Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 14, 2020 Committee of Adjustment Agenda Meeting Number: 8 Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, October 14, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page Number 1. Disclosure of Interest 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from September 9, 2020 1-14 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 57/20 J P & R 10 Development Inc. 1604 Sandhurst Crescent 15-19 4.2 P/CA 58/20 C. Fiorino-Vieira 301 Fiddlers Court 20-23 4.3 P/CA 59/20 A. Turney 660 Pleasant Street 24-36 4.4 P/CA 60/20 B. & K. Ragoo 958 Mink Avenue 37-46 5. Adjournment For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Lesley Dunne Telephone: 905.420.4660, extension 2024 Email: ldunne@pickering.ca Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 1 of 14 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Isabel Lima, Planner I Absent 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, September 9, 2020 meeting be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the minutes of the 6th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, August 12, 2020 be adopted. Carried Unanimously -1- -Cift;~f- p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 2 of 14 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 44/20 S. Kathiravel 1290 Old Orchard Avenue, Unit 10 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 6375/04 and By-law 7201/12, to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 6.0 metres for an uncovered 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 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 Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Sivarooby Kathiravel, applicant, was present to represent the application. Daphne FitzGerald, 1290 Old Orchard Avenue Unit 1, was present in support of the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After considering the City Development Department’s report, recognizing there are no concerns from the City’s Engineering Services and Building Services, that there is support from the surrounding neighbours and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 44/20 by S. Kathiravel, 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 September 9, 2020). Carried Unanimously -2- -Cift;~f- p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 3 of 14 4.2 P/CA 45/20 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. 520 West Shore Boulevard The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit:  minimum lot frontage of 7.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres;  minimum front yard setback of 2.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres;  minimum rear yard setback of 1.5 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres;  maximum lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent;  an uncovered platform (second-storey balcony) not exceeding 5.0 metres in height above grade, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard and not more than 1.0 metres into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing that the applicant ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other LID measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Written comments were received from the Durham of Region Works Department expressing no objections to the proposal. -3- -Cift;~f- p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 4 of 14 The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority provided the following written comments:  The subject site contains a flood or erosion hazard associated with Lake Ontario. TRCA staff are unable to determine the location of the natural hazard without a peer review of a Coastal Hazard Study prepared by a qualified Coastal Engineer. The location of the natural hazard is critical to determine if the proposed new dwelling is adequately setback from that natural hazard in order to reduce the risk to life and property, and to determine whether TRCA can support the proposal from a conservation authority regulatory perspective. We are concerned that the proposed variances, if approved, may be moot if the proposal changed to accommodate TRCA regulatory requirement.  In addition, the application appears to be predicated on a conveyance of land to the TRCA. Please be advised that there is no agreement neither formal nor in principle, for any such conveyance and we advise that that the conveyance of lands to TRCA should not be considered in the review of any minor variance application unless the conveyance is approved by TRCA’s Board of Directors.  As such, TRCA staff cannot determine if the proposed dwelling is adequately setback from the natural hazard, whether the lot configuration as proposed is appropriate and, therefore, whether we can support the issuance of a TRCA permit. Further details of the proposal are required to determine if TRCA can support the minor variances.  A TRCA permit application has not been received for the proposed replacement detached dwelling. The applicant is advised to pre-consult with TRCA staff prior to submitting an application.  Given the above, TRCA staff opinion is that the application is premature. We request tabling of Minor Variance Application No. P/CA 45/20 until we have had the opportunity to review a Coastal Hazard Study, identified the appropriate location and size of a new dwelling, and completed any land conveyance agreements that may be supported by TRCA’s Board of Directors. TRCA staff would be pleased to meet with the various parties involved, including the City of Pickering, to discuss an overall approach for this portion of the waterfront. Samantha Bateman, agent, was present to represent the application. Also in attendance was Councillor Brenner. -4- -Cift;~f- p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 5 of 14 Samantha Bateman outlined the application, indicating agreement with the staff report, and noted that the lot is uniquely shaped with an easement running through of the property where a building is not permitted. Also noted was that the staff report indicates due to orientation of the lot minor variances would be required to permit a replacement dwelling. Ms. Bateman advised that the applicant is in negotiations with TRCA, that TRCA concerns can be addressed at TRCA permit, and building permit stages. Councillor Brenner addressed the Committee indicating that the proposal is complex with matters that go beyond the proposed minor variances that are before the Committee. He noted that TRCA commented indicating the variance application is premature. Councillor Brenner requested the Committee to table the application to allow further discussions in an effort to resolve differences and ensure environmental concerns are addressed. In response to Chair’s question about whether anyone present wished to comment on this application, the following people addressed the Committee. Genevieve Lattouf, 528 West Shore Boulevard, noted TRCA has requested the application be tabled, and identified concerns that the proposed dwelling is not appropriate development of the property. Jasmine Rauh-Munch, 509 Marksbury Road, requested deferral of the application citing serious concerns with the proposed property lines, building elevation and footprint, and waterfront trail and erosion. Christopher Rankin, 515 Marksbury Road, indicated concerns regarding waterfront erosion, relocation of the waterfront trail, proposed new property line, prematurity of the application, and that the proposed variances are not minor. Jane Stone, 521 Park Crescent, noted concerns over waterfront erosion, location of proposed dwelling on the lot and proximity to the cliff, tree removal, and requested that the proposed lot coverage be denied. Barb Szinessy, 501 Marksbury Road, indicated that the application is premature considering negotiations with TRCA are ongoing, the waterfront trail should not run behind houses, and the variances are not minor. Concern was noted over the impact of construction equipment on the stability of the bluff, impact of the proposed development on mature trees, and the increased flood risk to surrounding properties. Paul White, 507 Cliffview Road, indicated that an Official Plan Amendment implementing the Infill and Replacement Housing Study will be considered by Council next week resulting in the proposal not being in keeping with intent and purpose of the Official and Zoning By-law. It was also noted that the application is premature as the proposed new property line may require an application for land division. Mr. White supported TRCA’s request for tabling of the application. -5- -Cift;~f- p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 6 of 14 In response to a question asked by a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer responded that she was not aware of recent discussions involving the City regarding the trail. Councillor Brenner indicated that in discussion with Regional Councillor Kevin Ashe and TRCA Board member, he is aware that there have been discussions and will continue to be discussions regarding the waterfront trail at this location. In response to a question from a Committee member, Samantha Bateman responded that she has not been involved in discussions regarding conveyance of lands for trail purposes and that the easement running through the property makes redevelopment of the north portion of the property difficult. In response to a question from a Committee member, Samantha Bateman responded the applicant has not submitted a land division application to create the lot addition parcel, and that an application for a TRCA permit has not been submitted. In response to questions from a Committee member, Samantha Bateman responded that the applicant has received a proposal for a coastal hazard study, the proposed dwelling footprint is expanded slightly to the east to accommodate a garage, and the applicant has not yet proceeded with building elevations as the building design is in preliminary stages. Councillor Brenner indicated that he is not speaking against the application however confirmed that the application is premature and tabling the application would allow time to arrive at a waterfront trail solution suitable for the community, the applicant and the City. After hearing the residents, applicant, and the Councillor; considering TRCA’s comments, and recognizing the need for further discussions between the residents, the applicant and TRCA, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 45/20 by Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd., be Tabled until further negotiations are completed with the TRCA. Carried Unanimously -6- -Cift;~f- p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 7 of 14 4.3 P/CA 46/20 W. & D. Steinwall 120 Woodview Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit:  an accessory building (garage) which is not part of the main building to be erected in the front yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building to be erected in the rear yard;  an accessory building (garage) with a maximum height of 6.35 metres, whereas the By-law requires no accessory building to exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone;  an accessory structure (shed) to be setback a minimum of 0.2 metres from the east side lot line, whereas the By-law requires accessory structures to be setback a minimum of 0.6 metres from all lot lines. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached garage and to recognize a deficient side yard setback for an existing shed. 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 Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from four surrounding neighbours expressing they have reviewed the proposed plans for the garage and have no objections. Warren Steinwall, applicant, and John Antonopoulos, agent were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Warren Stienwall explained the height variance is to accommodate storage. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Warren Stienwall indicated the garage will only be heated and there will be no plumbing. After considering the City Development Department’s report, visiting the site, recognizing support from the surrounding neighbours, and that the proposed height appears to complement the dwelling and the streetscape, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: -7- -Cift;~f- p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 8 of 14 Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 46/20 by W. & D. Steinwall, 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 detached garage and existing shed, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated September 9, 2020). Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 47/20 A. & O. Grignon 1795 Pine Grove Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a commercial vehicle with a maximum height of 3.5 metres and a maximum length of 8.25 metres to be parked on a residential lot, whereas the By-law permits vehicles parked on any residential lot to be a maximum height of 2.6 metres and a maximum length of 6.7 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit the parking of a commercial vehicle used for the operation of a home-based business in a residential driveway. 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 Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from Derek and Mercia Jaglall, 1790 Pine Grove Avenue, in objection to the application indicating that the variance does not comply with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is not minor, and citing precedent setting and safety concerns. -8- -Cift;~f- p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 9 of 14 Written comments were received from Stephanie McQuaid, 1800 Pine Grove Avenue, in objection to the application citing concerns that a precedent will be set allowing parking of large commercial vehicles in a residential area. Written comments were received from Maria Veriniotis, 1784 Pine Grove Avenue, in objection. Written comments were received from Amelia DeVito, 1840 Pine Grove Avenue, in objection citing concerns that a precedent will be set allowing parking of large commercial vehicles in a residential area. Written comments were received from Roger Gianfriddo, 1670 Valley Ridge Crescent, in objection citing precedent setting concerns. Written comments were received from Mary Gianfriddo, 1799 Pine Grove Avenue, in objection citing precedent setting, visual, and safety concerns. Written comments were received from Nancy Park, 219 Wilcroft Court, in objection indicating it will have a negative impact on the neighbourhood. Written comments were received from Jody Loussarian, 1793 Pine Grove Avenue, in objection indicating parking of the large commercial vehicle is undesirable, very noisy when in reverse and does not fit within the neighbourhood. Written comments were received from Bill Baldasti, 1818 Pine Grove Avenue, in objection citing precedent setting, visual and safety concerns of large commercial vehicles parking in residential areas. Andrew Grignon, applicant, indicated approval of the variance would support his small business. Bill Baldasti spoke to written comments previously received; indicating safety concerns with the size of the commercial vehicle; and concerns that a precedent will be set in the surrounding neighbourhood. Kevin Neild, 1796 Pine Grove Avenue, indicated that the he believes the spirit of the zoning is intended to address parking of residential vehicles and not large commercial vehicles. He also noted that parking of the commercial vehicle will impact the streetscape, the height and length of the vehicle is not minor; there are safety concerns, and concerns over setting a precedent for other small business owners in the area. Wendy Jo Hanninen, 1808 Pine Grove Avenue, spoke to written comments previously received; indicated that in addition to comments made by previous speakers there are safety and noise concerns, and property values will be affected. -9- -Cift;~f- p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 10 of 14 In response to questions from residents, Andrew Grignon responded that the vehicle does not have a back-up noise emitting device, the driveway is large, and large trees screen the truck. In response to a question from a Committee member, City staff responded that written comments are not passed on to the applicant. Notwithstanding that, the staff report indicates the lot is large, and the truck does not dominate the property, enforcement by the City of parking of the truck as shown on the site plan is difficult. In addition, recognizing that the variance runs with the property and future owners may not be as responsible as the current owner, that landscaping may be removed, and concern that a precedent for parking of commercial vehicles may be set, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 47/20 by A. & O. Grignon, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and is not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Carried Vote Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley opposed 4.5 P/CA 48/20 to P/CA 52/20 Oak Ridges Seaton Inc. Lots 86, 93, 94, 95 and 96 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-06 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit street townhouse dwellings in the Low Density Type 2 (LD2) Zone, whereas the LD2 Zone in the By-law only permits detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit nine street townhouse dwellings on Lots 86, 93, 94, 95 and 96 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-06. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. -10- -Cift;~f- p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 11 of 14 Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority expressing no objections. Billy Tung, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Bill Tung indicated the change from detached dwellings to street townhouses would be in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood. After considering the City Development Department’s report, hearing comments from the agent, and that the applications appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 48/20 to P/CA 52/20 by Oak Ridges Seaton Inc. be Approved on the grounds that 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, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to Lots 86, 93, 94, 95 and 96 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-06, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated September 9, 2020). 2. That the proposed street townhouse dwellings be constructed in accordance with Zoning By-law 7364/14, Low Density Type 2 – Multiple (LD2-M) Zone performance standards. Carried Unanimously -11- -Cift;~f- p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 12 of 14 4.6 P/CA 53/20 to P/CA 56/20 Zavala Developments Inc. Block 156, Lots 157 & 158 and Block 161 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-05 Block 156 (P/CA 53/20) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a maximum of 9 street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building in the Low Density Type 2 – Multiple (LD2-M) Zone, whereas in the By-law the maximum number of street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building shall be 8 in the LD2-M Zone. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit 9 street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building on Block 156 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-05. Lots 157 & 158 (P/CA 54/20 and P/CA 55/20) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit street townhouse dwellings in the Low Density Type 2 (LD2) Zone, whereas the LD2 Zone in the By-law only permits detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit 5 street townhouse dwellings on Lots 157 and 158 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-06. Block 161 (P/CA 56/20) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a maximum of 9 street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building in the Mixed Corridor Type 2 (MC2) Zone, whereas in the By-law the maximum number of street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building shall be 8 in the MC2 Zone. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit 9 street townhouse dwellings in a street townhouse building on Block 161 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-05. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no concerns with the application. -12- -Cift;~f- p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 13 of 14 Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority expressing no objections. Billy Tung, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After reviewing the staff Recommendation Report, acknowledging that these variance applications are not introducing new land use on Lots 157 and 158, and recognizing that the proposed variances are a minor increase in density across properties; Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 53/20 by Zavala Developments Inc., 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 Block 156 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-05, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated September 9, 2020). That applications P/CA 54/20 and P/CA 55/20 by Zavala Developments Inc., be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to Lots 157 and 158 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-05, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated September 9, 2020). 2. That the proposed street townhouse dwellings be constructed in accordance with Zoning By-law 7364/14, Low Density Type 2 – Multiple (LD2-M) Zone performance standards. That application P/CA 56/20 by Zavala Developments Inc., 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 Block 161 on Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-05, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated September 9, 2020). Carried Unanimously -13- -Cift;~f- p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 14 of 14 5. Adjournment Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That the 7th meeting of the 2020 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:33 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, October 14, 2020. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer -14- -Cift;~f- p](KERJNG Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 57/20 Date: October 14, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 57/20 J P & R 10 Development Inc. 1604 Sandhurst Crescent Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4058/92, to permit a minimum north side yard width of 1.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard width of 1.2 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize a deficient side yard width. 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 existing dwelling on the subject site, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2). Background In 2019, a building permit was issued for the construction of a detached dwelling on the su bject site. During construction of the dwelling, an error was made with the north side yard. As a result, the property requires relief from the Zoning By-law to recognize a deficient side yard width. 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 Highbush Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are the primary built-form in the Highbush Neighbourhood. The subject site is zoned S3 and OS-HL within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4058/92. A detached dwelling is permitted within the S3 Zone. Resulting from a construction error, the existing detached dwelling does not meet the minimum north side yard width required in the By-law. -15- -Ct%6f- p](KERJNG Report P/CA 57/20 October 14, 2020 Page 2 The purpose of the side yard width is to provide appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties, accommodate drainage and provide sufficient room for maintenance of the dwelling. The abutting property to the north has a detached dwelling that is setback 1.23 metres from the north property line. The two dwellings are setback 2.33 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. Additionally, the dwellings exceed the minimum required separation distance of 1.8 metres between buildings in the By- law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land Given that the detached dwelling is being constructed with a building permit and it is consistent with development along Sandhurst Crescent (detached dwellings), staff consider the development appropriate. Minor in Nature The side yard width of 1.1 metres applies only to the rear of the detached dwelling; whereas the front of the dwelling is setback 1.2 metres from the north lot line. Staff consider a 0.1 metre encroachment into the north side yard to be minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit a north side yard width of 1.1 metres 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 Building Services  No concerns with the application. Engineering Services  No comments on the application. Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)  TRCA staff have reviewed the requested variances and can confirm they have no impact on TRCA’s policies and programs. As such, we have no objections to the approval of Minor Variance Application No. P/CA 57/20.  TRCA staff previously issued a permit for the construction of a two-storey dwelling with minor grading to the rear on October 18, 2018. The drawings circulated to TRCA as part of this minor variance application are not consistent with the plans approved with the TRCA permit application (CFN 60300). It is our understanding the revised plans include a reduced north side yard setback to 1.1 metres. TRCA has reviewed the revised plans and have no objections to the proposal in principle. TRCA will not require a permit revision for the reduced side yard setback as these changes are minor in nature. -16- Report P/CA 57/20 October 14, 2020 Page 3 Date of report: October 07, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 57-20\Report\PCA 57-20 Report.doc Attachments -17- P i ne G rove Aven ue Sparrow Circle Stallion Chase Altona RoadWestcreek DriveMeldron DriveSandhurst Crescent © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © 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.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 57/20 Date: Sep. 04, 2020 Exhibit 1 ¯ J. P. & R. 10 Development Inc. Pt Lt 33, Con 1 N, Now Part 2, 40R29547 (1604 Sandhurst Crescent) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 57-20 J P & R 10 Development Inc\PCA57-20_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.E-18- -C40/- PlCKERING Exhibit 2 Submitted Survey File No: P/CA 57/20 Applicant: J P & R 10 Development Inc. Property Description: Pt Lot 11, Plan 282, Now Part 1, 40R-25431 (1604 Sandhurst Crescent) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES. Date: September 15, 2020 1604 SANDHURST CRESCENT (P/CA 57/20) 1606 SANDHURST CRESCENT 1602 SANDHURST CRESCENT to permit a minimum north side yard width of 1.1 metres -19-/y (0.30 RESERVE! 1~'~1 ONLINE N/S "'---------------I g~3E ~ f-----z w (___) en w ro N 0-::: ~ (___)2 0 sj- f-----~ en a= 0-::: >- =:)e:1. ::r::: 0 z <I en ~- I'-:_ I -'---------'- o.34 w N 69°09'00" E BOARD F NCE ----=-==Jli-~-~~=~::.v.:!~===iiF-=~E~~~=='f=F-5E=="lF=- ~00 ~~LIN~ -CH-A-IN-L~E---& >--& -;;;; -I 1,~:91 --/ --------- PIN 26368-0192 ...,__ _ __, PL AN 40R -2954 7 5 ~ (0 30 RESERVE) p ART I ~ g~ / BLOCK 18 MEA SURED FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION,13 1.96M 3: in= I p ART 4 RP 40M-1728 ' 848 2 / L :;; :;; z g~~ lll 01 0 15E 18 / ~ 10 .0 --""1-------------J 18 • 11869) PLA N 40R-2 954 7 i.., ' 36.3 7 11869) l N 69'07'10" E -ii; 39.74 / g~;3N PART 7 fi-;'a,•"' ' 0·2 e .,.__ _ __,~ PA.NRO.IGT0 4 2 ~ O.ZIE P/N 26368-0547/L T) &::;'~: J <i!-lJo"' PLAN 40R-2954 7 I PART 51 0 MEASURED F IRS T FLOOR ELEVATI ON, 131.75M ~ \ .:.-/2 809 :;; :;; <-S c/0 II ~ ~ N 69'0TI0" E 1 44.30 14 ·84 6,69 ~ ~ 17.88 /4 NO.= If MEAS URED FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION,131.53M PLA N 40R-29547 , a.s, -~ PART 3 j [,137.70 A,12.58 --C,12.57 ' N 4°49'41" W i;; ~ ~ CL F 13.22 ___________ w...1.. ~. • ~ 0 .07S ---- 18 I CLF <'OOS, ~ ~ 0.a, ~ I" PART 6 ~ 18 I CL F 118691 O.27E -y 18 1J.es ii N 69°01'20" E l 4 7. 74 CHAINLINK FE NCE ---T 118691 . RI nrK ?LL P/\R T -,_ CLF 0 .045 ~ ~ --~ - -~o/- PJ(KERJNG City Development Department Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 58/20 Date: October 14, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 58/20 C. Fiorino-Vieira 301 Fiddlers Court Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit an uncovered platform (deck) not exceeding 1.1 metres in height above grade , 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 recognize an existing uncovered deck. 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 existing uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2). Background The existing deck on the subject site was constructed by the original builder during the construction of the dwelling in 2018/2019. The deck was not part of the original building permit. As such, the owner is seeking relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to recognize the deck and to complete the final building permit inspections on the property. Comment 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 Rougemount Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. -20- -Ct%6f- p](KERJNG Report P/CA 58/20 October 14, 2020 Page 2 The subject site is zoned R3 within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. The existing deck connects to the rear first floor entrance of the detached dwelling and is 1.1 metres in height above grade, whereas the By-law permits platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade. The intent of this provision is to protect the privacy of abutting properties. Due to the 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 east and south also have existing decks greater than 1.0 metre in height that connect to the rear first floor entrances. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The uncovered deck with a height of 1.1 metres is an existing situation that has not negatively impacted adjacent properties, as the structure has existed for 1 year without complaint. The neighbouring properties to the east and south 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 deck does not have an impact on a residential property to the west, as the subject property is adjacent to a municipal road. An increase in height of 0.1 metres for an uncovered deck is considered minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to recognize an existing 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 Building Services  No concerns with the application. Engineering Services  No comments on the application. Date of report: October 07, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 58-20\Report\PCA 58-20 Report.doc Attachments -21- Gwendolyn StreetPetunia PlaceAltona RoadLittleford Street Dale w o o d D riv eFawndale RoadFiddlers CourtTomlinson Court Hoover Drive Rouge Valley Drive Stover Crescent Rougemount Drive Elizabeth B. Phin Public School © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © 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.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 58/20 Date: Sep. 17, 2020 Exhibit 1 ¯EC. Fiorino-Vieira Pt Lt 12, Plan 228, Now Parts 2 and 3, 40R28981 (301 Fiddlers Court) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 58-20 C. Fiorino-Vieira\PCA58-20_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,500 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.-22- i...---------~ --- - - - PK J -C40/- PlCKERING ~J - j I I - ' I I J I \ \ \ " - - I ... \ J I ) > I -i ) y) ) ~ /' \ \_ ~ I r--.. I - _,.\ Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 58/20 Applicant: C. Fiorino-Vieira Property Description: Pt Lt 12, Plan 228, Now Parts 2 and 3, 40R28981 (301 Fiddlers Court) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES. Date: September 17, 2020  Drawing is not to scale. -23- ., . l\{'t:J ttr'WJ~) nf'.l:t.d Vrt:!!!DV ~ I,'~ L • I I ~•~-· --+-+---------•----+-t-+--+-+ \ " - - I I • I - 'F - _._ r,.1.+---+---+--+--4--.--f------+---+---+-i-i I rl I~ I _..._l _ ~ -~ I I J"'+---+--+--+-+--+--+-+----,r---+--+--+-7 l--+----4---..--l-,---....---+---l-----4----4-----1----4------+--+--4----!-----; l----l----+----..i.l I I ' -I-ll ,~--------f------+--+---+--+----+---+---1 l -I - -I --i il ,_ J ,~ ,___ - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 59/20 Date: October 14, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 59/20 A. Turney 660 Pleasant Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit:  a minimum front yard setback of 4.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres;  a minimum rear yard setback of 0.9 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres;  a minimum north side yard setback of 1.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres;  a maximum lot coverage of 38.1 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent;  a covered platform (proposed front porch) not projecting more than 4.9 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits 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 yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard;  a covered platform (existing rear second-storey deck) not exceeding 3.6 metres in height above grade, whereas the By-law permits 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 yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard ;  an existing accessory structure (shed) greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback a minimum of 0.6 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law permits accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback a minimum of 1.0 metres from all lot lines. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to recognize an existing two -storey dwelling, an existing attached garage, an existing rear ground floor covered deck, an existing rear second-storey covered deck, and an existing shed; and to obtain a building permit for a two-storey addition to a dwelling and front covered porch. -24- -Ct%6f- p](KERJNG Report P/CA 59/20 October 14, 2020 Page 2 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 conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed two-storey detached dwelling and accessory structure (shed), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7). Background Existing Shed - Setback Variance The requested variance to permit an existing accessory structure (shed) greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback a minimum of 0.15 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law permits accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback a minimum of 1.0 metres from all lot lines, has been amended. The applicant has revised the requested variance to permit an existing accessory structure (shed) to be setback a minimum of 0.6 metres from the rear lot line. Existing Structures The existing structures on the subject property to remain include a two -storey dwelling, attached private garage, rear ground floor covered deck, rear second-storey covered deck, covered rear patio and shed. The variances for the rear yard, north side yard and height of the rear second-storey deck are to recognize existing conditions. The variance for the setback of the shed will allow for the relocation of the shed. Proposed Structures The proposed structures on the subject property include a two-storey addition to the existing dwelling and a front covered porch. The variances for the front yard, lot coverage and front porch projection are to permit the construction of these new structures. Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are the primary built-form in the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. The City is currently undertaking an Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Study), which looks at how to guide the future evolution of the City’s established neighbourhoods by recommending an appropriate scale of infill and replacement housing, and how the City can ensure that neighbourhood character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. -25- Report P/CA 59/20 October 14, 2020 Page 3 The Study will result in additional policies, guidelines and zoning provisions to ensure the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood character. Staff have reviewed the proposed development standards for the proposed detached dwelling, and find it consistent with development standards within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject site is zoned R4 within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18. A detached dwelling is a permitted use within the R4 Zone. Front Yard Setback Variance The proposed detached dwelling allows for a front yard setback of 4.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres. T he intent of this provision is to ensure a consistent streetscape, to provide an adequate space for soft landscaping, and to provide sufficient parking space in front of the property. The front yard setbacks along Pleasant Street vary significantly, with properties ranging between setbacks of 2.0 to 17.0 metres, with the majority of dwellings being setback between 5.0 to 8.0 metres. The proposed dwelling is consistent with the streetscape, as the proposed front yard setback of 4.0 metres falls within the range of setbacks along the street. The owner has advised that the current landscaping in the front yard (grass with garden space at the front of the property) will be maintained. 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. Rear Yard Setback Variance Due to the irregular shape of the lot, the existing rear ground floor deck and rear second-storey deck are setback 0.9 metres at the south-end of the rear lot line, and approximately 8.0 metres at the north-end of the rear lot line (see Exhibit 2). The By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres, to ensure that sufficient amenity space is provided in the rear yard. The existing decks contribute towards the total usable amenity space in the rear yard. The rear ground floor deck provides access to the backyard from the dwelling. There is also more than sufficient amenity space to the west and north of the existing decks, as a result of the irregular lot shape. Side Yard Setback Variance The existing attached private garage is setback 1.4 metres from the north side yard, 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 is vacant, however the next northern property has a detached dwelling that is setback approximately 15.0 metres from the garage. If a dwelling is constructed on the abutting vacant property, a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres would be required. In this case, the dwellings would have a separation distance of 2.9 metres. As such, there is sufficient room between the structures on the abutting properties to accommodate drainage and for the maintenance of each dwelling. -26- Report P/CA 59/20 October 14, 2020 Page 4 Lot Coverage Variance The dwelling, garage, covered rear ground floor deck, covered rear second-storey deck, covered rear patio, and covered front porch account for a total lot coverage of 38.1 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The dwelling and garage account for 24.3 percent of the lot coverage, whereas the rear decks, patio, and front porch account for 13.8 percent of the total lot coverage. The intent of this provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (for landscaping and amenity areas) uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of the building. The property has sufficient landscaping area in the front yard to maintain the current landscaping, and more than sufficient space in the rear yard for amenity space. Staff are of the opinion that an increase of 5.1 percent lot coverage will not result in a great loss of amenity space. Staff are also of the opinion that the size of the proposed dwelling is appropriate relative to the size of other dwellings within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Proposed Front Porch - Front Yard Projection Variance The proposed front porch projects 4.9 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard. The intent of this provision is to ensure an adequate buffer space between buildings and street activity is provided, and to ensure an adequate landscaped area within the front yard is maintained. The porch is located 2.57 metres from the front lot line (see Exhibit 2). As such, there is adequate buffer space between the proposed dwelling and street activity. Additionally, there is sufficient space in the front yard to maintain the existing landscaping. Existing Rear Second-Storey Deck - Height Variance The existing rear second-storey deck connects to the second-storey entrance of the detached dwelling and is 3.6 metres in height above grade, whereas the By-law permits platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade. The intent of this provision is to protect the privacy of abutting properties. There is an existing large tree at the south of the deck that helps to mitigate privacy issues for the neighbours to the south. The north-end of the deck is setback approximately 8.0 metres from the rear lot line, which helps to ensure privacy for the abutting properties to the west. A second-storey deck is a common feature in the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. A number of abutting properties to the west have second-storey decks at the front of the dwellings. The dwelling directly north of the subject property (664 Pleasant Street) also has a second-storey deck at the rear of the dwelling. Existing Shed - Setback Variance The existing accessory structure (shed) is setback 0.15 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law requires accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback a minimum of 1.0 metres from all lot lines. The intent of this provision is to ensure that adequate space is available for maintenance, to ensure roof drainage stays on the subject property and to minimize the visual impact that their location may have on adjacent properties. -27- Report P/CA 59/20 October 14, 2020 Page 5 Staff, in accordance with Engineering Services, are of the opinion that a setback of 0.15 metres is not sufficient space to ensure roof drainage stays on the subject property. The owner has indicated that the shed is not constructed on a foundation and can be relocated. As such, the applicant has revised the requested variance to permit the shed to be setback a minimum of 0.6 metres from the rear lot line. This will provide adequate space for maintenance, ensure roof drainage stays on the subject property, and will minimize the visual impact on adjacent properties. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The variances for the rear yard, north side yard, and height of the rear second-storey deck are existing situations that have not negatively impacted adjacent properties, as the structures have existed for over 20 years without complaint. The variances for the front yard, lot coverage and front porch projection will permit an addition to the existing dwelling, which will enhance the overall usability and amenity spaces of the property. A shed that is setback 0.6 metres from the rear lot line is not anticipated to have any significant impact on the surrounding area. Staff consider the requested variances to be in keeping with the character of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood, and therefor consider the variances to be minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit a minimum front yard setback of 4.0 metres; a minimum rear yard setback of 0.9 metres; a minimum north side yard setback of 1.4 metres; a maximum lot coverage of 38.1 percent; a covered platform (proposed front porch) not projecting more than 4.9 metres into the required front yard; a covered platform (existing rear second-storey deck) not exceeding 3.6 metres in height above grade and an existing accessory structure (shed) greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback a minimum of 0.6 metres from the rear lot line 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 Building Services  No concerns with the application. Engineering Services  Shed to be relocated to a minimum of 0.6 metres from all lot lines.  The roof area is being increased substantially therefore creating additional volume of precipitation drainage. Applicant is to propose Low Impact Development Features with the building permit application in order to reduce runoff volume. Rain Gardens or Rain Barrels and Soakaway Pits are options to consider. Applicant is to provide a grading plan with the building permit which shows the existing drainage patterns on the property so that Development Services can assess the potential impact to surrounding properties due to the increased lot coverage and increased roof area. Also, the discharge locations of all rainwater leaders are to be shown on the grading plan. -28- Report P/CA 59/20 October 14, 2020 Page 6 Date of report: October 07, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 59-20\Report\PCA 59-20 Report.doc Attachments  Existing Armourstone driveway edging is to be removed from within the City’s boulevard. As per the Boulevard Maintenance By-law 6831/08, no rocks, bricks, concrete slabs or anything protruding, sharp or dangerous is permitted on a boulevard. -29- Annland Street Commerce Street Wharf Street Liverpool RoadFron t RoadPleasant StreetProgress Frenchman's Bay East Park © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © 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.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 59/20 Date: Sep. 18, 2020 Exhibit 1 ¯ A. Turney Part Lot 12, Block E, Plan 65, Now Part 1, 40R9602 (660 Pleasant Street) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 59-20 A. Turney\PCA59-20_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.E-30- -C40/- PlCKERING Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan (Existing & Proposed Structures) File No: P/CA 59/20 Applicant: A. Turney Property Description: Part Lot 12, Block E, Plan 65, Now Part 1, 40R9602 (660 Pleasant Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES. Date: Sept 22, 2020   &9*45*/((306/% '-003%&$,  4&$0/%4503&:%&$, &9*45*/( 130104&% '30/5103$)%3*7&8": &9*45*/(4)&% to permit a minimum front yard setback of 4.0 metres  to permit a covered platform (proposed front porch) not projecting more than 4.9 metres into the required front yard  N to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 0.9 metres  to permit a minimum north side yard setback of 1.4 metres  to permit a maximum lot coverage of 38.1 percent  to permit a covered platform (existing rear second-storey deck) not exceeding 3.6 metres in height above grade  to permit an existing accessory structure (shed) greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback a minimum of 0.6 metres from the rear lot line ~ 8.0 m -31- ~ EXISTING COVERED TWO STOREY PATIO 5'-1" DWB.l.lNG (1.55) , /4 , ~ / EXISTING PROPOSED ATTAO-ED TWO STOREY GARAGE. ADDITION 15 .21 .. PLEASANT STREE T .,,,,,.._ _,, ·(>-'Z.\ ·~· -P1-C~~-1N-GL-------------, City Development L-------------------------71 Department Exhibit 3 Submitted Front Elevation (Revised) File No: P/CA 59/20 Applicant: A. Turney Property Description: Part Lot 12, Block E, Plan 65, Now Part 1, 40R9602 (660 Pleasant Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES. Date: Oct 5, 2020  -32--04Jo/-PJ(KERJNG City Development Department ft MAX.1-EIGI-IT ________ _ ~ MATO< EXISTING ti 6.5 • 12 SB.F SEALING ASPI-IAL T 51-llNGLES • 1 SIDING TO ~ 9 @ ~ II -~,:>-QJ • II SIDING ... "' " !9 I ~ 9 ~ SECO\O ..fLOOR R.JSION STONE SKIRTING 4,5 • 12 0 GRCUO_R.OOR I ' , I I ~ ~ J I I . C 11 111! II II II llfL-----:lJ I I I I I I I ~~~AP~~~T I I I I I I 4·-0· BELOW I I I I TOPOF_~ I I GQADE Ctw 6' x I I I I L J 6' Tl?T. WOOD L J L I I POST I T ,---I ___ I I I ,,-1 F~~C~SE I r-..L.r // I FOOTINGS I I ) / c-------------~r--~~// PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION Exhibit 4 Submitted South Side Elevation File No: P/CA 59/20 Applicant: A. Turney Property Description: Part Lot 12, Block E, Plan 65, Now Part 1, 40R9602 (660 Pleasant Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES. Date: Sept 22, 2020  to permit a covered platform (existing rear second-storey deck) not exceeding 3.6 metres in height above grade -33--1~ ~"' ~"' -!1 EJ] 64' / X/ 77 ' ' ' / / ~', ' / / / TOP OF £LA~TE~---'t.-~ SECOl'O _5.-00!< J ~ c:! ! i ! ! I 11 I, ,, II, , , , , , ,, ! , ,, L ii I " I < I I I ™'>1'-000 I ~o/ PICKERING City Development Department Exhibit 5 Submitted South Side Elevation File No: P/CA 59/20 Applicant: A. Turney Property Description: Part Lot 12, Block E, Plan 65, Now Part 1, 40R9602 (660 Pleasant Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES. Date: Sept 22, 2020  -34-TOPg'PlATe JWlill ~I Ill II IIII II II II II IIIIIIII IIII II IIII II II IIII II 111111111111111111 llllt) SEC@R.OOll ~ ~ ~~ •• DD !ID•! ~ -~()/---------------------PICKERING >------------------------------1 City Development Department Exhibit 6 Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 59/20 Applicant: A. Turney Property Description: Part Lot 12, Block E, Plan 65, Now Part 1, 40R9602 (660 Pleasant Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES. Date: Oct 5, 2020  -35-PROPOSED REAR aEVATION -C40/-PICKERING City Development Department 11111 II 111, II 1, II 1, 111111 II 111 ii II ·i I 11 I 11 I 111111 D .,.,..,.,..,,.. I TOP OF PLATE • ---r <f ~ SECOl'OR.OOQ , ----r ~ GQOlN) f:!:.OO!l i. f... ,:. TOP OF Sl.AB_---'lc-I Exhibit 7 Submitted Survey (Existing Structures Only) File No: P/CA 59/20 Applicant: A. Turney Property Description: Part Lot 12, Block E, Plan 65, Now Part 1, 40R9602 (660 Pleasant Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES. Date: Sept 22, 2020  Existing Attached Garage Existing Covered Patio Existing Ground Floor Deck and Second-Storey Deck Existing Dwelling Existing Shed -36-Iv -~ N70'21'55"E {P1,cM) ----"' 0 ~ 'v \g I \ I PB YrlT OF 0.15W/0.1~1 \ N6312' 45•E (P\toA) 4,95 (P\&U) eootd fen~• \ ~\>\~~\~) ~ LNSP fl.:!l'l;~E;_;.:..---r .. ce Poat On com..-~~ \ ,.,,.....,...INT ,./' -\ ~ __ , \ <) ~ \ ~ \ \ -Cf4~/-P1CKER1NG City Development Department ·\) ·-· 'v ~ ~ '?-(\\,,,,,,~ 30.69 (Pl&II) Fence ! ~~ '"\1 ·.--z. 6.10 6.04 3,88 3.llll ~ i ~ c-i ~. 18 \\lT (OFP) BF O.OSN/0. IOW SIB I {Of"P> i i I-w w ~ (/) I-z <( (/) <( w ....I 0... -If) <D h .. 1(1 z '') 5 c::, a.. a <:> L&J ("• 0::: ,,~ ~ IC) (/) ('~ c3 -: w .... a:: ~ >-I. ro '-' Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 60/20 Date: October 14, 2020 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 60/20 B. & K. Ragoo 958 Mink Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit:  a minimum rear yard of 5.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres;  a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent;  an uncovered platform (rear ground floor deck) not exceeding 1.25 metres in height above grade, whereas the By-law permits 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 yard, nor 1.0 metre into any required side yard;  a covered platform (front second-storey balcony) not exceeding 4.3 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.2 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits 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 yard, nor 1.0 metre into any required side yard;  a covered platform (front ground floor porch) not projecting more than 2.9 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits 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 yard, nor 1.0 metre into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a second-storey addition to a detached dwelling with an additional dwelling unit in the basement, including the addition of an attached private garage, basement walkout, rear ground floor uncovered deck, front second-storey covered balcony and front ground floor covered porch. 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 conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed two-storey detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). -37- -Ct%6f- p](KERJNG Report P/CA 60/20 October 14, 2020 Page 2 Background The requested variance to permit a total of two parking spaces provided on the property where an accessory dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires a total of three parking spaces on the property where an accessory dwelling unit is located, has been withdrawn. The applicant has revised the proposal to provide three parking spaces on the property. Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the West Shore Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are the primary built-form in the West Shore Neighbourhood. The City is currently undertaking an Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Study), which looks at how to guide the future evolution of the City’s established neighbourhoods by recommending an appropriate scale of infill and replacement housing, and how the City can ensure that neighbourhood character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. The Study will result in additional policies, guidelines and zoning provisions to ensure the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood character. Staff have reviewed the proposed development standards for the proposed detached dwelling, and find it consistent with development standards within the West Shore Neighbourhood. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject site is zoned RM1 within Zoning By-law 2520, as amended. A detached dwelling with an additional dwelling unit is permitted within the RM1 Zone. Rear Yard Variance The applicant is proposing to construct an uncovered deck that connects to the rear ground floor entrance of the detached dwelling with a rear yard setback of 5.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres. The intent of this provision is to ensure that sufficient amenity space is provided in the rear yard. The requested variance is to facilitate the construction of a deck that will contribute towards the total usable amenity space in the rear yard. The proposed deck will provide access to the backyard from the dwelling. There is also more than sufficient amenity space to the north of the proposed deck, as the deck is small in size. Lot Coverage Variance The proposed detached dwelling, attached private garage and covered front porch account for a lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent (the rear ground floor deck is not calculated in the total lot coverage, as it is not a covered structure). The proposed dwelling and private garage account for 36 percent of the total lot coverage, whereas the covered front porch accounts for 4 percent of the total lot coverage. -38- Report P/CA 60/20 October 14, 2020 Page 3 The intent of this provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (for landscaping and amenity areas) uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of the building. The property has sufficient landscaping area in the front yard (see Exhibit 2), and sufficient space in the rear yard for amenity space. Staff are of the opinion that an increase of 7 percent lot coverage will not result in a great loss of amenity space. Staff is also of the opinion that the size of the proposed dwelling is appropriate relative to the size of other dwellings within the West Shore Neighbourhood. Rear Ground Floor Deck - Height Variance The applicant is proposing to construct an uncovered deck that connects to the rear ground floor entrance of the detached dwelling and is 1.25 metres in height above grade, whereas the By-law permits platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade. The intent of this provision is to protect the privacy of abutting properties. Due to the drop in grade from the front lot line to the rear lot line, a greater height is required to provide access from the rear ground floor entrance to the deck. The neighbouring properties to the west and north-west also appear to have existing decks greater than 1.0 metre in height that connect to the rear ground floor entrances. Front Second-Storey Balcony - Height Variance The proposed covered balcony connects to the second-storey entrance of the detached dwelling and is 4.3 metres in height above grade, whereas the By-law permits platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade. The intent of this provision is to protect the privacy of abutting properties. The balcony is located at the front of the dwelling and faces Mink Street. This placement will ensure privacy is not lost in the rear yards of the neighbouring properties to the north, east and west. Front Second-Storey Balcony & Front Ground Floor Porch - Front Yard Projection Variance The applicant is proposing to construct a covered front second-storey balcony that projects 2.2 metres into the required front yard and a covered front ground floor porch with associated steps that projects 2.9 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard. The intent of this provision is to ensure an adequate buffer space between buildings and street activity is provided and to ensure an adequate landscaped area within the front yard is maintained. The porch and balcony are located more than 5.0 metres from the front lot line (see Exhibit 2). As such, there is adequate buffer space between the proposed dwelling and street activity. Additionally, there is sufficient landscaping area in the front yard for the proposed sodding and walkway. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Rear Ground Floor Deck The proposed deck intends to enhance the outdoor amenity space in the rear yard of the property and provide access from the dwelling to the rear yard. The deck is proposed to be 2.9 metres in depth, which is small relative to the size of t he dwelling and the property. -39- Report P/CA 60/20 October 14, 2020 Page 4 A decrease in the rear yard depth of 2.3 metres is not anticipated to have any significant impact on the surrounding area and is considered minor in nature. Lot Coverage The increase in lot coverage is required to accommodate the addition of the attached private garage for parking and storage purposes and the front covered porch for outdoor amenity purposes. Staff consider an increase in lot coverage of 7 percent to be minor in nature. Front Second-Storey Balcony & Front Ground Floor Porch The covered front porch and second-storey balcony will add to the overall outdoor amenity space on the property while ensuring adequate landscaped area is maintained in the front yard. Two neighbouring properties to the east have front porches that project into the required front yard. As such, the proposal is in keeping with the existing streetscape. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit the construction of a second-storey addition to a detached dwelling, including the addition of an attached private garage, rear ground floor uncovered deck, front second-storey covered balcony and front ground floor covered porch, 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 Date of report: October 07, 2020 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2020\PCA 60-20\Report\PCA 60-20 Report.doc Attachments Building Services  No concerns with the application. Engineering Services  The roof area is being increased substantially, therefore creating additional volume of precipitation drainage. Applicant is to propose Low Impact Development Features with the building permit application in order to reduce runoff volume. Rain Gardens or Rain Barrels and Soakaway Pits are options to consider. Applicant is to provide a grading plan with the building permit which shows the existing drainage patterns on the property so that Development Services can assess the potential impact to surrounding properties due to the increased lot coverage and increased roof area. Also, the discharge locations of all rainwater leaders are to be shown on the grading plan. -40- ,~M/ViJ1 'o / v· . /' .,..~V\.A Batory AvenueSanok DriveBreezyDrive West Shore BoulevardOklahoma Drive Chipmunk StreetTullo Street P a r k Cres c ent Vicki Drive Oliva StreetSunrise Avenue Essa C r e s c e n t Leaside StreetYeremi StreetMink Street Bruce Hanscombe Park Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park Frenchman's Bay Public School © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © 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.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: P/CA 60/20 Date: Sep. 28, 2020 Exhibit 1 ¯ E B. & K. Ragoo Lot 774, Plan M19 (958 Mink Avenue) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 60-20 B. & K. Ragoo\PCA60-20_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.-41- -~of- PJ(KERJNG ============== Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan (Revised) File No: P/CA 60/20 Applicant: B. & K. Ragoo Property Description: Lot 774, Plan M19 (958 Mink Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES. Date: Sept 29, 2020   to permit a minimum rear yard of 5.2 metres  to permit an uncovered platform (rear ground floor deck) not exceeding 1.25 metres in height above grade  to permit a covered platform (front second-storey balcony) not exceeding 4.3 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.2 metres into the required front yard  to permit a covered platform (front ground floor porch) not projecting more than 2.9 metres into the required front yard  to permit a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent  -42- 50'-0" [15.24M] -·-·,·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·,·-·- I I I I 0:! I a ; -~I ...._.£-----+-,--7 :; ;... ='-«., ~ ~~"'~· ~i,,.3•_, .. ,.01 I ~: LOT 774111111, I LOT 111111 I WOOD ~ DECK.::~ 12·-o· (3.66):. . -,---------, lo t:. ~ ,·~·tu•) r-2· 11.111 i--/ I I I )ti I I ~I ~I ..j . o I ~- o l I 0 1 Q. I I I Hii" (2.•5) ! .; ! f , -oj· 11.a•J r-,n· r, 171 N°958 MINK STREET PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR ADDITION 2,·-a· 11,521 37·.,o· 111.531 6'-2" [U7! ;, ............ .. I I / coveReo · ·· ·-·s- POACH .!i 2,·-a· (7.521 \> -,_ I ..... 2'-;' (0.70] ·~ I ~ I ~ WALKOUT! O ' ' I ~ I I I I I I (17'-oj" (5.20¥ / 1;;;;;:I::;;;:; ~ I ':::' f ~! '-. 6'-1" (2.0l) §' ; WIDEN .! ·!I W/4J..KWAY ';" ~ .. I y EXISTING 'E ,A ~~ ,E_ DRIVEWAY I ,.:!. SOD \> •· _ -~ ,'...I ! .:,~~~ ,,..,...,.us l ~ -I -· -· -..-· -· -· -· T 50•:07 (1~24M] -· -· · _J_ · -- ! ~------~ ~u~rb;====7Efix~t~. ~C~u~rSb=iC~u~t~:c=::::===::::===::::=====::::=====l ________ J MINK STREET -~~/-P1CKER1NG 1---------------- City Development Dep artment I Exhibit 3 Submitted Front Elevation File No: P/CA 60/20 Applicant: B. & K. Ragoo Property Description: Lot 774, Plan M19 (958 Mink Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES. Date: Sept 29, 2020 to permit a covered platform (front second-storey balcony) not exceeding 4.3 metres in height above grade   -43-I I wl !1 §1 l_ ____________________ TOPQF_~-'!~~'if~ ---------------------------------------------------~: ~I I I I __ .l. I-----1 I~ I I I --u --i----,.,, ,·--i· ,, ... 1 ~ t I ~I ITUOCO I L~--r----·-l"'-"'"f' ·=~-~,.. .~::.J dl'Uo.a..ci a ! ----l-_ 1. _,,." ,., "00~ ~--·-7: r 1/ I t I I ,,. !. ~ ]El =E ''ii•~-• _ ~• ~-~-c ~;" i:;-;;,"o« ]J ____ 1 Fl~ . .!ll,f!..OOT101.•o ·T-"""' ~-0 ;f;j~0~0= f"'~,.,~.1 f •=-••· ~----"" -;-, -__ .., . • ID --~ - - -!I.,......,.., I ~ I -~ ------.--~-----------:r ___ j_ ____ _:I _________ ~ I :I I .cw COMC11C1C : : : F====i i I ~ l I, (OUHDAlK>N 1 1 I r-----, I .._ .:. I 'I / PIJIOCD .... -:, : : : ------• ' I i ':-:, <., 0.t.MPRO()r(D / l I I L-----~ : • .. I I I I r-----, 1 J J _ ---,./==---==---=-~==---==---~,l;-_____ .,_-_____ :~ .. ---------------=------=--------,_-_____ :_-____ :_=t:::'.~ -:-I---EX-JST, ASfil--iE-1'.'T_S_LA_B,...~~98-65~ I a· nG.--L----------------------------'--'-----------------'----------------------------------r-r--r-,11 : I ' : ;:; I I I : FRONT E~EV ATION C-:'l:t::~!:h:~::~:L I -~()/-PICKERING City Development Department *SOUTH* Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 60/20 Applicant: B. & K. Ragoo Property Description: Lot 774, Plan M19 (958 Mink Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES. Date: Sept 29, 2020  to permit an uncovered platform (rear ground floor deck) not exceeding 1.25 metres in height above grade -44-'110 67\ TOP OF ROOF HEIGHT __________ L _______ ---------------i ~ wl 5j i1 i1 I """"' I-· I ': ~FIN.CEILING :---. I ~-"'"" 1maQITTCJ a I ! I \? .:. I ~~2NDF1p0R ~---l I I ·:: I I c I ! ~ •·-,1·,,..,1 ~-•· ~ cuu --1 ,I.S ,ct CU.(. ....... 4 I ........ .,,... ... N. f ST FL_OQ!L i--,._,.,..,, ~ I '100.00',j,t.VG GRADE a 1 f1 I___ . . ----------1-i •-----:J I ' •-----' J l ill~i:=:-=-:::::'.::::::=-o=:-=:-c -¾!ST. BASEMENT1SLAB i r~~==n------::::.-REAR ELEV ATroN ~ I I :l I I ./CIIICNU:S Dll.i&. I : ::-I I I -----• ' 'y '....,, ' * I ... _.-,,_ .., __ ,_.., *NORTH -04Jo/ PICKERING City Development Department [ ____ [ ______ .J 'r "' ~ ,J?111~ z U1 N[W CON~I( rOUMDATIOH C-PARG(D AND " 0AVPROC)f'(0 r--1.:..., . ..I ~i ~ CCI ~I I I I J_ I I I I I I -----i-, I I n-.: crn . ..1s<. [t:.\1ST LI ,·--i·,, ... , I FIJI. FA~\!LY Rt~ .,, l<Tl)'l0k[~1<TLI I l;;-1~ I-! JJ Exhibit 5 Submitted West Side Elevation File No: P/CA 60/20 Applicant: B. & K. Ragoo Property Description: Lot 774, Plan M19 (958 Mink Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES. Date: Sept 29, 2020  to permit an uncovered platform (rear ground floor deck) not exceeding 1.25 metres in height above grade to permit a covered platform (front second-storey balcony) not exceeding 4.3 metres in height above grade -45-.:=: L \ I,----------------------------------------------------------/411111111111 1•1M¢;~ '' '' '''''' ,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,1,1,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,l,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1)1'.,J-J::.L 0; ,~1,y., " " " " " " " '--'r 7~..,..4,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,111,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1.1.,.,.,.,,1.1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,,,1.1.1.1.i'),,-....._ A' I 11 I I' -~~,:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:r;i?~~, 7 .,.,...,,,.,.,[ TW,-Y ..... r'T',,·-,' _,,a :b,._ I ltrr'T'll -_:::!r,...j _____ L_AN 5=EIUJ'IGGm ~ _,;:,:,~~· ,£:•.:.. _1_· ... ~ a ;, • r-n. Ll ~RNlSDFLOOR ___ _j ______ --------------___ ~I -------__ 1 ---------.-----', ~ T ~ --AN2NDFLOOR~ .. , ~I <: 1..-1::1,1 1.:::.lt :,, I ,_' I .I -~o/-PJ(KERJNG City Development Department i : I ' ' I -i::--:· <.$Tue<:Of'NSN DIJ1M~10 • ,au• • ..... l(lllr-•ff~ ; ' I ~ ':~~~ --------:.~i-'J r~~.; .:".::: :; i N-X.. I, f D'l._ ii I ---:--:--------------· ! ' -------'-I I un:,._....ci...,o II J ---• : : '°~~t-:-. :i : : : :· ----, -------. :! : w-~....,...:;:::;==!!t..:1~ ! ~--=::· i ' ' :ti . ~ . ' ' ',_ •.oJ«CD .,.. ::, I • 0 I < ••---~-~\(!l_QRAOE~ I==------: : : : • -----------===----~; __ :_.:-_-::-;-_-_~-=-====-=---===---:.~~..:---=-===== -----=---L •y--==--=----l,=l, ---______________ • ____ ::: EXIST-h:sai""""INfs• .J -··) LETT SIDE ELEVATION ----•----*WEST* ----T Exhibit 6 Submitted East Side Elevation File No: P/CA 60/20 Applicant: B. & K. Ragoo Property Description: Lot 774, Plan M19 (958 Mink Street) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES. Date: Sept 29, 2020  to permit an uncovered platform (rear ground floor deck) not exceeding 1.25 metres in height above grade to permit a covered platform (front second-storey balcony) not exceeding 4.3 metres in height above grade -46-~ TQe OF ROOF HEIGKT __________________________ ---------------------------------------------------2 A ' ',.. lb.~' 1' ~FIN.CEILING ____ _ ~ ~ m i T a ~,.~ IIP'f·J~ ~ J s,ucco,-D rn l'•t:•,.i ~ · 1 ! ~ ~-'L 1 ~FIN.2NOFLOOR ----re r-_-_--:::---------~ ___ _j_ ____ :(_ ____ · _ _:: _____ .... ------L------:[ ~ ... h '" <IOISGJl\nTJ -n l r--u 1 1 / 11 11 ,·-··----.... tt,u,crow,t• '"'"" ----,.. nuo• tO .. ,go ~--,,,.,,-~-= AVG GRADE a _ ~ J -~---,-~ :-: i L_j' 1L_J 11 • 111 11 L_J ,-~----I I I '--, I·'• lf 8' I I t....,i ,.. ~ -I I NCW CONCltCH l t, .. ., :.'~,i1.. ' I : : !:; ~ ~ : : rOUNOAtlC)N "'-._ j C-Ul'STIHC ........ 1 I ', .._., 1"i !'jli-~ II I I I F-. ::-: : '--.:..~~ _:) 1 ''~°"~ .> : : ....... ~.,.,,,., .. ·":: : ~~ .• : : : : ........... "--, : : : :...; --------------------------------------r"t :::::: ~r : r~----------------------------~-urs,. nc ~o/ PICKERING City Development Department : l"r°'"°'~l: ii : l It','" l'A.ltClO AHO J).t .:. I I RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ,J_~~°,_LJ_, _ _t _,U, "----.J--------'----'---_t,.. ___ , ----•----*EAST* T -----