Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 10, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Number: 11 Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number 1.Disclosure of Interest 2.Adoption of Agenda 3.Adoption of Minutes from October 13, 2021 1-19 4. Report 4.1 P/CA 92/21 20-35 M. & J. Stangarone1376 Rougemount Drive 4.2 P/CA 103/21 36-42Universal City Six Development Inc. 1496 Bayly Street 4.3 P/CA 104/21 43-46A. Uthayakumaran275 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road 4.4 P/CA 107/21 47-54H. McDougall & G. Avramopoulos 809 Fairview Avenue 4.5 P/CA 108/21 55-60Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC 1400 Squires Beach Road 5.Other Business 5.1 Adoption of 2022 Meeting Schedule 61 6.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 Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 19 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Principal Planner, Development Review Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Felix Chau, Planner II Isabel Lima, (Acting) Planner II 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That the agenda for the Wednesday, October 13, 2021 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 9th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, September 8, 2021 be adopted, as amended. Carried Unanimously -1- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 19 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 49/21 K. Chung 956 Essa Crescent The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit: • a minimum rear yard of 6.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 37 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and • a covered platform (front porch and associated steps) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.9 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, nor 1.0 metre into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the submission of an Application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff expressing no objections to the proposed variances. A TRCA Permit will not be required as the dwelling is sufficiently setback from the top of bank located beyond the north property boundary and will not be located within the dripline of vegetation associated with the ravine corridor to the north. For any future proposed ancillary development (deck, shed, pool, hardscaping, etc.), a TRCA permit may be required and the landowner should contact TRCA prior to any development taking place. Written comments were received in support of the application from the residents of 954, 955 and 962 Essa Crescent. -2- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 19 Peter Barton, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Peter Barton outlined the application stating that the variances are required due to the irregular pie shaped lot having an easement on the east side. He noted that the owner has spoken to neighbours who were in support of the application. After hearing from the applicant’s agent and noting the creativity regarding the design and easement requirements, having no objections from the City’s Engineering Department, Building Services and TRCA, and observing the neighbour’s comments in support, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 49/21 by K. Chung, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, 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 October 13, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 89/21 & P/CA 90/21 (Parts 1 & 2) R. Van Andel 956 Essa Crescent P/CA 89/21 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a minimum lot area of 430 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres; and • a minimum west side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres. -3- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 19 P/CA 90/21 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a minimum lot area of 430 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres; and • a minimum east side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to sever the property resulting in a total of 2 lots and to construct 2 detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing that the applicant should ensure a reduced minimum lot area and reduced side yards do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) will be required at the Building Permit stage and Land Division stage. Paul Demczak, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Paul Demczak outlined the proposal stating the requested variances are to facilitate severances creating a total of three lots. Parts 1 and 2 are equally sized and Part 3 is a smaller portion intended to be merged with the adjacent property to the west. The variances requested are for lot coverage and the interior side yards of the proposed lots. A Planning Justification report has been submitted to the City along with the application. The applicant has spoken to neighbours who are also in support of proposal. In response to questions from Committee Members, Paul Demczak stated concept drawings and a site plan were submitted to the City with the Planning Justification report and application. Full building elevations and floor plans are not fully developed at this time. The applicant intends to maintain the existing dwelling on an enlarged lot. -4- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 19 After reviewing the City staff Report, completing a site visit, seeing no agency or neighbouring concerns, and having the application appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 89/21 (Part 1) & P/CA 90/21 (Part 2) by R. Van Andel, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the two proposed lots and detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated October 13, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 93/21 M. & P. Lowe 452 Churchwin Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2677/88 to recognize a covered platform (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project 1.6 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to not project more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize an existing covered platform. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage, expressing no objections to the application. The porch was existing at the time of the Heritage Conservation District By-law and a Heritage Permit was successfully obtained for a new rear yard addition. -5- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 19 Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff expressing no objections to the proposed variances. The existing front porch maintains approximately a 40-metre setback from the outer boundary of unevaluated wetlands. There are no natural features (slope, floodplain, etc.) within proximity to the existing front porch and it has no impacts on TRCA's programs or policies. Mark Lowe, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Mark Lowe spoke in support of the application stating this request was triggered by a Build Permit application for a rear yard addition to this historic property. The dwelling was purchased in the 1950s and the application facilitates an existing front porch with a 10 centimetre difference on the front porch from what was existing. This application does not impact any neighbouring properties or the historical significance of the property. After reading the City’s staff Report, hearing from the applicant and noting that a Heritage Permit was successfully obtained from the City, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 93/21 by M. & P. Lowe, be Approved on the grounds that the 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 covered platform (front porch), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated October 13, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 94/21 H. Marrow 1424 Major Oaks Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4183/93 and By-law 2015/85, to permit a total lot coverage of all accessory buildings of 11.5 percent, whereas the By-law permits the total lot coverage of all accessory buildings excluding private detached garages of 5 percent. -6- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 19 The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to facilitate the construction of an accessory structure (gazebo). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received stating no objections to the application from ten residents of 1418, 1422, 1423, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1429, 1431, 1433 and 1434 Major Oaks Road. Hisham Marrow, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Hisham Marrow outlined the application stating the proposed gazebo is an open structure without walls, it does not interfere with drainage, there are no easements in the rear yard, a tent of the same size was erected previously with no objections from neighbours, trees provide additional privacy screening, letters of support were submitted by neighbours, and the gazebo is to be constructed at ground level to withstand seasonal weather. In response to questions from Committee members, Hisham Marrow stated the roof of the gazebo is to be made of wood and heavy shingles. The structure is for personal use of family gatherings and leisure. Felix Chau, Planner II, confirmed that ten letters from neighbours were received with no objections to the application. After having heard the comments from the applicant, reviewing the City staff Report, having no agency comments in objection, and receiving positive feedback from neighbours, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 94/21 by H. Marrow, 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: -7- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 19 1. That this variance apply only to the accessory structure, 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 October 13, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 95/21 D. & K. Bridges 1003 Cloudberry Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6992/09, to: • permit a minimum front yard of 3.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum rear yard of 4.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum west side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; • permit a covered platform (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 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 or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side yard; • permit a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • permit an accessory building (detached garage) to be erected in the east side yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building to be erected in the rear yard; and • permit an accessory building (detached garage) with a height of 5.8 metres, whereas the By-law states no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the submission of an Application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a detached dwelling and detached garage. -8- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 19 The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff recommend that the variance application be Tabled to allow the applicant to work with Engineering Services to address the issues raised by Engineering, related to grading, drainage and stormwater management. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating: • Engineering Services is against many of the requested variances. This property was created through the land division process (LD117/18) and the requested variances conflict with the conditions of the land division. • Engineering Services is against the 4.0 metre rear yard. The proposed infiltration trench during the land division application requires the 7.5 metre rear yard to be kept. This is because the infiltration trench must be placed 5.0 metre away from the back of the house, away from the lot line and not conflict with the required tree planting from the land division application. • Engineering Services is against the proposed accessory building in the side yard. During the land division application, one condition was to provide 16 trees on the lot for tree compensation. Many of the trees are to be planted in the side yard area, and therefore it is not possible to build the accessory building there. The location may also conflict with the existing mailbox. • The low impact development (LID) measures that were proposed during the land division application were based on a smaller house envelope, and no accessory buildings. There may not be enough space in the rear yard, (due to the proposed tree planting and grading constraints) to provide additional LID measures to account for the additional runoff being generated by what is being shown on this application. • Engineering Services has no concerns with the proposed front yard of 3.2 metres, west side yard of 1.2 metres and covered porch. • Prior to approving any variances, the applicant is to demonstrate how the original intent of the Land Division approval is to be maintained through submission of a revised Preliminary Grading and Servicing Plan detailing Low Impact Development Measures to be utilized on the lot. Cash-in-lieu of trees not planted per the approved Land Division will be required. Written comments were received from the Ministry of Transportation expressing no comments on the application. No applicant or agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. -9- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 19 Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 95/21 by D. & K. Bridges, be Tabled to allow the applicant to address the matters raised by Engineering Services, related to grading, drainage and stormwater management. Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 96/21 F. & M. Gauri 521 Cliffview Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7312/13 and By-law 7392/14, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct a one-storey rear yard addition. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section stating Building Services will require an official statement prepared by the owner noting that this is not a multiple dwelling unit building. This statement will be added to the Committee of Adjustment Minor Variance Application and Building Permit Application file records. Please refer to the attached Two-Unit Bylaw 7579/17 for a detail definition of ‘dwelling unit’. As part of the Building Permit Application process, the owner will also require to complete the attached Acknowledgment and Undertaking form. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure the increased lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Considerations for multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450 mm topsoil) must be made at the Building Permit stage. Written comments in objection to the application were received from the residents of 507 and 516 Cliffview Road along with a petition of 18 signatories from 11 residences. Sam Zabaneh, agent, was present to represent the application. Paul White resident of 507 Cliffview Road and President of Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association and Al Norrie of 536 Cliffview Road were present in objection to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. -10- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 19 Sam Zabaneh spoke outlined the application including that the owners intend to live on the main floor of the property. The 1-storey addition will project 2.6 metres from the existing rear wall of the dwelling, complies with all other By-law requirements, will be located entirely in rear yard, will have no negative impact on adjacent neighbours, and will not have an adverse impact on the streetscape. Sam Zabaneh stated a By-law map was sent to City staff and Committee Members illustrating the various properties and allowable lot coverages of 33% and 40%. Sam Zabaneh spoke to the lot size of the subject property and lot coverage calculations in relation to other dwellings in the area. Sam Zabaneh believes the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Paul White, resident of 507 Cliffview Road and president of the Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association, and Al Norie resident of 536 Cliffview Road spoke in objection to the application and provided the following comments: • The property is currently being rented out illegally. • There is uncertainty with the owners future plans with the property. • There property was developed through plan of subdivision and rezoning applications where the subject property was excluded from approval of 40% lot coverage. • The massing of the existing dwelling with the proposed addition would be much larger than other properties in the area. • The existing dwelling size appears large enough for the site. • There are other properties nearby that are subject to the Infill and Replacement Housing study. • Based on the elevations the addition appears to be 2-storeys. • No other homes within the subdivision of 52 dwellings have 40% lot coverage. • The staff Report discusses the history of the property in relation to other dwellings in the area. Comparisons should be made based on appropriate properties. • Does not appear to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is not minor in nature. • There is concerns with the placement of the Public Notice sign posted incorrectly on the property. • There is concern with setting a precedence in the neighbourhood for similar requests in the future. In response to questions from Committee Members and concerns raised by residents, Sam Zabaneh stated there is a second kitchen in the basement and the owner has signed the Acknowledgment and Undertaking form stating the property is for a single family and will not be used as secondary dwelling unit. The addition is to facilitate living quarters on main floor to accommodate the owners health concerns. Sam Zabaneh provided clarification about the elevation drawings stating that the basement is a walk-out to the rear yard and the addition is to facilitate a bedroom on the main floor. Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer, corrected some of the information provided on the petition as follows: the subject property is not subject to the Infill and Replacement -11- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 19 Housing in Established Neighbourhoods study, this property is not the largest home in the neighbourhood, adjacent properties have a lot coverage of approximately 40 percent, and zoning provisions for the properties to the north allow a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent. It was confirmed that the Notice of Public Hearing had been appropriately circulated meeting the requirements of the Planning Act. The Notices were distributed to properties within a 65 metre radius from the edge of the subject site. After thanking the participants for their input, City staff and the departments for their comments, noting an accessory dwelling unit currently exists in the basement, having concern with the addition allowing for a multi-residential structure which is not permitted, hearing concerns regarding massing from area neighbours, and having apprehension with future use of the dwelling should an addition be permitted, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 96/21 by F. & M. Gauri, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley opposed 4.7 P/CA 97/21 to P/CA 99/21 (Parts 1-3) P. McAlpine 532 Rougemount Drive P/CA 97/21 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 2839/88 and 7610/18, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 16.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; and • a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres. -12- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 19 P/CA 98/21 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 2839/88 and 7610/18, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 16.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; and • a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres. P/CA 99/21 – Part 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 2839/88 and 7610/18, to permit a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to sever the property resulting in a total of 3 lots and to construct 3 detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the applications. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure the three proposed houses with the reduced minimum lot frontages and side yards do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Considerations for multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) must be made at the Land Division and Building Permit stage. Written comments were received from the Ministry of Transportation expressing no comments on the application. Paul Demczak, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Paul Demczak outlined the application stating the subject property is proposed to be severed into 3 lots. An analysis of the immediate neighbourhood and lot fabric was completed in the submitted Planning Justification report evaluating a total of 24 lots. -13- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 19 The report indicates that 18 of 24 lots do not meet the minimum lot frontage provisions of the “R3” Zoning By-law requirements of 18 metres. The lot frontages for the proposed lots will be greater than 15 of the 24 lots. Furthermore, over half of lots within the study area have lot frontages of 15.24 metres or less. The applicant has canvased the neighbourhood and received verbal support from area residents. Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer, and Isabel Lima (Acting) Planner II, discussed the City’s fence By-law and recommended conditions of approval. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Paul Demczak stated the applicant intends to keep and maintain existing driveway accesses, as well as the hedgerow at the rear of the property and along Pine Ridge Road frontage. Given that the Urban Design Guidelines checklist has been substantially met, seeing no issues from the respective agencies or the public, taking into account the input from the applicant’s agent and the staff Report, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 97/21 to P/CA 99/21 (Parts 1-3) by P. McAlpine, 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 3 proposed lots and 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 October 13, 2021). 2. That the new driveways for Parts 1, 2 and 3 are located fronting Rougemount Drive only, 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 October 13, 2021). 3. That no person shall erect a fence of solid type construction (“fence of solid type construction” means a fence constructed of solid materials, which limits the ability of motorists and pedestrians to see through the fence) that is greater than 1.0 metre in any flankage side yard. -14- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 19 4. That no person shall erect a fence of open construction (“fence of open construction” means a fence constructed so that at least one third of its vertical surface area is open space, enabling motorists and pedestrians to have a clear view through such fence) that is greater than 1.5 metres in height in any flankage side yard. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton opposed Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley in favour 4.8 P/CA 100/21 & P/CA 101/21 (Parts 1 & 2) A. Asokkanth, P. Santhiralingam & M. Subramaniam 1981 Guild Road P/CA 100/21 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres. P/CA 101/21 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to sever the property resulting in a total of 2 lots. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments. -15- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 19 Asokkanth (Asok) Santhiralingam, applicant/agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Asok Santhiralingam outlined the application stating a minor variance application to reduce the minimum lot frontage was applied for in August 2019 and was approved. The approval of the associated 2019 Land Division application lasped as conditions of approval were not satisfied. New applications proposing the same severances and requesting the same variances have been submiteed . After having read the City staff Report, noting this application is a resubmission, seeing no other consideration from the public or agency issues, 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 Eric Newton That application P/CA 100/21 & P/CA 101/21 (Parts 1 & 2) by A. Asokkanth, P. Santhiralingam & M. Subramaniam, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the 2 proposed lots, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated October 13, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.9 P/CA 102/21 M. English 3470 Ninth Concession Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit: • a livestock facility (barn) to be located within the Minimum Distance Separation established by the Province from an existing detached dwelling (72.3 metres provided), whereas the By-law requires that notwithstanding any other yard or setback provisions to the contrary, all farm and non-farm development for livestock facilities will comply with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae established by the Province in order to minimize odour conflicts between livestock facilities and development (minimum distance required is calculated to be 97.0 metres); -16- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 17 of 19 • a livestock facility (barn) to be located within the Minimum Distance Separation established by the Province from an existing detached dwelling (78.7 metres provided), whereas the By-law requires that notwithstanding any other yard or setback provisions to the contrary, all farm and non-farm development for livestock facilities will comply with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae established by the Province in order to minimize odour conflicts between livestock facilities and development (minimum distance required is calculated to be 97.0 metres); The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to facilitate the construction of an accessory structure (livestock facility – barn). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) stating the location of the barn to be reconstructed is located within an Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (ESGRA). ESGRA’s are areas of land that contribute to the replenishing groundwater systems that directly support sensitive areas like coldwater streams and wetlands. In this particular circumstance, while the lands are within an ESGRA, the proposed barn reconstruction is not within a regulated area of CLOCA, and as such, staff have no objection to the variance, subject to the City being satisfied the proposal meets all applicable provincial regulations. Jane English, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Jane English stated the purpose of the requested variances is for the refurbishment of an existing barn built in 1894. The facility is to house goats. Additionally, both adjacent neighbours have provided letters of support of the application. After having read the City staff Report and noting that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: -17- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 18 of 19 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 102/21 by M. English, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the accessory structure (livestock facility – barn), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated October 13, 2021). Carried Unanimously -18- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 19 of 19 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 10th hearing of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:31 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, November 10, 2021. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer -19- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 92/21 Date: November 10, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning and Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 92/21 M. & J. Stangarone 1376 Rougemount Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a maximum dwelling height of 10.3 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum dwelling height of 9.0 metres; and • uncovered steps and associated walkway not exceeding 2.7 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 0.7 metres into the required south side 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 or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side 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 has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests. Staff recommend that the Committee of Adjustment consider all public and agency input in reaching a decision. Should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling and uncovered steps and associated walkway, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9). Background On September 28, 2020, City Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Infill Study) and adopted the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The recommendations of the Infill Study provided direction for the preparation of appropriate planning implementation tools to facilitate a transition between existing houses and new construction occurring in the City’s established neighbourhoods. -20- Report P/CA 92/21 November 10, 2021 Page 2 On September 27, 2021, City Council enacted By-law 7874/21 (the Infill By-law) which amended Zoning By-law 3036, rezoning all of the lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts to an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” category that will assist in managing new built form, so that it is compatible with the existing built form. The amendments do not change the permitted uses within the zones. City Council also adopted the Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The Infill By-law has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal, however since Council has enacted the Infill By-law, staff must have regard for it when reviewing applications for zoning compliance. Although the subject property falls within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct, the submission of this minor variance application predates the enactment of the Infill By-law. In accordance with the transition provisions of the Infill By-law, “nothing in [By-law 7874/21] prevents the issuance of a building permit for the erection of a building or structure in accordance with a decision of the Committee of Adjustment arising from an application to the Committee of Adjustment that has been submitted to the City, prior to the effective date of this By-law”. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2-storey detached dwelling, which is a permitted use within this designation and a built form within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the Council-adopted Revised 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 proposed dwelling has a mansard roof. In accordance with Zoning By-law 3036, in the case of a mansard roof, building height is measured as the vertical distance between established grade and the deck line. Using this method, the proposed dwelling has a building height of 10.21 metres. When measuring building height from established grade to the highest point of the roof surface, the proposed dwelling has a total building height of 10.44 metres. The existing, abutting dwelling to the south has a gable roof. In accordance with Zoning By-law 3036, in the case of a gable roof, building height is measured as the vertical distance between established grade and the mid-point of the roof. Using this method, the abutting dwelling to the south has a building height of 9.0 metres. However, when measuring building height from established grade to the highest point of the roof surface, the abutting dwelling to the south has a total building height of 11.0 metres. -21- Report P/CA 92/21 November 10, 2021 Page 3 Both the proposed dwelling and the abutting dwelling to the south are two storeys, both having a basement, main-floor and second-floor. Due to a drop in grade between the front lot lines and the rear lot lines, both dwellings have a walk-out basement in the rear. The intent of the maximum building height of 9.0 metres 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 proposed dwelling meets all other regulations within the By-law, including providing a minimum front yard setback of 22 metres (the minimum required front yard setback is 15 metres). The large front yard setback will lessen the visual impact of the dwelling from the street. The proposed two-storey dwelling is in keeping with the design of the abutting dwelling to the south and is in keeping with the existing dwellings along Rougemount Drive, which are predominantly two-storey homes. Ultimately, from the street, the proposed dwelling will appear to be shorter, having a total building height of 10.44 metres, whereas the abutting dwelling to the south will appear to be slightly taller, having a total building height of 11.0 metres. However, due to the different roof styles and provisions in the By-law that measure height differently based on rooflines, the proposed dwelling requires a variance to building height, whereas the abutting dwelling to the south did not require a variance to building height. Staff are in support of the proposed mansard roof for the proposed dwelling, as the same style of roof is proposed for the attached garage. The mansard style allows for living space to be located above the attached garage within the roof architecture. Within this living space, a separate dwelling unit is proposed. Uncovered Steps/Walkway Variance The intent of limiting the height and setback of steps and platforms is to protect the privacy of abutting properties and to provide an appropriate separation distance between structures for pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading and drainage. The proposed steps and walkway are necessary due to the significant drop in grade between the front of the property and the rear. The abutting property to the south also experiences this significant drop in grade. As such, the proposed steps and walkway are not anticipated to create issues related to privacy. The intent of the steps and walkway is to provide a safe pathway for pedestrian access. As noted under Input from Other Sources (see below), Engineering Services have no concerns with grading or drainage due to the proposed steps or walkway. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed windows in the roof at the front of the dwelling are for design purposes only and will not create issues related to privacy. The proposed two-storey dwelling is in keeping with the existing two-storey homes along Rougemount Drive. The proposed uncovered steps and walkway are necessary due to the drop in grade between the front of the property and the rear, and will provide a safe pathway for pedestrian movement. Staff consider the size of the proposed dwelling to be appropriate relative to the size of the subject property, and therefore consider the requested variances to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land and minor in nature. -22- Report P/CA 92/21 November 10, 2021 Page 4 Input From Other Sources Applicant • The design of a new residence as well as the property’s topography create the need for the variances. Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No comments. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • The property is regulated by TRCA with respect to the limits of significant vegetation (dripline) and the top of bank feature associated with the Petticoat Creek valley corridor located in the rear property. A site visit was conducted on October 12, 2021, to delineate and confirm the on-site physical features (dripline of contiguous vegetation and top of bank). • The TRCA's Living City Policies (LCP) require that development be setback 10 metres inland from the greater of the physical top of bank of the valley feature or the limits of significant vegetation. TRCA staff confirmed that new development would need to be setback 10 metres from the staked dripline. However, The LCP also allows for a setback less than 10 meters where the proposal has regard for the existing development on the subject property and within the context of existing development patterns within the valley corridor reach. • Based on a review of the proposal, some sections of the existing development (the hardscaping associated with the pool) are slightly encroaching into the 10 metre buffer at the southern pinch point on the property. However, native-non-invasive restoration plantings within the limit of the dripline are required as part of the TRCA permit approval process in order to offset these encroachments and provide a net ecological gain. As such, TRCA staff have no objections to the proposal in principle and support the requested variances. • An Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application was received by TRCA staff on September 23, 2021. The drawings circulated to TRCA as part of this minor variance application are consistent with the plans received with the TRCA permit application (CFN 65947). TRCA will require an updated site plan be submitted to reflect the staked dripline, proposed restoration plantings, and an erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan prior to permit issuance. • TRCA staff have no objections to the approval of Minor Variance Application No. P/CA 92/21. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. -23- Report P/CA 92/21 November 10, 2021 Page 5 Date of report: November 4, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP (Acting) Planner II Manager, Zoning and Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 92-21 M. & J. Stangarone\7. Report Attachments -24- 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. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) The proposed dwelling is 2-storeys, in keeping with the abutting dwelling to the north and south, which are also 2-storeys. X 2. If the proposed new dwelling is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) The proposed roof is sloped. X 3. Is the maximum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) The maximum elevation of the front entrance is 0.53 metres above grade. X 4. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 5. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) X 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) X 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) The proposed dwelling has a greater dwelling depth (approx. 26 m) compared to the abutting dwelling to the north (approx. 15 m), however a smaller dwelling depth compared to the abutting dwelling to the south (approx. 30 m). -25- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments X 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) The proposed dwelling exceeds the minimum required side yards of 1.8 metres, similar to the abutting dwellings to the north and south, which also exceed the minimum required side yards. Comments from the applicant: Soft landscaping is proposed in both the south and north side yards to mitigate the impact of the building mass on the streetscape. X 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) The proposed dwelling exceeds the minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks, as required in the By-law. X 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) There is living space located above the attached garage within the roof architecture. This living space is considered the front wall of the dwelling. As such, the proposed garage is flush with the front wall of the dwelling. Additionally, the L-shaped design of the proposed dwelling and attached garage is in keeping with the L-shaped design of the abutting dwelling and attached garage to the south. X 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) The proposed garage has three garage doors and is approximately 10 metres in width. The proposed driveway has a width of 2.79 metres at the front of the property and widens to a width similar to the width of the garage. X 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) Existing trees are proposed to remain, however some trees will be removed to facilitate the development Comments from the applicant: The proposed development preserves most of the existing trees. -26- Rougemount DriveFawndaleRoadKingston Road Evelyn AvenueValley Gate Altona RoadFiddlers CourtHoover Drive Stover Crescent Tomlinson Court RiverviewCresce ntBrookridge Gate D alewood Drive Rouge Hill Court Highway 40 1 SouthPetticoat Ravine City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 92/21 Date: Sep. 10, 2021 Exhibit 1 ¯EM. & J. Stangarone1376 Rougemount Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 92-21 M. & J. Stangarone\PCA92-21_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.-27- Exhibit 2 Full Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 92/21 Applicant: M. & J. Stangarone Municipal Address: 1376 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: October 20, 2021 -28- Exhibit 3 Submitted Site Plan – Zoomed In File No: P/CA 92/21 Applicant: M. & J. Stangarone Municipal Address: 1376 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: October 20, 2021 to permit uncovered steps and associated walkway not exceeding 2.7 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 0.7 metres into the required south side yard to permit a maximum dwelling height of 10.3 metres -29- Exhibit 4 Submitted Front Elevation File No: P/CA 92/21 Applicant: M. & J. Stangarone Municipal Address: 1376 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: October 20, 2021 to permit a maximum dwelling height of 10.3 metres -30- Exhibit 5 Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 92/21 Applicant: M. & J. Stangarone Municipal Address: 1376 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: October 20, 2021 -31- Exhibit 6 Submitted North Side Yard Elevation File No: P/CA 92/21 Applicant: M. & J. Stangarone Municipal Address: 1376 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: October 20, 2021 -32- Exhibit 7 Submitted South Side Yard Elevation File No: P/CA 92/21 Applicant: M. & J. Stangarone Municipal Address: 1376 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: October 20, 2021 to permit uncovered steps and associated walkway not exceeding 2.7 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 0.7 metres into the required south side yard 0.99 m 1.68 m -33- Exhibit 8 Submitted Front Rendering File No: P/CA 92/21 Applicant: M. & J. Stangarone Municipal Address: 1376 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: October 20, 2021 -34- Exhibit 9 Submitted Rear Rendering File No: P/CA 92/21 Applicant: M. & J. Stangarone Municipal Address: 1376 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: October 20, 2021 to permit uncovered steps and associated walkway not exceeding 2.7 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 0.7 metres into the required south side yard -35- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 103/21 Date: November 10, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning and Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 103/21 Universal City Six Development Inc. 1496 Bayly Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-law 7810/21, to permit the building separation of a second storey unit with primary windows to be reduced to 8.6 metres so long as the primary window is no larger than 0.9 square metres, and the lowest point of the window is located a minimum of 1.8 metres from the floor, or where the primary window is larger than 0.9 square metres, and the lowest point of the window is located less than 1.8 metres from the floor, a 1.8 metre high privacy screen is located along the edge of the building between the primary window and the adjacent building to which the primary window faces. Whereas the By-law permits the building separation of a second storey unit with primary windows to be reduced to 8.6 metres so long as the primary window is no larger than 0.9 square metres, and the lowest point of the window is located a minimum of 1.8 metres from the floor. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain site plan approval to construct a 27-storey residential tower. Recommendation The City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests. Staff recommend that the Committee of Adjustment consider all public and agency input in reaching a decision. Should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed residential tower, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). -36- Report P/CA 103/21 November 10, 2021 Page 2 Background Bill 73 Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015, amended the Planning Act by removing the ability for an applicant to apply for a minor variance for 2 years following the passing of an applicant-initiated zoning by-law amendment. However, Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act permits a municipal Council to allow minor variance applications to proceed on a case-by-case basis by Council resolution. The Province indicated that the intent of the amendment is to prevent, for a two year period, zoning provisions that Council determines to be important from being reversed through the minor variance process. Previous Rezoning Application – A 01/21 In February 2020, Universal City Six Developments Inc. submitted Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/21, to permit the construction of a residential condominium building on the subject property. On January 25, 2021, City Council enacted By-law 7810/21, which granted site-specific exemptions to permit the construction of the building. Previous Minor Variance Application – P/CA 21/21 On April 26, 2021, City Council granted an exemption in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act, as amended, to permit the Committee of Adjustment to consider Minor Variance Application P/CA 21/21. The purpose of the application was to marginally increase the maximum building height from 78 metres (26-storeys) to 79.5 metres (27-storeys) and to eliminate the required minimum 3.0 metre stepback in the main wall of the point tower between the top 6.0 metres and 18.0 metres of a building greater than 73.5 metres in height. On May 12, 2021, the Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application P/CA 21/21. Current Minor Variance Application – P/CA 103/21 On October 25, 2021, City Council granted an exemption in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act, as amended, to permit the Committee of Adjustment to consider this minor variance application (P/CA 103/21). Through the detailed design of the proposed building during the site plan review process, the applicant determined that additional units could be accommodated through minor changes to the floor plan. As a result of the reconfiguration, the primary windows for 2 second-storey units have been shifted to face westward, opposite the Universal City Phase 1 development located on the abutting west property (see Exhibit 2). This change allows the applicant to accommodate an additional 9 residential units for a total of 321 apartment units. -37- Report P/CA 103/21 November 10, 2021 Page 3 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Mixed Use Areas – City Centre within the City Centre Neighbourhood. High density residential development is a permitted use within the City Centre designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law City Centre Zoning By-law 7553, as amended, requires a minimum building separation of 11.0 metres if any primary windows or balconies are proposed on a wall facing an adjacent building. The site-specific Zoning By-law 7810/21 granted a provision to reduce the minimum building separation to 8.6 metres for a second-storey unit with primary windows. The provision requires the primary window to be no larger than 0.9 of a square metre and the lowest point of the window to be located a minimum of 1.8 metres from the floor. The purpose of this provision was to incorporate a small window into a second-storey unit, to allow the flow of natural light into the unit. To deal with issues related to privacy and overlook, the size of the window was limited, and the location of the window was high enough to ensure there was no direct visibility through the window to an adjacent building. Through the detailed design of the building, the second storey was reconfigured to allow for a more compact floor plan and the addition of nine residential units. As a result of the reconfiguration, the primary windows for 2 second-storey units were shifted westward, facing an adjacent building (Universal City One). To ensure the flow of natural light is maintained within these units, the applicant is proposing to provide larger windows. As a result, the applicant is requesting to maintain the building separation of 8.6 metres for a second-storey unit with larger primary windows, so long as a 1.8-metre high privacy screen is located along the edge of the building between the primary window and the adjacent building to which the primary window faces. The purpose of limiting the size and location of the primary window is to provide adequate privacy between abutting buildings. To mitigate issues with privacy and overlook as a result of the larger windows, the applicant is proposing to locate a 1.8 metre high privacy screen along the west edge of the building between the primary windows and the adjacent building to which the primary windows face. The larger windows will ensure sunlight is still provided within the units, while the screens will ensure privacy between the units and the adjacent building is maintained. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land The requested variance will ensure privacy is maintained between the abutting buildings, while ensuring the 2 second-storey units will have adequate access to sunlight internally. The proposed privacy screens will be similar in style and colour to the building, which will help maintain an attractive façade. -38- Report P/CA 103/21 November 10, 2021 Page 4 Minor in Nature The applicant has indicated that the related parking, bicycle parking and amenity space requirements have been increased to reflect the additional number of units, without the need for further variances. The additional 9 residential units will not require any further exceptions to the City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-law 7810/21. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The applicant has submitted a Planning Justification Report in support of this application. Please contact the City Development Department at ilima@pickering.ca to receive a copy of the applicant’s report. Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No comments. Ministry of Transportation (MTO) • MTO has reviewed the requested minor variance for 1496 Bayly Street and has no objection to the proposal. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: November 4, 2021 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP (Acting) Planner II Manager, Zoning and Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2021\PCA 103-21 Universal City Six Development Inc\7. Report Attachments -39- Pickering Parkw a y Tatra Drive Drava StreetKr o s n o B ou l e v a r d Re y t a n B o u le v a r d SandyBeachRoadBayly Street Morden Lan e Poprad Av en u eAlliance RoadFordon Aven u e Highway 401 MitchelPark Bayview HeightsPublic School City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 103/21 Date: Sep. 27, 2021 Exhibit 1 Universal City Six Developments Inc.1496 Bayly Street SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 103-21 Universal City Six Development Inc\PCA103-21_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.-40- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 103/21 Applicant: Universal City Six Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1496 Bayly Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 22, 2021 Universal City Phase 1 (west adjacent building) 8.6 m separation the building separation of a second storey unit with primary windows may be reduced to 8.6 metres so long as the primary window is no larger than 0.9 square metres, and the lowest point of the window is located a minimum of 1.8 metres from the floor, or where the primary window is larger than 0.9 square metres, and the lowest point of the window is located less than 1.8 metres from the floor, a 1.8 metre high privacy screen is located along the edge of the building between the primary window and the adjacent building to which the primary window faces -41- Exhibit 3 Submitted Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 103/21 Applicant: Universal City Six Developments Inc. Municipal Address: 1496 Bayly Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: September 22, 2021 -42- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 104/21 Date: November 10, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning and Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 104/21 A. Uthayakumaran 275 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit: • a maximum building ground floor area of 580 square metres (detached dwelling), whereas the By-law requires a maximum building ground floor area of 500 square metres; • a maximum building ground floor area of 900 square metres (accessory structure – barn), whereas the By-law requires a maximum building ground floor area of 500 square metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to facilitate the construction of a detached dwelling and accessory building (barn). Recommendation The City Development Department recommends that Minor Variance Application P/CA 104/21 be Tabled until such time the applicant provides staff with additional information as outlined in this report. Comment Within the implementation guidelines of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs’ (OMAFRA) Publication 853 “The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Document Formulae and Guidelines for Livestock Facility and Anaerobic Digester Odour Setbacks”, and in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014, the MDS Document must be referenced in municipal official plans, and detailed provisions included in municipal comprehensive by-laws such that MDS setbacks are required in all designations and zones where livestock facilities and anaerobic digesters are permitted. Implementation Guideline #6 of the MDS Document indicates that MDS calculations should apply to any livestock facilities within 750 metres of the proposed dwelling. Section 16.40 of the City’s Official Plan states that on lands designated Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside Areas, City Council shall require any new livestock facilities, any expansions to livestock facilities, and all development adjacent to livestock facilities to comply with the provincial Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae. -43- Report P/CA 104/21 November 10, 2021 Page 2 Within the City of Pickering boundary, staff are aware of existing livestock facilities on adjacent properties at 5430 Sideline 32 and at 155 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road. As a result, the applicant is required to provide the MDS required between all adjacent livestock facilities. Section 5.40 (Minimum Distance Separation) of Zoning By-law 3037 exempts non-farm development on existing lots of record from MDS requirements. However, Staff require the MDS calculation in order to provide a recommendation regarding the conformity to the City’s Official Plan test. Additionally, the City’s Site Plan Control By-law (By-law 7632/18) establishes for lands located within the boundary of the Oak Ridges Moraine, that the approval of plans and drawings shall be required for all development and lot creation proposed within 120 metres of any key natural heritage feature or hydrologically sensitive feature on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Date of report: November 3, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning and Administration FC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 104-21 A. Uthayakumaran\7. Report\PCA 104-21 Report.doc Attachments -44- Uxbridge Pickering Townline Road Sideline 32Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 104/21 Date: Oct. 15, 2021 Exhibit 1 A. Uthayakumaran275 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road SubjectLands C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 104-21 A. Uthayakumaran\PCA104-21_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. City DevelopmentDepartment T o w n s h i p o f U x b r i d g e -45- Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 104/21 Applicant: A. Uthayakumaran Municipal Address: 275 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Oct 27, 2021 to permit a maximum building ground floor area of 580 square metres to permit a maximum building ground floor area of 900 square metres (accessory building – barn) -46- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 107/21 Date: November 10, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning and Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 107/21 H. McDougall & G. Avramopoulos 809 Fairview Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 and By-law 7872/21, to permit uncovered steps 2.6 metres in height above grade to project 4.9 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the construction of uncovered steps. Recommendation The City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests. Staff recommend that the Committee of Adjustment consider all public and agency input in reaching a decision. Should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the uncovered steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, & 5). Background On September 28, 2020, City Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Infill Study) and adopted the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The recommendations of the Infill Study provided direction for the preparation of appropriate planning implementation tools to facilitate a transition between existing houses and new construction occurring in the City’s established neighbourhoods. On September 27, 2021, City Council enacted By-law 7872/21 (the Infill By-law) which amended Zoning By-law 2511 rezoning all of the lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts to an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” category that will assist in managing new built form, so that it is compatible with the existing built form. -47- Report P/CA 107/21 November 10, 2021 Page 2 The amendments do not change the permitted uses within the zones. The Infill By-law has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal by members of the public, however since Council has enacted the Infill By-law, staff must have regard for it when reviewing applications for zoning compliance. Although the subject property falls within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct, the submission of the current building permit application predates the enactment of the By-law 7872/21. In accordance with the transition provisions of By-law 7872/21, the provisions of Zoning By-law 2511 as it read on the day prior to the effective date of the Infill By-law shall apply. Additionally, the building permit application and the requested variance pertain only to the proposed uncovered front yard steps. A building permit for the detached dwelling predated the Infill By-law and satisfies the transition provisions of By-law 7872/21. As a result, the requested variance is not required to be assessed against the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 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. This designation provides for residential uses such as detached dwellings. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “R4” – One-Family Detached Dwelling – Fourth Density Zone within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 and By-law 7872/21. The intent of the provision to permit uncovered steps and/or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard is to provide the opportunity for stairs and/or landing platforms to encroach into the front yard when needed while ensuring an adequate buffer space between buildings and street activity is provided, and an adequate landscaped area within the front yard can be maintained. The proposed uncovered steps project a total of 4.9 metres into the required front yard setback of 7.5 metres. The steps will maintain a 2.6 metre setback from the front property line. The requested variance to allow for the steps at a height of 2.6 metres is to facilitate pedestrian access to the elevated front door of the dwelling. Adequate buffer space and street activity will be provided, and an adequate landscaped area within the front yard will be maintained. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature In 2019, a building permit was issued for the detached dwelling, the dwelling is currently occupied. As a result of the approved and constructed height and location of the main entrance of the dwelling, the proposed uncovered steps are necessary to facilitate pedestrian access into the dwelling. A 2.6 metre buffer between the steps and the front property line is provided by turning a portion of the steps parallel to the front wall of the dwelling. -48- Report P/CA 107/21 November 10, 2021 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Applicant • Due to the height of the main entrance, the distance required subsequently encroaches into the required front yard. Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No comments. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: November 1, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning and Administration FC:jc J:\Documents\Developjcnt\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 107-21 H. McDougall & G. Avramopoulos\7. Report\PCA 107-21 Report.doc Attachments -49- Commerce StreetFront RoadLiverpool RoadBrowning Avenue Ilona Park RoadFairview AvenueDouglas AvenueHaller Avenue Monica Cook PlaceChapleau DriveOld Orchard Avenue Douglas Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 107/21 Date: Oct. 15, 2021 Exhibit 1 H. McDougall & G. Avramopoulos809 Fairview Avenue SubjectLands Frenchman's Bay L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 106-21 H. McDougall & G. Avramopoulos\PCA106-21_LocationMap.mxd 1:3,000 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. City DevelopmentDepartment -50- Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 107/21 Applicant: H. McDougall & G. Avramopoulos Municipal Address: 809 Fairview Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Oct 25, 2021 Fairview Avenue to permit uncovered steps 2.6 metres in height above grade to project 4.9 metres into the required front yard -51- Exhibit 3 Submitted Front Elevation File No: P/CA 107/21 Applicant: H. McDougall & G. Avramopoulos Municipal Address: 809 Fairview Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Oct 25, 2021 -52- Exhibit 4 Submitted Side (North) Elevation File No: P/CA 107/21 Applicant: H. McDougall & G. Avramopoulos Municipal Address: 809 Fairview Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Oct 25, 2021 -53- Exhibit 5 Submitted Side (South) Elevation File No: P/CA 107/21 Applicant: H. McDougall & G. Avramopoulos Municipal Address: 809 Fairview Avenue CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Oct 25, 2021 -54- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 108/21 Date: November 10, 2021 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning and Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 108/21 Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services 1400 Squires Beach Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 6070/02, to permit a maximum building height of 14.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum building height of 12.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate zoning compliance to construct a distribution facility. The subject application is being reviewed in conjunction with a submitted application for site plan approval (S 05/21). Recommendation The City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests. Staff recommend that the Committee of Adjustment consider all public and agency input in reaching a decision. Should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the distribution facility, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates this property as “Employment Areas – Mixed Employment” and “Employment Areas – General Employment” within the Brock Industrial Neighbourhood. Lands within these designations are intended to accommodate manufacturing, assembly, and warehousing uses, and provide for related employment opportunities. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The property is zoned “MC-17” – Industrial-Commercial, and “OS-HL” – Open Space Hazard Lands within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 6070/02. The location of the proposed structure is within the MC-17 zone. -55- Report P/CA 108/21 November 10, 2021 Page 2 The intent of the maximum building height of 12.0 metres is to minimize the visual impact of buildings on abutting properties and on the streetscape. The proposed maximum building height of 14.2 metres is a result of the raising of panels on the exterior of the structure in order to enhance the architectural design of the building. The functional height of the proposed building is approximately 13.0 metres, still exceeding the maximum 12.0 metre height limit. The proposed structure is setback approximately 61 metres from Squires Beach Road and approximately 122 metres from Bayly Street. It is also proposed to be set back approximately 66 metres from the nearest neighbouring lot. As such, due to the significant setbacks, the increased height will result in minimal visual impact on the abutting properties and on the streetscape. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The request for the increased height is to provide for a height that accommodates for the functionality of the distribution facility and to enhance the architectural design on the exterior of the building. The significant setbacks from all property lines provide for an adequate buffer to minimize any potential impacts as a result of the increased height. Input From Other Sources Applicant • Between the functional requirements of the building and the design elements required by the City, the applicant cannot lower the building’s roof line to be compliant with the By-law and have enough clear space inside the building. Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No comments. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • No comments were received as of the date of writing this report. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: November 2, 2021 Comments prepared by: Felix Chau Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning and Administration FC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2021\PCA 108-21 Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services\7. Report\PCA 108-21 Report.doc Attachments -56- Bayly StreetToy AvenueSquires Beach RoadLocation MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 108/21 Date: Oct. 25, 2021 Exhibit 1 Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC1400 Squires Beach Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2021\PCA 108-21 Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services\PCA108-21_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. City DevelopmentDepartment -57- Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 108/21 Applicant: Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services Municipal Address: 1400 Squires Beach Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: October 25, 2021 -58- Exhibit 3 Submitted East and West Elevations File No: P/CA 108/21 Applicant: Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services Municipal Address: 1400 Squires Beach Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: October 25, 2021 to permit a maximum building height of 14.2 metres -59- Exhibit 4 Submitted North and South Elevations File No: P/CA 108/21 Applicant: Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services Municipal Address: 1400 Squires Beach Road CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: October 25, 2021 to permit a maximum building height of 14.2 metres -60- pickering.ca Committee of Adjustment Tentative Hearing Schedule for 2022 Meeting Date (Wednesday) April 13 Last Day for Filing (Tuesday) Sign Posting Due Date (Friday) Last Day to Appeal Committee’s Decision (Tuesday) January 12 December 7, 2021 December 17 February 1 February 9 January 11 January 28 March 1 March 9 February 8 February 25 March 29 March 15 April 1 May 3 May 11 April 12 April 29 May 31 June 8 May 10 May 27 June 28 July 13 June 14 Thursday June 30 August 2 August 10 July 12 July 29 August 30 September 14 August 16 September 2 October 4 October 12 September 13 September 30 November 1 November 9 October 11 October 28 November 29 -61-