Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 8, 1995 ~~ OF PiC ,,0 ~ ~--~ ~ di~Q .. MINUTES of the 15th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held in the Committee Room of the Pickering Civic Complex on Wednesday, November 8,1995. "-" PRESENT: Mr. J. C. Young Mr. S. Smith Mr. N. DiLecce Mr. P. White, Acting Chairman Mr. R. 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. Young and carried unanimously- ...... That the adoption of the minutes of the 14th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held October 18, 1995, be adopted. 3. PROCEDURE MOTION: Moved by Mr. Young, seconded by Mr. DiLecce and carried unanimously- That Mr. Paul White will conduct the meeting as Acting Chairman. 4. PICA 81/95 - F. D' Alessandro Part Block 15, Plan 40M-1282 (Part 54, Plan 40R-8099) Also known as 630 Strouds Lane Town of Pickering The applicant requests relief from the provisions of Section 5.18(a) of By-law 3036 to permit the continuance of an accessory structure (Gazebo) located in the rear yard 0.03 metres from the side yard and rear yard lot lines; whereas the by-law requires that all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building shall be erected not less than 1.0 metres from any lot line. "-' Approval of this variance application is required in order to bring the subject property into compliance with the zoning by-law and to obtain a building permit for the existing accessory structure. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Mr. D. D' Alessandro, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of the application. Ms. Pauline Merlin, 621 Chiron Crescent, Pickering, Ontario Ll V 4T6 was present in objection to the application. Mr. D' Alessandro stated that the gazebo is currently existing, pleasant looking, and completely finished with all sides of the structure finished and stained. He indicated that many accessory structures within his neighbourhood are existing on the lot lines, due to very small backyards "-" Mr. Smith asked if Mr. D' Alessandro was in agreement with the compromise made by the Planning Department, and Mr. D' Alessandro expressed concern that a 0.6 metre setback from all lot lines would infringe on the family activities within the backyard; however, the gazebo is located on patio slabs and is mobile with a considerable amount of effort due to the fact that the gazebo houses a hot tub. Ms. Merlin indicated that the gazebo is not pleasing from her view point and that it can be seen above the fence line, therefore, shadowing her backyard. Ms. Merlin also indicated a concern regarding the proper drainage because her backyard is retaining water. Mr. DiLecce asked for the height of the fence and the accessory structure and, Mr. D' Alessandro indicated that the fence is six feet high, while the gazebo stands seven feet high. Mr. Cole then indicated that the structure is seven feet high, however, the peak of the roof extends to nine feet in height. Mr. White asked if a building p.ermit had been issued for the accessory structure. Mr. D' Alessandro responded that this was the first time he had ever built any kind of accessory structure, and didn't realize a building permit was necessary until after construction of the gazebo, which took place in June of this year. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Young that- \riiiIllf this application, PICA 81/95, by F. D' Alessandro, as amended, be APPROVED, on the grounds that the revised variance to permit a 0.6 metre setback from the rear and east side lot lines for the accessory structure 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 5.18(a) of Zoning By-law 3036. -- MOTION LOST. DECISION: this application, PICA 81/95, by F. D' Alessandro, be REFUSED on the grounds that the proposed setback from the rear and east side lot lines for the accessory structure is inappropriate for the desirable development of the land. 4. PICA 82/95 - D. & B. Slighte. Lot 657, Plan M-19 Also known as 722 Breezy Drive Town of Pickering The applicants request relief from the provision of Section 7.2.3 of By-law 2520 to permit a front yard depth of 5.66 metres; whereas the by-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres. --- Approval of this variance application is required in order to permit the issuance of a building permit for an enclosed porch at the front of the existing dwelling which would be located 5.6 metres from the front lot line. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. 84 Mr. B. Slighte, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of the applica!ion. Ms. Dorothy Rook, 721 Leaside Street, Pickering, Ontario, was present in opposition to the application. Ms. Rook indicated that the proposed porch will disrupt her view of the bay. She also mentioned that when she purchased the home, she had paid a premium on the lot because of the higher grade which allowed her a view of the bay. Mr. Young asked if Mr. Slighte had discussed his intentions to build the porch with the neighbour. Mr. Slighte indicated that he had not simply because this particular neighbour is at the rear of his property and one lot over. He can't understand how an enclosed porch - in the front of his dwelling would cause any problems for Ms. Rook, in her particular location. Mr. White asked when Mr. Slighte intended to start construction and, Mr. Slighte responded that he would like to get started as soon as possible. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Young and seconded by Mr. Smith and carried that- the application PICA 82/95, by D. & B. Slighte, as outlined, be APPROVED, on the grounds that the front yard depth variance of 5.6 metres 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 7.2.3 of Zoning By-law 2520, subject to the following condition: 1. That the front yard depth variance apply only to the enclosed porch at the front of the existing dwelling identified on the applicants' submitted plans. 5. PICA 83/95 - Emix Sales Ltd. Part of Lot 24, Con. 1, (part 1, Plan 40R-12678) Also known as 1099 Kingston Road Town of Pickering '-' The applicant requests relief from the provIsion of Section 5(1)(e)(iv) of amending By-law 2641/88, as amended, to By-law 3036 to permit a minimum of 187 parking spaces on the Furniture Mall site (zoned SC-17); whereas, the by-law requires a minimum of 288 parking spaces be provided on the Furniture Mall site (zoned SC-I7) if that property is under a separate ownership from the Olive Garden Restaurant site (zoned SC-18) immediately to the north. The by-law further requires a minimum of 311 parking spaces over the entire property if both the Furniture Mall and the Olive Garden sites are under the same ownership. There are 313 parking spaces provided over the entire site; however, only 187 of them are located on the Furniture Mall site. Approval of this variance application is required in order to finalize Land Division Application 169/95 which has been approved to sever the Olive Garden Site from the Furniture Mall Site. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Mr. Victor Lind, agent, and Mr. B. Heffer, owner, were present to represent the application. Councillor Senis was present in favour of the application. Mr. Adam Brown, .-- representing the Liverpool West Community Association, was present in objection to the application. Mr. Lind stated that the variance is, required due to the current land division application. The parking requirements for the subject property currently meet the zoning by-law requirements; however, when the property is severed and under two separate ownerships, the parking on the Furniture Mall site will not meet the requirements of the zoning by-law. Mr. Lind also indicated that he is in agreement with the comments outlined in the Planning Department's Report. 85 Mr. Adam Brown indicated that during the recent rezoning of the subject lands which is currently under appeal with the Ontario Municipal Board, he had requested, on behalf of the L.W.C.A., to be notified of any future applications on the property. He was upset to find that he did not receive any notification. Mr. Cole indicated that the notification procedure for minor variance applications is conducted through the Planning Department; whereas, the notifications for any matter related to rezoning applications are prepared through the Clerk's Department, as a separate process. Mr. Cole's opinion was that although it was not necessary for Mr. Brown to be notified of the minor variance application, it would have been preferable if he had ..... been. He apologized for the misunderstanding and asked how Mr. Brown was, in fact, notified. Councillor Senis responded that she had notified Mr. Brown one week ago, knowing that the L.W.C.A. would want the opportunity to express their concerns regarding this application. Mr. White asked Mr. Brown if he was prepared for this meeting and Mr. Brown indicated that he was, however, he would prefer this item to be deferred. Mr. Young made a motion to proceed with the application; Mr. DiLecce seconded the motion, and it was carried unanimously. Mr. Brown then identified the reasons he felt that the application did not meet the four tests of the Committee of Adjustment. He also suggested that the severance was not in conformity with the zoning by-law, outlining that it was not even approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. He believes the original parking requirements were based on a site specific plan and, suggested a parking study be completed by the owner, as he believes that the current parking capabilities on the subject property are insufficient. '-" Mr. Smith then indicated that the severance is not allowing any additional uses, therefore, the parking requirements will not be changing. He asked if a shared parking agreement would satisfy the L.W.C.A. Mr. Brown felt that the Committee does not have the jurisdiction to force property owners to share parking. Mr. Lind then pointed out that the purchase agreement currently includes a shared parking requirement between the Olive Garden Restaurant lands and the Furniture Mall property. Mr. DiLecce questioned whether the severance just divides the properties and will not eliminate any current parking spaces. Mr. Cole confirmed that the current number of parking spaces will remain the same. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. DiLecce and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 83/95, by Emix Ltd., as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the proposed variance to permit a minimum of 187 parking spaces on the south part of the subject property, if it exists as a separate parcel from the north part of the property, 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(1)(e)(iv)B of amending By-law 2641188,. as amended, to By-law 3036, subject to the following condition: 1. That Land Division Application LD 169/95 becomes final and binding by September 2, 1996, or this variance shall become null and void. ~ 86 6. PICA 84/95 - Pickfair Shopping Centre Ltd. Part of Lot 23, Con. 1 Also known as 1794 Liverpool Road Town of Pickering The applicant requests relief from the provIsIons of Section 5(1)(a) of amending By-law 1680/83, as amended, to By-law 3036 to permit a retail store selling wine making products, to also provide an in-house wine making facility for the use of the customers; whereas, the by-law permits a number of commercial uses on the subject property, '-' including a retail store use, which is defined as a building or portion of a building in which goods, wares, merchandise, foods, substances, articles or things are kept for retail sale to the public. Approval of this variance application is required in order to permit the above-noted use to be established within a unit of the existing plaza on the subject property. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Mr. D. Paterson, owner, was present to represent the application. Councillor Senis was also present in favour of the application. Councillor Senis stated that she was in favour of the additional use, and believes it would be beneficial to this particular location. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Young and carried unanimously that - -- this application, PICA 84/95, by Pickfair Shopping Centre Ltd., as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the proposed variance to permit a retail store selling wine making products and to provide an in-house wine making facility for the use of customers 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.(I)(a) of amending By-law 1680/83, as amended, to Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance applies only to a single retail store within one unit of the existing plaza which also provides an in-house wine making facility for the use of customers, with a total maximum floor area of 1,000 square metres. 7. PICA 85/95 - M. & P. Kotchie Lot 63, Plan 40M-1379 Also known as 2011 Shay Drive Town of Pickering . The applicants request relief from the provIsIons of Section 5(2)(b )(vi) of amending By-law 1976/85 to By-law 3036 to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 4.86 metres provided by a reconstructed deck which exceeds 1.0 metres in height, on the subject property; whereas the by-law requires that a dwelling provide a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. ~ Approval of this variance application is required in order to permit a new deck to be constructed at the rear of the subject dwelling which extends 2.64 metres from the rear face of the dwelling. The applicant has advised that the existing non-complying deck, which is substantially larger (3.5 metres deep) is to be reconstructed to comply with the proposed variance. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. 87 Mr. Kotchie, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Mr. Kotchie expressed his concern that the original builder did not comply with the by-law when he constructed the original deck from his walkout. Mr. Cole indicated that the houses on Shay Drive are built to a 7.5 metre setback. He stated that it is probable that none of the original decks comply with the zoning by-law. -- Mr. Kotchie indicated that this was brought to his attention when he applied for a building permit for a larger deck that he had previously constructed. He further indicated that he has reconstructed the deck once again, to meet the requirements outlined in the Planning Department's report. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Young and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 85/95, by M. & P. Kotchie, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the proposed minimum 4.86 metre 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 Official Plan, and Section 5(2)(b ) (vi) of amending By-law 1976/85 to Zoning By-law 3036, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance applies only to a deck and access stairs at the rear of the subject dwelling with maximum deck dimensions of 2.64 metres deep by 6.0 metres wide. 2. That the existing deck on the subject property be reconstructed to comply with the minimum 4.86 rear yard depth and maximum dimensions of 2.64 metres deep by 6.0 metres wide within six months of the date of this decision, or this decision shall become null and void. 'W' 8. PICA 86/95 - M. & R. Heath Part of Lot 6, Plan 1041 (part 4, Plan 40R-15823) Also known as 1837 Parkside Drive Town of Pickering The applicants request relief from the provision of Section 10.2.3, of By-law 3036, to permit a front yard depth of 7.12 metres provided by the existing dwelling on the subject property; whereas, the by-law requires that a dwelling provide a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres. Approval of this variance application is required in order to bring the existing dwelling on the property into compliance with the zoning by-law. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Mr. Heath, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. -- Mr. Cole mentioned receipt of a letter from a neighbour who was concerned about an error made during construction; however, was in agreement with the application. 88 Mr. Heath indicated that when the foundation was laid for his home, the supervisor of construction was attending an unexpected funeral for a family member. The mistake in the front yard depth was not identified until the final building location survey was completed, after construction of the dwelling. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Young and seconded by Mr. Johnson and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 86/95, by M. & R. Heath, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the 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 Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan, and Section 10.2.3 of Zoning By-law 3036, subject to the following condition: 1. That the front yard depth variance applies only to the existing dwelling identified on the applicants' submitted plans. 9. PICA 87/95 - Rockport Holdings Limited Block D, Plan M-I024 Also known as 1645 Pickering Parkway Town of Pickering The applicant requests relief from the provisions of the following: A. Section 4.(I)(b) of amending By-law 4045/92 to By-law 3036, to permit: "-' 1. a minimum 1 bedroom dwelling unit area of 36 square metres; whereas the by-law requires a minimum bedroom dwelling unit area of 51 square metres. 2. the deletion of the minimum two bedroom dwelling unit area requirement and replace with a provision which states that "no unit designed for sleeping accommodation shall be less than 20 square metres in area"; whereas the by-law requires a minimum two bedroom dwelling unit area of 73 square metres. 3. the deletion of the provisions governing unobstructed wheelchair access; whereas the by-law requires several provisions governing unobstructed wheelchair access. *** B. Section 4.(4) of amending By-law 4045/92 to By-law 3036, to permit: 1. the deletion of the requirement that a minimum of 10% of the total number of dwelling units must be barrier-free; whereas the by-law requires that a minimum of 10% of the total number of dwelling units must be barrier-free. 2. the deletion of the requirement that all doorways provide an unobstructed passage area of 1.0 metres in width; whereas the by-law requires that all doorways provide a minimum unobstructed passage area of 1.0 metre in width. *** c. Section 5.(2)(c)B of amending By-law 4045/92, to By-law 3036, to permit a Multiple Dwelling Vertical that is a Senior Citizens Apartment to have a maximum of 94 dwelling units; whereas the by-law requires that a Multiple Dwelling-Vertical that is a Senior Citizens Apartment not exceed a maximum of 88 dwelling units. . *** 'W D. Section 5.(2)( d)C of amending By-law 4045/92, to By-law 3036, to permit: 1. a minimum of 0.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residents; whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 0.3 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residents. 2. a minimum' of 0.15 parking spaces per dwelling unit for visitors; whereas the by-law requires a minimum 0.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit for visitors. *** 89 E. Section 2.26 of By-law 3036 to vary the definition of "Dwelling Unit" to read as follows: "Dwelling Unit" shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a living area, and containing sanitary facilities; whereas the by-law defines "Dwelling Unit" as one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a single, independant and separate housekeeping unit containing separate kitchen and sanitary facilities. *** The applicant requests these variances in order that a retirement home providing meal, housekeeping, medical and supervision services to residents may be developed on the ,...., subject property, rather than an independant "seniors" residence apartment building which the current by-law contemplated. The Assistant Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. Mr. J. Winberg, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Mr. Young wondered if the senior citizens who will be living in the building will be cared for, as opposed to caring for themselves and, Mr. Winberg and Mr.. Cole confirmed that this was correct. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Young and seconded by Mr. Johnson and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 87/95, by Rockport Holdings Limited, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the proposed variances, with one revision to the proposed parking variance, 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 Sections 4.(1)(b), 4.(4), 5.(2)(c)B. and 5.(2)(d)C. of amending By-law 4045/92 to By-law 3036, and Section 2.26 of By-law 3036, as amended, subject to the following conditions: w 1. That these variances apply only to the development of a senior citizens residence/nursing home with a maximum of 94 dwelling units, all of which have a maximum of one bedroom and no self-contained kitchen facilities, as outlined in the letters submitted by the applicant, Rockport Holdings Ltd. which are attached to this report. 2. That the proposed parking variance be approved, as amended, to require parking in the ratio of 0.375 parking spaces per dwelling unit. 3. That the applicant receive site plan approval for a senior citizens residence/nursing home development as outlined with this application within two years of the date of this decision, or the approval of these variances shall become null and void. 10. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. DiLecce made a formal request of the Committee Members that they refrain from making any comments regarding the decisions of the Committee while any members of the public are present. '-'" Mr. Johnson apologized to all Committee Members for any comments that he might have made during a meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, that the Committee Members felt were unnecessary. 90 w w w .. 11. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Young and carried unanimously that- The 15th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:45 p.m. and the next regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, November 29, 1995. DATE /J c:nr. ~ 1 /;5 / AS~~~ 91