Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 8, 2020City �L DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Agenda Meeting Number: 5 Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 pickering.ca Cfy �f DICKERING Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 1. Disclosure of Interest 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from June 10, 2020 4. Reports 4.1 Tabled at the June 10, 2020 meeting P/CA 22/20 M. & M. Snedden 2022 Trailwood Court 4.2 P/CA 29/20 P. Szkwyra & N. McKeown 494 Rougemount Drive 4.3 P/CA 30/20 D. Clarke & A. Bates 1480 Old Forest Road 4.4 P/CA 31/20 R. Helgesen 940 Mink Avenue 4.5 P/CA 32/20 E. & A. Barron 279 Waterford Gate 4.6 P/CA 33/20 P. & S. Keller 1965 Spruce Hill Road 4.7 P/CA 34/20 Unique AT Holding 1470 Bayly Street 6. Adjournment For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Samantha O'Brien Telephone: 905.420.4660, extension 2023 Email: sobrien@pickering.ca Page Number 1-17 18-24 25-30 31-38 39-46 47-50 51-56 57-61 cry 4 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland — Vice -Chair David Johnson — Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary -Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary -Treasurer Samantha O'Brien, Assistant Secretary -Treasurer Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary -Treasurer Tanjot Bal, Planner II Felix Chau, Planner I Isabel Lima, Planner I Absent 1. Adoption of Revised Rules of Procedure Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That the revised Rules of Procedure be adopted. Carried Unanimously 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That the agenda for the Wednesday, June 10, 2020 meeting be adopted. Carried Unanimously Page 1 of 17 cry DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 4. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That the minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, March 11, 2020 be adopted. Carried Unanimously 5. Reports 5.1 P/CA 02/20 E. & T. Papadimitropoulos 1270 Abbey Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1861/84, to permit: • a minimum front yard depth of 4.25 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres; and • a private garage attached to the main building to be located 4.25 metres from the front lot line and not less than 6.0 metres from any side lot line immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street, whereas the By-law requires the minimum one (1) private garage per lot attached to the main building and located not less than 6.0 metres from the front lot line and not less than 6.0 metres from any side lot line immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for an addition to an existing attached garage. The Secretary -Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval. 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 expressing no comments on the application. Dale Theriault, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Page 2 of 17 2 cry DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Dale Theriault thanked the Committee of Adjustment for their efforts during the COVID pandemic. He stated the applicant is looking to add a third -car garage to the existing dwelling and assist with the desirability of the streetscape and landscape of the property by eliminating vehicle storage on the driveway and the street. He continued to describe the request for the front yard setback, which created two variances. Dale Theriault indicated the applicant has worked with staff and agreed to install windows. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Dale Theriault stated the purpose for the construction of a garage is to accommodate the owner's large family. Additionally the purpose of the third garage is only to accommodate vehicular storage and not to facilitate living quarters or an additional dwelling unit. After considering the staff Report, and comments from the applicant regarding maintaining a consistent streetscape, the installation of the windows to the addition, sufficient space for soft landscaping, and the use of similar building materials, this proposal appears to be appropriate development of the neighborhood and minor in nature; Sean Wiley moved the motion as documented and outlined by the City of Pickering City Development Department's recommendation. To ensure the proposed improvements to the garage elevations be undertaken, Committee Member Denise Rundle proposed a friendly amendment that the decision require that the variances apply to the proposed garage as generally sited and outlined on Exhibits 2 and 4 contained in the staff Report dated June 10, 2020. Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 02/20 by E. & T. Papadimitropoulos, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances to permit the construction of an addition to an existing attached garage 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 subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply to the proposed garage as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 and Exhibit 4 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated June 10, 2020). Carried Unanimously 3 Page 3 of 17 C44 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 5.2 P/CA 18/20 C. & J. Arterton 1177 Gloucester Square The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 0889/78, to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 1.5 metres in height and not projecting more than 3.1 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and to not project more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres into any required side 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 a condition. 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 expressing no comments on the application. Charlene Arterton, applicant, and Daniel Wasson, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Daniel Wasson spoke in support of the application indicating the applicant's cooperation to work with staff and have all the necessary criteria compliant with the City's by-laws. In response to a question posed by a Committee Member, Daniel Wasson indicated the proposed deck will maintain the same configuration of the existing deck with the exception of having the stairs oriented in a different direction. Given that, the proposed deck is essentially replacing the existing structure, and based on the comments and recommendations of the City of Pickering City Development Department, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Page 4 of 17 4 cry DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 18/20 by C. & J. Arterton, 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 proposed uncovered deck, 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 June 10, 2020). Carried Unanimously 5.3 P/CA 19/20 C. Gallo & O. Peralta 1803 Pine Grove Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum north side yard of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law states where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize a deficient side yard setback. 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 comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Cesare Gallo, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Cesare Gallo spoke in support of the application stating the reason for the application is to accommodate a construction error in siting the property of the house resulting from an irregular lot line. In response to a question posed by a Committee Member, Cesare Gallo indicated he was the builder and original owner of this property. Page 5 of 17 -5- C44 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 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 19/20 by C. Gallo & O. Peralta, 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 existing dwelling on the subject site, 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 June 10, 2020). Carried Unanimously 5.4 P/CA 20/20 B. & C. Bailey 1004 Rambleberry Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2470/87, to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height 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 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres into any required side 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 a condition. 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 expressing no comments on the application. Dustin Winfield, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Page 6 of 17 6 C44 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Dustin Winfield spoke in support of the application stating the proposed deck will maintain the same configuration of the existing deck with the exception of the stairs having a different direction. The applicants purchased the dwelling last year and believe the deteriorating stairs have existed for approximately 20 years. The current homeowners were not aware that the existing deck was built without compliance to the required zoning by-laws. Given that there appears to be no major concerns with this application, having received no comments, and after reading and being in agreement with the staff Report and recommendations to the Committee of Adjustment, as well as the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 20/20 by B. & C. Bailey, 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 proposed uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated June 10, 2020). Carried Unanimously 5.5 P/CA 21/20 2227959 Ontario Inc. 962 Alliance Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 7.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 12.0 metres; • a minimum south side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 4.5 metres; • 1 parking space per 60 square metres of gross floor area for industrial uses, whereas the By-law requires 1 parking space per 56 square metres of gross floor area for industrial uses; • front yard parking to be limited to 25 percent of the total required parking area, whereas the By-law requires front yard parking to be limited to 20 percent of the total required parking area. Page 7 of 17 7 cry DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate an addition to an existing industrial building. 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 expressing no comments on the application. Due to technical difficulties the agent Paul Gaskin, was unable to be connected to the meeting. Committee Members agreed to move to the next agenda item until such time as all participants for this item were able to be connected to the electronic meeting. Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton To dispense the rereading of application P/CA 21/20 by 2227959 Ontario Inc. Carried Unanimously Gus Regas, applicant, and Paul Gaskin, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The Secretary -Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Paul Gaskin spoke in support of the application. Gus Regas spoke in support of the application stating the reason for the submission is to accommodate a larger show room and storage area. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the applicant stated the proposed construction is not believed to increase the current parking needs of the business. The focus of the business is to support the medical and dental communities by appointment only. After having read the City staff's Report to the Committee of Adjustment and acknowledging that there will be sufficient and adequate buffers established for the front yard and side yard setbacks, and given that parking reduction is minor, as well as the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Page 8 of 17 8 cry DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 21/20 by 2227959 Ontario Inc., 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 addition to the existing industrial building, 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 June 10, 2020). Carried Unanimously 5.6 P/CA 22/20 M. & M. Snedden 2022 Trailwood Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1228/81, to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.7 metres in height and not projecting more than 3.2 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres into any required side 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 the application be Tabled until further comments are received from the Toronto Region Conservation Authority and the matter of the differing drawings is resolved. 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 expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating that the plans circulated by the City were not the same as the plans the TRCA were reviewing for permit issuance. Page 9 of 17 9 cry DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Joey Fletcher, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Joey Fletcher spoke in support of the application stating the requested revisions to the design of the deck by the TRCA were received on June 1, 2020, and due to time restraints he was unable to complete the revisions by June 3, 2020, to meet the City of Pickering's deadline for comment submission. The revisions have been completed, submitted and approved by TRCA to their satisfaction. The newly submitted drawings will be slightly different from those that are part of the June 10, 2020 Committee of Adjustment Agenda. In response to questions posed by Committee Members, the Secretary -Treasurer stated the revised drawings from the applicant have not been submitted to the City to circulate to the TRCA, and therefore no new formal comments have been received from the TRCA to date. After hearing the responses from the agent, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 22/20 by M. & M. Snedden, be Tabled until further comments are received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the matter of the differing drawings is resolved. Carried Unanimously 5.7 P/CA 23/20 to P/CA 26/20 GHR Investment Corp. 1865 Pine Grove Avenue P/CA 23/20 (Lot 1) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended: • to permit a minimum lot area of 445 square metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres • to permit a minimum front yard setback of 6.5 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres on the east side yard; whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent; whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • to permit a minimum flankage yard setback of 4.0 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum flankage yard setback of 4.5 metres Page 10 of 17 -10- cry DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting • to permit uncovered steps and a platform with a maximum height of 2.65 metres above grade to project 1.5 metres into the required side yard; whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 0.5 metres into the required side yard • to permit an uncovered platform measuring 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 1.5 metres into the required rear yard; whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard P/CA 24/20 (Lot 2) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended: • to permit a minimum lot frontage of 14.0 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres • to permit a minimum lot area of 427 square metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres for the west side yard; whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres for the east side yard; whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 38.5 percent; whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • to permit an uncovered platform measuring 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 1.45 metres into the required rear yard; whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard P/CA 25/20 (Lot 3) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended: • to permit a minimum lot frontage of 14.0 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres • to permit a minimum lot area of 427 square metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres for the west side yard; whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres for the east side yard; whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 38.5 percent; whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • to permit an uncovered platform measuring 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 1.45 metres into the required rear yard; whereas the By-law requires Page 11 of 17 -11- C44 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard P/CA 26/20 (Lot 4) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended: • to permit a minimum lot frontage of 14.0 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres • to permit a minimum lot area of 427 square metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres for the west side yard; whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres for the east side yard; whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 38.5 percent; whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • to permit an uncovered platform measuring 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 1.4 metres into the required rear yard; whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the creation of three residential lots through Consent Applications and obtain building permits for the construction of four single detached dwellings. The Secretary -Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Refusal of the proposed variances. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department stating they have no objections to the proposed applications and advise that they will include a condition in the subsequent Consent Application to ensure that the increase in lot coverage does not adversely affect the existing drainage patterns in the surrounding area. Consideration for rain harvesting and other Low Impact Development measures should be made to maintain pre -development runoff volumes. No comments were submitted from the City's Building Services Section at the time of completion the Committee of Adjustment Reports were written. Written comments were received from two area residents of Pine Grove Avenue in objection to the applications. Written comments were received from a resident of Sandcherry Court in support of the application. Page 12 of 17 -12- C44 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Written comments were received from 2 area residents on Pine Grove Avenue in support of the application. Written comments were received from a resident of Woodview Avenue and local Realtor in support of the application. Written comments were received from a resident of Prohill Street in support of the application. Cesare Gallo, applicant and Amy Emm, agent with IBI Group, were present to represent the application. Jody & John McDermott, and Ken & Jennifer Pettigrew were present in opposition to the application. David Malesich, and Michael Mandarello were present in support of the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Amy Emm spoke to the presentation that was submitted to City staff and the Committee Members in support of the submitted applications addressing the following evidence: City staff support the built form variances but not the lot variances. - An eclectic mix of lot patterns and sizes as well as smaller lot areas and frontages than proposed exist within a 5 minute walk of the subject site. - The proposal is not a new precedence of lot configuration on Pine Grove Avenue or within the immediate neighbourhood. - Approved variances for minimum lot frontages of 13.5 metres at 1839 Pine Grove Avenue would facilitate future severance applications. - Summary of letters of support and objection received. The applicant received verbal support from residents of 1861 Pine Grove Avenue (property immediately south of the subject site) confirming his support of a four lot configuration over a three lot configuration. - A traffic review has been completed and provided to City staff and the Committee Members, which reveals no evident traffic, parking or safety concerns as a result of this proposal. The safety and sightline will be improved by removing the mature trees that currently cause a visual impairment at this location. - A brief summary was provided outlining how the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. David Malesich spoke in support of the application stating his agreement with the presentation given by Amy Emm and his preference for a diverse residential mix within the neighbourhood and preference for a larger tax revenue base. Michael Mandarello spoke in support of the application stating he is a local resident and realtor in the neighbourhood for the past 16 years. He believes the community would benefit in terms of curb appeal and tax revenue by the development of four lots. Page 13 of 17 -13- cry DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Additionally, Michael Mandarello stated it would mirror the same type of planning that has taken place at the corner of Woodview Avenue and Pine Grove Avenue, as illustrated on the slides shown on Amy Emm's presentation. Jody McDermott spoke in opposition of the application stating she does not believe these applications improve the character of the neighbourhood. Jody and John McDermott have been residents of the City of Pickering for over ten years and enjoy residing on one of the original streets of Pickering. Furthermore, spacious lots characterize part of the great aesthetic of the neighbourhood near Pine Grove Park and the Rouge National Urban Park. Jody McDermott stated anything beyond the creation of one dwelling on the property is seen as overdevelopment. She expressed concern about a blind corner at the intersection, on -street overflow parking from the park, and that this location has high traffic volumes from busses and residential vehicles. There is much concern with the creation of four driveways having vehicles emerging into traffic creating even more of a blind corner for drivers. Moreover, the 5 -minute walking radius inlcudes not only diverse shapes and sizes of residential lots but also larger agricultural properties and the Toronto Zoo. The great number of variances requested does not appear to be minor. Jody McDermott asks the Committee to maintain the integrity of the neighbourhood and have the applicant comply with all required by-laws for the property. Ken and Jennifer Pettigrew spoke in opposition to the application stating they have lived in the neighbourhood for fifteen years and echo the McDermott's stated concerns about the proposal. They also indicated they are not opposed to development in the area, however they believe the creation of four lots on the property is in excess. The curb appeal of this neighbourhood is in larger dwellings situated on larger lots on Pine Grove Avenue. Amy Emm spoke in response to the concerns raised by the McDermotts and the Pettigrews stating the City's Engineering Services staff have reviewed this proposal and have not highlighted any concerns associated with traffic, safety and parking for this area. The transportation study conducted to respond to the comments submitted by the area residents. A sightline analysis illustrated no impact by this proposal. The proposal will accommodate more than the minimum parking required by the by-law. Amy Emm described the provincial government's mandate to have mild increase to density to facilitate housing shortages and affordability issues. She also stated that the density requirements are met as part of this proposal and seen as mild infill proving this location to be an appropriate place for additional lot creation. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Amy Emm stated the current lot frontages of the dwellings on Pine Grove Avenue and Woodview Avenue are 12 metres. The side yard setbacks are 0.9 metres or 1.0 metres for those same properties. In response to a question posed by a Committee Member, Cesare Gallo stated on average the approximate square footage for each of the four dwellings proposed is 2850-3050 square feet. Page 14 of 17 -14- cry 4 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting In response to questions from a Committee Member, Amy Emm confirmed that the immediate abutting lands to the east have previously undergone mild infill with the creation of a differing lot, which resulted in the current size of the subject property. Furthermore, consideration was given for the potential of creating two lots over four, where the creation of two lots would not require any minor variance applications. Committee Member Tom Copeland, thanked Amy Emm and IBI Group for the presentation and the traffic study, as well as the residents for their comments and concerns with the development of the neighbourhood. Based on the slides as part of Amy Emm's presentation, where the red infill is denoted as lots having less than 460 square metres in area, and looking at the fabric of the immediate neighbourhood, the four lots appear not to conform to City Policy 12.12. Individually the applications appear to be minor variances, however collectively these variances do not appear to be as minor, they do affect the community, and what is deemed as not appropriate for the development of the land, therefore Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 23/20 to P/CA 26/20 by GHR Investment Corp., be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances are not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not minor in nature. Carried Unanimously 5.8 P/CA 28/20 A. & A. Stanley 506 Driftwood Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2759/88 to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 4.5 metres for a covered platform (deck), whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for a covered deck. 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 comments on the application. Page 15 of 17 -15- cry DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Max Merchasin, agent with Acadia Design Consultants Inc., 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, Max Merchasin stated the covered deck is not habitable space but rather a covered canopy to keep the elements away. Given that the application as noted in the Report to the Committee of Adjustment states that the covered deck will contribute to the total usable amenity space in the rear yard, as well as having no feedback from neighbours, and the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 28/20 by A. & A. Stanley, 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 proposed covered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated June 10, 2020). Carried Unanimously -16- Page 16 of 17 C44 DICKERING Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the 4th meeting of the 2020 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:35 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, July 8, 2020. Date Chair Assistant Secretary -Treasurer -17- Carried Unanimously Page 17 of 17 GGZ DICKERING Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 22/20 Date: July 8, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: (Tabled at the June 10, 2020 meeting) Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 22/20 M. & M. Snedden 2022 Trailwood Court Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1228/81 and By-law 1308/81, to permit an uncovered deck and attached pergola not exceeding 2.7 metres in height and not projecting more than 3.8 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered deck and attached pergola. 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck and attached pergola, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Background The Committee of Adjustment tabled this minor variance application at the request of the City Development Department and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in order to allow the applicant to resolve issues with the proposed deck and TRCA policy regarding the top of bank. Matters regarding differing submitted drawings were also identified. The applicant has submitted a revised proposal for an uncovered deck and attached pergola to the City Development Department and TRCA to address these issues. As this property is regulated by TRCA, an Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application was also submitted to TRCA to facilitate the construction of the uncovered deck and attached pergola. -18- Report P/CA 22/20 July 8, 2020 Page 2 Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Area within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. The subject site is zoned S1 within Zoning By-law 3036, amended by By-law 1228/81 and By-law 1308/81. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct an uncovered deck with the addition of an attached pergola, which connects to the rear first floor entrance of the detached dwelling and is 2.7 metres in height and projects 3.8 metres into the required rear yard. The intent of provision 5.7(b) of Zoning By-law 3036, restricting the height of decks to 1.0 metre above grade and the rear yard projection to 1.5 metres, is to protect the privacy of abutting properties and maintain sufficient amenity space in the rear yard. Due to the significant drop in grade from the front lot line to the rear lot line, a greater height is required to provide access from the rear first floor entrance to the deck. The neighbouring property to the north has an existing deck greater than 1.0 metre in height that connects to the first floor entrance. The existing deck to be replaced on the subject site is also greater than 1.0 metre in height and connects to the first floor entrance. The proposed deck and attached pergola will not reduce the amenity space in the rear yard, as it will be constructed 2.7 metres above grade with a basement walkout, hot tub and amenity space located below the proposed deck. There is also sufficient amenity space to the north and south of the pergola, and to the east of the proposed structures. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land The applicant is proposing to reconstruct a deck and attached pergola that is greater than 1.0 metre in height. Neighbouring properties also appear to have existing decks greater than 1.0 metre in height as the rear first floor entrances are constructed more than 1.0 metre above grade. The proposed deck is 5.2 metres in width and the attached pergola is 2.0 metres in width. The required rear yard setback for the zone is 7.5 metres. A minimum rear yard setback of 4.8 metres from the edge of the proposed deck to the rear lot line and 3.7 metres from the edge of the attached pergola to the rear lot line will be maintained. Minor in Nature The request to construct an uncovered deck and attached pergola that is greater than 1.0 metre in height and projects more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard is not anticipated to have any significant impact on the surrounding area. The proposed deck and attached pergola will not have an impact on a residential property to the rear, as the subject property backs onto a ravine. The requested variance is therefore considered minor in nature. -19- Report P/CA 22/20 July 8, 2020 Page 3 Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit the construction of an uncovered deck and attached pergola 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 comments on the application. Building Services • No comments on the application. Toronto and Region • The subject site is regulated by TRCA with respect Conservation Authority (TRCA) to the slope feature associated with NU West Ravine located at the rear of the subject property. Based on a review of the proposal, TRCA staff can confirm that the proposed attached pergola and uncovered replacement rear deck will not be located any closer to the ravine than the existing limits of development. As such, TRCA staff have no objections to the proposal in principle and support the requested variances. An Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application was received by TRCA staff on March 25, 2020 to facilitate the construction of the proposed structures. The drawings circulated to TRCA as part of this minor variance application are consistent with the plans received with the TRCA permit application. Parks Canada • No comments on the application. Date of report: June 30, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Planner I IL:Id J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 22-20\Report\PCA 22-20 Report doc Attachments Deborah Wylie,JMCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration -20- Exhibit 1 L \PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 22-20 M. & M. Sneddon\PCA22-20_LocationMap.mxd Gossamer Drive I 000011111p111 all leg ownk 1 11/ Dnve P\ne �len \-\,,i I III ,Rigby rll Meadowlano0 Drive 11 0 Timber Court Subject —, - Lands X66 'kir'y 411,165.. Court 0Trailwo°q — C oUl Madonna 'Po �'Q • v oad �:����� u West — o Ra ' e 4111116111Cedaa)Mie all 01r. ,1111 •,111,rwood 0 Court ,:5111illirn p r 111'111 Hydro Corridor ■ */ Hydro Corridor II 1111110 • JmiI 110 1 > , F eldstone lig Windgroo Circle BrarnbleiyO I -�— °d 1,,, CO4�Y N ' Maple Ridge Parl _ —_ z 1r 11 SII Am.. Location Map C44 File: P/CA 22/20 PICKERING Applicant: M. & M. Snedden City Development Property Description:Lot 108, Plan M1222 Department (2022 Trailwood Court) Date: Mar. 11, 2020 The Cerperahen of the city of P ickedno Produced (In part) under llcanse from:@Queens Printer.ontane Ministry of Natural Resources. �II rig h[s reserved.;© Her Majesty [he Queen in Righ[ of Canada Oepartmen[ of Na[uml Resources. All fights mserved.; O Terane[ En[erprlses Inc. and Its su ppllert all rlgh[s reserved.; ©operty Assessment Corporation and Its suppliers all rights reserved„ SCALE: 1:4,000 THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY. L \PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 22-20 M. & M. Sneddon\PCA22-20_LocationMap.mxd Exhibit 2 ao o �. li99] , ' `�_r z-�z No,- ,� N 70° 38' 20" E 31.52 M (103.412') EXISTING F CE — to permit an uncovered deck and attached pergola not exceeding p g 2.7 metres in height and not Go 0 — o O O N.�� ' N �* ; a M [SLSs] N q ir ti_,la I ., N RSE R 7.63' op N RUN = 10• r projecting more than 3.8 metres J 9 into the required rear yard „ � „at. UP ZR 6l ' II ',Z-, LO 46" LOO �UeJ !, Q N DECK rn �� DN 1R Z -� .� � / [L898] \ [ZBLS] r r b,9 1 ^ EXISTING SLOPE �i o GARAGE -,SZ „0-,L l r `i n n _ `J v 1 I H 1 R7 DRIVEWAY cV r -•%do ‘''' f [MI/ II O C/o I D U 4 z I No 2022 TRAILWD❑D FLUSH g- ..v 1WE O L ,S I O Ilj N I O _ J CRT EXISTING J 1 [LBB ] 1 V 1r, [Ent] — [tirSy] . z BRICK VENEER �1 — (2 ST❑REY) ^ [56Zi:]I „1r/L L-,sa 2 o #I J 0 r r a o,�. o, a 9- _ I „8-,5Z „Z/L 0L -,til 1 �1 �- „VI. _ I< 3.7 I I 0 •- PROPOSED m Z F ^ J w = r7 7 DECK �; 1 o J z c -i -Q Q C1 - [6990L] 476 S.F. (48.40 M2) [L9Zb] O i in " z ! 1 i i 11 q€ 4 _ \ „0-,S£ .0 -.-171. 1I �# �r 1 k - H.M. I UP SR LANDIN �U [ti£SS] e ji MI 1 RISE - N . 3' 1R 86• RUN . „ti£ 1 -,Zi _ 4,g• • �I exis �- 4.0 ` - " LOT AREA = 566.28m2 6095.4 S.F. �Nc +vice �M X11 i T BUILDING AREA = 162.8m2 1752 S.F. �— EXISTING COVERAGE = 28.7% 708 �� EXIS11NG DECK = 20.16m2 217 S.F. 3.6% I 6 �\ _� �� PROPOSED DECK = 44.22m2 476 S.F. •//� PROPOSED COVERAGE = 7.8% �I ! 11 ,Ilii f[ a i I IIhh j; S el 'ii 1111 :g ' Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 22/20 �i��E���� Applicant: M. & M. Snedden City Development Property Description: Lot 108, Plan M1222 Department (2022 Trailwood Court) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 17, 2020 Exhibit 3 TOP OF WALL to permit an uncovered deck E%STING BRICK FACE 3 and attached pergola not exceeding 2.7 metres in height and not projecting cg q - EXISTING BRICK FACE ERRING BRICK FACE VsE more than 3.8 metres into the required rear yard NUM RAMC W/ tr RED GLASS PA ELS _ IGH CUARDRAI. REFER y me Q� 6 QT' 4' --¢ AWMIN M RAILING W/ TEMPER GIA55 PPNELS ' me 42' HE GUARDRAL REFER NCINEER MO TO ENCINEE DWC 41 AWMINM R UNG Pi/ TELFEREO 42" NIGH GUARDRAIL REFI GLASS PANELS R TO ENGINEER DPI m la u ALUM DM RAILING 42' HIGH GUARDRPR W/ TEMPEF EG REFER GLASS PANELS TO ENGINEER DWG =� ' p^ g_ `-FIN GRN D F . W 3 2'x to" P.T. JOIST 1 FLUSH J IF 2"x 8" PT JOIST "x 2 e 8 PT JOIST � 2 IG' P.T. BEAN 12-2 `�� � 8$ 2"x 8" PT . — 48 48" LANDING DN 1R EXISTING BRICK FACE 6"x 6" PT POST fi"N Pr POST 6"x 8" PT POST x 8 PT �., 6"N 6" PT POST °, 6i6 2 8 {s� li i a as $ a{ E F ¢ 6 bc1 T 6L ex e" s"x 6' s x s" ERISTNC I ! €1i FT PO, w� PT POST F=r POST HOT TUB PO, aacEK BASEMENT SLAB r , � �� 7_ _� �_ II I I I 1 I I 4q 1 II I I I yII-� I �-F �I� I "!q I I REAR ELEVATION Ill �F hq I 1 I I I yA 1 UP 1R 3" Z "!; II I I I ITRI y i4 i4 I I H: 1 HA II I I I I L 1 1 yb 3 i ii e i Pl 1 63.1 E It £ .i@ 6 �•�9 it 1.g l %fi R lj 2 s 11 €� 4 ii 61# 4 Submitted Rear Elevation CE ING PICKERING Applicant: M. & M. Snedden City Development Property Description: Lot 108, Plan M1222 Department (2022 Trailwood Court) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 17, 2020 Exhibit 4 TOP OF WALL EXISTING BRICK FACE FIN SECOND FL. EXISTING BRICK PACE . ..2"x B" P.T. BOX BEAM 7 §R EXISTING B. cif. 1,JL 30" HIGH METAL ART SCREEN ABOVE - Z 1 1 II 11 1I BRICK FACE — J 1 255414J1< RAILING 0/ 42" _� '. HIGH CEDAR PRIVACY GUARDRAIL _ t_.+ 1 10_14y• 3 5,, TEMPERED GLASS PANELS HIGH GUARDRAIL REFER TO ENGINEER DWG- — h - —-- ` M " TO ENGINEER DWG FIN GRND FL. 2"x 10' P.T. JOIST TOP FLUSH 2`x 6' CEDAR - . - JOIST 8 12' 0/0 CEDAR 200 2M 2 x PT JOIST 2°x 10' P7. BEAM PERGOLA I 2-2'x 8" PT UP 6R 6"x 6" PT POST PERGOLARISE NOT Tub 6"n 6" PT POST 6"x fi" PT P050 1 1 x PT P052 = 7 5/8 RLJN 0 PATIO PAVERS - HOT ? EXISTING e'4 8" P ICOMPACTED r b LIMESTONEEASETUB . RETAINING WALL PATIO INTERLOCK Pp4ERS Ii—HII BASEMENT SLAB 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 F.II F Q'I RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION MPACTED 11 BASE II 11 1 1 a x 1 e 4.,._,CLLIIMESTONEE - 64 Submitted Side Elevation File No: P/CA 22/20 PICKERING Applicant: M. & M. Snedden City Development Property Description: Lot 108, Plan M1222 Department (2022 Trailwood Court) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 17, 2020 GGZ DICKERING Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 29/20 Date: July 8, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 29/20 P. Szkwyra & N. McKeown 494 Rougemount Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit an accessory structure (shed) greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback 0.5 metres from the south 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 metre from all lot lines. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize an existing shed with a deficient side yard setback. 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 existing shed, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the existing shed. Background In 2018, a shed was reconstructed at the subject property without a building permit. The old shed (located 0.2 metres from the south side lot line) was replaced with a similar sized shed, located 0.5 metres from the south side lot line. The applicant was unaware of the provision in the By-law requiring accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback a minimum of 1.0 metre from all lot lines. -25- Report P/CA 29/20 July 8, 2020 Page 2 Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Area within the Rosebank Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Rosebank Neighbourhood. The subject site is zoned R4 and G within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18. Though the existing accessory structure is permitted, it does not meet the minimum south side yard setback required in the By-law. The purpose of the 1.0 metre setback is to ensure that adequate space is available for maintenance, to ensure that the eaves/overhangs of the structure do not encroach on the adjacent properties, to ensure roof drainage stays on the subject property, and to minimize the visual impact that their location may have on adjacent properties. The proposed reduction from 1.0 metre to 0.5 metres provides sufficient distance to maintain the accessory structure. The eaves/overhangs of the shed do not encroach onto the adjacent properties. Moreover, the existing shed is setback 0.3 metres from where the original shed was located, creating further distance from the south lot line and adjacent property. The shed is 3.0 metres in height at the peak, whereas the maximum height for accessory buildings in a residential zone under the By-law is 3.5 metres. This reduces the visual impact of the shed. The shed is also buffered from the adjacent properties by mature vegetation. The applicant has submitted letters from the adjacent property owners to the south and north, which state they have no objection to the location of the existing shed (see below, Input from Other Sources). The neighbours have no complaints regarding roof drainage or visual impact affecting their properties as a result of the existing structure. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The minimum south side yard setback of 0.5 metres for a shed is an existing situation that has not negatively impacted adjacent properties, as the structure has existed for 2 years without complaint. The request to vary the south side yard setback by 0.5 metres is considered a minor variation to the required side yard setback. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit an accessory structure (shed) greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback 0.5 metres from the south side lot line 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. -26- Report P/CA 29/20 July 8, 2020 Page 3 Input from Other Sources Engineering Services Building Services Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Owner of 492 Rougemont Drive (south side) Owner of 496 Rougemont Drive (north side) Date of report: June 29, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Planner I IL:Id J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 29-20\Report\PCA 29-20 Report.doc Attachments • No comments on the application. • This structure has been built without a permit. Committee of Adjustment approval is required for building permit issuance. • A TRCA permit is required prior to the issuance of any municipal building approvals and prior to development taking place. TRCA staff issued a permit for the existing shed on February 24, 2020. As such, we have no objections to the approval of the variance pertaining to the setback from the south side lot line. • No objection to the structure. • No objection to the structure. Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration -27- Exhibit 1 L \PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 29-20 S.Szkwyra & N.McKeown\PCA29-20_LocatIonMap.mxd -t # 0 0 U = _. 1.ekan; \o J Mcleod Crescent Mountain Ash D % oiled ' se J , to Oakwo �� `�3 Stag horn Road lOpr i `� ��''v, Subject 0 \���"' Lands '`�� 1011111(;), , 1 1 E J� L ft 411P114.,9 /k/ 0. , Location Map Ce*V File: P/CA 29/20 PICKERING Applicant: P. Szkwyra & N. McKeown City Development Property Description: Pt Lot 95,96 Plan 283, Now Pt 1 40R-3174 Department (494 Rougemount Drive) Date: Jun. 17, 2020 The Cerpertten of the Shy of P lckern9 Produced (In part) under rmnsefrom :©Queens Prnter. Ontaro kinntry of Natural Resources. IOrig h[s reserved.;© Her Majesty [he Gueen In Right of Canada, Department of Na[u� Resour es. Alli ghts ese vad.; Terane[ En[erprses Inc. and Its su ppllers til rgh[s reserved.; ©perty A e men[ Corporation and is suppliers all rights reserved„ SCALE: 1:4,000 THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY. L \PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 29-20 S.Szkwyra & N.McKeown\PCA29-20_LocatIonMap.mxd Exhibit 2 44 :MOUNT DRIVE to permit an accessory structure (shed) greater w 0 p than 10 square metres in area to be setback 0.5 metres from the south side lot line Concrete Pad Shed 2.7m x 5.2m 2.4m x 4.3m Existing Dwelling ct Shed 20.1m 36.0m 0.5m Submitted Plan n� File No: P/CA 29/20 PICKERING Applicant: P. Szkwyra & N. McKeown City Development Property Description: Pt Lot 95,96 Plan 283, Now Pt 1 40R-3174 Department (494 Rougemount Drive) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 17, 2020 Exhibit 3 11.111r��'� 1111111 �® y� , lir , 1.------..,..,.. ,. ,..,,,,..._. .._....,,,:.,-. Flexible window V wall location a_.. — gable 6, 4 Submitted Elevation File No: P/CA 29/20 PICKERING Applicant: P. Szkwyra & N. McKeown City Development Property Description: Pt Lot 95,96 Plan 283, Now Pt 1 40R-3174 Department (494 Rougemount Drive) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 18, 2020 GGZ DICKERING Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 30/20 Date: July 8, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 30/20 D. Clarke & A. Bates 1480 Old Forest Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 5.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a minimum north side yard setback of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum north side yard setback of 1.5 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 34.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. Recommendation 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, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5). Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Area within the Woodlands Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Woodlands Neighbourhood. The subject site is zoned R4 within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. A detached dwelling is permitted within the R4 Zone. -31- Report P/CA 30/20 July 8, 2020 Page 2 Front Yard Setback Variance The proposed detached dwelling allows for a front yard setback of 5.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres. The intent of this provision is to ensure a consistent streetscape, to provide an adequate space for soft landscaping (i.e., grass, trees, etc.), and to provide sufficient parking space in front of the property. The subject site is located on the west side of Old Forest Road. The front yard setbacks along this side of the road vary significantly, with properties ranging from a setback of 4.7 metres to 7.8 metres. The proposed detached dwelling is consistent with the streetscape, as the proposed front yard setback of 5.1 metres falls within this range of setbacks along the street. To further achieve consistency with the streetscape, the exterior wall of the garage portion of the dwelling (that faces the street and is the closest exterior wall to the road) is proposed to have a bay window at the ground floor and a window at the second floor. This ensures there are no blank walls facing the street or the neighbouring residential dwellings. The applicant has advised the preliminary landscaping plans for the subject site are as follows: • perennial shrubs along the front of the dwelling and the garage; • grass turf to the south of the driveway in front of the garage; • a native tree to be planted on the grass turf (the existing tree in the front yard is proposed to be removed). There is adequate space in front of the proposed dwelling for soft landscaping and parking. There is a large driveway proposed at the front of the property, as well as a proposed three -car garage attached to the dwelling. The By-law requires a minimum of one parking space per dwelling unit. As such, the proposed development will accommodate more than the minimum required number of parking spaces. Due to the greater setback of the main front wall containing the entrance, there is sufficient depth to accommodate parking spaces on the driveway in front of the property. Side Yard Setback Variance The proposed detached dwelling allows for a north side yard setback of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. The intent of this provision is to provide appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties, to accommodate drainage and to provide sufficient room for maintenance of the dwelling. The abutting property to the north has a detached dwelling that is setback approximately 1.1 metres from the north property line. The two dwellings are setback 2.4 metres from each other. As such, there is sufficient room between the structures on the abutting properties to accommodate drainage and for the maintenance of each dwelling. Lot Coverage Variance The proposed detached dwelling accounts for a lot coverage of 34.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The intent of this provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (amenity area) uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of the building. The proposed dwelling allows for a large rear yard that far exceeds the minimum required rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. Staff is of the -32- Report P/CA 30/20 July 8, 2020 Page 3 opinion that an increase in 1.5 percent lot coverage is minor and will not result in a great loss of amenity space. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land Due to the irregular shape of the property, the front, side and rear yards restrict the configuration of a home on the subject site. The applicant has advised that the front and side yard variances are being sought to ensure the proposed detached dwelling is positioned in line with the neighbouring properties and dwellings. Encroachment into the front and north side yard will allow the proposed dwelling to maintain a consistent streetscape. As such, Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Minor in Nature The variance for the front yard setback applies only to a portion of the proposed detached dwelling, whereas the majority of the dwelling exceeds the minimum required front yard setback of 7.5 metres. As such, Staff consider the variance to be minor in nature. Staff also consider a 0.2 metre encroachment into the north side yard and an increase of 1.5 percent in lot coverage to be minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit the construction of a detached dwelling 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 Building Services • Provide grading changes and roof design changes to try to mitigate the amount of water flowing to the rear of the property and potentially affecting the property on Highbush Trail. Additional measures such as extra depth topsoil and soak away pits may be required. These changes will need to be addressed at the building permit stage. • no comments on the application Date of report: June 29, 2020 Comments prepared by: ,e,,,,,,, Isabel Lima Planner I IL:Id J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 30-20\Report\PCA 30-20 Report.doc Attachments Deborah Wylie,, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration -33- Exhibit 1 Pineview Lane Autumn Crescent 0 m N 11•3 South Petticoat Ravine South Petticoat Ravine 0 O E N O Sheppard Avenue iv Subject �_ -� \ Lands �� MIL 1111NEM11111.11MEL WI= 11111 South Petticoat Ravin: C44 Location Map File: P/CA 30/20 PICKERI NG City Development Department Applicant: D. Clarke & A. Bates Property Description: Lt 90 Pt Lt 91 Plan 816, Now Pt 22 40R-3841 (1480 Old Forest Road) Date: Jun. 17, 2020 M The Corporator of the CLy of Pickering Produced cin part) under license from: @ Queens Printer. ontano Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Canada. Department of Natural Resources. All hghts reserved.; Teranet Enterprises Inc. and Its su pokers all rights reserved.; O kMlipaAlperty Assessment Corporation and Its suppliers all rig hk reserved„ SCALE: 1 :4,000 THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY. L \PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 30-20 D. Clarke & A. Bates\PCA30-20_LocationMap.mxd Exhibit 2 1 N souls A57„. T -D. [ 94 6-J .YdMJ 129.S91,1.1 BCILLD4NG rtN6111 90'-91/2' 37-11/9 F3221nn1 1 1 ` IL32Mi �\� \ \ \ ,\ to permit a maximum lot coverage of 34.5 percent to permit a minimum north side yard setback of 1.3 metres \ \ .\ \ G. \ ', 1 ,\ , ------------ ,\ c \ , aPROPOSED \�_ \ DRIVEWAY \ 0'.l1' `aim \- l� ii ABM:_ ,� PR OIOSED ING JLIND COVERED ENTRYi- -1+ PORTICO A y, 3 T�\ Z6 1480 OLD �,p� Y �9 STI' _FCS, eR°p ��� 30 �_E FO REST RD. SIIII .INII - 1�. �\ �a' ''p S F.. N, a \n Qe�T.F4P w4Q NN0' � 4 DkIACRED BRICK DWELLING , \ _, , oA+{{ 1\ �� �o \ CAVY M/4M1 D\REAR PATIO J 40;4110 10 .-� 10 /1 \ \ \ \ \, \l h1 _, 112' T R.. ._ I 1 , Zw rt - I13.6741 1207M� \ 141-11' 'USW\ '`� \ JOT AREA /,bb4'-I FT,' 1/17.1 A \ t 71EDECP,DS=:3 \ 0 --,SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN to permit a minimum front yard setback of 5.1 metres \ \ \ PROPOSED FOOTPRINT 1 House/Carage = 2,3093 72 (214.6 M2) Cwelcc Entry = 63.4 FT2 13.9 M2; Rear Cover ed Paco = 3Sfi,.-:2 (23.8 M2} TOTAL GROUND FLOOR AREA \ I \ ( \ ��1, ,aososEor,rarar,Sl 7GCFesm srarm�2E0', -+eNc = 2.629.7 FT2 (644,3 M2) IO1 COVI-kAGF 3,1.3% 7 ., J�0,:k �� ,9z Eusa+.ee -_- PrmPPI, UNE Submitted Site Plan . ,6104 PI KER1 NGFile- Applicant: D. Clarke & A. Bates City Development Property Description: Lt 90 Pt Lt 91 Plan 816, Now Pt 22 40R-3841 Department (1480 Old Forest Road) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 18, 2020 Exhibit 3 r.pyfli if n xt r PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION SCALE. 3/16" = PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Front Elevation File No: P/CA 30/20 Applicant: D. Clarke & A. Bates Property Description: Lt 90 Pt Lt 91 Plan 816, Now Pt 22 40R-3841 (1480 Old Forest Road) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 18, 2020 -36- =_ __■ I I 1 �===__ PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION SCALE. 3/16" = PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Front Elevation File No: P/CA 30/20 Applicant: D. Clarke & A. Bates Property Description: Lt 90 Pt Lt 91 Plan 816, Now Pt 22 40R-3841 (1480 Old Forest Road) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 18, 2020 -36- Exhibit 4 I■ =ilml mm ff=iii mm zzaw iii=- immmmimimm� == im ■ 1 PROPOSED z RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Side Elevation File No: P/CA 30/20 Applicant: D. Clarke & A. Bates Property Description: Lt 90 Pt Lt 91 Plan 816, Now Pt 22 40R-3841 (1480 Old Forest Road) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 18, 2020 Exhibit 5 - PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION PICKERING City Development Department Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 30/20 Applicant: D. Clarke & A. Bates Property Description: Lt 90 Pt Lt 91 Plan 816, Now Pt 22 40R-3841 (1480 Old Forest Road) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: July 18, 2020 -38- Cts �f DICKERING Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 31/20 Date: July 8, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 31/20 R. Helgesen 940 Mink Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit: • minimum front yard depth of 3.2 metres, whereas the by-law requires 7.5 metres; • minimum rear yard depth of 3.4 metres, whereas the by-law requires 7.5 metres; • maximum lot coverage of 36.5 percent, whereas the by-law requires 33.0 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to facilitate the construction of a residential addition and an attached garage. Recommendation 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, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the residential addition and attached garage, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, & 5). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering's Official Plan designates the subject lot as Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Areas within the West Shore Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including detached dwellings. -39- Report P/CA 31/20 July 8, 2020 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned RM1 within Zoning By-law 2520. Since this lot is a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the flank of the lot, it is subject to Section 6.5 c) of the Zoning By-law. Under this section, the subject lot is deemed to have two front yards, one facing Mink Avenue and the other facing Chipmunk Street. Both yards are subject to the minimum front yard requirement of 7.5 metres. The distance between the existing building and Mink Avenue is 7.7 metres which exceeds the minimum requirement. However, the distance between the existing building/proposed garage addition and Chipmunk Street is 3.2 metres, necessitating the requested variance to the minimum front yard requirement. Given the corner lot condition of the subject property, adequate separation distance between the building and Chipmunk Street will be maintained. Adequate landscaped areas are maintained throughout both front yards of the property. The intent of the minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres is to ensure that a useable amenity space is provided in the rear yard. The main front entrance of this dwelling faces the longer frontage lot line along Chipmunk Street and as such, the opposite yard is deemed to be the rear yard which has a minimum depth of 3.4 metres. This deemed rear yard operates as a side yard. Adequate useable amenity space is provided on the east side of the property, which functions as the rear of the dwelling. The intent of the maximum building lot coverage of 33.0 percent is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of a building. The proposed residential addition and attached garage increases the lot coverage of the property to 36.5 percent. An appropriate amount of yard space is maintained at the property. The size and massing of the building will be consistent with the neighbouring corner lot properties. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed variances will facilitate a building more consistent with the existing corner lot dwellings in this area, including the abutting northerly neighbour. The existing building at the subject property does not have an attached garage, whereas the other corner lot dwellings in the surrounding area do. The other corner lot dwellings in this area are all similarly accessed through the longer of the two fronting lot lines. As such, the proposed variances facilitate development that is desirable and appropriate for the land. Given the proposed consistency with the adjacent corner lot dwelling and dwellings in immediate area on corner lots, the impact of the requested variances is considered desirable for the development of the land and 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. -40- Report P/CA 31/20 July 8, 2020 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Engineering Services Building Services Date of report: June 29, 2020 Comments prepared by Felix Chau Planner I FC:DW:Id J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 12-20\7. Report PCA 12-20 Report.doc Attachments • Ensure that the increase in lot coverage does not adversely affect the existing drainage patterns in the surrounding area. Consideration for rain harvesting and other LID measures should be made to maintain pre -development runoff volumes. • No comments on the application. 4,1) Deborah Wylie► CIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration -41 - Exhibit 1 Park Crescent West Shore Boulevar Frenchman's Bay Public School Oklahoma Drive Yeremi Street Leaside Street • Mink Street Sunrise Avenue Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park N C4 4 Location Map File: P/CA 31/20 PICKERING City Development Department Applicant: R. Helgesen Property Description: Plan M19, Lot 783 (940 Mink Street) Date: Jun. 19, 2020 The Corporation of the Qty of Plckenng Produced(in part) under license from. O Queens Printer. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Myalpflperty Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; SCALE. 1.2,000 THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA31-20 R. Helgesen \PCA31-20 LocationMap. mxd I Exhibit 2 to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 3.4 metres to permit a minimum front yard depth of 3.2 metres to permit a maximum lot coverage of 36.5 percent 30.48m FFOFNAATION TAKEN FROM IP } - N n JK AVENUE PLAN OF e P EY UMW". 3.41 C m 7.71 "I 1 PLAN OF SURVEY (41 N -RoPosED ADDITION 1ee EXISTING r7oe.— aa 4Y0P0 R1 DWELLING I 12 I I ! i g 2 i , of LOT 783 RP. M-19 TOMtEP OF PICICEMO COUNTY OF ONTARIO PROPOSEDP G PROPOSED LOYPT1014 cr PM caVRFAR�n PaRCH7.72 LI ` f HYDRO EIETLP 3.42} i i _-- rw cu OF oPmmoPIP mROM n (3.0.01(3.0.01 (sO.l1Hm1 `. }� 30.48m • C w M. m.10PE �-- *p 4.00 ,/ P,P ++ra►wNr TPnw 1"Far n r ORO 11311.140811 aware KAM w KAP am PERTINENT 8ITE FFCIST IATION. — LOT ARCA 510.95 5q.m. Jr 7.00I ! EXIS1190 OWEWRC COVERAGE 10287 S4.m. (20.13%) PROPOSED AOOITIOR COVERAGE 72.32 84.8,. 14.15 PROPOSED COVERED PORCH COVERAGE 9.11 Sq.m. (1.708) TOTAL COVERAGE 184.30 84.m. (38 078) CHIPMUNK STREET 646‘ Submitted Plan PICKERING Applicant: R. Helgesen City Development Property Description: Lot 783, Plan M19 Department (940 Mink Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN Date: June 25, 2020 Exhibit 3 TOP OF ROOF RIDGE TOP OF ROOF RIDGE • }_ GARAGE I..____ l� F 6g TOP OF PLATE T. F G. F G F.G F.Gj F.G F.Gj E.G. F{4. FINISHED FIRST - ? _ FLOOR `+'!r r\ I f -r r4}1 �' 1�f \ ' AVERAGE GRADE WEST P-O.MB' ' 0.1.1. GARAGE DOOR ELEVATION GARAGE DOOR + TOP OF ROOF RIDGE TDP OF ROOF RIDGE • GARAGE E Lv v --\--PLATE TOP ___ h TOP OF WINDOW Q O - ! O r FINISHED FIRST FLOOR mak - F 1 \ AVERAGE GRADE NORTH ELEVATION 64,X Submitted Elevation Plans File No: P/CA31/20 'DICKERING Applicant: R. Helgesen City Development Property Description: Lot 783, Plan M19 Department (940 Mink Avenue) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 18, 2020 1 4 cri 1 Exhibit 4 Property Description: Lot 783, Plan M19 CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN Exhibit 5 N A.pirra. * EXISTING 23'-6" 40-2' r r 6 A `, 1 � ,I I=I I=I 9'4�$ wont cuss oaaR SITTING AREA 1� , 9 ®° �� .M` � - NW NSW k1-ry"xlICV V-Od CEILING g N IGNTDINING EXISTING i ROOM EXISTING EXISTING MATH EXISTING BEDROOM LA NDRY gn 1FrA b.zii $ II I _ , I ob KITCHEN _� 1€44 \ / P. a P .,. I �7i I- ' ii I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I / m - GARAGE 23-o'k2 '-6" EXISTING LIVING ROOM v EXISTING 1----1 r--� r --ti r- � EXISTINGBEDROOM BEDROOM 0 0 0 uo COVERED m L J L J L PORCH a-1Oex5'_me Q ■ } ■ - -,., 9'-04x0'-0' O.N. 9'-0'x3'-0' O.N. GARAGE DOOR GARAGE DOOR 24-0" �, 18'-10" 20'-10' I ADDITION I EXISTING FLOOR AREAS: MAIN FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED 'MPoSIF, ��O'LOGII FROR08eu CWv+eu FOR. me, ..ee 85Ft PROPOSED SLAM. COVERAGE 11.18S Sq Ft 96 O2, Otg, 6‘ Submitted Floor Plan File No: P/CA 31/20 'DICKERING Applicant: R. Helgesen City DevelopmentProperty Description: Lot 783, Plan M19 Department (940 Mink Avenue) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: June 29, 2020 GGZ DICKERING Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 32/20 Date: July 8, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 32/20 E. & A. Barron 279 Waterford Gate Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2964/88, to permit an uncovered platform (deck) measuring 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 1.0 metre into the required rear yard (for a total projection of 2.5 metres from the rear wall of the house and setback 5.1 metres from the rear lot line), whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to an uncovered deck in the rear yard. 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the rear yard uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Areas within the Highbush Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including detached dwellings. The property is zoned S2 within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2964/88. The applicant is proposing to construct an uncovered deck in the rear yard, which connects to the rear first floor entrance of the detached dwelling, is 2.5 metres in height, and projects 1.0 metre beyond the permitted projection for a total projection of 2.5 metres from the rear wall of the house and setback 5.1 metres from the rear lot line. -47- Report P/CA 32/20 July 8, 2020 Page 2 The intent of provision 5.7(b) By-law 3036, restricting the height of decks to 1.0 metre above grade and the rear yard projection to 1.5 metres, is to protect the privacy of abutting properties and maintain sufficient amenity space in the rear yard. Due to the significant drop in grade from the front lot line to the rear lot line, a greater height is required to provide access from the rear first floor entrance to the deck in the rear yard. The variance also requests an increase in height of the uncovered platform (deck), from 1.0 metre to 2.5 metres above grade, to facilitate access to the deck from the rear main floor entrance. The proposed deck will not reduce the amenity space in the rear yard, as it will be constructed 2.5 metres above grade with amenity space located below the proposed deck. There is also sufficient amenity space to the east and west of the proposed structure. The requested variance will maintain adequate landscaped and amenity areas in the rear yard. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed variance will enhance the rear yard amenity area for the property. It also provides access from the main floor of the dwelling into the rear yard. The requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is minor in nature. The required minimum rear yard setback for the zone is 7.5 metres. A rear yard setback of 5.1 metres from the edge of the proposed deck to the rear lot line will be maintained. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit the construction of an uncovered deck 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 Building Services Date of report: June 30, 2020 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Planner I FC:DW:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 32-20\7. Report\PCA 32-20 Report.docx Attachments • No comments on the application. • No comments on the application. Deborah Wylie; MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration -48- Exhibit 1 L \PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA 32-20 E. & A. Barron \PCA32-20_Lo ationMap.mad V IL Westcreek Public School Valleyview \ Park Butternut Court 111111 / 4 Stroud s bane m -i imiE cp o �_ _\ _All 1111111 5 a) 5 ifi r R1HIIHHIuiLancrest Street 11111 n, df 'oodview Av( ,, Subject a, 1111 , O'd fe / Lands 111, CO lir :ii, ct ic ' , 3u_00 Starview Court _' ,,,,,. !E1Iii__ ,, .... caIMO" o uIIHIuiII,. Lawson Street Woodview Tot Lot I J --'J — Twyn Rivers Drive Sheppard Avenue \\I o o St. Monica's Separate > a 'o School 0 o 1 HowelCrescent Location Map C44 File: P/CA 32/20 P1CKE R1 NG Applicant: E. & A. Barron City Development Property Description: Lot 89, Plan 40M-1630 Department (279 Waterford Gate) Date: Jun. 17, 2020 P The Corporation of the Phy of P lcke ring Produced on part) under ficanse from:©Queens Printer. 0ntano Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved PP Her Majesty the Queen In Right of Canada. Department of Natural Resources. All tights reserved.; © TeranetEnterprlses Inc. and its su ppllert all rights reserved ,C) Apaperty Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rig tits reserved„ SCALE: 1:4,000 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. L \PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA 32-20 E. & A. Barron \PCA32-20_Lo ationMap.mad Exhibit 2 0,s 4121 � � -\ r\� —�t — �----,__..L �.� DwELQNa Rf 3 �f « m2 !■ N " _ '3■ UWEiti%0 ' {wilder* cons R trio') Pcf. T # -12433 02� -• 14tAhd ^ [Rn•r tF.w @,, EAG � ! n \ 1.. --UA Height of proposed deck: 2.45m 5.G` �_. '- ------ � \ . _ 4 Deck. � ■ ♦ 00 $ . . w to permit an uncovered platform measuring 2.5metres in height above grade toproect 1.0 metre into the required rear yard . 6.-O -RA*Rn"r C/ ' Submitted Plan File No: P CA32%O PIC KE RIN G Applicant: E. & A. Barron CityDevelopment Property Description: Lot 89, Plan 40 M-1630 Department (279 Waterford Gate) CONTACT THE CITY OF me ERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R DIGITALcoeES OFA S PLAN. Date: June 17, 2020 GGZ 4 DICKERING Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 33/20 Date: July 8, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 33/20 P. & S. Keller 1965 Spruce Hill Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.2 metres into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered deck. Recommendation The City Development Department does not consider the requested variance to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.2 metres into the required south side yard to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, or in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Refusal of the proposed variance. or If the applicant were to request that the application be amended to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 0.9 metres into the required south side yard, the following recommendation would apply: The City Development Department considers the requested variance to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 0.9 metres into the required south side 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. The submitted plans be revised to show an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 0.9 metres into the required south side yard 2. The applicant obtain a permit from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the uncovered deck. -51- Report P/CA 33/20 July 8, 2020 Page 2 Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Area and Open Space System — Natural Areas within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the Low Density Area designation and a built form within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. Existing lawful residential dwellings are a permitted use within the Natural Areas designation. The subject site is zoned R4 within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct an uncovered platform with steps that connects to the rear first floor entrance of the detached dwelling and is 2.6 metres in height and projects 1.2 metres into the required south side yard. The intent of provision 5.7(b) in Zoning By-law 3036, restricting the height of decks to 1.0 metre above grade and the side yard projection to 0.5 metres, is to protect the privacy of abutting properties, to provide an appropriate separation between abutting properties for pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading and drainage. Height Variance Due to the significant drop in grade from the front lot line to the rear lot line, a greater height is required to provide access from the rear first floor entrance to the deck. The neighbouring properties to the north and south have existing decks greater than 1.0 metre in height that connect to the first floor entrance. The existing deck to be replaced on the subject site is also greater than 1.0 metre in height and connects to the first floor entrance. Side Yard Setback Variance The two proposed set of stairs encroach into the required south side yard 1.2 metres, allowing for a south side yard setback of 0.3 metres. This does not provide appropriate separation between the abutting south property for pedestrian access, nor does it accommodate grading and drainage. Staff, in accordance with Engineering Services, is of the opinion that the two proposed set of stairs may encroach into the required south side yard a maximum of 0.9 metres, allowing for a south side yard setback of 0.6 metres. This will ensure adequate space is provided between the properties for pedestrian access and will accommodate for grading and drainage. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land The applicant is proposing to reconstruct a deck that is greater than 1.0 metre in height. Neighbouring properties also appear to have existing decks greater than 1.0 metre in height as the rear entrances are constructed more than 1.0 metre above grade. A minimum side yard setback of 0.3 metres from the edge of the proposed set of stairs to the south side lot line will not provide adequate space for pedestrian movement. A minimum side yard setback of 0.6 metres from the edge of the proposed set of stairs to the south side lot line will be sufficient for pedestrian movement and drainage on the subject site. -52- Report P/CA 33/20 July 8, 2020 Page 3 Minor in Nature The request to construct an uncovered deck that is greater than 1.0 metre in height is not anticipated to have any significant impact on the surrounding area. The request to construct an uncovered deck that projects 1.2 metres into the required south side yard is anticipated to have grading and drainage impacts on the subject site and the abutting south property. An uncovered deck that projects 0.9 metres into the required south side yard is not anticipated to have any significant impact on the surrounding area. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.2 metres into the required south side yard is not desirable for the appropriate development of land, does not maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and is not minor in nature. or If the applicant were to request that the application be amended to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 0.9 metres into the required south side yard, the following opinion would apply: Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 0.9 metres into the required south side yard 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 Building Services Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • Any structure proposed near a lot line must be setback a minimum of 0.6 metres and not the proposed 0.3 metres. • No comments on the application. • A TRCA Permit is required under Ontario Regulation 166/06 prior to carrying out any new development within the regulated area. TRCA staff previously provided Minor Works Permit Requirements to the landowner on March 23, 2020. To date, a TRCA permit has not been received. Please note, TRCA staff have no objections to the approval of the variances pertaining to platform height and projections into a side yard setback. -53- Report P/CA 33/20 July 8, 2020 Page 4 Date of report: June 30, 2020 Comments prepared by: ,67,,,,,,, Isabel Lima Planner I IL:Id J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 33-20\Report\PCA 33-20 Report.doc Attachments Deborah Wylie,, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration -54- Exhibit 1 Aspen Road N. Pebble Coin O Finch Avenue Taplin Drive • Gandatsetiagon Public School J. Mcpherson Park Subject Lands C4 4 Location Map File: P/CA 33/20 PICKERING City Development Department Applicant: P. & S. Keller Property Description: Plan 1041 RCP Pt Lt 89, Now 40R5712 Part 3 (1965 Spruce Hill Road) Date: Jun. 19, 2020 © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (n part) under license Som. ©Queens Printer. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © fvliMplieperly Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; . L SCALE: .1' 000 SCALE: THIS IS NOTA PLAN OF SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\PCA33-20 P. S. Keller\PCA33-20_Loc tionMap.mad Exhibit 2 Existing Dwelling 0.3 m v7 7 . . , 1.42 m M 1.2 o m 0.3 m �, �� ,� 4' 1 4' -0 M- a) S-40 6 3' E a - , M- ,< Property Lir 2' :c-_ - r m Proposed Uncovered Deck to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.2 metres into the required south side yard 2.6 metres above grade ARear yard continues past this line (approximately 70 metres between rear edge of dwelling and rear lot line) 64 6/ Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 33/20 PICKERING Applicant: P. & S. Keller City Development Property Description: Plan 1041 Rcp Pt Lot 89 Now 40r5712 Part 3 Department (1965 Spruce Hill Road) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 18, 2020 GGZ 4 DICKERING Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 34/20 Date: July 8, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 34/20 Unique AT Holding Corporation 1470 Bayly Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-laws 7707/19 and 7728/19 to permit a parcel of land that does not have frontage on a street, whether or not occupied by a building or structure, whereas the By-law requires a parcel of land to front on a street. The applicant requests approval of this variance to permit the creation of a parcel of land (Universal City — Phase Two) without frontage on a public street. The proposed variance is to facilitate the phased comprehensive development known as Universal City (refer to Exhibits 1 & 2). 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to Universal City — Phase Two, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2). Background The applicant has submitted this application requesting relief from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, to support a recent submission to the Durham Land Division Committee, which seeks to sever lands for the creation of the future Universal City Phase 2 parcel. Four separate applications have been filed with the Land Division Committee in order to facilitate the severances and orderly development of the Universal City Phases 1 through 5. Through this severance process, only the lot accommodating Universal City Phase Two (UC2) will be created without frontage on a public road. However, once UC2 is constructed, it will have frontage on a public road, Celebration Drive. -57- Report P/CA 34/20 July 8, 2020 Page 2 Comments Conforms to the Intent of the City's Official Plan The subject site is designated Mixed Use Areas — City Centre within the City Centre Neighbourhood, which permits high-density residential uses and retailing of goods and services. The applicant is proposing to construct a 28 -storey mixed-use building containing at grade retail and 336 dwelling units. The proposed mixed-use building is a permitted use. Section 16.26(b) of the Official Plan limits the creation of residential lots by land severance to a maximum of three. The creation of more than three lots is permitted by a plan of subdivision. Given only two new parcels are created, the proposed severances conform to the City's Official Plan. Conforms to the Intent of the Region's Official Plan Section 14.8.5 of the Region of Durham Official Plan requires all proposed lots to have frontage on, and access to, a public road. The public road is to be maintained by the appropriate authority and be open to traffic year-round. Further, Section 14.8.6 states a land- locked parcel related to a land assembly for a future subdivision proposal may be created, provided there is an overall plan. The purpose of these policies is to ensure a severance does not result in a land locked parcel. Ultimately, UC2 will front onto a future east -west public road, Celebration Drive. The future public road will be conveyed to the City of Pickering, as required by the Master Development Agreement to be executed between the City and the owner of the Universal City lands. Given there will be a Master Plan for the Universal City lands that will result in all new parcels fronting onto a public road, the application conforms to the intent of the Regional Official Plan. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject site is zoned City Centre Two (CC2) Exception 10 within Zoning By-law 7553/17, amended by By-laws 7707/19 and 7728/19. A residential apartment building and commercial uses are permitted uses within the CC2 Zone. The proposed mixed-use building is permitted by By-law 7553/17. The definition of a Lot in the By-law states there must be frontage on a public street. Since the proposed severance will create a lot with no frontage on a public street, the applicant is requesting relief from this provision. Given this variance is only required at this time to support the severance and the proposed new parcel will ultimately have frontage on a public road; Staff are of the opinion that the application conforms to the intent of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The City is processing the appropriate development applications to facilitate the construction of each phase of the Universal City Master Plan. These applications include site plan approval for Universal City Phases 1, 2 and 3. Through site plan review, the City is able to ensure the appropriate development of these lands. -58- Report P/CA 34/20 July 8, 2020 Page 3 In addition, this requested variance will result in a temporarily land -locked parcel, until Celebration Drive is constructed and conveyed to the City. Given there will be a Master Development Agreement between the developer and the City to ensure that the road is provided at the appropriate time in the development process, Staff are of the opinion that this requested variance is minor in nature as the relief sought will be temporary. Conclusion Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the 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 Building Services Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) CN Rail Metrolinx Ministry of Transportation Date of report: June 30, 2020 Comments prepared by: Tanjot Bal, MCIP, RPP Planner II TB:DW:Id J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 34-20\7. Report\PCA 34-20 Report.doc Attachments • No comments on the application. • No comments on the application. • No objections to the approval of this variance. • As of the date of writing this report, no comments were received. • As of the date of writing this report, no comments were received. • No comments or concerns regarding this application, and have no objection to this variance application. The site is within the MTO permit control area and a MTO building permit will be required prior to constructing anything on this site. Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration -59- Exhibit 1 L\PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\RCA 34-20 Unique AT Holding\PCA34-20 LocatIonMap.mxd Subject Lands Alliance Road / \ Sandy Beach Road • / ♦1 .4 Bayly Street T 0 CD I o CO 0 c t bill Reytan Boulevard 0 — 1 Location Map C4 4 File: P/CA 34/20 PICKERI NG Applicant: Unique AT Holding Corporation City Development Property Description: Pt Lt 21, Con 1 S, Now Parts 1 and 3, 40R17380 Department (1470 Bayly Street) Date: Jun. 24, 2020 The Porporaeen of the Plty of P lckedng Produced on part)under Imense from Pt Queens Printer. Gntane Ministry of Natural Resources. �rights reserved.;© Her Majesty, [he Queen In Rig h[ of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All dg hts reserved.; O Terane[ Enterprises Inc. and Its suppllert all rights reserved.; O tv p�perty Assessment Corporation and Its suppliers all rights reserved„ SCALE. 1:2,000 THIS IS NOT ;PLAN OF SURVEY. L\PLANNING\01-MapFlles\PCA\2020\RCA 34-20 Unique AT Holding\PCA34-20 LocatIonMap.mxd Exhibit 2 - 6_r Li, II 1 , UC -2 MINOR VARIANCE SKETCH PART OF LOT 21 a Oz=hh♦3T� f::IFORMFRLV 1 CONCESSION] TOWNSHIP OFPIOD:AING) _ ' k - - IT_- - 1 CITYOF PICKERING _ _ .. --- a I - - p__, I REGIONAL MUNIU3 UTY OF DURHAM Il �. - 3.��L 1��Ih, — �- L 11 _ —0}m- — KEYMAP IN � N PEP Not toscale �u1—_`� 3 -- C.JL1R�- __ 1 3] =Joti]I�I�._%— l rn1 a r �O m �' I r 1 11' �N m I _ Its= ELI Ir, _ W• 14l F�I I� . .,Ip [ }Mm IIIIIINI/ 111U1PlI — -;� -.i:� _ it p m 1 r U_ J D FUTURE PRIVATE ROAD --1 m gy rb : LEGEND I. Lt I. ��Emirw — SU9JE[TFO MINOR VARIANCE 0 40 ha Z ' L:!, - I~ 1 I UZ1 w FUTURE PUBLIC ROAD - Y u Ua Z g C,T>v �.�'�� i. J 0 a FUTURE PRIVATE ROAD O a F Z�Z ■ , C1 II o r7 • - I r ®L -1 ___ .I —_ LJ I - - - - - Uw.Fna Pan overall Ma Panhy 0 20m manners CARrll ' I KROSNO CREEK =tens 16,20201 014 ! SCALE WESTON Seat SFE SCALE BAR CO NSULTfNG ❑arm DRAM, JUN1051020 plsan�nB+„rMn tlea�Bn RLE NO 6726 Submitted Plan c / File No: P/CA 34/20 , PICKERING Applicant: Unique AT Holding Corporation City Property Description: Con 1 S Pt Lot 21 Now 40R-17380 Parts 1 & 3 Development Department (1470 Bayly Street) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 15, 2020