Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 8, 2021Committee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Number: 9 Date: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number 1.Disclosure of Interest 2.Adoption of Agenda 3.Adoption of Minutes from August 11, 2021 1-15 4. Report 4.1 P/CA 54/21 16-26S. Basha & S. Bathul1772 Spruce Hill Road 4.2 (Deferred from the July 14, 2021 Hearing) 27-65P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. 1383 Rougemount Drive 4.3 P/CA 73/21 66-73 C.Boyce734A Krosno Boulevard 4.4 P/CA 74/21 74-83Marshall Homes Corp. 715 Simpson Avenue 4.5 P/CA 75/21 84-93C. & L. Pollard714 Fairview Avenue 4.6 P/CA 76/21 & P/CA 77/21 94-104 E. Andreacchi 1952 Glendale Drive 4.7 P/CA 78/21 105-109W.Van Kempen & S. Birch4900 Brock Road, Claremont 4.8 P/CA 79/21 110-123 J.Maingot665 Front Road Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number 4.9 P/CA 80/21 124-130Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. 1853 Rosebank Road 4.10 P/CA 81/21 131-143A.Gillespie2045 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road 4.11 P/CA 82/21 144-150 F.Tenaille & D. Francoeur544 Rodd Avenue 4.12 P/CA 87/21 151-154J. & J. Vincken1100 Begley Street, Unit 10 4.13 P/CA 88/21 155-158C. & J. Skewis1100 Begley Street, Unit 11 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 Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 15 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Felix Chu, Planner II Isabel Lima, (Acting) Planner II 1.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2.Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric NewtonSeconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, August 11, 2021 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3.Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric NewtonSeconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 7th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, July 14, 2021 be adopted, as amended. Carried Unanimously - 1 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 15 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 52/21 E. Macaulay 645 Annland Street 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). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Refusal of the requested variances related to the proposed single detached dwelling, and Approval of the requested variance regarding the existing accessory structure (shed), subject to a condition. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that should the Committee find merit in approving the requested variances related to the proposed single detached dwelling and existing accessory structure, that an alternative condition is recommended by City staff. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure any 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. - 2 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 15 Written comments were received from Durham Region expressing no objection to the application. Written comments were received from the owners of 641, 643, 644, 646, 647 and 650 Annland Street & 1315 Wharf Street, in support of the application. Ida Evangelista, agent, was present to represent the application. Elizabeth MacAulay, applicant, was present to represent the application. Multiple attempts were made at connecting Mateen & Samina Farooqui, registered participants in objection, however all attempts at connecting them to the electronic meeting were unsuccessful. Written comments submitted by Mateen & Samina Farooqu were taken under consideration by the Committee. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Ida Evangelista spoke in support of the application and outlined the following: • in agreeance with some of the comments provided by City staff in the Report to the Committee of Adjustment; • confirmed the Committee’s receipt of the submission package provided in support of the application; • outlined the proposal is believed to be in keeping with the current built form of the neighbourhood, as this location is subject to intensification and regeneration; • indicated the rear yard of the subject property backs onto a park, the view west is a new home and view east is an existing dwelling; • the requested variance for an east side yard setback of 0.6 of a metre is a result of the unusual shape of the lot; • in the past the dwelling on the east side was built over the lot line, which resulted in a loss of a portion of the land • the second variance request for a west side yard setback of 1.5 metres is to accommodate the southwest corner of the property; • the lot coverage variance request for 38.1 percent is to accommodate the covered porch areas in the front and rear of the property for architectural design purposes and outlined that if the applicant were to remove this and the carved-out portion of the land, the lot coverage calculation would be at 31 percent and in compliance with the By-law; • if the applicant were to remove only the front and rear covered porches, the lot coverage would be approximately 35 percent • the surrounding built form has dwelling heights of up to 11.3 metres and that the calculation of the building height is to the mid-point of the roof; • if the calculation was only done by measuring the height of the dwelling before the roof line, it would be 9.66 metres in height; - 3 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 15 • the proposed height and positioning of the building along with the terracing at front and rear of the property has been designed with the intent of maintaining a favourable relationship with the neighbouring homes, in order to accommodate light, air and maintenance; • the dwelling is positioned north and south, where the east and west sides will have little to no impact on shadowing and the terracing on the west elevation is designed to mitigate any height concerns; • the building height up to the second floor is 4.25 metres, up to the third floor is 7.25 metres, and up to the underside a height of 9.66 metres; • 7 letters of support have been received from neighbours; • this proposal acknowledges the existing shed to remain; • this application will maintain an appropriate relationship with the surrounding area, it appears to be similar in characteristic of other dwellings, and the roofline design was created with the intent of being similar to other rooflines and built form in the neighbourhood. Elizabeth MacAulay spoke in support of the application stating an admiration for the neighbourhood and community, with a desire to build their forever home. The proposal is to facilitate the creation of a dwelling with adequate office space for a studio that provides workshops and training sessions. There is an expectation for a professional setup and delivery of top quality experiences which requires additional space compared to typical home offices. Elizabeth MacAulay added that the additional space will also allow for family visits. In response to questions from Committee Members, Ida Evangelista stated the current east side yard setback from the property line to the dwelling is 2.05 metres. When asked if the applicants have taken into account the Infill and Replacement Housing Study in their design, Ida Evangelista noted that Elizabeth MacAulay is aware of the City’s Study and has worked very closely with the Town of Markham on a similar program. Elizabeth MacAulay is very active in the community and has taken a great deal of care with designing this proposal. When asked why the applicants are unable to design a new dwelling to meet the height requirements of the By-law, Ida Evangelista indicated the requested height facilitates additional space for a more conducive “work from home” atmosphere on the third floor. Moreover the extra space would allow for a growing family, more comfortable visits, a place to care for family and a multi-generational home, if needed. When asked what the square footage of the home, Ida Evangelista advised that the above-grade square footage is approximately 3,000 square feet (914.4 square metres). Ida Evangelista indicated that the request to increase lot coverage is a result of a portion of the property being irregular and that all covered areas are included. Ida Evangelista advised the proposed dwelling does extend slightly beyond the rear wall of the abutting single-storey property to the east, and it does extend beyond the front wall of the abutting property to the east, which maintains the existing location in the front yard. - 4 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 15 When asked if there were any submitted renderings that show the proposed 3-storey dwelling beside the neighbouring single-storey dwelling for comparison, Ida Evangelista replied that it is believed to be submitted to the City. A Committee Member commented on the request for height variance in the neighbourhood stating that this area has been under great review over the years, and the Infill and Replacement House Study enacted by Council restricts building height as a result of concerns by the neighbourhood. In the past, the Committee of Adjustment has declined applications above 10 metres in the same neighbourhood. Based on the City Development’s Report deeming the proposed side yard setback of 0.6 metres to be acceptable despite the neighbours concern, the unique property shape, the design illustrating the reduced setback only being a small portion of the dwelling, the City’s report capturing the height request well, noting the step-back design, and taking into account the transition between the property to the west and the property to the east, a 10.3 metre height verses the maximum 9 metres appears to be minor and relative to the 11.6 metres in height which is to the west. Taking into account all of these details and the additional description from the applicant and agent, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 52/21 by E. Macaulay, 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 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 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 11, 2021). Motion Lost Vote: Tom Copeland opposed David Johnson opposed Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle opposed Sean Wiley in favour - 5 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 15 Given the context of this application being located just outside of the area subject to the Urban Design Guidelines and taking into account those Guidelines based on the uniqueness of this neighbourhood, recognizing there are a variety of housing styles in this area, acknowledging this is a 15.24 metre (50 feet) lot, the building height request, the standards on the street, new builds and the proposed 914.4 square metres (3,000 square feet) having plenty of floor space to accommodate a “work from home” situation, and after reading the City’s Report, listening and reading objections from neighbours, as well as reviewing the comments from the applicant, Denise Rundle stated their agreeance with City staff’s first recommendation. A Committee Member commented on the points stated and would like to consider the first 4 variances requested by the applicant with the exception of the height variance request, in order to build their forever home within the confines of these limits. Denise Rundle moved the following motion, as recommended by staff: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That 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, for P/CA 52/21 by E. Macaulay, be Approved on the grounds that this variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the existing accessory structure (shed), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 11, 2021). and That a minimum side yard setback of 0.6 of a metre on the east side yard, a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres on the west side yard, a maximum lot coverage of 38.1 percent and a maximum building height of 10.3 metres, for P/CA 52/21 by E. Macaulay, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances are not be in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton opposed Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley opposed - 6 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 15 4.2 P/CA 66/21 DWK Holdings Inc. 1735 Orangebrook Court 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. 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 Durham Region expressing no objection to the application. Morry Edelstein, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Morry Edelstein spoke in support of the application stating that in 2016 the previous owners came to the Committee of Adjustment for the same identical variance request of a 5.63 metre rear yard setback, to construct an addition to the existing industrial building. The ownership has since changed and the current owner wishes to construct another addition in line with previous addition and therefore is asking for the same variance of 5.63 metres. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Morry Edelstein advised that the site is occupied by a drain construction business. Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 66/21 by DWK Holdings Inc., be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: - 7 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 15 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 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 11, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 67/21 L. & D. Comeau 1525 Nipissing Court 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. 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 expressing no objection to the proposal. Louis Comeau, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After reading the Report by the City Development Department to the Committee of Adjustment and reviewing the application, as well as seeing no objections from neighbours, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: - 8 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 15 Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 67/21 by L. & D. Comeau, 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 sunroom and uncovered deck, 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 August 11, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 68/21 J. Bevan & M. O’Reilly 1791 Spruce Hill Road 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. 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 Durham Region expressing no objection to the application. Jody Bevan, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. - 9 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 15 In response to a question from a Committee Member, Jody Bevan stated the addition was built in approximately 2016. The house was purchased with an existing deck in the rear yard where the addition to the deck was constructed and has remained for approximately the last 5 years. The application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, as such Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 68/21 by J. Bevan & M. O’Reilly, 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 rear yard platform, 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 August 11, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 69/21 C. & G. Palmer 1599 Seguin Square 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. - 10 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 15 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. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval for the 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, subject to a condition, and Refusal of 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. Alternatively, 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 City Development Department would recommend Approval, subject to conditions. 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 that 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. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no objections to the proposal. Spencer Joy, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Spencer Joy spoke in support of the application stating that after consultation with the homeowners, they have decided to remove the shed based on Engineering Services comments and the City Development Department’s recommendation for Refusal. He further advised that this would reduce the roof lot coverage by 2% and request to have the application amended to accommodate this request. In response to questions from a Committee Member, Spencer Joy confirmed the existing shed will be removed. In response to questions from a Committee Member, Spencer Joy confirmed that the second variance is withdrawn as the shed will be torn down during the construction of the deck and roof. - 11 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 15 Committee Members spoke briefly about the conditions of approval as recommended by the City Development Department staff in the Report, given that the application is now considered revised. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Spencer Joy clarified that based on the revised request, the lot coverage is now reduced to 43%. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Spencer Joy stated the owners intend to demolish the shed as soon the Building Permit is approved. This is anticipated around September or October 2021. After considering the application, as revised by the applicant to include only the first and third requested variances outlined within the City Development Department’s Report to the Committee of Adjustment, and noting the reduction in lot coverage to 43%, the revised request 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 69/21 by C. & G. Palmer, be Approved as modified by the applicant to permit a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent and 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 are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed uncovered/covered steps and platform (rear 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 August 11, 2021). 2. That the existing shed be demolished prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Carried Unanimously - 12 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 15 4.6 P/CA 70/21 to P/CA 72/21 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited 3195 Mulberry Lane 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. 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. - 13 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 15 Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no objection to the application. Andrew Scott, Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Andrew Scott stated the internal roads within this subdivision will be built in the future. Currently only Mulberry Lane exists, however with the approval of these minor variance applications, Lot 278 and Lot 279 would be on Heartwood Lane and Lot 292 would be on Honey Locust Place. After having read the Report by the City Development Department to the Committee of Adjustment, and reviewed the drawings provided by the applicant, the applications appear to be minor in nature, especially with the irregular shape of the lots in this new subdivision, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 70/21 to P/CA 72/21 by Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the three proposed detached dwellings, 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 August 11, 2021). Carried Unanimously - 14 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 11, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 15 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 8th hearing of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:02 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, September 8, 2021. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer - 15 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 54/21 Date: September 8, 2021 From: Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 54/21 S. Basha & S. Bathul1772 Spruce Hill Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 229/75 to permit a maximum lot coverage of 37.8 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct a detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following condition: 1.That this variance apply only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). 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 for residential uses, including detached dwellings. City Council has recently endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which provides direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. In addition, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts to support and enhance neighbourhood precinct characteristics. City staff are preparing an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to implement the recommendations of the Study to help ensure that the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood precinct character. As part of the OPA and ZBA, staff are proposing revisions to the Urban Design Guidelines and associated Checklist. - 16 - Report P/CA 54/21 September 8, 2021 Page 2 Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposal using both the Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, and the proposed Revised Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A & B to this report. The proposed dwelling maintains all criteria outlined within the Urban Design Guidelines checklists. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned S2 within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 229/75. The intent of the maximum lot coverage requirement is to ensure an appropriate amount of space is left uncovered by buildings on a lot to provide for landscaping and outdoor amenity areas. The maximum lot coverage provision of the zoning by-law is also intended to regulate the scale and size of the building. The proposed detached dwelling maintains a sufficient amount of space for landscaping and outdoor amenity as demonstrated through compliance with all setback requirements. The proposed dwelling depth of 17.1 metres is consistent with the abutting property immediately to the north (1776 Spruce Hill Road). The exterior rear wall of the proposed dwelling will align with the dwelling located to the south (1770 Spruce Hill Road), however the front wall is proposed to be closer to front lot line. The proposed dwelling will maintain a minimum front yard setback of 4.6 metres, which is in keeping with the minimum required front yard setback of 4.5 metres. The proposed increase in lot coverage will result in a detached dwelling that maintains a consistent scale and size as the surrounding properties along Spruce Hill Road. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The subject property is an irregular shape lot as a result of being located on a corner bend of Spruce Hill Road. The property has a frontage of 20.4 metres, however it narrows to 13.7 metres at the rear property line. From the street, the subject property appears larger than it is. The proposed increase in maximum lot coverage will provide for a two-storey detached dwelling that will be consistent with the size and scale of existing dwellings along Spruce Hill Road. The proposed lot coverage represents an overall increase of 4.8 percent, however, the future dwelling will maintain compliance with all yard setback requirements. The visual impact of the increased lot coverage on the streetscape and adjacent properties will be minimal and therefore desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit an increase in the maximum lot coverage to construct a detached dwelling is desirable for the appropriate development of the land, maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and is minor in nature. - 17 - Report P/CA 54/21 September 8, 2021 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • Ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development (LID) measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) must be provided at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services • No comments on this application. Date of report: September 1, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Cody Morrison Planner II Principal Planner, Development Review FC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 54-21 S. Basha & S. Bathul\7. Report\PCA 54-21 Report.doc Attachments - 18 - Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1. Does the proposed dwelling have a sloped roof proposed such as a Hip, Gable, Mansard or Gambrel? (see Figure 5) X 2. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) X 3. For dwellings with a height greater than 8.5 metres – is the dwelling a maximum two storeys with a sloped roof back from the adjacent dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) X 4. Does the front entrance have 6 or less steps? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) X 5. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 6. Is the design of the main entrance consistent with the architectural style of the dwelling? (Section 2.2: Guidelines 3 and 4) X 7. Does the main entrance include a porch, portico or other weather protection in keeping with the design of the dwelling? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 4) X 8. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) - 19 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 9. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (Section 2.2: Guideline 9) X 10. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) X 11. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) X 12. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) X 13. If a projecting garage is permitted, does it have a sloped roof? (see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) X 14. If a double car garage is proposed, does it have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) X 15. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) X 16. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) X 17. Are sustainable design features or resilient landscaping proposed as part of the site design? (Section 3.3: Guideline 2 and Section 4.1: Guideline 5) X 18. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) X 19. Does the plan include tree planting on private property? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) X 20. Does the plan include one or more native species street trees? (Section 4.2) - 20 - Urban City of Pickering Established B 1 Appendix B Revised Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1.Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings?(see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) X 2.If the proposed new dwelling issignificantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away fromthe existing adjacent house?(see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) X 3.Is the maximum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) X 4.Is the main entrance visible from thestreet? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 5.Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) X 6.Does the design of the front entrancereduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) X 7.Does the proposed dwelling have asimilar Dwelling Depth to the adjacentdwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) X 8.Does the proposed dwelling have asimilar Side Yard Setback to theadjacent dwellings along the street?(see Figure 15) - 21 - Appendix B Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established B 2 Yes No Comments X 9.Has shadow on adjacent dwellings beenmitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks?(Section 3.1: Guideline 2) X 10.Is the garage flush or recessed from themain front wall?(see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) X 11.Is the proposed driveway width the sameas the permitted garage width?(see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) X 12.Does the plan preserve existing trees?(see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) - 22 - Fairport RoadCobblers Court Eastbank RoadMinstrelManorS h a d y b rookDriveEdgewoodRoadSp r u c e H i l l R o a d Kates Lane Goldenridge Road Rushton Road DunbartonRoad Hedgerow Place Jacqueline Avenue Shade Master DriveMeadowview AvenueAda CourtWelrus StreetWingarden CrescentShadybrook Park City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 54/21 Date: Jun. 07, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯ES. Basha & S. Bathul1772 Spruce Hill Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 54-21 S. Basha & S. Bathul\PCA54-21_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.- 23 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 54/21 Applicant: S. Basha & S. Bathul Municipal Address: 1772 Spruce Hill Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN.Date: Aug 18 2021 Spruce Hill Road to permit a maximum lot coverage of 37.8 percent - 24 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Front and Rear Elevations File No: P/CA 54/21 Applicant: S. Basha & S. Bathul Municipal Address: 1772 Spruce Hill Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN.Date: Aug 18 2021 - 25 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Side Elevations File No: P/CA 54/21 Applicant: S. Basha & S. Bathul Municipal Address: 1772 Spruce Hill Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN.Date: Aug 18 2021 South Elevation North Elevation - 26 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Date: September 8, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. 1383 Rougemount Drive Applications 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 frontageof 18.0 metres; •a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detacheddwelling, 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 cornicesnot 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 frontageof 18.0 metres; •a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detacheddwelling, 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. - 27 - Report P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 September 8, 2021 Page 2 P/CA 60/21 – Part 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard. P/CA 61/21 – Part 4 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.7 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to sever the property resulting in a total of 4 lots and to construct four detached dwellings. Recommendation Should the Committee of Adjustment see merit in the requested variances, the City Development Department recommends any approval be subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed lots and detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9). Background At the July 14, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting, City staff recommended approval of minor variance applications P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21, as in staff’s opinion the variances met the 4 tests of a minor variance (refer to Attachment #1, P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Report (July 14, 2021)). - 28 - Report P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 September 8, 2021 Page 3 The Committee of Adjustment deferred applications P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 sine die, to give the applicant an opportunity to consult with area residents and to address concerns raised by the residents at the meeting (refer to Attachment #r2, Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes, July 14, 2021, Excerpt). Since the decision made by the Committee of Adjustment at the July 14, 2021 meeting, the applicant and area residents have participated in two community engagement meetings facilitated by Ward 1 City Councillor, Maurice Brenner. The first meeting took place on July 29, 2021. The second meeting took place on August 23, 2021. City staff member Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment, was in attendance at both community engagement meetings. Following the community engagement meetings, the applicant requested that Minor Variance Applications P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 be brought back to the Committee of Adjustment at the September 8, 2021 meeting. No changes to the proposed variances have been made. The applicant has submitted a conceptual rendering of the proposed dwellings (refer to Exhibit 9). The Region of Durham has notified the City of Pickering that Land Division Applications LD 097/21 to LD 099/21 have been submitted by Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. to sever the lands at 1383 Rougemount Drive into 4 lots. The drawings submitted for Land Division Applications LD 097/21 to LD 099/21 are consistent with the drawings submitted for these minor variance applications. Land Division Applications LD 097/21 to LD 099/21 are scheduled to be heard at the Region of Durham Land Division Committee Meeting on September 13, 2021. If Land Division Applications LD 097/21 to LD 099/21 are approved at the Land Division Committee Meeting on September 13, 2021, the applications will be subject to a number of conditions of approval from the City of Pickering, including: • Any zoning non-compliances resulting from the proposed severances be brought into compliance through applications for minor variances. • A Tree Inventory and Protection/Removal Plan, prepared by a qualified Arborist or an Environmental Consultant, be submitted. The Plan must address matters such as existing tree species, diameter, health, protection/removal strategies and a proposed replanting plan. Additionally, compensation for the loss of tree canopy will be required. If approved, the land severance applications will be subject to a number of additional conditions of approval, including addressing matters related to stormwater management, grading and drainage, road widening, pre-condition surveys, etc. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • Ensure reduced side yards do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) will be required at the Building Permit stage and Land Division stage. - 29 - Report P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 September 8, 2021 Page 4 Building Services • No concerns with the application. Resident in Objection (1479 Rougemount Drive) • Objects to the proposed variances. • There is no precedent for a lot on Rougemount Drive being severed into four lots. • It is my understanding that lots on Rougemount Drive that have minimum frontages of 30 metres (100 feet) have only been severed into two lots. This should continue to be the standard, regardless of whether a lot is a through lot. • The resident has submitted additional comments in objection to the proposed variances. Due to the length of the comments and the submission of photos, the comments have not been summarized within this report. The additional comments have been forwarded to the Members of the Committee of Adjustment for their consideration during their review of this application. Resident in Objection (375 Rouge Hill Court) • Objects to the proposed variances. • The proposed homes are identical or very similar in design. The homes on Rougemount Drive and Rouge Hill Court are all different in design and lot frontage. • The homes to be built on 1383 Rougemount Drive should also be of different design and lot frontage. Resident in Objection (1439 Rougemount Drive) • Objects to the proposed variances. • These proposed minor variance applications are a precedence setting matter. Should the proposed variances be allowed, the decision will open the door to the applicant and other developers to follow suit in severing lots, clear cutting old growth trees, and quickly transforming the street that once had lots of character and curb appeal, into just another barren bedroom community street with oversized houses. Allowing this development to proceed opens the door to transform the street into everything the neighbourhood does not want. • The resident has submitted additional comments in objection to the proposed variances. Due to the length of the comments, the comments have not been summarized within this report. The additional comments have been forwarded to the Members of the Committee of Adjustment for their consideration during their review of this application. - 30 - Report P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 September 8, 2021 Page 5 Resident in Objection (377 Rouge Hill Court) • Objects to the proposed variances. • Concerned with the forthrightness/truthfulness of the builder regarding the exact size of the proposed homes. • The builder has provided incorrect or misleading information regarding the size of the proposed homes. • The resident has submitted a letter in objection to the proposed variances. Due to the length of the letter, the comments have not been summarized within this report. The letter has been forwarded to the Members of the Committee of Adjustment for their consideration during their review of this application. Resident in Objection (1386 Rougemount Drive) • Objects to the proposed variances. • Changing the character of our neighbourhood with 49 foot frontages will have a dramatic effect on our community and negate the many reasons why we moved to Pickering many years ago. The four homes across the street and on the west side of the proposed subdivision all have frontages of 100 feet or more and the suggestion by the developer at the Committee of Adjustment meeting (on July 14, 2021) that the proposed new development will maintain the character of the neighbourhood with 49 foot frontages seems contradictory. • There is an abundance of wildlife that we have observed on the subject property, including coyotes, deer, foxes, hawks, rabbits, raccoons, owls and numerous other birds. That element of the neighbourhood will be wiped out with the proposed development and serve as a profound loss to our children. Each time additional trees are cut down on the subject property, we notice a difference in the volume of noise pollution and now the buzzing sound of Highway 401 is louder than ever. • Locating the homes closer to the street than the adjacent properties might be dangerous to children in the neighbourhood, particularly when considering the volume of traffic on our residential street that does not have speed bumps. This will also cause concern for the numerous cyclists that routinely ride along Rougemount Drive. • A reasonable solution would be to have three new homes built on the subject property, with one home on Rougemount Drive and two homes on Rouge Hill Road. • I implore you, for the sake of the citizens of Pickering, not to allow four to five homes to be built on the subject property in order to maintain some tranquility in our neighbourhood. This would allow the uniqueness, individuality and character of our street to remain vibrant. - 31 - Report P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 September 8, 2021 Page 6 Resident in Objection • Objects to the proposed variances. • These proposed homes will look like low-rise apartment dwellings on the small proposed parcels. • The proposed homes will overshadow adjacent homes. • There is potential for these proposed homes to turn into multi-level rental units that would ultimately lower the value of the existing homes on this street. Resident in Objection (378 Rouge Hill Court) • Objects to the proposed variances. • The proposed driveway shown on Part 4 encroaches onto my property. Resident in Objection (361 Rouge Hill Court) • Objects to the proposed variances. • The community “engagement” meeting was done in bad faith, and the community remains outraged. The “engagement” did not end up being what the Committee of Adjustment asked the builder to do. • The requested variances to lot frontage will result in smaller lot sizes compared to existing lots in this unique Pickering neighbourhood. The neighbourhood’s special designation will be trumped by these larger homes with smaller frontage, which will degrade the character of this special status neighbourhood. • The requested variances to the side yard are trying to achieve in creating monstrous homes on smaller lots, with little room for landscaping. This goes against the character of this special neighbourhood. • The requested variances to the projection of the chimney breast are also trying to achieve a large house size for the builder to maximise their profits at the expense of this community and the City. • My list of concerns is much longer than this, including the health and wellbeing of my family and neighbours during this proposed monstrous construction; the need to excavate Rouge Hill Court given no prior plan to build houses on this lot; my children losing the ability to enjoy the Court as they do now; health impacts due to the proposed construction, especially during the pandemic; etc. These may not be issues you are responsible for, and therefore I am not detailing them at length. However, I want to point out that the list of grievances is large. - 32 - Report P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 September 8, 2021 Page 7 • The requested variances are major variance reliefs. The variances will degrade this neighbourhood’s special designation. All the variances will achieve is profit for the builder. The requested variances will permanently ruin the neighbourhood. I do not want to believe that the City would allow this development at any cost, specifically allowing to permanently degrade one of the City’s jewel neighbourhoods. • I am therefore asking you to uphold the By-law and not grant these reliefs. Resident in Objection (1367 Rougemount Drive) • The applicant’s request to the Committee of Adjustment to permit a severance of the lands into four lots and to construct large homes on these lots is not a minor variance. This is a major request and should be considered through a Draft Plan of Subdivision application before City Council. • The land would be going from zero homes to over 20,000 square feet of homes, and an estimated 30,000 square feet of living space. This would be a gargantuan set of structures, not in keeping with the neighbouring dwellings in the area. • The minimum lot width required on Rougemount Drive is 59 feet (18.0 metres). The applicant’s request for a minimum lot width of 49 feet (15.0 metres) is unprecedented. • Rougemount Drive enjoys the R3 Zone Category and has a “Special Designation” that is meant to protect it. There are only a few streets in Pickering with that special protection. Allowing By-law reliefs will set a negative precedent, damage the neighbourhood and will be irreversible. • We are against any By-law reliefs applied for by the applicant. It is not necessary to have a smaller side yard, or a chimney breast projection that is larger than allowed. The applicant can still build large houses without these reliefs. • The Committee of Adjustment tasked the applicant with finding a mutually acceptable proposal between them and the community. The applicant failed at this and did not listen to community input. The applicant is still proposing the exact same original plan. • The applicant should prepare a proposal that the community can work with. - 33 - Report P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 September 8, 2021 Page 8 Resident in Objection (1441 Rougemount Drive) • The resident has submitted comments in objection to the proposed variances. Due to the length of the comments, the comments have not been summarized within this report. The comments have been forwarded to the Members of the Committee of Adjustment for their consideration during their review of this application. Resident in Objection (1366 Rougemount Drive) • The resident has submitted comments in objection to the proposed variances. Due to the length of the comments, the comments have not been summarized within this report. The comments have been forwarded to the Members of the Committee of Adjustment for their consideration during their review of this application. Resident in Objection (1492 Rougemount Drive) • The resident has submitted comments in objection to the proposed variances. Due to the length of the comments, the comments have not been summarized within this report. The comments have been forwarded to the Members of the Committee of Adjustment for their consideration during their review of this application. Date of report: September 1, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP (Acting) Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 58-21 to PCA 61-21 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc\7. Report\PCA 58-21 to PCA 61-21 Report (Sept 8, 2021).doc Attachments Attachment #1 – P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Report (July 14, 2021) Attachment #2 – Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes, July 14/21, Excerpt Exhibits - 34 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Date: July 14, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. 1383 Rougemount Drive Application P/CA 58/21 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: •a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontageof 18.0 metres; •a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detacheddwelling, 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 cornicesnot 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 frontageof 18.0 metres; •a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detacheddwelling, 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. Attachment #1 - 35 - Report P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 July 14, 2021 Page 2 P/CA 60/21 – Part 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard. P/CA 61/21 – Part 4 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.7 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to sever the property resulting in a total of 4 lots and to construct four detached dwellings. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed lots and detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8). - 36 - Report P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 July 14, 2021 Page 3 Background As of the date of writing this report, the applicant has not submitted a consent application to the Region of Durham for the proposed severances. The applicant has indicated to the City that the consent applications will be submitted at a later date. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including detached dwellings. City Council has recently endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which provides direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. In addition, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts to support and enhance neighbourhood precinct characteristics. City staff are preparing an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to implement the recommendations of the Study to help ensure that the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood precinct character. As part of the OPA and ZBA, staff are proposing revisions to the Urban Design Guidelines and associated Checklist. Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the proposed Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. Lot Frontage Variances The intent of the minimum lot frontage of 18 metres is to ensure a useable lot size that is compatible with the neighbourhood. The existing lot frontages for abutting and surrounding lots vary significantly, ranging between 14 and 28 metres. The existing lots to the north of the subject property (along Rougemount Drive and Rouge Hill Court) are similar in size, having lot frontages ranging between 15 and 18 metres. The size of the subject property is in keeping with the varied lotting pattern established along Rougemount Drive and Rouge Hill Court. The proposed lot frontages allow for the construction of detached dwellings that are appropriate relative to the size of the lots. Side Yard Variances The intent of the minimum side yard of 1.8 metres is to accommodate drainage and to provide sufficient room for the maintenance of a dwelling. The proposed side yards that abut existing lots to the north and south meet the minimum required setback of 1.8 metres. - 37 - Report P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 July 14, 2021 Page 4 However, the proposed side yards that abut the shared property line of the proposed new lots are reduced to 1.5 metres. There is a minimum building separation of 3 metres between the proposed dwellings on Part 1 & 2 and Part 3 & 4. There is sufficient room between the structures on the proposed lots to accommodate drainage and for the maintenance of each dwelling. Chimney Breast Variances The proposed chimney breasts are projecting an additional 0.2 and 0.3 metres into the required side yards, as a result of the reduced lot frontages and side yard setbacks. The proposed location of the chimney breasts still allow for drainage and for the maintenance of each dwelling. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land as they will help facilitate the future redevelopment of the subject property for residential lots. The applicant has proposed dwellings that fit into the low density detached dwelling characteristic of the existing neighbourhood. As such, the proposed variances are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • No comments. Low Impact Development measures may be required with the future Land Division application due to the increase in the imperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services • No concerns with the application. Date of report: July 7, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 58-21 to PCA 61-21 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc\7. Report\PCA 58-21 to PCA 61-21 Report.doc Attachments - 38 - Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1.Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings?(see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) For existing dwellings abutting or in proximity to the subject property, dwelling heights range between 6.5 and 9.0 metres. The proposed dwellings range in height between 8.9 and 9.0 metres. Comments from Applicant: Given the grade of the site, there is a natural down gradient slope southward across the property. In order to mitigate overlook and height conditions both the grading of the site and roof design was specifically designed to match compatibility on the adjacent properties. In addition, the dwelling height and roof pitch we’re specifically designed to ensure that the By-law height maximum was kept. X 2.If the proposed new dwelling issignificantly taller than an existingadjacent house, does the roof of theproposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) The roof pitch of the proposed dwellings is sloped. X 3.Is the maximum elevation of the FrontEntrance 1.2 metres, or less, abovegrade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) Part 1: 0.91 m / Part 2: 0.94 m Part 3: 0.53 m / Part 4: 0.53 m - 39 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 4. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 5. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) Comments from Applicant: All four proposed dwelling stairs and entrances have been designed to be prominent from the street, with a covered portico to provide protection from the elements and add to the overall design. X 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) X 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) For existing dwellings abutting or in proximity to the subject property, dwelling depths range between 15 and 25 metres. The proposed dwellings have a depth of 26 metres. X 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) For existing dwellings abutting or in proximity to the subject property, the side yard setbacks range between 1.2 and 1.8 metres. The side yard setback of the proposed dwellings are 1.5 and 1.8 metres. X 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) The proposed side yards that abut existing lots to the north and south meet the minimum required setback in the By-law. The proposed side yard setbacks are similar to adjacent setbacks along the street (see Comment No. 8). X 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) Slightly recessed behind the front entrance. - 40 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 3 Yes No Comments X 11.Is the proposed driveway width thesame as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) There is no required garage width under the By-law, however the proposed driveways are the same width as the garages. X Boundary Trees X Internal Trees 12.Does the plan preserve existing trees?(see Section 4.1: Guideline 1)Comments from Applicant: The existing boundary trees are intended to be preserved. However, to permit the future construction and to mitigate post-development drainage, the existing trees internal to the site are required to be removed. - 41 - Kingston RoadAltona RoadEvelyn AvenueFiddlers CourtTomlinson Court Rougemount DriveBrookridge Gate Dale w o o d Drive OldForestRoadRouge Hill Court Highbu sh T ra i l Highway 4 0 1 EastWoodlandsPark SouthPetticoat Ravine Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Date: Jun. 15, 2021 Exhibit 1 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. 1383 Rougemount Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 58-21 to PCA 61-21 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc\PCA58-21_to_PCA61-21_LocationMap_v2.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NO T A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department - 42 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan – Part 1 (P/CA 58/21) and Part 2 (P/CA 59/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 15.22 m 15.21 m 1.55 m to permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres to permit a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard to permit a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres 0.78 m 1.07 m 1.52 m to permit a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres to permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres to permit a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard - 43 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Site Plan – Part 3 (P/CA 60/21) and Part 4 (P/CA 61/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 0.82 m 1.59 m 1.06 m 1.52 m 15.18 m 15.34 m to permit a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard to permit a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres to permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.1 metres to permit a chimney breast to project not more than 0.7 of a metre into the required south side yard to permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.3 metres to permit a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres - 44 - Exhibit 4 Full Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 45 - Exhibit 5 Submitted Front & Rear Elevations – Part 1 (P/CA 58/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 46 - Exhibit 6 Submitted Front & Rear Elevations – Part 2 (P/CA 59/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 47 - Exhibit 7 Submitted Front & Rear Elevations – Part 3 (P/CA 60/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 48 - Exhibit 8 Submitted Front & Rear Elevations – Part 4 (P/CA 61/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 49 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 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 lotfrontage of 18.0 metres; •a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of adetached 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 lotfrontage of 18.0 metres; Attachment #2 - 50 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 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. - 51 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 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. - 52 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 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. - 53 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 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. - 54 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 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. - 55 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 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 - 56 - Kingston RoadAltona RoadEvelyn AvenueFiddlers CourtTomlinson Court Rougemount DriveBrookridge Gate Dale w o o d Drive OldForestRoadRouge Hill Court Highbu sh T ra i l Highway 4 0 1 EastWoodlandsPark SouthPetticoat Ravine Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Date: Jun. 15, 2021 Exhibit 1 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. 1383 Rougemount Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 58-21 to PCA 61-21 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc\PCA58-21_to_PCA61-21_LocationMap_v2.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NO T A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department - 57 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan – Part 1 (P/CA 58/21) and Part 2 (P/CA 59/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 15.22 m 15.21 m 1.55 m to permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres to permit a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard to permit a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres 0.78 m 1.07 m 1.52 m to permit a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres to permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres to permit a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard - 58 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Site Plan – Part 3 (P/CA 60/21) and Part 4 (P/CA 61/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 0.82 m 1.59 m 1.06 m 1.52 m 15.18 m 15.34 m to permit a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard to permit a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres to permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.1 metres to permit a chimney breast to project not more than 0.7 of a metre into the required south side yard to permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.3 metres to permit a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres - 59 - Exhibit 4 Full Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 60 - Exhibit 5 Submitted Front & Rear Elevations – Part 1 (P/CA 58/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 61 - Exhibit 6 Submitted Front & Rear Elevations – Part 2 (P/CA 59/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 62 - Exhibit 7 Submitted Front & Rear Elevations – Part 3 (P/CA 60/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 63 - Exhibit 8 Submitted Front & Rear Elevations – Part 4 (P/CA 61/21) File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 24, 2021 - 64 - Exhibit 9 Submitted Conceptual Rendering File No: P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Applicant: Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1383 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 18, 2021 - 65 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 73/21 Date: September 8, 2021 From: Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 73/21 C. Boyce734A Krosno Boulevard Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit: •an interior side yard setback of 0 metres from both side lot lines, whereas the By-lawrequires a minimum side yard setback of 6.0 metres; •a minimum floor area of 80 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum floorarea of 95 square metres per dwelling unit; and •a maximum lot coverage of 25.2 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent for all buildings other than private garages. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a second-storey addition to an existing townhouse (multiple attached) dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to not be minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Refusal of the proposed variances. Or Should the Committee find merit in the requested variances related to the proposed building addition, the City Development Department recommends the following conditions of approval: 1.That these variances apply only to the proposed second-storey addition, as generally sitedand outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, & 4); and 2.That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant establish and register a1.0 metre wide access easement through consent applications to the Region of DurhamLand Division Committee over the abutting property immediately to the east (736 KrosnoBoulevard) and west (734 Krosno Boulevard) adjacent to the proposed addition for thepurposes of exterior maintenance, to the satisfaction of the City Development Department. - 66 - Report P/CA 73/21 September 8, 2021 Page 2 Background The subject property is a legal lot of record that predates the approval of Zoning By-law 2520 in 1961 by the Ontario Municipal Board. Despite construction of the townhouse block being completed in 1962, the existing lot and building at 734A Krosno Boulevard contain a number of recognized non-conforming conditions since the building permit application was submitted prior to the approval of Zoning By-law 2520. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Mixed Use Areas – Local Nodes” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate a mix of uses, including residential townhouses. Does not Conform to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The required side yard setback of 6.0 metres is intended for end units of townhouse blocks, however the RM2 zone does not prescribe an alternative minimum side yard setback requirement for interior units. The requested variance to permit a minimum side yard setback of 0 metres from both side yards does not provide sufficient space for the exterior maintenance of the second-storey addition and will not allow for runoff and drainage to be contained within the limits of the subject property. The intent of the maximum lot coverage requirement of the By-law is to regulate the scale and massing of a building on a lot. The proposed addition projects a total of 5.2 metres from the rear wall of the existing townhouse unit, and is proposed to be elevated approximately 2.7 metres above grade. The proposed addition will result in a total lot coverage of 25.2 percent, which represents a 0.2 percent increase over the permitted maximum. No windows are proposed along the side walls which would mitigate potential privacy concerns towards the abutting properties. However, the addition will produce a negative visual impact when viewed from the rear yard of adjacent properties. Despite the increase in lot coverage maximum being minimal, the impact of the proposed increase in conjunction with 0 metre side yard setback on both sides will create significant adverse impacts on abutting adjacent properties. Not Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Not Minor in Nature The proposed setback of 0 metres from both side lot lines will not enable the construction or maintenance of the exterior façade of the addition to be conducted without access over the neighbouring properties to the east or west. Should the Committee see merit in the requested variances, staff recommend a condition of approval be imposed, requiring the applicant to obtain an easement over the abutting properties to the east and west in order to establish access for the purposes of maintenance. - 67 - Report P/CA 73/21 September 8, 2021 Page 3 The townhouse block consists of 12 units. Aside from both end-units of the townhouse block, the rear wall of the block maintains a consistent rear yard setback and is flush. Both end units are stepped forward in a symmetrical nature. The proposed addition will create a rear yard that is inconsistent with the remainder of the block as the neighbouring rear yards primarily feature uncovered decks. The requested variances to facilitate the proposed addition are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are not minor in nature, as they will result in a built form that will require access over adjacent lands for maintenance, adversely impact drainage on the subject lands, and will create a negative visual impact on the rear yards of adjacent properties. Minimum Floor Area reduction The request for a reduction in the minimum floor area requirement from 95 square metres to 80 square metres per dwelling unit is required as a function of expanding an existing non-conforming condition. As previously outlined, the townhouse block was constructed prior to the passing of the zoning by-law and prior to the minimum floor area requirement being established. This variance is required to facilitate the proposed addition. Staff are not opposed to the variance to recognize a minimum floor area of 80 square metres. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to facilitate a second-storey addition within the rear yard does not maintain the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and is not minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services Ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development (LID) measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450 mm topsoil) must be provided at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Downspouts are not to discharge onto adjacent properties. Building Services The information provided by the applicant does not provide enough information to confirm compliance with the Ontario Building Code overall. Items of concern: • Overall Building (Townhouse Block) area needs to have overall Firewalls reviewed to confirm compliance. Information on separations not provided. • If adjacent townhouse units were to also apply for additions, overall maximum size of building block and classification may be impacted. - 68 - Report P/CA 73/21 September 8, 2021 Page 4 Building Services (continued) • Determination of the building code requirements for the block may require submission of information an Architect and/or Engineer. • Fire ratings and spacial separation of exposed building face/unprotected opening information to be provided. • Protection of proposed columns (Fire/structural) • Footings indicated on drawings are not currently OBC compliant • Protection of suspended floor structure to be demonstrated (Fire) • Fire rating of exterior face of building and party-wall fire ratings, as required to be provided. (Future impact of adjacent units applying for similar additions, upper or lower type) • Windows on sides of addition and potential for future addition of neighbouring units. • Drainage and run-off of water onto adjacent property, to be reviewed with Development Services/Engineering also. • 0 metre setback from lot line to structure, access for construction and ongoing maintenance, i.e., permission and potentially title registration on the three properties (adjacent) for required access. 0 metre setback has increased fire and construction implications related to less than 0.6 metre setbacks and cladding materials. Date of report: September 1, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Cody Morrison Planner II Principal Planner, Development Review FC:CM:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 73-21\7. Report\PCA 73-21 Report.doc Attachments - 69 - Liverpool RoadGullCrossingKrosno Boulevard Mod l in R o a d Balaton AvenueAnnland StreetBrixton L a n e Foxglove Avenue Shearer LaneGrenoble BoulevardLuna Court Naroch Boulevard Bem AvenueHewson DriveHel enCrescentBalsdon Park City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 73/21 Date: Aug. 10, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EC. Boyce 734A Krosno Boulevard SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 73-21 C. Boyce\PCA73-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,500 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.- 70 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 73/21 Applicant: C. Boyce Municipal Address: 734A Krosno Boulevard CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 24 2021 to permit an interior side yard setback of 0 metres from both side lot lines to permit a minimum floor area of 80 square metres to permit a maximum lot coverage of 25.2 percent - 71 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 73/21 Applicant: C. Boyce Municipal Address: 734A Krosno Boulevard CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 24 2021 - 72 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Side Elevations File No: P/CA 73/21 Applicant: C. Boyce Municipal Address: 734A Krosno Boulevard CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 24 2021 - 73 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 74/21 Date: September 8, 2021 From: Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 74/21 Marshall Homes Corporation 715 Simpson Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 4139/92 to permit a covered platform (porch) and steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project 1.9 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms and steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project no more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a detached dwelling with a covered front porch. 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 covered platform (porch) and steps, as generally sitedand outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended for residential uses including detached dwellings. City Council has recently endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which provides direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. - 74 - Report P/CA 74/21 September 8, 2021 Page 2 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. Although the subject property currently falls within the boundaries of the Bay Ridges Established Neighbourhood Precinct, staff, through Recommendation Report PLN 33-21 in relation to the City-initiated OPA and ZBA, are recommending that a number of properties, including 715 Simpson Avenue, be removed from the Bay Ridges Established Neighbourhood Precinct. This report will be considered by Planning & Development Committee on September 13, 2021. The proposed exclusion of this property is also reflected in the proposed Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Established Neighbourhood Precincts, which will also be considered by the Planning and Development Committee on the same date. The removal of this property from the precinct is being recommended because it is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Area” in the Pickering Official Plan, and does not meet the established criteria for inclusion within the boundaries of an Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Since the Committee of Adjustment will be considering this application prior to the Planning & Development Committee’s consideration of the proposed revisions to the neighbourhood precincts, staff have reviewed the proposal using the Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned S-SD-1 within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 4139/92. The intent of the provision to permit uncovered steps and/or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard is to provide the opportunity for stairs and/or landing platform to encroach into the front yard when needed while ensuring an adequate buffer space between buildings and street activity is provided, and an adequate landscaped area within the front yard can be maintained. The proposed covered platform (porch) and steps project a total of 1.9 metres into the required front yard setback of 4.5 metres. A 2.6 metre setback between the steps and the front property line will be maintained, which will provide an adequate buffer from street activity. The covered porch and steps will not project the entire width of the dwelling, therefore sufficient space will remain available within the front yard for landscaping. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed covered front porch enhances the front wall of the detached dwelling from both an architectural and functional standpoint. It will emphasize the front entrance as a focal point in the dwelling’s façade while providing a sheltered pedestrian access. - 75 - Report P/CA 74/21 September 8, 2021 Page 3 Despite being covered, the requested projection is 0.4 of a metre greater than the permitted maximum projection and will not have any adverse impact towards neighbouring properties. The proposed 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 the 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 encroachment does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development (LID) measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450 mm topsoil) must be provided at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services • No comments on the application. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • The subject property is partially located within the TRCA Regulated Area. • TRCA staff have no objection to the approval of Minor Variance File No. P/CA 74/21 and a TRCA permit is not required. • The proposed works will maintain a 34 metre setback from the outer boundary of the Frenchman’s Bay Coastal Wetland Complex, a Provincially Significant Wetland. There are no natural features (slope, floodplain, etc.) within proximity to the proposed works and they are outside of the shoreline hazard limit. Date of report: September 1, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Cody Morrison Planner II Principal Planner, Development Review FC:CM:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 74-21\7. Report\PCA 74-21 Report.doc Attachments - 76 - Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1. Does the proposed dwelling have a sloped roof proposed such as a Hip, Gable, Mansard or Gambrel? (see Figure 5) The front half of the dwelling has a flat roof. The rear half is sloped. There are existing dwellings on the street and within the surrounding neighbourhood with flat roofs. X 2. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) 3. For dwellings with a height greater than 8.5 metres – is the dwelling a maximum two storeys with a sloped roof back from the adjacent dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) N/A – Building height at 7.1m X 4. Does the front entrance have 6 or less steps? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) X 5. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 6. Is the design of the main entrance consistent with the architectural style of the dwelling? (Section 2.2: Guidelines 3 and 4) X 7. Does the main entrance include a porch, portico or other weather protection in keeping with the design of the dwelling? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 4) X 8. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) - 77 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 9. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (Section 2.2: Guideline 9) X 10. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) X 11. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) X 12. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) 13. If a projecting garage is permitted, does it have a sloped roof? (see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) N/A X 14. If a double car garage is proposed, does it have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) X 15. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) X 16. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) X 17. Are sustainable design features or resilient landscaping proposed as part of the site design? (Section 3.3: Guideline 2 and Section 4.1: Guideline 5) The applicant has indicated that these homes are not yet sold and landscaping has not been dictated. They will encourage homeowners to install resilient landscaping in both the front and rear yard. X 18. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) The applicant has indicated that there are mature trees along the rear property line between 715 Simpson and 714 Fairview that they hope to maintain. However detailed grading plans have not been completed yet to ensure it is possible to maintain the trees with the required new grading. - 78 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 3 Yes No Comments X 19.Does the plan include tree planting onprivate property? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) The applicant has indicated that they will encourage homeowners to plant native species trees on their private property. X 20.Does the plan include one or more nativespecies street trees? (Section 4.2)The applicant has indicated that they will encourage homeowners to plant native species trees on their private property. - 79 - Fairview AvenueOld Orchard Avenue Douglas AvenueFront RoadCommerce Street Bayview Street Browning Avenue ProgressFrenchman'sBay East ParkSimpson AvenueCity Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 74/21 Date: Aug. 19, 2021 Exhibit 1 Marshall Homes Corporation715 Simpson Avenue SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 74-21 Marshall Homes Corp\PCA74-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,500 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.- 80 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 74/21 Applicant: Marshall Homes Corporation Municipal Address: 715 Simpson Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 18 2021 to permit a covered platform (porch) and steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project 1.9 metres into the required front yard - 81 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Elevations File No: P/CA 74/21 Applicant: Marshall Homes Corporation Municipal Address: 715 Simpson Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 18 2021 - 82 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Architectural Renderings File No: P/CA 74/21 Applicant: Marshall Homes Corporation Municipal Address: 715 Simpson Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 18 2021 - 83 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 75/21 Date: September 8, 2021 From: Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 75/21 C. & L. Pollard714 Fairview Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 4139/92 to permit a covered platform (porch) and steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project 0.9 of a metre into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms and steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project no more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a detached dwelling with a covered front porch. 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 covered platform (porch) and steps, as generally sitedand outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended for residential uses including detached dwellings. City Council has recently endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which provides direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. - 84 - Report P/CA 75/21 September 8, 2021 Page 2 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. Although the subject property currently falls within the boundaries of the Bay Ridges Established Neighbourhood Precinct, staff, through recommendation report PLN 33-21 in relation to the City-initiated OPA and ZBA, are recommending that a number of properties, including 714 Fairview Avenue, be removed from the Bay Ridges Established Neighbourhood Precinct. This report will be considered by the Planning & Development Committee on September 13, 2021. The proposed exclusion of this property is also reflected in the proposed Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Established Neighbourhood Precincts, which will also be considered by the Planning & Development Committee on the same date. The removal of this property from the precinct is being recommended because it is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Area” in the Pickering Official Plan, and does not meet the established criteria for inclusion in the boundaries of an Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Since the Committee of Adjustment will be considering the subject application prior to the Planning & Development Committee’s consideration of the proposed revisions to the neighbourhood precincts, Staff have reviewed the proposal using the Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned S-SD-1 within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 4139/92. The intent of the provision to permit uncovered steps and/or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard is to provide the opportunity for stairs and/or landing platform to encroach into the front yard when needed while ensuring an adequate buffer space between buildings and street activity is provided, and an adequate landscaped area within the front yard can be maintained. The proposed covered platform (porch) and steps project a total of 0.9 of a metre into the required front yard setback of 4.0 metres. A 3.2 metre setback between the steps and the front property line will be maintained, which will provide an adequate buffer from street activity. The covered porch and steps will not project the entire width of the dwelling, therefore sufficient space will remain available within the front yard for landscaping. - 85 - Report P/CA 75/21 September 8, 2021 Page 3 Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed covered front porch enhances the front wall of the detached dwelling from both an architectural and functional standpoint. It will emphasize the front entrance as a focal point in the dwelling’s façade while providing a sheltered pedestrian access. The requested variance is only required as a result of the porch being covered and will not have any adverse impact towards the neighbouring properties. The proposed 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 the 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 encroachment does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development (LID) measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) must be provided at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services • No comments on the application. Date of report: September 2, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Cody Morrison Planner II Principal Planner, Development Review FC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 75-21 C. & L. Pollard\7. Report\PCA 75-21 Report.doc Attachments - 86 - Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1. Does the proposed dwelling have a sloped roof proposed such as a Hip, Gable, Mansard or Gambrel? (see Figure 5) The front half of the dwelling has a sloped roof. The rear half is a flat roof. There are existing dwellings on the street and within the surrounding neighbourhood with flat roofs. X 2. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) 3. For dwellings with a height greater than 8.5 metres – is the dwelling a maximum two storeys with a sloped roof back from the adjacent dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) N/A – Building height at 7.1 metres. X 4. Does the front entrance have 6 or less steps? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) X 5. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 6. Is the design of the main entrance consistent with the architectural style of the dwelling? (Section 2.2: Guidelines 3 and 4) X 7. Does the main entrance include a porch, portico or other weather protection in keeping with the design of the dwelling? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 4) X 8. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) - 87 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 9. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (Section 2.2: Guideline 9) X 10. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) X 11. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) X 12. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) 13. If a projecting garage is permitted, does it have a sloped roof? (see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) N/A X 14. If a double car garage is proposed, does it have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) X 15. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) X 16. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) X 17. Are sustainable design features or resilient landscaping proposed as part of the site design? (Section 3.3: Guideline 2 and Section 4.1: Guideline 5) The applicant has indicated that these homes are not yet sold and landscaping has not been dictated. They will encourage homeowners to install resilient landscaping in both the front and rear yard. X 18. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) The applicant has indicated that there are mature trees along the rear property line between 715 Simpson and 714 Fairview that they hope to maintain. However detailed grading plans have not been completed yet to ensure it is possible to maintain the trees with the required new grading. - 88 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 19. Does the plan include tree planting on private property? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) The applicant has indicated that they will encourage homeowners to plant native species trees on their private property. X 20. Does the plan include one or more native species street trees? (Section 4.2) The applicant has indicated that they will encourage homeowners to plant native species trees on their private property. - 89 - Fair vi ewAvenueFairview AvenueBrowning Avenue Ilona Park RoadDouglas AvenueFront RoadOld Orchard Avenue Commerce Street Bayview Street ProgressFrenchman'sBay East Park City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 75/21 Date: Aug. 11, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EC. & L. Pollard 714 Fairview Avenue SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 75-21 C. & L. Pollard\PCA75-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,500 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.- 90 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 75/21 Applicant: C. & L. Pollard Municipal Address: 714 Fairview Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 18 2021 to permit a covered platform (porch) and steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project 0.9 of a metre into the required front yard - 91 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Elevations File No: P/CA 75/21 Applicant: C. & L. Pollard Municipal Address: 714 Fairview Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 18 2021 - 92 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Architectural Renderings File No: P/CA 75/21 Applicant: C. & L. Pollard Municipal Address: 714 Fairview Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 18 2021 - 93 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 76/21 to P/CA 77/21 Date: September 8, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications P/CA 76/21 to P/CA 77/21 E. Andreacchi1952 Glendale Drive Applications P/CA 76/1 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to: •permit a minimum lot frontage of 16.7 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; and •recognize a minimum north side yard of 2.7 metres, whereas the By-law requires aminimum side yard of 1.8 metres on one side, 3.0 metres on the other side. P/CA 77/21 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum lot frontage of 13.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to sever the property resulting in a total of 2 lots, and to construct a detached dwelling on Part 2 and to recognize a deficient side yard for the existing dwelling on Part 1. The proposed construction of a detached garage on Part 1 complies with the Zoning By-law and does not require approval of a variance. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance to recognize a minimum north side yard of 2.7 metres to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following condition: 1.That this variance apply only to the existing detached dwelling, as generally sited andoutlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Part 1 on Exhibit 2). and - 94 - Report P/CA 76/21 to P/CA 77/21 September 8, 2021 Page 2 The City Development Department considers the requested variances to permit a minimum lot frontage of 16.7 metres on Part 1 and a minimum lot frontage of 13.4 metres on Part 2 to not be minor in nature and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Refusal of the proposed variances. Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. This designation primarily provides for residential or related uses at a maximum net residential density of up to and including 30 units per net hectare. The proposal will result in a residential density of approximately 11 units per net hectare. City Council has recently endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which provides direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. In addition, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts to support and enhance neighbourhood precinct characteristics. City staff are preparing an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to implement the recommendations of the Study to help ensure that the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood precinct character. Architectural drawings for the proposed dwelling on Part 2 have not been submitted. However, the applicant has made comment on the future design of the proposed dwelling using the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. The Requested Variance to the North Side Yard Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-Law The intent of a minimum side yard of 3.0 metres is to accommodate drainage and to provide sufficient room for the maintenance of a dwelling. The abutting dwelling to the north is setback approximately 8.0 metres from the shared side property line. In total, the existing dwelling on the subject property and the existing dwelling to the north are setback 10.7 metres from each other. There is sufficient room between the structures on the abutting properties to accommodate drainage and for the maintenance of each dwelling. The Requested Variances to Lot Frontage (Part 1 and 2) do not Conform to the Intent of the Zoning By-Law The intent of a minimum lot frontage of 18 metres is to ensure a useable lot size that is compatible with the neighbourhood. The proposed lot frontage for Part 1 is 16.7 metres and the proposed lot frontage for Part 2 is 13.4 metres. The abutting properties to the north and south have lot frontages of approximately 23 metres. - 95 - Report P/CA 76/21 to P/CA 77/21 September 8, 2021 Page 3 The lots along Glendale Drive, between Finch Avenue and Glenanna Road, have frontages ranging between 20 and 30 metres, with no lot along this block of Glendale Drive having frontage less than the required 18 metres. The existing lotting pattern established along this block of Glendale Drive is that of larger lots with increased lot frontages. There are smaller sized lots with reduced lot frontages within the surrounding area (for example, to the west along Canborough Crescent or to the north along Barnwood Square (refer to Exhibit 1, Location Map)). However, these smaller lots are within different zone categories and therefore require a different minimum lot frontage (for example, the minimum lot frontage for detached dwellings along Canborough Crescent is 15 metres, and the minimum lot frontage for detached dwellings along Barnwood Square is 13.5 metres). The proposed lot frontages for Part 1 and 2 are not in keeping with the lotting pattern established along this block of Glendale Drive. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land The requested variances are to recognize an existing situation (north side yard variance) and to facilitate the residential development of the lot (lot frontage variances to facilitate a severance). The proposed severance is increasing the net residential density of the lot, while not exceeding the maximum net residential density required in the Official Plan. The requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The Requested Variance to the North Side Yard is Minor in Nature The north side yard of 2.7 metres is an existing situation that has not negatively impacted adjacent properties, as the dwelling has existed on the lot since 1955 without complaint. Staff is of the opinion that a reduced size yard of 0.3 metres is minor in nature. The Requested Variances to Lot Frontage (Part 1 and 2) are not Minor in Nature The applicant is requesting a significant reduction in the minimum lot frontage requirement in order to sever the property into two residential lots. Staff is of the opinion that these variances are not minor in nature, as the variances will result in a lotting pattern that is significantly different from the established lots along this block of Glendale Drive. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services •Ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does notadversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots andsurrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Developmentmeasures (such as infiltration galleries with downspoutconnections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) must be provided at the Building Permit stage if increasing theimperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services •No concerns with the application. - 96 - Report P/CA 76/21 to P/CA 77/21 September 8, 2021 Page 4 Resident in Support (1948 Glendale Drive) • The residents and owners of 1948 Glendale Drive conditionally consent to the proposed severance and building at 1952 Glendale Drive, upon the condition that there is a public hearing where we have input on the matter and more details are disclosed to us regarding the size and position of the proposed dwelling. Please note this is a preliminary consent and is subject to change. Resident in Support (1956 Glendale Drive) • The resident of 1956 Glendale Drive consents and does not object to the construction of a 2-storey detached dwelling at 1952 Glendale Drive, upon City approval. Resident in Objection (1958 Glendale Drive) • We disapprove of the variances being applied for at 1952 Glendale Drive. • The City of Pickering allowed developers to build townhomes on the south end of Glendale Drive, and it has caused nothing but havoc and traffic in a quiet neighbourhood. • The By-law allows for a minimum frontage of 60 feet (18.0 metres), and yet the applicant wants to sever the lot into two smaller lots (44 feet and 55 feet), along with a variance to the side yard between lots as well. • This will open up Pandora's Box. Next, the lots on the east side of Glendale Drive that are 84 feet will request to sever the lots into two 42 foot lots. If this variance application is approved it will set a precedence in granting these types of variances. • What is stopping builders from purchasing lots and applying for variances to make 40, 30, 25-foot lots? • This is a beautiful neighbourhood and the reason our neighbours and I purchased these homes was because of the lot sizes. Development that occurs within the guidelines of the By-laws is what we and all other owners who have built/are building follow. • This was a quiet neighbourhood, and I emphasize the word was. • We have these By-law requirements on our street for a reason. • The notice calls for a minor variance, there is nothing minor about this. The old saying, give an inch take a mile applies. • This application should be rejected wholeheartedly, and we disapprove as homeowners on Glendale and request the City to not allow the variance to be approved. - 97 - Report P/CA 76/21 to P/CA 77/21 September 8, 2021 Page 5 Date of report: September 1, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP (Acting) Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 76-21 to PCA 77-21 E. Andreacchi\7. Report\PCA 76-21 to PCA 77-21 Report.doc Attachments - 98 - Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1. Does the proposed dwelling have a sloped roof proposed such as a Hip, Gable, Mansard or Gambrel? (see Figure 5) Though the dwelling has not yet been designed in advance of the C of A or the future Land Division Application, certainly upon the Full and Final Approval of the I & RHS. It is the intent of the owners to have regard for the approved by- law. Currently, it is the intent of the owners to have a sloped roof on the future dwelling. X 2. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) The Owners will be proposing to blend in with their existing neighbourhood infilling from a design standpoint. X 3. For dwellings with a height greater than 8.5 metres – is the dwelling a maximum two storeys with a sloped roof back from the adjacent dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) Although the design has not be completed in advance of this hearing, more than likely will be a 2 sty. dwelling will cottage or gable rooflines. X 4. Does the front entrance have 6 or less steps? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) Based on the existing grades and the neighbouring properties it appears that it should comply. As noted previously, the dwelling design nor engineering have not yet been advanced. X 5. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) As per above, more than likely. X 6. Is the design of the main entrance consistent with the architectural style of the dwelling? (Section 2.2: Guidelines 3 and 4) As per above, more than likely will flow with the future design of the home. - 99 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 7. Does the main entrance include a porch, portico or other weather protection in keeping with the design of the dwelling? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 4) As stated previously, more than likely will have porch or covered portico in keeping with overall design. Please note, the design has not been advanced prior to hearing. X 8. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) Yes, Owners wish to minimize steps, therefore should the grade require steps they will endeavor to lose risers within the approach from driveway edge and along the path of the walkway to front staircase area. X 9. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (Section 2.2: Guideline 9) As stated, numerous times herein, the design of the future home has not been advanced prior to the approval of said committee. However typically this will be out designer’s approach. X 10. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) As stated previously, design of dwelling has not been advanced prior to the approval of this committee. However, based on the depth of the existing property and meeting the required allowable coverage. The future design for the new dwelling should be in keeping surrounding infill dwellings. X 11. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) As stated herein the proposed dwelling design has not yet been completed. Subject to this application, yes it typically confirms with the R3 zoning. X 12. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) As noted, numerous times herein, the design of future dwelling has not yet been completed in advance of committee approvals. Again, due to the great depth of the property shadowing should not be a concern. - 100 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 13. If a projecting garage is permitted, does it have a sloped roof? (see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) Once again, said dwelling design has not been completed in advance of committee’s approval. However, typically garage roof will be sloped. X 14. If a double car garage is proposed, does it have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) As stated previously, the design for the future dwelling has not been completed in advance of the committee’s approval. X 15. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) See comment above. X 16. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) As stated, numerous times herein, said design has not been completed prior to said committee’s approval. However typically we would maintain a driveway width in keeping with the proposed garage width. X 17. Are sustainable design features or resilient landscaping proposed as part of the site design? (Section 3.3: Guideline 2 and Section 4.1: Guideline 5) Once again, the design of this dwelling has not been completed in advance of committee’s approval. Landscaping will be discussed. However, it should be noted that there is an extreme shortage of numerous landscaping materials due to the pandemic. X 18. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) Yes. It is the intention of the family to retain numerous trees at the rear of the property as at this time the appear to be outside of any required building envelope. X 19. Does the plan include tree planting on private property? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) As state previously, The design and engineering of said properties and therefore future landscaping will be reviewed along with said dwelling design after which time said committee approvals are obtained. - 101 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 20. Does the plan include one or more native species street trees? (Section 4.2) As stated previously, considering the family intends to retain numerous existing trees on the property we would have to think we have retained native spices. With regard to street trees, if any street tree can be saved and work with the proposed siting for any new dwelling, then said tree(s) would be saved or replaced. - 102 - Finch Avenue BowlerDriveMaple Ridge DriveForest Park DriveFieldlightBoulevardMonteagleLane Mulmur Court Hensall CourtLiverpool RoadBridge Gate CrescentGlouce sterSquareBicroft CourtMalden CrescentCanborough CrescentBarnwood Square Faylee CrescentAntonSquareGlendale DriveMulmerTot Lot Glendale Park DavidFarr Park Glengrove Park St. Isaac JoguesSeparate School City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 76/21 & P/CA 77/21 Date: Aug. 11, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EE. Andreacchi 1952 Glendale Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 76-21 to PCA 77-21 E. Andreacchi\PCA76-21_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.- 103 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 76/21 to P/CA 77/21 Applicant: E. Andreacchi Municipal Address: 1952 Glendale Drive FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: August 16, 2021 to permit a minimum lot frontage of 13.4 metres to recognize a minimum north side yard of 2.7 metres to permit a minimum lot frontage of 16.7 metres - 104 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 78/21 Date: September 8, 2021 From: Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 78/21 W. Van Kempen & S. Birch4900 Brock Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended, to recognize an uncovered platform (deck) not exceeding 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 0.9 of a metre into the south side yard setback, whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project no more than 0.5 of a metre into any side yard setback. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize an existing platform (deck). 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 uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined onthe applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). Background In May 2021, a Building Permit for the construction of the uncovered platform (deck) was issued by the City’s Building Services Section. The permit was issued based on the deck maintaining a 1.8 metre setback to the south side lot line. However, through an inspection by Building Services staff, it was determined the deck was constructed with a 0.9 of a metre setback from the south side lot line. The applicant has requested the proposed variance in order to recognize a reduced setback for the uncovered deck. - 105 - Report P/CA 78/21 September 8, 2021 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Rural Settlements – Oak Ridges Moraine Rural Hamlets” within the Settlement of Claremont. Lands within this designation are recognized historic settlements, and provides for residential uses such as detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned ORM-R6 and ORM-EP within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended. The location of the uncovered deck is within the portion of the subject property zoned ORM-R6. The intent of the side yard projection provision for uncovered platforms is to protect the privacy of adjacent properties and ensure adequate separation is maintained to accommodate rear yard access, grading, drainage and maintenance. The applicant has outlined the platform (deck) is approximately 2.5 metres in height above grade and provides access from the first-storey of the dwelling to the rear yard. The deck is setback approximately 110 metres from the rear lot line and projects 0.9 of a metre into the required south side yard setback. Despite the projection into the side yard, the deck will maintain a 0.9 of a metre setback from the south side property line, which will not compromise the function of the side yard and will provide adequate separation to allow for access to the rear yard, drainage and maintenance. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The uncovered deck provides additional outdoor amenity space and access to the rear yard of the property from the first floor. The proposed projection of 0.9 metres into the side yard setback is not anticipated to result in a significant visual or privacy impact on adjacent properties as it will only extend 0.9 of a metre further than the existing exterior wall of the dwelling. The requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land, maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and is minor in nature. - 106 - Report P/CA 78/21 September 8, 2021 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • No comments on the application. Building Services • No comments on the application. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • TRCA have no objections to the approval of the variances as they pertain to the rear deck. • TRCA issued a clearance for this deck on April 12, 2021 indicating a permit was not required as the works were adequately setback from the wetland and area of influence. Residents in objection: 4894 Brock Road • Submitted a detailed letter in objection to the proposed variance. Due to the length of the letter, the comments have not been summarized within this report. The letter has been forwarded to the Members of the Committee of Adjustment for their consideration during their review of this application. Residents in support: 1635 & 1649 Acorn Lane; 1677, 1737 & 1747 Central Street; 1705 Bovingdon Place; 1750 Hoxton Street; 4860, 4904 & 5053 Brock Road; 4879 Victoria Street; 4994 Canso Drive; 5014 & 5038 William Street; 5026 Barber Street; 5043 Franklin Street; and 5066 Wixson Street • Submitted letters in support of the proposed variance. Date of report: September 1, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Cody Morrison Planner II Principal Planner, Development Review FC:CM:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 78-21\7. Report\PCA 78-21 Report.doc Attachments - 107 - Brock RoadVictoria StreetBovingdon Place Acorn Lane Canso DriveClaremontMemorial Park City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 78/21 Date: Aug. 11, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EW. Van Kempen & S. Birch 4900 Brock Road, Claremont SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 78-21 W. Van Kempen & S. Birch\PCA78-21_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.- 108 - Exhibit 2 Submitted PlanFile No: P/CA 78/21 Applicant: W. Van Kempen & S. Birch Municipal Address: 4900 Brock Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN.Date: Aug 25, 2021 •drawing is not to scale to recognize an uncovered platform (deck) not exceeding 2.5 metres in height above grade projecting 0.9 of a metre into the south side yard setback- 109 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 79/21 Date: September 8, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 79/21 J. Maingot665 Front Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 to permit: •to permit eaves to project 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard setback, whereas the By-law requires eaves to not project more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yardsetback; •to permit eaves to project 0.7 of a metre into the required north side yard setback, whereasthe By-law requires eaves to not project more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard setback; •to permit an uncovered deck greater than 1.0 metre in height above grade to project4.3 metres into the required front yard setback, whereas the By-law requires uncoveredsteps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to not project more than 1.5metres into the required front yard setback; •to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.0 metre on the south side yard, whereas theBy-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres; and •to permit a maximum lot coverage of 34.3 percent, whereas the By-law establishes amaximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to facilitate an addition to a detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1.That these variances apply only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlinedon the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6).- 110 - Report P/CA 79/21 September 8, 2021 Page 2 Background A minor variance application was approved for the subject property on June 28, 1984 (P/CA 18/84). The following variances were approved: • to permit a lot frontage of 10.287 metres whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres; • to permit a lot area of 349 square metres whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres; • to permit the continuance of a 0.987 metre south side yard setback, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 2.4 metres; and • to permit the continuance of a 2.27 metre projection into a required 2.4 metre south side yard for a deck, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project a maximum of 1.0 metre into a required side yard. The current Minor Variance Application P/CA 79/21 proposes an addition that will maintain the same footprint of the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling maintains a 1.03 metre south side yard setback, rather than the 0.987 metre that was approved by the Committee in 1984. The deck projection into the south side yard, also approved in 1984, is no longer required. Comment Official Plan and Zoning By-law 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 detached dwellings. City Council has recently endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which provides direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. In addition, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts to support and enhance neighbourhood precinct characteristics. City staff are preparing an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to implement the recommendations of the Study to help ensure that the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood precinct character. As part of the OPA and ZBA, staff are proposing revisions to the Urban Design Guidelines and associated Checklist. - 111 - Report P/CA 79/21 September 8, 2021 Page 3 Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposal using both the Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, and the proposed Revised Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A & B to this report. The proposed dwelling maintains all criteria outlined within the Urban Design Guidelines checklists. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned R4 within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18. Eaves Projection Variances The intent of the Zoning By-law requirement to require eaves to not project more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard setback is to ensure all runoff and drainage is contained within the subject property. Given the lower average grade of the subject property in comparison with both abutting side neighbours, the runoff will be maintained on the subject property. The eaves projection of 0.8 of a metre on the south side yard and 0.7 of a metre on the north side yard conform to the intent of the Zoning By-law. Front Yard Platform (deck) Projection Variance The By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard. The intent of this provision is to provide the opportunity for any stairs and/or a landing platform to encroach into the front yard when needed, to ensure an adequate buffer space between buildings and street activity is provided, and to ensure an adequate landscaped area within the front yard is also provided. The request to permit an uncovered deck to project 4.3 metres into the front yard is to renovate an existing non-conforming deck and to recognize the non-conformity through this variance. The deck maintains an adequate buffer space between buildings and the street and is a similar size and height to other front yard balconies along Front Road. Southerly Side Yard Variance The intent of the side yard setback requirement of 1.5 metres 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 southerly side yard setback of 1.0 metre is consistent with the location of the existing dwelling. It will maintain the existing separation between structures on abutting properties and will accommodate all functionalities of the lot. Lot Coverage Variance The intent of the maximum building lot coverage requirement is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of the building. An increase from the maximum 33 percent to 34.3 percent will maintain the intent. Adequate amenity area is maintained in the rear of the property and the increase of lot coverage will not have an adverse impact on the scale or massing as viewed from the street. - 112 - Report P/CA 79/21 September 8, 2021 Page 4 Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The scope of the development is to renovate the existing basement and first floor, and add a second storey to be used as an accessory dwelling unit. The proposed design of the house will remain consistent with the existing dwelling and therefore will remain consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. As such, the development is desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • Ensure additional percentage of lot coverage and reduced setbacks do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development (LID) measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) must be provided at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services • No comments on the application. Residents of 602 & 607 Annland Street and 673 Front Road • In support of the application. Date of report: September 2, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration FC: DW:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 79-21 J. Maingot\7. Report\PCA 79-21 Report.doc Attachments - 113 - Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1. Does the proposed dwelling have a sloped roof proposed such as a Hip, Gable, Mansard or Gambrel? (see Figure 5) X 2. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) X 3. For dwellings with a height greater than 8.5 metres – is the dwelling a maximum two storeys with a sloped roof back from the adjacent dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) X 4. Does the front entrance have 6 or less steps? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) X 5. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 6. Is the design of the main entrance consistent with the architectural style of the dwelling? (Section 2.2: Guidelines 3 and 4) X 7. Does the main entrance include a porch, portico or other weather protection in keeping with the design of the dwelling? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 4) X 8. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) - 114 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 9. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (Section 2.2: Guideline 9) X 10. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) X 11. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) X 12. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) X 13. If a projecting garage is permitted, does it have a sloped roof? (see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) X 14. If a double car garage is proposed, does it have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) X 15. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) X 16. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) X 17. Are sustainable design features or resilient landscaping proposed as part of the site design? (Section 3.3: Guideline 2 and Section 4.1: Guideline 5) X 18. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) X 19. Does the plan include tree planting on private property? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) X 20. Does the plan include one or more native species street trees? (Section 4.2) - 115 - Urban City of Pickering Established B 1 Appendix B Revised Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1.Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings?(see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) X 2.If the proposed new dwelling issignificantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away fromthe existing adjacent house?(see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) The abutting property to the south features a two storey dwelling with an above ground basement similar to the proposed dwelling. The abutting property to the north features a single storey dwelling. A variance to the maximum height it not being requested. X 3.Is the maximum elevation of the FrontEntrance 1.2 metres, or less, abovegrade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) X 4.Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 5.Are the stairs to the main entrancedesigned as an integral component of thefront façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) X 6.Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of thegarage and driveway?(see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) X 7.Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street?(see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) - 116 - Appendix B Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established B 2 Yes No Comments X 8.Does the proposed dwelling have asimilar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street?(see Figure 15) X 9.Has shadow on adjacent dwellings beenmitigated with greater Side YardSetbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) X 10.Is the garage flush or recessed from themain front wall?(see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) X 11.Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) X 12.Does the plan preserve existing trees?(see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) - 117 - Liverpool RoadGull Crossing Browning Avenue Ilona Park RoadFairvi e wAvenueAnnland StreetSimpson AvenueDouglasAvenueStMartinsDrive W ate rpoint Street Fron t RoadFoxglove Avenue Luna Court Monica Cook Place Commerce Street Pleasant StreetBayview Street Wharf Street Broadview Street Progress Frenchman'sBay East Park AlderwoodPark Frenchman'sBay Rate PayersMemorial Park City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 79/21 Date: Aug. 17, 2021 Exhibit 1 J. Maingot665 Front Road SubjectLands Frenchman's Bay L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 79-21 J. Maingot\PCA79-21_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.- 118 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 79/21 Applicant: J. Maingot Municipal Address: 665 Front Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 25, 2021 to permit an uncovered deck greater than 1.0 metre in height above grade to project 4.3 metres into the required front yard to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.0 metre on the south side yard to permit a maximum lot coverage of 34.3 percent - 119 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Roof Plan File No: P/CA 79/21 Applicant: J. Maingot Municipal Address: 665 Front Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 25, 2021 to permit eaves to project 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard setback to permit eaves to project 0.7 of a metre into the required north side yard setback Front Road - 120 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Front and Rear Elevations File No: P/CA 79/21 Applicant: J. Maingot Municipal Address: 665 Front Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug. 25, 2021 Front Elevation Rear Elevation - 121 - Exhibit 5 Submitted North Elevation File No: P/CA 79/21 Applicant: J. Maingot Municipal Address: 665 Front Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 25, 2021 - 122 - Exhibit 6 Submitted South Elevation File No: P/CA 79/21 Applicant: J. Maingot Municipal Address: 665 Front Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 25, 2021 - 123 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 80/21 Date: September 8, 2021 From: Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 80/21 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. 1853 Rosebank Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1929/84, to permit: •a minimum north interior side yard width of 0.7 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard width of 1.2 metres; and •a maximum lot coverage of 41 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lotcoverage of 38 percent. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order obtain a building permit for the construction of a detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1.That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Amberlea Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within this designation and 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. - 124 - Report P/CA 80/21 September 8, 2021 Page 2 Side Yard Variance The intent of a minimum interior side yard width of 1.2 metres is to accommodate drainage and to provide sufficient space for the exterior maintenance of a dwelling. The abutting dwelling to the north is setback 1.31 metres from the mutual property line. The proposed dwelling on the subject property and the dwelling immediately to the north will maintain a total separation of 2.01 metres from each other. There is sufficient space between the structures on the abutting properties to accommodate drainage and for the maintenance of each dwelling. Lot Coverage Variance The intent of a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent is to ensure an appropriate amount of space is left uncovered by buildings on a lot to provide for landscaping and outdoor amenity areas. The maximum lot coverage provisions of the zoning by-law are also intended to regulate the scale and size of the building. There is sufficient space for landscaping within the front yard as the main wall of the dwelling is setback more than 10.0 metres from the front property line. The proposed dwelling will maintain a rear yard that exceeds the minimum required rear yard depth of 7.5 metres, which will provide for sufficient outdoor amenity space. The size of the proposed dwelling is consistent with the size and massing of adjacent dwellings, which have also been designed by the applicant. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed variances intend to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling, maintaining the existing residential use of the surrounding properties. The applicant has indicated that these variances are required in order to provide for a larger floor area to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit with a dedicated separate garage on the first floor (refer to Exhibit 4). The requested variances are not anticipated to result in a significant impact on the surrounding properties and are considered to be minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services Building Services •Ensure reduced side yards and increased lot coverage do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Considerations for multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) must be made at the Building Permit stage. •No concerns with the application. - 125 - Report P/CA 80/21 September 8, 2021 Page 3 Date of report: September 1, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Cody Morrison (Acting) Planner II Principal Planner, Development Review IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 80-21 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd\7. Report\PCA 80/21.doc Attachments - 126 - Summerpark Crescent Strouds Lane FernamStr eetWildflower DriveWoodsmere Crescent Charnw ood Co urt Ashfield Court Rosebank RoadKirkwood LaneWoodsideLaneBroadoak CrescentAutumn CrescentWhite Cedar DriveSilver Maple DriveDencourt Driv e Post DriveGarland CrescentGreenvale CrescentSpringviewDri veAmberlea Park S.m.WoodsmerePark Altona ForestPublic School St. Elizabeth Seton CatholicSchool Highbush PublicSchool City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 80/21 Date: Aug. 17, 2021 Exhibit 1 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd.1853 Rosebank Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 80-21 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd\PCA80-21_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.- 127 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 80/21 Applicant: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Municipal Address: 1853 Rosebank Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Aug. 16, 2021 to permit a maximum lot coverage of 41 percent to permit a minimum north interior side yard width of 0.7 metres - 128 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Elevations and Architectural Rendering File No: P/CA 80/21 Applicant: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Municipal Address: 1853 Rosebank Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: August 16, 2021 - 129 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Floor Plans File No: P/CA 80/21 Applicant: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. Municipal Address: 1853 Rosebank Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: August 30, 2021 - 130 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 81/21 Date: September 8, 2021 From: Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 81/21 A. Gillespie2045 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06: •to permit a detached dwelling, a proposed accessory building (detached garage) and anexisting accessory building (detached garage) to be located less than 30 metres from the stable top of bank (Significant Valleylands), whereas the By-law requires all buildings orstructures to be located a minimum of 30 metres from the stable top of bank(Significant Valleylands); •to permit a detached dwelling, a proposed accessory building (detached garage) and an existing accessory building (detached garage) to be located less than 30 metres from thebase of the outermost tree trunks within a woodland (Significant Woodlands), whereas theBy-law requires all buildings or structures to be located a minimum of 30 metres from thebase of the outermost tree trunks within a woodland (Significant Woodlands); •to permit a proposed accessory building (detached garage) to be located within the frontyard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the mainbuilding to be erected in the rear yard; •to recognize an existing accessory building (detached garage) to be located within the front yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the mainbuilding to be erected in the rear yard; •to permit a proposed accessory building (detached garage) measuring 57.2 square metresin area, whereas the by-law requires no accessory buildings and/or structures to exceed 10 square metres in area; and •to recognize an existing accessory building (detached garage) measuring13.4 square metres in area, whereas the by-law requires no accessory buildings and/orstructures to exceed 10 square metres in area. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an addition to an existing detached dwelling and construction of an accessory building (detached garage), and to recognize an existing accessory building (detached garage). - 131 - Report P/CA 81/21 September 8, 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 detached dwelling, proposed accessory building (detached garage) and existing accessory building (detached garage), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8). Background The subject property is located within the Oak Ridges Moraine. The City’s Site Plan Control By-law (By-law 7632/18) subjects all development on lands within the boundary of the Oak Ridges Moraine to site plan control and requires the submission of an application for site plan approval. However, the Director, City Development, has waived the requirement for a site plan application for this proposal as the detailed environmental review has already been undertaken and completed, confirmed through the issuance of a permit from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) dated March 5, 2021. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Open Space System – Oak Ridges Moraine Natural Core Areas”. Lands within this designation are primarily intended for conservation and environmental protection, however existing lawful residential uses and uses accessory thereto are permissible. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned ORM-EP within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06. Buffer from Significant Valleylands and Significant Woodlands Variances The intent for all buildings or structures to be located a minimum of 30 metres from the stable top of bank (Significant Valleylands) and from the base of the outermost tree trunks within a woodland (Significant Woodlands) is to prevent new development from occurring within areas that may introduce a risk to life or property associated with natural hazards, such as erosion and to protect natural heritage features. The subject property is located adjacent to a valley corridor of the Duffins Creek watershed which has an erosion hazard limit associated with the top of slope and a contiguous dripline of vegetation associated with the key natural heritage feature. As a result, the lands are located within a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regulated area. - 132 - Report P/CA 81/21 September 8, 2021 Page 3 The top of bank and dripline of vegetation were determined and staked by the TRCA on May 26, 2020 and were further refined through the review of a Slope Stability Assessment (prepared by GHD, dated October 9, 2020) and Natural Heritage Evaluation (prepared by LGL Limited, dated August 2020). Based on the TRCA’s review of the Slope Stability Assessment, the long term stable top of slope was identified and it was determined that the proposed addition to the main dwelling maintains a setback greater than 10 metres to the top of slope and the accessory buildings maintain a setback greater than 6 metres, both of which the TRCA has determined to be acceptable. Based on the TRCA’s review of the Natural Heritage Evaluation, TRCA staff were able to confirm that the proposed development will have no adverse impacts on the ecological functions of the adjacent forest and key natural heritage features. Erosion and Sediment Control fencing will be installed throughout construction to ensure no ecological impacts will occur. Therefore, the proposed variances to permit the detached dwelling, proposed accessory structure and existing accessory structure to be located less than 30 metres from the stable top of bank (Significant Valleylands) and from the base of the outermost tree trunks within a woodland (Significant Woodlands) maintains the intent of the zoning by-law. Accessory Building Variances The applicant has requested variances to permit a proposed accessory building (detached garage) measuring 57.2 square metres in area and to recognize an existing accessory building (detached garage) measuring 13.4 square metres in area to be located in the front yard. The intent of requiring accessory structures to be located in the rear yard is to minimize their visual impact on the streetscape and adjacent properties and to ensure that they act as an accessory to the principal use of the property. The front yard of the subject property consists of mature trees and vegetation, which will adequately screen the structures. The detached garages will not be visible from the street. The existing detached garage is setback approximately 190 metres from the front property line and approximately 64 metres from the nearest side lot line. The proposed detached garage is setback approximately 200 metres from the front property line and approximately 69 metres from the nearest side lot line. As such, the accessory buildings will maintain adequate separation from the road and adjacent properties and will have no impact on the streetscape. The existing and proposed detached garages are oriented to maximize accessibility from the driveway for vehicles and will be accessory to the residential dwelling. The intent of the maximum accessory building floor area provision is to regulate the size of accessory buildings within the Oak Ridges Moraine to limit adverse impacts on environmental features. The subject property has an area of approximately 16.5 hectares (165,295 square metres), which provides for sufficient space to support the proposed buildings. The proposed and existing detached garage will occupy a small portion of the property and have been sited to maximize their distance from the natural features. - 133 - Report P/CA 81/21 September 8, 2021 Page 4 Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Through review of the proposal by the TRCA, it has been determined that the proposed dwelling addition and detached garage pose no adverse impacts to the adjacent natural features. The dwelling addition will provide for additional living space to the existing dwelling, and the existing and proposed detached garages will provide enclosed parking areas and storage to support the residential dwelling. The location of the proposed development is setback considerably from the street, and adequately from the top of slope and the dripline of vegetation. The requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the 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. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • No objections to the approval of Minor Variance Application P/CA 81/21. •A TRCA permit was issued for the proposed development on March 5, 2021. The drawings received as part of this minor variance application are consistent with the plans received for the TRCA permit. •The subject property is located within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Duffins Creek watershed and is regulated with respect to the Area of Influence associated with the Provincially Significant Wetland and the top of bank/erosion hazard associated with the Duffins Creek ravine corridor, both located in the east portion of the site. •Based on the TRCA’s review of the applicant’s submitted Slope Stability Assessment, the proposed development maintains adequate separation from the determined long term stable top of slope. •Based on the TRCA’s review of the applicant’s submitted Natural Heritage Evaluation, the proposed development will have no adverse impacts on the ecological functions of the adjacent forest/key natural heritage features. - 134 - Report P/CA 81/21 September 8, 2021 Page 5 Date of report: September 2, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Cody Morrison Planner II Principal Planner, Development Review FC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 81-21 A. Gillespie\7. Report\PCA 81-21 Report.doc Attachments - 135 - Sideline14Uxbridge Pickering Townline Road City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 81/21 Date: Aug. 17, 2021 Exhibit 1 A. Gillespie2045 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 81-21 A. Gillespie\PCA81-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:6,000 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.- 136 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 81/21 Applicant: A. Gillespie Municipal Address: 2045 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 24 2021 - 137 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Plan (Scoped)File No: P/CA 81/21 Applicant: A. Gillespie Municipal Address: 2045 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 24, 2021 to permit a proposed accessory building (detached garage) to be located within the front yard to permit a detached dwelling, a proposed accessory building (detached garage) and an existing accessory building (detached garage) to be located less than 30 metres from the stable top of bank (Significant Valleylands) to permit a detached dwelling, a proposed accessory building (detached garage) and an existing accessory building (detached garage) to be located less than 30 metres from the base of the outermost tree trunks within a woodland (Significant Woodlands) to permit a proposed accessory building (detached garage) measuring 57.2 square metres in area to recognize an existing accessory building (detached garage) measuring 13.4 square metres in area to recognize an existing accessory building (detached garage) to be located within the front yard - 138 - Exhibit 4 Proposed Accessory Building (Detached Garage) Elevations File No: P/CA 81/21 Applicant: A. Gillespie Municipal Address: 2045 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 24, 2021 - 139 - Exhibit 5 Submitted North Elevation (Detached Dwelling) File No: P/CA 81/21 Applicant: A. Gillespie Municipal Address: 2045 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug. 24, 2021 - 140 - Exhibit 6 Submitted East Elevation (Detached Dwelling) File No: P/CA 81/21 Applicant: A. Gillespie Municipal Address: 2045 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug 24, 2021 - 141 - Exhibit 7 Submitted South Elevation (Detached Dwelling) File No: P/CA 81/21 Applicant: A. Gillespie Municipal Address: 2045 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug. 24, 2021 - 142 - Exhibit 8 Submitted West Elevation (Detached Dwelling) File No: P/CA 81/21 Applicant: A. Gillespie Municipal Address: 2045 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug. 24, 2021 - 143 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 82/21 Date: September 8, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 82/21 F. Tenaille & D. Francoeur544 Rodd Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 5092/97 to permit a maximum building height of 12.2 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum height of 9.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to expand a legal non-conforming height condition. The applicant seeks to obtain a building permit to construct an addition to a detached dwelling on the existing third storey. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following condition: 1.That this variance apply only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined onthe applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). Background A building permit was issued in 1995 for a dwelling at the subject property. At that time, Zoning By-law 2511 did not have a maximum height limit. Approximately 2 years later, By-law 5092/97 was enacted. This By-law introduced a height limit of 9 metres for dwellings, and contained a Special Regulation to permit a maximum height of 12 metres for buildings which existed at that time. - 144 - Report P/CA 82/21 September 8, 2021 Page 2 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 Rosebank Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended for residential uses including detached dwellings. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned R4-10 within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 5092/97. The intent of the maximum height of 9.0 metres provision is to minimize the visual impact of new buildings on the existing streetscape and to ensure new development is compatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood. The existing dwelling has a height of 12.2 metres. The dwelling was constructed in 1995, prior to the 1997 enactment of site specific By-law 5092/97 and therefore the dwelling maintains legal non-conforming status. While the request is to recognize the existing height of the dwelling, the trigger for this proposal is the raising of the roof at the front portion of the dwelling. The applicant proposes to raise this portion of the dwelling from a sloped roof to a flat roof with a height of 11.1 metres (refer to Exhibit 3). The raising of the roof on the third storey will not increase the floor area of the dwelling. As such, the impact of recognizing the existing maximum height of 12.2 metres and facilitating an increased roof height of 11.1 metres at the front section of the dwelling will maintain compatibility with the existing residential neighbourhood and will not be a detriment to the existing streetscape. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The Special Regulation in By-law 5092/97 allows for buildings which existed prior to the passing of the By-law to have a maximum height of 12.0 metres. The subject dwelling measures at 12.2 metres, representing a 0.2 of a metre increase over the maximum. The highest point of the roof is located at the middle section of the dwelling. Raising the front portion of the dwelling to a flat roof would not deteriorate the existing non-conforming condition. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the 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. - 145 - Report P/CA 82/21 September 8, 2021 Page 3 Date of report: September 1, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 82-21 F. Tenaille & D. Francoeur\7. Report\PCA 82-21 Report.doc Attachments - 146 - Rougemount Drive Rosebank RoadDunnCrescentKi mtonCourt Rodd Avenue Gillmoss Road Nomad Road DysonRoadPicasso CourtPetticoatCreekBella Vista Drive RosebankSouthPark City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 82/21 Date: Aug. 17, 2021 Exhibit 1 City of Toronto F. Tenaille & D. Francoeur544 Rodd Avenue SubjectLands Lake Ontario L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 82-21 F. Tenaille & D. Francoeur\PCA82-21_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.- 147 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 82/21 Applicant: F. Tenaille & D. Francoeur Municipal Address: 544 Rodd Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug. 25, 2021 - 148 - Exhibit 3 Submitted West Elevation File No: P/CA 82/21 Applicant: F. Tenaille & D. Francoeur Municipal Address: 544 Rodd Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug. 25, 2021 to permit a maximum building height of 12.2 metres proposed addition existing structure to remain - 149 - Exhibit 4 Submitted South Elevation File No: P/CA 82/21 Applicant: F. Tenaille & D. Francoeur Municipal Address: 544 Rodd Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Aug. 25, 2021 to permit a maximum building height of 12.2 metres - 150 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 87/21 Date: September 8, 2021 From: Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 87/21 J. & J. Vincken1100 Begley Street, Unit 10 Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 4.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered deck. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following condition: 1.That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck, as generally sited andoutlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). Background In 2001 the Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application P/CA 11/01 to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 5.2 metres in order to provide for the construction of an uncovered deck at the rear of 1100 Begley Street, Unit 10. The deck was constructed in 2001/2002 in accordance with the approved variance. The applicant has indicated that the deck was demolished in 2021 due to unsafe conditions. Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Area” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Townhouse dwellings are a permitted use within this designation. - 151 - Report P/CA 87/21 September 8, 2021 Page 2 The applicant is proposing to reconstruct an uncovered deck within the rear yard that is larger in size than the previous deck, which was demolished in 2021. The proposed deck will be setback a minimum of 4.1 metres from the rear property line and will be approximately 4.8 metres in width. The intent of a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres is to protect the privacy of abutting properties and to maintain sufficient outdoor amenity space within the rear yard. The requested variance is intended to facilitate the construction of a deck that will contribute to the total amount of usable amenity space within the rear yard. The adjacent townhouse unit immediately to the west is also proposing a deck of a similar size to be located within the rear yard (P/CA 88/21). The lands immediately to the south, abutting the rear property line, are owned by the City of Pickering and form part of the natural area. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variance will facilitate the construction of a deck, which will contribute towards the total usable amenity space of the townhouse dwelling. The proposed deck is similar to the previous deck which existed without any adverse impacts since its construction in 2001/2002. The proposed deck will not create an adverse visual or privacy impact on adjacent properties and will be adequately setback from the open space area located immediately to the south. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No concerns with the application. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • A permit is required from the TRCA prior to any new development taking place within this property. A TRCA Permit application has not been received to date for the proposed deck. • TRCA staff reviewed the application and have no objections to the approval of Minor Variance Application No. P/CA 87/21. Date of report: September 1, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Cody Morrison (Acting) Planner II Principal Planner, Development Review IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 87-21 J. & J. Vincken\7. Report\PCA 87-21 Report.doc Attachments - 152 - BegleyStreetAlbacore Manor Tanzer Cour t B a y ly S t r e e t Highway 401 Douglas Park BayshoreTot Lot VistulaRavine Unit 10 City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 87/21 Date: Aug. 25, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EJ. & J. Vincken 1100 Begley Street, Unit 10 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 87-21 J. & J. Vincken\PCA87-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,500 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. Legend Private Roads - 153 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 87/21 Applicant: J. & J. Vincken Municipal Address: 1100 Begley Street, Unit 10 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Aug 17, 2021 to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 4.1 metres - 154 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 88/21 Date: September 8, 2021 From: Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 88/21 C. & J. Skewis1100 Begley Street, Unit 11 Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 4.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered deck. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following condition: 1.That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck, as generally sited andoutlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). Background In 2001, the Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application P/CA 12/01 to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 5.3 metres to provide for the construction of an uncovered deck at the rear of 1100 Begley Street, Unit 11. The deck was constructed in 2001/2002 in accordance with the approved variance. The applicant has indicated that the deck was demolished in 2021 due to unsafe conditions. Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Area” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Townhouse dwellings are a permitted use within this designation. - 155 - Report P/CA 87/21 September 8, 2021 Page 2 The applicant is proposing to reconstruct an uncovered deck within the rear yard that is larger in size than the previous deck, which was demolished in 2021. The proposed deck will be setback a minimum of 4.1 metres from the rear property line and will be approximately 8.8 metres in width. The intent of a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres is to protect the privacy of abutting properties and to maintain sufficient outdoor amenity space within the rear yard. The requested variance is intended to facilitate the construction of a deck that will contribute to the total amount of usable amenity space within the rear yard. The adjacent townhouse unit immediately to the east is also proposing a deck of a similar size to be located within the rear yard (P/CA 87/21). The lands immediately to the south, abutting the rear property line, are owned by the City of Pickering and form part of the natural area. Lands immediately to the west are owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and also form part of the natural area. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variance will facilitate the construction of a deck, which will contribute towards the total usable amenity space of the townhouse dwelling. The proposed deck is similar to the previous deck, which existed without any adverse impacts since its construction in 2001/2002. The proposed deck will not create an adverse visual or privacy impact on adjacent properties and will be adequately setback from the open space area located immediately to the south and west. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No concerns with the application. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • A permit is required from the TRCA prior to any new development taking place within this property. A TRCA Permit application has not been received to date for the proposed deck. • TRCA staff reviewed the application and have no objections to the approval of Minor Variance Application No. P/CA 88/21. Date of report: September 1, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Cody Morrison (Acting) Planner II Principal Planner, Development Review IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 88-21 C. & J. Skewis\7. Report\PCA 88-21 Report.doc Attachments - 156 - BegleyStreetAlbacore Manor Tanzer Cour t B a y ly S t r e e t Highway 401 Douglas Park BayshoreTot Lot VistulaRavine Unit 11 City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 88/21 Date: Aug. 25, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EC. & J. Skewis 1100 Begley Street, Unit 11 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 88-21 C. & J. Skewis\PCA88-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,500 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. Legend Private Roads - 157 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 88/21 Applicant: C. & J. Skewis Municipal Address: 1100 Begley Street, Unit 11 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Aug 17, 2021 to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 4.1 metres - 158 -