Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBy-law 2700/88 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PICKERING BY-LAW NUMBER 2700/88 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended to implement the Official Plan of the Town of Picketing District Planning Area, Region of Durham on Part of Lot 25, Plan #73, in the Town of Pickering. (A 45/87) WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Picketing deems it desirable to recognize the existing residential use of the subject property; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3036 is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. BY-LAW 3036 By-law 3036, passed by the Council of the Corporation of the Township (now Town) of Picketing on the 3rd day of August 1965, and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on the 7th day of October 1966, and amended from time to time, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of Section 2 hereof. 2. SCHEDULE "A" AMENDMENT Schedule "A" to By-law 3036, as amended, is hereby further amended by altering from "Rt4" (One-Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone) and "Cl" (Local Commercial Zone) to "Rt" (One-Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone) the zone designation of the lands designated "Rt," on Schedule "1" hereto, being Part of Lot 25, Plan t~73. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take effect from the date of passing hereof, subiect to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, if required. READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 21st DAY OF March ., 1988. READ A THIRD TIME AND PASSED THIS 21st DAY OF March ., 1988. :.~..'E. AND'E-i~'~N- ' ' TOWN OF 'MAYOR PICKER!NG APPROVED /,/ ~ LEGAL DE~T. CLERK LOT 24 0 r~ REGISTERED PLAN No. 473. ,,,. LOT 25 LOT 26 SCHEDULE ! TOBY-LAW 2700/88 PASSED THIS DAY OF ~arch 1988 M~'OR(~ . CLERK ( BRUCE"J.~YLOR ) ;USJECT PROPERTY  ~. 890073 Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de I'Ontario IN THe. ~ATTER OF Section 34(11) of the ~, 1983 * AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to this Board by Heinz Raedisch for an order amending Zoning By-law 2700/88 of the Corporation of the Town of _ Pickering to remove the restriction from the Cl zoning category for the RECEIVED lands comprised of Lot 26, Plan 473, municipally known as 1409 Rosebank Road in the Town of Pickering DR 4.. 1990 SOLICITOR TOWN OF PICK£RIN(~ COON S EL 8 C.M.T. Sheffield - for the Town of Picketing DECISION delivered by K. D. BINDHARDT and ORDER OF T~E BOARD Mr. Heinz Raedtsch owns a commercial property being Lot 26, Plan 473, in the Town of Picketing. The property is located on the east side of Rosebank Road North, a short distance north of Highway No. 2. The southerly half of the adjacent property to the north, Lot 25, was rezoned from C1 Local Commercial to R4 Residential by By-law 2700-88, enacted on March 1, 1988. Mr. Raedisch objected to the proposed rezoning and filed his objection with the Town of Picketing subsequent to the public meeting but prior to the actual enactment of the by-law. Because he did not repeat this objection during the appeal period, the municipality did not recognize his objection as an appeal to the by-law and By-law 2700-88 came into effect, imposing the side yard setback requirement between residential and commercial zones of 4.5 metres for any redevelopment on his property. Mr. Raedisch subsequently appealed under Section 34(11) of the Planning Act to amend By-law 2700-88, removing the setback requirement. - 2 - Z 890073 The Board finds it extraordinary that the Town of Picketing would ignore Mr. Raedisch's objection and not advise him of the need to repeat his objection or, knowing of it, acknowledge it as an appeal to By-law 2700-88. Mr. and)l rs. Adams, the owners of Lot 25, who sought the rezoning to suit their interests and other residents in the area who wish to preserve the residential character of the neighbourhood are taking the position that Mr. Raedisch is attempting to change the by-law to suit his interests. This is not the case. Mr. Raedisch purchased his property for the purpose of commercial redevelopment, knowing that the existing zoningpermitted development with zero setbacks from lot lines. It is Mr. and Mrs. Adams who initiated the change in the zoning, adversely affecting Mr. Raedisch's rights. Consequently, the Board takes the position that in this hearing the onus is on Mr. and Mrs. Adams and their supporters to show that the setback restriction imposed on Mr. Raedisch is Justified. Mrs. Adams and two other residents on Rosebank Road testified that the residential neighbourhood is a distinct area with cultural heritage and that the character of the area requires protection. In her submission, Mrs. Adams stated that Mr. Raedisch's application should be denied because the elimination of the 4.5 metre setback will negatively impact on her property. No evidence was led to identify the distinctiveness and cultural heritage of the area nor was any development proposal identified to assess what negative impact could result. It is obvious, however, that Mr. and Mrs. Adams would prefer the additional distance of 4.5 metres between their house and any development of the subject property. Mrs. Linde D. Taylor, the manager of the planning division of the Town of Picketing, expressed the following opinions 890073 "The requested rezoning does not provide for a side yard which is compatible with the area or adequate for landscape purposes should any future commercial development occur on the lands. Area must be available for landscaping ~d buffering of abutting dissimilar land uses (residential/commercial) to reduce or eliminate conflicts such as noise, emissions and views. The subject property abuts a special policy area as identified in the Woodlands Community Plan, Part B. This area is sensitive to the effects of new development. Consequently, an adequate side yard must be provided on the subject land to permit the incorporation of plantings and berming to protect existing dwellings to the north." This opinion, in the Board's view, is her response to the rezoning application by Mr. Raedisch and does not reflect the reality of the situation. No planning evidence was led to show the need for the relocation of the boundary between the residential and commercial zones. Planning Report No. 7-89, which deals with the application by Mr. Raedisch, reviews the side yard requirement from the position of a rezoning application to eliminate the zero lot line. This report does not deal with the need to impose a setback requirement where none was considered necessary before. The Board appreciates that the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 3036 was approved in 1966 and does not necessarily implement the policies of the Woodlands Community Plan or other policies in the Picketing District Plan, but no development proposal for Mr. Raedisch's property has been identified and no study of any impact on the residential community is available. Planning Report No. 69-87 deals with the application by Mr. and Mrs. Adams regarding the rezoning of their property. In this report planning staff does not identify the needs for the protection of the Woodlands Community. It only finds that the by-law for the rezoning 4 - Z 890073 of the Adams' property conforms to the policies of the Pickering District Plan and recognizes the significant impact of euch resorting on the development potential of the Raedisch property. As a compromise, Mrs. Taylor expressed the following opinion~ #A 2.4 metre side yard width (setback) reflects the minimum setback requirement for a dwelling unit with e detached garage in an R4-Residential zone. A 2.4 metre setback provides for a side yard that is compatible with the area without impacting the development potential of the subject lands as significantly as a 4.5 metre side yard requirement. Sufficient area for landscaping and buffering purposes, to reduce or eliminate conflicts such as noise, emissions and views, is available should any commercial development occur on the property. A 2.4 metre setback provides an adequate side yard adjacent to a special policy area (as identified in the Woodlands Community Plan, Part B) to permit appropriate buffering to protect the abutting residential use." Mrs. Taylor testified that the 2.4 metre side yard setback meets all Official Plan and Community Plan policies. It would appear that the 4.5 metre side yard setback required by By-law 3036 established in 1966 is unnecessary if a 2.4 metre side yard setback meets all the policies of the Official Plan and Community Plan. Mrs. Adams insistence on a 4.5 metre setback indicates that she is primarily concerned with the protection of her own interests. Planning Report 69-87 makes reference to the 0.7 metre north side yard of the existing residential dwelling on the Raedisch property. If the development proposal for the Raedisch property were to incorporate the ex/sting structure, Mr. Raedisch would have - 5 - ~ 890073 to apply either for rezoning or for a variance which undoubtedly would meet with strong resistance from Mr. end Mrs. Adams and other members of the community. Having reviewed all of the evidence and argument, the Board finds that~ 1. No specific development proposal of the Raedisch has been made. 2. Although the Picketing District Plan and Woodlands Community Plan contain general policies to ensure compatibility of future development with existing development and require buffering between residential and non residential uses, no specific need for the protection of the community north of the subject property from a theoretical impact as a result of a zero lot line setback has been identified. 3. The existing structure on the subject property has a 0.7 metre north side yard and future development may incorporate the existing structure. 4. The Board takes the view that the application before it should be considered as part of the process by which a 4.5 metre setback is to be imposed for the north boundary of the subject property. 5. No acceptable rationale has been advanced to support such a change. Mr. Raedisch bought this property as commercially zoned land without the setback restriction and planning staff does not support the 4.5 metre setback.  ~. 8900/3 Ontario Ontario Municipal Board Commission c~es affaires municipales de I'Ontario APPENDIX "A" TIlE CORPORATION OF TIlE TOWN OF PICKlqRING BY-LAW NUMBER Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zotfing) By-law 3036, as amende, d, to implement .... the Official Plan of the Town of Picketing District Plannlng Area, Region of Durham m Lot 26, Plan 473, m t.he Town of Plckenng. (A 43/88) ,VIIi-'. 'RF_.AS it is deemed desirable to amend the side yard requirement provisions applicable o the subject lands; ~FD WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; lOW TH]ZR~:-FORE TIlE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF 'ICKERING I-;ER ~.ny ENACTS AS FO! J OWS: BY-LAW 3036 By-law 3036, passed by the Council of the Corporation of the To .wnship (now Town) of Picketing on the 3rd day of August 1965, and appro, ved by the Ontario Municipal Board on the 7th day of October 1966, and amended from nme to time, is hereby further amended -' only to the extent necessary to give effect to the prov/sions of Sections 2 hereof. Section 11 of By-law 3036, is hereby further amended by adding thereto the following subsection: 11.4.2 Lot 26, Plan 473 Despite the side yard provision of Section 11.2.2, no minimum side yard shall be required where a Local Commercial zone flanks a Residential zone. EFFE~ DATE This By-law shall take effect from and after the day of ,19