Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 29, 1992 .. - 23- MINUTES of the 5th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held in the Committee Room of the Pickering Civic Centre on Wednesday, April 29th, 1992. PRESENT: Ms. S. Archer, Chairperson Mrs. D. Kerr Mrs. C. Scorer Mr. B. Bhuta Mr. M. Puterbough Mrs. P. Healey, Acting Secretary-Treasurer Mrs. L. Taylor, Planner. 'W ALSO PRESENT: The Meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. in the Committee Room of the Civic Centre. 1. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES There were no matters arising from the minutes. 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES MOTION: Moved by Mr. Bhuta, seconded by Mrs. Kerr and carried unanimously that - the minutes of the 4th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held April 8th, 1992, be adopted. 3. P /CA 26/92 - St. Pauls On The Hill Part Lot 27, Range 3 Also known as 882 Kingston Road Town of Pickerine W The applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 5.21.2(d) of amending By-law 1398/81 to permit a parking area on the subject property to be set back a minimum of 1.5 metres from Kingston Road, whereas the By-law requires that parking areas be set back a minimum of 3.0 metres from a road allowance (Kingston Road). Approval of this variance application is required in order that a parking area may be located on the subject property adjacent to Kingston Road. Mrs. Archer declared a conflict of interest. The Acting Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. The applicants and Committee members were provided with a copy of all comments received. Mr. I. McCullough and Rev. B. McVitty were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour or in objection to the application. Mr. McCullough stated that the parking spaces were being increased but that landscaping would provide an attractive screening from Highway No.2. DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer, seconded by Mrs. Kerr and carried unanimously that- this application, P /CA 26/92, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, appropriate development for the land and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan, and Section 5.21.2(d) of amending By-law 1398/81, subject to the following condition: '-" 1. That the applicant satisfy the Town respecting a Site Plan Agreement indicating . landscape treatment across Kingston Road frontage. - 24- 4. P /CA 22/92 - Stanley Golvin (Golf our Investments) Part of Lot 19, Concession 1 Also known as 1050 Brock Road Town of Pickerine APPLICATION The applicant requests relief from the provisions of Section 5(2)(e)(iii) of amending By-law. 2760/18 to permit one or more restaurants, not exceeding a total maximum floor area of 625m , whereas the By-law requires that no more tha~ one restaurant (Type A) not exceeding an aggregate gross leasable floor area of 625m be established on the subject property. w Approval of this variance application is required in order that a second restaurant may b! established on the subject property not exceeding an aggregate gross floor area of 625 m for both restaurants. The Acting Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. The applicants and Committee members were provided with a copy of all comments received. Mr. M. Stroud and Mr. S. Golvin were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour or in objection to the application. Mr. Stroud stressed that the application is not to increase the gross floor area for restaurants but to allow a second restaurant on the site at this time. Mrs. Archer asked the applicant if he would be in objection to a condition of approval stipulating two restaurants only. Mr. Golvinresponded that, due to the present economy, the demand for development is on a smaller scale. Therefore, if possible, they would prefer the flexibility of having the capability to lease one or more restaurants. DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Kerr, seconded by Mr. Bhuta and carried that- this application, P /CA 22/92 by Stanley Golvin (Golf our Investments), as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the proposed variance is minor in nature, desirable for W 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 5(2)(e)(iii) of Zoning By-law 2760/88. 5. P /CA 23/92, P /CA 24/92 & P /CA 25/92 Pitney Bowes Canada Ltd. Part Lot 18, Range 3 B.F.C. Also known as 865 Brock Road Town of Pickerine The following variance applications result from the fact that the subject lands are comprised of three properties which the current development proposal treats as one parcel. P/CA23/92 (Lot A):- .... Section 2.2.1 of By-law 2511 to permit a 3.14 m. traffic aisle on Lot A to be shared with a 3.36 m. traffic aisle on Lot B, whereas the By-law requires that the perpendicular width of a traffic aisle used to gain access to a parking stall be a minimum 6.5 metres wide for two-way traffic aisles. Section _2.57 of By-law 2511 to permit the parking spaces to have a minimum area of 15.95 m~ whereas the By-law requires that a parking space have a minimum area of 18 m2. Section 5.21.1(2) of By-law 2511 to permit the ~ovision of 35 parking spaces on the subject property for an industrial building with 798 m of floor area used for office space, whereas the By-law requ~s that a minimum of 43 parking spaces be provided for Lot A (5 parking spaces per 93 m of floor area used for offices). Section 5.21.2(b) of By-law 2511 to permit the continuance of side yard parking to be set back 50.0 metres on one side and 0.0 metres on the other side, whereas the By-law requires that side yard parking be set back a minimum 7.5 metres on one side and 1.5 metres on the other side. - 25- Section 17.2.1 of By-law 2511 to permit the establishment of a minimum 0.0 metre south side yard width to be provided by the proposed building on the lot, whereas the By-law requires that an industrial building provide minimum side yard widths of 7.5 metres. PICA 24/92 (Lot B): - Section 2.2.1 of By-law 2511 to permit a 3.36 m. traffic aisle on Lot B to be shared with a 3.14 m. traffic aisle on Lot A, whereas the By-law requires that the perpendicular width of a traffic aisle used to gain access to a parking stall be a minimum 6.5 metres wide for two-way traffic aisles. w Section ;.57 of By-law 2511 to permit the parking spaces to have a minimum area of 15.95 m , whereas the By-law requires that a parking space have a minimum area of 18 m2. Section 5.21.1(2) of By-law 2511 to permit the provision r!J 299 parking spaces on the subject property for an industrial building with 8,251.02 m of floor area used for office space, whereas the By-law requirIs that a minimum of 444 parking spaces be provided for Lot B (5 parking spaces per 93 m of floor area used for offices). Section 5.21.2(b) of By-law 2511 to permit the establishment of side yard parking to be set back 0.0 metres on one side and 2.0 metres on the other side, whereas the By-law requires that side yard parking be set back a minimum 7.5 metres on one side and 1.5 metres on the other side. PICA 25/92 (lA)t 0:- w Section 22.57 of By-law 2511 to permit the parking spaces to have a minimum area.. of 15.95 m , whereas the By-law requires that a parking space have a minimum area of 18 m:l. Section 5.21.1(3) of By-law 2511 to permit the provisjon of 148 parking spaces on the subject property for an industrial building with 10,260.34 m of floor area used as an industrial use, . whereas the By-law req!ires that a minimum of 184 parking spaces be provided for Lot C (1 parking space per 56 m of floor area used as an industrial use). . Section 17.2.1 of By-law 2511 to permit the establishment of a minimum 0.0 metre north side yard width to be provided by a walkway connection to the building proposed to be constructed on Lot B, whereas the By-law requires that an industrial building provide minimum side yard widths of 7.5 metres. The Acting Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. The applicants and Committee members were provided with a copy of all comments received. Mr. S. Bardsley and Mr. S. Ublansky were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Mr. Bardsley advised that the three lots are actually owned by Pitney Bowes although one is under the name of a subsidiary of Pitney Bowes, Monarch Marking Systems Ltd. Mr. Puterbough expressed concern regarding Mrs. Salter's letter and asked if the applicants have had any discussion with her regarding her landlocked property. Mr. Bardsley replied that Mrs. Salter's property is not landlocked as she has a right-of-way for residential traffic across the subject property and that the proposed development will not interfere with this right-of-way. Mr. Bardsley advised that Pitney Bowes had attempted to purchase the Salter property in 1988, had otTered Mr. & Mrs. Salter a life tenancy and had suggested rerouting the easement to the back small piece of property. Engineering studies had been completed on the property at that time, however, Mr. Salter decided not to sell. Mrs. Archer questioned the 20% reduction in parking. Mr. Ublansky stated that the proposed amount of parking exceeds the amount recommended in the Town's OtT-Street Parking Study by 100 spaces, further the proposed parking stall size is larger than the recommended stall size in the Parking Study. ....... Mr. Puterbough asked if they would consider a butTer of trees around the parking lot. Mr. Ublansky replied that a landscape proposal had been submitted to the Town and that new larger trees will be planted. - 26- DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer, seconded by Mr. Puterbough and carried unanimously that - these applications, PICA 23/92, PICA 24/92, and P/CA25/92, as outlined, be APPROVED on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, required for the appropriate development of the lands and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Durham Regional Omcial Plan, the Pickering District Plan and Sections 2.2.1, 2.57, 5.21.1(2),5.21.1(3), 5.21.2(b) and 17.2.1 of By-law 2511 as amended, subject to the following conditions: '-' 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed development as generally outlined in applications P/CA23/92, PICA 24/92 & P/CA25/92. 2. That the owner convey appropriate easements to allow development as generally outlined in applications P /CA 23/92, P /CA 24/92 & P /CA 25/92, within two years of the date of this decision or this decision shall become null and void. 3. That the owner obtain site plan approval from the Town for the development as generally outlined in applications P /CA 23/92, P /CA 24/92 & P /CA 25/92, within two years of the date of this decision or this decision shall become null and void. 6. P /CA 27/92 - W. & A. Berry Lot 21, Plan 816 Also known as 1452 Rosebank Road Town of Pickerin2 The applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 5.18(e) of By-law 3036 to permit a proposed detached garage to have a maximum height of 5.18 metres on the subject property, whereas the By-law limits the height of a detached accessory structure in any residential zone to a maximum of 3.5 metres. Approval of this variance application is required in order that a building permit may be obtained for the construction of a detached garage to be located in the rear yard. The Acting Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering '-' Planning Department. The applicants and Committee members were provided with a copy of all comments received. Mr. N. Ettinger and Mr. Berry were present to represent the application. Mr. A. Blackman of 1443 Old Forest Drive, Mr. J. Ferguson of 1441 Old Forest Drive, Mr. E. Romanik and Mr. B. Kotyk, 1454 Rosebank Road were present in objection to the application. Mr. Ettinger advised that the proposed garage is solely to house a large truck which is the reason for the height and that the hobby room will be for his teenage children (a place of their own). He referred to the objection letter received from P. Murphy. Mr. Berry has no problem with changing the design of the roof. lIe stated that the pitched roof echoes the design of the house, however, he can design a flat roof for the garage which will reduce the height by approximately two metres. In reference to Mrs. Kotyk's letter of objection, Mr. Ettinger advised that Mr. Berry did not intend to raise the grade of the subject property and has no objection to constructing a fence along the north boundary of the property. He mentioned that the building code does not permit a staircase from the garage to the hobby room above. Mr. Romanik representing Mrs. Kotyk stated that she is concerned with the drainage and water run-ofT from the garage, especially if the grade where the garage is to be located is to be raised, the garage will be even higher. She is also concerned with the potential for the hobby room to be used for a commercial business or converted to living area. Another concern is the zero clearance between the driveway on the subject property and the north boundary adjacent to her property. There is no bufTer strip or fencing and the snow is piled on her property. In her opinion, the proposed height and design of the garage is not compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. ...... - 27- Mr. Blackman, owner of the property to the rear of the subject property, stated that he is concerned with the the height and the close proximity of the garage to his property. The proposed garage will over-shadow his property blocking the sunlight and his privacy will be interrupted. If there are any windows on the back of the hobby room, they would be facing directly into his house. He added that he also is concerned with the potential of using the garage for a business and also the run-ofT of rain water. ~ Mr. Ferguson, who also has property at the rear of Mr. Berry's property, stated that he is concerned with possible noise and wonders why the structure has to be located so far back on the property. Mr. Berry stated that he chose to place the proposed garage at the rear of the property to allow more space for outdoor activities, however, he has no objection to moving the garage closer to the road. He also mentioned that insofar as the noise, he has recently been having some windows replaced in his home. Mr. Puterbough stated that in his opinion there is sufficient area on the property to construct a garage which will not afTect the privacy of surrounding residents and still comply with the requirements of the By-law. Mrs. Scorer stated that in her opinion the property is large enough to construct a garage in compliance with the By-law. There are designs available for the construction of a garage which would be more appropriate and compatible with the area. Mr. Berry requested that this application be DEFERRED until the next meeting. 7. PICA 28/92 - G. Deane & J. McCarten Part Block A, Plan 233 Also known as 541 Rodd Avenue Town of Pickerin2 The applicants request relief from the provisions of: a) Section 5.6 of By-law 2511 to eliminate the requirement for frontage on an open public street, maintained at public expense for the subject property, being Part Block A, Plan -- 233, also known as 541 Rodd Avenue, Town of Pickering, whereas the By-law requires that a lot provide frontage on an open public street, maintained at public expense. b) Should the variance requested in 'a' above be granted, the applicant requests that the northerly boundary of Part Block A, Plan 233, be defined as the "Front Lot Line", whereas Section 2.46(c)(i) of By-law 2511 defines "front lot line" as the line that divides a lot from the street. c) Section 10.2.3 of By-law 2511 to permit the continuance of a minimum 2.27 metre front yard depth provided by the existing dwelling on the lot and the establishment of a minimum 2.27 metre front yard depth to be provided by a proposed second storey addition to the existing dwelling, whereas the By-law requires that a dwelling provide a minimum 7.5 metre front yard depth. Approval of this variance application is required to bring the subject property into compliance with the provisions of the By-law in order that a building permit may be obtained for a proposed second storey addition to the the existing dwelling on the lot. The Acting Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. The applicants and Committee members were provided with a copy of all comments received. Mr. G. Deane and Mr. J. McCarten were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Mr. Deane advised that the proposed addition is a second storey which will be flush with the .... existing one storey portion of the dwelling. - 28- DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer, seconded by Mr. Puterbough and carried unanimously that - this application, P /CA 28/92, by G. Deane and J. McCarten, is 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 Sections 5.6, 2.46(c)(i) and 10.2.3 of By-law 2511, subject to the following condition: 1. That this approval apply only to the subject property and the dwelling in existence on the subject property on the date of this decision, with a second storey addition as shown on ...... building permit application 92-329. 2. That the applicants receive approval from Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority prior to receiving a building permit. 8. P/CA29/92 - S. & L. Marks Part Lots 61, 62 & 63, Plan 43 Also known as 4859 Livingston Street Hamlet of Claremont The applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 5.18(e) of By-law 3037 to permit the construction of a detached accessory structure (garage) proposed to be located in the front yard approximately 1.2 metres from the south lot line and 12.0 metres from the west lot line, whereas the By-law requires that detached accessory structures be located in the rear yard not less than 1.0 metres from all lot lines. Approval of this variance application is required in order that a building permit may be obtained for a proposed detached garage. The Acting Secretary-Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. The applicants and Committee members were provided with a copy of all comments received. ~ Mr. G. Maurice and Ms. J. Hexham were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Mr. Maurice stated that the sketches provided by Mr. Marks explains the application very well. He mentioned that the driveway is at a steep angle and a number of trees will have to be removed if the garage is erected at the rear of the property. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Puterbough, seconded by Mrs. Kerr and carried unanimously that - this application, P /CA 29/92, by S. & L. Marks, is 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 5.18( e) of By-law 3037, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed garage in the general location identified in this application. 2. That the owner obtain site plan approval for the proposed garage to ensure architectural co-ordination with the main dwelling prior to the issuance of a building permit and that a building permit be issued within two years of the date of this decision, or this decision shall become null and void. "'-" - 28- DECISION: Moved by Mrs. Scorer, seconded by Mr. Puterbough and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 28/92, by G. Deane and J. McCarten, is 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 5.6, 2.46(c)(i) and 10.2.3 of By-law 2511, subject to the following condition: 1. That this approval apply only to the subject property and the dwelling in existence on the subject property on the date of this decision, with a second storey addition as shown on ....... building permit application 92-329. 2. That the applicants receive approval from Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority prior to receiving a building permit. 8. P/CA29/92 - S. & L. Marks Part Lots 61, 62 & 63, Plan 43 Also known as 4859 Livingston Street Hamlet of Claremont The applicants request relief from the provisions of Section 5.18(e) of By-law 3037 to permit the construction of a detached accessory structure (garage) proposed to be located in the front yard approximately 1.2 metres from the south lot line and 12.0 metres from the west lot line, whereas the By-law requires that detached accessory structures be located in the rear yard not less than 1.0 metres from all lot lines. Approval of this variance application is required in order that a building permit may be obtained for a proposed detached garage. The Acting Secretary- Treasurer outlined comments received from the Town of Pickering Planning Department. The applicants and Committee members were provided with a copy of all comments received. Mr. G. Maurice and Ms. J. Hexham were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. W Mr. Maurice stated that the sketches provided by Mr. Marks explains the application very well. He mentioned that the driveway is at a steep angle and a number of trees will have to be removed if the garage is erected at the rear of the property. DECISION: Moved by Mr. Puterbough, seconded by Mrs. Kerr and carried unanimously that - this application, PICA 29/92 by S. & L. Marks, as outlined, 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 Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering District Plan, and Section 5.18(e) of By-law 3037, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed garage in the general location identified in this application. 2. That the owner obtain site plan approval for the proposed garage to ensure architectural co-ordination with the main dwelling prior to the issuance of a building permit and that a building permit be issued within two years of the date of this decision, or this decision shall become null and void. ...... - 29- 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Mrs. Kerr, seconded by Mr. Puterbough and carried unanimously that - the 4th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 9:00 p.m. and the next regular meeting be held on Wednesday, May 20th, 1992. ... ~iP( /~f2- ~a:t//'J ~/ CHAIRPERSON 'W' ......