Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout May 10, 2023Committee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Number: 5 Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, May 10, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Secretary-Treasurer or Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Telephone: 905.420.4617 Email: citydev@pickering.ca 1-8 9-15 16-29 30-37 1.Appointment of Chairperson 2.Disclosure of Interest 3.Adoption of Agenda 4.Adoption of Minutes from April 12, 2023 hearing 5.Reports 5.1 P/CA 23/23 – 572 Springview Drive 5.2 P/CA 24/23 & P/CA 25/23 – 1390 Rougemount Drive (Parts 1 & 2) 5.3 P/CA 26/23 – 476 Toynevale Road 6.Adjournment Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 12, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 8 Pending Adoption Present Omar Ha-Redeye Denise Rundle – Co-Vice-Chair Rick Van Andel Sean Wiley – Chair Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Isabel Lima, Planner II – Host Kerry Yelk, Planner I Ziya Cao, Planner I Absent Not applicable. 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye That the agenda for the Wednesday, April 12, 2023 hearing be adopted. Carried 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel That the minutes of the 3rd hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, March 8, 2023 be adopted. Carried -1- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 12, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 8 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 16/23 Triovest Sandy Beach Holdings Limited Sandy Beach Road (Concession BF Range 3 South Part Lot 20) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit: • notwithstanding the office and industrial parking requirements, the minimum parking requirement for the proposed building shall be 1 space per 142 square metres of gross floor area, whereas the By-law requires a minimum parking requirement for an industrial use shall be 1 space per 56 square metres of gross floor area; and • side yard parking no closer than 1.5 metres from the (east) side lot line and 0.5 of a metre on the (west) side lot line, whereas the By-law requires side yard parking to be permitted no closer than 1.5 metres from the side lot line on one side and 7.5 metres on the other side. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the construction of a 1-storey industrial warehouse building with a gross floor area of 25,100 square metres. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City Development, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant submitted a Planning Justification Letter and Parking Justification Study. Yasmin Sevat, applicant, and Rachel Stuart, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The agent made a presentation in support of the application. In response to questions from Committee members, the agent clarified access to the site will be via Dillingham Road, an extension is currently being discussed with the City. The applicant clarified they currently do not have a tenant committed to the space however they are anticipating anywhere from 120 to 200 people to be attending the space during a peak shift. -2- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 12, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 8 Committee Co-Vice Chair, commented that the application exceeds the draft comprehensive zoning by-law requirement of 165 spaces and it exceeds the requirements in the institute of parking generation manual. Employment uses are needed in this City. Given the number of employees anticipated to work onsite, the requested parking spaces seem comparable given some may carpool, walk, use public transit. When all factors are taken into consideration she is agreeable with the ratio being proposed. The applicant has worked with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on siting and to reduce the impact on the natural heritage area and site plan control will address the onsite circulation of these vehicles and loading areas, as well as landscaping. Committee member Rick Van Andel commented he agrees with the comparison to the Seaton area zoning and with the land along the west side provides enough buffer and is therefore satisfied with the appropriateness of the application, and moved the following motion: Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye That application P/CA 16/23 by Triovest Sandy Beach Holdings Limited, 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 subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 12, 2023). Carried 4.2 P/CA 19/23 W. & L. Paton 572 Maitland Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 and 7872/21, 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 minor variance application in order to obtain a future building permit for a one-storey detached dwelling. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City Development, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. -3- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 12, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 8 In support of the application, the applicant identified family space requirements plus need for single floor house due to mobility issues. William & Laraine Paton, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from Committee members, the applicant clarified Maitland Drive curves in front of the subject property and will increase the lot frontage. That the covered porch in the rear is included in 40 percent lot coverage calculation. They are aware of the tree preservation condition and have no objections. Ziya Cao, Planner II, confirmed the covered porch is included in the lot coverage. Given that the proposed house fits the character of the subdivision and will not create any negatives externalities, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye That application P/CA 19/23 by W. & L. Paton, 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 apply only to the proposed development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 12, 2023). 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed. 3. That tree preservation plans and/or compensation for the tree loss be provided to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Carried 4.3 P/CA 21/23 D. Ashton & M. Kontopodis 2805 Seventh Concession Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6577/05 to permit: • the keeping of livestock (horses) on an Agriculturally “A” zoned parcel of land that is two acres in size, whereas the keeping of livestock shall be prohibited in any zone, except on Agriculturally "A" zoned parcels of land of more than five acres in size -4- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 12, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 8 • accessory structures in association with the raising of horses to be erected in the west side yard, whereas all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building shall be erected in the rear yard The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to permit the keeping of livestock (horses) on an undersized lot. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City Development, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified it is not possible to comply because the property is two acres in size, and unable to obtain more land to meet the required lot size. Daniela Ashton and Michael Kontopodis, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, the applicant stated they have taken due consideration to research proper horse care and safety in this proposal. In response to questions from Committee members the applicant explained the structures are referred to as temporary because they need to be periodically moved so that they are located in the best area on the land depending on the weather, and need to be moved to allow for cleanup of manure and to prevent the ground turning to mud. The applicant has owned and cared for horses for a few years now and are involved in their daily care. They have chiropractors and massage therapists for their horses, and are familiar with the fencing requirements. They have communicated with Peter Furnell of Building Services regarding building permits for this proposal. It was communicated that as long as the structures are 10 square metres or less a building permit is not required. Requirements on the manure pit depends on the bedding used. Three separate paddocks are being requested to ensure they have enough space for the horses, one will be used as a riding paddock, and one in case quarantine is required for an injured animal or to be used when another paddock is being cleaned or graded for the footing. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary Treasurer confirmed they would not have an issue with the paddocks in the west side yard. Co-Vice Chair commented the variance is in relation to the acreage and the number of horses being requested to reside on site. The staff report indicates the intent of the five acres bylaw requirement is to accommodate the required farm buildings, however this isn’t what is being requested in this proposal. The concern was whether two acres was sufficient to accommodate five horse as recommended by staff. -5- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 12, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 8 After looking at the National Code of Practice, the site inspection, the applicant’s responses and knowledge on care and safety for horses the concern has alleviated. The three-sided shelters are a necessity and there are no concerns, however the applicant does need to display some flexibility on the siting of those structures. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer clarified the City Development Department did not recommend the number of five horses to be allowed on site, it was a number the applicant had requested. In response to questions from a Committee member, the applicant explained they had landed on the number of five horses as per the MDS calculation. The applicant already owns two horses which are housed in Uxbridge that were injured due to aggression from other horses at the stable, and hence the reason for this application. Horses become aggressive when there is a lack of natural resources. This is why the applicant has prepared to have sufficient amount of food for the horses and the reason why they are requesting multiple paddocks to be permitted onsite. Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Denise Rundle with an amendment to Condition 1 That application P/CA 21/23 by D. Ashton & M. Kontopodis, 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 paddocks and manure pit, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). 2. That approval of these variances apply only for the permission of up to five horses on the subject property. 3. That prior to the horses occupying the property fencing be installed by the applicant to the satisfaction of City Development to keep the horses within the property limits. 4. That prior to the installation of the accessory buildings, that any required building permits be obtained from Building Services. Carried -6- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 12, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 8 4.4 P/CA 22/23 Marathon Homes Limited 2775 Peter Matthews Drive (Part 1, Block 171, 40M-2671) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit an attached private garage, which is deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, is permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.7 metres from the rear lot line. whereas the By-law permits attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to permit an as-built condition and to facilitate a part lot control application. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City Development, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified the as-built site condition fell short of the proposed building setback for a portion of the rear wall, due to an error in building placement. Richard Vink, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, the agent stated this proposal is being requested for an end unit in a six-unit townhouse block. It is zoned 7364/14, and has a minimum and maximum front and rear yard setback. The issue his client is facing is the maximum setback for the rear lot line. This is an as constructed dwelling, that is currently under construction. The dwelling is the only unit within the townhouse block that does not comply to the zoning bylaw. They believe the relief being sought is minor, meets the intent of the bylaw and is appropriate for the community. In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent clarified the reason for the variance was due to a surveyor error which led to this particular model being pushed more forward towards the front lot line than what was intended. Omar Ha-Redeye moved the following motion: Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel -7- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 12, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 8 That application P/CA 22/23 by Marathon Homes Limited, 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 proposed development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 12, 2023). Carried 5. Adjournment Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel That the 4th hearing of the 2023 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:57 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, May 10, 2023. Carried __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer -8- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 23/23 Date: May 10, 2023 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 23/23 S. & T. Perivolaris 572 Springview Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1837/84 and By-law 1964/85, to permit a covered platform (deck) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.8 metres into the required rear 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 or rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this application in order to permit an existing covered deck. 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 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 existing covered platform (deck), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Background The applicant has indicated that the existing covered deck existed prior to purchasing the property. City staff are unable to identify a corresponding building permit for the existing deck. The applicant has applied for a Building Permit to permit the existing covered deck. -9- Report P/CA 23/23 May 10, 2023 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Amberlea Neighbourhood. Residential uses such as detached dwellings and accessory uses are permitted within this designation. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “S2” by Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 1837/84 and 1964/85. The intent of limiting the projection of platforms and steps into the rear yard is to ensure adequate amenity space is maintained in the rear yard. Due to the irregular shape of the lot, the applicant is required to obtain a minor variance to permit the deck projecting 2.8 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum 1.5 metre projection. It should be noted, that only a portion of the existing covered deck projects into the required rear yard (refer to Exhibit 2). The south corner of the deck does not encroach into the required rear yard. However, the north corner of the deck is encroaching into the required rear yard. The existing covered deck is an existing situation that has not caused negative impacts. There appears to be sufficient space in the rear yard for landscaping and amenity purposes. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variance is intended to obtain a Building Permit to permit the existing covered deck. The deck provides access to the rear yard from the dwelling, and contributes towards the total usable amenity space in the rear yard. To this date, the existing deck has had no negative impacts on drainage or privacy concerns for abutting neighbours. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable and appropriate and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • Existing covered deck encroaching into the rear yard setback. Engineering Services • No comments. -10- Report P/CA 23/23 May 10, 2023 Page 3 Building Services • Deck has been constructed without the benefit of a building permit. A building permit application has been received. According to the building permit application the attached roof is to be removed. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: May 4, 2023 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2023\PCA 23-23\7. Report Attachments -11- Am b e r l e a R o a d Fe r n a m S t r e e t Ob e r o n C o u r t Highview Road Arcadia Square DriftwoodCourt Strouds Lane Miranda Court Post D r i v e Ab e r f o y l e C o u r t Na p a n e e R o a d Boyne CourtSaugeenDrive Ariel Crescent Mo n t c l a i r L a n e Char n w o o d C o u r t Ashfield Court WoodsideLane SturgeonCourt Ki r k w o o d L a n e Vi l l a g e S t r e e t Dencourt Dr i v e E r a m o s a C r e s c ent Gr e e n v a l e C r e s c e n t S pr i n g v i ew D r i v e Ch i r o n C r e s c e n t St. Mary Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 23/23 Date: Apr. 12, 2023 Exhibit 1 ¯ E T. & S. Perivolaris 572 Springview Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2023\PCA 23-23\PCA23-23_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: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural 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 -12- Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan - Site Plan File No: P/CA 23/23 Applicant: S. & T. Perivolaris Municipal Address: 572 Springview Drive Contact The City of Pickering City Development Department for Digital Copies of this Plan. Date: April 26, 2023 to permit a covered platform (deck) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade, and not projecting more than 2.8 metres into any required rear yard -13- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d P l a n – Si d e E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 23 /23 Ap p l i c a n t : S. & T . P e r i v o l a r i s Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 57 2 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 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 : Ap r i l 2 6 , 2 0 2 3 2. 7 3 m e t r e s -14- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d P l a n – Fr o n t E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 23 /23 Ap p l i c a n t : S. & T . P e r i v o l a r i s Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 57 2 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 : Ap r i l 2 6 , 2 0 2 3 -15- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 24/23 & P/CA 25/23 Date: May 10, 2023 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications P/CA 24/23 & P/CA 25/23 K. Yusef & J. Sukhu 1390 Rougemount Drive (Parts 1 & 2) Applications P/CA 24/23 – 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 15.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • minimum (north) side yard 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; • minimum (south) side yard of 1.7 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 24.5 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths greater than 40.0 metres shall be 20.0 metres. P/CA 25/23 – 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 15.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • minimum (south) side yard 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 • an uncovered platform (balcony) not exceeding 3.1 metres in height above grade, and not projecting more than 0.6 of a metre into the required (south) side yard, whereas the By-law states that uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade, and not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of these applications in order to sever the property resulting in a total of two lots and to construct two detached dwellings. -16- Report P/CA 24/23 & P/CA 25/23 May 10, 2023 Page 2 Recommendation For your information, and based solely on 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 Future Severance Application: The subject property is located within the TRCA Regulated Area of the Petticoat Creek watershed and is regulated with respect to the valley corridor associated with the Petticoat Creek valley system. The applicant has considered TRCA’s Living City Policies which set development guidelines for properties influenced by valley and stream corridors. In order to facilitate a proposed severance, TRCA policies require the natural feature and buffer to be conveyed into public ownership (refer to Exhibit 3). Prior to the submission to the Region of Durham Land Division Committee of an Application for Consent to sever the property, the applicant is working with the TRCA to review the on-site conditions, the top of bank, regulatory floodplain, and drip line of vegetation located at the rear of the property. Infill & Replacement Housing Zoning By-laws 7874/21 and 7902/22: The property is subject to By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22. 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. The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum dwelling depth. 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 applicant is not requesting a variance to the maximum dwelling height of 9.0 metres. 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 uses. -17- Report P/CA 24/23 & P/CA 25/23 May 10, 2023 Page 3 The applicant has reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the Council-adopted 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 1390 Rougemount Drive is zoned “R3” – Single Detached Residential, Third Density, under Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 2912/88, 7874/21 and 7902/22. Lot Frontage The intent of the minimum lot frontage requirement is to ensure a useable lot size that is compatible with the neighbourhood. The applicant is proposing 15.2 metre lot frontages for both Parts 1 & 2, whereas the By-law requires a minimum 18.0 metre lot frontage. The existing lot frontages along Rougemount Drive range between 15.0 and 30.0 metres. The proposed lot frontages for the subject lands are generally in keeping with the lotting pattern established along Rougemont Drive. The proposed lot frontages will provide sufficient space to site a dwelling. Staff is of the opinion that the minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. 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. Part 1 The applicant has proposed a south side yard of 1.7 metres and a north side yard of 1.5 metres. The existing dwelling to the south has a north side yard setback of 3.7 metres, which provides 5.4 metre separation between the existing dwelling and the proposed dwelling on Part 1. The 1.7 metre south side yard setback will provide sufficient space to construct and locate a drainage swale entirely within the property. Part 2 The applicant has proposed a south side yard of 1.5 metres and north side yard of 1.8 metres. The existing dwelling to the north has a south side yard setback of 2.1 metres, which provides 3.9 metre separation between the existing dwelling and the proposed dwelling on Part 2. The proposed dwellings will maintain a separation of 3.0 metres between buildings. This will provide sufficient space to ensure that Engineering Services Design Guidelines can be satisfied. 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. Previously, the Committee has approved reduced side yards from 1.8 metres to 1.5 metres for 1385 and 1387 Rougemount Drive (P/CA 61/14), as well as 1404 Rougemount Drive (P/CA 49/09). Furthermore, the zoning along Rougemount Drive is either R3 or R4. The R4 Zoning permits a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres. Staff is of the opinion that the reduced side yards will maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. -18- Report P/CA 24/23 & P/CA 25/23 May 10, 2023 Page 4 Dwelling Depth (Part 1) 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. Therefore, in this case, the minimum front yard setback is 20.7 metres. 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 concerns. In this case, the applicant has proposed to place the proposed dwelling on Part 1 slightly further from the street. The request to increase dwelling depth by 4.5 metres will not result in a great loss of privacy or create overshadowing issues for the adjacent dwelling to the south. Staff is of the opinion that the dwelling depth maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Obstruction of Yards (Part 2) The intent of the provision that requires uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 0.5 of a metre into any required side yard is to protect the privacy of abutting properties, to ensure an adequate buffer space between buildings and to ensure an adequate landscaped area within the front yard is provided. The height of the balcony is approximately 3.1 metres above grade, and has a 0.9 of a metre setback from the proposed south abutting property, and wraps around the south side wall to the front facing wall. The 0.6 of a metre projection into the required side yard leaves approximately 0.9 of a metre for landscaped area between the edge of the balcony and the south side property line. There will be sufficient space for landscaping, as the balcony is 3.1 metres above grade. The proposed siting of the balcony appears to not interfere with directing drainage towards the drainage swale in the side yard, which will maintain drainage within the lot. Staff is of the opinion that the uncovered balcony will maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances will facilitate the development of the subject property for residential lots. The proposed dwellings on Parts 1 and 2 are consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood lotting pattern. The proposed lots appear to sufficiently site a dwelling that will maintain the general character of the existing neighbourhood. In addition, the lands on Part 3, which are identified as being within Significant Valley Lands, 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. The proposed dwellings are appropriate for the development of the land and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • Refer to the Planning Rationale Report. -19- Report P/CA 24/23 & P/CA 25/23 May 10, 2023 Page 5 Engineering Services • The applicant should note the proposed driveway location for Part 2 will need to be revised to account for the existing median island on Rougemount Drive. Building Services • No comments. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • TRCA has no objections to the approval of Minor Variance Applications No. P/CA 24/23 & P/CA 25/23 subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner shall receive approval for the proposed severance from the Land Division Committee. 2. The proposal be developed in accordance with the submitted plans. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: May 4, 2023 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2023\PCA 24-23 & PCA 25-23\7. Report Attachments -20- 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) The proposed heights at 9.0 metres and roof heights that are compatible with the adjacent built forms and styles within the neighbourhood. 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) The proposed dwelling height is two storeys and the roof of the proposed dwellings has been designed with appropriate transition of height to mitigate impacts on adjacent neighbours. X 3.Is the maximum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) The proposed entrances are designed at grade. X 4.Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) The main dwelling entrance is prominent from the streetscape. X 5.Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) The main entrance is visible and prominent from at the front façade. X 6.Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) The front entrance is prominent from the streetscape with the garage flush the main front wall of the dwelling. 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 dwelling depth is appropriately scaled to the lot and mitigates impacts on adjacent neighbours. -21- 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) The proposed dwellings have a comparable front yard setback to the adjacent dwellings. X 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) The dwellings have been sited and designed with appropriate height transitions to mitigate any potential shadow impacts on adjacent properties. X 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) The garage is flush with the main front wall. X 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) The driveway is not wider than the proposed width of the garage. X 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) Existing border trees are being maintained with the proposed development. -22- K i n g s t o n R o a d E v e l y n A v e n u e Valley Gate Fi d d l e r s C o u r t Fawn d a l e R o a d Hoover Drive Stover Crescent Ro u g e m o u n t D r i v e Tomlins on Court R i v e rviewCres c e n t Brookridge Gate D a l e w o o d D riv e Al t o n a R o a d Rouge Hill Court South Petticoat Ravine Elizabeth B. Phin Public School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 24/23 & P/CA 25/23 Date: Apr. 12, 2023 Exhibit 1 ¯ E K. Yusef & J. Sukhu 1390 Rougemount Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2023\PCA 25-23 to PCA 26-23\PCA25&26-23_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: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural 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 -23- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d P l a n (R e v i s e d ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 2 4 / 2 3 & P / C A 2 5 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : K. Y u s e f & J . S u k h u Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 13 9 0 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e ( P a r t s 1 & 2 ) 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 3 , 20 2 3 13 9 0 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e , P a r t 2 13 9 0 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e , Pa r t 1 Rougemount Drive Pa r t 3 , t o b e c o n v e y e d t o t h e Ci t y -24- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d De t a i l e d Pl a n (R e v i s e d ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 2 4 / 2 3 & P / C A 2 5 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : K. Y u s e f & J . S u k h u Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 13 9 0 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e ( P a r t s 1 & 2 ) 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 3 , 2 0 2 3 fut u r e l a n d s t o be c o n v e y e d t o th e C i t y to p e r m i t a mi n i m u m l o t fr o n t a g e o f 15 . 0 me t r e s to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m lo t f r o n t a g e o f 15 . 0 me 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 me t r e s to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m (so u t h ) s i d e y a r d o f 1. 5 me t r e s to p e r m i t a m a x i m u m dw e l l i n g d e p t h o f 24 . 5 me t r e s to p e r m i t u n c o v e r e d p l a t f o r m (b a l c o n y ) n o t e x c e e d i n g 3. 1 me t r e s i n h e i g h t a b o v e g r a d e , an d n o t p r o j e c t i n g m o r e t h a n 0. 6 me t r e s i n t o t h e r e q u i r e d (s o u t h ) s i d e y a r d to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m (so u t h ) s i d e y a r d o f 1. 7 me t r e s Part 1 Part 2 -25- Exhibit 4 Submitted West Elevations File No: P/CA 24/23 & 25/23 Applicant: K. Yusef & J. Sukhu Municipal Address: 1390 Rougemount Drive (Parts 1 & 2) Contact The City of Pickering City Development Department for Digital Copies of this Plan. Date: April 26, 2023 Part 2 Part 1 -26- Part 2 Exhibit 5 Submitted Front (East) Elevations File No: P/CA 24/23 & 25/23 Applicant: K. Yusef & J. Sukhu Municipal Address: 1390 Rougemount Drive (Parts 1 & 2) Contact The City of Pickering City Development Department for Digital Copies of this Plan. Date: April 26, 2023 Part 1 -27- Exhibit 6 Submitted South Elevations File No: P/CA 24/23 & 25/23 Applicant: K. Yusef & J. Sukhu Municipal Address: 1390 Rougemount Drive (Parts 1& 2) Contact The City of Pickering City Development Department for Digital Copies of this Plan. Date: April 26, 2023 Part 2 Part 1 -28- Exhibit 7 Submitted North Elevations File No: P/CA 24/23 & P/CA 25/23 Applicant: K. Yusef & J. Sukhu Municipal Address: 1390 Rougemount Drive (Parts 1 & 2) Contact The City of Pickering City Development Department for Digital Copies of this Plan. Date: April 26, 2023 Part 2 Part 1 -29- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 26/23 Date: May 10, 2023 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 26/23 L. Robinson 476 Toynevale Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7610/18, 7872/21, and 7900/22 to permit: • an accessory structure (shipping container) to be erected in the west interior side yard and front yard • an accessory building (existing shed) to be located no closer than 1.3 metres to the rear lot line on a corner lot The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to permit the existing accessory structures (shipping container and shed) on the property. Recommendation For your information, and based solely on the Application for Minor Variance 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 conditions are recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). 2. That prior to the installation of the accessory structures, that any required building permits be obtained from Building Services. -30- Report P/CA 26/23 May 10, 2023 Page 2 Background On January 16, 2023, By-law Services received complaints of a shipping container stored on the flankage yard of the property for an extended amount of time. After a zoning review by City staff, it was determined that the location of the shipping container was not compliant with the Zoning By-laws. Prior to the submission of the subject minor variance application, the applicant has worked with City staff to determine an appropriate location for the shipping container, and has agreed to relocate the structure. Through a review of the submitted site plan, an additional variance was identified for the location of the existing shed at the rear yard. Minor Variance Decision P/CA 19/10 On July 21, 2010, the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application P/CA 19/10 to permit a rear yard depth of 4.4 metres to the existing detached dwelling in order to facilitate severance application LD 58/10 for the creation of two residential lots. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Urban Residential – Low Density Area” within the Rosebank Neighbourhood. Residential uses such as detached dwellings and associated accessory uses are permitted within this designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “R4” – One-Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone under Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7610/18, 7872/21, and 7900/22. Accessory Structure Location Variance The intent of requiring accessory buildings and structures to be located in the rear yard is to minimize the visual impact of the accessory buildings on adjacent properties and the streetscape, ensure appropriate drainage, and provide access to and from the front and rear yards. To minimize the visual impact of the shipping container, the applicant has agreed to relocate the structure to the west interior side yard of the property. The proposed location of the shipping container is on the portion of the yard with the widest setback with a portion of the structure encroaching onto the front yard. The shipping container will be setback approximately 15.8 metres from the front lot line and will have minimal impact on the streetscape. Trees and shrubs along the west lot line will also help reduce the visual impact to adjacent properties. Additionally, the shipping container will be setback a minimum of 1.5 metres from the principle dwelling and from the west lot line allowing sufficient space for drainage and access. -31- Report P/CA 26/23 May 10, 2023 Page 3 Corner Lot Rear Yard Setback Variance The existing shed will have a 1.3 metres setback from the rear lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 3.0 metres. The intent of requiring a 3.0 metre rear yard setback for accessory buildings on corner lot is to reduce the visual impact that the accessory building will have on the adjacent property. The existing shed is located at the northwest corner of the property. This location is adjacent to the rear yard of the of the abutting property to the north, which will have minimal visual impact to the future development of the lot. Further, the existing shed will maintain a minimum of 1.0 metres from the north and west lot lines, allowing for adequate space for drainage. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Due to the reduced rear yard setbacks on the subject property, limited space is available in the rear yard for accessory buildings or structures to be located on the lot. The requested variances will permit accessory structures that provide additional storage space to be located in the rear yard, west interior side yard and a portion of the front yard. While the proposed location for the shipping container will encroach onto the front yard on the property, it will have a consistent front yard setback with the majority of the dwellings on the same street. Additionally, the placement of the shipping container behind an existing driveway on Toynevale Road will assist in reducing the visual impact on adjacent properties. The existing shed is not expected to generate significant visual impact to the abutting property to the north as it abuts the rear yard of the property where accessory structures would also be permitted. The requested variances are considered to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land and minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The location of the existing structures does not comply with the zoning by-law. Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • Apply and obtain a building permit for the installation of a shipping container, or have it removed. Installed without the benefit of a Building Permit. • If the storage shed exceeds 15m2, a building permit would be required. Public Input • As of the date of writing this report, 3 public submissions have been received, 2 of which are in opposition of the proposal. -32- Report P/CA 26/23 May 10, 2023 Page 4 Date of report: May 3, 2023 Comments prepared by: Ziya Cao Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration ZC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2023\PCA 26-23\7. Report\PCA 26-23 Report.docx Attachments -33- Cowan Circle Toynevale Road Oa k w o o d D r i v e Ro s e b a n k R o a d Mc l e o d C r e s c e n t Highwa y 4 0 1 Gra n i t e C o u r t Da h l i a C r e s c e n t Rick Hull Memorial Park Rosebank Public School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 26/23 Date: Apr. 12, 2023 Exhibit 1 ¯ E L. Robinson 476 Toynevale Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2023\PCA 24-23\PCA24-23_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: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural 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 -34- 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 26 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : L. R o b i n s o n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 47 6 T o y n e v a l e 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 : Ap r i l 2 6 , 20 2 3 to p e r m i t an ac c e s s o r y s t r u c t u r e (S h i p p i n g Co n t a i n e r ) t o b e er e c t e d i n t h e w e s t in te r i o r s i d e y a r d an d f r o n t y a r d to p e r m i t a n e x i s t i n g sh e d t o b e l o c a t e d no c l o s e r t h a n 1. 3 me t r e s t o t h e re a r l o t l i n e o n a co r n e r l o t -35- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d Ph o t o ( Sh i p p i n g C o n t a i n e r ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 26 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : L. R o b i n s o n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 47 6 T o y n e v a l e 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 DE P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Ma y 1 , 2 0 2 3 -36- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d Ph o t o ( S h e d ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 26 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : L. R o b i n s o n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 47 6 T o y n e v a l e 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 1 , 2 0 2 3 -37-