HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 23, 1994
~'!lo OF PIC
....0 ~
~-~
~ Di~~
..
MINUTES of the 3rd meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held in
the Committee Room of the Pickering Civic Complex on Wednesday,
February 23, 1994
PRESENT:
Ms. S. Archer, Chairperson
Mrs. D. Kerr
Mrs. C. Scorer
--
ALSO PRESENT:
Mrs. Eva McDougall, Secretary-Treasurer
Mr. Jeffrey Cole, Planner
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, seconded by and carried unanimously-
That the minutes of the 2nd meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held February 3, 1994, be
adopted.
'-"
3. PICA 8/94 to 18/94 inclusive - 983963 Ontario Limited
Lots 1 to 11 inclusive, Plan 40M-1561
Also known as 79,81,83,85,87,89,91,93,
95, 97 and 99 Twyn Rivers Drive, respectively
** applications deferred from meeting of February 2, 1994
The applicant requests relief from the provisions of Section 5.(1)(b)(iii) of amending By-law
2287/86 to Zoning By-law 3036, to permit the establishment of front yard depths of 6.0 metres to
be provided by the proposed dwellings on Lots 1 to 11 inclusive, Plan 40M-1561; whereas the
by-law requires that a dwelling provide a front yard depth of7.5 metres.
The applicant requests these variance applications in order to obtain building permits to construct
dwellings on the subject properties.
Mr. C. Marshall representing the applicant was present to represent the application. Mr. S. Janes,
108 Twyn Rivers Drive, was also present.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning
'-" Department; Town of Pickering, Department of Public Works; Mrs. B. Gummow, 121 Twyn
Rivers Drive, Pickering; Mr. S. Janes, 108 Twyn Rivers Drive, Pickering; and Mrs. T. Nuspl,
140 Woodview Drive, Pickering.
Mr. Marshall advised the Committee variances are now only required for lots 1,2,5,6,9 and 10,
40M-1561. He also advised the applicant could provide landscape berms near the perimeter of
the lots. Mr. Marshall displayed to the Committee a plan showing the variety of housing types
and setbacks for the subject lots. He advised that discussions were held with three residents in
the area, and that they seem satisfied with the plans as shown.
Page 12
Mr. Janes advised that he is generally satisfied with the plans as now shown by Mr. Marshall.
He would like to see the windows made opaque in the garage doors. He suggested that it would
be best to try and match housing types with the north side of Twyn Rivers Drive, and particularly
did not feel a Victorian type home would be suitable in the area.
Mr. Marshall requested a refund for the application fees paid for the lots that do not require a
variance. Ms. Archer advised that a decision would be made in camera regarding the possible
refund of the application fees.
'-' MOTION: (in camera) Moved by Mrs. Scorer and seconded by Mrs. Kerr and carried that the
application fees not be refunded on the lots not requiring a variance.
DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer and seconded by Mrs. Kerr and carried that-
applications, PICA 8/94, 9/94, 12/94, 13194, 16/94 and 17/94 inclusive by 983963 Ontario
Limited (Lots 1,2, 5,6, 9 and 10, 40M-1561), 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 Section 5.(1)(b)(iii) of amending By-law 2287/86 to Zoning By-law 3036
subject to the following conditions:
1. That these variances apply only to the dwellings, with garage entrances accessed by "L"
shaped driveways, as shown with the plan submitted tonight (Feb. 23/94); and
2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits for the subject properties, the owner
receive updated siting and architectural design approval for each dwelling unit on each lot,
identifying architectural treatments including windows in the side walls of garages facing
the street, and landscaping in the front yard, all to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning.
and that applications, PICA 10194, 11/94, 14/94, 15/94 and 18/94 inclusive, by 983963 Ontario
Limited (Lots 3, 4, 7, 8 and II, 40M-1561), as outlined, be REFUSED, on the grounds that the
applications are inappropriate for desirable development of the lands.
...
4. PICA 20/94 - Landford Dixie South Ltd.
Lot 40R, Plan 40M-1706
Also known as 1170 Windgrove Square
The applicant requests relief from the provisions of amending By-law 3686/91, to Zoning
By-law 3036 as follows:
1. Section 5.(2)(b)(v)ofthe By-law to permit the establishment 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 2.7 metre flankage side yard width.
2. Section 5.(2)(b)(vii) of the By-law to permit the establishment of a maximum lot coverage of
40.8 percent for the subject property, whereas the By-law limits the lot coverage of the
buildings on the lot to 40 percent.
The applicant requests this variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a
dwelling on the subject property.
-..
Mr. Nigel O'Neill, representing the applicant, was present to represent the application.
Mr. R. Chrabalowski, 1171 Windgrove Square was present in objection to the application.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning
Department and a letter received from Mr. K. Raymond, 1180 Windgrove Square, Pickering in
objection to the application.
Mr. O'Neill advised the Committee that an Offer to Purchase had been accepted for the proposed
type of dwelling on the subject lot. He advised the Committee that the boulevard is quite large,
and therefore the home would not be too close to the road. He added that a variance for an
increase in .8 percent lot coverage is not major.
Page 13
Mrs. Kerr asked why the garage was proposed to be located on the flankage side of the lot.
Mr. O'Neill indicated that they would have a problem with the windows if the design was
reversed.
Mr. Chrabalowski indicated he was opposed to the variance for the following reasons: too large
of a dwelling for a comer lot; dwelling should be built to comply with by-laws; creates a
dangerous situation for driveway safety; and is not in the best interest of the community.
DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Kerr and seconded by Mrs. Scorer and carried that-
......,.,
this application, PICA 20194, by Landford Dixie South Ltd., as outlined, be REFUSED on the
grounds that the variances for the proposed flankage side yard width and lot coverage are
inappropriate and undesirable development of the lands, and the proposed dwelling is too large
for the subject property and oriented in such a manner that the zoning by-law cannot be met.
5. PICA 21/94 - Landford Dixie South Ltd.
Lot 42L, Plan 40M-1706
Also known as 1160 Windgrove Square
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 a minimum 1.0 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 2.7 metre flankage side yard width.
The applicant requests this variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a
dwelling on the subject property.
Mr. Nigel O'Neill, representing the applicant, was present to represent the application.
Mr. R. Chrabalowski, 1171 Windgrove Square was present in objection to the application.
'-"
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning
Department.
Mr. O'Neill indicated that the boulevards are quite large and that the reduction in flankage side
yard width would not be major. He added that the 1.0 metre reduction is at the rear of the
proposed dwelling. He added that the proposed dwelling could not be moved to 0.6 metres from
the other side of the lot line as 1.2 metres is required by the Building Code to permit windows on
that side of the dwelling. Mr. O'Neill noted that a the rear yard would probably be fenced, and
therefore the variance would not be noticeable. He also advised the Committee if the proposed
home was reversed, that the windows would not be appropriate for the dwelling.
Mr. Chrabalowski indicated he was opposed to the variance application as he felt the dwelling
was too large for the subject lot.
DECISION: (decision made in camera) Moved by Mrs. Scorer and seconded by Mrs. Kerr and
carried that -
this application, PICA 21/94, by Landford Dixie South Ltd., as outlined, be REFUSED on the
grounds that the variance is major in nature, inappropriate and undesirable development of the
lands and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of Sections 5.(2)(b)(v) of Zoning
'-' By-law 3036, as amended by Zoning By-law 3686/91; the property would be overdeveloped and
not of a design that suits a comer lot; and the applicant could not accept a 1.6 metre reduced
flankage yard width and a 1.0 metre reduced flankage yard width is too great a reduction in the
flankage side yard.
Page 14
6. PICA 22/94 - M. and L. McConkey
Part of Lot 36, Plan 12 (Part 1, 40R-831O)
Also known as 5022 Barber Street
The applicants request relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law 3037 from the following:
1. Section 8.2.1 of the By-law to permit the continuance of a front yard depth of 8.2 metres
.-... provided by the existing dwelling on the subject property, whereas the By-law requires that a
dwelling provide a front yard depth of9.0 metres.
2. Section 5.18(a) of the By-law to permit the continuance of the accessory structure (shed) to
be located 0.4 metres from the north lot line, whereas the By-law requires that all accessory
buildings shall be erected in the rear yard and shall be not less than 1.0 metres from any lot
line.
The applicants have requested 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 to construct
an addition to the dwelling on the property.
Mr. McConkey, the applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation
was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning
Department and Region of Durham, Health Department.
Mr. McConkey advised the Committee that he was informed only a verbal policy eXists that all
properties in the Town must be brought into compliance before a building permit may be issued.
Mr. McConkey was concerned that if he applied to do anything else in future on his property,
then perhaps he would need another variance. Mr. Cole explained that through the public
process, Mr. McConkey would be notified of any intent to change the zoning by-laws in the area.
--
DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Kerr and seconded by Mrs. Scorer and carried that-
this application, PICA 22/94, by M. and L. McConkey, 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,
the Pickering District Plan, and Sections 8.2.1 and 5.18(a) of Zoning By-law 3037 subject to the
following condition:
1. That the proposed variances apply only to the dwelling and accessory structure as shown with
this variance application.
7. PICA 24/94 - 983963 Ontario Ltd.
Lot 12, Plan 40M-1563
Also known as 83 Woodview Drive
The applicant requests relief from the provisions Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by Zoning
By-law 2287/86 from the following:
-- 1. Section 5.(1)(b)(iii) of the By-law to establish a minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres to
be provided by the proposed dwelling on the subject property, whereas the By-law requires
that a dwelling provide a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres.
2. Section 5.(1 )(b )(iv) of the By-law to establish a minimum east side yard width of 1.2 metres
to be provided by the proposed garage on the subject property, whereas the By-law requires
that a dwelling provide minimum side yard widths of 1.8 metres.
The applicant has requested this variance application in order to obtain a building permit to
construct a dwelling with an attached garage on the subject property.
Page 15
Mr. Craig Marshall, representing the applicant, was present to represent the application. No
further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning
Department and Region of Durham, Health Department.
Mr. Marshall advised the Committee that most homes in the area have three car garages. He
stated that they tried to redesign the proposed house to avoid a variance situation, but due to the
irregular shape of the lot an alternate design could not be accomplished.
~
DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer and seconded by Mrs. Kerr and carried that-
this application, PICA 24/94, by 983963 Ontario Ltd., as outlined, be APPROVED on the
grounds that the front yard depth and side yard width 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 5.(1)(b)(iii) and
Section 5.(1)(b)(iv) of amending By-law 2287/86 to Zoning By-law 3036 subject to the
following condition:
1. That the proposed variances apply only to the dwelling as generally shown with this
application.
8. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer, seconded by Mrs. Kerr and carried unanimously-
That the 3rd meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:45 p.m. and the next
regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, March 16, 1994.
~
,)
/? ~~Cc c~
DAT~
/6/ /~H;~
/
~ Ii1cL-.
CHAIRMAN
-.-r.y, '5{/ /)
*i:.-^/ A.:- ~-.;~ Jd-Cc.-/
SECRETARY - TREASURER
~