Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 8, 2022 - RevisedRevised Committee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Number: 5 Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 pickering.ca For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Secretary-Treasurer or Assistant, Secretary-Treasurer Telephone: 905.420.4617 Email: citydev@pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number 1.Disclosure of Interest 2.Adoption of Agenda 3.Adoption of Minutes from May 11, 2022 1-16 4. Report 4.1 (Tabled at the April 13, 2022 Hearing) P/CA 45/22 17-23 B. Atique 2030 Duberry Road 4.2 (Deferred at the May 11, 2022 Hearing) P/CA 70/22 24-29 S. & S. Ahmed 1632 Winville Road 4.3 P/CA 105/21 & P/CA 106/21 30-43 8831467 Canada Limited 1421 Rougemount Drive 4.4 P/CA 76/22 44-56 M. Iqbal 1866 Fairport Road 4.5 P/CA 77/22 57-65 N. Ajdarevic 1815 Spruce Hill Road 4.6 P/CA 78/22 66-72 H. Sanghera 402 Woodsmere Crescent 4.7 P/CA 79/22 73-77 J. Charles 846 Zator Avenue Revised For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Secretary-Treasurer or Assistant, Secretary-Treasurer Telephone: 905.420.4617 Email: citydev@pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number 4.8 P/CA 80/22 78-84 C. Warren 618 Springview Drive 4.9 P/CA 81/22 85-91 SBB Industrial (Seaton) GP Inc. Northwest corner of Highway 407 and Sideline 24 5. Adjournment Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 16 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Felix Chau, Planner II Isabel Lima, Planner II Kerry Yelk, Planner I Jasmine Correia, Clerk, Support Services Absent Not applicable. 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, May 11, 2022 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 3rd hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, April 13, 2022 be adopted. Carried Unanimously -1- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 16 4. Reports 4.1 (Tabled at the April 13, 2022 Hearing) P/CA 61/22 S. Wyce & B. Grant 624 Park Crescent Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 61/22 by S. Wyce & B. Grant be lifted from the table. Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, By-law 7872/21 and By-law 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum front yard of 7.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres; • a minimum rear yard of 2.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.5 metres; • a minimum front yard of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a main building is erected upon a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the flank of such lot, such main building shall be deemed to have two front yards, one on the street upon which such lot fronts, and one on the street upon which such lot flanks, and shall conform to the respective front yard requirement of 7.5 metres; • a maximum dwelling depth of 23 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths up to and including 40 metres shall be 17 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; -2- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 16 • a covered platform and associated uncovered steps (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 6.2 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard; • an uncovered platform and associated uncovered steps (side porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.2 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard; and • a vehicle in the rear yard to be setback a minimum of 0.0 metres from the south lot line, whereas the By-law states that vehicles parked in a rear yard must be setback a minimum 1.0 metre from the nearest lot line. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant that City staff’s recommendation from the City Development Department is recommending approval subject to conditions. Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and 11 area residents. Chris Langley, agent and Sarah Grant, applicant, was present to represent the application. Carlie Weppler was present in favour of the application. Carlie Weppler spoke in favour of the application and indicated the following: support of the 40 percent lot coverage as it is common in the neighbourhood; support the variance of maximum building depth; identified this is a unique shaped lot with respect to interpretation of required setbacks and the road configuration of Park Crescent, and hopeful the Committee will approve the application. In response to questions from Committee Members, Chris Langley explained raising the foundation will provide adequate head room for habitable living area and adequate window size to allow for more natural lighting within the space. The area referred to as “Front Yard #1” on the Exhibits, fronting onto Victory Drive will be acting as the resident’s rear yard space, at this time the agent is unsure whether the space will be fenced in. -3- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 16 After listening to the applicant, the agent, as well as their responses to Committee Member’s questions, and that the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 61/22 by S. Wyce & B. Grant, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 11, 2022); and 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner shall agree to perform grading works up to the lot line to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 66/22 JMPM Holdings Ltd. & S. Golvin 1635 Bayly Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7828/21 & 6974/09, to permit an accessory outdoor storage use, whereas the By-law prohibits outdoor storage and display. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit an outdoor storage area, accessory to a proposed warehouse facility. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, City Development staff recommend approval of the requested variances subject to a condition (note this is a revised recommendation). Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, Bill McLean, City of Pickering Regional Councillor – Ward 2 and Christine Doody-Hamilton, City of Pickering Councillor – Ward 2. Eldon Theodore, the agent, and Aaron Platt, legal counsel to the applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. -4- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 16 In response to a question from a Committee Member, Eldon Theodore confirmed that the outdoor storage and display area will be subject to the Site Plan Review process and the warehouse will store items that have been seized by the federal government that will later then be disposed of. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Aaron Platt clarified that the warehouse will not store any harmful or dangerous items, it will store items such as vehicles that will then go up for auction. The warehouse will have a heightened security design to ensure security of the higher end items to be stored there. After review of the report, a very thorough presentation submitted by the applicant/agent, comments received from staff as well as the fact that this proposal will require Site Plan Approval to address the landscaping and screening of the display and storage area, and with no public objections, this application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 66/22 by JMPM Holdings Ltd. & S. Golvin, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the subject lands, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 11, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 67/22 K. Ganeshalingam 2342 Heska Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to permit a minimum flankage (north) yard depth of 3.0 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum flankage yard depth of 4.5 metres The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a single family detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, City Development staff recommend approval of the requested variances subject to a condition. -5- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 16 Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Yaso Somalingam, the agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Yaso Somalingam explained the ground floor is raised to allow for more natural lighting in the basement, as permitted by the current zoning by-laws. Yaso Somalingam clarified the second entrance on the front façade of the building will be used as a separate entrance into the applicant’s home office. He explained incorrect information was provided to him at the Building Permit stage and therefore needs the variance to accommodate a setback of 3.0 metres. He also assured the Committee this home office is for the applicant’s own private use, and further explained that clients may attend the home office sporadically as permitted by the zoning by-laws. The agent agreed to reduce the driveway as the entrance of the driveway is in close proximity to the Martins Street and Heska Road intersection. Given that the 3.0 metre setback is supported by a generous existing boulevard on Martins Street and provides adequate separation distance between the single detached dwelling and the flanking street activity, Sean Wiley agrees the application keeps the general intent of the flankage yard setback provision. Considering support from Engineering Services, Building Services and the TRCA, that there is no public input and subject to a friendly amendment adding a condition, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wylie Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 67/22 by K. Ganeshalingam, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance applies only to the proposed single family detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 11, 2022). 2. That the applicant attempt to revise the proposed circular driveway with a hammerhead driveway. Carried Unanimously -6- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 16 4.4 P/CA 68/22 & P/CA 69/22 Canaan Canada Developments Ltd. 1240 Bayview Street P/CA 68/22 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 4139/92, to permit: • a maximum lot coverage of 47 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent; • a maximum building height of 9.0 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 7.5 metres; and • a minimum front yard depth of 3.9 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a dwelling unit fronting the same street exists on each lot on either side, the minimum front yard depth shall be the average of the front yard depths of each of those dwellings. P/CA 69/22 – Part 2 on Exhibit 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 4139/92, to permit: • a maximum lot coverage of 47 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent; • a maximum building height of 9.0 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 7.5 metres; and • a minimum front yard depth of 3.9 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a dwelling unit fronting the same street exists on each lot on either side, the minimum front yard depth shall be the average of the front yard depths of each of those dwellings. The applicant is in the process of severing the property resulting in two lots. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to construct a detached dwelling on each lot. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and one area resident. -7- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 16 Joel Gerber, the agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Joel Gerber stated there are no flat topped roofs in that immediate stretch of Bayview Street. He has noticed an upward trend in this area of residents attempting to maximize useable space on these residential lots, in lieu of having an underutilized attic space. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer indicated the subject address is not located in one of the Established Neighbourhoods and therefore is not subject to the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing. Given that the lot coverage variance and minimum front yard depth seem to be minor in nature. The height variance from 7.5 metres to 9.0 metres seems to be appropriate given that the third floor of both buildings are setback in order to minimize the impact on the street view. Considering no comments were received from Engineering Services, Building Services or public input Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 68/22 & P/CA 69/22 by Canaan Canada Developments Ltd., be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 11, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 70/22 S. & S. Ahmed 1632 Winville Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7022/10, to permit: • uncovered steps and a platform to be setback a minimum of 0.3 of a metre from an interior side lot line, whereas the By-law requires a covered or uncovered porch, veranda or balcony and with or without a foundation to be setback a minimum of 0.6 of a metre from an interior side lot line. -8- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 16 The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of an above grade staircase leading to an entrance of an accessory dwelling unit. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Fredi Fazli the agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Fredi Fazili clarified that maintenance of the backyard is not a concern of the applicant because the backyard is paved. The uncovered steps and platform provides the owners access to the backyard as well as access to an entry door that leads into the home’s basement apartment. Mr. Fazili confirmed that this is a single detached dwelling with a basement apartment containing two bedrooms, a washroom and a kitchen. He also confirmed the platform, stairs and railing are existing. To allow for further site inspections by the Committee Members, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 70/22 by S. & S. Ahmed, be Deferred to the June 8, 2022 hearing to allow Committee Members to conduct site inspections. Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 72/22 K. & J. Avis 1272 1274 Wharf Street & 595 Annland Street The applicant requests that, under Section 45.2(a) Other Powers of the Planning Act, the legal non-conforming residential use be extended to permit the construction of an accessory structure for the storage of a personal boat; And The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 3179, to permit: -9- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 16 • a new accessory building for the storage of a personal boat to be erected in the front yard, whereas the By-law states that all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building shall be erected in the rear yard; and • the total lot coverage for all accessory buildings to be 6 percent of the lot area, whereas the By-law states that the total lot coverage of all accessory buildings, excluding private detached garages, shall not exceed 5 percent of the lot area. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an accessory structure for the storage of a personal boat. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, City Development staff recommend approval subject to conditions. Input from other sources have been received from the City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Peter Barton, the agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Peter Barton clarified that the boathouse dimensions are roughly 25 feet by 35 feet, allow the applicant to have a workbench, tools and materials in order to perform regular maintenance on their boat. This structure is not intended to act as communal boat storage area for neighbouring residents. Given the context and location of the lot, this application seems to be appropriate for the development of the land, and considering responses by the agent, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 72/22 by K. & J. Avis, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed accessory structure for the storage of one personal boat, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 11, 2022). -10- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 16 2. That if the residential use of the property is discontinued, that these variances become null and void. Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 73/22 M. Charles & M. Boivin 1368 Gull Crossing The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-law 7528/16, to permit a balcony to encroach into the required rear yard to a maximum of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law permits a porch or uncovered deck to encroach into any required rear yard to a maximum of 2.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the construction of a balcony. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Mitchell Charles, the applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Mitchell Charles confirmed the residence backs onto Frenchman’s Bay Memorial Park. After reviewing the report, considering the applicant’s comments pertaining to the rear yard balcony projection, that the by-law is silent with respect to balconys, this is a minor decrease on the allowed maximum 2.0 metre encroachment, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 73/22 by M. Charles & M. Boivin, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: -11- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 16 1. That this variance apply only to the balcony, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 11, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 74/22 C. & S. Macaluso 1525 Kodiak Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06: • to permit an accessory structure (shed) to be located less than 30 metres from the base of the outermost tree trunks within a woodland (Significant Woodlands), whereas the By-law requires all buildings or structures to be located a minimum of 30 metres from the base of the outermost tree trunks within a woodland (Significant Woodlands); • to permit a proposed accessory building (shed) measuring 22.3 square metres in area, whereas the By-law requires no accessory buildings and/or structures to exceed 10 square metres in area; and • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 15 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 10 percent. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a shed, pergola, and to extend an existing cabana. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources have been received from the City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and two area residents. The Host was unable to connect with the applicant and the time the application was ready to be heard. Given that the Committee Members have questions regarding the application, and the applicant not being present to represent the application, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland -12- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 16 That application P/CA 74/22 by C. & S. Macaluso, be Deferred to the following Hearing or until the host is able to contact the Applicant prior to the adjournment of this Hearing. Carried Unanimously 4.9 P/CA 75/22 K. Brown 4984 Canso Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit an accessory dwelling unit with a maximum floor area of 147 square metres, whereas the By-law establishes the maximum floor area of an accessory dwelling unit shall be 100 square metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit an accessory dwelling unit. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and two area residents. Nathan Proctor, the agent and Kristina Brown, the applicant were present to represent the application. Carol and Rob Timmings and David and Julie Badurina were present in objection to the application. Carol and Rob Timmings appeared in objection to the application and stated the following: this request is not minor in nature and would provide a 50 percent increase of the current By-law; concerned that this would reduce the open space to their property line; it is not in keeping with the distance of spacing between houses on Canso Drive; the proposed design of this structure very much resembles a duplex because it is over 1,500 square feet; it is not representative of the houses in the neighbourhood; and respectfully ask for other solutions be explored for an in-law dwelling unit. David and Julie Badurina appearing in objection to the application and indicated the following: this request should not be characterized as minor in nature due to 50percent deviation from the By-law; the underlying policy for the accessory dwelling by-law has been disregarded; if granted this would set a precedent in the neighbourhood and would represent a shift from the original intent for this street; in a practical sense the Committee would be allowing for a duplex due to the increase of the floor square area after the project is complete; by granting this request it would alter the look and feel for the street; house values would be changed and certain buyers would be dissuaded from purchasing their house; and other alternatives should be explored by the applicant and agent that would comply to the By-Laws as this is a big lot with lots of space. -13- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 16 In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer explained that the side yard requirement is 1.8 metres therefore the proposed addition does meet the minimum zoning by-law requirements. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Nathan Proctor explained that when the floor area calculations were made for the apartment they took into account the exterior wall as well as the proposed elevator shaft. The total overage of the floor area is not only to accommodate the spare bedroom but to allow for proper wheelchair accessibility and to meet the requirements for an elevator shaft. Removing the spare bedroom would not change the size of the dwelling but the space would be used for something else. He explained their firm employs an Aging in Place Specialist and the front door is required for EMS as well as for accessibility for the elderly. Mr. Proctor stated there are multiple homes on Acorn Street that have a two door entrances. A lot of care and aesthetics has been invested to ensure this is appealing for the neighbourhood. After listening to the applicant, considering immediate residents’ input and other member’s questions, Denise Rundle recognizes the additional floor space for this ADU would not necessarily be visible and the applicant could technically get a building permit for this dwelling today and would satisfy the City’s objective of the By-Law allowing for the construction of accessory dwellings, considering there are no setback issues. There is the issue of the 50 percent increase in the size of the unit, it must be ancillary to the primary dwelling unit, which are substantial dwellings on spacious lots. If this variance were to be granted then the possibility for this specific Aging in Place dwelling to, in the future, be turned an apartment is viable, which would then double the density on the street. Denise Rundle finds that this application does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-Law of 100 square metres passed by Council and moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 75/22 by K. Brown, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not minor in nature, is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Carried Unanimously 4.10 P/CA 74/22 C. & S. Macaluso 1525 Kodiak Street After several attempts, the Host was able to connect with the applicant. The Chair dispense the reading of the application as it was already read out. -14- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 16 Colleen Macaluso, the applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Colleen Macaluso explained that they may add a split A/C and heating unit in the cabana so that it may be used comfortably in the Fall, Spring and Summer. It will also act as storage of the lawn furniture. The lawn shed will not be heated, there will be storage for lawn appliances such as gardening tools, lawnmower, etc. She also ensured that the cabana is not intended to be used for residential purposes in the future. After reading the staff report, listening to the applicant’s presentation and response to questions, reviewing the input from other sources and TRCA having no objections to the minor variance Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 74/22 by C. & S. Macaluso, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the existing detached dwelling, proposed and existing accessory structures (shed, pergola, and cabana) as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 11, 2022). Carried Unanimously -15- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 16 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 4th hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 9:00 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, June 8, 2022. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer -16- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 45/22 Date: June 8, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning and Administration Subject: (Tabled at the April 13, 2022 Hearing) Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 45/22 B. Atique 2030 Duberry Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1976/85, to recognize a minimum interior side yard width of 0.1 metres one side (north), 0.6 metre other side (south), whereas the By-law permits a minimum interior side yard width of 1.2 metres one side, 0.6 metres other side. The requested variance is intended to recognize existing below grade stairs proposed to be covered. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considers the requested variance to not be minor in nature, undesirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Refusal of the proposed variance. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). Background In January 2022, the applicant submitted a Building Permit application to facilitate interior alterations to support an Accessory Dwelling Unit in the basement along with existing below grade steps. Through site plan review, Building Services indicated a Minor Variance was required to permit the proposed covering for the existing below grade stairs. This application was deferred at the April 13, 2022 Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow City staff to recirculate a revised notice. The original notice showed a variance to permit a interior side yard of 0.45 metres. The requested variance has been revised to permit a building interior side yard of 0.15 metres. -17- Report P/CA 45/22 June 8, 2022 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended for residential uses including detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned “S4” – Single family detached under Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1976/85. The intent of the minimum side yard width provision is to provide an appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties in order to maintain pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading, drainage and other residential services. The requested variance to permit a minimum side yard setback of 0.1 of a metre from the north side yard will not allow for runoff and drainage to be contained within the limits of the subject property. The proposed 0.1 of a metre north side yard may negatively impact the distance separation with the side yard of the abutting property to the north. City Development and Building Services have concerns of emergency services accessing front and rear yards in the case of emergency such as a fire. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The reduced side yard setback of 0.1 of a metre is an existing situation that complies with zoning provisions. The existing reduced side setback has not impacted adjacent properties, as the below grade stairway has existed without neighbouring concerns. The requested variance to permit the proposed covering is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is not minor in nature, as it will result in a built form that will require access over adjacent lands for maintenance, and adversely impact drainage on the subject lands and abutting property to the north. The existing stairs will provide access to an Accessory Dwelling Unit. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The enclosed below grade staircase was existing and the present home owner recently bought this house. Building Services • No comments were received as of the date of this report. Engineering Services • No comments. Public Input • Resident of 2032 Duberry does not have any objections with this project as long as the water flow is controlled. -18- Report P/CA 45/22 June 8, 2022 Page 3 Date of report: June 1, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning and Administration KY:jc \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 45-22 B. Atique\7. Report Attachments -19- Duberry Drive Beaton Way Castle H i l l C o u r t Wi l d w o o d C r e s c e n t Sh a y D r i v e Brockridge Community Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 45/22 Date: Feb. 28, 2022 Exhibit 1 B. Atique 2030 Duberry Drive Hydro Lands SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 45-22 B. Atique\PCA45-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -20- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d P l a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 45 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : B. A t i q u e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 20 3 0 D u b e r r y Dr i v e CO N T A C T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . Da t e : Ju n e 1 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m in t e r i o r si d e y a r d w i d t h o f 0 . 1 me t r e s on e s i d e (n o r t h ) , 0 . 6 m e t r e s ot h e r s i d e (s o u t h ) -21- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d N o r t h (S i d e ) El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 45 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : B. A t i q u e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 20 3 0 D u b e r r y D r i v e CO N T A C T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F TH I S P L A N . Da t e : M a y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 Ou t l i n e o f Pr o p o s e d Co v e r i n g -22- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d P l a n ( De t a i l ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 45 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : B. At i q u e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 20 3 0 D u b e r r y D r i v e CO N T A C T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . Da t e : Ma y 2 5 , 20 2 2 to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m in t e r i o r si d e y a r d w i d t h o f 0 . 1 me t r e s on e s i d e ( n o r t h ) , 0 . 6 m e t r e s ot h e r s i d e ( s o u t h ) Ou t l i n e o f P r o p o s e d C o v e r i n g -23- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 70/22 Date: June 8, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: (Deferred at the May 11, 2022 Hearing) Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 70/22 S. & S. Ahmed 1632 Winville Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7022/10, to permit: • uncovered steps and a platform to be setback a minimum of 0.3 of a metre from an interior side lot line, whereas the By-law requires a covered or uncovered porch, veranda or balcony and with or without a foundation to be setback a minimum of 0.6 of a metre from an interior side lot line The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the construction of an above grade staircase leading to an entrance of an accessory dwelling unit. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considers the requested variance 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. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). Background This application was deferred at the May 11, 2022 Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow the Committee to undertake a site visit. -24- Report P/CA 70/22 June 8, 2022 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates this property as “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. This designation provides for residential uses and uses accessory thereto. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “S-SD-SA-3” within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7022/10. The intent of the by-law provision to permit uncovered steps and a platform to be setback a minimum of 0.6 of a metre from an interior side lot line is to provide the opportunity for encroachment into the side yard where required while maintaining an adequate buffer space between structures and to accommodate for pedestrian access, and utility and residential services. The applicant is proposing a 0.9 metre by 1.2 metre landing with steps in the east side yard to facilitate steps to an exterior entrance to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The proposed ADU will be in the basement of the existing two-storey dwelling. The steps project 0.9 of a metre from the dwelling and maintain a 0.3 of a metre setback from the side property line. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The side door for the ADU is elevated 0.5 of a metre above grade level requiring steps to safely access the entrance. The proposed platform has an area of 0.9 of a metre by 0.9 of a metre which results in a minor encroachment into the side yard. The proposed platform has a stair crossover design allowing access from the front to rear yards. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The existing by-law requires an interior side yard setback of 0.6 metre whereas 0.34 metres is being provided. Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • Building Services do not have any concerns. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. -25- Report P/CA 70/22 June 8, 2022 Page 3 Date of report: June 1, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:ld \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 70-22 S. & S. Ahmed\7. Report\PCA 70-22 Report.docx Attachments -26- Ca n a d i a n S t r e e t S c e n i c L a n e D r i v e Ti l l i n g s R o a d Te a k M e w s Spinnaker Mews Shepway Mews Bruny Avenue Winville Road Edgecroft Drive Ca r a v a n M e w s Zents Drive Pe g a s u s M e w s Brandy Court Dusty Drive Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 70/22 Date: Apr. 07, 2022 Exhibit 1 S. & S. Ahmed 1632 Winville Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 70-22 S. & S. Ahmed\PCA70-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -27- Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 70/22 Applicant: S. & S. Ahmed Municipal Address: 1632 Winville Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN.Date: Apr 21, 2022 to permit uncovered steps and a platform to be setback a minimum of 0.3 of a metre to an interior (east) side lot line -28- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d S i d e ( E a s t ) E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 70 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. & S . A h m e d Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 16 3 2 W i n v i l l e R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ap r i l 2 1, 2 0 2 2 -29- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 105/21 & P/CA 106/21 Date: June 8, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications P/CA 105/21 & P/CA 106/21 8831467 Canada Limited 1421 Rougemount Drive Applications P/CA 105/21 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • minimum north and south side yards of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.8 metres; and • a maximum dwelling depth of 22 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths greater than 40 metres shall be 20 metres. P/CA 106/21 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • minimum north and south side yards of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.8 metres; and • a maximum dwelling depth of 22 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths greater than 40 metres shall be 20 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to sever the property resulting in a total of two lots and to construct two detached dwellings. -30- Report P/CA 105/21 & P/CA 106/21 June 8, 2022 Page 2 Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the applications and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the applications with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and 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. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in these applications, the following condition is recommended: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed lots and detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7). Background Part 3 on the Submitted Site Plan: The first submission of this application was submitted on October 11, 2021. At the request of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), this application was placed on hold and was not scheduled for a hearing date. This allowed TRCA to conduct a site visit to review the on-site conditions and the top of bank feature on the property. For the last six months, the applicant has been working with TRCA to address their policies. The work with TRCA has resulted in the creation of Part 3, as shown on the submitted site plan. Part 3 will be conveyed into public ownership, which is a condition of approval of the associated land severance application. Land Severance Application LD 051-2022: On May 9, 2022, the Region of Durham Land Division Committee approved land severance application LD 051-2022, to permit a severance of the subject lands. The applicant will work with staff to fulfill the City’s conditions of approval. This includes ensuring any zoning non-compliances are brought into conformity, and the submission of preliminary grading and drainage plans, a tree inventory and protection/removal plan, and a stormwater management brief, among other conditions. Infill & Replacement Housing By-laws: On September 27, 2021, City Council enacted By-law 7874/21 (‘Infill By-law') to amend Zoning By-law 3036, to rezone all lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts to an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” category. The amending Infill By-law introduces new provisions for yard setbacks, building height, lot coverage and other zoning standards to ensure new built form is compatible with existing built form. Following adoption by Council, the City received appeals to the Infill By-law. On January 24, 2022, City Council adopted By-law 7902/22, to reinstate a maximum building height of 9.0 metres for all lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The City also received appeals to this By-law. -31- Report P/CA 105/21 & P/CA 106/21 June 8, 2022 Page 3 The property is subject to By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22. By-law 7872/21 established a new maximum dwelling depth, among other provisions. The applicant is requesting variances to the maximum dwelling depth. However, due to the ongoing appeals, the Infill By-law is not currently in force. A building permit for a dwelling that exceeds the maximum dwelling depth can be issued prior to By-law 7872/21 coming into force. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. This designation primarily provides for residential or related uses at a maximum net residential density of up to and including 30 units per net hectare. The severance results in a density of approximately 8.6 units per net hectare. The rear of the subject property is further identified as “Natural Heritage System”, “Significant Woodlands”, “Shorelines, Significant Valley Lands and Stream Corridors (May include Hazardous Lands)” and “Intake Protection Zone 3”. This land (Part 3) will be conveyed into public ownership, which is a condition of approval of the associated land severance application. The applicant has reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the Council-adopted Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law Lot Frontage The intent of the minimum lot frontage requirement is to ensure a useable lot size that is compatible with the neighbourhood. The existing lot frontages for abutting and surrounding lots range between 14 and 24 metres, though the majority of the immediately surrounding lots appear to have frontages of approximately 15 metres. The existing lots to the north of the subject property (1423 & 1425 Rougemount Drive) were created through land severance, and received approval from the Committee of Adjustment to permit minimum lot frontages of 15.2 metres. In addition, in April of 2022, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved variances for lands to the south (1383 Rougemount Drive), to permit lot frontages of 15.2 metres for 4 lots which will be created through land severance. The proposed lots on the subject lands are in keeping with the lotting pattern established along Rougemount Drive. In addition, the applicant has demonstrated that a detached dwelling can be appropriately sited on each lot. Side Yard The intent of the minimum side yard requirement is to provide an appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties in order to maintain pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services. The abutting dwelling to the north (1423 Rougemount Drive) is also setback 1.5 metres from the shared property line. -32- Report P/CA 105/21 & P/CA 106/21 June 8, 2022 Page 4 A minimum building separation of 3 metres will be maintained between the proposed dwelling on Part 2 and the existing dwelling to the north. On the abutting lot to the south, the existing dwelling is setback at least 56 metres from the front lot line. As such, the proposed dwelling on Part 1 will not abut a structure on the lot to the south. Between the proposed dwellings on Parts 1 and 2, a minimum building separation of 3 metres will be maintained. There is sufficient space between the proposed dwellings and adjacent dwellings to the north and south to provide for pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services. Dwelling Depth Under the Infill By-law, dwelling depth is measured as the distance between the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots, to the rear wall of the subject dwelling. The intent of the maximum dwelling depth requirement is to ensure new dwellings are generally in keeping with the existing dwellings along a street to avoid negative privacy and overshadowing issues. The immediately surrounding dwellings along the east side of Rougemount Drive appear to have dwelling depths ranging between 12 and 25 metres. Staff are of the opinion that the request to increase dwelling depth by 2.0 metres will not result in a great loss of privacy or create overshadow issues for the adjacent dwelling to the north. The adjacent dwelling to the south is setback at least 56 metres from the front lot line, whereas the proposed dwellings on Parts 1 and 2 are setback 17.48 metres from the front lot line. As such, the dwelling to the south will not be affected by the increased dwelling depth. The proposed dwellings will maintain minimum rear yard setbacks of 39 metres despite the marginal increases in dwelling depth, and despite the conveyance of lands on Part 3. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Staff consider the proposal to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land as it will intensify an underutilized site. In addition, the lands on Part 3, which are identified as being within the natural heritage system, will be conveyed into public ownership for long-term protection and conservation. Staff consider the proposed dwellings to be appropriate relative to the size of the proposed lots. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The reliefs are requested for the severance of the subject property so the property can be divided into two parcels of 15.24 metres. • There are more than 25 existing houses that are same frontage of 15.24 metre and 1.55 metre side yards. • Requested reliefs are align with the existing homes on the street. Some of the existing homes with these reliefs are 1387, 1405 A&B, 1423, 1425, 1427, 1431, 1437, 1439, 1441, 1477, 1479, 1476A, 1476B, 1446, 1448, 1424, 1428, 1430, 1432, 1412, 1410, 1408. • The new single family homes will be fit the existing street landscape and size. • I have also received community support with this application. -33- Report P/CA 105/21 & P/CA 106/21 June 8, 2022 Page 5 Engineering Services • Ensure increased lot coverage and any reduced setbacks (if approved with this application) do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450 millimeter topsoil) will be required at the Building Permit stage. Building Services • No comments were received as of the date of this report. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • TRCA staff reviewed the requested variances and they have no impact on TRCA’s policies and programs. • TRCA has no objections to the approval of Minor Variance Applications No. P/CA 105/21 & P/CA 106/21. Public Input (written submissions received as of the date of writing this report) • Letters in support of this application were received from the property owners at 1382, 1427, 1442, 1438, 1439, 1454, 1423, 1429, 1432, 1448, 1371, 1430, 1446 & 1425 Rougemount Drive. Date of report: June 2, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 105-21 & PCA 106-21 8831467 Canada Limited\7. Report Attachments -34- Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. All responses below have been provided by the applicant. Yes No Comments Yes 1. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) Yes 2. If the proposed new dwelling is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) Yes 3. Is the maximum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) It is less than 1.2 metres. Yes 4. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) Yes 5. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) Yes 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) Yes as shown in the plans. Yes 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) The proposed new dwellings have very similar depths. -35- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments Yes 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) All properties on the street with 15 metres frontage have side yards of 1.5 metres. Yes 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) Yes 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) Yes 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) Yes 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) -36- Ro u g e m o u n t D r i v e K i n g s t o n R o a d Fi d d l e r s C o u r t Al t o n a R o a d Tomlinson Court Brookridge Gate D a l e w o o d D riv e Ol d F o r e s t R o a d Rouge Hill Court H i g h b u s h T r a i l East Woodlands Park South Petticoat Ravine Elizabeth B. Phin Public School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 105/21 & P/CA 106/21 Date: Oct. 15, 2021 Exhibit 1 8831467 Canada Limited 1421 Rougemount Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 105-21 8831467 Canada Limited\PCA105-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -37- Ex h i b i t 2 Fu l l Su b m i t t e d P l a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 1 0 5 / 2 1 & P / C A 1 0 6 / 2 1 Ap p l i c a n t : 88 3 1 4 6 7 C a n a d a L i m i t e d Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 2 1 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ma y 1 7 , 2 0 2 2 -38- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n – Zo o m e d I n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 1 0 5 / 2 1 & P / C A 1 0 6 / 2 1 Ap p l i c a n t : 88 3 1 4 6 7 C a n a d a L i m i t e d Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 2 1 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T DE P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ma y 1 7 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m s o u t h si d e y a r d o f 1 . 5 m e t r e s to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m n o r t h si d e y a r d o f 1 . 5 m e t r e s to p e r m i t a mi n i m u m l o t fr on t a g e o f 15 . 2 m e t r e s to p e r m i t a m a x i m u m d w e l l i n g de p t h o f 2 2 me t r e s -39- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d Fr o n t E l e v a t i o n – P/ C A 1 0 5 / 2 1 (P a r t 1 ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 1 0 5 / 2 1 & P / C A 1 0 6 / 2 1 Ap p l i c a n t : 88 3 1 4 6 7 C a n a d a L i m i t e d Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 2 1 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y OF P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : M a y 1 7 , 2 0 2 2 -40- Ex h i b i t 5 Su b m i t t e d So u t h S i d e El e v a t i o n – P/ C A 1 0 5 / 2 1 (P a r t 1 ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 1 0 5 / 2 1 & P / C A 1 0 6 / 2 1 Ap p l i c a n t : 88 3 1 4 6 7 C a n a d a L i m i t e d Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 2 1 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E CI T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : M a y 1 7 , 2 0 2 2 -41- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d F r o n t El e v a t i o n – P/ C A 1 0 6 /2 1 (P a r t 2 ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 1 0 5 / 2 1 & P / C A 1 0 6 / 2 1 Ap p l i c a n t : 88 3 1 4 6 7 C a n a d a L i m i t e d Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 2 1 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y OF P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : M a y 1 7 , 2 0 2 2 -42- Ex h i b i t 7 Su b m i t t e d So u t h S i d e El e v a t i o n – P/ C A 1 0 6 /2 1 (P a r t 2 ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 1 0 5 / 2 1 & P / C A 1 0 6 / 2 1 Ap p l i c a n t : 88 3 1 4 6 7 C a n a d a L i m i t e d Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 2 1 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E CI T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ma y 1 7 , 2 0 2 2 -43- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 76/22 Date: June 8, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 76/22 M. Iqbal 1866 Fairport Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 & By-law 7902/22, to permit: •a minimum (south) side yard of 1.4 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum side yard depth of 1.8 metres •a maximum dwelling depth of 25.0 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum dwelling depth of 20.0 metres The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considers the requested variance to permit a maximum dwelling depth of 25.0 metre to meet the four tests, and the requested variance to permit a minimum (south) side yard of 1.4 metres does not meet the four tests. Staff recommend Approval of the requested variance to permit a maximum dwelling depth of 25.0 metres, and Refuse the requested variance to permit a minimum (south) side yard of 1.4 metres. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in both or either of the requested variances, the following conditions are recommended: 1.That the variance(s) apply only to the proposed single family detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7). 2.That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner shall agree to perform grading works up to the lot line to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. or -44- Report P/CA 76/22 June 8, 2022 Page 2 If the applicant were to request that the application be amended to request a minimum (south) side yard of 1.5 metres, the following recommendation would apply: For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considers the requested variances to permit a minimum (south) side yard of 1.5 metres and a maximum dwelling depth of 25.0 metres to meet the four tests, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances. Should the Committee find merit in these applications, the following conditions are recommended: 1.That the submitted plans be revised to show a minimum (south) side yard of 1.5 metres. 2.That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner shall agree to perform grading works up to the lot line to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. 3.That these variances apply only to the proposed single family detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7). The Infill and Replacement Housing Zoning By-laws On September 27, 2021, City Council enacted By-law 7874/21 (the Infill By-law) to amend Zoning By-law 2511, to rezone all lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts to an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” category. The amending Infill By-law introduces new provisions for yard setbacks, building height, lot coverage and other zoning standards to ensure new built form is compatible with existing built form. Following adoption by Council, the City received appeals to the Infill By-law. On January 24, 2022, City Council adopted By-law 7902/22, to instate a maximum building height of 9.0 metres for all lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The City also received appeals to this By-law. The property is subject to By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22. By-law 7874/21 established a new maximum dwelling depth, among other provisions. The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum dwelling depth. However, please note that due to the ongoing appeals, the Infill By-laws are not currently in force. As such, a building permit for a dwelling that exceeds the maximum dwelling depth can be issued prior to the By-law coming into force. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates the property as “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended for residential uses included detached dwellings. -45- Report P/CA 76/22 June 8, 2022 Page 3 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned R3 within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 7874/21 and 7902/22. The intent of the minimum side yard width is to provide an appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties in order to maintain a pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services. The applicant is requesting to reduce the minimum required side yard depth from 1.8 metres to 1.4 metres on the south side yard. Engineering Services has commented that the requested 1.4 metre south side yard is not supported as the City’s Engineering Design Criteria requires an undisturbed strip and/or flat area having a width of 0.6 of a metre within the boundary limits of a lot when adjacent to other properties in order for existing boundary elevation to be maintained. Engineering Services will support a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres if the applicant is able to provide written permission from the adjacent property owner to perform any works that conflict with the Engineering Design Criteria. From an access standpoint, a proposed 1.5 metre side yard setback would maintain sufficient space. Furthermore, the neighbouring dwelling to the south is set back 3.1 metres from the shared property line, maintaining an adequate separation between dwellings. As such, adequate separation distance will be provided between the dwellings and will not create any issues of massing towards the streetscape. The intent of the maximum dwelling depth of 20 metres is to provide for consistent rear walls on neighbouring properties, in order to reduce potential shadowing, massing, and privacy impacts on adjacent dwellings and rear yards. The neighbouring property to the north (1868 Fairport Road) features a dwelling setback approximately 40 metres from the front property line. The front wall of this neighbouring dwelling is set back beyond the rear wall of the proposed dwelling on the subject lot. The dwelling on the neighbouring property to the south is set back approximately 10.6 metres from the front property line well beyond the minimum front yard requirements. Any future dwelling on the subject lot would not be able to provide a dwelling depth with both the neighbours to the north and south. As such, any potential issues of dwelling depth is minimized given the positioning of the existing dwellings. The existing dwelling to the south is situated on the lot more in keeping with the zoning provisions than the dwelling to the north. The proposed dwelling has been designed to mitigate potential massing and privacy impact of an increased dwelling depth on the property to the south. The rear wall of the proposed dwelling is not flush but is articulated having a dwelling depth of 21.5 metres for the south half of the dwelling (adjacent the southerly neighbour at 1864 Fairport Road) and 25 metres for the north half of the dwelling. The proposed dwelling depth of 21.5 metres will have minimal incremental privacy impact on the property to the south than that of the permitted 20 metre dwelling depth. The proposed dwelling will not have shadow impacts on the property to the south. -46- Report P/CA 76/22 June 8, 2022 Page 4 Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The irregular lot pattern of the subject and adjacent lands and the placement of existing dwellings on neighbouring lots contribute to the applicant’s requsted variances to facilitate a detached dwelling. Due to an extreme variation of existing lot and dwelling sizes in the surrounding area, it is difficult for any proposed dwelling to maintain consistency. For this reason, the proposed dwelling acts as a transition in an area that features a wide range of lot and dwelling sizes. Input From Other Sources Date of report: May 31, 2022 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:nr \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 76-22 M. Iqbal\7. Report Attachments Applicant Engineering Services Building Services Public Input •To construct a dwelling with five bedrooms to accommodate for a large family. •With regards to the reduced side yard depth, it will not be possible to accommodate a minimum 0.15m deep drainage swale with 3:1 side slopes and the required 0.6m undisturbed strip with a setback of less than 1.5m. If the applicant gets permission in writing from the adjacent property owner(s) to perform grading works up to the lot line and/or to create a common swale, Engineering Services may consider a reduced setback. •Ensure increased lot coverage and any reduced setbacks (if approved with this application) do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) will be required at the Building Permit stage. •No comments were received as of the date of this report. •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. -47- Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) X 2. If the proposed new dwelling is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) X 3. Is the maximum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) X 4. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 5. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) X 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) X 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) The proposed dwelling not having similar dwelling depth to adjacent dwellings is a function of the existing staggered lot pattern and dwelling placement on each lot along the west side of Fairport Road. -48- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) X 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) X 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) The garage is flush. X 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) Unclear at this time. -49- Bonita Avenue Gray abbey Court Fa i r p o r t R o a d Helm Street Wingarden Crescent Sh a d e M a s t e r D r i v e Ho l b r o o k C o u r t Voyager Avenue Fa l c o n w o o d W a y Strouds Lane Bonita Park Dalewood Ravine Dalewood Ravine Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 76/22 Date: Apr. 25, 2022 Exhibit 1 M. Iqbal 1866 Fairport Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 76-22 M. Iqbal\PCA76-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,500 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -50- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d P l a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 7 6 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : M. I q b a l Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 18 6 6 F a i r p o r t R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s Pl a n . Da t e : Ma y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 Ex i s t i n g d w e l l i n g Ex i s t i n g d w e l l i n g -51- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d P l a n (D e t a i l ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 7 6 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : M. I q b a l Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 18 6 6 F a i r p o r t R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ma y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 Pr o p o s e d S i n g l e f a m i l y d e t a c h e d dw e l l i n g to p e r m i t a m a x i m u m d w e l l i n g de p t h o f 2 5 . 0 m e t r e s to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m ( s o u t h ) s i d e ya r d d e p t h o f 1 . 4 m e t r e s -52- Ex h i b i t 4 No r t h ( S i d e Y a r d ) E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 7 6 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : M. I q b a l Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 18 6 6 F a i r p o r t R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ma y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 -53- Ex h i b i t 5 Ea s t ( F r o n t Ya r d ) E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 7 6 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : M. I q b a l Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 18 6 6 F a i r p o r t R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ma y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 -54- Ex h i b i t 6 We s t ( R e a r Ya r d ) E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 7 6 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : M. I q b a l Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 18 6 6 F a i r p o r t R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ma y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 -55- Ex h i b i t 7 So u t h ( S i d e Ya r d ) E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 7 6 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : M. I q b a l Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 18 6 6 F a i r p o r t R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ma y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 -56- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 77/22 Date: June 8, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 77/22 N. Ajdarevic 1815 Spruce Hill Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a detached dwelling. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considers the requested variance 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. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Background Revised Application: In the first submission of this application, a variance was requested to permit a minimum north side yard depth of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard depth of 1.5 metres. Engineering Services staff completed a preliminary review of the proposal and were of the opinion that a side yard setback of less than 1.5 metres would not be large enough to accommodate grading works, especially when considering the new retaining wall proposed along the north lot line. As such, the applicant worked with City staff to revise the proposal to ensure the dwelling provides north and south side yard depths of 1.52 metres. -57- Report P/CA 77/22 June 8, 2022 Page 2 Infill & Replacement Housing By-laws: On September 27, 2021, City Council enacted By-law 7874/21 (Infill By-law) to amend Zoning By-law 3036, to rezone all lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts to an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” category. The amending Infill By-law introduces new provisions for yard setbacks, building height, lot coverage and other zoning standards to ensure new built form is compatible with existing built form. Following adoption by Council, the City received appeals to the Infill By-law. On January 24, 2022, City Council adopted By-law 7902/22, to reinstate a maximum building height of 9.0 metres for all lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The City also received appeals to this By-law. The property is subject to By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22 (Infill By-laws). Staff have determined that the proposed dwelling would require variances to the Infill By-laws for maximum front yard setback, dwelling depth and building height. However, due to the ongoing appeals, the Infill By-laws are not currently in force. As such, the City is required to issue a building permit for a dwelling that is in compliance with existing in force by-laws, but may not be in compliance with the Infill By-laws, which are not yet in force. The applicant has decided not to request variances to the Infill By-laws. The applicant has signed an acknowledgment letter that states that not requesting variances to the Infill By-laws at this time may result in non-compliance with the By-laws in the future, and building permit refusal and/or the requirement for further variances. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within this designation and a common built form within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the Council-adopted Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the maximum lot coverage requirement is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (for landscaping and amenity areas) uncovered by buildings on a lot, and to accommodate grading and drainage. The proposed dwelling (including the attached private garage) accounts for approximately 37 percent of the total lot coverage, whereas the front porch and rear deck with basement walkout accounts for approximately 3 percent of the total lot coverage. -58- Report P/CA 77/22 June 8, 2022 Page 3 The proposal will provide sufficient space on the property left uncovered for soft landscaping and outdoor amenity areas, as a minimum front yard setback of 9.96 metres and a minimum rear yard setback of 14.42 metres will be maintained. As mentioned above, the applicant has revised the proposal to ensure the dwelling provides north and south side yard depths of 1.52 metres. This modification will ensure there is sufficient room in the side yards for grading works. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Staff consider the size of the proposed dwelling to be appropriate relative to the size of the lot. The dwelling has been designed to ensure large front and rear yard setbacks are provided, and the minimum required side yard setbacks are maintained. Staff are of the opinion that an increase of seven percent lot coverage on this lot will not result in a great loss of yard space. Input From Other Sources Applicant • It is not possible to comply with the provisions of the by-law due to existing lot conditions. Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No comments were received as of the date of this report. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: June 1, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 77-22 N. Ajdarevic\7. Report Attachments -59- Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. All responses below have been provided by staff. Yes No Comments Yes and No 1. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) The roof pitch of the dwelling is similar to adjacent dwellings. The height of the dwelling is similar to other new dwellings along the street, however the dwelling is taller than the immediately abutting dwellings to the north and south, which are older dwellings. Yes 2. If the proposed new dwelling is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) The roof is sloped. Yes 3. Is the maximum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) Yes 4. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) Yes 5. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) Yes 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? -60- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) Yes 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) Dwelling depths appear to range between 14 and 30 metres on adjacent properties. Yes 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) Adjacent dwellings appear to meet the minimum side yard setback requirement of 1.5 metres. Yes 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) Yes 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) A portion of the garage is flush and a portion is recessed. No 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) Unknown 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) -61- Ea s t b a n k R o a d Sp r u c e H i l l R o a d Wi n g a r d e n C r e s c e n t Hedgerow Place Jac queline Avenue Sh a d e M a s t e r D r i v e Strouds Lane Shadybrook Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 77/22 Date: Apr. 25, 2022 Exhibit 1 N. Ajdarevic 1815 Spruce Hill Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 76-22 M. Iqbal\PCA76-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,500 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -62- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 77 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : N. A j d a r e v i c Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 18 1 5 S p r u c e H i l l R o a d FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ma y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a m a x i m u m l o t co v e r a g e o f 4 0 pe r c e n t -63- Exhibit 3 Submitted Front & South Side Elevations File No: P/CA 77/22 Applicant: N. Ajdarevic Municipal Address: 1815 Spruce Hill Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: May 25, 2022 -64- Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear & North Side Elevations File No: P/CA 77/22 Applicant: N. Ajdarevic Municipal Address: 1815 Spruce Hill Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: May 25, 2022 -65- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 78/22 Date: June 8, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning and Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 78/22 H. Sanghera 402 Woodsmere Crescent Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4508/94, to permit: •a minimum rear yard depth of 4.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; •a maximum lot coverage of 49 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent; The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a patio covering. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and 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. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1.That these variances apply only to the subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, & 3). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” within the Amberlea neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended for residential uses including detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto. -66- Report P/CA 78/22 June 8, 2022 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned “S5” – Single family detached, under Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4508/94. Lot Coverage Variance The intent of this provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (amenity area) uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of the building. The proposed patio covering has a proposed lot coverage of 49 percent whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent. It appears that there will be sufficient amount of yard space. As shown on the overall site plan, and adequate amenity space is preserved throughout this proposal. The proposed patio covering will enhance the existing rear yard amenity space. Rear Yard Variance The intent of a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres is to protect the privacy of abutting properties and to maintain sufficient outdoor amenity space within the rear yard. The requested variance is intended to facilitate the construction of a patio covering that will contribute to the total amount of usable amenity space within the rear yard. The proposed patio covering appears to not impose on neighbour’s privacy. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variance will facilitate the construction of a patio covering, which will contribute towards the total usable amenity space of the single detached dwelling. The architectural drawings submitted to City staff appear to propose a significant patio covering. The applicant has consulted with the surrounding residents and has received their neighbour’s approval. It appears that the proposed structure will not compromise adjacent neighbour’s privacy. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed patio covering is desirable for development and the requested variances to permit the covered patio are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant •The by-law zoning only allows us to build out only 1.5 metre out from the back wall in the yard or 7.5 metres from the back yard fence. This does not allow enough space. Building Services •No comments were received as of the date of this report. Engineering Services •Ensure the reduced rear yard depth and increased lot coverage do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Public Input •Residents of 1851 & 1853 Wildflower Drive; 1838 & 1840 Rosebank Road; and 404, 406 & 408 Woodsmere Crescent have reviewed the site plan and are in full support of the work that is planned on the property. -67- Report P/CA 78/22 June 8, 2022 Page 3 Date of report: June 1, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning and Administration KY:nr \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 45-22 B. Atique\7. Report Attachments -68- Ro s e b a n k R o a d Summerpark Crescent Charnwood Court Springview Drive Ga r l a n d C r e s c e n t Wi l d f l o w e r D r i v e Woodsmere Crescent De n c o u r t D r i v e Gr e e n v a l e C r e s c e n t S.m. Woodsmere Park Altona Forest Public School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 78/22 Date: May. 03, 2022 Exhibit 1 H. Sanghera 402 Woodsmere Crescent SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 78-22 H. Sanghera\PCA78-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -69- Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 78/22 Applicant: H. Sanghera Municipal Address: 402 Woodsmere Crescent CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN.Date: May 25/22 Proposed rear yard covering 4.57 metres to permit a rear yard setback of 4.5 metres Existing Dwelling to permit a maximum lot coverage of 49 percent Woodsmere Crescent Drawing Not to Scale -70- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d P l a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 78 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : H. S a n g h e r a Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 40 2 W o o d s m e r e C r e s c e n t Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ma y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 -71- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d We s t ( I n t e r i o r S i d e Y a r d ) E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 78 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : H. S a n g h e r a Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 40 2 W o o d s m e r e C r e s c e n t Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r Di g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ma y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 -72- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 79/22 Date: June 8, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 79/22 J. Charles 846 Zator Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520 to recognize a minimum (north) side yard of 0.2 of a metre, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to recognize an existing covered deck projecting into the required (north) side yard. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considers the requested variance 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. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). Background Through the review of a building permit application submitted by the property owner in support of interior alterations for an accessory dwelling unit, City staff identified that the existing covered deck attached to the main dwelling did not comply with the minimum side yard setback requirement of the Zoning By-law. The requested variance is intended to recognize a reduced north side yard setback of the existing covered deck, and will enable the applicant to proceed with the processing of the submitted building permit application for unrelated on-site construction. -73- Report P/CA 79/22 June 8, 2022 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Residential Area” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Residential uses such as detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto are permitted within this designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the side yard setback requirement is to provide an appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties in order to maintain pedestrian access, accommodate grading, drainage and residential services; and be compatible with the character of the immediate neighbourhood. The requested reduction in the north side yard setback requirement from 1.5 metres to 0.2 of a metre does not compromise the function of the north side yard and has been an existing situation for over 40 years. The reduced side yard does not significantly alter the massing or design of the dwelling and maintains the character of the built form along Krosno Boulevard, which consists namely of detached and semi-detached dwellings. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The existing covered deck appears to have been constructed by a previous owner, and has existed on the subject lands for over 40 years. Staff are of the opinion that the existing detached dwelling and covered deck are desirable for the appropriate development of the land and the requested variance will not result in a negative visual impact on the adjacent dwelling immediately to the north or on the streetscape. Input From Other Sources Applicant • I purchased the house with the structure built and I really would like to continue enjoying deck. A survey dated 1989 shows the structure. My neighbour that the deck borders is a nice old couple that lived there for over 25 years and have not had any issues with the deck or my use of it. I would really appreciate the approval of this variance. Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No comments were received as of the date of this report. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. -74- Report P/CA 79/22 June 8, 2022 Page 3 Date of report: June 1, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:nr \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 79-22 J. Charles\7. Report Attachments -75- Sa n d y B e a c h R o a d R e y t a n B oulevard M o d l i n R o a d Regan Place Lu b l i n A v e n u e K r o s n o B o u l e v a r d Z a t o r A v e n u e Alyssum Street Drava S t r e e t Garvolin Avenue Brixton L a n e B e m A v e n u e Bronwen Lane Morden L a n e Fordon Avenue M i r i a m R o a d Mitchel Park Bayview Heights Public School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 79/22 Date: May. 18, 2022 Exhibit 1 J. Charles 846 Zator Avenue SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 79-22 J. Charles\PCA79-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:3,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -76- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C 7 9 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : J. C h a r l e s Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 84 6 Z a t o r A v e n u e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : M a y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 to r e c o g n i z e a mi n i m u m s i d e y a r d se t b a c k o f 0 . 2 me t r e s -77- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 80/22 Date: June 8, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 80/22 C. Warren 618 Springview Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 1837/84 & 1964/85, to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 5.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a one-storey addition to an existing detached dwelling. Recommendation For your information, and based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considers the requested variance 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 recommends Approval of the proposed variance. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1.That this variance apply only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates this property as “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” within the Amberlea Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended for residential uses including detached dwellings. -78- Report P/CA 80/22 June 8, 2022 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres is to ensure that a usable amenity space is provided in the rear yard. The requested variance is a result of a 14.2 square metre addition proposed to the rear of the dwelling. The addition is 4.4 metres in width and 4.9 metres deep at the east side of the existing rear wall of the dwelling. The addition maintains a minimum 2.5 metre setback from the east side property line. The size proposed addition is minimal relative to the remaining amenity space available in the rear yard. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed addition provides for additional living area within the dwelling. The addition will replace the location of an existing elevated deck. The addition is 14.2 square metres in size and maintains a larger side yard setback than the existing dwelling, due to the pie-shaped nature of the lot. The requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land and it is minor in nature. •Does not comply with rear yard setback. •Ensure increased lot coverage and any reduced setbacks (if approved with this application) do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) will be required at the Building Permit stage. •No comments were received as of the date of this report. •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Input From Other Sources Applicant Engineering Services Building Services Public Input Date of report: May 31, 2022 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 80-22 C. Warren\7. Report\PCA 80-22 Report.doc Attachments -79- C h a r n w o o d Court Ki r k w o o d L a n e WoodsideLane Fe r n a m S t r e e t Ashfield Court Ar i e l C r e s c e n t Dencourt Dri ve Greenvale Crescent Springview Drive Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 80/22 Date: May. 19, 2022 Exhibit 1 C. Warren 618 Springview Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 80-22 C. Warren\PCA80-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -80- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d P l a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 80 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : C. W a r r e n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 61 8 S p r i n g v i e w D r i v e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s of t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ma y 2 4 , 2 0 2 2 to pe r m i t a m i n i m u m r e a r y a r d de p t h o f 5 . 1 m e t r e s -81- Ex h i b i t 3 Pr o p o s e d R e a r E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 80 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : C. W a r r e n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 61 8 S p r i n g v i e w D r i v e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ma y 2 4 , 2 0 2 2 -82- Ex h i b i t 4 Pr o p o s e d W e s t E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 80 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : C. W a r r e n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 61 8 S p r i n g v i e w D r i v e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ma y 2 4 , 2 0 2 2 -83- Ex h i b i t 5 Pr o p o s e d E a s t E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 80 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : C. W a r r e n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 61 8 S p r i n g v i e w D r i v e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ma y 2 4 , 2 0 2 2 -84- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 81/22 Date: June 8, 2022 From: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 81/22 SBB Industrial (Seaton) GP Inc. Northwest corner of Highway 407 and Sideline 24 (Block 11 within Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-03) Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit: • parking between a building and the front lot line, whereas the By-law states that in no case shall parking be permitted between a building and the front lot line; • a primary entrance door to be incorporated into the side yard wall of the building, whereas the By-law states that a primary entrance door shall be incorporated into the front wall of the building facing the front lot line; and • a maximum front yard of 46.1 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum front yard of 5.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances to obtain Site Plan Approval and to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of an industrial building. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed an application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and 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. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed industrial building, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 3). -85- Report P/CA 81/22 June 8, 2022 Page 2 Background Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-03: The lands south of Highway 7 and east of Whites Road, within the Pickering Innovation Corridor, were draft plan approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in 2017. Please refer to Exhibit 2 for a copy of the approved draft plan of subdivision. The applicant is currently working with the City to register the first phase of the draft approved plan to create the development blocks. Site Plan Application S 05/22: The applicant has submitted a Site Plan Application for Block 11 within Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-03, to facilitate the proposed construction of a 22,417 square metre multi-tenant industrial building. These variances are required to obtain Site Plan Approval and for the issuance of a building permit. Lot Configuration: Block 11 within Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-03 is bound by Highway 407 to the south, Sideline 24 to the east and a future road to the north and west. Based on provisions in the By-law, the yard fronting Sideline 24 is deemed to be the front yard. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Block 11 within Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-03 is designated as “Employment Areas – Prestige Employment” with the City’s Official. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate concentrations of light manufacturing, assembly and related employment opportunities. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law Parking in the Front Yard The intent of prohibiting parking in the front yard is to maintain an attractive streetscape. Due to the irregular configuration of the lot, the lands are surrounded on all sides by a public road and Highway 407 to the south. As such, parking is inevitably located along the street frontages. To maintain an attractive streetscape, the applicant is proposing enhanced landscaping along all of the street frontages. The applicant’s landscape plan, which was submitted as part of the associated site plan application, shows planting beds, sodded areas and tree planting along the Sideline 24 frontage. Additional landscaping is proposed throughout the parking area fronting Sideline 24, to further mitigate views of the parking from the street. Primary Entrance Door The intent of locating the primary entrance door facing the front lot line is to create an attractive streetscape through building design. As noted above, Sideline 24 is deemed to be the front yard, however, the site has street frontage along all lot lines. The two primary entrances for the building are located on the southwest and southeast corners of the building, facing Highway 407. The applicant has designed the building to locate the primary entrances facing the freeway, to enhance the visual appearance of the building from Highway 407. The architectural design of the building has been peer-reviewed by the City's Urban Design Review consultant who is generally satisfied with the overall design of the industrial building and the location of the primary entrance doors. -86- Report P/CA 81/22 June 8, 2022 Page 3 Front Yard The intent of the maximum front yard requirement is to encourage an active street frontage and to create an attractive streetscape through building design. The location of an existing cellular tower on the east side of the lot, along the Sideline 24 frontage, requires the proposed building to be setback a maximum of approximately 46 metres from the east lot line abutting Sideline 24. This setback will accommodate the existing cell tower and space required for the maintenance of the tower, as well as accommodate space for a fire route. Along the frontage of the future road, the building is setback a maximum of 5.0 metres. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Staff consider the proposal to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land as it will utilize a vacant site for prestige employment uses within the City’s Innovation Corridor. Considering the irregular configuration of the lot, and that the design of the building creates an attractive streetscape at all street frontages, staff consider the requested variances to be minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant Engineering Services Building Services Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Public Input •The applicant has submitted a Planning Justification Report in support of this application. Please contact the City Development Department at ilima@pickering.ca to receive a copy of the applicant’s report. •No comments. •No comments were received as of the date of this report. •The subject site is located outside of the TRCA Regulated Area and the proposed works will maintain an appropriate distance from the natural features/hazards (wetlands, floodplain, etc.) located on adjacent lands. •In addition, the applicant is working with TRCA to address any impacts and technical requirements through Site Plan Application No. S05/22. •TRCA staff have no objection to the approval of Minor Variance File P/CA 81/22 and a TRCA permit will not be required. •No comments were received as of the date of this report. •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. -87- Report P/CA 81/22 June 8, 2022 Page 4 Date of report: June 2, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Planner II Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 81-22 SSB Industrial (Seaton) GP Inc\7. Report Attachments -88- S idel ine 2 4 Highway 7 407 Highway W h i t e s R o a d Si d e l i n e 2 6 Enterprise Ga t e wa y Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 81/22 Date: May. 26, 2022 Exhibit 1 SBB Industrial (Seaton) GP Inc. Northwest corner of Highway 407 and Sideline 24 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 81-22 SSB Industrial (Seaton) GP Inc\PCA00-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:6,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department Proposed Site ofP/CA 81/22 -89- Ex h i b i t 2 Dr a f t Ap p r o v e d Pl a n of S u b d i v i s i o n SP -20 1 1 -03 Fi l e N o : P/ C A 81 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : SB B I n d u s t r i a l ( S e a t o n ) G P I n c . Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : No r t h w e s t c o r n e r o f H i g h w a y 4 0 7 a n d S i d e l i n e 2 4 (B l o c k 1 1 w i t h i n D r a f t A p p r o v e d P l a n of S u b d i v i s i o n S P -20 1 1 -03 ) FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ma y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 Su b j e c t L a n d s -90- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 81 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : SB B I n d u s t r i a l ( S e a t o n ) G P I n c . Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : No r t h w e s t c o r n e r o f H i g h w a y 4 0 7 a n d S i d e l i n e 2 4 (Bl o c k 1 1 w i t h i n D r a f t A p p r o v e d P l a n o f S u b d i v i s i o n S P -20 1 1 -03 ) FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ma y 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t pa r k i n g b e t w e e n a bu i l d i n g a n d t h e f r o n t l o t l i n e to p e r m i t a p r i m a r y e n t r a n c e do o r t o b e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o th e s i d e y a r d w a l l o f t h e bu i l d i n g to p e r m i t a ma x i m u m fr o n t y a r d o f 46 . 1 me t r e s -91-