Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
July 13, 2022
Committee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Number: 6 Date: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 pickering.ca For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Secretary-Treasurer or Assistant, Secretary-Treasurer Telephone: 905.420.4617 Email: citydev@pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number 1. Disclosure of Interest 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from June 8, 2022 1-16 4. Report 4.1 P/CA 82/22 K. & D. Lebo 17-26 716 Simpson Avenue 4.2 P/CA 83/22 C. Weary 27-31 1703 Aberfoyle Court 4.3 P/CA 84/22 32-41 S. Saeed & A. Al-Mutairi 1470 Old Forest Road 4.4 P/CA 85/22 42-48 D. Leue 1447 Rougemount Drive 4.5 P/CA 86/22 & P/CA 87/22 49-63 S. Pathmanathan & H. Sathyendra 1485 Altona Road 4.6 P/CA 88/22 64-67 C. Pierre 1178 Tanzer Court 5. Adjournment Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 16 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 Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Kerry Yelk, Planner I Jasmine Correia, Clerk, Support Services 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the agenda for the Wednesday, June 8, 2022 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 4th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, May 11, 2022 be adopted. Carried Unanimously -1- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 16 4. Reports 4.1 (Tabled at the April 13, 2022 Hearing) P/CA 45/22 B. Atique 2030 Duberry Road Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 45/22 by B. Atique be lifted from the table. Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1976/85, to recognize a minimum interior side yard width of 0.1 metres one side (north), 0.6 metre other side (south), whereas the By-law permits a minimum interior side yard width of 1.2 metres one side, 0.6 metres other side. The requested variance is intended to recognize existing below grade stairs proposed to be covered. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend refusal. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and one area resident. Abhishek Rajgor, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Abhishek Rajgor explained that the variance is to permit a covered roof on top of the stairs, will not be an enclosed structure, it will be a roof held up by 6x6 posts so the owners will have protection from the snow. The roof will be aligned with the stairs and drainage will be contained to the property. The neighbour emailed City staff to state they have no objections with the application. In response to emergency services being able to have access from the side yard, the stairs are existing and currently complies with the By-law, the roof’s dimensions will not extend beyond the existing stairs. In response to questions from Committee Members, Abhishek Rajgor clarified he submitted a plan and elevations to the City for review showing the wood posts and that the roof would follow the stair profile. They are intending for the drainage to be directed to the east and west, away from the property line and the neighbour’s property. -2- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 16 The agent understands the drainage is not shown clearly on the site plans, however ensures drawings will be submitted for City’s review. The existing ground condition around the stairs is sod/grass, it was also explained that it slopes towards the rear yard. Abhishek Rajgor indicated the staircase may have been constructed five years ago. The length of the staircase is 4.09 metres/13 feet. After a site visit of the property the project looks workable, however based on the information provided to the Committee there is not enough evidence to support that the drainage is being adequately addressed, especially with how close this is to the property line. Although the neighbour has no objections to the application, they are concerned with the water flow. In addition to that, City Development acknowledges concerns with Emergency Services being able to access the rear yard. Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 45/22 by B. Atique, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Carried Unanimously 4.2 (Deferred at the May 11, 2022 Hearing) P/CA 70/22 S. & S. Ahmed 1632 Winville Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7022/10, to permit: • uncovered steps and a platform to be setback a minimum of 0.3 of a metre from an interior side lot line, whereas the By-law requires a covered or uncovered porch, veranda or balcony and with or without a foundation to be setback a minimum of 0.6 of a metre from an interior side lot line. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the construction of an above grade staircase leading to an entrance of an accessory dwelling unit. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. -3- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 16 Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Saif Ahmed, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Saif Ahmed stated on final inspection the City advised the stairs and landing were okay and that the City Development staff advised this variance is minor in nature. In response to questions from Committee Members, Saif Ahmed explained that maintenance is manageable as there is no grass or other shrubbery in the rear yard to maintain. It is fairly simple to pass a shovel or broom by that area in order to clean and does not need to access the neighbour’s property in order to maintain that area. Unsure whether the railings are required by the Building Code, but a City Inspector and Engineering Services approved those plans with the railing indicated on it. Explained when an inspector visited for a final inspection he noted the landing was not properly indicated on the plans, the side entrance was but not the staircase therefore a minor variance application would be required in order for it to comply with the zoning. Saif Ahmed confirmed an inspector and engineer were present for the final inspection of the entrance. Initially there was a platform and steps in order to pass through materials for the construction of the basement. His architect provided specs for the steps and was told if the steps were lowered a permit would not be required. Saif Ahmed confirmed a City Inspector informed him if the steps were below 23.0 metres he would no longer require a permit. Saif Ahmed did not check the zoning by-law because the Engineer, Tran BIEU and Associates, did not advise he would need to. After performing a site visit and viewing the staircase in question, considering the 0.3 metre setback is only for a portion of the side of the house, recognizing maintenance of that area seems to be manageable, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 70/22 by S. & S. Ahmed, 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 subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 8, 2022). Carried -4- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 16 Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson opposed Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley in favour 4.3 P/CA 105/21 & P/CA 106/21 8831467 Canada Limited 1421 Rougemount Drive P/CA 105/21 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • minimum north and south side yards of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.8 metres; and • a maximum dwelling depth of 22 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths greater than 40 metres shall be 20 metres. P/CA 106/21 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • minimum north and south side yards of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.8 metres; and • a maximum dwelling depth of 22 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths greater than 40 metres shall be 20 metres. -5- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 16 The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to sever the property resulting in a total of two lots and to construct two detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and 14 area residents. Muhammad Khan, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Muhammad Khan explained the intent of this severance aligns with the rest of Rougemount Drive north of Kingston Road. Most of the houses are 50 feet wide with 1.5 metre side yards. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Muhammad Khan explained he and his architect did research on the immediate neighbourhood and they found that all 24 newly built houses had 1.5 metre setback. In keeping with the neighbourhood he would like relief from this By-law in order to construct a 2-car garage and a home that has the same curb appeal to match the rest of the houses on that road. If they kept the 1.8 metre setback, the garage would overpower the home and would not fit in with the rest of the neighbourhood. Regarding water management, the required grading plan will be submitted. The proposed 1.5 metre side yards provide sufficient space to accommodate the grading, swale and proper drainage. After a site inspection of the street, reading the planning staff report, considering support letters from the neighbours, reading comments received by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority that involved conveyance of the access rear yard, considering that the application for land severance has already been considered by the Region and trusting the conditions that will be imposed on the severance will address a number of technical items that the Committee often hears about, these variances appear to be consistent with newer developments on Rougemount Drive, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That applications P/CA 105/21 & P/CA 106/21 by 8831467 Canada 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: -6- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 16 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed lots and detached dwellings, 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 June 8, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 76/22 M. Iqbal 1866 Fairport Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 & By law 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum (south) side yard of 1.4 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum side yard depth of 1.8 metres; (deleted by applicant at hearing) and • a maximum dwelling depth of 25.0 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum dwelling depth of 20.0 metres (variance and plans modified by the Committee of Adjustment at the hearing). 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 single detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City staff recommend approval of the requested variance to permit a maximum dwelling depth of 25.0 metres subject to a conditions, and refuse the requested variance to permit a minimum (south) side yard of 1.4 metres. Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and one area resident. Joanne Ying, agent, and Muhammad Iqbal, applicant, were present to represent the application. Ralph Allison was present in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee member, Joanne Ying stated after speaking with the neighbour to the south the drawings will be revised to comply with the required minimum 1.8 metre south side yard setback. -7- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 16 Ralph Allison, owner of 1856 Fairport Road, south of the subject property, is in objection to the application. The following reasons were given: the City of Pickering allows for a depth of 20.0 metres, allowing a variance permitting a building depth of 25.0 metres is not minor as the total depth of the house would be 16.5 feet and that does not include the covered porch on the back; he is worried this home will overshadow around 50 feet of his backyard which will cause an issue to his wife’s garden and will be unappealing when trying to enjoy their backyard; worried construction of this house will cause damage to his plants along the lot line; by-laws are made for a reason and should be adhered to, not broken; and concerned construction material will encroach onto his property to facilitate the making of this home. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Ralph Allison confirmed the north side of the property between his property and the subject address is fenced. In response to questions from Committee Members, Joanne Ying stated a Shadow Study has not been completed but can provide one. The dwelling GFA will be 276 square metres (3,000 feet) for the ground floor and second floor. The height to the mid line of the roof is 8.9 metres, which complies with the Zoning By-law. Joanne Ying confirmed there are two doors located on the south side wall, one that leads into the mud room and the other leads into the study/library. The windows can be replaced if the proposed door placement is a concern. The reason why they are requesting the 25.0 metre building depth variance is to accommodate a growing family. The Secretary-Treasurer, clarified within By-law 7874/21 the maximum building depth is measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of the dwelling. Joanne Ying, confirmed the width of the home is 78 feet by 40 feet, approximately 3,000 square feet per floor. Confirmed the measurement of 25 metres on the plan is including the covered porch, the main wall measurement is 23.62 metres. Mohammed Iqbal, the applicant, stated the home will accommodate him, his wife and their four children. They are looking for a 5 bedroom home and most dwellings in the area are 4 bedroom houses so he decided to build his own home. This is approximately a 5,500 square foot house, which is normal in that area. The covered deck goes up to the swimming pool. There are many trees along the south lot line and feels the extra depth will not impact any visibility issues. In response to questions from Committee Members, Joanne Ying clarified the south wall depth, excluding the covered porch is 21.62 metres. The shed set to be demolished in the rear yard is 5.7 metres in length. It is a one-storey shed with a peaked roof. -8- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 16 Given the depth and size of the property, a proposed extra building depth of 1.6 metres on the south side does not seem excessive. Also given the concerns of the neighbour to the south, and the potential for some shadowing impact, a modification is proposed to address these concerns. The proposed modification is intended to permit a maximum dwelling depth of 23.62 metres on the north side (as shown on the submitted site plan and measured from the proposed front yard setback of 12 metres to the main rear wall excluding the proposed front porch) while limiting the maximum dwelling depth on the south side to a maximum of 21.6 metres (measured from the proposed front yard setback of 12 metres to the main rear wall). The proposed rear covered porch is not permitted beyond maximum permitted dwelling depth on the south side. Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 76/22 by M. Iqbal, 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 conditions: 1. That the submitted plans be revised to show a minimum (south) side yard of 1.8 metres. 2. That a maximum dwelling depth of 23.62 metres on the north side (measured from the proposed front yard setback of 12 metres to the main rear wall excluding the proposed front porch) is permitted. A maximum dwelling depth of 21.6 metres on the south side (measured from the proposed front yard setback of 12 metres to the main rear wall) is permitted. 3. That the proposed rear covered porch is not permitted beyond the maximum dwelling depth of 21.6 metres on the south side. 4. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner shall agree to perform grading works up to the lot line to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. 5. That this variance applies only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 as amended). Carried Unanimously -9- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 16 4.5 P/CA 77/22 N. Ajdarevic 1815 Spruce Hill Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and Amanda Lazardis. Michael Perger, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from Committee Members, Michael Perger stated the dwelling will be 6,500 square feet. Explained the garage is a little wider than the existing driveway due to it being a three car garage. The allowable coverage is 33 percent, the dwelling would only be over 3 percent, a lot of the coverage is being used for the veranda at the rear of the home. The veranda is included in the final lot coverage which is why the variance is being requested. After listening to the Applicant’s responses to Committee Member’s questions, understanding how large the family is and that that home alone is a 36 percent coverage, having the rear covered porch utilizing most of the allowed coverage Tom Copland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 77/22 by N. Ajdarevic, 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 detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 8, 2022). -10- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 16 Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle opposed Sean Wiley in favour 4.6 P/CA 78/22 H. Sanghera 402 Woodsmere Crescent The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4508/94, to permit: • a minimum rear yard depth of 4.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; and • a maximum lot coverage of 49 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a patio covering. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and seven area residents. Harprit Sanghera, applicant and Praful Bharadia, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Harprit Sanghera has lived in the home since 2019. Since COVID him and his wife have been looking forward to appreciating their home more and are looking to facilitate this covered porch to replace the current freestanding gazebo. Under the current by-law, the required minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres is not practical nor would allow for much option for a covered patio to be protected from the weather. With regards to the second variance, the current build of the home has a lot coverage of 37 percent, this would not allow us to build anything outside of the home without a variance. Seven immediate neighbours provided letters of support for the plans within his property. -11- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 16 In response to questions from a Committee Member, Harprit Sanghera explained there are no plans to enclose the patio and would agree to a second condition to ensure the patio would not be enclosed. Confirmed the neighbour on the side is aware of the variance application and has not received any objections from his neighbour on the corner but no written support was received. After reading the documentation from the City Development Department, listening to the applicant’s reasons for the variances and the plans, as well as the City’s recommendation for approval of the application Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 78/22 by H. Sanghera, 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 conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 8, 2022). 2. That the patio or any part thereof not be enclosed. Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 79/22 J. Charles 846 Zator Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520 to recognize a minimum (north) side yard of 0.2 of a metre, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to recognize an existing covered deck projecting into the required (north) side yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant and City’s Engineering Services. -12- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 16 Jacqueline Charles, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Jacqueline Charles explained the neighbour to the north has no objections and is in full support of the application. To the best of her knowledge the deck was built in the 1970s. A survey she received dated in the 1980s shows the structure. Given that this application is a byproduct of interior alteration work and noting the deck structure was constructed 40 years ago, recognizing the applicant wishing to continue enjoying the deck and that there are no public input or written submissions, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 79/22 by J. Charles, 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 subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 8, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 80/22 C. Warren 618 Springview Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 1837/84 & 1964/85, to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 5.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a one-storey addition to an existing detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant and City’s Engineering Services. -13- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 16 Carolyn Warren, applicant, and Daniele Orsini, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Daniele Orsini, agent, is requesting this variance in order to accommodate a rear yard addition of 14.21 square metres. A Committee member reminded the agent that the applicant will need to ensure Engineering Services is satisfied when it comes to increased lot coverage and reduced setbacks to ensure drainage patterns are not affected. Given 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 Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 80/22 by C. Warren, 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 detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 8, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.9 P/CA 81/22 SBB Industrial (Seaton) GP Inc. Northwest corner of Highway 407 and Sideline 24 (Block 11 within Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-03) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit: • parking between a building and the front lot line, whereas the By-law states that in no case shall parking be permitted between a building and the front lot line; • a primary entrance door to be incorporated into the side yard wall of the building, whereas the By-law states that a primary entrance door shall be incorporated into the front wall of the building facing the front lot line; and • a maximum front yard of 46.1 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum front yard of 5.0 metres. -14- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 16 The applicant requests approval of these variances to obtain Site Plan Approval and to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of an industrial building. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Carmine Caravaggio, agent, and Paula Bustard were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Carmine Caravaggio, agent, to facilitate the development of and industrial building in the Seaton lands. The proposed building will serve as their tenant’s headquarters. They intend to provide a high class building with an attractive streetscape on all frontages. They’ve been working with the City to determine the front yard and the application is a byproduct of a unique lot configuration. The staff report has been read and there are no concerns. In response to a question from a Committee member, Carmine Caravaggio and Paula Bustard stated the building will act as corporate headquarters for their tenant. It will contain an office and warehouse component and will be their Canadian head office. They will be relocating the front yard to the side yard, so it will look like the front entrance of a typical warehouse building. Corner features will be extenuated where the offices will be located, as well as extra glazing and paneling to help differentiate and highlight those corners as well as different material will be used to make the building look more aesthetically pleasing. They are currently working with the City for partial registration of the Block. The original draft plan and registration was completed through Infrastructure Ontario (IO) and the applicant is purchasing land from IO which will close later this month. The applicant is working with the City to clear the conditions, and to build and construct Street A which will create this lot. It is hoped that the plan will be registered and the road constructed in the next couple of months. Sean Wiley recused himself and abstained from voting on the application once he became aware of the Purchasing Agreement with IO. To avoid a tie vote, David Johnson, Chair, stated he too will abstain from voting on the application. Having read the report and understanding how these variances came to be due to the lot configuration. Given that there were no issues raised by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Transportation and the public, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: -15- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 16 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 81/22 by SBB Industrial (Seaton) GP Inc., be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed industrial building, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 3, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 8, 2022). Carried 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the 5th hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:54 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, July 13, 2022. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer -16- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 82/22 Date: July 13, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 82/22 K. & D. Lebo 716 Simpson Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 4139/92, to permit: •a minimum front yard depth of 5.5 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a dwelling unit fronting the same street exists on each lot on either side, the minimum front yard depth shall be the average of the front yard depths of each of those dwellings; •a maximum building height of 9.0 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 7.5 metres; •a covered platform and associated covered and uncovered steps (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.0 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard; and •a roof soffit and eavestrough not projecting more than 1.3 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law states that no person shall obstruct in any manner whatsoever any front yard, side yard or rear yard required to be provided by this By-law, but this provision shall not apply to main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 metres into the required yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of an addition to an existing detached dwelling. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances. -17- Report P/CA 82/22 July 13, 2022 Page 2 After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed addition to the existing detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Area within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within this designation and a common built form within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. The subject property is not located within one of the established Neighbourhood Precincts in which the Urban Design Guidelines for the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study applies. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law Variances related to the front yard depth and encroachment into the front yard for a porch and roof soffit/eavestrough The average front yard depth of the abutting dwellings is 5.94 metres, whereas the proposed dwelling has a minimum front yard depth of approximately 5.58 metres. The intent of this provision is to maintain a consistent setback with abutting properties to mitigate views and privacy concerns, and to provide an adequate landscaped area and parking space in the front yard. The applicant has indicated that the dwelling has been pushed closer to the front lot line in order to maintain a sufficient setback from Lake Ontario to the west. As a result, the front porch and roof soffit/eavastrough are projecting further into the required front yard. As shown on Exhibit 2, the majority of the dwelling is setback 7.16 metres from the front lot line. However, an articulation in the wall of the dwelling creates a setback of 5.58 metres along a portion of the dwelling. The abutting dwellings to the north and south are setback 8.71 and 3.17 metres, respectively. As shown on Exhibit 2, the siting of the proposed dwelling is generally in line with the abutting dwellings, providing an appropriate transition between the two adjacent buildings. There is sufficient space in the front yard for landscaping and for a driveway that can accommodate at least two vehicles. Variance to the Maximum Building Height The intent of the maximum building height requirement is to minimize the visual impact of new buildings on the existing streetscape and to ensure new development is compatible with the established built form within the surrounding residential neighbourhood. -18- Report P/CA 82/22 July 13, 2022 Page 3 As shown on Exhibit 3, the dwelling has a height of 8.73 metres, however a variance is being requested to permit a maximum building height of 9.0 metres. The applicant has indicated that they are requesting a building height of 9.0 metres as they are still determining the exact grading of the lot based on the building elevations required by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. As such, the applicant would like to leave themselves with flexibility by requesting to permit a maximum building height of 9.0 metres. There are a total of eight lots with detached dwellings along Simpson Avenue. The abutting dwelling to the north (720 Simpson Avenue), as well as 2 dwellings to the southeast (717 and 715 Simpson Avenue), are 1 and 2-storey dwellings that comply with the maximum building height of 7.5 metres. The abutting dwelling to the south (714 Simpson Avenue) received approval from the Committee of Adjustment in 2016 (file P/CA 23/16) to permit a maximum building height of 9.5 metres. Similarly, 3 dwellings to the northeast (719, 721 and 723 Simpson Avenue) received approval from the Committee of Adjustment in 2007 (files P/CA 58/07 to P/CA 60/07) to permit maximum building heights of 8.5 metres. The proposed building height is compatible with the built form of a number of dwellings along Simpson Avenue. In addition, the applicant is proposing a sloped roof, which is similar/compatible with the majority of roof pitches along the street. The proposed building height is taller than the existing dwelling to the north (720 Simpson Avenue). However, in order to minimize the impact on the dwelling to the north, the applicant is maintaining a minimum north side yard of 5.16 metres, which is significantly larger than the 0.6 metre side yard requirement in the By-law. In addition, only one window is proposed along the north side wall of the dwelling (refer to Exhibit 5), which will help mitigate views and privacy concerns. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The siting of the dwelling is desirable as it maintains a sufficient setback from Lake Ontario to the west. The proposed dwelling is consistent with the established built form along Simpson Avenue, which consists of detached dwellings ranging between one and two-storeys. Taking into account the design of the dwelling and the surrounding built form, staff consider the requested variances to be minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The front yard setback reduction and soffit encroachment variances are requested in order to maintain an acceptable rear setback to the provincially significant wetland and environmental features. The majority of the front elevation is set back over 7 m, which exceeds the current minimum. • The covered porch encroachment is permitted to allow a covered area for the homeowners access and is in keeping with current City policies and initiatives. • The building height variance is required in order to maintain the required building elevation levels for openings and finished space, set by TRCA staff during initial discussions. The requested height of 9 m is in keeping with current City policies and current by-laws. -19- Report P/CA 82/22 July 13, 2022 Page 4 Applicant (cont.) • The uncovered stair encroachment is required due to the exterior stairs needed to get from the TRCA- required finished floor elevation down to the proposed grade. Engineering Services • Ensure the reduced front yard setback does not adversely affect the existing drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Building Services • Building Services do not have any concerns. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • For any new development, the TRCA’s Living City Policies (2014) require a 10 metre and 6 metre setback from the furthest inland feature for any new habitable development and non-habitable ancillary development, respectively. For this site, the furthest inland feature is the flood hazard associated with the Lake Ontario high lake level. • In order to confirm the limits of the flood hazard, TRCA staff previously requested that a coastal hazard assessment be provided for our review. We also requested that an Environmental Impact Study be submitted which would address any concerns pertaining to the proximity of the Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) in relation to the proposed development. Both documents have been reviewed by our staff in coordination with our internal data related to the recorded high lake levels. Based on our review of all available data/information, TRCA staff will require the proposed addition and existing dwelling be floodproofed to an elevation of 76.5masl. This elevation incorporates the recorded high lake level, 0.3m freeboard as required by TRCA Engineering staff, and the applicable wave uprush associated with the shoreline. To date, TRCA staff have not received a site plan or building elevations which reflect this request, however we will continue to work with the applicant to ensure the dwelling will be adequately floodproofed, provide adequate setbacks from the PSW, and meet all engineering requirements related to the flood hazard through our Concept Development Application process and eventually our permitting process. -20- Report P/CA 82/22 July 13, 2022 Page 5 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) (cont.) • We would also like to note that Ground Floor Plan originally circulated to the TRCA on June 21, 2022 by the City in response to this minor variance application (see Appendix 1), shows a set of stairs which may be leading to a below grade level of the proposed addition/dwelling. It should be noted that TRCA policies do not support a basement for this dwelling as there is not one currently existing. • In conclusion, TRCA staff are of the opinion that the variances being applied for do not impact what we are trying to achieve with respect to the flood hazard and wetland conservation for this development. As such, we can support the proposed variances in principle and the applicant should continue to work with the TRCA to address our concerns. • An Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit will be required for the proposed works at 716 Simpson Avenue. We are currently working with the applicant through our Concept Development Application process to address our concerns related to the floodplain and proximity to the provincially significant wetland. • TRCA staff have no objections to the approval of Minor Variance Application No. P/CA 82/22. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: July 7, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 82-22 K. & D. Lebo\7. Report Attachments -21- Do u g l a s A v e n u e Browning Avenue Fa i r v i e w A v e n u e Haller Avenue Front Ro a d Commerce Street Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 82/22 Date: Jun. 16, 2022 Exhibit 1 K. & D. Lebo 716 Simpson Avenue SubjectLands Frenchman's Bay L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 82-22 K. & D. Lebo\PCA82-22_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 Development Department -22- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 82/22 Applicant: K. & D. Lebo Municipal Address: 716 Simpson Avenue FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: June 21, 2022 to permit a maximum building height of 9.0 metres to permit a minimum front yard depth of 5.5 metres to permit a covered platform and associated covered and uncovered steps (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.0 metres into the required front yard to permit a roof soffit and eveastrough not projecting more than 1.3 metres into the required front yard -23- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d Fr o n t E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 82 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. & D . L e b o Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 71 6 S i m p s o n Av e n u e FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A 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 . Da t e : Ju n e 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a m a x i m u m bu i l d i n g h e i g h t o f 9. 0 me t r e s to p e r m i t a co v e r e d pl a t f o r m a n d as s o c i a t e d c o v e r e d a n d u n c o v e r e d st e p s ( f r o n t p o r c h ) n o t e x c e e d i n g 1. 0 m e t r e in h e i g h t a b o v e g r a d e a n d no t p r o j e c t i n g m o r e t h a n 3. 0 me t r e s in t o t h e re q u i r e d f r o n t y a r d to p e r m i t a r o o f s o f f i t a n d ea v e s t r o u g h no t p r o j e c t i n g m o r e t h a n 1 . 3 m e t r e s in t o t h e r e q u i r e d f r o n t y a r d -24- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d So u t h S i d e E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 82 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. & D . L e b o Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 71 6 S i m p s o n A v e n u e Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A 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 . Da t e : Ju n e 2 3, 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a r o o f s o f f i t a n d ea v e st r o u g h no t p r o j e c t i n g m o r e t h a n 1 . 3 m e t r e s in t o t h e r e q u i r e d f r o n t y a r d to p e r m i t a co v e r e d pl a t f o r m a n d as s o c i a t e d c o v e r e d a n d u n c o v e r e d st e p s ( f r o n t p o r c h ) n o t e x c e e d i n g 1. 0 m e t r e in h e i g h t a b o v e g r a d e a n d no t p r o j e c t i n g m o r e t h a n 3. 0 me t r e s in t o t h e re q u i r e d f r o n t y a r d -25- Ex h i b i t 5 Su b m i t t e d No r t h Si d e E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 82 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : K. & D . L e b o Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 71 6 S i m p s o n A v e n u e Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A 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 . Da t e : Ju n e 2 3, 2 0 2 2 -26- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 83/22 Date: July 13, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning and Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 83/22 C. Weary 1703 Aberfoyle Court Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1837/84 and By-law 1964/85 to permit uncovered steps and platform not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.1 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres in any required front or rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this application in order to recognize an existing uncovered deck with steps. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considers the requested variance to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the existing uncovered deck with steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 1 & 2). Background Through the review of a building permit application submitted by the owner in support of exterior alterations for an above ground pool with deck, City staff identified that the existing rear deck attached to the main dwelling did not comply with the maximum rear yard encroachment requirement of the Zoning By-law. The requested variance is intended to recognize an existing deck, and will enable the applicant to proceed with the processing of the submitted building permit application. At the time of application submission, the applicant was unable to provide elevation drawings of the existing deck. -27- Report P/CA 83/22 July 13, 2022 Page 2 Comments Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area” within the Amberlea Neighbourhood. Single detached dwellings are a permitted use within this designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law 1703 Aberfoyle Court is zoned “S2” – under Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by Zoning By-law 1837/84 & Zoning By-law 1964/85. A detached dwelling is permitted within the lands zoned “S2”. Uncovered Deck with Associated Steps Variance The intent of the provision that requires uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard is to ensure an adequate buffer space between buildings and to ensure an adequate landscaped area within the rear yard is provided. Furthermore, the intent of the provision is to ensure privacy for surrounding neighbours is not compromised. The 2.1 metre projection into the required rear yard leaves approximately 5.5 metres of landscaped area between the edge of the deck and the rear property line. The setback maintains an appropriate landscaped area in the rear yard. The requested encroachment into the rear yard setback requirement from 1.5 metres to 2.1 metres does not compromise the function of the rear yard and has been an existing situation for over 10 years. The existing deck does not alter the massing or design of the dwelling and maintains the character of the built form on Aberfoyle Court, which consists namely of detached and semi-detached dwellings with rear yard decks and patios. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The variance is to recognize an existing rear yard deck, which contributes towards the total usable amenity space of the single detached dwelling. The existing covered deck appears to have existed on the subject lands for over 10 years. Staff are of the opinion that the existing uncovered deck with steps is desirable for the appropriate development of the land and the requested variance is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant •Existing deck in rear yard is 0.51 m too close to the rear property line. Engineering Services •No comments. Building Services •No concerns regarding this application. Public Input •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. -28- Report P/CA 83/22 July 13, 2022 Page 3 Date of report: July 6, 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 83-22 C. Weary\7. Report Attachments -29- St u r g e o n C o u r t S augeen Drive Boy n e C o u r t Highview Road Ab e r f o y l e C o u r t Mo n t c l a i r L a n e Wo o d s i d e L a n e Ki r k w o o d L a n e Greenvale Crescent Springview Drive Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 83/22 Date: Jun. 16, 2022 Exhibit 1 C. Weary 1703 Aberfoyle Court SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 83-22 C. Weary\PCA83-22_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 Development Department -30- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 83/22 Applicant: C. Weary Municipal Address: 1703 Aberfoyle Court CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: June 28/22 1.70m 4.37m 5.48m 5.33m Existing Dwelling Drawing not to scale 1701 Aberfoyle Court 1705 Aberfoyle Court -31- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 84/22 Date: July 13, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 84/22 S. Saeed & Adel Al-Mutairi 1470 Old Forest Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to permit the extension of a legal non-conforming residential building. The applicant requests under Section 45(2)(a) Other Powers of the Planning Act, that the legally non-conforming building be permitted to be enlarged or extended in order to obtain a Building Permit for the construction of second storey addition. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45.2(a) Other Powers of the Committee of Adjustment of the Planning Act and considers the extension of the legal non-conforming building to permit the construction of second storey addition to be appropriate for the development of the land, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed extension of the legal non-conforming building. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the subject property as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7). Background Section 45(2)(a) of the Planning Act states that the Committee of Adjustment may permit the enlargement or extension of a legal non-conforming building or structure, provided the use continued until the date of an application to the Committee. To permit the construction of an alteration to the legal non-conforming residential building, the required variance only relates to the building. -32- Report P/CA 84/22 July 13, 2022 Page 2 Legal Non-Conforming Building/Structure: Assessment records state the existing residential building was built in 1942. On August 3, 1965, Zoning By-law 3036 was passed by Council, which zoned the subject property and other properties within this area to R4 – Single Family Detached, Fourth Density Residential Zone. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence to the City that supports that the residential building predates the passing of By-law 3036. As such, the residential building is considered to be legal non-conforming. An application under section 45(2)(a) of the Planning Act is not subject to the four tests required for a minor variance under section 45(1). Rather, such applications are evaluated on the basis of whether 1) the application is desirable for appropriate development of the subject property, and 2) the application will result in undue adverse impacts on the surrounding properties and neighbourhood. Comment Appropriate for the Development of the Property and Adverse Impacts The Committee of Adjustment is permitted by the Planning Act to grant permission for the continuation of legal non-conforming buildings and structures and consideration is to be given to matters such as appropriate development of the property and adverse impacts on surrounding properties and neighbourhood. The proposed second storey addition is permitted on the subject property, however, the existing building does not comply with the zoning provisions set out in Zoning By-law 3036. The existing dwelling is setback 5.99 metres from the front lot line, whereas the By-law requires a 7.5 metre setback. The intent of the front yard setback is to provide an adequate separation distance between the building and the street activity in the front yard, and to maintain a consistent lotting pattern with abutting properties to mitigate views and privacy concerns. The existing structure has existed for many years with no adverse impact on the surrounding area and neighbourhood and maintains the character of the neighbourhood. The proposed design of the second storey addition will not negatively impact the surrounding buildings, maintains the character of the neighbourhood and is considered appropriate development of the property. Input From Other Sources Applicant • Our existing house footprint is small (51.97 square metres), by providing a 7.5m setback to the proposed 2nd storey addition, the proposed 2nd storey will be even smaller than the ground floor area, it will be having one bedroom only, we really need a 2nd bedroom for our daughter. Engineering Services • No comments. -33- Report P/CA 84/22 July 13, 2022 Page 3 Building Services • No concerns regarding this application. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: July 7, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:jc \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 84-22 S. Saeed & Adel Al-Mutairi\7.Report Attachments -34- O l d F o r e s t R o a d High b u s h T r a il South Petticoat Ravine Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 84/22 Date: Jun. 15, 2022 Exhibit 1 S. Saeed & A. Al-Mutairi 1470 Old Forest Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 84-22 S. Saeed & A. Al-Mutairi\PCA84-22_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 Development Department -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 84 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. S a e e d & A d e l A l -Mu t a i r i Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 7 0 O l d F o r e s t R o a d 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 of t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 -36- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n (D e t a i l e d ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 84 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. S a e e d & A d e l A l -Mu t a i r i Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 7 0 O l d F o r e s t R o a d 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 : Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 to per m i t t h e e n l a r g e m e n t o r e x t e n s i o n of t h e l e g a l l y n o n -co n f o r m i n g b u i l d i n g ha v i n g a m i n i m u m f r o n t y a r d s e t b a c k o f 5. 9 m e t r e s -37- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d Ea s t E l e v a t i o n ( F r o n t ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 84 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. S a e e d & A d e l A l -Mu t a i r i Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 7 0 O l d F o r e s t R o a d 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 Di g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 -38- Ex h i b i t 5 Su b m i t t e d No r t h E l e v a t i o n ( Si d e ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 84 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. S a e e d & A d e l A l -Mu t a i r i Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 7 0 O l d F o r e s t R o a d 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 : Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 -39- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d S o u t h El e v a t i o n ( Si d e ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 84 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. S a e e d & A d e l A l -Mu t a i r i Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 7 0 O l d F o r e s t R o a d 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 : Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 -40- Ex h i b i t 7 Su b m i t t e d We s t El e v a t i o n ( Re a r ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 84 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. S a e e d & A d e l A l -Mu t a i r i Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 7 0 O l d F o r e s t R o a d 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 Di g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 -41- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 85/22 Date: July 13, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 85/22 D. Leue 1447 Rougemount Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit an uncovered platform and associated steps not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.2 metres into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered deck located along the south and east walls of the dwelling. The purpose of the deck is to provide pedestrian access from the front yard to the rear yard. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considers the requested variance to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck located along the south and east walls of the dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Comment Background In March 2021, the Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Application P/CA 14/21 for the subject property permitting variances to facilitate the issuance of a building permit to allow the construction of the existing detached dwelling. -42- Report P/CA 85/22 July 13, 2022 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. Residential uses such as detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto are permitted within this designation. The rear of the subject property is designated Open Space Systems – Natural Area. The By-law permits steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 0.5 metres in any required side yard. The intent of this provision is to provide the opportunity for any stairs and/or platform to encroach into the yard when needed, to provide an appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties in order to maintain pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services. Due to the significant drop in grade between the front wall of the dwelling and the rear wall, some form of structure is required to enable safe pedestrian access to the rear yard. While a neighbouring dwelling to the south (1441 Rougemount Drive) has provided stairs along their north side yard to provide access, the applicant is alternatively proposing to provide a raised deck. The purpose of the raised deck is to accommodate grading/drainage works under the deck (refer to Exhibit 3). The deck will allow pedestrian access to the rear yard and to the garage door located along the rear wall. Other than the garage door at the rear, no other entrances to the dwelling will be accessible from the deck. The deck runs along the south and east walls of the dwelling, where the garage is located (refer to Exhibit 2). There is no habitable space in the garage, which mitigates concerns that the deck may be used for amenity space. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed deck is necessary due to the drop in grade between the front of the property and the rear, and will provide a safe pathway for pedestrian movement. The proposed deck is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on drainage, as the applicant will be providing grading/drainage works under the deck. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The owner requires access to garage rear door and back yard from the driveway. Due to existing grade and drainage required by the TRCA and without compromising the 0.6 metre buffer zone on south property line, a raised wood deck is required. Engineering Services • Ensure the reduced side yard setback does not adversely affect the existing drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Building Services • Building Services do not have any concerns. -43- Report P/CA 85/22 July 13, 2022 Page 3 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • An Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application was received by TRCA staff on March 14, 2021. The drawings circulated to TRCA as part of this minor variance application are consistent with the plans received with the TRCA permit revision application. • TRCA staff have no objections to the approval of Minor Variance Application No. P/CA 85/22. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: July 6, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 85-22 D. Leue\7. Report Attachments -44- Fi d d l e r s C o u r t Tomlinson Court O l d F o r e s t R o a d Sheppard Avenue H i g h b u s h T r a il Ro u g e m o u n t D r i v e South Petticoat Ravine South Petticoat Ravine South Petticoat Ravine Elizabeth B. Phin Public School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 85/22 Date: Jun. 15, 2022 Exhibit 1 D. Leue 1447 Rougemount Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 85-22 D. Leue\PCA85-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:3,500 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 Development Department -45- 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 85 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : D. L e u e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 4 7 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A 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 . Da t e : Ju n e 2 3 , 2 0 2 2 Dw e l l i n g Pr o p o s e d D e c k an d S t a i r s to p e r m i t a n u n c o v e r e d pl a t f o r m a n d a s s o c i a t e d st e p s n o t e x c e e d i n g 1. 6 me t r e s i n h e i g h t ab o v e g r a d e a n d n o t pr o j e c t i n g m o r e t h a n 1. 2 me t r e s i n t o t h e re q u i r e d s o u t h s i d e y a r d -46- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d So u t h S i d e E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 85 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : D. L e u e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 4 7 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A 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 . Da t e : Ju n e 2 3 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a n u n c o v e r e d p l a t f o r m a n d as s o c i a t e d s t e p s n o t e x c e e d i n g 1 . 6 me t r e s in h e i g h t a b o v e g r a d e a n d n o t p r o j e c t i n g mo r e t h a n 1 . 2 me t r e s i n t o t h e r e q u i r e d so u t h s i d e y a r d -47- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d Re a r El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 85 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : D. L e u e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 4 7 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S O F T H I S P L A N A R E A V A I L A B L E F O R V I E W I N G A 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 . Da t e : Ju n e 2 3 , 2 0 2 2 1. 5 2 m to p e r m i t a n u n c o v e r e d p l a t f o r m a n d as s o c i a t e d s t e p s n o t e x c e e d i n g 1. 6 me t r e s i n h e i g h t a b o v e g r a d e a n d no t p r o j e c t i n g m o r e t h a n 1 . 2 me t r e s in t o t h e r e q u i r e d s o u t h s i d e y a r d -48- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 86/22 & P/CA 87/22 Date: July 13, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications P/CA 86/22 & P/CA 87/22 S. Pathmanathan & H. Sathyendra 1485 Altona Road (Parts 1 & 2) Applications P/CA 86/22 – 1485 Altona Road, Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum north side yard setback of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a minimum south side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a maximum dwelling height of 9.8 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum building height of 9.0 metres; P/CA 87/22 – 1485 Altona Road, Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a minimum south side yard setback of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a maximum dwelling depth of 27.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum dwelling depth of 20.0 metres for lots with depths greater than 40.0 metres; -49- Report P/CA 86/22 & P/CA 87/22 July 13, 2022 Page 2 • a maximum dwelling height of 10.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum building height of 9.0 metres; • a maximum front entrance elevation of 1.35 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum front entrance elevation of 1.2 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate a consent application conditionally approved by the Durham Region Land Division Committee to sever the property resulting in a total of two lots and to facilitate the submission of building permit applications to permit two detached dwellings. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the applications with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed lots and detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, & 8). Background Land Division Application LD 083/2021 was conditionally approved by the Durham Region Land Division Committee to permit a severance of the subject property, resulting in a total of 2 lots with lot frontages of 15.24 metres. As a condition of approval, the applicant must ensure any zoning non-compliances resulting from the proposed severances be brought into compliance through applications for minor variances. Infill & Replacement Housing By-laws On September 27, 2021, City Council enacted By-law 7874/21 (the Infill By-law) to amend Zoning By-law 3036, to rezone all lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts to an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” category. The amending Infill By-law introduces new provisions for yard setbacks, building height, lot coverage and other zoning standards to ensure new built form is compatible with existing built form. Following adoption by Council, the City received appeals to the Infill By law. On January 24, 2022, City Council adopted By-law 7902/22, to reinstate a maximum building height of 9.0 metres for all lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The City also received appeals to this By-law. -50- Report P/CA 86/22 & P/CA 87/22 July 13, 2022 Page 3 The Infill By-laws established a set of zoning provisions to help maintain the existing character of the surrounding neighbourhood. After reviewing the following minor variance applications, variances to the maximum building height provisions (Parts 1 & 2), and to the front entrance elevation (Part 2) were identified, and the applicant has requested these identified variances to the Infill By-law. However, please note that due to the ongoing appeals, the Infill By laws are not currently in force. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. The applicant is proposing to construct two detached dwellings on each lot. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within this designation and a built form within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposed dwellings using the Council-adopted 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 General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law 1485 Altona Road is zoned “R3” – One Family Detached Dwelling – Residential Third Density, under Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by Zoning By-laws 7874/21 & 7902/22. A detached dwelling is permitted within the lands zoned “R3”. Lot Frontage Variances (Parts 1 and 2) The intent of the minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres is to ensure a useable lot size that is compatible with the neighbourhood. The existing lot frontages for abutting and surrounding lots vary in size, ranging between 15.0 and 34.0 metres. The existing lot to the north of the subject property is larger in size, having a lot frontage of 35.0 metres. The size of the subject property is in keeping with the varied lotting pattern established along Altona Road to the south, ranging from 15.0 to 30.0 metre frontages. The proposed lot frontages allow for the construction of detached dwellings that are appropriate relative to the size of the lots. Side Yard Variances (Parts 1 and 2) The intent of a minimum side yard requirement of 1.8 metres is to accommodate drainage and to provide sufficient room for the maintenance of a dwelling. There is a minimum building separation of approximately 2.4 metres between the proposed dwellings on Parts 1 and 2. The applicant has provided a 1.52 metre setback to the north side of yard of the proposed dwelling on Part 1, and a 1.52 metre setback to the south side yard of the proposed dwelling of Part 2. Engineering Services has indicated that providing 1.5 metre minimum setbacks on the north and south lot lines will provide sufficient space to create a drainage swale on the property, while still maintaining the 0.6 metre undisturbed strip in keeping with the City’s Engineering Design Guidelines. A drainage swale would be required to be placed on the common lot line between the severed and retained parcels. -51- Report P/CA 86/22 & P/CA 87/22 July 13, 2022 Page 4 Dwelling Height Variances (Parts 1 and 2) The proposed dwellings have a mansard roof. In accordance with Zoning By-law 3036, in the case of a mansard roof, building height is measured as the vertical distance between established grade and the deck line. Using this method, the proposed dwellings have building heights of 9.8 metres (Part 1) and 10.2 metres (Part 2). The existing, abutting dwelling to the north has a gable roof. In accordance with Zoning By-law 3036, in the case of a gable roof, building height is measured as the vertical distance between established grade and the mid-point of the roof. Using this method, the abutting dwelling to the north has a building height of approximately 9.0 metres. To the south, the existing dwelling heights range from 7.0 metres to 12.0 metres. The intent of the maximum building height of 9.0 metres is to minimize the visual impact of new buildings on the existing streetscape and to ensure new development is compatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood. The proposed two-storey dwellings are in keeping with the design of the abutting dwelling to the south and is in keeping with the existing dwellings along Altona Road, which are predominantly two-storey homes. Elevation of Front Entrance Variance (Part 2) 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 adjacent dwellings. The maximum elevation of the front entrance of 1.2 metres allows for 6 steps. The requested variance is to permit a front entrance with a maximum elevation of 1.35 metres above grade. The proposed front porch for Part 2 has 6 steps. Neighbouring dwellings appear to have front entrances with less than 6 steps. However, further south along the street, dwellings respectfully have a range of 4-7 steps to access the front entrance. The applicant’s submitted front elevation drawing indicates a 1.19 metre front entrance elevation for Part 2. The applicant has requested a variance to the front elevation in case of any technical discrepancies at the time of submitting their building permit application. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed dwellings fill a vacant lot in the Rougemount Established Neighbourhood, and will provide consistency with the neighbouring lots and the general character of the neighbourhood. The requested increase in dwelling height would be consistent with the existing homes along Altona Road. The proposed dwellings will help enhance the existing streetscape, and maintain a neighbourhood character consistent with the Rougemount Neighbourhood. The requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are minor in nature. -52- Report P/CA 86/22 & P/CA 87/22 July 13, 2022 Page 5 Input From Other Sources Applicant • Minor variances are being pursued in conjunction with a previously approved Land Division Application (LD 083/21) that was approved with conditions that the following minor variances are accounted for. Building Services • No concerns regarding this application. 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: July 6, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:jc \planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 86-22 & PCA 87-22 S. Pathmanathan & H. Sathyendra\7. Report Attachments -53- Urban Design Guideline City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts 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) X 2. If the proposed new dwelling is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) X 3. Is the maximum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) Proposed design plans indicate max 1.2m elevational difference. However minor variance pursued for an additional 0.15m (or 1.35m total) as an abundance of caution, should the increased height be required due to final grading. X 4. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) X 5. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) X 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) -54- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Urban Design Guideline City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts A 2 Yes No Comments X X 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) Yes for proposed Severed Lot. No for Retained Lot. X 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) Minor variance pursued to reduce minimum side yard setbacks 1.5m on one side and 1.2m on the other side. X 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) In order to accommodate the desired building size and footprint, minor variance pursued to reduce minimum side yard setbacks 1.5m on one side and 1.2m on the other side. The wider (1.5m) setbacks provided at north & south lot lines. X 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) X 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) X 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) Existing trees towards the rear of the property and any other tree located away from the proposed development are to be preserved. Only trees that are with the proposed development area shall be removed. -55- A l t o n a R oad Lawson Street Faw nda l e Road L i t t l e f o r d Street Fo r e s t v i e w D r i v e Starview Court Fiddlers Court Richardson Street Hoover Drive Stover Crescent Twyn Rivers Drive G r a n b y C o u r t Sheppard Avenue Rougemount Drive South Petticoat Ravine South Petticoat Ravine Elizabeth B. Phin Public School St. Monica's Separate School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 86/22 & P/CA 87/22 Date: Jun. 22, 2022 Exhibit 1 S. Pathmanathan & H. Sathyendra 1485 Altona Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 85-22 & 86-22 S. Pathmanathan & H. Sathyendra\PCA85&86-22_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 Development Department -56- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n (P a r t s 1 & 2 ) Fi l e N o s : P/ C A 8 6 / 2 2 & P / C A 8 7 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. P a t h m a n a t h a n & H . S a t h y e n d r a Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 8 5 A l t o n a R o a d ( P a r t 1 & 2 ) 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 : Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 Pa r t 2 Pa r t 1 -57- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n (P a r t 1 ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 8 6 / 2 2 & P / C A 8 7 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. P a t h m a n a t h a n & H . S a t h y e n d r a Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 8 5 A l t o n a R o a d ( P a r t 1 & 2 ) 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 Pl a n . Da t e : Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m l o t fr o n t a g e o f 1 5 . 2 me t r e s to p e r m i t a mi n i m u m no r t h s i d e y a r d o f 1. 5 me t r e s to p e r m i t a ma x i m u m dw e l l i n g h e i g h t o f 9. 8 me t r e s to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m so u t h s i d e y a r d o f 1. 2 me t r e s -58- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n (P a r t 2) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 8 6 / 2 2 & P / C A 8 7 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. P a t h m a n a t h a n & H . S a t h y e n d r a Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 8 5 A l t o n a R o a d ( P a r t 1 & 2 ) 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 : Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m so u t h s i d e y a r d o f 1. 5 me t r e s to pe r m i t a ma x i m u m dw e l l i n g d e p t h o f 27 . 6 me t r e s to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m no r t h s i d e y a r d o f 1. 2 me t r e s to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m l o t fr o n t a g e o f 1 5 . 2 me t r e s to p e r m i t a m a x i m u m dw e l l i n g h e i g h t o f 10 . 2 me t r e s -59- Ex h i b i t 5 Su b m i t t e d We s t E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 8 6 / 2 2 & P / C A 8 7 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. P a t h m a n a t h a n & H . S a t h y e n d r a Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 8 5 A l t o n a R o a d ( P a r t 1 & 2 ) 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 : Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 Pa r t 2 Pa r t 1 to p e r m i t a m a x i m u m f r o n t en t r a n c e e l e v a t i o n o f 1 . 3 5 m e t r e s ab o v e t h e a v e r a g e g r a d e -60- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d Ea st E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 8 6 / 2 2 & P / C A 8 7 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. P a t h m a n a t h a n & H . S a t h y e n d r a Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 8 5 A l t o n a R o a d ( P a r t 1 & 2 ) 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 : Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 Pa r t 2 Pa r t 1 -61- Ex h i b i t 7 Su b m i t t e d No r t h El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 8 6 / 2 2 & P / C A 8 7 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. P a t h m a n a t h a n & H . S a t h y e n d r a Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 8 5 A l t o n a R o a d ( P a r t 1 & 2 ) 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 : Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 Pa r t 2 Pa r t 1 -62- Ex h i b i t 8 Su b m i t t e d S o u t h El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 8 6 / 2 2 & P / C A 8 7 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : S. P a t h m a n a t h a n & H . S a t h y e n d r a Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 8 5 A l t o n a R o a d ( P a r t 1 & 2 ) 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 : Ju n e 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 Pa r t 2 Pa r t 1 -63- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 88/22 Date: July 13, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 88/22 C. Pierre 1178 Tanzer Court Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 1299/81, to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 3.75 metres for an uncovered deck, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered rear deck. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considers the requested variance to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variance. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered rear deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). Comment 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 Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Residential uses such as detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto are permitted within this designation. The intent of the minimum rear yard depth requirement is to ensure that useable amenity space is provided in the rear yard. The proposed deck is setback 5.82 metres from the southeast corner of the deck to the rear lot line. However, due to the irregular shape of the lot, at the southwest corner of the deck, the setback is 3.75 metres. The proposed deck will contribute to the total amount of usable amenity space within the rear yard. There is also sufficient space to the south and east sides of the deck for landscaping and amenity purposes. -64- Report P/CA 88/22 July 13, 2022 Page 2 Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variance is intended to facilitate the construction of an uncovered deck that will contribute towards the total usable amenity space in the rear yard. The rear of the subject property abuts a parking area associated with St. Martin’s Anglican Church to the south. As such, no abutting neighbours to the rear will be affected by the deck. The proposed deck is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on drainage or on the surrounding area. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The by-law states that the distance from rear fence to planned end of deck needs to be 7.5 metres. Distance from rear fence to house is roughly 10 metres. We love the area we live in, been working hard for past 40 years plus, planning on retiring soon and enjoying sitting in back yard enjoying this time, saving for deck. As we have neighbours in area enjoying theirs. Went to correct route, request a permit to find out this zoning issue. It is impossible to build an approximate 1.0 metre deck. Engineering Services • Ensure the reduced rear yard setback does not adversely affect the existing drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Building Services • Building Services do not have any concerns. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: July 6, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 88-22 C. Pierre\7. Report Attachments -65- Be g l e y S t r e e t Wayfarer Lane A l b a c o r e M a n o r Tanzer Cou r t St M a r t i n s D r i v e Douglas Avenue Bayly Stree t Highway 40 1 Rado m Street Douglas Park Bayshore Tot Lot Douglas Ravine Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 88/22 Date: Jun. 21, 2022 Exhibit 1 C. Pierre 1178 Tanzer Court SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 88-22 C. Pierre\PCA88-22_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 Development Department -66- Exhibit 2 Site Plan File No: P/CA 88/22 Applicant: C. Pierre Municipal Address: 1178 Tanzer Court FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: June 21, 2022 to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 3.75 metres for an uncovered deck -67-