Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 11, 2021Committee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Number: 8 Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number 1.Disclosure of Interest 2.Adoption of Agenda 3.Adoption of Minutes from July 14, 2021 1-19 4. Report 4.1 P/CA 52/21 20-31 E. Macaulay 645 Annland Street 4.2 P/CA 66/21 32-38 DWK Holdings Inc. 1735 Orangebrook Court 4.3 P/CA 67/21 39-47 L. & D. Comeau 1525 Nipissing Court 4.4 P/CA 68/21 48-53 M.Bevan & M. O’Reilly 1791 Spruce Hill Road 4.5 P/CA 69/21 54-61 C. & G. Palmer 1599 Seguin Square 4.6 P/CA 70/21 to P/CA 72/21 62-69 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited 3195 Mulberry Lane (Lots 278, 279 and 292) 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, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 19 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley – Arrived at 7:05 pm Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer 1.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2.Adoption of Agenda and Reordering of Items Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, July 14, 2021 meeting be adopted, and that Item 4.4 be moved after Item 4.8. Carried 3.Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 6th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, June 9, 2021 be adopted, as amended. Carried In order to prevent a tie vote, the Chair recused himself from voting, until such time as Committee Member, Sean Wiley joined the meeting. Sean Wiley joined the meeting at 7:05 pm having all members able to vote on the applications. - 1 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 19 4.Reports 4.1 P/CA 53/21 N. Nedelcu 1107 Ridgewood Court 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority expressing no objections to the approval of this application. Written comments were received from the resident of 1105 Ridgewood Court in support of the application. Cristina Nedelcu, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Cristina Nedelcu spoke in support of the application stating the original deck is small making it difficult to entertain. The intent is to accommodate a larger deck that is similar in size to the adjacent neighbours. - 2 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 19 After reviewing the City Development Department’s Report to the Committee of Adjustment, noting that the requested 10 percent increase from the maximum lot coverage of 38 percent to 48 percent is solely associated with the deck structure, and the application appears 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 53/21 by N. Nedelcu, 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 uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated July 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 55/21 P. Fuselli 1505 Whitevale Road 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. - 3 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 19 Written comments were received from the City of Pickering’s Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage stating, the property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Alterations or additions to the property require a Heritage Permit. No concerns with the Minor Variance Application. The following written comments were received from the City’s Heritage Consultant, Branch Architecture: •The garage is placed on the site such that it maintains the visual prominence of the main house as viewed from the street and it does not obstruct views to the original house. It is located such that the front wall of the garage is significantly set back from the front face of the heritage building and adjacent to the rear addition. Further, the open space between the garage and the building reinforces the garage as a later construction. •The size, form and massing of the garage is acceptable. It is subservient to the house and, of note, replicates the front gable roof configuration in its design. •The materials of the garage also nicely tie in with those used at the rear addition. The use of similar materials, mainly the wood board and batten exterior cladding, asphalt shingle roofing, painted metal rain gear, link these two well. •The building incorporates a few salvage items including the gothic style wood window within the front dormer (salvaged from the main house) and the wood storm windows displayed on the west elevation. •If the application was provided prior to construction, the design of the garage door would have been recommended to be revised; the width, materiality and design of the garage door lends itself to a suburban element. Pamela Fuselli, 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 Pamela Fuselli stated the garage was constructed over 33 years ago and has no negative impact based on its current location. It has been built sympathetically in line with the heritage of the property given the large lot size and does not impede access to the back yard. In response to questions from a Committee Member, Pamela Fuselli stated the property was purchased in 2001. Furthermore, the construction of the garage without a building permit was discovered during the preliminary stages of selling a portion of their land to facilitate the Whitevale Road expansion project associated with residential development in the area. - 4 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 19 After hearing from the applicant and reviewing the City staff’s recommendation, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 55/21 by P. Fuseli, 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 garage, 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 July 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 56/21 M. Russell 1770 Liatris Drive 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). 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. 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. - 5 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 19 Written comments were received from the Region of Durham Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Written comments were received from the residents of 1768 & 1772 Liatris Drive in support of the application. Matthew Russell, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Matthew Russell spoke in support of the application stating the requested variances are to facilitate a purchased cabana kit. In response to questions from Committee Members, Matthew Russell stated the structure is for entertainment purposes only. Furthermore, the wooden structure will not be built on top of a concrete pad, and will be built at grade with no future intent to construct walls or have a fireplace. After taking into consideration the feedback from the applicant and their responses regarding the walls and fireplace, noting the City Development Department’s Report to the Committee of Adjustment, and that the application appears to meet four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 56/21 by M. Russell, 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 covered patio (pavilion), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated July 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously - 6 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 19 4.4 P/CA 62/21 H. Gray & A. Ferreira 689 Liverpool Road 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. An Application for Building Permit has been submitted. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure the reduced front yard setback does 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. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Written comments were received from the resident of 695 Liverpool Road in support of the application. Hayley Gray, 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, Hayley Gray stated the desire to keep as much of existing dwelling as possible while maximizing space through the addition of a second storey. After reviewing the Recommendation from the City Development Department, hearing from the applicant, and noting the application appears to meet the four tests of Planning Act, Eric Newton moved the following motion: - 7 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 19 Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 62/21 by H. Gray & A. Ferreira, 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 addition to the existing dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2 and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated July 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 63/21 C. & M. Antaris 1888 Rockwood Drive 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. 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 Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Chris Antaris, 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, Chris Antaris stated the increased lot coverage is to accommodate a covered patio in the rear yard, and to provide additional amenity space for the family. - 8 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 19 In response to questions from Committee Members, Mr. Antaris indicated that there is 1.36 metres from the south side lot line to the dwelling. The columns are made of 6 feet by 6 feet pressure treated lumber and may be covered at a later date with decorative stucco. After reviewing the Report to the Committee of Adjustment by the City Development Department, hearing from the applicant, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 63/21 by C. & M. Antaris, 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 covered patio, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated July 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 64/21 J. Saunders 132 Highway 7, Green River 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. - 9 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 19 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 Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) stating 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 proposed, therefore TRCA are of the opinion that the proposed office use will not increase the level of risk on the property from a flooding perspective. TRCA staff indicated that the proposal can be supported in principle. Joe Cimer, agent, 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, Joe Cimer stated he spoke with the neighbours to the west and those located at 110 Highway 7 who gave their verbal support on the application. In response to questions from Committee Members Joe Cimer stated the current By-law requires 10 parking spaces for office use and 1 for residential, totaling in 11 parking spaces. The applicant is asking for 7 parking spaces (with 2 of them in the existing garage) to be accommodated. Moreover, no changes to the site are required, all spaces currently exist within the gravel parking lot and meet requirements of the By-law while being in legal compliance. After reviewing the Recommendation Report by the City Development Department to the Committee of Adjustment, hearing the responses made by the agent, noting the request for 7 parking spaces is to facilitate staff parking for an office having no visitors, seeing the support given by the TRCA, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 64/21 by J. Saunders, 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. Carried Unanimously - 10 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 19 4.7 P/CA 65/21 P. Shevnandan 1641 Hollyhedge Drive 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure 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. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Written comments were received from residents of 1628 & 1636 Major Oaks Road, 1633, 1637, 1643, 1644, 1645 & 1649 Hollyhedge Drive, in support of the application. Written comments were received from the residents of 1639 Hollyhedge Drive expressing concern and opposition to the application. Purnanand Shevnandan, 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 Purnanand Shevnandan stated, the desire to make better use of amenity space in the rear yard by installing a cover over the existing deck. - 11 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 19 In response, to a question from a Committee Member, Purnanand Shevnandan stated there is no intent to fully enclose the deck by adding walls in addition to the roof. Having reviewed the Report to the Committee of Adjustment by the City Development Department, and noting the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 65/21 by P. Shevnandan, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1.That these variances apply only to the platform (deck) and associated steps, and existing shed, 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 July 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. 1383 Rougemount Drive 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; - 12 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 19 •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 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. 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 and that Low Impact Development measures may be required with the future Land Division application due to the increase in the imperviousness of the lot surface. - 13 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 19 Written comments were received from the Region of Durham Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Written comments in opposition to the applications were received from the residents of: 1394 & 1479 Rougemount Drive, and 360, 365, 367, 371 & 377 Rouge Hill Court. Written comments were received from Councillor Brenner, Ward 1 City Councillor, indicating community concern over the applications, lack of engagement by the applicant with the community, completion of a checklist not yet supported by Council, confusion as to whether a proposal creating a total of 4 lots can be considered by the Committee of Adjustment, the character of Rougemount Drive which is recognized as a Special Policy Area R3 with 60 foot frontage lots is separate and distinct from Rougehill Court, and the potential that the proposals will further require variances for both height and coverage. Councillor Brenner asked that the Committee consider either deferring or tabling these applications to enable the applicant to engage in meaningful dialog with the impacted residents. Paul Demczak, agent, was present to represent the application. The following were present in opposition to the applications: Artur Gevorgyan, Sevay Yeghoyan, Jeremy Golden, Keri Kubik, Diego Roccasalva, June McGivern and Clement Marleau, Bhupinder Bajwa, and Oliver Rohn. In support of the application, Paul Demczak described the property, the surrounding neighbourhood context, and the applications. He indicated a lot fabric analysis of the immediate neighbourhood submitted in support of the applications demonstrates the proposed lot frontages are compatible with the character of lots within the neighbourhood and are identical to many of the immediate adjacent lots to the north, south and east. Mr. Demczak stated that the proposal meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is appropriate development of the land, and the requested variances are minor. He pointed out that the proposed reduced side yards will not be adjacent existing neighbouring dwellings, and that no variances to height or coverage are requested. Dwellings are proposed to be staggered to fit the character and to blend with the neighbourhood. All boundary trees will be maintained while accommodating for construction. Retaining walls and storm water management techniques are proposed to the satisfaction of the City to address the grade of the property that slopes down from north to south. The applicant has no concerns with the staff recommendation and conditions. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer stated that the requested reduced lot frontages are to facilitate the creation of four lots. - 14 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 19 Artur Gevorgyan, requested clarification of the proposal and the Secretary-Treasurer responded that one lot currently exists, and that the applications would facilitate the severance of the one lot into four lots where two lots would have frontage on Rougemount Drive and two lots would have frontage on Rouge Hill Court. The Chair further clarified only one lot exists at this time, that a severance has not yet taken place, and the matter of severance is not before the Committee of Adjustment but is a matter to be decided by the Region of Durham Land Division Committee. Mr. Gevorgyan indicated his primary concern is with the significant construction and general traffic created as a result of the four proposed lots. In response the Secretary-Treasurer indicated that the application will be required to submit a construction management plan at the building permit stage. Mr. Gevorgyan asked that the record state that he is opposing the applications. Sevay Yeghoyan expressed that when considering the four homes across the street having 100 foot frontages, the proposed four lots having 50 foot frontages are out of character with the uniqueness of the neighbourhood and if approved will change the flavour of Rougemount Drive north of Kingston Road. In addition, the proximity to the street of the two homes proposed to front onto Rougemount Drive is a concern for the safety of children. Mr. Yeghoyan also expressed concern over the increase in noise since the cutting of some trees on the subject property as well as concern about wildlife living on the property. Jeremy Golden expressed his main concern that there is an unique difference between the Rougemount Drive zoned R3 and Rouge Hill Court zoned R4 neighbourhoods. He noted that Section 2.9 and 3.9 of the Official Plan states that the character of the neighbourhoods is to be maintained. Rougemount Drive is part of the Ontario Trail Council and connects to the Waterfront Trail. He noted that allowing higher density will take away from the character of the neighbourhood, allows for other similar smaller development across the road, encourages land assembly, allows for development more similar to that permitted by R4 zoning, is not minor, and is more like subdivision development. He also noted that unique species of animals live here. He stated that he opposes the applications and suggested that the applications are premature, and should be tabled or differed. Keri Kubik, neighbour to the north indicated that his concerns regarding the side yard abutting his property and boundary trees have been addressed. Diego Roccasalva asked the Committee why the applicant can’t meet the provisions of the current bylaws and noted that the building designs don’t complement the uniqueness of homes in the area. - 15 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 19 June McGivern and Clement Marleau expressed the following concerns: the buildings are too large for the small lots, the buildings will be too close to their rear yard towering over their lot with views into their lot, there will be an impact on wildlife, the small lots don’t fit in with the area, loss of privacy, and not in agreement with proposal. Bhupinder Bajwa agrees with previous statements about safety, environmental concerns and the uniqueness of the neighbourhood. Mr. Bajwa expressed concerns that the proposal is not a minor but is a major change, that the applicant appears to be by passing the process, the proposal is not appropriate for an area the City has designated as a special policy area, the proposed homes will be on a higher elevation than the home to the south and homes on Rouge Hill Court, that an environmental assessment been not been done, the two storey high buildings on a higher elevation will be an eyesore, the proposed development will impact the resale value of existing homes, requests that falling down fence be repaired, that the chimney breast will be an eyesore to the home to the south, and there will be adverse impact on the entire neighbourhood. Oliver Rohn expressed that the applications are not minor but major and complex. Mr. Rohn indicated that the proposed four units should require a draft plan of subdivision and rezoning to be considered by City Council such as the Dunn Crescent proposal where the proposed four lots were considered by the Land Division Committee and a rezoning was considered by City Council. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer explained that Official Plan policy permits up to a total of four lots be created through the land division process. He further expressed concern that the proposed 15.2 m frontages are unprecedented in the area; that two homes would be appropriate for the area; there is a lack of street parking and tight passage for delivery and emergency vehicles on Rouge Hill Court; that no environmental assessment has been undertaken; that massing and hardscaping in excess of 40 percent of the land and a retaining wall is a recipe for disaster; that 3 homeowners bordering on the subject lands have grave concerns about the environmental impact; and that the future streetscape of Roungemount Drive and area will be negatively impacted. He is not opposed to two homes, and asks Committee to reject the request for relief. In response to a question from a member of the Committee, the Secretary-Treasurer commented that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) comments on proposals within the TRCA regulated area and this property is not within the TRCA regulated area. The Secretary-Treasurer also commented that the Official Plan policies do not require an environmental impact assessment to look at natural features or wildlife for this property. - 16 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 17 of 19 In response to concerns raised by residents, Paul Demczak indicated that the proposed four lots complies with the lot fabric in the immediate area, a construction management plan will be required, the black and white building elevation plans don’t appropriately reflect the quality of his client’s custom homes, and the proposed dwellings will be complimentary to the range of architectural styles found in the neighbourhood. In response to a question from a Committee member, Paul Demczak indicated that his client has spoken to the abutting neighbours to the north and on Rouge Hill Court and would be open to meeting with the neighbours. Paul Demczak continued to address residents comments indicating that if one dwelling were built on this property it would have the identical sittings as the proposed dwellings having 1.8 metre side yard setbacks, and two storeys at a height of a maximum of 9 metres having the same overlook and impacts on the properties to the south and on Rouge Hill Court. He also stated that his client would be happy to discuss opportunities for replacing fences and tree planting where appropriate. In response to questions from Committee members, Paul Demczak, indicated that the dwellings will have above grade square footage of about 3,600 square feet, dwellings have been designed with the architect and civil engineer to make sure that the stairs will work with the grading and design, the side yards to the abutting existing properties will be 1.8 metres, he is not aware his client is working with potential purchasers for the lots, land division applications will be submitted after favourable decision of the Committee of Adjustment, and four lots with the frontages proposed is the most appropriate development of the site. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer confirmed that variances are not requested for the side yards abutting the existing properties to the north and south, and those side yards will comply with the minimum By-law requirement of 1.8 metres. In response to a question from a Committee member, a staff member indicated that the Region of Durham has no objection to the minor variance applications. Mr. Bajwa indicated that he is not against development and is of the opinion that the severances should be handled first and the minor variances be considered after the severances. He supports further community consultation. - 17 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 18 of 19 After listening to applicant and concerns raised by residents, considering the Committee member’s suggestion that the applicant consider revising the proposal to propose 3 lots (1 lot fronting onto Rougemount Drive and 2 lots fronting onto Rouge Hill Court), and that the applicant meet with the community to perhaps incorporate the residents’ concerns, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That applications P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 by Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc., be Deferred Sine Die to allow the developer an opportunity to speak with the neighbours and residents. Carried Unanimously - 18 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 19 of 19 5.Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 7th meeting of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 9:03 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, August 11, 2021. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer - 19 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 52/21 Date: August 11, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 52/21 E. Macaulay 645 Annland Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: •a minimum side yard setback of 0.6 of a metre on the east side yard whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres; •a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres on the west side yard whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres; •a maximum lot coverage of 38.1 percent whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; •a maximum building height of 10.3 metres whereas the By-law establishes maximum building height of 9.0 metres; and •an accessory structure (shed) greater than 10 square metres in area to be set back a minimum of 0.7 of a metre from the westerly lot line whereas the By-law requires all accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area to be set back a minimum of 1.0 metre from all lot lines. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling and to recognize an existing accessory structure (shed). Recommendations The City Development Department considers the requested variances related to the proposed single detached dwelling to not be in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and therefore recommends Refusal of the proposed variances. And The City Development Department considers the requested variance regarding the existing accessory structure (shed) 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: - 20 - Report P/CA 52/21 August 11, 2021 Page 2 1. That this variance apply only to the existing accessory structure (shed), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). Or Should the Committee find merit in the requested variances related to the proposed single detached dwelling and existing accessory structure (shed), the City Development Department recommends the following condition of approval: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed single detached dwelling and existing accessory structure (shed), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). 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 Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including single detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto. City Council has recently endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the 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 not within the boundaries of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. Therefore staff have not reviewed or made comments on the proposal using the proposed Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist. Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned R4 within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed side yard setback of 0.6 of a metre on the east side yard, the proposed side yard setback of 1.2 metres on the west side yard, the proposed maximum lot coverage of 38.1 percent, and the proposed accessory structure setback of 0.7 of a metre from the westerly lot line conform to the intent of the Zoning By-law. However, the proposed maximum height of 10.3 metres does not conform to the intent of the By-law. - 21 - Report P/CA 52/21 August 11, 2021 Page 3 Conforms to the Intent of the Side Yard Setback Provisions The intent of the minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres on both side yards is to provide an appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties in order to maintain a pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services. The proposed side yard widths of 0.6 of a metre (east side yard) and 1.2 metres (west side yard) meet this intent. The 0.6 of a metre easterly side yard setback is a function of a 24.8 square metre parcel of land having been conveyed to the easterly neighbour at 647 Annland Street. When the existing one-storey dwelling at 647 Annland Street was constructed, it encroached onto the original shared property line. As a result, this 24.8 square metre parcel was carved out from the 645 Annland Street property and transferred into the ownership of 647 Annland Street. Due to a jog in the property lines, the proposed easterly setback is 0.6 of a metre, but dwellings will maintain a separation distance of approximately 2.2 metres. This separation distance in conjunction with the remaining easterly side yard setback meets the intent of the By-law. Conforms to the Intent of the Maximum Lot Coverage Provision The intent of the maximum lot coverage requirement of 33 percent is to maintain an appropriate amount of amenity area uncovered by buildings on a lot, to regulate the scale and size of the building, and to accommodate appropriate lot drainage and grading. The proposed lot coverage maximum of 38.1 percent maintains the intent of this By-law provision. The 5.1 percent increase in the lot coverage maximum is again the function of the 24.8 square metre conveyance of the lot. Had the lot maintained its rectangular shape, the proposed lot coverage of this proposal would be 36.5 percent, which represents a 3.5 percent increase from the established maximum of 33 percent. Despite exceeding the lot coverage maximum, the proposed development maintains adequate amenity area uncovered by buildings on this lot. Appropriate lot drainage and grading will be maintained. The building is designed to step away from the existing single-storey dwelling at 647 Annland Street and the proposed third storey is stepped back from the main wall of the dwelling (refer to Exhibit 7 – Submitted Rendering). These architectural features will contribute to reducing the massing and shadowing effects on the neighbouring properties. Additionally, there is no abutting residential property immediately to the rear of the dwelling, as it backs onto City- owned Alderwood Park property. Does not Conform to the Intent of the Maximum Height Provision By-law 7610/18 (Height By-law) was approved and enacted in 2018 by Council to add maximum building height provisions for lands zoned “R3” and “R4” within Zoning By-law 2511. Through focus group discussions with the community, maximum building height was identified as one of the key criteria in ensuring compatibility of new infill and replacement dwellings. Prior to the enactment of the Height By-law, By-law 2511 did not regulate maximum building heights for “R3” and “R4” zones within the Bay Ridges neighbourhood, among other neighbourhoods. - 22 - Report P/CA 52/21 August 11, 2021 Page 4 A 9.0 metre maximum building height was established as it accommodates the development of a moderate 2-storey home while providing an appropriate transition in height to adjacent existing homes. The maximum building height provision is intended to help manage redevelopment within established residential neighbourhoods and address compatibility matters. The request for the maximum dwelling height of 10.3 metres is to accommodate for a third storey on the proposed dwelling. Staff acknowledge that efforts have been made by the applicant in the architectural design and placement of the dwelling to address compatibility measures. The applicant has set the dwelling back from the existing single storey dwelling at 647 Annland Street, stepped the third storey back from the front of the dwelling, reduced the original ceiling height of the proposed third storey and lowered the peak of the roof to reduce the overall height. Staff also recognize that the dwelling backs onto a City-owned park, and not a residential property. However, staff fail to identify any hardship towards meeting the Height By-law as it relates to the condition of the lot. The requested variance to the maximum height is intended to facilitate a third storey, which does not meet the intent of the By-law. Conforms to the Intent of the Accessory Structure Setback Provision The intent of the minimum 1.0 metre setback requirement for accessory structures, greater than 1.8 metres in height, is to ensure that adequate space is available for maintenance, that the eaves/overhangs do not encroach on adjacent properties, that roof drainage stays on the subject property, and that the visual impact on adjacent properties is minimized. The shed is located towards the rear of the property, where there is no abutting neighbour. The 0.7 of a metre setback from the westerly lot line provides an adequate setback from surrounding properties to meet the intent of this By-law provision. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed dwelling is desirable for the appropriate development of the land as it provides a transition from the an existing three-storey dwelling at 643 Annland Street which measures 11.6 metres in height, to the single storey dwelling located at 647 Annland Street. The construction of 643 Annland Street predated the establishment of the 2018 Height By-law. The proposed dwelling is designed to step back from the single storey structure at 647 Annland Street and the proposed third storey of the dwelling is set back from the main wall of the dwelling which reduces massing and shadowing effects onto the neighbours. As previously mentioned, the applicant has made revisions to ceiling heights and the design of the roof to lower the overall height of the dwelling. At the June 9, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting, the Committee approved a staff supported height variance of 11.3 metres for the property at 642 Annland Street located on the north side of Annland Street. This variance was approved as the lot in question was located in between two existing 3-storey dwellings that range in height between 10.5 metres and 12 metres (these dwellings began construction prior to the enactment of the 9.0 metre Height By-law). While the 645 Annland Street property is not situated in between two 3-storey dwellings, it does provide some transition from an existing three-storey dwelling on the west to a row of existing one-storey dwellings on the east, along the south side of Annland Street. - 23 - Report P/CA 52/21 August 11, 2021 Page 5 Overall, the proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances related to the detached dwelling do not maintain the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance related to the accessory structure is desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • Ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Consideration for the use of multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services • No comments on the application. Durham Region • No objection to the application. Owners of 641, 643, 644, 646, 647 and 650 Annland Street & 1315 Wharf Street • In support of the application. Date of report: August 4, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 52-21 E. Macaulay\7. Report\PCA 52-21 Report.docx Attachments - 24 - Balaton AvenueA nnland Str e e t Liverpool RoadIlona Park Road Colmar Avenue Foxglove Avenue Shearer Lane Commerce Street Al der woodPlacePleasant StreetWharf Street K i n g f i s h e r D r i v eHewson DriveBroadview Street AlderwoodPark Frenchman'sBay Rate PayersMemorial Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 52/21 Date: May. 21, 2021 ¯EE. Macaulay645 Annland Street SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 52-21 E. Macaulay\PCA52-21_LocationMap_v2.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. City DevelopmentDepartment Exhibit 1 - 25 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 52/21 Applicant: E. Macaulay Municipal Address: 645 Annland Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: July 28, 2021 to permit a minimum side yard setback of 0.6 of a metre on the east side yard to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres on the west side yard to permit a maximum lot coverage of 38.1 percent to permit a maximum building height of 10.3 metres to permit an accessory structure greater than 10 square metres in area to be set back a minimum of 0.7 of a metre from the westerly lot line Annland Street - 26 - Exhibit 3 Submitted East Elevation File No: P/CA 52/21 Applicant: E. Macaulay Municipal Address: 645 Annland Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: July 28, 2021 Annland Street - 27 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Front (North) Elevation File No: P/CA 52/21 Applicant: E. Macaulay Municipal Address: 645 Annland Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: July 28, 2021 - 28 - Exhibit 5 Submitted West Elevation File No: P/CA 52/21 Applicant: E. Macaulay Municipal Address: 645 Annland Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: July 28, 2021 Annland Street - 29 - Exhibit 6 Submitted (South) Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 52/21 Applicant: E. Macaulay Municipal Address: 645 Annland Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: July 28, 2021 - 30 - Exhibit 7 Submitted Rendering File No: P/CA 52/21 Applicant: E. Macaulay Municipal Address: 645 Annland Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Aug. 4, 2021 - 31 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 66/21 Date: August 11, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 66/21 DWK Holdings Inc. 1735 Orangebrook Court Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 5.6 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to construct a one-storey addition to an industrial building. 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 industrial building addition, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, & 5). Background The City Development Department is in receipt of a Site Plan Approval application to permit a 356 square metre addition to the existing industrial building. The Site Plan application is currently under review. P/CA 46/16 approved by the Committee of Adjustment on December 7, 2016, permitted a rear yard depth of 5.6 metres, facilitated an addition to the industrial building The subject application, P/CA 66/21, is to facilitate a further addition. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates this property as “Employment Areas – General Employment” within the Brock Industrial Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate manufacturing, assembly, and warehousing uses, and related employment opportunities. - 32 - Report P/CA 66/21 August 11, 2021 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned M2S within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended. The intent of the minimum rear yard depth requirement of 7.5 metres is to provide an appropriate setback for lot grading and drainage. The applicant is proposing a minimum rear yard depth of 5.6 metres to allow for an addition to an existing building. The proposed rear yard depth maintains an adequate setback for maintenance, lot grading and drainage. The proposed reduction in the minimum rear yard depth will have no adverse impact on the abutting industrial properties to the south. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed addition will be consistent with the existing built form within the surrounding industrial area. The proposed setback will allow for the addition to be flush with the existing building. Therefore the proposed building addition is desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services •No comments on the application. Building Services •No comments on the application. Durham Region •No objection to the application. Date of report: July 29, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 66-21\7. Report\PCA 66-21 Report.docx Attachments - 33 - Brock RoadToy AvenueBayly Street Dillingham Road Quigley Street Orangebrook Court Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 66/21 Date: Jul. 16, 2021 Exhibit 1 DWK Holdings Inc.1735 Orangebrook Court SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 66-21 DWK Holdings Inc\PCA66-21_LocationMap_v2.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. City DevelopmentDepartment - 34 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Overall Plan File No: P/CA 66/21 Applicant: DWK Holdings Inc. Municipal Address: 1735 Orangebrook Court CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 27 2021 to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 5.6 metres - 35 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Plan (Scoped) File No: P/CA 66/21 Applicant: DWK Holdings Inc. Municipal Address: 1735 Orangebrook Court CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 27 2021 to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 5.6 metres - 36 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Elevations File No: P/C 66/21 Applicant: DWK Holdings Inc. Municipal Address: 1735 Orangebrook Court CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 27, 2021 North Elevation South Elevation - 37 - Exhibit 5 Submitted Elevations File No: P/CA 66/21 Applicant: DWK Holdings Inc. Municipal Address: 1735 Orangebrook Court CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 27, 2021 East Elevation - 38 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 67/21 Date: August 11, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 67/21 L. & D. Comeau 1525 Nipissing Court Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4123/92, to permit: • a minimum rear yard depth of 5.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres; and • a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent. 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 sunroom and 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 sunroom and uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). 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 Amberlea Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Amberlea Neighbourhood. - 39 - Report P/CA 67/21 August 11, 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. Rear Yard Variance The intent of a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres is to ensure that sufficient amenity space is provided in the rear yard. The requested variance is intended to facilitate the construction of a sunroom and deck that will contribute towards the total usable amenity space in the rear yard. There is also sufficient amenity space to the south of the proposed structures. Lot Coverage Variance The intent of a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (for landscaping and amenity areas) uncovered by buildings on a lot. The existing dwelling accounts for 36 percent of the total coverage, whereas the proposed sunroom accounts for 7 percent of the total coverage. The proposed deck is uncovered and is therefore not included in the calculation of total lot coverage. The proposed sunroom provides a covered area for the owner to enjoy activities within their rear yard. There is also sufficient yard space to the south of the proposed structures. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances are intended to facilitate the construction of a sunroom and uncovered deck that will contribute towards the total usable amenity space in the rear yard. The proposed structures are not anticipated to have any significant impacts on drainage or on the surrounding area. 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. Building Services • No concerns. Region of Durham • No objections to the proposal. - 40 - Report P/CA 67/21 August 11, 2021 Page 3 Date of report: August 4, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 67-21 L. & D. Comeau\7. Report\PCA 67-21 Report.doc Attachments - 41 - Finch Avenue Lamour Road Amberlea Road SaugeenDrive WhiskyGateWhites RoadBoyneCourtNapaneeRoadNipissing CourtOtonabee DriveEramosaCrescentGracela n d Co u r t St. Mary Park St. MaryCatholicHigh School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 67/21 Date: Jul. 16, 2021 Exhibit 1 L. & D. Comeau1525 Nipissing Court SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 67-21 L. & D. Comeau\PCA67-21_LocationMap_v2.mxd 1:3,000 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. City DevelopmentDepartment - 42 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 67/21 Applicant: L. & D. Comeau Municipal Address: 1525 Nipissing Court CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2021 to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 5.0 metres to permit a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent - 43 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Floor Plan File No: P/CA 67/21 Applicant: L. & D. Comeau Municipal Address: 1525 Nipissing Court CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2021 - 44 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 67/21 Applicant: L. & D. Comeau Municipal Address: 1525 Nipissing Court CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2021 - 45 - Exhibit 5 Submitted West Side Elevation File No: P/CA 67/21 Applicant: L. & D. Comeau Municipal Address: 1525 Nipissing Court CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2021 - 46 - Exhibit 6 Submitted East Side Elevation File No: P/CA 67/21 Applicant: L. & D. Comeau Municipal Address: 1525 Nipissing Court CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2021 - 47 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 68/21 Date: August 11, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 68/21 J. Bevan & M. O’Reilly 1791 Spruce Hill Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit an uncovered platform 3.2 metres in height above grade to project 0.25 of a metre into the required north side yard whereas the By-law only permits uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 0.5 of a metre into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to recognize an addition to a rear yard platform. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the rear yard platform, 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 – Low Density Areas” within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including platforms accessory to 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 side yard projection provision is to ensure adequate buffer space between structures, sufficient space for an adequate landscaped area, access to yards and residential utility services, and to allow for maintenance. - 48 - Report P/CA 68/21 August 11, 2021 Page 2 The majority of the deck along the north side yard is flush with the dwelling where a 2.44 metre setback is maintained. A slight overhang at the northeast corner of the deck was constructed to accommodate a pizza oven (refer to Exhibit 2). Since the deck is 3.2 metres in height above grade, the By-law does not allow for a projection into the side yard. The overhang is setback 1.25 metres from the north side yard. Given the minimal projection into the 1.5 metre side yard requirement, the requested variance conforms with the intent of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The addition to the deck is required at 3.2 metres in height in order to remain consistent with the previously existing deck and to be accessed from the main floor of the dwelling. The property to the north is adequately screened with mature vegetation as well, therefore there will not be a concern with privacy and overlook. Additionally, given the intention of the overhang to accommodate a pizza oven, the overhang cannot be accessed and used as a lookout point. Sufficient area is maintained for landscaping, access and maintenance. The variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services •No comments on the application. Building Services •No comments on the application. Durham Region •No objection to the application. Date of report: July 29, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 68-21\7. Report\PCA 68-21 Report.docx Attachments - 49 - Fairport RoadC r i c k e t L a n e Eas tbank Road Spru c e H i l l R o a d St roud s L a n e MinstrelManorS h a dybrookDriveEdgewoodRoadCobble rs Court Gold e n r i d g e R o a d Rus h t o n R o a d DunbartonRoad Aspe n R o a d Kate s Lane W ing ard e n Cre s c e nt He d g e row P lac e Jac que line Ave nue Ad aCourtShad e Mas te r Drive Me ad owvie w Ave nue W e l r u s S t r e e t Shad ybrookP ark Dale woodRavine City De ve lopm e ntDe partm e nt Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P /CA 68/21 Date : Jul. 16, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EM. Be van & M. O’Re illy 1791 Spruc e Hill Road SubjectLands L:\P LANNING\01-MapFile s \P CA\2021\P CA 68-21 J. Be van & M. O'Re illy\P CA68-21_Loc ationMap.m xd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A P LAN 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.- 50 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 68/21 Applicant: J. Bevan & M. O’Reilly Municipal Address: 1791 Spruce Hill Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 27, 2021 to permit an uncovered platform 3.2 metres in height above grade to project 0.25 of a metre into the required north side yard Deck - 51 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Elevations File No: P/CA 68/21 Applicant: J. Bevan & M. O’Reilly Municipal Address: 1791 Spruce Hill Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jul. 27, 2021 Right Side Elevation Left Side Elevation - 52 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Elevations File No: P/CA 68/21 Applicant: J. Bevan & M. O’Reilly Municipal Address: 1791 Spruce Hill Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jul. 27 2021 Rear Elevation - 53 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 69/21 Date: August 11, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 69/21 C. & G. Palmer 1599 Seguin Square Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4487/94, to: • permit an uncovered and covered steps and platform (rear deck) not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.4 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side yard; • recognize an accessory structure (existing shed) that is greater than 1.8 metres in height and is set back a minimum of 0.6 metres from the west side lot line and 0.6 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law requires accessory structures greater than 1.8 metres in height to be set back a minimum of 1.0 metres from all lot lines; and • permit a maximum lot coverage of 45 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 and covered deck, and to recognize an existing shed. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to permit an uncovered and covered steps and platform (rear deck) not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.4 metres into the required rear yard and to permit a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent 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/covered steps and platform (rear deck), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). - 54 - Report P/CA 69/21 August 11, 2021 Page 2 and The City Development Department does not consider the requested variance to recognize an accessory structure (existing shed) that is greater than 1.8 metres in height and is set back a minimum of 0.6 metres from the west side lot line and 0.6 metres from the rear lot line to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and therefore recommends Refusal of the proposed variance. or If the applicant were to request that the application be amended to recognize an accessory structure (existing shed) that is greater than 1.8 metres in height and is set back a minimum of 0.6 metres from the rear lot line only, the following recommendation would apply: The City Development Department considers the requested variances to permit an uncovered and covered steps and platform (rear deck) not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.4 metres into the required rear yard, to recognize an accessory structure (existing shed) that is greater than 1.8 metres in height and is set back a minimum of 0.6 metres from the rear lot line, and to permit a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. The submitted plans be revised to show the existing shed set back a minimum of 1.2 metres from the west side lot line and 0.6 metres from the rear lot line. 2. That these variances apply only to the proposed uncovered/covered steps and platform (rear deck) and existing shed. Background The existing shed was constructed on the property by the previous landowners. The current landowners applied for a building permit to facilitate the construction of the rear deck, at which point it was identified that the existing shed does not comply with the minimum setback requirement in the By-law. 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 Amberlea Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Amberlea Neighbourhood. The subject property is not located within one of the established Neighbourhood Precincts in which the Urban Design Guidelines for the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study applies. - 55 - Report P/CA 69/21 August 11, 2021 Page 3 Height & Projection of Steps and Platform The applicant is proposing to reconstruct a covered/uncovered rear deck that is smaller in size than the existing deck on the property. The intent of a maximum height of 1.0 metre and a maximum projection of 1.5 metres 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. Additionally, neighbouring properties appear to have existing decks that are greater than 1.0 metre in height. There is sufficient amenity space to the south of the proposed deck for outdoor activities. Setback of Existing Shed The intent of a 1.0 metre setback for accessory structures is to ensure that adequate space is available for maintenance of the structure, to ensure roof drainage stays on the property, and to minimize the visual impact a structure may have on adjacent properties. The setback of the existing shed still provides sufficient distance to maintain the structure. The eaves/overhangs of the shed do not encroach onto adjacent properties. The shed is 2.7 metres in height, whereas the maximum height for accessory buildings in a residential zone is 3.5 metres. This reduces the visual impact of the shed. Lot Coverage The intent of a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (for landscaping and amenity areas) uncovered by buildings on a lot. The existing dwelling accounts for 38 percent of the total coverage, whereas the proposed rear deck (5 percent) and existing shed (2 percent) account for 7 percent of the total coverage. Any proposal to construct a deck or accessory structure on the lot would require a variance to coverage. The proposed deck provides a covered area for outdoor activities within the rear yard. The existing shed provides an enclosed space for outdoor storage. Additionally, there is sufficient yard space to the south of the proposed deck. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances will facilitate the construction of a deck that contributes towards the total usable amenity space in the rear yard. The proposed deck is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on drainage or on the surrounding area. The shed is an existing structure that has not negatively impacted adjacent properties, as it has existed without complaint. However, as per Engineering Services comments (see Input from Other Sources), there is a 1.2 metre wide easement that runs along the west property line. No structure is permitted to be located within this easement. As such, the existing location of the shed is not considered to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit an uncovered and covered steps and platform (rear deck) not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.4 metres into the required rear yard and to permit a maximum lot coverage of - 56 - Report P/CA 69/21 August 11, 2021 Page 4 43 percent 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. and Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to recognize an accessory structure (existing shed) that is greater than 1.8 metres in height and is set back a minimum of 0.6 metres from the west side lot line and 0.6 metres from the rear lot line is not desirable for the appropriate development of land. or If the applicant were to request that the application be amended to recognize an accessory structure (existing shed) that is greater than 1.8 metres in height and is set back a minimum of 0.6 metres from the rear lot line only, the following opinion would apply: Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit an uncovered and covered steps and platform (rear deck) not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.4 metres into the required rear yard, to recognize an accessory structure (existing shed) that is greater than 1.8 metres in height and is set back a minimum of 0.6 metres from the rear lot line, and to permit a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent 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 • There is a 1.2 metre wide easement on the property known as Part 1, Plan 40R-16571. The existing shed is to be located outside of the easement, a minimum of 1.2 metres from the side (west) lot line. Building Services • No concerns. Region of Durham • No objections to the proposal. Date of report: August 5, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 69-21 C. & G. Palmer\7. Report\PCA 69-21 Report.doc Attachments - 57 - Rosebank RoadAmberlea Road Lamour Road HighviewRoad Finch Avenue R ou g e w a l k D r i ve DriftwoodCourt Aberfoyle CourtAmaretto Av e n u e Kirkwood LaneWildflower DriveBoyneCourtS a u geen Drive NapaneeRoadMontclair LaneSummerpark Crescent Otonabee DriveWhisky GateSturgeonCourtMahogany CourtSeguin SquareSequinPark AmarettoPark City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 69/21 Date: Jul. 16, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EHydroCorridor C. & G. Palmer1599 Seguin Square SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 69-21 C. & G. Palmer\PCA69-21_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. HydroCorridor HydroCorridor - 58 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 69/21 Applicant: C. & G. Palmer Municipal Address: 1599 Seguin Square CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2021 to permit an uncovered and covered steps and platform (rear deck) not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.4 metres into the required rear yard to recognize an accessory structure (existing shed) that is greater than 1.8 metres in height and is set back a minimum of 0.6 metres from the west side lot line and 0.6 metres from the rear lot line to permit a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent - 59 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Deck Floor Plan File No: P/CA 69/21 Applicant: C. & G. Palmer Municipal Address: 1599 Seguin Square CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2021 - 60 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Deck Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 69/21 Applicant: C. & G. Palmer Municipal Address: 1599 Seguin Square CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2021 1.6 m to permit an uncovered and covered steps and platform (rear deck) not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.4 metres into the required rear yard - 61 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 70/21 to P/CA 72/21 Date: August 11, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications P/CA 70/21 to P/CA 72/21 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited 3195 Mulberry Lane Applications P/CA 70/21 – Lot 278 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit a minimum rear yard of 3.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 5.0 metres. P/CA 71/21 – Lot 279 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit: • a minimum rear yard of 2.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 5.0 metres; and • an attached private garage accessed only by a driveway from the street to be located no closer than 4.3 metres to the front lot line abutting the street where the wall of the private garage containing the opening for vehicular access faces the lot line abutting the street; whereas the By-law requires attached private garages accessed only by a driveway from a street to be located no closer than 6.0 metres to the lot line abutting the street where the wall of the private garage containing the opening for vehicular access faces the lot line abutting the street. P/CA 72/21 – Lot 292 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit a minimum rear yard of 4.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 5.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to permit the future construction of three detached dwellings within Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP 2009-12. - 62 - Report P/CA 70/21 to P/CA 72/21 August 11, 2021 Page 2 Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the three proposed detached dwellings, 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 Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within this designation. Rear Yard Setback (Lots 278, 279 and 292) The intent of a minimum rear yard setback of 5.0 metres is to ensure that sufficient amenity space is provided in the rear yard. These variances are necessary due to the irregular shapes of the three lots. The variance to the rear yard for Lot 278 is only required for the north corner of the dwelling, where the lot begins to narrow. There is sufficient amenity space provided in the rear yard on Lot 278. The variance to the rear yard for Lot 279 is only required for the south-half of the dwelling, where the lot is very narrow. There is sufficient amenity space in the north-east corner of Lot 279. The variance to the rear yard for Lot 292 is only required for the east corner of the dwelling, where the lot begins to narrow. There is sufficient amenity space provided in the rear yard on Lot 292 and to the east of the proposed dwelling. Additionally, all three lots are ravine lots that back onto lands owned by the Province of Ontario. Setback of Attached Garage (Lot 279) The intent of a minimum 6.0 metre setback for an attached garage from the front lot line is to provide an adequate separation distance between the building and street activity, to provide an adequate landscaped area in the front yard and to provide sufficient depth in the driveway for the parking of a vehicle. The portion of the lot where the attached garage is situated is very narrow. As a result, a reduced setback is required to ensure the size of the garage is sufficient for the parking of a vehicle and storage. The proposed garage is setback behind the front wall of the dwelling and provides adequate separation distance from the street and sufficient space for parking of a vehicle in the driveway. The area to the west of the proposed garage will provide sufficient area for landscaping. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances will facilitate the development of three lots within Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP 2009-12, on lands that are currently vacant. As such, the proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The requested variances are not anticipated to have any significant impacts on drainage or on the surrounding lots. - 63 - Report P/CA 70/21 to P/CA 72/21 August 11, 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 • No comments. Building Services • No concerns. Region of Durham • No objections to the proposal. Date of report: August 4, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 70-21 to PCA 72-21 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited\7. Report\PCA 70-21 to 72-21 Report.doc Attachments - 64 - Mulberry LaneCity DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 70/21 to P/CA 72/21 Date: Jul. 26, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EMattamy (Seaton) Limited3195 Mulberry Lane (Lots 278, 279 & 292) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 70-21 to PCA 72-21 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited\PCA70_72-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:5,000 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.- 65 - Exhibit 1A Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 70/21 to P/CA 72/21 Applicant: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Municipal Address: 3195 Mulberry Lane CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2021 ) - 66 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan – Lot 278 (P/CA 70/21) File No: P/CA 70/21 to P/CA 72/21 Applicant: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Municipal Address: 3195 Mulberry Lane CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2021 to permit a minimum rear yard of 3.6 metres - 67 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Site Plan – Lot 279 (P/CA 71/21) File No: P/CA 70/21 to P/CA 72/21 Applicant: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Municipal Address: 3195 Mulberry Lane CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2021 HEARTWOOD LANE to permit an attached private garage accessed only by a driveway from the street to be located no closer than 4.3 metres to the front lot line abutting the street where the wall of the private garage containing the opening for vehicular access faces the lot line abutting the street to permit a minimum rear yard of 2.4 metres - 68 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Site Plan – Lot 292 (P/CA 72/21) File No: P/CA 70/21 to P/CA 72/21 Applicant: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Municipal Address: 3195 Mulberry Lane CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 22, 2021 to permit a minimum rear yard of 4.0 metres HONEY LOCUST PLACE - 69 -