Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 9, 2022Committee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Number: 2 Date: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 pickering.ca For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Samantha O’Brien Telephone: 905.420.4660, extension 2023 Email: sobrien@pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number 1.Disclosure of Interest 2.Adoption of Agenda 3.Adoption of Minutes from January 12, 2022 1-17 4. Report 4.1 (Tabled at the November 10, 2021 Hearing)18-24 P/CA 104/21 A. Uthayakumaran 275 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road 4.2 P/CA 34/22 25-31 Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. 1865 Pickering Parkway 4.3 P/CA 35/22 32-36 Deco Homes (Seaton) Inc. 2617 Hibiscus Drive 4.4 P/CA 36/22 37-45 S. & S. Vaz 1315 Broadview Street 4.5 P/CA 40/22 46-55 W. & P. Grant 521 Bella Vista Drive 4.6 P/CA 41/22 56-61 S. Savanyu & B. Pearen 1331 Gull Crossing 4.7 P/CA 42/22 62-67 V.Varghese 1576 Greenmount Street 5.Adjournment Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 17 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Felix Chau, Planner II Isabel Lima, (Acting) Planner II Kerry Yelk, Planner I 1.Disclosure of Interest Sean Wiley advised he would recuse himself from voting, due to a potentially perceived conflict of interest on Item 4.7 for P/CA 33/22 for Infrastructure Ontario – lands within the Hydro Corridor located east of 915 & 935 Sandy Beach Road. 2.Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, January 12, 2022 hearing be adopted, as amended Carried Unanimously 2.1 Appointment of Chairperson Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That David Johnson be appointed as Chairperson for the 2022 term. Carried Unanimously - 1 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 17 2.2 Appointment of Vice-Chairperson Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by David Johnson That Tom Copeland be appointed as Vice-Chairperson for the 2022 term. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That the minutes of the 12th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, December 8, 2022 be adopted, as amended Carried Unanimously 4. Reports 4.1 (Tabled at the October 13, 2021 Hearing) P/CA 95/21 D. & K. Bridges 1003 Cloudberry Court Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 95/21 by D. & K. Bridges, be lifted from the table. Carried Unanimously 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; - 2 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 17 • 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. 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 concerns with the requested variances. This lot was created through a Land Division application (LD 117/18). The requested variances did not match the plans submitted with the aforementioned Land Division application and therefore, the applicant has provided a revised Grading & Servicing Plan, Arborist Report and Arborist Plans. The applicant should ensure the LID (Low Impact Development) measures, proposed tree plantings, etc., shown in the aforementioned documents are reflected on the plans submitted at the Building Permit stage. In support of the application, the applicant identified the existing lot size and setbacks make it difficult to construct a two-storey dwelling to fit within the requirements. The increase in building height for the detached garage is so that the exterior architectural features of the detached garage, can follow the exterior architectural features of the house. The detached garage has been designed to match the roof pitches and height as much as possible. Hank Nauta, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. - 3 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 17 Hank Nauta spoke in support of the application, stating his agreement with City staff in that the four tests of the Planning Act are met. In response to a question posed by Hank Nauta; Isabel Lima, (Acting) Planner II, stated no additional comments were received after the writing of the report P/CA 95/21 that was published in the January 12, 2022 Committee of Adjustment Agenda. In response to questions from a Committee Member, Hank Nauta stated the scale of the home created the desire to accommodate the owner’s lifestyle with 5 vehicles. There is no intent to use the garage for business purposes. The applicant has completed Engineering Services requirements for grading and surface water run-off, where a full arborist report has been completed. It is the applicant’s intention to fully comply with the requirements of the City to their satisfaction as presented in the application. Due to the irregular configuration of the land and the applicant’s willingness to incorporate architectural design features of the design, Engineering Services have no concerns and any additional items will be met by the applicant. The application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, as documented and noted by the City Development Department, and Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 95/22 by D. & K. Bridges, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling and detached garage, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 12, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 01/22 C. & J. Flynn 917 Vistula Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 6.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; - 4 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 17 • a minimum side yard setback of 1.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of porch in the front yard projecting from the existing single-storey detached dwelling, and a two-storey addition on the west side of an existing single-storey detached dwelling to accommodate an attached garage and a habitable second-storey above the garage including a rear second-storey deck. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. No written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section on this application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure reduced setbacks do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Written comments were received from the residents of 928 Vistula Drive, in support of the application. Written comments were received from Felix Chau, Planner II, who submitted Revised Exhibits 2 and 5, on behalf of the applicant to the Committee Members, for their review and consideration. In support of the application, the applicant identified the lot is a pie shape with the front being larger than the back. The house is centered on the back lot line and was not built with an attached garage like most in the neighbourhood. The narrowing of the west property line makes it challenging to add a sufficiently sized garage to the property without moving the proposed building forward and slightly encroaching on the side yard setback. Chris Flynn, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After reading and agreeing with the City staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, listening to applicant’s comments, lacking any opposition to the application and given the irregular shape of the property in relation to the dwelling, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Denise Rundle moved the following motion: - 5 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 17 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 01/22 by C. & J. Flynn, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Revised Exhibit 2, Exhibits 3 & 4, Revised Exhibit 5 & Exhibit 6). Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 02/22 M. Wilson 1100 Begley Street, Unit 9 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to: • permit a minimum rear yard depth of 4.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered deck. 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 application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) expressing the requested variance has been reviewed and have no objections to the proposal in principle. Written comments were received from the resident of 1100 Begley Street, Unit 10, in objection to the application. In support of the application, the applicant identified that to accommodate a deck and due to the irregular shape of the lot, it is necessary to reduce the rear yard setback. - 6 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 17 Mary Wilson, applicant, 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, Mary Wilson stated she is seeking relief to accommodate a similar application for a deck that was previously approved for her neighbours at the Committee of Adjustment Hearing in September 2021. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer, stated the proposed expanded deck for the subject site does abut the property line shared between units 8 and 9. There are no setback requirements between the units for this type of condominium townhouse development. In response to questions from Committee Members, Mary Wilson stated the property is slightly sloped to the south, which is the reason for the height being 2.6 metres above grade. Additionally, the deck projects from the second floor having a walkout from the main level as well as from the basement patio. After hearing from the applicant and reviewing the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act and Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 02/22 by M. Wilson, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 12, 2022). Carried Unanimously - 7 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 17 4.4 P/CA 03/22 to P/CA 30/22 Marathon Homes Limited 2622-2652 Delphinium Trail, 2735-2749 Peter Matthews Drive, and 2753-2759 Peter Matthews Drive Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That the Committee dispense of the reading of applications P/CA 03/21 to P/CA 30/22 by Marathon Homes Limited. Carried Unanimously P/CA 03/22 to P/CA 07/22 – 2622, 2624, 2626, 2628 & 2630 Delphinium Trail – Block 165, Lots 2 to 6 on Exhibit 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 10.0 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. P/CA 08/22 – 2632 Delphinium Trail – Block 165, Lot 7 on Exhibit 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 8.8 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. P/CA 09/22 – 2634 Delphinium Trail – Block 166, Lot 1 on Exhibit 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 8.6 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. - 8 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 17 P/CA 10/22 & P/CA 11/22 – 2636 & 2638 Delphinium Trail – Block 166, Lots 2 & 3 on Exhibit 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 10.1 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. P/CA 12/22 – 2640 Delphinium Trail – Block 166, Lot 4 on Exhibit 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 9.0 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. P/CA 13/22 to P/CA 18/22 – 2642, 2644, 2646, 2648, 2650 & 2652 Delphinium Trail – Block 167, Lots 1 to 6 on Exhibit 4 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 9.2 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. P/CA 19/22 & P/CA 20/22 – 2759 & 2757 Peter Matthews Drive – Block 172, Lots 3 & 4 on Exhibit 5 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 8.3 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. P/CA 21/22 & P/CA 22/22 – 2755 & 2753 Peter Matthews Drive – Block 172, Lots 5 & 6 on Exhibit 5 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 8.6 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. - 9 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 17 P/CA 23/22 & P/CA 30/22 – 2749 & 2735 Peter Matthews Drive – Block 173, Lots 1 & 8 on Exhibit 6 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 8.1 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. P/CA 24/22 to P/CA 29/22 – 2747, 2745, 2743, 2741, 2739 & 2737 Peter Matthews Drive – Block 173, Lots 2 to 7 on Exhibit 6 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit the wall of a private garage facing a lane to be located no further than 8.6 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law states that attached private garages, which are deemed to be part of the main building on the lot, are permitted provided that the wall of the private garage facing the lane is located no further than 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to obtain building permits to facilitate the construction of residential townhomes. 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. In support of the application, the applicant identified the depth of the lot would require the dwellings to be increased in length to meet the maximum setback creating an increase in square footage beyond what would be affordable for a townhouse. Richard Vink, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Richard Vink spoke in support of the application stating the proposal is to facilitate the development site for 3-storey townhouses with rear lane garages in 5 buildings. The applications meet the requirements for minimum and maximum front yard setbacks, and meet the minimum required rear yard setbacks, but exceed the maximum required rear yard setbacks. The design accommodates deep townhouse lots that are between 1,850 to 2,650 square feet. - 10 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 17 The applications request relief between 1.1 metres up to 2.5 metres, from the required 7.5 metre rear yard setback. It is believed that the applications meet the four tests of the Planning Act. In response to questions from Committee Members, Richard Vink stated the design exceeds the minimum required parking space depth based on the setback, however there is only enough depth for a single car outside of the garage. The large quantity of applications was a result of a zoning review completed by staff during the building permit application stage. City staff recommended proceeding individually through minor variance applications rather than collectively through a Zoning By-law Amendment application. There is no intention of seeking additional minor variances on this site. After reading the staff report, reviewing the submitted plans and drawings, and listening to the agent’s responses to questions from Committee Members, the applications appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 03/22 to P/CA 30/22 by Marathon Homes Limited, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1.That these variances apply only to the proposed residential townhomes, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 12, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 31/22 P. Nelson 1707 Echo Point Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by Zoning By-law 1998/85, to: •permit a minimum rear yard depth of 4.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a covered and uncovered deck with steps. - 11 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 17 The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance does not 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 residents of 1013 Honeywood Crescent, 1011 Honeywood Crescent, and 1717 Echo Point Court, in opposition to the application. In support of the application, the applicant identified that to accommodate a deck, it is necessary to reduce the rear yard setback. Committee Member, Tom Copeland, completed a site visit to the property and took photographs that were shared with Committee Members and staff. Secretary-Treasurer, Deborah Wylie, advised Committee Members that the subject dwelling complies with the Zoning By-law’s maximum height requirements. Tyrone Grey, agent, was present to represent the application. Brian Majerus of 1717 Echo Point Court, Deborah Valleau of 1009 Honeywood Crescent, as well as Ursula Donelan and Dana Yurchi of 1013 Honeywood Crescent, were present in objection to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Tyrone Grey spoke in support of the application stating there is a significant slope in the rear yard making the space unusable. The higher deck will be used for a barbecue space and to reduce tripping hazards. The lower deck will be used for amenity space for the children. Brian Majerus spoke in objection to the application, reiterating points addressed in his letter and pictures submitted to the Committee. The proposal is believed to be intrusive to neighbouring properties, based on the disproportionate height differential. The dramatic grading of the lot places the proposed deck at the same height as the top of the fence line overlooking all neighbouring properties. If a deck were to be erected on the property it should be at a dramatically reduced height to mitigate the disruption caused to neighbours. Lastly Brian Majerus noted that although the house meets zoning requirements the deck is not in keeping with the existing neighbourhood. Deborah Valleau spoke in objection to the application stating the height of the deck is too high being located at top of fence line. The property has a significant slope and grading which adds to the privacy concerns, drainage issues and reduced sunlight. - 12 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 17 Ursula Donelan and her granddaughter Dana Yurchi spoke in objection to the application, reiterating the written comments submitted to the Committee Members for their consideration. The residents spoke to the damage inflicted on their property based on the significant slope and drainage issues of the subject site. Moreover, their concerns with the dramatic proposed height, loss of sunlight, and safety issued were also noted. In response to a question posed by a neighbour, Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer stated the depth of the deck is measured as the distance from the back wall of the house to the end of the deck toward the rear lot line, being approximately 3.3 metres. In response to questions from Committee Members, Tyrone Grey stated the rear deck is approximately 3.5 metres deep and the height is parallel to first-storey level, approximately 1.6 metres above grade. When asked if the owners would consider removing the top portion of the deck and only include the lower level patio, Tyrone Grey indicated the owners are not opposed to that option, where a newly proposed height for the patio would be approximately 14 inches above grade (0.35 of a metre). In response to a question from a Committee Member, Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer stated the Zoning By-law does not have a maximum height requirement for a deck. After listening to the applicant and the neigbours, and reading the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, the application does not appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 31/22 by P. Nelson, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance does not meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 32/22 A. Gilani & S. Hakeem-Gilani 851 Surf Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law No. 2511, as amended, to: • permit a minimum rear yard depth of 5.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the extension of an uncovered deck with steps. - 13 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 17 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 application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the residents of 547 Park Crescent, in support of the application. In support of the application, the applicant identified that in order to accommodate a deck, it is necessary to reduce the rear yard setback. Aly Gilani, applicant, 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, Aly Gilani stated the existing deck is virtually unusable at 0.38 metres wide. There is a gas line in the deck to use a barbecue however the space is too narrow. The application is being brought forward to accommodate an extension to the existing deck. Having no public input or agency comments, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Sean W iley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 32/22 by A. Gilani & S. Hakeem-Gilani, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck with steps, 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 January 12, 2022). Carried Unanimously - 14 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 17 4.7 P/CA 33/22 Infrastructure Ontario Lands within the Hydro Corridor located east of 915 & 935 Sandy Beach Road Committee Member Sean Wiley advised he would recuse himself from voting, due to a potentially perceived conflict of interest for P/CA 33/22 for Infrastructure Ontario – lands within the Hydro Corridor located east of 915 & 935 Sandy Beach Road. In order to prevent a tie vote, David Johnson, Chair, indicated he would abstain from voting on this item. The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 88/74, to permit: • a Private Parking Lot use, whereas the By-law permits a Public Parking Lot use; • where a lot is used for a permitted purpose other than for garden purposes or as a public playground, and there are no buildings or structures thereon, the minimum front yard and side yard requirements of the zone shall not apply, whereas the By-law requires the minimum front yard and side yard requirements of the zone within which the lot is situated to be complied with as if there were a dwelling or structure on the lot. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to permit surplus parking within a hydro corridor, associated with employment uses on an adjacent property. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. No written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section on this application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating that the applicant should ensure the proposed parking lot within the hydro corridor does not adversely affect the drainage patters of the surrounding area. In support of the application, the applicant submitted a Planning Justification Report that was shared with Committee Members and made available to the public if a copy was requested. Thomas Melymuk, agent, 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, Thomas Melymuk stated he has reviewed the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, share staff’s opinion of the application meeting the four tests of the Planning Act, and has no objections to proposed recommended condition. - 15 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 17 In response to questions from Committee Members, Tom Melymuk stated there is no proposal yet to redevelop the lands at 915 and 935 Sandy Beach Road but some opportunities are being explored which initiated the contact with Infrastructure Ontario. It was determined that this variance application would be required to initiate the conversation to lease the lands from Hydro One for surplus parking. The requirement under the provincial secondary land use program is that lease of the lands is only permitted for secondary purposes, if it meets the needs as well as compliance with the Official Plan and Zoning requirements. The private parking lot did not conform so the application was necessary to entertain options for redevelopment of the abutting property. The Exhibit 2 to P/CA 33/22 illustrates the hatched area that would be the location of the potential future surplus parking area. The other Exhibits in the report show the entire ownership of Infrastructure Ontario; however the variances would apply only to the lands to the east of 915 and 935 Sandy Beach Road. After having reviewed the application and hearing, the comments provided from the agent, the proposal appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 33/22 by Infrastructure Ontario, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the surplus Private Parking Lot use, associated with 915 & 935 Sandy Beach Road, 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 January 12, 2022). Carried - 16 - Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 17 of 17 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 1st hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:11 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, February 9, 2022. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer - 17 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 104/21 Date: February 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning and Administration Subject: (Tabled at the November 10, 2021 Hearing) 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. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to facilitate 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 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 detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4); and 2.That the applicant obtains a demolition permit to ensure that the existing detached dwelling on the subject property is removed and that all inspections have been completed or, execute and register on title a Demolition Agreement to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering, which will secure the future removal of the existing detached dwelling on the subject property, to the satisfaction of the Building Services Department. Background The subject application was tabled at the November 10, 2021 Committee of Adjustment hearing, as recommended by City Development staff. The reason for tabling the application was to ensure that the 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, could be met. - 18 - Report P/CA 104/21 February 9, 2022 Page 2 The applicant submitted a Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Report, prepared by Clark Consulting Services, dated January 5, 2022, which exempts the subject proposal from having to comply with the MDS separation distances. Guideline 11 of the OMAFRA Publication states that where a Municipality explicitly requires MDS I setbacks for building permit applications on lots which exist prior to March 1, 2017, an MDS I setback is not required for building reconstruction, provided all of the following conditions are met: • the building which existed before the application was habitable; • the proposed building is for the same or less sensitive land use type; and • the proposed building is built no closer to the surrounding livestock facilities or anaerobic digesters than the former building. Staff agree with the submitted MDS Report that the proposed detached dwelling meets all three conditions, acknowledges that is exempted from having to meet the MDS I setbacks. The Committee and a member of the public also raised concerns of ongoing works prior to the approval of permits. Staff can confirm as of the date of writing this report, a building permit was issued in July of 2021 to construct a detached garage on the westerly limits of the property. Additionally, construction of a culvert along Sideline 32 was done so by the City’s Operations Department. Additionally, the applicant has revised the subject application, subsequent to receiving feedback from the Committee, the public and staff. The original proposal requested two variances, to permit a detached dwelling with a maximum ground floor area of 580 square metres, and to permit an accessory structure (barn) with a maximum ground floor area of 900 square metres. The applicant has reduced the size of the proposed barn to 500 square metres, which complies with the By-law. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates this property as “Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside Area”. Lands within this designation are primarily intended for agricultural operations, but also permits a residential dwelling. The lot is intended to be used for an agricultural operation in conjunction with a detached dwelling. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law Within the Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, the ORM-A zone establishes a maximum building ground floor area (GFA) of 500 square metres in order to regulate the size of structures within the Oak Ridges Moraine to limit adverse impacts on environmental features. The applicant is requesting to exceed the maximum GFA, proposing a detached dwelling with a GFA of 580 square metres. The subject lot is approximately 4.3 hectares (42,676.2 square metres) in size. Therefore, the 80 square metre exceedance will be minimal relative to the size of the lot. - 19 - Report P/CA 104/21 February 9, 2022 Page 3 Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed detached dwelling will replace an existing dwelling that is required to be demolished. The existing dual residential and agricultural uses of this property will be continued with the construction of the new detached dwelling. As mentioned previously, the exceedance in size of the proposed detached dwelling is minimal given the size of the subject lot. Input From Other Sources Applicant • To facilitate the construction of a new detached dwelling on the lot. Engineering Services • Ensure the increased building ground floor area does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Building Services • No concerns. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public for the revised application as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: February 2, 2022 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 (Feb 9, 2022).doc Attachments - 20 - Uxbridge Pickering Townline Road Si d e l i n e 3 2 Location 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 - 21 - 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: Jan 25 2022 to permit a maximum building ground floor area of 580 square metres (detached dwelling) Proposed detached dwelling Proposed accessory barn Existing detached garage Existing dwelling to be demolished Uxbridge Pickering Townline Road Si d e l i n e 3 2 - 22 - Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d E l e v a t i o n s ( D e t a c h e d D w e l l i n g ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 10 4 /2 1 Ap p l i c a n t : A. U t h a y a k u m a r a n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 27 5 U x b r i d g e -Pi c k e r i n g T o w n l i n e R o a d CO N T A C T TH E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . Da t e : Ja n . 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 Fr o n t E l e v a t i o n Re a r E l e v a t i o n - 23 - Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d E l e v a t i o n s ( D e t a c h e d D w e l l i n g ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 10 4 / 2 1 Ap p l i c a n t : A. U t h a y a k u m a r a n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 27 5 U x b r i d g e -Pi c k e r i n g T o w n l i n e R o a d CO N T A C T TH E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . Da t e : Ja n . 2 5 , 2 0 2 2 So u t h E l e v a t i o n No r t h E l e v a t i o n - 24 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 34/22 Date: February 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning and Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 34/22 Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. 1865 Pickering Parkway Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7788/20, to permit: • porches and associated stairs not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above established grade to encroach a maximum of 1.0 metre outside the established building envelope, whereas the By-law requires porches and associated stairs not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above established grade may encroach a maximum of 0.5 of a metre outside the building envelope The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to permit residential porches to encroach a maximum of 1.0 metre outside the established building envelope. 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 this variance apply only to the proposed porches and associated stairs, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2, 3, & 4). 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. - 25 - Report P/CA 34/22 February 9, 2022 Page 2 Previous Rezoning Application – OPA 02/18 In January 2018, Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. (Metropia) submitted applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for the lands located at the southwest corner of Pickering Parkway and Notion Road within the Village East Neighbourhood. On October 26, 2020, Council enacted Zoning By-law 7788/20, which rezoned the subject lands from Mixed Use Specialty Retailing Node One – “MU-SRM-1” to Residential Horizontal – “RH”, Open Space – “OS” and Open Space Hazard Lands – “OS-HL” to facilitate the proposed residential condominium development. Current Minor Variance Application – P/CA 34/22 On January 24,.2022, 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 34/22). The applicant is requesting approval of a minor variance application to extend the encroachment limit for porches and associated stairs to a maximum of 1.0 metre outside the established building envelope, for Blocks 2 and 3 only. All other blocks comply. The necessity for this minor variance application, despite a zoning by-law amendment having been passed for the same project within the last two years, is due to an administrative error in which the encroachment for proposed Blocks 2 and 3 was not accurately captured in the text of the approved by-law. Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Mixed Use - Specialty Retailing Node & Open Space System - Natural Areas within the Village East Neighbourhood. The residential use of the property is permitted within this designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned RH, OS, and OS-HL in the City of Pickering Zoning By-law 7788/20. The residential development is located on the RH-zoned lands, which permits multiple-horizontal buildings. A Zoning By-law Amendment had previously been approved, which permits the proposed development and allowing porches and stairs to encroach a maximum of 0.5 of a metre outside the building envelope. The requested variance is required to permit for Blocks 2 and 3 only, porches and associated stairs not exceeding 1.0 metres in height to encroach into the required front yard a maximum of 1.0 metres. The intent of these provisions is to ensure dwellings are adequately setback from street activity and sufficient landscaped area is maintained between dwellings and the street. The proposed increase in the front yard encroachment is necessary to provide access to the dwelling(s). Aside from Block 2 and Block 3, the townhouse dwellings maintain the required setbacks at all other points on the properties. - 26 - Report P/CA 34/22 February 9, 2022 Page 3 No changes are proposed to the function of the proposed development as a result of this minor variance. The encroachment is intended to facilitate uncovered porches and stairs for the townhouse units within Blocks 2 and 3, consisting of a total of 12 units. The encroaching porches and stairs will maintain an approximate 2.0 metre setback from the property line along Pickering Parkway. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The minor variance application seeks relief from the zoning setback requirements of the current provisions, for which there has been a Zoning By-law Amendment approved within the last two years. Staff consider a 0.5 metre increase in the encroachment for porches and associated stairs to be minor in nature and necessary for the function of the dwellings. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The applicant is seeking relief from the zoning setback requirements of the current provisions, for which there has been a Zoning By-law Amendment approved within the last two years. The reason for this application despite a Zoning By-law Amendment having been passed for the same project is due to an administrative error in which a portion of encroachment on the proposed development was not completely captured the text of the approved by-law. Engineering Services • No comments. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: February 2, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning and Administration KY:jc \\Fs\Planning\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 34-22\7. Report\PCA 34-22 Report.Doc Attachments - 27 - Highway 401 N o t i o n R o a d B eec hlawn D r i v e Ma r s h c o u r t D r i v e Sq u i r e s B e a c h R o a d Pickering Parkway Tribro St udios A venue Lark s mere Court F a i r f i e l dCrescent A s h f o r d D r i v e BeechlawnPark Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 34/22 Date: Dec. 20, 2021 Exhibit 1 Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc.1865 Pickering Parkway SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 34-22 Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc\PCA34-22_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 C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g T o w n o f A j a x - 28 - Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 3 4 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Me t r o p i a ( N o t i o n R o a d ) D e v e l o p m e n t I n c . Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 18 6 5 P i c k e r i n g P a r k w a y CO N T A C T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . Da t e : Ja n u a r y 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t p o r c h e s a n d s t a i r s n o t ex c e e d i n g 1 . 0 m e t r e i n h e i g h t a b o v e es t a b l i s h e d g r a d e t o e n c r o a c h a ma x i m u m o f 1 . 0 m e t r e o u t s i d e t h e es t a b l i s h e d b u i l d i n g e n v e l o p e Bu i l d i n g E n v e l o p e - 29 - Ex h i b i t 3 Bl o c k 2 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 3 4 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Me t r o p i a ( N o t i o n R o a d ) D e v e l o p m e n t I n c . Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 18 6 5 P i c k e r i n g P a r k w a y CO N T A C T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . Da t e : Ja n u a r y 20 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t p o r c h e s a n d s t a i r s n o t e x c e e d i n g 1. 0 m e t r e i n h e i g h t a b o v e e s t a b l i s h e d g r a d e to e n c r o a c h a m a x i m u m o f 1 . 0 m e t r e ou t s i d e t h e e s t a b l i s h e d b u i l d i n g e n v e l o p e Bu i l d i n g En v e l o p e 0. 9 7 me t r e s - 30 - Ex h i b i t 4 Bl o c k 3 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 3 4 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Me t r o p i a ( N o t i o n R o a d ) D e v e l o p m e n t I n c . Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 18 6 5 P i c k e r i n g P a r k w a y CO N T A C T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F TH I S P L A N . Da t e : Ja n u a r y 20 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t p o r c h e s a n d s t a i r s n o t e x c e e d i n g 1. 0 m e t r e i n h e i g h t a b o v e e s t a b l i s h e d g r a d e to e n c r o a c h a m a x i m u m o f 1 . 0 m e t r e ou t s i d e t h e e s t a b l i s h e d b u i l d i n g e n v e l o p e Bu i l d i n g En v e l o p e 0. 87 me t r e s 0. 87 me t r e s - 31 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 35/22 Date: February 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning and Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 35/22 Deco Homes (Seaton) Inc. 2617 Hibiscus Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit: • a parking space reduced in width and length, whereas the By-law requires parking spaces to be a minimum of 2.6 metres in width and 5.3 metres in length; and • a parking space to be within a daylighting triangle, whereas the By-law states no parking space shall be permitted within any daylighting triangle. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to permit an outdoor parking space that is partially located in a daylighting triangle. 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 this variance apply only to the proposed outdoor parking space, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Area within the Lamoureaux Neighbourhood. The residential use of the property is permitted within this designation. - 32 - Report P/CA 35/22 February 9, 2022 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The purpose of the requested variances is to permit an outdoor parking space for a residential property to be partially located within a daylighting triangle. The purpose of a daylighting triangle is to ensure obstructions such as buildings, structures, fences or hedges on privately owned property do not impede the view of pedestrians, motorists and cyclists at the intersection of two street lines. The City typically requires a conveyance of lands for a daylighting triangle for road dedication purposes, to prevent sightline obstructions to ensure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement. For the subject lands, a daylighting triangle is located abutting the northwest corner of the property, resulting in the irregular shaped lot. A corner of the proposed outdoor parking space is located partially within the daylighting triangle due to the irregularity of the lot. The intent of a minimum parking space requirement of 2.6 x 5.3 metres is to ensure there is sufficient space to park a vehicle and enter/exit a vehicle within the parking space. The intent of prohibiting any parking space from being located within a daylighting triangle is to prevent any sightline obstructions. Operationally, a full parking space measured at 2.6 x 5.3 metres will be provided on the private property and within the daylighting triangle. The portion of the parking space provided within the private property is measured at 0.5 of a metre wide at its narrowest width at the front property line and 3.5 metres at its shortest length at the front property line (refer to Exhibit 2). Staff are of the opinion that the reduced parking space within the private property combined with the portion within the daylighting triangle will provide sufficient space to park a vehicle and enter/exit a vehicle. Staff are of the opinion that a vehicle can be accommodated within the proposed parking space without causing any obstructions to the daylighting triangle. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Engineering Services has no concerns with the proposed siting of the outdoor parking space that is partially located in a daylighting triangle. Staff consider a reduced parking space to be minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The daylight triangle does not permit the required parking space of 2.6 metres by 5.3 metres to be within the lot boundaries. Engineering Services • No comments. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. - 33 - Report P/CA 35/22 February 9, 2022 Page 3 Date of report: February 3, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning and Administration KY:jc \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 35-22 Deco Homes (Seaton) Inc\7. Report Attachments - 34 - Skyridge Boulevard Marathon Avenu e An g o r a S t r e e t H i b i s c u s D r i v e C a m eoStreet A t h ena Path Sp i n d l e M e w s P et er M at t hews Drive Ap r i c o t L a n e So l s t i c e M e w s Taunton Road Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 35/22 Date: Jan. 14, 2022 Exhibit 1 Deco Homes (Seaton) Inc.2617 Hibiscus Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 35-22 Deco Homes (Seaton) Inc\PCA35-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,500 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 - 35 - Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 35 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : De c o H o m e s ( S e a t o n ) I n c . Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 21 6 7 H i b i s c u s D r i v e ( B l o c k 1 6 0 U n i t 1 o f R e g i s t e r e d P l a n 4 0 M -26 7 1 ) CO N T A C T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . Da t e J a n . 2 0 , 2 0 2 1 to p e r m i t a pa r k i n g sp a c e t o b e wi t h i n a da y l i g h t i n g tr i a n g l e to p e r m i t a pa r k i n g sp a c e r e d u c e d i n w i d t h an d l e n g t h - 36 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 36/22 Date: February 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning and Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 36/22 S. & S. Vaz 1315 Broadview Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7872/21 & 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum front yard of 6.3 metres for an uncovered platform and associated steps (front porch) and a second-storey balcony, and to recognize an existing sunroom, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres; and • a front entrance with a maximum elevation of 1.3 metres above average grade, whereas the By-law states that the maximum elevation of the front entrance shall be 1.2 metres above the average grade. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of the front porch and associated steps, and to recognize the changes made to the existing sunroom. 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 uncovered platform and associated steps (front porch), second-storey balcony and existing sunroom, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Background In July of 2021, the applicant obtained a building permit to raise the existing dwelling and construct a new foundation. In November of 2021, the applicant submitted another building permit application to repair the existing sunroom attached to the dwelling, as well as add a - 37 - Report P/CA 36/22 February 9, 2022 Page 2 second-storey balcony above the sunroom and add a front porch to the entrance of the sunroom (an elevated front porch is now required as a result of raising the dwelling). Previous Minor Variance Application In May of 1995, the Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application P/CA 36/95, to permit the continuance of a front yard depth of 6.0 metres for the existing sunroom, whereas the By-law required a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres. However, due to the above-noted changes proposed to the sunroom, the previous minor variance approval no longer applies to the structure. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. The applicant is proposing minor changes to the existing detached dwelling, which is a permitted use within this designation and a built form within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the Counil-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 Front Yard Variance The intent of the minimum front yard requirement of 7.5 metres is to maintain a consistent setback with abutting properties to mitigate views and privacy concerns, and to provide landscaped area and space for parking in the front yard. The abutting dwelling to the west has a front yard setback of 5.3 metres, and the abutting dwelling to the east has a front yard setback of approximately 7.0 metres. The existing sunroom and proposed balcony and front porch are situated generally in line with the abutting dwellings. As shown on the submitted site plan, there is sufficient room in the front yard for parking and landscaping. Elevation of Front Entrance The intent of the maximum elevation of the front entrance of 1.2 metres is to ensure the front entrance is located at a height that is compatible with the height of front entrances of neighbouring dwellings. The requested variance is to permit a front entrance with a maximum elevation of 1.3 metres above grade, however the proposed front porch is actually located 1.22 metres above grade (refer to Exhibit 3). Staff round up the requested variance to account for potential errors made during construction. - 38 - Report P/CA 36/22 February 9, 2022 Page 3 Neighbouring dwellings appear to have front entrances with 0 to 5 steps. The proposed front porch has 5 steps, which is compatible with the height of front entrances of adjacent dwellings. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The minimum front yard setback of 6.3 metres is an existing situation that has not negatively impacted adjacent properties, as the structure has existed for over 27 years without complaint. The requested variances are in keeping with the established built form of the neighbourhood. Staff consider a reduction in the front yard by 1.2 metres and an increase in the elevation of the front entrance by 0.02 metres to be minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • Purchased the house in 2021, where the house was already approved for a setback of 6.0 metres, as per application P/CA 36/95 was granted to allow a 6.0 metre front yard depth. • House foundation was severely damaged and potentially unsafe for occupancy, a basement was built to ensure a structurally sound house. Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No concerns. Region of Durham • No comments. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: February 2, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP (Acting) Planner II Manager, Zoning and Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 36-22 S. & S. Vaz\7. Report Attachments - 39 - 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) N/A 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) 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 1.22 metres. 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) N/A 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) There is no garage. X 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) - 40 - 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) X 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) N/A 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) There is no garage. N/A 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) There is no garage. 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) Unknown. - 41 - Gull Crossing Annland S t r e e t Commerce Street Wharf Street Li v e r p o o l R o a d Hewson Drive Broadview Street AlderwoodPark Frenchman'sBay Rate PayersMemorial Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 36/22 Date: Jan. 18, 2022 Exhibit 1 S. & S. Vaz1315 Broadview Street SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 36-22 S. & S. Vaz\PCA36-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,000 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 - 42 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 36/22 Applicant: S. & S. Vaz Municipal Address: 1315 Broadview Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jan 21, 2022 to permit a minimum front yard of 6.3 metres for an uncovered platform and associated steps (front porch) and a second storey balcony, and to recognize an existing sunroom to permit a front entrance with a maximum elevation of 1.3 metres above average grade - 43 - Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d We s t S i d e E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 36 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. & S . V a z Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 13 1 5 B r o a d v i e w S t r e e t CO N T A C T T H E C I T Y OF P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . Da t e : Ja n 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a f r o n t e n t r a n c e wi t h a ma x i m u m e l e v a t i o n o f 1 . 3 me t r e s ab o v e a v e r a g e g r a d e - 44 - Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d F r o n t El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 36 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. & S . V a z Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 13 1 5 B r o a d v i e w S t r e e t CO N T A C T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . Da t e : Ja n 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 - 45 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 40/22 Date: February 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 40/22 W. & P. Grant 521 Bella Vista Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 to permit: • a minimum front yard depth of 4.9 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres; and • a minimum side yard depth of 1.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard depth of 1.8 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to construct a new detached dwelling with garage. 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 do not 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 new detached dwelling with garage, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Natural Area” within the Rosebank Neighbourhood. The primary built form in this neighbourhood is detached dwellings on irregular large lots. The neighbourhood policies encourage, where possible, new development along Bella Vista Drive to be compatible with the character of existing development. The few adjacent houses in the immediate area are large, and have irregular lot shapes. - 46 - Report P/CA 40/22 February 9, 2022 Page 2 All existing houses including the adjacent houses to the west and east are setback beyond the minimum front yard requirement of 7.5 metres providing deep front yards. The applicant has proposed a west side yard setback greater than the minimum requirement, however, the east side yard setback has been reduced. This is of concern as the dwelling on the adjacent property has a west side yard setback less than the minimum requirement. This will provide inadequate buffer space and accessibility to the front and rear yards. The houses on the south side of Bella Vista Drive are generally situated closer to the rear lot line/Lake Ontario shoreline than to the front lot line/Bella Vista Drive. The requested variances would facilitate development that is not characteristic with the existing development along Bella Vista Drive. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law and 521 Bella Vista Drive is zoned “R4” – One Family Detached Dwelling - Residential Fourth Density, under Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by Zoning By-law 7610/18. A detached dwelling is permitted within the lands zoned R4. Front Yard Variance The intent of the front yard provision is to ensure a consistent streetscape, to provide an adequate space for soft landscaping, and to provide sufficient parking space in front of the dwelling. The proposed garage with the detached dwelling creates a minimum front yard depth of 4.9 metres measured at the northeast corner of the garage, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres. The rest of the detached dwelling is significantly setback beyond the minimum required 7.5 metre front yard up to approximately 18.0 metres measured at the northwest corner of the dwelling (refer to Exhibit 2). The reduced front yard relief from the By-law is to construct an attached three-car garage. The requested reduction in the minimum front yard requirement does not contribute to a streetscape consistent with the existing streetscape. Side Yard Variance The intent of the side yard provisions is to ensure adequate buffer space between structures, appropriate building separation and massing, sufficient space for an adequate landscaped area, access to yards and residential utility services, and to allow for maintenance. The requested reduction in the side yard requirement from 1.5 metres to 1.0 metre will have minimal impact on the property to the east as the existing dwelling to the east is significantly setback from Bella Vista Drive. However, a future new dwelling constructed on the property to the east in compliance with the Zoning By-law could be sited next to the proposed garage at 521 Bella Vista Drive. The requested reduction in the side yard would not provide an appropriate building separation and massing for the size of buildings permitted by the By-law. Engineering Services has commented that it would be difficult to accommodate a proposed drainage swale and retaining wall within the proposed reduced side yard. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The grade of the lot is relatively flat however it drops significantly at the rear lot line towards the Lake Ontario Shoreline. The property is within the TRCA regulated area and a permit will be required. The applicant has worked with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to address the siting of the dwelling, elevations of below grade openings and shoreline protection including the identification of the limits of development. - 47 - Report P/CA 40/22 February 9, 2022 Page 3 The applicant has proposed to set back their house approximately 20.0 metres from the rear yard lot line, which provides sufficient amenity space and buffer space for utility access. Detailed TRCA comments are contained later in this report. City staff are of the opinion that while the proposed dwelling is desirable for the appropriate development of the land, the variances requested create significant impacts for the streetscape and massing of future development, and are not considered minor. Input From Other Sources Engineering Services • Engineering Services does not support the reduced side yard depth of 1.04m. It would be difficult to fit a drainage swale and the proposed retaining wall with a 1.04m side yard setback. Engineering Services has proposed the idea of aligning the rear of the garage with the east side of the proposed house. With regards to the reduced front yard depth, ensure this does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area Building Services • No comments. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • TRCA staff have reviewed the requested variances and have no objections. The applicant will be required to obtain a TRCA permit for the proposed new dwelling. Date of report: February 3, 2022 Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:DW:jc \\Fs\Planning\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 40-22\7. Report\PCA 40-22 Report.Docx Attachments - 48 - Rodd Avenue D y s o n R o a d Ro s e b a n k R o a d B e l l a V i s t a D r i v e RosebankSouth Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 40/22 Date: Jan. 18, 2022 Exhibit 1 W. & P. Grant521 Bella Vista Drive SubjectLands Lake Ontario L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 40-22 W. & P. Grant\PCA40-22_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 - 49 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 40/22 Applicant: W. & P. Grant Municipal Address: 521 Bella Vista Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jan 20, 2022 Bella Vista Drive To permit a minimum front yard setback of 4.90 metres To permit a minimum east side yard setback of 1.04 metres Proposed Single Detached Dwelling - 50 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 40/22 Applicant: W. & P. Grant Municipal Address: 521 Bella Vista Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jan 20, 2022 To permit a minimum front yard setback of 4.90 metres To permit a minimum east side yard setback of 1.04 metres Proposed Single Detached Dwelling - 51 - Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d We s t ( Ri g h t S i d e ) El e v a t i o n Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 40 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : W . & P . G r a n t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 52 1 B e l l a V i s t a D r i v e CO N T A C T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . Da t e : Ja n . 2 0 20 2 1 - 52 - Ex h i b i t 5 Su b m i t t e d No r t h ( F r o n t ) El e v a t i o n Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 40 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : W . & P . G r a n t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 52 1 B e l l a V i s t a D r i v e CO N T A C T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . Da t e : Ja n . 3 1 20 2 1 - 53 - Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d So u t h ( R e a r ) El e v a t i o n Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 40 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : W . & P . G r a n t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 52 1 B e l l a V i s t a D r i v e CO N T A C T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . Da t e : Ja n . 3 1 20 2 1 - 54 - Ex h i b i t 7 Su b m i t t e d Ea s t ( S i d e ) El e v a t i o n Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 40 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : W . & P . G r a n t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 52 1 B e l l a V i s t a D r i v e CO N T A C T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . Da t e : Ja n . 3 1 20 2 1 - 55 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 41/22 Date: February 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning and Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 41/22 S. Savanyu & B. Pearen 1331 Gull Crossing Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-law 7528/16, to permit an uncovered deck to encroach 3.0 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered decks to encroach into any rear yard to a maximum of 2.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the construction of an uncovered platform (deck). 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 does not meet all 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 conditions are recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the uncovered platform (deck), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3); and 2. That the applicant obtains exemption to the City’s Fence By-law (6943/09) prior to the issuance of a building permit. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan Pickering’s Official Plan designates the property “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended for residential uses such as townhouse dwellings and uses accessory thereto. Does not Conform to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The MD-H12 zone of site specific By-law 7528/16 permits uncovered decks to encroach a maximum of 2.0 metres into a property’s rear yard. - 56 - Report P/CA 41/22 February 9, 2022 Page 2 The intent of this provision is to permit a platform to encroach into the rear yard when needed, while ensuring an adequate outdoor private amenity area is provided within the rear yard, appropriate setbacks are provided to protect the privacy of abutting owners, and to provide appropriate access for maintenance, lot grading and drainage. Though adequate outdoor private amenity area and access for maintenance, lot grading and drainage are maintained, the proposed variance would result in a deck that does not protect the privacy of abutting owners. The By-law provision considers elevated rear yard platforms and allows for a projection up to 2.0 metres to provide sufficient functional deck space, while limiting adverse impacts on the privacy of abutting land owners. The applicant proposes to mitigate privacy concerns by constructing a privacy screen along the sides of the deck. However, with the proposed deck already 3.26 metres above grade, the proposed privacy screen has a maximum height of 1.82 metres, resulting in a structure that is elevated 4.78 metres from grade to the top of the privacy screen. This would produce a negative visual impact when viewed from the rear yard of adjacent properties. Additionally, the proposed 4.78 metre height does not comply with the City’s Fence By-law (By-law 6943/09), which establishes a maximum height of 3.5 metres for privacy screens. Given the proposed 3.26 metre height of the deck, an effective privacy screen cannot be constructed to comply with the Fence By-law. Not Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Not Minor in Nature The applicant is seeking this variance in order to facilitate additional usable space on a deck projecting from the main floor of a townhouse dwelling. Access to the rear yard of the dwelling is through the basement. For this reason, they By-law permits a 2.0 metre encroachment into the rear yard to allow for platforms to have sufficient functional space. However, the elevated nature of this deck results in potential privacy concerns for abutting properties, and as such, a variance to encroach further into the established 2.0 metre allowance would exacerbate those concerns. Additionally, the proposed privacy screen does not comply with the City’s Fence By-law, and an exemption would result in a negative visual impact to the abutting properties. The proposed height of the deck in conjunction with a further encroachment of the deck towards the rear will result in adverse privacy and visual impacts on abutting neighbouring properties. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The applicant has submitted a Planning Rationale in support of this application, please contact fchau@pickering.ca for a copy of this report. Engineering Services • No comments received as of the date of the writing this report. Building Services • A building permit will be required that is to be reviewed in accordance to the Ontario Building Code. It is important to note, what is seen in a conceptual drawing may not be code compliant. The details of the construction will be reviewed by City staff at the time of permit submission. - 57 - Report P/CA 41/22 February 9, 2022 Page 3 Public Input • Owner of 1363 Gull Crossing: o The application for a deck encroaching 3 metres into the yard that will be over 3 metres in height will cause serious privacy issues for all adjacent townhouses and all townhouses backing onto the property. o The additional metre allows sightline access to more windows and patio doors rather than 2 metres. The impact is seeing directly into first and second floor windows for at least 5 adjacent townhomes. Date of report: February 2, 2022 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)\2022\PCA 41-22 S. Savanyu & B. Pearen\7. Report\PCA 41-22 Report.doc Attachments - 58 - Li v e r p o o l R o a d Gu l l C r o s s i n g Foxglove Avenue Monica Cook Place Ilona Park Road Commerce Street Luna Court He w s o n D r i v e Frenchman's BayRate PayersMemorial Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 41/22 Date: Jan. 18, 2022 Exhibit 1 S. Savanyu & B. Pearen1331 Gull Crossing SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 41-22 S. Savanyu & B. Pearen\PCA41-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:1,500 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 - 59 - Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d P l a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 41 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. S a v a n y u & B . P e a r e n Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 13 3 1 G u l l C r o s s in g CO N T A C T T H E C I T Y O F P I C K E R I N G C I T Y D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T F O R D I G I T A L C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N . Da t e : J a n u a r y 2 4 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t an u n c o v e r e d d e c k t o en c r o a c h 3 . 0 me t r e s i n t o t h e re q u i r e d r e a r y a r d - 60 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Elevation File No: P/CA 41/22 Applicant: S. Savanyu & B. Pearen Municipal Address: 1331 Gull Crossing CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jan 24, 2022 - 61 - Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 42/22 Date: February 9, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning and Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 42/22 V. Varghese 1576 Greenmount Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1975/85, to permit: • a covered platform and associated steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.6 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side yard; and • a maximum lot coverage of 39 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the reconstruction of a covered deck with 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 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 covered deck and steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood. Residential uses such as detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto are permitted within this designation. - 62 - Report P/CA 42/22 February 9, 2022 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the maximum projection of 1.5 metres is to maintain sufficient amenity space in the rear yard. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct a covered deck that is the same depth as the existing uncovered deck, and therefore maintains the same projection of 2.6 metres into the required rear yard. The intent of the maximum lot coverage of 38 percent is to ensure an appropriate amount of space is left uncovered by buildings on a lot to provide for landscaping and outdoor amenity areas. The existing dwelling accounts for 34 percent of the total coverage, the existing shed accounts for 1.2 percent of the coverage, and the proposed covered deck accounts for 3.8 percent of the coverage. The requested variances are intended to facilitate the construction of a covered deck that will contribute to the total amount of usable amenity space within the rear yard. There is also sufficient space to the north and west/east sides of the proposed deck for landscaping and amenity purposes. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed deck intends to enhance the outdoor amenity space in the rear yard, as it will provide a covered area for outdoor activities. The minimum required rear yard setback in the By-law is 7.5 metres and the existing dwelling is setback 7.97 metres from the rear lot line. As such, any proposed deck would require a variance to the maximum projection into the required rear yard. Staff consider an increase in the projection of a deck into the rear yard by 1.1 metres and an increase in the total lot coverage by 1 percent to be minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • Rear yard distance from building wall edge to property line is 7.97 metres. That’s they are not allowing. Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No concerns. Region of Durham • No comments. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. - 63 - Report P/CA 42/22 February 9, 2022 Page 3 Date of report: February 2, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP (Acting) Planner II Manager, Zoning and Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 42-22 V. Varghese\7. Report Attachments - 64 - M a j o r O a k s R o ad W i ldwoo d C r e s c e n t De n v a l e D r i v e Te rr a c o tt a C o u r t S o m e r g r o v e C r e s c e n t P e p p e r wo od G a t e Green m o u n t S t r e e t S t r at hmoreCrescent V a l l e y F a r m R o a d A n n a n W o o d s D r i v e Valley FarmRavine Valley FarmPublic School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 42/22 Date: Jan. 18, 2022 Exhibit 1 V. Varghese1576 Greenmount Street SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 42-22 V. Varghese\PCA42-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,000 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 - 65 - Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 42/22 Applicant: V. Varghese Municipal Address: 1576 Greenmount Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jan 21, 2022 to permit a covered platform and associated steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.6 metres into the required rear yard to permit a maximum lot coverage of 39 percent - 66 - Exhibit 3 Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 42/22 Applicant: V. Varghese Municipal Address: 1576 Greenmount Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jan 21, 2022 - 67 -