Ag - Pickering · 06 Committee ofAdjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 12,2013 7:00 pm Council...

Committee of Adjustment

Ag.enda

Meeting Number: 8Date: Wednesday, July 3, 2013

(I) Adoption of Agenda

"(II) Adoption of Minutes from June 12, 2013

(III) Reports1. (Deferred from June 12, 2013 meeting)

PICA 36/13Bancan Homes (S. Hossain)606 Rosebank Road

2. PICA 37/13J. & M. Bodrug758 Hampton Court

3. PICA 38/13M. Richard1944 Valley Farm Road

(IV) Adjournment

Committee of AdjustmentAgenda

Wednesday, July 3,20137:00 pm

Main Committee Room

Page Number

1-17

18-24

25-29

30-34

Accessible • __

PICKE~GFor information related to accessibility requirements please contactLesley DunneT. 905.420.4660, extension 2024TTY 905.420.1739Email [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Committee of AdjustmentMeeting Minutes

Wednesday, June 12, 2013017:00 pm

Council Chambers

Pending Adoption

Present:

Tom Gopel~ndDavid Johnson - ChairEric NewtonBill UttonShirley Van Steen - Vice-Chair

Also Present:

Melissa Markham, Principal Planner - Development ReviewLesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer

(I) Adoption of Agenda

Moved by Shirley Van SteenSeconded by Tom Copefand

That the agenda for the Wednesday, June 12, 2013 meeting be adopted.

Carried Unanimously

(II) Adoption of Minutes

Moved by Tom CopelandSeconded by EriGNewton

That the minutes of the 6th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment heldWednesday, May 22,2013 be adopted.

Carried Unanimously

1

02



Council Chambers

(III)

1.

Reports

(Deferred from May 1, 2013)PICA 25/13J. & J. Gray699 Front Road

The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended to permit afront yard depth of 0.3 metres to a second storey addition above the existingdwelling and a front yard depth of 5.2' metres to a proposed two-storey additionsupporting a covered vehicular entrance, whereas the by-law requires aminimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres.

The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a buildingpermit for a proposed addition to the existing dwelling.

Principal Planner - Development Review outlined comments received from theCity of Pickering City Development Department recommending approval subjectto conditions. Written comments were received from Eugene Kerr & SandraParks of 691 Front Road indicating they have reviewed the design concept andare in support of the application. Written comments were also received fromPaul & Lori Murray of 710 Front Road indicating they have reviewed.the conceptdrawings and are in support of the application.

Wayne Cassidy, agent, was present to represent the application. No furtherrepresentation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.

Wayne Cassidy indicated he has met with the Heritage Committee and City staffand will be submitting revised building elevations as per staff recommendations.

Moved by Shirley Van SteenSeconded by Bill Utton

That application PICA 25/13 by J. & J. Gray, be Approved on the grounds thatthe minimum front yard depth of 0.3 metres to a second storey addition abovethe existing dwelling and a front yard depth of 5.2 metres to a proposed two-storeyaddition are minor in nature that are desirable for the appropriate development ofthe land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan'and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions:

2


Wednesday, June 12, 2013 037:00 pm

Council Chambers

1. That these variances apply only to the proposed second storey additionabove the existing dwelling and to the proposed two-storey south addition, asgenerally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.

2. That the applicant further consults with City Development Staff and submitsrevised building elevations that compliments and respects the character ofthe existing building, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development, orthis decision shall become null and void.

3. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction byJune 12, 2015, or this decision shall become null and void.

Carried Unanimously

2. (Deferred from May 22, 2013)PICA 26/13 - AmendedK. & J. Sukhra1101 Gossamer Drive

The applicant requests relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law 3036, asamended by By-law 4113/92:

• to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 3.4 metres to an existing roofextension within the rear yard; whereas the zoning by-law requires aminimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres

• to permit a maximum lot coverage of 39 percent to accommodate the existingroof extension in the rear yard; whereas the zoning by-law permits amaximum lot coverage of 38 percent

• to permit an accessory structure to be erected in the flankage side yard;whereas the by-law requires that all accessory buildings detached from thedwelling shall be erected in the rear yard (Amended variance)

• to permit a minimum flankage side yard setback of 0.6 metres to a detachedaccessory building; whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of4.5 metres to an accessory building detached from the main building on acorner lot (Amended variance)

3


Wednesday, June 12, 20137:00 pm.

Council Chambers

The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a buildingpermit for an existing roof extension within the rear yard and zoning compliancefor an existing shed in the flankage side yard.

Principal Planner.- Development Review outlined comments received from theCity of Pickering City Development Department recommending approval subjectto conditions.

Jennifer Sukhra, owner, was present to represent the application. DeenaJahurally of 1102 Gossamer Drive and Sally Gajraj of 1106 Gossamer Drivewere present in favour of the application. Luigi & Nancy Morra of 1100 PineGlen Drive and Peter Bonfiglio of 1122 Pine Glen Drive were present in objectionto the application.

Jennifer Sukhra submitted a petition signed by 24 surrounding neighboursindicating no issues or concerns with the utility shed located in the side yard.Jennifer Sukhra also submitted a letter of support from Frank Barry & ElizabethMitchell of 1103 Gossamer Drive. .

Luigi & Nancy Morra expressed concerns with the grading on the subjectproperty having been altered, which they believe is resulting in drainage issueson their property.

Peter Bonfiglio expressed a concern with the landscaping and subsequent gradingalterations on the subject property affecting drainage on surrounding properties.

In response to drainage concerns expressed from surrounding neigbours,Principal Planner - Development Review explained that a detailed grading planwas approved by the City for all Plans of Subdivisions to determine where run-offwill be directed within the subdivision and for each individual lot. Any subsequentchanges in the grade resulting in impacts on surrounding lots should be dealtwith by the property owners and not as a condition of the variance application.

Moved by Tom CopelandSeconded by Shirley Van Steen

That amended application PICA 26/13 by K. & J. Sukhra, be Approved on thegrounds that the minimum rear yard depth of 3.4 metres to a roof extension withinthe rear yard; a maximum lot coverage of 39 percent to accommodate the roofextension within the rear yard; and an accessory structure to be erected in thef1ankage side yard with a minimum f1ankage side yard setback of 0.6 metres, areminor in nature that are desirable for the appropriate development of the lands,and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and theZoning By-law, subject to the following conditions:

4

Committee of AdjustmentMeeting Minutes 05


Council Chambers

1. That these variances apply only to the roof extension, not to be enclosed withwalls, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.

2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction byJune 12, 2015, or this decision shall become null and void.

Carried Unanimously

3. (Deferred from May 22, 2013)PICA 27/13G. Modica481 Oakwood Drive

The applicant requests relief from the following provisions of Zoning By-law2511, as amended:

• to permit a minimum south side yard width of 0.9 metres to a proposedattached garage; whereas the by-law requires a minimum side yard width of1.5 metres

• to permit a minimum flankage side yard width of 1.9 metres to a proposedcovered entrance and to recognize a flankage side yard width of 1.3 metresto an existing two-storey detached dwelling; whereas the by-law requires aminimum flankage side yard width of 4.5 metres

• to recognize a south side yard width of 0.7 metres to an existing two-storeydetached dwelling and to an existing uncovered rear deck; whereas the by-lawrequires a minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres

• to recognize a rear yard depth of 0.7 metres and a flankage side yard width of0.7 metres to an existing shed on a corner lot; whereas the by-law requires aminimum rear yard depth of 3.0 metres and a minimum flankage side yardwidth of 4.5 metres for all accessory buildings located on a corner lot

The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a buildingpermit to construct a covered entrance within the side yard and an attachedgarage within the front yard, as well as to obtain zoning compliance for theexisting dwelling, uncovered rear deck and shed.

Principal Planner - Development Review outlined comments received from the,City of Pickering City Development Department recommending approval subjectto conditions.

5

06Committee of Adjustment

Meeting MinutesWednesday, June 12, 2013

7:00 pmCouncil Chambers

Vince Modica, agent, and Sal Modica were present to represent the application.Brendan Donnelly of 479 Oakwood Drive was present in objection to theapplication.

Sal Modica indicated the proposed garage would be setback approximately tenfeet from the neighbours two car garage, which was in response to the concernsfrom objecting neighbours at the May 22, 2013 meeting.

Moved by Eric NewtonSeconded by Bill Utton

That application PICA 27/13 by G. Modica, be Approved on the grounds that theminimum south side yard width of 0.9 metres to a proposed attached garage; theminimum flankage side yard width of 1.9 metres to a proposed covered entrance;the flankage side yard width of 1.3 metres to the existing two-storey detacheddwelling; the south side yard widths of 0.7 metres to the existing two-storeydwelling and uncovered rear deck; and the rear yard depth and side yard widthof 0.7 metres to an existing shed on a corner lot are minor in nature that aredesirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with thegeneral intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject tothe following conditions:

1. That these variances apply only to the proposed attached garage andattached side covered entrance as well as to the existing dwelling and shed,as generally sited and outlined 01") the applicant's submitted plans. '

2. That the applicant obtains a building permit for the proposed construction byMay 22, 2015, or this decision affecting the proposed detached garage andproposed covered entrance shall become null and void.

Carried Unanimously

4. (Deferred from May 22, 2013)PICA 29/13J. & G. Timleck691 Foxwood Trail

The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law1543/82 to permit a 0.2 metre south side yard width to an existing accessorystructure (pergola attached to a deck) not part of the main building, whereas theby-law requires a minimum side yard width of 1.0 metre for all accessorystructures not part of the main building.

6



Council Chambers

The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a buildingpermit for an existing accessory structure (pergola attached to a deck)associated with an above ground pool.

Principal Planner - Development Review outlined comments received from theCity of Pickering City Development Department recommending refusal.

James Timleck, owner, was present to represent the application. No furtherrepresentation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.

In response from questions from Committee Members, James Timleck explainedthere would be no problem maintaining the south side yard, as there is amplespace for people to go under the deck. James Timleck also indicated therewould be a safety issue if the deck was reduced in size. The safety issue wouldbe people falling into the pool, and not off the side of the deck.

Moved by Bill UttonSeconded by Eric Newton

That application PICA 29/13 by J. & G. Timleck, be Refused on the grounds thatthe 0.2 metre south side, yard width to an existing accessory structure (pergolaattached to a deck) not part of the main building is not considered to be minor inn~ture; not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, building orstructure; and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the ZoningBy-law.

Carried Unanimously

5. PICA 30/131613275 Ontario Inc684 Victory Drive

The applicant requests relief from the following provisions of Zoning By-law2511, as amended:

• to permit a minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres; whereas the by-lawrequires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres

• to permit a minimum south side yard width of 0.6 metres to a proposedgarage attached to the detached dwelling; whereas the by-law requires aminimum side yard width of 1.5 metres

7




• to permit a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent; whereas the by-law requiresa maximum lot coverage of 33 percent

The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a buildingpermit to construct a two-storey detached dwelling.

Principal Planner - Development Review outlined comments received from theCity of Pickering City Development Department recommending approval subjectto conditions.

Written comments were also received from the City's Development ControlManager indicating the proposed 0.6 metre side yard setback will require therelocation of the existing utility pole (at the owner's expense); the rear yarddrainage must not be directed onto neighbouring properties; the existing swaleon the south side of the lot will be impacted and a new drainage swale must beconstructed to carry the rear yard drainage to the front of the property.

Tarek Refaat, agent, waspresent to represent the application. SylvainBoulanger of 676 Victory Drive, Paul White of 507 Cliffview Road and Bob Hardyof 686 Victory Drive were present in objection to the application.

Sylvain Boulanger noted his property is located on the south side of the subjectproperty and expressed concerns with the proposed development will block hisview and it is too close to his property.

Paul White indicated he represents the Fairport Beach NeighbourhoodAssociation and explained the history of the area. Paul White expressedconcerns with the proposed construction and the impacts it will have on thesurrounding neighbourhood.

Bob Hardy explained he shares the driveway with the subject property andexpressed a concern with the removal of the driveway on the subject property.Bob Hardy also expressed a concern with grading and drainage.

In response to concerns from neighbouring residents, Tarek Refaat indicated thefront of the garage will be in line with the house to the south and there will be nowindows on the garage and the grading plan will be professionally designed toprotect the south and north side of the property, to ensure drainage and runoff isdealt with on site.

8


Wednesday, June 12, 2013 09°7:00 pm _

Council Chambers


That application PICA 30/13 by 1613275 Ontario Inc., be Approved on thegrounds that the minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres; the minimum south sideyard width of 0.6 metres to a proposed garage attached to the detacheddwelling; and the maximum lot coverage of 35 percent are minor in nature thatare desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping withthe general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law,subject to the following conditions:

1. That these variances apply only to the proposed two-storey detacheddwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.

2. That the applicant relocates the existing utility pole at the owner's expense tothe satisfaction of the City of Pickering.

3. That the applicant removes the existing driveway l.ocated on the north side ofthe property, at the owner's expense to the satisfaction of the City ofPickering.

4. That the applicant submits a grading plan as part of the building permit reviewprocess to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering.

5. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by .June 12, 2015, or this decision shall become null and void.

Carried Unanimously

6. PICA 31/13J. Caiata/A. Caiata468 Rosebank Road

The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit aminimum north side yard width of 1.2 metres to a proposed detached dwelling ona proposed severed lot fronting onto Pike Court, whereas the by-law requires aminimum side yard width of 1.5 metres.

The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a buildingpermit to construct a one-storey bungalow with an associated loft space followingthe finalization of Land Division Application LD 126/12.

9




Principal Planner - Development Review outlined comments received from theCity of Pickering City Development Department recommending approval subjectto conditions. Written comments were also received from the City'sDevelopment Control Manager expressing no concerns.

Joe Caiata, owner, was present to represent the application. No furtherrepresentation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.

Moved by Shirley Van SteenSeconded by Tom Copeland

That application PICA 31/13 by J. Caiata/A. Caiata, be Approved on thegrounds that the minimum north side yard width of 1.2 metres to a proposeddetached dwelling is minor in nature that is desirable for the appropriatedevelopment of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose ofthe Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions:

1. That this variance apply only to the proposed detached dwelling and proposedlot, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.

2. That the applicant finalizes Land Division Application LD 126/12 byJanuary 20,2014, or this decision shall become null and void.

3. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction byJune 12,2015, or this decision shall become null and void.'

Carried Unanimously

7. PICA 32/13G. & D. Robar403 Finch Avenue

The applicant requests relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law 3036, asamended:

• to permit a minimum front yard depth of 10.0 metres to the proposed coveredporch; whereas the by-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 12.0 metres

• to permit uncovered steps to project a maximum of 2.2 metres into therequired front yard; whereas the by-law requires uncovered steps or platformsnot exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade may project 1.5 metres intoany required front yard

10



Council Chambers

• to permit a minimum side yard width of 0.9 metres to an accessory building(detached garage); whereas the by-law requires a minimum side yard widthof 1.0 metres

• to allow an accessory building (detached garage) to be partially located in theeast side yard; whereas the by-law requires all accessory buildings shall beerected in the rear yard

• to permit a maximum lot coverage of 23 percent; whereas the by-law requiresa maximum lot coverage of 20 percent

The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a buildingpermit to construct a second storey addition, a covered front porch and anaccessory building (detached garage).

Principal Planner - Development Review outlined comments received from theCity of Pickering City Development Department recommending approval subjectto conditions. Written comments were received from the City's DevelopmentControl Manager expressing no conc,erns. Written comments were also receivedfrom the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority expressing no concerns.

Debbie Robar, owner, was present to represent the application. Evelyn Vade of403 Finch Avenue was present in favour of the application.

Moved by Eric NewtonSeconded by Bill Utton

That application PICA 32/13 by G. & D. Robar, be Approved on the grounds thatthe minimum front yard depth of 10.0 metres to the proposed covered porch; theprojection of 2.2 metres of the uncovered steps into the front yard; an accessorybuilding (detached garage) having a minimum side yard width of 0.9 metres andpartially located in the side yard; and a maximum lot coverage of 23 percent areminor in nature that are desirable for the appropriate development of the land,and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and theZoning By-law, subject to the following conditions:

1. That these variances apply only to the proposed covered porch and detachedgarage as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.

2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction byJune 12, 2015 or this decision shall become null and void. .

Carried Unanimously11

1ZCommittee of Adjustment



8. PICA 33/13Z. Inshanally1592 Harrowsmith Court

The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law1975/85, to permit a minimum flankage side yard width of 2.6 metres to a proposedsecond storey covered balcony, whereas the by-law requires a minimumflankage side yard width of 7.5 metres.

The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a buildingpermit to construct a second storey covered balcony.


Zaman Inshanally, owner, was present to represent the application. No furtherrepresentation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.

Moved by Shirley Van SteenSeconded by BiUUtton

That application PICA 33/13 by Z. Inshanally, be Approved on the grounds thatthe minimum flankage side yard width of 2.6 metres to a second storey coveredbalcony is minor in nature that is desirable for the appropriate development ofthe land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Planand the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions:

1. That this variance apply only to the proposed second storey covered balcony,, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.

2. That the proposed second storey covered balcony remains unenclosed, orthis decision shall become null and void.

3. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction byJune 12,2015, or this decision shall become null and void.

Carried Unanimously

12



Council Chambers

9. PICA 34/13Whitevale Golf Club2985 Golf Club Road

The applicant requests relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law 3037, asamended by By-laws 3155/89, 4825/96, 6847/08, to permit a temporary golfpractice facility use, whereas the by-law permits a golf club practice facility useuntil December 31,2012, after which only agriculture uses are permitted.

The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to continue theoperation of a temporary golf practice facility use for the period of July 5, 2013 toDecember 31, 2014, after which only agriculture uses are permitted.


Alex Maggiacomo, agent, was present to represent the application. No furtherrepresentation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.

In response to a question from a Committee Member, Alex Maggiacomoexplained permanent zoning will be applied for, to permit the use, once theSeaton Zoning By-law is completed.


That application PICA 34/13 by Whitevale Golf Club, be Approved on thegrounds that the temporary golf practice facility use is minor in nature that isdesirable for the appropriate development ofthe land, and in keeping with thegeneral intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject tothe following conditions:

1. That this variance apply only to the area zoned as "A(T-GPF)" in By-law 3037as amended by By-laws 4825/96 and 6847/08, as generally sited andoutlined on the applicant's submitted plans.

2. That the variance shall apply for the period of July 5, 2013 toDecember 31,2015, and that this decision shall become null and void onJanuary 1, 2016.

Carried Unanimously

13

. CilLJ o~

14

10. PICA 35/13S. Clayton521 McLeod Crescent



Council Chambers

The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit arear yard depth of 6.0 metres to a proposed uncovered deck, whereas the by-lawrequires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres.

The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a buildingpermit to construct and replace an existing uncovered deck.

Principal Plan'ner - Development Review outlined comments received from theCity of Pickering City Development Department recommending approval subjectto conditions. Written comments were also received from the City'sDevelopment Control Manager expressing no concerns.

Stan Clayton, owner, was present to represent the application. No furtherrepresentation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.

Moved by Shirley Van SteenSeconded by Tom Copeland

That application PICA 35/13 by S. Clayton, be Approved on the grounds that therear yard depth of 6.0 metres to an uncovered deck in the rear yard is minor innature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keepingwith the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law,subject to the following conditions:

1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck, as"generallysited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.

2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction byJune 12,2015, or this decision shall become null and void.

Carried Unanimously

14



Council Chambers

15

11. PICA 36/13Bancan Homes (S. Hossain)606 Rosebank Road

The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended:

• to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 3.0 metres, whereas the by-lawrequires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres

• to permit a minimum north side yard width of 1.2 metres; whereas the by-lawrequires a minimum side yard width of 1.5 metres

• to permit a maximum projection of eaves and sills to project 1.0 metre intothe required yards; whereas the by-law permits a maximum projection ofeaves and sills into a.required yard of 0.45 metres

• to permit a maximum lot coverage of 44 percent; whereas the by-law permitsa maximum lot coverage of 33 percent

The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a buildingpermit to construct a two-storey detached dwelling.

Principal Planner - Development Review outlined comments received from theCity of Pickering City Development Department recommending refusal. Writtencomments were received from the City's Development Control Managerexpressing no concerns. Written comments were received from Councillor KevinAshe indicating the application may be revised and supports the granting of therevised variances.

Written comments were also received from the Toronto and RegionConservation Authority expressing no objections to the application. TRCA alsoindicated the owner is required to apply for a TRCA permit revision as thedrawings approved on June 27,2012, Permission for Minor Works - Letter ofApproval No. C-120438 permit drawings do not match the drawings provided aspart of Minor Variance Application PICA 36/13.

Paul Weppler & Dana Saccoccio, agents, were present to represent theapplication. Peter Chang of 474 Toynevale Road, Lisa-Lynne Robinson of476 Toynevale Road and Marilyn Stitt were present in objection to theapplication.

15




Paul Weppler & Dana Saccocio indicated they have met with City staff prior tothe Committee of Adjustment meeting to discuss their vision and design intent.Dana Saccocio submitted a revised site plan for the Committee to review andexplained the amending variances for the side yard and lot coverage. Theapplicant explained the irregularity of the lot, as the rear yard of the subjectproperty abuts a side yard and the south side yard of the property abuts a rearyard. The applicant stated that the design of the dwelling was to take advantageof the protected TRCA lands to the north of the property and maximize theamount of glazing (windows) that are allowed on the north face of the dwelling.The applicant stated that the amenity area on the site is being provided to the~ide of the property, instead of the rear.

Peter Chang, who lives to the west of the subject property, expressed concernswith the request for increased lot coverag~ and stated that the proposeddevelopment is too close to the property line.

Lisa-Lynne Robinson, who lives to the south of the subject property, expressedconcerns with the height of the building and looking at a brick wall that will extendalong a majority of the property line, the increase in lot coverage, light pollution iflights are being installed in the eaves, loss of privacy due to high windows, lossof natural light onto her property and safety concerns and protection to herproperty during construction.

Marilyn Stitt indicated she lives across the street from the subject prop~rty andfeels the variances being applied for are major not minor and questioned if thehome can be designed smaller.

In response to questions and concerns from neighbours and CommitteeMembers, Dana Saccocio explain~d that there will be no lighting in the eaves.


That application PICA 36/13 by Bancan Homes (S. Hossain), be Deferred untilthe next meeting to provide an opportunity for the applicant to meet with CityStaff and give the Committee Members an opportunity to visit the site.

Carried Unanimously

16



Council Chambers

17

(IV) Adjournment


That the 7th meeting of the 2013 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at8:45 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held onWednesday, July 3, 2013.

Carried Unanimously

Date

Chair

Assistant Secretary-Treasurer

17

Report toCommittee of Adjustment

Application Number: PICA 36/13Meeting Date: July 3, 2013

Deferred from: June 12, 2013

From:

Subject:

Application:

Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPPManager - Development Review & Urban Design

Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 36/13Bancan Homes (S. Hossain)606 Rosebank Road

The application was deferred by the applicant at the June 12, 2013 Committee ofAdjustment meeting in order to further discuss their proposal with City Developmentstaff. The applicant has submitted a revised plan to construct a two-storey detacheddwelling. To facilJtate the proposed development the minor variance application hasbeen revised to delete the required side yard variance, increase the minimum rear yard'depth from 3.0 metres to 4.0 metresand to reduce the maximum lot coverage from44 percent to 40 percent.

The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended:

• to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 4.0 metres; whereas the by-law requires aminimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres;

• to permit a maximum projection of eaves and sills into a required yard of 1.0 metres;whereas the by-law permits a maximum projection of eaves and sills into arequired yard of 0.45 metres; and

.• to permit a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent; whereas the by-law permits amaximum lot coverage of 33 percent.

The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permitto construct a two-storey detached dwelling.

Recommendation:

The City Development Department considers the minimum rear yard depth of 4.0 metres;eaves and sills to project a maximum of 1.0 metres into the required yards; and amaximum lot coverage of 40 percent for the proposed detached dwelling to be majorvariances that are not desirable for the appropriate development of the lands, and not inkeeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, and thereforerecommends Refusal of the proposed variances.

Report PICA 36/13

Background:

July 3,2013

Page 2 19

A Land Division Application LD 058/10 was approved by the Durham Region LandDivision Committee in 2010 to create the subject property. At the time of the land divisionapplication a conceptual site plan was submitted to the City Development Department,which demonstrated that a future dwelling could be located on the subject property incompliance with the zoning by-law.

Agency Comments:

Engineering & Public Works

Toronto and Region ConservationAuthority

• no comments

• no objections to the application• the Owner is required to apply for a revised

TRCA permit as the approved drawingsdated June 27,2012, do not match thedrawings provided as part of MinorVariance Application PICA 36/13

Public Comments from the June 12, 2013 Committee of Adjustment Meeting:

Some of the concerns identified by surrounding property owners at the June 12,2013Committee of Adjustment meeting .are as follows:

• the property will be overbuilt for the neighbourhood• the property will.overshadow and infringe on privacy• development is too close to the property line• loss of privacy• if the variances were approved the dwelling would extend along a majority of the

property line

Official Plan and Zoning By-law

Pickering Official Plan - Urban Residential Area - Low Density Areas within theRosebank Neighbourhood

Zoning By-law 2511 - "R4" - Detached Dwelling Residential Zone

Appropriateness of the Application

Rear Yard Depth, Eaves and Sills Projection and Coverage Variances

• the requested variances should be considered as a whole as all variances arerequired for the proposed development

20Report PICA 36/13 July 3,2013

Page 3

• the intent of the zoning by-law is to regulate the size, scale and massing of thedwelling and to ensure that proposed uses and structures are compatible with theexisting community

• a conceptual site plan, was submitted as part of the previous land divisionapplication, which demonstrated that the property is of adequate size toaccommodate an approximately 3,200 square foot two-storey detached dwellingin compliance with the zoning by-law

• the proposed two-storey dwelling consists of a reverse slope driveway to atwo-car attached garage and is approximately 3,200 to 3,500 square feet

• the proposed variances will not provide an appropriate outdoor amenity space asprovided on similar properties within the neighbourhood

• the proposed rear yard variance does not provide an appropriate setback orseparation from abutting properties

• the increase in massing along the south property line would have potentialadverse impacts on the adjoining properties to the south and west with respect to. privacy and shadowing

• given the extent and magnitude of the variances being sought, City Developmentstaff are of the opinion that the requested variances are not minor in nature

• staff are of the opinion that the requested variances are not desirable for theappropriate development of the lands as the overall massing and size of thedwelling in relationship with the amount of outdoor amenity area will not becompatible with the surrounding character of the neighbourhood

• the approval of the combination of variances requested by the applicant will resultin a property that is overdeveloped and will not provide sufficient soft landscapingopportunities on the lot

• staff are of the opinion that modifications can be made to the proposed dwellingin order to align the proposal with the standards established in the zoning by-lawand minimize adverse impacts on the abutting property owners

Date of report: June 27,2013

Comments prepared by:

m1,m1cJAj~Melissa Markham, MCIP, RPPPrincipal Planner - Development Review

MM:NS:ldJ:\Documents\Development\O-3700\2013\PCA 36-13\Report\PCA 36.13 Report.docx

Enclosures

h Surti, MCIP, RPPManager, Development Review &Urban Design

21

/

CIRCLECOWAN

RICK

HULL

o->(oCt:

~City Development Department

-

_~I~~ ifJWffffn . t=rTl

ROAD) ~

I

f-ZWUU1WCt:U

oow

~=2r/-JI MAITLAND D~E

II f--t

TOYNEVALE

-f- z-w-t5- -~- -5

ooo3~«o

II

w

~~DRIVE

~

-

J:U1«

-

-

f--~r--~Z::::Jo

-2

OAD

I I

-~LLCt:Of----

I

~

~

0!\\\

/~ \City of Pickering

=HJk--~tr-

~. -COURT~

25 II F"",_2-t5 I

::::J IoCt:

PROPERlY DESCRIPTION 606 Rosebank Road(Plan 350 Pt. Lt. 118, 40R-26896, Part 2, 6)

OWNER Bancan Homes Inc. (5. Hossain)

FILE No. PICA 36/13

DATE May 21,2013

SCALE 1:5,000

DRAWN BY JB

CHECKED BY A Y0Z-0 _??urces:

~- Teronet Enterprises Inc. and its supplier'S. All r'lghts Reso!:rved. Not 0 pIon of survey.S 2012 t."lPACand its suppliel""s. All rionts Reserved. Not 0 pion of Survey. PN-1

22 Information Compiled from Applicant'sSubmitted Plan

PICA 36/13Bancan Homes Inc(S. Hossain)

To permit a minimum rearyard depth of 4.0 metres

o«o0:::~.Z«0)UJeno0:::

E'<l:to

7.5m

To permit a maximum lotcoverage of 40 percent

To permit the eaves toencroach a maximum of 1.0metres into the requiredyard

I ~--------f-------------------------------- Ir'-'-'-'- t-' '-j .-.-.-30.4~-.-.-"'-.-.-.-.--"-'-'"1~ ~ i 8 !I '.' I. II

I

.~.-.-: :I ."'"'-. II " II ~" .,--._.~Ii". ~ ...."..- I,-. .- .1. t '-.- .:....-.~~.-..- I,-r----'--------~-i----._.'~----, +r4om:~__j L ,

:! E.~NN

This map was produced by the City of Pickering City Development Department,Planning Information Services Mapping and Design, May 28, 2013.

Information Compiled from Applicant'sSubmitted Plan

PICA 36/13Bancan Homes Inc(S. Hossain)

23

~

~ . ------I \

\\

I \

\\ I

I II

--II \

\ I

I/

\ I\ I \

\-- \

-1

FRONT(EAST) ELEVATION REAR(WEST) ELEVATION

\\

II

SIDE (SOUTH) ELEVATION

/ /" ", / " "/ / " "/ / ""

SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATION


24 Information Compiled fromConcept Plan Submitted with LD 058/10

PICA 36113Bancan Homes Inc(S. Hossain)

o«o0:::~Z«(()weno0:::

z;J~ •~'l:',

----;7.s0

GARAGE

15.46

::::"

CONC.DEa<

NO. 4761 STORE,'(

BRICK

'C ~ •••

~1

I

;;:I-c FFF: 97.37~ -iBW =97.07~ SF =94.75<n UF = 94.52

>."",.':-: ;":':'r( !,.J~,

'\..;.~,""l". _

."'>fj'

0.2M

1LJrf;e ~;"

r _.

;..." .._-....• ~-/ :----

._{ .;'~:' r ._~- lOt/)-r /- '1 ~w' .-- 'f-......-.l t--- ,.~- ~ -- ~.. c::~.-t:~, .<, ":-"EF o. '.'" N~- ~9..2J.,D~- 'ot/ 4~'W "":-.-"";~.... ...,":.•.'":1'i\q';-:.'~:.-~", -:\,,<:

. 5.82 - .;;. ...•. \.-'- ?~~

; ~,.,. .,;>~.. - ~.~ 0'" :~~J~",I ~. ,. ,s., " g; "..J, ~6'.2:':..9"Yi;"11 ~\ -::-l~~'~ ,..

.•.~JI ..,".,,;.:~' . ~1l!.'OQ'40"L N '53'\O"~":::";" -' • 5' '" \.-."1' ~A ' .','",:" _ - ..., J.~-: 4.5'4-.-=- -j2 ...., ;.\~ ,.\..:.,.~ "f..V'... ,,"0 ", 5 95.39SI'{;"'..••~ ;~ t:'''::''' ,HPjLP

j' 96.10"


Report toCommittee of Adjustment 25Application Number: PICA 37/13

Meeting Date: July 3,2013

From:

Subject:

Application

Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPPManager, Development Review & Urban Design

Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 37/13J. & M. Bodrug758 Hampton Court

The applicant requests relief from the following provisions of Zoning By-law 2511, asamended by By-law 1199/80:

• to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 7.2 metres to a proposed sunroomaddition; whereas the by-law requires aminimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres

• to permit a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent; whereas the by-law requires amaximum lot coverage of 38 percent

• to permit a proposed uncovered platform and steps to project a maximum of1.2 metres into the required rear yard; whereas the by-law does not permituncovered platforms andlor steps to project in the rear yard

The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permitto construct a one storey sunroom addition, and uncovered deck and associated stepsin the rear yard.

Recommendation

The City Development Department considers the minimum rear yard depth of 7.2 metres;a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent to a proposed sunroom addition and theproposed uncovered platform and steps to project a maximum of 1.2 metres into therear yard to be minor in nature that 'are desirable for the appropriate development of thelands, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and theZoning By-law, and therefore recommends Approval of the proposed variances,subject to the following conditions:

1. That these variances apply only to the proposed one storey sunroom addition andproposed uncovered platform and steps, as generally sited and outlined on theapplicant's submitted plans.

2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction byJuly 3, '2015, or this decision shall become null and void.

26

Report PICA 37/13 July 3,2013

Page 2

Nilesh urti, MCIP, RPPManager, Development Review & Urban Design

Background

The Owners have advised that the existing uncovered deck within the rear yard, whichcurrently extends across the entire width of the dwelling, will be replaced with a newuncovered deck and steps leading into the rear yard in accordance to the applicant'ssubmitted plan. A new platform is required in order to support the proposed sunroom.

Comment


Pickering Official Plan - "Urban Residential - Low Density Areas" within the West ShoreNeighbourhood

Zoning BY-law 2511 as amended by By-law 1199/80 - "S" - Single Residential Zone

Appropriateness of the Application'

Rear Yard Depth, Lot Coverage and Uncovered Platforms Projecting into required RearYard Variances

• the requested variances should be considered as a whole as all variancesarerequired for the proposed development

• the intent of the zoning by-law is to regulate the size, scale and massing of thedwelling and to ensure that proposed uses and structures are compatible with theexisting community

• the zoning by-law does not permit the projection of uncovered steps or platformsinto the required rear yard .

• the uncovered deck (platform) within the rear yard will not extend beyond theproposed sunroom

• the setback variances are required due to the irregular shape of the rear propertyline

• the proposed one-storey sunroom, uncovered deck and associated steps willmaintain a sufficient amenity space in the rear yard

• the proposed uncovered deck will be less than 1.0 metre in height fromestablished grade and will not impact adjoining property owners

• the requested variances are minor in nature and maintains the intent of thezoning by-law

Date of report: June 27, 2013

Comments prepared by:

r?ja~~nnerll

AY:NS:ldJ:\Documents\Oevelopment\O-3700\Reports\2013\pca37-13.doc

Enclosures

City Development Department

OUR LADYOF THE BAYSEPARATESCHOOL

FAIRPORTBEACHPUBLICSCHOOL

DRIVE'

City of PickeringPROPERlYDESCRIPTION 758 Hampton Court(Pt. Lot 7, Plan M1185, 40R-6239, Part 33)

OWNER J. & M. Bodrug DATE May 28, 2013 DRAWNBY JB

FILENo. PICA 37/13 SCALE 1:5,000 CHECKEDBY AYQ 0 ource:!!l:

Teronet Entel"prises Inc. end Its suppliers. All rights Reserved. Not 0 pIon at survey.2012 MPAC and its su liet""s. All rl hts Reserved. Not CI Ion of Surve .

27

I-(f)w00:U-.J-.J

I

I,---,---();0fTl(f)---j

l'PN-2

HAMPTON COURT

To permit a maximum 10coverage of 43 percent

1.2m

Eo

r

EXISTINGDWELLING

9.0m

1 E.00

l~I

IIIIlo.6m

To permit a minimum reardepth of 7.2 metres to aproposed sunroolT'l

To permit uncovered stepsand platforms to project 1.2metres into the requiredrear yard to a proposeduncovered deck

l'FILE No: PICA 37/13APPLICANT: J. & M. BodrugPROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 758 Hampton CourtPt. Lot 7, Plan M1185, 40R-6239, Part 33

City DevelopmentDepartment

DATE: June 17, 2013

29

I.JFESm£RX£D

UFESrn.ESIDE RX£D SIDESUOiNG GLASS ClASS SUDINGYIlNoOW YIlNoOWXC xo E

I{)

f"i

SOUo SOUO SOUD

NORTH(REAR) ELEVATION

--0:0--- ----,--- --"'--- --rSQ.JD SOlID SOUO

JSOUD

IWEST(SIDE) ELEVATION

r

EAST(SIDE) ELEVATION

------

-,

----~-- - - - ---- 11UFESrn.£FIlCEDSIDE

SUtIIIG GlASS 5''Mt(COW PATIO>CO DOOR

L 1'<lUU SOUD

--

H ""-'I I

FILE No: PICA 37/13APPLICANT: J. & M. BodrugPROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 758 Hampton CourtPI. Lot 7, Plan M1185, 40R-6239, Part 33


DATE: June 17,2013

30

From:

Subject:

Application

Report toCommittee of Adjustment

Application Number: PICA 38/13Meeting Date: July 3,2013


Committee of Adjustment Application PICA 38/13M. & V. Richard1944 Valley Farm Road

The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit amaximum height of 4.8 metres to a proposed accessory building (detached garage)containing a loft space for personal storage, whereas the by-law permits a maximumheight of 3.5 metres for all accessory buildings not part of the dwelling.

The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit toconstruct the detached garage.

Recommendation

The City'Development Department considers the maximum building height of4.8 metresto a proposed accessory building (detached garage) to be minor in nature that isdesirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the generalintent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, and thereforerecommends Approval of the proposed variance, subject to the following conditions:

1. That this variance apply only to the proposed accessory building (detached garage),as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans.

2. As part of the building permit submission, the applicant ensures that no habitablespace is proposed within the proposed detached garage.

3. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction byJuly 3, 2015, or this decision shall become null and void.

Background

City Staff have reviewed the height of the proposed detached garage, as illustrated on theapplicant's submitted plan, and have verified the height of the structure to be 4.8 metres.

The owners have advised City Staff of their intention to demolish an existing 22 squaremetre detached single car garage and replace it with a larger 53.5 square metredetached single car garage that would be generally sited on the same footprint.

Report PICA 38/13

Comment


July 3,2013

Page 2 31

Pickering Official Plan - "Urban Residential- Medium Density Area" within the LiverpoolNeighbourhood, which provides for residential uses including single-detached dwellings.

Zoning By-law 3036 - "R3" - Third Density Residential Zone

Appropriateness of the Application

Maximum Height for Accessory Structure Variance

• the intent of the maximum accessory building height of 3.5 metres is to minimizethe visual impact of accessory buildings on abutting properties, and on thestreetscape, as well as to ensure other yards are not significantly obstructed bythese structures on the property'

• the proposed detached garage will cover 2.5 percent of the lot area and will besited approximately 23 metres from the Valley Farm Road right-of-way and willmaintain a 1.5 metre south side yard setback

• the established grade affecting the proposed detached garage is lower than theexisting detached dwelling

• the existing vegetation on the subject property will partially screen the proposeddetached garage from Valley Farm Road and abutting neighbouring properties

• the applicant has advised that the requested height will accommodate a 29 squaremetre unheated loft space for additional personal storage within the roof

• the proposed detached garage will not preclude future development proposals inaccordance with the Pickering Official Plan policies for properties designated asmedium density on the west side of Valley Farm Road between Kingston Roadand Fieldlight Boulevard

• the requested variance is minor in nature and maintains the intent of the zoningby-law

Date of report: June 26, 2013


AY:NS:ldJ:\Documents\Development\O-3700\2013\PCA 38-13\Report\PCA 38-13.doc

Enclosures

DIANA,

l'

WALES PA

PRINCESS

AVENUE

1FINCH

DRAWN BY JB

CHECKEDBY AY

PICKERINGRECREATIONCOMPLEX

City Development Department

DATE June 11, 2013

SCALE 1:5,000

~

BOULEVARD " ~

I -~V Old(~~~~,

~~~JECT ~ ~~ ~ PROPERTY ~~/ />~

~ ~ex::ooex::ex::ou

LANE

--

1T

ROAD

I I

ROAD

-1w>o00:C)ZW--.JC)

FINCH AVENUE

GLENGROVEPUBLICSCHOOL

u

PARK

OWNER M. & V. Richard

FILENo. P/eA 38/13

City of PickeringPROPERTYDESCRIPTION 1944 Valley Farm Road(Plan 509, Lot 13)

ENGROVE

32II II 9E L--

P~\ L /" ~~ :"DGE ,2::= 0R ~

T lUWm: I $ ) == ;u~~ d 6,"'"ON' STREET J"l- = ~t=~00:F=i (( "\~1 JIIIII I 1_- -~ Nil--Lr

,- II ~ ~ o:E~U ~~~~~ =;;lLDUGHT ~[-- C~/ ll~~;/ ~

~~ '-- ROSEFIELD

I III1

o~o ~ou,.ces:e- Teronet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights Reserved. Not a pion of survey.e 2012 MPAC end its s~pptie,.s. All ,.icihts Reserved. Not 0 pion of Surv'ev. PN-12

33

.

I

76.2m •E0

0cD••• «

EXISTING~12.0m _____

0PROPOSED ONE 0:::GARAGE STOREYE WITH LOFT DWELLING E ~SPACE ~0> r-- 0:::r..: NN «t LL

E E >-E co WLO C":I 6

L r-- 1 ....J7.3m ....J

76.2m~t

l'~

FILE No: PICA 38/13APPLICANT: M. & V. RichardPROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1944 Valley Farm(Lot 13, plan 509)


I DATE: June 17, 2013

34To permit a maximumheight 4.8 metres to aproposed detached garag

7.3m

WEST(REAR) ELEVATION

EAST(FRONT) ELEVATION

--~-_. ~- -- _L - -- _ ...._._ ... ...I~ 7.3m -..-

SOUTH(SIDE) ELEVATION

7.3m

NORTH(SIDE) ELEVATION

FILE No: PICA 38/13APPLICANT: M. & V. RichardPROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1944 Valley Farm(Lot 13, plan 509)


DATE: June 17, 2013

Ag - Pickering · 06 Committee ofAdjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 12,2013 7:00 pm Council...

Documents

Transcript of Ag - Pickering · 06 Committee ofAdjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 12,2013 7:00 pm Council...