Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 8, 2023 Committee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Number: 3 Date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, March 8, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page Number For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Secretary-Treasurer or Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Telephone: 905.420.4617 Email: citydev@pickering.ca 1. Disclosure of Interest 2. Adoption of Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes from February 8, 2023 hearing 1-8 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 17/23 – 707 Front Road 9-24 4.2 P/CA 18/23 – 2973 Heartwood Lane (Lot 279 40M2734) 25-30 5. Adjournment Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 8, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 8 Pending Adoption Present Tom Copeland – Chair Omar Ha-Redeye Denise Rundle – Co-Vice-Chair Rick Van Andel Sean Wiley – Co-Vice-Chair Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer – Host Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Kerry Yelk, Planner I Absent Not applicable. 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye That the agenda for the Wednesday, February 8, 2023 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Sean Wiley That the minutes of the 1st hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, January 11, 2023 be adopted. Carried Unanimously -1- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 8, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 8 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 13/23 Highmark (Pickering) Inc. 1640 Kingston Road & 1964 Guild Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7860/21, to permit: • an air vent associated with a parking structure to be located between the building and a street line (Kingston Road), whereas the By-law states stairs, stair enclosures and air vents associated with a parking structure are not permitted between the building and a street line; • an air vent constructed in association with a below grade parking structure to project a maximum of 1.2 metres above established grade, and no closer than 1.5 metres to a street line, whereas the By-law permits air vents constructed in association with a below grade parking structure to project to a maximum of 1.2 metres above established grade, but no closer than 4.0 metres to a street line; and • no building or part of a building, or structure shall be erected outside the building envelope as illustrated on Schedule II attached hereto (minimum 4.0 metre setback from the Kingston Road lot line at the southwesterly corner), whereas the By-law permits no building or part of a building, or structure shall be erected outside the building envelope as illustrated on Schedule II attached hereto (minimum 4.5 metre setback from the Kingston Road lot line at the southwesterly corner). The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain site plan approval for a 16-storey and 12-storey apartment building, connected by a 5-storey podium. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and City of Pickering Mayor. In support of the application, the applicant identified the subject site has frontages onto two streets, various iterations of the air vent placements discussed with City staff and none of which would fully comply with the zoning provisions. The minor variances are requested to permit the air vent in the original location as it has the ability to provide appropriate landscaping and have the vent fully screened. -2- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 8, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 8 Mike Pettigrew, agent and Morgan Baker, agent were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The agent made a presentation in support of the application. In response to questions from Committee members, the agent explained that as per the site plan application they will be planting shrubs of a variety of heights. There will be shrubs on all sides of the air vent, street trees and shrubs planted along Kingston Road. The air vent will be a foot high above grade. The Secretary-Treasurer clarified the provisions for maximum height was carried over from the site specific by-law, the intent of the variance is not to limit the height, but for consistency sake. After reading the report, listening the presentation, noting that one of the variances requested is due to Durham Region road widening, the air vents will mainly be at grade with landscaping to minimize visual impact, receiving no public input and the application meeting the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Rick Van Andel That application P/CA 13/23 by Highmark (Pickering) Inc., be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed development, 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 February 8, 2023). Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 14/23 G. Belcastro 781 Oliva Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 7.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; -3- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 8, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 8 • a covered platform and associated steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard; • an uncovered platform and associated steps not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.9 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard; • a covered platform and associated steps not exceeding 1.25 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 4.2 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required rear yard; • a second floor uncovered balcony with a minimum rear yard setback of 7.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres; • uncovered steps and platform not exceeding 1.25 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.3 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required rear yard; • a maximum lot coverage of 38.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33.0 percent; and • to permit a main building on a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the front of such lot, with a minimum lot flankage width of 3.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a main building on a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the front of such lot, with a minimum lot flankage width of 4.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for an addition to a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that staff recommends the Committee consider all staff, agency and public comments and should the Committee find merit in the application, a condition that the variances apply only to the subject property as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and three area residents. -4- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 8, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 8 In support of the application, the applicant identified they are requesting relief from the By-law to allow for proper insulation, fire separation, and to construct a covered rear yard deck which contributes towards lot coverage. Joe Belcastro, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The applicant explained the last variance should not be included with this application as it has already been approved by the Committee in March 2021. In response to a question from a Committee member, the applicant explained the shed will remain on site but will be moved to the corner of the property. The Secretary-Treasurer explained accessory structures (sheds) have a maximum of five percent lot coverage and is included in the overall lot coverage for the property. The shed was not included in the applicant’s submitted plans and therefore was not included in the maximum lot coverage relief of 38.5 percent. In response to a question from a Committee member, the applicant clarified the existing rear deck will remain. Co-Vice-Chair commented the following: the importance of providing drawings that coincide with what is presently on the property and what is being requested as the Committee bases approvals on said plans; provided a timeline of events on the property since the approval of the 2021 application; concerned a third dwelling unit may be introduced, based on the proposal; does not believe the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act; concerns of neighbours’ privacy, concerns of the visual impact of the neighbourhood; the variances being sought will increase the massing and scale of this lot and immediate neighbourhood; and does not agree with the proposal of a new driveway within a corner rounding. The applicant clarified the house is a single-family dwelling, with an accessory dwelling unit in the basement. He has no intention of making it a three family dwelling. Since the 2021 approval, the decision was appealed by a neighbour who did not agree with an addition being added to the right of the property, instead he built an addition on top of the bungalow. The shed was not purposely left out of the drawings, it was an oversight as he was not aware it was to be included in the lot coverage. If the shed poses an issue he is willing to remove the structure. The lot coverage being requested is to accommodate the covered deck, the front setback being requested is to push the garage forward a foot or two. The 8 variances being sought are minor tweaks to the already approved 2021 application. -5- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 8, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 8 In response to questions from Committee members, the applicant explained there is a connection on the landing that connects the addition to the original build. The intent of the of garage projection is to provide depth and more useable space of the garage. There will be a total of six bedrooms upstairs and two in the basement dwelling. The rooms labelled “sitting rooms” on the submitted plans are foyers/entrances into the house. There have been a lot of larger homes built in this area, in today’s economy a lot of families are deciding to live together in a means to save money, he would like to provide that option with this property, while still providing privacy to the families. The applicant plans on living on the property. The basement unit is currently up for rent. A Committee member provided the following comments: the internal layout of this house is not in question as it is permitted and a building permit could be issued without the variances being approved; believes the covered porch may be pushing the lot coverage as it is a variance to an already approved variance; from a visual standpoint the member agrees with the garage projection as it provides varied depths. In response to questions from a Committee member, the applicant explained the three parking spaces were approved in 2021. Without the covered rear deck, the lot coverage would comply with the approved 35 percent lot coverage, but would appreciate approval of the 38.5 percent for the covered deck to protect the dwelling from weather conditions. Co-Vice-Chair commented that he believes there are too many unknowns and inconsistencies with this application for approval. After reviewing the proposal tonight, reading the staff report, considering neighbour comments, previous minor variance and OLT decision, looking at previous and recent submitted drawings and performing a site inspection, it is believed that this application is not in character with the surrounding homes, and will cause a significant visual impact, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 14/23 by G. Belcastro, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances are not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Carried -6- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 8, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 8 Vote: Tom Copeland in favour Omar Ha-Redeye in favour Denise Rundle in favour Rick Van Andel opposed Sean Wiley in favour 4.3 P/CA 15/23 D. Vuong & T. Vu 1800 Liatris Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7020/10, to permit an existing sunroom with a minimum rear yard depth of 4.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance application in order to obtain a building permit to permit an existing sunroom addition (12.5 square metres) in the rear yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that staff recommends the Committee consider all staff, agency and public comments and should the Committee find merit in the application, a condition that the variance apply only to the sunroom addition as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and one area resident. In support of the application, the applicant identified the existing three season sunroom was constructed in 2020 and the back yard offset could not be increased. The sunroom was constructed without the issuance of a Building Permit. John Vu, 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, the applicant stated the following: due to price increases he was unable to find a reasonably priced contractor within the conditional deadline and therefore unable to apply for a permit; understands a building permit is required should the application be approved; behind the dwelling is a forest, to the south of the subject property is a neighbour; the distance from the sunroom to the neighbour’s house is around 2.0 metres; and in order to appease neighbour concerns he will remove and cover the window to the south. The Secretary-Treasurer clarified the applicant has submitted a building permit which is on hold until the variance has been resolved. -7- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 8, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 8 After reading the report, addressing the neighbour’s concerns and finding a resolution, the application meets the four test, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle with an amended condition Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye That application P/CA 15/23 by D. Vuong & T. Vu, 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: 1. That this variance apply only to the existing sunroom addition, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 8, 2023). 2. That a window or opening on the south wall not be permitted. Carried Unanimously 5. Adjournment Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye That the 2nd hearing of the 2023 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:08 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, March 8, 2023. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer -8- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 17/23 Date: March 8, 2023 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 17/23 A. & C. Nurse 707 Front Road Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7610/18, 7872/21 & 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum south side yard of 0.6 of a metre, whereas the By-law requires where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.5 metres; • an accessory building (detached garage) with a maximum height of 4.7 metres in a residential zone, whereas the By-law requires no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone; • a covered platform (porch) with associated steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade, and not projecting more than 2.5 metres into any required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade, and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard; • uncovered steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade, and not projecting more than 8.9 metres into any required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade, and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard. • main eaves not projecting more than 0.9 of a metre into the required (north) side yard, whereas the By-law requires main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into required yard; and • a minimum front yard setback of 8.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots (9.22 metres). The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate a building permit submission to construct a single detached dwelling with a detached garage (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8). -9- Report P/CA 17/23 March 8, 2023 Page 2 Recommendation For your information, and based solely on the Application for Minor Variance and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Staff are of the opinion that the requested variances to permit an accessory structure (detached garage) with a maximum height of 4.7 metres, minimum front yard setback of 8.6 metres, uncovered steps projecting into required front yard, a covered porch projecting into required front yard, and eaves projecting into the required north side yard meets the four tests, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances. However, staff are of the opinion that the requested variance to permit a minimum south side yard of 0.6 of a metre does not meet the four tests, and therefore recommends Refusal of the requested variance to permit a minimum south side yard 0.6 of a metre setback. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application or any of the requested variances, the following conditions are recommended: 1. That the variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling and detached garage as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8) 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed within the minimum south side yard of 0.6 of a metre, if approved by the Committee. 3. That a planting plan and securities for the proposed value of the proposed planting be provided to the satisfaction of Engineering Services to compensate for the removal of trees and to provide screening for the adjacent properties. Background Preliminary Zoning Review The requested variances were identified through a Preliminary Zoning Review dated February 17, 2023. Bay Ridges Established Neighbourhood Precinct On September 27, 2021, City Council enacted By-law 7872/21 (the Infill By-law) to amend Zoning By-law 2511, 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 7900/22, 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. -10- Report P/CA 17/23 March 8, 2023 Page 3 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 Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Detached dwellings are a permitted use within this designation and a built form within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law 707 Front Road is zoned “R4” – Single Detached, Third Density, under Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7610/18, 7872/21 & 7900/22. A detached dwelling is permitted within the lands zoned “R4”. Side Yard Variance The intent of a minimum side yard requirement of 1.5 metres is to accommodate drainage, ensure appropriate building separation and to provide sufficient room for maintenance. The applicant has proposed to locate a porte-cochere projecting into the south side yard with a setback of 0.65 of a metre. 699 & 705 Front Road have similar architectural designs, including a similar porte-cochere attached to the principal dwelling. The proposed projecting porte-cochere has a minimum setback of 0.65 of a metre from the south lot line. The majority of the south facing wall has a setback of 3.8 metres from the south lot line, which provides sufficient space for residential services, grading, and drainage. However, Engineering Services has indicated that the reduced side yard setback for the proposed porte-cochere is not appropriate for the development of the land. The applicant has proposed a driveway parallel to the south lot line, which will increase the impervious surface and may affect drainage patterns within the lot. The proposed eaves also project an additional 0.3 of a metre, which will direct storm water run-off particularly close to the south property line. The required side yard of 1.5 metres will be required to provide adequate separation to accommodate grading and drainage. If the Committee approves this variance, the applicant will be required to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner to the south to perform grading works up to the lot line and/or to create a common swale on the lot line. Additionally, 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 (refer to Input from Other Sources). Staff is of the opinion that the south side yard setback of 0.65 metres between the porte-cochere and the south lot line is not minor and does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. -11- Report P/CA 17/23 March 8, 2023 Page 4 Minimum Front Yard Setback Variance The intent of a minimum front yard setback measured from the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots is to maintain the general character of the existing neighbourhood and to ensure a compatible and consistent neighbourhood built form. Furthermore, the minimum front yard setback is to accommodate drainage, ensure appropriate building separation, and to provide sufficient room for maintenance. Respectively. the abutting lot to the south has a front yard setback of 16.6 metres, and the abutting lot to the north has a front yard setback of 9.22 metres. Therefore, the minimum front yard setback for 707 Front Road is 9.2 metres. The existing front yard setbacks along Front Road range between 0.3 of a metre to 17.0 metres. The applicant has requested a minimum front yard setback of 8.6 metres. Staff is of the opinion that the front yard setback of 8.6 metres is minor and maintains the general intent and purpose of Infill Zoning By-law 7872/21. Yard Encroachment Variances Uncovered Steps Variance The intent of the provision that requires uncovered steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard is to ensure an adequate buffer space between structures and the boulevard/street activity, and to ensure an adequate landscaped area within the front yard is provided. The applicant has proposed uncovered steps leading from the street to the proposed dwelling. The proposed uncovered steps project 8.9 metres into the required front yard, with an overall height of less than a metre. The proposed steps are uncovered and are therefore not expected to obstruct the view of abutting properties. In addition, there is sufficient space surrounding the walkway to allow for landscaping in the front yard. The uncovered steps leading to the dwelling are consistent with the Established Neighbourhood Design Guidelines, as they are proposed to be an integral part of the front facade. The uncovered steps maintain the general character of the existing landscaping along Front Road. City staff are of the opinion that this requested variance conforms to the intent of the Zoning By-law. Covered Porch Variance The intent of the provision that requires uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard is to ensure an adequate buffer space between structures and the boulevard/street activity, and to ensure an adequate landscaped area within the front yard is provided. The applicant has proposed an covered porch with associated steps that projects 2.5 metres into the required front yard with a maximum height of 0.85 of a metre, which allows approximately 6.5 metres of landscaped area between the covered porch with associated steps and the front property line. City staff are of the opinion that this requested variance conforms to the intent of the Zoning By-law. -12- Report P/CA 17/23 March 8, 2023 Page 5 Eaves Variance The intent of the provision to require eaves to not project more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard setback is to ensure all runoff and drainage is contained within the subject property. The eaves encroach 0.9 of a metre into the required north side yard to provide coverage for a side entrance to access the dwelling. The applicant will be required to construct a drainage swale along the north side lot line, and will be required to ensure that runoff will be maintained on the subject property. The eaves are proposed to overhang into the required drainage swale, approximately 0.67 of a metre from the property line, which will slope stormwater runoff towards the drainage swale. It should be noted that the eaves only project into the required side yard where the side entrance is proposed. The eaves projection of 0.9 of a metre in the north side yard conforms to the intent of the Zoning By-law. Accessory Structure Height Variance The intent of the maximum height requirement of 3.5 metres for accessory buildings is to ensure that accessory buildings remain accessory to the principal dwelling and to minimize visual impact on the adjacent properties and on the streetscape. The proposed detached garage has a height of 4.67 metres, with a setback of 1.2 metres from the south lot line and 1.5 metres from the rear property line, which will help reduce the visual impact of the structure for abutting lots. The detached garage is setback significantly from the street and will not negatively impact the streetscape. The applicant has indicated that the detached garage is being used for vehicle parking and storage purposes only and is accessory to the proposed residential dwelling. The garage has been designed to compliment the architectural style of the proposed dwelling. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The scope of the proposed development includes removing the existing dwelling, and constructing a two-storey detached dwelling with a detached garage. The proposed design of the house will be consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. As such, the development is desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is minor in nature. However, the south side yard setback of 0.65 metres between the porte-cochere and the south lot line will not adequately address Engineering Design Criteria with respect to lot grading and drainage, and therefore Staff is of the opinion that the proposed minimum south side yard is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and not minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • In order to minimize the impact of the garage, the homeowner intends to build a rear yard detached garage. The proposed reduced side yard is only to the supporting piers on the ground level and the wall of the Master Bedroom above on the upper level. -13- Report P/CA 17/23 March 8, 2023 Page 6 Engineering Services • Engineering Services does not support the size and location of the proposed single detached dwelling, driveway and accessory building (detached garage), due to the following concerns: • The proposed works would cause a significant portion of the lot to become impervious, which would generate a large amount of drainage during rain events. It will be challenging to control/convey the drainage to an appropriate outlet. • The proposed 0.6m south side yard is not sufficient to construct a swale that meets the requirements of the City’s Engineering Design Criteria. A 1.5m setback is typically required to accommodate a drainage swale along the side yard. • The proposed garage/driveway location will result in the removal of many trees, which is extremely undesirable. • Nevertheless, if the requested variances are allowed, it should be noted that multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens, permeable pavers, and 450mm amended topsoil) will be required at the Building Permit stage. Also, tree plantings throughout the lot would be encouraged. The applicant would be responsible for ensuring the approved variances and proposed works do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. 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: March 1, 2023 Comments prepared by: Kerry Yelk Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning & Administration KY:jc J:\Documents\Development\D-3700\Reports\2013\pca??-13.doc Attachments -14- 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. No 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) 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) -15- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments No 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) No 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) Yes 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) The garage is detached, located in the rear yard. 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 4.0 metres at the streetline. Unknown 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) These details will be determined at building permit stage. -16- Li v e r p o o l R o a d Browning Avenue Commerce Street Ilona Park Road Fa i r v i e w A v e n u e F ront Road Monica Cook Place Do u g l a s A v e n u e Pl e a s a n t S t r e e t Old Orc hard A venue ProgressFrenchman'sBay East Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 17/23 Date: Feb. 08, 2023 Exhibit 1 ¯ E A. & C. Nurse707 Front Street SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2023\PCA 17-23\PCA17-23_LocationMap.mxd 1:3,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment -17- 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 1 7 / 2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : A. & C . N u r s e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 70 7 F r o n t R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Fe b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 2 3 Pr o p o s e d D w e l l i n g Pr o p o s e d De t a c h e d Ga r a g e to p e r m i t c o v e r e d p l a t f o r m ( p o r c h ) w i t h as s oc i a t e d s t e p s n o t e x c e e d i n g 1. 0 me t r e i n h e i g h t a b o v e g r a d e , an d no t p r o j e c t i n g m o r e t h a n 2. 5 m e t r e s in t o a n y r e q u i r e d f r o n t y a r d to p e r m i t a m i n i m u m so u t h si d e y a r d o f 0 . 6 of a m e t r e to p e r m i t a m i ni m u m fr o n t y a r d s e t b a c k o f 8. 6 me t r e s to p e r m i t a n a c c e s s o r y b u i l d i n g (d e t a c h e d g a r a g e ) w i t h a ma x i m u m h e i g h t o f 4 . 7 m e t r e s in a r e s i d e n t i a l z o n e Pr o p o s e d De c k Pr o p o s e d Po r c h to p e r m i t un c o v e r e d st e p s n o t ex c e e d i n g 1 . 0 m e t r e i n h e i g h t ab o v e g r a d e , a n d n o t p r o j e c t i n g mo r e t h a n 8 . 9 me t r e s i n t o a n y re q u i r e d f r o n t y a r d to p e r m i t m a i n e a v e s n o t pr o j e c t i n g m o r e t h a n 0 . 9 o f a me t r e i n t o t h e r e q u i r e d ( n o r t h ) si d e y a r d -18- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d Fr o n t E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 1 7 / 2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : A. & C . N u r s e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 70 7 F r o n t R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Fe b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 2 3 -19- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d So u t h El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 1 7 / 2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : A. & C . N u r s e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 70 7 F r o n t R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Fe b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 2 3 -20- 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 1 7 / 2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : A. & C . N u r s e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 70 7 F r o n t R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Fe b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 2 3 -21- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d No r t h El e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 1 7 / 2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : A. & C . N u r s e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 70 7 F r o n t R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Fe b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 2 3 -22- Ex h i b i t 7 Su b m i t t e d De t a c h e d G a r a g e F l o o r pl a n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 1 7 / 2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : A. & C . N u r s e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 70 7 F r o n t R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f th i s P l a n . Da t e : Fe b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 2 3 -23- Ex h i b i t 8 Su b m i t t e d De t a c h e d G a r a g e El e v a t i o n s Fi l e N o : P/ C A 1 7 / 2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : A. & C . N u r s e Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 70 7 F r o n t R o a d Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f th i s P l a n . Da t e : Fe b r u a r y 2 2 , 2 0 2 3 -24- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 18/23 Date: March 8, 2023 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 18/23 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited 2973 Heartwood Lane (Lot 279 40M2734) Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit a maximum driveway width of 11.3 metres and tapered so that the maximum width is 6.0 metres at the streetline, for a lot that is greater than 15.0 metres, where the wall of a private garage containing the opening for vehicular access faces an interior side lot line, whereas the By-law permits a maximum driveway width of 7.5 metres and tapered so that the maximum width is 6.0 metres at the streetline for lots that are greater than 15.0 metres, where the wall of a private garage containing the opening for vehicular access faces an interior side lot line. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for a two-storey detached dwelling. Recommendation For your information, and based solely on the Application for Minor Variance 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 conditions are recommended: 1.That this variance apply only to the proposed development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3). 2.That prior to issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed. -25- Report P/CA 18/23 March 8, 2023 Page 2 Comment Background On August 11, 2021, the Committee of Adjustment approved P/CA 71/21 to permit a rear yard setback of 2.4 metres, and a setback of 4.3 metres from the front lot line to an attached private garage where the wall of the private garage containing the opening for vehicular access faces the lot line abutting the street. On November 23, 2022, the applicant submitted a building permit application for a two-storey detached dwelling where the wall of the private garage containing the opening for vehicular access faces the south interior side lot line. During the Building Permit review, it was determined that the reduced setback for the private garage approved in P/CA 71/21 was not applicable to the submitted plans. As such, the requested variance is required for the applicant to obtain the building permit for the proposed two-storey detached dwelling. Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Urban Residential – Low Density Area” within the Wilson Meadow Neighbourhood. Residential uses including detached dwellings are permitted within this designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “LD1”, under Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21. Detached dwelling is a permitted use on lands zoned LD1. The applicant requests for a maximum driveway width of 11.3 metres and tapered so that the maximum width is 6.0 metres at the streetline, whereas the by-law permits a maximum driveway width of 7.5 metres and tapered so that the maximum width is 6.0 metres at the streetline. The intent of limiting the driveway width to 7.5 metres and tapered to a maximum of 6.0 metres at the streetline is to screen the driveway from the street and to prevent excessive parking on the lot while providing appropriate access from the street. The width of the driveway is measured at the widest point of the driveway parallel to the garage opening. Due to the shape of the lot and the placement of the garage opening, the applicant has proposed a curved driveway to provide access form the street to the garage, resulting in non-compliance with the Zoning By-law. While the maximum width of the proposed driveway is measured to 11.3 metres, the proposed driveway design maintains a 5.4-metre width throughout the curvature of the driveway, which is consistent with the driveway width at the streetline. The applicant has indicated that the proposed driveway was designed to ensure that vehicles can reverse out easily, and to address staff’s concerns of the excessive paving and the opportunities for excessive parking on the lot from the previous version of the driveway design. -26- Report P/CA 18/23 March 8, 2023 Page 3 Staff is satisfied that the proposed driveway design can provide appropriate access to the dwelling and does not create negative visual impacts from the street or to the neighbouring property. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The applicant is requesting a variance to permit a curved driveway for access from the street to the dwelling. With the shallow depth of the lot and the grades at the street, these site constraints pose a challenge for the garage opening to be reoriented to face the street, and to provide a standard length driveway. The proposed driveway design allows for a functional driveway to provide access to the dwelling. The proposed driveway is not anticipated to cause negative visual impacts to the neighbouring property or from the streets, and it 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 for the appropriate development of land and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • This minor variance is required because this lot is uniquely shaped and poses a challenge to fit the “standard” driveway. Engineering Services • Ensure the increased driveway width does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. • The proposed driveway is to be constructed using permeable pavers and the lot is to have 450mm depth amended soils in order to address the increased imperviousness of the lot. Building Services • No concerns. Public Input • As of the date of writing this report, no public submissions are received. Date of report: March 1, 2023 Comments prepared by: Ziya Cao Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Planner I Manager, Zoning and Administration ZC:jc \\Fs\planning\Documents\Development\D-3700 Committee of Adjustment (PCA Applications)\2023\PCA 18-23\7. Report\PCA 18-23 Report.docx Attachments -27- Heartwood Lane P a p e r b i r c h T r a i l Honey Locust Place Sc o t c h P i n e L a n e Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 18/23 Date: Feb. 17, 2023 Exhibit 1 ¯ E Mattamy (Seaton) Limited2973 Heartwood Lane (Lot 279 40M2734) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2023\PCA 18-23\PCA18-23_LocationMap.mxd 1:1,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment -28- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 18/23 Applicant: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Municipal Address: 2973 Heartwood Lane (Lot 279 49M2734) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: February 17, 2023 to permit a maximum driveway width of 11.3 metres and tapered so that the maximum width is 6.0 metres at the streetline, for a lot that is greater than 15.0 metres, where the wall of a private garage containing the opening for vehicular access faces an interior side lot line -29- Ex h i b i t 3 Su b m i t t e d E l e v a t i o n Pl a n (S o u t h & W e s t ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 18 / 2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : Ma t t a m y ( S e a t o n ) L i m i t e d Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 29 7 3 H e a r t w o o d L a n e (L o t 2 7 9 4 9 M 2 7 3 4 ) Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l Co p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Fe b r u a r y 1 7 , 2 0 2 3 -30-