Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 9, 2022Committee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Number: 10 Date: Wednesday, November 9, 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, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number 1. Disclosure of Interest 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from October 12, 2022 1-20 4. Reports 4.1 (Deferred at the October 12, 2022 Hearing) P/CA 120/22 S. Chowdhury & S. Masrin 21-26 1969 Woodview Avenue 4.2 P/CA 121/22 M. Yousaf-Zai & L. Amiri 27-31 1935 Lodge Road 4.3 P/CA 123/22 C. Leadbetter & K. Metcalfe 32-40 1290 Commerce Street 4.4 P/CA 124/22 Met-Star Holdings Limited 41-47 1211 Kingston Road 4.5 P/CA 125/22 to P/CA 127/22 J. Mauch 48-54 1235 Radom Street, Units 17, 83 & 88 4.6 P/CA 128/22 P. Cummins 55-67 1796 Fairport Road 4.7 P/CA 129/22 R. Subbian & K. & T. Rajasekar 68-73 1256 Barnwood Square 4.8 P/CA 130/22 Joriki Holdings Inc. 74-80 885 Sandy Beach Road 5. Adjournment Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 20 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Isabel Lima, Planner II Kerry Yelk, Planner I Ziya Cao, Planner I Absent Denise Rundle 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. To avoid a tie vote, David Johnson, Chair, will abstain from voting on the applications. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, October 12, 2022 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 8th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, September 14, 2022 be adopted. Carried Unanimously -1- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 20 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 114/22 Pickering Islamic Center 2071 Brock Road Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 114/22 by Pickering Islamic Center be lifted from the table. Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6578/05, to permit: • 3 accessory buildings (portables) on a lot without a main building, whereas the By- law states that “accessory building” shall mean a subordinate building, or structure on the same lot with the main building, or a part of the main building, devoted exclusively to an accessory use; • 3 accessory buildings (portables) which are not part of the main building 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; • accessory buildings (portables) to be setback a minimum of 0.0 metres from the east lot line and 0.5 metres from the south lot line, whereas the By-law states that accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area shall be setback a minimum of 1.0 metre from all lot lines; and • 3 accessory buildings (portables) with a total lot coverage of 6 percent, whereas the By-law states that the total lot coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 5 percent of the lot area. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the temporary storage of 3 portables on the subject property. 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 was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section, Pickering Ward 3 Regional Councillor and Pickering Ward 1 Regional Councillor. -2- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 20 Mohammed Rahim, President, Pickering Islamic Center, Kazim Qureshi, Trustee, Pickering Islamic Center, Nazakat Hussain, Trustee, Pickering Islamic Center and Bob Martindale, Planning Consultant, were present to represent the application. Two area residents were present in objection to the application. Bob Martindale, Planning Consultant, stated he joined the application one month ago to assist the applicant in lifting the application from the table and to answer questions that were raised from the last hearing. Zahira Khan, area resident, raised the following questions: how does the Pickering Islamic Center plan on maintaining the storage units; will regular fire inspections be conducted considering flammable items are proposed to be stored in the units; if the conditions are not being adhered to where do residents phone to make an enquiry and what are the steps the City takes in those cases; and how does the City and the Islamic Center plan on addressing parking concerns on the adjacent streets resulting from overflow of parking and the loss on site parking spaces. Abbas Ishaque, area resident, stated the following concerns: parking is an issue for the residents on adjacent streets, especially on Fridays and any major event; safety for children using the existing playground; overnight parking of trucks; City enforcement of the parking infractions on the adjacent streets; the ability of emergency vehicles to access the neighbourhood; nature of items to be stored in the three portables and what is the timeline of the storage of the portables. The Secretary-Treasurer clarified the variance before the Committee is for the storage on the site of the accessory structures (portables); the structures would not have a use. Using the accessory structures for storage of anything would not be a permitted use. Through the zoning application that is currently before the City, there has been a request for a parking study, and the proposal does propose a parking structure on the site. Kazim Qureshi, Trustee, Pickering Islamic Center, indicated the portables will only be stored on the site until the zoning bylaw amendment has been completed and will not be used for storage purposes. When the Islamic Center was constructed there were no other developments along that stretch of Brock Road, past Finch Avenue. Parking is only an issue on Fridays. In order to alleviate parking issues the mosque holds three separate services instead of just one. Our service has also been divided due to other mosques opening in Whitby and Ajax. The population of Muslims in Durham is increasing and they are working with municipalities in order to build more places of worship. They invite the City to ticket on Fridays. Parking is not permitted on the existing playground on the property. An approved fire and emergency plan is in place which prohibited the installation of a fence in front of the mosque. The mosque rents alternate locations for parking including a church to the north, and the Dellbrook plaza. -3- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 20 Other facilities are rented where services held in order to split the amount of people between the other facilities. In response to questions from a Committee member, Kazim Qureshi, confirmed the portables will not be used for storage or occupancy unless the zoning bylaw amendment has been approved. They are aware of Condition 4., and are prepared to meet the conditions. Tom Copeland, Assistant-Chair, stated when the application was heard a month ago the representation was made that there is a school on the site of the Islamic Center. It was noted that should the application be approved and there is any type of usage of the portables for school purposes, this application will become null and void. Sean Wiley, Committee member, encourages the applicant to consider everything they are hearing on this application with respect to their application to make use of the portables in the future and/or to build a permanent school onsite. There are many comments from your neighbours in regards to traffic and parking and once the portables are put to use there will be further traffic from school buses and parents picking up/dropping off children. After reading the staff report, listening to the applicant and the agent’s comments, as well as those of the neighbours, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 114/22 by Pickering Islamic Center, 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 3 accessory buildings (portables), 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 October 12, 2022). 2. That the 3 accessory buildings (portables) have no use and no occupancy or the approval of these variances becomes null and void. 3. That the applicant obtain a Building Permit for the placement of the 3 accessory structures (portables) on the subject property. 4. That the applicant obtain Council’s approval of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/16 within 1 year of approval of Minor Variance Application P/CA 114/22, or this decision becomes null and void, and the 3 accessory structures (portables) are no longer permitted to be stored on the subject property and must be removed. Carried Unanimously -4- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 20 4.2 P/CA 110/22 E. & M. Sameem 846 Taplin Drive (Part 1) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 7874/21 & 7902/22 to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 3.25, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a minimum (east) side yard of 2.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 2.4 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 5.5 percent for all accessory structures, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 5 percent for all accessory structures; and • a maximum driveway width of 15.43 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum driveway width of 6.0 metres The applicant requests approval of this application in order to recognize a detached dwelling on a retained property. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and Pickering Ward 2 City Councillor. In support of the application, the applicant identified this minor variance application is required to satisfy the conditions of Land Severance Application LD 103/21. Leon Efraim, agent and Mojib Sameem, applicant, were present to represent the application. Three area residents were present to question the application. Martin Lavoie, area resident, is located across the street from the applicant and questioned the following: what is the ultimate purpose of the application, and what is the rationale to widen the driveway to 15.0 metres. In response to the question, Leon Efraim, agent, clarified the goal is to sever a lot and retain a lot with the existing dwelling, subject to the approval of the requested minor variances. It is likely the severed lot will have a single family dwelling built on that lot in the future. Such dwelling will be subject to all permitting and bylaw requirements of the City and should not disrupt and create any differences to the remaining residents. -5- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 20 The requested variance regarding driveway width is at the behest of the City as the City has some requirements to ensure the driveway is satisfactory for a single-family dwelling. It was recommended that 15.43 metres would be an appropriate size for the driveway. It is not intended to create a driveway for multiple vehicles or multi-family residential unit. It will remain a single-family dwelling with appropriately sized parking space. Lana Sokolova, area resident, raised the following: in the proposal, the language being used for parking in front of the proposed building is concerning because she does not call the space in front of her home parking, when you couple it with a 15.5 metre wide driveway makes them worried about the purpose of the building; when the applicant purchased the lot at 846 Taplin Drive many mature trees were cut down, are there plans to remove more trees. Leon Efraim, agent, reiterated the purpose will be a single-family dwelling. The size of the driveway is at the request of the City. His clients and owners would have preferred to keep the driveway as it was but they are asked to amend the size of the driveway by the City. There is no intention of building a multi-family property. Any trees that were removed were done at the behest of the City. An environmental report was requested with respect to the trees on the lot and a plan was put in place. Anything that was removed also included the planting of and the addition of trees to replace any trees that may have been removed. However, nothing was removed at his client’s whim. The Secretary-Treasurer clarified that in support of the severance application that went before the Land Division Committee, which has been approved conditionally, a tree preservation plan would have been required and circulated to the City for comments. The tree preservation plan would include an inventory of the existing trees on the site and a plan identifying the trees proposed to be removed to accommodate a new structure on the property. The City would identify whether or not that information is correct and whether or not the trees they are proposing to remove is appropriate. Mojib Sameem, applicant, stated a tree consultant was hired for the tree preservation plan and would like the front trees removed. However, a lot of trees at the rear will remain. James spoke on behalf of Edmund Goncalves, an area resident, stating the following: Ed and his family have lived here for over 30 years and they did notice the trees going down, those 150 year old trees are irreplaceable; why are some homes allowed to be built closer to the road, what makes this lot exceptional; and they are concerned with the size and width of the driveway. Leon Efraim, agent, clarified they are not asking to move the house closer to the road. Because of the severance and changes to the bylaw, the existing house is no longer in compliance with zoning. The variance being sought is required for existing dwelling. -6- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 20 Any new structure on the severed lot will be built within the bylaws and codes of the City. It is impossible now to change the exiting dwelling’s footprint. No one is seeking to tear down the existing structure. The retained lot will stay as is, the variances being sought are to allow the existing house to remain. Anyone seeking to tear it down will have to seek the approval of the City. In response to questions from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer confirmed the maneuvering space shown on the drawing within the boulevard is not a permitted parking space. Should a vehicle be parked there it will be subject to ticketing from Bylaw Enforcement. The remainder of the boulevard area would be treated as the City treats any other boulevard area. In response to questions from Committee members, Leon Efraim, confirmed the maneuvering space is not a parking space and only one parking space at the front of the dwelling is being requested. His clients are agreeable to landscaping/maintaining the space in front of the maneuvering space. The existing parking is located at the front of the lot to the right of the front porch. The applicant does not live at the property and the property is vacant. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer clarified the black block with the wording “Existing Dwelling” on Exhibit 2 is a label and not a structure on the lot. The existing structure is larger than the black label and is the outline that has the hatching inside the outline. The existing parking is at the rear of the property with a driveway going up the easterly side of the dwelling. With the severance, the new lot line goes through the driveway. In response to a question from a Committee member, Leon Efraim, stated there is only one living unit on the property and is a single-family dwelling. After having the opportunity to visit the site it is noted that this is a unique parking situation. The solution has been well presented and validated by a traffic mobility study concerning the maneuvering of a vehicle. The applicant is aware the maneuvering space is not a parking spot and is subject to ticketing should parking occur there, neighbours could call Bylaw should they see any parking there. Satisfied that the space in front of the driveway will be maintained and landscaped, and that the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 110/22/22 by E. & M. Sameem, 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: -7- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 20 1. That the variances apply only to the proposed retained lot (Part 1), and existing dwelling 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 October 12, 2022). 2. That the variances apply only to the existing dwelling and should the existing dwelling be demolished, a new dwelling is subject to the zoning bylaw applicable at that time, and that the variance permitting a minimum front yard setback of 3.25 metres would not apply to a new dwelling. Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 115/22 R. McGee 2366 Canterbury Crescent The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4365/93, to permit: • an uncovered steps or platform (deck with steps) not exceeding 2.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.8 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the Bylaw 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 of a metre in any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the reconstruction of an uncovered rear deck. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified the deck age is unsafe and needing replacement to provide access to the rear yard due to grade change. Spencer Joy, 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, Spencer Joy, agent, explained the new replacement deck will be a little bigger than the original footprint and the orientation will change slightly to create a little more space up top but still provide access to the ground. -8- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 20 After hearing from the agent and reviewing staff’s recommendation, Eric Newton moved the following: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 115/22 by R. Mc, 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 uncovered rear deck and steps, 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 October 12, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 116/22 A. Rodrigues & L. Castelino 1950 Liverpool Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum north side yard of 0.8 of a metre where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, 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 maximum driveway width of 22 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum width of a driveway shall be 6.0 metres; and • a maximum lot coverage of 28 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a second storey addition and extension of the existing dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval of the requested variances to permit a minimum north side yard of 0.8 of a metre where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling and a maximum lot coverage of 28 percent subject to conditions and refusal of the requested variance to permit a maximum driveway width of 22 metres. -9- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 20 Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. Marieflor Ganigan, agent, and Alex Rodrigues, applicant was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, Marieflor Ganigan, agent, explained the owner’s intention for the proposed driveway width is for safety reasons. Backing out on Liverpool Road is a challenge for them every day, especially during rush hour in the mornings and afternoons. Liverpool Road is a regional road and has a maximum speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. However, based on their observations most cars are driving above the speed limit. They understand staff’s concerns to maintain the character of the street and to have sufficient drainage, in this case perhaps permeable pavers in the driveway and provide generous landscaping in the front where the half circle is located. In support of the application, Alex Rodrigues, applicant, explained safety is his number one concern. Every morning he has to go north on Liverpool Road to drop his daughter and he has to reverse into two lanes going north and south and it is a very dangerous maneuver. He tries to avoid that by reverse parking in the night but during the days he still has to pick her up and make that maneuver. Liverpool Road is a busy road and people rarely drive 50 kilometres per hour. There is also a street on the side called Anton Square, so he has that to be mindful of when pulling out of his driveway as well as pedestrians and north and south traffic. These obstacles compound in the winter with snowbanks. In the report his driveway proposal is described as 32.0 metres and that is not what is being requested. His entire lot is 24 metres, he is not proposing his entire frontage be a driveway. The current width is 5.0 metres and that is in keeping with the garage, it is not proposed to extend the garage. It will remain approximately 5.0 metres and the request is to be able to enter and exit the property safely. This is a double lot, it is 84 square metres in width and he believes there is sufficient space to do that with landscaping and permeable pavers. The proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood as his neighbours have wide driveways with U-shaped driveways. He is willing to work with his neighbours and Council to find a good solution. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer confirmed discussions with the applicant took place explaining it was difficult for staff to support this proposal and could they look at some other driveway arrangement and design within the property to allow a vehicle to turn around and exit the property. Staff had also indicated concern with the amount of asphalt in the front yard and the impact to storm drainage. In response to questions from Committee members, Marieflor Ganigan, agent, stated they would consider permeable pavers to assist with the drainage of stormwater. Since the half circle is in the middle and can provide nice landscaping there. -10- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 20 In response to questions from a Committee member, Alex Rodrigues, applicant, clarified the entire width was calculated as his driveway because of the U shape. However the middle of the U will not be paved, he is requesting around 5.0 metres going in and 5.0 metres on the other side to exit. There is a high school north on Liverpool Road and traffic is very high, in general traffic has become worse over the past months. All his neighbours have driveways wider than 5.0 to 6.0 metres. After having an opportunity to visit the site, there is an amount of concern for safety even just trying to pull over on that road. While traffic is steady on Liverpool Road it is understandable to have difficulty when backing out into that traffic. Both dwellings to the north and south have very wide, rectangular driveways. The driveway to the south is approximately 16.0 metres, plus additional landscaping that made it bigger in some areas. the position of City Development Department is understood, however it is believed that the streetscape will be enhanced by the proposed approach. On that basis, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 116/22 by A. Rodrigues & L. Castelino, 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 the variances to the north side yard and lot coverage 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 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated October 12, 2022). 2. That the proposed driveway be constructed as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated October 12, 2022), and the driveway be constructed with permeable pavers to the satisfaction of City Engineering Services, and that the applicant provide generous landscaping in the front yard. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland opposed Eric Newton in favour Sean Wiley in favour -11- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 20 4.5 P/CA 117/22 C. Boyce 734A Krosno Boulevard The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit interior side yard setbacks of 0.6 of a metre to the west and east side lot lines for a third-storey addition, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 6.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a third-storey addition to an existing townhouse. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to conditions. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and five area residents. In support of the application, Christine Boyce, the applicant identified the following: • The current By-law 2520 and RM2 zoning does not recognize side yard setbacks for individual townhomes, rather than the block townhomes as a whole. Hence, I am requesting allowance for a 0.6 metre side yard setback on both sides. • My revised drawings, along with a 0.6 metre setback rectifies concerns addressed by City staff and adjoining neighbours at the previous Committee of Adjustment Hearing; allows for construction and maintenance/repairs to be done solely within my property lines; drainage would remain as is (exterior downspouts would remain in the same position along house); and no visual impact from rear adjoining neighbours, etc. Christine Boyce, applicant, was present to represent the application. Three area residents were present in objection to the application. In support of the application, Christine Boyce, applicant, about a year ago had submitted a minor variance application where she requested a 0.0 side yard setback to construct a rear addition. At that meeting City staff raised concerns regarding ease of access to any maintenance and repairs to the addition, as well as drainage issues. Her neighbours attended that meeting and raised the same concerns the City had along with the concerns that a rear addition would hinder or obstruct their view when in their rear yards. Since that meeting the proposal has been revised to address all the concerns raised at the previous meeting. -12- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 20 The report from the City indicates there are no concerns to the side yard setback of 0.6 of a metre as it allows for the maintenance and construction and repairs solely within the property. The drainage will remain as is, and the drawings have been rectified to ensure there are no visual impact from the rear for her neighbours. Martina Tojcic, area resident, stated the following in objection to the application: her parents have owned 734 Krosno Boulevard since 1999 and they are attached to the west side of 734A Krosno Boulevard; the addition is inappropriate for the style of the dwelling as it is a townhouse that is attached from the west and east ends to other townhouses; the third storey addition would make the entire block of townhouses look awkward and will decrease the real estate value of the houses; not confident the construction will be contained within her property when there will be less than 2.0 feet of space or without damage to other properties; would not want to comprise the integrity of the shared chimney or the foundation of her townhouse; and there will be further damage caused to immediate neighbours from weather conditions due to the uniforme rooftops. Nadine Sinclair, area resident, stated the following in objection to the application: the addition will be an eyesore and will greatly impact the streetscape; load of the foundation considering it is so old, the foundation was built for a two-story townhome not ever intending to add a third story; concern on the lateral load on an existing building and the impact on the immediately connected neighbours and the whole block; and concerned with how they will safely erect a vertical build with labour and machinery without trespassing on other properties. Richard Funnell, area resident, stated the following in objection to the application original owner of 736 Krosno Boulevard and is a direct neighbour of the subject property; concerned with the integrity of the roofs during severe weather; the addition will look ridiculous; privacy will be compromised; and these homes were not built for a third storey addition. In response to questions from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer explained that should this be approved, the applicant will need to satisfy both Building Services and Engineering Services according to the Ontario Building Code. If the applicant requires to share the load of the third story with adjoining neighbours they will be required to receive consent from the respective owners. In response to questions from Committee members, Christine Boyce, applicant, explained 0.6 metres is being requested to coincide with newer City of Pickering bylaws where a 1.2 metre setback between the two exterior walls is required, 0.6 metres on each property. -13- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 20 In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer, confirmed for townhouses that do not share a common wall a 1.2 metre side yard is required from the exterior walls. In response to questions from Committee members, Christine Boyce, applicant, explained this design was her alternate idea as her first minor variance application that proposed the addition be erected from the rear of her townhome was refused, which would have been caused less of an impact on the streetscape. These townhomes are located in Bay Ridges which is a drastically changing neighbourhood. Most newer townhomes in the area have three storeys. Nowadays many townhouses do not have the same roofline. In efforts to keep the addition uniform the same siding will be used, and the roof pitch will be the same. The height of the extension is 8 feet, which is below the requirements. Richard Funnell, area resident, stated even with the first proposal being erected from the rear of the townhome there still would have been an impact to the streetscape. After reading the City Development Department’s report, listening to the many neighbours who have provided comments and the applicant’s responses and consideration to create less of an impact on the streetscape, the requested addition remains undesirable to the development of the land. Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 117/22 by C. Boyce, 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 Vote: Tom Copeland in favour Eric Newton opposed Sean Wiley in favour -14- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 20 4.6 P/CA 118/22 B. Brissenden & L. Leggett 1661 Henry Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 22 percent for an addition to the existing dwelling, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 20 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling, including the construction of an attached private garage with living space on the second floor. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified there will not be enough living space available above the garage if they lose any more area. Abbey Steele, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Abbey Steele, agent, explained the applicant would like to add a secondary unit above a garage addition. If they make the addition any smaller there is no way they can fit the living space they need up there. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer, confirmed an accessory dwelling unit is a permitted use within the zoning bylaw. After reading the staff report, listening to the applicant and given there are no objections to this application Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 118/22 by B. Brissenden & L. Leggett, 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: -15- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 20 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed addition to the existing 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 October 12, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 119/22 N. Thapa 1204 Gloucester Square The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 0889/78 to permit: • a minimum rear yard setback of 6.6 metres for a residential semi-detached dwelling, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres for a residential semi-detached dwelling. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the submission of an application for building permit to permit the construction of a sunroom addition to an existing semi-detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified it does not comply with rear yard setback. Mark Carlo Santana, agent, and Narendra Thapa, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After reviewing the staff recommendation and considering all comments from agencies, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley -16- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 17 of 20 That application P/CA 119/22 by N. Thapa, 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 a condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the semi-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 October 12, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 120/22 S. Chowdhury & S. Marin 1969 Woodview Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7389/14, to permit: • an uncovered platform (balcony) not exceeding 3.3 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.7 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By- law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.5 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.0 metres into the required rear yard; and • a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered platform (balcony). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend deferral for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to confirm if the proposal satisfies TRCA policies or previous agreements. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section and Pickering Ward 2 City Councillor. In support of the application, the applicant identified they are seeking to extend an existing balcony. Shakawat Chowdhury, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. -17- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 18 of 20 Shakawat Chowdhury, applicant, stated he is willing to have his application heard at the November 9, 2022 hearing and hopes it is resolved then so that construction may be completed this year. Considering staff’s recommendation, agency comments and the applicant agreeing to have his application deferred to the following hearing, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 120/22 by S. Chowdhury & S. Marin, be Deferred for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to confirm if the proposal satisfies TRCA policies or previous agreements. Carried Unanimously 4.9 P/CA 122/22 Z. Malam & S. Sayany 2177 Saffron Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7384/14, to permit: • an uncovered balcony with a minimum setback to the rear lot line of 4.3 metres, whereas the By-law permits a covered or unenclosed porch, veranda or balcony, with or without a foundation, may have the minimum setback to the rear lot line of 5.0 metres; and • a covered deck of any height in the rear yard provided minimum setbacks are provided, whereas the By-law permits uncovered decks of any height in the rear yard provided minimum setbacks are provided. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered balcony and covered deck in the rear yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to conditions. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. -18- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 19 of 20 In support of the application, the applicant identified there is a technical error in the Zoning By-law. We are trying to build an uncovered balcony and covered deck, whereas the zoning bylaws only apply to a covered balcony and an uncovered deck. In addition, the proposed structure does not meet the setback requirements from the rear property line. Salman Sayany and Zeenat Malam, applicants, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Based on the staff report, there being no objections and reading all the material following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 122/22 by Z. Malam & S. Sayany, 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 uncovered rear balcony and covered rear deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated October 12, 2022). 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed. Carried Unanimously Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the 9th hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 9:08 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, November 9, 2022. Carried Unanimously -19- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 20 of 20 Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer -20- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 120/22 Date: November 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 120/22 S. Chowdhury & S. Masrin 1969 Woodview Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7389/14, to permit: •an uncovered platform (balcony) not exceeding 3.3 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.7 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered decks, platforms and steps not exceeding 1.5 metres in height above grade may encroach a maximum of 3.0 metres into the required rear yard; and •a maximum lot coverage of 42.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered platform (balcony). Recommendation For your information, and based solely on 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 variances. After considering all public and agency input, 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 The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Residential Area” within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood. Residential uses such as detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto are permitted within this designation. Detached dwellings with attached decks are a common built form along Woodview Avenue. -21- Report P/CA 120/22 November 9, 2022 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “R3-9” – Single Detached Residential, under Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7389/14. Obstruction of Yards Variance Obstruction of yards provisions within the site-specific Zoning By-law 7389/14 permits uncovered platforms to have a maximum height of 1.5 metres above grade, and which may encroach a maximum of 3.0 metres into the required rear yard. The intent of the maximum projection of is to maintain sufficient amenity space in the rear yard. The applicant is proposing to construct an uncovered platform (balcony) that projects 3.7 metres from the rear wall and into the rear yard. The deck will have an overall height of 3.3 metres from the established grade. The requested variance is intended to facilitate the extension of an existing uncovered balcony that will contribute to the total amount of usable amenity space within the rear yard. There is sufficient space to the north/east yard of the proposed deck for landscaping and amenity purposes. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Maximum Lot Coverage Variance The intent of the maximum lot coverage of 40 percent is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (for landscaping and amenity area) uncovered by buildings on a lot. The proposed balcony will contribute to the lot coverage calculation. The increase in lot coverage is minimal relative to the remaining amenity space in the rear yard. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variance is to construct a balcony, which will contribute to towards the total usable amenity space of the single detached dwelling. The subject property abuts a wooded area to the east. As such, no neighbour to the rear of the proposed balcony will be affected. The proposed balcony is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on drainage or on the surrounding area. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable and appropriate, and it is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant •Seeking to extend an existing balcony. Engineering Services •Ensure increased lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. -22- Report P/CA 120/22 November 9, 2022 Page 3 Toronto Regional Conservation Authority Building Services Public Input •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 120/22. •No concerns. •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: November 2, 2022 Comments prepared by: Ziya Cao Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration ZC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 92-22 C. & S. LeBrun\7. Report\PCA 92-22 Report.doc Attachments -23- Finch Avenue Wo o d v i e w A v e n u e Bralorne Trail Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 120/22 Date: Sep. 14, 2022 Exhibit 1 ¯ E S. Chowdhury & S. Masrin1969 Woodview Avenue SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 120-22 S. Chowdhury & S. Masrin\PCA120-22_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 DevelopmentDepartment -24- 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 1 20 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. C h o w d h u r y & S . M a s r i n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 19 6 9 W o o d v i e w A v e n u 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 : Oc t o b e r 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t an u n c o v e r e d pl a t f o r m (b a l c o n y ) n o t ex c e e d i n g 3 . 3 me t r e s i n he i g h t a b o v e g r a d e an d no t p r o j e c t i n g m o r e t h a n 3. 7 me t r e s i n t o t h e re q u i r e d r e a r y a r d Woodview Avenue to p e r m i t a ma x i m u m l o t co v e r a g e o f 42. 5 pe r c e n t -25- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d E l e v a t i o n Pl a n (E a s t S i d e ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 12 0 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. C h o w d h u r y & S . M a s r i n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 19 6 9 W o o d v i e w A v e n u 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 : Se p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 -26- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 121/22 Date: November 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 121/22 M. Yousaf-Zai & L. Amiri 1935 Lodge Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4325/73, to permit an accessory structure (gazebo) greater than 1.8 metres in height to be set back a minimum of 0.4 of a metre from the north side lot line. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to permit a proposed accessory structure (gazebo) in the rear yard. Recommendation For your information, and based solely on 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. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance 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 The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Residential Area” within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. Residential uses such as detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto are permitted within this designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “S” – Single Detached Dwelling, under Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4325/73. The intent of the minimum setback of 1.0 metres for accessory structures greater than 1.8 metres is to ensure adequate space is provided for drainage and to minimize the visual impacts of the proposed accessory structures on the adjacent properties. -27- Report P/CA 121/22 November 9, 2022 Page 2 The proposed accessory structure (gazebo) has a height of 2.3 metres, and it is set back a minimum of 0.4 of a metre from the north side lot line (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). A rain gutter and downspout is proposed as a part of the structure to redirect rain water towards the ground. Further, the proposed gazebo has no walls which reduces the visual impacts for the neighbour to the north. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance maintains the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed variance is to facilitate a gazebo in the rear yard. The proposed gazebo contributes to the total usable amenity spaces within the rear yard. The proposed gazebo is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on drainage or on the surrounding area. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable and appropriate, and it is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • Proposed accessory structure (gazebo) does not meet the minimum setback requirements to the north side lot line. Engineering Services • Ensure the reduced setback for the accessory structure does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Building Services • No concerns. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: November 2, 2022 Comments prepared by: Ziya Cao Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration ZC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 121-22\7. Report\PCA 121-22 Report.doc Attachments -28- Finch Avenue Va l l e y F a r m R o a d Fieldlight Boulevard Gl e n v i e w R o a d Lodge Road Poppy Lane Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 121/22 Date: Sep. 20, 2022 Exhibit 1 ¯ E M. Yousaf-Zai & L. Amiri1935 Lodge Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 121-22 M. Yousaf-Zai & L. Amiri\PCA121-22_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 DevelopmentDepartment -29- 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 12 1 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : M. Y o u s a f -Za i & L . A m i r i Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 19 3 5 L o d g e R o a d 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 : O c t o b e r 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 Proposed Structure 0. 4 5 m to p e r m i t an ac c e s s o r y st r u c t u r e ( g a z e b o ) gr e a t e r t h a n 1 . 8 m e t r e s in h e i g h t t o b e s e t b a c k a m i n i m u m o f 0 . 4 m e t r e s fr o m t h e n o r t h s i d e l o t li n e -30- Ex h i b i t 3 Ph o t o o f P r o p o s e d A c c e s s o r y S t r u c t u r e Fi l e N o : P/ C A 12 1 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : M. Y o u s a f -Za i & L . A m i r i Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 19 3 5 L o d g e R o a d 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 : O c t o b e r 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 -31- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 123/22 Date: November 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 123/22 C. Leadbetter & K. Metcalfe 1290 Commerce Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit an accessory building (detached garage) with a maximum height of 5.2 metres in a residential zone. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a future building permit for the construction of an accessory building (detached garage). Recommendation For your information, and based solely on 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 that the requested variance does not meet the four tests, and therefore recommends Refusal of the proposed variance. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following conditions are recommended: 1.That this variance apply only to the subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). 2.That prior to issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed. 3.That a planting plan and securities for the proposed value of the proposed planting be provided to the satisfaction of Engineering Services to compensate for the removal of trees and to provide screening for the adjacent properties. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Residential Area” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Residential uses such as detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto are permitted within this designation. -32- Report P/CA 123/22 November 9, 2022 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “R4” – Detached Dwelling, Fourth Density Zone, under Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18. Building Height is measured from the established grade to the mid-point of the pitched roof. An established grade was not identified in the elevation drawings provided by the applicant, but it was confirmed that the height of the proposed accessory building (detached garage) is 5.0 metres measuring from the garage slab to the mid-point of the pitched roof. To compensate for the grade elevation, an extra 0.2 of a metre is being sought after in the proposed variance for a height of 5.2 metres. The intent of the maximum height requirement of 3.5 metres for accessory buildings is to ensure that accessory buildings remain accessory to the principal dwelling and to minimize visual impact on the adjacent properties. While elevations of the principal dwelling are not provided, the proposed detached garage will have the same height as the principal dwelling, in terms of storeys. Additionally, the existing trees in the rear will have to be removed to accommodate the proposal. The proposed garage will be visible from the townhouses located to the north and from the adjacent property to the east. Due to the scale of the development and the lack of screening provided, staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature In review of the submitted plans, it was determined that the proposed detached garage will have a larger lot coverage than the existing principal dwelling. The proposed garage will have a lot coverage of 13.9 percent, whereas the existing principal dwelling has a lot coverage of 13 percent. Additionally, a significant portion of the lot will be covered by the proposed asphalt driveway accessing the proposed garage causing concerns for drainage and stormwater management. However, the applicant has indicated that permeable material, such as gravel, could be used for the driveway as necessary. The proposed variance will facilitate a detached garage that is larger than the principal dwelling. In terms of built form, the proposed detached garage will not be accessory to the principal dwelling. Furthermore, the requested height of 5.2 metres represents over 60 percent increase from the permitted height. Based on the above, staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is not minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The existing house does not have enough storage space as there is no basement. A second floor is proposed on the detached garage for extra storage space. -33- Report P/CA 123/22 November 9, 2022 Page 3 Engineering Services • Engineering Services does not support the size and location of the proposed driveway and accessory building (detached garage), due to the following concerns: 1. The proposed works would cause a significant portion of the lot to become impervious, which would generate a large amount of drainage during rain events. It will be challenging (or maybe impossible) to convey the drainage to an appropriate outlet. 2. The proposed garage is only set back 1.22m from the north and east lot lines. This is not sufficient to construct a swale that meets the requirements of the City’s Engineering Design Criteria. 3. The proposed garage location will result in the removal of many trees, which is extremely undesirable. 4. The loss of the trees at the rear lot line would result in direct visibility from the townhouses to the north, which would be undesirable. • Nevertheless, if this variance is allowed, it should be noted that multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens, permeable pavers, and 450mm topsoil) will be required at the Building Permit stage. Also, tree plantings throughout the lot would be encouraged. Building Services • No concerns. Public Input • Three written submissions were received as of the date of writing this report in support of the application. Date of report: November 3, 2022 Comments prepared by: Ziya Cao Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration ZC:jc \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 92-22 C. & S. LeBrun\7. Report\PCA 92-22 Report.doc Attachments -34- Li v e r p o o l R o a d Gull Cro s s i ng Ilona Park Road Annland Street F r o n t R o a d Broadview Street Commerce Street Pl e a s a n t S t r e e t ProgressFrenchman'sBay East Park Frenchman'sBay Rate PayersMemorial Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 123/22 Date: Oct. 07, 2022 Exhibit 1 ¯ E C. Leadbetter & K. Metcalfe1290 Commerce Street SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 123-22 C. Leadbetter & K. Metcalfe\PCA123-22_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 DevelopmentDepartment -35- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 123/22 Applicant: C. Leadbetter & K. Metcalfe Municipal Address: 1290 Commerce Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: October 19, 2022 to permit an accessory building (detached garage) with a maximum height of 5.2 metres in a residential zone -36- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d El e v a t i o n Pl a n (S o u t h ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 12 3 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : C. L e a d b e t t e r & K . Me t c a l f e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 9 0 C o m m e r c e 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 : O c t o b e r 1 9 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t an ac c e s s o r y bu i l d i n g ( d e t a c h e d ga r a g e) w i t h a m a x i m u m he i g h t o f 5 . 2 me t r e s i n a re s i d e n t i a l z o n e -37- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d El e v a t i o n Pl a n (N o r t h ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 12 3 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : C. L e a d b e t t e r & K . M e t c a l f e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 9 0 C o m m e r c e 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 : O c t o b e r 1 9 , 2 0 2 2 -38- Exhibit 5 Submitted Elevation Plan (West/East) File No: P/CA 123/22 Applicant: C. Leadbetter & K. Metcalfe Municipal Address: 1290 Commerce Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: October 19, 2022 -39- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d Se c t i o n D r a w i n g Fi l e N o : P/ C A 12 3 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : C. L e a d b e t t e r & K . M e t c a l f e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 9 0 C o m m e r c e 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 : O c t o b e r 1 9 , 2 0 2 2 -40- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 124/22 Date: November 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 124/22 Met-Star Holdings Limited 1211 Kingston Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6112/03 and 6218/04, to permit: • “Restaurant – Type B” shall mean a building or part of a building where the principal business is the preparation of food and drinks for retail sale to the public for immediate consumption on or off the premises, or both on and off the premises but shall not include a nightclub • the aggregate of the gross floor area of all restaurants on the lot shall not exceed the aggregate gross floor area permitted under Section 5(2)(c)(ii) of By-law 6112/03 The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the conversion of an existing retail unit into a take-out restaurant. Recommendation For your information, and based solely on 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. After considering all public and agency input, 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 Background Kingston Road Corridor Intensification (OPA 38) The Subject Property is located within the Kingston Road Corridor Intensification Area. The Kingston Road Corridor was identified as the main area for intensification outside of the City Centre after a series of community engagement and background information work conducted by Planning staff in 2016. -41- Report P/CA 124/22 November 9, 2022 Page 2 On January 24, 2022, Council adopted Official Plan Amendment 38 (OPA 38) to the Pickering Official Plan, which introduced new policies that guides redevelopment the along the Kingston Road Corridor. The new policies aims to promote land uses and building designs that are easily accessible by walking or public transit, environmentally friendly, and enable a mix of residential and commercial uses within the Kingston Corridor neighbourhoods. As the approval authority, the Region of Durham, approved OPA 38, subject to modifications, and the appeal period related to the Region’s decision lapses November 21, 2022. Following the appeal period and the absence of any appeal, City staff will prepare the required City initiated zoning by-law amendment to update the land use regulations for the properties within the area to implement the policies of OPA 38. Minor Variance Decision P/CA 32/09 On July 29, 2009, the Pickering Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application P/CA 32/09 to permit one takeout restaurant with a maximum gross floor area of 82 square metres on the subject property. While the historical minor variance application is similar to the current application (P/CA 124/22), the decision included conditions that limited the number of take-out restaurants permitted on the subject property to one, and the aggregate gross floor area of all restaurants Type B and accessory takeout restaurants to 700 square metres, consistent with the Zoning By-law. Should the Committee decide to approve Minor Variance Application P/CA 124/22, the decision will supersede the previous Committee of Adjustment decision (P/CA 32/09). Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Mixed Corridor” within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. This designation permits a mixed of uses, including but not limited to, residential, commercial, retail, offices and restaurants. The proposed conversion of use, from retail to restaurant, is permitted within this designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “SPC1-1”, under Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 6112/03 and 6218/04. Restaurant Definition Variance “Restaurant – Type B” is a permitted use within the “SPC1-1” Zone, and it is defined as eat-in restaurants, where food is prepared or offered or kept for retail sale to the public for immediate consumption in the building or buildings on the premises only. The requested variance will permit takeout in the definition to provide a wider range of restaurant operation on the subject property. It is recognized that the Zoning By-law has historically provided definitions for different restaurant types to classify various restaurant operations. However, in the current environment, particularly post-COVID-19 pandemic, the trend in restaurants has shifted from traditional dine-in restaurants to restaurants providing takeout services and delivery services. -42- Report P/CA 124/22 November 9, 2022 Page 3 Additionally, with the adoption of OPA 38, it is expected that the Zoning By-law be updated to permit a wider range of uses to implement the policies of OPA 38. Based on the above, staff is of the opinion that expanding the definition of “Restaurant – Type B” to include takeout maintains the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Aggregate GFA of Restaurants Variance Historically, the Kingston Road Corridor was envisioned to accommodate industrial uses with limited restaurants and personal service establishments to serve the workers of this area. The intent of limiting the aggregate gross floor area (GFA) of Restaurant – Type B on the subject property to 700 square metres was to ensure restaurant uses does not overtake the space available for industrial uses. As previously mentioned, the vision for the Kingston Road Corridor has moved away from the traditional industrial corridor to a mixed-use corridor and an area of intensification. The requested variances will expand the aggregate GFA for restaurants to be the aggregate GFA of all buildings on the subject property. The approval of these variances will remove the GFA cap for restaurants on the subject property, which will allow more flexibility for change of uses to occur and supports a mix of uses. As such, staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The subject property is located within the Kingston Road Corridor Intensification Area, and it is subject to the new policies of OPA 38. Based on the policies of OPA 38, the vision for this area is a walkable and sustainable mixed-use area that is transit-supportive with higher density development. The proposed variances will remove the restrictions in the Zoning By-law, which will allow for a transition to a mix of uses in the area more easily. Further, the proposal is for a change of use involving interior alteration on the subject property, no new developments are being proposed as a part of this application. Based on this conclusion, staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances are desirable for appropriate development of the land and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant Engineering Services Toronto Regional Conservation Authority •Seeking to convert an existing retail unit into a takeout restaurant. •No comments. •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 124/22 -43- Report P/CA 124/22 November 9, 2022 Page 4 Toronto Regional Conservation Authority (cont’d) Building Services Public Input •Interior works do not require a TRCA permit under Ontario Regulation 166/06. Please be advised that if any development or changes to the existing building openings are proposed on the subject property, a TRCA permit may be required. •No concerns. •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: November 2, 2022 Comments prepared by: Ziya Cao Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration ZC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 124-22\7. Report\PCA 124-22 Report.doc Attachments -44- Bront e S q u a r e Gl e n d a l e D r i v e Wa l n u t L a n e Foleyet Crescent Kingsto n R o a d Culros s A v e n u e S t o rri n g t o n S tr e e t W ol l ast on C o u r t Char l otte C ircle B a y l y Street Lis t o w e ll C r e s c e n t Highway 401 South PineCreekRavine Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 124/22 Date: Oct. 12, 2022 Exhibit 1 ¯ E Met-Star Holdings Limited1211 Kingston Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 124-22 Met-Star Holdings Limited\PCA124-22_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 DevelopmentDepartment -45- 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 12 4 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Me t -St a r H o l d i n g s L i m i t e d Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 1 1 K i n g s t o n R o a d 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 : Oc t o b e r 1 9 , 2 0 2 2 “R e s t a u r a n t – Ty p e B ” s h a l l m e a n a bu i l d i n g o r p a r t o f a b u i l d i n g wh e r e th e p r i n c i p a l b u s i n e s s i s t h e pr e p a r a t i o n o f f o o d a n d d r i n k s f o r re t a i l s a l e t o t h e p u b l i c f o r i m m e d i a t e co n s u m p t i o n o n o r o f f t h e p r e m i s e s , or b o t h o n a n d o f f t h e p r e m i s e s b u t sh a l l n o t i n c l u d e a n i g h t c l u b the a g g r e g a t e o f t h e g r o s s f l o o r ar e a o f a l l r e s t a u r a n t s o n t h e l o t sh a l l n o t e x c e e d t h e a g g r e g a t e gr o s s f l o o r a r e a p r o v id e d f o r i n Se c t i o n 5 ( 2 ) ( c ) ( i i ) of B y -la w 6 1 1 2 / 0 3 -46- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d El e v a t i o n Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 12 4 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Me t -St a r H o l d i n g s L i m i t e d Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 1 1 K i n g s t o n R o a d 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 : Oc t o b e r 1 9 , 2 0 2 2 -47- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 125/22 to P/CA 127/22 Date: November 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 125/22 to P/CA 127/22 J. Mauch 1235 Radom Street (Units 17, 83 & 88) Applications P/CA 125/22 – 1235 Radom Street (Unit 17) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-laws 3991/71 & 1574/82, to permit: • an accessory dwelling unit within a multiple family dwelling unit, whereas the By-law permits an accessory dwelling unit within a detached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling; and • a total of 1.25 parking spaces are provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires a total of 3 parking spaces provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located P/CA 126/22 – 1235 Radom Street (Unit 83) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-laws 3991/71 & 1574/82, to permit: • an accessory dwelling unit within a multiple family dwelling unit, whereas the By-law permits an accessory dwelling unit within a detached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling; and • a total of 1.25 parking spaces are provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires a total of 3 parking spaces provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located P/CA 127/22 – 1235 Radom Street (Unit 88) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-laws 3991/71 & 1574/82, to permit: • an accessory dwelling unit within a multiple family dwelling unit, whereas the By-law permits an accessory dwelling unit within a detached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling; and • a total of 1.25 parking spaces are provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires a total of 3 parking spaces provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located -48- Report P/CA 125/22 to P/CA 127/22 November 9, 2022 Page 2 The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to obtain permits for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the basement each of three multiple family dwelling units. Recommendation For your information, and based solely on 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. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in these applications, the following conditions are recommended: 1. That these variances apply only to the dwelling units, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by November 9, 2023, or one year following an Ontario Land Tribunal decision, or this decision shall become null and void. Background On August 4, 2022, the Building Services department received a complaint regarding interior construction at the subject properties (Units 17, 83 & 88). After a site inspection, it was determined by City staff that interior construction was initiated without a building permit. The property owner was advised that a building permit would be required for the construction. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Area – Medium Density Residential Area” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Residential uses such as multiple family units are a permitted use. The “Urban Residential Area – Medium Density” designation permits residential uses and a minimum and maximum net residential density of over 30 and up to and including 80 dwellings per net hectare. Presently, the subject property has 97 multiple family dwelling units, with a total lot size of approximately 2.5 hectares. The surrounding neighbourhood consists of primarily detached, townhouse and apartment dwellings. Multiple family dwelling units are permitted on the subject site. In addition, Section 3.4(a) of the Official Plan states that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are not included in density calculations. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances to permit an ADU maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. -49- Report P/CA 125/22 to P/CA 127/22 November 9, 2022 Page 3 Unit 88 is located within a Shorelines, Significant Valley Lands, and Stream Corridors Key Natural Heritage Feature identified under Schedule III C of the Official Plan. The site is located within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Frenchman’s Bay watershed and is regulated with respect to being located within an Area of Interference (AOI) associated with a Provincially Significant Wetland, a top of bank feature and the Regulatory Storm Floodplain of a tributary of Frenchman’s Bay located south and east of the property. Consequently, the applicant will be required to obtain a Toronto & Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) permit for any construction and site alterations. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject site is zoned “RM2” – Multiple Family Dwelling, Second Density Zone, within Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-law 3991/71 & 1574/82. Accessory Dwelling Unit in Multiple Family Dwelling Unit Variance Under Section 5.33 of Zoning By-law 2520, ADUs are permitted in any zone that permits a detached dwelling or a semi-detached dwelling. Furthermore, ADUs must maintain the following provisions: (a) a total of three (3) parking spaces are provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located; (b) the maximum floor area of an accessory dwelling unit shall be one hundred (100) square metres; (c) a home-based business is prohibited in either dwelling unit of a dwelling containing an accessory dwelling unit. Under the Planning Act, Section 3(a) permits 2 ADUs within detached, semi-detached and row homes (townhomes), and requires municipalities to update their zoning by-laws to reflect the requirements of the Planning Act. Only the most recent zoning by-laws for City Centre 7553/17 and Seaton 7364/15 permit ADUs within townhomes, as the zoning provisions are based on the provincial direction for increased housing supply. Since the City has not amended the zoning provisions for ADUs within Zoning By-law 2520, the applicant is required to submit an application to the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance. Reduction in Parking Spaces Variance The purpose of requiring three parking spaces for an ADU is to ensure sufficient parking is provided for both dwelling units, and to ensure on-street parking is avoided. The applicant requests a variance to maintain the existing parking requirement of 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit, whereas Section 5.33 of Zoning By-law 2520 requires 3 spaces per dwelling unit where an accessory dwelling unit is located. The applicant has indicated that they intend to rent to a tenant without a car. The subject property is within a kilometre from alternative modes of transportation including the Durham Region Transit Route 120 which leads to Pickering’s City Centre north of Highway 401, the Pickering GO Station. Furthermore, the subject property is within a reasonable walking distance to local commercial and retail services at the base of a nearby mixed use development and live and work dwellings. As such, staff is of the opinion that sufficient parking is provided for both dwelling units. -50- Report P/CA 125/22 to P/CA 127/22 November 9, 2022 Page 4 Presently, the subject property includes 97 multiple family dwelling units. The permitted minimum parking requirement is 1.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit, therefore the By-law requires a minimum 122 parking spaces. Presently, there are 142 parking spaces on the subject property. It appears there is sufficient parking space on the subject property. Staff is of the opinion that the variance adheres to Provincial policies and meets the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law 2520. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature City staff support ADUs as a housing option within the City, provided that Building Services has issued a permit. In order for a permit to be issued, the ADU must adhere to the Zoning By-law, the Ontario Building Code and the Fire Code. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The minimum parking requirements for ADUs are out of date. ADU’s are not permitted in a townhouse, as per the By-law. Engineering Services • No concerns. Building Services • No concerns. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • TRCA will require a TRCA Permit for Unit 88 (P/CA 127/22). TRCA staff have no objections to the proposal in principle and support the requested variances. Public Input • Residents of 1235 Radom Street Units 2, 4, 8, 14, 16, 25, 28, 30, 32, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 48, 49, 52, 57, 64 - 68, 71, 73, 81, 84 - 86, 89 - 93, 95 & 97 have reviewed the site plan and are not in support of the work that is planned on the property. • Residents of 1235 Radom Street Units 47, 69 & 78 have reviewed the site plan and are in support of the work that is planned on the property • The Board Members of OCC 11 have reviewed the site plan and are not in support of the work that is planned on the property. -51- Report P/CA 125/22 to P/CA 127/22 November 9, 2022 Page 5 Date of report: November 3, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:jc \\Fs\Planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee Of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 125-22 To PCA 127-22\7. Report\PCA 125-22 To PCA 127-22 Report.Doc Attachments -52- B a y l y S t r e e t DouglasAvenue Wayfarer Lane B e g l ey S t reet A l b a c o r e M a n o r Tanzer Court TrellisCourt St M a r t i n s D r i v e Ra d o m S t r e e t Haller Avenue Chap l e a u D r i v e F a i r v i e w A venue Douglas Park BayshoreTot Lot DouglasRavine East ShoreCommunityCentre Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 125/22 to P/CA 127/22 Date: Oct. 19, 2022 Exhibit 1 ¯ J. Mauch 1235 Radom Street, Units 17, 83 & 88 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 125-22 to PCA 127-22 J. Mauch\PCA125-22to127-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:3,500 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 DevelopmentDepartment -53- 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 1 2 5 / 2 2 to P / C A 1 2 7 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : J. M a u c h Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 3 5 R a d o m S t r e e t ( U n i t 1 7 , 8 3 & 8 8 ) 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 : Oc t o b e r 2 6 , 2 0 2 2 P/ C A 1 2 6 /2 2 (Un i t 8 3 ): • to p e r m i t a n a c c e s s o r y dw e l l i n g u n i t w i t h i n a mu l t i p l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g un i t • to p e r m i t a t o t a l o f 1. 2 5 pa r k i n g s p a c e s o n th e p r o p e r t y w h e r e t h e ac c e s s o r y d w e l l i n g u n i t is l o c a t e d P/ C A 1 2 5 / 2 2 ( Un i t 8 8 ): • to p e r m i t a n a c c e s s o r y dw e l l i n g u n i t w i t h i n a mu l t i p l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g u n i t • to p e r m i t a t o t a l o f 1. 2 5 pa r k i n g s p a c e s o n t h e pr o p e r t y w h e r e t h e ac c e s s o r y d w e l l i n g u n i t i s lo c a t e d P/ C A 1 2 5 / 2 2 ( Un i t 1 7 ): • to p e r m i t a n a c c e s s o r y dw e l l i n g u n i t w i t h i n a m u l t i p l e fa m i l y d w e l l i n g u n i t • to p e r m i t a t o t a l o f 1. 2 5 pa r k i n g s p a c e s o n t h e pr o p e r t y w h e r e t h e a c c e s s o r y dw e l l i n g u n i t i s l o c a t e d -54- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 128/22 Date: November 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 128/22 P. Cummins 1796 Fairport Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 & 7902/22, to permit a minimum (north and south) side yard setback of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detaching dwelling. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a detached dwelling. Recommendation For your information, and based solely on 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. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7). 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria for Lot Grading can be adequately addressed within the subject property. Background On October 25, 2017, the Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance application P/CA 98/17. As a condition of approval, the applicant was required to obtain a building permit for the proposed detached dwelling before October 25, 2019. The previous minor variance has since lapsed. Consequently, the applicant is required to seek a minor variance for the reduced side yard setbacks. -55- Report P/CA 128/22 November 9, 2022 Page 2 Infill & Replacement Housing By-laws On September 27, 2021, City Council enacted By-law 7874/21 (the Infill By-law) to amend Zoning By-law 3036, 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 7902/22, to reinstate 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 Infill By-laws established a set of zoning provisions to help maintain the existing character of the surrounding neighbourhood. However, please note that due to the ongoing appeals, the Infill By laws are not currently in force. Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposed dwellings using the Council-adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. The applicant is proposing to construct a detached dwelling. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within this designation and a common built form within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. Section 12.9 (a) of the Official Plan outlines that in the established residential areas between Appleview Road and Spruce Hill Road including Fairport Road, encourage and where possible require new development to be compatible with the character of existing development. The proposed detached dwelling is subject to the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. Within this precinct, residential development shall be limited to single detached dwellings. To maintain a high quality of residential streetscape, garages shall have a minimal projection from the front dwelling wall, and have a maximum dwelling height of 9.0 metres. The proposed dwelling maintains the neighbourhood development and design guidelines. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to the north side yard and the south side yard maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law 1796 Fairport Road is zoned “R3” – Single Detached Dwelling – Residential Third Density, under Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by Zoning By-law 7874/21 & 7902/22. A detached dwelling is permitted within the lands zoned “R3”. -56- Report P/CA 128/22 November 9, 2022 Page 3 Side Yard Variances The intent of a minimum side yard requirement of 1.8 metres is to accommodate drainage, ensure appropriate building separation, and to provide sufficient room for maintenance. The applicant has proposed a minimum north side yard of 1.55 metres, and a south side yard of 1.52 metres. The abutting dwelling to the north (1798 Fairport Road) is setback approximately 4.8 metres from the shared property line. A minimum building separation of 6.3 metres will be maintained between the proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling to the north. Furthermore, the abutting dwelling to the south (1794 Fairport Road) is setback approximately 2.7 metres from the shared property line. A minimum building separation of 4.2 metres will be maintained between the proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling to the south. There is sufficient space between the proposed dwelling and the adjacent dwellings to the north and south to accommodate pedestrian access and residential services. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to the north side yard and the south side yard maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The City’s Engineering Design Criteria requires an undisturbed strip and/or flat area having a width of 0.6 metres within the boundary limits of a lot. Engineering Services has indicated that a minimum 1.5 metre side yard setback will provide sufficient space to fit a drainage swale entirely within the property boundary. However, a landscaping wall has been identified on the applicant’s submitted site plan. Under General Provisions from the Engineering Design Criteria – Lot Grading, Engineering Services does not support a retaining wall with the proposed reduced side yard setbacks of 1.5 metres. There is insufficient space within the property limits to fit both a drainage swale and retaining wall with the proposed side yard setbacks. The requested variances will facilitate the development of the subject property for a single detached dwelling. The proposed dwelling is consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, and is compatible with the character of the existing neighbourhood. At the building permit stage, the applicant will be required to address the location of retaining walls and drainage swales, to the satisfaction of Engineering Services, to ensure the reduced side yard does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to the north side yard and south side yard , are desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and are minor in nature. -57- Report P/CA 128/22 November 9, 2022 Page 4 Input From Other Sources Applicant •To maximize square footage of the lot. Engineering Services •Engineering Services does not support the requested variance. A minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres is typically required to provide a swale along the side yard. However, the plan shows a proposed retaining wall, which will require additional space, and therefore the requested side yard width of 1.5 metres will not be sufficient. Building Services •No concerns. Public Input •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: November 3, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Planner I Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 128-22\7. Report Attachments -58- Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments x 1. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) x 2. If the proposed new dwelling is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) x 3. Is the maximum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) x 4. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) x 5. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) x 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) x 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) x 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) -59- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments x 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) x 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) x 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) x 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) -60- Fa i r p o r t R o a d Sh a d e M a s t e r D r i v e Spruce Hill Road Goldenridge RoadWingarden Crescent Welrus Street Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 128/22 Date: Oct. 18, 2022 Exhibit 1 ¯ E P. Cummins1796 Fairport Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 126-22 P. Cummins\PCA126-22_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 DevelopmentDepartment -61- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d Ov e r a l l S i t e Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 12 8 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : P. C u m m i n s Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 17 9 6 F a i r p o r t 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 Co p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Oc t o b e r 2 6 , 2 0 2 2 Fairport Road -62- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n (E n l a r g e d ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 12 8 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : P. C u m m i n s Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 17 9 6 F a i r p o r t 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 : Oc t o b e r 2 6 , 2 0 2 2 Fairport Road Pr o p o s e d S i n g l e De t a c h e d d w e l l i n g to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m (n o r t h an d s o u t h ) sid e y a r d set b a c k o f 1 . 5 me t r e s , whe r e a g a r a g e i s e r ec t ed as par t o f a de t a c h e d d w e l l i n g -63- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d No r t h El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 12 8 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : P. C u m m i n s Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 17 9 6 F a i r p o r t 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 : Oc t o b e r 2 6 , 20 2 2 -64- Ex h i b i t 5 Su b m i t t e d S o u t h El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 12 8 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : P. C u m m i n s Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 17 9 6 F a i r p o r t 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 : Oc t o b e r 2 6 , 20 2 2 -65- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d We s t El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 12 8 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : P. C u m m i n s Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 17 9 6 F a i r p o r t 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 : Oc t o b e r 2 6 , 2 0 2 2 -66- Ex h i b i t 7 Su b m i t t e d Ea s t El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 12 8 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : P. C u m m i n s Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 17 9 6 F a i r p o r t 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 : Oc t o b e r 2 6 , 2 0 2 2 -67- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 129/22 Date: November 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 129/22 R. Subbian & K. & T. Rajasekar 1256 Barnwood Square Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 1104/80 & 1193/80, to permit a minimum interior (south) side yard width of 0.6 of a metre, whereas the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard width of 1.2 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to permit an existing attached garage having a reduced interior (south) side yard. Recommendation For your information, and based solely on 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. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this applications, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the existing attached garage, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). Background In 2011, Regional construction work was initiated for a new valve and meter chamber building on the existing pumping station site adjacent to the subject property. The Region of York purchased 1256 Barnwood Square and obtained a demolition permit to remove the previous attached garage. By removing the attached garage, the subject property became zoning non-compliant. In 2021, the present owner obtained a Building Permit to permit a new attached garage. However, following the issuance of the Building Permit, building setback discrepancies were found between the submitted survey and architectural plans. The applicant is seeking a minor variance to permit the existing attached garage with a reduced interior side yard setback. -68- Report P/CA 129/22 November 9, 2022 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings with attached garages are a permitted use within this designation and a common built form within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “S3” – Single detached residential, under Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 1104/80 & 1193/80. Single detached dwellings with an attached garage is a permitted use. The intent of a minimum interior side yard requirement of 1.2 metres is to accommodate drainage, ensure appropriate building separation, and to provide sufficient room for maintenance. The existing garage has a minimum interior (south) side yard of 0.6 metres. Engineering Services had previously approved the location of the existing attached garage. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to the interior (south) side yard maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The surrounding neighbourhood comprises of detached dwellings with attached garages. The existing attached garage maintains the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • A minor variance is required due to technical discrepancies after the issuance of a building permit. Engineering Services • No concerns Building Services • No concerns. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. -69- Report P/CA 129/22 November 9, 2022 Page 3 Date of report: November 3, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Planner I Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 129-22\7. Report Attachments -70- B a r n w o o d S q u a r e W h e a t s h eaf La ne Finch Avenue A nton Square Fe r n c l i f f C i r c l e Li v e r p o o l R o a d Gl e n d a l e D r i v e Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 129/22 Date: Oct. 18, 2022 Exhibit 1 ¯ E R. Subbian & K. & T. Rajasekar1256 Barnwood Square SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 129-22 R. Subbian & K. & T. Rajasekar\PCA129-22_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 DevelopmentDepartment -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 1 2 9 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : R. S u b b i a n & K . & T . R a j a s e k a r Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 5 6 Ba r n w o o d S q u a r 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 : Oc t o b e r 2 6 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a mi n i m u m in t e r i o r ( s o u t h ) s i d e ya r d w i d t h o f 0 . 6 of a me t r e Ex i s t i n g Ga r a g e -72- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d No r t h E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 1 2 9 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : R. S u b b i a n & K . & T . R a j a s e k a r Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 5 6 B a r n w o o d S q u a r 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 Co p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Oc t o b e r 2 6 , 2 0 2 2 -73- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 130/22 Date: November 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 130/22 Joriki Holdings Inc. 885 Sandy Beach Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 25.3 metres when on the opposite side of the street is a Residential Zone, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 30.0 metres when on the opposite side of the street is a Residential Zone; • a minimum parking requirement for an industrial use to be 1 space per 192 square metres of gross floor area, whereas the By-law requires the minimum parking requirement for an industrial use shall be 1 space per 56 square metres of gross floor area; and • front yard parking to be limited to 22 percent of the total required parking area, whereas except for commercial zones used for commercial purposes, the By-law requires front yard parking to be limited to 20 percent of the total required parking area. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to facilitate an 8,114.0 square metre addition to an existing industrial building. Recommendation For your information, and based solely on 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. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). -74- Report P/CA 130/22 November 9, 2022 Page 2 Comment Background The applicant has submitted a Site Plan Application (S 03/87 (R21)) for the subject property to facilitate an 8,114.0 square metre addition to the existing industrial building. During the review of the Site Plan Application, staff identified the noted zoning non-compliances. The requested variances are required for the applicant to obtain Final Site Plan Approval. Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Prestige Employment”, “Natural Area”, and “Urban Residential Area – Low Density” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. The proposed development is located within the “Prestige Employment” designation. Permitted uses within this designation aim to accommodate a range of industrial uses, including but not limited to, light manufacturing, light service industries, and business parks. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “M1” – Storage and Light Manufacturing Zone under Zoning By-law 2511, as amended. Front Yard Setback Variance The intent of the minimum front yard setback of 30.0 metres, when located on the opposite side of a Residential Zone, is to ensure adequate separation is provided between residential and commercial/industrial uses to mitigate any negative visual, noise and odor impacts. As a part of the Site Plan Application, a 1,613.0 square metre portion of the subject lands adjacent to Sandy Beach Road will be required to be conveyed to the City for road improvement works. The land required to be conveyed is identified on Exhibit 2 in southwest corner of the subject lands. The existing building maintains a minimum front yard setback of 30.0 metres which complies with the setback requirements of the zoning by-law. The building addition will maintain a consistent front wall as the existing building, however as a result of the required conveyance at the southwest corner of the subject lands, the front yard setback of the proposed addition will be reduced to 25.3 metres. The reduced front yard setback will only apply to a portion of the proposed addition and is required as a result of the required land conveyance. The balance of the existing and proposed industrial building will maintain the required front yard setback and will provide sufficient separation between the existing industrial use and the residential neighbourhood on the west side of the Sandy Beach Road. Parking Requirement Variance A minimum parking requirement for an industrial use of 1 space per 192 square metres of gross floor area (101 parking spaces) is proposed, whereas the By-law requires a minimum parking requirement for an industrial use to be 1 space per 56 square metres of gross floor area (346 parking spaces). The intent of regulating the minimum number of parking spaces is to ensure that parking demand can be accommodated on-site. -75- Report P/CA 130/22 November 9, 2022 Page 3 In support of the proposed development and the reduced parking ratio requested, the applicant submitted a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) which examined the parking demand of the existing building and the proposed addition. The TIS concluded, based on field observations of the existing operation, that approximately 80 parking spaces are required on-site to meet the peak parking demand for both the existing building and proposed addition. A peer review of the submitted TIS conducted by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited, on behalf of the City, confirmed that the conclusions of the study were accurate and the peak parking demand of 80 spaces would accommodate the existing building and proposed addition. The proposed development provides 101 parking spaces, representing a 21 space surplus above the estimated peak parking demand, which will provide sufficient parking on-site to accommodate employees and visitors. Front Yard Parking Variance The proposal limits front yard parking to 22 percent of the total required parking (74 parking spaces in the front yard), whereas the By-law requires front yard parking to be limited to 20 percent of the total required parking area (maximum 69 parking spaces in the front yard). The intent of limiting front yard parking is to minimize the visual impact of parking area on the streetscape. A significant portion of the rear of the subject property is within the flood plain, as such the majority of the required parking spaces are accommodated in the front yard. The parking spaces in the front yard will accommodate employee parking and will assist in reducing vehicle movement conflicts with the loading, truck queuing and truck traffic areas at the rear of the lands. To minimize the visual impact of the front yard parking area, a 10.1 metre landscape buffer is provided along Sandy Beach Road. Through the Site Plan Application, additional on-site plantings will be secured to provide additional screening of the proposed parking areas. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land as the proposal is in keeping with the range of industrial uses along the east side of Sandy Beach Road. The requested front yard setback will only apply to a small portion of the building as a result of a required land conveyance and will provide sufficient separation between existing residential uses and the proposed development. The reduced parking ratio proposed will provide sufficient on-site parking to accommodate the peak demand of employees and visitors. The proposed parking spaces located in the front yard of the building will maintain a sufficient setback to provide for landscaping and will not result in a negative visual impact on the streetscape. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, are desirable for the appropriate development of land, and are minor in nature. -76- Report P/CA 130/22 November 9, 2022 Page 4 Input From Other Sources Applicant Engineering Services Toronto Regional Conservation Authority Building Services Public Input •Setback of addition to match the setback of the existing building. •Traffic Report confirms that the provided parking spaces (101 spaces) will be sufficient parking to accommodate the site since the plant operates with 3 shifts. •There are limited area available for parking at the rear of the building due to the presence of a floodplain. •No comments. However, it should be noted that at the Site Plan application stage, changes to the proposed warehouse addition may be required. •TRCA staff have no objections to the approval of Minor Variance Application No. P/CA 130/22. A TRCA Permit will be required for the proposed works prior to construction being initated. •No concerns. •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: November 3, 2022 Comments prepared by: Ziya Cao Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration ZC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 92-22 C. & S. LeBrun\7. Report\PCA 92-22 Report.doc Attachments -77- Re y t a n B o u l e v a r d K r o s n o B o u l e v a rd Lu b l i n A v e n u e Colmar Avenue Balaton Avenue Sa n d y B e a c h R o a d Alyssum Street Co r t e z A v e n u e Don BeerArena Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 130/22 Date: Oct. 18, 2022 Exhibit 1 Joriki Holdings Inc.885 Sandy Beach Road HydroLands SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 130-22 Joriki Holdings Inc\PCA130-22_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 DevelopmentDepartment -78- 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 13 0 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Jo r i k i H o l d i n g s I n c . Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 88 5 S a n d y B e a c h R o a d 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 : Oc t o b e r 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m fr o n t y a r d s e t b a c k o f 25 . 3 m e t r e s w h e n o n th e o p p o s i t e s i d e o f t h e st r e e t i s a R e s i d e n t i a l Zo n e to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m pa r k i n g r e q u i r e m e n t f o r an i n d u s t r i a l u s e t o b e 1 s p a c e p e r 19 2 sq u a r e m e t r e s o f gr o s s f l o o r a r e a to p e r m i t f r o n t y ar d pa r k i n g t o b e l i m i t e d t o 22 p e r c e n t of t h e t o t a l re q u i r e d p a r k i n g a r e a -79- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d We s t El e v a t i o n Pl a n ( vi e w f r o m S a n d y B e a c h R o a d ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 13 0 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Jo r i k i H o l d i n g s I n c . Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 88 5 S a n d y B e a c h R o a d 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 : Oc t o b e r 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 -80-