HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 24, 1996
'-"
"'"
'-"
"
~~ OF PIc.
,,0 ~
~__l
~ ~,*; Cl
-
MINUTES of the 5th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held in the Committee
Room ofthe Pickering Civic Complex on Wednesday, April 24, 1996.
PRESENT:
Mr. C. Young, Chairman
Councillor Rick Johnson
Mr. N. DiLecce
Mr. S. Smith
Mr. P. White
ALSO PRESENT:
Mr. J. Cole, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
Mrs. T. Reid, Planning Department
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Committee Room of the Civic Complex.
1. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
There were no matters arising from the minutes.
2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
MOTION: Moved by Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Smith, and carried unanimously-
That the minutes of the 4th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held April 3, 1996, be
adopted.
3. PICA -19/96 - K. & W. Wilbur
Lot 63, Plan 40M-1735
Also known as 105 Thicket Crescent
Town of Pickering
The applicants request relief from the provIsion of Section 6.2( d)(ii)(A) of amending
By-law 4271/93 to By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of an east side yard width of
0.94 metres; whereas, the by-law requires a side yard width of 1.2 metres on one side of the
dwelling and 0.6 metres on the other side of the dwelling.
The applicants request this variance application in order to bring the subject property into
compliance with the provisions of the zoning by-law.
The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering
Planning Department.
Mr. W. Wilbur, owner, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of, or in objection to the application.
Mr. Wilbur requested clarification on the reason his property required a minor variance.
Mr. Cole responded that a recently submitted survey indicated that du.e to a siting error
when the dwelling was constructed, the east side yard width is 0.94 metres; whereas the
by-law requires a side yard width of 1.2 metres on one side of' the dw~lling and 0.6 metres
on the other side. The variance application is required in order to bring his property into
compliance with the zoning by-law.
DECISION: Moved by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. White and carried unanimously
that -
this application PICA 19/96, by K. & W. Wilbur, as outlined, be APPROVED on the
grounds that the proposed side yard width variance is minor in nature, appropriate for the
desirable development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of
the Official Plan, and Section 6.2(d)(ii)(A) of amending By-law 4271/93 to By-law 3036,
subject to the following condition:
1. That the 0.94 metre east side yard width variance apply only to the eastern wall of
the existing attached garage on the subject lot on the date of this decision.
'-
4. PICA - 20/96 - M. & S. Caruso
Part of Lot 10, Plan 282 (Part 2, 40R-16216)
Also known as 1805 W oodview Avenue
Town of Pickering
The applicants request relief from the following provisions of the by-law:
Section 5.18(a) of By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of an existing accessory structure
(frame shed) to be located 0.9 metres from the south property line, whereas the by-law
requires all accessory structures to be located a minimum of 1.0 metres from all lot lines.
Section 5.18(e) of By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of an existing accessory structure
(frame shed) having a total lot coverage of 8.32 percent; whereas, the by-law requires that
all accessory structures on the lot not exceed 5 percent coverage of the total lot area.
The applicants request this variance application in order to bring the subject property into
compliance with the provisions of the zoning by-law.
The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering
Planning Department.
'-'
Mr. M. Caruso, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation
was present in favour of, or in objection to the application.
Councillor Johnson asked Mr. Caruso if he was aware of the Planning Department's
comments, and whether he was in agreement with them. Mr. Caruso indicated that he was
in agreement.
DECISION: Moved by Councillor Johnson and second.ed by Mr. Smith and carried
unanimously that-
this application PICA 20/96, by M. & S. Caruso, as outlined, be APPROVED on the
grounds that the proposed accessory structure setback from the south lot line and lot
coverage variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the
land, and in keeping with the general purpose and intent of the Official Plan and
Section 5.18(a) and 5.18(e) of Zoning By-law 3036 subject to the following condition:
1. That these variances apply only to the accessory structure in existence on the date of
this decision.
.....
31
5. PICA - 21/96 - T. & J. Filer
Lot 69, and Part of Lot 70, Plan 21
Also known as 462 Churchwin Street
Town of Pickering
The applicants request relief from the following provisions of the by-law:
Section 5.(I)(b)(iii) of amending By-law 2677/88 to permit a front yard depth of 6.03 metres
to be provided by a proposed porch with steps to be constructed at the front of the existing
dwelling; whereas, the by-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 9.0 metres.
......
Section 5.18(a) of By-law 3037 to permit the continuance of a 0.41 metre setback from the
rear (north) property line provided by an existing accessory structure (frame garage);
whereas, the by-law requires all accessory structures to be located in the rear yard, no less
than 1.0 metres from any lot line.
Section 5.18(a) of By-law 3037 to permit an existing accessory structure (frame shed) to
continue to provide a zero metre setback from the west side lot line, and to permit the
existing structure to be located in the west side yard.
The applicants request this variance application in order .to bring the existing accessory
structures on the subject property into compliance with the zoning by-law and to allow
building permits to be issued for construction of the proposed addition to the rear of the
subject dwelling, and proposed porch addition to the front of the subject dwelling.
The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering
Planning Department.
Mr. and Mrs. Filer, owners, and Mr. Peter Winfeld, agent, were present to represent the
application.
Mrs. Filer indicated concerns with the Planning Department's comments regarding the
accessory shed on the west side property line. She stated that it had been in existence since
the dwelling was constructed.
'Itw.
Mr. Cole outlined the four tests of the Committee of Adjustment indicating that the
accessory shed in the existing location does not pass the four tests; therefore, the Planning
Department was not in a position to support the variance and consider it minor in nature.
Mrs. Filer indicated that the frame shed could be removed or replaced at a later date, and
is currently being used as a garden shed.
Councillor Johnson asked Mr. Filer if he had received. any comments from abutting
neighbours. Mr.Filer responded that no negative comments had been received and stated
that the neighbour to the west of the subject property was happy with the location of the
shed, as it acts as a buffer between the two properties.
Councillor Johnson then inquired as to whether L.A.C.A.C. had been contacted, and
Mr. Cole indicated that they had been contacted through the building permit process.
Mr. Winfeld added that the Heritage Committee had previously approved the additions to
the existing dwelling.
Mr. Filer indicated that it was his understanding that all existing structures on the
property were considered heritage designation; and therefore, were legal non-conforming.
'-'
Mr. DiLecce asked for clarification from Mr. Cole on this issue. Mr. Cole indicated that
although the Whitevale Community is designated as heritage, only few properties are
exempt from that designation; however, the subject property is not in that category, and he
was not certain if the designation also applied to accessory structures on the subject
property.
32
Mr. White then asked if the Committee could approve the application subject to the
heritage designation of the accessory shed being further researched. Mr. Cole responded
that this could be difficult because the shed straddles the property line, leaving the
property to the west in non-compliance. He indicated that although the current neighbour
considers the shed a buffer, any subsequent property owners may not share that thought.
Mr. White then asked the Filers if they would have any objection to relocating the
accessory shed within the next two years. The Filers indicated that two years would give
them ample time to relocate or rebuild the existing shed.
'-
DECISION: Moved by Mr. White and seconded by Mr. Johnson and carried unanimously
that -
This application PICA 21/96, by T. & J. Filer, be APPROVED on the grounds that the
proposed front yard depth variance and the proposed accessory structure setback from the
rear lot line, and the proposed accessory structure setback from the west side lot line are
minor in nature, appropriate for the desirable development of the land, and in keeping
with the general intent and purpose of the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering
District Plan, and Sections 5.(I)(b)(iii) and 5.18(a) of Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by
By-law 2677/88, subject to the following conditions:
1. That these variances apply only to the existing accessory structure (garage) in the
rear yard and to the existing accessory structure (frame shed) in the west side yard
in existence on the date of this decision, and to the front yard depth provided by the
proposed addition to the front of the dwelling as generally outlined on the
applicants' submitted plan.
2. That the existing accessory structure (frame shed) in the west side yard be relocated
1.0 metres from the west side lot line within two years of the date of this decision, or
this decision shall become null and void.
'-"
6.
PICA - 22/96 - T. & V. Chimienti
Lot 17, Plan 40M-1450
Also known as 273 Lawson Street
Town of Pickering
The applicants request relief from the prOVISIon of Section 5.(I)(b)(vi)B of amending
By-law 2187/86 to By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of a rear yard depth of
15.1 metres provided by the existing dwelling on the subject property; whereas, the by-law
requires a minimum rear yard depth of 17.06 metres.
The applicants request this variance application in order to bring the subject property into
compliance with the provisions of the zoning by-law.
The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering
Planning Department.
Ms. Chimienti, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation
was present in favour of, or in objection to the application.
Ms. Chimienti indicated that she was in agreement with the comments provided by the
Planning Department.
'-"
33
DECISION: Moved by Councillor Johnson and seconded by Mr. Smith and carried
unanimously that -
this application PICA 22/96, by T. & V. Chimienti, as outlined, be APPROVED on the
grounds that the rear yard depth variance is minor in nature, appropriate for the desirable
development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the
Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan, and Section 5.(1 )(b )(vi)B of
amending By-law 2187/86 to By-law 3036, subject to the following condition:
1. That this variance apply only to the rear yard depth provided by the existing
residential dwelling on the subject lot.
......
7. PICA - 23/96 - D. & A. Douglas
South Part of Lot 7, Concession 7
Also known as 3240 Concession 7
Town of Pickering
The applicants request relief from the provision of Section 6.2.1 of By-law 3037 to permit:
a) a lot frontage of 57.1 metres; whereas, the by-law requires a minimum lot frontage of
60 metres.
b) lot area of 0.26 hectares; whereas, the by-law requires a minimum lot area of 0.8
hectares.
c) a rear yard depth of 10.66 metres; whereas, the by-law requires a minimum rear yard
depth of 12 metres.
The applicant requests this variance application in order to bring the subject property into
compliance with the provisions of the zoning by-law and to obtain a building permit for the
proposed second-storey addition.
...... The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering
Planning Department.
Mr. and Mrs. Douglas, owners, were present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of, or in objection to the application. Mr. Douglas
indicated that he was prepared to answer any questions the Committee may have in
connection to the variance request.
DECISION: Moved by Councillor Johnson and seconded by Mr. White and carried
unanimously that -
this application PICA 23/96, by D. and A. Douglas, as outlined, be APPROVED on the
grounds that the lot frontage, lot area, and rear yard depth variances are minor in nature,
appropriate for the desirable development of the land, and in keeping with the general
intent and purpose of the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan, and
Section 6.2.1 of By-law 3037.
8.
PICA 24/96 -1127229 Ontario Limited
Part of Lot 42, Plan 40M-1706 (Part 1, 40R-14525)
Also known as 1160 Windgrove Square
Town of Pickering
'-'
The applicant requests relief from the provIsions of Section 5.(2)(b )(v) of amending
By-law 3686/91 to Zoning By-law 3036 to permit the establishment of a minimum 1.8 metre
flankage side yard width to be provided by the proposed dwelling on the subject lot;
whereas the by-law requires that a dwelling provide a minimum flankage side yard width
of 2.7 metres.
34
The applicant requests this variance application in order to obtain a building permit to
construct a detached dwelling on the subject property which would not comply with the
flankage side yard width requirement of the by-law.
The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering
Planning Department.
Mr. Nigel O'Neill, agent, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of, or in objection to the application.
'-'
Mr. O'Neill expressed concern with the wording of the Planning Department's report
regarding the upgraded architectural treatments. Mr. O'Neill indicated that the owners
had been cleaning up the appearance of the development since acquiring the property in
May 1995. He distributed a handout to the Committee demonstrating the proposed
architectural design of the dwelling, and explained that he felt this proposal was sufficient,
and did not need upgrading as it corresponds with the current streetscape of the
neighbourhood.
Mr. O'Neill also requested an extension for the issuance of a building permit. He stated
that since the market was currently slow, he did not want to fall behind and have to appear
before the Committee of Adjustment within one year because the variance has lapsed.
DECISION: Moved by Councillor Johnson and seconded by Mr. DiLecce and carried
unanimously that -
this application PICA 24/96, by 1127229 Ontario Limited, as amended, be APPROVED on
the grounds that the proposed flankage side yard width variance to be minor in nature,
desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general
purpose and intent of the Official Plan and Section 5.(2)(b)(v) of amending Zoning By-law
3686/91 subject to the following conditions:
1.
That the flankage side of the dwelling incorporate architectural treatments
including windows, entrances, materials and rooflines which address the flankage
streetscape to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
'W'
2. That a building permit be issued for the dwelling on the subject property within
twenty-four (24) months of the date of this decision, or this approval will become
null and void.
9. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously that-
The 5th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:45 p.m. and the next
regular meeting ofthe Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, May 15, 1996.
frJ 7':'- /Z)) /996
DATE
j~~.
AssfsT SECRET ARY- TREASURER
'-'
35