Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 9, 2021 - RevisedRevised Committee of Adjustment Agenda Meeting Number: 6 Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 pickering.ca Revised Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page Number 1. Disclosure of Interest 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from May 12, 2021 1-16 4. Report 4.1 (Deferred at the May 12, 2021 Meeting) 17-29 P/CA 43/21 K. Deol & F. Dirani 642 Annland Street 4.2 P/CA 37/21 30-41 S. Shekarforoush & N. Baseri 721 Hillcrest Road 4.3 P/CA 46/21 42-50 S. & N. Patel 1439 Old Forest Road 4.4 P/CA 47/21 – Revised 51-60 J. Luttmer 814 Fairview Avenue 4.5 P/CA 48/21 61-66 S. McLean & M. Olsina 1715 Central Street 4.6 P/CA 51/21 67-72 L. & T. McCulloch 1890 Falconwood Way 5. Adjournment For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Samantha O’Brien Telephone: 905.420.4660, extension 2023 Email: sobrien@pickering.ca Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 1 of 16 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair – arrived at 7:05 pm Eric Newton – arrived at 7:05 pm Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Tanjot Bal, Planner II Felix Chau, Planner I Isabel Lima, Planner I 1.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2.Adoption of Agenda Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That the agenda for the Wednesday, May 12, 2021 meeting be adopted. Carried 3.Adoption of Minutes Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That the minutes of the 4th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday,April 14, 2021 be adopted, as amended. Carried - 1 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 2 of 16 4.Reports 4.1 P/CA 21/21 Universal City Six Development Inc. 1010 Sandy Beach Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-law 7810/21 to permit: •a maximum building height of 79.5 metres (27-storeys), whereas the By-law permitsa maximum building height of 78.0 (26-storeys); and •a 0.0 metre stepback between the top 6.0 metres and 18.0 metres of the point towerfor buildings equal to and greater than 73.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires aminimum 3.0 metre stepback between the top 6.0 metres and 18.0 metres of a pointtowner for buildings equal to and greater than 73.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to construct a 27-storey residential building. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval. 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. Michael Vani, agent with Weston Consulting, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, Michael Vani stated that his client is in agreement with the Staff Recommendation. He added that there has been a detailed review of the design and drawings to account for the one-storey addition based upon an increase in height of 1.5 metres. The step-back requirements are the same as the initial approval adopted by Council. There was a misstep in drafting the Zoning By-law and a provision was missed. The applicant is able to meet all provisions of the By-law, including additional parking and amenity space based on the one-storey addition. When questioned by a Committee Member if the trees along Sandy Beach Road will be retained, Michael Vani stated the applicant is in the process of obtaining Site Plan approval, where the underground parking is designed to be built out along the edge of the property line. Furthermore all appropriate fees will be arranged for adequate compensation of tree loss. - 2 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 3 of 16 With the absence of the Chair, the Vice-Chair advised he would abstain from voting on this item in order to prevent a tie vote. After having reviewed the comments of City staff, and understanding that the building is consistent with the objectives of the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines, and that a thorough review has been completed by City staff and Council, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 21/21 by Universal City Six Development 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 (refer to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 12, 2021). Carried 4.2 (Deferred from the April 14, 2021 meeting) P/CA 22/21 R. Sedara 422 Sheppard Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: •an accessory structure greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback 0.5 of ametre from the east lot line, whereas the By-law requires a setback of 1.0 metre fromall lot lines; •an accessory structure greater than 1.8 metres in height to be setback 0.5 of a metreform the east lot line, whereas the By-law requires a setback of 1.0 metre from all lotlines. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to recognize an accessory structure (detached garage). 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. - 3 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 4 of 16 Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating downspouts should be directed away from the shared lot line with 426 Sheppard Avenue. Ranga Sedara, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from a Committee Member, Ranga Sedara advised the accessory structure (detached garage) was constructed approximately 27 years ago in 1993. Furthermore, the downspout has been directed away from the shared lot line. Based on the recommendation of the City Development Department, the applicant’s responses to the questions from the Committee Members, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 22/21 by R. Sedara, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1.That these variances apply only to the accessory structure (detached garage), asgenerally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, datedMay 12, 2021). 2.That no human habitation or home business be permitted in the accessory structure. Carried Unanimously - 4 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 5 of 16 4.3 P/CA 33/21 P. Raju 1561 Oakburn Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2964/88, to permit a minimum south side yard width of 0.6 of a metre, whereas the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard width of 1.2 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to construct a roof over the below grade stairs within the south side yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section stating no concerns and that the application for Building Permit has been revised to show the constructed roof over the below grade entrance. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Matthew Thomas, agent, was present to represent the application. Linda & Peter Brightling, of 1559 Oakburn Street were present in opposition to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Linda and Peter Brightling stated their concerns with the application indicating the submitted drawings do not represent verbal communication with City planning staff. The existing posts where the roof is to be constructed remains too close to the property line to meet a 0.6 of a metre sideyard. City planning staff advised that the applicant is to remove the posts and erect new posts that are in line with the railing of the below grade entrance. This issue was identified when the posts were first installed without a building permit. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that if the Committee were to approve the application for a 0.6 of a metre side yard, the issuance of a Building Permit will require a new set of drawings be submitted. The Chair indicated that the City has processes in place during the Building Permit stage to ensure construction mirrors any approvals granted. Tanjot Bal, Planner II, explained there is a provision within the Zoning By-law that allows for a maximum projection of up to 0.6 of a metre for the eaves. This does not necessarily mean the eaves will be 0.6 of a metre, however it is allowable. - 5 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 6 of 16 Matthew Thomas spoke in support of the application expressing the intent to adhere to the rules and regulations of the By-law, while also ensuring proper drainage be maintained within the property. The Secretary-Treasurer described the submitted minor variance application and the provision of the Zoning By-law. The applicant did not include the encroachment of the side yard in their application. Should the Committee approve the application, it may also be appropriate for a condition to be added indicating that any eaves shall not encroach more than 0.3 of a metre into the side yard. That would prohibit any eaves to extend over the property line. After hearing the concerns addressed from the neighbour, the applicant’s responses to questions and comments from the City, and after noting the side yard setback reduction to 0.6 of a metre only being associated with the covered below grade entrance, and the addition of a condition regarding the eaves not project more than 0.3 of a metre into the required side yard to enable proper spacing between this structure and the lot line to enable proper drainage, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 33/21 by P. Raju, 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 roof, 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 May 12, 2021). 2. That the eaves not project more than 0.3 of a metre into the required side yard. Carried Unanimously - 6 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 7 of 16 4.4 P/CA 34/21 & P/CA 35/21 T. Luong & L. Lu 566 West Shore Boulevard Application P/CA 34/21 – Part 1 on Proposed Site Plan The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit a minimum lot frontage of 10.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres. Application P/CA 35/21 – Part 2 on Proposed Site Plan The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit a minimum lot frontage of 10.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to sever the property and construct two detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Refusal on the grounds that the requested variance does not appear to be minor in nature and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. 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 stating the applicant should ensure the additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Daniel Berry, agent, was present to represent the applicants. Paul White: President of Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association, Shawna Stanleigh & Glenn Marquardt of 576 West Shore Boulevard, Gary Winsor of 600 West Shore Boulevard, and Sue Baldaro of 564 West Shore Boulevard were present in objection to the applications. Multiple attempts were made at connecting David Steele: Pickering West Shore Community Association, a registered participant in objection, however all attempts at connecting him to the electronic meeting were unsuccessful. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the applications. - 7 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 8 of 16 Daniel Berry spoke in support of the minor variance applications and potential land severance expressing the justification is based on the existing character and streetscape, while mirroring the dwellings to the north and south of the subject site. Paul White, President, Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association spoke in opposition to the application speaking to the design and streetscape of the neighbourhood over the years, and the recent endorsement from Council regarding Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods as well as the Urban Design Guidelines that apply to new development. Gary Winsor spoke in opposition to the applications stating his support for the City Development Department’s Recommendation for Refusal. He believes that the intent of Zoning By-law 2511 is to limit smaller frontages of dwellings in the area and these applications do not represent the character of neighbourhood. Shawna Stanleigh & Glenn Marquardt spoke in opposition to the applications stating, the proposal appears inconsistent with other single detached homes in the neighbourhood. Dwellings that currently remain with smaller frontages were established prior to By-law 2511 being in effect. This By-law discourages that type of construction in the area. A Committee member should not be asked to overrule decisions made by Council, and only minor relief should be granted. Sue Baldaro spoke in opposition to the applications, stating that she is in agreement with the previous comments. In response to questions from Committee Members, Daniel Berry stated there is no intent for future minor variance applications for changes to side yards, lot coverages or building height. The current design is already in compliance with all zoning requirements for lot coverage, setbacks and building heights, as well as the Urban Design Guideline Checklist. If the Committee requires it, the applicant is open to redesigning one of the dwellings to create diversity in the housing pattern to meet all necessary zoning requirements. The tree located at the front of the property on the south side will likely be removed during excavation, and the current frontage of the property is 21.34 metres. After considering previous approvals made by the Committee of Adjustment for infill lots all across the city, it is important to review the character, fit, design and compatibility of a proposal. It is understood where the applicant is coming from by requesting a 10.6 metre lot frontage. This part of the West Shore neighbourhood is characterized by a variety of housing patterns, notably in the form of cottage-style dwellings. These lots have a wide characteristic and need careful attention. The request for a 10.6 metre lot frontage can accommodate dwellings as appropriate development of the land. However, the test that is most compromised is maintaining the intent of the Zoning By-law. - 8 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 9 of 16 After reading the staff Report, hearing comments made, recognizing the studies that were completed on infill housing, and evaluating the request as not meeting the intent of the Zoning By-law, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 34/21 & P/CA 35/21 by T. Luong & L. Lu, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances do not appear to be minor in nature and are 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 38/21 S. Milanovski 1789 Spruce Hill Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum side yard of 1.2 metres on the south side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance 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 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 stating the applicant should ensure the reduced side yard setback does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. - 9 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 10 of 16 Simeon Milanovski, applicant, and Michael Mandarello, agent, were present to represent the application. Multiple attempts were made at connecting the five residents: Sabrina, Imtiaz, Adil, Imran, and Yasmin Dharshi, from 1787 Spruce Hill Road who registered to participate in objection to the application, however all attempts at connecting the individuals to the electronic meeting were unsuccessful. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Michael Mandarello spoke in support of the application stating the applicant agrees with the City Development Department’s recommendation, the purpose of the application is to facilitate the large easement on north side of the property, the application was previously approved in 2016, however the applicant was unable to complete construction within the required two year time frame, which triggered a resubmission of the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Michael Mandarello stated the drawings have been submitted to the City, and construction is set to begin, pending approval. After having read the Report to the Committee of Adjustment, agreeing with the City staff’s Recommendation, rehearing the previously approved application from 2016, and 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 38/21 by S. Milanovski, 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 detached dwelling, 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 May 12, 2021). Carried Unanimously - 10 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 11 of 16 4.6 P/CA 39/21 to P/CA 41/21 GHR Investment Corp. 1856 Pinegrove Avenue (Lots 1, 2 & 3) P/CA 39/21 (Lot 1) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • minimum interior side yard of 1.2 metres on the south side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 1.5 metres • maximum lot coverage of 36.5 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • minimum flankage yard depth of 2.5 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum flankage yard depth of 4.5 metres P/CA 40/21 (Lot 2) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • minimum side yard of 1.2 metres on the north side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres • maximum lot coverage of 37 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent P/CA 41/21 (Lot 3) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • minimum side yard of 1.2 metres on the west side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres • maximum lot coverage of 37.5 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to in order to facilitate the construction of three single detached dwellings. 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. - 11 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 12 of 16 Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating no comments on the application. Please note that the applicant is to ensure all approved variances are reflected on the plans submitted for clearance of conditions of the land severance applications. Michael Mandarello, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the previous applications submitted by this applicant to include severing the property into four lots fronting onto the east/west portion of Pine Grove Avenue. The previous applications requested reduced frontages, which the Committee denied. The applicant appealed the Refusal Decision to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), where a date has not yet been determined. Michael Mandarello stated the appeal has been withdrawn from LPAT, where the current application is different in that it has larger frontages that are in keeping with the zoning of the property. After reading the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment, listening to the Secretary-Treasurer describe the history of the property, and understanding that the applicant has withdrawn their appeal to LPAT, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 39/21 to P/CA 41/21 by GHR Investment Corp., be Approved on the grounds that the 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 detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, & 5 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 12, 2021). Carried Unanimously - 12 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 13 of 16 4.7 P/CA 42/21 W. Liu 3615 Markham-Pickering Townline Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2676/88 to permit: • a maximum lot coverage of 23 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 20 percent; and • an accessory building with a maximum height of 4.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone and 4.5 metres in any commercial zone. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached garage. 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 stating no concerns on the application and that an application for Building Permit has been submitted. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Written comments were received from the City’s Heritage Planner stating the property is not listed or designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. XuDong Tang, agent, was present to represent the application. Multiple attempts were made at connecting the property owner, Wei Liu, to the electronic meeting, however all attempts were unsuccessful. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, XuDong Tang stated the application is appropriate development of the land with no adverse effects to adjacent property owners. The detached garage is situated in the rear yard, with limited visibility from the street, and sufficient landscaping exists to screen the proposed garage. Furthermore, the neighbours to the south have a garage in the rear yard, the neighbours to the east have existing mature trees that assist with screening, and the neighbours to the north have submitted comments stating no concerns with the application. - 13 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 14 of 16 In response to questions from Committee Members, XuDong Tang stated the property was purchased last year in October, and the existing two car garage is to be demolished. The 6 space garage will be used for storage of personal vehicles and a boat, where the single over-head garage door is sufficient to accommodate the owner’s needs. The application is not to facilitate any commercial use and is only to house the owner’s personal collection. After reviewing the application, at first glance the variances appear to be inconsequential and straight forward, with no impact to adjacent neighbours. This location is not part of a typical community or neighbourhood and has three isolated dwellings on the east side of the road, north of Highway 7. The dwelling to the north does have over half a dozen vehicles parked in the driveway, and the existing subject site can accommodate over six vehicles. There is concern with the context, location and size of the dwelling, where the site does not appear to have a single family residing on it. The existing zoning on the property would allow for storage of six vehicles and a boat, without minor variance requests. There is concern that if approved and there is a change in ownership, the site could be used for commercial storage and would not be permissible under the current zoning. The application does not appear to meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and is not appropriate development of the land. The applicant has the opportunity to meet the current zoning to suit their needs, as such Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 42/21 by W. Liu, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are not in keeping with the intent of the zoning by-law. Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 43/21 K. Deol & F. Dirani 642 Annland Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a maximum building height of 9.9 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 9.0 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and - 14 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 15 of 16 • a covered platform and uncovered steps (front porch and associated steps) not exceeding 1.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.7 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. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Deferral to the June 9, 2021 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment to be recirculated with a revised variance to building height. No applicant or agent were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 43/21 by K. Deol & F. Dirani, be Deferred to the June 9, 2021 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment to be recirculated with a revised variance to building height. Carried Unanimously - 15 - Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 16 of 16 5.Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the 5th meeting of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:25 pmand the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, June9, 2021. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer - 16 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 43/21 Date: June 9, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 43/21 K. Deol & F. Dirani642 Annland Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: •a maximum building height of 11.3 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 9.0 metres; •a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lotcoverage of 33 percent; and •a covered platform and uncovered steps (front porch and associated steps) not exceeding 1.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.7 metresinto the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platformsnot exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than1.5 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 facilitate the submission of an Application for Building Permit for the construction of 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 & 6). Background This application was deferred at the May 12, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow City staff to recirculate a revised notice. The original notice showed a variance to permit a building height of 9.9 metres, which was calculated as the vertical distance between grade and the mid-point of the roof. - 17 - Report P/CA 43/21 June 9, 2021 Page 2 The correct calculation of the height of the proposed dwelling is the vertical distance between established grade and the highest point of the roof surface. The requested variance has been revised to permit a building height of 11.3 metres. No changes to the height of the building were made. Comment 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 a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. City Council has recently endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which provides direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. In addition, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts to support and enhance neighbourhood precinct characteristics. City staff are preparing an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to implement the recommendations of the Study to help ensure that the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood precinct character. Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law Building Height Variance The requested variance is to permit a maximum building height of 11.3 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum height of 9.0 metres. The intent of this provision is to minimize the visual impact of new buildings on the existing streetscape and to ensure new development is compatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood. The abutting property to the west and the two adjacent properties to the east each have newly constructed 3-storey dwellings that range in height between 10.5 and 12 metres (these dwellings began construction in 2016 and 2017, prior to the 9.0 metre height requirement being instated in 2018). The proposed dwelling on the subject property is also a 3-storey dwelling, with the third floor living space being located within the roof architecture. The established building height for these surrounding dwellings is taller than the permitted 9.0 metres. The applicant has indicated that a larger building height is required to ensure the proposed dwelling on the subject property is not dominated by the adjacent dwellings with similar large building heights. The proposed dwelling is considered to be compatible with the abutting dwellings. Additionally, the third floor of the dwelling is located within the roof architecture and the front wall of the dwelling is located 7.62 metres from the front property line. These design choices help to minimize the visual impact of the building from the street. - 18 - Report P/CA 43/21 June 9, 2021 Page 3 Lot Coverage Variance The requested variance is to permit a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The proposed dwelling and attached garage account for 33.6 percent of the total lot coverage, whereas the covered front porch and rear walkout account for 2.2 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. The applicant has indicated that the size of the building has been designed to ensure the dwelling on the subject property is not dominated by the adjacent dwellings to the west and east. The property has sufficient landscaping area in the front yard, and sufficient area in the rear yard for amenity space. Staff are of the opinion that an increase of 3 percent lot coverage will not result in a great loss of amenity space. Front Porch Height & Projection Variance The requested variance is to permit a front porch and steps with a height of 1.1 metres to project 2.7 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits a porch with a height of 1.0 metres to project 1.5 metres into the front yard. The intent of this provision is to ensure platforms and steps do not obstruct the street view of abutting properties and to maintain sufficient landscaping area in the front yard. The front wall of the dwelling is setback to be in line with the front wall of the abutting dwellings to the west and east. The front porch will not obstruct the street view of abutting properties as the dwelling maintains the established front yard setback. The proposed dwelling and abutting dwellings also have similar front porch designs, which allows for a consistent streetscape. The property has sufficient space to the west of the porch to allow for landscaping in the front yard. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Considering the established building height for the abutting dwellings to the west and east, the proposed dwelling is considered to be compatible with the abutting residential dwellings. Staff consider the size of the proposed dwelling to be appropriate for the subject property and in keeping with the size of dwellings to the east and west. The proposed front porch and steps will provide pedestrian access to the front entrance of the dwelling and is similar in design to the dwellings to the east and west. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services •Ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect thedrainage patterns within the lot andsurrounding area. Consideration for rainharvesting or other Low ImpactDevelopment measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing theimperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services •No comments on the application. - 19 - Report P/CA 43/21 June 9, 2021 Page 4 Region of Durham •No objections to the proposal. Date of report: June 3, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, RPP, MCIP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 43-21 K. Deol & F. Dirani\7. Report\PCA 43-21 Report.doc Attachments - 20 - Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1.Does the proposed dwelling have a sloped roof proposed such as a Hip, Gable, Mansard or Gambrel?(see Figure 5) X 2.Is the proposed dwelling height and roofpitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) The abutting dwelling to the west and the two adjacent dwellings to the east have building heights ranging between 10.5 and 12.0 metres. X 3.For dwellings with a height greater than8.5 metres – is the dwelling a maximum two storeys with a sloped roof back from the adjacent dwellings?(see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) The dwelling is proposed to be 3-storeys to match the size and building height of the abutting dwellings to the west and east. Theproposed third floor is locatedwithin the roof architecture. X 4.Does the front entrance have 6 or less steps? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) 5 steps. X 5.Is the main entrance visible from thestreet?(see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 6.Is the design of the main entrance consistent with the architectural style ofthe dwelling?(Section 2.2: Guidelines 3 and 4) X 7.Does the main entrance include a porch, portico or other weather protection in keeping with the design of the dwelling?(see Section 2.2: Guideline 4) - 21 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 8.Are the stairs to the main entrancedesigned as an integral component of the front façade?(Section 2.2: Guideline 7) X 9.Does the design of the front entrancereduce the visual dominance of thegarage and driveway? (Section 2.2: Guideline 9) X 10.Does the proposed dwelling have asimilar Dwelling Depth to the adjacentdwellings along the street?(see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) The front and rear walls of the dwelling are setback to be in line with the front and rear walls of the abutting dwellings to the east and west. X 11.Does the proposed dwelling have a similarSide Yard Setback to the adjacentdwellings along the street?(see Figure 15) X 12.Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater setbacks?(Section 3.1: Guideline 2) The dwelling either meets or exceeds the 1.5 metre side yard setback requirement on the west and east yards. The rear wall of the dwelling is setback more than 8.0 metres from the rear lot line. 13.If a projecting garage is permitted, does ithave a sloped roof?(see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) N/A – the garage does not project. X 14.If a double car garage is proposed, does it have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) Designed to look like 2 separate doors. X 15.Is the garage flush or recessed from themain front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) Flush. X 16.Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) X 17.Are sustainable design features or resilient landscaping proposed as part of the site design? (Section 3.3: Guideline 2 and Section 4.1: Guideline 5) The applicant has indicated Yes. X 18.Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) The applicant has indicated Yes. - 22 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 3 Yes No Comments X 19.Does the plan include tree planting onprivate property? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) The applicant has indicated Yes. X 20.Does the plan include one or more nativespecies street trees? (Section 4.2) The applicant has indicated Yes. - 23 - Balaton AvenueColmar Avenue Liverpool RoadIlona Park Road Krosno Boulevard Annland Street Foxglove Avenue Shearer Lane Luna CourtMonica Cook Place Commerce Street Pleasant StreetWharf StreetFrontRoad Hewson DriveBroadview Street ProgressFrenchman'sBay East Park AlderwoodPark Frenchman'sBay Rate PayersMemorial 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 DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 43/21 Date: Apr. 16, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EK. Deol & F. Dirani 642 Annland Street SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 43-21 K. Deol & F. Dirani\PCA43-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 24 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site PlanFile No: P/CA 43/21 Applicant: K. Deol & F. Dirani Municipal Address: 642 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: May 20, 2021 to permit a maximum building height of 11.3 metres ANNLAND STREET to permit a covered platform and uncovered steps (front porch and associated steps) not exceeding 1.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.7 metres into the required front yard to permit a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent - 25 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Front ElevationFile No: P/CA 43/21 Applicant: K. Deol & F. Dirani Municipal Address: 642 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: May 20, 2021 to permit a maximum building height of 11.3 metres to permit a covered platform and uncovered steps (front porch and associated steps) not exceeding 1.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.7 metres into the required front yard - 26 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear ElevationFile No: P/CA 43/21 Applicant: K. Deol & F. Dirani Municipal Address: 642 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: May 20, 2021 - 27 - Exhibit 5 Submitted West Side ElevationFile No: P/CA 43/21 Applicant: K. Deol & F. Dirani Municipal Address: 642 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: May 20, 2021 - 28 - Exhibit 6 Submitted East Side ElevationFile No: P/CA 43/21 Applicant: K. Deol & F. Dirani Municipal Address: 642 Annland Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: May 20, 2021 - 29 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 37/21 Date: June 9, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 37/21 S. Shekaforoush & N. Baseri721 Hillcrest Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: •a minimum rear yard of 7.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; •a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lotcoverage of 33 percent; and •a fireplace not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornicesnot projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into the required yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an Application for Building Permit to permit the construction of 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 sitedand outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). Comment 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 a permitted use within the designation and a built form within the West Shore Neighbourhood. - 30 - Report P/CA 37/21 June 9, 2021 Page 2 City Council has recently endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which provides direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. In addition, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts to support and enhance neighbourhood precinct characteristics. City staff are preparing an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to implement the recommendations of the Study to help ensure that the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood precinct character. Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law Rear Yard Variance The requested variance is to permit a minimum rear yard of 7.0 metres for a rear deck, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres. The intent of this provision is to maintain sufficient amenity space in the rear yard. The proposed deck will contribute towards the total usable amenity space in the rear yard. There is sufficient amenity space to the east of the proposed deck. Lot Coverage Variance The requested variance is to permit a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The proposed dwelling and attached garage account for 34 percent of the total lot coverage, whereas the covered front porch accounts for 1.0 percent of the total lot coverage. The rear deck is not calculated in the total lot coverage, as it is not a covered structure. 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. The property has sufficient landscaping area in the front yard, and sufficient area in the rear yard for amenity space. Staff are of the opinion that an increase of 2 percent lot coverage will not result in a great loss of amenity space. Fireplace Projection Variance The requested variance is to permit a fireplace to project a maximum of 0.5 metres into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law only permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices to project 0.5 of a metre into the required yard. The proposed fireplace is similar in use to a chimney breast and therefore the requested variance is in keeping with the intent of the By-law. - 31 - Report P/CA 37/21 June 9, 2021 Page 3 Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed rear deck will enhance the usable amenity space in the rear yard and provide access to the rear yard from the main floor of the dwelling. The proposed covered front porch (which is calculated in the total lot coverage) will provide weather protection at the main entrance of the dwelling. Excluding the projection of the fireplace, the proposed dwelling maintains a south side yard setback of 1.57 metres in the front and 1.64 metres in the rear. The requested variances are considered to be minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to permit the construction of a detached dwelling 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 •Ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect thedrainage patterns within the lot andsurrounding area. Consideration for rainharvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing theimperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services •No comments on the application. Region of Durham •No objections to the proposal. Date of report: June 3, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 37-21\7. Report\PCA 37-21 Report.doc Attachments - 32 - Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1.Does the proposed dwelling have a sloped roof proposed such as a Hip, Gable, Mansard or Gambrel?(see Figure 5) X 2.Is the proposed dwelling height and roofpitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) The dwelling has a sloped roof which is in keeping with the pitch of roofs in the area. The dwelling is 2 storeys with a height of 8.2 metres, whereas the surrounding dwellings are a mix of 1, 1 and 1/2 and 3 storeys. 3.For dwellings with a height greater than 8.5 metres – is the dwelling a maximumtwo storeys with a sloped roof back fromthe adjacent dwellings?(see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) N/A – the dwelling is 8.2 metres in height. X 4.Does the front entrance have 6 or less steps?(see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) X 5.Is the main entrance visible from thestreet? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 6.Is the design of the main entranceconsistent with the architectural style ofthe dwelling?(Section 2.2: Guidelines 3 and 4) X 7.Does the main entrance include a porch, portico or other weather protection inkeeping with the design of the dwelling?(see Section 2.2: Guideline 4) - 33 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 8.Are the stairs to the main entrancedesigned as an integral component of the front façade?(Section 2.2: Guideline 7) X 9.Does the design of the front entrancereduce the visual dominance of thegarage and driveway? (Section 2.2: Guideline 9) X 10.Does the proposed dwelling have asimilar Dwelling Depth to the adjacentdwellings along the street?(see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) The dwelling has a depth of 17 metres. The abutting dwellings to the north and south have depths of 9.3 and 11.9 metres, respectively. The abutting dwellings to the east have depths ranging between 11 and 18 metres. X 11.Does the proposed dwelling have a similarSide Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) X 12.Has shadow on adjacent dwellings beenmitigated with greater setbacks?(Section 3.1: Guideline 2) The dwelling exceeds the 1.5 metre side yard setback requirement on the north and south yards. The rear wall of the dwelling is setback 9.0 metres from the rear lot line. X 13.If a projecting garage is permitted, does ithave a sloped roof?(see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) X 14.If a double car garage is proposed, does it have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) The garage has 2 single doors. X 15.Is the garage flush or recessed from themain front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) The garage projects past the front wall of the dwelling. X 16.Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) 17.Are sustainable design features or resilient landscaping proposed as part of the site design? (Section 3.3: Guideline 2 and Section 4.1: Guideline 5) To be addressed at building permit stage. - 34 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 3 Yes No Comments 18.Does the plan preserve existing trees?(see Section 4.1: Guideline 1)N/A – the applicant has indicated that no trees were on the lot at the time of purchase. X 19.Does the plan include tree planting onprivate property?(see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) The applicant has indicated that no landscaping is currently proposed for the lot. X 20.Does the plan include one or more native species street trees? (Section 4.2) The applicant has indicated that no landscaping is currently proposed for the lot. - 35 - ParkCrescentOklahoma Drive Sanok Drive Dow n l a n d D r i v e Vicki Drive West Shore BoulevardEyer DriveAbingdon Court Hampton Court HillcrestRoadGreycoat LaneBreda Avenue Edg e LaneCreekviewCircle Cliffview Road Tullo StreetMarksburyRoadVictory DriveHillviewCrescent Sandcastle Court Moretta Avenue Stonebridge Lane LookoutPoint Park BidwellTot Lot Fairport BeachPublic School Our Lady Of The BaySeparate 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 DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 37/21 Date: Apr. 14, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯ES. Shekarforoush & N. Baseri 721 Hillcrest Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 37-21 S. Shekarforoush & N. Baseri\PCA37-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 36 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site PlanFile No: P/CA 37/21 Applicant: S. Shekaforoush & N. Baseri Municipal Address: 721 Hillcrest Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: May 19, 2021 7.06m 1.13m to permit a minimum rear yard of 7.0 metres to permit a fireplace not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into the required south side yard to permit a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent - 37 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Front ElevationFile No: P/CA 37/21 Applicant: S. Shekaforoush & N. Baseri Municipal Address: 721 Hillcrest Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: May 19, 2021 8.21m - 38 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear ElevationFile No: P/CA 37/21 Applicant: S. Shekaforoush & N. Baseri Municipal Address: 721 Hillcrest Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: May 19, 2021 - 39 - Exhibit 5 Submitted North Side ElevationFile No: P/CA 37/21 Applicant: S. Shekaforoush & N. Baseri Municipal Address: 721 Hillcrest Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: May 19, 2021 - 40 - Exhibit 6 Submitted South Side ElevationFile No: P/CA 37/21 Applicant: S. Shekaforoush & N. Baseri Municipal Address: 721 Hillcrest Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: May 19, 2021 to permit a fireplace not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into the required south side yard - 41 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 46/21 Date: June 9, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 46/21 S. & N. Patel1439 Old Forest Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit uncovered steps (front porch steps) not exceeding 1.4 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 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 in any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to complete the building permit for a detached dwelling. Recommendation The City Development Department considers the requested variance to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following condition: 1.That this variance apply only to the existing detached dwelling with front porch steps,as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). Background A building permit was issued for the detached dwelling in 2017. During construction of the dwelling, the contactor did not construct the front porch steps in accordance with the approved building permit drawings. Through the review of the as-built-survey, a zoning incompliance was identified with the front porch steps. The requested variance is required to complete the building permit. - 42 - Report P/CA 46/21 June 9, 2021 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan 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. City Council has recently endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which provides direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. In addition, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts to support and enhance neighbourhood precinct characteristics. City staff are preparing an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to implement the recommendations of the Study to help ensure that the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood precinct character. The building permit for the existing dwelling was issued in 2017, which was a year prior to the commencement of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. As such, the existing dwelling was not subject to the recommendations of the Study or the Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines. Nonetheless, staff have reviewed the existing dwelling against the Urban Design Guidelines, for Committee’s information. The checklist can be found as Appendix A to this report. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The requested variance is to permit uncovered front porch steps having a maximum height of 1.4 metres above grade, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above grade. The intent of this provision is to ensure platforms and steps do not obstruct the street view of abutting properties. Due to the significant changes in grade along the east side of Old Forest Road, an increased stair height is required to access the front entrance of the dwelling. This stair design is common along the east side of Old Forest Road, as many of the lots experience a significant grade change between the front and the rear of the property. The existing steps will not obstruct the street view of abutting properties as the dwelling maintains the established front yard setback along this side of Old Forest Road. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The existing steps facilitate pedestrian access to the elevated front entrance of the dwelling. The front porch leading to the front entrance is located more than 4.0 metres above grade, thus the steps are necessary to provide access. The steps lead up to a front wall that is located 12.4 metres away from the front property line, and the steps are located 6.0 metres from the front property line. The visual impact of the steps is reduced due to the large front yard setback. - 43 - Report P/CA 46/21 June 9, 2021 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Engineering Services •No comments on the application. Building Services •No comments on the application. Region of Durham •No objections to the proposal. Date of report: June 3, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:so J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 46-21\7. Report\PCA 46-21 Report.doc Attachments - 44 - Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1.Does the proposed dwelling have a sloped roof proposed such as a Hip, Gable, Mansard or Gambrel?(see Figure 5) X 2.Is the proposed dwelling height and roofpitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) X 3.For dwellings with a height greater than8.5 metres – is the dwelling a maximumtwo storeys with a sloped roof back from the adjacent dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) There are three storeys above grade at the front of the lot. Due to the significant grade change, there are two storeys above grade at the rear of the lot. See Exhibit 3 & 4 for reference. X 4.Does the front entrance have 6 or less steps? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) The front entrance has 19 steps. X 5.Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 6.Is the design of the main entranceconsistent with the architectural style ofthe dwelling? (Section 2.2: Guidelines 3 and 4) X 7.Does the main entrance include a porch,portico or other weather protection inkeeping with the design of the dwelling?(see Section 2.2: Guideline 4) X 8.Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of thefront façade?(Section 2.2: Guideline 7) The front porch leading to the front entrance is located more than 4.0 metres above grade, thus the steps are necessary to provide access. - 45 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 9.Does the design of the front entrancereduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (Section 2.2:Guideline 9) X 10.Does the proposed dwelling have asimilar Dwelling Depth to the adjacentdwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) X 11.Does the proposed dwelling have a similarSide Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) X 12.Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) The dwelling complies with the minimum side yard setbacks required under the By-law. 13.If a projecting garage is permitted, does it have a sloped roof? (see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) N/A – garage does not project. X 14.If a double car garage is proposed, does it have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) Two single doors. X 15.Is the garage flush or recessed from themain front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) Flush. X 16.Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) 17.Are sustainable design features or resilient landscaping proposed as part of the site design? (Section 3.3: Guideline 2 and Section 4.1: Guideline 5) Unknown to staff. 18.Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) Unknown to staff. 19.Does the plan include tree planting on private property? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) Unknown to staff. 20.Does the plan include one or more native species street trees? (Section 4.2) Unknown to staff. - 46 - Sheppard Avenue Barry Drive Rosebank RoadKingsto n R o a dOld Forest RoadSteeple Hill Rouge HillCourtLightfoot PlaceSundown Crescent Hi ghbushTr ail Ernie L. Stroud EastWoodlandsPark SouthPetticoatRavine South PetticoatRavine © 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:Municipal Address: P/CA 46/21 Date: May. 04, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯ S. & N. Patel 1439 Old Forest Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 46-21 S. & N. Patel\PCA46-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.E- 47 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site PlanFile No: P/CA 46/21 Applicant: S. & N. Patel Municipal Address: 1439 Old Forest Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: May 19, 2021 to permit uncovered steps (front porch steps) not exceeding 1.4 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard - 48 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Front ElevationFile No: P/CA 46/21 Applicant: S. & N. Patel Municipal Address: 1439 Old Forest Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: May 19, 2021 to permit uncovered steps (front porch steps) not exceeding 1.4 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard - 49 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 46/21 Applicant: S. & N. Patel Municipal Address: 1439 Old Forest Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN.Date: May 31, 2021 - 50 - Revised Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 47/21 Date: June 9, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 47/21 J. Luttmer814 Fairview Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit: •a minimum front yard setback of 3.9 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimumfront yard setback of 7.5 metres; •a maximum lot coverage of 35.1 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximumlot coverage of 33 percent; •covered steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 0.4 of a metre into the required front yard whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres intoany required front yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to complete the building permit for a single 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 variance, subject to the following condition: 1.That these variances apply only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlinedon 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 this property as “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate residential uses including detached dwellings. - 51 - Report P/CA 47/21 Revised June 9, 2021 Page 2 City Council has recently endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which provides direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. In addition, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts to support and enhance neighbourhood precinct characteristics. City staff are preparing an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to implement the recommendations of the Study to help ensure that the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood precinct character. Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned R4 within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended. The applicant seeks relief from the front yard setback and the front yard projection provision in order to facilitate the construction of a detached dwelling. The rear of the property backs onto Frenchman’s Bay and is regulated by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). As such, the dwelling is set forward in order to maintain an adequate buffer from the TRCA regulated area. For this reason, the dwelling encroaches into the front yard requirements. The existing dwelling is setback 1.83 metres from the front property line. The closest setback of the proposed dwelling to the front property line is 3.5 metres for the covered front steps. An adequate front yard area is maintained for the driveway and soft landscaping. Had the proposed steps been uncovered, a variance would not be required. The intent of the lot coverage provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of amenity area uncovered by buildings on a lot and to regulate the scale and size of the building. The 35.1 percent lot coverage is requested in order to facilitate the master bedroom on the main floor. The proposed upper level is setback from the front and the rear of the main level which mitigates the concerns to scale and sizing of the building. Sufficient outdoor amenity area is maintained with the 2.1 percent lot coverage increase. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances are required in order to construct a dwelling that is consistent in size and design with the neighbourhing dwellings. The developable area of the property is restricted due to the its proximity to Frenchman’s Bay thus requiring the front yard variances. The lot coverage variance addresses accesiblility concerns by locating the master bedroom on the main floor. A stepped-back second storey mitigates massing concerns associated with lot coverage increase. For these reasons, the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are minor in nature. - 52 - Report P/CA 47/21 Revised June 9, 2021 Page 3 Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services •Ensure reduced setbacks and increased lot coverage do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot.Consideration for rain harvesting or otherLow Impact Development measures shouldbe made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Building Services •No comments on the application. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • No objections to this application. •Proposed dwelling and rear deck will beadequately setback from the wetland featureat the rear of the property and is consistent with the limits of development of adjacent properties.Owners of 808, 809, 812, 821, and 823 Fairview Avenue •In support of this application. Date of report: June 9, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration FC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 47-21 J. Luttmer\7. Report\PCA 47-21 Report.docx Attachments Urban Design Guidelines Checklist Exhibit 1: Location Map Exhibit 2: Submitted Plan Exhibit 3: Submitted Front (East) Elevations Exhibit 4: Submitted Rear (West) Elevations Exhibit 5: Submitted Side Elevations - 53 - Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments X 1.Does the proposed dwelling have a sloped roof proposed such as a Hip, Gable, Mansard or Gambrel?(see Figure 5) X 2.Is the proposed dwelling height and roofpitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) 3.For dwellings with a height greater than8.5 metres – is the dwelling a maximumtwo storeys with a sloped roof back from the adjacent dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) N/A – proposed building height is less than 8.5 metres X 4.Does the front entrance have 6 or lesssteps?(see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) X 5.Is the main entrance visible from the street?(see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 6.Is the design of the main entranceconsistent with the architectural style of the dwelling? (Section 2.2: Guidelines 3 and 4) X 7.Does the main entrance include a porch,portico or other weather protection inkeeping with the design of the dwelling? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 4) X 8.Are the stairs to the main entrancedesigned as an integral component of thefront façade?(Section 2.2: Guideline 7) - 54 - Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 9.Does the design of the front entrancereduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway?(Section 2.2: Guideline 9) X 10.Does the proposed dwelling have asimilar Dwelling Depth to the adjacentdwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) X 11.Does the proposed dwelling have a similarSide Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) X 12.Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) 13.If a projecting garage is permitted, does ithave a sloped roof? (see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) N/A 14.If a double car garage is proposed, does it have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) N/A X 15.Is the garage flush or recessed from themain front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) X 16.Is the proposed driveway width the sameas the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) X 17.Are sustainable design features orresilient landscaping proposed as part of the site design?(Section 3.3: Guideline 2 and Section 4.1:Guideline 5) X 18.Does the plan preserve existing trees?(see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) X 19.Does the plan include tree planting on private property?(see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) X 20.Does the plan include one or more nativespecies street trees? (Section 4.2) - 55 - Liverpool RoadCommerce Street Browning Avenue Ilona Park RoadFairview AvenueDouglas AvenueTrellis Cou rt Front RoadPleasant StreetHaller Avenue Monica Cook PlaceChapleau DriveOld Orchard Avenue Douglas Park ProgressFrenchman'sBay 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:Municipal Address: P/CA 47/21 Date: May. 04, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EJ. Luttmer 814 Fairview Avenue SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 47-21 J. Luttmer\PCA47-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 56 - Exhibit 2 Submitted PlanFile No: P/CA 47/21 Applicant: J. Luttmer Municipal Address: 814 Fairview Avenue FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.Date: May 20, 2021 to permit a minimum front yard setback of 3.9 metres to permit covered steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 0.4 of a metre into the required front yard to permit a maximum lot coverage of 35.1 percent - 57 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Front (East) ElevationsFile No: P/CA 47/21 Applicant: J. Luttmer Municipal Address: 814 Fairview Avenue FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.Date: May 20, 2021 - 58 - Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear (West) ElevationsFile No: P/CA 47/21 Applicant: J. Luttmer Municipal Address: 814 Fairview Avenue FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.Date: May 20, 2021 - 59 - Exhibit 5 Submitted Side ElevationsFile No: P/CA 47/21 Applicant: J. Luttmer Municipal Address: 814 Fairview Avenue FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.Date: May 20, 2021 North Elevation South Elevation - 60 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 48/21 Date: June 9, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 48/21 S. McLean & M. Olsina1715 Central Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit a minimum front yard setback of 8.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 9 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for converting the existing carport into an attached garage within the required front 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 proposed garage, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2, 3 and 4). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject property is located within the Hamlet of Claremont and designated as Oak Ridges Moraine Rural Hamlet within Pickering’s Official Plan. Residential uses are permitted within this designation. Development or site alteration within the Oak Ridges Moraine is subject to the policies of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The proposed development conforms to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and Pickering Official Plan. The property is zoned ORM-R5 – Oak Ridges Moraine Residential within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06. A detached dwelling and an attached garage are permitted within this zone, provided the attached garage maintains a minimum front yard of 9 metres. In 1971, the subject property was granted variances to recognize the deficient lot area and permit a reduced front yard setback, in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. - 61 - Report P/CA 48/21 June 9, 2021 Page 2 Since the applicant proposes to covert the carport into an attached garage, a variance is required to reduce the front yard setback. The minimum front yard setback regulates how close to the street a structure can be located. There is no consistent front yard setback along Central Street, as some structures have a 0.0 metre front yard setback, while other structures are setback less than 9.0 metres front the front lot line. In addition, the existing detached dwellings within the area do not maintain the minimum front yard setback required within the By-law. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed front yard setback of 8.6 metres is sufficient. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The applicant is proposing to replace the existing attached carport with an enclosed attached garage. Central Street is comprised of a wide range of uses, including a mix of detached dwellings with carports, attached garages and detached garages. The proposed conversion of the existing carport is appropriate development of the subject property. Since the proposed attached garage will be situated in the current location of the carport and there is no increase in lot coverage, staff are supportive of the requested variance. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit an 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. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services •No comments on this application. Building Services •Building Services has no concerns. An Application for Building Permit has beensubmitted. Region of Durham •No comments on this application. Date of report: June 1, 2021 Comments prepared by: Tanjot Bal, MCIP, RPP Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration TB:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 48-21 S. McLean & M. Olsina\7. Report\PCA 48-21 Report.doc Attachments - 62 - Central Street BrockRoadDow StreetWilliam StreetBarclayStreetFranklin StreetWellington Street Lorn StreetVictoriaStreetLivingston StreetAcorn LaneCanso DriveClaremontMemorial Park City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: PCA 48/21 Date: May. 10, 2021 ¯ES. McLean & M. Olsina 1715 Central Street SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 48-21 S. McLean & M. Olsina\PCA48-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © 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, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Exhibit 1 - 63 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 48/21 Applicant: S. McLean & M. Oslina Municipal Address: 1715 Central Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.Date: May 12, 2021 to permit a minimum front yard setback of 8.6 metres 8.6 m - 64 - Exhibit 3 Conceptual Side Elevation of Proposed GarageFile No: P/CA 48/21 Applicant: S. McLean & M. Oslina Municipal Address: 1715 Central Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.Date: May 12, 2021 - 65 - Exhibit 4 Conceptual Front Elevation of Proposed GarageFile No: P/CA 48/21 Applicant: S. McLean & M. Oslina Municipal Address: 1715 Central Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.Date: June 2, 2021 - 66 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 51/21 Date: June 9, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 51/21 L. & T. McCulloch1890 Falconwood Way Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4997/97, to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 6.6 metres, 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 sunroom. 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 sunroom, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2 and 3). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. The neighbourhood consists of primarily detached dwellings on larger lots. The proposed development conforms to the intent of Pickering’s Official Plan. City Council has recently endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which provides direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified established neighbourhood precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. - 67 - Report P/CA 51/21 June 9, 2021 Page 2 In addition, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts to support and enhance neighbourhood precinct characteristics. City staff are preparing an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to implement the recommendations of the Study to help ensure that the redevelopment of residential lots are consistent with the existing neighbourhood precinct character. The subject property is within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Precinct. Since the applicant is only constructing a sunroom within the rear yard and no change is proposed to the existing dwelling, the proposal has not been reviewed against the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist. The proposed development conforms to the intent of the Official Plan. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned S3-7 in Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4997/97. A detached dwelling with a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres is permitted within the S3-7 Zone. The applicant is requesting to reduce the rear yard setback to 6.6 metres, in order to construct an unheated sunroom. The minimum rear yard setback ensures sufficient amenity space is provided for residential uses. The subject property is a corner lot, with increased landscaping along the flank of the property. In addition, the proposed sunroom requires a reduced rear yard setback for only a portion of the property, therefore there is sufficient rear yard amenity space. The proposed development conforms to the intent of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Neighbouring properties have decks, pools and sheds within their rear yards. Currently the subject property has a deck and shed within the rear yard. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing deck, in order to construct a sunroom. Staff are supportive of removing the deck, to ensure sufficient amenity space and an appropriate lot coverage. The proposed reduction of a portion of the rear yard by less than 1.0 metre to construct a sunroom is considered minor in nature. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit a reduced rear yard depth in order to construct a sunroom 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. - 68 - Report P/CA 51/21 June 9, 2021 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Engineering Services •No comment on this application. Building Services •Building Services has no concerns. AnApplication for Building Permit has beensubmitted. Region of Durham •No comment on this application. Date of report: June 2, 2021 Comments prepared by: Tanjot Bal, MCIP, RPP Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration TB:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 51-21 L. & T. McCulloch\7. Report\PCA 51-21 Report.doc Attachments - 69 - Appleview RoadBonita Avenue Fairport RoadGlenannaRoad Brookshire SquareGrayabbeyCourtHelmStreetGablehurst Crescent Wingarden Crescent Heathside CrescentShade Master DriveHolbrook CourtVoyager Avenue Falconwood WayStrouds Lane Bonita Park ForestbrookPark DalewoodRavine Dalewood Ravine City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 51/21 Date: May. 11, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EL. & T. McCulloch1890 Falconwood Way SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 51-21 L. & T. McCulloch\PCA51-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © 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, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved.- 70 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 51/21 Applicant: L. & T. McCulloch Municipal Address: 1890 Falconwood Way FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.Date: May 12, 2021 to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 6.6 metres - 71 - Exhibit 3 Submitted ElevationsFile No: P/CA 51/21 Applicant: L. & T. McCulloch Municipal Address: 1890 Falconwood Way FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.Date: May 12, 2021 - 72 -