The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSeptember 13, 2017 pickering.ca Committee of Adjustment Agenda Meeting Number: 12 Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact : Lesley Dunne T. 905.420.4660, extension 2024 Email ldunne@pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, September 13, 2017 7:00 pm Council Chambers Page Number (I) Adoption of Agenda (II) Adoption of Minutes from August 23, 2017 1-8 (III) Reports 1. (Deferred at the August 23, 2017 meeting) P/CA 62/17 to P/CA 75/17 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Part of Block 45, and Block 47 with Lane on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision (SP-2009-13) 9-14 2. (Deferred at the August 23, 2017 meeting) P/CA 77/17 D. Naumovski 1953 Spruce Hill Road 15-18 3. P/CA 76/17 M. Brown 87 Finch Avenue 19-24 4. P/CA 78/17 C. & M. Patterson 1376 Everton Street 25-31 5. P/CA 81/17 L. Black 1019 Maury Crescent 32-36 (IV) Adjournment -Ct4bf- p](KER1NG Pending Adoption · Present . Tom Copeland-Vice-Chair David Johnson -Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer (I) Adoption of Agenda ·Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland Committee of Adjustment 1 Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August. 23, 2017 7:.02 pm Main Committee Room That the agenda for the Wednesday, August 23, 2017 meeting be adopted .. (II) Adoption of Minutes Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton Carried Unanimously That the minutes of the 1Oth meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, August 2, 2017 be adopted. Carried Page 1 of 8 2 -C~_()I PlCKERlNG (Ill) Reports 1. PICA 62117 to PICA 75117" Matta my (Seaton) Ltd Part of Block 45 & Block 47 with Lane on Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes VVednesday,August23,2017 7:02pm_ Main Committee Room Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13,Phase 2 Block 45 (PICA 62117 to PICA 66117) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14 (Seaton Zoning By-law) to permit street townhouse dwellings in a "Low Density Type 1 (LD1 )"Zone; whereas, the · by-law does not permit street townhouse dwellings within a "Low Density 1 Type (LD1 )" Zone. · - Block 47 with Lane_ (PICA 67117 to PICA 75117) ' . I ' ..._ ·. The applicant requestsrelieffrom Zoning By-law 7364/14 (Seaton Zoning By-law) to permit detached dwellings in a "Low Density Type 2-Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone; whereas, the by-law does not permit detached dwellings within a "Low Density Type 2-Multiple . (LD2-M)" Zone. . .. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance appiications in order to permit eight townhouse dwellings in a "Low Density Type 1 (LD1 )"zone, and six single detached dwellings in a "Low Density Type 2 ..,. Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone within the Mattamy (Seaton) Draft Approved Plan of ~ubdivision SP-2009-13, Phase 2. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending deferral. Written comments were also received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the. application. Neither the applicant nor agent were present to represent the application. No further. representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton ( That applications PICA 62117 to PICA 75117 by Mattamy (Seaton) Ltd, be Deferred to the next Committee of Adjustmc;mt meeting to allow staff to recirculate a revised Public · Notice as it relates to the varianc~s requested. · Carried Unanimously Page 2 of 8 2. PICA 77/17 D.-Naumovski 1.953 Spruce Hill Road Committee of Adjustment.. 3 Meeting Minutes Wedn.esday, Augus~ 23, 2017 7:02pm Main Committee Room The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas. the by-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. · The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct a two-storey detached dwelling. · · The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were also received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority expressing no objections to the application. Written comments were also received from a re.sident of 1957 Spruce Hill Road requesting the application be deferred to the next meeting on September 13, 2017 to allow time to u'nderstand the application.· . . Dimce Naumovski, applicant, was present to represent the application. Malcolm Schell was present to obtain additional information and clarification on the application. Malcolm Schell indicated that the applican.t had kept him advised of the proposal however he·did not receive the Public Notice of the hearing, and requests deferral of the application to obtain additional information. He also noted that the variance, if approved; would impact his property placing the proposed new detached dwelling 30 centimeters closer to his property than required by the zoning by-law. He· indicated that the . ·comments of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) are confusing arid pdinted out that the variance would not be required if the retaining wall is fixed.· In response to questions from Committee Members, the Secretary-Treasurer outlined the TRCA. comments that the subject property is located within a TRCA Regulated Area, TRCA requested that the proposal be revised to maintain a 2.0 metre south side yard setback to ensure there is adequate space for machinery to access the rear yard in the future, and that the .TRCA had no objection to the reduced north side yard setback. Page 3 of8 4 -C~(J~ p](KERJNG Moved by Tom Copeland · Seconded by Eric Newton Committee. of Adjustment M~eting Minutes VVednesday,August23,2017 7:02pm Main Committee Room That application PICA 77/17 by D. Naumovski, be Deferred to the next Committee of. Adjustment meeting to allow the Committee Members to visit the subject property. Vote Tom Copeland David Johnson Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley 3. P(CA 79/17 in favour in favour in favour opposed in favour· Squires Beach Holding Ltd. 1325 Squires Beach Road Carried The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit two accessory buildings to be erected in the front yard; whereas the by-law requires all accessory·buildings which are not part of the main building shall be erected in the rear yard. The applicant request~ approval of this minor variance application in order to allow for two accessory bL,Jildings for salt and waste storage in the front yard and to obtain site plan approval for a concrete facility. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were also received from the City's Engineering Services Departmentexpressing no comments on the application. Peter Heffernan, agent, was present to represent the application. No· further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Peter Heffernan explained that an additional variance was identified by City staff to \ permit two accessory buildings that will be located in the front yard to store salt and waste, and that the location of the accessory buildings accommodates the required large truck turning radius. In response to questions from Committee Members, Peter Heffernan explained some details of the site plan, and indicated that there will be no impact on required parking. Page 4 of 8 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton Committee of. Adjustment 5 Meeting Minutes VVednesday,August23,2017 7:02pm Main Committee Room · That application PICA 79/17 by Squires Beach Holding Ltd., be Approved on the grounds that the two accessory buildings located tn the front yard is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and th.e Zoning By-law, subject to the following , conditions: 1. That this Minor Variance apply only to the proposed development (concrete facility), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. ' 2. That the applicant obtain site plan approval for the proposed development by August 23, 2018, or this decision shall become null and void. 3. That the applica.nt obtain a Permit under 0. Reg. 166/06 from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the proposed development by August 23, 2018, or this decision will become null and void. ., 4. . That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by . August 23, 201,8, or this decision shall beqome null and void. 4. PICA 80/17 M. :Strasic 662·Pieasant Street Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended: • · to permit a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent; whereas the by-law requires a ma~imum lot coverage of 33 percent · • to permit a minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres; whereas the by-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this min'or variance application in order to obtain a · building permit to con~trud a detached dwelling. · · . The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending refusal. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from Councillor Bill Mclean indicating he does not support the application and would like to wait until staff's report in response to Councillor Brenner's Notice of Motion of November 21, 2Q16 is complete. Page 5 of 8 6 __._/'-C~ of-- PJCKERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday~ August 23, 2017 7:02pm Main.Committee Room .. Written comments were received from a resident of 681 Pleasa'nt Street in objection to the application. The resident expressed several concerns that the height of the. proposed building is too high and the proposed architecture does not fit in with the landscape and character of the surrounding area. The resident also stated any new homes that have been built, have been designed to respect the quaint and heritage of the area and are a maximum of two storeys and fits within th~ esthetics of. the area. Written comments were received.from a resident of 604 Annland Street in objection to the application .. The resident expressed a concern there is already a large out of character home on .the street anci applicant is proposing to construct an identical structure in height, design and appearance and for these reasons feels the variances should not be granted. · Written comments were received from a resident of 666 Pleasant Street in objection to the application .. The resident expressed a concern there is already a building on the street that does not suit the houses in this historic area of Pickering and feels the proposed building for 662 Pleasant Street should not be allowed. Written comments were received from a resident of 606 AnnJand Street in objection to the application. The resident expressed several concerns with parking; height and removal of mature trees. The resident also stated the proposal is not in keeping with the neighbourhood. Written comments were received from a resident of 664 Pleasant Street in objection to the application. The resident expresse.d several.concerns inCluding the proposed building does not fit within the neighbourhood and the height of four storeys is too high . . The resident also stated the area has a historic feel with old cottage style homes and tall trees and that it is nice to see the "Cape Cod' style townhouses at the bottom of Liverpool Road and would like to see developers design homes and condos in that style to keep with the 'beachy' look and feel. · · · Written comments were received from a resident of 673 Pleasant Street in objection to the application. The resident expressed a concern that there is already a building on the street that is too tall and an eye sore and feels another one in the middle of the street will be completely out of character. The resident also stated there are some homes that are old and need to be replaced o~ upgraded and would like to see them replaced with a design that will complement the neighbourhood. · · Written comments were received from a resident of 669 Pleasant Street in objection to the application. The resident expressed a concern with the height of the proposed building. and that it looks like a small apartment building. The resident also stated that Pickering needs a comprehensive building plan with restrictions of what cannot be. · allowed in our historical residential areas. Page 6 of 8 ) . -C~()f p](-KE.RlNG Committee of Adjustment 7 . Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 23, 2017 7:02pm Main Committee Room . Written corn.rTients were received from:Ja resident of 960 Pleasant Street in objection to the application. The resident indicated they live beside the proposed four storey building and expressed several concerns with the height and that this type of building · would not only harm the beauty of the neighbourhood but ·would also have a dir~ct negative impact on them. I Written comments were received from a resident of 668 Pleasant Street in objection to the application. The resident expressed several concerns with the height of the proposed building; would be an eye sore on a street of mostly bungalows; same height as another building that has been erected on Pleasant Street; th.e proposed building will be. built whether the residents like it or not; the impact on traffic as a result of other developments in the area. The resident also stated they would like to.see a plan put together by the City determining what can be. built in the area and .commented that some larger homes have been built nearby that look nice. . . . Written comments were received from residents of 667 Front Road which backs onto . the rear of the subject property of 662 Pleasant Street. The residents expressed several concerns with the proposed building is not in keeping with the residential design elements of the neighbourhood; loss of privacy due to the increase in grading for · drainage and the proposed balconies overlooking rear yard; and th~ proposed structure will shadow the rear yard anp significantly impact the growth in the vegetable garden. Stephen Hunt, agent, and Marjan Strasic, applicant, were present to represent the application. · Dave & Susan Bullock Qf 669 Pleasant Street, Joyce Lawlor of 666 Pl~asant Street, . Mel & Maureen Metcalfe of 667 Front Road, Corey Leadbetter & Keirra Metcalfe of 660 Pleasant Street and Ray Willis of 668 Pleasant Street were present in objection to the application and spoke to their correspondence that was previously submitted in opposition to the application. Stephen Hunt explained that he has worked on infill developments in Pickering formany ·years including two properties at 710 and 720 Front Street and suggested that the proposal be considered on planning merits and not the architectural matters. He stated . that in his opinion the proposed variances are minor and that similar variances have · been approved by the Committee in the past. Also that the proposed development will contain drainage within the subjE>ct property and will not impact neighbouring properties. A reduced front yard setback is requested to lessen.any impact on neighbouring properties. Should the var.iances be refused, he indicated that.the applicant intends to move forward with the construction of a detached dwelling meeting the required 7.5 metre front yard setback. ·Page 7 of 8 8 -.c~bf P1CKER1NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Min~tes VVednesdaiAugust23,2017 7:02pm Main Committee Room · In response to a question, Stephen Hunt confirmed that the gross floqr area of the · detached dwelling is 3,962 square feet. · A Committee Member commented that while neighbourhood character is hard to .define', . . this area does have a unique character.· The Member also stated that the Council Notice of Motion of November 21, 2016, and staff's support of the variances, should the applicant agree to restrict the proposed detached dwelling to a maximum of 2.5 storeys and 8.0 metres, are strong messages that drastic ·change to the area's character is not welcomed. · Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded.by Denise Rundle That application PICA 80/17 by M. Stra$iC, be Refused on the grounds that the m;:~ximum lot coverage of 35 percent and a minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres are · major variances that are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and are not in keeping yvith the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan~ Carried Unanimously (IV) Adjournment Date Chair Moved byiEric Newton Seconded 'by Tom Copeland That the 11th meeting of the 2017 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:51 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, September 13, 2017. · . Carried Unanimously I ~ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Page 8 of 8 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Report to 9 Committee ~f Adjustment Application Number: PICA 62117 to PICA 75/17 Date: September.13, 2017 Principal Planner-Development Review Subject: . Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 62/17 to PICA 75117 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited · Part of Block 45 & Block 47 with Lane on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13 (Phase 2) · · Applications Block 45 (PICA 62117 tQ PICA 66117) The applicant requests relief. from Zoning By-law 7364114 (Seaton Zoning By-law) to permit street townhouse dwellings in a "Low Density Type 1 (LD1 )"Zone; whereas, the By-law does not permit street townhouse dwellings within a'"Low Density 1 Type (LD1f Zone. Block 47 with Lane (PICA 67117 to PICA 75117) · ' The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364114 (Seaton Zoning By-law) to permit r detached dwellings in a "Low Density Type 2 -Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone; whereas, the By-law does not permit detached dwellings within a "Low Density Type2-Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to permit detached dwellings in a "Low Density Type 2 -Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone and street townhouse ·dwellings in a "Low density Type 1 (LD1 )"Zone in order to relocate six single detached and eight townhouse dwellings within the Mattamy (S~aton) Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13 (Phase 2) (refer to Exhibits 1 & 2). · · Recommendations Part of Block 45 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13 (Phase 2) (PICA 62117 to PICA 66117) The City Development Department considers these minor variance applications to permit street townhouse dwellings on Part of Block 45 on the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13 (Phase 2) in a "Low Density Type 1 (LD1 )" Zone to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and· purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning !3y-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the. proposed variances, subject to th~ following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to Part of Block 45 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision . SP-2009-13 (Phase 2), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. - 10 Report PICA 62117 to PICA 75117 September 13, 2017 Page 2 2. That the proposed street townhouse dwellings be constructed in accordance with Zoning By-law 7364114 "Low Density Type 2-Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone performance standards. Block 47 with Lane on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision .SP-2009-13 (Phase 2) · (PICA 67117 to PICA 75117) The City Development Department co.nsiders these minor variance applications to permit . detached dwellings on Block 47 with Lane on the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13 (Phase 2) in a "Low Density Type 2-Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping wi~h the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law,. and therefore recommends .Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to Block 47 with Lane on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13 (Phase 2), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. 2.. That the proposed detached ·dwellings be constructed in accordance with Zoning By-law 7364114 "Low Density Type 1 (LD1 )" Zone performance standards. Background On August 23, 2017, the Committee of Adjustment deferred the Minor Variance application in order to allow staff to prepare and recirculate a 'new public notice with the correct legal description of the respective Blocks wi!hin the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision. To facilitate changes during the implementation of the Mattamy (Seaton) Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision (SP-2009-13,. Phase 2), the owners of the subject lands are requesting to relocate unit types within the Draft Approved Plan. The current zoning by-law requires a minimum number of medium density units to be located in this plan of subdivision .. To ensure that the required number of medium density units is provided in the plan, the applicant is requesting to relocate the detacheq dwellings and street townhouse dwellings to an alternative location within the same draft plan. To accommodate these minor red-line. revisions to the Draft Approved Plan, a number of minor adjustments are required resulting in the need for variances to the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364114. The requested minor variances maintain the same over all unit count (14 units) as in the Draft Approved Plan and the density permitted in . the Official Plan (Official Plan Amendment No.22). Comment Official Plan and Zoning By-law In 2006, the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) came into effect providing a policy framework for a sustainable urban community (Seaton) integrated with a natural heritage system. The'CPDP resulted in Amendment 22 to the Pickering Offici~! Plan (OPA 22). Report PICA 64/17 to-PICA 75/17 September 13, 2017 11 Page3 Pickering Officiai.Pian-"LowDenshy Type 1" and "Low Density Type 2" within the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood. · Zoning By-law 7364/14-"Low Density Type 1 (LD1 )"Zone and "Low Density Type 2-Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone. Appropriateness of the Applications Variance to Permit Street Townhouse Dwellings in a "Low Density Type 1 (LD1 )"Zone • A variance is required to allow for the relocation of eight street townhouse dwellings. to ,a "Low Density Type 1 (LD1 )"Zone and the development of the dwellings to be subject to the "Low Density Type 2 -Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone standards. · • The general intent and purpose of the Official Plan "Low Dens"ity Area Type 1" residential designation is to permit a range of dwellings types with no s·pecific prescription on where they must be located, the intent of the Official Plan is maintained: • The general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is to implement the Official Plan by way of prescribing appropriate development standards. • The~'Low Density Type 1 (LD1)" Zone permits detached and sem.i-detached dwellings. units. • The intent of the zoning by-law is maintained as the total number of units is unchanged and the street townhouse dwellings are provided in an appropriate location within the plan of subdivision subject to the appropriate "Low Density Type 2-Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone standards. c · • The requested variances to permit street townhouse dwellings in a "Low Density Type 1 (LD1 )" Zone is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate devel9pment of the land and maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Variance to Permit Detached Dwellings in a "Low Density Type 2-Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone • A variance is required to allow for the' relocation of five detached dwellings to a "Low · Density Type 2 -Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone and the development of the dwellings to. be subject to the "Low Density Type 1 (LD1 )"Zone standards. • The general intent and purpose of the Official Plan "Low Density Area Type 2" residential designation is to permit a range of dwellings types, the intent of the Official Plan is maintained. · • The general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is to implement the Official Plan by way of prescribing appropriate development standards. • The "Low Density Type 2 -Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone permits street townhouse dwellings, duplex dwellings, multiple dwellings, block townhouse dwellings, and back-to-back townhouse dwellings. • The intent of the zoning by-law is maintained as the total number is unchanged and the detached dwellings are provided in an appropriate location within the plan of subdivision subject to the appropriate "Low Density Type 1 (LD~ )" Zone standards. 12 Report PICA 62117 to PICA 75117 September 13, 2017 Page4 • Th.e -requested variances to permit detached dwellings in a "Low Density Type 2 - Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land and maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan anq Zoning By-law. Input From Other Sources: Engineering Services Date of report: September 5, 2017 Comments prepared by: p(t~1 Lalita Paray, MC(P, RPP Planner I LP:DW:jc • no comments on the application Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner-Development Review J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Appllcatlons)\2017\PCA 62-17 to PCA 75-17 Mattamy (Seaton) Umited\Report\pca 62_17 &pea 75_17.dac Attachments ·-04of- PJCKERJNG City Development Department 3 r----------------, TAUNTON ROAD Phase 1 Block45 B/ock47 Phas.e 2 ...., __ with Lane -04;1>/- PJCKERJNG City Development -Department . SP-2009-13 Phase 2 to permit 8 street townhouse dwellings in a "Low Density 1 · (LD1)" zone BLOG:i(45 ,· single' .PiM~hM:i IJlaX \l.riJ\5. ':' ?~ min. wi~tiii= ~.1,5m BLOCK 50 Sirigle Detached max units= 5 min. Widih = 11.0m Submitted Plan File No: PCA 62/17 to PCA 75/17 STREET15 BLOCK49 Single Detached max.units=16 min. widih = 9.15m BLOCK 54 13LOCK46 Street Townhouses max units =6 min. width= 7.01m to permit 6 detached dwellings in a "Low Density Type 2 -Multiple / LD2-M "zone Property Description: Part of Block 45, Block 47 with Lane, on Draft Ap roved Plan of Subdivision (SP-2009-13) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: August25, 2017 15 Report to Committee of AdJustment From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP; RPP -Principal' Planner-Development Review · Application Number: PICA 77117 Date: August 23, 2017 Subject: I . Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 77117 D. Naumovski, . 1953 Spruce Hill Road · Application · ) The applicant requ~sts relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas' the by-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. · • I The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct a two-storey detached dwelling; \ ' Recommendation . The City Development Department considers a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 metres to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed vari'ance, subject to the following conditions: ' ) 1. 2. That this variance apply only to the two-storey detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by August 23, 2019, - or this decision shall become null and void. Comment Official Plan and Zoning By-law Picl)ering Official Plan-"Urban Residential Areas-Low Density Areas" .within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood ·zoning By-law 3036-"R4"-Fourth Density Residential Zone 16 ) Report PICA 77/17 Appropriateness of the Application August23,2017 Page 2 • the intent of a minimum side yard setback requirement is to provide an appropriate separation distance between structures on abutting properties in order to ensure compatibility with the existing neighbourhood, provide appropriate pedestrian access between dwellings, and to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services • the Zoning By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • the applicant has requested to reduce the minimum north side yard setback from 1 .5 metres to 1.2 metres • the applicant is unable to meet the north side yard setback requirement as the TRCA has requested a more gracious south side yard setback of 1.93 metres due to the grading along the south property line • the proposed north side yard setback of 1.2 metres will provide an adequate separation distance between the proposed dwelling and lot Hne to accommodate pedestrian access, grading, drainage and residential services • the proposed north side yard setback will be compatible with the existing neighbourhood as other redeveloped properties, along Spruce Hill .Road have been approv~d to have minimum side yard setbacks of 1.2 metres • the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land and maintains the purpose and intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • no comments on the application Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • no objections to the application ) Date of report: August 16, 2017 Comments prepared by: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner-Development Review CM:DW:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2017\PCA 77-17-D. Naumovslo1Report\PCA 77-17 Report.doc Attachments -Cdt;Dt'- PlCKERlNG City Development Department Cl 1---4----1~1---~--1 t---4----1 0:: Location Ma File: PICA 77/17 1--f----IUJ > 1------J----1 ~ l--+---lg5 1------J----1 a: LlJ 1------J----10 0 1--!----1~ ~ 1--1---l [5 (f) 1--1---l -l ffi 1---+--1 CJ ~ 1----+---1 us (f) PN-RU --~o/·- PJCKERJNG City Development Department to permit a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 metres Submitted Plan File.No: P/CA 77/17. Applicant: D. Naumovski 117.2 ~ ~ ~ g Property Description: Plan 1041 Part Lot 89, 88A Now 40R2255.Part 1 & 40R7419 Part 1 (1953 Spruce Hill Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. ~ DATE: July24, 2017 -C~()f-· P1CKER1NG From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Report to 19 Committee of Adjustment Application Number: PICA 76117 Date: September 13, 2017 Principal Planner-Development Review Subject: Application Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 76/17 Michael Brown 87 Finch Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6578105 to, . permit a minimum east side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 3.0 metres. ' ' The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a build,ing permit to · construct a detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers a minimum east side yard setback of 1.2 metres to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the. land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for.the proposed construction by Septemoer 13, 2019, or this decision shall become null and void. Comment Official Plan and Zoning By-law Pickering Official Plan-"Open Space-Natural-Areas" within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Zoning By-law 3036-"A" -.Rural Agricultural 20 Report PICA 76/17 Appropriateness of the Application Side Yard Setback Variance , September 13; 2017 Page 2 • The intent of a minimum side yard setback is to provide an appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties in order to maintain vehicular ~ccess to . detached garages, to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services, and to maintain the character of the surrounding neighbourhood: • The zoning by-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 3.0 metres. • The applicant is proposing to reduce the east side yard setback to 1.2 metres .. • The proposed dwelling will maintain a west side yard setback-of 3.31 metres. .• The proposed east side· yard setback of 1.2 metres will provide an adequate separation distance between the dwelling and the property line tb the east to accommodate g~ading, drainage and residential services. • The proposed west side yard setback of 3.31 metres will provide appropriate space for vehicular access to the proposed detached garage located in the rear yard. • The reduction in the east side yard setback will have minimal impact on .the abutting property to the east as the property is owned by the Toronto and Region Conversation Authority and is currently an open space natural area. • The proposed east side yard setback of 1.2 metres will maintain the character of the existing community, as the properties within the surrounding neighbourhood have side yard setbacks ranging between 1.2 metres and 3.0 metres. • Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land and maintains the intent and purpose of the · Official Plan and Zoning By.,law. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • no concern with the requested variance Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • no objection to the· application (TRCA) David Pickles, Regional Councillor-Ward 3 · • supports the requested variance Date· of report: September 6, 2017 Report PICA 76/17 ·. Comments prepared by: Co'~-~orris n Pl~~-1 CM:DW:jc Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP September 13, 2017 21 Page 3 Principal Planner-Development Review J:\Documents\Development\0·3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2017\PCA 76-17 M. ~ro'Ml\Report\PCA 76-17 Report.doc Attachments 2~ \-' ) r--~ I I ~. -,_ ~ -- w ~ z ::::i : -z -:;: 0 -\! -,l/ SUBJECT 0... ~ PROPERTY ~ I (!) \ ::::l 0 o::· 0 ' \ HEill~ lD II II II 0:: <( (.) CIJ FINCH AVENUE - J Ill 1--- ~ ~ I ' ( ./ r--L - ' 3 w \ ::::l z w ?( 1l} Cl ~ 0 0 I :;: ' ' - _· Cit; o~-· _· Location Map File: PICA 76/17 ! PlCKER1NG Applicant:M. Brown City Development Property Description :Con 1 N Part Lot 35 40R2504 Part 1 '\ (87 Finch Avenue) Date: Jul. 20, 2017 Department 11 ~eh~r:,r:od~~ ~r:r~~eo~~:e~'!e~~~;M:r~%~~~e==~:r=:~:re;:so~~~%~:=:~.~atutal Kesources. SCALE: .1:5,000 I PN-RU Teranet Enterprises Inc. ard Its supptiets alt rigtrts reserved,;«:! Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its sup piers all righls reserved.: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. --~4- PlCKERlNG City Development Department Submitted Plan FILE No: P/CA 76/17 APPLICANT: M. Brown to permit a minimum east side yard setback of 1.2 metres PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Con 1 N Part Lot 35 40R2504 Part 1 (87 Finch Avenue) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. ' DATE: July 24, 2017 --etq;~I-- PlCKERlNG City Development Department I I I I -=====-===:!::-' r-J/ . ; ®=.~ -- L /r ~ I , 1 ""'' '-..:::'-l ==I-~--·: .. -.:.:.:--::.-_~~:~::..~:..~ "I'::L:.::.::.::::::::..::: :::':r .::~-_.c.:::.:::.:::::::::.:.... ::r .:..:·:::·:::~:::::: ~= fRONT ELEVATION Submitted Elevations FILE No: PICA 76/17 APPLICANT: M. Brown PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Con 1 N Part Lot 35 40R2504 Part 1 (87 Finch Avenue) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: August 2, 2017 ---'--~0~ P1CKER1NG From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP . . . Report to 2.5 Committee of Adjustment Application Number: PICA 78/17 !;)ate: September 13,2017 Principal Planner-Development Review Subject: Application Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 78117 D. & M. Patterson 1376 Everton Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4325/73: • To permit an accessory structure greater than 10 square metres in area _to be set back 0.6 of a metre from the rear lot line; whereas the by-law requires accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area to be set back a minimum of 1.0 metre from all lot lines. • To permit accessory buildings, excluding private detached garages, to have a total lot coverage not exceeding 8.8 percent of the total lot area; whereas the by-law requires that the total lot coverage of all accessory buildings, excluding private detached garages, shall not exceed 5 percent of the lot area. • To permit a maximum lot coverage of 36.8 percent; whereas the by-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to construct an accessory building (shed) and a covered porch.· Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval . of the proposed variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. · That these variances apply only to the shed and covered porch, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. · 2. . That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by September 13, 2019, or this decision shall become null and void. 2 6 Report PiCA 78/17 Ba.ckground September 13, 2017· Page 2 .In 1997, the Committee of Adjustment approved minor variance application PICA 66/97 for the subject property to permit the continuance of a 0.0 metre setback between Shed "A" and the east, west and north lot lines, and to permit the continuance of a 0.0 metre setback between Shed "B" and the east side lot line. The application was approved conditional on the variances only. applying to the sheds in existence on the date of that decision . . Shed "B" is proposed to be demolished. · Comment Official Plan and Zoning By-law Pickering Official Plan -"Urban Residential Areas -Medium Density Area" within the Liverpool Neighrbourhood · Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. by By-law 4325/73 -"SD" Appropriateness of the Application Accessory Structure Setback Variance • The intent of the zoning by-law for accessory buildings to provide a minimum setback from lot lines is to ensure that adequate space is provided for maintenance, that the eaves/overhangs do not encroach on adjacent properties, and that the visual impact on adjacent properties is minimized. • The prop~sed accessory building (shed) is approximately 16.2 square metres in area, 3.5 metres in height and is proposed to be set back a minimum of 0.6 of a metre from the north lot line. · • The proposed accessory building is appropriately setback from the east and west lot lines, and meets the maximum height for accessory structures in a residential zone (3.5 metres); the proposed accessory building will not encroach.on adjacent properties. • The proposed accessory building will have minimal impact on abutting properties as it abuts an open space area associated witt) a condominium development to the north, and will be screE;}ned on the north, east and west sides by an existing wood privacy , fence. . . , · · Accessory Building Lot Coverage Variance • The intent of the maximum lot coverage requirement of 5.0 percent of the total lot area of all accessory buildings, excluding private detached garages, is to maintain an appropriate amount of amenity area uncovered by buildings on a lot and to ensure the massing, scale and size of accessory buildings are ·appropriate for the size of the lot. Report PICA 78/17 September 13, 2017 27 ·Page 3 • Two existing sheds with areas of 7.0 square metres (Shed A) and 4.0 square metres (Shed B to be demolished), respectively, are located on the property. • The proposed accessory building is approximately 16.2 square metres in area, which when combined with existing Shed A results in a lot coverage of 8.8 percent. • The proposed increase in total lot coverage does not appear to subordinate the principal residential use of the property. • · There is an existing wood privacy fence to minimize the visupl impact of the accessot)t building from adjacent properties to the north, east ahd west. • The proposed shed will maintain a sufficient amount of outdoor amenity area that will remain uncovered and unobstructed within the rear yard of the.property. Lot Coverage Variance • The intent of the maxinium lot coverage provision is to ensure that the size, scale and massing of a dwelling, and accessory buildings is appropriate for the lot size and to ensure an adequate amount of outdoor amenity space remains uncovered by buildings on a lot. • The applicant has requested a variance to increase the maximum lot coverage from 33 percent to 36.8 percent. • The existing dwelling is approximately 69.1 square metres in area, the existing accessor)t building (Shed A) is approximately 7.0 square metres in area, the proposed accessory building is approximately 16.2 square metres in area, and the proposed covered porch is approximately 4.4 square metres area; when combined the dwelling, two sheds and t~e porch result in a total lot coverage of 36.8 percent of the lot area. • The increase in lot coverage will provide for the appropriate development of the land as the size and massing of the existing dwelling will be minimally impacted by the proposed covered porch, and the accessory buildings are appropriate for the lot size. • .The proposed development will maintain a sufficient amount of outdoor amenity area . that will remain uncovered and unobstructed on the lot. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are minor iri nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land and maintain the purpose and intent of the Official Plan and Zon!ng By-law. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services Date of report: September 6, 2017 • ·no comments on the application ZB Report PICA 78/17 Comments prepared by: ·~~ Rory McNeil Planner I RM:DW:jc J:\Documents\Development\0-3700\2017\PCA 78-17\Report\PCA 76-17.doc Attachments September 13, 2017 Page4 --~ Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner-Development Review ~ 0:: 1---+---J Cl ~1---+-----i ;§ 1---+---t z w al---+---1 -Cdt;()f- P1CKER1NG City Development Department Location Ma File: PICA 78/17 1-- 1- 1- r------ IT~ ~II o 1--:------l----1~ 1---i------IW f-------l----IC> 1-:------l----18 1------!----1....1" POPPY LANE PN-RU 9 --Olj;ti-- PICKERING City Development Department ) Everton Street Submitted Plan File No: PICA 78/17 Applicant: D. & M. Patterson Property Description: Plan M997 Part Lot 68 40R2453 Part 1 (1376 Everton Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: August 24, 2017 --Cdt;{)I-- PICKERING City Development Department ! l. Submitted Elevation File No: PICA 78/17 Applicant: D. & M. Patterson Property Description: Plan M997 Part Lot 68 40R2453 Part 1 (1376 Everton Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .. DATE: August 24, 2017 32, __ 04 ~1-- 'PICKERING Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: PICA 81117 . ' Date: September ·13, 2017 From: Subject: Application Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner-Development Review Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 81117 L. Black 1019 Maury Crescent The applicant requests. relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1699183: • To permit an uncovered platform (deck) and associated steps not exceeding 2.4 metres .in height above grade to project a maximum of 1.0 metres into the required rear yard; whereas, by-law requites uncovered steps. and platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade may project a maximu~ of 1.5 metres into the required re~r yard. • To permit an acces~ory building to be set back a minimum of 0.5 of a metre from the south and west lot lines; whereas the by-law requires accessory buildings not exceeding 10 square metres in size and not exceeding 1.8 metres in height, to be setback a minimum of 0.6 metres from all lot lines. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct an uncovered platform (deck) and associated steps, and to recognize an existing accessory building (shed) in the rear yard. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the uncovered platform (deck) and associated steps not exceeding 2.4 metres in height above grade to project a maximum of 1-.0 metres into the required rear yard, and an existing accessory building (shed) to be setback a minimum of 0.5 of a metre from the south and west lot lines, to be minor in naturE3, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and ih keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed second storey uncovered platform (deck) and existing accessory building (shed), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted .plans. , · 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by September.13, 2019, or this decision· shall become null and void. \ Report PICA 81/17 September 13, 2017 33 Page2 Comment Official Plan and Zoning By-law Pickering Official Plan-"Urban Residential Areas-Low Density Areas" within the Liverpool Neighbourhood Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-:l~w-1699/83, "S3" -Single Residential Zone Appropriateness of the Application Uncovered Platform (Deck) and Associated Steps Projecting into the Required Rear Yard • The_intent of this provision is to ensure that an adequate outdoor private amenity area is provided within the rear yard, appropriate setbacks are provided to protect the privacy of abutting property owners and appropriate access for maintenance, lot grading and. drainage. • The by-law permits uncovered platforms and associated steps· not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required rear yard. • The applicant is requesting to reconstruct an uncovered platform (deck) and associated steps not exceeding 2.4 metres in height above grade to project a maximum of 1..0 metres into the required rear yard. · • The existing deck was constructed in 1987 without a building permit. • The proposed second storey deck maintains the minimum side yard setback requirements and is setback 6.5 metres from tlie rear lot line. • Staff is of the opinion that there will be no adverse impacts on adjacent neighbours resulting from the proposed variance. • An adequate amount of outdoor private amenity area within the rear yard is being provided and an adequate buffer space between all lot lines and the proposed deck will be maintained. • The requested variance is minor in nature and maintains the intent of the OffiCial Plan and Zoning By-law and desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Accessory Structure Setback Variance • The intent of the zoning by-law for accessory buildings to provide a minimum setback from lot lines is to ensure that adequate space is provided for maintenance, that the eaves/overhangs do not encroach on adjacent properties, and that the visual impact on adjacent properties is minimized. ~ • The by-law requires accessory structures not exceeding 10 square metres in size and not exceeding 1.8 metres in ~eight, to be setback a minimum of 0.6 metres from alllotJines. • The applicant is. requestin·g to recognize an existing accessory structure (shed) setback 0.5 of a metre from the south and west lot lines, whereas the by-law requires accessory structures to be set back a minimum of 0.6 of a metre from all lot lines. g 4Report PICA 81/17 September 13, 2017 Page3 • There is an existing wood privacy fence that has been erected along the perimeter of the rear and side yards, which minimizes the visual impact on adjacent property owners. • The requested variance is minor in nature and maintains the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services Date of report: September 5, 2017 Comments prepared by: p:;;~, Lalita Paray, MJp, RPP Planner I LP:jc • no objections to the proposed deck Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner-Development Review J:\Documents\Development\0·3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2017\PCA 81·17 L Black\ReportlpcaB1·17.doc Attachments · -.OitJo/-. P1CKER1NG City Development Department 5 36 ) ' to permit an uncovered platform - .¥ ... ... ' ,_ -1.61 . Cone. 'fdn . .. .( . 'II 0.2,; ,///' c;a..e . ... . . 0.2. ..,. .. J.S (deck) and associated steps not exceeding 2.4 metres in height above grade to project~ maximum of 1.0 metres into the required rear yard 1.81~~~~t;:;------Lt6. r ' --------------------~~ ~ . 118. ~ r-.. •... ,;6 ~~ to permit an accessory structure to be setback a minimum of 0.5 o a metre from the south and west lot lines I~ :p~~ I~ ~• -~()~ PlCKERlNG " . -~ 0.5m-' ~ 0.5m Existing Shed Submitted Plan File No: PICA 81/17 Applicant: L. Black 12m (.0 . ro f"(') ·City Development Departmer:tt Property Description: PLAN 40M1375 LOT 13. · · (1019 Maury Cres.) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. \ DATE: August 23, 2017