Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 24, 1996 '-" "'" '-" " ~~ OF PIc. ,,0 ~ ~__l ~ ~,*; Cl - MINUTES of the 5th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held in the Committee Room ofthe Pickering Civic Complex on Wednesday, April 24, 1996. PRESENT: Mr. C. Young, Chairman Councillor Rick Johnson Mr. N. DiLecce Mr. S. Smith Mr. P. White ALSO PRESENT: Mr. J. Cole, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Mrs. T. Reid, Planning Department The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Committee Room of the Civic Complex. 1. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES There were no matters arising from the minutes. 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES MOTION: Moved by Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Smith, and carried unanimously- That the minutes of the 4th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held April 3, 1996, be adopted. 3. PICA -19/96 - K. & W. Wilbur Lot 63, Plan 40M-1735 Also known as 105 Thicket Crescent Town of Pickering The applicants request relief from the provIsion of Section 6.2( d)(ii)(A) of amending By-law 4271/93 to By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of an east side yard width of 0.94 metres; whereas, the by-law requires a side yard width of 1.2 metres on one side of the dwelling and 0.6 metres on the other side of the dwelling. The applicants request this variance application in order to bring the subject property into compliance with the provisions of the zoning by-law. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Mr. W. Wilbur, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of, or in objection to the application. Mr. Wilbur requested clarification on the reason his property required a minor variance. Mr. Cole responded that a recently submitted survey indicated that du.e to a siting error when the dwelling was constructed, the east side yard width is 0.94 metres; whereas the by-law requires a side yard width of 1.2 metres on one side of' the dw~lling and 0.6 metres on the other side. The variance application is required in order to bring his property into compliance with the zoning by-law. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. White and carried unanimously that - this application PICA 19/96, by K. & W. Wilbur, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the proposed side yard width variance is minor in nature, appropriate for the desirable development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, and Section 6.2(d)(ii)(A) of amending By-law 4271/93 to By-law 3036, subject to the following condition: 1. That the 0.94 metre east side yard width variance apply only to the eastern wall of the existing attached garage on the subject lot on the date of this decision. '- 4. PICA - 20/96 - M. & S. Caruso Part of Lot 10, Plan 282 (Part 2, 40R-16216) Also known as 1805 W oodview Avenue Town of Pickering The applicants request relief from the following provisions of the by-law: Section 5.18(a) of By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of an existing accessory structure (frame shed) to be located 0.9 metres from the south property line, whereas the by-law requires all accessory structures to be located a minimum of 1.0 metres from all lot lines. Section 5.18(e) of By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of an existing accessory structure (frame shed) having a total lot coverage of 8.32 percent; whereas, the by-law requires that all accessory structures on the lot not exceed 5 percent coverage of the total lot area. The applicants request this variance application in order to bring the subject property into compliance with the provisions of the zoning by-law. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. '-' Mr. M. Caruso, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of, or in objection to the application. Councillor Johnson asked Mr. Caruso if he was aware of the Planning Department's comments, and whether he was in agreement with them. Mr. Caruso indicated that he was in agreement. DECISION: Moved by Councillor Johnson and second.ed by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously that- this application PICA 20/96, by M. & S. Caruso, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the proposed accessory structure setback from the south lot line and lot coverage variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general purpose and intent of the Official Plan and Section 5.18(a) and 5.18(e) of Zoning By-law 3036 subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the accessory structure in existence on the date of this decision. ..... 31 5. PICA - 21/96 - T. & J. Filer Lot 69, and Part of Lot 70, Plan 21 Also known as 462 Churchwin Street Town of Pickering The applicants request relief from the following provisions of the by-law: Section 5.(I)(b)(iii) of amending By-law 2677/88 to permit a front yard depth of 6.03 metres to be provided by a proposed porch with steps to be constructed at the front of the existing dwelling; whereas, the by-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 9.0 metres. ...... Section 5.18(a) of By-law 3037 to permit the continuance of a 0.41 metre setback from the rear (north) property line provided by an existing accessory structure (frame garage); whereas, the by-law requires all accessory structures to be located in the rear yard, no less than 1.0 metres from any lot line. Section 5.18(a) of By-law 3037 to permit an existing accessory structure (frame shed) to continue to provide a zero metre setback from the west side lot line, and to permit the existing structure to be located in the west side yard. The applicants request this variance application in order .to bring the existing accessory structures on the subject property into compliance with the zoning by-law and to allow building permits to be issued for construction of the proposed addition to the rear of the subject dwelling, and proposed porch addition to the front of the subject dwelling. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Mr. and Mrs. Filer, owners, and Mr. Peter Winfeld, agent, were present to represent the application. Mrs. Filer indicated concerns with the Planning Department's comments regarding the accessory shed on the west side property line. She stated that it had been in existence since the dwelling was constructed. 'Itw. Mr. Cole outlined the four tests of the Committee of Adjustment indicating that the accessory shed in the existing location does not pass the four tests; therefore, the Planning Department was not in a position to support the variance and consider it minor in nature. Mrs. Filer indicated that the frame shed could be removed or replaced at a later date, and is currently being used as a garden shed. Councillor Johnson asked Mr. Filer if he had received. any comments from abutting neighbours. Mr.Filer responded that no negative comments had been received and stated that the neighbour to the west of the subject property was happy with the location of the shed, as it acts as a buffer between the two properties. Councillor Johnson then inquired as to whether L.A.C.A.C. had been contacted, and Mr. Cole indicated that they had been contacted through the building permit process. Mr. Winfeld added that the Heritage Committee had previously approved the additions to the existing dwelling. Mr. Filer indicated that it was his understanding that all existing structures on the property were considered heritage designation; and therefore, were legal non-conforming. '-' Mr. DiLecce asked for clarification from Mr. Cole on this issue. Mr. Cole indicated that although the Whitevale Community is designated as heritage, only few properties are exempt from that designation; however, the subject property is not in that category, and he was not certain if the designation also applied to accessory structures on the subject property. 32 Mr. White then asked if the Committee could approve the application subject to the heritage designation of the accessory shed being further researched. Mr. Cole responded that this could be difficult because the shed straddles the property line, leaving the property to the west in non-compliance. He indicated that although the current neighbour considers the shed a buffer, any subsequent property owners may not share that thought. Mr. White then asked the Filers if they would have any objection to relocating the accessory shed within the next two years. The Filers indicated that two years would give them ample time to relocate or rebuild the existing shed. '- DECISION: Moved by Mr. White and seconded by Mr. Johnson and carried unanimously that - This application PICA 21/96, by T. & J. Filer, be APPROVED on the grounds that the proposed front yard depth variance and the proposed accessory structure setback from the rear lot line, and the proposed accessory structure setback from the west side lot line are minor in nature, appropriate for the desirable development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan, and Sections 5.(I)(b)(iii) and 5.18(a) of Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2677/88, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the existing accessory structure (garage) in the rear yard and to the existing accessory structure (frame shed) in the west side yard in existence on the date of this decision, and to the front yard depth provided by the proposed addition to the front of the dwelling as generally outlined on the applicants' submitted plan. 2. That the existing accessory structure (frame shed) in the west side yard be relocated 1.0 metres from the west side lot line within two years of the date of this decision, or this decision shall become null and void. '-" 6. PICA - 22/96 - T. & V. Chimienti Lot 17, Plan 40M-1450 Also known as 273 Lawson Street Town of Pickering The applicants request relief from the prOVISIon of Section 5.(I)(b)(vi)B of amending By-law 2187/86 to By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of a rear yard depth of 15.1 metres provided by the existing dwelling on the subject property; whereas, the by-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 17.06 metres. The applicants request this variance application in order to bring the subject property into compliance with the provisions of the zoning by-law. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Ms. Chimienti, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of, or in objection to the application. Ms. Chimienti indicated that she was in agreement with the comments provided by the Planning Department. '-" 33 DECISION: Moved by Councillor Johnson and seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously that - this application PICA 22/96, by T. & V. Chimienti, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the rear yard depth variance is minor in nature, appropriate for the desirable development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan, and Section 5.(1 )(b )(vi)B of amending By-law 2187/86 to By-law 3036, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the rear yard depth provided by the existing residential dwelling on the subject lot. ...... 7. PICA - 23/96 - D. & A. Douglas South Part of Lot 7, Concession 7 Also known as 3240 Concession 7 Town of Pickering The applicants request relief from the provision of Section 6.2.1 of By-law 3037 to permit: a) a lot frontage of 57.1 metres; whereas, the by-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 60 metres. b) lot area of 0.26 hectares; whereas, the by-law requires a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectares. c) a rear yard depth of 10.66 metres; whereas, the by-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 12 metres. The applicant requests this variance application in order to bring the subject property into compliance with the provisions of the zoning by-law and to obtain a building permit for the proposed second-storey addition. ...... The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Mr. and Mrs. Douglas, owners, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of, or in objection to the application. Mr. Douglas indicated that he was prepared to answer any questions the Committee may have in connection to the variance request. DECISION: Moved by Councillor Johnson and seconded by Mr. White and carried unanimously that - this application PICA 23/96, by D. and A. Douglas, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the lot frontage, lot area, and rear yard depth variances are minor in nature, appropriate for the desirable development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan, and Section 6.2.1 of By-law 3037. 8. PICA 24/96 -1127229 Ontario Limited Part of Lot 42, Plan 40M-1706 (Part 1, 40R-14525) Also known as 1160 Windgrove Square Town of Pickering '-' The applicant requests relief from the provIsions of Section 5.(2)(b )(v) of amending By-law 3686/91 to Zoning By-law 3036 to permit the establishment of a minimum 1.8 metre flankage side yard width to be provided by the proposed dwelling on the subject lot; whereas the by-law requires that a dwelling provide a minimum flankage side yard width of 2.7 metres. 34 The applicant requests this variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a detached dwelling on the subject property which would not comply with the flankage side yard width requirement of the by-law. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Mr. Nigel O'Neill, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of, or in objection to the application. '-' Mr. O'Neill expressed concern with the wording of the Planning Department's report regarding the upgraded architectural treatments. Mr. O'Neill indicated that the owners had been cleaning up the appearance of the development since acquiring the property in May 1995. He distributed a handout to the Committee demonstrating the proposed architectural design of the dwelling, and explained that he felt this proposal was sufficient, and did not need upgrading as it corresponds with the current streetscape of the neighbourhood. Mr. O'Neill also requested an extension for the issuance of a building permit. He stated that since the market was currently slow, he did not want to fall behind and have to appear before the Committee of Adjustment within one year because the variance has lapsed. DECISION: Moved by Councillor Johnson and seconded by Mr. DiLecce and carried unanimously that - this application PICA 24/96, by 1127229 Ontario Limited, as amended, be APPROVED on the grounds that the proposed flankage side yard width variance to be minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general purpose and intent of the Official Plan and Section 5.(2)(b)(v) of amending Zoning By-law 3686/91 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the flankage side of the dwelling incorporate architectural treatments including windows, entrances, materials and rooflines which address the flankage streetscape to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 'W' 2. That a building permit be issued for the dwelling on the subject property within twenty-four (24) months of the date of this decision, or this approval will become null and void. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously that- The 5th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:45 p.m. and the next regular meeting ofthe Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, May 15, 1996. frJ 7':'- /Z)) /996 DATE j~~. AssfsT SECRET ARY- TREASURER '-' 35