Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 20, 1995 ~~ OF PIC ,,0 ~ ~!l1I ~ ~ G) .. MINUTES of the 17th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held in the Committee Room of the Pickering Civic Complex on Wednesday, December 20,1995. '-' PRESENT: Mr. J. C. Young, Chairman Mr. S. Smith Mr. N. DiLecce Mr. P. White Councillor Johnson 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. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Smith, and carried unanimously- '-" That the minutes of the 16th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held November 29,1995, be adopted. 3. PICA 95/95 - S. Druce & S. Shields Part of Lot 2, Con. 8 (Part 1, Plan 40R-12563) Town of Pickering The applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 5.18(a) of By-law 3037 to permit the continuance of an accessory structure (shed) located in the north side yard; whereas, the by-law requires all accessory structures to be located within the rear yard. This variance application is requested in order to bring the existing accessory structure on the property into compliance with the provisions of the by-law. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Mr. S. Shields, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation .~ was present in favour of or in opposition to the application. Mr. Shields indicated that the shed was originally used for storage purposes during construction of the main dwelling; however, it was later decided to keep the shed for storage purposes. He also stated that the shed is an attractive structure. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 95/95, by S. Druce & S. Shields, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the accessory structure location variance is minor in nature, appropriate for the desirable development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose ofthe Official Plan, and Section 5.18(a) of By-law 3037, subject to the following condition: 1. That the variance apply only to the existing accessory structure located in the north side yard, 2.36 metres from the north side lot line and 24.35 metres from the front lot line. -- 2. That the owner obtain a building permit for the existing accessory structure within one year from the date of the decision. 4. PICA 97/95 - Doane Raymond Limited, Trustee Lot 31, Plan 40M-1792 Also known as 1642 Arcadia Square Town of Pickering The applicant requests relief from the provIsIons of Section 5.(2)(c) of amending By-law 4411/94 to By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of a front yard depth of 3.0 metres provided by the dwelling on the lot; whereas, Section 5.(2)(c) of amending By-law 4411/94 requires that a dwelling provide a minimum front yard depth of 4.0 metres. Approval of this variance application is requested in order to bring the existing dwelling on 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. Gerard McGroggan, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in opposition to the application. Mr. McGroggan indicated that the dwelling was constructed from the original building permit that was applied for by Bramalea Ltd. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. DiLecce and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 97/95, by Doane Raymond Limited, Trustee, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the proposed front 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 Official Plan, and Section 5.(2)(c) of amending By-law 4411/94 to By-law 3036 subject to the following condition: 1. That the 3.0 metre front yard depth variance apply only to the northwest corner of the existing residential dwelling on the subject lot on the date of this decision. '-'" 91 5. PICA 98/95 - E. & R. Wolfe Lot 76, Plan 283 Also known as 384 Wood grange Avenue Town of Pickering The applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 5.19(d) of By-law 2511 to permit the continuance of a south side yard width of 1.62 metres; whereas, Section 5.19(d) of the by-law requires a detached dwelling, with an attached garage to provide minimum '-" side yard widths of 1.8 metres on each side. Approval of this variance application is requested in order to bring the subject dwelling 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. Richard Wolfe, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Mr. Wolfe indicated that during construction the footings of the dwelling were moved without his knowledge. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. White and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 98/95, by E. & R. Wolfe, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the south 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 5.19(d) of Zoning By-law 2511, subject to the following condition: ~ 1. That this variance apply only to the 1.62 metre south side yard width provided by the existing dwelling on the property. 6. PICA 99/95 - J. D. Hubbarde Part Lot 11, Plan 282 Also known as 1839 Woodview Avenue Town of Pickering The applicant requests relief from the following provisions of the by-law: Section 5.18(a) of By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of a minimum 0.2 metre south side yard width provided by an accessory structure located in the rear yard of the subject property; whereas, Section 5.18(a) of the by-law requires all accessory structures to be located no less than 1.0 metres from any lot line. *** Section 5.18(b) of By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of an accessory structure having a maximum lot coverage of 14.18% of the subject property; whereas, Section 5.18(b) of the by-law requires that an accessory structure excluding a private garage shall not exceed 5% of the total lot coverage. *** '-" Section 5.18(e) of By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of an existing accessory structure with a height of 4.57 metres; whereas, Section 5.18(e) of the by-law requires no accessory structure to exceed 3.5 metres in height in a residential zone. Approval of this variance application is requested in order to bring the existing accessory structure on the subject property into compliance with the zoning by-law. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 92 Mr. D. Hubbarde, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Mr. Hubbarde indicated that he is trying to bring the subject property into compliance with the by-law for severance purposes. Mr. DiLecce questioned the use of the accessory structure, and Mr. Hubbarde responded that it is a garage. 'W' Mr. White asked Mr. Hubbarde if he would be opposed to covering the windows. Mr. Hubbarde responded that they could be boarded up; however, he stated that the structure is pleasant in appearance and doesn't see any problem with the windows, indicating that they are simply to provide light inside the garage. Mr. Johnson indicated that he had previously visited the subject property and does not feel that anything looks unsightly. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. DiLecce and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 99/95, by J. D. Hubbarde, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the proposed accessory structure south side yard width, height and lot coverage variances are 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 Sections 5.18(a), 5.18(b) and 5.18(e) of By-law 3036, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the accessory structure in existence on the lot on the date of this decision. That the 14.18 percent lot coverage variance for the subject accessory structure applies only to the retained lands resulting from finalization of Land Severance Application LD 248/95, and that should this severance not occur, the maximum lot coverage permitted for the accessory structure shall be 8.4 percent. 2. '-" 7. PICA 100/95 - K. Arndt & B. Greer Lot 27, Plan 818 Also known as 1954 Fairport Road Town of Pickering The applicants request relief from the following provisions of the by-law: Section 10.2.3 of By-law 3036, to permit the continuance of a front yard depth of 5.1 metres provided by the existing dwelling on the property; whereas, the by-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres. *** Section 5.7(b) of By-law 3036, to permit an existing concrete platform to project 1.7 metres beyond the front face of the existing dwelling into the front yard; whereas, the by-law permits uncovered decks or platforms, not exceeding 1.0 metres above grade, to project up to 1.5 metres into the required front yard. *** ~ Section 10.2.3. of By-law 3036, to permit the continuance of a north side yard width of 1.27 metres provided by the existing dwelling on the lot; whereas, the by-law requires a minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres on one side, and 2.4 metres on the other side, where a detached dwelling does not have an attached garage. Approval of this variance application is requested in order to bring the existing dwelling into compliance with the zoning by-law in order that the applicant may apply for building permits for future additions to the rear of the existing dwelling. 93 The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Mr. K. Arndt, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Mr. Arndt indicated that his intention was simply to bring the subject property into compliance with the by-law. ...... DECISION: Moved by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. DiLecce and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 100/95, by K. Arndt & B. Greer, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the front yard depth, platform projection, and side yard width variances are 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 Sections 5.7(b) and 10.2.3 of By-law 3036, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to front yard depth, platform projection into the front yard, and north side yard width provided by the dwelling and concrete platform in existence on the date of this decision. 8. PICA 101/95 - Pickdred Investment Limited Part Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, Plan 469, and Part of Lot 17, Con. 1 (South of Kingston Road, east of South view Drive) Town of Pickering The applicant requests relief from the provisions of Schedule I to amending By-law 4582/95 'lilW to permit entry porches, which are more than 1.0 metres above grade, at the rear of townhouse units to extend a maximum of 1.2 metres beyond the minimum setback line; whereas, Schedule I to amending By-law 4582/95 identifies a minimum setback line around the perimeter of the subject property. All buildings and structures are required to be located no closer to the property line than is identified by the minimum setback line on Schedule I to the by-law. Approval of this variance application is requested in order to allow a condominium townhouse development to be developed on the subject property as identified on the applicant's submitted plan, with entry porches which are more than 1.0 metres above grade extending a maximum of 1.2 metres beyond the minimum setback line. Mr. Kevin Lethbridge, agent, was present to represent the application. A number of residents including, Mr. & Mrs. Maurer, Mr. & Mrs. Marko, Mr. Wright, and Mr. Everist, were present to express their concerns. Mr. Lethbridge indicated that when the original zoning by-law was passed by Council the details of the grading were unknown. Therefore, the variance to permit a 1.2 metre encroachment into the rear yard will cover any minor discrepancies during construction so that individual variance applications, on a per unit basis, will not be required after construction is complete. ..... Mr. Wright indicated that the encroachment to these lots may seem minor now, however, when construction of the units is complete, any encroachment will appear to have a greater impact. He also expressed concern that if the grading has changed than the dwelling must also sit at a higher grade. Mr. Lethbridge stated that the rear access will not encroach further into the rear yard, simply higher than the 1.0 metre allowance. There will be absolutely no change to the dwellings, or the grade at which they are constructed. 94 Mr. Everist expressed his concerns with the formality of the meeting, and requested that it be deferred to a later date. Mr. Johnson then outlined the past history of the site, and explained that residents in the area have worked over a period of eight years to get the property developed. He indicated that the entire process has been long and tedious for the community. Mr. White then asked Mr. Lethbridge if the builder would construct the units without a rear access. Mr. Lethbridge indicated that he did not know what the builder would decide, however he stated that a rear porch one foot higher would have a nicer appearance than raising the retaining wall, and grades. .... Mr. DiLecce questioned the landscaping at the rear of the units on Southview Drive. Mr. Lethbridge indicated that there is currently a double retaining wall with hedging. He also indicated that behind the retaining walls the builder intends to plant shrubs and trees (eg. crab-apple, maple). Mr. Wright then asked what has been holding up the development of the site. Mr. Lethbridge responded by explaining the need for a turning circle on Marshcourt Drive, in which the builder was required to enter into a development agreement. Mr. Young then outlined that the variance request is simply to raise the rear access porch on various units to project beyond the minimum setback line because they are 0.2 metres higher than 1.0 metres above grade. If they were only 1.0 metre above grade, no variance application would be required. He verified that this particular application allows absolutely no other changes to the dwelling units. DECISION: Moved by Mr. DiLecce and seconded by Mr. Johnson that- this application, PICA 101195, by Pickdred Investment Limited, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the proposed variance to permit entry porches which are more than 1.0 metre above grade to extend 1.2 metres beyond the minimum setback line is ....... minor in nature, appropriate for the desirable development of the lands, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Schedule I of amending By-law 4582/95 to zoning By-law 3036 subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to uncovered steps and entry porches. 2. That the owners receive final site plan approval from the Town for the townhouse development on the subject plan generally as identified on the plans circulated with the notice of this application within one year of the date of this decision, or this decision shall become null and void. AMENDMENT to conditions moved by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Smith and carried unanimously that - 3. That the owners shall arrange within 30 days of this decision an informal meeting with the community to display drawings and conceptual plans of the development, and to discuss any additional concerns the members of the community may have. DECISION AND AMENDMENT carried. 9. OTHER BUSINESS .... MOTION: Moved by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. White and carried unanimously that- The 1996 Schedule of Meetings of the Committee of Adjustment be approved. Mr. Young expressed sympathy for the family of Councillor David Farr on behalf of the Committee of Adjustment. He also suggested that a letter from the Committee, composed and signed by the Chairman, be forwarded to the Farr Family expressing condolences. 95 '-'" ~ ..... 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Mr. Johnson, seconded by Mr. DiLecce and carried unanimously that - The 17th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:20 p.m. and the next regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, January 10, 1996. tI.., ~-"1 10) 19"6 DATE ~ ~-L- ASSI~T AN SE RET ARY- TREASURER c I I 96