Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 5, 2016 pickering.ca Committee of Adjustment Agenda Meeting Number: 12 Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Lesley Dunne T. 905.420.4660, extension 2024 Email ldunne@pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, October 5, 2016 7:00 pm Main Committee Room Page Number (I) Adoption of Agenda (II) Adoption of Minutes from September 14, 2016 1-4 (III) Reports 1. P/CA 54/16 A. Huang & C. Cossette 790 Third Concession Road 5-9 2. P/CA 55/16 D. Rinneard 5034 Wixson Street 10-18 3. P/CA 56/16 & P/CA 57/16 M. Mandarello 1789 Spruce Hill Road 19-23 4. P/CA 58/16 H. McDougall 696 Marksbury Road 24-31 (IV) Adjournment _____;,· c~ of- PICKERING Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland-Vice.:.Chair David Johnson -Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Melissa Markham, Secretary-Treasurer Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer (I) Adoption of Agenda Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2016 7:00pm Council Chambers That the agenda for the Wednesday, September 14,2016 meeting be adopted. (II) Adoption of Minutes Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley Carried Unanimously That the minutes of the 1Oth meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, August 24, 2016 be adopted. Carried Unanimously Page 1 of 4 1 ~~~~---------- 2 -04 of------ PJCKERJNG (Ill) Reports 1. PICA 50/16 SR&R Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd. Bayly Street Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2016 7:00pm. Council Chambers The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-laws 6705/06., 6786/07 and 7006/09 to permit a maximum of 777 units, whereas the by-law requires the lands designated "RH/MU-2", "SA-LW", SA-8", "MD-H6" be developed at a density of over 140 units per net hectare and up to including 225 units per net hectare up to a maximum of 760 units. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain Site Plan Approval to permit the development of a 25-storey apartment building containing 231 units and a 3-storey building containing 22 stacked units along Bayly Street. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were received from the City's. Engineering & Public Works Department and Legal Services Section expressing no objection to the application. Written comments were also received from Kevin Ashe, Regional Councillor, Ward 1, Bill Mclean, Regional Councillor, Ward 2, David Pickles, Regional Councillor, Ward 3 and lan Cumming, City Councillor, Ward 2 in support of the application. Ryan Guetter, agent, was present to represent the application. Alvin Anson of 1250 St. Martins_ Drive, was present to obtain clarification and additional information on the application. Alvin Anson questioned the effect that an additional 17 units would have on parking and traffic in the surrounding area and was seeking clarification on past approvals to permit the development on the subject lands. Ryan Guetter provided an overview and clarificatio!l of the application for the resident that was present. In response to questions from Committee Members, Ryan Guetter stated that there are an average of 1 0 units per floor. He also stated that the owner is not intending to apply for any additional minor variances on the subject lands. He stated that the Site. Plan application is currently under review and revised drawings would be submitted to the City within the next two weeks if the application were approved. Page 2 of 4 -Ct4 ~f__,__ PICKERING Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2016 7:00pm Council Chambers That application PICA 50/16 by SR & R Bay Ridges (Plaza II) Ltd., be Approved on the grounds that the maximum of 777 units 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 the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That the applicant obtain Site Plan Approval for the proposed development by March 9, 2017, or this decision shall become null and void. 2. PICA 51116 & PICA 52116 OSMI Homes 1969 & 1971 Woodview Avenue Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7389114, to permit a maximum building height of 11.0 metres, whereas the by-law permits a maximum building height of 9.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain building permits to construct a detached dwelling on each property. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering & Public Works Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were also received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority expressing no objection to the application, Nadeem lrfam, qgent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Nadeem lrfam stated that he agreed with staff recommendations. In response to questions from Committee Members, Nadeem lrfam provided a letter from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority which identified that there was a high water table affecting the subject lands. Page 3 of 4 3 4 -CfitJ of----..- PJ(KERJNG· Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2016 7:00pm Council Chambers Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That applications PICA 51/16 & PICA 52/16 by OSMI Homes, be Approved on ·· the grounds that the maximum building height of 11.0 metres 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 the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwellings. at 1969 and 1971 Woodview Avenue, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. 2. That the applicant obtain building permits for the proposed construction by September 14, 2018, or this decision shall become null and void. Carried Unanimously (IV) Adjournment Date Chair Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 11th meeting of the 2016 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:16pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, October 5, 2016. Carried Unanimously Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Page 4 of 4 -C~o~­ PJCKERJNG From: Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP Report to 5 Committee of Adjustment Application Number: PICA 54116 Date: October 5, 2016 Principal Planner-Development Review Subject: Application '. Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 54116 A. Huang & C. Cossette 790 Third Concession Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended: • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 19 percent, whereas the by-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 10 percent • to permit a partially covered platform (deck) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade . to project a maximum of 4.4 metres in the required rear yard, whereas the by-law only permits uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project a maximum of 1 :5 metres into the required rear yard The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached garage, covered porch and partially covered platform in the rear yard. Recommendation The City Development Department considers a maximum lot coverage of 19 percent and a partially covered platform (deck) projecting a maximum of 4.4 metres into the required rear yard, 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, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following conditioAs: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed development as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. 2. That the applicant obtain approval from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding Minister Zoning Order Amendment Application 18-MZOA-160456, or this decision shall become null and void. 3. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by October 5, 2018 or this decision shall become null and void. 6 Report PICA 54116 October 5, 2016 Page 2 Previous Application In November 1988, the Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application PICA 113188, which recognized a reduction in lot frontage and lot area requirements and permitted an increased lot coverage of 12.4 percent. Comment Official Plan and ZoningBy-law Pickering Official Plan -"Rural Settlements-Rural Clusters" within the Cherrywood and Area Settlement Area Zoning By-law 3037-"A"-Rural Agricultural Appropriateness of the Application Partially Covered Deck Projecting into the Required Rear Yard and Lot Coverage Variances • the intent of these provisions is to maintain an appropriate size, scale and massing of dwellings and to ensure that an adequate amount of outdoor amenity area remains uncovered by buildings and structures on a lot • the by-law also requires appropriate building setbacks to minimize any adverse impact on adjacent neighbours such as privacy, and to allow for appropriate access for maintenance, lot grading and drainage • the by-law permits uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required rear yard and permits a maximum lot coverage of 10 percent • the applicant is proposing to demolish an existing detached garage and covered porch · currently existing on the subject property • the applicant is requesting to increase the maximum lot coverage from 10 percent to 19 percent to allow for a new detached garage, covered porch and partially covered deck · • the partially covered deck is setback 7.8 metres from the rear lot line • the proposed development will have minimal impact on abutting properties as there are no dwellings located in close proximity to the property and the property is heavily treed • an appropriate setback between the partially covered deck and the lot line will be maintained to provide for privacy from adjacent properties to allow access for maintenance, and ensure proper lot grading and drainage on the subject property • the increase in lot coverage and projection of the partially covered deck in the rear yard will not have any adverse impacts on abutting property owners . • the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the lands and maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law · Report PICA 54/16 October 5, 2016 1 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Engineering & Public Works Department • no comments on the application Date of report: September 29, 2016 Comments prepared by: Oed¥-M.or:r-· on Planner I CM:MM:Id J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2016\PCA 54-16\Report\PCA 54-16 Report.docx Attachments . . ff/L ' rr10rJfkvl Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner-Development Review 8 0 <( 0 0:::: - U) w 1- :r:: s - - --04;1Jt-- P1CKER1NG City Development Department SUBJECT PROPERTY ~ I ~ \ Location Map FILE No: P/CA 54/16 APPLICANT: A. Huang & C. Cossette T 01--------l (§ 0::: co PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Con 3 S, Part of Lot 28, 40R1874 Part 2 790 Third Concession Road CllhoCoq<IOI!ioo<lf""Oty<ll""""""" __.!"l*l! ..... •konM-CIO....."'"' ..... ~Minlslr}aiN-R•'""""'-"'fiGIV-­CMo<MijOOI)'"""Oionnlnlllglold/Canodo.i;loF-ftO(I<JOI!ni-MIIgNs-~ cr.... ......_.,dll•oo-III·~ .......... :O~&,ololpool"""'lf1)'-..._.....,..,i·eoop-"""""l•'"""' ... ~-~-1'tti&ISNOfAPI.NIOI'~. DATE: Sept 6, 2016 SCALE 1 :5,000 IPN-10 30.4m r~--~-------------------~ t ~ I . :. I E! I I PROPOSED ~! l 1_1mt PROPOSED COVERED !----r------... ~ To permit a To permit a maximum lot coverage of 19 percent r GARAGE ~ DECK I \ ~ EXI 7 Ss;;NG 1 S.4m I .,. UNCOVERED DECKj A .. 7.2m ,. . 10_5m ;->PROPOSED ,1j I \ I ~ //V /////%1 DECK _j c; I · ~ ~~o 1 . nP I l. ).) . EXISTING -+-' 0 I I! 2STOREY !i.Bm trl----t-,; ---r, -.+-/.r ··-·--/. DWELLING ! ·I ,.,~·.~ I ! I /PROPOSED ~-------·- E 1 1 ~ ~" z·· . ~-o-·v1ERED''PO~H :;, ~~r:'lf.ll:lio"l::&l - t ' --; I "' "-: Jl : I l . . ; ll.: I '" . • ~I ! i ~·.~.:~;~~;-~~ )~~<Jr~r !---~ T .. ·t.m\1] ! ., ; . . ..______,.. --'!<-'~-----,. I ! ; ' . .1 I : ~ ; \ i . ~/-1 I I I I I I I I I I I ' I ; I : I ~ I -1 IE I"-: II!) ,~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I ; : : l I I i I I . I L--'-~-----2~4m ___________ w THIRD CONCESSION ROAD Submitted Plan --Oft;c/-- PlCKERlNG FILE No: P/CA 54/16 APPLICANT: A. Huang & C. Cossette partially covered platform (deck) not exceeding 1.0m in height above grade to project a maximum of 4.4 metres into the required rear yard PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot 28, Con 3, Part 2, 40R-1874 City Development Department (790 Third Concession Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. I DATE: Sept. 13, 2016 10. From: Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: PICA 55116 Date: October 5, 2016 Principal Planner-Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications PICA 55116 D. Rinneard 5034 Wixson Street Applications The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended: • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 24 percent; whereas the by-law permits a m9ximum lot coverage of 20 percent • to permit a maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings, excluding private detached garages, to be 9 percent of the lot area; whereas the by-law p13rmits a maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings, excluding private detached garages, to be 5 percent of the lot area • to permit a minimum front yard setback of 6.6 metres (Building 1 ); whereas the by-law permits a minimum front yard setback of 9.0 metres • to permit an unenclosed covered porch to project a maximum of 2.0 metres into the required front yard (Building 1 ); whereas the by-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required front yard • to permit an existing accessory dwelling unit contained within an accessory building (Building 2); whereas the by-law states that an accessory dwelling unit shall mean one self contained dwelling unit contained within a permitted detached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling • to permit an existing accessory building (Building 2) to be partially located in the side yard; whereas the by-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building to be erected in the rear yard • to permit an existing accessory building (Building 2) to be set back 0.4 of a metre from the south side lot line; whereas the by-law permits accessory buildings greater than · 10.0 square metres in area to be set back a minimum of 1.0 metre from all lot lines • to permit an existing accessory building (Building 2) with a maximum height of 4.3 metres; whereas the by-law states that no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres ·in any residential zone • to permit an existing accessory building (Building 3) to be set back 0.3 of a metre from the rear lot line and 0.6 of a metre from the south side lot line; whereas the by-law permits accessory buildings greater than 10.0 square metres in area to be set back a minimum of 1.0 metre from all lot lines Report PICA 55116 October 5, 2016 1 1 Page 2 • to permit an existing accessory building (Building 4) with a maximum height of 5.5 metres; whereas the by-law states that no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone • to permit an existing accessory building (Building 4) to be set back 0.6 of a metre from the rear lot line; whereas the by-law permits accessory buildings greater than 10.0 square metres in area to be set back a minimum of 1.0 metre from all lot lines The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to demolish the existing single-storey dWelling and obtain a building permit to reconstruct a new two-storey dwelling on the same foundation and to recognize previous minor variance approvals. Background On February 17, 2016, the Committee of Adjustment conditionally approved a Minor Variance Application for the subject property (PICA 1 00115). The current minor variance application seeks the same relief as the previous application, with the exception of permitting a two-storey detached dwelling to be constructed on the same footprint as the existing single-storey detached dwelling. The conditions of the previous minor variance application stated that the variances only apply to the buildings as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plan. Since this time the applicant has revised the submitted plan, and therefore new variances were deemed necessary to continue the previous approvals and permit a two-storey detached dwelling (Building 1 ). Recommendation The City Development Department considers an increase in maximum lot coverage to 24 percent of the lot area and a maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings, excluding private detached garages, to be 9 percent of the lot area 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, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the lot and structures, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. And Building 1 The City Development Department considers a minimum front yard setback of 6.6 metres and an unenclosed covered porch to project a maximum of 2.0 metres into the required front yard 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, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following conditions: 1 2 Report PICA 55/16 October 5, 2016 Page 3 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed two-storey building (Building 1 ), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction (Building 1) by October 5, 2017, or this decision shall become null and void. And Building 2 The City Development Department considers an existing accessory dwelling unit contained within an accessory building that is partially located in the side yard, set back 0.4 of a metre from the south side lot line, with a height of 4.3 metres to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development otthe 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 condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the existing accessory building (Building 2), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. And Building 3 The City Development Department considers an existing accessory building set back 0.3 of a metre from the rear lot line and 0.6 of a metre from the south side lot line 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, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, ?Ubject to the following condition: 1. That the variance apply onlyto the existing accessory building (Building 3), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. And Building 4 The City Development Department considers an existing accessory building set back 0.6 of a metre from the rear lot line having a height of 5.5 metres 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 c;~nd the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances only apply to the portion of Building 4 constructed in 1907 and not the portion of Building 4 shown as garage addition, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. And The City Development Department considers a maximum height of 5.5 metres for an existing building, shown as garage addition, to be a major variance that is not considered to be desirable 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 PICA 55116 October 5, 2016 1 3 Page 4 Comment Official Plan and Zoning By-law The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property as Rural Settlements-Oak Ridges Moraine Rural Hamlets The subject property is currently zoned "ORM-R5" ..:... Oak Ridges Moraine -Hamlet Residential Five within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended. Appropriateness of the Applications Front Yard Depth, Covered Porch; Existing Side Yard Widths, Height and Location of Accessory Building in the Side Yard • the general intent of performance standards in a zoning by-law is to ensure that buildings maintain appropriate height, massing and setbacks that are complimentary to the character of the surrounding neighbourhood • the proposed reconstruction of Building 1 will be built upon the existing building foundation constructed on the subject lands in 1907, with the addition of a second storey • existing Buildings 2, and 4 were constructed on the subject lands in 1907 • existing Building 3 was constructed on the subject lands by a previous owner in 1977 • the proposed and existing buildings maintain appropriate height, massing and setbacks that are in keeping with the hamlet's historical character • the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the property and maintains the purpose and intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Lot Coverage and Lot Coverage of Accessory Buildings Variances • the intent of the maximum lot coverage requirement of 20 percent and the 5 percent maximum coverage for accessory buildings is to maintain an appropriate amount of amenity area uncovered by buildings on a lot and to ensure the massing, scale and size of buildings are appropriate for the size of the lot • the proposed lot coverage of 9 percent for the accessory buildings is an existing condition • two of the existing accessory buildings (Buildings 2 and 4) were constructed in 1907 • the applicant previously requested an increase in overall lot coverage to 24 percent, to accommodate the proposed addition to Building 4 (detached garage) (PICA 100115) • the addition (detached garage) to Building 4 was approved by the Committee of Adjustment, and is now an existing condition • a.n adequate amount of outdoor amenity area is maintained as uncovered by buildings on the subject property • the overall size, scale and massing is appropriate and the existing accessory buildings appear to have no adverse impact on the surrounding neighbours or character of the neighbourhood • the requested lot coverage variance is minor in nature and meets the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law 14 Report PICA 55116 October 5, 2016 Page 5 Existing Accessory Dwelling Unit Contained within an Accessory Building (Building 2) • the intent of defining "Accessory Dwelling Unit" is to permit an additional dwelling unit within the primary dwelling on a lot • the applicant previously requested to recognize an existing accessory dwelling unit within an Accessory Building (Building 2) (PICA 1 00/15) • the accessory dwelling unit has been in existence since 2013, prior to this time the structure was functioning as a detached garage • the accessory dwelling_ unit is subordinate to the main dwelling (Building 2) and there appears to be no adverse impact on the streetscape • the property functions as a residential property which is in character with the surrounding neighbourhood • the accessory dwelling unit within an Accessory Building (Building 2) was approved by the Committee of Adjustment, and is now an existing condition • the requested variance to permit an additional dwelling unit within an accessory building is minor in nature and meets the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law · Increase in Maximum Height of an Accessory Building (Building 4) Variance • the intent of the maximum building height of 3.5 metres for accessory buildings is to minimize the visual impact of these bu11dings on abutting properties and on the streetscape, while still allowing for subordinate buildings and structures to be located on a lot • the applicant previously requested to permit an addition to ~n existing accessory building (Building 4) to have a maximum height of 5.5 metres (from the finished grade to the midpoint of the roof) (PICA 100/15) • the original shed on the property (Building 4) was constructed in 1907 and has a hei'ght. of 5.5 metres • the applicant has advised that the garage addition would be constructed to contain a car stacking mechanism for vehicle storage • the addition to an existing accessory building (Building 4) to have a maximum height of 5.5 metres was approved by the Committee of Adjustment, and is now an existing condition • staff did not support the original minor variance application to increase the height of the garage addition (Builcling 4) • it is still staff's position that the increase in building height is not minor and creates an accessory building with a size and massing that is undesirable for the development of the property • staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance results in an inappropriate scale of development in relation to the built form that has been established in the neighbourhood and is not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area • staff is of the opinion that the proposed height, scale and massing of the detached garage is not considered minor and not in keeping with the intent and purpose of the· zoning by-law, and therefore the requested variance is a major variance that is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land Report PICA 55/16 October 5, 2016 1 5 Page 6 Input From Other Sources Engineering & Public Works Department • no objection to the proposal Building Services Durham Region Environmental Health Division Date of report: September 29, 2016 Comments prepared by: Amy Emm, MCIP, RPP Planner II AE:MM:Id J:\Documents\Development\0~3700\2016\PCA 55+ 16\Report\PCA 55·16.docx Attachments • no comment at this time • a proposal for the total daily sewage flow for the subject property after the proposed addition is required fh/L w'loz~ Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner-Development Review 16 """ \ \Y . I ~ I LkNE STRE T I I f---I I f---1---- CLAREM ONT J I /) 0 I <( w 1-0 w I w 0:: l=-w Ul () 0:: I 1-Ul CLAREMC NT I F-UNITE! CHURC 1-1{, I 2 : r-----'--<( _.J i _.J H 3: ~PH <TRE T CLAREI_ONT ~ . BAP77S7F(Y A ID '----'---1-CHURCf ~5i3i R>QQ SR~J ~~r= ~ \ i--------1 R p I,X,lV<, ' .... Ul \ ~ k"x')) f----r--~ J...:. z \ tn ~~m~ Ul 1-----1 \ Ul ·-lJ :::J ~K ~~ ,_n ~ I¥-1----z ! r ~=L-([ m ~ { 0:: u.. <( L/ m STREET CENTRAL STREET ,1 ~[EJ; ~ F1]r-,__..... 1---- .----j~ ld CLAREMONT 1------1--- PUBLIC SCHOOL ~~\ -.JYULINGTON STREET J 0:: f---lJC f-- \ 0 1----I ~f----I HALL /; 1---f-----2f---- 1----0 Jl >f----CLAREMONT \ 1/; COMMUNITY CENTRE z !-------0 1- FIREHALL Ul Ul Cl , z No. 4 z <( F=== ~ V,/ 0 _.J ~ CLAREMONT PARK ) -LANE CORN I'--/~~~ 1--LEGION HALL 1' I ~ '>f2' -I a~t;~! Location Map FILE No: PICA 55/16 PICKERING APPLICANT: D. Rinneard City Development PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Plan 12 Lot 6 S Pt Lot 7,8 (5034 Wixson St) Department DATE: Sept 8, 2016 PThoCO!I>OOI..,o/Oiot:lyof-o<ftg SCALE 1:5,000 IPN-RU P""'"""""'pa"J_,...._,...,.c>Ovnnol'm..,.O.,.tlo.....,"'loi>I-ROS<!U...,.,I.I~""""""·' -'lit<!.l¥o<Yiho0uoo.nln~dC'"oda.O.oo""'*"'oiN-~--.I.Idfl* .. o-.: CT ... otiE...................................... ~·OO.O_,..,_ ... , .. ,,_tC<wJ>oralloo-bouoplot<doiqMs...,~:rttiSISNOTA~>ICFSIJ'I\IOV, to permit an existing accessory building to be setback 0.4 metres from the south side lot line to permit an existing accessory building to be partially located in the side yard to permit an existing accessory building with a maximum height of 4.3 metres to permit an existing accessory building to be setback 0.6 metres from the rear lot line to permit an existing accessory building to be setback 0.3 metres from the rear lot line and 0.6 metres from the south side lot line to permit an existing accessory dwelling unit contained within an accessory building to permit a maximum lot coverage of 24 percent to permit a minimum front yard setback of 6.6 metres to permit a maximum lot coverage of all accessory buildings, excluding privat detached garages, to be 9 percent of the lot area _· 04of·- PJCKERJNG Submitted Plan FILE No: P/CA 55/16 APPLICANT: D. Rinneard to permit an existing accessory building with a maximum height of 5.5 metres -----· to permit an unenclosed covered porch to project a maximum of 2.0 metres into the required front yard City Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Plan 12 Lot 6, S Part Lots 7 & 8 (5034 Wixson St) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Sept. 15,2016 17 ..... . ' ; / ~ / ~ ~ - I · ~ ~ · ~ · ~ I -- ~ ~ !. - - " or """ " ' '- . . , L . . _ _ _ NO R T H EL E V A T I O N ST R E E T EL E V A T I O N / ~ t - · - - - ~ ~ r- - - _ ~ J .... . . . ~·) ~ -- ~ I .. . ; · I' 1 f - - WE S T EL E V A T I O N SO U T H EL. E Y A T I Q ~ ~4 Su b m i t t e d El e v a t i o n s FI L E No : P/ C A 5 5 / 1 6 Pl C K E R l N G AP P L I C A N T : D. Ri n n e a r d Ci t y De v e l o p m e n t PR O P E R T Y DE S C R I P T I O N : Pl a n 12 Lo t 6 S Pa r t Lo t 7, 8 (5 0 3 4 Wi x s o n St ) De p a r t m e n t FU L L SC A L E CO P I E S OF TH I S PL A N AR E AV A I L A B L E FO R VIE W I N G AT TH E CI T Y OF PI C K E R I N G I DATE: Sept. 21, 2016 CIT Y DE V E L O P M E N T DE P A R T M E N T . -C~~~­ pJ(KERJN.G From: Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP Report to 19 Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: PICA 56116 & 57116 Date: October 5, 2016 Principal Planner-Development Review Subject: Applications Committee of Adjustment Applications PICA 56116 & PICA 57116 M. Mandarello 1789 Spruce Hill Road PICA 56/16 (Proposed Severed Parcel) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 as amended, to permit a minimum south side yard width of 1.2 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres. PICA 57116 (Proposed Retained Parcel) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 as amended, to permit a minimum north side yard width of 1.2 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to permit the construction of a two-storey detached ~welling on the proposed severed parcel and to recognize an existing two-storey detached dwelling (currently under construction) on the proposed retained parcel related to Region of Durham Land Division Application LD 073116. Recommendation PICA 5,6116 (Proposed Severed Parcel) The City Development Department considers a minimum south side yard width of 1.2 metres 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, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to the detached dwelling on the proposed severed parcel, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plan. 2. That the applicant obtain final clearance for Land Division Application· 073116 by September 25, 2017 or this decision shall become null and void. · 3. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by October 5, 2018 or this decision shall become null and void. 20 Report PICA 56116 & PICA 57116 Recommendation PICA 57/16 (Proposed Retained Parcel) October 5, 2016 Page 2 The City Development Department considers a minimum north side yard width of 1.2 metres 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, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to the detached dwelling on the proposed retained parcel, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. 2. That the applicant obtain final clearance for Land Division Application 073116 by September 25, 2017 or this decision shall become null and void. Background On May 11, 2016, the Committee of Adjustment conditionally approved a Minor Variance Application for the subject property (PICA 25/16). The previous minor variance application proposed a minimum south side yard width of 1.2 metres, which is now the proposed retained parcel. An adjacent landowner appealed the Committee's decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. An Ontario Municipal Board decision was received on September 26, 2016 which stated that the applicant did not wish to proceed with the variance. The board ordered that the appeal is allowed and the variances are not authorized. Following the Committee of Adjustment application, the applicant submitted a Land Division Application (LD 073/16) to the Region of Durham Land Division Committee to create an additional lot. On August 15, 2016, the application was approved by the Region of Durham Land Division Committee. The decision of the Land Division Committee was not appealed. Comment Official Plan and Zoning By-law Pickering Official Plan -"Urban Residential-Low Density Areas" within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. Zoning By-law 3036 -"R4"-Fourth Density Residential Zone Appropriateness of the Application Reduction in Side Yard Width Variances • the intent of a minimum side yard width is to provide an appropriate separation distance between structures on abutting properties in order to ensure compatibility with the existing neighbourhood, provide appropriate pedestrian access between dwellings, and to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services such as air conditioning units and utility meters Report PICA 56116 &PICA 57116 October 5, 2016 21 Page 3 • the Zoning By-law requires a minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres • the applicant has requested a reduction in the minimum side yard width from 1.5 metres to 1.2 metres • th~ applicant is proposing to reduce the minimum required side yard width between the proposed dwelling. on the proposed severed parcel and the existing dwelling (currently under construction) on the proposed retained parcel • the applicant will be maintaining the required 1.5 metre side yard width between the existing dwelling (currently under construction) and the existing dwelling to the south of the subject lands • there is an existing private access easement (3.3 metres) along the northern portion of the proposed severed parcel in favor of a land locked parcel to the east of the subject property, the applicant is not proposing to construct a dwelling on this easement • the proposed side yard widths of 1 .2 metres will maintain the character of the existing residential community as other redeveloped properties along Spruce Hill Road have been approved to have a minimum side yard width of 1.2 metres • the proposed side yard widths will provide an adequate separation between the dwellings and the property line to accommodate pedestrian access, grading, drainage and residential utility services • the proposed side yard widths will provide an appropriate setback and separation from abutting properties with respect to privacy, views and openness • the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land and maintains the purpose and intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Input From Other Sources Engineering & Public Works Department • no comments on the application Date of report: September 29, 2016 /h [ , Wl ~J:/b11 \_ Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner-Development Review CM:MM:Id J:\Documents\Development\0~3700\2016\PCA 56-16 & PCA 57 -16\Report\PCA 56-16 & PCA 57-16 Report.docx Attachments 22 City Development Department w t----t-~u t===t===j~ 1----+----l(/) ~--~~3~---------~~~~ ~--L-~~ ~----~ LANE ,---I - -~WINGARDEN ~ CREJClNT r--r--- r-l ~ II z 0 w u 0:: (/) w w r- 0:: (/) u <{ I 2 z w ~ w 0 0 <{ 0:: I r--r-------<{ C) (/) z -r----3: f-----r---- eli'G~Eklv ' 0~ ~0 J ~ ~· 0EN H CRESCENT ~ /1 II II / WELRUS STREET 1---------+---------l ~ t--------'1-----"1 Location Map f------1 a: t------1__ t---------',0:: r-------~,--------l~~------~-4 FILE No: PICA 56116 and PICA 57116 APPLICANT: M. Mandarello PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Plan 1041 RCP Pt Lot ~1 (1789 Spruce Hill Road) DATE: Sept 8, 2016 l>Tbo~of1hO.,.dPickoMt -~•P"Oiu--l!o<t<C'O..O ... PIIIOo•On--ryOIH.....aR...,."""···~r .. -.: :~~!.;.=~:::..""d=::"'..!.":':"'..:::;~:.~ .. -=~ . ..,. ...... '" ...... ~ SCALE 1 :5,000 PN-RU ? 30.4 M 3.3 M I 11.8 M 15.2 M PICA 57116: to permit a PICA 56116: to permit a minimum south side yard minimum north side yard width of 1 .2 metres width of 1.2 metres v ~ PROPOSED Proposed ' :::;; SEVERED Parcel RETAINED Parcel / ~ ;v I I I 3~ M 1.2M 12M 1~M :::!: 1-::2 z 1'-1'-w u) ::2 u) v w v ~ PROPOSED 2 STOREY HOME 2 STOREY HOME :2 <') ...; <') .... ~ if ~3M 12M 12M ~ 15M I w I I IE E I"< DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY "' !'" E .,; 0 I <ci I I r I 3.3 M I 11.8 M I I 15.2 M 15.2 M 30.4 M 1789 SPRUCE HILL ROAD ~~ Submitted Plan -Cdt;t>/ FILE No: P/CA 56/16 & P/CA 57/16 PlCKERlNG APPLICANT: M. Mandarello City Development PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Plan 1041 RCP Pt Lot 51 (1789 Spruce Hill Rd) Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING l DATE: Sept. 13, 2016 CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. 24 fhA J -Cfr;br;- PJ(KERJNG From: Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: PICA 58116 Date: October 5, 2016 Principal Planner-Development Review Subject: Application Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 58116 H. McDougall 696 Marksbury Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511: • to permit a minimum south side yard width of 1.2 metres and a minimum north. side yard width of 2.3 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres on one side and 2.4 metres on the other side • to permit uncovered steps to project a maximum of 3.2 metres into the required front yard, whereas the by-law permits uncovered steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required front yard • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 34 percent, whereas the by-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • to permit an accessory building (detached garage) with a maximum building height of 4.0 metres in a residential zone, whereas the by-law states that no. accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a second storey addition to an existing dwelling and a detached garage in the rear yard. Recommendation The City Development Department considers a minimum south side yard width of 1.2 metres and a minimum north side yard width of 2.3 metres, uncovered steps to project a maximum of 3.2 metres into the required front yard, a maximum lot coverage of 34 percent and an accessory building (detached garage) with a maximum height of 4.0 metres, 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, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by October 5, 2018, or this decision shall become null and void. Report PICA 58/16 October 5, 2016 25 Comment Official Plan and Zoning By-law Pickering Official Plan -"Urban Residential-Low Density Areas" within the West Shore Neighbourhood. Zoning By-law 2511-"R4"-Residential Fourth Density Zone Appropriateness of the Application Side Yard Setback Variances Page 2 • the intent of a minimum side yard width is to provide an appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties in order to maintain vehicular access to detached garages, pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services such as air conditioning units and utility meters and to maintain the character of the surrounding neighbourhood • the Zoning By-law requires a minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres on one side and 2.4 metres on the other side, where a garage has not been erected as part of a detached dwelling • the existing dwelling has a north side yard width of 2.3 metres and a south side yard width of approximately 5.0 metres, to accommodate an existing driveway, as there is no attached garage • the applicant is proposing to construct a second storey addition which will maintain the north side yard width of 2.3 metres • the proposed second storey addition will have a south side yard width of 1 .2 metres • the proposed addition on the south side will still allow for a driveway for vehicles to pass underneath the second storey, in order to access the detached garage in the rear yard, which is called a porte cochere • the porte cochere is a covered ~ntrance large enough for vehiCles to pass through to access the detached garage • the proposed side yard widths will provide an adequate separation between the dwelling and the property line to accommodate pedestrian access, grading, drainage and residential utility services • the proposed side yard widths will maintain the character of the existing residential community as other properties along Marksbury Road have been approved to have a minimum side·yard widths that are similar to the side yard widths being requested Uncovered Steps Projecting into the Required Front Yard Variance • the intent of this provision is to provide the opportunity for any stairs and/or a landing platform to encroach into the front yard when needed, to ensure an adequate buffer space between buildings and street activity is provided, and to ensure an adequate landscaped area within the front yard is also provided • the by-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required front yard 26 Report PICA 58/16 October 5, 2016 Page 3 • the applicant is proposing uncovered steps to project a maximum of 3.2 metres into the required front yard • there are existing steps on the subject property which project 3.2 metres into the required front yard to accommodate the existing grading of the property • the applicant is proposing to reconstruct steps in a different location, with the same projection · • the proposed steps will not obstruct the street view of abutting property owners • the proposed steps are in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood • the proposed uncovered steps will provide a sufficient amount of landscaped area between the proposed dwelling and street activity Maximum Lot Coverage Variance • the intent of the maximum lot coverage provision is to ensure that the size, scale and massing of a dwelling, and accessory buildings is appropriate for the lot size and to ensure an adequate amount of outdoor amenity area remains uncovered by buildings on a lot • the applicant has requested a variance to ·increase the maximum lot coverage from 33 to 34 percent • the proposed development will maintain a sufficient amount of outdoor amenity area that will remain uncovered and unobstructed on the lot · • staff are of the opinion that the requested variance to permit an increase in lot coverage would not have any adverse impacts on the existing style and character of the surrounding neighbourhood • the increase in lot coverage will provide for the appropriate development of the land as the size and massing of the proposed dwelling and detached garage will be in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood Maximum Accessory Structure Height Variance • the intent of the maximum height of 3.5 metres for accessory buildings in a residential zone is to minimize the visual impact that these structures may have on abutting properties and on the streetscape, to protect the privacy of abutting property owners and to ensure that accessory buildings do not become the dominant buildings on residential properties • the applicant is proposing to construct a detached garage with a maximum height of 4.0 metres • the proposed detached garage will have minimal impact on the streetscape as it will be located in the rear yard • the location of the proposed detached garage in the rear yard is consistent with other properties in the neighbourhood and along Marksbury Road • · the proposed increase in height will have minimal impact on abutting properties and privacy of abutting property owners as it will maintain the minimum setback requirements of 1.0 metre from all lot lines and no doors or windows are being proposed along the south or west lot lines · Report PICA 58/16 October 5, 2016 27 Page4 Staff are of the opinion that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land and maintain the purpose and intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Input From Other Sources Engineering & Public Works Department • no objection to the varianc13s Date of report: September 29, 2016 Comments prepared by: CM:MM:Id J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2016\PCA 58-16\Report\PCA 58-16 Reportdocx Attachments · • a portion of the existing asphalt driveway, from the south lot line to a minimum 0.6 metres from the property line, must be removed and·this area must be restored to include topsoil and sod once all the construction works are completed • a drainage swale will also be required, to allow the property to drain from the rear to the front of the lot · Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner-Development Review 28 l...___...______,l (!) I I I I I I I I t-r-- SANoK 1-~ II ·JIIIIIIIIIIIIjjj8;11\\"'~ ___ ./·//1///ll ___ ~~/l r-- r---r-v-.-' C_K-,-1~ ~ r---1--.-~~ G '---'-~D__J_R-1 V-LE__j______j 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 111 r 1 111 1--1----1 0::: u 1--------1---1 1-----+----l w t----+--1 0 1-----1-----J 1-------+----1 > <( 0::: 1--------1---1 0 1-----+---J 1--------1----1 0 1----+---1 0:::: 1-------+----1 r I 1111 I II I- f--- I- I- 1- f---- 1- 1--- L..__ 1- FRENCHMAN'S BAY r-- 1---- r-- r-- I--- f---PUBLIC SCHOOL r-- I f\1/1 1\llfi~A/\ ~ 1----L V .Lr\1 '--' ''' ,------...., ~ ~ ,_t----.-'-----1) I .... s~w:!~~l., ~~t-; II I / ~ j~/ 1 I~V -.-vr~n r IZ - 8 I~~~ I t=]W~ 0::: 1----f------1 ~ ~ >-1----+--1 6S 1----+--1 f-1 _l 1------l 0::: 1--------1---1 (!) 1--------1---1 1-----+---1 ....,-1----+-----l 0 ::::,;::: ) ....1--\ 1-0::: 1--------1---1 1---1-,.--,---,----,---,---,--,..< 1-----l___l___.jL__ ~ 1----.r----J 0::: 1---t--+--t---+--l--+-1 1----.f-----1 1- 1-----t-------1 (!) '----'----' u <( 1----+--1 ROAD \ > 2 1----i---I:::::S::: MINK \\~~ ~--~~z~~~~ n--t------\\ \ . I '-------... 1-----~ ~ 1---J-.-L,-lr--",-1-rL.J /----f----.,~--,----11---o_ -~ \ -~ IT ~ r---'-1------,--,~~--SU~N~RI.::...:::SE::.._,.....j g ~-v/ ~~ ~ I m ~ I o jA l'l C 0 U RT /t---+-----1 (§ t-----+-----J ll I I I I O'f---:=,-=:_--=--~ r TULLO STREET ( I I r 11, .i Location Map __ /';/iA (}1!•--~ FILE No: P/CA 58/16 PJ C KE R J N G 1---:A-=-PP=-::L-::-:IC-::---:A-:-:'N=-T:-:-:H-::. M-':-c-=-oo-u-ga-::-11------------ City Development Department . PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Plan 331 Lot 40 (696 Marksbury Road) OTbeCO<;IMIIoooll>oOiy<l--"'1! -• .. dlirlponjond•-....,_ C>CMI""•Pmlor,Onllflo ............ ofNahn!R"""''""""" _ _....... '!IK«Mol~lhoOuottllrlRigiii<>IC....,lO.O.,-ontoiN_R......,..,..nghls.........t. OT"'*'oiEnl lr>c.ondlu•oohroolln " d.C>"'-'niopol .ty~ oo!Coopnlonor>dll ........... alf9b._.TH$1S'f'JT.O.P\.HH>FSIJRIItY. DATE: Sept12,2016 SCALE 1:5,000 PN-RU to permit a minimum south side yard width of 1.2 metres -04Jo/- PJCKERJNG City Development ' Department , 1.0 m Proposed ---------------~ Detached .---------- to permit an accessory building (detached garage) with a maximum height of 4.0 metres ~ Garage L...-.r-3-7.1 m2 ----r--11 ~~------- ~----~----------~ Proposed Driveway ""Existing Deck 6.1 m 1.2 m 3.9m 7.3m Ol ~ Qi :;; 0 >. IE .9 (/) N 0 E ~ "' 6 "0 ~ Cl.l "' 0 a. e a.. ~ ~ .... ~ .... c 0 :;::; '0 "0 <( >. IE .9 (/) "0 C N 0 E t.l 0 Q) (/) "' "0 Q) "' 0 a. e a.. Stairs Exisiting Driveway 3.2m 5.4 m .. 15.2m Marksbury Road Submitted Plan FILE No: P/CA 58/16 APPLICANT: H. McDougall E "' c<:i I E "' cO "' to permit a maxmium lot coverage of 34 percent to permit a minimum north / side yard width of 2.3 metres .... L...--------11 t-;t to permit uncovered steps to project a maximum of 3.2 metres into the required front yard PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Plan 331 Lot 40 (696 Marksbury Rd) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. I DATE: Sept. 14,2016 East Elevation ' I 11.3m South Elevation D D D D D 13.7m -Cift;o/- PJ(KERJNG E ,; D Submitted House Elevations FILE No: P/CA 58/16 APPLICANT: H. McDou all E ,; West Elevation D D D D 11.3m North Elevation ~ D D D D oo E D ,; D D 13.7m City Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Plan 331 Lot 40 (696 Marksbury Rd) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Sept. 14,2016 East Elevation E 0 ..; r-~--. -----~-----------'il 6.0 m South Elevation 1---'---------·--·-·-------1 6.0m -04oJ- PlCKERJNG Submitted Garage Elevations FILE No: P/CA 58/16 APPLICANT: H. McDougall West Elevation ~--------------------------:>} 6.0m North Elevation <~/~ ., /;;::~---------.------------~~ n ' I I ' l l II _i_i n i i L-~~--------------~ ~ 11-----------------------il 6.0m E 0 ..; City Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Plan 331 Lot 40 (696 Marksbury Rd) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . . j DATE: Sept. 14, 2016