Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 12, 2022 Committee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Number: 9 Date: Wednesday, October 12, 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, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number 1. Disclosure of Interest 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from September 14, 2022 1-13 4. Report 4.1 (Tabled at the September 14, 2022 Hearing) P/CA 114/22 Pickering Islamic Center 14-32 2071 Brock Road 4.2 P/CA 110/22 E. & M. Sameem 33-44 846 Taplin Drive (Part 1) 4.3 P/CA 115/22 R. McGee 45-50 2366 Canterbury Crescent 4.4 P/CA 116/22 A. Rodrigues & L. Castelino 51-66 1950 Liverpool Road 4.5 P/CA 117/22 C. Boyce 67-76 734A Krosno Boulevard 4.6 P/CA 118/22 B. Brissenden & L. Leggett 77-85 1661 Henry Street 4.7 P/CA 119/22 N. Thapa 86-93 1204 Gloucester Square 4.8 P/CA 120/22 S. Chowdhury & S. Masrin 94-97 1969 Woodview Avenue 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, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing 4.9 P/CA 122/22 Z. Malam & S. Sayany 98-104 2177 Saffron Drive 5. Adjournment Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 13 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 – Host Isabel Lima, Planner II Kerry Yelk, Planner I Jasmine Correia, Clerk, Support Services Absent Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer 1.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2.Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, September 14, 2022 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3.Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 7th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, August 10, 2022 be adopted. Carried Unanimously -1- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 13 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 93/22 L. Keast 1747 Central Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit a maximum building height of 5.0 metres for a detached garage, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 3.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a detached garage located in the rear yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to conditions. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. Leonard Keast, 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 Committee members, Leonard Keast, applicant, confirmed there are no plans for a habitable space in the garage. This addition will be used for storage in the winter months of lawn chairs, etc. The applicant is requesting a building height of 5.0 metres to accommodate 2 storeys. Downstairs will be used for garden tractors, storage of a classic car and a workshop. The applicant confirmed he has no plans of running a business through the garage. After reading the report, a site inspection, receiving no concerns from agencies or the public, and considering the garage will be situated in the rear yard with minimal to no impact on adjacent neighbours, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 93/22 by L. Keast, 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 conditions: -2- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 13 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed detached garage, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 14, 2022). 2. No habitable space is permitted within the garage. Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 94/22 to P/CA 109/22 Icon Forest District Ltd. 250 Finch Avenue Units 1-12 & Units 601-604 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That the Committee dispense of the reading of applications P/CA 94/22 to P/CA 109/22 by Icon Forest District Ltd. Carried Unanimously P/CA 94/22 & P/CA 95/22 – 250 Finch Avenue, Lots 1 & 2 (Units 1 & 2) on Exhibits 3 & 4 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7723/19, to permit a second storey balcony not exceeding 2.7 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.6 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. P/CA 96/22 – 250 Finch Avenue, Lot 3 (Unit 3) on Exhibits 5 & 6 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7723/19, to permit a second storey balcony not exceeding 3.3 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.6 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. P/CA 97/22 – 250 Finch Avenue, Lot 4 (Unit 4) on Exhibits 5 & 6 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7723/19, to permit a second storey balcony not exceeding 3.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.6 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. -3- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 13 P/CA 98/22 – 250 Finch Avenue, Lot 5 (Unit 5) on Exhibits 7 & 8 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7723/19, to permit a second storey balcony not exceeding 3.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.6 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. P/CA 99/22 – 250 Finch Avenue, Lot 6 (Unit 6) on Exhibits 7 & 8 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7723/19, to permit a second storey balcony not exceeding 2.9 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.6 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. P/CA 100/22 – 250 Finch Avenue, Lot 7 (Unit 7) on Exhibits 9 & 10 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7723/19, to permit a second storey balcony not exceeding 3.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.6 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. P/CA 101/22 – 250 Finch Avenue, Lot 8 (Unit 8) on Exhibits 9 & 10 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7723/19, to permit a second storey balcony not exceeding 3.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.6 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. P/CA 102/22 & P/CA 103/22 – 250 Finch Avenue, Lots 9 & 10 (Units 9 & 10) on Exhibits 11 & 12 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7723/19, to permit a second storey balcony and lower level deck with steps not exceeding 3.3 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.1 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. -4- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 13 P/CA 104/22 – 250 Finch Avenue, Lot 11 (Unit 11) on Exhibits 13 & 14 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7723/19, to permit a second storey balcony not exceeding 3.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.6 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. P/CA 105/22 – 250 Finch Avenue, Lot 12 (Unit 12) on Exhibits 13 & 14 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7723/19, to permit a second storey balcony not exceeding 2.9 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.6 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. P/CA 106/22 – P/CA 109/22 – 250 Finch Avenue, Lots 103–106 (Units 601-604) on Exhibits 15 & 16 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7723/19, to permit uncovered steps and platform not exceeding 1.5 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.6 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 these minor variance applications to permit rear decks and balconies. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on 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 City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified under current Zoning By-law construction of decks are not permitted if height exceeds 1.0 metre in height. Within this submission of multiple units we are asking for variance for decks that range in height from 1.1 metre to 3.2 metre in height. Deck sizes are 1.53 metre by 2.44 metres. Kevin Watt, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. -5- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 13 In response to questions from Committee members, Kevin Watt, agent, explained only these units in the complex require variances as the semi-detached homes, units 1 to 12, were sold with standard with 5x8 deck on the main floor that exceeds the 1.5 metre height restriction in the rear yard. Units 13-40 have deeper rear yards and complies with the By-law, whereas 1-12 do not. Units 601-604 also do not comply with the 1.5 metre height requirement. The decks were always anticipated however the rear yard grading were unknown at the time of the Zoning Amendment. Further into construction, building permits were applied for with the exception of the decks on these lots due to infringement of the Bylaw. The sliding doors on the upper floors were contemplated to have a julienne rails to allow homeowners to open the door and get air, there were no decks contemplated in the beginning stages of the development of the complex. Kevin Watt, agent, confirmed the complex is fully occupied with exception to one unit. They are currently working on the exterior of the complex such as low level planting, tree planting, grading, soil work. They are hoping to have the work done by the end of the season. The purchasers themselves are aware of these applications and are expecting their decks to be constructed in the near future. The Secretary-Treasurer confirmed in addition to public signs posted on the property advising of the applications, everyone within the condominium were included in the circulation of notice of public hearing. Having read the City’s report, considering the answers from the agent, the applications satisfy the four tests of the Planning Act, there being sufficient space in rear yard for landscaping and amenity purposes, receiving no written or verbal comments from the public or owners within the complex who were given notice of the hearing, Sean W iley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 94/22 to P/CA 109/22 by Icon Forest District Ltd., 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 existing residential semi-detached and townhome dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 14, 2022). Carried Unanimously -6- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 13 4.3 P/CA 111/22 K. & M. Reynolds 1072 Rouge Valley Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1827/84 and By-law 2178/86, to permit uncovered steps and a platform (rear deck) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.0 metres into the required rear 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 of a metre in any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the reconstruction of an uncovered rear deck. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on 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 City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified that due to age of the deck it is unsafe and in need of replacement to provide access to the rear yard due to grading changes. Spencer Joy, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After reading the report, no agency or public concerns, would not anticipate any impact to adjacent neighbours, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 111/22 by K. & M. Reynolds, 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 Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 14, 2022). Carried Unanimously -7- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 13 4.4 P/CA 113/22 J & K Shopping Centre Inc. 2060 2078 Liverpool Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 1158/80, 3878/91, 5500/99 & 6124/03 to permit: • a minimum of 54 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained for the commercial plaza which includes 7 spaces for outdoor storage of rental vehicles; and • to permit the outdoor storage of seven rental vehicles. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to permit outdoor storage of rental vehicles to facilitate a truck rental business kiosk. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to conditions. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified the following: • The outdoor storage of rental vehicles will reduce the total amount of available parking spaces from 54 to 47 parking spaces. • Please refer to Traffic Review Brief. Alexander Sowkey, 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 Alexander Sowkey, agent, confirmed there will only be seven rental vehicles. The designated area is restricted to seven spaces. The store will be offering clients the option to leave their car there while they use the rental vehicle service and will not impede parking for staff and customers of other stores within the plaza. Currently they have not seen an issue of parking availability within the plaza, even during the busy hours of the day. There is a total of 54 parking spaces, moving down to 47 spaces should this be approved, and they do not anticipate parking issues in the future. The variance requested for does currently state the reserved spaces are for the rental vehicles however in worse case scenario, the customer could park within that exact same spot to alleviate any issues. No comments were received from the owners to the west. There currently is a solid fence between the properties, dividing the two lands. -8- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 13 The rental vehicles will not exceed the height of the building that sits right in front of those property owners. The site plan is outdated and only shows six parking spaces however it should show seven. After hearing from the agent, visiting the site and considering staff recommendation, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 113/22 by J & K Shopping Centre 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 conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the subject property, as sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 14, 2022). 2. That vehicles parked and stored on the property for rental purposes shall not exceed seven vehicles and must be parked within their designated parking spaces as outlined in the applicant’s submitted plans. Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 114/22 Pickering Islamic Center 2071 Brock Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6578/05, to permit: • 3 accessory buildings (portables) on a lot without a main building, whereas the By-law states that “accessory building” shall mean a subordinate building, or structure on the same lot with the main building, or a part of the main building, devoted exclusively to an accessory use; • 3 accessory buildings (portables) which are not part of the main building to be erected in the front yard, whereas the By-law states that all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building shall be erected in the rear yard; • accessory buildings (portables) to be setback a minimum of 0.0 metres from the east lot line and 0.5 metres from the south lot line, whereas the By-law states that accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area shall be setback a minimum of 1.0 metres from all lot lines; and -9- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 13 • 3 accessory buildings (portables) with a total lot coverage of 6 percent, whereas the By-law states that the total lot coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 5 percent of the lot area. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the temporary storage of 3 portables on the subject property. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to conditions. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and Pickering Ward 3 Regional Councillor. Mohammed Ghofrani, agent, was present to represent the application. Two area residents were present in objection to the application. Mohammed Ghofrani, agent, explained they are under pressure for more storage and would appreciate a motion to approve the requested variances to erect these portables for storage purposes. Zahira Khan, area resident, lives on the street adjacent to the Islamic Center, stated the following: the existing parking at the Islamic Center does not meet the current needs of the mosque which results in overflow parking on the adjacent neighbourhood streets on Fridays, for funerals, month of Ramadan; cars are blocking driveways, there is an increase of garbage; three portables will take away a lot of parking space for the mosque and in result even more vehicles parked on the residential streets; understands this is for storage however if this does become used for school purposes there are safety concerns for the children that would be attending, would appreciate confirmation from the Pickering Islamic Center that this will only be used for storage. Abbas Ishaque, area resident, stated the following: the land being requested for the portables are not designated for parking but in the past he’s seen it being used for such during Friday prayers or any large events due to the mosque being unable provide enough parking for the needs of the people; neighbourhood street parking becomes the norm every Friday; City does not enforce the parking bylaws; lives adjacent to the mosque and is concerned with the amount of large trucks always parked there and the debris and noise it causes in the neighbourhood; the mosque rents out parking spaces to these large trucks; keeps being told that the construction at the mosque is temporary but hasn’t seen a timeline for which it will be completed. -10- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 13 In response to public concerns Mohammed Ghofrani, agent, stated the renting of parking space has nothing to do with this application. The mosque board of directors wrote a letter to the Committee stating these portables will only be used for temporary storage purposes. In response to questions from Committee members, Mohammed Ghofrani, agent, clarified the portables will be used to store books, Quran and items from the mosque. A zoning bylaw amendment application was applied for 3 years ago and is an ongoing process, may take another 2 to 3 years. The portables will be onsite until the Zoning Bylaw Amendment application is approved to permit a private school on the property. Confirmed there will be no extra traffic related to the portables and it will not be used for school/student purposes. The area where the portables are proposed to be stored is currently fenced off and is a basketball yard where kids play from time to time, that space does not allow for parking. The Secretary-Treasurer confirmed the properties at 2065 and 2071 Brock Road are not zoned to permit school use. In response to questions from Committee members, Mohammed Ghofrani, agent, stated the mosque at 2065 Brock Road does not run a private school. The mosque does host evening lessons and lectures. These lessons run for 30 minutes in the mornings, an hour and a half in the afternoons and evenings. It is not populated during the week and the mosque’s busiest times are on Fridays. These portables will not be used for school purposes. Should the zoning amendment application be approved, a permanent structure will be built. The portables will have electricity for lighting. The portables will not be used for overflow seating, the mosque has ample space for that indoors, what they need is more parking space. Abbas Ishaque, area resident, stated the following: has the mosque found a way to address the overflow parking onto residential streets; living across from the mosque you can see a school is operating out of the property, every day you see kids walking to the mosque in full uniforms, they play in the playground where the portables are being requested in the mornings and lunch times; the mosque does not clean its property and it is becoming an eyesore. Tom Copeland, Vice-Chair, recognizes the application before the Committee and their role in the approval or denial of the variances in question. The variances have nothing to do with a school or parking. However, there are significant concerns that once approval is given to store the portables on the property that they will eventually be used for school purposes. -11- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 13 Denise Rundle, Committee member, shares the same concerns due to the letter received from the applicant stating the portables will not be occupied until they get permits to occupy the portables. The intent is there to occupy the portables, down the road should a permit be issued and approval given for the zoning application. With a potential private school running onsite and a current zoning amendment application in with the City since 2016, it is difficult not to have concerns about the use of the structures. Sean Wiley, Committee member, stated in regards to overflow parking and other issues that have come up apply to many other places of worship in Pickering at peak periods. Having had a chance to make a site visit, once you drive into the property you see the mosque to the left, in front is an area that is not tarmacked, which is assumed to be used for parking, and on the right hand side is tarmacked parking. Where the portables are being requested is currently a playground. With a zoning application currently in to City Council and no decision made with respect to the school, it is questioned whether approving these portables will impact Council’s decision. This application seems to be premature at this time, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 114/22 by Pickering Islamic Center be Tabled to allow the Committee to receive further information. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle opposed Sean Wiley opposed 5. Other Business Appointment of Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That Jasmine Correia be appointed as Assistant Secretary Treasurer. Carried Unanimously -12- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 13 6. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 8th hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:08 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, October 12, 2022. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer -13- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 114/22 Date: October 12, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: (Tabled at the September 14, 2022 Hearing) Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 114/22 Pickering Islamic Center 2071 Brock Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6578/05, to permit: • 3 accessory buildings (portables) on a lot without a main building, whereas the By-law states that “accessory building” shall mean a subordinate building, or structure on the same lot with the main building, or a part of the main building, devoted exclusively to an accessory use; • 3 accessory buildings (portables) which are not part of the main building to be erected in the front yard, whereas the By-law states that all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building shall be erected in the rear yard; • accessory buildings (portables) to be setback a minimum of 0.0 metres from the east lot line and 0.5 metres from the south lot line, whereas the By-law states that accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area shall be setback a minimum of 1.0 metre from all lot lines; and • 3 accessory buildings (portables) with a total lot coverage of 6 percent, whereas the By-law states that the total lot coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 5 percent of the lot area. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the temporary storage of 3 portables on the subject property. Recommendation Should the Committee of Adjustment find merit in this application, the City Development Department recommends any Approval be subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the 3 accessory buildings (portables), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). 2. That the 3 accessory buildings (portables) have no use and no occupancy. -14- Report P/CA 114/22 October 12, 2022 Page 2 3. That the applicant obtain a Building Permit for the placement of the 3 accessory structures (portables) on the subject property. 4. That the applicant obtain Council’s approval of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/16 within 1 year of approval of Minor Variance Application P/CA 114/22, or this decision becomes null and void, and the 3 accessory structures (portables) are no longer permitted to be stored on the subject property and must be removed. Background At the September 14, 2022 Committee of Adjustment hearing, City staff recommended approval of Minor Variance Application P/CA 114/22, as in staff’s opinion the variances met the four tests of a minor variance (refer to Attachment #1, P/CA 114/22 Report, dated September 14, 2022). At the hearing, two area residents spoke in objection to the application (refer to Attachment #2, Draft Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes, September 12, 2022, Excerpt). The following is a summary of comments/concerns expressed by area residents: • concerned that the existing parking on the site does not meet the needs of the Islamic Centre, resulting in vehicles parking on adjacent residential streets; • concerned that the proposal will result in a further reduction in parking; • concerned about the safety of the portables, if they are to be used for a private school; • concerned about the amount of on-street parking during busy times at the Islamic Centre, which may create challenges for the movement of emergency vehicles through the neighbourhood; • concerned that the City is not enforcing on-street parking by-laws; and • concerned about the Islamic Centre renting out parking spaces to park construction vehicles, which has a negative visual impact on adjacent residential properties. The Committee of Adjustment tabled the application to allow the applicant to provide additional information pertaining to the impact of the proposal on parking; details regarding the operation of a private school within the existing building on 2065 Brock Road; and clarification on the merging of the properties at 2071 and 2065 Brock Road. On September 22, 2022, the applicant requested that the minor variance application be lifted from the table and brought back to Committee at the October 12, 2022 hearing. In addition, on behalf of the applicant, Martindale Planning Services submitted a letter to the City which provides additional information regarding the matters noted above. The letter is attached to this report for Committee’s information (refer to Attachment #3, Letter from Martindale Planning Services, dated September 27, 2022). Notice of the Public Hearing for October 12 was mailed on September 27, 2022. Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/16 for 2071 & 2065 Brock Road, to permit a private school and daycare and to recognize the existing place of religious assembly, is currently under review and is expected to be considered by Council in early 2023. -15- Report P/CA 114/22 October 12, 2022 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Applicant • A letter submitted by Martindale Planning Services, on behalf of the applicant, is attached to this report. Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No concerns from Building Services Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: October 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 114-22 Pickering Islamic Center\7. Report Attachments -16- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 114/22 Date: September 14, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 114/22 Pickering Islamic Center 2065 Brock Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6578/05, to permit: •3 accessory buildings (portables) on a lot without a main building, whereas the By-law states that “accessory building” shall mean a subordinate building, or structure on the same lot with the main building, or a part of the main building, devoted exclusively to an accessory use; •3 accessory buildings (portables) which are not part of the main building to be erected in the front yard, whereas the By-law states that all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building shall be erected in the rear yard; •accessory buildings (portables) to be setback a minimum of 0.0 metres from the east lot line and 0.5 metres from the south lot line, whereas the By-law states that accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area shall be setback a minimum of 1.0 metres from all lot lines; and •3 accessory buildings (portables) with a total lot coverage of 6 percent, whereas the By-law states that the total lot coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 5 percent of the lot area. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the temporary storage of 3 portables on the subject property. 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 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 3 accessory buildings (portables), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). Attachment 1 -17- Report P/CA 114/22 September 14, 2022 Page 2 Background 2071 & 2065 Brock Road: The subject property (2071 Brock Road) and the abutting property to the south (2065 Brock Road) are both owned by the Pickering Islamic Center. The subject property is currently vacant, though it appears it is being used for parking and a basketball court/playground. The existing building and a parking area are located on 2065 Brock Road. The 3 accessory buildings (portables) are proposed to be located on 2071 Brock Road. Ongoing Rezoning Application A 03/16: The Pickering Islamic Center submitted a zoning by-law amendment application for 2071 & 2065 Brock Road, to permit a private school and daycare, and to recognize the existing place of religious assembly. The purpose of the rezoning is to facilitate the construction of a 3-storey, 3,419 square metre addition to the existing building. A statutory public meeting for the application was held on October 2, 2017. The application is ongoing and no decision has been made by Council. Proposed Use of the Portables: It is staff’s understanding that a private school is currently operating on 2065 Brock Road, within the existing building. There is an ongoing rezoning application, submitted by Pickering Islamic Centre, to permit a private school (see above). The applicant obtained the three portables from another school. Though a school use is not currently permitted, the applicant is requesting to temporarily store the portables on site, until Council makes a decision on the rezoning application. The City received a letter from Shakil Akhter, on behalf of the Pickering Islamic Center, acknowledging that the portables will not be occupied until a decision is made on the rezoning application, and site plan approval and building permits are obtained (see Appendix I, Letter from Pickering Islamic Center). Should the Committee decide to approve Minor Variance Application P/CA 114/22, the portables may only be used for storage associated with the Islamic Centre. A school use will not be permitted to operate within the portables through this minor variance application. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Area within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood. Community/cultural uses and uses accessory thereto are permitted within this designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law Permit accessory buildings on a lot without a main building and located in the front yard The purpose of these provisions is to ensure accessory uses act as secondary to the principal use of a property, and to minimize the visual impact of accessory buildings on the streetscape and adjacent properties. -18- Report P/CA 114/22 September 14, 2022 Page 3 The portables are proposed to be located on 2071 Brock Road, whereas the main building for the Islamic Centre is located on 2065 Brock Road. The abutting properties are both owned and used by the Pickering Islamic Center. The portables are secondary to the principal religious use of the properties. The lands for the Pickering Islamic Center are surrounded by public roads on all sides. Any location of the portables on the lands would be visible from the street. The proposed location of the portables is furthest away from any residential dwellings located along Usman Road or Jade Street. To the east of the portables, across Usman Road, is Usman Park. The proposed location of the portables minimizes the visual impact on adjacent residential properties. Permit reduced setbacks from the east and south lines The intent of this provision is to provide an appropriate separation between structures in order to maintain pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading and drainage. The reduced setback from the south lot line is appropriate, as the abutting property (2065 Brock Road) is owned by the Pickering Islamic Center. The portables will be easily accessible from the abutting property, where the main building is located. The reduced setback to the east lot line is required to ensure the parking area is maintained on the west side of 2071 Brock Road. The portables are adjacent to parking areas to the west and south, a basketball court/playground to the north, and Usman Road to the east. There is sufficient space to provide pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading and drainage. Permit increased lot coverage for accessory buildings The intent of this provision is to ensure accessory uses act as secondary to the principal use of a property. As noted above, the portables are secondary to the principal religious use of the Pickering Islamic Center. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The purpose of these variances is to allow the temporary storage of portables on the subject property while the applicant works through an ongoing rezoning application to permit a private school use. Through this minor variance application, the portables may only be used for storage associated with the Islamic Center. A school use will not be permitted to operate within the portables through this minor variance application. Staff consider the requested variances to be appropriate development of the land and minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • No comments. Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • Building Services has no comments. -19- Report P/CA 114/22 September 14, 2022 Page 4 Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: September 7, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner II Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:jc J:\Documents\Dev elopment\D-3700\2022\PCA 114-22 Pickering Islamic Center\7. Report Attachments -20- Usma n Ro a d Br o c k R o a d Ro y a l R o a d Denby Dr ive Gandalf Co u r t Major Oaks Road Sa f f r o n D r i v e DuberryDrive Jade Street Beaton W ay Finch Avenue Su n f l o w e r R o a d B luebird Crescent Sh a y D r i v e Rayleen Cres c ent Mcbrady Crescent Brockridge Community Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 114/22 Date: Aug. 29, 2022 Exhibit 1 Pickering Islamic Center 2071 Brock Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 114-22 Pickering Islamic Center\PCA114-22_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 -21- 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 11 4 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Pi c k e r i n g I s l a m i c C e n t r e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 20 71 Br o c k R o a d 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 : Au g u s t 2 9 , 2 0 2 2 to pe r m i t a c c e s s o r y bu i l d i n g s ( p o r t a b l e s ) t o be s e t b a c k a m i n i m u m of 0 . 0 m e t r e s f r o m t h e ea s t l o t l i n e a n d 0. 5 me t r e s f r o m t h e so u t h l o t l i n e to pe r m i t 3 a c c e s s o r y bu i l d i n g s ( p o r t a b l e s ) o n a l o t w i t h o u t a m a i n bu i l d i n g an d to pe r m i t 3 a c c e s s o r y bu i l d i n g s ( p o r t a b l e s ) wh i c h a r e n o t p a r t o f th e m a i n b u i l d i n g to be er e c t e d i n t h e fr o n t ya r d an d to pe r m i t 3 a c c e s s o r y bu i l d i n g s ( p o r t a b l e s ) wi t h a t o t a l l o t c o v e r a g e of 6 p e r c e n t Brock Road -22- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d El e v a t i o n s Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 4 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Pi c k e r i n g I s l a m i c C e n t r e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 20 71 Br o c k R o a d 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 : Au g u s t 2 9 , 2 0 2 2 -23- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 13 4.5 P/CA 114/22 Pickering Islamic Center 2071 Brock Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6578/05, to permit: •3 accessory buildings (portables) on a lot without a main building, whereas the By-law states that “accessory building” shall mean a subordinate building, or structure on the same lot with the main building, or a part of the main building, devoted exclusively to an accessory use; •3 accessory buildings (portables) which are not part of the main building to be erected in the front yard, whereas the By-law states that all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building shall be erected in the rear yard; •accessory buildings (portables) to be setback a minimum of 0.0 metres from the east lot line and 0.5 metres from the south lot line, whereas the By-law states that accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area shall be setback a minimum of 1.0 metres from all lot lines; and •3 accessory buildings (portables) with a total lot coverage of 6 percent, whereas the By-law states that the total lot coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 5 percent of the lot area. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the temporary storage of 3 portables on the subject property. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to conditions. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and Pickering Ward 3 Regional Councillor. Mohammed Ghofrani, agent, was present to represent the application. Two area residents were present in objection to the application. Mohammed Ghofrani, agent, explained they are under pressure for more storage and would appreciate a motion to approve the requested variances to erect these portables for storage purposes. Zahira Khan, area resident, lives on the street adjacent to the Islamic Center, stated the following: the existing parking at the Islamic Center does not meet the current needs of the mosque which results in overflow parking on the adjacent neighbourhood streets on Attachment 2 -25- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 13 Fridays, for funerals, month of Ramadan; cars are blocking driveways, there is an increase of garbage; three portables will take away a lot of parking space for the mosque and in result even more vehicles parked on the residential streets; understands this is for storage however if this does become used for school purposes there are safety concerns for the children that would be attending, would appreciate confirmation from the Pickering Islamic Center that this will only be used for storage. Abbas Ishaque, area resident, stated the following: the land being requested for the portables are not designated for parking but in the past he’s seen it being used for such during Friday prayers or any large events due to the mosque being unable provide enough parking for the needs of the people; neighbourhood street parking becomes the norm every Friday; City does not enforce the parking bylaws; lives adjacent to the mosque and is concerned with the amount of large trucks always parked there and the debris and noise it causes in the neighbourhood; the mosque rents out parking spaces to these large trucks; keeps being told that the construction at the mosque is temporary but hasn’t seen a timeline for which it will be completed. In response to public concerns Mohammed Ghofrani, agent, stated the renting of parking space has nothing to do with this application. The mosque board of directors wrote a letter to the Committee stating these portables will only be used for temporary storage purposes. In response to questions from Committee members, Mohammed Ghofrani, agent, clarified the portables will be used to store books, Quran and items from the mosque. A zoning bylaw amendment application was applied for 3 years ago and is an ongoing process, may take another 2 to 3 years. The portables will be onsite until the Zoning Bylaw Amendment application is approved to permit a private school on the property. Confirmed there will be no extra traffic related to the portables and it will not be used for school/student purposes. The area where the portables are proposed to be stored is currently fenced off and is a basketball yard where kids play from time to time, that space does not allow for parking. The Secretary-Treasurer confirmed the properties at 2065 and 2071 Brock Road are not zoned to permit school use. In response to questions from Committee members, Mohammed Ghofrani, agent, stated the mosque at 2065 Brock Road does not run a private school. The mosque does host evening lessons and lectures. These lessons run for 30 minutes in the mornings, an hour and a half in the afternoons and evenings. It is not populated during the week and the mosque’s busiest times are on Fridays. These portables will not be used for school purposes. Should the zoning amendment application be approved, a permanent structure will be built. The portables will have electricity for lighting. The portables will not be used for overflow seating, the mosque has ample space for that indoors, what they need is more parking space. -26- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 14, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 13 Abbas Ishaque, area resident, stated the following: has the mosque found a way to address the overflow parking onto residential streets; living across from the mosque you can see a school is operating out of the property, every day you see kids walking to the mosque in full uniforms, they play in the playground where the portables are being requested in the mornings and lunch times; the mosque does not clean its property and it is becoming an eyesore. Tom Copeland, Vice-Chair, recognizes the application before the Committee and their role in the approval or denial of the variances in question. The variances have nothing to do with a school or parking. However, there are significant concerns that once approval is given to store the portables on the property that they will eventually be used for school purposes. Denise Rundle, Committee member, shares the same concerns due to the letter received from the applicant stating the portables will not be occupied until they get permits to occupy the portables. The intent is there to occupy the portables, down the road should a permit be issued and approval given for the zoning application. With a potential private school running onsite and a current zoning amendment application in with the City since 2016, it is difficult not to have concerns about the use of the structures. Sean Wiley, Committee member, stated in regards to overflow parking and other issues that have come up apply to many other places of worship in Pickering at peak periods. Having had a chance to make a site visit, once you drive into the property you see the mosque to the left, in front is an area that is not tarmacked, which is assumed to be used for parking, and on the right hand side is tarmacked parking. Where the portables are being requested is currently a playground. With a zoning application currently in to City Council and no decision made with respect to the school, it is questioned whether approving these portables will impact Council’s decision. This application seems to be premature at this time, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 114/22 by Pickering Islamic Center be Tabled to allow the Committee to receive further information. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle opposed Sean Wiley opposed -27- Martindale Planning Services Urban Planning, Heritage & Development Consultants 23 Elizabeth Street Ajax, Ontario Canada L1T 2X1 Phone: (905) 427-7574 Email: bob@martindaleplanning.ca www.martindaleplanning.ca September 27, 2022 Deborah Wylie Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment City of Pickering One the Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Deborah: Re: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 114/22 Pickering Islamic Centre – portable request 2071 Brock Rd., Pickering On behalf of the Pickering Islamic Centre, I have been asked to provide the information about the proposed portables that was requested by the Committee of Adjustment at their last meeting. My response is based on the 4 questions posed in your Sept. 21 e - mail to Councillor Pickles. 1.Installation of the 3 portables will have virtually no impact on the parking available at the Centre, since that area (i.e. the southeast corner of the property) is not used presently for parking, other than on “peak” occasions such as funerals when for a few hours there is an overflow situation. 2.PIC is prepared to merge the title of the two properties if necessary, and is prepared to comply with the City’s wishes in this matter. 3.A private school is presently operating out of the Centre, consisting of a daytime program running from 8:00 to 3:30 Monday to Friday; an evening program running from 5:30 to 7:30 Monday to Friday; and a Saturday program running from 10:00 to 1:00. Students involved in these classes range from Junior Kindergarten (ages 4 or 5) to Grade 6 (ages 11 or 12). All of these programs have been approved by the Ministry of Education. 4.The portables will be vacant until the rezoning to permit the private school is approved; the only reason the Centre requires delivery now is that they were able to obtain a significant discount on the price. After the addition is constructed, they will no longer be required. Attachment 3 -28- 2 I trust this is the information that you require for the next meeting, which I understand will be held on October 14. A member of th e PIC and myself will be attending the meeting to answer any questions. Yours very truly, MARTINDALE PLANNING SERVICES Urban Planning and Development Consultants Robert A. Martindale, MCIP, RPP Principal . -29- Usma n Ro a d Br o c k R o a d Ro y a l R o a d Denby Dr ive Gandalf Co u r t Major Oaks Road Sa f f r o n D r i v e DuberryDrive Jade Street Beaton W ay Finch Avenue Su n f l o w e r R o a d B luebird Crescent Sh a y D r i v e Rayleen Cres c ent Mcbrady Crescent Brockridge Community Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 114/22 Date: Aug. 29, 2022 Exhibit 1 Pickering Islamic Center 2071 Brock Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 114-22 Pickering Islamic Center\PCA114-22_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 -30- 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 11 4 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Pi c k e r i n g I s l a m i c C e n t r e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 20 71 Br o c k R o a d 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 : Au g u s t 2 9 , 2 0 2 2 to pe r m i t a c c e s s o r y bu i l d i n g s ( p o r t a b l e s ) t o be s e t b a c k a m i n i m u m of 0 . 0 m e t r e s f r o m t h e ea s t l o t l i n e a n d 0. 5 me t r e s f r o m t h e so u t h l o t l i n e to pe r m i t 3 a c c e s s o r y bu i l d i n g s ( p o r t a b l e s ) o n a l o t w i t h o u t a m a i n bu i l d i n g an d to pe r m i t 3 a c c e s s o r y bu i l d i n g s ( p o r t a b l e s ) wh i c h a r e n o t p a r t o f th e m a i n b u i l d i n g to be er e c t e d i n t h e fr o n t ya r d an d to pe r m i t 3 a c c e s s o r y bu i l d i n g s ( p o r t a b l e s ) wi t h a t o t a l l o t c o v e r a g e of 6 p e r c e n t Brock Road -31- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d El e v a t i o n s Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 4 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : Pi c k e r i n g I s l a m i c C e n t r e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 20 71 Br o c k R o a d 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 : Au g u s t 2 9 , 2 0 2 2 -32- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Numbers: P/CA 110/22 Date: October 12, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 110/22 E. & M. Sameem 846 Taplin Drive (Part 1) Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 7874/21 & 7902/22 to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 3.25, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a minimum (east) side yard of 2.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 2.4 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 5.5 percent for all accessory structures, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 5 percent for all accessory structures; and • a maximum driveway width of 15.43 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum driveway width of 6.0 metres The applicant requests approval of this application in order to recognize a detached dwelling on a retained property. 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 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 the variances apply only to the proposed retained lot (Part 1), and existing dwelling as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). -33- Report P/CA 110/22 October 12, 2022 Page 2 Background Land Division Application LD 103/2021 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 15.43 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. The Infill By-laws established a set of zoning provisions to help maintain the existing character of the surrounding neighbourhood. 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 Dunbarton Neighbourhood. The applicant is proposing to construct a detached dwelling on the severed lot (Part 2), and maintain the existing dwelling on the retained lot (Part 1). Detached dwellings are a permitted use within this designation and a built form within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. 846 Taplin is subject to the Council-adopted Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. 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 15.0 metres on existing roads. The 2 proposed lots comply with the guidelines. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law 846 Taplin is zoned “R4” – One Family Detached Dwelling – Residential Fourth 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 “R4”. -34- Report P/CA 110/22 October 12, 2022 Page 3 Side Yard Variance The intent of a minimum side yard requirement of 2.4 metres is to accommodate drainage, ensure appropriate building separation, and to provide sufficient room for maintenance. Engineering Services has indicated that 2.2 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 setback of 2.2 metres between the existing dwelling and east lot line is minor and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Accessory Structure Lot Coverage Variance The applicant seeks relief from the By-law to recognize two frame shed accessory structures in the rear yard. Prior to the reduction in lot area due to the severance of the subject property, the existing frame shed accessory buildings complied with the Zoning By-law. The intent of the By-law to establish a maximum lot coverage of 5 percent for all accessory structures is to ensure adequate amenity area in the yard and to mitigate potential storm water management concerns on the lot. The structures are existing and have posed no concerns for neighbouring properties. Furthermore, there has been no reports of drainage issues with respect to the existing accessory buildings. Staff is of the opinion that the increased coverage for the existing frame shed accessory structures is minor and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Front Yard Setback Variance Assessment records state the existing residential building was built in 1940. 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 intent of the Zoning By-law requiring a 7.5 metre front yard setback is to provide an adequate separation distance between the building and the street activity in the front yard, and to provide an adequate landscaped area and parking space in front of the property. The existing dwelling has a minimum front yard setback of 3.25 metres. The applicant is requesting relief from the Zoning By-law to recognize a reduced front yard setback. Staff is of the opinion that the existing reduction in the front yard setback of the dwelling maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Staff is proposing a condition that this variance apply only to the existing dwelling. The front yard variance shall apply only to the existing dwelling. Should a new dwelling be proposed for the retained lot then the current Zoning By-law provisions must apply, as there is sufficient space within the property to site a new dwelling. Maximum Driveway Width Variance The intent of the maximum driveway width of 6.0 metres is to ensure a consistent streetscape and to provide an adequate landscaped area. The applicant is requesting to increase the maximum driveway width to 15.43 metres. -35- Report P/CA 110/22 October 12, 2022 Page 4 Prior to the severance of the subject property, there was sufficient parking space provided on the lot. However, the proposed property line no longer permits a 6.0 metre wide driveway along the east side of the existing dwelling that leads to the parking area at the rear of the dwelling. . The applicant proposed parking a car partially on the subject property and municipal boulevard, however, Engineering Services was not satisfied with this proposal, and required the applicant to indicate that a vehicle can be parked entirely within the property limits. Engineering Services required a Parking Maneuvering Review (refer to Appendix I) to indicate how a vehicle will be parked entirely within the property limits within the reduced front yard. The applicant has worked with Engineering Services to arrive at a solution to satisfy City’s conditions of approval with respect to Land Division Application LD 103/21. The applicant worked with a Traffic Engineer, and determined that a car can be parked parallel to the dwelling’s front facing wall with a driveway turning bay partially located within the municipal boulevard and subject property. Engineering Services has indicated they are satisfied with the Traffic Maneuvering Study. Due to the existing site conditions on the proposed retained lot, staff is of the opinion that the maximum driveway width of 15.43 metres maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and is appropriate development for the property with the existing dwelling. This parking arrangement would not be appropriate should the existing dwelling be demolished and a new dwelling constructed. The lot has sufficient depth for a new dwelling to be constructed at 7.5 metres from the front lot line accommodating a perpendicular parking space in front of the dwelling or garage . Therefore staff is recommending a condition that this variance increasing the maximum driveway width apply only to the existing dwelling. 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 existing dwelling on the retained lot (Part 1) is consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood, and is compatible with the character of the existing neighbourhood. The requested increase in maximum driveway width is necessary to facilitate the Zoning By-law requirement of one parking space entirely within the property limits. Furthermore, the variance to recognize a reduction in the front yard setback is an existing situation for over 50 years. The existing frame shed accessory structures have existed with no concerns with respect to storm water management. It is staff’s opinion that the requested variances for the retained lot are desirable for the appropriate development of the land and minor in nature, and that the variances requested for reduced front yard setback and increased maximum driveway width only apply to the existing dwelling. Input From Other Sources Applicant • This minor variance application is required to satisfy the conditions of Land Severance application LD 103/21 Engineering Services • No comments. Building Services • No concerns. Public Input • No comments were received as of the date of writing this report. -36- Report P/CA 110/22 October 12, 2022 Page 5 Date of report: October 6, 2022 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:DW:jc \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 110-22 E. & M. Sameem\7. Report Attachments -37- Appendix I August 26, 2022 PTRAN2022020 Nikeeb Sameem 846 Taplin Drive Pickering, ON L1V 1H3 Re: 846 Taplin Drive Parking Review Dear Nikeeb Sameem, TraffMobility Engineering Inc. (“TraffMobility”) has conducted a review of the proposed parking layout at 846 Taplin Drive in the City of Pickering to show that a passenger car can manoeuvre into the proposed parking space located within the property line. A swept path analysis was conducted using the standard passenger car as defined by Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) – dimensions are provided in the attached passenger car profile. The swept path analysis shows that a passenger car will need to execute a parallel parking manoeuvre to park in the proposed parking space within the property line. Please refer to the attached swept path drawing for details. In summary, a passenger car can park within the property line by executing a parallel parking manoeuvre as shown in the attached swept path analysis. Respectfully Submitted, TraffMobility Engineering Inc. Rudy Sooklall, P.Eng. President and Director of Transportation Attachments: Passenger Car Profile, Swept Path Analysis -38- 5. 6 1. 1 3. 2 P - P a s s e n g e r C a r Ov e r a l l L e n g t h Ov e r a l l W i d t h Ov e r a l l B o d y H e i g h t Mi n B o d y G r o u n d C l e a r a n c e Tr a c k W i d t h Lo c k - t o - l o c k t i m e Cu r b t o C u r b T u r n i n g R a d i u s 5. 6 0 0 m 2. 0 0 0 m 1. 5 5 5 m 0. 3 4 0 m 2. 0 0 0 m 4. 0 0 s 6. 3 0 0 m -39- Proposed Pa r k i n g 2 . 6 x 5 . 3 Driveway 7.0% 3:1 MAX +114.47EX. INV.114.32114.47 + + + + 11 4 . 4 11 4 . 4 6 114.02(EX.) 7.7m SWALE @ 3.9% 7.7% + +INV.114.02 11 3 . 9 5 + 114.09 + + 11 3 . 8 3. 6 6 PROP. WATER PROP. STM PROP. SAN 5.0%+ 11 3 . 5 PR O P O S E D C U R B C U T A N D E N T R A N C E TO M U N I C I P A L S P E C I F I C A T I O N S PR O P E R T Y LI M I T DR I V E I N -40- Finch Avenue Ea g l e v i e w D r i v e Darwin D r i v e Glenanna Road P a r k s i d e D r i v e Aspen Road Pebble C o u r t Fa i r p o r t R o a d S p r u c e H i l l R o a d D u n c a nnon D rive Taplin Drive Regal Crescent Baylawn Drive Ravine Erin Gate Park Erin Gate Park J. Mcpherson Park Duncannon Ravine Gandatsetiagon Public School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 110/22 Date: Aug. 16, 2022 Exhibit 1 ¯ E E. & M. Sameem 846 Taplin Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 110-22 M. & E. Sameem\PCA110-22_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 -41- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 110/22 Applicant: E. & M. Sameem Municipal Address: 846 Taplin Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN.Date: Sep 22, 2022 to permit a minimum side (east) yard of 2.2 metres to permit a maximum lot coverage of 5.5 percent for all accessory structures Taplin Drive to permit a minimum front yard setback of 3.25 metres to permit a maximum driveway width of 15.43 metres Existing Dwelling -42- Exhibit 3 Submitted Overall Site Plan File No: P/CA 110/22 Applicant: E. & M. Sameem Municipal Address: 846 Taplin Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Sep 22, 2022 Taplin Drive P/CA 110/22 – 846 Taplin Drive Retained lot Severed lot -43- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d Pa r k i n g M a n e u v e r i n g An a l y s i s Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 0 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : E. & M . S a m e e m Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 84 6 T a p l i n 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 VI 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 : Se p 2 2 , 2 0 2 2 to p e r m i t a m a x i m u m dr i v e w a y w i d t h o f 15 . 4 3 me t r e s -44- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 115/22 Date: October 12, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 115/22 R. McGee 2366 Canterbury Crescent Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4365/93, to permit: • an uncovered steps or platform (deck with steps) not exceeding 2.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.8 metres into the required rear 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 of a metre in any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the reconstruction of an uncovered rear deck. 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 proposed uncovered rear uncovered deck and steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood. Residential uses such as detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto are permitted within this designation. -45- Report P/CA 115/22 October 12, 2022 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “R7” in Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by by-law 4365/93. The intent of limiting the projection of platforms and steps into the rear yard is to ensure adequate amenity space is maintained in the rear yard. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing rear deck with an uncovered deck that is projecting 2.74 metres into rear yard with a height of 2.08 metres. The proposed deck is located at the southeast side of the existing dwelling and it is setback 5.36 metres from the rear lot line (refer to Exhibit 2). The proposed deck will contribute to the total amount of usable amenity space in the rear yard. There is also sufficient space to the southwest side of the proposed deck for landscaping and amenity purposes. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. 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 provide access to the rear yard from the dwelling, and contribute towards the total usable amenity space in the rear yard. Appropriate screening to the east of the proposed rear deck is provided through the existing cedar hedges. The proposed deck is not anticipated to have any significant impacts on drainage or on the surrounding area. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable and appropriate, and it is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • Deck age unsafe needing replacement to provide access to rear yard due to grade change. Engineering Services • Ensure the proposed deck does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Building Services • No concerns. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: October 6, 2022 Comments prepared by: Ziya Cao Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration ZC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 115-22 R. McGee\7. Report\PCA 115-22 Report.doc Attachments -46- Hadrian Court Sout h c o t t R o a d Cant e r b u r y C r e s c e n t Abbott Crescent Con a c h e r C r e s c e n t Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 115/22 Date: Sep. 02, 2022 Exhibit 1 ¯ E R. McGee 2366 Canterbury Crescent SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 115-22 R. McGee\PCA115-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:1,500 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -47- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 115/22 Applicant: R. McGee Municipal Address: 2366 Canterbury Crescent FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sep 21, 2022 to permit an uncovered platform with steps not exceeding 2.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.8 metres into the required rear yard -48- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d De c k F l o o r Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 5 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : R. M c G e e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 23 6 6 C a n t e r b u r y C r e s c e n t 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 : Se p 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 -49- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d De c k El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 5 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : R. M c G e e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 23 6 6 C a n t e r b u r y C r e s c e n t 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 : Se p 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 -50- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 116/22 Date: October 12, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 116/22 A. Rodrigues & L. Castelino 1950 Liverpool Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum north side yard of 0.8 of a metre where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, 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; • a maximum driveway width of 22 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum width of a driveway shall be 6.0 metres; and • a maximum lot coverage of 28 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a second storey addition and extension of the existing dwelling. 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 variances to permit a minimum north side yard of 0.8 of a metre and a maximum lot coverage of 28 percent to meet the four tests, and the requested variance to permit a maximum driveway width of 22 metres does not meet the four tests. Staff recommends Approval of the requested variances to permit a minimum north side yard of 0.8 of a metre and a maximum lot coverage of 28 percent, and Refusal of the requested variance to permit a maximum driveway width of 22 metres. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in the requested variances to the north side yard and lot coverage, the following conditions are recommended: 1. That the variances to the north side yard and lot coverage apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8). 2. That the proposed driveway shall not exceed a maximum width of 6.0 metres, or if the entrance of the garage is wider than 6.0 metres, the proposed driveway shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of the garage. -51- Report P/CA 116/22 October 12, 2022 Page 2 Background Existing North Side Yard Setback of 0.8 metres: Zoning By-law 3036, which was passed by Council on August 3, 1965, requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres. The existing single-storey dwelling on the subject property is located 0.8 metres from the north side lot line. The City has received sufficient evidence that supports that the existing dwelling was constructed prior to the passing of By-law 3036. Based on MPAC records, it appears the dwelling was constructed sometime in 1954. The City also has an aerial photo from 1959 which shows the building on the property. Applicant’s Proposal to Enlarge the Existing Dwelling: The applicant is proposing to keep a portion of the foundation and basement of the existing dwelling (see Exhibit 8), to construct a second storey addition and rear extension of the existing dwelling. The portion of the existing dwelling that is setback 0.8 metres from the north lot line is proposed to remain. 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. The property is subject to By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22. Staff have determined that the proposed dwelling would require variances to the Infill By-law for maximum driveway width and lot coverage. However, due to the ongoing appeals, the Infill By-law is not currently in force. As such, the City is required to issue a building permit for a dwelling that is in compliance with existing in force by-laws, but may not be in compliance with the Infill By-law, which is not yet in force. Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within this designation and a common built form within the Liverpool Neighbourhood. Staff have reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the Council-adopted Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. -52- Report P/CA 116/22 October 12, 2022 Page 3 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law North Side Yard Setback The intent of this provision is to provide an appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties in order to maintain pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services. Both the existing foundation and the proposed second-storey addition have a minimum setback of 0.89 of a metre to the north lot line. However, as a result of the slanted lot line and design of the dwelling, the existing foundation and proposed addition are setback 1.03 metres from the north lot line at the front of the dwelling, and 1.14 metres at the rear of the dwelling (see Exhibit 3). The abutting dwelling to the north (1952 Liverpool Road) is setback between 1.9 and 2.2 metres from the shared property line. A minimum building separation of 2.79 metres will be maintained between the proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling to the north. There is sufficient space between the proposed dwelling and the adjacent dwelling to the north to accommodate pedestrian access and residential services. In addition, the existing foundation and proposed addition maintain a large south side yard setback, ranging between 3.73 and 4.08 metres (see Exhibit 3). It is expected that the large south side yard will be used primarily for pedestrian access and residential services. At the building permit stage, the applicant will be required to implement Multiple Low Impact Development measures, to the satisfaction of Engineering Services, to ensure the reduced side yard does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area (see Input from Other Sources). To mitigate privacy concerns for the adjacent dwelling to the north as a result of the second storey addition, the dwelling has been designed to have no windows on the north facing wall (see Exhibit 6). There is a balcony located at the rear of the dwelling, however it is setback over 4.0 metres from the north lot line. In addition, the subject dwelling and the dwelling to the north have their garages located along the shared property line. As such, their habitable space on the ground floor is located further from the shared property line. Lot Coverage The intent of this provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (for landscaping and amenity areas) uncovered by buildings on a lot, and to accommodate grading and drainage. The dwelling maintains a rear yard setback of 28.83 metres and a front yard setback of 7.83 metres (see Exhibit 2). There is more than sufficient room in the rear yard for amenity space and landscaping, and to accommodate grading and drainage. Provided the applicant does not pave over the entire front yard for a driveway (as illustrated by the applicant on Exhibit 3), there would be sufficient room in the front yard for landscaping. An increase of landscaping and a decrease in the amount of impervious surfaces in the front yard would help accommodate grading and drainage. -53- Report P/CA 116/22 October 12, 2022 Page 4 Does Not Conform to the Intent of the Zoning By-law Driveway Width The intent of this provision is to ensure sufficient space is maintained in the front yard for landscaping, to accommodate grading and drainage, and to maintain the character of the street. The property has 25.62 metres of frontage along Liverpool Road, whereas the driveway appears to have a maximum width of 21.2 metres. In staff’s opinion, this does not provide for sufficient space in the front yard for landscaping. The existing driveway on the property appears to have a width of approximately 5.0 metres. An increase in the driveway width to 21.2 metres would result in a large increase of impervious surfaces in the front yard. A reduction in the size of the driveway would help with grading and drainage on the property, especially when considering the reduced north side yard setback and the increased lot coverage. Neighbouring properties along Liverpool Road appear to have driveway widths ranging between 5.5 and 10.0 metres. The proposal to permit a maximum driveway width of 21.2 metres is not in keeping with the character of the street. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature North Side Yard Setback & Lot Coverage The reduced north side yard setback is an existing condition. The requested variance will allow the applicant to maintain a portion of the existing foundation and basement. The additional floor area will allow the applicant to accommodate an additional dwelling unit and a three-car garage within the proposed building footprint. The size of the proposed dwelling is appropriate relative to the large size of the lot. Staff consider the requested variances to the north side yard setback and lot coverage to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land and minor in nature. Not Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Not Minor in Nature Driveway Width The increased driveway width will have negative impacts on grading and drainage, and will not be in keeping with the character of the street. The proposed driveway width of 21.2 metres is 15.2 metres larger than the permitted maximum of 6.0 metres. Staff do not consider the requested variance to driveway width to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land or minor in nature. -54- Report P/CA 116/22 October 12, 2022 Page 5 Reccomended Condition to Limit the Width of the Driveway The Infill By-law is under appeal and is therefore not currently in force. At this time, the City is required to issue building permits for structures that may not be in compliance with the Infill By-law. As such, should the Committee decide to refuse the variance to the maximum driveway width, the applicant could still pull a building permit with a driveway width of 21.2 metres. For this reason, staff are recommending that as a condition of approval of the variances to the side yard setback and lot coverage, that the proposed driveway shall not exceed a maximum width of 6.0 metres, or if the entrance of the garage is wider than 6.0 metres, the proposed driveway shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of the garage. A condition of approval for a minor variance should be enforceable, appropriate and related to the requested variance. An increase in the driveway width to 21.2 metres would result in a large increase of impervious surfaces in the front yard. Alternatively, providing permeable surface (such as landscaping) in the front yard would improve the grading and drainage on the lot. This is especially important when considering the dwelling is proposed to have a reduced north side yard setback and increased lot coverage. It is staff’s opinion that the recommended condition to limit the width of the driveway is enforceable, appropriate and related to the requested variances. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The current zoning allows minimum 1.8 metre side yard setback. Engineering Services • Ensure increased lot coverage and any reduced setbacks (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, permeable pavers, and 450mm topsoil) will be required at the Building Permit stage. • Maximum driveway width is to be a total of 6.0 metres. Permeable pavers will be required for the driveway. Building Services • No concerns from Building Services. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. -55- Report P/CA 116/22 October 12, 2022 Page 6 Date of report: October 6, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Planner II Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 116-22 A. Rodrigues & L. Castelino\7. Report Attachments -56- Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments Yes 1. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) The proposal includes an addition of a second storey. Existing dwellings along the street appear to be one or two storeys. N/A 2. If the proposed new dwelling is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) The proposed dwelling complies with the maximum permitted building height of 9.0 metres. The dwelling is not significantly taller than existing adjacent dwellings. Yes 3. Is the maximum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) Yes 4. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) Yes 5. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) Yes 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) Yes 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) Yes 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) -57- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments Yes & No 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) The proposed south side yard setback is greater than the minimum required in the By-law, whereas the proposed north side yard setback is smaller than the required minimum. The reduced north side yard setback is an existing condition. Yes 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) The garage is recessed. No 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) The proposed driveway has a width of 21.2 metres. Staff are not supportive of the proposed driveway width. Unknown 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) These details will be determined at building permit stage. -58- Li v e r p o o l R o a d A n t o n S q u a r e Fa y l e e C r e s c e n t Gl e n d a l e D r i v e Glendale Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 116/22 Date: Sep. 07, 2022 Exhibit 1 ¯ E A. Rodrigues & L. Castelino 1950 Liverpool Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 116-22 A. Rodrigues & L. Castelino\PCA116-22_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 -59- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan (Full) File No: P/CA 116/22 Applicant: A. Rodrigues & L. Castelino Municipal Address: 1950 Liverpool Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sept. 22, 2022 -60- Exhibit 3 Submitted Site Plan (Zoomed In) File No: P/CA 116/22 Applicant: A. Rodrigues & L. Castelino Municipal Address: 1950 Liverpool Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sept. 22, 2022 0.89 m to permit a minimum north side yard of 0.8 of a metre where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling to permit a maximum driveway width of 22 metres to permit a maximum lot coverage of 28 percent 21.2 m -61- Ex h i b i t 4 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 11 6 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : A. R o d r i g u e s & L . C a s t e l i n o Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 19 5 0 L i v e r p o o l R o a d 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 DE P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Se p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 2 2 -62- Ex h i b i t 5 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 11 6 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : A. R o d r i g u e s & L . C a s t e l i n o Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 19 5 0 L i v e r p o o l R o a d 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 DE P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Se p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 2 2 -63- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d No r t h S i d e El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 6 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : A. R o d r i g u e s & L . C a s t e l i n o Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 19 5 0 L i v e r p o o l R o a d 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 DE P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Se p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 2 2 -64- Ex h i b i t 7 Su b m i t t e d So u t h Si d e El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 6 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : A. R o d r i g u e s & L . C a s t e l i n o Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 19 5 0 L i v e r p o o l R o a d 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 DE P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Se p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 2 2 -65- Ex h i b i t 8 Su b m i t t e d Fo u n d a t i o n P l a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 6 / 2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : A. R o d r i g u e s & L . C a s t e l i n o Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 19 5 0 L i v e r p o o l R o a d 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 : Oc t o b e r 3 , 2 0 2 2 Ar e a i n g r e y i s t h e ex i s t i n g f o u n d a t i o n th a t i s p r o p o s e d t o re m a i n -66- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 117/22 Date: October 12, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 117/22 C. Boyce 734A Krosno Boulevard Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit interior side yard setbacks of 0.6 of a metre to the west and east side lot lines for a third-storey addition, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 6.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a third-storey addition to an existing townhouse. 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 proposed third-storey addition to the existing townhouse, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). Background Previous Minor Variance Application: In August of 2021, the applicant submitted Minor Variance Application P/CA 73/21 for the subject property, to permit the construction of a second-storey addition to the existing townhouse (see Figure 1 on the next page). To facilitate the proposed addition, the applicant requested the following variances: • to permit an interior side yard setback of 0.0 metres from both side lot lines, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 6.0 metres; • to permit a minimum floor area of 80 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum floor area of 95 square metres per dwelling unit; and -67- Report P/CA 117/22 October 12, 2022 Page 2 • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 25.2 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent for all buildings other than private garages. City staff recommended refusal of the application, as in staff’s opinion the variances did not meet the four tests of a minor variance. At the September 8, 2021 hearing, three residents spoke in objection to the application. In addition, the City received written comments from four area residents in objection to the application. Concerns were related to stormwater management, drainage, shadow impact, loss of sunlight and privacy, encroachment issues, impact on resale value of adjacent homes, and structural concerns. The Committee of Adjustment refused the application on the grounds that the requested variances were 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 Zoning By-law. Figure 1: Previously proposed addition at the rear of the dwelling Existing Conditions: The subject property is a legal lot of record that predates the approval of Zoning By-law 2520 in 1961 by the Ontario Municipal Board. Despite construction of the townhouse block being completed in 1962, the existing lot and building at 734A Krosno Boulevard contains a number of recognized non-conforming conditions since the building permit application was submitted prior to the approval of Zoning By-law 2520. -68- Report P/CA 117/22 October 12, 2022 Page 3 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Mixed Use Areas – Local Nodes” within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended to accommodate a mix of uses, including residential townhomes. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The RM2 Zone requires a minimum side yard setback of 6.0 metres. Though this requirement was intended to be applied to end units of a townhouse block, the By-law does not specifically state this. In addition, the By-law does not prescribe an alternative minimum side yard setback for interior units. As such, a minimum side yard setback of 6.0 metres must be applied to this interior unit. The purpose of a minimum side yard setback requirement is to maintain an appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties to accommodate grading, drainage and for the maintenance of each dwelling. The applicant has increased the proposed side yard setbacks from 0 metres to 0.6 of a metre on both sides. Providing these setbacks will allow the applicant to complete exterior maintenance of the third-storey within the limits of the subject property. In addition, construction can be conducted within the limits of the property, without requiring access over neighbouring properties. This was a major concern with the previous proposal, as a neighbouring resident stated that they would not grant access onto their property. Engineering Services have not expressed concerns related to grading or drainage as a result of the proposed addition. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Considering the very small size of the existing townhouse unit (the current building footprint is 52 square metres, or 568.3 square feet), staff do not consider a proposal for an addition to be unreasonable. The additional floor area is desirable and will contribute positively to the usability of the home. Considering the proposed development is located entirely within the limits of the property and within the existing building footprint, staff consider the requested variance to be minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The current by-law 2520 RM2 does not recognize side yard setbacks for individual townhomes, rather than the block townhomes as a whole. Hence I am requesting allowance for a 0.6 metre side yard setback on both sides. • My revised drawings, along with a 0.6 metre setback rectifies concerns addressed by City staff and adjoining neighbours at the previous COA…allows for construction -69- Report P/CA 117/22 October 12, 2022 Page 4 and maintenance/repairs to be done solely within my property lines; drainage would remain as is (exterior downspouts would remain in the same position along house); and no visual impact from rear adjoining neighbours, etc. Engineering Services •No comments. Building Services •No concerns from Building Services. Public Input •No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: October 6, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Planner II Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 117-22 C. Boyce\7. Report Attachments -70- An n l a n d S t r e e t He w s o n D r i v e Krosno Boulevard Foxglove Avenue H e l e n C r e s c e n t Balsdon Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 117/22 Date: Sep. 08, 2022 Exhibit 1 ¯ E C. Boyce 734A Krosno Boulevard SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 117-22 C. Boyce\PCA117-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:1,500 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -71- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 117/22 Applicant: C. Boyce Municipal Address: 734A Krosno Boulevard FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sept. 20, 2022 to permit interior side yard setbacks of 0.6 of a metre to the west and east side lot lines for a third-storey addition -72- Exhibit 3 Submitted Front Elevation File No: P/CA 117/22 Applicant: C. Boyce Municipal Address: 734A Krosno Boulevard FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sept. 20, 2022 0.6 m 0.6 m to permit interior side yard setbacks of 0.6 of a metre to the west and east side lot lines for a third-storey addition -73- Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear Elevation File No: P/CA 117/22 Applicant: C. Boyce Municipal Address: 734A Krosno Boulevard FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sept. 20, 2022 0.6 m 0.6 m to permit interior side yard setbacks of 0.6 of a metre to the west and east side lot lines for a third-storey addition -74- Exhibit 5 Submitted West Side Elevation File No: P/CA 117/22 Applicant: C. Boyce Municipal Address: 734A Krosno Boulevard FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sept. 20, 2022 -75- Exhibit 6 Submitted Cross Section File No: P/CA 117/22 Applicant: C. Boyce Municipal Address: 734A Krosno Boulevard FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sept. 20, 2022 -76- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 118/22 Date: October 12, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 118/22 B. Brissenden & L. Leggett 1661 Henry Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 22 percent for an addition to the existing dwelling, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 20 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling, including the construction of an attached private garage with living space on the second floor. 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 proposed addition to the existing dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). Background Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, was passed by Council on August 3, 1965. Based on MPAC records, the existing dwelling on the subject property was constructed in 1890, and renovations were completed in 2000. The City also has an aerial photo from 1964 which shows the building on the property. The existing dwelling on the property has some zoning non-compliances, primarily related to yard setbacks. However, because the dwelling was constructed long before the passing of the By-law, these non-compliances have legal non-conforming status. -77- Report P/CA 118/22 October 12, 2022 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Rural Settlements – Oak Ridges Moraine Rural Hamlets within the Hamlet of Claremont. Residential uses such as detached dwellings, and uses accessory thereto, are permitted within this designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the maximum lot coverage provision is to maintain an appropriate amount of yard space (for landscaping and amenity areas) uncovered by buildings on a lot, and to accommodate grading and drainage. Based on the existing layout of the property, it appears that the land to the east of the dwelling is currently being used for amenity purposes. The proposed addition will have no impact on this amenity area. In addition, there is a large area to the west of the proposed addition, which contains the existing septic area, that has soft landscaping, including grass and trees. There is sufficient space on the property left uncovered for landscaping and outdoor amenity areas. At the building permit stage, the applicant will be required to implement Multiple Low Impact Development measures, to the satisfaction of Engineering Services, to ensure the increased lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area (see Input from Other Sources). Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Staff consider the size of the existing dwelling and proposed addition to be appropriate relative to the size of the lot. The proposed addition will contain an additional dwelling unit within the second storey above the garage. This is desirable and appropriate development as it will contribute to the mix of housing within the Hamlet of Claremont. Staff are of the opinion that an increase of two percent in lot coverage will not result in a great loss of yard space on this lot. Input From Other Sources Applicant • There will not be enough living space available above the garage if we lose anymore area. Engineering Services • Ensure increased lot coverage (if approved with this application) does 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 concerns from Building Services. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. -78- Report P/CA 118/22 October 12, 2022 Page 3 Date of report: October 6, 2022 Comments prepared by: Isabel Lima Planner II Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration IL:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\2022\PCA 118-22 B. Brissenden & L. Leggett\7. Report Attachments -79- Central Street Br o c k R o a d Do w S t r e e t Wi l l i a m S t r e e t Lane Street Barc lay Stre e t Wellington Street Victoria Street Ca r p e n t e r C o u r t Ca n s o D r i v e Claremont Memorial Park Claremont Public School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 118/22 Date: Sep. 12, 2022 Exhibit 1 B. Brissenden & L. Leggett 1661 Henry Street SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 118-22 B. Brissenden & L. Leggett\PCA118-22_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 -80- Ex h i b i t 2 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n (F u l l ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 8 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : B. B r i s s e n d e n & L . L e g g e t t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 16 6 1 H e n r y S t r e e t 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 DE P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Se p t e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 -81- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d Si t e Pl a n ( Zo o m e d I n ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 8 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : B. B r i s s e n d e n & L . L e g g e t t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 16 6 1 H e n r y S t r e e t FU L L SC 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 : Se p t e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 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 2 2 pe r c e n t f o r a n ad d i t i o n t o t h e e x i s t i n g d w e l l i n g -82- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d Fr o n t E l e v a t i o n ( fr o n t i n g He n r y St r e e t ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 8 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : B. B r i s s e n d e n & L . L e g g e t t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 16 6 1 H e n r y S t r e e t 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 : Se p t e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 -83- Ex h i b i t 5 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 11 8 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : B. B r i s s e n d e n & L . L e g g e t t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 16 6 1 H e n r y S t r e e t 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 DE P A R T M E N T . Da t e : Se p t e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 -84- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d We s t S i d e El e v a t i o n (f r o n t i n g W i l l i a m S t r e e t ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 8 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : B. B r i s s e n d e n & L . L e g g e t t Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 16 6 1 H e n r y S t r e e t 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 : Se p t e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 2 2 -85- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 119/22 Date: October 12, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 119/22 N. Thapa 1204 Gloucester Square Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 0889/78 to permit: • a minimum rear yard setback of 6.6 metres for a residential semi-detached dwelling, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres for a residential semi-detached dwelling. 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 sunroom addition to an existing semi-detached dwelling. 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 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 semi-detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” within the Liverpool neighbourhood. Residential uses and uses accessory thereto are permitted within this designation, including semi-detached dwellings. -86- Report P/CA 119/22 October 12, 2022 Page 2 Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “SD” in Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 0889/78. The intent of the minimum rear year setback of 7.5 metres is to ensure that a usable amenity space is provided in the rear yard. The requested variance is a result of the proposed 11.14 square metre sunroom addition. The proposed addition is measured 3.66 metres in width and 3.05 metres in depth located at the east side of the existing dwelling. The existing flankage side yard setback of 2.75 metres will be maintained. The size of the proposed addition is minimal relative to the remaining amenity space available in the rear yard. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The proposed sunroom addition provides for additional living area and amenity space within the dwelling. The proposed addition replaces the existing deck in the rear yard, and provides appropriate separation to the neighbouring property to the west. Appropriate screening for the neighbouring property to the south is provided via existing cedar hedges. The requested variance represents a 0.9 metre encroachment into the permitted rear yard setback. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of land and it is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • Does not comply with rear yard setback. Engineering Services • Ensure the reduced rear yard depth does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Building Services • No concerns. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: October 6, 2022 Comments prepared by: Ziya Cao Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration ZC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 119-22 N. Thapa\7. Report\PCA 119-22 Report.doc Attachments -87- Bo w l e r D r i v e Finch Avenue Canborough Crescent Ma p l e R i d g e D r i v e Mo n t e a g l e L a n e Gloucester Square Kitley Ravine St. Isaac Jogues Separate School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 119/22 Date: Sep. 12, 2022 Exhibit 1 ¯ E N. Thapa 1204 Gloucester Square SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 119-22 N. Thapa\PCA119-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:1,500 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City Development Department -88- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 119/22 Applicant: N. Thapa Municipal Address: 1204 Gloucester Square FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sep 21, 2022 to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 6.6 metres for a residential semi- detached dwelling -89- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d El e v a t i o n Pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 9 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : N. T h a p a Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 0 4 G l o u c e s t e r S q u a r 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 : Se p 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 -90- Exhibit 4 Submitted Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 119/22 Applicant: N. Thapa Municipal Address: 1204 Gloucester Square FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sep 21, 2022 -91- Ex h i b i t 5 Su b m i t t e d El e v a t i o n (D e t a i l s o f t h e P r o p o s e d S u n r o o m ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 9 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : N. T h a p a Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 0 4 G l o u c e s t e r S q u a r 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 : Se p 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 -92- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d El e v a t i o n (D e t a i l s o f t h e P r o p o s e d S u n r o o m ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 11 9 /2 2 Ap p l i c a n t : N. T h a p a Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 12 0 4 G l o u c e s t e r S q u a r 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 : Se p 2 1 , 2 0 2 2 -93- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 120/22 Date: October 12, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 120/22 S. Chowdhury & S. Marin 1969 Woodview Avenue Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7389/14, to permit: • an uncovered platform (balcony) not exceeding 3.3 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.7 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.5 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.0 metres into the required rear yard; and • a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered platform (balcony). Recommendation The City Development Department recommends that Minor Variance Application P/CA 120/22 be Deferred for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to confirm the if the proposal satisfies TRCA policies or previous agreements. Background In accordance with comments received from TRCA (refer to Appendix 1), TRCA Living City Policies require a 30-meter setback from a Provincially Significant Wetland for any new development. TRCA staff have confirmed that the proposed rear yard deck replacement does not comply with this policy and extends closer to the feature, further encroaching into the buffer associated with the Provincially Significant Wetland. TRCA staff is currently in the process of reviewing previous development applications on the subject property to understand the previously agreed upon buffer values, prior to supporting the proposal. As such, City staff recommend that this application be deferred to allow TRCA to confirm if the proposal satisfies with the TRCA policies and previously agreements prior to presenting this application to the Committee. -94- Report P/CA 120/22 October 12, 2022 Page 2 Input From Other Sources Applicant • Seeking to extend an existing balcony. Engineering Services • Ensure the increased maximum lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Building Services • No concerns. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • We request deferral of Minor Variance Application No. P/CA 120/22 until TRCA staff have reviewed the historic approvals to determine if the proposal satisfies TRCA policies or previous agreements. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: October 6, 2022 Comments prepared by: Ziya Cao Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration ZC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 120-22 S. Chowdhury & S. Masrin\7. Report\PCA 120-22 (Deferral).docx Attachment -95- October 5, 2022 CFN: 66443.15 X-REF CFN: 67736 BY E-MAIL (zcao@pickering.ca) Ziya Cao City of Pickering – Committee of Adjustment City Development Department One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Ms. Cao, RE: Minor Variance Application No. P/CA 120/22 1969 Woodview Avenue PLAN 329 PART LOT 18 City of Pickering Shak Choudhury Thank you for the opportunity to review the above noted Minor Variance Application received by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) on September 16, 2022. The purpose of this letter is to provide our comments based on our evaluation of the proposed works. Our Understanding of the Proposal: We understand the proposal involves the construction of a replacement uncovered rear deck attached to the existing dwelling at 1969 Woodview Avenue. The site is located south of Finch Avenue East and west of Altona Road in the City of Pickering. We understand that the application seeks relief from the provisions of the zoning by-law in order to accommodate the proposed works. The requested variances pertain to the following: •Maximum permitted height and projection of uncovered platforms into the required rear yard. TRCA Regulation and Policy: The subject property is located within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Petticoat watershed and is regulated with respect to its location within an Area of Interference (AOI) associated with the Townline Swamp Wetland Complex, a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). In accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shoreline and Watercourse Regulation), a permit is required from TRCA prior to any new development taking place within this property. In order to recommend approval of a TRCA permit application, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of TRCA staff that the five tests of the regulation will not be affected by the development. These five tests include flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution, or the conservation of land. The test applicable to the subject application is the conservation of land. Appendix I -96- Ziya Coa October 5, 2022 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority | 2 J:\DSS\Correspondence\PICKERIN\2022\66443.15 PL1 1969 Woodview Avenue City of Pickering October 5, 2022.docx Site Specific Comments: TRCA Living City Policies require a 30-meter setback from a Provincially Significant Wetland for any new development. Where there is existing development within 30 meters of a PSW, the LCP also allows for new non-habitable ancillary development, such that the proposed ancillary structures maintain the greater of a 10- meter setback from the PSW and extends no closer to the PSW than the existing limits of development. TRCA staff can confirm that the proposed rear yard deck replacement does not comply with this policy and extends closer to the feature, further encroaching into the buffer associated with the Provincially Significant Wetland. As such, TRCA staff are in the process of reviewing previous Planning Act applications on the subject site to understand the previously agreed upon buffer values, prior to supporting this new development. TRCA Permit Application: An Ontario Regulation 166/06 after-the-fact permit application was received by TRCA staff on September 14, 2022, to legalize the construction of the rear yard replacement deck. The drawings circulated to TRCA as part of this minor variance application are consistent with the plans received with the TRCA permit application (CFN 67736). TRCA staff will continue to work with the landowner to address all policy concerns through the after-the-fact permit application. Conclusion: Given the above, we request deferral of Minor Variance Application No. P/CA 120/22 until TRCA staff have reviewed the historic approvals to determine if the proposal satisfies TRCA policies or previous agreements. We trust these comments are of assistance. Please contact me if you have any further questions. Regards, Heather Rodriguez, M.Sc (Pl) Planner I Development Planning & Permits (437) 880-2415 TT/hr cc. Shak Choudhury, Owner (via email) -97- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 122/22 Date: October 12, 2022 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 122/22 Z. Malam & S.Sayany 2177 Saffron Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7384/14, to permit: • an uncovered balcony with a minimum setback to the rear lot line of 4.3 metres, whereas the By-law permits a covered or unenclosed porch, veranda or balcony, with or without a foundation, may have the minimum setback to the rear lot line of 5.0 metres; and • a covered deck of any height in the rear yard provided minimum setbacks are provided, whereas the By-law permits uncovered decks of any height in the rear yard provided minimum setbacks are provided. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered balcony and covered deck in the rear yard. 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 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 uncovered rear balcony and covered rear deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed. -98- Report P/CA 122/22 October 12, 2022 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Area within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood. Residential uses such as detached dwellings and uses accessory thereto are permitted within this designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “S4-11” in Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by by-law 7384/14. Yard Encroachments Variance The applicant is proposing to replace the existing rear balcony and rear deck with an uncovered balcony that projects 3.05 metres into the rear yard with a height of 3.51 metres and a covered deck projecting 2.58 metres into the rear with a height of 0.81 metres (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4). Due to the restrictive wording within the Zoning By-law, only covered and unenclosed balconies and uncovered decks are permitted. The applicant is seeking relief from Zoning By-law to permit an uncovered balcony and covered deck, which is opposite of the permitted structures in the Zoning By-law. In the review of the balconies and decks of the adjacent dwellings along Saffron Drive, all of the existing balconies are uncovered and selected dwellings have balcony and deck arrangements where the existing decks are covered. The intent for providing setback requirements for yard encroachments is to ensure adequate space is provided for landscaping in the required yards and adequate amenity space is provided in the rear yard. The proposed balcony will span across the width of the existing dwelling with the east side of the balcony encroaching further than the permitted minimum setback of 5.0 metres by 0.64 metres. The setbacks of the proposed deck conforms with the minimum setbacks provided in the Zoning By-law. The minor encroachment of the balcony does not significantly impact the total usable amenity space in the rear yard. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The request variances are intended to facilitate the construction of an uncovered balcony and a covered deck in the rear yard of the property. The applicant’s proposal is a modified design of the balcony and deck arrangement of the adjacent dwelling to the west. The subject property abuts the forested area of the Pickering Community Baptist Church to the north. As such, no abutting neighbour directly rear of the subject property is affected by the proposed balcony and deck. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable and appropriate, and are minor in nature. -99- Report P/CA 122/22 October 12, 2022 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Applicant • There is a technical error in the Zoning By-law. We are trying to build an uncovered balcony and covered deck, whereas the zoning bylaws only apply to a covered balcony and an uncovered deck. In addition, the proposed structure doesn’t meet the setback requirements from the rear property line. Engineering Services • Ensure the proposed covered deck does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. • If the development has not been assumed prior to applying for building permit, the applicant will require permission from the developer to perform the works outlined in the minor variance application. Building Services • No concerns. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: October 6, 2022 Comments prepared by: Ziya Cao Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration ZC:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2022\PCA 115-22 R. McGee\7. Report\PCA 115-22 Report.doc Attachments -100- U s m an Road Az u r e M e w s Sa f f r o n D r i v e Jade Street Su n f l o w e r R o a d Br o c k R o a d Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 122/22 Date: Sep. 23, 2022 Exhibit 1 ¯ E Z. Malam & S. Sayany 2177 Saffron Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2022\PCA 122-22 Z. Malam & S. Sayany\PCA122-22_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 -101- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan (Balcony) File No: P/CA 122/22 Applicant: Z. Malam & S. Sayany Municipal Address: 2177 Saffron Drive FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sep 26, 2022 to permit an uncovered balcony with a minimum setback to the rear lot line of 4.3 metres -102- Exhibit 3 Submitted Site Plan (Deck) File No: P/CA 122/22 Applicant: Z. Malam & S. Sayany Municipal Address: 2177 Saffron Drive FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sep 26, 2022 to permit a covered deck of any height in the rear yard provided minimum setbacks are provided -103- Exhibit 4 Submitted Elevation Plan File No: P/CA 122/22 Applicant: Z. Malam & S. Sayany Municipal Address: 2177 Saffron Drive FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sep 26, 2022 -104-