Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 8, 1992 '" 19. MINUTES of the 4th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held in the Committee Room of the Pickering Civic Centre on Wednesday, April 8th, 1992. PRESENT: Ms. S. Archer, Chairperson Mrs. D. Kerr Mrs. C. Scorer Mr. B. Bhuta Mr. M. Puterbough '-" ALSO PRESENT: Mrs. C. Livie, Secretary-Treasurer Mrs. L. Taylor, 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 Mr. Bhuta, seconded by Mr. Puterborough and carried unanimously that - the minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held March 18th, 1992, be adopted. -- PICA 15/92 - M. & C. Bailey Part of Block 5, Plan 353 Also known as 842 Sheppard Avenue Town of Pickerina The applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 10.2.3 of By-law 3036 to permit a dwelling without an attached garage to have side yard widths of 1.5 metres on one side and 1.47 metres on the other side, whereas the By-law requires that a dwelling without an attached garage provide minimum side yard widths of 1.5 metres on one side and 2.4 metres on the other side. 3. Approval of this variance application is required in order that a building permit may be obtained to convert the existing attached garage to living area (family room). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. The applicants and Committee members were provided with a copy of all comments received. Mr. & Mrs. Bailey were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour or in objection to the application. Mrs. Bailey stated that the existing garage will be converted to a family room. She explained that the family room will be internally connected to the rest of the house adjacent to the front entrance of the dwelling. The larger family room is required as the existing family room is too small. It will be used strictly for their own living space and not for business purposes. The applicants realize that converting the garage to living space will eliminate the opportunity to construct another garage elsewhere on the property, however, they need the '-" extra living space more than than they need a garage. The driveway is large enough to accommodate four cars, therefore the elimination of a garage will not result in any cars being parked on the street. Mrs. Bailey advised that it is their intent to architecturally co-ordinate the addition with the existing dwelling and have no problem with the Planning Department's recommended condition. 20. DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer, seconded by Mr. Puterbough and carried unanimously that - this application, P /CA 15/92, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, appropriate development for the land and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan, and Section 10.2.3 of By-law 3036, subject to the following condition: -- 1. That prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant obtain site plan approval from the Planning Department to ensure architectural co-ordination of the converted garage with the existing dwelling on the lot. 4. P /CA 16/92 - D. Schaeffer Part Blocks 69 & 70, Plan 40M-1511 Also known as 1624 Middleton Street Town of Pickerine The applicant requests relief from the provisions of Section 5.18(e) of By-law 3036 to permit a detached accessory structure (garage) with a maximum height of 4.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires that detached accessory structures (garage) provide a maximum height of 3.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires that detached accessory structures (garage) provide a maximum height of 3.5 metres. Approval of this variance application is required in order that a building permit may be obtained for a detached garage (7.0 m x 7.3 m) on the subject property. '-" The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Comments were also received from Mrs. A. Willson, L.A.C.A.C. The applicants and Committee members were provided with a copy of all comments received. Mr. D. Schaeffer was present to represent the application. R. McIsaac and D. Hannaford, 1600 Dellbrook Avenue and S. Van Abbema, 1595 Dellbrook Avenue, were present in objection to the application. Mr. Schaeffer submitted a package containing elevations of the proposed garage and photos of the existing dwelling, also photos of other garages with a similar design to what he is proposing for comparison purposes. He stated that his intent is to construct a garage which will architecturally blend in with the historical character of the existing dwelling. In order to accomplish this, the garage is designed with a high pitched roof and gable window giving it an historical appearance and complimenting the existing dwelling. The garage will be visually appealing and in character with the area. Consequently, in his opinion, the requested variance is minor in nature. Mr. Schaeffer discussed various other garages in the neighbourhood and in other municipalities in terms of style and pitch of roof line. He pointed out that, if the attached garage on the adjacent property was detached, it would then exceed the height requirement of the By-law. Mr. Schaeffer indicated that he had met with Mrs. Willson of L.A.C.A.C. to discuss the written comments received from her. He advised that L.A.C.A.C. have no objection to the proposed garage. Mrs. Willson stated to him that in her opinion the requested variance is valid in order to design the garage to blend in with the dwelling. Mr. Bhuta asked about the grade of the property. Mr. Schaeffer replied that the grade at the rear of the property is higher. Mr. Bhuta stated that as the garage will be set back from the street and is designed to blend in with the existing dwelling, in his opinion, the variance is minor in nature. Mr. Puterborough stated that, in his opinion, as the grade is higher at the rear, the lots ~ directly behind the subject property not yet developed, will be negatively impacted. Mr. Schaeffer replied that the house is raised and is dominant visually but the grade at the proposed location of the garage is not as high. 21. D. Hannaford and R. McIsaac, stated that they are not in objection to the proposed height of the garage, however, they have concerns with what the garage is going to be used for. In their opinion, the proposed height of the garage creates the potential for a business use such as car repairs etc. Mr. Schaeffer replied that he is a professional engineer, his place of employment is not in the area and that the garage will be used strictly for his own personal use. ....... Mr. Van Abbema stated that he is in objection to the proposed height of the garage, as he feels it will create a visual impediment from his back yard. He added that he and his family spend alot of time in their back yard and presently enjoy the current view of the surrounding area. He feels that the proposed height of the garage will visually dominant the surrounding properties. Ms. Archer asked the applicant if the garage could be located closer to the front of the lot. Mr. Schaeffer replied that it could but he feels it will detract from the elevation of the house. He would object to bringing the garage forward to be in line with the dwelling but is willing to locate the garage 3.0 metres from the rear lot line. Some discussion took place concerning the existing trees. Mr. Schaeffer indicated that in his opinion no trees will have to be removed for the construction of the garage. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Bhuta, seconded by Mrs. Scorer and carried that - this application, P /CA 16/92 by D. Schaeffer, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the proposed garage will be architecturally co-ordinated with the existing dwelling, will not be detrimental to the surrounding area and is minor in nature, subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant obtain site plan approval from the Planning Department to ensure architectural co-ordination of the proposed garage with the existing dwelling on the lot. 2. That the proposed garage be located not less than 3.0 metres from the rear (north) lot line of the subject property. .,... 5. P /CA 17/92 - P /CA 21/92 inclusive Y orkwood Investments Ltd. Lots 32,38,39,40 & 41, Plan 40M-1692 Also known as 379 Hogarth Street, 112, 114, 116 & 118 Sweet briar Court Town of Pickerinl: Due to the similarities of the following variance applications these applications were considered simultaneously. The applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 10.2.3 of By-law 3036 to permit: PICA 17/92 - Lot 32, Plan 4OM-1692 - a minimum 6.6 metre front yard depth to be provided by a proposed dwelling on the subject lot. PICA 18/92 - Lot 38, Plan 4OM-1692 - a minimum 6.746 metre front yard depth to be provided by a proposed dwelling on the subject lot. PICA 19/92 - Lot 39, Plan 4OM-1692 - a minimum 7.394 metre front yard depth to be provided by a proposed dwelling on the subject lot. PICA 20/92 - Lot 40. Plan 4OM-1692 - a mininum 6.0 metre front yard depth to be provided by a proposed dwelling on the subject lot. ...... PICA 21/92 - Lot 41. Plan 4OM-1692 - a minimum 6.18 metre front yard depth to be provided by a proposed dwelling on the subject lot. Whereas the By-law requires that a dwelling provide a minimum 7.5 metre front yard depth. . 22. Approval of these variance applications is required in order that building permits may be obtained for the proposed dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. The applicants and Committee members were provided with a copy of all comments received. Mr. M. Godfrey was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour or in objection to the application. -- Mr. Godfrey advised that this will be the first time that his company has built homes in Pickering, however, he has been building homes for twenty years. He stated that his company always obtain required variance approvals prior to construc~on. Thes'2 variances are required in order to build dwellings in character with the 3,000 ft - 4,000 ft homes in the area. He pointed out that the existing "R4" zoning is an older zoning requiring 7.5 metre front yard depths while more recent zoning in Pickering requires 6.0 metre front yard depths. Mr. Godfrey stated that the majority of the requested variances are only at variance at a corner of the garage. No sidewalks exist in front of the subject properties therefore the variances will not be visible from the street. DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Kerr, seconded by Mrs. Scorer and carried unanimously that - these applications, P /CA 17/92, P /CA 18/92, P /CA 19/92, P /CA 20/92 and P /CA 21/92, 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 Distrct Plann and Section 10.2.3 of By-law 3036. 6. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer, seconded by Mr. Puterbough and carried unanimously that - '-" the 3rd meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:20 p.m. and the next regular meeting be held on Wednesday, April 29th, 1992. flr1,.~ /192- ~.lYtc/t-J CHAIRPERSON '-'