Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
August 10, 2022
Committee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Number: 7 Date: Wednesday, August 10, 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, August 10, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number 1.Disclosure of Interest 2.Adoption of Agenda 3.Adoption of Minutes from July 13, 2022 1-12 4. Report 4.1 P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 A. & B. Wheatle 13-27 566 Rougemount Drive 4.2 P/CA 91/22 N. & K. Syed 28-32 1123 Citrine Street 4.3 P/CA 92/22 C. & S. LeBrun 33-37 967 Redbird Crescent 5.Adjournment Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 12 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Kerry Yelk, Planner I Andy MacGillivray, Committee Coordinator – Host Jasmine Correia, Clerk, Support Services Absent Denise Rundle Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. To avoid a tie vote, David Johnson, Chair, will abstain from voting on the applications. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, July 13, 2022 hearing be adopted. Carried 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That the minutes of the 5th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, June 8, 2022 be adopted. Carried -1- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 12 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 82/22 K. & D. Lebo 716 Simpson Avenue 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 (variance modified by the Committee of Adjustment at the hearing to the height of 8.8 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. 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 Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). In support of the application, the agent/applicant indicated the following: • 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 7.0 metres, which exceeds the current minimum; -2- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 12 • 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 9.0 metres is in keeping with current City policies and current by-laws; and • 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. Samantha Bateman, agent, was present to represent the application. One area resident was present to voice concerns on the development. Samantha Bateman, agent, stated the majority of these variances are being requested as they are actively working with TRCA through a preliminary assessment, and eventually will obtain a detailed permit. They are working closely with staff to figure out the elevations of the building and setbacks from the wetlands. Jeff Skelton, area resident, stated the following: they are directly across the street from the subject property and wants to speak to the height and distance from the road; for many years they were told there would be bungalows along the waterfront and that has slowly changed to two-storey homes; this will be the third two-storey home on the street and it will really impede the quality of life and their views; 7.5 metres is tall as it is, now they are requesting a 9.0 metre home that will affect the views of this street and the street behind them; sometimes by-laws are generous in the first place; and over the years the views of the waterfront has become smaller. In response to a questions from Committee Members, Samantha Bateman, agent, stated they do not have any more detailed measurements or information at this time. They are at the point where they need things to move along in order to create detailed drawings to get to the stage of knowing those exact heights. TRCA staff set the finished floor elevation and they would have to work up from there. Although the current drawings state the height of the home will be 8.73 metres they are requesting 9.0 metres so they don’t have to return to the Committee for further approval once they receive that detailed elevation and grading. It is a unique situation because these are new policies that have come into effect since they completed the construction of the home at 714 Simpson Avenue. There are new policies based on the elevation on the property that the TRCA considers that the flood level on the property, plus a buffer space of an extra 0.3 metres and they are not able to have finished flooring, any living space or opening below that height. That is why the ground floor is pushed up, because of that elevation. -3- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 12 Jeff Skelton, area resident, stated he sympathizes with pushing the ceiling higher; it is primarily because that property takes on water quite heavily if there is any rise in water levels. In fact, over the years TRCA heavily sandbagged that property to keep water from running into the road. He does not believe this warrants a taller building, just because they did not realize they bought a lot that is affected by the water levels. I have read the City Development Department report, and the comments from the agent and the neighbour are appreciated. In this part of the City we have a lot of challenges with height requirements. Height is the element of this application the Members need to be scrutinizing, the other elements of the application meet the four tests of the Planning Act. On the issue of height there are a few other homes that were approved for 8.5 metres and one for 9.5 metres. Considering the agent believes the height of the home would be 8.73 metres, the height variance will be approved for 8.8 metres rather than the requested 9.0 metres. Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 82/22 by K. & D. Lebo, 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 addition to the existing 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 July 13, 2022). Carried 4.2 P/CA 83/22 C. Weary 1703 Aberfoyle Court 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. -4- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 12 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 was received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. In support of the application, the applicant identified the existing deck in rear yard is 0.51 metres too close to the rear property line. Eric Weary, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Eric Weary, applicant, stated the purpose of this application is to recognize an existing deck in his rear yard, built in 2006. He inadvertently built it 51 centimeters too close to the rear property line. The reason it is too close to the property line is that he accidentally noted the dimensions as feet instead of metres when speaking to the City. In response to questions from Committee Members, Eric Weary stated he built the deck himself, no permit was required due to the height. After hearing from the applicant and how the deck came about, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 83/22 by C. Weary, be Appr oved 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 existing uncovered deck with steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated July 13, 2022). Carried -5- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 12 4.3 P/CA 84/22 S. Saeed & A. Al-Mutairi 1470 Old Forest Road 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. 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 was received from the Applicant, the City’s Building Services, the City’s Engineering Services and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. In support of the application, the applicant identified their existing house footprint is small (51.97 square metres), and that by providing a 7.5 metre setback to the proposed 2nd storey addition, the proposed 2nd storey will be even smaller than the ground floor are. Proposed is one bedroom only, and a 2nd bedroom is needed for their daughter. Adel Al-Mutairi, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Adel Al-Mutairi, applicant, explained his house is on the west side of Old Forest Road. The land slopes downward from the street. The finished ground floor is 8 feet below the street level and they have a bungalow, so the interior ceiling is almost at the same level of the street. They would like to make an extension of their existing house, exactly on the footprint of the existing bungalow. The area of the existing ground floor is almost 52 square metres. They would like to build the same size of the existing ground floor on the second floor. The legal nonconforming front setback is 5.99 metres and the required setback is 7.5 metres. The applicant considers the requested variance to be minor in nature and request that this application be approved. In response to a question from Committee Members, Adel Al-Mutairi explained that the existing front setback is 5.99 metres and the new addition will have the same setback. Having read the staff report, reviewed the drawings in the Agenda package and drawings and elevations provided from the applicant to the City, seeing that there are no objections to this application from other parties, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: -6- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 12 Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 84/22 by S. Saeed & A. Al-Mutairi, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is 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, 4, 5, 6 & 7 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated July 13, 2022). Carried 4.4 P/CA 85/22 D. Leue 1447 Rougemount Drive 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. 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 was received from the Applicant, the City Building Services, the City Engineering Services and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). In support of the application, the applicant identified they require access to the 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. -7- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 12 Derrick Leue, applicant, and Cassie O’Neill, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Cassie O’Neill, agent, stated this submission is to provide access to the rear yard. When the new dwelling was built, this access was not initially considered, now it is their intention to keep any access as minimally invasive as possible to the land and the water flow along that side and address water issues underneath the deck with their expertise in stormwater management. In response to questions from Committee Members, Cassie O’Neill explained there is access on the other side of the building. However on this side (rear) of the building there is a garage door to allow for utility, and exercise equipment, etc. It would be cumbersome to bring access through the other side of the house, and through the garden area that they want to maintain for TRCA. They think the best option is to make a minimal deck along the back and side of the house to allow the residents to retrieve things from that side of the house. The space between the deck and the property line is 2.5 feet. The measurement from the property line to the neighbour’s lot is unknown, however the neighbour has their driveway in between the lot line and their dwelling. The agent indicated the neighbour is more than okay with the proposal. Derrick Leue has offered to plant some trees on their property. There are existing cedars towards the rear yard, and they will be planting shrubbery around the side of the house. After reading the report, listening to the agent’s responses, clarifying how this will work, and receiving no negative feedback from neighbours or TRCA, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 85/22 by D. Leue, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck 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 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated July 13, 2022). Carried -8- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 12 4.5 P/CA 86/22 & P/CA 87/22 S. Pathmanathan & H. Sathyendra 1485 Altona Road 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; • 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 (withdrawn by applicant at the hearing). 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. -9- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 12 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 was received from the Applicant, City Building Services and City Engineering Services. In support of the application, the applicant identified the requested minor variances required to facilitate a previously approved Land Division Application (LD 083/21) that was approved with conditions, and variances required to permit the construction of two detached dwellings. Antonio Greco, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Antonio Greco, agent, deleted the requested front yard elevation variance from P/CA 87/22, as after receiving and reviewing the grading plans, this variance is no longer required. In response to questions from the Committee Members, Antonio Greco explained that the height variance is required for the retained lot due to the design and use of the ground floor plan. The clients wanted a decent entertainment space to host themselves and their family and friends. At the rear of the building, the second floor is 17.0 metres in depth. Only the ground floor portion extends beyond the maximum building depth. They tried to mitigate any adverse obstructions to the neighbouring property by limiting the portion of the building that extends beyond the maximum building depth to a one storey rear yard bump out. It is very easy to build within the by-laws on a 100 foot lot, but once they move down to 50 foot lots it becomes more difficult. The owners would like to squeeze out as much useable area as they can, increase the curbside appeal and minimize the impact of the garage from the street view. It is also his understanding and confirmed in the staff report the intent of the minimum side yard of 1.8 metres is mainly to accommodate drainage and to provide sufficient room for maintenance of the dwelling. At the request of City Engineering Services, the southernmost dwelling shifted north by 0.3 metres to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Having read the staff report, driving by the site several times a week, listening to the agent’s responses to questions, seeing no input from neighbours, and no conditions recommended from other sources, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley -10- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 12 That applications P/CA 86/22 & P/CA 87/22 by S. Pathmanathan & H. Sathyendra, 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 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 contained in the staff report to Committee of Adjustment, dated July 13, 2022). Carried 4.6 P/CA 88/22 C. Pierre 1178 Tanzer Court 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. 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 was received from the Applicant, City Engineering Services and City Building Services. In support of the application, the applicant indicated the by-law states that the distance from rear fence to the planned end of deck needs to be 7.5 metres. Distance from rear fence to house is roughly 10.0 metres. The applicant indicated that they love the area, have been working hard for past 40 years plus, are planning on retiring soon, enjoy sitting in back yard, and it is impossible to build an approximate 1.0 metre deck. Bervin Reid, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from the Committee Members, Bervin Reid, explained the height of the deck is 18 inches. The back of the lot is fenced in with aluminum fencing with a driveway to the parking lot of St. Martin’s Anglican Church. -11- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 12 After hearing from the applicants, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 88/22 by C. Pierre, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered rear deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to Committee of Adjustment, dated July 13, 2022). Carried 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 6th hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:51 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, August 10, 2022. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer -12- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 Date: August 10, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Applications P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 A & B. Wheatle 559 Rougemount Drive (Parts 2, 3 & 4) Application P/CA 89/22 – 559 Rougemount Drive, Parts 2 & 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a maximum lot coverage of 41 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres • a minimum south side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres P/CA 90/22 – 559 Rougemount Drive, Part 4 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres • a minimum south side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres (Withdrawn by Applicant) The applicant requests approval of these applications in order to sever the property resulting in a total of two lots and to construct two detached dwellings. -13- Report P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 August 10, 2022 Page 2 Recommendation P/CA 89/22 – 559 Rougemount Drive, Parts 2 & 3 For your information, and based solely on 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 permit a maximum lot coverage of 41 percent and minimum south and north side yards of 1.2 metres, subject to the satisfaction of Engineering Services, to meet the four tests. Staff recommends Approval of the requested variances to permit a maximum lot coverage of 41 percent and minimum south and north side yards of 1.2 metres. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application or any of the requested variances, the following conditions are recommended: 1. That the variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 as they relate to Parts 2 & 3 only). 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed within the minimum south and north side yards of 1.2 metres. P/CA 90/22 – 559 Rougemount Drive, Part 4 For your information, and based solely on the applications 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. Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance of a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres meets the four tests. However, staff are of the opinion that the requested variance to permit a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent does not meet the four tests, and therefore recommends Refusal of the requested variance to permit a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application or any of the requested variances, the following conditions are recommended: 1. That the variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 as they relate to Part 4 only). 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed within the minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres. or -14- Report P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 August 10, 2022 Page 3 If the applicant were to request that the application be amended to revise the maximum lot coverage to 41 percent, the following recommendation would apply: For your information, and based solely on 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 permit a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres and a maximum lot coverage of 41 percent to meet the four tests, and recommends Approval of the proposed variances. Should the Committee find merit in this application, the following conditions are recommended: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 as they relate to Part 4 only). 2. That of the maximum lot coverage of 41 percent, 34 percent be comprised of the dwelling and attached garage and 7 percent be comprised of the covered porch and covered deck. 3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed with the minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres. Background P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 Revised P/CA 90/22 Application: In the first submission of this application, a variance was requested to permit a minimum south side yard depth of 1.2 metres on Part 4, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard depth of 1.5 metres. Engineering Services staff completed a preliminary review of the proposal and were of the opinion that a side yard setback of less than 1.5 metres would not be large enough to accommodate grading works. As such, the applicant worked with City staff to revise the proposal to ensure the dwelling provides a minimum south side yard depth of 1.5 metres. Infill & Replacement Housing: 559 Rougemount Drive is not located within the Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone. However, the abutting properties to the south and west are located within the Rosebank Established Neighbourhood, and are subject to the Infill Zoning By-law and Urban Design Guidelines. The applicant is seeking variances to permit the construction of a total of two detached dwellings on retained and severed lots resulting from the future severance of 559 Rougemount Drive. It is City staff’s understanding that the applicant has not yet submitted a consent application to the Region of Durham for the proposed severance, as of the date of writing this report. -15- Report P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 August 10, 2022 Page 4 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Rosebank Neighbourhood. The applicant is proposing to construct a detached dwelling on each lot. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within this designation and a built form within the Rosebank Neighbourhood. Section 12.3 (a) of the Official Plan outlines that in the established residential areas along Rougemount Drive, City Council shall encourage, and where possible, require new development to be compatible with the character of existing development. The Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines identifies the subject site as being within Design Precinct No. 1. Within this precinct, residential development shall be limited to single detached dwellings. All new lots created in this precinct must have a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres and a minimum lot depth ranging between 33 and 60 metres, unless the character of the area is such that a smaller lot frontage or lot depth is appropriate. The 2 proposed lots comply with the guidelines, respectfully with 15.24 metre frontages, and 43.5 metre lot depths. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law 559 Rougemount Drive is zoned “R4” – One Family Detached Dwelling – Residential Fourth Density, under Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by Zoning By-law 7610/18. A detached dwelling is permitted within the lands zoned “R4”. Side Yard Variances The intent of a minimum side yard requirement of 1.5 metres is to accommodate drainage, ensure appropriate building separation, and to provide sufficient room for maintenance. The reduced side yards result in a minimum building separation of approximately 2.4 metres between the proposed dwellings. Engineering Services has indicated that 2.4 metres is sufficient to accommodate a drainage swale placed on the common lot line between the proposed severed and retained properties. Staff is of the opinion that the interior side yard setbacks of 1.2 metres between the proposed dwellings maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law, and are minor in nature. Parts 2 and 3 The applicant has provided a 1.22 metre setback to the north side lot line of the proposed dwelling, and a 1.22 metre setback to the south lot line. The property immediately to the north contains a detached dwelling that is currently setback approximately 1.5 metres from the shared property line. As such, a separation distance of 2.7 metres would be maintained between the dwellings which will provide adequate separation to accommodate exterior maintenance, grading, drainage and other residential services subject to the applicant obtaining written permission from the adjacent property owner to the north to perform grading works up to the lot line and/or to create a common swale on the lot line. -16- Report P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 August 10, 2022 Page 5 The agent has informed Staff that the applicant has obtained written permission from 563 Rougemount Drive to perform grading works up to the lot line, and to place a drainage swale on the common lot line. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances to the north side yard and the south side yard, maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law, are desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and are minor in nature. Part 4 The proposed dwelling on Part 4 has a 1.22 metre setback to the north side yard lot line. In keeping with the City’s Engineering Design Criteria, Engineering Services has indicated that a 1.5 metre minimum setback on the south lot line is required to provide sufficient space to create a drainage swale while maintaining a 0.6 metre undisturbed strip within the subject property. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to the north side yard of Part 4 maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law, is desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and is minor in nature. As mentioned above, the applicant has withdrawn the requested variance of 1.2 metres on the south side yard of Part 4. This modification will ensure there is sufficient room in the side yard for grading works. Lot Coverage Variances The existing dwelling coverages within the surrounding neighbourhood, range between 10 to 33 percent. Parts 2 and 3 The Zoning By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent for all covered structures on the property. The By-law restricts the total lot coverage to ensure the property has sufficient area uncovered by structures to accommodate usable amenity area and landscaping. The proposed dwelling (including the attached private garage) accounts for approximately 34 percent of the total lot coverage, whereas the covered front porch and covered rear deck accounts for approximately 7 percent of the total lot coverage. The proposal will provide sufficient space on the property left uncovered for soft landscaping and outdoor amenity areas, as a minimum front yard setback of 7.6 metres and a minimum rear yard setback of 12.8 metres will be maintained. When the coverage of 34 percent for the proposed dwelling and attached garage is considered on its own, it is within the intent of the Zoning By-law. The additional 7 percent coverage for the front porch and rear deck increases the usability of both the front porch and rear deck and does not negatively impact the usable amenity or landscape areas, Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance conforms to the intent of the Zoning By law. -17- Report P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 August 10, 2022 Page 6 Part 4 The applicant has requested to withdraw the requested south side yard variance of 1.2 metres, as they are unable to fit the required drainage swale entirely on the property, as required by Engineering Services. The applicant has indicated that they will comply with the south side yard setback requirement of 1.5 metres. This minor change to the submitted plans indicates a proposed dwelling (including the attached private garage) accounting for approximately 39.9 percent of the lot coverage, whereas the covered front porch and covered rear deck accounts for approximately 4.2 percent of the lot coverage. In the submitted plans, the proposed dwelling (including the attached private garage) accounts for approximately 40.6 percent of the total lot coverage, whereas the front porch and rear deck accounts for approximately 4.2 percent of the total lot coverage. The proposal will provide sufficient space on the property left uncovered for soft landscaping and outdoor amenity areas, as a minimum front yard setback of 8.7 metres and a minimum rear yard setback of 8.1 metres will be maintained. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance does not conform to the intent of the Zoning By-law. After considering the withdrawal of the requested south side yard variance of 1.2 metres, the house still maintains 39.9 percent lot coverage which is not consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, does not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law, and is not minor in nature. However, staff would support a reduction in the requested maximum lot coverage, similar to the proposed dwelling on Parts 2 and 3. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances will facilitate the development of the subject property for residential lots. The proposed dwelling on Parts 2 and 3 is consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, and is compatible with the character of the existing neighbourhood. The requested increase in lot coverage for Part 4 is not consistent with the existing homes along Rougemount Drive, where the existing lot coverages range from 10 to 33 percent. Conclusion P/CA 89/22 – 559 Rougemount Drive, Parts 2 & 3 Staff recommends Approval, subject to conditions, of the requested variances to permit a maximum lot coverage of 41 percent and minimum south and north side yards of 1.2 metres. P/CA 90/22 – 559 Rougemount Drive, Part 4 Staff recommends Refusal of the requested variance to permit a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent or Approval of a revised application to permit a maximum lot coverage of 41 percent and a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres. -18- Report P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 August 10, 2022 Page 7 Input From Other Sources Applicant • See submitted Planning Justification Report. Engineering Services • With regards to the reduced side yard depth, it will not be possible to accommodate a minimum 0.15m deep drainage swale with 3:1 side slopes and the required 0.6m undisturbed strip with a setback of less than 1.5m. If the applicant gets permission in writing from the adjacent property owner(s) to perform grading works up to the lot line and/or to create a common swale on the lot line, Engineering Services may consider a reduced setback. • Ensure reduced side yards (if approved with this application) do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) will be required at the Building Permit stage. Building Services • No comments were received as of the date of writing this report. Public Input • Residents of 560, 562 & 563 Rougemount Drive and 538, 540 & 542 Lekani Court have reviewed the site plan and are have no concerns with the development planned on the property. Date of report: August 4, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:jc \\Fs\Planning\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 89-22 & PCA 90-22\7. Report\PCA 89-22 & PCA 90-22 Final.Doc Attachments -19- Toynevale Road Ro u g e m o u n t D r i v e Ch a n t i l l y R o a d Frontier Court Oa k w o o d D r i v e Mountain Ash Drive Le k a n i C o u r t Ly t t o n C o u r t Highway 40 1 Pi n e R i d g e R o a d Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 Date: Jul. 13, 2022 Exhibit 1 A. & B. Wheatle559 Rougemount Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 89-22&90-22 A. & B. Wheatle\PCA89-22&90-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:3,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment -20- 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 2, 3 & 4 ) Fi l e N o s : P/ C A 8 9 / 2 2 & P / C A 9 0 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : A. & B . W h e a t l e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 55 9 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e (P a r t s 2 , 3 & 4 ) 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 l y 2 7 , 2 0 2 2 P/ C A 9 0 / 2 2 – Pa r t 4 P/ C A 8 9 / 2 2 – Pa r t s 2 & 3 -21- 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 s 2 & 3 ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 8 9/ 2 2 & P / C A 9 0 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : A. & B . W h e a t l e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 55 9 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e (P a r t s 2 & 3) 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 l y 2 7 , 2 0 2 2 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. 2 me t r e s to p e r m i t a ma x i m u m l o t co v e r a g e o f 4 1 % 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 56 3 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e -22- 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 4) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 8 9 / 2 2 & P / C A 9 0 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : A. & B . W h e a t l e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 55 9 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e (P a r t 4) 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 l y 27 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a mi n i m u m s o u t h si d e y a r d o f 1. 2 me t r e s (Wi t h d r a w n b y Ap p l i c a n t ) 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 a x i m u m l o t co v e r a g e o f 4 5 p e r c e n t 55 7 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e -23- Exhibit 5 Submitted West Elevations File No: P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 Applicant: A. & B. Wheatle Municipal Address: 559 Rougemount Drive (Parts 2, 3 & 4) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jul. 27/2022 Part 4 Parts 2 & 3 -24- Exhibit 6 Submitted East Elevations File No: P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 Applicant: A. & B. Wheatle Municipal Address: 559 Rougemount Drive (Parts 2, 3 & 4) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jul. 27/2022 Part 4 Parts 2 & 3 -25- Exhibit 7 Submitted North Elevations File No: P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 Applicant: A. & B. Wheatle Municipal Address: 559 Rougemount Drive (Parts 2, 3 & 4) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jul. 27/2022 Part 4 Parts 2 & 3 -26- Exhibit 8 Submitted South Elevations File No: P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 Applicant: A. & B. Wheatle Municipal Address: 559 Rougemount Drive (Parts 2, 3 & 4) CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jul. 27/2022 Part 4 Parts 2 & 3 -27- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 91/22 Date: August 10, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 91/22 N. & K. Syed 1123 Citrine Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit a total of 2 parking spaces on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires a total of three parking spaces are provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit an accessory dwelling unit within a townhouse dwelling with two parking spaces on the lot. Recommendation For your information, and based solely on 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 that the requested variance does not meet the four tests, and therefore recommends Refusal 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 subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). Background Through the review of a building permit application submitted by the property owner in support of interior alterations for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), City staff identified that the provision of a total of two parking spaces did not comply with the minimum parking spaces required to support an ADU. The agent has indicated that the prospective tenant will not require a parking space. -28- Report P/CA 91/22 August 10, 2022 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density within the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood. Street townhouses and ADUs are a permissible use within the Urban Residential Areas – Low Density designation and the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law 1123 Citrine Street is zoned “LD1-T” – Townhouse, under Zoning By-law 7364/14 as amended by By-law 7857/21. An ADU is permitted within a street townhouse dwelling. The intent of the minimum parking space requirement on a property where an ADU is located is to ensure that adequate parking is provided on a property in order to support two separate dwelling units. The By-law requires three parking spaces to be provided on a property where an ADU is located. The minimum size requirement for a parking space under the Zoning By-law 7364/14 is 2.6 metres in width by 5.3 metres in length. The applicant is proposing to provide a total of two parking spaces on the property where an ADU is proposed. The existing paved surface on the subject property does not provide sufficient space to accommodate three vehicles. Staff are of the opinion that two parking spaces will not adequately support the parking demands of two separate dwelling units. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Due to the location of the property within a low density residential area in conjunction with the semi-detached and street townhouse nature of the existing neighbourhood and limited available public transit, three parking spaces are required to accommodate the parking demands of an additional dwelling unit. While staff support ADUs as an affordable housing option within the City, adequate parking supply must be accommodated for in order to avoid on-street parking and impact on the surrounding properties. Input From Other Sources Applicant • Insufficient space on driveway to park a second car. Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No comments were received as of the date of writing this report. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. -29- Report P/CA 91/22 August 10, 2022 Page 3 Date of report: August 4, 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 91-22 N. & K. Syed\7. Report\PCA 91-22 - Report.doc Attachments -30- Cact u s C r e s c e n t Hibis c u s D r i v e Enc h a n t e d C r e s c e n t BurkholderDrive Peli c a n T r a i l Sap p h i r e D r i v e Azalea A v e n u e Ceris e M a n o r PurusPath Skyridge Bouleva r d DrawstringLane F a s h i o n L a n e Cari n a T e r r a c e Citri n e S t r e e t Tig erlily Tr ai l Balti c L a n e Cali p e r L a n e Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 91/22 Date: Jul. 12, 2022 Exhibit 1 N. & K. Syed1123 Citrine Street SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 91-22 N. & K. Syed\PCA91-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:2,500 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment -31- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d P l a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 9 1 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : N. & K . S y e d Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 11 2 3 C i t r i n e S t r e e t Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Ju l y 2 7 , 2 0 2 2 Ex i s t i n g D w e l l i n g Ga r a g e to p e r m i t a t o t a l o f t w o p a r k i n g sp a c e s o n t h e p r o p e r t y w h e r e t h e ac c e s s o r y d w e l l i n g u n i t i s l o c a t e d Citrine Street -32- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 92/22 Date: August 10, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 92/22 C. & S. Lebrun 967 Redbird Crescent Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1998/85, to permit uncovered steps and platform not exceeding 2.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires 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 minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered deck with steps. Recommendation For your information, and based solely on 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 subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2). Background Through the review of a pool enclosure permit application, City staff identified that the deck attached to the main dwelling did not comply with the rear yard setback requirements of the Zoning By-law. The applicant has since removed the deck. The applicant has indicated that the previous deck was an existing situation prior to purchasing the property. City staff are unable to identify a corresponding building permit for the previously built deck. However, the original building permit for the existing dwelling included a rear deck with steps, which complied with Zoning By-law 3036. -33- Report P/CA 92/22 August 10, 2022 Page 2 The applicant is seeking to construct a deck that complies with the By-law. They have indicated to City staff that a previous owner had altered the grading to construct the previous non-compliant deck. Furthermore, due to on-site construction for the pool and landscaping, the rear yard grading has been altered and requires an increase in the permitted height of the deck from the established grade. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Residential Area” within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. Residential uses such as detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto are permitted within this designation. Detached dwellings with attached decks are a common built form along Redbird Crescent. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “S-SD” – Single Detached, under Zoning By-law 3036, as amended By By-law 1998/85. The intent of the maximum projection of 1.5 metres is to maintain sufficient amenity space in the rear yard. The applicant is proposing to construct an uncovered deck that projects 1.2 metres from the rear wall, and is within the permitted encroachment into the rear yard. The deck will have an overall height less than 2.0 metres from the established grade. The requested variance is intended to facilitate the construction of an uncovered deck that will contribute to the total amount of usable amenity space within the rear yard. There is sufficient space to the north/east yard of the proposed deck for landscaping and amenity purposes. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variance is to construct a rear yard deck with steps, which contributes towards the total usable amenity space of the single detached dwelling. The deck is required to allow access to the rear yard from the main floor of the dwelling. The previously built deck with steps appears to have existed on the subject lands for many years with minimal impact. The applicant has informed City staff that the grading of the property was altered by a previous owner. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed uncovered deck with steps is desirable for the appropriate development of the land and the requested variance is minor in nature. -34- Report P/CA 92/22 August 10, 2022 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Applicant • Grading discrepancies. Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No comments were received as of the date of writing this report. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: August 4, 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 92-22 C. & S. LeBrun\7. Report\PCA 92-22 Report.doc Attachments -35- Deerbroo k D r i v e GlenannaRoad Hunts mil l Driv e Finch Avenue Brook s h i r e S q u a r e Silverthorn Square RedbirdCrescent MountcastleC res c ent ForestbrookPark William DunbarPublic School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 92/22 Date: Jul. 27, 2022 Exhibit 1 ¯ E C. & S. LeBrun967 Redbird Crescent SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 92-22 C. & S. LeBrun\PCA92-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:3,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment -36- Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 92/22 Applicant: C. & S. LeBrun Municipal Address: 967 Redbird Crescent CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Jul. 27, 2022 Existing dwelling Proposed deck with steps 1.3 metres Drawing not to scale 2.89 metres to permit uncovered steps and platform not exceeding 2.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard -37-