Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 23, 1992 - 62 - PRESENT: MINUTES of the 12th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held in the Committee Room of the Pickering Civic Complex on Wednesday, September 23, 1992. Ms. S. Archer, Chairperson Mr. B. Bhuta Mrs. D. Kerr Mrs. C. Scorer Mr. M. Puterbough Mrs. E. McDougall, Secretary-Treasurer Mr. Jeffrey G. Cole, Planner '-' ALSO PRESENT: The Meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Committee Room of the Civic Complex. I. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES There were no matters arising from the minutes. 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES MOTION: Moved by Mrs. C. Scorer, seconded by Mr. Bhuta and carried unanimously- That the minutes of the 11th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held September 2, 1992 be adopted. '-" 3. P /CA 62/92 - D. & K. Paterson Part of Lot 18, Concession 9 (also known as 5192 Brock Road) Town of Pickering The applicants request relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 1604/82: (I) (2) Section 6.2.1 of the By-law to permit the continuance of a front yard depth of 0.5 m. whereas the By-law requires that a dwelling provide a front yard depth of 12.0 m.; Section 5.18(a) of the By-law to permit the continuance of the accessory structure (garage) in the side yard of the lot whereas the By-law requires that all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building be erected in the rear yard; Section 5.20.2 of the By-law: (a) to permit the continuance of the dwelling 10.6 m. from the centre line of Brock Road whereas the By-law requires that no building or structure shall be erected closer than 19.5 m. to the centre line of Brock Road; (b) to permit the continuance of the accessory structure (garage) 11.4 m. from the centre line of Brock Road whereas the By-law requires that no building or structure shall be erected closer than 19.5 m. to the centre line of Brock Road. (3) ~ Approval of this variance application is required to bring the subject property into compliance with the Zoning By-law, and in order that a building permit may be obtained for a proposed addition to the rear of the property. Mr. and Mrs. Paterson were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour or in objection to the application. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Planning Department, Public Works Department and Regional Councillor Rick Johnson, Ward 3. Mr. Paterson stated that he had no questions, and they wanted to start building the addition to their house. - 63 - DECISION: Moved by Mr. Puterbough, seconded by Mr. Bhuta and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 62/92 by D. & K. Paterson, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the front yard depth, accessory structure location and setback from the centre line of Brock Road variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Durham Regional Omcial Plan, the Pickering District Plan and Sections 6.2.1, 5.18(a) and 5.20(2) of By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 1604/82, subject to the following condition: ,-,. I. That this variance apply only to the dwelling and detached garage in existence on the date of this decision. 4. PICA 63192 - L. & S. Conte Lot 1, Plan 282; Parts 16 & 17, 40R-13600 and Part 1, 40R-4767 (also known as 104 Twyn Rivers Drive) Town of Pickering The applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 6.4 of Zoning By-law 3036, as varied by PICA 14/86, to permit the establishment of a tlankage side yard width of 1.8 metres whereas the By-law requires that a dwelling provide a tlankage side yard width of 3.048 metres. Approval of this variance application is required in order that a building permit may be obtained for a proposed addition (approximately 62.44 sq. m.) to the existing detached dwelling on the subject property. ~ Mr. and Mrs. Conte were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour or in objection to the application. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. Mr. Conte stated that he felt he had paid the Town of Pickering too much money for the 10 feet of land he recently purchased. He stated that his engineer asked him to find out how far the new addition needed to be from the lot line. Mr. Conte said he inquired verbally as to how far from the lot line the dwelling needed to be, and was told 1.8 metres. Therefore, Mr. Conte had his plans drawn up for the addition, according to the distance of 1.8 metres from his new property boundary. Mr. Conte was informed when he applied for a building permit that he had to comply with the by-law, and that the required distance was 3.048 metres. DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer, seconded by Mr. Puterbough and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 63/92 by L. & S. Conte, as outlined, 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 Durham Regional Omcial Plan, the Pickering District Plan and Section 6.4 of By-law 3036, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to the plans as generally outlined in this application. 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the addition, the owner obtain site plan approval from the Town to ensure architectural co-ordination. 5. PICA 64/92 - L. & J. Cook Lot 782, Plan M-19 (also known as 942 Mink Street) Town of Pickering -- The applicants request relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law 2520: (1) Section 7.2.3 of By-law 2520 to permit the establishment of a front yard depth of 5.8 metres to be provided by a proposed veranda to the existing dwelling whereas the By-law requires that any building structure provide a front yard depth of 7.5 metres; (2) Section 5.19(a) of By-law 2520 to permit the continuance of an accessory structure (shed) to be located in the rear yard 0.03 metres from the east lot line whereas the By-law requires that all accessory structures be located in the rear yard not less than 1.0 metres from all lot lines. - 64 - ~ Approval of this variance application is required in order to bring the property into compliance with the provisions of the By-law, and to obtain a building permit for the construction of a veranda to the existing dwelling. Mr. Cook was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour or in objection to the application. The Secretary- Treasurer outlined comments received from the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. Mr. Cook stated that he did not have any questions to ask the Committee, and that he would like to proceed with the building of the veranda. DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Kerr, seconded by Mrs. Scorer, and carried unanimously that- this application, P /CA 64/92 by L. & J. Cook, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the requested accessory structure location and front yard depth variance are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate 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 7.2.3 and Section 5.19(a) of By-law 2520 subject to the following condition: I. That this variance apply only to the accessory structure in existence on the date of this decision and the veranda as shown on the plans submitted with this application. 6. P /CA 65/92 - K. & R. Baker Part of Lot 87, Plan 1051, Part 1, 40R-1953 (also known as 1925 Bonita Avenue) Town of Pickering The applicants request relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law 3036, Section 5.18(d) to permit the establishment of a 0.9 metre west side yard width whereas the By-law requires that a building with an attached garage provide a minimum side yard width of 1.8 metres. 'W' Approval of this variance application is required in order that a building permit may be obtained for a proposed second-storey addition to a portion of the existing dwelling on the subject property. Mr. Baker and Mr. J. Proctor were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour or in objection to the application. Mr. Baker stated that the property to the west of him was built closer to the street than his property because of the septic system located in the back of the property. He stated that he is just extending the bathroom out into the side yard, but the Planning Department or possibly the neighbour stated it would look bad. He said if the house to the west of his was located back further on the lot the bathroom addition would look "OK". Mr. Baker then stated that the building on the property to the west of him is only located 5 feet 9 inches from the lot line instead of the required 6 feet. As far as he knew, the neighbour did not have permission for this. Mr. Bhuta asked if Mr. Baker had any building plans for the proposed addition. Mr. Baker stated that he did not since he did not know whether he would be permitted to build the extension. He wanted to wait to see if the application was approved. Ms. Archer inquired as to the location of the proposed addition, and if the view from the bathroom window would look directly over the neighbour's backyard? Mr. Baker indicated that the addition would extend out that side of the house. '-" Ms. Archer inquired regarding the size of the addition. Mr. Baker stated that the addition was 5 feet by 12 feet. Mr. Bhuta asked if Mr. Baker could locate the addition somewhere else on the property. Mr. Baker stated that he would have to go through walls to locate the bathroom somewhere else. He stated that the bedrooms were small compared to the size of the house. He stated that he moved the bathroom elsewhere he would lose a bedroom. He indicated he could not locate a bathroom in the rear of the property as he has a septic system in the back of his property . - 65 - 'w' Mr. Bhuta asked Mr. Cole if any alternative location for the bathroom was looked into? Ms. Archer stated that it was unfair to ask Mr. Cole if an alternative was looked into, as he was only asked to report on the submitted application. Mr. Cole then stated that he had called the Building Department and they stated that the addition design was unusual but was possible to build according to the Building Code. Mr. Cole said they did not discuss other locations for the addition on the property. Mr. Puterbough stated that overlooking the neighbour's yard was almost intrusive. Mr. Baker stated that neighbour's house being located too close to the street was where the problem arises. Ms. Archer asked Mr. Cole if the Building Code would permit the windows in the proposed addition to face the neighbour's property to the west. Mr. Cole indicated that the Building Department advised that windows would not be permitted in a wall so close to the property line. Ms. Archer stated that if the windows faced the rear of the property, then the problem of looking into the neighbour's yard would be alleviated. Ms. Scorer asked what was to be contained in the addition. Mr. Baker stated that it would contain a bathtub, and that he would rearrange the existing bathroom. He stated that he has spent a lot of money to upgrade his house. Mr. Baker indicated that he did not want to build under the extension because it would cost too much money. Mr. Bhuta asked what would happen to the existing window, and where the light would come from for the room. Mr. Baker stated that he could put a window facing the street or at the other end of the addition. Mr. Bhuta stated that a skylight could be placed in the new addition if no windows were permitted pursuant to the Building Code. Mrs. Kerr stated that Mr. Baker had a gazebo on his property that was not located on his plan. She advised Mr. Baker that if the gazebo did not comply with the zoning by-law that he would have to come back to the committee at some future date. Ms. Archer indicated it was good idea to bring everything into compliance all at once on a property. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Bhuta, seconded by Mr. Puterbough, and carried that- this application, P /CA 65/92 by K. & R. Baker, be APPROVED on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, and that any windows permitted to be built in the w addition be constructed in compliance with the Building Code for the Town of Pickering. AMENDMENT moved by Ms. Archer, and seconded by Mr. Puterbough that the size of the addition is not to exceed 5 feet by 12 feet, and that this variance for an addition is to apply to the second floor, and not to a variance for a ground level addition; the addition is to be co-ordinated with the existing house through Site Plan Approval. This variance is minor in nature because the streetscape is not visible from the road; the applicant has examined other alternatives and found none; and because the second-storey setback requirement is met at ground level, therefore drainage is not hampered. DECISION AND AMENDMENT carried 7. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Mrs. Kerr, seconded by Mrs. Scorer and carried unanimously that- the 12th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:50 p.m. and the next regular meeting be held on Wednesday, October 14,1992. ~>2:7. ' .' "'::<'1 ..< .. ,,,,,," J / ~ /.....,1'./ /' r... c....L./ /0/' :7<-- APPROVED (date) w Sat^, A~ CHAIRPERSON