Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 2, 1992 - 41- , .' PRESENT: MINUTES of the 8th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held in the Committee Room of the Pickering Civic Centre on Wednesday, July 2nd, 1992. Ms. S. Archer, Chairperson Mrs. D. Kerr Mrs. C. Scorer Mr. M. Puterbough W ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. C. Livie, Secretary-Treasurer Mrs. V. Rodriques Planner. The Meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Committee Room of the Civic Centre. 1. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES There were no matters arising from the minutes. 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES MOTION: Moved by Mrs. Kerr, seconded by Mrs. Archer and carried unanimously that- the minutes of the 7th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held June 10th, 1992, be adopted. 3. P /CA 38/92 - W. J. Lawlor Block E & Part of Lots 10 & 11, Plan 65 Also known as 666 Pleasant Street Town of Pickerin2 '*-" The applicant requests relief from the provisions of Section 5.19(a) of By-law 2511 to permit a detached accessory structure (shed) to be located a minimum of 0.45 metres from the south lot line and 0.45 metres from the west lot line, whereas the By-law requires that accessory structures be located in the rear yard not less than 1.0 metres from all lot lines. Approval of this variance application is required in order to obtain a building permit for a proposed acessory structure. Mr. & Mrs. W. Lawlor were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour or in objection to the application. As only four members were present, this application, P /CA 38/92 by W. Lawlor, was deferred to the next regular scheduled meeting. 4. P /CA 43/92 - Cougs Investments Block 91, Plan 40M-1664 & Block 109, 40M-1413 and Lot 106, 40M-1413 & Block 61, 40M-1488 Also known as 1653 and 1655 Major Oaks Road respectively Town of Pickerine The applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 5(I)(b)(xi) of By-law 1976/85 to permit the continuance of a horizontal distance of 1.41 metres between the existing dwelling on Block 91, 40M-1664 & Block 109, 40M-1413, also known as 1653 Major Oaks Road and the existing dwelling on Lot 106, 40M-1413 & Block 61, 40M-1488, also known as 1655 Major Oaks Road, whereas the By-law requires that the horizontal distance between ...... dwellings on adjacent lots be not less than 1.8 metres. Approval of this variance application is required in order to bring the subject properties into compliance with the provision of the By-law. - 42- ........ The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Planning Department and Public Works Department. A copy of all comments received was provided to the applicant and Committee members. Mr. G. Coughlan was present to represent the application. Mr. T. Petridis was present on behalf of N. Petridis, owner of the subject property known as 1655 Major Oaks Road. Mr. Coughlan advised that the existing fence between the subject properties is located approximately four feet within the property known as 1653 Major Oaks Road. Unfortunately, as the fence existed when the dwelling on the subject property known as 1653 Major Oaks Road was sited, it was assumed that the fence was the boundary line. Mr. Petridis stated that his father notified the Town and the builder when the foundation for the dwelling on 1653 Major Oaks Road was being poured, as it appeared that the dwelling would be too close to his dwelling. He questioned why construction of the dwelling was not halted at this time. DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer, seconded by Mrs. Kerr and carried unanimously that - this application, P /CA 43/92 by Cougs Investments, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the lands, and in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood and the general intent and purpose of the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan and Section 5(I)(b)(xi) of amending By-Law 1976/85. 5. P /CA 44/92 - Dilma Enterprises Lot 25, Plan 492 Also known as 1854 Liverpool Road Town of Pickerin2 The applicant requests relief from the provisions of: a) Section 5.21.1(4) of By-law 3036 to permit a mInImUm of 4 parking spaces per practitioner be provided on the' subject property, whereas the By-law requires that a ........ minimum of 5 parking spaces per practitioner be provided on the subject property. b) Section 5.21.2(a) of By-law 3036 to permit a maximum of 60% (3 spaces) of the total parking spaces to be located in the front yard of the subject property, whereas the By-law limits the number of vehicle parking spaces in the front yard to no more than 20% of the total required parking spaces. Section 6.3 of By-law 3036 to allow the office of a dentist to be located in a dwelling used by such dentist as his/her private residence, whereas the By-law allows only the office of a physician to be located in a dwelling used by such physician as his/her private residence. Approval of this variance application is required in order to allow the office of a dentist as a home occupation on the subject property. c) The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Planning Department and Public Works Department. Written comments were received from R. Marks, 1875 Glendale Drive indicating objection to the application. A copy of all comments received was provided to the applicant and Committee members. Mr. A. Mantia, was present to represent the application. Dr. G. Spinosa, purchaser of the subject property was also present. Mr. K. Boynton was present in favour of the application. Mrs. L. Campbell was present with concerns respecting the application. Mr. Mantia and Mr. Boynton advised that, in their opinion, the variance is minor. Mr. Spinosa stated that he will be renovating and improving the property. ........ - 43- Mrs. Campbell stated that this application, if approved, will set a precedent for more development of this nature. She is concerned with piece-meal zoning in the area. Mrs. Scorer stated that the proposed parking is insufficient for the proposed use. Mr. Puterbough stated that from his experience, in his opinion, the proposed parking for a dentist's office is sufficient. -- DECISION: Moved by Mr. Puterbough, seconded by Mrs. Scorer and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 44/92 by Dilma Enterprises, as outlined, 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 Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan and Sections 5.21.1(4) and 5.21.2(a) of By-law 3036, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner obtain site plan approval for the proposed development from the Town of Pickering within 12 months of the date of this decision or this decision shall become null and void. 7. PICA 45/92 - B. & S. Dickens Lot 14, Plan S20 Also known as 1770 Fairport Road Town of Pickerine The applicants request relief from the provisions of: a) Section 5.1S(e) of By-law 3036 to permit the establishment of a maximum height of 3.65 metres for the proposed addition to a detached garage on the subject property, whereas the By-law limits the height of detached accessory structures in any residential zone to a maximum of 3.5 metres. b) Section 6.5(b) of By-law 3036 to permit the housing of six privately owned vehicles in the detached garage on the subject property, whereas the By-law states that an owner or occupant of a lot, building or structure in any Residential Zone may use any __ enclosed building or structure accessory to the main building or structure erected on the same lot for the housing of one trailer, one commercial vehicle and not more than three privately owned vehicles. Approval of this variance is required in orfer that a building permit may be obtained for a proposed addition (approximately 10S.7m ) to the existing detached garage on the subject property. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Planning Department and Public Works Department. A copy of all comments received was provided to the applicant. Mr. B. Dickens was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour or in objection to the application. Mr. Dickens advised that the proposed addition for the garage is not to accommodate three additional cars. He owns a truck, car and motorcycle which are currently housed in the existing garage. He also owns a snowmobile and boat which are left outside. The proposed addition is to provide additional storage space for these vehicles and a workshop area. Mr. Dickens stated that the garage will be used strictly for his own use. In his opinion, the property is large enough to support the large garage. He has spoken with his adjacent neighbours and they are all in favour of the addition. He added that the property to the south, adjacent to his property, is owned by Bell Telephone and there are always several Bell Telephone vehicles parked on that property. Ms. Archer stated that she understands that the garage will be used for the applicant's own personal use, however, a garage of this size will create the potential for a business use, 'W' should the property change ownership. -44- Mrs. Scorer stated that, in her opinion, the proposed size of the garage will not be in character with surrounding residential area, will be out of proportion with the neighbourhood and create a potential for other uses. She asked why the height of the proposed addition is necessary. Mr. Dickens replied that he would like to build the addition without support beams and in order accomplish this a higher roof is required to accommodate strong roof trusses. ~ MOTION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer, seconded by Mr. Puterbough that- this application, P /CA 45/92 by B. & S. Dickens, as outlined, be REFUSED on the grounds that the requested variances are major in nature, will negatively impact the character of. the surrounding area, will be inappropriate development for the land and the size is excessive for a detached structure accessory to a residential use. MOTION LOST MOTION: Moved by Ms. Archer, seconded by Mr. Puterbough and carried unanimously that - consideration of this application, PICA 45/92 by B. & S. Dickens, be DEFERRED to the next regular meeting at which time five members of the Committee of Adjustment are present. 7. P /CA 46/92 - T. Cannell Lots 1 & 2, Plan 274 Also knOWlJ. as 351 Dyson Road Town of Pickerin2 The applicant requests relief from the provisions of Section 10.2.3 of By-law 2511 to permit the establishment of a minimum 4.6 metre rear yard depth provided by the existing dwelling on the proposed retained parcel, whereas the By-law requires that a dwelling provide a minimum 7.5 metre rear yard depth. Approval of this variance application is required in order to bring the proposed retained "-' parcel, subject of Land Division application LD 200/91, into compliance with the provisions of the By-law. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Planning Department and Public Works Department. Comments were also received from CN Railway, N. Peacock, 242 Dyson Road and S. & K. Evans, 351 Dyson Road. A copy of all comments received was provided to the applicant. Mr. H. Raedisch, 607 Annland Street, was present to represent the application. Mrs. C. Meredith, 350 Dyson Road, was present in objection to the application. Mrs. Scorer asked what the width of the porch is. Mr. Raedisch replied that it is approximately five feet wide. Mr. Puterbough asked if any trees will have to be removed for the construction of the dwelling on the severed lot. Mr. Raedisch replied that some trees will have to be removed. Mrs. Kerr asked if there is multiple residential units in the existing dwelling. Mr. Raedisch replied there are two residential units. Mrs. Meredith questioned whether the proposed rear yard depth will be 4.6 metres from the rear wall of the porch or from the main rear wall of the dwelling. In her opinion, this dimension is from the main rear wall of the dwelling to the proposed severance line. Further, the severed lot will not be large enough to accommodate a dwelling which will blend in with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. - - 45- The Committee referred to the Planning Department's recommended condition to the Land Division Committee for severance application LD 200/91 which requested the submission of a draft reference plan or building location survey indicating that all buildings on both the proposed retained and severed parcels conform to the zoning by-law requirements. They asked Mr. Raedisch if this plan is available. He replied that he is not aware of such a plan. He added that, in his opinion, the proposed severed parcel will accommodate a dwelling in compliance with the by-law requirements. MOTION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer, seconded by Mr. Puterbough and carried unanimously ,-,. that- consideration of this application, P /CA 46/92 by T. Cannell, be DEFERRED until such time as a draft reference plan or building location survey by an Ontario Land Surveyor be submitted to the Committee of Adjustment indicating the dimensions of the porch and any other additions to the existing dwelling, and the dimension of the rear yard depth from the main rear wall of the dwelling to the proposed severance line. 8. P /CA 47/92 - Walnut Grove Plaza Part Lot 24, Concession 1 Also known as 1163 Kingston Road Town of Pickerin2 The applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 51l)(b)(xi)A of By-law 2836/88, as varie~ by PICA 30/92, to permit two restaurants with a maximum aggregate floor area of 454m , whereas the By-law limits the number of restaurants onlhe subject property to two restaurants with a total maximum aggregate floor area of 375 m . Approval of this variance application is required in order to ~low two restaurants on the subject property with a maximum aggregate floor area of 454 m . The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Planning Department and Public Works Department. A copy of all comments received was provided to the applicant. Mr. V. Lind was present to represent the application. No further representation was '-' present in favour or in objection to the application. DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Kerr, seconded by Mrs. Scorer and carried unanimously that- this application, P /CA 47/92 by Walnut Grove Plaza, 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 Durham Regional Olncial Plan, the Pickering District Plan and Section 5(I)(b)(xi)A of amending By-law 2836/88. 9. PICA 48/92 - Bramco Limited Part Lot 3, Range 3 (Granite Court) Town of Pickerine The applicant requests relief from the provisions of: a) Section 5.21.1(3) of By-law 2511 to permit the ~rovision of 80 spaces for an industrial building with a gross floor area of 6,825.4 m , whereas the ~y-law requires that a minimum of 122 parking spaces (1 parking space per 56 m of b~lding area) be provided for ail industrial building with a gross floor area of 6,825.4 m . Section 16.3.2(C)(iii) of amending By-law 839/78 to permit the establishment of a minimum 10.0 metre front yard depth to be provided by an industrial building proposed to be constructed on the subject property, whereas the By-law requires that any building or structure provide a minimum 30.5 metre front yard depth where the front lot line abuts a street on the opposite side of which is a Residential Zone. b) '-" - 46- The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Planning Department and Public Works Department. A letter of objection to the application was received from Helen Craig, 722 Rosebank Road. A copy of all comments received was provided to the applicant and committee members. '-' Mr. W. Cole, Leeswood Design/Build Inc. and Mr. A. Wright, CB Commercial, were present to represent the application. Mr. M. Borat, 300 John Street, Thornhill, Ontario, owner of the adjacent property to the east of the subject property, was present to inquire as to what the subject property will be developed for. Mr. Cole advised that he had met with Ms. Craig and in his opinion feels that the majority of her concerns can be satisfied. He has agreed to no access from the proposed building on to Rosebank Road and will provide landscaping and berming along Rosebank Road. He stated that the subject property will be developed with Granite Road as the frontage of the property. In his opinion, if a 30.5 metre setback is provided from Rosebank Road, the subject property would be inappropriately developed. Mr. Wright stated that, in his opinion, if the subject property is developed with the frontage on Rosebank Road, the development would be out of character with the industrial neighbourhood. DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Kerr, seconded by Mrs. Scorer and carried unanimously that- this application, P /CA 48/92 by Bramco Limited, as outlined, 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 Durham Regional Omcial Plan, the Pickering District Plan and Sections 5.21.1(3) of Zoning By-law 2511 and Section 16.3.2 (C)(iii) of amending By-law 839/78, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant obtain site plan approval for the development of the subject property within twelve months of the date of this decision, or the decision shall become null and void. 2. That the subject property be developed with no vehicular access on to Rosebank Road. ...... 10. P/CA49/92 - C. Yu & V. Lo Lot 4, Plan 538 Also known as 280 Martins Road Town of Pickerin2 The applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 5.18(d) of By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of a minimum 1.08 metre east side yard width provided by the existing dwelling on the lot, whereas the By-law requires that a dwelling with an attached garage provide minimum 1.8 metre side yard widths. Approval of this variance application is required in order to bring the subject property into compliance with the provisions of the By-law. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Planning Department, Public Works Department and Durham Regional Health Services. A copy of all comments received was provided to the applicant and committee members. Mr. C. Yu was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour or in objection to the application. ..... - 47- DECISION: Moved by M. Puterbough, seconded by C. Scorer and carried unanimously that - this application, P /CA 49/92 by C.Yu & V. Lo, as outlined be APPROVED on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate use of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan and Section 5.18(d) of By-law 3036, subject to the following condition: 1. That this approval apply only to the dwelling in existence on the subject property on the date of this decision. ,-". 11. P /CA 50/92 - S. & C. Mohr Part Lot 33, Concession 2 Town of Pickerin& The applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 5.18(d) of By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of a minimum 1.75 metre east side yard width provided by the existing dwelling on the lot, whereas the By-law requires that a dwelling with an attached garage provide minimum 1.8 metre side yard widths. Approval of this variance application is required in order to bring the subject property into compliance with the provisions of the By-law. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Planning Department, Public Works Department and Durham Regional Health Services. A copy of all comments received was provided to the applicant and committee members. Mr. R. Whittington, Solicitor, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour or in objection to the application. DECISION: Moved by D. Kerr, seconded by C. Scorer and carried unanimously that- this application, P /CA 50/92 by S. & C. Mohr, as outlined be APPROVED on the grounds ......,. that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate use of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan and Section 5.18(d) of By-law 3036, subject to the following condition: 1. That this approval apply only to the dwelling in existence on the subject property on the date of this decision. 12. P /CA 51/92 - C. & D. Guerrieri Lot 14, Plan 40M-1627 Also known as 938 Duncannon Drive Town of Pickerine The applicants request relief from the provisions of: a) Section 5(1)(b)(iv) of By-law 2917/88 to permit the continuance of a minimum 1.35 metre east side yard width provided by a sundeck attached to the rear of the existing dwelling on the lot, whereas the By-law requires that a dwelling provide a minimum 1.8 metre side yard width. b) Section 5(1)(b)(vi)B of By-law 2917/88 to permit the continuance of a minimum 7.1 metre rear yard depth provided by a sun deck attached to the rear of the existing dwelling on the lot, whereas the By-law requires that a dwelling provide a minimum 7.5 metre rear yard depth. ~ c) Section 5(2)(b) of By-law 2917/88 to permit: i) the continuance of a sundeck attached to the rear of the existing dwelling and located within the Open Space Hazard Lands Zone; and ii) the construction of a detached structure (treehouse) within the Open Space Hazards Lands Zone; whereas the By-law restricts the construction of structures or buildings in the Open Space Hazard Lands. - 48- Approval of this variance application is required to bring the subject property into compliance with the provisions of the By-law and to permit the construction of a treehouse proposed to be located in the Open Space Hazard Zone area of the rear yard of the subject property. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Planning Department. Comments were also received from Mr. & Mrs. R. Hopkins, 944 Duncannon Drive, S. & N. Smith, 934 Duncannon Drive and Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority indicating objection to the application. Comments were received from Mr. & '-" Mrs. A. Koichopolos, 942 Duncannon Drive, in favour of the application. A copy of all comments received was provided to the applicant and committee members. Mr. & Mrs. C. Guerrieri were present to represent the application. Mr. & Mrs. A. Masur, 940 Duncannon Drive, were present in objection to the application. Mr. Guerrieri advised that only a small portion of the deck encroaches into the open space hazard lands zone. He stated that he spoke with Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and they are in objection to the proposed treehouse. He would like to build a treehouse for his children as there is no playground in the immediate area. The deck is for his family's own personal use. Mr. Guerrieri advised that he purchased the subject property with the intent of constructing an inground pool and deck. He was advised by the builder that his property was the most appropriate lot in the development for an inground pool. The pool and deck were professionally designed and constructed, were very expensive to construct and, in his opinion, enhance his back yard and provides the enjoyment of the greenbelt area to the fullest. He did not realize that a building permit was required for the deck. It is not his intent to remove any trees and he had received permission to remove one tree necessary to construct the pool and deck. Mr. Guerrieri stated that he does not agree with the Planning Department's comments which indicated that the dimensions and location of the deck do not correspond with the variance application plans. He plumed each dimension and feels that they are accurate. Mrs. Scorer asked the applicant if he was aware that no structures or buildings are ,-". permitted to be constructed in the open space hazard zone. Mr. Guerrieri replied that he did not realize that the deck was within the open space area as he did not have a survey which indicated the open space hazard zone boundary line. Mr. Mazur submitted a copy of written comments indicating objection to the application. He questioned why this letter was not in the Committee's possession as it had been sent by a courier several days ago. Mrs. Livie advised that she had not yet received it. Mr. Mazur stated that he had purchased his property for the enjoyment of the peace and tranquillity of the area. He thought that the restrictive covenant dealing with tree preservation and the open space hazard lands served as protection and restricted any structures being allowed in this area. Due to the difference in the grade between the subject property and his property, the deck is higher than his fence, detrimental to the privacy of his back yard and, in his opinion, decreases the value of his property. Mr. Mazur advised that, if his privacy can be re-captured, he will not have as strong an objection to the application. Mr. Puterbough stated that, in his opinion, the proposed treehouse is a frivolous proposal considering the open space hazard lands. Further, as there is a discrepancy in the dimensions provided in the application, an Ontario Land Survey should be submitted prior to consideration of this application. Mrs. Archer stated that, in her opinion, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Committee to allow a structure in the open space hazard lands. '-" - 49- MOTION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer, seconded by Mr. Puterbough that- consideration of this application be DEFERRED until such time as the applicant provides a survey by an Ontario Land Surveyor indicating the setback dimensions of the deck from the side lot line, rear lot line and "OS-HL" Zone boundary line, and also indicating the height dimension of the deck from the grade of the subject property. MOTION LOST ~ DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer, seconded by Mrs. Kerr and carried that- this application, P /CA 51/92 by C. & D. Guerrieri, to permit: - a) the continuance of a minimum 1.35 metre east side yard width provided by a sundeck attached to the rear of the existing dwelling on the lot; and b) the continuance of a minimum 7.1 metre rear yard depth provided by a sundeck attached to the rear of the existing dwelling on the lot; be APPROVED on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, suitable development for the lands and in character with the surrounding area and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan and Sections 5(I)(b)(iv) and 5(I)(b)(vi)B of By-law 2917/88; and this application, P /CA 51/92 by C. & D. Guerrieri, to permit: - c) i) the continuance of a sun deck attached to the rear of the existing dwelling and located within the Open Space Hazard Lands Zone; and ii) the construction of a detached structure (treehouse) within the Open Space Harard Lands Zone; be REFUSED on the grounds that the requested variances are major in nature, not within the jurisdiction of the Committee of Adjustment and would best be dealt with through a by-law amendment application. 13. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Mrs. Kerr, seconded by Mr. Puterbough and carried unanimously ~ that- the 8th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 10:30 p.m. and the next regular meeting be held on Tuesday, July 21st, 1992. ~ / .. . C?G'h '1::,('::_/ ex / ) / /' / ' cx:....- (-;/ / APPROVED S2~ Lftdc- CHAIRPERSON ~;; if 4~~c SECRETA: Y-TREA R ......