Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 19, 1993 , - MINUTES of the 2nd Special Meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held in the Committee Room of the Pickering Civic Complex on Tuesday, January 19, 1993. PRESENT Mrs. C. Scorer, Acting Chairperson Mr. B. Bhuta Mrs. D. Kerr Mr. M. Puterbough ALSO PRESENT Mrs. Lynda Taylor, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Mrs. Eva McDougall, Secretary-Treasurer "'-' The Special Meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Committee Room of the Civic Complex. 1. PICA 4/93 - Landford Dixie South Ltd. Lot 8, Plan 40M-1706 Also known as 1121 Windgrove Square Town of Pickering The applicant requests relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by Zoning By-law 3686/91, Section 5(b)(vi)B of the By-law to permit the establishment of a rear yard depth of 8.0 metres whereas the By-law requires that a dwelling provide a minimum rear yard depth of 11.0 metres. Approval of this variance application is required in order to permit the construction of a dwelling on the subject property as proposed in Building Permit Application #B92-1492. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department, which the Committee had before them. Mr. Nigel O'Neill, representing the Landford Group, was present to represent the application. Mr. Joe Blake and Mr. Mike Mitchell were present in objection to the application. --. Mr. O'Neill stated that he supported the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment. Mr. O'Neill indicated that originally the rear of the property was intended for a tree preservation zone, and that after the site was inspected by Pickering staff, the engineer and architect, it was decided that the preservation zone originally intended was no longer required as the trees on the subject property were not worth preserving, as the trees were mostly cedars and scrub. He indicated a few trees were tagged for preservation but eventually had to be removed. Mr. O'Neill indicated that the trees were removed with full approval from the Town. Mr. Puterbough inquired why a smaller dwelling was not proposed to be built on the lot. Mr. O'Neill indicated that Landford has a purchaser for the proposed property, and the purchaser wanted the model of dwelling proposed in the Building Permit application. Mr. O'Neill indicated that the rear yard depth of 8.0 metres was requested in the event that the purchaser wanted to put a deck at the rear of the property. Mr. Puterbough asked about the other lots on the street, and whether or not they would require variances. Mr. O'Neill stated that on Lot 9, Plan 40M-1706 that the corner of the proposed house would not comply, and that the sales staff have been instructed to avoid a variance situation. Mr. O'Neill indicated that if other properties in the plan did not comply, then they would probably initiate a rezoning application to change the rear yard depth to 7.5 metres. Mr. Bhuta asked if the sale of the subject property was a firm transaction. Mr. O'Neill indicated that the sale was firm. .... Mr. Bhuta asked if they could slightly modify the plan so a variance would not be necessary. Mr. O'Neill indicated that they could not modify the plan as additional architectural drawings would be required, and that they would have to reapproach the purchaser. Mr. O'Neill stated that additional drawings would cost a good deal of money, and the sale of the house did not warrant additional expenses as they were not making a great deal of money on the sale of the property. -2- Mrs. Kerr asked if Landford had a house model that would fit on the lot. Mr. O'Neill indicated that the 2,200 sq. ft. model would fit on Lot 4 of the plan, but because of the curve in the road on Lot 8, the model did not fit and requires a variance. Mr. Blake stated that he lives on Maple Gate Road and that his property backs onto the area where the trees were removed, and that he is not happy about all the trees that were removed from the property. Mr. Blake stated that he has lived there for about 10 years, and he knew that eventually the trees would not be there. Mr. Blake stated that the developer could comply with the existing by-law. Mr. Mitchell stated that he also lives on Maple Gate Road and abuts the subject property. '-" Mr. Mitchell stated that he objected to all the trees being cut down. Mr. Mitchell stated he could not understand why they could not build a house on the lot which would comply with the by-laws. He indicated that his house has a greenhouse kitchen and a swimming pool and indicated that he did not want the house any closer to him than necessary. Mr. Bhuta asked what had transpired with respect to the tree preservation zone. Mr. O'Neill stated the tree preservation area had very dense vegetation, and so it was suggested that the 11.0 m. rear yard depth be approved for the property. Mr. O'Neill indicated that when Community Services, the engineer and the consultant inspected the site, it was established that there was no potential for the trees to be preserved. MOTION: Moved by Mr. Bhuta, seconded by Mrs. Kerr, and carried unanimously that- this application, P /CA 4/93, as outlined 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 Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan and Section 5(b)(vi)(B) of Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by Zoning By-law 3686/91. 2. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Mr. Puterbough, seconded by Mrs. Scorer and carried unanimously- That the 2nd meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:50 p. m. and the next '-' regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, February 3, 1993. 2C:'//d LA:~( ,_--37/ /77:3 DATE ,/ / ~'CrL~~"L CHAIRMAN