HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 23-Cf4of-
P1CKER1NG
(Ill) Reports
1. PICA62117 to PICA 75117
Mattamy (Seaton) Ltd
Part of Block 45 & Block 4 7 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 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 (LD1 )"
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 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 applications 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 Subdivision 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 62/17 to PICA 75/17 by Mattamy (Seaton) Ltd, be Deferred to
the next Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow staff to recirculate a revised Public
Notice as it relates to the variances requested.
Carried Unanimously
Page 2 of 8
-Cift;of-
PJCKERJNG
Moved by Tom Copeland
Seconded by Eric Newton
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
VVednesday,August23,2017
7:02pm
Main Committee Room
That application PICA 77117 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. PICA 79117
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 requests approval of this minor variance application in order to allow for
two accessory buildings 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 Department expressing 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
-Cdt;;oJ-
PlCKERlNG
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Eric Newton
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
VVednesday,August23,2017
7:02pm
Main Committee Room
That application PICA 79117 by Squires Beach Holding Ltd., be Approved on the
grounds that the two accessory buildings located in 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 the 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 applicant obtain a Permit under 0. Reg. 166106 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, 2018, or this decision shall become null and void.
4. PICA 80117
M. Strasic
662 Pleasant 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
maximum 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 minor variance application in order to obtain a
building permit to construct 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, 2016 is complete.
Page 5 of 8
-CJ::tof-
PJCKERlNG
Committee of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
VVednesday,August23,2017
7:02pm
Main Committee Room
Written comments were received from a resident of 660 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 direct
negative impact on them.
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; the 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 the proposed structure
will shadow the rear yard and significantly impact the growth in the vegetable garden.
Stephen Hunt, agent, and Marjan Strasic, applicant, were present to represent the
application.
Dave & Susan Bullock of 669 Pleasant Street, Joyce Lawlor of 666 Pleasant 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 for many
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 subject property and will not impact neighbouring properties.
A reduced front yard setback is requested to lessen any impact on neighbouring
properties. Should the variances 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