HomeMy WebLinkAboutBy-law 3614/90 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NUMBER 3614/90
Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area By-law
3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan
of the Town of Picketing District Planning Area,
Region of Durham in Lot 26, Plan 473, Town of
Pickering (A43/88)
WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend the side yard requirement
provisions applicable to the subject lands;
AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended, is therefore
deemed necessary;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PICKERING
HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. BY-LAW 3036
By-law 3036, passed by the Council of the Corporation of the
Township (now Town) of Pickering on the 3rd day of August 1965,
and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on the 7th day of
October 1966, and amended from time to time, is hereby further
amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the
provisions of Section 2 hereof.
2. TEXT AMENDMENT
Section ll of By-law 3036, is hereby further amended by adding
thereto the following subsection:
11.4.2 Lot 26, Plan 473
Despite the side yard provision of Section 11.2.2, no
minimum side yard shall be required where a Local
Commercial zone flanks a Residential zone.
3. EFFECTIVE DATE
This by-law shall take effect from and after the 3rd day of
December 1990.
BY-LAW APPROVED BY THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD ON DECEMBER 3,
1990 (OMB FILE - Z 890073
The enclosed document contains the Board's Decision in this matter
and the final Order of the Board. No separate Order document will
issue.
DEC041990
TOWN ~1~ pICKERING
DEC r': 3 1990 890073
FOLIO ~ ~ Ontario
Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales de I'Ontario
''~~TA~
IN THE ~A'r£~R OF Section 34(11) of
the Plannina Act, 1983
AND IN T~ MATTER OF an appeal to
this Board by Heinz Raedisch for an
order amending Zoning By-law 2700/88
of the Corporation of the Town of
Picketing to remove the restriction
from the C1 zoning category for the
lands comprised of Lot 26, Plan 473,
municipally known as 1409 Rosebank
Road in the Town of Pickering
COUNSELI
C.M.T. Sheffield - for the Town of Picketing
DECISION delivered by K. D. BINDHARDT and ORDER OF THE BOARD
Mr. Heinz Raedisch owns a commercial property being Lot 26, Plan
473, in the Town of Picketing. The property is located on the east
side of Rosebank Road North, a short distance north of Highway No. 2.
The southerly half of the adjacent property to the north, Lot
25, was rezoned from C1 Local Commercial to R4 Residential by
By-law 2700-88, enacted on March 1, 1988. Mr. Raedisch objected to
the proposed rezoning and filed his objection with the Town of
Pickering subsequent to the public meeting but prior to the actual
enactment of the by-law. Because he did not repeat this objection
during the appeal period, the municipality did not recognize his
objection as an appeal to the by-law and By-law 2700-88 came into
effect, imposing the side yard setback requirement between
residential and commercial zones of 4.5 metres for any redevelopment
on his property. Mr. Raedisch subsequently appealed under
Section 34(11) of the Planning Act to amend By-law 2700-88, removing
the setback requirement.
890073
The Board finds it extraordinar~ that the Town of Picketing
would ignore Mr. Raedisch's objection and not advise him of the need
to repeat his objection or, knowing of it, acknowledge it as an
appeal to By-law 2700-88. Mr. and Mrs. Adams, the owners of Lot 25,
who sought the rezoning to suit their interests and other residents
in the area who wish to preserve the residential character of the
neighbourhood are taking the position that Mr. Raedisch is attempting
to change the by-law to suit his interests. This is not the case.
Mr. Raedisch purchased his property for the purpose of commercial
redevelopment, knowing that the existing zoning permitted development
with zero setbacks from lot lines. It is Mr. and M_rs. Adams who
initiated the change in the zoning, adversely affecting Mr.
Raedisch's rights. Consequently, the Board takes the position that
in this hearing the onus is on Mr. and Mrs. Adams and their
supporters to show that the setback restriction imposed on
Mr. Raedisch is Justified.
Mrs. Adams and two other residents on Rosebank Road testified
that the residential neighbourhood is a distinct area with cultural
heritage and that the character of the area requires protection. In
her submission, Mrs. Adams stated that Mr. Raedisch's application
should be denied because the elimination of the 4.5 metre setback
will negatively impact on her property. No evidence was led to
identify the distinctiveness and cultural heritage of the area nor
was any development proposal identified to assess what negative
impact could result. It is obvious, however, that Mr. and Mrs. Adams
would prefer the additional distance of 4.5 metres between their
house and any development of the subject property.
Mrs. Linda D. Taylor, the manager of the planning division of
the Town of Pickering, expressed the following opinions
- 3 - Z 890073
"The requested rezoning does not provide for a
side yard which is compatible with the area or
adequate for landscape purposes should any
future commercial development occur on the
lands.
Area must be available for landscaping and
buffering of abutting dissimilar land uses
(residential/commercial) to reduce or eliminate
conflicts such as noise, emissions and views.
The subject property abuts a special policy area
as identified in the Woodlands Community Plan,
Part B. This area is sensitive to the effects
of new development. Consequently, an adequate
side yard must be provided on the subject land
to permit the incorporation of plantings and
berming to protect existing dwellings to the
north."
This opinion, in the Board's view, is her response to the
rezoning application by Mr. Raedisch and does not reflect the
reality of the situation. No planning evidence was led to show the
need for the relocation of the boundary between the residential and
commercial zones. Planning Report No. 7-89, which deals with the
application by Mr. Raedisch, reviews the side yard requirement from
the position of a rezoning application to eliminate the zero lot
line. This report does not deal with the need to impose a setback
requirement where none was considered necessary before. The Board
appreciates that the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 3036 was approved
in 1966 and does not necessarily implement the policies of the
Woodlands Community Plan or other policies in the Pickering District
Plan, but no development proposal for Mr. Raedisch's property has
been identified and no study of any impact on the residential
community is available.
Planning Report No. 69-87 deals with the application by Mr. and
Mrs. Adams regarding the rezoning of their property. In this report
planning staff does not identify the needs for the protection of the
Woodlands Community. It only finds that the by-law for the rezoning
- 4 - ~ 890073
of the Adams' property conforms to the policies of the Picketing
District Plan and recognizes the significant impact of such rezoning
on the development potential of the Raedisch property.
As a compromise, Mrs. Taylor expressed the following opinion~
"A 2.4 metre side yard width (setback) reflects
the minimum setback requirement for a dwelling
unit with a detached garage in an R4-Residential
zone.
A 2.4 metre setback provides for a side yard
that is compatible with the area without
impacting the development potential of the
subject lands as significantly as a 4.5 metre
side yard requirement.
Sufficient area for landscaping and buffering
purposes, to reduce or eliminate conflicts such
as noise, emissions and views, is available
should any commercial development occur on the
property.
A 2.4 metre setback provides an adequate side
yard adjacent to a special policy area (as
identified in the Woodlands Community Plan, Part
B) to permit appropriate buffering to protect
the abutting residential use."
Mrs. Taylor testified that the 2.4 metre side yard setback
meets all Official Plan and Community Plan policies.
It would appear that the 4.5 metre side yard setback reguired
by By-law 3036 established in 1966 is unnecessary if a 2.4 metre
side yard setback meets all the policies of the Official Plan and
Community Plan. Mrs. Adams insistence on a 4.5 metre setback
indicates that she is primarily concerned with the protection of her
own interests.
Planning Report 69-87 makes reference to the 0.7 metre north
side yard of the existing residential dwelling on the Raedisch
property. If the development proposal for the Raedisch property
were to incorporate the existing structure, Mr. Raedisch would have
- § - Z 890073
to apply either for rezoning or for a variance which undoubtedly
would meet with strong resistance from Mr. and Mrs. Adams and other
members of the community.
Having reviewed all of the evidence and argument, the Board
finds that~
1. No specific development proposal of the Raedisch has been made.
2. Although the Pickering District Plan and Woodlands Community
Plan contain general policies to ensure compatibility of future
development with existing development and require buffering
between residential and non residential uses, no specific need
for the protection of the community north of the subject
property from a theoretical impact as a result of a zero lot
line setback has been identified.
3. The existing structure on the subject property has a 0.7 metre
north side yard and future development may incorporate the
existing structure.
4. The Board takes the view that the application before it should
be considered as part of the process by which a 4.5 metre
setback is to be imposed for the north boundary of the subject
property.
5. No acceptable rationale has been advanced to support such a
change. Mr. Raedisch bought this property as commercially
zoned land without the setback restriction and planning staff
does not support the 4.5 metre setback.
.4
- 6 - Z 890073
6 . The Town of Pickering has at its disposal site plar control and
can review any development proposed on the subject property
with regard to the policies of the Woodlands Community Plan.
For the reasons stated the appeal is allowed and By-law 3036 is
amended in accordance with Appendix "A" to this decision, and the
Board so orders .
DATED at TORONTO this 3rd day of December, 1990.
"K. D. Bindhardt"
K. D. BINDHARDT
MEMBER
"J. A. Fraser"
J. A. FRASER
MEMBER
Z 890073
Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales de I'Ontario
APPENDIX "A"
THE CORPORATION OF TI-IE TOWN OF PICKFRING
BY-LAW NUMBER
Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to
implement the Official Plan of the Town of Pickering District Planning Area, Region of
Durham in Lot 26, Plan 473, in the Town of Pickering.
(A 43/88)
WIII~ ~REAS it is deemed desirable to amend the side yard requirement provisions applicable
to the subject lands;
~ WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary;
NOW THEREFORE TI{E COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THeE TOWN OF
DICKERING HF. RERy ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
t. BY-LAW 3036
By-law 3036, passed by the Council of the Corporation of the Township (now Town) of
Picketing on the 3rd day of August 1965, and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on
the 7th day of October 1966, and amended from time to time, is hereby further amended
- -- only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of Sections 2 hereof.
Section 11 of By-law 3036, is hereby further amended by adding thereto the following
subsection:
11.4.2 Lot 26, Plan 473
Despite the side yard provision of Section 11.2.2, no minimum side yard shall be
required where a Local Commercial zone flank~ a Residential zone.
~. EFFECTIVE DATE
This By-]aw shall take effect from and after the day of ,19