HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 07-12
City Report to
Planning & Development Committee
PICKER ING Report Number: PD 07-12
Date: March 5; 2012
From: Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2011-02
Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2011-02
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/11
Maddy Development Inc.
1290 &1292 Old Orchard Avenue
(Lot 8 and Part of Lot 7 & 9, Plan 432)
City of Pickering
Recommendation:
1. That Report PD 07-12 of the Director, Planning & Development be received;
2. That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2011-02 submitted by Maddy
Development Inc. to permit a single block plan of subdivision on lands being Lot 8
and Part of Lot 7 & 9, Plan 432, City of Pickering, be approved subject to the
conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report PD 07-12;
3. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/11 submitted by Maddy
Development Inc., to amend the zoning of the subject property to permit detached
dwellings accessed by a common element condominium be approved in
accordance with the standards set out in Appendix II of Report PD 07-12; and
4. Further, that the draft zoning by-law to implement Zoning Amendment Application
A 12/11, as set out in Appendix II to Report PD 07-12, be finalized and forwarded
to City Council for enactment.
Executive Summary: The application proposes to develop 16 freehold detached
dwelling units serviced by a common element condominium. A single block plan of
subdivision is required in order to establish a freehold detached dwelling tenure. The
applicant also requests an amendment to the current zoning to allow the proposed
freehold detached dwelling development with appropriate performance standards.
This proposal is similar to a traditional condominium development for 16 units on the
property that received zoning approval in October 2004 and site plan approval in July
2007. While the existing zoning permits the 16 proposed lots, the proposed
development does not comply with some of the existing performance standards,
particularly the minimum building setbacks from the east, west and south limits of the
property. Therefore, an amendment to the by-law is required.
Report PD 07-12 March 5, 2012
Subject: Maddy Development Inc. Page 2
46
The recommended zoning amendment and subdivision conditions of approval represent
appropriate density and performance standards for this infill development. Proposed
building setbacks are considered compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The
proposed development is appropriate and implements the Official Plan.
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
proposed development.
1.0 Background:
1.1 Introduction
Maddy Development Inc. submitted applications for approval of a draft plan of
subdivision, draft plan of condominium and an amendment to the zoning by-law
in order to implement the proposed 16 detached dwelling development on the
subject lands (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The draft plan of subdivision
is proposed to create one block of land in order to implement the creation of
freehold detached dwellings (see Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment # 2).
The draft plan of condominium is proposed to be a common element
condominium for private internal roads, visitor parking area, mail boxes and
landscaping elements (see Draft Plan of Condominium, Attachment #3). The
proposed development is similar to the traditional condominium development that
received previous City approval.
1.2 Revised Plan
Since the October 3, 2011 public meeting a community meeting was held on
December 8, 2011 with some of the abutting neighbours and the applicant.
Approximately 20 residents attended the meeting to discuss project details and
concerns. At the meeting, residents received further information on the proposed
development but consensus was not achieved on the west building setback (see
Community Meeting Minutes, Attachment #11).
After the community meeting the applicant submitted a revised house sitting plan
that proposed a west and east building setback of 1.5 metres, a front yard depth
of 6.0 metres for dwellings fronting Old Orchard Avenue, and an interior side yard
width of 1.2 metres separation distance between garages (see Revised
Development Plan, Attachment #4).
2.0 Application History
Activity related to the development of these lands dates back to October 1992
when a draft plan of condominium and zoning by-law amendment application
were submitted for an 18 unit traditional condominium project comprising of
detached and semi-detached units. The amending zoning by-law was approved
by Pickering Council in October 2004 (By-law 6375/04) to permit a total of
16 units (both detached and semi-detached) but the site has remained
undeveloped (see Application History, Attachment #5).
Report PD 07-12 March 5, 2012
Subject: Maddy Development Inc. Page 3
47
3.0 Comments Received
3.1 Prior to the Public Information Meeting
Resident at 1279 Haller Avenue expressed concern with the application
regarding the construction management of the proposed 16 unit development
and the removal of trees.
3.2 At the October 3, 2011, Public Information Meeting
Numerous residents appeared at the meeting to voice their opposition to the
proposed development and to raise their concerns. The concerns identified are
as follows:
• loss of privacy
• loss of vegetation and trees
• adequacy of internal street for emergency vehicles and garbage truck access
overflow of'parking onto Old Orchard Avenue
• type of amenities and landscaping and fencing
• on-site grading issues
• height of units
• impact on wildlife
• noise impacts on surrounding neighbourhood
• sewage capacity
• utility connections/easements
• school capacity
• traffic impact and capacity to accommodate the proposed development
• impact on property values
(see Meeting Minutes, Attachment #6)
3.3 Written Public Submissions on the applications
Two abutting neighbours to the west of the subject property, 829 Douglas
Avenue and 831 Douglas Avenue, expressed written objection and concern with
the application. The concerns identified 'are:
• opposition to the proposed reduction in west building setback requirement
from 7.5 metres to 1.2 metres
• the permitted density in the by-law
• loss of privacy and safety concerns with the proximity of the proposed
dwellings
• the accessibility to the site for the fire department and garbage collection (see
Resident Comments, Attachments #7, #8 and #9)
Report PD 07-12 March 5, 2012
Subject: Maddy Development Inc. Page 4
48
3.4 December 8, 2011 Community Meeting
A neighbourhood meeting was held on December 8, 2011, in order for the
residents of the neighbourhood and the applicant to discuss the application and
various options. Matters related to garbage collection, fire route, environmental
concerns, property line delineation, fencing, servicing, construction, noise and
loss of privacy were discussed and clarification provided (see Community
Meeting Minutes, Attachment # 11). Although the public was better informed
about the proposed development, consensus on the proposed building setbacks
was not achieved.
3.5 Agency Comments
Region of Durham • the proposal is permitted by the policies of the
Durham Region Official Plan
• the proposal is consistent with the PPS
• the proposed development conforms to the
Growth Plan
• a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
indicates that there is low potential for
environmental liability, therefore further
environmental investigation is not
recommended
• municipal water supply and sanitary service can
be provided
• the Region has no objection to the application
and has provided conditions of approval
(see Attachment #12)
No other agency that provided any comments has any objection to the subject
applications. Certain technical issues and requirements related to the proposed
uses of the site can be addressed through the implementation process.
3.6 City Departments
Development Control • recommended conditions of approval for the
draft plan of subdivision (see Attachment #13)
Fire Services • no objection at this time as the proposed
development meets current City standards
(see Attachment #14)
Report PD 07-12 March 5, 2012
Subject: Maddy Development Inc. Page 5
4.0 Discussion:
4.1 The proposed west and east building setback of 1.2 metres is not
consistent with the character of the neighbourhood and staff recommends
a setback of 1.5 metres
The subject property is within an established stable residential neighbourhood
with a majority of dwellings being detached with two car garages. The existing
zoning for residential properties on Old Orchard Avenue and Douglas Avenue is
"R4", which requires a minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres. The proposed
1.2 metre west and east building setback is not considered to be consistent with
the character of the neighbourhood.
Staff recommends a west and east building setback of 1.5 metres that is
consistent with the zoning requirement of adjacent lands and in character with
the surrounding area. This revision will allow the construction of 16 detached
dwelling units with two car garages on an enlarged building envelope, consistent
with other development in the area.
As a result of the proposed development, two properties on Douglas Avenue
(829 and 831 Douglas Avenue) will be impacted by the establishment of a new
detached dwelling 1.5 metres east of their rear lot line. A similar rear yard to side
yard condition is found in the neighbourhood at 831 Douglas Avenue where a
side yard width of 1.5 metres is immediately adjacent to the rear yards of
properties fronting Haller Avenue. The impact of a 1.5 metre setback is lessened
given the depth of the existing lots on Douglas Avenue, having significantly
deeper lots with rear yard depths of 20 metres and more. Further, the proposed
building massing does not extend across the entire backyard of the properties on
Douglas Avenue, thereby reducing the extent of the visual impact.
The applicant's revised site plan reflects a 1.5 metre building setback from both
the east and west limits of the property.
4.2 Proposed front yard depth of 6.0 metres for the lots fronting Old Orchard
Avenue is appropriate and consistent with the character of the
neighbourhood
As noted, the subject property is in an established stable residential
neighbourhood with a majority of dwellings being detached with two car garages.
The existing "R4" zone requires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres. The
"R4" zoning standard is an older category of zoning and it does accommodate for
the newer development styles. The proposed south setback of 6.0 metres
represents a current performance standard that accommodates the parking of a
typical vehicle in the front yard. Further, by bringing these dwellings closer to the
street, a more pedestrian friendly streetscape will be established when the
sidewalk is introduced on the north side Old Orchard Avenue.
Report PD 07-12 March 5, 2012
Subject: Maddy Development Inc. Page 6
r
4.3 Proposed 1.2 metre interior side yard width between garages is not
appropriate or consistent with the character of the neighbourhood
The applicant's revised site plan proposes a total combined interior side yard
width between garages (building separation distance) of 1.2 metres (a minimum
of 0.6 metres on each lot). This separation applies to three situations on the
revised site plan, Lots 1 and 2, Lots 3 and 4, and Lots 7 and 8.
The "R4" zoning of the adjacent community requires a minimum side yard width
of 1.5 metres, thereby providing a minimum building separation of 3.0 metres.
The existing zoning for the subject property requires side yards of 1.2 metres for
detached dwellings. A reduction below the 1.8 metre separation distance
recommended by staff is not supported, as this would negatively impact the
residential streetscape.
4.4 Internal street is adequate for emergency vehicle and garbage truck access
The current approved 16 unit development has a similar internal street layout to
that proposed by this revised plan. Fire Services advise it has no objection to the
proposed development at this time. Fire Services note that while the proposed
development exceeds the preferred 90 metre maximum traffic aisle length
without the provision of a turnaround, the proposed development meets current
City standards (see Attachment #14).
The proposed development is a common element condominium with an internal
private road. Garbage collection, recycling and snow removal will be provided
privately by the future condominium corporation. The proposed private road
meets the City's requirement of a minimum two-way internal traffic routes aisle
width of 6.5 metres.
4.5 All technical matters will be addressed as conditions of subdivision and
Site Plan approval process including on-site grading, on-site landscaping,
tree preservation, fencing, parking and construction management plan
The applicant proposes to construct 16 units on the subject property. In order to
ensure appropriate development, City requirements will be imposed as
conditions of approval for the subdivision application. These conditions of
approval for the subdivision will address standard matters such as but not limited
to, on-site grading, on-site landscaping, tree preservation, fencing, parking and a
construction management plan.
Specifically the following technical matters of concern to commenting residents
will be address:
Fencing of the Site is Required
The internal perimeter of the development must be fenced. The northern,
western and eastern perimeter of the residential block will require appropriate
fencing.
Report PD 07-12 March 5, 2012
Subject: Maddy Development Inc. Page 7
51
Prior to the installation of the permanent fence, a temporary construction fence
will be erected and maintained. Conditions of Approval recommended in
Appendix I to this Report include provisions to ensure that both temporary and
permanent fencing are installed around the subject lands.
Tree Preservation and Landscaping Plan
A tree inventory report and preservation/enhancement plan identifying trees to be
preserved and to be planted for the proposed development has been submitted
as a part of the Site Plan application. It was identified by the abutting neighbour
to the west (1288 Old Orchard Avenue) that they would like to preserve the
existing hedge currently sited on the common property line they share with the
subject property. Staff will make specific efforts through the site plan review
process to preserve this hedge to the best extent possible. Full details of the tree
preservation plan will be finalized through the site plan and subdivision processes.
A landscape plan for the subject application will also be required to be submitted
as part of the site plan and subdivision application process to identify the location
and typical landscaping to be provided on-site. - Details of the landscape plan will
be finalized through the review processes.
Construction Management Plan
A Construction Management Plan is will be required as a condition of the site
plan and subdivision approval. The Construction Management Plan will address,
but not be limited to, the following public concerns:
• erosion and sediment control
• mud and dust control
• protection of trees
• building material storage
• servicing of construction equipment
• parking areas for construction workers
• road cleaning program
• working hours, ensuring accordance with City By-laws
• ensure adherence to all requirement of other studies and/or reports
• conservation of existing wildlife
Further Processing of the Development
The effect of this plan of subdivision will be to create one block of land for the
future development of detached dwellings by plan of condominium. The
individual lots and common element for the detached dwelling units will be
created through the draft plan of condominium process and part lot control.
Detailed design issues will be dealt with through the subdivision agreement and
site plan approval process. The detailed design process will include, amongst
other matters, site servicing, grading, parking, landscaping, lighting, elevations
and building siting.
i
Report PD 07-12 March 5, 2012
Subject: Maddy Development Inc. Page 8
52
No further reports are anticipated to be brought before Council if the subject
applications are approved.
4.6 Common Element Condominium Application
The purpose of this application is to determine whether the common element
description is the appropriate form of tenure for this residential development. A
common element condominium refers to a development where each dwelling unit
is individually owned (freehold ownership), and where amenities or physical
features are collectively owned by the unit owners as tenants in common. It is
anticipated that a future common element condominium corporation will be
established to permit a community of individually owned homes, with
maintenance of the development's joint services, amenities and physical features
provided through a common element condominium corporation.
If the subdivision and rezoning applications are approved the Director, Planning
& Development will make a decision on the common element condominium after
all comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public have been
received and assessed. If appropriate the Director, Planning & Development will
issue proposed conditions of approval for the subject application. This is in.
accordance with Council policy and Delegation By-law 5391/01.
5.0 Applicant's Comments
The applicant has been advised of the recommendation of this report.
Appendix:
Appendix I: Recommended Conditions of Approval for SP-2011-02
Appendix II: Draft Zoning By-law for A 12/11
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Draft Plan of Subdivision
3. Draft Pan of Condominium
4. Revised Development Plan
5. Application History
6. Minutes from October 3, 2011 Statutory Public Information Meeting
7. Resident Comment - Roy J. Martell
8. Resident Comment - Sharon & Fred MacPherson
9. Resident Comment - Marlene Walker
10. Summary of Public Concerns
11. Community Meeting Minutes
12. Agency Comments - Region of Durham
13. City Department Comments - Development Control
14. City Department Comments - Fire Services
Report PD 07-12 March 5, 2012
Subject: Maddy Development Inc. Page 9
53
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Mila Yeung Neil Carroll, (M , RPP
Planner II Director, Planning & Development
i
Ross Pym, M , RPP
Principal Planner - Development Review
MY:Id
Recommended for the 'consideration
of Pickering ' y Cou it
z2 2-o/2,
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix I to
Report PD 07-12
Recommended Conditions of
Approval for SP-2011-02
55
Recommended Conditions of Approval for
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-02
1.0 General Conditions:
1.1 That this recommendation apply to the draft plan of subdivision prepared by
Rady-Pentex & Edward Surveying Ltd dated, June 2011, Job No. 11-051 on
lands being Lot 8 and Part of Lots 7 & 9, Plan 432, City of Pickering, to permit a
single block development to be 16 detached residential lots by way of a common
element condominium.
2.0 Prior to the Registration of the Plan:
2.1 That the owner submit a Draft 40M-plan to be approved by the City's Planning &
Development Department;
2.2 That the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/11
become final and binding;
2.3 That the owner enters into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of
the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements financial
and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following:
2.3.1 Storm Drainage
(a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department
respecting a stormwater drainage and management system to service all
the lands in.the subdivision and any provisions regarding easements;
(b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department for
contributions for stormwater management maintenance fee;
2.3.2 Grading Control and Soils
(a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department
respecting submission and approval of a grading and control plan;
(b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department
respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis;
2.3.3 Road Allowances
(a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department
respecting construction of roads with curbs, sewers, sidewalks and
boulevard designs;
(b) satisfaction of the Director, an agreement with the City to extend and
construct a boulevard, road and sidewalk on the north side of Old Orchard
Avenue that will also address cost sharing;
Recommended Condition of Approval for SP-2011-02 Page 2
2.3.4 Construction/Installation of City Works & Services
(a) satisfaction of the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all
services required by the City;
(b) satisfaction of the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the
provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural
gas and other similar services;
(c) that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary
maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall
be the responsibility of the subdivider;
2.3.5 Dedications/Transfers/Conveyances
(a) that the subdivider convey any easement to any utility to facilitate the
installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City
and the utility;
(b) that the owner arrange at no cost to the City any easements required on
third party lands for servicing and such easements shall be in a location as
determined by the City and/or the Region and are to be granted upon
request at any time after the draft approval;
2.3.6 Easements
(a) that the Owner convey to the City, at no cost:
(i) any easements as required; and
(ii) any reserves as required by the City;
(b) that the Owner convey any easements to any utility to facilitate the
installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City
and the utility;
(c) that the Owner arrange at no costs to the City any easements required on
third party lands for servicing and such easements shall be in locations as
determined by the City and/or the Region and are to be granted upon
request at any time after the draft approval
2.3.7 Construction Management Plan
(a) that the owner make satisfactory arrangements with the City respecting a
construction management plan, such Plan to contain, among other things:
(i) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of
construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain
these controls;
(ii) addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction
and building materials during servicing and house construction, and
ensuring that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or .
emergency vehicles on either existing streets or the proposed public
street;
Recommended Condition of Approval for SP-2011-02 Page 3
57
(iii) insurance that the City's Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all
contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law;
(iv) the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent
to the site;
(v) type and timing of construction fencing;
(vi) location of construction trailers;
(vii) details of the temporary construction access;
2.3.8 Development Charges
(a) satisfaction of the City financially with respect to the Development
Charges Act;
2.3.9 Coordinated Development
(a) satisfaction of the City with respect to arrangements necessary to provide
for coordination of services and roads with adjacent lands and any
phasing of development that may be required;
2.3.10 Fencing
(a) satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of temporary fencing
around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior
to the commencement of any works;
(b) existing boundary fencing to remain and be maintained during
construction;
(c) the owner agrees to submit a Landscape Fencing Plan to the satisfaction
of the City including the provision of fencing along the internal perimeter of
the plan of subdivision block;
2.3.11 Street Tree Planting
(a) the submission of a street tree planting plan to the satisfaction of the City;
(b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development, the Owner shall plant
one tree per lot. If it is determined that the planting of a tree is not
possible for each proposed lot, the Owner will be required to pay either
cash-in-lieu for the remaining trees or plant the remaining trees in a
location within the Plan boundaries;
2.3.12 Tree Preservation
(a) the owner is required to submit a tree preservation plan to the satisfaction
of the City which will illustrate the protection of trees and other natural
features where appropriate prior to the approval of a preliminary grading
plan;
2.3.13 Architectural Control
(a) the architectural design objectives for the development must address (but
not limited to): building envelopes, siting, porches, landscaping, building
and sustainable designs, streetscape design, front elevations, as well as
garage locations, massing, widths, and projection from the main dwelling;
Recommended Condition of Approval for SP-2011-02 Page 4
(b) that specific architectural building design be applied to Lots 1, 4, 7 and 14
to address side yard elevations;
(c) that the owner ensure that engineering plans are coordinated with the
streetscape/architectural control guidelines and further that the
engineering plans coordinate the driveway, street hardware and street
trees to ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimized and all
objectives of the streetscape/architectural control guidelines can be
achieved;
(d) that the owner satisfy the City respecting the provision of appropriate
aesthetic details and design of all boundary fencing and noise attenuation
fencing;
2.3.14 Engineering Drawings
(a) that the owner satisfy the City respecting the submission of appropriate
engineering drawings that detail, among other things, City services, roads,
storm sewers, sidewalks, lot grading, streetlights, fencing and tree
planting, and financially-secure such works;
(b) that the engineering plans be coordinated with the architectural design
objectives;
2.3.15 Other Approval Agencies
(a) that the subdivider satisfy all the requirements of the Region of Durham;
(b) that any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham the
development of this plan be obtained by the subdivider, and upon request
written confirmation be provided to the City of Pickering as verification of
these approvals;
2.3.16 Parkland Dedication
(a) the owner shall pay the City cash-in-lieu to satisfy the parkland dedication
requirements of the Planning Act,
2.3.17 Phasing
(a) that if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration,
the subdivider will be required to submit a plan showing the proposed
phasing, all to the satisfaction of the City.
Appendix II to
Report PD 07-12
Draft Implementing Zoning By-law
Amendment Application A 12/11
i
6 0 The Corporation of the C' Pickering
By-la t/12
Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area
(Zon,ing) By-law 2511 as amended, to implement
the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of
Durham, in Lot 8 and Part of Lots 7 & 9, Plan 432,
City of Pickering. (A 12/11)
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to
permit the development of detached residential dwelling on the subject lands, being Lot
8, Part Lot 7 & 9 Plan 432 in the City of Pickering.
And whereas amendment to By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 6375/04 is therefore
deemed necessary:
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as
follows:
1. Schedule I
Schedule I attached to this By-law with notations and references shown thereon
is hereby declared to be part of this By-law.
2. Area Restricted
The provision of the this By-law shall apply to those lands in Lot 8, and Parts of
Lots 7 & 9, Plan 432, in the City of Pickering.
3. Text Amendment
3.1 Section 4, Definition, of By-law 2511 as amended by 6375/04 is hereby amended
by changing the title of 4(1)(c) to read "Semi-Detached Dwelling" and 4(1)(d) to
read "Detached Dwelling"
3.2 Clause 5.(1)(a), Uses Permitted, is hereby repealed and replaced by the
following permitted uses:
(1) detached dwelling
(2) semi-detached dwelling
By-law No. X/12 Page 2
61
3.3 graph 5(1)(b)(v) B, is hereby repealed and replaced by the following
paragraph:
B Despite the provisions of Section 5.6 of By-law 2511, as amended, the
requirement for the frontage on a public street shall be satisfied by
establishing frontage on a common element condominium street and the
following provisions apply:
(a) Semi Detached Dwelling
(i) Lot Area (minimum): 205 square metres
(ii) Frontage (minimum): 7.0 metres
(iii) Front Yard Depth (minimum):
i. to front wall of dwelling: 4.5 metres
ii. to garage: 6.0 metres
(iv) Interior Side Yard Width (minimum):
1.2 metres one side, 0.0 metres on the other
(v) Flanking side yard (minimum): 2.7 metres
(vi) Rear yard Depth (minimum): 7.5 metres
(vii) Building Height (maximum): 9.0 metres
(viii) Garage Projection:
maximum projection of the garage front entrance from the wall
containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit shall not
exceed 2.5 metres in length, whether or not such garage has a
second storey
(ix) Driveway Width (maximum): 55 percent of lot frontage
(b) Detached Dwelling
(i) Lot Area (minimum): 250 square metres
(ii) Lot Frontage (minimum): 11.0 metres
(iii) Front Yard Depth (minimum): 6.0 metres
(iv) Interior Side Yard Width (minimum):
i. for inside lots:
1.2 metres one side, 0.6 metres on the other
ii. for corner lots: 0.6 metres
iii. the horizontal distance between buildings on adjacent
lots shall be not less than 1.8 metres
(v) Flankage Side Yard (minimum): 2.7 metres
(vi) Rear Yard Depth: 7.5 metres
(vii) Building Height (maximum): 9.0 metres
(viii) Garage Projection:
maximum projection of the garage front entrance from the wall
containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit shall not
exceed 2.5 metres in length, whether or not such garage has a
second storey
(ix) Driveway Width (maximum): 55 percent of lot frontage
By-law No. XXXX/12 Page 3
62
4. By-law 2511
By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 6375/04 is hereby further amended only to
the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as set out in
Sections 1, 2 and 3 above. Definitions and subject matter not specifically dealt
with in this By-law shall be governed by the relevant provisions of By-law 2511,
as amended.
5. Effective Date
This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the
Planning Act.
By-law read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of
2012.
David Ryan, Mayor
iolqA)'
Debbie Shields, City Clerk
J
PAL \ \
-
i
-
.S -
M -
8pcn
~ 5om.
\
6 pcn
\ O~GNP
0\-0
® BUILDING ENVELOPE
T
N
SCHEDULE I
DPASSEDTHI S IA
DAY OF 2012
MAYOR
ORA
CLERK
ATTACHMENT #--L_TO
REPORT # PD Q7- la
6,4
T
o~
FUSCHI
MARTIN'S STREET D LANE
NGLICAN w
CHURCH d o w
_ V)
M
0--0--
C:
p r
PATMORE Z D
Q
DOUGLAS NE o
PARK
T,Q
~<<~s
c~T I
J
Q
2
Fn I -J
U
BOULEVARD
HALLER AVENUE
w
z
w
BALSDON =
Q
SuBd EC
PROP R p m
J ~r,QOS PARK Z
0 'yp n
10
OLD ORCHARD AVENUE 6p
cn >
w 0 J X90
N > D
Q o
< `L MONICA COOK
< o LUNA CRT.
N BROWNING AVE.
~
w ~w FOXGLOVE AVENUE
ILONA PARK
~ Q = w
rTi w
HOLY U) N
REDEEMER z S
I R o ROAD
SEPARATE
WATERP NT CHOOL
STR ET DRIVE
FRENCHMANS
BAY OMMERCE
STREET
PARK
COMMERCE STREET COMMERCE STREET
City of Pickering Planning & Development Department
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 8, Pt. Lot 7 & 9, Plan 432 07\'
OWNER Maddy Development Inc. DATE Aug 31, 2011 DRAWN BY IB
FILE No. SP-2011-02, CP-2011-02, A 12/11 SCALE 1:5,000 CHECKED BY RP b
o-Z
aT.ran.t Entsryr4.. Inc. d It. pp1l•r.. All 1g11.-..--d . Not a Plan of .urv•y. PN-3
2003 MPAC and Its • Iler•. NI rl ht. Reserved. Not o lan a1 Surv. .
ATTACHMENT TO
REPORT # PD U7- I
615
INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S
SUBMITTED SITE PLAN
MADDY DEVELOPMENT INC.
SP-2011-02 & CP-2011-02 & A 12/11
R- E G I S E R E D P L A N M - 1 6
E 15 T I N G RE SI D EN I A L
F-
Ld
W
F-- N~
N 90"
fiF'G~S ~
N
Q -
J
C~
O
O
E%IS TI NG RESID N T I AL -
0 L D. O R C H A R D A V E N U E
N
FULL Sr" COPIES OF 7N£ APPU0WrS
SUBMR7ED PUN ARE AVAILABLE FOR KETWNG AT
_ 7NE CNY OF PICKERINO PUNNING k DEVELOPMENT DEPAR MENF.
MIS "'P WAS PRODUCED BY ME 07Y OF PICKMNG
. PLM/NING X OEMOPMENT DEPAR/MENr
INFOR"4770N k SUPPORT SERNCa
SEPT 7. 7071.
.
- __TO
ATTACHMENT #3
REPORT # PD 0`7 - l a
66
INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S
SUBMITTED SITE PLAN
MADDY DEVELOPMENT INC.
SP-2011-02 & CP-2011-02 & A 12/11
R E G I S E R E D P L A N M 1 6
F-
W
W <
z
cn . Vol _
PART,- PART u PMT a PMT PART is PART + PART • PMT T
a
(n C0M M0N ELE MEN TS PART
a
Q
J LLE-M PARTIs PMT.
COMMOT S 2
Q Q
Q PMT.
E%15 INC RESIDENTIAL PMT,. w
Q
PMTS PART+ ~ PART+ PMT.
y
~~O u
fLF'G\S~
0 L D O R C H A R D A V E N U E
N
FULL SALE COPIES OF THE APPU6WFS
SUBM"7E0 PUN ARE AVAILABLE FOR WFWNG AT
THE CRY OF P/CKER/NG PUNNING t DEbEIOPAINT DEPARTMENT.
TMS MSP MS PRODUCED SY 7NE GRr OF PICKERING
PUNNING s DMIOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
INFORU417ON & SUPPORT SERNCES,
SEPT 1, 2011.
I
ATTACHMENT / L _TO
REPORT # PD 07- I a
Information Compiled From Applicant's
Revised Plan 67
SP 2011-02, CP2011-02 & A12/11
- Maddy Developments Inc.
I S T E R ~E D i P L A N M - 1 6
E% I S T I N G R E S I D E N T!I A L ! I
L 0 T L 0 T I L O T ! L 0 T L 0 T L 0 T
1 2 7 4 1 2 7 5 1 27 6 I 1 2 7 7 I 1 2 7 8 I 1 2 7 9
_ n vzNe•,a•e
s... i s.aal ,.ssl ! n~zzzc•zat I i! nv•w'' I I I j-
~ e ai ~ uw
I= 14 ~ i 13 I iz 10 = 1 ~ 9 j 7 I 2
j- - - -i - i-- - - I--- - - I I-- - - f- -
e.- , n I „o o.,oe
a ..:n . >so e.>ao so 7. 7.1 eo 7.
0 rd
v
G
v
u 1-6i
311-0
; I P ART 5
---------L------------------------------- -------1 -
I
V~V~V[Vjv
®9 O T 8 0l
,e„ e y a
- -
16
-
..n „eve ,..n I e.,» ,ze+e rm
E%I STI1NG RESIDENTIAL
i! Q f a I a 1 2a! I u3 - 4 I s
a ! ~ ~ A
i
I 441.1 &41-1 I g41-1 REBS
E
_ I
I
e
101W 7%: 1-1~
..J
OLD ORCHARD
ROAD
THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING &
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING INFORMATION SERVICES
DIVISION MAPPING AND DESIGN, NOVEMBER 5, 2004.
ATTACHMENT # TO
Application History REPGRT # PD o a
6
Applicant Council Applicant's Council Approved
Submitted Recommended Revised Recommended By-law
Site Plan Plan Site Plan Plan 6375/04
Oct. 1992 Oct. 1993) June 1994 Oct. 1994 2004
Proposed # of 18 16 16 16 16
Lots
North Setback 7.0 m 7.5 m 7.5 m 7.5 m 7.5 m
South Setback
interior lots 6.0 m 6.0 m 6.0 m 6.0 m 7.5 m
exterior lots 7.5 m 7.5 m 7.5 m 7.5 m 7.5 m
West setback to
Interior 6.0 m 7.5 m 7.5 m 7.5 m 7.5 m
dwellings
East setback to
Interior 6.0 m n/a 6.0 m n/a 4.0 m
dwellings
West setback to
dwellings 4.0 m n/a 4.0 m n/a 4.0 m
fronting Old
Orchard
East setback to
dwellings 4.0 m n/a 4.0 m n/a 4.0 m
fronting Old
Orchard
ATTACHMENT # TO
Caq 0~ REPORI # PD 0Excerpts from
41 Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes 6 9
Monday, October 3, 2011
7:30 pm - Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor McLean
(II) Part`A' Information Reports
Marg Wouters, Manager, Development Review & Urban Design gave an outline
of the requirements for a Statutory Meeting under the Planning Act. She outlined
the notification process procedures and also noted that if a person or public body
does. not make oral or written submissions to the City before the by-law is
passed, that person or public body are not entitled to appeal the decision of City
Council to the Ontario Municipal Board, and may not be entitled to be added as a
party to the hearing unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable
grounds to do so.
1. Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2011-02
Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2011-02
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/11
Maddy Development Inc.
1290 & 1292 Old Orchard Avenue
(Lot 8 and Part of Lots 7 & 9 Plan 432City of Pickering
A public information meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of
informing the public with respect to the above noted application.
Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review provided an overview of
zoning amendment application A 12/11.
Allen Windrum a representative for the applicant appeared before the Committee
in support of the application. He noted the current zoning allows for the 16 units
and was approved in 2004 but, the applicant at this time was seeking reductions
to the building setbacks. He noted that the reduced building setbacks would
allow them to build units with two car garages and a more upscale building then .
originally approved. He also stated that there would be an increase in the
number of additional visitor parking spaces.
Sharon and Morgan Neney, 1288 Old Orchard Avenue appeared before the
Committee, stating they were looking forward to the development of this area.
They noted that the concerns they had were with the height of the units and the
privacy of existing homeowners. They questioned whether the existing trees and
privacy issues. They also noted
landscaping could be maintained to help with p
landscape
ith what would happen to the wildlife in the area and stated their
their concerns w
concerns with what the development would do to grading in the area. Mr. & Mrs.
Neney questioned what amenities would be put in place in the area where the
visitor parking was located.
1
ATTACHMENT # a 6 TO
Ci o REPORT # PD
Excerpts from
Planning Development
'Committee Meeting Minutes
riCXEMG Monday, October 3, 2011
7:30 pm - Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor McLean
Sharon MacPherson, 831 Douglas Avenue, appeared before the Committee in
opposition to the reduced building setbacks and stated that she did not want the
houses to be towering over her property. She also noted concerns with respect j
to her privacy and fencing along the area backing onto her property.
Marlene Imlach-Walker, 829 Douglas Avenue appeared before the Committee in
opposition to the proposed application. She questioned whether the existing
trees and landscaping would remain and also noted her concern with what would
happen to the wildlife. She noted her concern with the height of the housing and
the loss of privacy.
Judith Morin, 1295 Old Orchard Avenue appeared before the Committee, stating
she supported the application, but had questions with respect to emergency
vehicles as well as garbage trucks accessing the internal street. She also
questioned the type of amenities which would be on the site.
Piyali Correya, 1267 Haller Avenue appeared before the Committee and also
noted her concerns with the lack of privacy and stated she does not support two
storey buildings. She noted she would also like to see the trees remain and
stated her concerns for the wildlife. She also stated her concern with the width
of the road and how emergency vehicles and truck traffic would manoeuvre on it.
Ms. Correya noted that she had a surveyor on her property verifying property
lines and questioned what that was about.
Pat Norwood, 1268 Haller Avenue appeared before the Committee stating her
concerns with overflow parking from the site and exiting area traffic. She also
noted, her concerns with access for emergency vehicles. She questioned the
height of the buildings and also questioned whether sewer system would be able
to handle the additional housing.
Anthony Nagy, 1275 Haller Avenue, appeared before the Committee stating he
would like to see the existing trees remain to ensure privacy. He stated his
concerns with grading, water runoff and traffic density. He also questioned
whether the internal road would be able to handle truck traffic. He stated that he
had a Bell and Rogers easement in his backyard and did not want people
entering his property in order to hook up to.this new development.
Jaclyn Smart, 829 Fairview, appeared before the Committee in support of the
application. While she could understand the concerns of the residents, she
noted this proposal was better than a highrise. She questioned when
construction would.begin and timeframes involved. -She also questioned the
types of amenities and stated landscaping would be an asset.
2
ATTACHMENT # ~O TO
Call 00 REPORT # PD n to Excerpts from
Planning & Development
Committee Meeting Minutes
Monday, October 3, 2011 71
7:30 pm - Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor McLean
A question and answer period ensued.
Allen Windrum appeared before the Committee and addressed the resident's
concerns. He noted that the surveyor would have been there as a requirement
of the Land Registry office to certify the boundaries. He stated there would be
no cable or bell lines coming off neighbouring properties to service this site. He
also stated they would attempt to retain the trees and landscaping wherever
possible. He stated the road must meet municipal standards, so there would be
no issues with emergency vehicles. or truck traffic. He also stated there would be
4 parking spaces per home so did not expect on street parking. He noted that he
thought the area for any amenities was going to be left as green space. He
expected construction to begin in Spring of 2012 with completion in that same
year.
Correspondence was received from Roy Martell noting numerous concerns with
the application. A number of his concerns included noise, street debris and dust
control, sewer capacities, safety issues and access for emergency vehicles. He
also noted concerns with snow removal, retaining the existing trees and fencing.
Correspondence was received from Sharon and Fred MacPherson, 831 Douglas
Avenue in opposition to the application. They noted objections with the addition
of 16 detached dwelling units in this proposal as well as the side clearance of
dwellings. They stated their area has seen enough development, and noted no
additional residential units should be added unless they fit within the current by-
laws.
Correspondence was received from Walt Norwood, questioning a number of
issues in relation to the proposed application. He inquired whether the units
would have basements, parking and street widths, and also whether the trees
would remain. He also stated his desire to see signs indicating no construction
traffic as well as no engine brakes in residential areas for safety purposes for the
children in the area.
3
ATTACHMENT #-7 TO
REPORT # PQ 07-1a
72
Roy J. Martell Attn: Mr. Ross Pym
1279 Haller Ave
Pickering ON Principal Planner,
Llw IH7 Planning & Development Dept;
City of Pickering. RECEIVED
Re: 1290 / 1292 Old Orchard Ave.
Lot # 7, 8 and Part #9. Plan 432, SEP 192011
City of Pickering. PLANNING & CITY OF PICKERING
DEPARTMENT
Dear Sir
I have some concerns in regards to Zoning By-Law Amendment Appl.
A 12/11, Draft Plan SP-2011-02 and CP-2011-02.
l.- The neighborhood is, very quiet and serene in its present form.
We have a few people on our street, in poor health that require
Their sleep. Imagine their disdain, when bulldozers, excavators
Concrete Trucks; shatter their serenity at lam. And continues
To 7pm. Monday to Saturday, at a decible level exceeding 85.
During Framing constant hammering, sawing, pneumatic tools
Will further add to their misery. Surely some consideration can
Be afforded for these people ?
2- Trucks carrying Dirt, Rubble, Debris from site via Old Orchard
And Liverpool Rd. will certainly deposit same on the roads.
The Developer, Builder, General Contractor should be held
Accountable for cleaning and washing of the roads they soil,
On a daily basis.
3- Dust control, what will be done in regards to Dust migrating to
Existing Residences, are we to bear the cost for this regular
Clean up, while someone else makes a profit, at our expense.
4- Excavation, are Sanitary Sewers, Storm Sewers, Domestic Cold
Water on Old Orchard Ave. Adequately sized to accept site services.
Will excavation, for these services be required. If required, this will
IMPACT on profits, of small Retail Business, located on Old Orchard.
Page 1 of 2
ATTACHMENT #~TO
REPORT # PD 07 " OV 73
5- Developer, General Contractor, Sub Contractors - Do they carry adequate
Liability, Fire, Property Insurance. ?
Will they all, comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act. ?
Will a hoarding be installed around the site ?
Safety concerns over open excavations, open foundations, not a great spot
For curious children to explore.
Will a security guard be present on site, during framing, for Insurance
Purposes, Fire and Theft. ?
6- Access to and from site (common elements - 17) Will this be classed as a
Fire Route, No Parking for emergency vehicles only ?
Where will snow be stockpiled ?
Will all trees be removed from this site (parts 1 to 16 ) ?
On the Survey Drwg. A chain link fence is indicated, running the property
Line on three sides, stopping short of Old Orchard Ave. Is this chain link
Fence, installed at or near the completion of the Project ?
What is the height ?
7- I understand these single detached houses are two stories, is this correct ?
May I have these concerns answered or addressed !
Thank You, for your Co-operation
I
Regard's
7Z~
.
1Y7A 9 i-,65,e t
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT # TO
7 REPORT # PD 07 -/a
Pym, Ross
From: Sharon & Fred [fsmacpherson@rogers.com]
Sent: October 3, 2011 11:18 PM
To: Clerks Web Email
Cc: Pym, Ross; Mayor Web Email; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor;
Rodrigues, Peter, Councillor; Ashe, Kevin, Councillor; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; Pickles,
David, Councillor
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment application A 12/11
To Whom it May Concern
I would like to make a written objection to changing the City of Pickering By-law to allow the amendment of side clearance
to a dwelling from 7.5 meters to 1.258 meters as is proposed in the Zoning By-law Amendment application A 12/11, which
was discussed in the Public Meeting held tonight (Oct 3, 2011).
I would also like to make a written objection to allowing a common element condominium which will act as an access road
for 16 detached dwelling lots.
I believe by-laws are put in place to preserve our city and the rights of the current home owners. I believe the only reason
council would consider the amendment to the zoning by-law, is to increase revenue via additional property tax. I am not
against development if it fits within the current by-laws, i.e. proper municipal streets and proper clearance area
-rounding each single dwelling unit.
I understand that the City of Pickering has done a "Sustainability Case Study" and would like to be home to 170,000
residents by 2023, however, I believe that the residents within the boundaries of Bayly-Liverpool-Lake Ontario-
Frenchman's Bay have already had their fair share of development and have already contributed to nearly doubling the
residents in the area and we are only in year 2011. 1 do not believe we should add any additional residential units to this
area unless they fit within our current By-laws.
Please pass this formal objection onto the appropriate parties. Please let me know when the next public hearing will be
held on this matter.
Also, I would be interested in hearing how many other applications for amendments to the City of Pickering's By-law for a
common element condominium have been proposed and passed. The only other proposal I could find was in 2005 for a
development on Sparrow Circle and Altona Road, Application A 25/05. Therefore, this does not seem to be a common
occurrence, as far as I can tell, and should not be passed.
' ~hlould like to thank Councilor Peter Rodrigues for bringing up the point that if there were at least one fewer homes the
iendment to the By-law for the side clearance would not need to be considered, excellent point which the applicant did
nuc seem to want to acknowledge.
It is appreciated that the applicant is going to erect a wood fence between 6 to 8 feet in height surrounding the proposed
development, however, 'I do not think this is enough to sway council to allow the amendment to the By-laws to be passed.
Thank you.
Sharon & Fred MacPherson
831 Douglas Avenue
1
ATTACHMENT #_3_T0
REPORT # PD 07-62
75
From: marlene walker [mwalkerl@hotmail.com]
Sent: October-10-11 7:13 PM
To: Pym, Ross
Subject: proposal to change zoning- Old Orchard Avenue
Dear Mr. Ross Pym,
I am writing this letter in response to the proposal to amend the zoning by-law and the draft plan to allow 16 detached
dwellings that was revealed at the Public Meeting held on Monday October 3, 2011 at 7:30 pm. I am fully against
amending the zoning by-law from 7.5 m to 1.258 m. as well as the amount of houses you are allowing on this piece of
property and the type of dwellings. Safety and privacy needs to be addressed and taken into consideration for the
existing residence of Pickering. This amendment would directly encroach on our property as we are one of the backyards
( 829 Douglas Avenue) that would have a house 1.258 m from our property line.
In 1992, when this subdivision was first proposed, it was turned down because of safety issues. A fire truck was not able
to turn around in the road nor was a garbage truck, ambulance, etc. So my question is how is this proposal now being
allowed and when was it okayed by the planning department of Pickering? I have received no information about any
public hearings since 1992 so was this secretly passed without the knowledge of the adjacent property owners. I would
certainly appreciate being informed as to who were the members on council when this decision was made. You are now
proposing to put housing even closer to our property lines without regard for the safety of the people in the new
residences let alone the safety of the existing residents. A fire can easily spread from one residence to another.
When purchasing our current house in 1985, we chose this area because of its low density, large lots, privacy, and
beautiful nature, never dreaming that people behind us would be able to sell part of their backyard to enable a
subdivision to exist. Since then you have allowed one dwelling lots on Douglas Avenue and Front Street to subdivide their
lots and put two houses where one originally stood. Then we have the subdivision on Monica Cook Place and the
subdivision on. Luna Court as well as the multiple dwellings, restaurants, stores that now exist at the bottom of Liverpool
Road. This seems to be happening in one concentrated area with no regard for the existing residents. It is interesting to
note that both Monica Cook and Luna are courts with safety for its residence taken into consideration. There is not a
dead end street that would force emergency or sanitation vehicles to back up down a road. Why was a court not
considered for this proposal? Is it because you could not put as many houses on the property? Who will be held
responsible if there is an incident with regard to emergency vehicles? - the planning board, members of council?
In the original plan that was disregarded, backyards faced backyards, not a side yard right up against a backyard
property line. It is noted that both Monica Cook and Luna have backyards that face backyards. Why was this not a
consideration for the existing residents on Douglas Avenue? Instead, we also have a common area against our property
line as well. Who is going to patrol this area when people congregate- the Durham police? In December our house was
robbed and the house at 831 Douglas was also robbed several years ago. Can you see why the safety of our residents
should be taken into consideration? That is all we need is more people congregating around our backyard. There was no
proposal for a common area in the original plan- certainly not on our property line. We had a backyard facing our
backyard. I believe it was a court.
It seems the low density area where we reside is turning into a high density area with traffic congestion from the many
added residence allowed by your planning over the past years. The last time I looked, Liverpool Road was the exit route
if there was a Nuclear problem. In lieu of the past nuclear problems in the world, do you really think adding more houses
to an area is safe? The traffic congestion to get up Liverpool Road in the morning is difficult enough. Can you imagine
when everyone is leaving at once in an emergency situation? Who is going to be held responsible for allowing such high
density around a Nuclear plant and putting the safety of its residents in jeopardy? - the planning board, members of
council? Has anyone taken this into consideration when allowing all this new construction to occur?
The actual dwellings that are proposed for this area need to be reexamined as well as the amount. All houses but one
that are adjacent to the proposed 2 story dwellings are bungalows which would certainly effect the privacy of every
single dwelling. Since when is it feasible to just change the by-laws to shove more houses into an area instead of working
with the residents to come up with a plan suitable for all. Is this why Pickering has a planning department? Isn't the
planning department responsible for its existing residents first before unwanted others coming in to change our area?
Why is more better? Is there a hidden agenda that we are not privy to?
I hope after reading this letter you will reexamine the decisions that have been made regarding the property on Old
Orchard Road and not change the existing zoning by-law from 7.5 m to 1.258 m. Consider the original residents and their
safety and privacy as well as the unique nature that exists in this area. It is time for someone to take a stand regarding
1
76 ATTACHMENT #_--9 -__TO
REPORT # PD O -la
the safety of its residents and the diversity of this area. WTiy owe-h7ve-to continue to put new dwellings into the old
area? This area is very unique and it has been continually forced to change, and not for the better.
I say No to the zoning by-law amendment application A 12/11. No to the Draft plan of condominium, CP-
2011-02 and No to the draftp/an of subdivision, SP-2011-02,
Marlene Imlach-Walker
829 Douglas Avenue
Pickering, Ontario
L1W 3P4
2
ATTACHMENT # /d TO
REPORT # PD D7'/o'7
Maddy Developments Inc.
1290 & 1292 Old Orchard Avenue
City of Pickering
(File No: SP-2011-02, CP-2011-02, A12/11)
Summary of comments heard at October 3, 2011 Public Meeting:
1. height of units
2. impacts on wildlife
3. noise impacts on surrounding neighbourhood
4. sewage capacity
5. utility connections/easements
6. school capacity
.7. traffic impact and capacity to accommodate the proposed development
8. impact on property values
9. loss of privacy
10. loss of vegetation and trees
11. access adequacy for emergency vehicles and garbage trucks on internal streets
12. overflow of parking onto Old Orchard Avenue
13. type of amenities and landscaping on-site
14. on-site grading issues
15. fencing concerns affecting abutting neighbours
Concerns that will be addressed at this Community Meeting:
1. loss of privacy (setbacks)
2. loss of vegetation and trees
3. adequacy of internal street for emergency vehicles and garbage truck access
4. overflow of parking onto Old Orchard Avenue
5. type of amenities and landscaping on-site
.6. on-site grading issues
7. fencing concerns affecting abutting neighbours
MY
hPlanning Applications\Subdivision\2011\01d Orchard\Community Meeting\Summary of Public Concerns for Application.doc
l
c v ATTACHMENT # To Minutes/Meeting Summa
f PI REPORT PD D 7 - / 0 rY
Community Meeting
December 8, 2011
WO&A
KERING 7:00 pm
East Shore Community Centre
Meeting Room # 2
Attendees: Residents:
Fred MacPherson, 831 Douglas Avenue Walt & Pat Norwood, 1268 Haller Avenue
Carol Van Horn, 1261 Haller Avenue Donna Dunlop, 1271 Haller Avenue
Sarah Smith, 1261 Haller Avenue Marcus Kuuter, 1291 Old Orchard Avenue
Bob Forrester, 1283 Old Orchard Avenue Jodith Morin, 1295 Old Orchard Avenue
Margan,& Sharon Nearing, 1288 Old Paul Charade, 1286 Old Orchard Avenue
Orchard Avenue Marlene & Kevin Walker, 829 Douglas
Avenue
Applicants:
Michael Delli-Benedetti, Maddy Development Inc.
Allan Windrem, Chadwin and Company Limited
City Staff:
Marg Wouters, Manager, Development Review & Urban Design
Isabelle Janton, Planner II- Site Planning
Mila Yeung, Planner I
Subject: Maddy Development Inc.
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-02
Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2011-02
Zoning By-law Amendment A 12/11
Site Plan Application S 11/11
1290 & 1292 Old Orchard Avenue
(Lot 8 and Part of Lots 7 & 9 Plan 432)
City of Pickering
Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items/ Status
Ref # (summary of discussion) (include deadline as
appropriate)
Proposal
• to amend the building envelope to permit the development
of 16 detached dwelling units
Type of Application
• Draft Plan of Subdivision
• Draft Plan of Condominium
• Zoning By-law Amendment
• Site Plan
Pagel
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT # PD 92 42
Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items /Status
Ref # (summary of discussion) (include deadline as
appropriate) ? Q
Prelimina Materials Available
• Applicant's Proposed Site Plan known as drawing 'S1'
last revision dated August 5, 2011
• please see attached "Summary of Public Concerns for
Application" and "Meeting Agenda" created b City staff
Discussion Results
Garbage Collection
• public had concern with garbage collection and on-site
storage
• the applicant assured that garbage collection will not
affect the existing neighbour as the collection of
garbage will be done privately
• public wanted to ensure that private collection will
include recycling and green compost, same as City
garbage collection
Fire Route
• public were concerned that with a private road Fire
Services will not be able to access the site in the event
of afire
• staff indicated that it would be reviewed by the City's
Fire Services Division
Environmental Concerns
• public inquired about the need for an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) for the subject property
• staff indicated for the subject property an
Environmental Impact Assessment is not required but
the applicant submitted an Environmental Site
Assessment and Tree Preservation plan as a part of a
complete application
Property Line and Fencing concerns
• some of the neighbouring property owners indicated
that they received a letter from a land surveyor
informing them they are encroaching
• public were concerned that the land surveyor is not
providing the accurate information but rather
protecting the developer's interest
• staff indicated that the Land Surveyors regulated by
the provincial government, and if there are any
disputes it is a land titles issue not a planning matter
• the developer indicated that the corporation will incur
the cost for fencing the perimeter of the subject
property
Page 2
ATTACHMENT # TO
80 REPORT # PD___ -0--12
Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items /Status
Ref # (summary of discussion) (include deadline as
appropriate)
Traffic
• public raised concerns about increased traffic along
Old Orchard Avenue, additional parking and lack of
municipal sidewalks for pedestrians
Servicing
• public wanted clarification on the servicing required for
the proposed development
• the developer told the public that all services will be
provided from Old Orchard Avenue and not through
easements on existing neighbouring properties
• public were concerned with possible service
interruption during the development of the site
Construction and Noise
• public inquired how hours of operation will be enforced Staff will send a copy
• staff noted that the City has a Noise By-law to prohibit of the Noise By-law to
and regulate noise the participants of this
meeting to clarify the
Loss of Privacy (Building Envelope) prohibition and
• abutting property owners to the west of the subject regulation of noise in
property are concerned with the rear yard to side yard the City
condition. They feel that it is a privacy concern that
will result in new dwelling owners overlooking into their
backyards
• Fred MacPherson at 831 Douglas Ave agreed that a
7.5 metres setback is excessive for a side yard but
stressed that a 1.2 metres is insufficient
• staff indicated that a standard side yard width in the
immediate surrounding neighbourhood is 1.5 metres
• Allan Windrem explained to the public that living in an
urban area within the Greater Toronto Area, it is
unrealistic to expect a vacant piece of land to be left
undeveloped when Provincial Plans such as the
Greenbelt Plan and the Places to Grow, encourages
intensification within existing neighbourhoods
Next Ste s
• the applicant will review both City and resident comments
and create possible site plan revisions in response to
comments received. A recommendation report by the
Planning & Development Department will then be
prepared for the Planning & Development Committee for
approval
Meeting Adjourned: 8:50 pm
Page 3
ATTACHMENT # 42 TO
REPORT # PD 07 a
October 25, 2011
M - 1 Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
•
Planning and Development Department
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
The Regional Pickering, ON
Municipality L1V 6K7
of Durham
Planning Department Mr. Pym.:
605 ROSSLAND ROAD E
4THFLOOR Re: Regional Comments for Plan of Subdivision S-P-2011-02,
P.O. BOX 623 Plan of Condominium C-P-2011-02 and Rezoning A12111
WHITBY, ON L1N 6A3
(905) 668-7711 Applicant: Maddy Developments
Fax: (905) 666-6208 Municipality: City of Pickering
E-mail: planning@
region.&I'ham.on.ca
We have reviewed .the above-noted applications and the following
www.regi°n.durham.on.oa comments are offered with respect to the Regional Official Plan,
A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP Provincial policies, delegated review responsibilities and Regional
Commissioner of Planning services.
As we understand it, the subdivision application would permit a single
development block. The development block is required to lift part lot
control in order to permit 16 detached units on the property. The
associated condominium application would permit private access and
common element features on the site. The proposed zoning amendment
would facilitate the proposed lots and unit siting.
Region Official Plan
The subject lands are designated "Living Area" in the Regional Official
Plan. "Living Areas" are to be used predominately for housing purposes.
Regional OP Policies support opportunities to increase housing supply in
Urban Areas through intensification such as the creation of residential
units though infilling. The proposed development may be permitted by
the policies of the Regional OP.
Provincial Policy Statement
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction for
appropriate development while protecting resources of provincial
interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural
environment. PPS policies promote residential intensification, such as
infilling development. This proposal is consistent with the PPS.
"Service Excellence
for our Communities
l
ATTACHMENT # ~07 TO
REPOR? # PD 02 Id
82
Growth Plan
The subject lands are within the built boundary of the Growth Plan. The
Growth Plan encourages intensification in the built-up area. Infill
development within the built-up is encouraged and should be planned
and designed to provide a diverse and compatible mix of land uses to
support vibrant neighborhoods. The proposed development conforms to
the Growth Plan.
Delegated Review Responsibilities
Environmental Protection
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared by Soil ,
Engineers Limited, dated October 2010. The report indicates that there is
low potential for environmental liability. Further environmental
investigation was not recommended. Any surface or underground debris
found on the site should be removed and disposed of properly prior to
construction.
Regional Services
Water Supply
Municipal water supply is available from an existing 150 mm diameter
cast iron watermain'on Old Orchard Avenue. The subject lands are
within the designated Ajax/Pickering Zone 1 pressure district and the
estimated static water pressure for this area is approximately 85 psi.
Pressure reducing valves will be required in the proposed units due to
pressures exceeding 80 psi.
Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary sewage service is available from an existing 250 mm diameter
concrete sanitary sewer on Old Orchard Avenue. Foundation drains will
not be permitted to discharge to the sanitary sewer system.
Based on the foregoing, the Region has no objection to draft approval of
these plans. The attached conditions of approval are to be satisfied prior
to clearance by the Region for registration of these plans.
ATTACHMENT # /2 TO
REPORT # PD 07'/c~
83
Please contact me should you have any questions or require additional
information regarding this matter.
Cn1(Y~
Dwayne Campbell, MCIP, RPP
Project Planner
Attach: Conditions of Draft Approval for S-P-2011-02
Conditions of Draft Approval for C-P-2011-02
cc: Regional Works Department - Pete Castellan
y
I
I
ATTACHMENT #12 TO
REPORT # PD D-7- L9
84
Conditions of Draft Approval for Plan of Subdivision S-P-2011-02
1. The Owner shall prepare the final plan on the basis of the
approved draft plan of subdivision, prepared by Randy-Pentek and
Edward Surveying Limited, identified as job number 11-051
(subdivision), dated June 2011, which illustrates 1 block for
residential development.
2. The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed. phasing to
the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering for review and
approval if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one
registration.
3. The Owner shall grant to the Region any easement required to
provide regional services for this development and these
easements shall be in locations and of such widths as determined
by the Region.
4. The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer
and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within,
the limits of this plan that are required to service this plan. In
addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary
sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan which
are required to service other developments external to this
subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to
be designed and constructed according to the standards and
requirements of the Region of Durham. All arrangements, financial
and otherwise, for said extensions are to be made to the
satisfaction of the Region of Durham, and are to be completed
prior to final approval of this plan.
5. Prior to entering into a Subdivision Agreement, the Region of
Durham shall be satisfied that adequate water pollution control
plant and water supply plant capacities are available to the
proposed subdivision.
6. The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise,
of the Region of Durham. This shall include, among other matters,
the execution of a Subdivision Agreement between the Owner and
the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitary
sewers, water supply, roads and other Regional services.
I
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT # PQ O7-/ -
85
85
Conditions of Draft Approval for Plan of Condominium C-P-2011-02
1. The Owner shall prepare the final plan on the basis of the
approved draft plan of condominium, prepared by Randy-Pentek
and Edward Surveying Limited, identified as job number 11-051
(condo), dated June 2011, which illustrates common element
features including a private roadway and parking.
8 6 ATTACHMENT # ~3 TO
REPGRI # PD X7-/02
T'~"~~ I~I ~ u tY y0,
Memo
To: Mila Yeung February 9, 2012
Planner
From: Robert Starr
Manager, Development Control
Copy: N/A
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-02
Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2011-02
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/11
Maddy Development Inc.
1290 Old Orchard Avenue
City of Pickering
We have reviewed the revised recommended conditions for the above-noted application and
have no further comments.
RS:jlm
J:\Documents\Development Control\BOBSTARR\memos\applications\draft plan\Mila\Maddy Development Inc Feb. 9, 2012.doc
ATTACHMENT # N TO
REPORT # PD 07'/,2 _
Yeung, Mila Q 7
From: Holmes, Brian
Sent: February-09-12 10:42 AM
To: Yeung, Mila
Subject: RE: Comments - Maddy Development SP-2011-02, CP-2011-02, A12/11 and S11/11
Attachments: image001.jpg
Hi Mila, until the Development Control - Fire Services Policy is in place we are unable to request that
the maximum length of dead end streets are not to exceed 90 meters in length without providing a
turnaround in accordance with the design criteria indicated in the Ontario Building Code.
Subsequently to the meeting with the developers, yourself and Margaret Wouters, we can only
recommend a turnaround at this time.
Brian Holmes
Chief Fire Prevention Officer
Fire Services Division
Administration Department
City of Pickering
T. 905.420.4660 ext. 8511
Toll Free: 1.866.683.2760
TTY. 905.420.1739
bholmes(aD-pickering.ca
pickering.ca
APlease consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print!
From: Yeung, Mila
Sent: February-09-12 9:56 AM
To: Holmes, Brian
Subject: Comments - Maddy Development SP-2011-02, CP-2011-02, A12/11 and S11/11
Hi Brian,
I'm following up on Fire's Comments for the subject applications. Please send your comments to me
ASAP as the report is due Monday.
Please note, the report does not deal with S11/11 which is a Site Plan application. Further details on
the site plan will be dealt with through Isabelle.
Thank you,
Mila Yeung
Planner I
Planning & Development Department
City of Pickering
T. 905.420.4660 ext. 2169
Toll Free 1.866.683.2760
F. 905.420.7648
i