Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 23, 2017 pickering.ca Committee of Adjustment Agenda Meeting Number: 11 Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 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, August 23, 2017 7:00 pm Main Committee Room Page Number (I) Adoption of Agenda (II) Adoption of Minutes from August 2, 2017 1-11 (III) Reports 1. P/CA 62/17 to P/CA 75/17 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Part of Block 45, and Block 47 with Lane on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision (SP-2009-13) 12-15 2. P/CA 77/17 D. Naumovski 1953 Spruce Hill Road 16-19 3. P/CA 79/17 Squires Beach Holding Ltd. 1325 Squires Beach Road 20-25 4. P/CA 80/17 M. Strasic 662 Pleasant Street 26-34 (IV) Adjournment Pending Adoption ' Present Tom Copeland-Vice-Chair David Johnson -Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment 1 · Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 2, 2017 7:02pm Main Committee Room Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer . Absent Sean Wiley (I) Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland . . That the agenda for the Wednesday, August 2, 201? meeting be adopted. (II) Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland Carried Unanimously That the minutes of the 9th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, July 12, 2017 be adopted. Carried Unanimously . David Johnson, Chair stated that he will abstain from voting ori all applications heard for the Wednesday, August 2, 2017 Committee of Adjustment meeting. Page 1 of 11. 2 . 04 bf--'--- P1CKER1NG (Ill) Reports 1. PICA 47117 D. Barkey 1712 Central Street ) Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes VVednesday,August2,2017 7:02pm Main Committee Room The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640106: • to permit a minimum distance of 2.4 metres from .the-proposed gas bar canopy to the street lines. of Central Street and 'Brock Road, whereas the by-law requires a minimum distance of 12.0 metres between any building or structure and any street line • to permit a proposed gas bar canopy to be erected 11.0 metres from the centerline of Brock Road, whereas the by-law does not permit no building or s~ructure to be erected· closer than 19.5 metres to the centerline of Brock Road · The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain site plan approval for a proposed gas bar canopy. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development . Department recommending approval subject to conditions . . Gil Shcolgar, ag~nt, was present to represent the application. No further representation ·was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from Committee Members, Gil Shcolgar explained the · proposed gas bar canopy is to cover the two existing pumps to provide protection from rain and snow and LED lights will .not emit onto the street or surrounding· neighbours. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer indicated the Site Plan Committee have discussed the measures to minimize the light'pollution from the proposed gas bar canopi · Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application PICA 47117 by D. Barkey, be A~proved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for th(3 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 gas bar canopy, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. 2. That the applicant obtain site plan approval for the proposed\construction by . July 12, 2018, or this decision shall become riull and void. Carried Page 2 of 11 -·c~()f­ P1CKER1NG 2. PICA 50117 P. Cummins 1796 Fairport Road a· Committee of Adjustment . . Meeting Minutes. VVednesday,August2,2017 7:02pm Main Committee Room· The applicant requests relief from Zoning By:.law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum side yard width of 1.2 metres, where a garage is erected as pa.rt of a detached dwelling; whereas the by-law requires a minimum side yard width of 1.8 metres, where a garage is erected.as part of a detached dwelling. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending refusal. The Secretary-Treasurer also outlined if the applicant were to amend the appli<?ation to allow side yard widths of 1.5 metres, s~aff recommendation would be· for approval subject to conditions. Fermin Pamintuan, agent, was present to .represent the application. No further representation '!"as present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Fermin Pamintuan stated he does ·not want to Tevise the application to reduce the side yard widths to 1.5 metres and stated he would like to maximize th,e size ofthe proposed detached dwelling on the subject property. · Moved by .Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That application PICA 50117 by P. Cummins, be Refused on the grounds that the side yard width of 1.2 metres, where a garage, is erected as part of a detached dwelli,ng, is a major variance that is not considered. to be desirable· for the appropriate development of .the l~md, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.· Carried I Page 3 of J 1 4 -C~()~­ p](KERJNG 3. PICA 51/17 K. Storey & R. Kay 5049 Brock Road Committee of Adjustment. Me.eting Minutes Wednesday, August 2, 2017 7:02pm Main Committee Room The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06: • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 22 percent; whereas the by-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 20 percent· • to permit an accessory building with a maximum height of 4.2 metres in a residential zone; whereas the by-law requires that no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone • to recognize a minimum lot area of 1,180.3 square metres; whereas· the by-law requires a minimum lot area of 1 ,390.0 square metres · ' • to recognize a minimum front yard depth of 0.0 metres; whereas the by-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 9.0 metres • to recognize .a minimum exterior side yard depth of 0.0 metres; whereas the by-law . requires a minimum ·eXterior side yard depth of 4.5 metres The applicant requests approval of this minor ·variance application in order to obtain building permits to construct an addition to the existing detached dwelling and to construcfan accessory building (detached garage). · The Secretaiy-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. . . Kevin Storey, owner, was present to represent the application. No-further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Kevin Storey agrees with staff recommendations. In response to questions from Committee Members, Kevin Storey stated he had met with Building Services staff since the last Committee meeting to discuss the demolition of the exi~ting dwelling prior to a building permit being issued for the proposed addition. Kevin Storey also stated the height of the proposed detached garage would be in keeping with the surrounding · buildings and will be-using it for addition·al storage. ~ · Page 4 of 11 Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland Committee of Adjustment 5, Meeting Minutes Wednesday, August 2; 2017 · . 7:02pm Main Committee Room That application PICA51117 by K. Storey & R. Kay, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances 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 ·detached dwelling and accessory building (detached garage), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by July 12, 2018, or this decision shall become null and void. 3. That prior to obtaining a building permit the applicant completes the demolition of the dwelling and accessory structure located on the east portion of the property. For clarity this is the building denoted on the applicant's submitted plan as "Existing Dwelling to be Demolished-House B".· 4. PICA 52117 to PICA 54117 M. Casey 1307 Commerce Street . Carried The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended: • to permit a minimum lot frontage of 12~0 metres, whereas the by-law requires a. minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres • to permit a minimum lot area of 324 square metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum lot ar(3a of 460 square metres • to perm.it a maximum lot coverage of 48 percent, whereas the by-law requires a ·maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • , to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the by-I;:Iw requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • · to permit a minimum front yard setback of4.5 metres, whereas the by-law require's a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres • to-permit a covered platform to project a maximum of 1.8 metres into the required front yard, whereas the by-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required front yard Page 5 of 11 6 -C~o~~ .P1CKER1NG Committee of Adjustment· Meeting Minutes VVednesday,August2,2017 7:02pm Main Committee Room The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the creation of a total of three lots through the Region of Durham Land Division Committee, and obtain building permits for the construction of three detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending refusal. Written comments were also received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing· no comments on the applications. Craig Marshall, agent, was present to represent the application. Karen Keating of 1314 Broadview Street and Gloria Pinkney of 1315 Commerce Street were present in objection to the applications. Steven Karpouzis of 1308 Broadview Street was pre.sent to obtain additional information on the applications. · Craig Marshall provided an overview of the applications by presenting a PowerPoint presentation for the Committee Members; Craig Marshall stated the applications should , have been considered using the Established Area (Bay Ridges Neighbourhood) instead of the "Immediate Area", the streets surrounding the subject property .. Craig Marshall stated there have been several minor variance applications in the surrounding area that have been approved for variances such as: side yard reductions, reduced frontages, porch projections and even a 0.0 metre front yard setback.-Craig Marshall stated Commerce Street should l:;le developed to be consistent with the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Karen Keating expressed a concern with the height of the proposed dwellings. Karen Keating is also concerned with the ircrease in traffic and congestion once the new developments that are currently under construction are completed and new families start moving in. Karen Keating also questioned what the new dwellings will look like and if there are any elevation drawings available for review. Gloria Pinkney is not opposed to severing the lot, however would prefer two lots, opposed to three. Gloria Pinkney expressed a concern with_ the height al")d the front yard sE3tback of the proposed dwellings. Gloria Pinkney noted she would like to see them in line with the other dwellings and not to close to the street. Steven Karpouzis questioned the type of fence that will be installed during construction and ifthe builder will be providing a permanent fence once the construction is completed. In response to questions from the concerned residents, Craig Marshall provided examples of the proposed dwellings, and expla.ined a construction fence will be erected during construction and will not be installing a permanent fence once construction is completed and that it will up to the new homeowner. . Page 6 of 11 Committee of Adjustment 7 Meeting Minutes· Wednesday, August2,_ 2017 7:02pm Main Committee Room A Committee Member stated Committee of Adjustment is for small minor.adjustments to ' the zoning by-laws and that the Committee considers the impacts on the immediate area. Also that the requested variances raise matters that should more appropriately be considered by a Council decision, Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by That applications PICA 52117, PICA 53117 and PICA 54117 by M. Casey, be Approved ·on the grounds that the variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the detac~ed dwellings include two car garages and the height not to exceed 12.0 metres. 2. That the applicant obtains land severances to create three lots through the Region of Durham Land Division Committee by August 2, 2018. 3. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the ·proposed construction of the · three detached dwellings by August 2, 2019, or this decision shall becom~ null and void. · · Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton Motion Lost That application PICA 52117 by M. Casey, be Refused on the grounds that the minimum frontage of 12.0 metres, a minimum lot area of 324 square metres, a maximum lot coverage cif 48 percent, a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres, a minimum front yard setback of 4.5 metres, and a maximum covered platform projection of 1.8 metres are major variances that are not considered to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan _and the Zoning By-law. . . That application PICA 53117 by M. Casey, be Refused on the grounds that the minimum frontage of 12.0 metres, a minimum lot area of 324 square metres, a maximum lot coverage of 48 percent, a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres, a minimum front yard setback of 4.5 metres, and a maximum covered platform projection of 1.8 metres to be maJor variances that are not considered to be desirable for the appropriate development-of the land, and. riot in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. Page 7 of 11 8 -Oft;of-' - P1CKER1NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes .. · VVednesday,August2,2017 7:02pm Main Committee Room That application PICA 54117 by M. Casey, be Refused on the grounds that the . minimum frontage of 12.0 metres, a minimum lot area of 324 square metres, a maximum lot coverage of 48 percent, a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres, a minimum front yard setback of 4.5 metres, and a maximum covered platform projection of 1.8 metres to be major variances that are not considered to be desirable for the appropriate-development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plari and the Zoning By-law. · · Vote Tom Copeland Eric Newton Denise Rundle . 5. PICA 59117 S. Mikhail opposed in favour in favour 1815 Fairport Road, Unit 10 Carried The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7284113 to permit an uncqvered deck and steps not exceeding 3.0 metres in height above . established grade, to encroach a maximum of 4.1 metres into the required rear yard, where the lot abuts the OS-HL zone; whereas the by-law requires uncovered decks, platforms or steps not exceeding 3.0 metres in height above established grade, to encroach a maximum of 3.0 metres into the required rear yard, for lots abutting the OS-HL zone. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a deck and associated steps in the {ear yard. 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 Service.s Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were also received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating they have reviewed the requested variances and1they have no impact on TRCA's policies and programs, as such they have no'. objections to the application. Sandra Mikhail, owner, was present to reprf?sent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. . . . . Sandra Mikhail submitted two letters of support from the adjacent neighbours for the Committee Members to review. · Page 8 of 11 J -04of- PlCKER1NG Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by D~nise Rundle Committee of Adjustment 9 Meeting Minutes VVednesday,August2,2017 7:02pm· Main Committee Room That application PICA 59117 by S. Mikhail, be Approved on the grounds that the subject variance 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 conditions: · 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck and steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by August 2, 2018, or this decision shall become null and void. Carried 6. PICA 60117 T. & M. Kuteyi 1815 Fairport Road, Unit 8 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7284113 to permit an uncovered deck and steps not exceeding 3.0 metres in height above established grade, to encroach a maximum of 4.8 metres into the required rear yard, where the lot abuts the OS-HL zone; whereas the by-law requires uncovered decks, platforms or steps not exceeding 3.0 ·metres in height above established grade, to encroach a maximum of 3.0 metres into the required rear yard, for lots abutting the OS-HL zone. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in ord~r to obtain a building permit to construct a deck and associated steps\ in the rear yard. 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 Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were also received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating they have reviewed the requested variances. I and they have no impact on TRCA's policies and programs, as such they have no objections to the application. Samantha Bateman, agent, was present tq represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Samantha Bateman agrees with staff recommendations. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Samantha Bateman indicated they do not have a problen:t if the condition fulfillment date was revised to a shorter timeframe. Page 9 of 11 ,o ·--CdiJ (}f-.,....-- p](KERlNG Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded .by Tom Copeland Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes VVednesday,August2,2017 7:02pm. Main Committee R9om. That application PICA 60117 by T. & M. Kuteyi, be Approved on the grounds that the subject variance 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 conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck and steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted pla~s. 2. That the applicant obtain a building pe~mit for the construction by August 2, 2018, or this decision shall become null and void. 7. PICA 61117 P. & J. Kukic 1815 Fairport Road, Unit 8 Carried The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7284113 to . , , permit an uncove·red deck and steps not exceeding 3.0 metres in height above · established grade, to encroach a maximum of 5.0 metres into the required rear yard, where the lot abuts the OS-HL zone; whereas the by-law requires uncovered decks, platforms or steps not exceeding 3.0 metres in· height above established grade, to encroach a maximum of 3.0 metres into the required rear yard, for lots abutting the OS-HL zone. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a · building permit to construct a deck and associated steps in the. rear yard. 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 Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were also received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating they have reviewed the requested variances and they have no impact on TRCA's policies and programs, as such they have no objections to the application. Samantha Bateman, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Page 10 of 11 ---'---04 of-·· - PICKE.RING Committee of Adjustment 11 Meeting Minutes - Wednesday, August ·2, 2017 7:02pm Main Co.mmittee R~om Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application PICA 61/17 by P. & J. Kukic, be Approved on the grounds that the subject variance 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 conditions: 1. Th?t this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck and steps, as . generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. 2. · That the applicant obtain a building permit for the construction by August 2, 2018, or this decision shall become null and void. Carried (IV) Adjournment Date Chair Moved by Eric Ne~on Seconded by Demise Rundle That the 1Oth meeting of the 2017 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:18pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, August 23, 2017. Carried Unanimously Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Page 11 of 11 12 ~~~ . P1CKER1NG ~· From: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Report to· Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: PICA 62117to PICA 75117 Date: August 23, 2017 Manager, Dev~lopment Review & Urban Design , Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications PICA 62117 to PICA 75117 · Mattamy (Seaton) Limited . Applications Part of Block 45 & Block 47 with Lane on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13, Phase 2 Block 45 (PICA 62117 to PICA 66117) . The applicant requests relief from-Zoning By-law 7364114 (Seaton Zoning By-law) to permit street townhouse dwellirgs in a "Low Density Type 1 (LD1 )" Zone; whereas, the by-law does not permit street townhouse dwellings within a "Low Density 1 Type (LD1)" Zo.ne. Block 47 with Lane (PleA 67117 to PICA 75117) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364114(Seaton Zoning By-law) to permit detached dwellings in a "Low Density Type 2 -.Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone; whereas, the by-law does not permit detached dwellings within a "Low DensitY Type_ 2-~ultiple (LD2-M)" Zone. The applica.nt requests app~oval of these minor variance applications in order to permit eight townhouse dwellings in a "Low Density Type 1 (LD1)" zone, and six single detacheddwellings in a "Low Density Type 2-Multiple (LD2-M)" Zone within the Matl;amy·(Seaton) Draft · . Approved-Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-13, Phase 2. Recommendation · . · The City Development Department recommends that minor variance applications PICA 62117 to PICA 75117 be Deferred· to the next available meeting, .september 13, 2017, to allow staff to · recirculate a revised Public Notice as it relates to the variances. requested. ReportPICA 62117 to PICA 75117 Background August 23, 2017 . 1 3 Page 2 To facilitate changes during the implementation of the Mattamy (Seaton) Draft Approved Plan of Subdivisio~ (SP-2009-13, Phase 2), the owners· of the subject lands are reque~ting to relocate unit types within the Draft Approved Plan. The current zoning by-law requires a -~, minimum number of medium density units to be located in this plan of subdivision. To ensure that the required number of medium density units is provided in the plan, the applicant is requesting to relocate the detached dwellings and street townhouse dwellings to an alternative location within the same draft plan; To accommodate these minor red-line revisions to the Draft Approved Plan, a number of minor adjustments are required resulting in the need for · variances to the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364114. The requested minor variances maintain the same over all unit count. (14 units) as in the Draft Approved Plan and the density permitted in the Official Plan (Official Plan Amendment 22). · On August 9, 2017, the City pevelopment Department provided an incorrect Public Noti"ce, and therefore recommends that minor variance applications PICA 62117 to PICA 75117 be· deferred to the next.available meeting, September 13, 2017 to allow staff to prepare and recirculate a · new. public notice with the correct legal description of the respective Blocks within the. · Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision, SP-2009-13, Phase 2. Date of report: August 17, 2017 Comments prepared'by: -. . . ~~:1 Lalita Paray, ~P, RPP Ni es Surti, CIP, RPP Planner I · Mana r, Development Review & Urban Design LP:NS:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-370012017\PCA 62-17to PCA 75-17\Report\pca 62_17 &pea 75_17_def Aug 23.doc Attachments -04Jof-· -. PICKERING City Development · Department .---~--~-------------------------,TAUNTONROAD /" . Phase 1 Block45 Phase 2 ...,. __ _ B/ock47 with Lane· -a~()i-­ PJCKERlNG City Development Depa'rtment to permit 8 street townhouse dwellings in a ·"Low Density 1 (LD1)" zone·sul:>ject to the zone standards· of the "Low Density Type 1 -(LD1)" zone BLOCK 50 Sing!e;Oetached . max units= 5 SP-2009-13 Phase 2 STREET15 -BLO¢K49 single Oei!!Ch~d ma)(Uliits = 16· mirLwidth == 9.15in BLOCK46 Street Townhouses max units= 6 min. width =,7.01m min. 'Width =11..01'11 \-----""-----~~.----··~--.., Submitted Plan File No: . PCA 62/17 to PCA 75/17 BLOCK 54 FUTURE RESIOENTIAL Single Detached .0.29:·ha. to permit 6 detached dwellings in a "Low Density Type 2 -Multiple (LD2-M)" zone subject to the zone standards of the "Low Density Typ 2 -Multiple (LD2-M}" zone Property Description: Part of Block 45, Block 47 with Lane, on Draft A roved Plan of Subdivision (SP-2009-13) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: August3, 2017 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: PICA 77/17 Date: August 23, 2017 Principal Planner-Development Review Subject: Application· Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 77/17 D. Naumovski 1953 Spruce Hill Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct a two-storey detached dwelling. · Recommendation The City Development Department considers a minimum north side yard setback 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 two-storey detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. I . 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by August 23, 2019, or this decision shall become null and void. Comm.ent · Official Plan and Zoning. By-law Pickering Official Plan -"Urban Residential Areas -Low Density Areas" within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Zoning By-law 3036-"R4"-Fourth Density Residential Zone Report PICA 77/17 August23,2017 17 Page 2 Appropriateness of the Application • the intent of a minimum side yard setback requirement 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- • the Zoning ~y-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • the applicant has requested to reduce the minimum north side yard setback from 1 .5 metres to 1 .2 metres • the applicant is unable to meet the north side yard setback requirement as the TRCA has requested a more gracious south side yard setback of 1.93 metres due to the· grading along the south property line • the proposed north side yard setback of 1.2 metres will provide an adequate separation distance between the proposed dwelling and lot line to accommodate pedestrian access, grading, drainage and residential services • the proposed north side yard setback will be compatible with the existing neighbourhood as other redeveloped properties along Spruce Hill Road have been approved to have minimum side yard setbacks of 1.2 metres • 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 Services • no comments on the application Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • no .objections to the application Date of report: August 16, 2017 Comments prepared by: CM:DW:jc Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner-Development Review J:\Documenls\Development\D-3700\2017\PCA 77·17 ·D. Naumovski\Report\PCA 77·17 Report.doc Attachments -Ciftjoff- PJCKERJNG City Development Department Location Map File: PICA 77/17 Applicant:D. Naumovski 0 (§ 0::: ~ 0 a. 0::: ~ - :____ - -----'------1----l--1~ 1----l----l w 0:: 1---1-----l > 0 1---1-----l 0:: w 1---1-----l 0 () 1----l----l ~ ~ 1----l----l (5 (/) 1---1----1 ...J ffi ·~ =:i 1---1----1 Ul CJ) 1---1----1 Prooertv Descriotion:Pian 1041 Part Lot 89, 88A Now 40R2255 Part 1 &40R7419 Part 1 (1953 Spruce Hill Road)·. Date:Auo. 02,2017 C The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (iQ part) under license from:@ Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, e0.:!~~:~~~;~;:~~~.~~~~~ :~~~:~~:"l~~:r~~C~~~~ ~tn~~ma~n~~~o~~~~::,~e~~~~~:nr!~~~:~~oc!Jers all rJ his rese~ved.: SCALE: 1:5,000 T;:IIS IS NOT PLAN 0~ SUR\n::y PN-RU --Cdt;oi·-- PJCKERJNG City Development Department to permit a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 metres Submitted Plan File No: PICA 77/17 Applicant: D. Naumovski ' !7.2 Property Description: Plan 1041 Part Lot 89, BBA Now 40R2255-Part 1 & 40R7419 Part 1 (1953 Spruce Hill Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. B9.0. DATE: July 24, 201~ 20 Report to. -0/J;bf- PlCKERlNG Committee of Adjustment From: Subj~ct Application Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Application Number: PICA 79117 Date: August 23, 2017 Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 79117 Squires Beach Holding Ltd. 1325 Squires Beach Road . . The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit two accessory buildings to be erected in the front yard; whereas the by-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building. shall be erected in the rear yard. The applicant requests.approval of this minor variance application in order to allow for two accessory buildings for salt and waste storage in the front-yard and to obtain site plan approval for a concrete facility. Recommendatio·n The City Development Department considers the two accessory buildings located in the 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 variance, subject to the.following conditions: 1. ·That this Minor Variance apply only to the proposed development (concrete facility), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. 2. That the applicant obtain site plan approval for the proposed development by August 23, 2018, · or this decision shall become null.and void. 3. That the applicant obtain a Permit under 0. Reg. 166106 from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the proposed development by August 23, 2018, or this decision will become null a·nd void. 4. That' the applicant obtain a building permit for the propo'sed construction by August 23, 2018, or this decision shall become null and void. Report PICA 79117 August 23, 2017 21 Page 2 Background On December 7, 2016,· the Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application PICA 66116 for the subject lands in order to permit front yard parking to be limited to 56 percent of the total required parking area, and an accessory building (scale house) to be located in the front yard; whereas· the by-law requires front yard parking to be limited to 20 percent of the .. total required parking area, and all accessory buildings which are not part of the rriain building to be erected in the rear yard. ·On December 13,2016, the related site plan application was considered and endorsed by the Site Plan "Committee.· The applicant ha·s recently submitted a ·revised site plan based on comments received by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the City through the site plan review process. As a result; an additional variance has been identified to permit two accessory buildings, having a total gross floor area (GFA) of 1 ,338 square metres, for salt and waste storage to be located. in the front yard. · . Comment Official Plan and Zoning By-law Pickering Official Plan -"Employment Areas -General Employment" within the Brock Industrial Neighbourhood. Zoning By-law 2511, as amended -"M2S"-Heavy Manufacturing Appropriateness of the Application . \ . . Accessory Buildings within the Front Yard Variance • · the intent of requiring accessory buildings to be located in the rear yard is to minimize their visual impact on the streetscape and adjacent properties • the applicant is requesting to permit two accessory buildings (salt and waste storage) to be located in the front yard ' • the applicant has indicated that the prhposed location of the salt and waste storage buildings within the front yard is for functionality purposes and will allow for efficient· circulation of' concrete trucks on the subject site, and protect the salt and waste from inclement weather • the subject property is surrounded by existing industrial and .manufacturing land uses • .due to the unique configuration of the subject property,. the proposed location of the two access"Ory buildings will have minimal impact on abutting properties • the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land and maintains the intent and purpose of t~e Official Plan and the Zoning By-law 22 ·Report PICA 79/17 Input From Other Sources ~ngineering Services Date of report: August 16, 2017 c~/By Lalita Paray, MCIF/ RPP . Planner I LP:jc August23,2017 Page' 3 • no comments on the application Nilesh -urti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA ApP.Iications)\2017\PCA 79-17 Squires Beach Holding Ltd\Report\PCA 79_17.doc Attachments -· -Cdt;of- PJCKERJNG City Development Department D / Cl (§ 0:: 51-----------:... Lti al en w 0:: 5 0 en Location Map SUBJECT PROPERTY ! COPPERSTONE DRIVE SILICONE DRIVE File: PICA 79/17 , Applicant:Squires Beach Holding Ltd. n BAYLY STREET l = Prooertv Descriotion:BFC Ram:Je 3 Part Lot 15,16 Now RP 40R22677 Parts 19, 23-28 1325 Squires Beach Road) Date: Auq. 08, 2017 ~ ~geh~or:e~~~~~:r ~~:;:~~e~u~:::~;t(:f~aa~a~~~~~;:~~f~::~~~e~:~=~~~~~~~~~~:~.~atural Resources. S GALE: 1 :5 J QQQ I @ Teranet Entemrises Inc. and Its ~~~oli~rs an riahts reserved.; <0 Munlclcal Pro~~;,-Assessment Corcarallon and Its sullll!Jers an rlnhls reserved.; T'I-IS s "'OT A PLAN Ql:' SURVF;Y p N-RU .3 \ . . \ --~~~·-­ PlCKERlNG City Development ·Department Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 79/17 Applicant: Squires Beach Holding Ltd. to permit two accessory buildings to be erected in the front yard P.roperty Description: BFC Range 3 Part Lot 15,16 Now RP 40R22677 Parts ·19, 23-28 (1325 Squires Beach Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. . . ...... 1' N. [ DATE: August 2, 2017 ·City Development Department 3D. MODEL SCALE~~=1'-0" Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 79/17 Applicant: Squires Beach Holding Ltd. Property Description: BFC Range 3 Part Lot 15,16 Now RP 40R22677 Parts 19, 23-28 (1325 Squires Beach Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PlAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: August 2, 20101 26 . /IhA j -~ ()ff-----'- P1CKERlNG From: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: PICA 80117 Date: August 23, 2017 Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Application Committee of Adjustment Applicatio"n PICA 80117 M. Strasic 662 Pleasant Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended: • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent; whereas the by-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent· • to permit a minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres; whereas the by-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres The· applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a detached dwelling. · Recommendation The City Development Department considers a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent and a minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres to be major varianc~s that are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and are not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, and therefore recommends Refu~al of the proposed variances. Comment Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject property is designated "Urban Residential-Low Density Areas" within the Bay ~idges Neighbourhood. in the Pickering Official Plan. · The Pickering Official Plan contains policies to protect and enhance the character of established neighbourhoods, considering such matters as building height, yard setback, lot coverage, and access to sunlight. The Official Plan also contains policies which further encourage developments to be designed to fit their contexts ·by considering the mix of uses, and the massing, height, scale, architectural style and details .of existing adjacent buildings. Report PICA 80117 August 23, 2017-27 Page 2 The subject property is recognized under the "Liverpool Road Waterfront Node" Development Guidelines as being_ situated within the historic Village of Fairport. The guidelines recognize the need to protect the character of the historic village. · The subject property is zoned "R4" -Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone under Zoning By-law 2511, as amended. Background In 1968, the Cqmmittee of Adjustment approved a Minor Variance Application PICA 10168 ·for the subject property to permit a reduced lot area of 408.8 square metres and a reduced lot frontage of 12.8 metres. · Past Variances in the Neighbourhood The area west of Liverpool Road, between Commerce Street to the north and Annland Street to the south, has a mixed parcel fabric which ~as resulted in a large number of requests for minor variances. The properties along Pleasant Street consists of lots that ·generally meet or fall just below the "R4" zone requirements (refer to Location Map attached). A number of variances have been proposed in the past along Pleasant Street that are relevant to this application. In 1977, several variances were proposed for an addition to an existing dwelling at 668 Pleasant Street (including to recognize an existing front yard depth of 5.7 metres), which were approved conditional on the removal of a porch in the front yard and the submission of a lot grading pl~n. · Several variances have been applied for at 661 .Pleasant Street. The earliest variances requested were in 2009 (PICA 13/09) to recognize existing reduced side and flankage yards, a maximum lot coverage of 37 percent and a minimum rear yard of 5.4 metres for an addition to an existing dwelling (now demolished). The Committee approved these vari.ances on the condition that the addition not exceed a height of two storeys and 6.5 metres in height. In 2015, several variances· were proposed for a new dwelling at 661 Pleasant Street (including to reduce the front yard depth to 6.0 metres and to increase the lot coverage to-38 percent), which the Committee refused on the grounds that the variances were major, not desirable, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Since 2015, a new dwelling has been constructed at 661 Pleasant Street thatcomplies with the lot coverage and setback provisions of the Zoning By-law. The only variance received for the new dwelling was for a projection for a deck and stairs into the rear yard. Numerous variances have been approved for properties on Front Road, however the small lot sizes and narrow parcel fabric along Front Road creates a hardship for the reasonable development of those properties. Without variances, the developable area of those lots would be substantially ·restricted. · c. 28 Report PICA 80/17 August23,2017 Page 3 · 2016 City Council Resolution .In November 2016, City Council adopted· Resolution 236/16 to commence a community engagement process to establish guidelines to encourage developers and builders to be mindful of established community character. A forthcomir:tg report recommending a course of action, the feedback from two focus groups, and an overview of practices undertaken in other municipalitie.s, will be brought to Planning and Development Committee for the September 5, 2017 meeting (refer to Notice of Motion attached). Appropriateness of the Application Lot Coverage Variance and Front Yard Variance • the intent of the maximum lot coverage provision is ~o 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 space remains .uncovered by buildings on a lot • the intent of a minimum front yard depth is to ensure that an adequate landscaped area, parking area and setback is provided between the dwelling and the front lot line to maintain the. character of the streetscape • the applicant has requested a variance to increase the maximum lot coverage from 33 percent to 35 percent, and a variance to reduce the front yard depth from 7.5 metres to 6.0 metres · • ·the applicant is proposing a detached dwelling 12.0 metres in height and 4 storeys (refer to Submitted Plan attached) · • the Pickering Official Plan contains policies pertaining to protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods by considering such ·matters. as height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, access to sunlight, and the context of the existing adjacent buildings • front yard depths in the immediate area along Pleasant Street vary between less than a metre and approximately 24.0 metres • the adjacent property to the south (660 Pleasant Street) has a front yard depth of 6.0 metres to the garage, while the property to the north (664 Pleasant Street) has a front yard depth of approximately 12.2 metres · • with the exception of the new dwelling at 661 Pleasant Street which is 3 storeys and 12.0 metres in height, existing dwellings along Pleasant Street vary in height from 1 storey to 2.5 storeys and up to approximately 8.0 metres in height • variances were granted for the property at 661 Pleasant Street, including a variance to increase lot coverage to 37 percent for an addition to an ·existing dwelling (now demolished) on a lot with an area of approximately 356.0 square metres (whereas the by-law requires a minimum lot area of 465.0 square metres), conditional on the height being limited to a maximum of 2 storeys and 6.5 metres .. Report PICA 80/17 August23,2Q17 29. Page4 • existing lots along Pleasant Street generally exceed or fall just below the "R4" zone requirements, including the subject property (with a lot area of 408.8 square metres) which is of sufficient size to permit a reasonably sized dwelling that complies with the zoning by-law • the proposed detached dwelling with a height of 12.0 metres, a reduced front yard depth of 6.0 metres and a lot coverage of 35 percent will likely obstruct the street view of the adjacent dwelling to the north (664 Pleasant Street) and may cast shadows onto the front and rear yards of the adjacent properties to .the north and west • when considered together, the proposed increased lot coverage, reduced front yard depth and proposed 12.0 metre ta!l dwelling, will result in a development considered to be out of scale with adjacent buildings, and will neither protect nor enhance the . character of the neighbourhood along Pleasant Street • staff are of the opinion that the requested variances are major variances that are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and are not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan • if the applicant were to reduce the height of the proposed dwelling to 2.5 storeys and a maximum of 8.0 metres, the requested variances would be considered minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the lands and would meet the general · intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law / If the applicant was to amend the application to restrict the proposed detached dwelling to a maximum of 2.5 storeys and 8.0 metres, and should the Committee find merit in the · application, we· recommend Approval of the proposed variances to be subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to a detached dwelling having a maximum building height of 8.0 metres (2.5 storeys). · 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by August 23,2019 or this decision shall become null and void. 30 Rep~rt PICA 80/17 Input From Other Sources Engineering .Services Councillor Bill Mclean Resident of 668 Pleasant Street Date of report: August 17, 2017 Comments prepared by: Rory McNeil · Planner I RM:NS:Id J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2017\PCA 811-17 \Report\PCA 811-17 Report.doc Attachments August 23, 2017 . Page 5 • no comments on the application • does not support the application • . would like to wait until Staff's report in response to Councillor Brenner's Notice of Motion is complete • opposes any variances which may be requested for a building of the height proposed • concerned the building would be an eyesore on a street of mostly bungalqws • concerned the proposal will look like the tall building erected at 661 Pleasant Street • concerned that the residents had no say in what was built at 661 Pleasant Str~et • concerned that the proposed dwelling will be built whether the residents like it or not • commented that some larger homes have been built nearby that look nice • concerned with other developments in the area and the impact it has had on traffic • would like to a see a plan put together by the City determining what can be built in the area i, MCIP, RPP evelopment Review & Urban Design -~~~­ P1CKER1NG City Development Department Location Ma File: PICA 80/17 Applicant:M. Strasic 1 COMMERCE STREET PN-RU -Cdt;of·- PJCKERJNG City Development Department Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 80/17 Applicant: M. Strasic Prop~rty Description: Plan 65 Block E Part Lot 11,12 ITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. (662 Pleasant Street) ~ULL SCALE COPIES 01= THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWIN~ AT THE CITY OF PICKERING to permit a maximum lot I coverage of 35 percent -Cl)' Cl) :1--en -s:::: m UJ m CIJ D. 1' I DATE: August 3, 201.7 --Cd;; od-- 'PJCKERJNG City Development Department Submitted Plan. File No: P/CA 80/17 Applicant: M. Strasic Property Description: Plan 65 Block E Part Lot 11,12 (662 Pleasant Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. · View from Pleasant Street DATE: August 3, 2 34 -----%~1- PlCKERlNG·. Notice of Motion a) Guidelines to Protect Community Character (lnfill) Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Ashe November 21,2016 Whereas the .City. of Pickerin.g recognizes the importance of community character and its_preservation where infill construction takes place; Whereas the Planning Act enables approvals when it involves.Draft Plans of Subdivision, but provides no jurisdiction to enable municipalities to impose conditions for individual building permits not subject to Draft P~an Conditi_ons; Now Therefore be it res·olved that the City Development Department commence a community engagement process via the establishment of a focus group that will . enable Pickering to establish the creation of guidelines that will encourage developers and builders to be mindful ofestablished community character when bringing forward draft plans and/or individual building permits in communities such as Fairport Beaqh, South Rosebank and others within Pickering. And that City staff forwa·rd copies of this resolution to all City of Pickering community associations and ratepayer groups s·eeking appointments to this focus group.