The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMarch 23, 2011• �TiTiiTi �i - • � �! . Committee of Adjustment Agenda Wednesday, March 23, 2011 7:00 pm Main Committee Room ��) (II) (III) (IV) Adoption of Agenda Adoption of Minutes from March 2, 2011 Reports 1 (Deferred at the March 2, 2011 meeting) P/CA 07/11 & P/CA 08/11 — W. Jeschke 1449 Old Forest Road (Part Lot 59, Lot 60, Plan 816, Part 1, 40R-7048) City of Pickering 2. P/CA 09/11 — C. Daniell 1979 Woodview Avenue (North Part Lot 18, Plan 329) City of Pickering 3. P/CA 10/11 — T. Kerr 1731 Spruce Hill Road (Part Lot 30, Plan 820, Part 1, 40R-9425) City of Pickering Adjournment Page Number 1-4 5-8 9-13 14-20 �4CCessibl� For information related to accessibility requirements please contact � Lesley Dunne P I C I� E� 1�N G T. 905.420.4660, extension 2024 TTY 905.420.1739 Email Idunne@cityofpickering.com C�t� o¢� Pending Adoption Present: Tom Copeland David Johnson Eric Newton Bill Utton Also Present: Ross Pym, Secretary-Treasurer Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Absent: Shirley Van Steen (I) (II) Adoption of Aqenda Moved by Bill Utton Seconded by Eric Newton Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 2, 2011 7:00 pm Main Committee Room That the agenda for the Wednesday, March 2, 2011 meeting be adopted. Carried Unanimously Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Bill Utton That the minutes of the 2"d meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, February 9, 2011 be adopted as amended. Carried Unanimously � l' �' � Q� C�� o� (III) Rep�rts 1. P/CA 06/11 - T. & R 1931 Glendale Drive (Lot 50, Plan 492) City of Pickering Charbonneau Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 2, 2011 7:00 pm Main Committee Room The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to permit a front yard depth of 6.5 metres to an existing enclosed porch and a side yard width of 0.5 metres to an existing shed, whereas the by-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres and minimum side yard width of 1.0 metres to an accessory building. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were also received from the City's Development Control Manager expressing no concerns. Trevor Charbonneau, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Trevor Charbonneau explained the previous property owner received approval for a Committee of Adjustment last year and failed to obtain a building permit and the application lapsed. Trevor Charbonneau also explained he fully intends to obtain a building permit if this new application is approved. In response to a question from a Committee member, Trevor Charbonneau indicated the construction of the enclosed porch is complete. Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 06111 by T. & R. Charbonneau, be Approved on the grounds that the front yard depth of 6.5 metres to the existing enclosed porch and side yard width of 0.5 metres to the existing shed are minor variances that are 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, subject to the following conditions: r. C�r.r o¢� Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes � � Wednesday, March 2, 2011 7:00 pm Main Committee Room 1. That these variances apply only to the front yard depth of 6.5 metres to the existing enclosed porch and a side yard width of 0.5 metres to the existing shed, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans with this application. 2. That the applicant obtains a building permit for the enclosed porch by the September 2, 2011 or this decision shall become null and void. Carried Unanimously 2. P/CA 07/11 & PCA 08/11 — W. Jeschke 1449 Old Forest Road (Part Lot 59, Lot 60, Plan 816, Part 1, 40R-7048) City of Pickering The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to permit a lot frontage of 14.7 metres (P/CA 07/11) and a lot frontage of 14.8 metres (P/CA 08/11), whereas the by-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to finalize a land severance application and to obtain building permits. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were also received from the City's Development Control Manager expressing no concerns. No representatian was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer explained the Region of Durham Land Division application process and how it relates to condition #2 of staff recommendations. Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Bill Utton That applications P/CA 07l11 & P/CA 08/11 by W. Jeschke, be Deferred to the next meeting to allow the owner or agent to be present for the decision. Carried Unanimously K' Cify o� � (IV) Adiournment Moved by Bill Utton Seconded by Tom Copeland Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 2, 2011 7:00 pm Main Committee Room That the 3�d meeting of 2011 the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:09 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, March 23, 2011. Carried Unanimously Date Chair Assistant Secretary-Treasurer n Q� Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 07/11 & P/CA 08/11 Meeting Date: March 23, 2011 (Deferred from the March 2, 2011 Meeting) From: Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner — Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications P/CA 07/11 & PICA 08/11 W. Jeschke 1449 Old Forest Road (Part Lot 59, Lot 60, Plan 816, Part 1, 40R-7048} City of Pickering Application: The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to permit a lot frontage of 14.7 metres (P/CA 07/11) and a lot frontage of 14.8 (P/CA 08/11), whereas the by-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to finalize a land severance application and to obtain building permits. Recommendation: The Planning & Development Department considers the lot frontage of 14.7 metres and 14.8 metres to be minor variances that are desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the OfFicial Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed severed properties, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans with this application. 2. That the owner receives final approval for land severance applications LD 001/11 and LD 002/11 or this decision shall be null and void. � �i Report P/CA 07/11 & P/CA OS/11 (Deferred from the March 2, 2011 meeting) Background: March 23, 2011 Page 2 Land Division applications LD001/11 & LD002/11 were conditionally approved by the Region of Durham Land Division Committee on January 12, 2011 for the proposed severances. One of the conditions of approval was the applicant obtain approval from the City of Pickering's Committee of Adjustment to allow for the reduced proposed lot frontages. This application was deferred from the March 2, 2011 Committee meeting to the March 23, 2011 because the applicant was not present. Comment: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Pickering Official Plan —"Urban Residential — Low Density Area" within the Woodland Neighbourhood Zoning By-law 3036 —"R4" — Fourth Density Zone Appropriateness of the Application Lot Frontage Variances • the intent of the minimum 15.0 metres lot frontage requirement in the by-law is to establish a lot width that will ensure compatibility of housing forms and an attractive streetscape for an area • the proposed lot frontages of 14.7 metres and 14.8 metres will be compatible with the existing lots fronting onto �Id Forest Road • the intent of the zoning by-law would be maintained Date of report: March 16, 2011 Comments prepared by: ` �� Mila Yeung Plannerl MY:RP:Id cofelre{wtls/M11/pca07-11 d pca08-11 dnterrod.doc Enclosures � G� Ross Pym, MCIP, PP Principal Planner — Development Review Q7 Information Compiled from Applicant's (� $ Submitted Plan P/CA 07111 & P/CA 08/11 W.Jeschke � �� O °' 4 � � � � � �O a LOT 61 69.99= ' Retained Lot 7.37!� 972.1.3 sy.m � ; -63. 37- � ;� LOT 60 � � � "rn 1 � To permit lot frontage of 14.7 metres (P/CA 07/11) � � T To permit lot frontage of 14.8 metres (P/CA 08/11) Seve��ed Lot 900. 36 sq. m 2.11- Seve�ed Lot LOT 58 � � � � iY This map was produced by the City of Pickering Planning & Development Depahment, Planning Informa[ion Services Mapping and Design, Feb. 16, 2011. �� C[�y D¢� Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 09/11 Meeting Date: March 23, 2011 From: Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner — Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 09/11 C. Daniell 1979 Woodview Avenue (North Part Lot 18, Plan 329) City of Pickering Application: The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 3537/05 and 7060/10 to permit a lot area of 440 square metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to finalize Land Division applications (LD 122/10, LD 123/10 and LD 124/10) for the creation of four residential lots on Woodview Avenue. Recommendation: The Planning & Development Department considers the lot area of 440 square metres to be a minor variance that is desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following conditions: � 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed lot as generally sited and outlined on the applicanYs submitted plans with this application. 2. That the owner receives final approva� for Land Division applications LD 122/10, LD 123/10 and LD 124/1� or this decision shall become null and void. Report P/CA 09/11 � Background: March 23, 2011 Page 2 Pickering City Council approved Zoning By-law Amendment application A 03/10 on June 21, 2010, to amend the zoning of the subject property to facilitate the creation of four residential lots having a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres. On December 13, 2010, Land Division applications LD 122/10, LD123/10 & LD124/10 were conditionally approved by the Land Division Committee for the creation of four residential lots. As a condition of approval, a Committee of Adjustment application is required for proposed Lot 4 in order to permit a lot area of 440 square metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres. Comment: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Pickering Official Plan —"Urban residential — Low Density Area and Open Space System — Natural Areas" within the Rouge park Neighbourhood Zoning By-law 3036 as amended by By-law 6537/05 and 7060/10 —"S1-14" Appropriateness of the Application • the intent of the minimum lot area requirement is to ensure a usable lot size that is compatible with the surrounding area • the proposed 440 square metres for the proposed lot is in keeping with the developing Woodview Avenue streetscape and the surrounding area • the proposed lots backs onto buffer lands and the Townline Provincially Significant Wetland Complex and the reduced lot area will not have adverse impact other residential lots • the intent of the zoning by-law would be maintained Input From Other Sources Development Control Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • no comments • no objection • the proposed minor variance will facilitate the protection of the adjacent wetland complex by allowing proposed Lot 4 to be configured in such a way so as to provide an appropriate environmental buffer from the wetland Report P/CA 09/11 Date of report: March 16, 2011 Comments prepared by: .,��,, Mila Yeung Planner I k \ � \ MY:RP:Id cofa/reports/2017 /pca09-11.doc Enclosures March 23, 2011 Page 3 � Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Principal Pfanner — Development Review 1 �. i� W � z W Q � W � � 0 � � 4 � : . "... 0 � � E 0 � � � LOT 3 0 �ri � .�■ . 28.5m LOT 4 ,+°�;•f`. , �•;;:x�^»e�i ��+: r Information Compiled from Applicant's Submitted Plan P/CA 09111 C. Daniell 73.9m LOT 1 RETAINED LOT 72.4m LOT 2 SEVEREDLOT 51.1m h� `�� ' a;' , , r, , .,, y`, / / ' � ..��, f� �� \��uwe , �� .�..� ..,..._._..,-t To permit a lot area of 440 square metres �-i � "�� w �. ...., . ,r, ,,_ _ _. % , ,.• �.. �� ,'' � � <�' 13 � P� �' � � ;, �� jV This map was produced by the Cily of Pickering Plannfng 8 �evebpment Department, Planning Infametion Services Mapping and �esign, Mar. 8, 2011. , ,;_ .. 'u"'��'�� 'a ""' •'• il':�.�� .m,.�' . ��i � C \ !� Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 10l11 Meeting Date: March 23, 2011 From: Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner — Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 10/11 T. Kerr 1731 Spruce Hill Road (Part Lot 30, Plan 820, Part 1, 40R-9425) City of Pickering Application: The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to permit an existing north side yard width of 0.3 metre and a proposed south side yard width of 1.0 metre to a proposed addition onto the detached dwelling, whereas the by-law requires a minimum side yard width of 1.8 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit. Recommendation: The Planning & Development Department considers the existing north side yard width of 0.3 metre to be a minor variance that is 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 and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to the existing dwelling unit, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans with this application. :,• The Planning & Development Department considers the south side yard width of 1.0 metre to the proposed addition onto the detached dwelling to be a major variance that is undesirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Refusal of the proposed variance. Report P/CA 10/11 March 23, 2011 Page 2 � � Comment: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Pickering Official Plan —"Urban Residential Area — Low Density Area" within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Zoning By-law 3036 —"R3" — Third Density Residential Appropriateness of the Application North Side Yard Width Variance • the intent of the minimum side yard widths of 1.8 metres on both sides of a dwelling are to provide an appropriate buffer space between structures on abutting properties and to provide appropriate access to the rear yard • the side yard width of 0.3 metres to the existing dwelling is an existing situation that would maintain the character of the surrounding area and provide an appropriate buffer between the existing dwelling and the abutting property • the intent of the zoning by-law would be maintained South Side Yard Width Variance • the intent of the minimum side yard widths of 1.8 metres on both sides of a dwelling is to provide an appropriate buffer space between structures on abutting properties and to provide appropriate access to the rear yard • the side yard width of 1.0 metre to a proposed new addition to the existing dwelling would not provide appropriate buffer between the abutting property and it would not provide appropriate access to the rear yard given the existing north side yard width is 0.3 metre •"R3" zoning requires a significant side yard width to the create a sense of openness between the dwellings that have significant lot frontages of 18 metres or greater • the lot standards in the by-law are proportional to the size of a lot, the subject property has a lot frontage of 21. 3 metres with an existing reduced north side yard width of 0.3 metre, therefore, there is no justification or support for a further reduced side yard of 1.0 metre on the other side • the applicant provided no planning rationale for the proposed south side yard width variance with the exception of wanting to save the existing south wall of the existing detached garage to which the City's Chief Building Official has expressed significant construction concerns (see attached) • the applicants proposed elevations for the dwelling do not appear to demonstrated that the existing south wall of the detached garage is being maintained • the intend of the zoning by-law would not be maintained and is not appropriate development of the property • the variance for a reduced south side yard width is not a minor variance Report P/CA 10/11 �� Input From Other Sources Chief Building Official Date of report: March 17, 2011 Comments prepared by: ✓1 V�� Mila Yeung Planner I MY:RP:Id cafelrePohs/201 Vpca10-11.tloc Enclosures March 23, 2011 Page 3 concerned with the appropriateness of demolishing the garage with the exception of the south wall during construction of the addition concerned with the feasibility and practicality of saving the south wall of the existing one storey garage through underpinning of the south wall to suit the proposed rear basement concerned with the proximity of the neighbouring building and the potential of undermining adjacent foundations a professional engineer must be retained to address all building design and construction which exceeds the scope of Part 9 of the Ontario Building Code the applicant should provide full details regarding the existing site conditions and the proposed construction procedures where adjacent properties may be impacted. In the absence of this information, it would be inadvisable to approve this application for a building permit or a minor variance (see attached) �O-� � Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner — Development Review �� 0 Q � � J J = E M U " � � � � Information Compiled from ApplicanYs Submitted Plan P/CA 10/11 T. Kerr 1.Om To permit a south side yard width of 1.0 metre jY This map was produced by the City of Pickering Planning & Development DepaAment, Planning Information Services Mapping and Design, Mar. 6, 2017. To: From � �'_" -�.. .�,�� , � ;�� 'ICKERIN{�..., ia�i BICENTFNNIAL 20�� Mila Yeung Plannerl Kyle Bentley Chief Building Official Copy: Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Building Comments . 1731 Spruce Hill Road - File: P/CA 10/11 t :) . � March 16, 2011 Further to your request for comments on the minor variance application for 1731 Spruce Hill Road, my comments are as follows: 1. The application appears to include the construction of a one-storey addition to the existing one-storey dwelling, which currently has a walk-out basement to the rear of the property. 2. There is one window identified on the south wall of the addition, which is recessed by 8 inches. The window area limits appear to conform with building code window size limit requirements for walls close to the property line. 3. Further review of the preliminary drawings indicates an existing garage to the south of the property. It is unclear from the drawings whether or not the garage has a basement level. Drawing A2 notes that the garage will be demolished, with the exception of the south wall. I would be concerned how the applicant intends to keep this wall in place during construction of the addition. If the existing garage is only one-storey, it would be necessary to underpin the existing south wall to suit the proposed rear basement. Underpinning is a very expensive and potentially impractical approach for the sake of preserving a one-storey wall. 4. The neighbouring residential dwelling south of 1731 Spruce Hill Road is close to the property line. It is unclear whether or not this neighbour's home has a basement or not. Construction for the proposed addition must take into account the proximity of the neighbouring buildings so as not to undermine adjacent foundations. 5. It would be necessary for the applicant to retain a professional engineer to address all building design and construction which exceeds the scope of Part 9 of the Ontario Building Code. �� 6. The applicant should provide full details regarding the existing site conditions and the proposed construction procedure where adjacent properties may be impacted. In the absence of this information, it would inadvisable to approve this application for a building permit or a minor varianee. If there are any questions or concerns, please contact me. � �G�� % / KB:jf ' J\Documentsl8uilding Serviceslbuilding comments -1731 Spruce HIII - 3-16.doc March 16, 2011 � Page 2 Building Comments — P/CA 10/11