Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 5, 1995 ~~ OF PiC ,,0 ~ ~--~ ~ di1~ Q .. MINUTES of the 9th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held in the Council ... Chambers ofthe Pickering Civic Complex on Wednesday, July 5,1995. PRESENT: Mr. J. C. Young, Chairperson Mr. S. Smith Mr. P. White Mr. N. Dilecce ALSO PRESENT: Mr. J. Cole, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Mrs. P. Healey, Planning Department The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers ofthe Civic Complex. 1. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES Mr. Young noted that in the minutes of the meeting of June 14, 1995, the date of the next meeting should read Wednesday, July 5,1995. 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES '-" MOTION: Moved by Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously- That the minutes of the 7th and 8th meetings of the Committee of Adjustment held May 24, 1995 and June 14, 1995, be adopted. 3. PICA 42/95 - Discovery Place Limited Part of Lot 21, Concession 1 (40R-15318, Part 3) (South of Highway No.2, east of Glenanna Road) APPLICATION The applicant requests relief from the provisions of: 1. Section 5.(I)(b)(ii) of amending By-law 2349/87 to By-law 3036 to permit a two-storey increase in maximum building heights, resulting in 14 storeys for building "A" and 16 storeys for building "B"; whereas the By-law requires a maximum building height of 12 storeys for building "A" and 14 storeys for building "B". 2. Section 5.(I)(b)(iii) of amending By-law 2349/87 to By-law 3036, as varied by PICA 56/92, to permit an increase in maximum residential lot coverage to 35%; whereas the By-law requires a maximum residential lot coverage of 30%. '-" 3. Section 5.(I)(b)(vi)B of amending By-law 2349/87 to By-law 3036 to reduce minimum parking requirements to 1.30 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residents (541 parking spaces for residents) and 0.20 parking spaces per dwelling unit for visitors (83 parking spaces for visitors); whereas the By-law requires a minimum 1.50 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residents (624 parking spaces required for residents) and 0.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit for visitors (104 parking spaces required for visitors).. 4. Section 2.2.1 of By-law 3036 to reduce the minimum width of a two-way traffic aisle to 6.0 metres; whereas the By-law requires that the minimum width of an aisle used to gain access to a parking stall shall be 6.5 metres for two-way traffic.. The applicant requests these variances in order to permit a residential apartment development on the subject property which does not comply with the above-specified provisions of the current zoning by-law. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. w Mr. Dawson, of McCarthy, Tetrault, Solicitor for the applicant, Mr. Attila Burka, of Attila Burka Architects Inc., and Mr. S. Upton, of Tridel, were present to represent the application. A large number of residents (approximately 50) of Durham Condominiums #93, #106 and #139 were present for this application. Mr. Burka went into some detail of how the project had been built in phases and that this was the third phase of the project which was started in the 1980's. He mentioned that to meet the requirements of the by-law regarding the minimum number of units required for the site would result in small unit sizes and, in an effort to meet the demands of the market, believed that extending the envelope would have a nominal and minor impact on the surrounding area. Mr. G. Ashe, President of DCC #139, 1400 The Esplanade, indicated that the proposed variances seem to be substantial changes to the by-law and thought that they should be handled as a by-law amendment. He also indicated that he did not disagree with the bigger units but was not in favour of any reduction in the visitor parking or the size of the two-way traffic aisle. Mr. J. Nichol, 1890 Valley Farm Road (DCC #93), expressed his concern with the shadow created by the increased size of the buildings. He mentioned that, with the increased height of these buildings, the shadow study in June shows a shadow on the swimming pool and ......, sun deck of 1880 and 1890 Valley Farm Road and the shadow study in March and September leaves the people residing on the 4th floor and lower floors of 1890 Valley Farm Road without sun for these months. Mr. Burka displayed a number of drawings illustrating the shadow cast by the sun at different times of the day. Mr. T. McAlister, 1880 Valley Farm Road (DCC #106), wondered how many suites in the original plan were larger and how many suites will be larger in the proposed plan. Mr. Burka indicated that in the original plan the corner units were large and the intermediate units were small - probably 50/50 and in the new plan, all the units are large. Mrs. B. McAlister, 1880 Valley Farm Road (DCC #106), wondered if a study of the wind/funnel effect the new buildings may create had been undertaken. Mr. Burka indicated that the wind study done originally indicated that a low-rise component would have some effect on reducing wind and that canopies and shrubs would help break down the pedestrian wind speed. Mr. Young questioned the footprint of the building now as compared to the previously proposed building and the shadow effect on the surrounding buildings. Mr. Dawson responded that on the material in the staff report regarding shadow diagrams the shaded area indicates the incremental change. Mr. Nichol mentioned that the original building ran in line with the Casitas (1400 The Esplanade) and that it was originally a 50 foot shorter building. He mentioned that the sun has an effect on the heating of this building and any loss of sunlight will increase their fuel costs. -- 47 Mr. DiLecce wondered which building would be constructed first and Mr. Burka indicated that it hadn't been decided but that it would probably be the one to the east. Mr. DiLecce wondered if it was necessary to continue the building envelope straight up or if it would be a viable option to set the top floors back in increments. He also wondered about the feasibility of limiting the number of stories for the most eastern building to 12 but permitting the additional two stories to the most western building. Mr. S. Upton, of Tridel, indicated that they are trying to produce greater height at the westerly part of the lot which would result in minimum impact of shadows to the east in the recreation area. Mr. Smith expressed concern regarding the reduction in parking and Mr. Cole indicated w that the two existing Tridel towers have the same parking requirements as the property subject of the current application is required to have now. Mr. Smith wondered if the parking was sufficient and Mr. Cole responded that the visitor parking was more of a concern than the resident parking. Mr. Nichol commented about the circulation notice procedure and indicated that giving notice to the condominium corporation probably complies with the Planning Act requirements but felt that notice should be mailed to each individual unit. Mr. Cole indicated that we are bound by the Planning Act (which requires circulation to an area within 60 metres of the subject property) as to who we circulate the notices. He also indicated that insofar as condominiums, we are only required to circulate to the President of the condominium corporation and then they are responsible to advise the individual unit owners. Mr. White expressed concern about the reduction in the traffic aisle and wondered about the number of access and egress points. Mr. Burka indicated that there is separate underground access to each unit which is subject to site plan approval. Mr. Dawson expressed concern regarding Planning Stafrs recommendation concerning the approval of Town Council to amend the development guidelines in the Town Centre Community Main Central Area North Development Plan. He felt that this condition should be deleted as the development plan is not a statutory planning instrument but only an instrument of Council. .." Mr. Young felt that the Committee did not have enough information on this application to be totally objective. He requested that the Planning Department ensure that the Committee has all the available information on this application and that Tridel arrange a meeting with the condominium owners in an effort to answer any questions concerning this application before the next meeting. Mr. Upton indicated that Tridel had no problem with a deferment but did request that the condominium owners choose a representative to contact them regarding a meeting. MOTION: Moved by Mr. White and seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 42/95, by Discovery Place Ltd., as outlined, be DEFERRED until the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment on July 26, 1995, to provide an opportunity for the condominium owners and Tridel representatives to meet. 4. PICA 43/95 - P. & B. Burden Lot 3, Plan M-14 Also known as 1356 Poprad Avenue Town of Pickering ...... Application withdrawn. 48 5. PICA 44/95 - R. & J. Smith Part of Lot 1, Block E, Plan 65 Also known as 661 Front Street Town of Pickering APPLICATION The applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 10.2.3 of By-law 2511 to permit the establishment of a rear yard depth of 1.81 metres; whereas the By-law requires that a dwelling provide a minimum 7.5 metre rear yard depth. w Approval of this variance application is required in order to obtain a building permit for a proposed carport addition to the northeast side (rear) of the existing dwelling on the lot. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Mr. Smith was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application Mr. Smith indicated that the intent,ion of the carport was mainly to allow the parking of two cars and that the shed was going to be removed as soon as possible. DECISION: Moved by Mr. White and seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 44/95, by R. & J. Smith, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that even though the reduction in the rear yard depth is substantial, the variance is minor in nature, appropriate and desirable development of the lands, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of Section 10.2.3 of By-law 2511, subject to the following condition: -- 1. That the carport remain open on three sides and that the owners satisfy the Planning Department that the existing shed in the rear yard is relocated to comply with all by-law requirements. 6. PICA 45/95 - C. Fleming Part of Lot 9, Concession 9 (North of Regional Road No.5, east ofWestney Road) Town of Pickering APPLICATION The applicant requests relief from the provisions of Section 5.6 of By-law 3037 to permit the continuance of a lot which does not front on an opened public street maintained at public expense; whereas the By-law states that no person shall erect or use any building on a lot which does not front on an opened public street maintained at public expense. Approval of this variance application is required in order to obtain a building permit for an addition to the existing dwelling on the subject lot. ~ The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Mr. C. Fleming was present to represent the application. Mr. G. Taylor, on behalf of Mrs. D. Hoskins, and Mr. S. Rankin were present for this application. Mr. Fleming indicated that he was having work done on the road for emergency vehicles. He mentioned that people have lived on this property for the last five years and that he had recently purchased the property and planned to enlarge the residence. 49 Mr. G. Taylor, representing Mrs. Hoskins, who owns the property immediately north of the property subject of this application wondered about the long term plans for the road as there are presently locked gates that do not permit them to access their property. Mr. Fleming advised that the gates were installed because of the dumping laws and that only the Ministry of the Environment and himself have keys but that there would be no problem with anyone else using the road and is prepared to provide a key to the gates to the property owners to the north. Mr. Cole mentioned that a copy of this decision is forwarded to the Legal Department and a legal agreement would be drawn up. He indicated that as this is an unopened road allowance, none of you have the right to use as access to your property unless an appropriate arrangement is made with the Town. ...... Mr. Rankin, owner of property to the east and south of the railroad, commented on the late receipt of the circulation notice but attributed it to Canada Post and expressed concern that there might be some change in the road allowance from the use it has now i.e. more frequent use. Mr. Cole indicated that the Town was not interested in creating a new road and that the existing road allowance acted as a driveway to access the property to the north.. DECISION: Moved by Mr.DiLecce and seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 45/95, by C. Fleming, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Durham Regional Official Plan and Section 5.6 of Zoning By-law 3037, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance does not come into effect until the owner satisfies the Town that emergency vehicles can access the subject property, and enters into an appropriate agreement with the Town acknowledging that garbage and recycling pick-up will not be extended along the unopened road allowance, requiring the owner to clear snow and maintain the access to the property to a standard adequate for emergency vehicle access at the owner's expense, and indemnifying the Town of all liability pertaining to the owner's use of the unopened road allowance. '-" 2. That the east property line of the subject property be deemed to be the front lot line. 7. PICA 46/95 - North Park Nursing Home Limited Part of Lot 30, Range 2, B.F.C. (40R-13001, Part 1) Also known as 534 Rodd Avenue Town of Pickering APPLICATION The applicant requests relief from the provisions of the following Sections of By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 2719: 1. Section 2.2.1 of By-law 2511 to reduce the minimum width of a two-way traffic aisle to 6.09 metres; whereas the By-law requires that the minimum width of an aisle used to gain access to a parking stall shall be 6.5 metres for two-way traffic. 2. Section 2.57 of By-law 2511 to permit parking spaces with a minimum area of 13.78 m2 (2.6 m x 5.3 m); whereas the By-law requires that a parking stall size provide a minimum area of 18 m2 (3m x 6 m). '-" 3. Section 5.21.2 a) of By-law 2511 to permit a maximum of 79% of the required parking to be located in the front yard; whereas the By-law limits front yard parking to 20% of the total required parking. The applicant requests these variances to bring the property into compliance with the Zoning By-law in order to obtain a building permit for a solarium addition to the existing building. 50 The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. He also indicated that the applicant has decided that they would only be requesting the variance covering the parking in the front yard. Mr. K. Issac of Victor J. Heinrichs Architect was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Mr. Issac indicated that the applicant was creating new parking in the front yard near the proposed new entrance and that he felt the comments received from the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority are under Site Plan Control and have been ..... discussed with Mrs. Taylor of the Planning Department. Mr. Cole responded that although the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority are right in submitting comments, they are more appropriately dealt with through the Site Plan approval process. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. White and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 46/95, by North Park Nursing Home, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the 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 5.21.2(a) of Zoning By-law 2511, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the existing facility with the revisions as generally proposed by the site plan submitted with this application, and that the owners receive final revised site plan approval for the development within one year of the date of this decision or the approval of this variance shall become null and void. 8. PICA 47/95 - A. & A. Alcock Lot 692, Plan M-19 Also known as 709 Yeremi Street Town of Pickering ...,. APPLICATION The applicants request relief from the provisions of: 1. Section 5.19 a) of By-law 2520.to permit the continuance of an accessory structure (garden shed) to be located closer than 1.0 metres to the north lot line in the rear yard of the subject property; whereas the By-law requires that all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building be erected in the rear yard not less than 1.0 metres from all lot lines 2. Section 7.2.3 of By-law 2520 to permit the continuance of a 1.47 metre south side yard width; whereas the By-law requires that a dwelling provide minimum side yard widths of 1.5 metres. 3. Section 7.2.6 of By-law 2520 to permit the continuance of a maximum coverage of 37.9 percent provided by the existing dwelling on the lot; whereas the By-law limits the lot coverage of all structures on a lot to 33 percent. ~ Approval of this variance application is required 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. D. J. Peirce, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.. 51 DECISION: Moved by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. DiLeece and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 47/95, by W. & A. Alcock, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the 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 Sections 5.19(a), 7.2.3, and 7.2.6 of Zoning By-law 2520, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the dwelling and shed in existence on the date of this decision. .... 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. DiLeece and carried unanimously that- The 9th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 9:20 p.m. and the next regular meeting ofthe Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, July 26,1995. DATE "w ,I~~'-------- AS"SI A T SECRETARY-TREASURER ~ 52