Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 11 2023 Committee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Number: 10 Date: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, October 11, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Secretary-Treasurer or Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Telephone: 905.420.4617 Email: citydev@pickering.ca 1. Disclosure of Interest 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from September 13, 2023 hearing 1-7 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 44/23 – 1285 Illona Park Road 8-10 4.2 P/CA 42/23 – 636 Annland Street 11-27 4.3 P/CA 43/23 – 2137 Castle Hill Court 28-38 4.4 P/CA 45/23 – 598 Sheppard Avenue 39-52 5. Adjournment Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 7 Pending Adoption Present Omar Ha-Redeye Denise Rundle – Vice-Chair Sakshi Sood Joshi Rick Van Andel Sean Wiley – Chair Also Present Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer – Host Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Kerry Yelk, Planner I Ziya Cao, Planner I Absent Not applicable. 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That the agenda for the Wednesday, September 13, 2023 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel That the minutes of the 8th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, August 9, 2023 be adopted. Carried Unanimously -1- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 7 4.Reports 4.1 P/CA 38/23 J. Ciancio 1473 Rougemount Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, By-law 7874/21 & By-law 7902/22, to permit: •a minimum (east) side yard width of 1.5 metres and a minimum (west) side yard width of 1.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.8 metres •a maximum building height of 9.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum building height of 9.0 metres •a maximum driveway width of 6.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum driveway width of 6.0 metres •a maximum dwelling depth of 26.9 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum dwelling depth of 20.0 metres The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a two-storey detached dwelling. 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 they are applying for variances that were previously approved and have now expired. Leonardo Ciancio, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The agent commented that they received approval of these variances a few years ago. Due to the pandemic, they were unable to receive a building permit for this lot and were not aware the conditions had an expiration date. Since the approval of the previous application, a new By-law came into effect, resulting in additional variances to facilitate the proposal. In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent stated the owner designed the home to be relative to the rest of the street and neighbourhood, and be able to accommodate the needs of elderly members of the family who will reside there. -2- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 7 On the basis that this application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 38/23 by J. Ciancio, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 13, 2023). Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 39/23 L. Lorenzatti & A. Warboys 1770 Wellington Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit: • a detached garage to be located on the west side yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building to be erected in the rear yard • a maximum building height of 6.3 metres for a detached garage, whereas the By- law permits a maximum height of 3.5 metres for accessory buildings in any residential zone • a maximum lot coverage of 21 percent in an ORM-R5 zone, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 20 percent in an ORM-R5 zone (this variance is not required and has been removed from the application) The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to convert the existing garage to a family room and the construction of a detached garage on the west side yard. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and the Region of Durham Health Department. -3- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 7 In support of the application, the applicant identified they cannot build garage in the rear yard due to the existing septic bed. Additional space is required for storage on second storey and shop space. Luciano Lorenzatti, applicant, 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 the Vice-Chair, the agent clarified there will be no plumbing for the space. The second storey is intended for storage. On the basis that the application is minor in nature, Omar Ha-Redeye moved the following motion: Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel That application P/CA 39/23 by L. Lorenzatti & A. Warboys, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed development, 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 September 13, 2023). Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 40/23 T. Upadhyay 1546 Dusty Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7022/10, to permit a total of two (2) parking spaces on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires a total of three (3) parking spaces are provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to permit an accessory dwelling unit within a semi-detached dwelling with two parking spaces on the lot. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and one area resident. -4- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 7 Tejal Upadhyay, applicant, Shailesh Upadhyay, owner, and Mruga Patel and Helly Shah, agents, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, the agent identified that the owner does not have sufficient space within their property to fit more than two vehicles entirely on the lot. The agent commented the following: this variance is to allow for the creation of an ADU (Additional Dwelling Unit) in the basement of the two-storey dwelling; the existing dwelling has two parking spaces, one in the garage and one in the driveway; and the driveway is long enough to accommodate two cars, a total of three parking spaces. The owner commented that new townhouse developments in the City are being built with only one parking space provided, for example 1525 Kingston Road. The driveway can fit two cars, and additional one car in the garage, totaling three parking spaces. In response to questions from Committee members, the agent commented that the applicant does not have a sidewalk on their property, making the driveway longer with 2.91 metres of that driveway being owned by the City. Technically, while the home can accommodate three parking spaces, it is described as only having two because of the municipal boulevard. In order to add an ADU in the basement they are required to provide three spaces. The purpose of this application is to allow the use of the boulevard as a parking space or to reduce the parking spaces required for this ADU. The standard car size considered for the calculation in the By-law is measurements for a full sized SUV. However, two sedans or midsize SUV will fit on the driveway easily without being on the boulevard. The 5.6 metres measurement requirement for parking is to accommodate the biggest sized car available, the applicant owns a compact SUV. Using the measurements for sedans and the compact SUVs (roughly 4.695 metres for sedan, midsize 5.093 metres for compact SUVs) the driveway would easily accommodate two cars. The owner is a single mother who only has one car, therefore there will always be a parking space available for the ADU. A Committee member commented that this variance would be applied to the property and not to the owner. While this variance may work currently for this owner and the car they have, it may not work for future residents. The applicant stated they have no plans to move in the future or sell the property. If an ADU were to be allowed there may be a possibility the future tenants may not have a car at all. Public transit is very close by on Zents Drive and on the main road. The Vice-Chair commented that the subject property is situated in a medium density area, this is a tight development without wide spacious side yards. The entrance for the accessory dwelling unit is at the side of the home. While two parking spaces may work for the current owner, the Committee needs consider future users. If this -5- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 7 variance is permitted it would set a precedent for the rest of the neighbourhood, resulting in a negative impact for parking, in a neighbourhood that is observed to be having issues. While the driveway is long, the owner does not own the property to the curb, there needs to be that space for municipal utility maintenance, snow ploughing, etc. A Committee member commented that there is a concern about the impact of lack of parking on the landscape, the street and concerns by neighbours. Due to those reasons, and reasons listed by Vice-Chair, it is of their opinion this application is not minor in nature. After considering comments from the immediate neighbour and comments/assessments within the staff report, this application does not meet the tests of being minor in nature or desirable and appropriate for the land. This variance would result in a negative parking impact within this neighbourhood and therefore is not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Rick Van Andel That application P/CA 40/23 by T. Upadhyay, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Carried Unanimously -6- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 7 5. Adjournment Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Sakshi Sood-Joshi That the 9th hearing of the 2023 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:37 pm. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Please note the Committee of Adjustment Hearings are available for viewing on the City of Pickering YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/SustainablePickering -7- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 44/23 Date: October 11, 2023 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 44/23 C. Williams 1285 Ilona Park Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-laws 7872/21, 7873/21, and 7901/22, to permit: • a total lot coverage of 7.3 percent for all accessory buildings excluding private detached garages, whereas the By-law permits a total lot coverage of all accessory buildings, excluding private detached garages, to be 5 percent of the lot area • a maximum lot coverage of 37.7 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit to install a prefabricated steel shed in the rear yard. Recommendation The City Development Department recommends that Minor Variance Application P/CA 44/23 be Deferred to the November 8, 2023 Committee of Adjustment hearing for Elexicon Energy to provide comments regarding location of the proposed shed, in which the proposed location is partially on an easement in favour of Elexicon Energy. Background The applicant is proposing a 33.6 square metre prefabricated shed in the rear yard of the property. The proposed shed accounts for approximately 7.3 percent of the lot coverage of the property and will increase the total lot coverage from 30.5 percent to 37.7 percent. The applicant is requesting to increase the lot coverage for accessory buildings and structures to 7.3 percent and increase the total lot coverage of the property to 37.7 percent to permit the proposed shed. The site plan, submitted in support of the proposed application, identifies that the proposed shed will be located on an easement in favour of Elexicon Energy (Elexicon). The purpose of the easement is for the maintenance of electrical energy transmission infrastructure. Elexicon was circulated the minor variance application for comment, however, no response has been received as of the date of this report, confirming if the location of the proposed shed on the easement is acceptable. Accordingly, staff recommend that this application be deferred to allow Elexicon the opportunity to provide comments respecting the location of the proposed shed on the easement. -8- Report P/CA 44/23 October 11, 2023 Page 2 Input From Other Sources Applicant • The previous shed was destroyed, a new prefabricated shed was purchased for storage of outdoor displays and does not meet the zoning requirements. Engineering Services • Ensure the increased lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Building Services • No concerns from Building Services. Elexicon Energy • Comments from Elexicon Energy have not been received. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: October 5, 2023 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)\2023\PCA 44-23\7. Report\PCA 44-23 (Deferral).docx Attachments -9- Li v e r p o o l R o a d Gu l l C r o s s i n g Browning Avenue Ilona Park Road Bayview Street Do u g l a s A v e n u e Fr o n t R o a d Luna Court Pl e a s a n t S t r e e t Kr o s n o B o u l e v a r d Monica Cook Place Commerce Street Broadview Street Old O rc hard Avenue Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park Frenchman's Bay Rate Payers Memorial Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 44/23 Date: Sep. 12, 2023 C. Williams 1285 Ilona Park Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2023\PCA 44-23\PCA44-23_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,500 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -10- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 42/23 Date: October 11, 2023 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 42/23 L. Ali & R. Liaqat 636 Annland Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7872/21 & By-law 7900/22, to permit: •a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres based on the shortest front yard setback of adjacent dwellings, whereas the By-law permits a minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback (7.64 metres) of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block •a maximum building height of 11.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum building height of 9.0 metres •an uncovered platform (balcony) not exceeding 5.85 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required rear yard •a covered platform (balcony) not exceeding 2.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required rear yard •a maximum lot coverage of 39.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent •a parking space within a private garage with a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 5.95 metres, whereas the By-law permits each parking space within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to facilitate a building permit submission to construct a two-storey detached dwelling with a limited roof top amenity area. -11- Report P/CA 42/23 October 11, 2023 Page 2 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, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10). Background Preliminary Zoning Review The requested variances were identified through a Preliminary Zoning Review dated May 18, 2023. Bay Ridges Established Neighbourhood Precinct The Infill By-law establishes a set of zoning provisions to help maintain the existing character of the surrounding area by introducing new provisions for yard setbacks, building height, dwelling depth, lot coverage and other zoning standards. On September 5, 2023, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) issued its Decision dismissing appeals of the Infill By-law and ordering the Infill By-law to be in force and in full effect. The applicant has reviewed and provided comment on the proposal using the Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. This designation primarily provides for residential uses. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “R4” – Third Density Residential Zone by Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7872/21 & By-law 7900/22. -12- Report P/CA 42/23 October 11, 2023 Page 3 Minimum Front Yard Setback (Infill By-law 7872/21) Under the Infill By-law 7872/21, the front yard setback is measured from the shortest front yard setback of the immediately adjacent dwellings. In this case, the existing dwelling to the east has a minimum setback of 7.64 metres, and the dwelling to the west has a minimum setback of 7.66 metres. Therefore, the required minimum setback for 636 Annland Street is 7.64 metres. The intent of the minimum front yard requirement of 7.64 metres is to maintain a consistent setback with abutting properties to mitigate views and privacy concerns, and to provide sufficient landscaped area and space for parking in the front yard. The proposed dwelling has a 7.5 metre setback from the front property line to the porch, while the main front wall of the dwelling has a setback of approximately 8.1 metres. The existing front yard setbacks along Annland Street range between 3.8 metres to 9.0 metres. The applicant has requested a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres. The requested variance in reducing the front yard setback is compatible with the character of the streetscape along Annland Street. Building Height (Infill Height By-law 7900/22) The intent of the zoning by-law requirement for a maximum building height of 9.0 metres is to minimize the visual impact of new buildings/development on the existing streetscape and ensure that new development is compatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood. In the Infill By-law, “Dwelling Height” for flat roofs is measured from the average grade along the front wall to the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall and includes any roof structure such as to house mechanical equipment of the dwelling or a penthouse. Therefore, the dwelling height is measured from the average grade to the top of the stairs enclosure that accesses the roof top amenity area. The existing height and built form along Annland Street vary from one-storey to three-storeys with heights of 5.0 metres to 12.0 metres. The requested dwelling height of 11.6 metres is to permit a stairs enclosure to access a rooftop amenity area. However, the proposed two-storey dwelling will maintain a maximum height of 9.0 metres. The proposed rooftop amenity area will be enclosed by a fence and will be setback 3.0 metres from the eaves, which will provide privacy for adjacent neighbours. The proposed amenity area will not have a negative impact on privacy or create shadowing concerns. The requested increase in height will not impact on the character of the neighbourhood and will not have a negative impact on the existing streetscape. The applicant has revised their submitted roof plans denoting the rooftop amenity area is proposed to be entirely enclosed by a privacy fence. Projection of Covered and Uncovered Platforms (Balconies) into the Rear Yard The intent of the provision that requires uncovered platforms (balconies) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard is to protect the privacy of abutting properties. The applicant has proposed a partially covered balcony on the first floor of the dwelling that projects 1.31 metres into the required rear yard, with a height of approximately 2.2 metres above grade. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed an additional uncovered balcony on the second floor, directly above the balcony on the first floor of the dwelling. The proposed second floor uncovered balcony encroaches less than 1.0 metres into the rear yard with a height of 5.8 metres above grade. -13- Report P/CA 42/23 October 11, 2023 Page 4 The proposed first storey balcony has a total area of 10.3 square metres and is setback 6.2 metres from the rear property line, while the second storey has a total area of 4 square metres and is setback 7.0 metres from the rear property line. The proposed balconies are minor in size, contribute to the total outdoor amenity area, and will not have a negative impact on neighbour’s privacy. Staff is of the opinion that the covered and uncovered balconies maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law. Lot Coverage The intent of maximum lot coverage is to ensure the property has sufficient area uncovered by structures to accommodate usable amenity area, adequate drainage and landscaping. The “R4” zone permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent for all covered structures including stairs and decks, whereas the dwelling along with attached platforms proposes a total lot coverage of 39.5 percent. The proposed dwelling without the attached platforms has a total lot coverage of 36.5 percent, while the proposed platforms make up an additional 3.0 percent of the total lot coverage. The applicant has indicated that the size of the building has been designed to ensure the dwelling on the subject property is not dominated by the adjacent dwellings to the west and east. The property has sufficient landscaping area in the front yard, and sufficient area in the rear yard for amenity space. In addition, the applicant has provided additional amenity space on the roof. Staff is of the opinion that the lot coverage of 39.5 percent maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Interior Private Parking Space in Private Garage The intent of a minimum parking space requirement of 3.0 metres by 6.0 metres is to ensure there is sufficient space to park a vehicle and enter/exit a vehicle within the parking space. Operationally, two parking spaces measured at 5.67 by 5.95 metres in total will be provided within the interior garage. Staff are of the opinion that the reduced parking space within the interior parking garage will provide sufficient space to park a vehicle and enter/exit a vehicle. Staff are of the opinion that a vehicle can be accommodated within the proposed parking space with minimal complications with entering/exiting the garage. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The scope of the proposed development includes removing the existing dwelling and constructing a two-storey detached dwelling. With respect to front yard setback, building height (subject to conditions) and lot coverage, the proposed design of the house will be consistent with the immediate surrounding neighbourhood. Staff is of the opinion that facilitating the infill development for a residential lot along Annland Street will maintain the existing character of the community and is desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The variances are minor and are a result of the enactment of the Infill By-law on September 5, 2023. -14- Report P/CA 42/23 October 11, 2023 Page 5 Engineering Services • Ensure increased lot coverage and any reduced setbacks (if approved with this application) do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) will be required at the Building Permit stage. Building Services • No concerns from Building Services. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: October 5, 2023 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\Reports\2013\pca??-13.doc Attachments -15-   oo ae e t t e a n e Wharf Street F r o n t R o a d Foxglove Avenue Shearer Lane E ¯ ace ive r p l R o a d L Commerce S Monica Cook Pl Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park Ilona Park Road Pl s a n S r e t Luna Court Frenchman's Bay Rat Memor e Payers ial Park treet Broadview S H w s o n D r i v e treet Annland S re e tt SubjectLands Alderwood Park B l a t o A v n u e Exhibit 1 Location MapFile: P/CA 42/23Applicant:L. Ali & R. LiaqatMunicipal Address: 636 Annland StreetCity Development © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from:Department Date: Sep. 27, 2023© King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property SCALE: 1:4,000Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2023\PCA 42-23\PCA42-23_LocationMap.mxd -16- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 42/23 Applicant: L. Ali & R. Liaqat Municipal Address: 636 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 27, 2023 to permit a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres based on the shortest front yard setback of adjacent dwellings to permit a maximum dwelling height of 11.6 metres to permit uncovered platform (balcony) not exceeding 5.85 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required rear yard to permit covered platform (balcony) not exceeding 2.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required rear yard to permit a maximum lot coverage of 39.5 percent to permit a parking space within a private garage with a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 5.95 metres -17- Exhibit 3 Submitted North Elevation (Rear) File No: P/CA 42/23 Applicant: L. Ali & R. Liaqat Municipal Address: 636 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 27, 2023 -18- Exhibit 4 Submitted East Elevation (Side) File No: P/CA 42/23 Applicant: L. Ali & R. Liaqat Municipal Address: 636 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 27, 2023 -19- Exhibit 5 Submitted South Elevation (Front) File No: P/CA 42/23 Applicant: L. Ali & R. Liaqat Municipal Address: 636 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 27, 2023 -20- Exhibit 6 Submitted West Elevation (Side) File No: P/CA 42/23 Applicant: L. Ali & R. Liaqat Municipal Address: 636 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 27, 2023 -21- Exhibit 7 Submitted Basement Floor Plan File No: P/CA 42/23 Applicant: L. Ali & R. Liaqat Municipal Address: 636 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 27, 2023 -22- Exhibit 8 Submitted Main Floor Plan File No: P/CA 42/23 Applicant: L. Ali & R. Liaqat Municipal Address: 636 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 27, 2023 -23- Exhibit 9 Submitted Second Floor Plan File No: P/CA 42/23 Applicant: L. Ali & R. Liaqat Municipal Address: 636 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 27, 2023 -24- Exhibit 10 Submitted Roof Plan (revised) File No: P/CA 42/23 Applicant: L. Ali & R. Liaqat Municipal Address: 636 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: October 5, 2023 Fenced Roof Amenity Area -25- 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) The front entrance is less than 1.2 metres in height above grade. 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) -26- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments 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) 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) The garage is slightly recessed. 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) There are no trees within the property. -27- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 43/23 Date: October 11, 2023 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 43/23 W. Ngassam & C. Ngantchou 2137 Castle Hill Court Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7541/17, to permit: •a private garage with a minimum width of 2.9 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres with 6 interior steps within the depth, whereas the By-law permits a private garage to have a minimum width of 2.9 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres, however 2 interior steps may be included in the depth •a window well to encroach a maximum of 1.0 metre into the 1.2 metre path of travel on the west side of the dwelling, whereas the By-law requires all lots containing additional dwelling units to provide a minimum 1.2 metres wide path of travel from the entrance of each additional dwelling unit a public or private street, cleared of obstructions The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit for an additional dwelling unit within the existing detached dwelling. Recommendation For your information and based solely on the Application for Minor Variance 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. Staff is of the opination that the requested variance to permit six interior steps within the depth of the garage meets the four tests, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance. However, Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit a window well to encroach a maximum of 1.0 metre within the 1.2 metre path of travel does not meet the 4 tests, therefore recommends Refusal of the requested variance to permit the window well to encroach into the 1.2 metre path of travel. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following conditions are 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, 4, 5, 6 & 7). 2.That the applicant revises the submitted plans to remove the window well from encroaching into 1.2 metres path of travel at the west side of the dwelling. -28- Report P/CA 43/23 October 11, 2023 Page 2 Background On September 25, 2023, Council approved City-initiated Official Plan Amendment 49 and associated Zoning By-laws to implement the Bill 23 changes to the Planning Act, which required municipalities to permit up to two Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) on all urban (serviced) properties that contained a detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, block townhouse dwelling and/or street townhouse dwelling. Zoning By-law 3036 was amended by By-law 8036/23 to expand the permissions for ADUs and introduced new regulations for ADUs. As no transitional provisions are proposed within the new ADU regulations, the subject minor variance application is reviewed against the newly adopted zoning provisions to ensure consistency with the building permit review. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density” within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood. Residential uses including additional dwelling units (ADUs) are permitted within this designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “S4-12” under Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7541/17. Interior Steps within Garage Variance The intent of requiring a minimum private garage size of 2.9 metres in width and 6.0 metres in depth is to ensure that sufficient space can be provided within the garage for parking and storage. The Zoning By-law permits a maximum of two steps within the depth of the garage to allow access between the dwelling and garage, accommodating any grade difference between the garage and the finished floor of the dwelling. The existing garage provides 6.0 metres in depth on the left side and 5.3 metres in depth on the right side. The left side of the garage meets the minimum size requirements of a private garage as set out in the Zoning By-law, providing 6.0 metre in depth and 3.0 metre in width. Six steps are proposed in the left side of the garage to provide access to a storage space in the basement. The applicant has demonstrated that the dimensions on the right side of the garage is sufficient to provide a parking space, as such, staff is satisfied that the requested variance is in keeping with the intent of the Zoning By-law. Path of Travel Variance The intent of requiring a minimum 1.2 metre path of travel clear of obstructions is to ensure that adequate space is available for emergency services to access the ADU in an event of emergency. -29- Report P/CA 43/23 October 11, 2023 Page 3 The applicant is proposing to enlarge the existing rear basement window on the west side of the dwelling to accommodate the new bedroom in the proposed ADU. A 1.0 metre window well with an aluminum crate cover is proposed to accommodate the enlarged window. As the window well will take up most of the path of travel, staff have concerns that the window well will create a blockage for emergency services to access the property, should the resident use that window as an escape route. Based on the submitted floor plan of the proposed ADU, the applicant has the opportunity to add an enlarged window facing the rear yard of the dwelling for the new proposed bedroom. The two existing basement windows on the west side of the dwelling are currently above grade and do not require window wells. As such, staff is of the opinion that the requested variance for the window well encroaching into the 1.2 metre path of travel does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances will permit an ADU within the existing detached dwelling. The proposed steps within the garage will not reduce the required parking spaces to accommodate the parking requirements of the existing principal dwelling and the proposed ADU and contribute to additional storage space within the dwelling. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance to permit six steps within the depth of the garage is desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is minor in nature. The requested variance to permit a window well to encroach into the 1.2 metre path of travel to access the ADU has the potential of creating a hazard for emergency services to access the ADU in an event of emergency. Engineering Services also have concerns that the proposed window well may compromise the drainage swale between the lots. Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance to permit the encroachment of the window well on the path of travel is not desirable for the appropriate development of land and is not minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • Stairs within the garage were previously installed and does not comply with the zoning by-law. Engineering Services • The lot is located in an unassumed subdivision. However, ensure the window well and walkway does not impede the drainage swale between the lots. Building Services • Building Services have concerns with the path of travel width to the rear proposed basement walk-out. Where the proposed window well encroaches into the path of travel on the west side of the house, the clear path for street access is reduced down to 0.2m (10”). Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. -30- Report P/CA 43/23 October 11, 2023 Page 4 Date of report: October 4, 2023 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)\2023\PCA 43-23\7. Report\PCA 43-23 Report.docx Attachments -31- De n b y D r i v e Duberry D rive Gandalf Co u r tReesor Court HollyhedgeDrive Major O a k s R o a d Be a t o n W a y Castle H i l l C o u r t A lpine Lane Br o c k R o a d Th e o d e n C o u r t Sh a y D r i v e Ray leen Cres c ent Mc b r a d y C r e s c e n t Wi l d w o o d C r e s c e n t Brockridge Community Park Major Oaks Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 43/23 Date: Sep. 12, 2023 Exhibit 1 W. Ngassam & C. Ngantchou 2137 Castle Hill Court Hydro Lands SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2023\PCA 43-23\PCA43-23_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: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -32- 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 43 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : W. N g a s s a m & C . N g a n t c h o u Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 21 3 7 C a s t l e H i l l C o u r 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 : Se p t . 2 2 , 2 0 2 3 to p e r m i t a w i n d o w w e l l t o en c r o a c h a m a x i m u m o f 1. 0 me t r e i n t o t h e 1. 2 me t r e pa t h o f tr a v e l o n t h e we s t si d e o f t h e d w e l l i n g to p e r m i t a p r i v a t e g a r a g e wi t h a m i n i m u m w i d t h o f 2. 9 me t r e s a n d a m i n i m u m de p t h o f 6. 0 me t r e s ho w e v e r , t h e de p t h ma y in c l u d e 6 i n t e r i o r s t e p s -33- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d Fl o o r Pl a n s ( E x i s t i n g G r o u n d F l o o r a n d B a s e m e n t ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 43 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : W. N g a s s a m & C . N g a n t c h o u Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 21 3 7 C a s t l e H i l l C o u r 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 : Se p t . 2 2 , 2 0 2 3 to p e r m i t a p r i v a t e g a r a g e wi t h a m i n i m u m w i d t h o f 2. 9 me t r e s a n d a m i n i m u m de p t h o f 6. 0 me t r e s , ho w e v e r , t h e de p t h ma y in c l u d e 6 i n t e r i o r s t e p s -34- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d Fl o o r Pl a n s ( Pr o p o s e d Ba s e m e n t ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 43 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : W. N g a s s a m & C . N g a n t c h o u Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 21 3 7 C a s t l e H i l l C o u r 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 : Se p t . 2 2 , 2 0 2 3 -35- Ex h i b i t 5 Su b m i t t e d El e v a t i o n Pl a n s Fi l e N o : P/ C A 43 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : W. N g a s s a m & C . N g a n t c h o u Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 21 3 7 C a s t l e H i l l C o u r 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 : Se p t . 2 2 , 2 0 2 3 So u t h E l e v a t i o n Ea s t El e v a t i o n -36- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d El e v a t i o n Pl a n s Fi l e N o : P/ C A 43 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : W. N g a s s a m & C . N g a n t c h o u Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 21 3 7 C a s t l e H i l l C o u r 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 : Se p t . 2 2 , 2 0 2 3 We st El e v a t i o n Ne w w i n d o w we l l p r o p o s e d -37- Ex h i b i t 7 Su b m i t t e d Wi n d o w W e l l D e t a i l s Fi l e N o : P/ C A 43 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : W. N g a s s a m & C . N g a n t c h o u Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 21 3 7 C a s t l e H i l l C o u r 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 : Se p t . 2 2 , 2 0 2 3 -38- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 45/23 Date: October 11, 2023 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 45/23 I. Bhatti 598 Sheppard Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 & By-law 7902/22, to permit: • a maximum front yard setback of 14.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum front yard setback of 12.6 metres • a maximum dwelling depth of 26.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum dwelling depth of 20.0 metres • a maximum dwelling height of 9.7 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum dwelling height of 9.0 metres • a maximum driveway width of 17.75 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum driveway width of 6.0 metres • a parking space within a private garage with a minimum width of 2.9 metres and a minimum depth of 5.79 metres, whereas the By-law permits each parking space within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit to permit a two-storey 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 variances to permit the proposed two-storey dwelling to meet the four tests, and the requested variance to permit a maximum driveway width of 17.7 metres to not meet the four tests. Staff recommends Approval of the requested variances to permit a maximum front yard setback of 14.5 metres, a maximum dwelling height of 9.7 metres, a maximum dwelling depth of 26.5 metres, and an interior parking garage space with a minimum width of 2.9 metres and a minimum depth of 5.79 metres, and Refusal of the requested variance to permit a maximum driveway width of 17.7 metres. -39- Report P/CA 45/23 October 11, 2023 Page 2 After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in the requested variances to the front yard setback, dwelling depth, dwelling height and parking space within a private garage, the following conditions are recommended: 1. That the variances to permit the detached dwelling 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). 2. That the proposed driveway shall not exceed a maximum width of 6.0 metres, or if the entrance of the garage is wider than 6.0 metres, the proposed driveway shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of the garage. Background Open Building Permit Application Through the review of a building permit application submitted by the property owner proposing to construct a detached dwelling, City staff identified that the proposed dwelling does not comply with the recently in-force and effect Infill Zoning By-laws 7874/21 & 7902/22. The requested variances are intended to permit a detached dwelling and will enable the applicant to proceed with the issuance of the building permit application. Woodlands Established Neighbourhood Precinct The Infill By-law establishes a set of zoning provisions to help maintain the existing character of the surrounding area introducing new provisions for yard setbacks, building height, dwelling depth, lot coverage and other zoning standards. On September 5, 2023, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) issued its Decision dismissing appeals of the Infill By-law and ordering the Infill By-law to be in force and in full effect. The applicant has reviewed and provided comment on the proposal using the Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Woodlands Neighbourhood. This designation primarily provides for residential uses. The Official Plan policies encourage new development along Sheppard Avenue to be compatible with the character of existing development. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “R4” – Third Density Residential Zone by Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 7874/21 & By-law 7902/22. -40- Report P/CA 45/23 October 11, 2023 Page 3 Interpreting the Infill By-law The purpose and intention of the Infill By-law is to consider existing adjacent development to ensure future development is consistent and generally maintains the existing neighbourhood character. In the case of 598 Sheppard Avenue, the neighbouring parcel of land to the west (municipally known as 592 Sheppard Avenue) has previously conveyed a portion of the front yard for future road widening (approximately 5.2 metres). Therefore, the front yard setback requirement of 592 Sheppard Avenue appears to be shorter than the proposed front yard setback of 598 Sheppard Avenue. However, it should be noted that the placement of the proposed dwelling for 598 Sheppard Avenue is generally consistent with the front yard setbacks of the existing dwellings on the adjacent properties. Maximum Front Yard Setback (Infill By-law 7874/21) The intent of the maximum front yard setback requirement of the Infill By-law is to ensure that adequate separation is provided between a dwelling and street activity, a sufficient landscaped area is maintained between a dwelling and the adjacent streets, and that an appropriate setback is provided to maintain a consistent streetscape. The applicant has requested an increase in the maximum front yard setback to 14.5 metres, whereas the by-law requires a maximum front yard setback of 12.58 metres. Under the Infill By-law, the maximum front yard setback is determined by taking an average of the two adjacent front yard setbacks plus 1.0 metre. The existing front yard setback of the adjacent lot to the west, 592 Sheppard Avenue, is 7.63 metres, and the front yard setback of the adjacent lot to the east, 602 Sheppard Avenue, is 15.54 metres. Therefore, the permitted maximum front yard setback for 598 Sheppard Avenue is 12.58 metres. However, lands across the frontage of 592 Sheppard Avenue have been conveyed to the City for a future road widening effectively reducing the actual setback from the new front lot line. The dwelling proposed for the subject site at 598 Sheppard Avenue is proposed to be situated at a setback similar to and consistent with the adjacent dwellings to the west and east. Adequate separation is being maintained from the front property line to the building. The building is unable to meet the required maximum front yard setback of 12.6 metres due to the western lot having a portion of the property conveyed for road widening. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Dwelling Height (Infill Height By-law 7902/22) The intent of the Zoning by-law requirement for a maximum building height of 9.0 metres is to minimize the visual impact of new buildings on the existing streetscape and ensure that new development is compatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood. The existing height and built form along Sheppard Avenue vary from one-storey to two-storey residential dwellings with heights of 5.0 metres to 12.0 metres. The requested increase in height will not alter the character of the neighbourhood and will not have a negative impact on the existing streetscape. -41- Report P/CA 45/23 October 11, 2023 Page 4 Dwelling Depth (Infill By-law 7874/21) The intent of the maximum dwelling depth of 20.0 metres is to provide for consistent placement of rear walls on neighbouring properties, and to reduce potential shadowing, massing, and privacy impacts on adjacent dwellings and rear yards. Dwelling depth is measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling. The minimum front yard setback for 598 Sheppard Avenue is 7.63 metres which is determined by the existing setback of the neighbouring property to the west (592 Sheppard Avenue). Therefore, the dwelling depth is measured from the minimum front yard setback requirement of 7.63 metres to the rear of the wall for 598 Sheppard Avenue. However, the actual dwelling depth from front wall to rear wall for the proposed dwelling is approximately 19.6 metres. In addition, the siting of the rear wall of 598 Sheppard Avenue is proposed to be similar to and consistent with the siting of the rear walls of the existing dwellings on the adjacent neighbouring properties at 592 and 602 Sheppard Avenue. The proposed dwelling has been designed to mitigate potential massing and privacy impact of an increased dwelling depth as calculated according to zoning provisions on the property to the east. The proposed dwelling depth of 26.5 metres will have minimal privacy impacts on the property to the east and will not have shadow impacts on the adjacent properties. Driveway Width (Infill By-law 7874/21) The intent of this provision is to ensure sufficient space is maintained in the front yard for landscaping, to accommodate grading and drainage, and to maintain the character of the street. The property has 20.1 metres of frontage along Sheppard Avenue, whereas the driveway appears to have a maximum width of 17.7 metres. In staff’s opinion, this does not provide for sufficient space in the front yard for landscaping. The existing driveway on the property appears to have a width of approximately 5.0 metres. An increase in the driveway width to 17.7 metres would result in a large increase of impervious surfaces in the front yard. A reduction in the size of the driveway would help with grading and drainage on the property, especially when considering the reduced north side yard setback and the increased lot coverage. Neighbouring properties along Sheppard Avenue appear to have driveway widths ranging between 5.5 and 10.0 metres. Furthermore, the proposed half circle driveway will require two separate entrances into the property from Sheppard Avenue. Engineering Services has indicated that they will not allow a two-entrance driveway. The proposal to permit a maximum driveway width of 17.7 metres is not in keeping with the character of the street. Interior Private Parking Space in Private Garage The intent of a minimum parking space requirement of 3.0 metres by 6.0 metres is to ensure there is sufficient space to park a vehicle and enter/exit a vehicle within the parking space. Operationally, 3 parking spaces measured for a total of 8.92 metres in width by 5.79 metres in depth will be provided within the interior garage. -42- Report P/CA 45/23 October 11, 2023 Page 5 Staff are of the opinion that the reduced parking spaces within the interior parking garage will provide sufficient space to park vehicles and for vehicles to enter/exit the garage. Staff are of the opinion that a vehicle(s) can be accommodated within the proposed parking space with minimal complications with entering/exiting vehicles and the garage. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The scope of the proposed development includes removing the existing dwelling and constructing a two-storey detached dwelling. The proposed design of the house will be consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. Staff is of the opinion that facilitating the infill development for a residential lot along Sheppard Avenue will maintain the existing character of the community and is desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The applicant was unable to obtain a building permit prior to the change of zoning due to tenant not vacating the property for demolition. Engineering Services • Ensure increased lot coverage and any reduced setbacks (if approved with this application) do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. • It should be noted that the City will not permit the secondary driveway access with the building permit application. Only one access will be permitted. A hammerhead driveway can be incorporated into the design if required to provide safe access onto Sheppard Avenue. Toronto Regional Conservation Authorities • Although the subject property is partially located within the TRCA regulated area of the Petticoat Creek watershed, the proposed works are outside of that regulated area. As such, TRCA staff have no objection or comments for the proposal and a TRCA permit is not required. Building Services • No concerns from Building Services. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. -43- Report P/CA 45/23 October 11, 2023 Page 6 Date of report: October 5, 2023 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\Reports\2013\pca??-13.doc Attachments -44- E d m u n d D r i v e Barry Drive Sheppard Avenue Foxwood TrailBraeburn Crescent Beckworth Squ a r e Laurie r Crescent Cattail Court Daylight Court We y b u r n S q u a r e Gardenview Square Sundown Crescent A mberwood Crescent DunbartonPool Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 45/23 Date: Sep. 15, 2023 Exhibit 1 ¯ E I. Bhatti 598 Sheppard Avenue SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2023\PCA 45-23\PCA45-23_LocationMap.mxd 1:3,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment -45- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 45/23 Applicant: I. Bhatti Municipal Address: 598 Sheppard Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 27, 2023 Sheppard Avenue to permit a maximum front yard setback of 14.5 metres to permit a maximum dwelling depth of 26.5 metres to permit a maximum dwelling height of 9.7 metres to permit a maximum driveway width of 17.7 metres to permit a parking space within a private garage with a minimum width of 2.9 metres and a minimum depth of 5.79 metres -46- Exhibit 3 Submitted North Elevation (Rear) File No: P/CA 45/23 Applicant: I. Bhatti Municipal Address: 598 Sheppard Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 27, 2023 -47- Exhibit 4 Submitted South Elevation (Front) File No: P/CA 45/23 Applicant: I. Bhatti Municipal Address: 598 Sheppard Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 27, 2023 -48- Exhibit 5 Submitted West Elevation (Side) File No: P/CA 45/23 Applicant: I. Bhatti Municipal Address: 598 Sheppard Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 27, 2023 -49- Exhibit 6 Submitted East Elevation (Side) File No: P/CA 45/23 Applicant: I. Bhatti Municipal Address: 598 Sheppard Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 27, 2023 -50- 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) Mansard and Gable roofs are in keeping with the adjacent existing dwellings. x 2. If the proposed new dwelling is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) The proposed dwelling is similar in height to the west lot, however, the house on the east lot is shorter. x 3. Is the maximum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) The front entrance is less than 1.2 metres above grade. 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) -51- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments x 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) The dwelling depth of adjacent dwellings ranges between 16 – 24 metres. x 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) 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) The garage is flush. x 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) The driveway is wider than the proposed garage doors. The driveway extends across a majority of the lot x 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) New trees are proposed within the rear lot. -52-