of approximately 10.68 square metres (150 square feet). Trees on the lot will also be preserved to address privacy concerns. When asked about the possibility to redesign the home to appear more like the adjacent dwellings and not like a four-storey home with floor space being located at the roof line, and potentially relocating the windows to be more compatible with neighbouring properties; Pamir Rafiq stated he believes the dwellings to the far left and far right mimic the same design as proposed. A redesign is not preferred, however the applicant is willing to work with the Committee and City staff to gain the necessary support. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer stated building height is measured to the midpoint of a sloped roof. For a flat roof, building height is measured to the top of the roof. The applicant is proposing a roof line that has both sloped and flat roofs. Zoning review indicates that the building height for the proposal is measured to the top of the flat roof. Two Committee Members agree that the proposed dwelling appears to be 4-storeys in height, where neighbouring properties appear to be 3-storeys. After visiting the site, noting the massing of the homes to be large, reviewing the staff Report and recommendation to approve, noting the requested variance of most concern is building height, noting the proposed building is a fit with the existing adjacent buildings, noting the Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines Checklist, seeing no comments from neighbours, hearing from the applicant and understanding the calculation of height, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: - 3 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 4 of 15 Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 43/21 by K. Deol & F. Dirani, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 9, 2021). Carried Vote: Tom Copeland opposed David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley in favour 4.2 P/CA 37/21 S. Shekarforoush & N. Baseri 721 Hillcrest Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a minimum rear yard of 7.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and • a fireplace not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into the required yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an Application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. - 4 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 5 of 15 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 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. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no objections to the proposal. Seyed Shekarforoush, applicant, Mohammad Shekarforoush, son of the applicant, and Miaoyi Xue, agent, were present to represent the application. Kim Hopper of 724 Hillview Crescent, and Pat Arsenault of 717 Hillcrest Road were present in objection to the application. Gaetan Imbeau of 728 Hillview Crescent was also present to receive additional information on the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Miaoyi Xue, agent, spoke in support of the application stating the dwelling was demolished by the previous owner. The applicant is proposing a new 2-storey dwelling to facilitate more living space for their family, children and in-laws. The applicant wishes to be consistent with both existing and new dwellings in the neighbourhood. Miaoyi Xue spoke to the Official Plan designation, describing the history and built form of the neighbourhood over the years, and spoke to the requested variances stating the minimum rear yard setback of 7 metres is to accommodate a proposed deck. This requested variance is to enhance usable amenity space, improve landscaping, and provide access to the rear yard from main floor of dwelling. Regarding the requested maximum lot cover of 35 percent, the proposed dwelling and attached garage accounts for 34 percent of total lot coverage and the covered front porch accounts for 1 percent, to accommodate weather protection at the main entrance of the dwelling. Miaoyi Xue went on to state that the intent of the By-law promotes lot coverage to limit massing of structures and provide adequate open space. This application was designed to provide sufficient outdoor amenity space while addressing storm water infiltration system concerns. The proposal has no significant negative impact from the massing of the dwelling, there is sufficient landscape area in both the front and rear yards, and there is no significant loss of open space. With regards to the variance to facilitate a fireplace to project 0.5 of a metre into the required south side yard, the By-law permits chimney breast to project 0.5 of a metre. The proposed fireplace is similar in use at the chimney breast and therefore the requested variance is in keeping with intent of the By-law and will not cause any potential encroachment to the neighbouring property. Miaoyi Xue indicated that she has reviewed the Report to the Committee of Adjustment and recommendation with a condition, and agree with City staff. - 5 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 6 of 15 Mohammad Shekarforoush, son of the applicant stated, the initial design of house was submitted by a different architectural firm. After the original submission and consultation with City staff, the variances were determined to not be minor. A new architect was retained, which resulted in a costly and timely project. Mohammad Shekarforoush indicated they wanted to ensure this new design was in keeping with the Infill study and have the requested variances be deemed minor in nature. Kim Hopper of 724 Hillview Crescent is the neighbour on the south-east lot to the subject property. She addressed her concerns with irregular lots in the neighbourhood, the design of the subject property projecting 0.5 of a metre, privacy concerns, drainage issues and grading of the street which is on a hill. Kim Hopper stated neighbours in the area have sump pumps installed and she would like to avoid any negative impacts to her property. Laura and Gaetan Imbeau of 728 Hillview Crescent are the neighbours to the rear of the property. They expressed their concerns with the requested 0.5 of a metre projection, drainage, lack of privacy, and a tree preservation plan. They indicated a new fence will have to be erected and relocated closer to their lot. Jaimie Leumans spoke on behalf of Pat Arsenault of 717 Hillcrest Road, who has been part of the West Shore community since 1970, and is the direct neighbour south of the subject site. Pat Arsenault strongly objects to this application and notes the lot size is approximately 20 feet deeper than any lot to the south. The proposed size of the dwelling and lot coverage will be larger than existing homes in the neighbourhood under the current By-law. Pat Arsenault noted the proposal will have a negative impact on available sunlight due to the massing and not being aesthetically pleasing. Additional concerns were raised regarding the location of the fireplace being directly beside her residence. In response to a question from the Chair, Isabel Lima, Planner I, stated the applicant did not have an arborist report prepared. The City’s Engineering Services department has reviewed the application and currently has no concerns. Additionally, Engineering will review drainage at the Building Permit stage and ensure Low Impact Development (LID) measures are taken into account. In response to questions from Committee Members, Miaoyi Xue, agent, stated the large tree is located outside the property line and the applicant will be maintaining adequate tree protection and preservation, while not removing any trees on the property. The requested variance for a 2 percent increase in lot coverage amounts to approximately 10 square metres. Miaoyi Xue continued, a grading plan has been finalized to address any concerns with drainage. The design was created to meet the applicant’s aesthetic requests which resulted in this minor variance application, and regard was given to make the proposal conform to the applicable By-laws. - 6 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 7 of 15 Mohammad Shekarforoush, stated the covered porch and bay windows account for approximately 1 percent of the lot coverage. The removal or alteration of the porch and bay windows would not change the footprint of the dwelling. Both the front and rear yard setbacks will be maintained with the exception of the deck in the rear yard. The additional percentage of lot coverage would not have any impact on privacy concerns and the fireplace is approximately 4.6 metres (15 feet) from the property line. The Secretary-Treasurer confirmed that the additional lot coverage does amount to 10 square metres and the staff Report addresses the overage accounted for by the covered porch, which would not alter the footprint if amended. Any bay windows or extensions would also count towards lot coverage, where streamlining the footprint of the house could bring it down to required 33 percent. Furthermore, the variance for rear yard setback is to accommodate a deck and not the size of the dwelling. A Committee Member spoke to the application addressing the additional 2 percent lot coverage increase and calculations where the impact on neighbours would not be noticeable if 33% is maintained. Isabel Lima, Planner I, stated the garage is setback 7.72 metres from the front property line, and if moved forward, it would still comply with the 7.5 metre front yard requirement. A Committee Member addressed some concern with the application stating the increase in building coverage does account for the massing of the property. Concerns are also noted in the Urban Design Guidelines Checklist and those stated by the neighbours. The proposal asks for 17 metres in depth, where the abutting homes are 9 and 11.9 metres deep. This would result in the house being deeper and closer to adjacent homes to the east. While taking under consideration no variance request for the house length, the building coverage can contribute to the massing and request for rear yard setback. Furthermore new dwellings have the opportunity to design in accordance with meeting the By-laws, and if pushed back 0.5 of a metre no variance would be required. After listening to the neighbours concerns with drainage, fencing, light access, property value and size, and noting that the applicant has gone through a redesign where there was opportunity to meet the requirements of the By-law; noting this lot is deeper than others, there is possibility for the design to be shifted 0.5 of a metre and have the covered porch and windows amended. Additionally, after looking at the Urban Design Guidelines “no” response to Items 10, 15, 19, 20, and the proposal does not appear to be in keeping with the abutting homes. The larger lot size has more coverage and more massing which results in a longer house with larger impact on adjacent dwellings, as such Denise Rundle moved the following motion: - 7 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 8 of 15 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That a fireplace not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into the required south side yard for P/CA 37/21 by S. Shekarforoush & N. Baseri, be Approved on the grounds that this variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 9, 2021). and That a minimum rear yard of 7.0 metres and a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent for P/CA 37/21 by S. Shekarforoush & N. Baseri, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances do not meet the four tests of the Planning Act and are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley opposed 4.3 P/CA 46/21 S. & N. Patel 1439 Old Forest Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit uncovered steps (front porch steps) not exceeding 1.4 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to complete the building permit for a detached dwelling. - 8 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 9 of 15 The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no objections to the proposal. Peter Jaruczik, agent with Arc Design Group, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Peter Jaruczik spoke in support of the application stating construction took place in accordance with the approved Building Permit, and this minor variance application is believed to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. In response to questions from Committee Members, Peter Jaruczik stated the minor variance application is a result of an oversight during the Building Process stage. The grading was not accounted for in the plans yet construction followed the designs, resulting in a slight difference in height of the uncovered steps. The owners acted as the contractors for the construction of the subject site. Based on the contents of the staff Report, the responses and explanations made by the agent and the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 46/21 by S. & N. Patel, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the existing detached dwelling with front porch steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 9, 2021). Carried Unanimously - 9 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 10 of 15 4.4 P/CA 47/21 J. Luttmer 814 Fairview Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 3.9 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 35.1 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • covered steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 0.4 of a metre into the required front yard whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure reduced setbacks and increased lot coverage do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), expressing no objections to the minor variance application and that the drawings circulated to TRCA as part of this minor variance application are consistent with the plans received with the TRCA permit revision. Peter Higgins, agent, was present to represent the application. Multiple attempts were made at connecting Russell Kearns, a resident and registered participant in the electronic meeting, however all attempts were unsuccessful. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. - 10 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 11 of 15 Peter Higgins spoke in support of the application stating he is the architect for the applicants. The property owners have operated the Frenchman’s Bay Marina for many years and are working towards creating their dream home for themselves and their family. Peter Higgins stated 16 packages were hand-delivered to all immediate neighboring residents on Favirview Avenue, where he met with four of them to discuss the proposal in more detail. Four letters of support were received from residents of 808, 809, 812 and 823 Fairview Avenue. Peter Higgins outlined the details of the application to include a modest number of requested variances. The request for an increase in lot coverage is a difference in 2.1%, which amounts to 12.34 square metres (130 square feet). This variance is to facilitate a fully accessible main floor of living space. It is believed the massing and scale of the house will mitigate any concern for the increase in lot coverage. The remaining two variances are also believed to be minor in nature. The requested front yard setback would be greater than the existing setback and allows for one step down from the front porch to the grade. The applicants have been working closely with the TRCA who would not allow the dwelling to be shifted further to the rear. After considering the staff Report, stating the dwelling is set forward to create an adequate buffer from TRCA lands, and seeing no additional comments or concerns from the TRCA, noting the letters of support, and having no issues with the Urban Design Guideline Checklist, 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 47/21 by J. Luttmer, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, & 5 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 9, 2021). Carried Unanimously - 11 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 12 of 15 4.5 P/CA 48/21 S. McLean & M. Olsina 1715 Central Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit a minimum front yard setback of 8.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 9 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for converting the existing carport into an attached garage within the required front yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section stating no concerns with the proposal and an application for a Building Permit has been submitted. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no comments on the application. Shannon McLean, 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, Shannon McLean stated the request is to accommodate a front yard setback variance to convert an attached carport to an attached garage. The existing carport roof cannot be relocated since it is part of the main structure. The current carport foundation must also remain to support the home and future attached garage. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Shannon McLean stated the existing front yard setback with the carport is 8.6 metres. After reading the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment, completing a site inspection, agreeing with the staff recommendation that the the four tests of the Planning Act are met, and understanding that this is a common request to convert an existing carport to an attached garage, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: - 12 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 13 of 15 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 48/21 by S. McLean & M. Olsina, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed garage, 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 June 9, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 51/21 L. & T. McCulloch 1890 Falconwood Way The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4997/97, to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 6.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for a sunroom. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section stating no concerns with the proposal and an application for a Building Permit has been submitted. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no comments on the application. Syed Ahmed, agent with Lifestyle Sunrooms, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After hearing the comments from the agent and reviewing the materials provided by the City Development Department, along with the staff Report, and the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Eric Newton moved the following motion: - 13 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 14 of 15 Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 51/21 by L. & T. McCulloch, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed sunroom, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2 and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 9, 2021). Carried Unanimously - 14 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 15 of 15 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the 6th meeting of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:28 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, July 14, 2021. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer - 15 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 53/21 Date: July 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 53/21 N. Nedelcu 1107 Ridgewood Court Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2864/88, to permit: • an uncovered platform (rear main-floor deck) not exceeding 2.7 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.2 metres into the required rear 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 or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side yard; and • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 48 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered deck. 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 uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. - 16 - Report P/CA 53/21 July 14, 2021 Page 2 The subject property is not located within one of the established Neighbourhood Precincts in which the Urban Design Guidelines for the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study applies. Height & Projection of Uncovered Platform The applicant is proposing to reconstruct an uncovered deck that is 39.02 square metres, is located 2.7 metres above grade and projects 2.2 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered platforms to be a maximum of 1.0 metre above grade and project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required rear yard. The intent of this provision is to protect the privacy of abutting properties and to maintain sufficient amenity space in the rear yard. Due to the drop in grade from the front lot line to the rear lot line, a greater height is required to provide access from the rear main-floor entrance of the dwelling to the deck. The neighbouring properties to the west and east appear to have existing decks that are greater than 1.0 metre in height and connect to the rear main-floor entrances. Additionally, the property is a ravine lot, with the abutting land to the south being owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. There is sufficient amenity space to the south and directly below the proposed deck for outdoor activities. Lot Coverage The proposed deck is located 2.7 metres above grade, providing usable living space directly below the deck. As a result, the area below the deck is calculated in the total lot coverage. The requested variance is to permit a maximum lot coverage of 48 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum coverage of 38 percent. The existing dwelling accounts for 38 percent of the total coverage, whereas the proposed deck accounts for 10 percent of the total coverage. Any addition to the dwelling or additional accessory structure on the lot would require a variance to coverage. The intent of this provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (for landscaping and amenity areas) uncovered by buildings on a lot. The proposed deck and the area directly below the deck provide covered and uncovered areas for outdoor activities. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that the entire rear yard surface will be grass. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances are intended to facilitate the construction of an uncovered deck that will contribute towards the total usable amenity space in the rear yard. The property is a ravine lot with no abutting neighbours to the rear. The proposed deck is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on drainage or on the surrounding area. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit an uncovered deck 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. - 17 - Report P/CA 53/21 July 14, 2021 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No concerns with the application. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • TRCA staff reviewed the requested variances and they have no impact on TRCA’s policies and programs. As such, TRCA has no objections to the approval of Minor Variance Application P/CA 53/21. Abutting Neighbour to the West (1105 Ridgewood Court) • No objections to the proposed deck. Date of report: July 7, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 53-21 N. Nedelcu\7. Report \PCA 53-21 Report.doc Attachments - 18 - Dixie RoadGlenanna Road BowlerDriveMalden Crescent Finch Avenue Ridgewood Court Kitley Avenue DeerbrookDriveGloucester Square Canborough Crescent PinecreekCour t Hensall CourtEchoPointCourtM ountcas tl eCrescentMonteagleLane HoneywoodCr escent Lydia CrescentSilverthorn SquareLynnHeightsPark ForestbrookPark Kitley Ravine DavidFarr Park SouthPine CreekRavine Vaughan WillardPublic School City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 53/21 Date: Jun. 07, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EN. Nedelcu1107 Ridgewood Court SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 53-21 N. Nedelcu\PCA53-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © 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, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved.- 19 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 53/21 Applicant: N. Nedelcu Municipal Address: 1107 Ridgewood Court CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 22, 2021 5.33m 9.37m 9.14m 4.26m 1.46m 1.38m 39.02 m2 to permit an uncovered platform (rear main-floor deck) not exceeding 2.7 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.2 metres into the required rear yard to permit a maximum lot coverage of 48 percent - 20 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 53/21 Applicant: N. Nedelcu Municipal Address: 1107 Ridgewood Court CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 22, 2021 2.63 m to permit an uncovered platform (rear main-floor deck) not exceeding 2.7 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.2 metres into the required rear yard - 21 - Exhibit 4 Submitted East & West Side Elevations File No: P/CA 53/21 Applicant: N. Nedelcu Municipal Address: 1107 Ridgewood Court CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 22, 2021 - 22 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 55/21 Date: July 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 55/21 P. Fuselli 1505 Whitevale Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6577/05, to recognize an accessory building (detached garage) which is not part of the main building to be erected in the east side yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building to be erected in the rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize an existing detached garage. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the existing detached garage, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). Background The existing garage was constructed without a building permit in 1988 by the previous property owner. The current property owner has submitted a minor variance application to permit the garage to be located in the side yard, to ultimately obtain a building permit and legalize the garage. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including single detached dwellings and any associated accessory structure. - 23 - Report P/CA 55/21 July 14, 2021 Page 2 The subject property is not located within one of the established Neighbourhood Precincts in which the Urban Design Guidelines for the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study applies. The requested variance is to recognize an existing detached garage that is located in the east side yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings to be located in the rear yard. The intent of this provision is to minimize the visual impact of accessory buildings on the streetscape and adjacent properties and to ensure they act as accessory to the principal use of the property. The existing detached garage has minimal visual impact on the streetscape as the structure is setback over 35 metres from the front lot line. The garage is also setback from the front wall of the dwelling, and the architectural design of the garage is similar to that of the dwelling. The garage is located 32 metres from the west side lot line and 58 metres from the east side lot line, with the adjacent lands to the west, east and south being an agricultural parcel with no habitable structures. The garage is being used for vehicle parking and storage purposes only and is accessory to the existing residential dwelling on the property. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The detached garage is an existing structure that has not negatively impacted adjacent properties, as the structure has existed for 33 years without complaint. The garage provides the applicant with an area to store outdoor equipment within an enclosed structure. Due to the large size of the lot, the location of the garage does not obstruct access between the front and rear yards. The requested variance is considered to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land and minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No concerns with the application. Elizabeth Martelluzzi, Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage • Comments not received as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: July 7, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 55-21 P. Fuselli\7. Report\PCA 55/21.doc Attachments - 24 - Whitevale RoadSideline 20Mulberry LaneCity DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 55/21 Date: Jun. 07, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EP. Fuselli 1505 Whitevale Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 55-21 P. Fuselli\PCA55-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © 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, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved.- 25 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 55/21 Applicant: P. Fuselli Municipal Address: 1505 Whitevale Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2020 to permit an accessory building (detached garage) which is not part of the main building to be erected in the east side yard • Detached garage (45.46 m2) and dwelling are existing structures. • Drawing is not to scale. - 26 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Front Elevation File No: P/CA 55/21 Applicant: P. Fuselli Municipal Address: 1505 Whitevale Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2020 • Detached garage (45.46 m2) is an existing structure. • Drawing is not to scale. - 27 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 55/21 Applicant: P. Fuselli Municipal Address: 1505 Whitevale Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2020 • Detached garage (45.46 m2) is an existing structure. • Drawing is not to scale. - 28 - Exhibit 5 Submitted East Side Elevation File No: P/CA 55/21 Applicant: P. Fuselli Municipal Address: 1505 Whitevale Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2020 • Detached garage (45.46 m2) is an existing structure. • Drawing is not to scale. - 29 - Exhibit 6 Submitted West Side Elevation File No: P/CA 55/21 Applicant: P. Fuselli Municipal Address: 1505 Whitevale Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2020 • Detached garage (45.46 m2) is an existing structure. • Drawing is not to scale. - 30 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 56/21 Date: July 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 56/21 M. Russell 1770 Liatris Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7020/10, to permit: • a maximum lot coverage for all accessory buildings of 16.7 square metres, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 15.0 square metres for all accessory buildings; • a maximum height of 4.0 metres for an accessory building in a residential zone, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum height of 3.5 metres for accessory buildings in any residential zone. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of a covered patio (pavilion). 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 covered patio (pavilion), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates this property as “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including buildings accessory to detached dwellings. - 31 - Report P/CA 56/21 July 14, 2021 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned S-SD-SA-3 within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by site specific By-law 7020/10. The applicant seeks relief from the By-law to facilitate a 16.7 square metre pavilion structure in the rear yard. The subject structure is from a pre-assembled kit and the size cannot be modified. The intent of the By-law to establish a maximum lot coverage of 15.0 square metres for all accessory structures is to ensure adequate amenity area in the yard and to mitigate potential stormwater management issues on the lots. The structure will enhance the amenity area by providing a covered area. Drainage issues will be limited as the proposed structure is an open structure without any walls. The intent of the maximum height provision is to minimize the visual impact of accessory buildings on abutting properties, and to ensure other yards are not significantly obstructed by these structures. A 0.5 metre increase in the allowable height will not significantly impact neighbouring properties as the location of the structure will only impact the westerly neighbour at 1768 Liatris Drive, as this property backs onto a natural area. The property owner of 1768 Liatris Drive was included in the circulation of the subject application and has not submitted comments at the time of the writing of this report. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances are appropriate development of the land as the accessory structure will provide shelter and contribute to the usable amenity space in the rear yard. The impact of the variances to facilitate this structure 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. Consideration for rain harvesting, soakaway pits, or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage due to the increase in the imperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services • No comments on the application. - 32 - Report P/CA 56/21 July 14, 2021 Page 3 Date of report: July 8, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 56-21\7. Report\PCA 56-21 Report.docx Attachments - 33 - WilliamJacksonDriveAdirondack Chase Grenwich Glen Garrison CrossingPureSprings BoulevardJackpineCrossingBronzedaleStreetGenerra MewsHuckleberry CrossingCarousel DriveCalico Mews Brock RoadMisthollow Drive Byford Street Penny LaneLiatr is Drive Rex Heath Drive Mayapple CrossingCarousel Mews Legian MewsTally Street Kalmar Avenue Hayden LaneNantucket ChaseEarl GreyAv e n u e Boston GlenStarboard Mews Parkhurst Crescent CreeksidePark Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 56/21 Date: Jun. 15, 2021 Exhibit 1 M. Russell1770 Liatris Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 56-21 M. Russell\PCA56-21_LocationMap_v2.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NO T A PLAN OF SURVEY. © 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, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. William Jackson Drive City DevelopmentDepartment - 34 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 56/21 Applicant: M. Russell Municipal Address: 1770 Liatris Drive FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: June 23, 2021 to permit a maximum lot coverage for all accessory buildings of 16.7 square metres - 35 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Front and Rear Elevations File No: P/CA 56/21 Applicant: M. Russell Municipal Address: 1770 Liatris Drive FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: June 23, 2021 to permit a maximum height of 4.0 metres for an accessory building in a residential zone - 36 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Side Elevations File No: P/CA 56/21 Applicant: M. Russell Municipal Address: 1770 Liatris Drive FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: June 23, 2021 - 37 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Date: July 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. 1383 Rougemount Drive Application P/CA 58/21 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard. P/CA 59/21 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard. - 38 - Report P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 July 14, 2021 Page 2 P/CA 60/21 – Part 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard. P/CA 61/21 – Part 4 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.7 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to sever the property resulting in a total of 4 lots and to construct four detached dwellings. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed lots and detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8). - 39 - Report P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 July 14, 2021 Page 3 Background As of the date of writing this report, the applicant has not submitted a consent application to the Region of Durham for the proposed severances. The applicant has indicated to the City that the consent applications will be submitted at a later date. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including detached dwellings. 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 (OPA) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to implement the recommendations of the Study to help ensure that the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood precinct character. As part of the OPA and ZBA, staff are proposing revisions to the Urban Design Guidelines and associated Checklist. Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the proposed Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. Lot Frontage Variances The intent of the minimum lot frontage of 18 metres is to ensure a useable lot size that is compatible with the neighbourhood. The existing lot frontages for abutting and surrounding lots vary significantly, ranging between 14 and 28 metres. The existing lots to the north of the subject property (along Rougemount Drive and Rouge Hill Court) are similar in size, having lot frontages ranging between 15 and 18 metres. The size of the subject property is in keeping with the varied lotting pattern established along Rougemount Drive and Rouge Hill Court. The proposed lot frontages allow for the construction of detached dwellings that are appropriate relative to the size of the lots. Side Yard Variances The intent of the minimum side yard of 1.8 metres is to accommodate drainage and to provide sufficient room for the maintenance of a dwelling. The proposed side yards that abut existing lots to the north and south meet the minimum required setback of 1.8 metres. - 40 - Report P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 July 14, 2021 Page 4 However, the proposed side yards that abut the shared property line of the proposed new lots are reduced to 1.5 metres. There is a minimum building separation of 3 metres between the proposed dwellings on Part 1 & 2 and Part 3 & 4. There is sufficient room between the structures on the proposed lots to accommodate drainage and for the maintenance of each dwelling. Chimney Breast Variances The proposed chimney breasts are projecting an additional 0.2 and 0.3 metres into the required side yards, as a result of the reduced lot frontages and side yard setbacks. The proposed location of the chimney breasts still allow for drainage and for the maintenance of each dwelling. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land as they will help facilitate the future redevelopment of the subject property for residential lots. The applicant has proposed dwellings that fit into the low density detached dwelling characteristic of the existing neighbourhood. As such, the proposed variances are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • No comments. Low Impact Development measures may be required with the future Land Division application due to the increase in the imperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services • No concerns with the application. Date of report: July 7, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 58-21 to PCA 61-21 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc\7. Report\PCA 58-21 to PCA 61-21 Report.doc Attachments - 41 - 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.Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings?(see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) For existing dwellings abutting or in proximity to the subject property, dwelling heights range between 6.5 and 9.0 metres. The proposed dwellings range in height between 8.9 and 9.0 metres. Comments from Applicant: Given the grade of the site, there is a natural down gradient slope southward across the property. In order to mitigate overlook and height conditions both the grading of the site and roof design was specifically designed to match compatibility on the adjacent properties. In addition, the dwelling height and roof pitch we’re specifically designed to ensure that the By-law height maximum was kept. X 2.If the proposed new dwelling issignificantly taller than an existingadjacent house, does the roof of theproposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) The roof pitch of the proposed dwellings is sloped. X 3.Is the maximum elevation of the FrontEntrance 1.2 metres, or less, abovegrade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) Part 1: 0.91 m / Part 2: 0.94 m Part 3: 0.53 m / Part 4: 0.53 m - 42 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 4. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 5. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) Comments from Applicant: All four proposed dwelling stairs and entrances have been designed to be prominent from the street, with a covered portico to provide protection from the elements and add to the overall design. X 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) X 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) For existing dwellings abutting or in proximity to the subject property, dwelling depths range between 15 and 25 metres. The proposed dwellings have a depth of 26 metres. X 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) For existing dwellings abutting or in proximity to the subject property, the side yard setbacks range between 1.2 and 1.8 metres. The side yard setback of the proposed dwellings are 1.5 and 1.8 metres. X 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) The proposed side yards that abut existing lots to the north and south meet the minimum required setback in the By-law. The proposed side yard setbacks are similar to adjacent setbacks along the street (see Comment No. 8). X 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) Slightly recessed behind the front entrance. - 43 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 3 Yes No Comments X 11.Is the proposed driveway width thesame as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) There is no required garage width under the By-law, however the proposed driveways are the same width as the garages. X Boundary Trees X Internal Trees 12.Does the plan preserve existing trees?(see Section 4.1: Guideline 1)Comments from Applicant: The existing boundary trees are intended to be preserved. However, to permit the future construction and to mitigate post-development drainage, the existing trees internal to the site are required to be removed. - 44 - Kingston RoadAltona RoadEvelyn AvenueFiddlers CourtTomlinson Court Rougemount DriveBrookridge Gate D ale wood Drive OldForestRoadRouge Hill Court Hi g h b u s h T r a i l Highway 4 0 1 EastWoodlandsPark SouthPetticoatRavine Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Date: Jun. 15, 2021 Exhibit 1 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc.1383 Rougemount Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 58-21 to PCA 61-21 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc\PCA58-21_to_PCA61-21_LocationMap_v2.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NO T A PLAN OF SURVEY. © 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, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment - 45 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan – Part 1 (P/CA 58/21) and Part 2 (P/CA 59/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 15.22 m 15.21 m 1.55 m to permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres to permit a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard to permit a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres 0.78 m 1.07 m 1.52 m to permit a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres to permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres to permit a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard - 46 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Site Plan – Part 3 (P/CA 60/21) and Part 4 (P/CA 61/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 0.82 m 1.59 m 1.06 m 1.52 m 15.18 m 15.34 m to permit a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard to permit a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres to permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.1 metres to permit a chimney breast to project not more than 0.7 of a metre into the required south side yard to permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.3 metres to permit a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres - 47 - Exhibit 4 Full Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 48 - Exhibit 5 Submitted Front & Rear Elevations – Part 1 (P/CA 58/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 49 - Exhibit 6 Submitted Front & Rear Elevations – Part 2 (P/CA 59/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 50 - Exhibit 7 Submitted Front & Rear Elevations – Part 3 (P/CA 60/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 51 - Exhibit 8 Submitted Front & Rear Elevations – Part 4 (P/CA 61/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 52 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 62/21 Date: July 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 62/21 H. Gray & A. Ferreira 689 Liverpool Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a second storey balcony not exceeding 4.9 metres in height and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard; and • a minimum front yard setback of 6.7 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for an addition to the existing detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed addition to the existing dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2 and 3). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. The property is within the established built-up area, and subject to the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines (the Guidelines). The guiding vision of the Guidelines is to preserve the nautical character along Liverpool Road, through a high level of design and architectural quality. The proposed addition results in a development that is compatible and sensitive to the nautical theme along Liverpool Road, through the use of large windows facing Liverpool Road and similar building materials. - 53 - Report P/CA 62/21 July 14, 2021 Page 2 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 (OPA) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to implement the recommendations of the Study to help ensure that the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood precinct character. As part of the OPA and ZBA, staff are proposing revisions to the Urban Design Guidelines and associated Checklist. The subject property is within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Precinct. Staff have reviewed and commented on the proposal using the proposed Revised 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 property is zoned R4 – Residential within By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18. A detached dwelling is permitted within the R4 Zone. The applicant is requesting to reduce the front yard setback from 7.5 metres to 6.7 metres, to accommodate an addition to the north side of the existing dwelling. In addition, the applicant is requesting relief from the maximum height provision for platforms, to permit a second storey balcony. The requested relief will enhance the architectural design of the existing dwelling, and will contribute to the nautical theme along Liverpool Road. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed front yard setback of 6.7 metres is sufficient and the request to permit a second storey balcony conforms with the intent of the Official Plan, Development Guidelines, and Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The existing dwellings along Liverpool Road, south of Gull Road, are a mixture of 1 to 2-storey detached dwellings. The dwellings have large windows that face the street and the façade includes siding and brick. The applicant is proposing to construct a second storey addition, which will result in a second storey balcony and a front entrance within the required front yard. The applicant is proposing to construct this addition using the existing framing and foundation for the existing bungalow, therefore the dwelling cannot be relocated to 7.5 metres from the front lot line. The reduction from 7.5 metres to 6.7 metres is considered minor. - 54 - Report P/CA 62/21 July 14, 2021 Page 3 Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services •Ensure reduced front yard setback does notadversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting, soakaway pits, or other Low ImpactDevelopment measures should be made atthe Building Permit stage if increasing theimperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services •Building Services has no concerns.An Application for Building Permit has beensubmitted. Date of report: July 7, 2021 Comments prepared by: Tanjot Bal, MCIP, RPP Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration TB:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 62-21 H. Gray & A. Ferreira\7. Report\PCA 62-21 Report.doc Attachments - 55 - 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. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) Surrounding dwellings have peaked roofs. X 2. If the proposed new dwelling is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) The neighbouring buildings are smaller. The applicant is proposing a sloped roof away from the buildings. X 3. Is the maximum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) The height of the front entrance is under 1 metre in height. X 4. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) Propose to enhance the new entrance to the dwelling. X 5. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) Propose three steps to the main entrance. X 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) There is a landscaping strip along the front of the property, therefore only the entrance is visible from the street. X 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) No significant changes to the dwelling depth. 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) N/A – No changes to the side yard setback. - 56 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) N/A – No changes to the side yard setback. X 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) The addition projects past the garage. 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) N/A – No changes to the driveway 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) N/A – To be reviewed at Building Permit stage. - 57 - Liverpool RoadBrowning Avenue Ilona Park Road Annland Stree t F r o n t R o a d Foxglove Avenue Shearer Lane Balaton AvenueLuna Court Krosno BoulevardMonica Cook Place Commerce StreetDouglas AvenuePleasant StreetWharf Street Hewson DriveBroadview Street ProgressFrenchman'sBay East Park AlderwoodPark Frenchman'sBay Rate PayersMemorial Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 62/21 Date: Jun. 17, 2021 Exhibit 1 H. Gray & A. Ferreira689 Liverpool Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 62-21 H. Gray & A. Ferreira\PCA62-21_LocationMap_v2.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NO T A PLAN OF SURVEY. © 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, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment - 58 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 62/21 Applicant: H. Gray & A. Ferreira Municipal Address: 689 Liverpool Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: June 21, 21 to permit a minimum front yard setback of 6.7 metres Covered Porch /2nd Floor Balcony - 59 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Building Elevation – South Elevation File No: P/CA 62/21 Applicant: H. Gray & A. Ferreira Municipal Address: 689 Liverpool Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT to permit a second storey balcony not exceeding 4.9 metres in height and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard - 60 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Building Elevation – West Elevation File No: P/CA 62/21 Applicant: H. Gray & A. Ferreira Municipal Address: 689 Liverpool Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT - 61 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 63/21 Date: July 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 63/21 C. & M. Antaris1888 Rockwood Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 34 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the construction of a covered patio. 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 variance, subject to the following condition: 1.That this variance apply only to the covered patio, as generally sited and outlined on theapplicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). 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 property is zoned R4 within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. The intent of the maximum lot coverage requirement is to maintain an appropriate amount of amenity area uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of the building. The purpose for this variance is to facilitate the construction of an extended roof to cover the patio area in the rear yard. The patio area will be 20.3 square metres in size and will be covered, but not enclosed. - 62 - Report P/CA 63/21 July 14, 2021 Page 2 It will replace an existing deck leading out of the rear of the dwelling. The increase in lot coverage will be minimal increase to the scale and size of the dwelling, as the addition is small in size and is in the rear yard. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variance is appropriate development of the land as the addition will provide shelter and contribute to the usable amenity space in the rear yard. The impact of the variance to facilitate this structure 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 •No comments on the application. Building Services •No comments on the application. Date of report: July 8, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 63-21\7. Report\PCA 63-21 Report.docx Attachments - 63 - Sandhurst Cr e sc e nt Pine Grove Avenue Westcreek Drive Valley Ridge CrescentCopley Street Secord Street Thicket Crescent Nordane DriveSandcherry CourtMel dr onDr i veProhill Street Oakburn StreetWoodview AvenueRockwood DriveRouge Forest CrescentPinegrovePark Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 63/21 Date: Jun. 17, 2021 Exhibit 1 HydroCorridor C. & M. Antaris1888 Rockwood Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 63-21 C. & M. Antaris\PCA63-21_LocationMap_v2.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NO T A PLAN OF SURVEY. © 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, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment Pine Grove AvenueThicket Crescent Valley Ridge Crescent Woodview Avenue- 64 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 63/21 Applicant: C. & M. Antaris Municipal Address: 1888 Rockwood Drive FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: June 23, 2021 to permit a maximum lot coverage of 34 percent - 65 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 63/21 Applicant: C. & M. Antaris Municipal Address: 1888 Rockwood Drive FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: June 23, 2021 - 66 - Exhibit 4 Submitted South and North Elevations File No: P/CA 63/21 Applicant: C. & M. Antaris Municipal Address: 1888 Rockwood Drive FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: June 23, 2021 South Elevation North Elevation - 67 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 64/21 Date: July 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 64/21 J. Saunders 132 Highway 7, Green River Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2676/88, to permit: • an office use provided a dwelling unit exists on the lot, whereas the By-law permits a bookstore provided a dwelling unit exists on the lot; and • a minimum of 6 parking spaces for 185 square metres of office space, whereas the By-law requires a minimum off street parking requirement of 5.0 parking spaces per 93 square metres of gross floor area. The applicant requests approval of these variances to allow a commercial office use. 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. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Rural Hamlet within the Settlement of Green River. The settlement policies state that City Council shall encourage opportunities for enhancing the historic village of Green River through general or site-specific zoning that allows small-scale commercial enterprises on suitable sites, providing the historic character of the village and the interests of neighbouring residents are respected. The subject site is suitable for a small-scale commercial use, and therefore the requested variances conform to the intent of the Official Plan. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned HMR1(HMC5) and G within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2676/88. New uses for this site have been introduced through minor variance applications. In 2010, P/CA 17/10 permitted a cat rescue establishment at the subject site. A cat rescue establishment was identified as a suitable use that is less intensive than a bookstore. - 68 - Report P/CA 64/21 July 14, 2021 Page 2 Similarly, a commercial office is less intensive than a bookstore. The applicant has indicated that a mechanical engineering consulting and project management firm will occupy the space, and the firm only requires parking spaces for its employees as no customers will be visiting the site. Currently there are three employees with the firm. Providing six parking spaces for the office use ensures the availability of additional parking for future employees and visitors. Staff is of the opinion that introducing the new use and permitting a reduction in parking conforms to the intent of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The Hamlet of Green River is predominately residential, with two existing businesses (a book and hobby shop and a contractor/heavy equipment storage yard), and a community centre. The Official Plan states that City Council should encourage small-scale commercial uses, provided they have no adverse impacts on the character of Green River and the interests of the community is respected. The proposed commercial office is small-scale and as of writing this report, staff have received no concerns from area residents. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed use and reduction in parking is appropriate for the subject property, and the requested variances are minor. 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 • Engineering Services has no comments. Building Services • Building Services has no concerns. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • The subject site contains the Regulatory Storm Floodplain associated with a tributary of the Duffins Creek located in the north portion of the site. The floodplain elevation and velocity for the subject site is 184.0 m and 0.05 m/s respectively. TRCA staff understand that the existing building/structure on the site is currently being utilized as a bookstore with staff and customer parking to the northeast. TRCA policies require that the change of use within a structure does not increase the level of risk associated with the structure and property. • The site is currently operating as a commercial use and there is no site alteration, etc. being proposed at this time, therefore we are of the opinion that the proposed office use will not increase the level of risk on the property from a flooding perspective. As such, TRCA staff can support the proposal in principle. - 69 - Report P/CA 64/21 July 14, 2021 Page 3 Date of report: July 7, 2021 Comments prepared by: Tanjot Bal, MCIP, RPP Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration TB:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 64-21 J. Saunders\7. Report\PCA 64-21 Report.doc Attachments - 70 - Highway 7 Sideline 34GreenriverPark Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 64/21 Date: Jun. 17, 2021 Exhibit 1 J. SaundersSideline 34132 Highway 7, Green River SubjectLands Green River L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 64-21 J. Saunders\PCA64-21_LocationMap_v2.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NO T A PLAN OF SURVEY. © 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, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment - 71 - Exhibit 2 Conceptual Site Plan File No: P/CA 64/21 Applicant: J. Saunders Municipal Address: 132 Highway 7, Green River FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: June 21, 21 - 72 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 65/21 Date: July 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 65/21 P. Shevnandan 1641 Hollyhedge Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2015/85, to permit: • a covered platform and steps 2.6 metres in height to project 2.4 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered platforms and steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into any required rear yard; • an accessory structure (shed) greater than 1.8 metres in height to be setback 0.9 of a metre from the north side yard and the rear yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of a platform (deck) and associated steps, and to recognize and existing shed. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the platform (deck) and associated steps, and existing shed, 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 Pickering’s Official Plan designates this property as “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including detached dwellings and their accessory uses. - 73 - Report P/CA 65/21 July 14, 2021 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned S-SD within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2015/85. The By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard. The intent of this provision is to provide the opportunity for any stairs and/or a landing platform to encroach when needed and to ensure an adequate landscaped area within the rear yard is provided. The deck projects from the elevated main floor of the dwelling, requiring the 2.6 metre height. The 2.4 metre projection is consistent with the existing deck. The deck is elevated and leaves usable space underneath, and maintains a 5.1 metre setback from the rear property line. As such, adequate amenity space is maintained in the rear yard. The intent of the Zoning By-law in requiring accessory structures to provide a minimum of 1.0 metre setback from all lot lines is to ensure that adequate space is available for maintenance, to ensure that eaves/overhangs do not encroach on adjacent properties, to ensure that roof drainage stays on the subject property, and to minimize the visual impact that accessory structures may have on adjacent properties. The shed is existing and was constructed by the previous owners of the property. A 0.9 of a metre setback is a minimal reduction and maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law. All roof drainage from this structure must be contained on the subject property. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances are appropriate development of the land as the addition will provide shelter and contribute to the usable amenity space in the rear yard. The platform in question is existing, with the only proposed changes being the addition of a cover, and the relocation of the steps from the north side of the deck to the south side. The variances to the shed are to recognize an existing condition. The 0.1 of a metre deficiciency does not present any adverse effects. Additionally, staff received letters of support from 8 neighbours at the time of writing this report. 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. - 74 - Report P/CA 65/21 July 14, 2021 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • Ensure reduced setbacks do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting, soakaway pits, 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. Owners of 1633, 1637, 1643, 1644, 1645, and 1649 Hollyhedge Drive, and 1628 and 1636 Major Oaks Road • In support of this application. Date of report: July 8, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 65-21\7. Report\PCA 65-21 Report.docx Attachments - 75 - Dellbr ookA venue DuberryDriveMaj orOaksRoadChapman CourtTawnberry Street Strathmore Crescent Reesor Court Wil dwoodCrescentTerracotta Court HollyhedgeDrive Denby DrivePepperwoodGate Somergro ve C rescentDenvale DriveGreenmount StreetAnnan Woods Dr ive Castle Hill C o u r t Alpine Lane Theoden CourtVa ll eyFarmRoadValleyFarmRavine MajorOaks Park Valley FarmPublic School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 65/21 Date: Jun. 17, 2021 Exhibit 1 HydroCorridor P. Shevnandan1641 Hollyhedge Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 65-21 P. Shevnandan\PCA65-21_LocationMap_v2.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NO T A PLAN OF SURVEY. © 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, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment - 76 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 65/21 Applicant: P. Shevnandan Municipal Address: 1641 Hollyhedge Drive FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: June 25, 2021 to permit a covered platform and steps 2.6 metres in height to project 2.4 metres into the required rear yard to permit an accessory structure (shed) greater than 1.8 metres in height to be setback 0.9 of a metre from the north side yard and the rear yard - 77 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Elevation and Rendering File No: P/CA 65/21 Applicant: P. Shevnandan Municipal Address: 1641 Hollyhedge Drive FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: June 25, 2021 The proposed steps will be flush with the platform and not encroach further than 2.4 metres into the rear yard - 78 -