Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 11, 2022 - RevisedCommittee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Number: 4 Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 pickering.ca For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Secretary-Treasurer or Assistant, Secretary-Treasurer Telephone: 905.420.4617 Email: citydev@pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number 1.Disclosure of Interest 2.Adoption of Agenda 3.Adoption of Minutes from April 13, 2022 1-32 4. Report 4.1 (Tabled at the February 9, 2022 Hearing)33-50 P/CA 61/22 S. Wyce & B. Grant 624 Park Crescent 4.2 P/CA 66/22 51-57 JMPM Holdings Ltd. & S. Golvin 1635 Bayly Street 4.3 P/CA 67/22 58-66 K. Ganeshalingam 2342 Heska Road 4.4 P/CA 68/22 & P/CA 69/22 67-77 Canaan Canada Developments Ltd. 1240 Bayview Street 4.5 P/CA 70/22 78-82 S. & S. Ahmed 1632 Winville Road 4.6 P/CA 72/22 83-92 K. & J. Avis 1272 1274 Wharf Street & 595 Annland Street 4.7 P/CA 73/22 93-97 M. Charles & M. Boivin 1368 Gull Crossing For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Secretary-Treasurer or Assistant, Secretary-Treasurer Telephone: 905.420.4617 Email: citydev@pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number 4.8 P/CA 74/22 98-103 C. & S. Macaluso 1525 Kodiak Street 4.9 P/CA 75/22 104-113 K. Brown 4984 Canso Drive 5.Adjournment Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 32 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Felix Chau, Planner II Isabel Lima, (Acting) Planner II Kerry Yelk, Planner I 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Reordering of Items and Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That Item 4.4 for P/CA 45/22 be reordered to Item 4.1 and that Item 4.17 for P/CA 61/22 be reordered to Item 4.2 and that the agenda for the Wednesday, April 13, 2022 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously -1- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 32 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 2nd hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, February 9, 2022 be adopted. Carried Unanimously 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 45/22 B. Atique 2030 Duberry Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1976/85, to recognize a minimum interior side yard width of 0.4 metres one side (north), 0.6 metre other side (south), whereas the By-law permits a minimum interior side yard width of 1.2 metres one side, 0.6 metres other side. The requested variance is intended to recognize existing below grade stairs proposed to be covered. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Badar Atique, applicant, and Abhishek Rajgor, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Given the request by City staff to table the application to allow further review of the variances being applied for and a possible re-notification, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 45/22 by B. Atique, be Tabled to allow for the applicant to confirm the requested variances and if required, for new proper Notice be given. Carried Unanimously -2- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 32 4.2 P/CA 61/22 S. Wyce & B. Grant 624 Park Crescent The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, By-law 7872/21 and By-law 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum front yard of 7.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres; • a minimum rear yard of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.5 metres; • a minimum front yard of 0.3 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a main building is erected upon a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the flank of such lot, such main building shall be deemed to have two front yards, one on the street upon which such lot fronts, and one on the street upon which such lot flanks, and shall conform to the respective front yard requirement of 7.5 metres; • a maximum dwelling depth of 23 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths up to and including 40 metres shall be 17 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • a covered platform and associated covered steps (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 7.4 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard (2511 Section 5.8(b)); • a covered platform and associated covered and uncovered steps (side porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.8 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard (2511 Section 5.8(b)); and • a vehicle in the rear yard to be set back a minimum of 0.0 metres from the south lot line, whereas the By-law states that vehicles parked in a rear yard must be set back a minimum 1.0 metre from the nearest lot line. -3- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 32 The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a detached dwelling. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and 13 area residents. Sarah Grant, applicant, Annette Koczian, agent, were present to represent the application. Carlie Weppler was present in favour of the application. Carlie Weppler, spoke in support of the minor variance application, and indicated the following: support of the proposed 43 percent lot coverage as this is a common occurrence throughout the neighbourhood; support of the variance to maximum building depth, identified that this is an unique shaped lot with respect to interpretation of required setbacks and the road configuration of Park Crescent, and hopeful that the Committee approve the requested variances this evening. Given the request by City staff to table the application to allow the applicant to address Engineering Services comments; to potentially adjust any variances, and to work with staff to revise the site plan, if necessary, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 61/22 by S. Wyce & B. Grant, be Tabled to address Engineering Services comments; to potentially adjust any variances, and to work with staff to revise the site plan, if necessary. Carried Unanimously 4.3 (Tabled at the February 9, 2022 Hearing) P/CA 40/22 W. & P. Grant 521 Bella Vista Drive Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 40/22 by W. & P. Grant be lifted from the table. Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 to permit: -4- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 32 • a minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres; and • a minimum side yard depth of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard depth of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to construct a new detached dwelling with garage. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and three area residents. Bill Grant, applicant, and Yaso Somalingam, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Yaso Somalingam outlined the proposal and stated the application is minor in nature and meets the four tests of the Planning Act. In response to questions from Committee Members, Yaso Somalingam, stated the 1.2 metre variance is only for the corner of the rear of the dwelling; the applicant came to an agreement with the neighbour and there will be a foundation for a retaining wall and a new fence to provide privacy. He also explained TRCA requires a 2.0 metre wide setback in order to access the rear of the property if works are ever required. Bill Grant stated he has spoken with TRCA and they require a 2.0 metre setback on the west to accommodate access to the rear of the property for any required maintenance, and was assured by TRCA that the City would not have a problem with the 2.0 metre setback. Now at this late date the City has indicated concerns with the reduced east side yard setback. In response to questions from Committee Members regarding the significant engineering issues, removing the request for a 1.2 metre side yard, how is the intent of the Zoning By-law met, and are 5 parking spaces required, the applicant and the agent stated the neighbour on the eastside advised that a reduced side yard of 1.2 metre is only required at one corner of the house, a verbal agreement has been reached with the neighbour to the east to construct a foundation for the retaining wall and fence on the property line, and additional parking is required as parents will be living with the property owners. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer indicated that TRCA has provided written comments based on the site plans circulated by City Development indicating they have no concerns with the requested variances. -5- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 32 After review of the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, hearing questions from Committee Members and the responses from the applicant and agent, reading the concerns raised from Engineering Services with respect to the reduced side yard depth of 1.2 metres; and recognizing the applicant worked with the City to arrive at a solution and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff to address TRCA’s requirements, not convinced that a reduction in the east side yard is warranted, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That a minimum side yard depth of 1.2 metres for application P/CA 40/22 by W. & P. Grant, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land; and That the minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres for application P/CA 40/22 by W. & P. Grant, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed new detached dwelling with garage, as generally sited (and revised with a 1.5 metre east side yard) and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 43/22 M. Asgary 681 Front Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7610/18, 7872/21 & 7900/22, to permit: • to permit a minimum front yard depth of 7.1 metres for the second floor front wall, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres; • to permit covered steps and a platform not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above grade, not projecting more than 0.5 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard; • to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 6.2 metres for a rear uncovered porch with steps, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres; -6- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 32 • to permit uncovered steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.0 metres into the side yard, whereas the By-law requires Uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 0.6 metres into any required side yard; • to permit a maximum front entrance elevation of 1.6 metres above the average grade, whereas the By-law requires a maximum elevation of the front entrance of 1.2 metres above the average grade; • to permit a parking space within a private garage with a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 5.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires each parking space within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres; and • to permit a minimum front yard setback of 7.1 metres based on the shortest front yard setback of adjacent dwellings, whereas the By-law requires the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to recognize a newly constructed detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. M. Asgary, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from Committee Members, M. Asgary explained the number of variances being applied for is a result of the number of revisions to the design of the dwelling. He explained the previous minor variance application for the height, the appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), the Building permit process and the submission of three sets of revisions. He stated the reason for the rear yard variance of 6.2 metres is because of the lot is irregular in size. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer explained two of the requested variances are in relation to the Infill and Replacement Housing By-laws that have been passed by City Council and have been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). The Secretary-Treasurer also explained the process of how minor variance application zoning checks are being done. -7- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 32 After reviewing the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, questions from Committee Members and the responses from the applicant, Tom Copeland moved the following motion, Sean Wiley also added given there is no public input and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley seconded the motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 43/22 by M. Asgary, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the existing two storey detached dwelling with an attached garage including the existing uncovered platform and associated steps (front porch), existing uncovered platform (rear porch) and associated steps, and uncovered steps in the north side yard, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted as-built survey (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Motion Defeated Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson opposed Eric Newton opposed Denise Rundle opposed Sean Wiley in favour After reviewing the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, hearing questions from Committee Members and the responses from the applicant, it is felt that the applicant can conform to the rear yard depth by reducing the deck, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That a minimum rear yard depth of 6.2 metres for a rear uncovered porch with steps for application P/CA 43/22 by M. Asgary, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land; and -8- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 32 That all other variances for application P/CA 43/22 by M. Asgary, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the existing two storey detached dwelling with an attached garage including the existing uncovered platform and associated steps (front porch), and uncovered steps in the north side yard, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted as-built survey (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton opposed Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley in favour 4.5 P/CA 44/22 V. Pejcinovski 1329 Broadview Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-laws 7873/21 & 7901/22: • to permit a minimum front yard depth of 7.1 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres; • to permit a covered platform (porch) and uncovered steps not exceeding 1.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.9 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard; • to permit an uncovered platform (deck) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.8 metres into the side yard (west), whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.0 metre into any required side yard; and. • to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 3.3 metres for an uncovered rear deck with associated steps, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. -9- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 32 The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the submission of a Building Permit Application to permit the construction of a second storey addition, front covered porch with steps, and to recognize the existing rear platform (deck) with associated steps. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and two area residents. Tomasz Goral, agent, was present to represent the application. Sharon Whiteside was present in objection to the application. Tomasz Goral explained the variances are for the bay window, front porch to provide better curb appeal and to recognize the existing deck that was built without a permit. Given that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 44/22 by V. Pejcinovski, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the second storey addition, front covered porch and uncovered steps, and to recognize the existing uncovered rear yard deck with associated steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 46/22 M. Khan & E Barnicutt 2300 Southcott Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 5548/99, to permit an uncovered platform not exceeding 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 4.2 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard. -10- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 32 The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct an uncovered platform (deck) in the rear yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and seven area residents. Mike Khan, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Based on the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, no concerns from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Engineering Services, Building Services, neighbours, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 46/22 by M. Khan & E Barnicutt, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the uncovered platform, 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 April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 47/22 & P/CA 48/22 M. Anjam 700 Hillview Crescent P/CA 47/22 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, By-law 7872/21 and By-law 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum lot area of 465 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 550 square metres; • a minimum front yard of 3.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres; -11- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 32 • a minimum front yard setback of 3.5 metres, whereas the minimum front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block are greater than 3.5 metres, whereas the By-law states the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block; • a minimum rear yard of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; and • a covered and uncovered platform and associated uncovered steps (front porch) not exceeding 1.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 6.2 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard. P/CA 48/22 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, By-law 7872/21 and By-law 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum lot area of 505 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 550 square metres; • a minimum south side yard of 1.6 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.8 metres; • a minimum north flankage side yard of 3.5 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a main building is erected upon a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the front of such lot, the minimum width of the side yard facing the street upon which the lot flanks shall be 4.5 metres; and • a covered and uncovered platform and associated uncovered steps (front porch) not exceeding 1.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.6 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to sever the property resulting in a total of two lots and to construct two detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances to side yard setback and projection/height of the front porch on Part 2 (P/CA 48/22) meet the four tests of the Planning Act; however, the requested variances to lot area, front yard setback, rear yard setback and projection/height of the front porch -12- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 32 on Part 1 (P/CA 47/22), and the variances to lot area and north flankage side yard on Part 2 (P/CA 48/22) do not conform to the intent of the Zoning By-law, are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are not minor in nature. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, and twelve area residents. Nadeem Irfan, agent, was present to represent the application. Paul White and Michelle Osborne were present in objection to the applications. Nadeem Irfan outlined the applications, and indicated the following: proposed lots are similar in frontage and area to existing lots in the area, as of right one house would not need variances and could be 7,000 square feet floor area which is not desirable, Part 2 complies with most of the By-law provisions and is supported by staff, and 2 houses/lots require variances due to the interpretation of the by-law provisions. Paul White appeared in opposition to the proposal, and indicated the following: proposal has been tabled by the Region of Durham Land Division Committee; City staff requested that variances be addressed prior to severance applications being considered; no objections to large homes as long as they conform to zoning, and request Committee refuse the applications. Michelle Osborne appeared in opposition to the proposals, indicated she speaks on behalf of the residents of Stonebridge Lane, and outlined the following: area is very unique, disappointing there are many (10) variances, requested variances are not minor, direct neighbours will be impacted, ample room for one dwelling, and in favour of growth that makes sense. In response to questions from a Committee member, it was established that Michelle Osborne lives within 60 metres of the subject property, and that the supporting 8 letters are from people that are not immediately or directly impacted by the proposal. The agent in response to a question from a Committee member, indicated that the proposal is desirable as it has potential to be severed, the intent of the Official Plan is met, ample amenity space is provided, variances are required due to the interpretation of the Zoning By-law, and new urban design guidelines are satisfied. Denise Rundle outlined the following: it is not expected that a 7,000 square foot home will be built given the character of the neighbourhood, the Region of Durham Land Division has astutely deferred the consent applications for the minor variances to be addressed first, that infill housing is to fit in with the character and lotting of neighbourhood, the proposed lots are out of character with the lots to the south and west, house replacement is more appropriate than infill development that would require future land assembly, and then Denise Rundle moved the following motion: -13- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 32 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That applications P/CA 47/22 and P/CA 48/22 by M. Anjam, be Refused in their entirety on the grounds that the requested variances are not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in not keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 49/22 S. Xavier 3290 Greenburn Place The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2044/85, to permit an accessory building (detached garage) with a maximum height of 4.6 metres within a residential zone, whereas the By-law permits a maximum height of 3.5 metres for accessory buildings within any residential zone. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct an accessory structure (detached garage). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and sixteen area residents. Imad Samad, agent, was present to represent the application. Robert Seiler, Estella & Robert Prosser, Janan Bilbily, Teresa Holden, Salman Bhutta, Daivd Bray and Hal Whorms were present in objection to the application. Robert Seiler appeared in opposition, in addition to a written submission, the following was outlined: a restrictive covenant exists between the developer and the City, garage is too close to the property to the north, a review of the By-law indicates a 7.5 to 10 metre setback is required, City Development has made an honest error in interpreting the By-law. Estella Prosser appeared in opposition, and outlined the following: construction of a warehouse for storage of cars and traffic generated will be devastating to the community, industrial warehouse sized building is not in character with upscale houses, and there will be a negative impact on property values. -14- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 32 Teresa Holden appeared in opposition on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Homeowner Association representing 29 of the 30 homeowners/shareholders of the community, and in addition to a written submission the following was outlined: strong opposition to both the variances and to the garage structure, unique community akin to a cottage area without the water traffic, drawings do not covey that subject property and garage is a waterfront property in full view of the lake, contravenes clause 5 of restrictive covenant that requires structures to be built 15.24 metres from side property line, and a structure to store15 sports cars contravenes clause 2 prohibits motorized vehicles on the lake and common lands. Salman Bhutta appeared in agreement with previous residents, and identified concerns regarding environmental degradation. Hal Whorms appeared in agreement with previous residents, and identified concerns over the impact on private services and erosion from drainage from a flat roof. David Bray appeared in opposition, and in addition to written submission outlined the following: unacceptable to allow a commercial sized structure to be built on a residential property; 3 businesses registered at this property; zoning should protect character of area, and property values. Imad Samad outlined the proposal, indicating a workshop is not proposed, the purpose of the structure is to store the owner’s collection of fancy vehicles. Zoning allows structure, requesting variance to building height to allow an appropriately designed proportional structure using good materials. Janan Bilbily appeared in opposition, outlining the following: the current fleet of 7 to 10 cars has created a significant increase in street traffic and car noise that exceeds noise levels permitted by City, a structure to store more vehicles will worsen an already bad condition, ground water will be exhausted when fleet needs to be maintained and washed, does not meet the purpose of the Official Plan as the proposed garage will be appear as a primary use due to its size and the house as a secondary use, the garage is proposed too close to shared property line, the requested variance is not minor as it is over 31 percent greater the maximum permitted, and the structure is not just to store cars but for maintenance and showroom. In response to a question from a Committee member about enforcement of the restrictive covenant, Ms. Holden described the restrictive covenant as being established in 1986, is registered on title, contains 6 clauses, and is included in the Saxon Glen homeowner handbook. -15- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 32 In response to a question from a Committee member the Secretary-Treasurer responded that restrictive covenants between developers and land owners are not enforced by the City notwithstanding they may be registered on title, such covenants may be enforced by the Board of the homeowners association. In response to a question from a Committee member, the applicant indicated that there is parking for 3 vehicles within the house, and garage is proposed to accommodate 5 additional vehicles. Given that the Committee has heard from the neighbours, that the matter before the Committee to consider is a variance to the maximum building height, that the increased building height when combined with the size of the structure is not minor and is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and as added by a friendly amendment to recognize that there is a restrictive covenant registered on title requiring a 15.2 metre setback of structures, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 49/22 by S. Xavier, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Carried Unanimously 4.9 P/CA 50/22 T. Chaudhry 123 Secord Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4271/93, to permit: • an uncovered platform (rear main-floor deck) not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side yard; and • a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the reconstruction of a detached dwelling and associated rear deck due to fire damage. -16- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 17 of 32 The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Patrick Mcauliffe, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Patrick Mcauliffe explained the history of the subject property; stated the deck will be the same size as what was previously there and the maximum lot coverage variance is a result of building over the garage. Based on the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, questions from a Committee Member and the responses from the agent and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 50/22 by T. Chaudhry, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling and associated rear deck, 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 April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.10 P/CA 51/22 P. Pathmanatan & K. Pushpaharan 1832 Appleview Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22 to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.7 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to recognize an existing reduced side (north) yard setback. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. -17- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 18 of 32 Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. David Marasigan, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Danilo Marasigan explained the reason for the minor variance application is due to a construction error with the foundation. Given that there are no objections from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; no objections received from neighbhours, and that the application is minor in nature, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 51/22 by P. Pathmanatan & K. Pushpaharan, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the existing detached dwelling, 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 April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.11 P/CA 52/22 A. Ford 861 Krosno Boulevard The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520 to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize an existing carport with a reduced south side yard setback. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. -18- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 19 of 32 Clinton Edwards, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Clinton Edwards provided a history of the subject property and explained the application and stated this application meets the four tests of the Planning Act and Official Plan and desirable in nature and is minor in nature. Based on the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 52/22 by A. Ford, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the existing detached dwelling and attached carport, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (see Exhibit 2, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.12 P/CA 53/22 T. Mylvaganam 125 Woodview Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum north side yard and south side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a maximum building height of 9.8 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 9.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance for a maximum building height meets the four tests of the Planning Act and the requested variance for a minimum north side yard and south side yard does not meet -19- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 20 of 32 the four tests of the Planning Act. The Secretary-Treasurer also outlined that City staff are of the opinion that if the applicant was to amend the minimum north side yard and south side yard with to 1.5 metres the variances would meet the four tests. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and six area residents. Thayalan Mylvaganam, applicant, and Tom Vanle, agent, were present to represent the application. Robert Gummow was present in objection to the application. Tom Vanle explained the application and stated the variances being applied for would be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. In response to questions from Committee Members, Tom Vanle stated this is a custom built home for the applicant to live and not for resale; is aware of comments received from City’s Engineering Services; not willing to reduce the height or to extend the floorspace into the rear yard and the third floor will not be a habitable space as it is a truss roof. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Thayalan Mylvaganam stated he willing to amend the application to permit a minimum north side yard and south side yard of 1.5 metres. Robert Gummow stated the 1.5 metre side yard would be more appropriate and expressed a concern with the drainage and questioned if the drainage of the roof will be to the front towards Woodview Drive instead of the backyard. After hearing questions from Committee Members and the responses from the applicant and agent, and the applicant amending the application for the minimum north side yard and south side yard of 1.5 metres, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That amended application P/CA 53/22, by T. Mylvaganam, be Approved on the grounds that the maximum building height of 9.8 metres and minimum north side yard and south side yard of 1.5 metres 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the submitted plans be revised to show the proposed 2-storey detached dwelling setback a minimum of 1.5 metres from the north and south side lot lines. 2. That these variances apply only to the proposed 2-storey detached dwelling, as generally sited (and revised with a 1.5 metre north and south side yard setback) and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously -20- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 21 of 32 4.13 P/CA 54/22 J. Rajaratnam & K. Sarvendran 1946 Liverpool Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22, to permit a minimum side yard depth of 0.8 of a metre, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard depth of 1.8 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to construct a three-car garage attached to an existing detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Jeevan Rajaratnam, applicant, and Kevin Washington, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Kevin Washington explained the application. In response to questions from Committee Members, Kevin Washington stated this is an addition to a new build on the north side; he is are aware of the Engineering Services comments; and stated there is no garage so they are currently parking in the driveway. After a review of the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, hearing questions from Committee Members and the responses from the applicant and agent, comments from Engineering Services, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 54/22 by J. Rajaratnam & K. Sarvendran, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 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, 5 & 6, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). -21- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 22 of 32 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner performs grading works up to the lot line, to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson opposed Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley in favour 4.14 P/CA 55/22 R. McKenzie & D. John 1824 Holbrook Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4912/97, to: • permit a minimum rear yard depth of 7.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • permit a maximum lot coverage of 46 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent; • permit uncovered steps or platforms (rear deck) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.6 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard • permit uncovered steps or platforms (rear deck) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.1 metres into the required side yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 0.6 metres into any required side yard; The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the submission of an Application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a one- storey addition (sunroom) with rear deck. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance(s) meet(s) the four tests of the Planning Act. -22- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 23 of 32 Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Rowan McKenzie, applicant, and Kevin Washington, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Kevin Washington explained the application and stated they were able to eliminate two variances for the rear yard depth and the encroachment projection of uncovered steps or platforms into the required rear yard variances. Given that the variances are relatively small adjustments, the property to the west is larger and this addition will have minimal impact on the abutting neighbours; subject to the revision made by the applicant to eliminate the two variances to the rear yard depth and projection into the rear yard, it is recommended that the two remaining variances to maximum lot coverage and projection into the required side yard 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 55/22 by R. McKenzie & D. John, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances to maximum lot coverage and projection into the required side 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That the variances to the apply only to the proposed one-storey addition and rear deck with associated steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, & 5, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.15 P/CA 56/22 & P/CA 57/22 1000118968 Ontario Ltd. & Whitepine Group Inc. 1835 & 1837 Woodview Avenue P/CA 56/22 – 1835 Woodview Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. -23- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 24 of 32 P/CA 57/22 – 1837 Woodview Avenue The applicant requests approval from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum south side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of two detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Larry Macdonell, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer indicated the City is not aware of the result of the Land Division Committee decision, and explained the land division committee will not impact the consideration of these minor variance applications. To clarify that these variances are for the interior side yards only, so regarding 1835 Woodview Avenue the variance is for the north side yard setback and 1837 Woodview Avenue the variance is for the south side yard setback and, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 56/22 & P/CA 57/22 by 1000118968 Ontario Ltd. & Whitepine Group 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously -24- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 25 of 32 4.16 P/CA 58/22 & P/CA 59/22 1000118936 Ontario Ltd. & 1000119025 Ontario Ltd. 1586 & 1588 Oakburn Street P/CA 58/22 – 1586 Oakburn Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. P/CA 59/22 – 1588 Oakburn Street The applicant requests approval from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of two detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Larry Macdonell, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer provided clarification that the variances are for the north side yard on each of the subject properties only. Given the questions asked from Committee Members and the responses from the agent, clarification provided by the Secretary-Treasurer, that further clarification that these variances only apply to the north side yards only; and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: -25- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 26 of 32 Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 58/22 & P/CA 59/22 by 1000118936 Ontario Ltd. & 1000119025 Ontario Ltd., 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner performs grading works up to the lot line and/or create a common swale on the lot line, to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Carried Unanimously 4.17 P/CA 60/22 F. Molinaro 1771 Woodview Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum north side yard and south side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law states where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.5 metres; • a maximum dwelling depth of 23 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths greater than 40 metres shall be 20 metres; and • a maximum lot coverage of 27 percent, whereas the By-law states that for lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area, the maximum lot coverage shall be 25 percent. The applicant is proposing to sever the property resulting in a total of 2 lots. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to construct a bungalow on the proposed north lot. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. -26- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 27 of 32 Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. The applicant or agent was not present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Given that there are no questions for the agent, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 60/22 by F. Molinaro, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed bungalow on the proposed north lot (Part 1), 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 April 13, 2022). 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner performs grading works up to the lot line and/or create a common swale on the lot line, to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Carried Unanimously 4.18 P/CA 62/22 P. Nelson 1707 Echo Point Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law No. 3036, as amended by Zoning By-law 1998/85 to permit uncovered steps and platform not exceeding 1.4 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.6 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres in any required front or rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a covered and uncovered deck with steps. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. -27- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 28 of 32 Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and seven area residents. Phillip Nelson, applicant, and Tyrone Grey, agent, were present to represent the application. Deborah Valleau and Ursula Donelan were present in objection to the application. Chris Gurpersaud and Racqual Nelson were present was present in favour of to the application. Tyrone Grey explained that since their last minor variance application they have made revisions by reducing the upper and lower deck; the use of the lower deck is to allow safe egress of the building and to allow usable space of the backyard. Pictures were provided for the Committee to review. The pictures show the rear fence is approximately 8 feet above grade and will not have any privacy concerns. In response to a question from Committee Members, Tyrone Grey confirmed the upper deck has been reduced so it is no longer encroaching into the rear yard and have lowered the lower deck to no more than eight inches above grade. Phillip Nelson provided a history of the subject property; stated there are no privacy concerns due to the unusual slope of the rear yard. In response to a question from Committee Members, Phillip Nelson indicated that pictures have been provided to show the view points from the first floor and that the lower deck is below the height of the fence. Deborah Valleau expressed concerns with loss of privacy, sloping and grading issues; she also stated no objections with the deck as long as the lower deck is below the fence line. In response to a question from a concerned resident, the Secretary-Treasurer clarified the variance being applied for. Ursula Donelan expressed concerns with the loss of privacy, grading issues and the size of the two new homes that have been built. Chris Gurpersaud spoke in support of the application and stated there are will be no loss of privacy, and has no issues or concerns with the proposed deck. Racquel Nelson spoke in support of the application and provided a history of the subject property. Given that the applicant has taken into consideration the concerns raised by the surrounding neighbours and has revised their plans, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: -28- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 29 of 32 Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 62/22 by P. Nelson, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed covered and uncovered deck with steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle opposed Sean Wiley in favour 4.19 P/CA 63/22 to P/CA 65/22 R. Crook 1771 Spruce Hill Road P/CA 63/22 – Part 1 (West Lot) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 5.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 1.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 1.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 34.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; -29- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 30 of 32 P/CA 64/22 – Part 2 (Middle Lot) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 5.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 1.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 1.45 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 34.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; P/CA 65/22 – Part 3 (East Lot) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 5.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 1.45 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 34.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to facilitate consent applications conditionally approved by the Region of Durham Land Division Committee to sever the property resulting in a total of three lots and to facilitate the submission of building permits applications to permit three detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Paul Demczak, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. -30- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 31 of 32 Paul Demczak outlined the proposal, indicating the following: the streetscape is an appropriate transition to existing development, and the four tests of the Planning Act are met. In response to question a from a Committee Member, the agent responded that the easement will be removed from the property. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer provided clarification on the location of the easement. Given that the applicant has moved the dwellings forward to allow for larger backyards that the front yard setbacks are reasonable and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 63/22 to P/CA 65/22 by R. Crook, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 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, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner performs grading works up to the lot line and/or create a common swale on the lot line, to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Carried Unanimously -31- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 32 of 32 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the 3rd hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 10:19 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, May 11, 2022. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer -32- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 61/22 Date: May 11, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: (Tabled at the April 13, 2022 Hearing) Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 61/22 S. Wyce & B. Grant 624 Park Crescent Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, By-law 7872/21 and By-law 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum front yard of 7.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres; • a minimum rear yard of 2.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.5 metres; • a minimum front yard of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a main building is erected upon a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the flank of such lot, such main building shall be deemed to have two front yards, one on the street upon which such lot fronts, and one on the street upon which such lot flanks, and shall conform to the respective front yard requirement of 7.5 metres; • a maximum dwelling depth of 23 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths up to and including 40 metres shall be 17 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • a covered platform and associated uncovered steps (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 6.2 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard; -33- Report P/CA 61/22 May 11, 2022 Page 2 • an uncovered platform and associated uncovered steps (side porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.2 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard; and • a vehicle in the rear yard to be setback a minimum of 0.0 metres from the south lot line, whereas the By-law states that vehicles parked in a rear yard must be setback a minimum 1.0 metre from the nearest lot line. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a detached dwelling. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and 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. Should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9); and 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner shall agree to perform grading works up to the lot line to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Background The Committee of Adjustment tabled this application at the April 13, 2022 hearing, to allow the applicant to address comments received from Engineering Services, and to allow the applicant to revise the submitted site plan and adjust any variances if required . Prior to the April 13 hearing, the applicant and Engineering Services discussed comments requiring a 5.0 by 5.0 metre site triangle, and it was decided that a site triangle was no longer required. Engineering Services have no concerns with site issues at the southwest corner of the property. City Development staff recommended that the application be tabled at the April 13 hearing to allow the applicant to work with staff to address concerns regarding the requested variances to the front yard, dwelling depth, lot coverage and front porch. -34- Report P/CA 61/22 May 11, 2022 Page 3 On April 20, 2022, a meeting was held between the applicant and agents, Councillor Brenner, Councillor Ashe, Engineering Services staff and City Development staff to discuss the proposal. Following that meeting, the applicant made the following refinements to the proposal: • significantly reduced the size and depth of the front porch, increasing the setback of the porch from 0.13 metres to 1.37 metres; • increased the minimum front yard setback along Park Crescent from 0.36 metres to 1.35 metres; • increased the minimum rear yard setback from 1.37 metres to 2.57 metres; • reduced the depth of the side porch, increasing the setback from 4.7 metres to 5.3 metres; • reduced the maximum lot coverage from 43 percent to 40 percent; and • reduced the size of the garage by reducing the amount of storage space within the garage. Notice of the revised variances was provided. The Infill By-laws On September 27, 2021, City Council enacted By-law 7872/21 (the Infill By-law) to amend Zoning By-law 2511, to rezone all lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts to an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” category. The amending Infill By-law introduces new provisions for yard setbacks, building height, lot coverage and other zoning standards to ensure new built form is compatible with existing built form. Following adoption by Council, the City received appeals to the Infill By law. On January 24, 2022, City Council adopted By-law 7900/22, to instate a maximum building height of 9.0 metres for all lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The City also received appeals to this By-law. The property is subject to By-law 7872/21 and By-law 7900/22. By-law 7872/21 established a new maximum dwelling depth, among other provisions. The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum dwelling depth. However, please note that due to the ongoing appeals, the Infill By-laws are not currently in force. As such, a building permit for a dwelling that exceeds the maximum dwelling depth can be issued prior to the By-law coming into force. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the West Shore Neighbourhood. The applicant is proposing to construct a detached dwelling, which is a permitted use within this designation and the primary built form within the West Shore Neighbourhood. -35- Report P/CA 61/22 May 11, 2022 Page 4 The applicant’s planning consultant has completed the Council-adopted Revised 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 Due to the irregular configuration of the lot, any replacement dwelling on the subject property would require variances to the yard setbacks. Variances to Front Yard Setback The intent of the minimum front yard is to maintain a consistent setback with abutting properties to mitigate views and privacy concerns, and to provide landscaping area and space for parking in the front yard. The Zoning By-law states that where a main building is erected upon a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the flank of such lot, such main building shall be deemed to have two front yards, one on the street upon which such lot fronts, and one on the street upon which such lot flanks. Though the west yard fronting Victory Drive (labelled Front Yard #1 on the site plan) will function as the outdoor amenity space for the property, this yard is still considered a front yard under the By-law. The west yard provides for more than sufficient space for amenity space and outdoor activities. Due to the irregular configuration of the lot, the size of the front yard along Park Crescent (labelled Front Yard #2 on the site plan) is greatly restricted. The eastern portion of the property comes to a very narrow point, where the property has a depth of only 4.8 metres. In comparison, the abutting property to the east (626 Park Crescent) has a depth of 35.0 metres along the same lot line, and the dwelling is setback 10.0 metres from Park Crescent. As such, it is not possible to site a dwelling on the subject property that could maintain a similar front yard setback as the east abutting dwelling. There is sufficient room at the sides of the dwelling for landscaping, as well as a two-car garage and additional parking space at the side of the dwelling for parking. Variances to Rear Yard Setback and Vehicle Parked in the Rear Yard The intent of the minimum rear yard is to ensure useable amenity space is provided on the lot. As noted above, the west yard will function as the amenity area for the property and will provide for more than sufficient space for outdoor activities. Due to the orientation of the dwelling, the rear yard will function as more of a side yard. The intent of the side yard is to accommodate drainage and to provide sufficient room for the maintenance of a dwelling. The abutting dwelling to the east is setback 10.0 metres from Park Crescent and will not abut the proposed dwelling on the subject property. In addition, the depth of the rear yard becomes larger towards the northeast corner, where a setback of 7.74 metres is maintained (refer to Exhibit 2). There is sufficient room in the rear yard to accommodate drainage and for the maintenance of the dwelling. -36- Report P/CA 61/22 May 11, 2022 Page 5 In addition, staff are supportive of the parking spot located in the rear yard, fronting Park Crescent. This will allow for a total of three parking spaces on the lot, which is required to permit the additional dwelling unit in the basement. The refinements the applicant made to increase the front/rear yard setbacks and to reduce the size of the garage will allow for better mobility of a vehicle around the corner of the dwelling to access this parking space. Variances to Side Yard Setback and Dwelling Depth The intent of the minimum side yard is to accommodate drainage and to provide sufficient room for the maintenance of a dwelling. The abutting dwelling to the north is setback approximately 4.5 metres from the shared property line. The proposed dwelling on the subject property and the dwelling to the north will maintain a separation of approximately 5.7 metres. There is sufficient room between the structures on the abutting properties to accommodate drainage and for the maintenance of each dwelling. As noted in comments from Engineering Services (refer to Input from Other Sources), if the applicant gets permission in writing from the adjacent property owner to the north to perform grading works up to the lot line, Engineering Services may consider a reduced setback. The applicant has indicated that they have spoken to their neighbour to the north and will be able to provide written permission from their neighbour. The intent of the maximum dwelling depth is to ensure new dwellings are generally in keeping with the existing dwellings along a street to avoid privacy and overshadowing issues. The depth of dwellings along the east side of Victory Drive range between 12 and 20 metres. To mitigate overlook issues, the applicant has designed the dwelling to have no windows along the rear north wall of the dwelling (refer to Exhibit 4), where the proposed dwelling extends beyond the rear wall of the abutting dwelling to the north. Variance to Lot Coverage The intent of the maximum lot coverage is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (for landscaping, infiltration and amenity areas) uncovered by buildings on a lot. The proposed dwelling accounts for 28 percent of the total coverage, whereas the attached garage accounts for 11 percent and the front porch accounts for 1 percent. The proposed dwelling will provide for sufficient space on the property left uncovered for landscaping, infiltration and amenity areas. The west yard will provide for more than sufficient space for outdoor activities. There is sufficient room at the sides of the dwelling for landscaping. Engineering Services has commented that 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 to ensure increased lot coverage and any reduced setbacks do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Considering the small size of the front yard along Park Crescent, staff consider the inclusion of an attached garage to be desirable. Two vehicles can be parked within the garage, which will reduce the number of cars parked in the front yard, which is preferable for the overall streetscape. -37- Report P/CA 61/22 May 11, 2022 Page 6 The proposed covered front porch will provide weather protection at the main entrance of the dwelling. Variances to the Front and Side Porches The front porch is required to provide access to the main entrance of the dwelling. The side porch will provide access to the west yard, which will function as the outdoor amenity space for the property. The front and side porches are integral to the design and function of the dwelling. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Considering the irregular configuration of the lot, staff are of the opinion that any replacement dwelling on the lot (with a desirable floor area) would require variances to the yard setbacks. The proposed attached garage will provide for two indoor parking spaces and storage areas. This will reduce the number of cars parked outdoors in the front yard, which is desirable for this property, considering the reduced front yard. Considering the irregular configuration of the lot, staff consider the requested variances to be minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The applicant has submitted a Planning Justification Report in support of this application. Please contact the City Development Department at ilima@pickering.ca to receive a copy of the applicant’s report. Engineering Services • With regards to the reduced side yard depth, it will not be possible to accommodate a minimum 0.15 metre deep drainage swale with 3:1 side slopes and the required 0.6 metre undisturbed strip with a setback of less than 1.5 metre. If the applicant gets permission in writing from the adjacent property owner(s) to perform grading works up to the lot line and/or to create a common swale, Engineering Services may consider a reduced setback. • Ensure increased lot coverage and any reduced setbacks (if approved with this application) 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. Building Services • Building Services do not have any concerns. -38- Report P/CA 61/22 May 11, 2022 Page 7 Public Input (written submissions received as of the date of writing this report) • Resident in Support (626 Park Crescent): As the immediate neighbours, we are writing in support of the variance application for 624 Park Crescent. We support the application because we understand that the coverage is commonly occurring in the neighbourhood and that achieving this lot coverage requires relief from the maximum depth requirement. We also realize that this is a difficult shaped lot to work with from a setback point of view and considering the road configuration of Park Crescent. We have suggested to the owners that including low shrub and ornamental grass type landscaping along the east property line would be considerate to neighbours and the streetscape to buffer the additional driveway width which allows for the proposed parking pad to the east. • Letters in support of this application were also received from the property owners of 619 & 620 Park Crescent, 500, 505, 509, 514, 516, 518 & 520 Cliffview Road and 625 Marksbury Road. Date of report: May 5, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP (Acting) Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 61-22 S. Wyce & B. Grant\7. Report Attachments -39- 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 YES 1. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) Applicant’s Planning Consultant Comments: The proposed dwelling is designed with hip roof lines. The proposed height at 7.72 metres and roof lines are compatible with the adjacent built forms and dwelling styles within the neighbourhood. N/A 2. If the proposed new dwelling is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) Staff Comments: The proposed new dwelling is not significantly taller than an existing adjacent house. YES 3. Is the maximum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) Planning Consultant Comments: The proposed entrances are designed with 5 steps. YES 4. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) Planning Consultant Comments: The main dwelling entrance is prominent from the streetscape. YES 5. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) Planning Consultant Comments: The stairs to the main entrance are visible and prominent from the front façade. YES 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) Planning Consultant Comments: The front entrance is prominent from the streetscape with the garage recessed behind the main front wall of the dwelling. -40- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments NO 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) Planning Consultant Comments: While the dwelling depth is greater than the Zoning By-law provisions, it is appropriately scaled to the unique shape of the subject lot. YES 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) Planning Consultant Comments: The proposed side yard setback is comparable to the adjacent dwellings and will not negatively impact adjacent properties from a massing or drainage perspective. YES 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) Planning Consultant Comments: The dwelling has been sited appropriately for the lot; the dwelling height has been appropriately scaled, and a variety of building inundations and reduced height on the east of the dwelling mitigate any potential shadow impacts on adjacent properties. YES 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) Planning Consultant Comments: The garage is recessed from the main front wall. YES 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) Planning Consultant Comments: The driveway is not wider than the proposed width of the garage, and a parking for the accessory unit has been appropriately located on the property. YES 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) Planning Consultant Comments: Existing border trees are being maintained with the proposed development, where possible. -41- Oklahoma Drive Park Crescent We s t S h o r e B o u l e v a r d Sunrise Avenue Hillcres t Road H i l l vi e w C r e s c e n t Vi c t o r y D r i v e Ma r k s b u r y R o a d Tullo Street Cliffview Road Sandcastle Court Location Map File: Applicant: Municipal Address: P/CA 61/22 Date: Mar. 21, 2022 Exhibit 1 S. Wyce & B. Grant 624 Park Crescent Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 61-22 S. Wyce & B. Grant\PCA61-22_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. City Development Department -42- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d Re v i s e d Si t e Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 61 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. W y c e & B . G r a n t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 62 4 P a r k C r e s c e n t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 25 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m f r o n t ya r d o f 7 . 0 m e t r e s to p e r m i t a mi n i m u m re a r y a r d o f 2. 5 m e t r e s to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m n o r t h si d e y a r d o f 1 . 2 m e t r e s to p e r m i t a mi n i m u m fr o n t y a r d o f 1. 3 m e t r e s to p e r m i t a m a x i m u m d w e l l i n g de p t h o f 2 3 m e t r e s to p e r m i t a c o v e r e d p l a t f o r m a n d a s s o c i a t e d un co v e r e d s t e p s (f r o n t p o r c h ) n o t e x c e e d i n g 1 . 0 m e t r e in h e i g h t a b o v e g r a d e a n d no t p r o j e c t i n g m o r e t h a n 6 . 2 m e t r e s i n t o t h e r e q u i r e d f r o n t y a r d to p e r m i t a v e h ic l e in t h e r e a r y a r d t o be s e t b a c k a mi n i m u m o f 0. 0 me t r e s f r o m th e s o u t h l o t l i n e to p e r m i t a m a x i m u m l o t co v e r a g e o f 4 0 p e r c e n t to p e r m i t a n un c o v e r e d pl a t f o r m a n d as s o c i a t e d un c o v e r e d s t e p s (s i d e p o r c h ) n o t ex c e e d i n g 1. 0 me t r e i n he i g h t a b o v e gr a d e a n d n o t pr o j e c t i n g m o r e th a n 2 . 2 m e t r e s in t o t h e r e q u i r e d fr o n t y a r d -43- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d Re v i s e d Fr o n t E l e v a t i o n ( S o u t h W a l l ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 61 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. W y c e & B . G r a n t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 62 4 P a r k C r e s c e n t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 25 , 2 0 2 2 -44- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d Re v i s e d R e a r El e v a t i o n ( No r t h Wa l l ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 61 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. W y c e & B . G r a n t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 62 4 P a r k C r e s c e n t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 25 , 2 0 2 2 -45- Ex h i b i t 5 Su b m i t t e d Re v i s e d We s t S i d e El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 61 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. W y c e & B . G r a n t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 62 4 P a r k C r e s c e n t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T DE P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 25 , 2 0 2 2 -46- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d Re v i s e d E a s t Si d e El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 61 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. W y c e & B . G r a n t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 62 4 P a r k C r e s c e n t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T DE P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 25 , 2 0 2 2 -47- Ex h i b i t 7 Su b m i t t e d Re v i s e d B a s e m e n t F l o o r P l a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 61 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. W y c e & B . G r a n t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 62 4 P a r k C r e s c e n t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T DE P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 25 , 2 0 2 2 -48- Ex h i b i t 8 Su b m i t t e d Re v i s e d Ma i n Fl o o r P l a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 61 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. W y c e & B . G r a n t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 62 4 P a r k C r e s c e n t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T DE P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 25 , 2 0 2 2 -49- Ex h i b i t 9 Su b m i t t e d Re v i s e d Se c o n d Fl o o r P l a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 61 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. W y c e & B . G r a n t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 62 4 P a r k C r e s c e n t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T DE P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 25 , 2 0 2 2 -50- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 66/22 Date: May 11, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 66/22 JMPM Holdings Limited & Stuart Mark Golvin 1635 Bayly Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7828/21 & 6974/09, to permit an accessory outdoor storage use, whereas the By-law prohibits outdoor storage and display. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit an outdoor storage area, accessory to a proposed warehouse facility. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and 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. Should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the subject lands, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Background On April 25, 2022, Council granted an exemption in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, P.13 as amended, and permitted the Committee of Adjustment to consider Minor Variance Application P/CA 66/22 before the second anniversary of the day on which the applicant-initiated zoning by-law amendment was enacted for the subject lands. -51- Report P/CA 66/22 May 11, 2022 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Within the City’s Official Plan, the property has a split designation. The northerly portion of the site is designated as “Employment Areas – Mixed Employment” and the southerly portion is designated as “Employment Areas – General Employment”. The location of the proposed warehouse building straddles the boundary of the designations. However, the entirety of the proposed outdoor storage area is located within the General Employment designation. Outdoor storage is a permissible use within the General Employment designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The site specific by-law prohibits outdoor storage on the subject lands. Within parent Zoning By-law 2511, unless site specifically zoned, outdoor storage is only permitted within the “M2” and “M2S” industrial zones, subject to the following specific regulations in the by-law: • an open storage area shall only be permitted in a rear yard, or not closer than 9.0 metres to any street line, provided that such storage area is not visible from a street; • an open storage area shall not exceed more than 30 percent of the lot area exclusive of the parking area, and shall not exceed the ground floor area of buildings upon the lot; and • an open storage area can be used for only: • the temporary storage of products manufactured, assembled or used on the premises; • the storage of tanks and containers of liquids, gases or other similar materials in the commercial or manufacturing process; and • the storage of materials used in the industrial operation excluding bulk open storage of sand, gravel, stone, coal and construction material or other similar material or products. The general intent of the by-law regulations for outdoor storage is to restrict the size and visibility of outdoor storage areas to limit the visual impact on the streetscape, and to restrict the materials stored to be associated with the main industrial use of the property. Given the configuration of the subject lands with frontages along Bayly Street and Dillingham Road, and that outdoor storage is a prohibited use in the City's Official Plan on the northerly portion of subject lands, there are limited areas to locate the outdoor storage area, while meeting operational requirements of the prospective tenant. Furthermore, while the property is zoned MC-21, staff referenced the intent of the M2 outdoor storage area provisions to consider the subject application. The proposed outdoor storage area is generally in keeping with the outdoor storage area zoning provisions of the M2 zone category. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Should the Committee of Adjustment approve the requested minor variance, the applicant will be required to submit a site plan application. Through the site plan review process, staff will continue to work with the applicant to enhance the landscape buffer along Dillingham Road and upgrade the perimeter fencing for the outdoor storage area, to minimize the exposure of the outdoor storage area from Dillingham Road. -52- Report P/CA 66/22 May 11, 2022 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Applicant •The applicant has submitted a Professional Planning Opinion Letter, please contact fchau@pickering.ca to obtain a copy of the submitted document. Engineering Services •No comments on the application. Building Services •Building Services do not have any concerns. Public Input •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: May 4, 2022 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Planner II Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 66-22 JMPM Holdings Ltd. & S. Golvin\7. Report\PCA 66-22 Report.docx Attachments -53- B r o c k R o a d Dillingham Road Sa l k R o a d Orangebrook Court Bayly Street Plummer St reet Quigley Street Don Beer Arena Location Map File: Applicant: Municipal Address: P/CA 66/22 Date: Mar. 22, 2022 Exhibit 1 JMPM Holdings Limited & Stuart Mark Golvin 1635 Bayly Street Hydro Lands Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 66-22 JMPM Holdings Limited & Stuart Mark Golvin\PCA66-22_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. City Development Department Hydro Lands -54- Exhibit 2 City Development Department Site Plan File No: P/CA 66/22 Applicant: JMPM Holdings Limited & Stuart Mark Golvin Municipal Address: 1635 Bayly Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: March 22, 2022 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2022 to permit an accessory outdoor storage use -55- L: \ P l a n n i n g \ 0 1 - M a p F i l e s \ A \ 2 0 2 2 M a r c h 2 2 , 2 0 2 2 D A T E : Ap p l i c a n t : Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : Fi l e N o : La n d s c a p e P l a n FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G CI T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t P/ C A 6 6 / 2 2 16 3 5 B a y l y S t r e e t JM P M H o l d i n g s L i m i t e d & S t u a r t M a r k G o l v i n Ex h i b i t 3 -56- L: \ P l a n n i n g \ 0 1 - M a p F i l e s \ A \ 2 0 2 2 M a r c h 2 2 , 2 0 2 2 D A T E : Ap p l i c a n t : Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : Fi l e N o : So u t h V ie w L a n d s c a p e R e n d e r i n g FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G CI T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t P/ C A 6 6 / 2 2 16 3 5 B a y l y S t r e e t JM P M H o l d i n g s L i m i t e d & S t u a r t M a r k G o l v i n Ex h i b i t 4 -57- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 67/22 Date: May 11, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 67/22 K. Ganeshalingam 2342 Heska Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to permit a minimum flankage (north) yard depth of 3.0 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum flankage yard depth of 4.5 metres The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a single family detached dwelling. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and 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. Should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1.That this variance applies only to the proposed single family detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Rural Settlements – Rural Clusters” within the Cherrywood and Area Settlement. Residential development such as infill development is permitted in this designation. Development within the Hamlet of Cherrywood and the Cherrywood West and East Clusters are required to be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Central Pickering Development Plan. -58- Report P/CA 67/22 May 11, 2022 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law 2342 Heska Road is zoned “R3” – Single detached, Third Density under Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. A detached residential dwelling is permitted within the lands zoned “R3”. 2342 Heska Road is a corner lot with the northerly lot line flanking onto Martins Street. The intent of the minimum flankage yard setback of 4.5 metres is to provide an adequate separation distance between buildings and the flanking street activity, and to provide an adequate landscaped area. The 3.0 metre setback along with the generous existing boulevard along Martins Street provides adequate separation distance between the single detached dwelling and the flanking street activity. As such, the variance requested maintains the intent of flankage yard setback provision. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The existing character of the neighbourhood is made up of large lots with a housing mix of one to two-storey homes. Recently, the existing neighbourhood has experienced rebuilding of existing homes. The applicant has proposed a dwelling that fits into the low density detached dwelling characteristic of the existing neighbourhood. As such, the proposed variance represents appropriate development of the land and is minor in nature. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant Engineering Services Building Services Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Public Input •Required flanking side yard does not comply with zoning, permit was submitted with wider house •A corner rounding with a 5 metre radius is requested to be provided at the northeast corner of the lot. •The proposed driveway may need to be adjusted/relocated once the corner rounding is provided. •No concerns with regards to the reduced flankage yard depth. •Building Services do not have any concerns •TRCA staff reviewed the requested variances and they have no impact on TRCA’s policies and programs. As such, TRCA has no objections to the approval of Minor Variance Application P/CA 67/22. •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. -59- Report P/CA 67/22 May 11, 2022 Page 3 Date of report: May 5, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Planner I Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:ld J:\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 67-22\7. Report\PCA 67-22.docx Attachments -60- Davidson Street He s k a R o a d Al t o n a R o a d Third Concession Road Cherrywood Avenue Martins Street Martin 's Tot L ot Hydro Corridor Hydro Corridor Location Map File: Applicant: Municipal Address: P/CA 67/22 Date: Apr. 07, 2022 Exhibit 1 K. Ganeshalingam 2342 Heska Road Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 67-22 K. Ganeshalingam\PCA67-22_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, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -61- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d P l a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 67 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. G a n e s h a l i n g a m Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 23 4 2 H e s k a R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m fl a n k a g e (n o r t h ) ya r d de p t h o f 3 . 0 m e t r e s Ma r t i n s S t r e e t Heska Road -62- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d E a s t ( F r o n t ) E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 67 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. G a n e s h a l i n g a m Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 23 4 2 H e s k a R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f th i s P l a n . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 -63- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d So u t h ( S i d e ) El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 67 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. G a n e s h a l i n g a m Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 23 4 2 H e s k a R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ap r i l 21 , 2 0 2 2 -64- Ex h i b i t 5 Su b m i t t e d Ea s t ( R e a r ) El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 67 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. G a n e s h a l i n g a m Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 23 4 2 H e s k a R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 1, 2 0 2 2 -65- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d No r t h ( F l a n k a g e S i d e ) El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 67 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. G a n e s h a l i n g a m Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 23 4 2 H e s k a R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 9 , 2 0 2 2 -66- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 68/22 & P/CA 69/22 Date: May 11, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 68/22 & P/CA 69/22 Canaan Canada Developments Ltd. 1240 Bayview Street Application P/CA 68/22 – Part 1 on Exhibit 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 4139/92, to permit: • a maximum lot coverage of 47 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent; • a maximum building height of 9.0 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 7.5 metres; and • a minimum front yard depth of 3.9 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a dwelling unit fronting the same street exists on each lot on either side, the minimum front yard depth shall be the average of the front yard depths of each of those dwellings. P/CA 62/22 – Part 2 on Exhibit 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 4139/92, to permit: • a maximum lot coverage of 47 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent; • a maximum building height of 9.0 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 7.5 metres; and • a minimum front yard depth of 3.9 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a dwelling unit fronting the same street exists on each lot on either side, the minimum front yard depth shall be the average of the front yard depths of each of those dwellings. The applicant is in the process of severing the property resulting in a total of two lots. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to construct a detached dwelling on each lot. -67- Report P/CA 68/22 & P/CA 69/22 May 11, 2022 Page 2 Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the applications and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the applications with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and 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. Should the Committee find merit in these applications, the following condition is recommended: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7). Background On June 7, 2021, the Region of Durham Land Division Committee approved land severance application LD 065/2021, to permit a severance of the subject lands. The applicant has been working with staff to fulfill the City’s conditions of approval. This includes ensuring any zoning non-compliances are brought into compliance, and the submission of preliminary grading and drainage plans, a tree inventory and protection/removal plan and a stormwater management brief, among other conditions. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Area within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. This designation primarily provides for residential or related uses at a maximum net residential density of over 30 and up to and including 80 units per net hectare. The severance results in a density of approximately 48.4 units per net hectare. 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. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law Lot Coverage – Parts 1 and 2 The intent of the maximum lot coverage of 45 percent is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (for landscaping and amenity areas) uncovered by buildings on a lot. The proposed dwelling accounts for 32 percent of the total coverage, whereas the attached garage accounts for 11 percent and the front porch accounts for 2 percent. The proposed dwellings will provide for sufficient space on the properties left uncovered for landscaping and amenity areas. The dwellings maintain a rear yard setback of 7.5 metres for outdoor activities, and the applicant is proposing soft and hard landscaping in the front yard. -68- Report P/CA 68/22 & P/CA 69/22 May 11, 2022 Page 3 Considering the small size of the lots (approximately 206 square metres each), staff consider the inclusion of an attached garage to be desirable. One vehicle can be parked within each garage, which will reduce the number of cars parked in the front yard. There is no sidewalk along Bayview Street and dwellings are generally located close to the street frontage. A reduction in the number of cars parked in the front yard is preferable for the overall streetscape. The proposed covered front porches will provide weather protection at the main entrance of each dwelling. Building Height – Parts 1 and 2 The intent of the maximum building height of 7.5 metres is to minimize the visual impact of new buildings on the existing streetscape and to ensure new development is compatible with the established built form within the surrounding residential neighbourhood. Within Zoning By-law 2511, building height is measured as the vertical distance between established grade and, for a flat roof, to the highest point of the roof surface, and for a sloped roof, to the mid-point of the roof. Between grade and the highest point of the roof surfaces, the proposed flat roof dwellings are 8.98 metres. In comparison, the sloped roof dwelling located at 1244A Bayview Street is approximately 7.5 metres to the mid-point of the roof, and approximately 8.8 metres to the top of the roof. Similarly, the sloped roof dwellings located at 1251 and 1249 Bayview Street are approximately 8.4 metres to the mid-point of the roofs, and approximately 10.5 metres to the top of the roofs. On the north side of Bayview Street, the dwellings range between one and two-storey dwellings. On the south side of Bayview Street, seven of the nine dwellings are three-storeys, while the other two dwellings are one and two-storeys. The location of the proposed roof top terraces at the front of the dwellings is ideal, as it allows for a large setback of the third floor walls, which reduces the massing of the buildings from the street (see Exhibits 5, 6 & 7). Additionally, the location of the terraces at the front of the dwellings will ensure there is no overlook onto abutting rear yards. The dwellings have also been designed to have no windows along the side dwelling walls, which will further mitigate any overlook impacts on abutting properties (see Exhibits 5 & 6). Front Yard Depth The average front yard depth of the abutting dwellings is 4.25 metres, whereas the proposed dwellings have a front yard depth of approximately 4.3 metres to the wall of the first floor and 3.9 metres to the wall of the second floor. The intent of this provision is to maintain a consistent setback with abutting properties to mitigate views and privacy concerns, and to provide an adequate landscaped area and parking space in the front yards. The walls of the first floor of the dwellings maintain the average front yard depth and are consistent with the established siting pattern along Bayview Street. However, the walls of the second floor overhang and provide the covering for the front porches (see Exhibits 3 & 7). As shown on the site plan, the applicant is proposing soft and hard landscaping in the front yard. -69- Report P/CA 68/22 & P/CA 69/22 May 11, 2022 Page 4 Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Staff consider the proposal to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land as it will intensify an underutilized site. The proposed dwellings are consistent with the established built form along Bayview Street and within the immediate neighbourhood, which consists primarily of detached dwellings, ranging between one, two and three-storeys. Taking into account the design of the buildings and the surrounding built form, staff consider an increase in total lot coverage by 2 percent, an increase in building height by 1.5 metres, and a reduction in the front yard depth by 0.35 metres to be minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant •Ground footprint is 44 percent of site area, second floor cantilever extends coverage to 47 percent requiring variance. The additional square footage on the second floor is required by the client. •Because of the proposed roof top terrace, a flat roof design has been proposed. The roof trop terrace allows front of the building to be 6.4 metres high, well under the 7.5 metres allowed building height. Engineering Services •No comments. Building Services •Building Services do not have any concerns. Public Input •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: May 5, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima (Acting) Planner II Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 68-22 & PCA 69-22 Canaan Canada Developments Ltd\7. Report\PCA 68-22 & PCA 69-22 Report.docx Attachments -70- Browning Avenue Il o n a P a r k R o a d Fa i r v i e w A v e n u e Do u g l a s A v e n u e S t Martins Drive Front Ro a d Commerce Street Bayview Street Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park Location Map File: Applicant: Municipal Address: P/CA 68/22 & P/CA 69/22 Date: Apr. 07, 2022 Exhibit 1 Canaan Canada Developments Ltd. 1240 Bayview Street Subject Lands Frenchman's Bay L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 68-22 & PCA 69-22 Canaan Canada Developments Ltd\PCA68-22_PCA69_22_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,000 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, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -71- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 68 / 2 2 & P / C A 6 9 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Ca n a a n C a n a d a D e v e l o p m e n t s L t d . Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 4 0 B a y v i e w S t r e e t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a m a x i m u m l o t co v e r a g e o f 4 7 pe r c e n t to p e r m i t a m a x i m u m b u i l d i n g he i g h t o f 9 . 0 m e t r e s to fr o n t y a r d d e p t h o f 3. 9 me t r e s p e r m i t a m i n i m u m -72- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d Fr o n t E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 68 / 2 2 & P / C A 6 9 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Ca n a a n C a n a d a D e v e l o p m e n t s L t d . Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 4 0 Ba y v i e w S t r e e t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a m a x i m u m b u i l d i n g he i g h t o f 9 . 0 m e t r e s P/ C A 6 8 / 2 2 – Pa r t 1 P/ C A 6 9/2 2 – Pa r t 2 -73- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d Re a r El e v a t i o n – Pa r t 1 a n d 2 Fi l e N o : P/ C A 68 / 2 2 & P / C A 6 9 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Ca n a a n C a n a d a D e v e l o p m e n t s L t d . Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 4 0 B a y v i e w S t r e e t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 -74- Ex h i b i t 5 Su b m i t t e d We s t S i d e El e v a t i o n – Pa r t 1 a n d 2 Fi l e N o : P/ C A 68 / 2 2 & P / C A 6 9 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Ca n a a n C a n a d a D e v e l o p m e n t s L t d . Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 4 0 B a y v i e w S t r e e t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y OF P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 -75- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d Ea s t Si d e El e v a t i o n – Pa r t 1 a n d 2 Fi l e N o : P/ C A 68 / 2 2 & P / C A 6 9 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Ca n a a n C a n a d a D e v e l o p m e n t s L t d . Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 4 0 B a y v i e w S t r e e t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y OF P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 -76- Ex h i b i t 7 Su b m i t t e d Re n d e r i n g – Pa r t 1 a n d 2 Fi l e N o : P/ C A 68 / 2 2 & P / C A 6 9 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Ca n a a n C a n a d a D e v e l o p m e n t s L t d . Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 4 0 B a y v i e w S t r e e t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 -77- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 70/22 Date: May 11, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 70/22 S. & S. Ahmed 1632 Winville Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7022/10, to permit: • uncovered steps and a platform to be setback a minimum of 0.3 of a metre from an interior side lot line, whereas the By-law requires a covered or uncovered porch, veranda or balcony and with or without a foundation to be setback a minimum of 0.6 of a metre from an interior side lot line The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of an above grade staircase leading to an entrance of an accessory dwelling unit. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and 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. Should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That these variances apply only to the subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates this property as “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. This designation provides for residential uses and uses accessory thereto. -78- Report P/CA 70/22 May 11, 2022 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “S-SD-SA-3” within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7022/10. The intent of the by-law provision to permit uncovered steps and a platform to be setback a minimum of 0.6 of a metre from an interior side lot line is to provide the opportunity for encroachment into the side yard where required while maintaining an adequate buffer space between structures and to accommodate for pedestrian access, and utility and residential services. The applicant is proposing a 0.9 metre by 1.2 metre landing with steps in the east side yard to facilitate steps to an exterior entrance to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The proposed ADU will be in the basement of the existing two-storey dwelling. The steps project 0.9 of a metre from the dwelling and maintain a 0.3 of a metre setback from the side property line. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The side door for the ADU is elevated 0.5 of a metre above grade level requiring steps to safely access the entrance. The proposed platform has an area of 0.9 of a metre by 0.9 of a metre which results in a minor encroachment into the side yard. The proposed platform has a stair crossover design allowing access from the front to rear yards. Input From Other Sources Applicant •The existing by-law requires an interior side yard setback of 0.6 metre whereas 0.34 metres is being provided. Engineering Services •No comments. Building Services •Building Services do not have any concerns. Public Input •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: May 5, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Planner I Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:ld \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 70-22 S. & S. Ahmed\7. Report\PCA 70-22 Report.docx Attachments -79- Ca n a d i a n S t r e e t S c e n i c L a n e D r i v e Ti l l i n g s R o a d Te a k M e w s Spinnaker Mews Shepway Mews Bruny Avenue Winville Road Edgecroft Drive Ca r a v a n M e w s Zents Drive Pe g a s u s M e w s Brandy Court Dusty Drive Location Map File: Applicant: Municipal Address: P/CA 70/22 Date: Apr. 07, 2022 Exhibit 1 S. & S. Ahmed 1632 Winville Road Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 70-22 S. & S. Ahmed\PCA70-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -80- Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 70/22 Applicant: S. & S. Ahmed Municipal Address: 1632 Winville Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN.Date: Apr 21, 2022 to permit uncovered steps and a platform to be setback a minimum of 0.3 of a metre to an interior (east) side lot line -81- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d S i d e ( E a s t ) E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 70 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. & S . A h m e d Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 16 3 2 W i n v i l l e R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 1, 2 0 2 2 -82- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 72/22 Date: May 11, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 72/22 K. & J. Avis 1272 1274 Wharf Street & 595 Annland Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 3179, to: • recognize an existing detached dwelling and three existing accessory buildings on the subject property, and to permit a new accessory building for the storage of a personal boat, whereas a detached dwelling and uses accessory thereto are not listed as a permitted use within the (H)O3B Zone; • permit a new accessory building to be erected and used for the storage of a personal boat, without an amendment to remove the symbol ‘(H)’, whereas the By-law states that prior to an amendment to remove the symbol ‘(H)’ preceding the classification symbol, no new building or structure shall be erected or used in a Holding Zone; • recognize a minimum site area of 0.2 of a hectare, whereas the By-law requires a minimum site area of 0.4 of a hectare; • recognize a minimum site frontage of 6.9 metres along Wharf Street, whereas the By-law requires a minimum site frontage of 30 metres on a public road; • recognize a minimum water frontage of 40 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum water frontage of 45 metres; • recognize three existing accessory buildings erected in the front yard, and to permit a new accessory building for the storage of a personal boat to be erected in the front yard, whereas the By-law states that all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building shall be erected in the rear yard; • recognize an existing accessory structure setback a minimum of 0.4 of a metre from the north lot line, whereas the By-law states that an accessory structure greater than 10 square metres in area shall be setback a minimum of 1.0 metre from all lot lines; and • permit the total lot coverage for all accessory buildings to be 6 percent of the lot area, whereas the By-law states that the total lot coverage of all accessory buildings, excluding private detached garages, shall not exceed 5 percent of the lot area. -83- Report P/CA 72/22 May 11, 2022 Page 2 The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of an accessory structure for the storage of a personal boat. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and 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. Should the Committee find merit in this application, the following conditions are recommended: 1. That these variances apply only to the existing detached dwelling, three existing accessory buildings and proposed new accessory building for the storage of a personal boat, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5). 2. That if the residential use of the property is discontinued, that these variances become null and void. Background Municipal Address: According to City records, the full municipal address of the subject property is “1272 1274 Wharf Street & 595 Annland Street”. City staff do not know why this property has been assigned 3 municipal addresses. The applicant has provided a deed to the City which proves that Lots 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, & 15 and Part 4, as shown on Exhibit 2, are all owned by K. & J. Avis and form a singular property. Easement: An easement has been granted over Lot 13 in favour of the abutting property to the east (1280 Wharf Street). The purpose of the easement is to provide access to the abutting property, which is landlocked. Through Lot: The subject property has frontage onto Wharf Street and Annland Street. As such, the property is considered to be a through lot and has two front yards, which front each street. Purpose of the Application: The purpose of this application is to permit the construction of a new accessory building for the storage of a personal boat. However, through this minor variance application, other zoning non-compliances that existed prior to the By-law are being recognized. Current Storage of the Boat: The applicant has indicated that they currently pay a fee to store their personal boat on a property they do not own. However, they have been asked to stop storing their boat at this property. As such, the applicant wishes to construct a new accessory building for the storage of their personal boat. -84- Report P/CA 72/22 May 11, 2022 Page 3 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Open Space System – Marina Areas” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Existing lawful residential dwellings are a permitted use within the Marina Areas designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law On October 5, 1960, Zoning By-law 2511 was passed by Council, which zoned the subject property and other properties within this area to O3B – Waterfront Zone. On July 11, 1966, Amending By-law 3179 was passed by Council, which rezoned these properties to (H)O3B Zone, making these properties subject to a Holding Symbol. Residential uses are not a permitted use in the (H)O3B Zone. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence to the City that proves that the detached dwelling and residential use of the property have existed prior to the passing of By-law 2511. As such, the residential use of the property is considered to be legal non-conforming. Variance to Recognize Existing Structures and to Permit a New Accessory Building Section 45.2(a)(ii) of the Planning Act states that the Committee of Adjustment, where any land, building or structure, on the day the by-law was passed, was lawfully used for a purpose prohibited by the by-law, may permit the use of such land, building or structure for a purpose that, in the opinion of the committee, is similar to the purpose for which it was used on the day the by-law was passed, if the use for a purpose prohibited by the by-law continued until the date of the application to the committee. The property has been used for residential purposes prior to the passing of By-law 2511. The proposed new building for the storage of a personal boat is accessory to the residential use. In addition, the surrounding land uses are primarily residential. The residential use of the property is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. Variance to Permit a New Accessory Building without Removing the ‘(H)’ Symbol As noted in Amending By-law 3179, the intent of the Holding Symbol is to prevent any permitted marina use, such as a restaurant, parking area, or boat mooring, from occurring until such time as an appropriate design respecting a proposed development has been achieved. The purpose of this application is to recognize the existing legal non-conforming residential use of the property, and to permit the construction of a new accessory building. Through this application, a marina use is not being proposed. As such, staff are of the opinion that a removal of the Holding Symbol is not required to permit a new accessory building to be erected and used for the storage of a personal boat. -85- Report P/CA 72/22 May 11, 2022 Page 4 Variances to Recognize Minimum Site Area and Frontages The purpose of the minimum site area, frontage and water frontage requirement is to ensure a useable lot size that may accommodate a marina use, including parking areas, launching ramps, storage areas, offices, restaurants, retail, etc. The size of the lot is more than sufficient to accommodate the residential use of the property. There is ample amenity space on the property, as shown on Lots 2, 14 and 15 on Exhibit 2. Lot 13 is used solely for the purpose of providing access from Wharf Street to the abutting property to the east. A minimum frontage of 6.9 metres is sufficient to function as a driveway. Variances to Permit the Accessory Buildings in the Front Yard and to Recognize a Setback of 0.4 metres The subject property is considered to be a through lot and has two front yards, which front each street. The intent of these provisions is to maintain a visually attractive front yard and streetscape, and to maintain an adequate separation distance between buildings on a property. Along the Annland Street frontage, a fence is located along the north lot line of Lots 2 and 3. As such, the view of the structures from the front yard and from Annland Street is minimal. At the Wharf Street frontage, Lot 13 is used solely as a driveway for the west abutting lot. A fence and mature vegetation are located along the west lot line of Lot 13. As such, the structures are not visible from Wharf Street. The closest accessory structure is located a minimum of 15 metres from abutting structures on neighbouring properties. Variance to Lot Coverage The intent of the maximum lot coverage is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (for landscaping and amenity areas) uncovered by buildings on a lot. The subject property has a site area of 0.2 of a hectare, which is more than sufficient room for yard space. The applicant uses Lots 2, 14 and 15 as amenity space. In addition, there is various mature landscaping throughout the property. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances will recognize the residential use of the property, which has existed prior to 1960. The purpose of the application is to permit the construction of a new accessory building, which is secondary to the residential use of the property. Through this application, various zoning non-compliances that have existed prior to the By-law will be brought into conformity. Staff consider the requested variances to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land and minor in nature. -86- Report P/CA 72/22 May 11, 2022 Page 5 Input From Other Sources Applicant •No comments. Engineering Services •No comments. Building Services •Building Services do not have any concerns. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) •TRCA staff reviewed the requested variances and they have no impact on TRCA’s policies and programs. As such, TRCA has no objections to the approval of Minor Variance Application No. P/CA 72/22. Public Input •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: May 5, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima (Acting) Planner II Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 72-22 K. & J. Avis\7. Report\PCA 72-22 Report.docx Attachments -87- Broadview Street Annland Street Commerce Street Wharf Street Li v e r p o o l R o a d F r o n t R o a d Pl e a s a n t S t r e e t Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park Location Map File: Applicant: Municipal Address: P/CA 72/22 Date: Apr. 21, 2022 Exhibit 1 K. & J. Avis 1272 1274 Wharf Street & 595 Annland Street Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 72-22 K. & J. Avis\PCA72-22_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. City Development Department -88- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 72/22 Applicant: K. & J. Avis Municipal Address: 1272 1274 Wharf Street & 595 Annland Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.Date: April 21, 2022 to recognize a minimum site area of 0.2 of a hectare to recognize a minimum water frontage of 40 metres to recognize three existing accessory buildings erected in the front yard, and to permit a new accessory building for the storage of a personal boat to be erected in the front yard to permit a new accessory building to be erected and used for the storage of a personal boat, without an amendment to remove the symbol ‘(H)’ to recognize an existing detached dwelling and three existing accessory buildings on the subject property, and to permit a new accessory building for the storage of a personal boat to recognize a minimum site frontage of 6.9 metres along Wharf Street to recognize an existing accessory structure setback a minimum of 0.4 of a metre from the north lot line to permit the total lot coverage for all accessory buildings to be 6 percent of the lot area -89- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d Fr o n t E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 72 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. & J . A v i s Mu n i c i p a l A dd r e s s : 12 7 2 12 7 4 W ha r f St r e e t & 59 5 A n n l a n d S t r e e t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 -90- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d Re a r El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 72 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. & J . A v i s Mu n i c i p a l A dd r e s s : 12 7 2 12 7 4 W ha r f St r e e t & 59 5 A n n l a n d S t r e e t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 -91- Exhibit 5 Submitted West & East Side Elevations File No: P/CA 72/22 Applicant: K. & J. Avis Municipal Address: 1272 1274 Wharf Street & 595 Annland Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.Date: April 21, 2022 -92- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 73/22 Date: May 11, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 73/22 M. Charles & M. Boivin 1368 Gull Crossing Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-law 7528/16, to permit a balcony to encroach into the required rear yard to a maximum of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law permits a porch or uncovered deck to encroach into any required rear yard to a maximum of 2.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the construction of a balcony. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and 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 conditions. Should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1.That this variance apply only to the balcony, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates the property as “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended for residential uses such as townhouse dwellings and uses accessory thereto. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The MD-H12 zone permits porches and uncovered decks to encroach into any required rear yard to a maximum of 2.0 metres. The By-law is silent on rear yard balcony projections as it relates to townhouse dwellings. -93- Report P/CA 73/22 May 11, 2022 Page 2 The intent of the provision to permit a porch or uncovered platform to encroach a maximum of 2.0 metres into the required rear yard is to ensure an adequate outdoor private amenity area is provided within the rear yard, appropriate setbacks are provided to protect the privacy of abutting owners, and to provide appropriate access for maintenance, lot grading and drainage. The proposed balcony will exceed the minimum rear yard setback requirement of 7.5 metres by 1.3 metres. The proposed balcony is uncovered and will be approximately 4.5 metres above grade. The requirement for the 4.5 metre height is to facilitate access through the rear sliding doors on the second floor of the four-storey townhouse. Since the projection is less than the 2.0 metre encroachment provision allowable for uncovered porch or platforms, there will be limited impacts to the privacy of the neighbouring townhouse dwellings. There will be minimal impacts on the lot maintenance, grading, and drainage. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed balcony will enhance the usable amenity space in the rear yard of the property. As previously mentioned, the requested encroachment is less than the 2.0 metre encroachment permissible through the zoning provision which addresses rear yard uncovered porches and decks. If the proposed structure included direct access (ie. stairs) from the platform to the rear yard, it would not require a variance as it would be considered a porch or deck complying with the maximum 2.0 metre encroachment provision. The zoning noncompliance is a function of the structure being a balcony with no access to grade. Input From Other Sources Applicant •Zoning By-law provision does not include rear yard balcony encroachment. Engineering Services •No comments on the application. Building Services •Building Services do not have any concerns. Public Input •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: May 4, 2022 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Planner II Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:jc \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 73-22 M. Charles & M. Boivin\7. Report\PCA 73-22 Report.docx Attachments -94- Li v e r p o o l R o a d Foxglove Avenue Gu l l C r o s s i n g Ilona Park Road Commerce Street He w s o n D r i v e Broadview Street Frenchman's Bay Rate Payers Memorial Park Location Map File: Applicant: Municipal Address: P/CA 73/22 Date: Apr. 21, 2022 Exhibit 1 M. Charles & M. Boivin 1368 Gull Crossing Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 73-22 M. CharlesM. Boivin\PCA73-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:1,500 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. City Development Department -95- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d P l a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 73 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : M. C h a r l e s & M . B o i v i n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 13 68 G u l l C r o s s i n g Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 6 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a b a l c o n y t o e n c r o a c h in t o t h e r e q u i r e d r e a r y a r d t o a ma x i m u m o f 1 . 3 me t r e s -96- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d E l e v a t i o n s Fi l e N o : P/ C A 73 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : M. C h a r l e s & M . B o i v i n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 13 6 8 G u l l C r o s s i n g Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g Ci t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : A p r i l 2 6 , 2 0 2 2 Pr o p o s e d R e a r E l e v a t i o n Pr o p o s e d S i d e E l e v a t i o n -97- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 74/22 Date: May 11, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 74/22 C. Macaluso 1525 Kodiak Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06: •to permit an accessory structure (shed) to be located less than 30 metres from the base of the outermost tree trunks within a woodland (Significant Woodlands), whereas the By-law requires all buildings or structures to be located a minimum of 30 metres from the base of the outermost tree trunks within a woodland (Significant Woodlands); •to permit a proposed accessory building (shed) measuring 22.3 square metres in area, whereas the By-law requires no accessory buildings and/or structures to exceed 10 square metres in area; and •to permit a maximum lot coverage of 15 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 10 percent. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a shed, pergola, and to extend an existing cabana. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, The City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and 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. Should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1.That these variances apply only to the existing detached dwelling, proposed and existing accessory structures (shed, pergola, and cabana) as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). -98- Report P/CA 74/22 May 11, 2022 Page 2 Background The subject property is located within the Oak Ridges Moraine. The City’s Site Plan Control 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, City Development, has waived the requirement for a site plan application for this proposal as the detailed environmental review has been undertaken and completed, confirmed through the issuance of a permit from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) dated April 12, 2022. 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 and ORM-R6-3 within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06. Buffer from Significant Woodlands Variance The intent for all buildings or structures to be located a minimum of 30 metres 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 ecological life or property associated with natural hazards, such as erosion and to protect natural heritage features. TRCA’s Natural Heritage Review confirmed 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 required throughout construction to ensure no ecological impacts will occur. Therefore, the proposed variance to permit the proposed shed to be located less than 30 metres from the base of the outermost tree trunks within a woodland (Significant Woodlands) maintain the intent of the zoning by-law. Accessory Building Variance The applicant has requested variances to permit a proposed accessory building (shed) measuring 22.3 square metres in area. 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 0.3 hectares (3,050.5 square -99- Report P/CA 74/22 May 11, 2022 Page 3 metres), which provides for sufficient space to support the proposed accessory buildings. The proposed shed will occupy a minimal portion of the property and has been sited to the satisfaction of the TRCA. Lot Coverage The existing dwelling was constructed prior to the enactment of the Oak Ridges Moraine Act and implementation of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan into Zoning By-law 3037. Zoning By-law 6640/06 provided text and schedule amendments to bring Zoning By-law 3037 into conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Prior to 2006, the existing dwelling was zoned “R6” and conformed with the total lot coverage. This variance to lot coverage is to recognize a maximum total lot coverage of 15 percent for all covered structures on the lot. The intent of this provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (amenity area) uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of the building. It appears that there will be sufficient amount of yard space. As shown on the overall site plan, adequate amenity space is preserved throughout this proposal. 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 accessory structure (shed), pergola, and the cabana extension pose no adverse impacts to the adjacent natural features. The location of the proposed development is setback considerably from the street, and adequately from the natural area. 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, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By- law, and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • No comments on the application. Building Services • Building Services do not have any concerns. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • TRCA staff reviewed the requested variances and they have no impact on TRCA’s policies and programs. As such, TRCA has no objections to the approval of Minor Variance Application P/CA 74/22. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. -100- Report P/CA 74/22 May 11, 2022 Page 4 Date of report: May 5, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Planner I Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:ld j\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 74-22\7. Report\PCA 74-22Report.dox Attachments -101- Si d e l i n e 2 0 Ninth Concession Road Ca r p e n t e r C o u r t Acorn L a n e Kodiak S t r e e t Central Street Location Map File: Applicant: Municipal Address: P/CA 74/22 Date: Apr. 22, 2022 Exhibit 1 C. & S. Macaluso 1525 Kodiak Street Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 74-22 C. & S. Macaluso\PCA74-22_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. City Development Department -102- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 74 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : C. M a c a l u s o Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 15 2 5 K o d i a k S t r e e t Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 7 , 2 0 2 2 Kodiak Street to p e r m i t a n a c c e s s o r y s t r u c t u r e t o b e lo c a t e d l e s s t h a n 3 0 me t r e s f r o m t h e ba s e o f t h e o u t e r m o s t t r e e t r u n k s w i t h i n a wo o d l a n d ( S i g n i f i c a n t W o o d l a n d s ) to p e r m i t a p r o p o s e d ac c e s s o r y b u i l d i n g (S h e d ) m e a s u r i n g 2 2 . 3 sq u a r e m e t r e s i n a r e a to p e r m i t a m a x i m u m l o t co v e r a g e o f 1 5 % -103- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 75/22 Date: May 11, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 75/22 K. Brown 4984 Canso Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit an accessory dwelling unit with a maximum floor area of 147 square metres, whereas the By-law establishes the maximum floor area of an accessory dwelling unit shall be 100 square metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit an accessory dwelling unit. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and 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. Should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1.That this variance apply only to the subject lands, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The property is designated “Rural Settlements – Oak Ridges Moraine Rural Hamlets” within the Official Plan. Lands within this designation allow for residential uses such as detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto. Growth potential is limited to redevelopment and infilling. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the by-law provision for a maximum floor area of 100 square metres for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is to ensure that any ADU remains incidental to the primary dwelling unit. -104- Report P/CA 75/22 May 11, 2022 Page 2 The proposed ADU will be facilitated through an addition to the existing two-storey detached dwelling. The ground floor area will be expanded by approximately 35 square metres, representing a 0.84 percent increase to the total lot coverage, to facilitate a secondary entrance, a foyer, and stairs to access the proposed second storey ADU. The remainder of the addition is an extension of the existing second storey of the dwelling over the existing first floor of the dwelling (see Exhibits 3, 4, 5 & 6, Building Elevations). The applicant indicates that the noncompliance is a result of the inclusion of a second bedroom in the ADU. The proposed addition represents a gentle increase to the overall massing of the existing dwelling. It maintains the look of a single wholly enclosed detached dwelling, and complies with all other by-law provisions. For these reasons, the proposed ADU will remain incidental to the primary dwelling unit. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed increase in maximum permitted floor area for an ADU is to facilitate a second bedroom within the proposed unit. The addition has been designed to blend in architecturally with the existing detached dwelling, and the appearance of a single detached dwelling will be maintained. Sufficient parking spaces are provided for in front of the detached dwelling. The proposed maximum floor area increase is appropriate development of the land and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant •The existing by-law restrictions are not conducive for a two bedroom apartment. Engineering Services •No comments on the application. Building Services •Building Services do not have any concerns. Public Input •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: May 4, 2022 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Planner II Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:ld \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 75-22 K. Brown\7. Report\PCA 75-22 Report.docx Attachments -105- Central Street Br o c k R o a d Do w S t r e e t Wi l l i a m S t r e e t Victoria Street Bovingdon Place A c o r n L a n e Ca r p e n t e r C o u r t Ca n s o D r i v e Claremont Memorial Park Claremont Public School Location Map File: Applicant: Municipal Address: P/CA 75/22 Date: Apr. 22, 2022 Exhibit 1 K. Brown 4984 Canso Drive Subject Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 75-22 K. Brown\PCA75-22_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. City Development Department -106- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d P l a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 7 5 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. B r o w n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 49 8 4 C a n s o D r i v e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 6 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t an a c c e s s o r y d w e l l i n g u n i t w i t h a ma x i m u m f l o o r a r e a o f 1 4 7 s q u a r e m e t r e s -107- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d F r o n t E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 7 5 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. B r o w n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 49 8 4 C a n s o D r i v e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 6 , 2 0 2 2 -108- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d R e a r El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 7 5 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. B r o w n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 49 8 4 C a n s o D r i v e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 6 , 2 0 2 2 -109- Ex h i b i t 5 Su b m i t t e d S o u t h S i d e E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 7 5 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. B r o w n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 49 8 4 C a n s o D r i v e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 6 , 2 0 2 2 -110- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d N o r t h S i d e E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 7 5 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. B r o w n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 49 8 4 C a n s o D r i v e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : A p r i l 2 6 , 2 0 2 2 -111- Ex h i b i t 7 Su b m i t t e d F l o o r P l a n s ( M a i n F l o o r ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 7 5 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. B r o w n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 49 8 4 C a n s o D r i v e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s Pl a n . Da t e : M a y 5 , 2 0 2 2 -112- Ex h i b i t 8 Su b m i t t e d F l o o r P l a n s ( S e c o n d F l o o r ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 7 5 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. B r o w n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 49 8 4 C a n s o D r i v e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s Pl a n . Da t e : M a y 5 , 2 0 2 2 -113-