Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 13, 2023Committee of Adjustment Agenda Hearing Number: 9 Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 pickering.ca Agenda Committee of Adjustment Wednesday, September 13, 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 August 9, 2023 hearing 1-11 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 38/23 – 1473 Rougemount Drive 12-27 4.2 P/CA 39/23 – 1770 Wellington Street 28-38 4.3 P/CA 40/23 – 1546 Dusty Drive 39-43 5. Adjournment Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 11 Pending Adoption Present Omar Ha-Redeye Denise Rundle – Vice-Chair Sakshi Sood Joshi Rick Van Andel Sean Wiley – Chair Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Kerry Yelk, Planner I – Host Ziya Cao, Planner I Absent Not applicable. 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Denise Rundle That the agenda for the Wednesday, August 9, 2023 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That the minutes of the 7th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, July 12, 2023 be adopted. Carried Unanimously -1- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 11 4. Reports 4.1 (Deferred at the July 12, 2023 Hearing) P/CA 32/23 J. & T. O’Leary 730 Kingfisher Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit: • a minimum setback of 2.9 metres on the flankage yard where a main building is erected on a corner lot, whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of 4.5 metres on the flankage yard where a main building is erected on a corner lot; • a minimum front yard setback of 4.9 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent, whereas the by-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • an existing shed to be located 0.2 of a metre from the rear lot line, whereas the by-law requires accessory structures to be setback a minimum of 0.6 of a metres from all lot lines; and • an existing shed to be located 0.2 of a metre from the rear lot line on a corner lot, whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of 3.0 metres from the rear lot line for detached garage or other accessory buildings on a corner lot. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a future building permit to permit the construction of a two-storey addition at the front of the existing detached dwelling. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and Bell Canada. In support of the application, the applicant identified the proposed addition cannot be achieved with the existing structure, without encroaching on the required setbacks. James O’Leary, 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 a Committee member, the applicant explained the space above the garage is to accommodate an in-law suite and extra space for their family. There will be a separate entrance on the second floor to access the addition. The garage has a garage door facing the driveway and another door facing the backyard. -2- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 11 A Committee member commented the addition will be using an existing footprint already occupying the lot. Finding the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application P/CA 32/23 by J. & T. O’Leary, 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 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 9, 2023). Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 34/23 B. & Y. Javaid 326 Dyson Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a minimum (north and south withdrawn by applicant at the hearing) side yard setback of 1.2 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, whereas the By-law permits where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a two-storey detached dwelling. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). In support of the application, the applicant identified to achieve an effective house frontage a minor variance is requested. Badar Javaid, applicant and Jamshaid Durrani, agent, were present to represent the application. Four area residents were present in objection to the application. The agent stated they have read the report and agrees with staff’s recommendation. -3- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 11 Debbie Sommerville, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application: the owner of the subject property expressed to her they will maintain the five feet (1.5 metres) side yard setback; feels the proposed dwelling will overpower the two homes beside it to the north and south; and worried about losing her privacy in the backyard which will cause great stress to her. Catherine Ristau, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application: concerns about how close the home is proposed to be from her property line; potential damage to existing trees during construction; access to backyard by construction vehicles without utilizing her property; the proposed window wells bringing the window wells even closer to the property line; whether there will be provisions for drainage should the variance be approved; fire safety and emergency access; increased noise; and the resale value of her own home due to the proximity of the proposed home. Robert Ristau, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application: concerns with the setbacks and the size of the house being proposed; the house will not follow the established neighbourhood character; and there are building regulations for a reason that should be adhered to. Wendy Tollett, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application: concerns that Dyson Road will eventually resemble Rougemount Drive with massive homes and very small setbacks that is not aesthetically pleasing or compatible with the existing dwellings in the neighbourhood. In response to concerns from area residents, the agent commented the following: the setback on the north side will be 1.2 metres which is the minimum distance for fire separation under the Building Code; and construction materials and equipment will be contained on the subject property and will not encroach the neighbours’ property. In response to questions from Committee members, the agent stated the following: they are working with TRCA on the Tree Preservation Plan; they plan on preserving the trees during construction however there are a few that are in bad condition; most zoning by-laws are being maintained, they are requesting the reduction of the north side yard to accommodate a bigger home with a larger living room and bedroom on the lot; Dyson Road has a mix of different types of houses, in terms of style and size, and is a dead end street with a staircase that goes down to the Rouge; the west boundary of the home also includes the Rouge and all adjacent properties on the western side of Dyson Road would also have the same western boundary along the Rouge; the total gross floor area of the home is around 6,500 square feet. Vice-Chair commented neighbours are concerned with the character of this area. Character is defined by the look of the home, the width of the side yards, the height of the home, etc. When we have new builds, the Committee needs to be cautious. -4- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 11 The depth of the lot is excessive. The homeowner is proposing a pool, perhaps he can gain additional floor space by making the home longer instead of imposing on the side yard. Compliance with the By-law can be achieved by adjusting the depth of the dwelling. Catherine Ristau, area resident; commented the trees the agent claimed are in bad condition are not, they are healthy. There is a hedge that is about 20-30 feet that is healthy, as well as the trees on her property. Committee member commented they are not here to judge the size of the house. The Planning Report does recommend approving the variance to the north. Understands the concerns with the trees as it could cause impact in regards to the cohesiveness of this new home within this established neighbourhood. In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent commented there was another variance on the street that was approved to provide relief to the height requirement. He is not aware of any other applications requesting side yard relief. Committee member commented the judgement of whether a proposal is considered to be minor in nature is not a mathematical exercise. Instead the Committee should be looking at the question of degree of adverse impact on adjacent properties, uses and areas. These variances seem to stem from the Infill By-law and will be using that exclusively in determination of the four tests. The applicant commented his objective for the proposal was not to upset his neighbours. The reason why they are looking for a reduction of the side yard setback is because there is a seven-foot hedge and trees on that side and therefore will not be used as much and did not think it would cause much of an impact. Secretary-Treasurer clarified the variances are to By-law 2511, and not to the Infill By-law. The Infill By-law is Council adopted but not in effect as it has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal. After reading the report, hearing the discussions from both sides, and determining the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved by Rick Van Andel Motion not seconded That application P/CA 34/23 by B. & Y. Javaid, as amended, 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: -5- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 11 1. That this variance applies only to the subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated August 9, 2023). 2. That the applicant revise the submitted plans to reflect a minimum south side yard setback of 1.5 metres. Motion Lost The variance being requested would cause adverse impact on adjacent properties and uses in the area, making the proposal not minor in nature. The variance is not compatible with the existing development in the neighbourhood and therefore is undesirable and inappropriate for the development of the land, and does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law or the Official Plan. Given the above-noted reasons, Omar Ha-Redeye moved the following motion: Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 34/23 by B. & Y. Javaid, as amended, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By law. Carried Vote Omar Ha-Redeye in favour Denise Rundle in favour Sakshi Sood Joshi in favour Rick Van Andel opposed Sean Wiley in favour 4.3 P/CA 35/23 A. Bronkhorst & S. Smith 679 Front Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7610/18, 7872/21, 7873/21, and 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 7.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires the minimum lot frontage for a R4 zone to be 15.0 metres; -6- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 11 • a minimum lot area of 343 square metres, whereas the By-law requires the minimum lot area for a R4 zone to be 460 square metres; • minimum side yard setback of 0.9 of a metre on the south side and 1.0 metre on the north side, whereas the By-law requires the minimum side yard setback to be 1.5 metres on one side, 2.4 metres on the other side; The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to recognize the existing lot frontage and lot area and to obtain a future building permit for the construction of a three-storey detached dwelling. 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 due to the size of the lot, the required setbacks would create an insufficient width for a house. Peter Pomeroy, applicant/agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The agent explained they are requesting these variances because the lot size is very narrow. The current width of the entire house is just over 14 feet. This home is lived in by an older family, mixed with the younger generation of the family so there is a need for the house to have barrier free entrances and an elevator. Vice-Chair commented the report states that the proposed north side yard is more generous than the current setback which is currently at zero metres. The north side yard will be improved with this variance. After reading the staff report, receiving no comments from the public and the proposal creating an improvement in the north side yard setback, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Rick Van Andel That application P/CA 35/23/23 by A. Bronkhorst & S. Smith, 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 proposed development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated August 9, 2023). -7- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 11 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services shall be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed. Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 36/23 M. MacPhaden 963 Mountcastle Crescent The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1998/85 to permit an uncovered platform with steps not exceeding 1.4 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.3 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 rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct an uncovered deck with steps. 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 existing deck age is unsafe and requires a replacement to provide access to the rear yard. In response to a question from the Chair, the Secretary-Treasurer clarified that there is one variance being sought tonight due to how the By-law is written. This one zoning provision regulates both the height and the encroachment of the stairs. Michael MacPhaden, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Given that the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application P/CA 36/23 by M. MacPhaden, 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: -8- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 11 1. That this variance apply only to the uncovered platform (deck) with steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 9, 2023). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 37/23 811501 Ontario Ltd. 954 Dillingham Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 6780/07, to permit: • a maximum of 10 percent of the building to be designated for accessory retail use, whereas the By-law states that retail stores and retail operations shall not be permitted; • a maximum of 40 percent of the required parking spaces (10 parking spaces) to be provided in the front yard, whereas the By-law limits front yard parking to be 20 percent of the total required parking area; • a minimum side yard setback of 5.4 metres from the north parking spaces, and a minimum side yard setback of 0.0 metres from the south parking spaces, whereas the By-law permits side yard parking to be no closer than 7.5 metres from the side lot line on one side and 1.5 metres on the other side; • a minimum setback of 0.9 of a metre between the parking area and Dillingham Road, whereas the By-law requires parking areas to have a 3.0 metre setback from the abutting road allowance. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a future building permit to permit the conversion of a portion of the building for accessory retail use. 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 their business relies on retail as a part of our operations as we sell, service and offer parts for the outdoor power equipment industry. Andy Paterson, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. -9- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 11 The agent stated the business is currently on Brock Road and with the median on the street it is tough to get in and out. With Dillingham Road it will make it much easier to do business. They have been in business for nine years. In response to a question from the Chair, the agent explained their business sells lawn and garden equipment. In response to a question from the Vice-Chair, the Secretary-Treasurer confirmed the site is within Site Plan Control. Given that the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Omar Ha-Redeye moved the following motion: Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application P/CA 37/23 by 811501 Ontario 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 proposed development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 9, 2023). Carried Unanimously -10- Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 11 5. Adjournment Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel That the 8th hearing of the 2023 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:09 pm. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Please note the Committee of Adjustment Hearings are available for viewing on the City of Pickering YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/SustainablePickering -11- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 38/23 Date: September 13, 2023 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 38/23 J. Ciancio 1473 Rougemount Drive Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, By-law 7874/21 & By-law 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum (east) side yard width of 1.5 metres and a minimum (west) side yard width of 1.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.8 metres (this variance is not required and has been removed from the application) • a maximum building height of 9.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum building height of 9.0 metres • a maximum driveway width of 6.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum driveway width of 6.0 metres • a maximum dwelling depth of 26.9 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum dwelling depth of 20.0 metres The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a two-storey detached dwelling. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considers the requested variances to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances. 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 development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9). -12- Report P/CA 38/23 September 13, 2023 Page 2 Background Previously Approved Minor Variance Applications P/CA 18/19 & P/CA 19/19 In 2018, Land Severance Application LD 094/2018 was submitted to sever 1473 Rougemount Drive to create one additional lot. On July 3, 2018, LD 094/2018 was conditionally approved by the Durham Region Land Division Committee. A condition of approval of the Land Severance application was to ensure zoning compliance for both the retained and the severed lots. The proposed retained and severed lot did not meet the minimum lot frontage requirement of 18.0 metres. Therefore, on April 30, 2019, the Pickering Committee of Adjustment approved Minor Variance Applications P/CA 18/19 & P/CA 19/19, which permitted a minimum lot frontage of 16.9 metres for both the retained and severed lots. Conditions of approval for Minor Variance Applications P/CA 18/19 & P/CA 19/19, stated that: 1. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by April 9, 2021 or the Decision to approve the variances for relief from minimum side yard and maximum building height shall become null and void; and 2. That the applicant obtain final clearance for Land Division Application by July 26, 2019, or the Decision to approve the variances for relief from the minimum lot frontage shall become null and void. The applicant had obtained a building permit for the severed lot (municipally known as 1471 Rougemount Drive); however, the applicant did not receive a building permit for the retained lot (municipally known as 1473 Rougemount Drive) by April 9, 2021. Therefore, the Committee of Adjustment Decision for relief from minimum side yard and maximum building height for the retained lot became null and void. However, the applicant received final clearance for the Land Division application on July 24, 2019. Therefore, the variance to lot configuration was approved. The applicant is requesting the same relief from the zoning by-law requirements for minimum side yard and maximum building height as previously requested by P/CA 19/19 and approved by the Committee. In addition, the applicant is also requesting relief from the Infill By-law (maximum driveway width and maximum dwelling depth), now in force and effect. Rougemount Established Neighbourhood Precinct On September 27, 2021, City Council enacted By-law 7872/21 (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 establishes a set of zoning provisions to help maintain the existing character of the surrounding introducing new provisions for yard setbacks, building height, dwelling depth, lot coverage and other zoning standards. At the time of writing of this report, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued its Decision dismissing appeals of the Infill By-law and ordering the Infill By-law to be in force and in full effect. -13- Report P/CA 38/23 September 13, 2023 Page 3 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Area within the Rougemount Neighbourhood. This designation primarily provides for residential uses. The Official Plan policies state that new development along Rougemount Drive shall be encouraged to be compatible with the character of existing development. The applicant has reviewed and made comment on the proposal using the Council-adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Checklist, which can be found as Appendix A to this report. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “R3” – Third Density Residential Zone by Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, By-law 7874/21 & By-law 7902/22. Lot Frontage The intent of the zoning by-law requirement for a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres is to ensure a usable lot size that is compatible with the neighbourhood. The proposed 16.9 metre lot frontage would be a minimal reduction from the 18.0 metre requirement. This frontage is generally consistent with the existing lot pattern established along Rougemount Drive, which ranges between 15.0 to 30.0 metre lot frontages. The reduced lot frontage would continue to provide a usable lot size as the lots have an increased lot depth of approximately 116.0 metres. Side Yard Setback The intent of the zoning by-law requirement for a minimum side yard width of 1.8 metres is to provide an appropriate separation between structures on abutting properties in order to maintain a pedestrian access, and to accommodate grading, drainage and residential services such as air conditioning units and utility meters. The proposed side yard width will provide an adequate separation between the dwelling and the property line to accommodate pedestrian access, grading, drainage and residential utility services. The proposed (west) side yard width of a minimum of 1.6 metres and (east) side yard width of 1.5 metres will provide an appropriate setback and separation from abutting properties and will maintain the character of the existing neighbourhood. Building Height The intent of the zoning by-law requirement for a maximum building height of 9.0 metres is to minimize the visual impact of new buildings/development on the existing streetscape and ensure that new development is compatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood. -14- Report P/CA 38/23 September 13, 2023 Page 4 The existing height and built form along Rougemount Drive varies from one-storey to two-storey residential dwellings. The requested increase in height will not alter the character of the neighbourhood and will not have negative impact on the existing streetscape as the proposed dwelling locations are setback significantly from the street. Maximum 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 a lot frontage of 16.9 metres along Rougemount Drive, whereas the driveway appears to have a maximum width of 6.1 metres. Staff is of the opinion that an increase in the driveway width of 0.1 of a metre maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Maximum Dwelling Depth The intent of the maximum dwelling depth of 20.0 metres is to provide for consistent rear walls on neighbouring properties, in order to reduce potential shadowing, massing, and privacy impacts on adjacent dwellings and rear yards. Dwelling depth is measured from the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots. Therefore, the dwelling depth is measured from 15.05 metres from the front lot line to the proposed dwelling’s rear wall. Due to the existing deep lots along Rougemount Drive, the proposed dwelling has a rear yard setback of 75.0 metres from the rear property line. The neighbouring property to the west (1475 Rougemount Drive) features a dwelling setback of 77.0 metres from the rear property line. The rear wall of the proposed dwelling projects 2.0 metres beyond the rear wall of the existing dwelling to the west, and projects 3.5 metres beyond the rear wall of the recently built dwelling to the east. These projections are considered to have minimal impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed dwelling has been designed to mitigate potential massing and privacy impact of an increased dwelling depth on the property to the west. The rear wall of the proposed dwelling is not flush but is articulated having a dwelling depth of 25.0 metres for the east half of the dwelling and 26.9 metres for the west half of the dwelling. The proposed dwelling depth of 26.9 metres will have minimal incremental privacy impact on the adjacent properties. Staff is of the opinion that an increase in the dwelling depth of 26.9 metres maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Note that the proposed dwelling has a total depth of 23.0 metres measured from the front wall to the further rear wall. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land Staff is of the opinion that facilitating the infill development for a residential lot along Rougemount Drive will maintain the existing character of the community and is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. -15- Report P/CA 38/23 September 13, 2023 Page 5 Minor in Nature Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are minor in nature as there will be minimal impact to the streetscape and that the existing character of the community will be maintained. The deep lots allow for the dwellings to be setback substantially from the street which reduces potential massing effects along the streetscape. Conclusion Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are considered minor in nature, appropriate development for the lands, and are in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Input From Other Sources Applicant • The applicant is applying for variances that were previously approved and have now expired. Engineering Services • Ensure reduced minimum lot frontage and reduced side yards do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. • Ensure the increased driveway width does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot 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. 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: September 7, 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 -16- Sheppard Avenue Littleford Street Fiddlers Court Twyn Rivers Drive Fa w n d a l e R o a d Tomlinson Court Al t o n a R o a d Granby Court H i g h b u s h T r ail Ro u g e m o u n t D r i v e South Petticoat Ravine South Petticoat Ravine South Petticoat Ravine Elizabeth B. Phin Public School Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 38/23 Date: Aug. 04, 2023 Exhibit 1 ¯ E J. Ciancio 1473 Rougemount Drive SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2023\PCA 38-23\PCA38-23_LocationMap.mxd 1:3,500 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural 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 -17- Exhibit 2 Submitted Plan File No: P/CA 38/23 Applicant: J. Ciancio Municipal Address: 1473 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: August 30, 2023 to permit a maximum building height of 9.6 metres to permit a maximum driveway width of 6.1 metres to permit for a lot with a depth greater than 40 metres: 26.9 metres maximum dwelling depth -18- Exhibit 3 Submitted Front (South) Elevation File No: P/CA 38/23 Applicant: J. Ciancio Municipal Address: 1473 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: August 30, 2023 -19- Exhibit 4 Submitted Rear (North) Elevation File No: P/CA 38/23 Applicant: J. Ciancio Municipal Address: 1473 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: August 30, 2023 -20- Ex h i b i t 5 Su b m i t t e d Si d e ( W e s t ) E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 38 / 2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : J. C i a n c i o Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 7 3 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f th i s P l a n . Da t e : Au g u s t 3 0 , 2 0 2 3 -21- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d Si d e ( E a s t ) E l e v a t i o n Fi l e N o : P/ C A 38 / 2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : J. C i a n c i o Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 14 7 3 R o u g e m o u n t D r i v e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Au g u s t 30 , 2 0 2 3 -22- Exhibit 7 Submitted Basement Plan File No: P/CA 38/23 Applicant: J. Ciancio Municipal Address: 1473 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: August 30, 2023 -23- Exhibit 8 Submitted First Floor Plan File No: P/CA 38/23 Applicant: J. Ciancio Municipal Address: 1473 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: August 30, 2023 -24- Exhibit 9 Submitted Second Floor Plan File No: P/CA 38/23 Applicant: J. Ciancio Municipal Address: 1473 Rougemount Drive CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: August 30, 2023 -25- Urban City of Pickering Established A 1 Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. Yes No Comments x 1. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) Gable roof is in keeping with the adjacent existing dwellings. x 2. If the proposed new dwelling is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) x 3. Is the maximum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) The front entrance is 0.97 metres above grade. x 4. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) x 5. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) x 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) -26- Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont’d Urban City of Pickering Established A 2 Yes No Comments x 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) The dwelling depth of adjacent dwellings ranges between 16 – 24 metres. x 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) x 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) x 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) The garage is recessed. x 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) The driveway is slightly wider than the garage by approximately 0.1 of a metre. x 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) -27- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 39/23 Date: September 13, 2023 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 39/23 L. Lorenzatti & A. Warboys 1770 Wellington Street Application The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit: • a detached garage to be located on the west side yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building to be erected in the rear yard • a maximum building height of 6.3 metres for a detached garage, whereas the By-law permits a maximum height of 3.5 metres for accessory buildings in any residential zone • a maximum lot coverage of 21 percent in an ORM-R5 zone, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 20 percent in an ORM-R5 zone (this variance is not required and has been removed from the application) The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to convert the existing garage to a family room and the construction of a detached garage on the west side yard. 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 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 development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8). -28- Report P/CA 39/23 September 13, 2023 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated “Oak Ridges Moraine Rural Hamlets” within Claremont. This designation permits a variety of uses including residential, employment, commercial, community, cultural and recreational uses. Residential uses such as detached dwellings and associated accessory uses are permitted within this designation. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law The subject property is zoned “ORM-R5” – Oak Ridges Moraine – Hamlet Residential Five Zone under Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06. Accessory Structure Location Variance The intent of requiring accessory buildings and structures to be located in the rear yard is to minimize the visual impact of the accessory buildings on adjacent properties and the streetscape, ensure appropriate drainage, and provide access to and from the front and rear yards. Due to the existing septic bed in the rear yard, the applicant has proposed siting the detached garage on the west side yard in alignment with the existing driveway. The proposed garage is set back 1.8 metres from the west side lot line and 3.8 metres from the existing dwelling, allowing adequate space for drainage and access between the front and rear yards. Existing mature vegetation within the property and along the west lot line on the adjacent property will assist in minimizing the visual impacts of the proposed garage on the adjacent property and streetscape. Height of Accessory Structure 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. As per the Zoning By-law, “Building Height” is measured from the established grade to the midpoint of the roof between the eaves and ridge. Based on submitted elevation plans of the proposed garage, the applicant proposes the maximum height of 6.3 metres whereas the Bylaw permits a maximum height of 3.5 metres for all accessory structures in a residential zone. The height of the existing dwelling is approximately 8.0 metres. The proposed garage is set back 20.4 metres from the front property line and its height remains subordinate to the principal dwelling. A similar example of a two-storey garage was approved by the Committee of Adjustment on the north adjacent property. -29- Report P/CA 39/23 September 13, 2023 Page 3 Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature The requested variances will permit the conversion of the existing attached garage and the construction of a two-storey detached garage. The proposal will provide additional living space and storage space for the subject property. The proposed detached garage is well screened by existing vegetation on the subject property and adjacent property, and the requested variances are not expected to generate significant negative impacts to the surrounding properties. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of land and is minor in nature. Input From Other Sources Applicant • Cannot build garage in the rear yard due to the existing septic bed. Additional space is required for storage on second storey and shop space. Durham Health Department • The above noted application has been reviewed by this department and we have no objection to the approval. Please note that this is not an approval for the construction of a private sewage system or a consent for a building addition. Once the appropriate application has been submitted it will be reviewed by this department. 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: September 8, 2023 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)\2023\PCA 39-23\7. Report\PCA 39-23 Report.docx Attachments -30- Central Street Barc lay Stre e t Fr a n k l i n S t r e e t Wellington Street Ninth Concession Road Lo r n S t r e e t Vict oria Street Li v i n g s t o n S t r e e t Brock Road Claremont Memorial Park Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 39/23 Date: Aug. 14, 2023 Exhibit 1 L. Lorenzatti & A. Warboys 1770 Wellington Street SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2023\PCA 39-23\PCA39-23_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: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural 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 -31- Exhibit 2 Submitted Site Plan File No: P/CA 39/23 Applicant: L. Lorenzatti & A. Warboys Municipal Address: 1770 Wellington Street CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN. Date: Sept. 6, 2023 to permit a detached garage to be located on the west side yard to permit a maximum building height of 6.3 metres for a detached garage -32- 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 (S o u t h ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 39 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : L. L o r e n z a t t i & A . W a r b o y s Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 17 7 0 W e l l i n g t o n S t r e e t FU L L S C A L E C O P I E S OF 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 8, 2 0 2 3 to p e r m i t a ma x i m u m bu i l d i n g h e i g h t of 6 . 3 m e t r e s fo r a d e t a c h e d ga r a g e -33- Ex h i b i t 4 Su b m i t t e d El e v a t i o n Pl a n (Ea s t ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 39 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : L. L o r e n z a t t i & A . W a r b o y s Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 17 7 0 W e l l i n g t o n 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 : Au g u s t 2 8, 2 0 2 3 -34- Ex h i b i t 5 Su b m i t t e d El e v a t i o n Pl a n (We s t) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 39 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : L. L o r e n z a t t i & A . W a r b o y s Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 17 7 0 W e l l i n g t o n 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 : Au g u s t 2 8, 2 0 2 3 -35- Ex h i b i t 6 Su b m i t t e d El e v a t i o n Pl a n (No r t h ) Fi l e N o : P/ C A 39 /2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : L. L o r e n z a t t i & A . W a r b o y s Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 17 7 0 W e l l i n g t o n 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 : Au g u s t 2 8, 2 0 2 3 -36- Exhibit 7 Submitted Floor Plan (Detached Garage Ground Floor) File No: P/CA 39/23 Applicant: L. Lorenzatti & A. Warboys Municipal Address: 1770 Wellington Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Aug 28, 2023 -37- Exhibit 8 Submitted Floor Plan (Detached Garage Second Floor) File No: P/CA 39/23 Applicant: L. Lorenzatti & A. Warboys Municipal Address: 1770 Wellington Street FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Date: Sept. 6, 2023 -38- Report to Committee of Adjustment Application Number: P/CA 40/23 Date: September 13, 2023 From: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Subject: Committee of Adjustment Application P/CA 40/23 T. Upadhyay 1546 Dusty Drive Application The subject property is zoned “S-SD-SA-3” Semi Detached Residential, under Zoning By-law 3037. The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7022/10, to permit a total of two (2) parking spaces on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires three (3) parking spaces to be provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to permit an accessory dwelling unit within a semi-detached dwelling with two parking spaces on the lot. Recommendation For your information, and based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, the City Development Department has reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and considers the requested variance to not be 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 the Zoning By-law, and therefore recommends Refusal of the proposed variance. After considering all public and agency input, should the Committee find merit in this application, the following condition is recommended: 1. That this variance apply only to the subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2). Background The City is working on new policy and zoning provisions to address recent provincial housing legislation and to address residential parking concerns across the City, particularly in the Duffin Heights neighbourhood. Staff is also considering provisions in the Consolidated Zoning By-law to permit driveway widenings on private property and parking in the municipally owned driveway apron, refer to Exhibit 2. On September 5, 2023, the Planning & Development Committee (P&DC) adopted a staff recommendation to permit the parking requirement for the principal dwelling plus 1 space for each ADU. Council will consider P&DC recommendations on September 25, 2023. -39- Report P/CA 40/23 September 13, 2023 Page 2 Comment Conforms to the Intent of the Official Plan The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density within the Duffin Height Neighbourhood. Residential uses including ADUs are a permissible use within the Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density designation in the Duffin Heights neighbourhood. Conforms to the Intent of the Zoning By-law 1546 Dusty Drive is zoned “SD-SA-S-3” – Semi-detached, under Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7022/10. An ADU is permitted within a semi-detached dwelling. Through the review of a building permit application submitted by the property owner in support of interior alterations for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), City staff identified that the provision of a total of two parking spaces did not comply with the minimum parking requirement of three spaces to support an ADU. The intent of the minimum parking space requirement on a property where an ADU is located is to ensure that adequate parking is provided on a property in order to support additional dwelling units. Under Section 5.(2)(l) of Zoning By-law 7022/10, the minimum zone parking requirement is 2 parking spaces for the principal semi-detached use plus an additional parking space per ADU. The minimum size requirement for a parking space under Zoning By-law 3037 is 2.6 metres in width by 5.3 metres in length. The applicant is proposing to provide a total of two parking spaces on the property where an ADU is proposed. The existing paved surface on the subject property does not provide sufficient space to accommodate three vehicles entirely on the lot. The additional parking space can not fit entirely within the municipal boulevard along the driveway apron, refer to Exhibit 2. Furthermore, the existing front yard area has a width of 4.0 metres and a depth of 3.5 metres, which is not sufficient space widen the driveway to accommodate an additional parking space. Staff are of the opinion that two parking spaces will not adequately support the parking demands of two separate dwelling units. Additionally, there is not sufficient space entirely on the property (either within a driveway widening or the apron) to site an additional parking space. Desirable for the Appriopriate Development of the Land and Minor in Nature Due to the location of the property within a medium density residential area in conjunction with the semi-detached, single detached and street townhouse nature of the existing neighbourhood and limited available public transit, three parking spaces are required to accommodate the parking demands of an additional dwelling unit. While staff support ADUs as an affordable housing option within the City, adequate parking supply must be accommodated for in order to avoid on-street parking and impact on the surrounding properties. -40- Report P/CA 40/23 September 13, 2023 Page 3 Input From Other Sources Applicant • The owner does not have sufficient space within their property to fit more than 2 vehicles entirely on the lot. Engineering Services • The vehicle must be parked such that the entire vehicle is located within the driveway. No part of the vehicle shall encroach over the curb or into the roadway. Building Services • ADU have been constructed without the benefit of a building permit. Building permit application is on hold until Committee approval. Public Input • No written submissions were received from the public as of the date of writing this report. Date of report: September 7, 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 -41- Spinnaker Mews Shepway Mews Du s t y D r i v e Ca n a d i a n S t r e e t Ca r a v a n M e w s Pe g a s u s M e w s Brandy Court Winville Road Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: P/CA 40/23 Date: Aug. 15, 2023 Exhibit 1 ¯ T. Upadhyay1546 Dusty Drive L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2023\PCA 40-23\PCA40-23_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: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment E SubjectLands -42- 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 40 / 2 3 Ap p l i c a n t : T. U p a d h y a y Mu n i c i p a l A d d r e s s : 15 4 6 D u s t y D r i v e Co n t a c t T h e C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t D e p a r t m e n t f o r D i g i t a l C o p i e s o f t h i s P l a n . Da t e : Au g u s t 3 0 , 2 0 2 3 to p e r m i t a t o t a l o f t w o p a r k i n g sp a c e s o n t h e p r o p e r t y w h e r e t h e ac c e s s o r y d w e l l i n g u n i t i s l o c a t e d Mu n i c i p a l Bo u l e v a r d -43-