Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 13, 2019DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Agenda Meeting Number: 11 Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 pickering.ca C4 66/ DICKERING Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, November 13, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers 1. Disclosure of Interest 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from October 9, 2019 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 60/19 & P/CA 61/19 Unique AT Holding (Phase 2 & Phase 3) 1470 Bayly Street 4.2 P/CA 65/19 M. Brown 87 Finch Avenue 5. Other Business 5.1 Adoption of 2020 Meeting Schedule 6. Adjournment Page Number 1-15 16-22 23-42 43 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Samantha O'Brien T. 905.420.4660, extension 2023 Email sobrien@pickering.ca Gtr �f DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland — Vice -Chair David Johnson — Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary -Treasurer Samantha O'Brien, Assistant Secretary -Treasurer 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, October 9, 2019 meeting be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 9th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, September 11, 2019 be adopted. Vote Tom Copeland David Johnson Eric Newton Sean Wiley in favour in favour in favour in favour Carried One Committee Member abstained from voting as the Member was not in attendance at the September 11, 2019 hearing. Page 1 of 15 c4 o� DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers 4. Reports 4.1 (Deferred from the September 11, 2019 Meeting) P/CA 51/19 M. Adham 198 Twyn rivers Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, for the following provisions: • to permit the existing accessory structure (Accessory Building) which is not part of the main building to be located in the front and westerly side yards, whereas the by-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building be erected in the rear yard; • to permit human habitation in the existing accessory structure (Accessory Building), whereas the by-law does not permit human habilitation in an accessory structure; and • to permit an accessory dwelling unit in the existing accessory structure (Accessory Building) subordinate to a detached dwelling provided a) a total of three parking spaces are provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located, b) the maximum floor area of an accessory dwelling unit shall be one hundred (100) square metres, and c) a home-based business is prohibited in either dwelling units on this lot; whereas the by-law permits an accessory dwelling unit within a detached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling only. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to recognize an accessory dwelling unit in an accessory structure (Accessory Building). 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 City's Building Services Section stating alterations have taken place without'a building permit, and the garage is not to be inhabited until authorized by the City. Adham Mousa-Khaled, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Page 2 of 15 CGa o� DICKERING Committee of Adjustment 3 Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers In response to questions from Committee Members, Adham Mousa-Khaled stated he purchased the property in 2016 where his brother is currently residing. It is believed that the original owners had been using the accessory structure as an accessory dwelling unit. Adham Mousa-Khaled stated he was unaware a permit was required for this use. Adham Mousa-Khaled has worked on drywall installation, electrical, and plumbing alterations to the accessory structure. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary -Treasurer indicated the City's Fire Services and Building Services have visited the property to inspect the property for the purposes of initiating the accessory dwelling unit permit process. Given that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and after consideration of the City Development Department's Recommendation Report, the required accessory dwelling unit processes and conditions for approval, as well as the accessory building being setback significantly from the road, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 51/19 by M. Adham, 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 accessory building, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated October 9, 2019). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the accessory building and/or accessory dwelling unit as determined by Building Services by September 10, 2021, or this .decision shall become null and void. Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 55/19 M. Brown 87 Finch Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6578/05 to permit a minimum east side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the by-law requires 3.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct a detached dwelling. Page 3 of 15 4 DICKERING C4oif Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers 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 objections to the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating no objections to the approval of a side yard setback variance as it . pertains to 87 finch Avenue. Written comments received from Parks Canada were provided to the applicant at the meeting. Parks Canada commented that the proposed setback reduction will negatively impact the natural habitat and species at risk, that the 1.2 metre distance appears insufficient to allow for construction to occur without encroachment onto the adjacent protected lands, and water table levels could be impacted. Michael Brown, applicant, 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, Michael Brown stated he is requesting this variance be approved to allow for the driveway access to meet the minimum size requirements and his preference for it to be located on the west side. The only construction required on the east side of the home will be scaffolding and masonry where 1.2 metres is ample space. Michael Brown continued by indicating he has received a permit from the TRCA for tree removal where some of the trees are to be retained. He noted that he has been the property owner since 2017, and was the original applicant of the minor variance application that was submitted and approved in 2017 for the same request which has recently lapsed. When asked if he could alter the drawings to accommodate the request of Parks Canada and rotate the proposed site plan, Michael Brown indicated it is not preferable to make such accommodations since the design and drawings are fully completed. Moved by Eric Newton Motion not seconded That application P/CA 55/19 by M. Brown, be Approved on the grounds that the requested 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: Page 4 of 15 city �a PICKERING Committee of Adjustment 5 Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers 1. That this variance apply only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated October 9, 2019). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by October 8, 2021, or this decision shall become null and void. Motion Lost Given that the option to accommodate a reasonably sized dwelling is possible within the current by-laws, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 55/19 by M. Brown, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance to permit a minimum east side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the by-law requires 3.0 metres, is not reasonably for the appropriate development of the land. Carried Vote Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton opposed Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley in favour 4.3 P/CA 56/19 R. Goncalves 2003 Shay Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1976/85 to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.9 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the by-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered deck. 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 objections to the application. Page 5 of 15 6 DICKERING 6-4 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from an area resident in objection to the application stating approval of this application will result in a lack of privacy for abutting neighbors particularly due to the difference in elevation of the Tots. Robert Goncalves, applicant, 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, Robert Goncalves stated the original deck was approximately 3 feet deep by 6 feet wide and the new deck is approximately 8 feet deep by 22 feet wide. When asked about addressing the privacy concerns raised, Robert Goncalves stated he could install some form of privacy screening. Given that the request is believed to be reasonable given the topography of the lot, that it appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and after hearing the applicant's responses to the concerns addressed, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 56/19 by R. Goncalves, be Approved on the grounds that the requested 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 uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated October 9, 2019). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by October 8, 2021, or this decision shall become null and void. Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 57/19 R. Shute & J. Brooks 1288B Commerce Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 to permit an uncovered platform not exceeding 1.0 metre in height to project a maximum of 2.9 metres into the required front yard, whereas the by-law requires a maximum projection of 1.5 metres into the required front yard. Page 6 of 15 city ,d PICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize an existing platform in the front yard. The Secretary -Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department • expressing no objections to the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Ron Shute, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question asked by a Committee Member, Ronald Shute advised the deck was constructed recently in the summer of 2019. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary -Treasurer stated this application does not require a building permit having met the appropriate height requirements identified in the by-law. Given that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 57/19 by R. Shute & J. Brooks, be Approved on the grounds that the requested 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the uncovered platform, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated October 9, 2019). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 58/19 J. H. Long 1710 Lane Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06 to permit an accessory building (shed) to be erected in the westerly 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. Page 7 of 15 7 8 Cts DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct an accessory building (shed). 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 objections to the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section stating a building permit has been submitted for review. John Long Sr., agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, John Long Sr., stated there is no driveway leading to the new structure, it will be a shed for recreational workshop purposes. He continued to indicate his son is an electrician and the shed will be used to complete leisure wood/metal working projects, no vehicles will be stored in the shed. In response to a question posed by a Committee Member, the Secretary -Treasurer stated the correct term to be, accessory building (shed). Given that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and having no objections to the application, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 58/19 by J.H. Long, be Approved on the grounds that the requested 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 accessory building (shed), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated October 9, 2019). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by October 9, 2020, or this decision shall become null and void. Carried Unanimously Page 8 of 15 cry o� DICKERING Committee of Adjustment 9 Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers 4.6 P/CA 59/19 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited 1148 Dragonfly Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning.By-law 7364/14, as amended: • to permit a minimum front yard setback of 2.8 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 3.0 metres • to permit stairs to a porch to encroach to within 0.01 metres of the front lot line, whereas the by-law permits stairs to a porch or deck to encroach to within 0.3 metres of a front lot line or flankage lot line • to permit stairs to a porch to encroach to within 0.28 metres of the flankage lot line, whereas the by-law permits stairs to a porch or deck to encroach -to within 0.3 metres of a front lot line or flankage lot line The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain zoning compliance for a stacked townhouse condominium development. The Secretary -Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no objections to the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Max Gargaro, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary -Treasurer stated the 0.3 metre reserve is to restrict direct vehicular access to the subject property from Taunton Road which is owned by the Region of Durham. Given that -the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act as set out by the City Development Department's Recommendation Report, and that many new developments require minor adjustments throughout the progression of the project, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Page 9 of 15 10 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 59/19 by Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, 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 condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plan (refer to Exhibit #2 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated October 9, 2019). Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 62/19 C. MacMillan 971 Mink Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended: • to permit a rear yard setback of 3.5 metres, whereas the by-law requires 7.5 metres to permit a side yard setback of 0.2 metres, whereas the by-law requires 2.4 metres The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to recognize an existing deck and associated ramp. 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 received from the City's Building Services Section stating the. structures have been newly constructed without a building permit, which is required for all construction associated with a sunroom (as an addition to the dwelling), deck and access ramp. Dennis Hansen, agent, 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, Dennis Hansen advised the deck was constructed 20 years ago with a permit. An accessibility lift was installed approximately 10 years ago. Due to freezing, rusting and power failures over the years, a ramp replaced the lift. Page 10 of 15 DICKERING cdy Committee of Adjustment 11 Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers The previously submitted building permit does not reflect the added ramp. Dennis Hansen indicated that he has replaced boards on the structure and received no concerns from area residents. After hearing the applicant's responses to questions posed and acknowledging the structure to have existed for a number, of years, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 62/19 by C. MacMillan, 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 existing deck and ramp, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated October 9, 2019). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by October 9, 2020, or this decision shall become null and void. Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 63/19 G. Marquardt &. S. Stanleigh 576 West Shore Boulevard The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit: • a minimum front yard of 5.9 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres; • a platform not exceeding 1.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard, whereas the by-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard; • a minimum south side yard of 0.9 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres; • an accessory structure setback a minimum of 0.1 of a metre from the rear lot line, whereas the by-law requires accessory structures to be setback a minimum of 0.6 of a metre from all lot lines; Page 11 of 15 12 ity DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers • an accessory structure greater than 10 square metres in area setback a minimum of 0.5 of a metre from the side lot line, whereas the by-law requires accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback a minimum of 1.0 metres from all lot lines. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for an extension to an existing attached garage, an addition to an existing detached dwelling, construction into the required front yard of a porch greater than 1.0 metre in height, and to recognize existing accessory structures (sheds). The Secretary -Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval for a minimum front yard of 5.9 metres, a platform not exceeding 1.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard, and an accessory structure greater than 10 square metres in area setback a minimum of 0.5 of a metre from the side lot line, subject to conditions, and refusal of a minimum south side yard of 0.9 metres, and an accessory structure setback a minimum of 0.1 of a metre from the rear lot line. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department stating their recommendation to move the smaller accessory structure (shed) to a minimum of 0.6 of a metre from the rear property line. Written comments were submitted from the City's Building Services Section stating the applicant has submitted a building permit for the proposed construction. Written comments were received from a resident of West Shore Boulevard stating fire safety concerns with the proposed side yard setback of 0.9 of a metre to permit the garage extension. Written comments were received from four area residents on West Shore Boulevard and Cliffview Road, in support of the application. Written comments were also received from Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association in support of the application. Argentino Sisca of Corrente Construction Management, agent, was present to represent the application. Michael Dietz, of West Shore Boulevard was present in opposition to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Argentino Sisca advised the variance requesting a minimum south side yard of 0.9 metres, is required to bring the existing attached garage into compliance, to increase storage, and to facilitate the applicant's desired parking needs. Page 12 of 15 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment 13 Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers Argentine Sisca confirmed the applicant is withdrawing the variance for the smaller shed and will remove the shed from the site. He also noted support from area residents were received in the form of signed letters, which have been documented in the Staff Report. In opposition to the application Michael Dietz submitted photographs of the conditions of the subject site. Michael Dietz also submitted a petition including 13 residents' signatures opposing the variance for a minimum south side yard of 0.9 metres. In response to questions from Committee Members, Argentino Sisca advised the applicant purchased the home approximately 5 years ago and was not aware whether a building permit had been obtained for the existing garage. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Argentino Sisca advised the applicant would like to maintain the existing footprint of the garage to allow for a double car garage. Given that the area resident's concern with the side yard setback can best be addressed by the City's By-law Enforcement Division, the front yard variances are to accommodate amenity space, the application illustrates substantial improvements to the existing lot, the 0.9 metre side yard setback is reasonable when abutting a driveway, and the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Motion not seconded That application P/CA 63/19 by G. Marquardt & S. Stanleigh, 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 proposed addition, and porch; and to the existing shed in the. north-west corner of the rear yard as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated October 9, 2019). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by October 8, 2021, or this decision shall become null and void. Motion Lost Notwithstanding the previous motion and after considering the neighbour's comments and the City Development Department's Recommendation Report to the Committee of Adjustment, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Page 13 of 15 14 C4 o� DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That a minimum front yard of 5.9 metres, a platform not exceeding 1.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard, and an accessory structure greater than 10 square metres in area setback a minimum of 0.5 of a metre from the side lot line, for P/CA 63/19 by G. Marquardt & S. Stanleigh, be Approved on the grounds that these 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 proposed addition, and porch; and to the existing shed in the north-west corner of the rear yard as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated October 9, 2019). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by October 8, 2021, or this decision shall become null and void. and That a minimum south side yard of 0.9 metres, and an accessory structure setback a minimum of 0.1 of a metre from the rear lot line, for P/CA 63/19 by G. Marquardt & S. Stanleigh, be Refused on the grounds that this is a major variance that is not 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. Vote David Johnson Eric Newton Sean Wiley in favour in favour in favour Carried Two Committee Member abstained from voting on this motion. Page 14 of 15 city oif DICKERING Committee of Adjustment 15 Meeting Minutes Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:00 pm Council Chambers 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the 10th meeting of the 2019 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:25 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, November 13, 2019. Carried Unanimously Date Chair Assistant Secretary -Treasurer Page 15 of 15 1R c4,6 DICKERING Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 60/19 & P/CA 61/19 Date: November 13, 2019 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications P/CA 60/19 & P/CA 61/19 Unique AT Holding Corporation 1470 Bayly Street Applications P/CA 60/19 (Phase Two) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-law 7707/19, to permit: • a maximum building height of 82 metres,whereas the by-law requires a maximum building height of 77 metres • a minimum 1.98 square metres of indoor amenity space per apartment dwelling unit, whereas the by-law requires a minimum 2.0 square metres of indoor amenity space per apartment dwelling unit • a minimum 1.92 square metres of outdoor amenity space per apartment dwelling unit, whereas the by-law requires a minimum 2.0 square metres of outdoor amenity space per apartment dwelling unit The applicant requests approval of this application for increased building height, and a decrease in indoor and outdoor amenity space. These variances are required to obtain Site Plan Approval for a high-rise mixed-use building, consisting of 336 dwelling units, and associated amenity space, 393 square metres of retail space at grade, 334 underground parking spaces, and 10 accessible parking spaces at grade. PICA 61/19 (Phase Three) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-law 7707/19, to permit: • a maximum building height of 91 metres, whereas the by-law requires a maximum building height of 77 metres • a minimum 1.94 square metres of outdoor amenity space per apartment dwelling unit, whereas the by-law requires a minimum 2.0 square metres of outdoor amenity space per apartment dwelling unit • a minimum apartment dwelling parking requirement of 0.74 spaces per dwelling unit and an additional 0.15 of a space per dwelling unit for visitors, whereas the by-law requires a minimum apartment dwelling parking requirement of 0.8 spaces per dwelling unit and an additional 0.15 of a space per dwelling unit for visitors Report P/CA 60/19 & P/CA 61/19 November 13, 2019 17 Page 2 The applicant requests approval of this application for increased building height, a decrease in. outdoor amenity space and a decrease in the total number of parking spaces for the dwelling units. These variances are required to obtain Site Plan Approval for a high-rise mixed-use building, with 370 dwelling units and associated amenity. space, 393 square metres of retail space at grade, with 345 underground parking spaces and 10 accessible parking spaces at grade. Recommendations P/CA 60/19 & P/CA 61/19 The City Development Department considers the requested variances 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. Comment Applications Conform to the Intent of the Official Plan The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Mixed Use Areas — City Centre" within the City Centre Neighbourhood. Lands within the City Centre have the highest concentration of activity in the City and the broadest diversity of community services and facilities. This designation permits high density residential, retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants, hotels, convention centres, and community, cultural and recreational uses. The permitted maximum floor space index (FSI) is over 0/5 and up to and including 5.75 FSI. The Official Plan does not include specific policies with respect to maximum building heights within the City Centre. However, the Official Plan states that in the review of development applications for buildings taller than five storeys, performance criteria such as building massing and scale, use of podiums to create a human scale, shadowing impacts, provision of views and privacy for building residents, optimization of sunlight for dwellings and open spaces, and minimization of overlook onto adjacent properties are to be considered. The requested variances, identified through the review of the site plan applications, are required to facilitate two mixed-use, high-rise buildings. The noted performance criteria are considered when reviewing the site plan applications. Intent of the Zoning By-law Phase Two is zoned "CC2" — City Centre Two, and Phase Three is zoned "CC2" — City Centre Two and "NHS" — Natural Heritage System in the City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-law 7707/19. An apartment building with ground floor retail are permitted uses within the "CC2" Zone. The Zoning By-law has four height categories within the City Centre neighbourhood: 17 metres, 47 metres, 77 metres and 122 metres.. The various height categories are to ensure an appropriate scale to surrounding buildings and streets, as well as to provide a diversity in building height. The maximum building height permitted on the subject lands is 77 metres. A maximum building height of 122 metres is permitted on the lands north of this application, and a maximum building height of 47 metres is permitted on the lands south of this application. 18 Report P/CA 60/19 & P/CA 61/19 November 13, 2019 Page 3 Phase Two Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law For Phase Two, the applicant is proposing to increase the maximum permitted height from 77 metres (28 storeys) to 82 metres (29 storeys). This variance will result in an increase of 12 residential units. The purpose of the maximum height requirements in the By-law is to ensure an appropriate scale to surrounding buildings and streets, as well as to provide a diversity in building heights. The surrounding buildings include Phase One which is proposed to be 51 metres in height and Phase Three which is proposed to be approximately 90 metres in height. Staff believe an increase by 5 metres conforms to the intent of the Zoning By-law, as it will provide an appropriate transition from the podium to the tower of the development without affecting the surrounding buildings. The applicant is proposing to decrease the minimum indoor and outdoor amenity space requirements. The applicant has proposed sufficient amenity area for Phase Two by proposing grade related landscaped areas and terraces, and an outdoor pool located above the podium level. In addition, there will be two public park/piazza spaces. Staff believe a decrease in on-site amenity space conforms to the intent of the Zoning By-law. Phase Three Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law For Phase'Three, the applicant is proposing to vary the maximum permitted height from 77 metres (28 storeys) to 91 metres (31 storeys). This variance will result in an increase of 34 residential units. The purpose of the maximum height requirements in the By-law is to ensure an appropriate scale to surrounding buildings and streets, as well as to provide a diversity in building heights. The surrounding buildings include Phase One which is proposed to be 51 metres in height, and Phase Two which is proposed to be approximately 81 metres in height. Staff believe an increase by 15 metres conforms to the intent of the Zoning By-law, as it will provide an appropriate transition from the podium to the tower of the development without affecting the surrounding buildings. The applicant is proposing to decrease the minimum outdoor amenity space and minimum residential parking requirements. The applicant has proposed sufficient amenity area for Phase Three by proposing grade related landscaped areas and terraces, and an outdoor pool located above the podium level. In addition, there will be two public park/piazza spaces. Staff believe a decrease in on-site amenity space conforms to the intent of the Zoning By-law. The applicant has hired BA Group to complete a rationale for a 9 percent deficiency from the required parking count. The rationale states a rate of 0.74 parking spaces per dwelling unit is more appropriate for the development since the development is in close proximity to rapid transit, the Pickering Go Station and bicycle parking will be provided. It is noted that condominiums of similar sizes in the Greater Toronto Area have parking rates lower than 0.65.. Applications are Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land As previously mentioned, the applicant is requesting these variances in order to obtain site plan approval to facilitate two mixed-use, high-rise buildings. These two buildings are part of a Master Block Plan for the lands east of the Pickering GO Station, south of the 401 and west of Sandy Beach Road. In total, Unique AT Holding is proposing seven high-rise buildings which are proposed to vary between 51 to over 80 metres in height. The City Centre Urban Design Guidelines include provisions to assist developers and the City in evaluating the appropriateness of a proposal within the City Centre. Report P/CA 60/19 & P/CA 61/19 November 13, 2019 1 9 Page 4 The guidelines require appropriate transitions in height and ensuring the built form contributes to an active pedestrian -scaled streetscape. Unique AT Holding is proposing a diversity in building heights. In addition, all of the high-rise buildings propose a setback at an appropriate floor level, to create an active pedestrian streetscape. Staff are of the opinion that the increases in height, requested reductions in the parking rate for Phase Three, and the reduction in space will result in a development desirable for the surrounding area. Applications are Minor in Nature Staff believe an increase in height of roughly 5 and 15 metres to be a minor change to the existing zoning, as the height will not have a significant impact on the Master Block Plan or on the surrounding lands. By permitting this increase in height, there is a need for variances to the parking rate and amenity space requirements. Staff believe there is sufficient amenity space proposed within and outside of the building. In addition, there will be shared outdoor amenity space provided for the entire block, therefore the requested variances are minor in nature. Staff also believe that reducing the parking rate will not cause any negative impacts on the road network or adjacent properties, and therefore is considered minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • No comments on the application. Building Services Date of report: November 7, 2019 Comments prepared by: Tanjot Bal, MCIP, RPP Planner I TB: DW: nwb J:\Documents\Development\D-3700@o19\RCA 60.19+61-1917. Report\RCA 60.19+61-19 Report.doc Attachment • No comments on the application. Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Development Review Exhibit 1 oGv,ecln9 q01 Subject Lands Bayly Street Alliance Road D ava Street Modiin Road Fordon A enue Mitchel Park ort 04 Location Map File: P/CA 60/19 (Phase 2) & P/CA 61/19 (Phase 3) obi PICKE RI NG City Development Department Applicant: Unique AT Holding Property Description: Pt Lt 21, Con 1, Now, Pt 1 & 3, 40R-17380 (1470 Bayly Street) Date: Sep. 24, 2019 5 The Corporation of the CIN of Pmkenng Produced an pad) under license from tl Queens PnMer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Allrghts reserved.;® Her Majesty the Queen h Right ofCanada, Department of Natural Resources. MI rights reserved; 9 Tetanal Enterprises Inc. and As suppliers a/ rights reserve d.;®Munk'ipal Property Assessment Corporation and ds suppliers al rights reserved.; SCALE. 1:4,000 THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY. L:tPLANNINGIOI-MapFAes1PCA12619WCA 60.198 PCA 61-19 Urdque AT Holding (Phase 28 Phale 3»PCA6679 PCA61-19 LocatioNA ap.mad 21 Exhibit 2 N LINE. TE IN UO2 LOCATION OF FUTURE UC 425 U1G u'w' mEE !ERRS EYHARM ER I I I =1 11 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Ks 162 0 � 1 1.,i I 0 I Ra St awl 6510 INTERS a 11 a U`G PAHANG GARAGE To permit a maximum building height of 82 metres .02 5593 03.E 05.0 PRINCIPAL 5s./4 ENTRANCE um........ ..:.........::..........+....,... 0302. "TONT t s,gltl ld .0 I-1 ;if({I:1Iii' iii)'~j{f LREti W,ffi15 024442-6 0 OUTDOOR AMENITY ACE enol TANK TA CCE 5E201 051051 FE11C1 ar 41 iiik.7MITAS=7„, 1 03.A3 EC 63 TQ To permit a minimum 1.92 square metres of outoor amenity space per apartment dwelling unit STAN l3.frF 18.20 Atm C1 To permit a minimum 1.98 square metres of indoor amenity space per apartment dwelling unit ED CURB 03AA1-02. A3.03 UC2-PHASING S1rE AREA r:4000.013/0 6th4 PICKERING City Development Department Proposed Application File No: P/CA 60/19 (Phase 2) Applicant: Unique AT Holding Property Description: Pt Lt 21, Con 1, Now, Pt 1 & 3, 40R-17380 (1470 Bayly Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CIN OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Oct 24, 2019 L:\Planning\01-M apFiles\PCA\2019 22 Exhibit 3 -WIRE a uo Yunu 12&Y WcSS1D CURE R T03,5,A1.0 U i1 I !mpg, C of leDC Nl1'm.0'C 0 D ! ll ll� t VIIli OI I t4 SPOIWtryt®f /Wl'1 +%4 is ma immOmmmm xm m v am . rmmmm .ml.r■ mam m Y?'raq 6. 11IJ �mm Y' am/,.1/em0M®mvpmmem4mTilim UMW 11 i ate DICKERING Report to 23 Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 65/19 Date: November 13, 2019 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Development Review Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 65/19 M. Brown 87 Finch Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6578/05 to permit a minimum east side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the by-law requires 3.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct a detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance 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, as generally sited and outlined on theapplicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by November 12, 2021 or this decision shall become null and void. Background On September 13, 2017, the Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application P/CA 76/17, permitting a minimum east side yard setback of 1.2 metres for the subject property. The approval was subject to the condition that the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by September 13, 2019, or the decision becomes null and void. This decision lapsed as the applicant failed to clear all the conditions before the prescribed deadline. The applicant submitted an identical application which was heard at the October 9, 2019 Committee of Adjustment meeting (P/CA 55/19). The City's Engineering Services, Building Services, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) had no objections to this application. 2lReport P/CA 65/19 November 13, 2019 Page 2 On April 30, 2019, TRCA issued renewal of a 2017 TRCA permit allowing site grading and the construction of a single detached dwelling with a detached garage, poolhouse, and in ground pool on the subject property. Parks Canada provided comments through a letter in opposition of the variance dated October 9, 2019. Parks Canada's concerns stem from the property's immediacy to the Rouge National Urban Park as it is located within its boundaries. The subject property is surrounded by significant swamplands which form part of a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) complex. Parks Canada also considered the federal Species at Risk Act stating that the future parklands abutting the subject property are identified as critical habitat for blanding turtles under this Act. Parks Canada requested additional information about the construction management measures that will be taken to ensure the 1.2 metre setback will not create any adverse impacts to the PSW and any potential species at risk habitats. Based on this information presented to the Committee, the applicant was offered an opportunity to alter the submitted plans to comply with the zoning by-law, however the applicant indicated that it would not be preferable to make such accommodations since the design and drawings are fully completed. The Committee refused the application. The current application, P/CA 65/19, is identical to the two previous applications (P/CA 76/17 and P/CA 55/19). The City received a letter from Parks Canada on November 6, 2019, outlining comments and requests of the applicant for the current application. City Staff are aware that the applicant is working with Parks Canada to address concerns since construction management drawings and an estimated construction timeline have been submitted. There has also been discussions about preparing a biologist's report and conducting a bird survey as requested by Parks Canada. Through the TRCA's permit review process, site grading and construction activity will be monitored. The applicant has been actively corresponding with Parks Canada, TRCA, and City Staff to clarify the construction management approaches that. will be taken to satisfy Parks Canada's concerns. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law According to the City of Pickering's Official Plan, the property is designated "Open Space Systems — Natural Areas". Existing lawful residential dwellings are permissible under this designation. A detached dwelling, proposed to be demolished, occupies the property. This variance intends to facilitate the construction of a new detached dwelling. The subject property falls within the Rouge National Urban Park boundaries. Section 10.19 of the City's Official Plan recognizes that the Park is a place of outstanding natural features and diverse cultural heritage and directs Council to protect and enhance the environmental integrity of the Park. This is done through furthering the key and transitional strategies and objectives of the Rouge National Urban Park Management Plan by assisting and cooperating with Parks Canada. Report P/CA 65/19 November 13, 2019 25 Page 3 The applicant is cooperating with Parks Canada, TRCA, and City Staff to demonstrate that construction activities within a 1.2 metre side yard setback will have no adverse impact on the PSW. The intent of a side yard setback is to provide an appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties in order to maintain pedestrian access; vehicular access to detached garages; accommodate grading, drainage and residential services; and maintain the character of the neighbourhood. The applicant is proposing to reduce the east side yard setback to 1.2 metres while maintaining a west side yard setback of 3.3 metres. The proposed 1.2 metre setback will provide an adequate separation distance between the dwelling and the property line tothe east to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land The proposed east side yard setback of 1.2 metres will maintain the character of the neighbourhood, as the properties in the surrounding area have side yard setbacks ranging from 1.2 metres to 3.0 metres. Since the subject property is within the Rouge National Urban Park boundaries, Parks Canada is concerned about potential negative impacts to the environmental integrity of the subject property and the abutting property that is owned by Parks Canada. Construction management practices should be established to the satisfaction of Parks Canada to ensure that any potential negative impacts can be mitigated prior to construction. Minor in Nature The reduction in the east side'yard setback will have minimal land use impact on the abutting property to the east as the property owned by the Parks. Canada. Portions of the property is within the TRCA's screening area. As required, the applicant has obtained a TRCA permit for site grading and house construction. It is staff's opinion that no adjacent development will be impacted by the proposed reduced side yard setback. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that subject to conditions, the requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • No objection to the requested minor variance for the reduced side yard setback. • Concerns with the driveway configuration shown on the plan and advised that further review and approval of the driveway will be deferred to the building permit application stage. 26Report P/CA 65/19 November 13, 2019 Page 4 Building Services Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Parks Canada Date of report: November 7, 2019 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Planner I FC:DW:so J:10ocumenls\Developmenl10-9700120191PCA 85-1917. ReportlPCA 65-19 Report.doc Attachments Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Location Map Site Plan Front Elevation • No comments on the application. • Comments were not submitted at the time of writing this report. • See attachments for TRCA permit approval dated July 14, 2017 and permit re -issuance dated April 30, 2019. • According to a letter dated November 6, 2019 (attached), Parks Canada is willing to withdraw their objection stated in the October 9, 2019 letter, provided that conditions are addressed to the satisfaction of Parks Canada. Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Development Review Construction Management Letter, dated November 4, 2019 Construction Management Plan Estimated General Construction Timeline Parks Canada Comment Letter, dated November 6, 2019 TRCA Permit, dated July 14, 2017 TRCA Permit Re -issuance, dated April 30, 2019 Exhibit 1 Finch Avenue Subject Lands Bralorne Trail m > D 0 0 n Crescent G.4 Location Map File: P/CA 65/19 o02 PICKERING City Development Department Applicant: M, Brown Property Description: Pt Lt 35, Con 1 N, Now Part 1, 40R-2504 (87 Finch Avenue) Date: Oct. 22, 2019 9 The Corpora lan of the City of Pickering Pmchased gn part) under Ikenso kom:O0ueans Pnnter, Ontarb)hadgry o(Netural Resources. 411 rights reserved.;® Her Majesty the Omen h Right or Canada, Department of Nahnal Resources Ali rights reserved.; 9 Teranet Enterprises Inc and ds supplpre al 1ghts re wive d.:0Munkpal Properly Assessment Corporation and is suppliers al dghis reserved.: SCALE. 1:4,000 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. L:IPLANNING101-MapFies\PCA12019WCA 65-19 M. Brown\PCA65-19_Locationhlap.mxd 7 28 Exhibit 2 To permit a minimum east side yard setback of 1.2 metres Ctfod PICKERING City Development Department Proposed Site Plan File No: P/CA 65/19 Applicant: M. Brown Property Description: Pt Lt 35, Con 1 N, Now Pt 1, 40R-2504 (87 Finch Avenue) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Oct. 24 , 2019 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\PCA\201 g w ILII J i1 ek ."". r•�I�...... dillrhUNI 111,414JiiI .rymi,�, ❑g �■ 0�1ooh hr oil I Li- MEP i- Til Ii ■ 1�� if . i dl ®e_��' ni■��e....,, , � :LSI .R!�al�tftr!53ar!�ir!! ll IIIA ■lal -ii.■rA u • i .111011 I Sign ISOM� !r!'� --- a"SIF■, 14 1011 1. ■©, ■■■■L llllli ■p�■P�If■u�n�9 iu; ii• i • h�IIE *.,P I mirPre i 1111111 111---- IIIIII habal i •-:-. 11101.0760; MEM I 1 ili 1811 I1.■■; 1 L .11,111.1.1. v � ti�,—firill 41 i i ii 1/11 1 1011 Ir In �e �illi IIII�I��I iii ifir ;ir1..7..�119 �. I wYnnn�r� 11 Ir , I Itl-ILA g • it II _l� _ Ili- w ymiim1111M � IIIMIII Illi► on l uii; �S�Q�1=111!■!■MC.! ittYY A ilr�llvrh :1■p �°':r ifs- 'nrird ..,1 le.11 �o 1&/.111.1• E®«MMMk yg- 11 61 41 it 11 11 ;r .p: --1 '1 ii 1 II 1 A.9 .39m11.• g 13YO$ OIMd4.9fl . A YAi taxa dol rani xr ront Elev. i • z IMariMairigrelMe E E a0 o E 71-5 a) a 0 0 U 2C rn U 0 W :\P annin.\01-Ma.Files\PCA1201 30 Attachment # November 4, 2019 Mr. Felix Chau, Planner City Development Department One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L 1 V 6K7 By email: fchau@pickering.ca Re: 87 Finch Avenue — Minor Variance Dear Mr. Chau, Further to our conversation of last week, and to be provided to Parks Canada for their review, please find attached a site plan with details pertaining to construction management of 87 Finch Avenue. It is my understanding that the main concern of Parks Canada with regards to the reduced side yard setback is the risk of encroachment during construction. Herein, we have provided a plan highlighting 3 items that should relieve this concern. It should also be noted that these items were developed in correspondence with the 1'RCA, who was involved from the beginning of planning for this new home. The 1'RCA did initially share similar concern, however in working with the authority, we agreed that these items satisfactorily mitigate any potential encroachment and therefore we have received their support. We currently hold a building permit issued by 1'RCA to build this structure with the reduced side yard setback, which is valid until April 2021. 1. We will delineate the properties by installing a silt fence. This fence will serve two purposes, the first being it will prevent trades from inadvertently encroaching onto the adjacent property to the East. It will also prevent any construction debris from migrating to the adjacent property, thereby maintaining the lands in their natural state. Furthermore we could erect a temporary metal construction fence on the property. This fence would stand taller than a silt fence and is more rigid which will provide additional assurance that the property to the East would not be encroached upon. 2. The only true activity that requires access to the East side yard is to complete the masonry cladding on the exterior wall. For this we will be utilizing 3' scaffolds that will then be loaded from the front and rear yards. This is a method sometimes used when completing exterior cladding on homes in the city of Toronto that have notoriously small side yards. Some side yards are far less than the 1.2m we are seeking in this instance, and yet exterior cladding can be achieved without needing to encroach, if that is what's required: 31 3. For the purpose of access for construction equipment and materials to the rear of the structure, we will be able to utilize the 3.37m driveway on the West side yard. This access is sufficient for all construction purposes and therefore there will be no need to encroach onto the adjacent property to access the rear. We are respectful of the fact that the adjacent lands are natural lands and actually that was a great part of the appeal in selecting this property to build a home for our family. However we do not agree that the reducing the side yard by 1.8m will have any adverse effects on those lands. Lastly, we do not believe it is prudent to address a temporary concern with a permanent solution. We believe the items listed herein address the temporary concern as it relates to the construction activity to come. Should you have any other questions or wish discuss in any further detail, please don't hesitate to contact me directly. ' Sincerely, Michael Brown Owner 87 Finch Avenue 32 Attachment # 2. Scope of Work Jul -20 Aug -20 Sep/Oct-20 Nov -20 Attachment # 3 87 FINCH AVENUE ESTIMATED GENERAL CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE 1) Demolish Existing Structure 2) Construction New Residence and Accessory Building Demolish Existing Bungalow Excavation & Footings/Foundations Backfill Framing and Structural Built Form Installation of Septic System Windows and Roof Masonry & Exterior Cladding Exterior Complete Nov -19 Notes: - This schedule is a general outline for the exterior of the building and is subject to change - Prior to start of construction we can notify Parks Canada as we are required to notify TRCA of the same 33 34 Parks Pares Canada Canada November 6, 2019 Mr. Felix Chau, Planner:: City Development Department City of Pickering Pickering City,HalI Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 By e-mail: fchauC pickering.ca Dear Mr. Chau:. Attachment RE: Minor Variance Application, 87 Finch Avenue, Pickering, Committee of Adjustment Hearing, November 13, 2019 Thank you for the Friday, November 1, 2019 conference call involving Parks Canada and City of Pickering staff to discuss the proposed minor variance to reduce the 3 -metre setback required in the city zoning by-law to 1.2 metres. We understand the applicant will resubmit the application for reconsideration by the Committee of Adjustment at its November 13 hearing. In addition to the above -noted phone call, staff spoke with the applicant on October 16 who explained details of construction he felt would eliminate encroachment onto adjacent Parks Canada land. Parks Canada is in receipt of the additional construction details. We very much appreciate the efforts of both the City of Pickering and the applicant to reach out to Parks Canada and the information provided that clarify details of the proposed construction, In the November I conference call, the City of Pickering planning staff indicated Parks Canada may identify measures that would alleviate its concerns over the minor variance as expressed in the agency's October 9, 2019 letter. On this basis, Parks Canada is prepared to withdraw the objection to the requested variance on the basis of the following conditions. Requested Mitigations - Minor Variance at 87 Finch Avenue Species at Risk—Turtles In managing Rouge National Urban Park, Parks Canada is subject to the federal Species at Risk Act (2002). The park lands abutting the subject property are identified as Critical Habitat for Blanding's turtles under the Act. Blanding's turtles (listed as Threatened under Schedule I of the Act), as well as other turtle species at risk that live in the ponds on the C ana a Parks Pares44' 11111 Canada Canada north side of Finch Avenue could potentially use the subject property for nesting from late May to mid-July (i.e., snapping turtles and midland painted turtles, both listed as Special Concern). These three turtle species at risk may also traverse the property at any time during the active season as they move to other habitat sites surrounding the property (April to mid-November), and throughout the year may use wetlands on or near the property. During construction, excavation and ground compaction activities can kill or harm turtle embryos and hatchlings buried underground. Additionally, noise and light pollution and excessive ground vibrations related to construction within the project area have the potential to disrupt turtle habitat selection related to foraging, thermoregulation and overwintering. As such, construction should be scheduled as much as reasonably possible during appropriate seasonal timing windows to avoid indirect impacts to Blanding's, snapping, and painted turtle activity wherever possible. Based on these considerations, Parks Canada requests the following mitigations be implemented to avoid harm to SAR turtles and their habitats: • Purposefully exclude turtles from nesting at the construction site to prevent situations where eggs or hatchlings can be harmed or killed, through the use of wildlife exclusion fencing established at the construction site prior to May 15`h or after October 31' • Terrestrial barriers established for the project (e.g., erosion and sediment control barriers) asrequired in the TRCA approvals be installed in such a way so as not to impede natural migrations of turtles between water bodies or between dry land nesting sites. Alternatively, wildlife exclusion fencing could be incorporated into the erosion and sediment control fencing. • Erect a more robust temporary metal construction fence in conjunction with erosion/sediment control fencing along the eastern property border. We appreciate the willingness of the applicant to identify and implement this measure. • Should in -water work be required, this work should occur outside of the Blanding's turtle overwintering season, and between July 1$` and Sept. 15th to comply with ,fisheries timing windows and avoid incidental harm to hibemating turtles.. Other species at risk Other species at risk that have been recorded within one kilometre of the subject property include Little brown myotis (Endangered), butternut (Endangered),' eastern wood pewee (Special Concern), wood thrush (Threatened), eastern milksnake (Special Concern), monarch butterflies (Special Concern), barn swallow (Threatened), bank swallow (Threatened), eastern meadowlark (Threatened), bobolink (Threatened), and eastern loggerhead shrike (provincially listed as Endangered). We recognize that construction will likely occur during the breeding bird season (April 15` to August 15`h). To avoid and/or minimize effects to wildlife in the area, we recommend the following mitigation measures be implemented: Canaua 35 36 Parks Pants Canada Canada • Vegetation and tree removal be conducted before April is' or after September 30th to minimize impacts to birds, bats and monarch butterflies. • A qualified biologistundertake a nesting bird survey.on the property and within a 100 metre buffer surrounding the property, 24 hours prior to vegetation removal or construction. This nesting survey will ensure that no at -risk species or migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Cbnventioit Act have nested in trees, on structures, or on the ground, on or near the property. If anractive nest is found, a buffer will be applied and no vegetation removal will be permitted until the young have fledged. • Nesting prevention and exclusion measures be developed and implemented in advance of the breeding bird season following the nest survey. Monarch Butterflies This project will take place in an area where monarch butterfly eggs and larvae (caterpillars) are likely to be present on the leaves of milkweed plants. Monarchs are a species at risk, listed federally as Special Concern; they are specialists that rely on milkweed plants as their sole source of food during the larval phase of their lifecycle. To mitigate and avoid negative impacts to monarch butterflies in and near the project area; • Avoid damage to these plants and the monarch larvae they support by limiting vegetation removal to between September 30tt' and March 31 (outside of the primary active season of monarchs in southern Ontario). Other Considerations • We request Parks Canada be notified in advance of construction activities to be undertaken by the contractor near the east and south property boundaries, including grading and drainage works and foundation and wall construction. This will enable Parks Canada staff to schedule monitoring visits to the adjacent Parks Canada property at relevant times. • For post -construction, Parks Canada requests all exterior lighting (on the house, the pool area, driveway, and elsewhere) to be dark -sky compliant to minimize light spillage onto adjacent habitat. • We also encourage the applicant to consider the use of native seed mixes in post construction landscaping. We also recommend the applicant prepare a construction mitigation document detailing the sequence of construction activities and related mitigation actions (including those provided. by the applicant in the November 4 communication) to reduce potential effects on adjacent Parks Canada land. This document should be reviewed by City of Pickering and Parks Canada staff before construction begins. Canadpa Parks Parts IN Canada Canada My thanks again for providing Parks Canada the opportunity to engage with the city and the applicant on this proposal. Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments, please contact Richard Scott at 647-308-0336 or richard.scott@pc,gc.ca. Sincerely, Scott Back, Sustainable Land Use Manager Rouge National Urban Park C.C. Deborah Wylie, City of Pickering Richard Scott, Julia Phillips, Lindsey Valliant, Parks Canada Stephanie Worron, TRCA Canadg 37 38 Attachment Toronto and Region onservation Authority PERMIT NO: C -190398R EXECUTIVE MEETING #: 5/17 DATE: July 14, 2017 APPLICATION # 0279/17/PICK CFN: 57498 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO - OWNER, Michael Brown 1802 Rosebank Road Pickering, Ontario L1 V 1P6 PURPOSE IS TO carry out site grading and construct a new two-storey single family detached dwelling • withxa, detached garage, poolhouse and inground pool in the rear yard at 87 Finch Avenue in the City of Pickering. ON PROPERTY OWNED BY Michael Brown AS LOCATED AT Part Lot 35, Concession 1 (87 Finch Avenue), in the City of Pickering, Petticoat Creek Watershed. FOR THE PERIOD OF April 30, 2019 TO April 29, 2021 AND MUST COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING STAMPED APPROVED DOCUMENTS AND/OR PLANS: Original Plans Iv • Drawing No. 6 of 13, Front Elevation, prepared by Hunt Design Associates Inc., dated Februa y 22, 2017, received June 23, 2017; - • Drawing No. 7 of 13, Left Side Elevation, prepared by Hunt Design Associates Inc., dated February 22, 2017, received June 23, 2017; `- • Drawing No. 8 of 13, Right Side Elevation, prepared by Hunt Design Associates Inc., dated; February 22, 2017,, received June 23, 2017; • Drawing No. 9 of 13, Rear Elevation, prepared by Hunt Design Associates Inc., dated February 22, 2017, received June 23, 2017; • Drawing*. 10 of 13, Cross Section A -A, prepared by Hunt Design Associates Inc., dated February 22, 2017, received June 23, 2017; • Drawing No. 12 of 13, Elevations - Detached Garage, prepared by Hunt Design Associates Inc., dated February 22, 2017, received June 23, 2017; • Drawing No 219.110, Light -Duty Silt Fence Barrier, Ontaio Provincial Standard Drawing, dated November 2006, received June 23, 2017. Revised Plans ., • Drawing No. 216060SP01DWG; Siting and Grading Plan, prepared by Hunt Design Associates Inc., received by TRCA staff on July 17, 2017. Additional Plans • Drawing No. SP -1, Site & Part Grading Plan Sewage System Design, prepared by Gunnell Engineering Ltd., dated March 10, 2017, signed and stamped by E.L. Gunnell P.Eng., on June 5, 2017, received by TRCA on July 17,.201.7; (STIPULATIONS OF APPROVAL ON REVERSE) Tel. 416.661.6600, 1.888.872.2344 1 www.trca.ca 1 Page 1 of 2 Mailing address: 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 154 1 Office Location: 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan, ON L4K 5R6 39 STIPULATIONS All terms and conditions imposed upon this permit are legally binding. Failure to comply with this permit can result in further action by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in accordance with the Conservation Authorities Act. This permit, or a copy thereof, must be posted on the site and available for inspection. The owner is responsible for the accuracy of all information and technical details. This permit does not preclude nor imply any approvals required by any other existing laws and • regulations, including landowner consents. All in -water and near water works must be conducted within the construction timing window as prescribed by Provincial and/or Federal Statutes. REVISIONS Any revisions or changes to the approved work(s) that impact TRCA interests require further TRCA .approvals prior to being initiated. RE -ISSUANCE (EXTENSION) On a one-time basis, applicants may apply for a permit extension provided such requests are made at least 60 days prior to the expiration of an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit. In the Application for Permit Re -Issuance, applicants shall set out the reasons for which an extension is required. Such requests will be assessed in accordance with any new updated technical.hazard information and the current policies in place: There is no guarantee of an automatic approval. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT The information contained on this form and any accompanying plans and documents is collected under the authority of the Conservation Authorities Act and Regulations made thereunder for the purpose of processing permits and is deemed to be public information. Questions about the collection of information should be directed to the Information and Privacy Officer, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Tel: 416-661-6600. NOTE TRCA shall not be responsible for any losses, costs, or damages arising out of the location, design, or construction of, or failure to construct, the works set out in the stamped approved documents. 40 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • Drawing No. DT -1, Sewage System Details, prepared by Gunnell Engineering Ltd., dated March 10, 2017, signedand stampedE by EL. Gunnell P.Eng., on June 5, 2017, received by TRCA on July 17,; 2047; • DrawA;ig No. DT -2, Sewage System Details, prepared by Gunnell Engineering Ltd., dated March 10, 2017, signed and stamped by E.L. Gunnell P.Eng., on Junes5, 2017, received by TRCA on July 17, 2017; Drawing No. DT -3, Specifications & Notes Laboratory Soil Analysis, prepared by Gunnell Engineering Ltd., dated March 10, 2017, signed and stamped by E.L. Gunnell P.Eng., on June 5, 2017, received by TRCA on July 17, 2017. The following no longer apply: Superseded Plans • Drawing, Siting and Grading Plan, prepared by Hunt Design Associates Inc., Revision No. 2, revised March 7, 2017, received June 16, 2017. Authorized by. (STIPULATIONS OF APPROVAL ON REVERSE) Tel. 416.661.6600, 1.888.872.2344 I www.trca.ca Mailing address: 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 1 S4 I Office Location: 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan, ON L4K 5R6 Page 2 of 2 41 STIPULATIONS All terms and conditions imposed upon this permit are legally binding. Failure to comply with thispermit can result in further action by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in accordance with the Conservation Authorities Act. This permit, or a copy thereof, must be posted on the site and available for inspection. The owner is responsible for the accuracy of all information and technical details. This permit does not preclude nor imply any approvals required by any other existing laws and regulations, including landowner consents. All in -water and near water works must be conducted within the construction timing window as prescribed by Provincial and/or Federal Statutes. REVISIONS Any revisions or changes to the approved work(s) that impact TRCA interests require further TRCA approvals prior to being initiated. RE -ISSUANCE (EXTENSION) On a one-time basis, applicants may apply for a permit extension provided such requests are made at least 60 days prior to the expiration of an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit. In the Application for Permit Re -Issuance, applicants shall set out the reasons for which an extension is required. Such requests will be assessed in accordance with any new updated technical hazard information and the current policies in place.There is no guarantee of an automatic approval. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT The information contained on this form and any accompanying plans and documents is collected under the authority of the Conservation Authorities Act and Regulations made thereunder for the purpose of processing permits and is deemed to be public information. Questions about the collection of information should be directed to the Information and Privacy Officer, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Tel: 416-661-6600. NOTE TRCA shall not be responsible for any losses, costs, or damages arising out of the location, design, or construction of, or failure to construct, the works set out in the stamped approved documents. 42 Attachment # (1° April 30, 2019 Michael Brown 1802 Rosebank Road Pickering, Ontario L1V 1P6 Dear Michael Brown: Toronto and Region onservation for The Living City® CFN 57498 Re: Permit No. C-190398R/MICHAEL BROWN Application for permit re -issuance under Ontario Regulation 166/06 by Michael Brown for permission to construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure and site grade on Part Lot 35, Concession 1, (87 Finch Avenue), in the City of Pickering, Petticoat Creek Watershed. On April 30, 2019, your application for a permit re -issuance was approved. The new permit,. C -190398R, is valid,from April 30, 2019 until April 29, 2021. We have enclosed one copy of your new permit, which references the previously approved plans/documents as per the original Permit C-170574. In addition, a copy of this cover letter has been submitted to the municipality. Please ensure that the plans approved by the municipality are consistent with the plans approved through this Conservation Authority permit. Please be advised that if revisions to the design of this project are required subsequent to the re -issuance of this permit, plans/documents reflecting these changes will need to be submitted to this office for further review and approval prior to construction of the redesigned works. ' TRCA STAFF LIAISON For information regarding revisions, technical or administrative related issues please contact Stephanie Worron, Planner I, extension 5907. For site inspections, please contact Michael Brestansky, Enforcement Officer, extension 5699. Since t� n `. Heuchert, MCIP, RPP, MRTPI Associate Director, Development Planning and Permits Development and Engineering Services SW/gc Encl. cc: Heather Rourke, Building Clerk, City of Pickering Tel. 416.661.6600, 1.888.872.2344 1 Fax. 416.661.6898 1 info@trca.on.ca 1 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 Member of Conservation Ontario www.trca.on.ca 43 City �L DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Tentative Meeting Schedule for 2020 Meeting Date (Wednesday) Last Day for Filing (Tuesday) Sign Posting Due Date (Friday) Last Day to Appeal Committee's Decision (Tuesday) January 8 December 10, 2019 December 20 January 28 February 12 January 14 January 31 March 3 March 11 February 11 February 28 March 31 April 8 March 10 March 27 April 28 May 13 April 14 May 1 June 2 June 10 May 12 May 29 June 30 July 8 June 9 June 26 July 28 August 12 July 14 July 31 September 1 September 9 August 11 August 28 September 29 October 14 September 15 October 2 November 3 November 11 October 13 October 30 December 1 December 9 November 10 November 27 December 29 pickering.ca