HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 12, 2025Committee of Adjustment
Agenda
Hearing Number: 2
Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2025
pickering.ca
Agenda
Committee of Adjustment
Wednesday, February 12, 2025 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.Disclosure of Interest
2.Adoption of Agenda
3.Adoption of Minutes from January 15, 2025 hearing 1-10
4.Minor Variance Reports
4.1 MV 59/24 – 1164 Caliper Lane 11-16
4.2 MV 02/25 – 892 Baylawn Drive 17-22
4.3 MV 03/25 – 1390 Rougemount Drive 23-35
4.4 MV 04/25 – 1908 Glendale Drive 36-48
4.5 MV 05/25 – 664 West Shore Boulevard 49-58
5. Adjournment
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 1 of 10
Pending Adoption
Present
Omar Ha-Redeye
Sakshi Sood Joshi Rick Van Andel Sean Wiley – Chair
Also Present
Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer
Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Nilissa Reynolds, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer – Host Kerry Yelk, Planner II
Absent
Denise Rundle
1.Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were noted.
Due to the absence of a Committee member, Sean Wiley will abstain from voting in tonight’s hearing to prevent a tie vote.
2.Adoption of Agenda
Moved by Rick Van AndelSeconded by Omar Ha-Redeye
That the agenda for the Wednesday, January 15, 2025, hearing be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
3.Adoption of Minutes
Moved by Sakshi Sood JoshiSeconded by Rick Van Andel
That the minutes of the 12th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday,December 11, 2024, be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
-1-
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 2 of 10
4. Minor Variance Reports
4.1 (Tabled at the December 11, 2024, Committee of Adjustment hearing) MV 72/24
S. Ramsarran 852 Antonio Street
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, to permit a minimum side yard
setback for an accessory building containing an additional dwelling unit on lots with an area of 2,000 square metres or less shall be 1.0 metre, whereas the By law requires a minimum side yard setback for an accessory building containing an additional dwelling unit on lots with an area of 2,000 square metres or less shall be 1.2 metres.
The applicant requests approval of this variance to obtain a building permit for an
additional residential unit in an accessory structure.
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and one area resident.
In support of the application, the applicant identified that the variances are required to
convert a detached garage into an additional dwelling unit.
Sunil Ramsarran, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The applicant commented that he is requesting approval of this application in order to construct an accessible ADU for his elderly grandmother.
Moved by Rick Van Andel
Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye
That application MV 72/24 by S. Ramsarran, 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 applies only to the additional residential unit in an accessory structure, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 15, 2025).
Carried Unanimously
-2-
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 3 of 10
4.2 MV 71/24 J. Ricketts 901 Vistula Drive
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit:
• an accessory building (shed) to be erected in the flankage yard, whereas the
By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building to be erected in the rear yard; and
• an accessory building (shed) with a height of 3.8 metres, whereas the By-law
states no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential
zone.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to permit a shed in the flankage yard.
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services,
City’s Building Services Section and two area residents.
In support of the application, the applicant identified that this application is to replace an existing shed in the side yard.
Jerome Ricketts, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The applicant commented the following in support of the application: the new, bigger
shed is in the same location as the previous older shed; it will not cause any obstruction to the neighbours; will be completed nicely with finishings; and the house beside and across the street from the subject address has similar sheds at the side of the house.
In response to questions from Committee members the applicant explained that they
began construction on the shed in late October, early November. He was advised by a
City inspector that he could continue construction. The shed is two storeys, due to the grading and the posts that were added to the foundation to level the shed.
A Committee member commented that this shed is located on a corner lot giving it a greater impact on the streetscape. The shed is permitted in the rear yard but it would
have the same impact on the streetscape.
A Committee member commented that this application could set a precedent in the neighbourhood and alter the character of the street.
-3-
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 4 of 10
Given that the shed would have the same impact on the street should it be moved to the rear yard, and receiving comment letters from area neighbours in favour of the application, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion:
Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi
That application MV 71/24 by J. Ricketts, 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 shed, 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, date January 15, 2025).
Carried
Vote:
Omar Ha-Redeye opposed Sakshi Sood Joshi in favour Rick Van Andel in favour
4.3 MV 74/24
D. Paripati & S. Satpute 1981 Treetop Way
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4508/94,
to permit a minimum of 3 parking spaces, whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 4 parking spaces.
The applicant requests approval of this variance to obtain a building permit for an additional residential unit in an accessory structure.
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services,
City’s Building Services Section and one area resident.
In support of the application, the applicant identified that the house is located at the corner and the front lot line does not permit the creation of another parking space.
Deepak Paripati, applicant, and Ismatullah Amiri, agent, were present to represent the
application. One area resident was present in objection to the application.
-4-
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 5 of 10
City staff indicated an error to staff report MV 74/24, page 27 of the January 15, 2025, agenda. Under the “General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan” section the third paragraph should read “The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas –
Medium Density Area within the Highbush Neighbourhood. The applicant is proposing to construct an accessory structure for an additional dwelling unit within the rear yard. Official Plan Policy 6.7(a) permits one additional dwelling unit within a building accessory to a single detached dwelling. Furthermore, Official Plan Policy 6.4(e) encourages additional dwelling units in all residential areas, where appropriate,
including in accessory buildings.”
An area resident made the following comments in objection to the application: what is the intent of the ADU, concerns for the environmental impact and drainage, over urbanization, concerns for safety as Treetop Way is a busy street, concerned where the tenants will park, property standards on the property, and the driveway addition is poorly
made.
In response to the area resident’s comments, the agent explained that the ADU is for a living space with one bedroom. The agent reassured the Committee and resident that the driveway will be restored and other property standard issues with be resolved. The grading was done by the builder and properly drains the lot.
In response to questions from Committee members, the agent explained that the driveway can accommodate four cars if utilizing the apron parking.
In response to a question from a Committee member, City staff clarified that the By-law requirement of 0.5 parking spaces per unit is rounded up. Currently the property provides three parking spaces on-site. The City does permit apron parking through
Engineering Services subject to review for location of utilities in the boulevard which could bring the number of parking spaces to four.
After reading the report and the applicant currently providing three parking spaces with the option to potentially utilize the apron parking space, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion:
Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi
That application MV 74/24 by D. Paripati & S. Satpute, 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 additional residential unit in an accessory structure, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer
-5-
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 6 of 10
to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 15, 2025).
2. That the condition of the existing driveway and associated parking spaces are
brought into compliance with Section 23 of the Property Standards By-law 7887/21, or this Decision is null and void.
Carried
Vote:
Omar Ha-Redeye opposed
Sakshi Sood Joshi in favour Rick Van Andel in favour
4.4 MV 75/24 M. Chinapen 135 Secord Street
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4271/93, to permit uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.3 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.8 metres into the 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 rear yard.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit for a rear yard deck with associated steps.
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services
and the City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified that the application is required to replace an existing deck to access the rear yard.
Merlyn Chinapen, applicant, and Spencer Joy, agent, were 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 commented that the variance is minor in nature. This application is required to replace the old rear deck to gain access to the rear yard.
Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye
Seconded by Rick Van Andel
-6-
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 7 of 10
That application MV 75/24 by M. Chinapen, 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 applies only to the proposed rear yard deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 15, 2025).
Carried Unanimously
4.5 MV 82/24 K. Kengatharampillai 1162 Caliper Lane
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit stairs to a porch or deck to encroach to within 0.95 of a metre of an interior side lot line, whereas the By-law requires stairs to a porch or deck may encroach to within 0.6 of a metre of an interior side lot line.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building
permit to construct a side yard entrance.
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and the City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified that there is a 0.6 metre level difference between the existing grade and proposed deck level. Therefore, a landing is
required to comply with O.B.C requirements.
Ketheesan Kengatharampillai, applicant and Kaushik Suthar, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The agent commented that in order to meet O.B.C requirements a platform is required.
It is a standard 0.9 metre by 0.9 metre platform. The variance is minor in nature.
In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent commented that the homeowner began construction and received an Order to Comply. They applied for a building permit and this variance was noted in the zoning review. If they cannot receive
this variance the basement will be used for personal use.
A Committee member commented that Fire Services noted that the layout of the landing is satisfactory. During the site visit it was noted that another homeowner on the street has a similar landing and looks functional.
-7-
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 8 of 10
Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi
That application MV 82/24 by K. Kengatharampillai, 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 applies only to the side yard entrance and associated steps, 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 January 15, 2025).
Carried Unanimously
4.6 MV 01/25 Claremont Developments Inc.
1732 Samarillo Place (Lot 25)
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7966/22,
to permit a minimum lot area of 0.29 of a hectare, whereas the By-law requires a
minimum lot area of 0.3 hectares.
And
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, Exception Zone 347, to permit a minimum lot area of 0.29 of a hectare, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 0.3 hectares.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling.
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and the City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified that Surveyor’s error on 40M Plan
and Lot Certificate. Noncompliance was flagged after subdivision registration during the building permit review.
Matthew Peticca, 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 agent commented that this variance is required due to
a survey error that was not caught prior to the registration of the Plan. The lot adheres to all other zoning provisions.
-8-
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 9 of 10
Moved by Sakshi Sood Joshi Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That application MV 01/25 by Claremont Developments Inc., 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 applies only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 & 3 contained in the
staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 15, 2025).
Carried Unanimously
-9-
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 10 of 10
5. Other Business
5.1 Adoption of the Revised 2025 Hearing Schedule
Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye
Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi
That the revised 2025 Hearing Schedule be adopted for the 2025 term.
Carried Unanimously
5.2 Appointment of Secretary-Treasurer
Moved by Sakshi Sood Joshi
Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye
That Isabel Lima be appointed as Secretary-Treasurer.
Carried Unanimously 6. Adjournment
Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye
Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi
That the 1st hearing of the 2025 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:22 pm.
Carried Unanimously
__________________________ Date
__________________________
Chair
__________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
Please note the Committee of Adjustment Hearings are available for viewing on the City of
Pickering YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/SustainablePickering
-10-
Report to
Committee of Adjustment
Application Number: MV 59/24 Date: February 12, 2025
From: Deborah Wylie
Manager, Zoning & Administration
Subject: Minor Variance Application MV 59/24
S. Hossaini 1164 Caliper Lane
Application
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21 to permit stairs to a porch or deck to encroach to within 0.9 of a metre of an interior side lot line, whereas the By-law permits law requires stairs to a porch or deck may encroach to within 0.6 of a metre of an interior side lot line.
The applicant requests approval of the variance to obtain a building permit to construct a side
yard entrance.
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. After considering all public and
agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended:
1. That this variance applies only to the side yard entrance and associated steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3).
Council Adoption of Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24
On December 16, 2024, City Council adopted the Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24. Notice of Passing of a By-law was dated and mailed on December 20, 2024, initiating a 20-day
Appeal period to end on January 9, 2025. During this time, appeals of the Consolidated Zoning
By-law may be submitted to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).
Minor Variance applications submitted following the date of passing of the Consolidated Zoning By-law (December 16, 2024) will be reviewed for zoning compliance against both the applicable zoning provisions in the former Parent By-law (Zoning By-law as it was prior to
December 16, 2024) and the adopted Consolidated Zoning By-law. Transition provisions of
By-law 8149/24 allow for minor variance applications submitted prior to the date of passing of the Consolidated Zoning By-law (December 16, 2024) to be reviewed against the former Parent By-law provisions. -11-
Report MV 59/24 February 12, 2025
Page 2
Minor Variance Application MV 59/24 was submitted prior to December 16, 2024, and is reviewed against the former Parent Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended.
Comment
Conforms to the Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan
The More Homes Built Faster Act (Bill 23) made changes that removed statutory powers under the Planning Act from certain upper-tier municipalities including Durham Region. As of
January 1, 2025, the applicable parts of the Regional Official Plan for Durham are now deemed to be part of Pickering’s Official Plan. In case of conflict, the Regional Official Plan prevails over Pickering’s Official Plan.
Under the Regional Official Plan, the subject property is designated “Urban System – Community Areas”.
The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area” as part of the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including detached dwellings. Stairs to a porch or deck are a common accessory structure within residential areas.
Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of
the Official Plan.
Conforms to the Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
The subject property is zoned “LD2” – Low Density Residential under Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21.
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 maintain an adequate buffer space between structures and to accommodate for pedestrian access, utility and residential services. The applicant is proposing to construct a platform with associated steps that will extend 0.9 of a metre into the required interior side yard to provide access to a basement unit.
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 proposed platform has a three-step crossover design allowing access from the front to rear yards. The proposed encroachment maintains sufficient separation from the lot line and is consistent with similar encroachments in the area. The proposed stairs are not expected to
create any significant visual or functional impact on adjacent properties or alter the overall character of the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable and appropriate for the development of the land and is minor in nature.
-12-
Report MV 59/24 February 12, 2025
Page 3
Input From Other Sources
Applicant •The total space between the dwelling and
property line is 1.26 metres, requiring a
0.86-metre landing. This results in a0.39-metre setback, which does not meetthe required 0.6 metres. Therefore, a minorvariance is required.
•Ensure the deck and stairs, and increasedlot coverage (if approved with thisapplication) do not adversely affect thedrainage patterns within the lot andsurrounding area.
•No comments.
•Construction has started without the benefit
of a Building Permit. The Building Permit
application is on hold until the Committeehas made a decision.
•Provided that a minimum clearance of
1.25 meters is maintained leading to the
stairs, this arrangement would beacceptable.
•No written submissions have been receivedfrom the public as of the date of writing this
report.
Engineering Services
Durham Region Community Growth
and Economic Development
Building Services
Fire Department
Public Input
Date of report: February 5, 2025
Comments prepared by:
Original Signed By Original Signed By
Ash Roy, B.URPL Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration
AR:jc
J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\Reports\2013\pca??-13.doc Attachments
-13-
Exhibit 1
Cactus Crescent
/y
~
af:j of Location Map
File: MV 59/24 PlCKERlNG Applicant: S. Hossaini
City Development Municipal Address: 1164 Caliper Lane
@ The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Jan. 27, 2025 Department @ Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.,@ Her Majesty the Queen in
Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;@ Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:2,000 I suppliers. All rights reserved.,@ Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOTAPLANOF SURVEY.
L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\MV\2024\MV 59--24\MV 59--24.aprx -14-
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
2
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
Fi
l
e
N
o
:
MV
5
9
/
2
4
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
.
H
o
s
s
a
i
n
i
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
1
1
6
4
C
a
l
i
p
e
r
L
a
n
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
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
7
,
2
0
2
5
Ca
l
i
p
e
r
L
a
n
e
to
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
t
a
i
r
s
t
o
a
p
o
r
c
h
o
r
de
c
k
to
e
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
w
i
t
h
i
n
0
.
9
o
f
a
me
t
r
e
o
f
a
n
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
s
i
d
e
l
o
t
l
i
n
e
-15-
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
3
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
F
l
o
o
r
P
l
a
n
Fi
l
e
N
o
:
MV
5
9
/
2
4
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
.
H
o
s
s
a
i
n
i
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
1
1
6
4
C
a
l
i
p
e
r
L
a
n
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
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
7
,
2
0
2
5
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
o
v
e
r
S
t
a
i
r
s
-16-
Report to
Committee of Adjustment
Application Number: MV 02/25 Date: February 12, 2025
From: Deborah Wylie
Manager, Zoning & Administration
Subject: Minor Variance Application MV 02/25
S. & C. Khan892 Baylawn Drive
Application
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit:
•an uncovered platform and associated steps to encroach into any required setback to amaximum of 4.2 metres, whereas the By-law permits a deck to encroach into any required
setback to a maximum of 2.0 metres; and
•a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lotcoverage of 38 percent.
The applicant requests approval of the variances to obtain a building permit for a rear yard
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 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. 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 uncovered platform and associated steps, asgenerally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3).
Comment
Conforms to the Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan
The More Homes Built Faster Act (Bill 23) made changes that removed statutory powers under the Planning Act from certain upper-tier municipalities including Durham Region. As of
January 1, 2025, the applicable parts of the Regional Official Plan for Durham are now
deemed to be part of Pickering’s Official Plan. In case of conflict, the Regional Official Plan prevails over Pickering’s Official Plan.
-17-
Report MV 02/25 February 12, 2025
Page 2
Under the Regional Official Plan, the subject property is designated “Urban System – Community Areas”.
The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area” by the City
of Pickering Official Plan. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate
residential uses including detached dwellings. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
Conforms to the Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
The subject property is zoned “X285” (R3-2) – Exception Zone 285 under Zoning By-law
8149/24.
Rear Yard Encroachment
The requested variance is to increase the maximum permitted encroachment to any required setback from 2.0 metres to 4.2 metres. The intent of this provision is to ensure that adequate space is provided for landscaping and private amenity in the rear, while protecting the privacy
of abutting properties.
The rear yard deck will provide sufficient space on the property left uncovered by buildings to accommodate soft landscaping, storm drainage and outdoor amenity area as the required minimum front and side yard setbacks are maintained. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
Maximum Lot Coverage
The applicant requests a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent. The intent of this provision is to regulate the size and scale of the buildings and to ensure an adequate amount of space is left uncovered for outdoor amenities.
The property retains sufficient outdoor amenity space within the front and rear yard. The
requested variance does not appear to adversely affect stormwater runoff, drainage, or the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. Staff is of the opinion that requested variance 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 variance will permit the existing platform and associated steps, which is an
extension of outdoor amenity space in the rear yard. The proposed setbacks allow for ample space to avoid any privacy or overlook issues. The proposed platform and steps maintain a rear yard setback similar to those on adjacent properties and are consistent with the lot coverage in the surrounding area. The requested variances are not expected to generate
significant negative impacts on neighboring properties. Staff is of the opinion that the
requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are minor in nature.
-18-
Report MV 02/25 February 12, 2025
Page 3
Input From Other Sources
Applicant •The existing deck was built without a permit
by the previous owner, and the current
owner was unaware of its unpermittedstatus.
Engineering Services •Ensure the projection of the deck in the rearyard (if approved with this application) does
not adversely affect the drainage patternswithin the lot and surrounding area.
Durham Region Community Growth
and Economic Development •No comments.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • No comments.
Building Services • Construction has started without the benefitof a Building Permit. The Building Permit
application is on hold until the Committee
has made a decision.
Public Input •Area residents have reviewed theapplication, with some in support and othersopposed. Concerns include the potential for
reduced privacy, interference with drainage,loss of green space, and blocked sunlightfor a rental unit.
Date of report: February 5, 2025
Comments prepared by:
Original Signed By Original Signed By
Ash Roy, B.URPL Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration
AR:jc
J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\Reports\2013\pca??-13.doc Attachments
-19-
af:j of
Hydro
Lands
PlCKERlNG
City Development
Department
C:\Users\shundal\AppData\Local\Temp\ArcGISProTemp20956\Untitled\Untitled.aprx
Primrose Court
""O J--r--=='r'=1.-a111111111t---.l.--~~....J-~
Location Map
File: MV 02/25
Applicant: S. & C. Khan
0::
0 e-
ro LL
Municipal Address: 892 Baylawn Drive
@ 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, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;@ Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its
Hydro
Lands
Lynn Heights Drive
Exhibit 1
Date: Jan. 06, 2025
suppliers. All rights reserved.,@ Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. SCALE: 1:3,000 I
THIS ISNOTAPLANOF SURVEY. -20-
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
2
to
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
n
u
n
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
pl
a
t
f
o
r
m
a
n
d
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
st
e
p
s
to
en
c
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
t
o
an
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
t
o
a
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
o
f
4.
2
m
e
t
r
e
s
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
3
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
Fi
l
e
N
o
:
MV
02
/2
5
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S.
&
C
.
K
h
a
n
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
89
2
B
a
y
l
a
w
n
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
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
7
,
2
0
2
5
-21-
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
3
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
R
e
a
r
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
Fi
l
e
N
o
:
MV
02
/2
5
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
S
.
&
C
.
K
h
a
n
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
8
9
2
B
a
y
l
a
w
n
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
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
7
,
2
0
2
5
-22-
Report to
Committee of Adjustment
Application Number: MV 03/25
Date: February 12, 2025
From: Deborah Wylie
Manager, Zoning & Administration
Subject: Minor Variance Application MV 03/25
K. Yusef
1390 Rougemount Drive
Application
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit:
• a maximum dwelling depth of 27.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum
dwelling depth of 20.0 metres; and
• a minimum (north) side yard setback of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a
minimum side yard setback: (south) side yard 1.5 metres and (north) side yard 3.0 metres.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit to
construct a 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 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. 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 detached dwelling, as generally sited
and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7).
Background
In May 2023, the Committee of Adjustment approved P/CA 25/23, which permitted a lot
frontage of 15 metres, a south side yard setback of 1.5 metres, and permitted a balcony to
encroach into the required south side yard setback.
The owner has now submitted revised plans extending the rear first storey wall and side
(north) walls of the dwelling. The previous proposed siting of the detached dwelling complied
both with the zoning by-law requirements with respect to maximum dwelling depth of
20.0 metres and north side yard setback of 1.8 metres. -23-
Report MV 03/25 February 12, 2025
Page 2
Comment
General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan
The More Homes Built Faster Act (Bill 23) made changes that removed statutory powers under
the Planning Act from certain upper-tier municipalities including Durham Region. As of
January 1, 2025, the applicable parts of the Regional Official Plan for Durham are now
deemed to be part of Pickering’s Official Plan. In case of conflict, the Regional Official Plan
prevails over Pickering’s Official Plan. Under the Regional Official Plan, the subject property is
designated “Urban System – Community Areas”.
The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject site Urban Residential Areas – Low Density
Area within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. The subject property is located within the
Rougemount Established Neighbourhood Precinct. OPA 40 implemented the
recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in the Established Neighbourhoods
Study adding policies regarding building mass, dwelling height, lot width, lot coverage and
landscaping, and reinforcing established development patterns.
Staff has reviewed and commented on the proposed dwellings using the Council-adopted
Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood
Precincts Checklist, which can be found in Appendix A to this report.
Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of
the Official Plan and Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods’
Guidelines.
General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
The subject property is zoned “X207 (R3)” – Detached Residential under Consolidated Zoning
By-law 8149/24. A detached dwelling along with accessory uses are permitted.
Maximum Dwelling Depth
Dwelling Depth is the measurement of the distance between the required minimum Front Yard
Setback and the rear of the dwelling, which is a measure of how deep a dwelling protrudes into
a lot. The intent of requiring a maximum dwelling depth of 20.0 metres is to provide for
consistent placement of rear walls on neighbouring properties, and to reduce potential
shadowing, massing and privacy impacts on adjacent dwellings and rear yards.
The applicant is requesting a maximum dwelling depth of 27.6 metres, whereas the By-law
permits 20.0 metres. The minimum front yard setback requirement for 1390 Rougemount Drive
is 18.0 metres, which is determined by the existing setback of the neighbouring property to the
north (1394 Rougemount Drive). Dwelling Depth is measured from the required minimum front
yard setback to the furthest rear wall.
-24-
Report MV 03/25 February 12, 2025
Page 3
The siting of the proposal under the previous approved Minor Variance application had a
maximum dwelling depth of 19.8 metres. The additional dwelling depth will not create massing
that is out of character with the surrounding area. Further, the portions of the dwelling depth
that exceed the by-law requirements minimize the windows on the respective side elevations,
and the rear elevations face the existing ravine lands along the rear of the site. Furthermore,
most of the dwelling depth increase is to permit a single storey extension of the dwelling, which
will help mitigate massing and shadowing impacts for the adjacent lot to the north.
The proposed placement of the dwelling maintains the general character and consistency of
the existing block of development along the west side of Rougemount Drive. Staff is of the
opinion that the requested variance to permit a maximum dwelling depth of 27.6 metres
maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
Minimum (North) Side Yard Setback
The applicant has proposed a north side yard of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law permits one
side to have a minimum 1.8 metres side yard setback and the other side to have a minimum
3.0 metre side yard setback. Previously, P/CA 25/23 permitted a minimum south side yard of
1.5 metres.
Prior to Council-adoption of Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24, the subject property was
subject to the provisions of Zoning By-law 3036. Section 5.18(d) of By-law 3036 included a
provision when an attached garage was constructed as part of a detached dwelling, the
minimum required side yards for a Residential "R3" Zone shall be 1.8 metres. City Development
staff is considering an amendment to By-law 8149/24 to reestablish a similar zoning provision.
The intent of this provision is to provide an appropriate separation between structures on
abutting properties to maintain pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading, drainage, and
other residential services. The existing dwelling to the north has a south side yard setback of
2.2 metres, which provides 3.7 metre separation between the existing dwelling and the
proposed dwelling. There is sufficient space between the proposed dwellings and adjacent
dwellings to the north and south to provide pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading,
drainage and residential services. Staff is of the opinion that the reduced side yard will
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature
The requested variances will facilitate the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling on
the subject property. The proposed placement of the dwelling generally maintains the
consistent streetscape and is compatible with the existing development along Rougemount
Drive. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate
development of the land and are minor in nature.
-25-
Report MV 03/25 February 12, 2025
Page 4
Input From Other Sources
•Refer to Cover Letter dated December 31,
2024.
•No comments on the above noted Minor
Variance application.
•TRCA staff have no objection to the
approval of Minor Variance Application
No. MV 03/25.
Applicant
Durham Community Growth and
Economic Development
Toronto Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA)
Engineering Services •Ensure the proposed dwelling depth and
reduced side yard setback (if approved with
this application) does 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
amended soils) will be required at the
Building Permit stage.
Building Services •No concerns from Building Services, permit
application is on hold until Committee’s
decision.
Public Input •No written submissions have been received
from the public as of the date of writing this
report.
Date of report: February 5, 2025
Comments prepared by:
Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP
Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration
KY:nr
/CityDevDept/D3700/2025/MV 03-25/7. Report/MV 03-25 - Report.docx
Attachments
Original Signed By Original Signed By
-26-
Urban Design Guidelines
City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts
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 height at 9.0 metres
and roof design is 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 dwelling features a pitched
roof and a height that is compliant
with the zoning by-law to
appropriately transition to adjacent
dwellings.
X 3. Is the maximum elevation of the Front
Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above
grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1)
The front entrance is provided to
meet this requirement.
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 designed
with a similar architectural style to
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 located flush with the main
dwelling wall.
X
7. Does the proposed dwelling have a
similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent
dwellings along the street?
(see Section 2.3: Guideline 2)
Rougemount features dwellings
with varying dwelling depths, in
some instances greater than the
proposed dwelling depth.
X
8. Does the proposed dwelling have a
similar Side Yard Setback to the
adjacent dwellings along the street?
(see Figure 15)
The side yard setback are
compatible with dwellings along
Rougemount Drive.
-27-
Appendix A
Urban Design Checklist Cont’d
Urban Design Guidelines
City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts
A
2
Yes No Comments
X
9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been
mitigated with greater Side Yard
Setbacks?
(Section 3.1: Guideline 2)
The side yard setback is greater on
the north side to mitigate shadow
impacts.
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
wall.
X
11. Is the proposed driveway width the
same as the permitted garage width?
(see Section 3.3: Guideline 1)
The driveway width will be the
same as the garage width.
X
12. Does the plan preserve existing trees?
(see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) Existing border trees are being
maintained through the proposed
development.
-28-
Tomlinson Court
" cu 0 0:::
cu C .8 <i:
Brookridge Gate
af:j of
PlCKERlNG
City Development
Department
C:\Users\shundal\AppData\Local\Temp\ArcGISProTemp17396\Untitled\Untitled.aprx
Subject
Lands --------J
Location Map
File: MV 03/25
Applicant: K. Yusef
Q) > ·;::
0
C :,
0 E Q)
Ol :,
0 0:::
Rouge Hill Court
Municipal Address: 1390 Rougemount Drive
@ 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, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;@ Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its
suppliers. All rights reserved.,@ Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved.
Exhibit 1
(
/y
Date: Jan. 06, 2025
SCALE: 1:3,000 I
THIS ISNOTAPLANOF SURVEY. -29-
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
2
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
Fi
l
e
N
o
:
M
V
0
3
/
2
5
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
K
.
Y
u
s
e
f
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
1
3
9
0
R
o
u
g
e
m
o
u
n
t
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
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
7
,
2
0
2
5
to
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
d
e
p
t
h
,
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
fr
o
m
t
h
e
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
f
r
o
n
t
y
a
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
t
o
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
wa
l
l
o
f
a
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
f
o
r
l
o
t
s
w
i
t
h
d
e
p
t
h
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
40
me
t
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
:
2
7
.
6
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
)
s
i
d
e
ya
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
of
1
.
5
m
e
t
r
e
s
-30-
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
3
Rougemount Drive
Re
d
o
u
t
l
i
n
e
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
t
h
e
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
D
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
P
/
C
A
2
5
/
2
3
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
S
i
t
i
n
g
Fi
l
e
N
o
:
MV
0
3
/
2
5
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
K.
Y
u
s
e
f
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
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
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
7
,
2
0
2
5
-31-
Exhibit 4
Submitted Rear (West) Elevation
File No: MV 03/25
Applicant: K. Yusef
Municipal Address: 1390 Rougemount Drive
Contact The City of Pickering City Development Department for Digital Copies of
this Plan. Date: January 27, 2025
-32-
Exhibit 5
Submitted Front (East) Elevation
File No: MV 03/25
Applicant: K. Yusef
Municipal Address: 1390 Rougemount Drive
Contact The City of Pickering City Development Department for Digital Copies of this Plan. Date: January 27, 2025
-33-
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
6
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
S
i
d
e
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
N
o
:
MV
0
3
/
2
5
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
K.
Y
u
s
e
f
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
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
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
7
,
2
0
2
5
-34-
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
7
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
S
i
d
e
(
N
o
r
t
h
)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
N
o
:
M
V
0
3
/
2
5
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
K
.
Y
u
s
e
f
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
1
3
9
0
R
o
u
g
e
m
o
u
n
t
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
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
7
,
2
0
2
5
-35-
Report to
Committee of Adjustment
Application Number: MV 04/25
Date: February 12, 2025
From: Deborah Wylie
Manager, Zoning & Administration
Subject: Minor Variance Application MV 04/25
G. & R. Pannu
1908 Glendale Drive
Application
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit:
•a maximum dwelling depth of 22.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum
dwelling depth of 20.0 metres;
•a maximum front yard setback of 14.3 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum
front yard setback of no more than 10.93 metres (1.0 metre beyond the existing average
front yard setbacks of the adjacent dwellings on same side of street in the same block); and
•a minimum (south) side yard setback of 2.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires one side
yard setback: minimum 1.8 metres and the other side yard setback: minimum 3.0 metres.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit to
construct a 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 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. 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 detached dwelling, as generally sited
and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6).
-36-
Report MV 04/25 February 12, 2025
Page 2
Comment
General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan
The More Homes Built Faster Act (Bill 23) made changes that removed statutory powers under
the Planning Act from certain upper-tier municipalities including Durham Region. As of
January 1, 2025, the applicable parts of the Regional Official Plan for Durham are now
deemed to be part of Pickering’s Official Plan. In case of conflict, the Regional Official Plan
prevails over Pickering’s Official Plan. Under the Regional Official Plan, the subject property is
designated “Urban System – Community Areas”.
The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject site Urban Residential Areas – Low Density
Area within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. The subject property is located within the Liverpool
Established Neighbourhood Precinct. OPA 40 implemented the recommendations of the Infill
and Replacement Housing in the Established Neighbourhood Study adding policies regarding
building mass, dwelling height, lot width, lot coverage and landscaping, and reinforcing
established development patterns.
Staff has reviewed and commented on the proposed dwellings using the Council-adopted
Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood
Precincts Checklist, which can be found in Appendix A to this report.
In the Liverpool Neighbourhood there is a mix of older dwellings, ranging between one and two
storeys, and newer dwellings that are larger in size and reflect the built form of contemporary
homes. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances maintain the general intent and
purpose of the Official Plan and Infill and Replacement Housing in Established
Neighbourhoods’ Guidelines.
General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
The subject property is zoned “R1D” – Detached Residential under Consolidated Zoning
By-law 8149/24. A detached dwelling along with accessory uses are permitted.
Maximum Dwelling Depth
Dwelling Depth is the measurement of the distance between the required minimum Front Yard
Setback and the rear of the dwelling, which is a measure of how deep a dwelling protrudes into
a lot. The intent of requiring a maximum dwelling depth of 20.0 metres is to provide for
consistent placement of rear walls on neighbouring properties, and to reduce potential
shadowing, massing and privacy impacts on adjacent dwellings and rear yards.
The applicant is requesting a maximum dwelling depth of 22.6 metres, whereas the By-law
permits 20.0 metres. Dwelling Depth is measured from the required minimum front yard setback
to the furthest rear wall. The minimum front yard setback requirement for 1908 Glendale Drive
is 9.12 metres, which is determined by the existing setback of the neighbouring property to the
north (1910 Glendale Drive).
-37-
Report MV 04/25 February 12, 2025
Page 3
The proposed dwelling will protrude approximately 11.7 metres beyond the existing rear walls
of the existing development on the adjacent lots. Staff recognize that the adjacent properties to
the north and south contain older dwellings that are substantially less deep than what is
permitted by the Zoning By-law. The variance to permit a 2.6 metre increase to the depth of
portions of the proposed dwelling is considered minor. Should the north and south properties
be redeveloped, the Zoning By-law would permit dwelling depths of 20.0 metres, aligning the
front walls and rear walls of the new structures with the proposed dwelling on the subject
property. The applicant has indicated that the preferred setback of the dwelling is to
accommodate the parking of vehicles in a tandem configuration. Staff is of the opinion that the
requested variance to permit a maximum dwelling depth of 22.6 metres maintains the general
intent and purpose of the Infill By-law.
Maximum Front Yard Setback
The maximum front yard setback is determined using the average front yard setbacks of the
adjacent properties, plus 1.0 metre. The maximum front yard setback applies to 80 percent of
the dwelling width including any attached garage. 20 percent of the dwelling width is exempted
from the maximum front yard requirement to accommodate any design features that require a
further setback. The intent of this provision is to ensure new dwellings maintain a similar
setback as adjacent dwellings to provide for a consistent streetscape. The maximum front yard
setback is determined by the average of the two adjacent existing front yard setbacks, plus
1.0 metre. The front yard setback for the adjacent property to the north (1910 Glendale Drive)
is 9.12 metres and the front yard setback for the adjacent property to the south (1906 Glendale
Drive) is 10.8 metres. Therefore, the maximum front yard setback requirement for the subject
property is 10.93 metres.
The applicant has proposed to site the house in alignment generally with the existing
development on adjacent lots. The main front wall of the dwelling has varying articulations
which vary in setback to the front property line. The proposed garage wall is setback
10.6 metres, while the front entrance is setback 15 metres. The general placement of the
dwelling is consistent with the adjacent dwellings and provides a gentle transition between the
proposed infill dwellings and the existing dwellings at the street level. Staff is of the opinion that
the requested variance to permit a maximum front yard setback of 14.3 metres meets the
general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
Minimum (South) Side Yard Setback
The applicant has proposed a south side yard of 2.3 metres, whereas the By-law permits one
side to have a minimum 1.8 metres side yard setback and the other side to have a minimum
3.0 metre side yard setback.
Prior to the Council-adoption of Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24, the subject property was
subject to the provisions of Zoning By-law 3036. Section 5.18(d) of By-law 3036 included a
provision where an attached garage was constructed as part of a detached dwelling, the
minimum required side yards for a Residential "R3" Zone shall be 1.8 metres. City Development
staff is considering an amendment to By-law 8149/24 to reestablish a similar zoning provision.
-38-
Report MV 04/25 February 12, 2025
Page 4
The intent of this provision is to provide an appropriate separation between structures on
abutting properties to maintain pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading, drainage, and
other residential services. There is sufficient space between the proposed dwellings and
adjacent development to the south to provide pedestrian access, and to accommodate
grading, drainage and residential services. Staff is of the opinion that the reduced side yard
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 variances will facilitate the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling on
the subject property. The proposed placement of the dwelling generally maintains the consistent
streetscape and is compatible with the development along Glendale Drive. The proposed
setbacks accommodate appropriate soft landscape coverage and allow for appropriate
drainage. The proposed dwelling is of a size and scale that is similar to what is permitted in the
By-law and reflects other development along Glendale Drive and within the Liverpool
Neighbourhood. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the
appropriate development of the land and are minor in nature.
Input From Other Sources
•Proposed variances allow for two cars to fit in
tandem in proposed driveway.
•No comments on the above noted Minor
Variance application.
Applicant
Durham Community Growth
and Economic Development
Engineering Services •Ensure the proposed dwelling depth, increased
front yard setback and reduced side yard
setback (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.
Building Services •No concerns from Building Services, Building
Permit is required prior to construction.
Public Input •No written submissions have been received
from the public as of the date of writing this
report.
-39-
Report MV 04/25 February 12, 2025
Page 5
Date of report: February 5, 2025
Comments prepared by:
Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP
Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration
KY:nr
/CityDevDept/D3700/2025/MV 04-25/7. Report/MV 04-25 - Report.docx
Attachments
Original Signed By Original Signed By
-40-
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 existing development along
Glendale consists of a mix of
dwelling types. The proposed
dwelling is not considerable out of
character with what is permitted
along Glendale Drive
-41-
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 recessed from the
main front wall.
X 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same
as the permitted garage width?
(see Section 3.3: Guideline 1)
X 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees?
(see Section 4.1: Guideline 1)
-42-
Exhibit 1
~0'0 ¾(/ ~ I Q) -a: ~
0 Cll -1: :J
~
it/rnur Court ~ ~ O" -\ . Cl) '---
/ I
Anton Square
~II ~\ l--Canborough Crescent I Tv ,--r--------1
f-------.
~~ -
-
-
,__ c -Subject Q) -(.)
~ >----CJ)
:, Lands ~ ,__
0 >----0 Q) 0 >----\ > Q) -= ·.:::
Cll >---->--... 0 Q)
CJ) "O >, -
C ~ I \ ~ Cll Cll
Q) Cll 0 LL -I "O a::
\ 1 C -~ 0 -'\ 0 V '\ I ~, (9 e--\ I Q) -<: ::::::~:=~ > ::J r---~
xxx.x.x v c Q) ~ '-~-
(.)
Ir--... CJ) ~ --~ 0 0~ C (j Q) ~ ~ ----!-..0 Cll ~ -<$'() ~ -
80,.,,_,
1er D
rive \
------r---
I\ I '-.) -\ Glenanna Road -' ~ ..... ~ /'__ v '7 ~ --Cll :,
O"
Cl) -r--
2 -V -r--/y N ---C -,---
~l
e -,---r cc -----
I
af:j of Location Map
File: MV 04/25 PlCKERlNG Applicant: G. & R. Pannu
City Development Municipal Address: 1908 Glendale Drive
@ The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Jan. 20, 2025 Department @ Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.,@ Her Majesty the Queen in
Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;@ Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:3,000 I suppliers. All rights reserved.,@ Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOTAPLANOF SURVEY.
L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\MV\2025\MV 04-25\MV 04-25.aprx -43-
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
2
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
Fi
l
e
N
o
:
M
V
0
4
/
2
5
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
G
.
&
R
.
P
a
n
n
u
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
1
9
0
8
G
l
e
n
d
a
l
e
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
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
7
,
2
0
2
5
to
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
f
r
o
n
t
y
a
r
d
s
e
t
b
a
c
k
o
f
14
.
3
m
e
t
r
e
s
to
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
s
i
d
e
y
a
r
d
se
t
b
a
c
k
:
o
n
e
s
i
d
e
1
.
8
m
e
t
r
e
s
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
i
d
e
2
.
3
m
e
t
r
e
s
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
to
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
d
e
p
t
h
,
me
a
s
u
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
mi
n
i
m
u
m
f
r
o
n
t
y
a
r
d
se
t
b
a
c
k
t
o
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
w
a
l
l
of
a
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
:
fo
r
l
o
t
s
w
i
t
h
d
e
p
t
h
s
gr
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
4
0
m
e
t
r
e
s
:
22
.
6
m
e
t
r
e
s
-44-
Exhibit 3
Submitted Rear (West) Elevation
File No: MV 04/25
Applicant: G. & R. Pannu
Municipal Address: 1908 Glendale Drive
Contact The City of Pickering City Development Department for Digital Copies of
this Plan. Date: January 27, 2025
-45-
Exhibit 4
Submitted Front (East) Elevation
File No: MV 04/25
Applicant: G. & R. Pannu
Municipal Address: 1908 Glendale Drive
Contact The City of Pickering City Development Department for Digital Copies of this Plan. Date: January 27, 2025
-46-
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
5
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
S
i
d
e
(
S
o
u
t
h
)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
N
o
:
MV
0
4
/
2
5
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
G.
&
R
.
P
a
n
n
u
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
19
0
8
G
l
e
n
d
a
l
e
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
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
7
,
2
0
2
5
-47-
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
6
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
S
i
d
e
(
N
o
r
t
h
)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
N
o
:
MV
0
4
/
2
4
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
G.
&
R
.
P
a
n
n
u
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
19
0
8
G
l
e
n
d
a
l
e
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
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
7
,
2
0
2
5
-48-
Report to
Committee of Adjustment
Application Number: MV 05/25
Date: February 12, 2025
From: Deborah Wylie
Manager, Zoning & Administration
Subject: Minor Variance Application MV 05/25
C. Van der Vliet
664 West Shore Boulevard
Application
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit:
• a maximum dwelling depth of 18.9 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum
dwelling depth of 17.0 metres; and
• a maximum lot coverage of 38.4 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot
coverage of 33 percent.
The applicant requests approval of these variances to obtain a building permit to construct an
attached sunroom in the rear yard.
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 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. 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 attached sunroom, as generally sited
and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5).
Comment
General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan
The More Homes Built Faster Act (Bill 23) made changes that removed statutory powers under
the Planning Act from certain upper-tier municipalities including Durham Region. As of
January 1, 2025, the applicable parts of the Regional Official Plan for Durham are now
deemed to be part of Pickering’s Official Plan. In case of conflict, the Regional Official Plan
prevails over Pickering’s Official Plan. Under the Regional Official Plan, the subject property is
designated “Urban System – Community Areas”. -49-
Report MV 05/25 February 12, 2025
Page 2
The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the West
Shore. The subject property is located within the West Shore Established Neighbourhood
Precinct. OPA 40 implemented the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in
the Established Neighbourhood Study adding policies regarding building mass, dwelling height,
lot width, lot coverage and landscaping, and reinforcing established development patterns.
Staff has reviewed and commented on the proposed dwellings using the Council-adopted
Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood
Precincts Checklist, which can be found in Appendix A to this report.
Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of
the Official Plan and Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods’ Guidelines.
General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
The subject property is zoned “R1E” – Detached Residential under Consolidated Zoning
By-law 8149/24. A detached dwelling along with accessory uses are permitted.
The Zoning By-law permits a maximum dwelling depth of 17.0 metres and a maximum lot
coverage of 33 percent. The intent of the provisions is to establish standards regarding
dwelling size, massing, and building layout to ensure that new developments are appropriate
within the context of the established development. Furthermore, the intent of lot coverage is to
ensure that the site has adequate space for private amenity area, soft landscaping, and
appropriate drainage. The applicant is proposing a dwelling that is approximately 18.9 metres
in depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of the proposed
addition (sunroom). The proposed addition will not create massing that is out of character with
the surrounding neighbourhood. The dwelling depth increase is to permit a single storey
extension of the dwelling which mitigates shadowing and massing impacts on the adjacent
lots. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed variance to the dwelling depth generally meets
the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The applicant is proposing a total lot coverage of 38.4 percent for all buildings and structures
on the lot. The increased lot coverage does not prevent the site from maintaining appropriate
yard setbacks that can accommodate soft landscaping, drainage, and private amenity space.
Presently, the entire rear yard is hard landscaped, and contains a driveway with a detached
garage, and a pool with a deck. The owner has indicated to staff that they are proposing to
remove the existing pool and deck and will be able to increase the permeability of the rear
yard. 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
The requested variances will facilitate the construction of a one-storey addition, along the rear
wall of the existing dwelling to permit a sunroom. The proposed addition will replace an
existing uncovered deck and an outdoor above ground pool, allowing for a more permeable
surface. The indoor sunroom will mitigate privacy concerns from the adjacent existing mixed
use development located to the rear. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are
desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are minor in nature. -50-
Report MV 05/25 February 12, 2025
Page 3
Input From Other Sources
Applicant •The sunroom will enclose a swim spa. To
allow an exit from the deck area, this is the
smallest it can be. The sunroom will allow
privacy from the commercial/residential
neighbours to the west.
•No comments on the above noted Minor
Variance application.
Durham Community Growth and Economic Development
Engineering Services •Ensure the increased dwelling depth and
increased lot coverage (if approved with
this application) do not adversely affect the
drainage patterns within the lot and
surrounding area.
Building Services •No concerns from Building Services, permit
application is on hold until Committee’s
decision.
Public Input •No written submissions have been received
from the public as of the date of writing this
report.
Date of report: February 5, 2025
Comments prepared by:
Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP
Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration
KY:nr
/CityDevDept/D3700/2025/MV 05-25/7. Report/MV 05-25 - Report.docx Attachments
Original Signed By Original Signed By
-51-
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
1. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof
pitch similar/compatible with the
surrounding dwellings?
(see Section 2.1: Guideline 1)
Not applicable
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)
Not applicable
3. Is the maximum elevation of the Front
Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above
grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1)
Not applicable
4. Is the main entrance visible from the
street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2)
Not applicable
5. Are the stairs to the main entrance
designed as an integral component of the
front façade?
(Section 2.2: Guideline 7)
Not applicable
6. Does the design of the front entrance
reduce the visual dominance of the
garage and driveway?
(see Section 2.2: Guideline 9)
Not applicable
X
7. Does the proposed dwelling have a
similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent
dwellings along the street?
(see Section 2.3: Guideline 2)
X
8. Does the proposed dwelling have a
similar Side Yard Setback to the
adjacent dwellings along the street?
(see Figure 15)
-52-
Appendix A
Urban Design Checklist Cont’d
Urban
City of Pickering Established
A 2
Yes No Comments
X
9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been
mitigated with greater Side Yard
Setbacks?
(Section 3.1: Guideline 2)
10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the
main front wall?
(see Section 3.2: Guideline 5)
Not applicable
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) Not applicable
-53-
Exhibit 1
I I I I I I I I I I f------
--
-
-
--
>-----
Frenchman's Bay -
Oklahoma Drive Public School >-----
t-----...... -""~
I ~ I ""O cu 0 _Subject _ 0:::
~ Lands Q) ::::,
> ..c -\-·.:: en
0 -t
~ cu ~ \ ~ Q)
0 ~ u cu ui > ◄ • > ~ -" Mink Avenue ::::, C 0 ::::,
~x-~~ CD E Q) c.. 0 .c .c u -Cl)
U)
v----------Q) s
~
/4ce~\ rf
'f.
Sunrise Avenue
V1/ '
""O --cu C><S) <S)'i-0 "; 0:::
~ ::::,
I ..c en -t [~ I cu ~
v V
'-./ /y
~ Tullo Street
( ') rr:,._
af:j of Location Map
File: MV 05/25 PlCKERlNG Applicant: C. Van der Vliet
City Development Municipal Address:664 West Shore Boulevard
@ The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: Date: Jan. 13, 2025 Department @ Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.,@ Her Majesty the Queen in
Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;@ Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its SCALE: 1:2,500 I suppliers. All rights reserved.,@ Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. THIS ISNOTAPLANOF SURVEY.
L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\MV\2025\MV 05--25\MV 05--25\MV 05--25.aprx -54-
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
2
to
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
d
e
p
t
h
,
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
fr
o
m
t
h
e
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
f
r
o
n
t
y
a
r
d
West Shore Boulevard
se
t
b
a
c
k
t
o
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
w
a
l
l
o
f
a
dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
:
f
o
r
l
o
t
s
wi
t
h
d
e
p
t
h
s
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
40
me
t
r
e
s
:
1
8
.
9
m
e
t
r
e
s
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Su
n
r
o
o
m
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
D
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
De
t
a
c
h
e
d
Ga
r
a
g
e
Existing Porch
to
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
l
o
t
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
3
8
.
4
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
Fi
l
e
N
o
:
MV
0
5
/
2
5
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
C.
V
a
n
d
e
r
V
l
i
e
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
66
4
W
e
s
t
S
h
o
r
e
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
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
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
7
,
2
0
2
5
-55-
Exhibit 3
Submitted West (Rear) Elevation
File No: MV 05/25
Applicant: C. Van der Vliet
Municipal Address: 664 West Shore Boulevard
Contact The City of Pickering City Development Department for Digital Copies of
this Plan. Date: January 27, 2025
-56-
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
4
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
S
o
u
t
h
(
S
i
d
e
)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
N
o
:
MV
0
5
/
2
4
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
C.
V
a
n
d
e
r
V
l
i
e
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
66
4
W
e
s
t
S
h
o
r
e
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
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
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
7
,
2
0
2
5
-57-
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
5
Su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
N
o
r
t
h
(
S
i
d
e
)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
l
e
N
o
:
MV
0
5
/
2
4
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
:
C.
V
a
n
d
e
r
V
l
i
e
t
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
66
4
W
e
s
t
S
h
o
r
e
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
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
:
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
7
,
2
0
2
5
-58-