COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT November 7, 2016

Transcription

1 November 7, 2016 Please ensure that cell phones and personal digital assistants (PDAs) are set to an inaudible function during Committee Meetings

2 Meeting #21 Monday November 7, 2016 TIME OF MEETING: 6:30 P.M. PLACE OF MEETING: Room nd Floor City Hall DECLARATION OF INTEREST: AGENDA HEARING NO. TIME FILE NO APPLICANT 1) 6:30 P.M. B-012/16 Re: 358 Pine Cove Rd., Burlington Ward 4 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-092/16 Re: 2116 Courtland Dr., Burlington Ward 2 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-103/16 Re: 2383 Glenwood School Dr., Burlington Ward 2 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-106/16 Re: 1017 Greenwood Dr., Burlington Ward 1 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-113/16 Re: 3140 Hampton Crt., Burlington Ward 4 Pages 33-39

3 6) 6:30 P.M. A-117/16 Re: 2173 Bonfield Crt., Burlington Ward 1 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-118/16 Re: 1027 Wanda Dr., Burlington Ward 1 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-121/16 Re: 1071 Forestvale Dr., Burlington Ward 1 Pages 53-60

4 Page 1 HEARING NO. 1-6:30 P.M. File B-012/16 PROPERTY: CONSENT: 358 Pine Cove Rd., CON 4 SDS PT LOT 13 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. Sever a parcel of land for a new lot

5 Page 2 STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land division or minor variance applications on record for this property. Date: August 25, 2016 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning The applicant is proposing to sever the existing parcel to create a new lot. Retained Parcel: The retained parcel complies with the minimum requirements for lot area and lot width. Severed Parcel: The severed parcel complies with the minimum requirements for lot area and lot width. Condition: 1. A demolition permit is required to be issued and finalized to remove all buildings including accessory buildings and the garage prior to final consent. Date: September 8, 2016 Prepared By: Tina Vassalli Planning Planning District - Lakeshore Official Plan Designation - Residential Low Density Current Zoning - R3.1 The subject property is located on the west side of Pine Cove Road, between New Street and Spruce Avenue. The subject property is known municipally as 358 Pine Cove Road and currently contains a single detached residential dwelling and an accessory building. The property is surrounded by stable low density residential properties, with the exception of a City park to the rear (west). It should also be noted that the lot pattern along Pine Cove Road is somewhat irregular in terms of width, area and configurations. The applicant proposes to sever a 1,147.9 square metre parcel of land from the existing 2,702 square metre property to create an additional building lot. The proposed severance is intended to facilitate the eventual construction of two new

6 Page 3 single detached residential dwellings on the severed and retained lands. According to the Official Plan, the subject property is designated as Residential Low Density. The Residential Low Density designation permits detached and semidetached homes as well as other forms of ground-oriented housing provided that the forms are compatible with the scale, urban design and community features of the neighbourhood. The designation sets out that the density of single detached housing units are to be a maximum of 25 units per net hectare, which the subject proposal would fall well below. In terms of housing intensification, the Official Plan encourages new residential development and residential intensification within the Urban Planning Area in accordance with Provincial growth management objectives, while recognizing that the amount and form of intensification must be balanced with other planning considerations, such as infrastructure capacity, compatibility and integration with existing residential neighbourhoods. To that extent, intensification is viewed as a means of increasing the amount of available housing stock including infill within existing neighbourhoods, provided the additional housing is compatible with the scale, urban design and community features of the neighbourhood. The Official Plan sets out a number of criteria to be considered as part of the review of any housing intensification project within established neighbourhoods, which include but are not limited to, adequate municipal services; adequate off-street parking; municipal transportation capacity; proximity to transit; compatibility with the existing neighbourhood; effects on existing vegetation; and ability to provide adequate buffering. The Official Plan also sets out that ground-oriented residential infilling within existing neighbourhoods shall be encouraged, as long as the infill development is compatible with the surrounding development in terms of height, scale, massing, siting, setbacks, coverage and amount of open space. Staff has reviewed the proposed severance against the aforementioned Official Plan housing intensification criteria and is of the opinion that the proposed severance complies. In terms of servicing, both the proposed severed and retained lots would be connected to municipal water and sanitary services, and the lots would also front onto a public road. There would be ample room for on-site parking on both of the proposed lots. The subject lands are in close proximity to New Street, which is a minor arterial roadway, serviced by public transit. Further, staff is of the opinion that the proposed lots would be able to provide adequate buffering and vegetation to ensure compatibility and a pleasing streetscape. Staff has also reviewed the proposed severance against the consent policies outlined in the Official Plan. In terms of compatibility, both the proposed severed and retained lots would comply with the minimum lot area (min 500m 2 required 1,147m 2 & 1,554 m 2 proposed) and lot width (min 15m required 15.05m & 15.02m proposed) provisions outlined in the Zoning By-law. With respect to lot area, both the proposed lots would exceed the average lot area of properties in the immediate vicinity, as the subject lands have significant depth.

7 Page 4 The Official Plan sets out that the frontage (lot width) of new lots intended for building should generally not be less than approximately 40 percent of the lot depth. The intent of this provision is to ensure sufficient lot frontage as well as a uniform lot configuration. The proposed lots would be under the 40 percent threshold (approx 20%) outlined in the Official Plan due to the substantial depth of the subject lands. The intent of this provision is to ensure sufficient lot frontage as well as a uniform lot configuration. The proposed lots would not meet this criterion; however, staff is of the opinion that the proposed lot frontages meet the intent of the provision as the proposed lot frontages are consistent with those of the abutting properties as well as the consistent with the overall average lot frontage and width of lots in the immediate vicinity. As such, staff is of the opinion that the proposed lot widths and areas are considered to be compatible with the surrounding area and would allow the proposed development to integrate appropriately within the existing area. The subject property is zoned R3.1 in the City s Zoning By-law 2020, as amended. As previously discussed, the Official Plan recognizes the importance of minimum standards and encourages compliance in an effort to achieve compatibility between new infill development and stable residential neighbourhoods, particularly as it pertains to consent applications. Complying with these minimum standards ensures a minimum level of compatibility related to infill development. The Zoning By-law provides refinement to the Official Plan policies and provides the minimum standards for new lots. The Official Plan and Zoning By-law together, indicate what the eventual built form will be. The proposed lots would comply with the minimum standards outlined in the Zoning By-law. While the details relating to the proposed dwellings are not known at this point, staff is satisfied that the proposed lots would provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that any new development would integrate well into the existing neighbourhood. Conclusion Staff has reviewed the consent application in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and has no objection to the consent application as proposed. Date: October 13, 2016 Prepared By: Kyle Plas, MCIP, RPP Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (15m) No road widening required. Date: August 26, 2016 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has no objection to the Land Division (B-012/16) consent being granted subject to the following conditions:

8 Page 5 1. Considering there is evidence that a business either is or has in the past been in operation on the site (Three Hands Graphics), a Phase One Environmental Site Assessment is required for this consent application. Depending on contents of the Phase One ESA; further environmental investigation may be required. 2. The Applicant is advised that it is likely the Right of Way (ROW) Deemed Width of Pine Cove Road will be changed from 15m to 20m with the next Official Plan currently under review; all proposed structures (i.e. including retaining walls, etc.) should be outside of the possible future ROW. The Applicant is further advised that if development of the two lots is after the change to the width of the ROW, setbacks would be taken from the deemed width (20m), this should be considered when designing the potential building envelopes. We would suggest that potential building envelopes consider the future widening. To bring Pine Cove Road to a deemed width of 20m an approximate widening of 2.38m would be required, widening to be confirmed by an Ontario Land Surveyor. A dedication of the widening would NOT be required as part of this consent application. 3. Applicant to submit an overall servicing, grading and drainage plan for both the severed and retained parcels to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of Capital Works and the Director of Planning and Building to include the following: a. easement b. Proposed maximum building envelope for both retained and severed lots including proposed elevation for top of foundation wall and finished floor elevations, and setbacks from property lines. We would encourage the applicant to consider the future deemed width (20m) of Pine Cove when proposing the building envelopes. c. Existing and proposed ground elevations (with overlap to adjoining properties), enough to determine existing drainage patterns d. Show how drainage will be contained within property limits of both the retained and severed lots, by use of swales, soak-away pit, etc., i.e. show existing and proposed swales with supporting grades. The applicant is advised that existing drainage patterns cannot be cut off, nor can the proposed development (if consent is successful) drain onto neighbouring properties. e. Proposed service connections, and location of existing service connections, including noting if existing servicing is to be removed. The Applicant is advised that down spouts and sump pump outlets should drain to a permeable surface via a splash pad or extension away from the foundation. There is an existing storm sewer connection that we would encourage to be decommissioned rather than reused for severed lot. f. Trees with base elevations (both private and City owned) on both retained and severed lots, including diameter at breast height. Please also indicate which trees are to be removed.

9 Page 6 g. Proposed driveway locations for retained and severed parcels. Please note that due to the right of way in favor of #332 Pine Cove Road, it is suggested that the driveway for the retained lot be located on the north side of the retained property as there are limits to the width of driveways allowed, i.e. if the easement has to remain clear at all times the driveway for the retained lands if on the south side would have to be wider than typical 6m for a driveway, and when you consider the width of the driveway on #332, the total width of driveway between the two properties may exceed allowable. h. Overhead wires i. Utility boxes j. Closest municipal hydrant (please either show on drawing or indicate location with a note) k. Any proposed retaining walls, there is a significant grade difference between Pine Cove Road and the front lawn of the existing house, there may be retaining walls required for the retained and severed lots. l. Existing and proposed fence 4. Applicant is advised that a Minor Development application (and approval) will be required for each lot. 5. Pay cash in lieu of park dedication in an amount to be determined by the Manager of Realty Services based on the current park dedication policy at that time. 6. Enter into an agreement under Section 53 of the Planning Act or any other agreement required by the City Solicitor dealing with all the facilities or matters, approval of plans and drawings and the conditions set out herein: Carry out the following to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of Capital Works and the Director of Planning and Building: a) Implement the grading, drainage and servicing layouts and required driveway changes as per the approved overall servicing, grading and drainage plan. b) Prior to the issuance of any Zoning and Grading certificate, complete the following to the satisfaction of the Executive Director of Capital Works: If required, provide performance securities in an amount to be determined, for completion of the approved grading and servicing site work. Install tree protection to the satisfaction of the City Forester, call for an inspection ( ext or 7428) Install siltation control to the satisfaction of Site Engineering, call for an inspection ( ext or 7428) c) Prior to laying sod, call for a grading inspection ( Ext or 7868)

10 Page 7 Schedule D Project Implementation Conditions: i. Prior to commencing any site works, the Owner shall submit a preliminary schedule for the servicing contract, utilities work, and building construction. ii. iii. iv. Any required driveway access or utility disruption for affected residents will be communicated verbally or via written notices at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance to the residents. Verbal contacts will generally be done at reasonable hours (between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.) The driveway and utility disruption will be done responsibly and minimize inconvenience to the area residents/businesses. In certain situations, the driveways may need to be reinstated or utility service restored immediately. Utility trenches, service cuts, etc. in front of adjacent homes shall not be left in an unfinished or open cut condition for more than 3 days if no activity is imminent (i.e. temporary trench filling, grading may be required as directed). Any damage to adjacent properties and buildings that is determined (by the Director) to have been caused by the Owner and/or his contractor(s), shall be reported immediately to the City, documented and corrective action taken with the affected property owner s consent. v. The site shall be maintained in a secure fashion at all times. Any notification of trespassing or safety concerns shall be communicated to the Halton Police. vi. vii. viii. ix. Trees identified for protection by the City Arborist will be marked and fenced off as per City requirements. Significant damage to the trees or to the branches shall be reported immediately to the City s Site Engineering representative. Significant damage may warrant additional landscaping or tree planting to be carried out at the Owner s expense. The Owner and his contractor(s) shall acknowledge and abide by all applicable City By-laws and agree to obtain all necessary permits as directed. The Owner or his contractor(s) shall not enter any adjacent properties without 48-hour prior notice to homeowner for any required work. Any approved works that require encroachment onto adjacent properties shall be restored to a condition at least equal to or better than previous condition. These works may include but not limited to grading, sod, landscaping, driveways, fencing etc. Any entry onto adjacent private lands will require the consent of the property owner. Any changes/amendments to the original City approval(s) (initiated by the Owner) that require a formal application to the City (i.e. variances etc.) shall be clearly communicated to the affected residents prior to submitting to the City.

11 Page 8 Staff will assist in preparing the necessary descriptions/explanations for any proposed variances. x. If any disputes regarding the above are not resolved in a mutually acceptable manner (at the staff level), a meeting would be arranged with the affected residents, Owner and senior City staff. If issues cannot be amicably resolved, a mediation session may be necessary. The cost of the mediation shall be borne by the Owner. xi. If the Owner fails to comply with the above expectations and the project incurs significant delays, the development securities required by the development agreement may be used by the City to carry out any outstanding works deemed necessary as per this checklist to bring the site into compliance. General Site Development Conditions i. No work shall be done until the Executive Director of Capital Works has approved the plans and all work (grading, drainage, construction access, fencing, and servicing and driveway locations) shall conform to such plans. ii. iii. iv. If during any phase of construction potentially adverse environmental impact to the site is discovered or occurs, the developer/owner agrees to: a. inform the City/Region/MOE immediately b. retain a qualified Environmental Consultant to investigate, report and remediate as may be required, all in compliance with Ontario Regulation 153/04. The Owner shall pay the cost of relocating any existing services or utilities made necessary by reason of the development Submit for approval and implement silt control measures. Silt control shall be maintained during all phases of construction v. All streets abutting on the lands covered by this Agreement and to be used for access during the construction of any building/s on the approved Site Plan/s, shall be kept in good and usable condition during the said construction and, if damaged, will be restored immediately by the Owner. If the Owner fails to do this work on reasonable notice, the City may go in and do it at his expense. All vehicles making delivery to or taking materials from the lands on the said approved Site Plan/s, shall be adequately covered and not unreasonably loaded so as to not scatter refuse, rubbish or debris on the said streets abutting. Where more than one access may be had to the development site, the Executive Director of Capital Works may prohibit use of one or more, but not all, for the delivery of materials. Roads to be flushed and swept on Friday afternoons.

12 Page 9 vi. vii. viii. ix. Take all necessary steps to prevent building material, mud, waste, soil or dust from being spilled or tracked onto public streets during construction and proceed immediately to clean up any streets so affected and agree that the performance securities may be used by the Executive Director of Capital Works to cover the cost of cleanup necessitated by failure to comply within a reasonable time frame with these requirements. The Owner will take all necessary steps as directed from time to time by the Executive Director of Capital Works to control dust, weeds, noise and any other nuisances. The Owner shall make good all damage caused by anything done in connection with the development. The Owner shall construct all works necessary as approved by the Executive Director of Capital Works to provide for proper drainage and stormwater management of all lands included in the development plan and adjacent lands which drain there through, or where existing drains in adjacent or abutting lands have been cut. x. The Owner shall construct all works required to rectify and alleviate any drainage problem in the manner required by the Executive Director of Capital Works upon written notice by him; such work shall be in accordance with plans approved by the Executive Director of Capital Works. xi. Indemnify and save harmless the City and Burlington Hydro, it s officers, employees, servants or agents from all costs, damages, claims, actions, demands, losses, causes, or action, interest and suits that it or they may incur or be put to as a result of, or in any connection with, the servicing of and construction on the lands covered by this agreement. Date: September 30, 2016 Prepared By: Annette Simpson Building 1) A Building Permit is required for all building construction; 2) Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Div. C., Section Qualifications of Designers and OBC Date: October 14, 2016 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning The applicant is proposing to sever a parcel of land for the purposes of creating a new lot. Staff has no issues with the consent application. But please note that the potential driveway location for the retained lot is considerably constrained by the

13 Page 10 adjacent driveway of 352 Pine Cove Road, considering the maximum permitted width for a combined driveway. Date: October 7, 2016 Prepared By: Linda Wu Finance Notice regarding Development Charges: The owner, its successors and assigns, are hereby notified that City Development Charges may be payable in accordance with the applicable By-law , as may be amended, upon issuance of a building permit, at the rate in effect on the date issued. For further information, the owner is advised to contact the City Building Department (905) Tax Pay all property taxes owing. The taxes owing includes any outstanding balances plus current year taxes that have been billed as of the date of Final Consent. Local improvement must be commuted. Date: Sept 20, 2016 Prepared By: L. Bray Urban Forestry There are no City trees in the right of way. No objections. Date: September 28, 2016 Prepared By: M. Hunter Region of Halton RE: Consent Files: B16/012-B 358 Pine Cove Road Sumin Change & Yi Wang City of Burlington, Region of Halton Regional Staff have received the above noted application for consent to sever an existing lot to create one (1) new lot for residential purposes and offer the following comments: Matters of Regional Interest: The Region s Official Plan 2009 (2009 ROP) provides goals, objectives and policies to direct physical development and change in Halton. The lands are designated Urban Area by the 2009 ROP. The range of permitted uses and the creation of new lots within the Urban Area will be in accordance with the applicable Local Official Plans and Zoning By-laws. All development, however, shall be subject to the Regional Official Plan policies in effect (Section 76).

14 Page 11 Section 89(3) of the ROP 2006 requires that all new development within the Urban Areas be on the basis of connection to Halton s municipal water and wastewater service. Further comments with respect to municipal servicing are outlined below. The Region s Protocol for Reviewing Development Applications with Respect to Contaminated and Potentially Contaminated Sites requires, at a minimum, that an environmental site screening questionnaire be completed and submitted for subject lands. An environmental site screening questionnaire was not received as part of the circulation of this consent application. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to submit a site screening questionnaire and any additional information required as a result of the review of the questionnaire. Regional Infrastructure The following comments are provided as a review of the proposed consent application as they relate to municipal servicing. The existing services in the area of the site include: Watermains: There is a 150 mm diameter watermain located within the Pine Cove Road adjacent to the property. Please be advised that fire flow test results are not available for the area. Wastewater Main: There is a 200 mm diameter wastewater main located within the Pine Cove Road adjacent to the property. Regional Staff offer no objection to the proposed consent application from a regional servicing perspective. Regional Staff further recommends that a note be attached to the decision on this proposed consent application advising the applicant of the Regional Service Permit process. Conclusion: Halton Region has reviewed Consent application B16/012 B in the context of the ROP and does not object to the proposed consent subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final approval, the applicant is required to submit to Halton Region a completed Regional Environmental Site Screening Questionnaire, and any addition material requested by the Region as determined by the review of the Questionnaire (i.e. Phase 1, Phase 2, and a RSC). Regional Staff do request that the following notes be added to the Committee s decision on this consent application. Notes to be included in the Decision: i. The Owner is advised that once all conditions have been satisfied and the final consent for the severance has been granted the Owner will be required to

15 Page 12 contact Halton's Public Works Department, Services Permits Group, (905) extension 7878, Services Permits Technician, to supply copies of their detailed servicing drawings, to review any water and wastewater servicing concerns, obtain a Services Permit(s) and pay all necessary fees. Any water or wastewater service connections that currently exist to the property, that will not be utilized, currently exist in duplication or are deemed substandard, will be required to be disconnected at their respective mains by the Owner. The Owner can at any time investigate with their builder and contractor, and by obtaining utility locates, the size and location of existing services within the road allowance in order to design the Owner's individual site servicing. Please provide a copy of the Consent Decision to the Region. I trust these comments are of assistance to you. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Original Signed Adam Huycke, MCIP, RPP, CPT Intermediate Planner Extension 7604 adam.huycke@halton.ca

16 (905) (905) FILE NO. B-012/16 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT Date Mailed: October 21, 2016 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION FOR CONSENT Committee of Adjustment The owners of 358 Pine Cove Rd. Burlington have applied to the Committee of Adjustment for Consent to Sever a parcel of land for a new lot (see attached key map and survey sketch). The Committee of Adjustment will meet on MONDAY NOVEMBER 7, 2016, City Hal Room 247, 2 nd Floor, City Hall to consider the above application. This application is scheduled to be heard at 6:30 p.m. You may attend the meeting and/or submit written comments ( or letter) to the Committee. If you are submitting comments in advance of the meeting please attempt to submit them by the Thursday Prior to the Hearing Date, so that they can be given to Committee Members in advance of the meeting. Please or your send letter to the undersigned. A copy of the Agenda, containing staff reports, can be obtained from the Committee of Adjustment, 2 nd Floor, City Hall, on or after Tuesday October 25, 2016 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. or can be mailed (or ed) to you at your request. If you wish to be notified of the decision of Committee of Adjustment in respect of the proposed consent, you must make a written request to Sean Kenney, Secretary Treasurer, Sean.Kenney@burlington.ca or visit the City of Burlington Planning Department, 426 Brant Street Burlington ON L7R 3Z6. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment Decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the Applicant or another member of the public. If a person or public body that files an appeal of a Decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect of the proposed consent does not make written submission to the City before it gives or refuses to give provisional consent, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss the appeal. Any submissions or question regarding the above noted application may be directed to the Secretary- Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment. The Applicant is advised it is mandatory that either the Applicant or an authorized Agent be present at the Hearing. Yours truly, Sean Kenney Sean Kenney Secretary - Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Personal information including comments and public feedback, is collected under the legal authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter c. P.13, as amended, and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, which will be used to process the application and in the decision making process and becomes the property of the City of Burlington, and is considered to be a public record and will be disclosed to any individual (including being posted on the internet) upon request. Questions about this collection should be directed to the Secretary-Treasurer, Burlington Committee of Adjustment, Planning And Building Department, 426 Brant Street, P.O. Box 5013, Burlington, Ontario; L7R 3Z6 (905)

17 Key Map Sketch Map The drawings are provided for context only and full plans are available to view at the Planning Dept. as per the accompanying letter

18 City of Burlington 1 : 2, Meters Date Department Comments Thursday, August 25, 2016 Planning - Committee of Adjustment 358 Pine Cove Road The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

19 City of Burlington 1 : 2, Meters Date Department Comments Thursday, August 25, 2016 Planning - Committee of Adjustment 358 Pine Cove Road The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

20 Page 13 File A-092/16 HEARING NO. 2-6:30 P.M. PROPERTY: 2116 Courtland Dr., PLAN 528 LOT 12 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1. To permit lot coverage of 21% instead of the maximum permitted 17% for a proposed two storey detached dwelling without attached garage. 2. To permit a west side yard setback of 2.4 m instead of the minimum required 3.0 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling. 3. To permit a 0.70 m encroachment into the west side yard instead of the maximum permitted 0.50 m from the wall of the building for proposed overhangs. 4. To permit a west side yard setback of 1.8 m instead of the minimum required 2.35 m (3.0 m -.65 m = 2.35 m) for a proposed roofed over porch including overhangs and stairs. 5. To permit a 0.55 m encroachment into the east side yard instead of the maximum permitted 0.50 m from the wall of the building for proposed overhangs. 6. To permit an east side yard setback of 1.7 m instead of the minimum required 1.8 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling. 7. To permit one parking space instead of the minimum required two parking spaces for a proposed detached dwelling unit.

21 Page 14 STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land division or minor variance applications on record for this property. Date: July 11, 2016 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning The applicant is proposing the construction of a new two storey detached dwelling without an attached garage.

22 Page 15 Variances required: Notes: 1. To permit lot coverage of 21% instead of the maximum permitted 17% for a proposed two storey detached dwelling without attached garage. 2. To permit a west side yard setback of 2.4 m instead of the minimum required 3.0 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling. 3. To permit a 0.70 m encroachment into the west side yard instead of the maximum permitted 0.50 m from the wall of the building for proposed overhangs. 4. To permit a west side yard setback of 1.8 m instead of the minimum required 2.35 m (3.0 m -.65 m = 2.35 m) for a proposed roofed over porch including overhangs and stairs. 5. To permit a 0.55 m encroachment into the east side yard instead of the maximum permitted 0.50 m from the wall of the building for proposed overhangs. 6. To permit an east side yard setback of 1.7 m instead of the minimum required 1.8 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling. 7. To permit one parking space instead of the minimum required two parking spaces for a proposed detached dwelling unit. 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required. 2. The variances identified are based on the plans provided. The applicant has been advised that a proposed building location survey confirming all building setbacks including height and lot coverage will be required prior to submitting an application for site plan approval. Any additional variances identified will be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain. Date: September 22, 2016 Prepared By: Tina Vassalli Site Planning The subject property is located on the south side of Courtland Drive in the Brant Planning Community a low density residential neighbourhood. The site currently supports a 1-storey detached dwelling and detached garage (located in the rear yard). The applicant is requesting 7 variances to facilitate the proposed re-development of the site, which includes the making of a new 2-storey single-detached dwelling. The applicant proposes to retain the existing detached garage. 1) Official Plan Designation: Residential Low Density Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? Yes

23 Page 16 The subject property is designated as Residential Low Density on Schedule B of the City s Official Plan (OP). This designation permits single-detached homes with a density to a maximum of 25 units per net hectare. Additionally, the OP calls for new infill development to be compatible with the surrounding development in terms of height, scale, massing, siting, setbacks, coverage and amount of open space. Staff has assessed the subject application with regard to these OP policies and is satisfied that the proposal will facilitate compatible re-development. Accordingly, staff finds that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the City s OP. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: Low Density Residential Zones (R3.2) Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned R3.2 (Low Density Residential Zone) on Map 14 - W under Zoning By-law 2020, as amended (the By-law ), and is located in a designated area respecting lot coverage. This zone permits a detached dwelling and accessory uses, buildings, and structures thereto. Variance 1: Lot Coverage Yes The intent of the lot coverage provision is to ensure that an appropriate ratio of building floor area to lot area occurs to prevent overdevelopment and maintain the open space character of a neighbourhood. The applicant requests permission for an increase in lot coverage to 21% instead of the maximum permitted 17%. In this case, this amounts to approximately 25 m 2 of additional lot coverage. The proposed dwelling is deemed a 2-storey house, although half of the upper level appears as a 1½ storey dwelling (pitched roof with dormers). Staff is of the opinion that the proposed building is not anticipated to create compatibility issues in terms of height and massing, and thus, does not constitute overbuilding on the property. In this regard, staff is of the opinion that requested increase in lot coverage meets the general intent and purpose of the By-law. Variances 2-6: Interior Side Yard Setbacks Yes The intent of the side yard setback regulations is to ensure that a consistent and attractive built form is maintained along a streetscape (appropriate building separation) while allowing sufficient room for access to the backyard. Further, the intent behind the encroachment allowances is to allow minor building projections and enhancements to project from the main dwelling in a controlled manner, without further restricting the building envelope of the main dwelling. Staff note that the placement of the proposed second storey will result in side yard setbacks that are consistent with the existing dwelling as the proposed design will generally utilize the existing building footprint. Thus, staff do not anticipate the

24 Page 17 requested variances creating any compatibility issues with regard to the alignment of the dwelling along the Courtland Drive streetscape. Variance 7: Off-Street Parking Yes The By-law requires that a minimum of 2 off-street vehicle parking spaces (one of which may be provided in an attached or detached garage) for a detached dwelling. In this case, there is sufficient space for only 1 parking space in the front yard, which is a result of the siting of the existing/proposed house. The house is located less than 2.75 m from the adjacent property line the minimum width requirement for a parking space and, as such, zoning has interpreted the narrowing driveway as an obstruction. Accordingly, the parking space provided in the backyard is deemed to not comply. The site plan submitted in support of the application indicates that the site can support 2 parking spaces albeit access to the second space is by way of a 2.43 m wide driveway (at its narrowest). Staff note that no further change is proposed in this regard, such that the variance will serve to recognize an existing condition. One that is not uncommon within many of the older residential neighbourhoods. Moreover, the existing paved area seems to have functioned for years without impact to the abutting property. Thus, staff is of the opinion that the subject variance, which would in effect allow for the continued use of the driveway for access to parking, and the detached garage, in the backyard is reasonable. 3) Desirability: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure? Yes The variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the property, as they will allow the owner to facilitate the proposed re-development, while still meeting the general intent and purpose of both the City s OP and By-law. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes It is staff s opinion that no adverse impacts would be created on the existing streetscape or adjacent properties as a result of the requested variances. Thus, staff is satisfied that the variances can be considered minor.

25 Page 18 Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: There would be no adverse effects created as a result of the variances when considered individually or cumulatively. Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposed variance in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the OP and the requirements of the By-law and has no objection. Date: October 20, 2016 Prepared By: Todd Evershed, MCIP, RPP Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: July 12, 2016 Prepared By: A. Capone Comment: Site Engineering has no objection. Date: October 7, 2016 Prepared By: Carol Gulak Building 1) A Building Permit is required for all building construction; 2) Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Div. C., Section Qualifications of Designers and OBC Date: October 5, 2016 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning The applicant is proposing the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling. The existing driveway and detached garage are considered sufficient to accommodate two average cars. No objection to the variances required. Date: October 7, 2016 Prepared By: Linda Wu Finance Notice regarding Development Charges: The owner, its successors and assigns, are hereby notified that City Development Charges may be payable in accordance with the applicable By-law , as may be

26 Page 19 amended, upon issuance of a building permit, at the rate in effect on the date issued. For further information, the owner is advised to contact the City Building Department (905) Tax Pay all property taxes owing. The taxes owing includes any outstanding balances plus current year taxes that have been billed to the satisfaction of the Director of Finance. Local improvement must be commuted. Date:Sept 23, 2016 Prepared By: L. Bray

27 (905) (905) FILE NO A-092/16 Committee of Adjustment October 21, 2016 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The owners of 2116 Courtland Drive, Burlington have applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a Minor Variance to the requirements of Zoning By-law 2020, as amended (see attached key map). The applicant is proposing the construction of a new two storey detached dwelling without an attached garage. This proposal results in the following variances (for your assistance see the attached sketch): 1. To permit lot coverage of 21% instead of the maximum permitted 17% for a proposed two storey detached dwelling without attached garage. 2. To permit a west side yard setback of 2.4 m instead of the minimum required 3.0 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling. 3. To permit a 0.70 m encroachment into the west side yard instead of the maximum permitted 0.50 m from the wall of the building for proposed overhangs. 4. To permit a west side yard setback of 1.8 m instead of the minimum required 2.35 m (3.0 m -.65 m = 2.35 m) for a proposed roofed over porch including overhangs and stairs. 5. To permit a 0.55 m encroachment into the east side yard instead of the maximum permitted 0.50 m from the wall of the building for proposed overhangs. 6. To permit an east side yard setback of 1.7 m instead of the minimum required 1.8 m for a proposed two storey detached dwelling. 7. To permit one parking space instead of the minimum required two parking spaces for a proposed detached dwelling unit. You have received this notice as your property is within 60 metres of the property noted above. The Committee of Adjustment will meet on MONDAY NOVEMBER 7, 2016, at City Hall Room 247, 2nd Floor, to consider the above application under Section 45 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended. This application is scheduled to be heard at 6:30 P.M. You may attend the meeting and/or submit written comments ( or letter) to the Committee. If you are submitting comments in advance of the meeting please attempt to submit them by the Thursday Prior to the Hearing Date, so that they can be given to Committee Members in advance of the meeting. Please or your send letter to the undersigned. A copy of the Agenda, containing staff reports, can be obtained from the Committee of Adjustment, 2 nd Floor, City Hall, on or after Tuesday October 25, 2016, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect to this application, you must submit a written request to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant or another member of the public. The applicant is advised it is mandatory that either the Applicant or an authorized Agent be present at the Hearing.

28 Any submissions or for more information about this matter, contact Sean Kenney, Secretary Treasurer, or visit the City of Burlington Planning Department, 426 Brant Street Burlington ON L7R 3Z6 Yours truly, Sean Kenney Sean Kenney Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Personal information including comments and public feedback, is collected under the legal authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter c. P.13, as amended, and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, which will be used to process the application and in the decision making process and becomes the property of the City of Burlington, and is considered to be a public record and will be disclosed to any individual (including being posted on the internet) upon request. Questions about this collection should be directed to the Secretary-Treasurer, Burlington Committee of Adjustment, Planning And Building Department, 426 Brant Street, P.O. Box 5013, Burlington, Ontario; L7R 3Z6 (905) Key Map

29 Courtland Drive Variance 7 Variance 4 Variance 5 Variance 1 Variance 3 Variance 2 Variance 6 *The drawings are provided for context only and full plans are available to view at the Planning Dept. as per the accompanying letter

30 City of Burlington 1 : Meters Date Department Comments Friday, October 21, 2016 Planning - Committee of Adjustment 2116 Courtland Drive The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

31 City of Burlington 1 : Meters Date Department Comments Friday, October 21, 2016 Planning - Committee of Adjustment 2116 Courtland Drive The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

32 Page 20 HEARING NO. 3-6:30 P.M. File A-103/16 PROPERTY: 2383 Glenwood School Dr., PLAN 321 PT LOT 7 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1. To permit a 7.0 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 9.0 m for a proposed addition on an existing single storey detached dwelling. 2. To permit an existing 0.6 m west side yard setback instead of the minimum required 1.2 m to recognize the location of the existing dwelling constructed in To permit an existing 1.0 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 1.2 m to recognize the location of an existing accessory building greater than 10 m2 in area.

33 Page 21 STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land division or minor variance applications on record for this property. Date: August 11, 2016 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning The applicant is proposing the construction of a single storey addition with a rear yard setback of 7.16 m on the rear of an existing single storey dwelling Variances required: 1. To permit a 7.0 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 9.0 m for a proposed addition on an existing single storey detached dwelling. 2. To permit an existing 0.6 m west side yard setback instead of the minimum required 1.2 m to recognize the location of the existing dwelling constructed in To permit an existing 1.0 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 1.2 m to recognize the location of an existing accessory building greater than 10 m 2 in area. Notes: 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed addition. 2. The variances identified are based on the plans provided. Any changes to the plans resulting in additional variances will be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain. Date: September 26, 2016 Prepared By: Clara Lipnicky Site Planning 1) Official Plan Designation: Residential Low Density Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? Yes

34 Page 22 The subject property is designated as Residential Low Density on Schedule B of the City s Official Plan. This designation permits single-detached homes with a density to a maximum of 25 units per net hectare. Additionally, the Official Plan calls for new infill development to be compatible with the surrounding development in terms of height, scale, massing, siting, setbacks, coverage and amount of open space. Staff has assessed the subject application with regard to these Official Plan policies and is satisfied that the proposal will facilitate compatible re-development. Accordingly, staff finds that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the City s Official Plan. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: Low Density Residential (R3.1) Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (R3.1) on Map No. 14 E under Zoning By-law 2020, as amended. The current zoning permits a single-detached dwelling and accessory uses, buildings, and structures thereto. Variance 1: Rear Yard Setback Yes The intent of the 9 m setback is to ensure that buildings/structures will not come unusually close to the rear lot line so as to cause a negative impact to an adjacent property, such as sun-shadowing. The setback also ensures that an adequate amount of amenity area is retained in the rear yard as open space. The applicant proposes a reduced setback of 7 m and 9 m. Given that the proposed development is a relatively modest 1-storey addition, staff do not anticipate any compatibility issues as a result of the proposed variance. Moreover, there is substantial boundary vegetation along the rear line lot that acts as both a buffering and screening from adjacent properties. Staff is of the opinion that the intent of the By-law will be maintained. Variance 2: Side Yard Setback Yes The site s R3.1 zone requires that a dwelling without an attached garage or carport maintain minimum side yard setbacks of 1.2 m for any 1-and 1½-storey portion. Generally, the intent of side yard setbacks is to ensure dwellings are sited in a manner that provides a functional side yard for the purpose of access to the rear yard and to allow sufficient separation between dwellings on adjacent lands. In this case, the reduced setback is required for the original house only. The proposed addition will comply with the minimum requirement. Thus, the variance is required to recognize an existing condition, for which staff is not aware of any concerns. In this regard, staff is satisfied that the proposed setback provides suitable through access to

35 Page 23 the rear yard, while the requested 0.60 m setback will provide both sufficient separation from the adjacent dwelling and allows adequate space to perform any required maintenance in the westerly side yard. Variance 3: Accessory Building (Framed Shed) Yes By-law 2020 contains specific regulations for accessory buildings and structures in a rear yard, when accessory to a detached dwelling. The intent of these regulations is to ensure that accessory buildings are secondary and subordinate in nature to that of the principle building (dwelling). This is achieved through design and the appropriate location, height, massing, and scale of the proposed development, which collectively minimize any impact to the surrounding area as well as to the overall streetscape. The applicant requests a single variance to recognize the siting of the existing storage shed. Again, staff is not aware of any concerns with respect to the existing condition and is thus of the opinion that the storage shed may continue to co-exist in harmony with neighbouring properties. For that reason, staff support the requested variance as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. 3) Desirability: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure? Yes The variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the property, as they will allow the owner to facilitate the proposed re-development and recognize a couple historic deficiencies, while still meeting the general intent and purpose of both the City s Official Plan and Zoning By-law ) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes It is staff s opinion that no adverse impacts would be created on the existing streetscape or adjacent properties as a result of the requested variances. Thus, staff is satisfied that the variances can be considered minor. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: There would be no adverse effects created as a result of the variances when considered individually or cumulatively.

36 Page 24 Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposed variance in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and has no objection. Date: October 20, 2016 Prepared By: Todd Evershed, MCIP, RPP Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: August 18, 2016 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has no objection to the minor variances provided the Applicant/Owner agrees to the following: 1. No grading changes are permitted other than in the immediate foot print of construction and as shown on the drawings submitted with the Minor Variance Application. 2. The Owners agree not to alter existing drainage patterns 3. The Owners acknowledge it is their responsibility to ensure that any changes in grading or structural additions have no negative impact on neighboring properties 4. Downspouts and sump outlet (if applicable) are to discharge to permeable surfaces, not walkways or driveways. 5. If additional grading/landscaping works are proposed, a site alteration permit may be required from the Capital Works Department 6. All construction access routes (side yards, etc.) shall be reinstated to original or better conditions 7. Take all necessary steps to prevent mud, construction debris, water or material from being spilled or tracked on to abutting properties or streets during construction and proceed immediately to clean up any areas so affected. 8. The Owner shall make good all damage to other properties caused by anything done in connection with the development. Date: September 30, 2016 Prepared By: Annette Simpson Building 1) A Building Permit is required for all building construction; 2) Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Div. C., Section Qualifications of Designers and OBC Date: October 7, 2016 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou

37 Page 25 Transportation Planning The applicant is proposing the construction of a single storey addition on the rear of an existing single storey dwelling. The existing driveway and garage are not anticipated to be affected. No objection to the variances required. Date: October 7, 2016 Prepared By: Linda Wu Finance Notice regarding Development Charges: The owner, its successors and assigns, are hereby notified that City Development Charges may be payable in accordance with the applicable By-law , as may be amended, upon issuance of a building permit, at the rate in effect on the date issued. For further information, the owner is advised to contact the City Building Department (905) Tax Pay all property taxes owing. The taxes owing includes any outstanding balances plus current year taxes that have been billed to the satisfaction of the Director of Finance. Local improvement must be commuted. Date: Sept 28, 2016 Prepared By: L. Bray

38 (905) (905) FILE NO A-103/16 Committee of Adjustment October 21, 2016 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The owners of 2383 Glenwood School Drive, Burlington have applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a Minor Variance to the requirements of Zoning By-law 2020, as amended (see attached key map). The applicant is proposing the construction of a single storey addition on the rear of an existing single storey dwelling. This proposal results in the following variances (for your assistance see the attached sketch): 1. To permit a 7.0 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 9.0 m for a proposed addition on an existing single storey detached dwelling. 2. To permit an existing 0.6 m west side yard setback instead of the minimum required 1.2 m to recognize the location of the existing dwelling constructed in To permit an existing 1.0 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 1.2 m to recognize the location of an existing accessory building greater than 10 m2 in area. You have received this notice as your property is within 60 metres of the property noted above. The Committee of Adjustment will meet on MONDAY NOVEMBER 7, 2016, at City Hall Room 247, 2nd Floor, to consider the above application under Section 45 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended. This application is scheduled to be heard at 6:30 P.M. You may attend the meeting and/or submit written comments ( or letter) to the Committee. If you are submitting comments in advance of the meeting please attempt to submit them by the Thursday Prior to the Hearing Date, so that they can be given to Committee Members in advance of the meeting. Please or your send letter to the undersigned. A copy of the Agenda, containing staff reports, can be obtained from the Committee of Adjustment, 2 nd Floor, City Hall, on or after Tuesday October 25, 2016 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect to this application, you must submit a written request to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant or another member of the public. The Applicant is advised it is mandatory that either the Applicant or an authorized Agent be present at the Hearing. Any submissions or for more information about this matter, contact Sean Kenney, Secretary Treasurer, Sean.Kenney@burlington.ca or visit the City of Burlington Planning Department, 426 Brant Street Burlington ON L7R 3Z6 Yours truly, Sean Kenney Sean Kenney Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Personal information including comments and public feedback, is collected under the legal authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter c. P.13, as amended, and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, which will be used to process the application and in the decision making process and becomes the property of the City of Burlington, and is considered to be a public record and will be disclosed to any individual (including being posted on the internet) upon request. Questions about this collection should be directed to the Secretary-Treasurer, Burlington Committee of Adjustment, Planning And Building Department, 426 Brant Street, P.O. Box 5013, Burlington, Ontario; L7R 3Z6 (905)

39 Key Map

40 Variance 3 Variance 1 Variance 2 The drawings are provided for context only and full plans are available to view at the Planning Dept. as per the accompanying letter

41 City of Burlington 1 : 1, Meters Date Planning - Comments Thursday, August 11, Glenwood School Drive The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

42 City of Burlington 1 : 1, Meters Date Planning - Comments Thursday, August 11, Glenwood School Drive The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

43 Page 26 HEARING NO. 4-6:30 P.M. File A-106/16 PROPERTY: 1017 Greenwood Dr., PLAN 683 PT LOT 20 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1. To permit a front yard setback abutting Greenwood Drive of 10.0 m instead of the minimum required 11 m for a proposed attached garage addition. 2. To permit a street side yard setback abutting Earl Crescent of 1.2 m instead of the minimum required 4.5 m for a proposed attached garage addition. 3. To permit a street side yard setback abutting Earl Crescent of 1 m instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for an existing accessory building greater than 10 sq m. 4. To permit a rear yard setback of 1 m instead of the minimum required 1.2 m for an existing accessory building greater than 10 sq m.

44 Page 27 STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land division or minor variance applications on record for this propoerty. Date: August 25, 2016 Prepared By:Amanda D Angelo Zoning The applicant is proposing the construction of an attached garage that does not meet the required street side and front yard setbacks. Variances required: 1. To permit a front yard setback abutting Greenwood Drive of 10.0 m instead of the minimum required 11 m for a proposed attached garage addition. 2. To permit a street side yard setback abutting Earl Crescent of 1.2 m instead of the minimum required 4.5 m for a proposed attached garage addition. 3. To permit a street side yard setback abutting Earl Crescent of 1 m instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for an existing accessory building greater than 10 sq m. 4. To permit a rear yard setback of 1 m instead of the minimum required 1.2 m for an existing accessory building greater than 10 sq m. Notes: 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required. 2. The variances identified are based on the plans provided. Any changes to the plans resulting in additional variances will be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain. Date: September 23, 2016 Prepared By: Tina Vassalli Site Planning The subject property is located at the north-west corner of Greenwood Drive and Earl Crescent, in the South Aldershot Planning District. The subject property is known municipally as 1017 Greenwood Drive and currently contains a one-storey single detached residential dwelling with an attached garage and two detached residential accessory structures. The applicant has requested relief of the required front yard and

45 Page 28 street side yard setbacks to facilitate the construction of a proposed garage addition. The applicant has also requested relief of the required street side yard setback and the rear yard setback to recognize the location of an existing residential accessory building. 1) Official Plan Designation: Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? Yes The property is designated Residential Low Density in the City s Official Plan. The residential designation provides for housing and other land uses that are part of a residential environment. The Official Plan sets out that new development in the Residential designation is to be compatible with surrounding properties. In the Residential Low Density designation, single-detached housing units are permitted with a density of up to a maximum of 25 units per net hectare given that development is compatible with the scale, urban design and community features of the neighbourhood. As outlined, the Official Plan s residential land use policies are intended to ensure that new development is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. Although setbacks are not specifically prescribed in the Official Plan, compatibility and streetscape are to be considered with any redevelopment within an existing neighbourhood. The proposed garage would not comply with the minimum required front yard setback; however, the proposed garage addition would be located in line with the existing dwelling and would not encroach any further into the front yard setback than the existing dwelling location. The proposed garage addition complies with the minimum rear yard setback, and as such, would be located an appropriate distance away from the abutting residential property to the north. With respect to the street side yard setback, the proposed addition is not anticipated to negatively affect the streetscape of Earl Crescent. The existing fencing and vegetation along the north property line would assist in screening and softening the appearance of the structure along Earl Crescent. Further, there are no sidewalks along Earl Crescent, which increases the perception that the houses have larger setbacks from the road than they actually do. To that extent, the proposed setback still retains a generous separation from the actual roadway as well as an appropriate separation from the side property line. The existing accessory building would also not affect the streetscape of Earl Crescent as the majority of the structure is screened by an existing wood board fence. There is also mature vegetation in the vicinity of the structure, assisting in screening and softening the appearance of the structure from adjacent properties. Further, the proposed structure would not affect the established building line as there is an existing fence which maintains the streetscape and provides a visual separation from the structures behind the fence. As such, staff is of the opinion that the development is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances would maintain the intent of the City s Official Plan.

46 Page 29 2) Zoning By-law Designation: Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned R2.1, low density residential, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended and is in the designated area for lot coverage. The applicants are requested relief of the minimum required front yard, street side yard and rear yard setbacks to permit a proposed attached garage addition and to recognize the location of an existing residential accessory building. Variance #1 Front yard setback Yes The intent behind the front yard setback regulation is to ensure consistency with an established building line and also to maintain the aesthetically pleasing streetscape along a street. To that end, the intention is that there is a consistent distance between a street and the buildings that front onto that street, which ensures a consistent building line and orderly development of a street. In this case, the applicant requests approval of a variance to permit a front yard setback of 10m instead of the minimum required 11m. Staff is of the opinion that the garage addition is an appropriate design, which is well suited to the house and surrounding area. The proposed garage addition is in keeping with the architectural design of the house. The proposed addition is not anticipated to have a negative effect on the established building line along Greenwood Drive as the proposed addition would line up with the existing front wall of the existing dwelling. In fact, since the existing front building wall and front property line are not parallel, the existing front yard setback at the south-west corner of the dwelling is 8.8m, which is less than the proposed 10m front yard setback. As such, staff is of the opinion that the proposed front yard setback would not produce any significant adverse impacts to the streetscape or adjacent property owners and would further meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Variances #2 & 3 Street side yard setbacks Yes The applicant is requesting relief from the minimum street side yard setback provisions to permit the proposed garage addition and to recognize the location of the existing detached residential accessory building. The garage addition is proposed to be 1.2m from the street side property line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a 4.5m setback. The existing residential accessory building is located 1m from the street side property line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a 7.5m setback. The intent behind the street side yard setback regulation is to ensure consistency with

47 Page 30 an established building line and also to maintain the aesthetically pleasing streetscape along a street. The street side yard setback is also intended to provide sufficient space around the building for access and maintenance purposes. Corner lots have larger side yard setback requirements than internal lots, such that corner lots address both street frontages appropriately. The Zoning By-law provisions do not anticipate long, narrow dwellings on corner lots, as is the case with the existing dwelling. On the subject property, there is existing fencing along the street side lot line adjacent to Earl Crescent which maintains the streetscape and provides a visual separation from buildings and structures in behind the fence line. In addition to the fencing, there is existing mature landscaping along the northern property line to further establish this area as yard space. To that end, the proposed addition would be located within an already established yard area and would not protrude into a clearly established and visible building line. Further, the proposed reduced setback would provide sufficient distance around the structure for maintenance purposes. The existing accessory structure does not comply with the applicable street side yard setback; however, in this case staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The proposed relief from the street side yard setback would allow the existing accessory building to remain in its current location, which is not anticipated to have a negative impact to the property or streetscape. The existing setback is considered sufficient to allow access around the building for maintenance purposes. The existing building is also mostly screened from the street by an existing fence and existing mature vegetation along the property line. As such, staff is satisfied that the requested variances maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law. Variance #4 Rear yard setback Yes The applicant is requesting a reduction in the rear yard setback to 1m, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 1.2m in order to recognize the location of the existing residential accessory building. The existing accessory structure does not comply with the applicable rear yard setback; however, in this case staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The proposed relief from the rear yard setback would allow the existing accessory building to remain in its current location, which is not anticipated to have a negative impact on the adjacent property to the north. The existing setback is considered sufficient to allow access around the building for maintenance purposes. The existing building is also mostly screened from the adjacent property by existing mature vegetation along the property line. As such, staff is satisfied that the requested variance maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law.

48 Page 31 3) Desirability: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure? Yes If approved, the variances will allow for the retention and renovation of an existing residential dwelling within one of the City s mature urban neighbourhoods. The proposed development would result in additional functional space for the property owners, while simultaneously upgrading the exterior of the dwelling in a manner that is compatible with the character of the existing streetscape. As such, the proposed development would increase the functionality of the subject property without negatively impacting compatibility or streetscape appearance of the property. Further, staff is not aware of any adverse effects as a result of the location of the existing accessory building. To that end, existing fencing and landscaping on the subject and adjacent properties assists in screening and softening the appearance of the proposed addition and the existing accessory building. Staff is of the opinion that no adverse impactswould result on the subject property or adjacent properties if the variances are approved. 4) Minor in Nature: the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes The proposed garage addition is not anticipated to negatively impact any established building lines and is also not anticipated to negatively impact the streetscapes of the area. Further, the proposed addition is not anticipated to create any compatibility issues with adjacent properties. To that extent, staff is of the opinion that the requested zoning relief to facilitate the proposed addition and recognize the existing location of the accessory building is considered minor in nature given that there are no identifiable negative impacts to the streetscape or surrounding properties. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Staff is of the opinion that the variances, either considered separately or cumulatively, would not create any adverse impacts on the subject or adjacent properties. Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposed variances in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and has no objection.

49 Page 32 Date: October 11, 2016 Prepared By: Kyle Plas, MCIP, RPP Site Engineering Actual road width is metres and deemed road width is 20 metres. A 1.76 metre road widening is required (to be confirmed by an OLS). The actual conveyance of the widening is not required at this time. Date: August 26, 2016 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering staff have no objection to the variances required. Date: October 19, 2016 Prepared By: J. Medeiros Building 1) A Building Permit is required for all building construction; 2) Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Div. C., Section Qualifications of Designers and OBC Date: October 7, 2016 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning The applicant is proposing to convert the existing single car garage to a double garage. The existing driveway is adequate two average cars. No objection to the variances required. Date: October 7, 2016 Prepared By: Linda Wu Finance Notice regarding Development Charges: The owner, its successors and assigns, are hereby notified that City Development Charges may be payable in accordance with the applicable By-law , as may be amended, upon issuance of a building permit, at the rate in effect on the date issued. For further information, the owner is advised to contact the City Building Department (905) Tax Pay all property taxes owing. The taxes owing includes any outstanding balances plus current year taxes that have been billed to the satisfaction of the Director of Finance. Local improvement must be commuted. Date:Sept 27, 2016 Prepared By: L. Bray

50 (905) (905) FILE NO A-106/16 Committee of Adjustment October 21, 2016 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The owners of 1017 Greenwood Drive, Burlington have applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a Minor Variance to the requirements of Zoning By-law 2020, as amended (see attached key map). The applicant is proposing the construction of an attached garage. This proposal results in the following variances (for your assistance see the attached sketch): 1. To permit a front yard setback abutting Greenwood Drive of 10.0 m instead of the minimum required 11 m for a proposed attached garage addition. 2. To permit a street side yard setback abutting Earl Crescent of 1.2 m instead of the minimum required 4.5 m for a proposed attached garage addition. 3. To permit a street side yard setback abutting Earl Crescent of 1 m instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for an existing accessory building greater than 10 sq m. 4. To permit a rear yard setback of 1 m instead of the minimum required 1.2 m for an existing accessory building greater than 10 sq m. You have received this notice as your property is within 60 metres of the property noted above. The Committee of Adjustment will meet on MONDAY NOVEMBER 7, 2016, at City Hall Room 247, 2nd Floor, to consider the above application under Section 45 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended. This application is scheduled to be heard at 6:30 P.M. You may attend the meeting and/or submit written comments ( or letter) to the Committee. If you are submitting comments in advance of the meeting please attempt to submit them by the Thursday Prior to the Hearing Date, so that they can be given to Committee Members in advance of the meeting. Please or your send letter to the undersigned. A copy of the Agenda, containing staff reports, can be obtained from the Committee of Adjustment, 2 nd Floor, City Hall, on or after Tuesday October 25, 2016 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect to this application, you must submit a written request to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant or another member of the public. The Applicant is advised it is mandatory that either the Applicant or an authorized Agent be present at the Hearing. Any submissions or for more information about this matter, contact Sean Kenney, Secretary Treasurer, Sean.Kenney@burlington.ca or visit the City of Burlington Planning Department, 426 Brant Street Burlington ON L7R 3Z6 Yours truly, Sean Kenney Sean Kenney Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Personal information including comments and public feedback, is collected under the legal authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter c. P.13, as amended, and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, which will be used to process the application and in the decision making process and becomes the property of the City of Burlington, and is considered to be a public record and will be disclosed to any individual (including being posted on the internet) upon request. Questions about this collection should be directed to the Secretary-Treasurer, Burlington Committee of Adjustment, Planning And Building Department, 426 Brant Street, P.O. Box 5013, Burlington, Ontario; L7R 3Z6 (905)

51 Key Map

52 Variance 4 Variance 3 Exist. Garage Variance 2 Prop. Garage Addition Variance 1 *The drawings are provided for context only and full plans are available to view at the Planning Dept. as per the accompanying letter

53 City of Burlington 1 : 1, Meters Date Department Comments Thursday, August 25, 2016 Planning - Committee of Adjustment 1017 Greenwood Drive The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

54 City of Burlington 1 : 1, Meters Date Department Comments Thursday, August 25, 2016 Planning - Committee of Adjustment 1017 Greenwood Drive The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

55 Page 33 HEARING NO. 5-6:30 P.M. File A-113/16 PROPERTY: 3140 Hampton Crt., PLAN 220 LOT 13 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1. To permit a 2.45 m minimum west side yard setback for renovations to the existing house, whereas the R1.2 zone requires 2.54 m [10% of m]. 2. To permit the location of an existing accessory building within a required side yard, whereas Part [b] does not permit it within the required 3 m side yard. 3. To permit an existing accessory building with a 0.45 m minimum east side yard setback, whereas Part [b] requires 1.2 m minimum.

56 Page 34 STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land division applications on record for this property. There are two previous minor variance applications on record for this property. A314/89 deferred East side yard setback A118/2008 Approved To permit an increased fence height of 2.30 m instead of the maximum permitted 2.0 m for an existing fence along the rear property line for a length of m. Date: August 31, 2016 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning The proposed rear addition complies with the yard requirements. The owner is also constructing new foundation walls under the existing study and sunroom. As the location of the existing sunroom does not comply with the minimum side yard setback a minor variance is required. The existing accessory building is located behind the existing house in the rear yard. With the construction of the new rear addition, the existing accessory building will now be located between the house and the east side lot line which technically is within the required 3 m side yard. As an accessory building is not permitted in a required side yard, a minor variance is required. Within a rear yard an accessory building is required to be located 1.2 m from a side lot line. As the existing accessory building is located only 0.49 m from the side yard, a minor variance is required. Variance required: 1. To permit a 2.45 m minimum west side yard setback for renovations to the existing house, whereas the R1.2 zone requires 2.54 m [10% of m].

57 Page To permit the location of an existing accessory building within a required side yard, whereas Part [b] does not permit it within the required 3 m side yard. 3. To permit an existing accessory building with a 0.45 m minimum east side yard setback, whereas Part [b] requires 1.2 m minimum. Conditions A Zoning Clearance Certificate is required. Note Staff has reviewed our records and was unable to find neither a zoning clearance certificate nor a building permit for the rear portion of the existing accessory building [ie. Storage/pool equipment area]. Date: September 29, 2016 Author: G. Jin Site Planning The subject property is located on the south side of Hampton Court, east of Rossmore Boulevard, in the Roseland Planning Community. The subject property is known municipally as 3140 Hampton Court and currently contains a two-storey single detached residential dwelling with a detached residential accessory structure. The applicant has requested relief of the required side yard setbacks to recognize the location of the existing dwelling and accessory building. The proposed zoning relief is intended to facilitate the construction of a one-storey rear dwelling addition (i.e. mudroom). 1) Official Plan Designation: Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? Yes The property is designated Residential Low Density in the City s Official Plan. The residential designation provides for housing and other land uses that are part of a residential environment. The Official Plan sets out that new development in the Residential designation is to be compatible with surrounding properties. In the Residential Low Density designation, single-detached housing units are permitted with a density of up to a maximum of 25 units per net hectare given that development is compatible with the scale, urban design and community features of the neighbourhood.

58 Page 36 As outlined, the Official Plan s residential land use policies are intended to ensure that new development is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. Although setbacks are not specifically prescribed in the Official Plan, compatibility and streetscape are to be considered with any redevelopment within an existing neighbourhood. The proposed dwelling addition would comply with all required setbacks; however, the existing dwelling and accessory building do not comply with the minimum required side yard setbacks. The rear dwelling addition would not be visible from the front of the property and would also be screened from adjacent properties. Staff is of the opinion that the neither the existing dwelling setbacks nor the accessory building setbacks negatively impact compatibility with adjacent properties or the streetscape. To the end, staff is of the opinion that the requested relief would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Yes The subject property is zoned R1.2, residential low density under Zoning By-Law 2020 as amended. The R1.2 zone permits a detached dwelling and accessory building. Variance #1 Reduced west side yard setback The applicants are requesting relief of the minimum west side yard setback to recognize the location of the existing dwelling and permit the construction of a foundation under a section of the existing dwelling. The applicants are requesting a 2.45m setback, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum 2.54m setback. The side yard regulation is determined based upon the lot width (10% of lot width). The intent of the side yard setback provisions is to ensure consistency in separation between adjacent structures, as well as ensuring an adequate amount of area for maintenance of the building and property within the property boundaries. Side yard setbacks also assist in achieving an aesthetically pleasing streetscape. Staff is of the opinion that sufficient spatial separation is maintained from the neighbouring property. The proposed foundation construction would not permit the building to encroach any further into the side yard than its current location. As such, staff do not anticipate any negative impacts to compatibility with the adjacent properties or the streetscape. Further, the proposed setbacks are considered sufficient to allow for maintenance and access around the dwelling without encroachment onto the adjacent property. As such, staff is satisfied that the requested variance maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law. Variance #2 Accessory building within the required side yard The applicants are proposing to construct an addition at the rear of the existing dwelling, which will create a zoning deficiency with respect to the location existing

59 Page 37 accessory building. The Zoning By-law does not permit an accessory building to be located within the required side yard, which would be abutting the side wall of a dwelling. Currently, the existing accessory building is located completely in the rear yard (beyond the back wall of the dwelling); however, the rear addition will result in a portion of the accessory building being adjacent to the side of the dwelling addition (i.e. side yard). Staff is of the opinion that this variance is technical in nature and relief of such, will not impact the functionality of the subject property and will also not impact the streetscape or compatibility with adjacent properties. To that end, the relief of this zoning provision would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Variance #3 Reduced east yard setback The applicant is requesting a reduction in the east side yard setback to 0.45m, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 1.2m, in order to recognize the location of the existing onestorey residential accessory building. The existing accessory structure does not comply with the applicable side yard setback; however, in this case staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The proposed relief from the rear yard setback would allow the existing accessory building to remain in its current location, which is not anticipated to have a negative impact on the adjacent property to the east. The existing setback is considered sufficient to allow access for maintenance purposes. The existing building is also mostly screened from the adjacent property by an existing fence along the property line. As such, staff is satisfied that the requested variance maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law. 3) Desirability: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure? Yes If approved, the variances will allow for the retention and renovation of an existing residential dwelling within one of the City s mature urban neighbourhoods. The proposed development would result in additional functional space for the property owners, without negatively impacting compatibility or streetscape appearance of the property. Further, staff is not aware of any adverse effects as a result of the location of the existing accessory building. To that end, existing fencing and landscaping on the subject and adjacent properties assists in screening and softening the appearance of the proposed addition and the existing accessory building. Staff is of the opinion that no adverse impacts would result on the subject property or adjacent properties if the variances are approved. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature?

60 Page 38 Yes The proposed addition is not anticipated to negatively impact the streetscape of the area or compatibility with adjacent properties. To that end, staff is of the opinion that the requested zoning relief to facilitate the proposed addition and recognize the existing location of the existing dwelling and accessory building is considered minor in nature given that there are no identifiable negative impacts to the streetscape or surrounding properties. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Staff is of the opinion that the variances, either considered separately or cumulatively, would not create any adverse impacts on the subject property or adjacent properties. Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposed variances in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and has no objection. Date: October 18, 2016 Prepared By: Kyle Plas, MCIP, RPP Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: September 1, 2016 Prepared By: A. Capone Site engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objections. Date: Oct Prepared By: A. Scott Building 1) A Building Permit is required for all building construction; 2) Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Div. C., Section Qualifications of Designers and OBC Date: October 17, 2016 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning

61 Page 39 Transportation has reviewed the Minor Variance Application and has no concerns Date: October 17, 2016 Prepared By: J. Zaloznik Finance Notice regarding Development Charges: The owner, its successors and assigns, are hereby notified that City Development Charges may be payable in accordance with the applicable By-law , as may be amended, upon issuance of a building permit, at the rate in effect on the date issued. For further information, the owner is advised to contact the City Building Department (905) Tax Pay all property taxes owing. The taxes owing includes any outstanding balances plus current year taxes that have been billed to the satisfaction of the Director of Finance. Local improvement must be commuted. Date: Sept 30, 2016 Prepared By: L. Bray

62 (905) (905) FILE NO A-113/16 Committee of Adjustment October 21, 2016 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The owners of 3140 Hampton Crt., Burlington have applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a Minor Variance to the requirements of Zoning By-law 2020, as amended (see attached key map). The applicant proposes the construction of a rear addtion on an existing detached residential dwelling and to recognize the location of an existing accessory building. In addition, new foundation walls will be constructed under the existing study and sunroom. As such the location of the existing sunroom does not comply with the minimum side yard setback. This proposal results in the following variances (for your assistance see the attached sketch): 1. To permit a 2.45 m minimum west side yard setback for renovations to the existing house, whereas the R1.2 zone requires 2.54 m [10% of m]. 2. To permit the location of an existing accessory building within a required side yard, whereas Part [b] does not permit it within the required 3 m side yard. 3. To permit an existing accessory building with a 0.45 m minimum east side yard setback, whereas Part [b] requires 1.2 m minimum. You have received this notice as your property is within 60 metres of the property noted above. The Committee of Adjustment will meet on MONDAY NOVEMBER 7, 2016, at City Hall Room 247, 2nd Floor, to consider the above application under Section 45 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended. This application is scheduled to be heard at 6:30 P.M. You may attend the meeting and/or submit written comments ( or letter) to the Committee. If you are submitting comments in advance of the meeting please attempt to submit them by the Thursday Prior to the Hearing Date, so that they can be given to Committee Members in advance of the meeting. Please or your send letter to the undersigned. A copy of the Agenda, containing staff reports, can be obtained from the Committee of Adjustment, 2 nd Floor, City Hall, on or after Tuesday October 25, 2016, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect to this application, you must submit a written request to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant or another member of the public. Any submissions or for more information about this matter, contact Sean Kenney, Secretary Treasurer, Sean.Kenney@burlington.ca or visit the City of Burlington Planning Department, 426 Brant Street Burlington ON L7R 3Z6 The Applicant is advised it is mandatory that either the Applicant or an authorized Agent be present at the Hearing. Yours truly, Sean Kenney Sean Kenney Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment

63 Personal information including comments and public feedback, is collected under the legal authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter c. P.13, as amended, and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, which will be used to process the application and in the decision making process and becomes the property of the City of Burlington, and is considered to be a public record and will be disclosed to any individual (including being posted on the internet) upon request. Questions about this collection should be directed to the Secretary-Treasurer, Burlington Committee of Adjustment, Planning And Building Department, 426 Brant Street, P.O. Box 5013, Burlington, Ontario; L7R 3Z6 (905) Key Map

64 Exist.Study Variance 1 Exist. Sunroom Variance 2 Variance 3 Variance 1 *The drawings are provided for context only and full plans are available to view at the Planning Dept. as per the accompanying letter

65 City of Burlington 1 : 2, Meters Date Department Comments Wednesday, August 31, 2016 Planning - Committee of Adjustment 3140 Hampton Crt The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

66 City of Burlington 1 : 2, Meters Date Department Comments Wednesday, August 31, 2016 Planning - Committee of Adjustment 3140 Hampton Crt The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

67 Page 40 HEARING NO. 6-6:30 P.M. File A-117/16 PROPERTY: VARIANCE: 2173 Bonfield Crt., PLAN 1518 LOT 3 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. 1. To permit a 35 m2 deck instead of the maximum permitted 30 m2 for a proposed deck over 1.2 m above grade.

68 Page 41 STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land division or minor variance applications on record for this propoerty. Date: September 16, 2016 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning The applicant is proposing the construction of a m2 deck over 1.2 m above grade. Variances required: Notes: 1. To permit a 35 m 2 deck instead of the maximum permitted 30 m 2 for a proposed deck over 1.2 m above grade. 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed deck. 2. The variances identified are based on the plans provided. Any changes to the plans resulting in additional variances will be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain. 3. Approval from Trans Canada pipeline is required. 4. Approval from Conservation Halton is required. 5. Existing shed on easement is not approved with this application. Date: September 28, 2016 Prepared By: C. Lipnicky Site Planning 1) Official Plan Designation: Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? Yes The subject property is designated Residential Low Density within the City s Official

69 Page 42 Plan. This designation permits residential development up to a density of 25 units per net hectare. It also permits uses that are consistent with residential uses including decks. The applicant s proposal to construct a rear deck meets the intent of the Official Plan 2) Zoning By-law Designation: Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Yes By-law 2020 regulates the location, size/area and height above grade for residential decks. The intent is to allow decks as outdoor amenity space while at the same time ensuring that they do not bring about negative impacts to adjacent properties. Specifically, the regulations attempt to minimize impacts on adjacent private spaces by limiting decks over 1.2 m in height to a maximum size of 30 m2. The applicant proposes a deck being over 1.2 m in height with a size of 35 m2. Staff has reviewed the materials submitted in support of the application and notes that the proposed deck will replace an existing deck that met the zoning requirements. The new larger deck is designed to abut an existing sunroom with a small portion of the deck extending beyond the rear wall of the sunroom. Overall, the new deck will achieve a higher level of integration with the rear sunroom resulting in a more unified design at the rear of the house. The proposed deck will meet the required side and rear yard setback requirements and so impacts from the enlarged deck to adjacent properties will be minimal. Staff considers the 5 m2 (16%) increase in deck area to be minimal and reasonable to allow for a well integrated deck on this large type property. The intent of the zoning regulation will be met. 3) Desirability: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure? Yes The variance is considered desirable to allow for the construction of a rear deck associated with a single detached dwelling unit.

70 Page 43 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes The variance is considered minor with regards to overall impact to the site and surrounding area. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Not applicable Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposed variance in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and has no objection. Date: October 13, 2016 Prepared by: Charles Mulay MCIP RPP Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: September 21, 2016 Prepared By: A. Capone No objection to variance as proposed. Date: September 28, 2016 Prepared By: A. Capone Building 1) A Building Permit is required for all building construction; 2) Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Div. C., Section Qualifications of Designers and OBC Date: October 7, 2016 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou

71 Page 44 Transportation Planning The applicant is proposing to enlarge the existing deck on the west side of the property. The proposed deck extension is not anticipated to affect the existing driveway and garage. No objection to the variances required. Date: October 7, 2016 Prepared By: Linda Wu Finance Notice regarding Development Charges: The owner, its successors and assigns, are hereby notified that City Development Charges may be payable in accordance with the applicable By-law , as may be amended, upon issuance of a building permit, at the rate in effect on the date issued. For further information, the owner is advised to contact the City Building Department (905) Tax Pay all property taxes owing. The taxes owing includes any outstanding balances plus current year taxes that have been billed to the satisfaction of the Director of Finance. Local improvement must be commuted. Date: Sept 29, 2016 Prepared By: L. Bray Conservation Halton Re: Minor Variance Application File Number: A-117/ Bonfield Court, City of Burlington Aguinaga, Applicant Conservation Halton (CH) staff has reviewed the above-noted application as per our responsibilities under Ontario Regulation 162/06; the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (delegated responsibility for comments relating to provincial interests under Sections inclusive); the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, 1999) with Halton Region; and as a public body under the Planning Act. These responsibilities are not mutually exclusive. Comments that pertain to items contained in the MOU may also apply to areas regulated under Ontario Regulation 162/06. The following comments relate to the items marked as applicable for this specific application. Comments under Ontario Regulation 162/06 are clearly identified and are requirements. Other comments are advisory.

72 Page 45 Ontario Regulation 162/06 Lake Ontario/Burlington Bay/Hamilton Harbour Shoreline Hazards &/or allowances River and Stream Valley Hazards (flooding/erosion) &/or allowances Wetlands &/or Other Areas* Hazardous Lands (Unstable Soil/Unstable Bedrock) CH Permit Requirements One Window Delegated Authority under PPS Natural Hazards (Sections inclusive) CA/MOU Impacts on Lakes and Rivers Wildlife Habitat Endangered & Threatened Species Fish Habitat Stormwater Management (as per Schedule I) Sub-watershed Planning/Master Drainage Planning Other Comments (as a Public Body) Niagara Escarpment Plan Watershed Plan Greenbelt Plan Source Protection Plan Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Applicable Proposal To permit the construction of a square metre deck over 1.2 metres above grade. The following variances are required as indicated by Zoning: 1. To permit a 35 square metre deck instead of the maximum permitted 30 square metres for a proposed deck over 1.2 metres above grade. Staff have reviewed the following documents submitted with this application and can provide the following comments: Plan View, View from West Side from Street Level, View from North Side from Ground Level of Backyard drawings received by Conservation Halton September 29, 2016; and, Plan Showing Lot 3, Registered Plan 1518 received by Conservation Halton September 29, Recommendation Staff have no objection to the approval of the requested variance.

73 Page 46 Ontario Regulation 162/06 River and Stream Valley Hazards (flooding/erosion) &/or allowances The subject property abuts lands traversed by a tributary of Grindstone Creek and contains the flooding and erosion hazard associated with that watercourse. Specifically, the property is located within the valley associated with Grindstone Creek. Conservation Halton regulates a distance of 15 metres from the limit of the top of bank associated with the valley of Grindstone Creek. As such, the entire property is considered to be regulated by Conservation Halton, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 162/06. Proposed Development In advance of this Minor Variance Application, staff had been working with the applicant to ensure that the proposed development complies with the relevant policies pursuant to Ontario Regulation 162/06. As a result of those efforts, Conservation Halton previously issued a Permit #5371 [CH File A/16/B/61] for the proposed deck. Based on a review of the drawings submitted with this Minor Variance Application, it appears that the submitted drawings are identical to those which were submitted, and stamped approved in association with the aforementioned Permit. Staff therefore has no concerns with development from our regulatory perspective. One Window Delegated Authority under PPS As per Policy of Conservation Halton s Policies and Guidelines for the Administration of Ontario Regulation 162/06, staff work with the applicant and municipality to ensure no new development, be permitted within the flooding and erosion hazard limits, that would be contrary to the Provincial Policy Statement and/or Conservation Halton policies. Policy of the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 (PPS) states that, development shall generally be directed to areas outside of: b) hazardous lands adjacent to river, stream, and small inland lake systems which are impacted by flooding and/or erosion hazards. While specific comments relating to Natural Hazards can be found under the heading Ontario Regulation 162/06, staff are able to confirm that the proposed development meets both PPS and Conservation Halton Policies. Summary/Conclusion In advance of this Minor Variance Application, staff had been working with the applicant to ensure that the proposed development complied with the relevant policies pursuant to Ontario Regulation 162/06. As a result of those efforts, Conservation Halton previously issued a Permit #5371 [CH File A/16/B/61] for the proposed deck. The submitted drawings are identical to those which were submitted, and stamped approved in association with the aforementioned Permit. Staff therefore have no objection to the approval of this Minor Variance Application. As the subject property is regulated by Conservation Halton, future works may require additional site visits, technical information, and Permits from Conservation Halton. The applicant is encouraged to consult with staff prior to initiating any future development on

74 Page 47 site. Please note that Conservation Halton has not circulated these comments to the applicant and we trust that you will provide them as part of your report. We trust the above is of assistance. If you have any further questions, please contact the undersigned at extension Yours truly, Original Signed Cassandra Connolly Environmental Planning Analyst

75 (905) (905) FILE NO A-117/16 Committee of Adjustment October 21, 2016 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The owner of 2173 Bonfield Crt., Burlington has applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a Minor Variance to the requirements of Zoning By-law 2020, as amended (see attached key map). The applicant is proposing the construction of a rear deck. This proposal results in the following variance (for your assistance see the attached sketch): 1. To permit a 35 m2 deck instead of the maximum permitted 30 m2 for a proposed deck over 1.2 m above grade. You have received this notice as your property is within 60 metres of the property noted above. The Committee of Adjustment will meet on MONDAY NOVEMBER 7, 2016, at City Hall Room 247, 2nd Floor, to consider the above application under Section 45 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended. This application is scheduled to be heard at 6:30 P.M. You may attend the meeting and/or submit written comments ( or letter) to the Committee. If you are submitting comments in advance of the meeting please attempt to submit them by the Thursday Prior to the Hearing Date, so that they can be given to Committee Members in advance of the meeting. Please or your send letter to the undersigned. A copy of the Agenda, containing staff reports, can be obtained from the Committee of Adjustment, 2 nd Floor, City Hall, on or after Tuesday October 25, 2016, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect to this application, you must submit a written request to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant or another member of the public. Any submissions or for more information about this matter, contact Sean Kenney, Secretary Treasurer, Sean.Kenney@burlington.ca or visit the City of Burlington Planning Department, 426 Brant Street Burlington ON L7R 3Z6 The Applicant is advised it is mandatory that either the Applicant or an authorized Agent be present at the Hearing. Yours truly, Sean Kenney Sean Kenney Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Personal information including comments and public feedback, is collected under the legal authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter c. P.13, as amended, and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, which will be used to process the application and in the decision making process and becomes the property of the City of Burlington, and is considered to be a public record and will be disclosed to any individual (including being posted on the internet) upon request. Questions about this collection should be directed to the Secretary-Treasurer, Burlington Committee of Adjustment, Planning And Building Department, 426 Brant Street, P.O. Box 5013, Burlington, Ontario; L7R 3Z6 (905)

76 Key Map

77 Variance 1 *The drawings are provided for context only and full plans are available to view at the Planning Dept. as per the accompanying letter

78 City of Burlington 1 : 1, Meters Date Department Comments Friday, September 16, 2016 Planning - Committee of Adjustment 2173 Bonfield Crt The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

79 City of Burlington 1 : 1, Meters Date Department Comments Friday, September 16, 2016 Planning - Committee of Adjustment 2173 Bonfield Crt The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

80 Page 48 HEARING NO. 7-6:30 P.M. File A-118/16 PROPERTY: VARIANCES: 1027 Wanda Dr., PLAN 561 LOT 1 PT PCL A City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. 1. To permit a basement walkout to be located in the front yard whereas Zoning By-law 2020, Part 1, Section (iv) does not permit a basement walkout to be located in a front yard. 2. To permit a 10.4 m front yard setback for a basement walkout instead of the minimum required 11 m.

81 Page 49 STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land division applications on record for this property. Therre is one previous minor variance application on record for this property. File No.A013/2016 Approved To permit an east side yard setback of 1.5 m whereas Zoning By-law 2020, Part 2, Section 4.0, Table requires a minimum 4.3 m (10% x +/ m lot width) for a proposed addition on an existing detached dwelling. Date: September 16, 2016 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning The applicant is proposing the construction of a basement walkout in the front yard of a detached dwelling. Variances required: 1. To permit a basement walkout to be located in the front yard whereas Zoning Bylaw 2020, Part 1, Section (iv) does not permit a basement walkout to be located in a front yard. 2. To permit a 10.4 m front yard setback for a basement walkout instead of the minimum required 11 m. Notes: 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed basement walkout. 2. The variances identified are based on the plans provided. Any changes to the plans resulting in additional variances will be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain. Date: September 30, 2016 Prepared By: C. Lipnicky

82 Page 50 Site Planning 1) Official Plan Designation: Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? Yes The subject property is designated Residential Low Density within the City s Official Plan. This designation permits residential development up to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare. It also permits modifications and additions to existing single detached houses. The applicant s proposal to construct a basement walkout meets the intent of the Official Plan 2) Zoning By-law Designation: Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Yes By-law 2020 limits the location of a basement walkout to a side or rear yards only, not allowing it in a front yard. The intent of the regulation is to protect the integrity of the streetscape by avoiding the inclusion of features that do not contribute to the typical front face of a home. A basement walkout is a service type entrance that does not easily relate to a residential streetscape. In this case, the applicant considered the side and rear yards as potential locations for the proposed basement walkout. However, due to the internal layout of the house, the location of the garage and the narrow side yard setback, it was concluded that the front yard location was most appropriate. Staff s preference is that the basement walk-out would comply with existing zoning regulations, especially with regards to location. This would ensure the maintenance of an aesthetically pleasing front building façade. The applicant is aware of the expectations under zoning and has ensured that the walk-out affects only a small portion of the front house façade and that the stairway rail maintains the appearance of a rail that would typically be found along a front porch. In this regard, the portion of the walk-out visible from the street will not negatively impact the appearance of the house. Staff also notes that the walk-out is located on a portion of the front façade that is recessed from the front wall of the garage portion of the house. Although the walkout is proposed to be located in the front yard, staff is satisfied that its visual impact on

83 Page 51 Wanda Drive will be minimal due to the design of the walkout and the articulated design of the existing front façade. Staff considers the variances needed to allow the walkout to be located in a front yard and 10.4 m from the front lot line instead of 11 m, to meet the intent of the Zoning Bylaw. 3) Desirability: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure? Yes The variances are considered desirable to allow for increased utility of the existing home by adding a basement walkout that is considered compatible with the existing house and surrounding development. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes The variances are considered minor with regards to overall impact to the site or surrounding development. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Individually or together, the variances are considered acceptable to allow for this minor development at an existing house Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposed variance in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and has no objection. Date: October 19, 2016 Prepared By: Charles Mulay MCIP RPP Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: September 21, 2016 Prepared By: A. Capone

84 Page 52 Site engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objections. Date: October Prepared By: A. Scott Building 1) A Building Permit is required for all building construction; 2) Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Div. C., Section Qualifications of Designers and OBC Date: October 14, 2016 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning The applicant is proposing to construct a basement walkout in the front yard. The proposed construction is not anticipated to affect the existing driveway and garage. No objection to the variances required. Date: October 7, 2016 Prepared By: Linda Wu Finance Notice regarding Development Charges: The owner, its successors and assigns, are hereby notified that City Development Charges may be payable in accordance with the applicable By-law , as may be amended, upon issuance of a building permit, at the rate in effect on the date issued. For further information, the owner is advised to contact the City Building Department (905) Tax Pay all property taxes owing. The taxes owing includes any outstanding balances plus current year taxes that have been billed to the satisfaction of the Director of Finance. Local improvement must be commuted. Date: Sept 30, 2016 Prepared By: L. Bray

85 (905) (905) FILE NO A-118/16 Committee of Adjustment October 21, 2016 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The owners of 1027 Wanda Dr., Burlington have applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a Minor Variance to the requirements of Zoning By-law 2020, as amended (see attached key map). The applicant is proposing the construction of a basement walkout in the front yard of a detached dwelling. This proposal results in the following variances (for your assistance see the attached sketch): 1. To permit a basement walkout to be located in the front yard whereas Zoning By-law 2020, Part 1, Section (iv) does not permit a basement walkout to be located in a front yard. 2. To permit a 10.4 m front yard setback for a basement walkout instead of the minimum required 11 m. You have received this notice as your property is within 60 metres of the property noted above. The Committee of Adjustment will meet on MONDAY NOVEMBER 7, 2016, at City Hall Room 247, 2nd Floor, to consider the above application under Section 45 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended. This application is scheduled to be heard at 6:30 P.M. You may attend the meeting and/or submit written comments ( or letter) to the Committee. If you are submitting comments in advance of the meeting please attempt to submit them by the Thursday Prior to the Hearing Date, so that they can be given to Committee Members in advance of the meeting. Please or your send letter to the undersigned. A copy of the Agenda, containing staff reports, can be obtained from the Committee of Adjustment, 2 nd Floor, City Hall, on or after Tuesday October 25, 2016, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect to this application, you must submit a written request to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant or another member of the public. Any submissions or for more information about this matter, contact Sean Kenney, Secretary Treasurer, Sean.Kenney@burlington.ca or visit the City of Burlington Planning Department, 426 Brant Street Burlington ON L7R 3Z6 The Applicant is advised it is mandatory that either the Applicant or an authorized Agent be present at the Hearing. Yours truly, Sean Kenney Sean Kenney Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Personal information including comments and public feedback, is collected under the legal authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter c. P.13, as amended, and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, which will be used to process the application and in the decision making process and becomes the property of the City of Burlington, and is considered to be a public record and will be disclosed to any individual (including being posted on the internet) upon request. Questions about this collection should be directed to the Secretary-Treasurer, Burlington Committee of Adjustment, Planning And Building Department, 426 Brant Street, P.O. Box 5013, Burlington, Ontario; L7R 3Z6 (905)

86 Key Map

87 Variance 2 Variance 1 *The drawings are provided for context only and full plans are available to view at the Planning Dept. as per the accompanying letter

88 City of Burlington 1 : 1, Meters Date Department Comments Friday, September 16, 2016 Planning - Committee of Adjustment 1027 Wanda Drive The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

89 City of Burlington 1 : 1, Meters Date Department Comments Friday, September 16, 2016 Planning - Committee of Adjustment 1027 Wanda Drive The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

90 Page 53 HEARING NO. 8-6:30 P.M. File A-121/16 PROPERTY: VARIANCE: 1071 Forestvale Dr., PLAN M536 LOT 77 PT BLK 124 RP 20R13390 PART 1 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. 1. To permit a deck residential with a maximum size of 47 m2, whereas Zoning By-law 2020 only permits 30 m2 maximum.

91 Page 54 Staff Reports PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land division or minor variance applications on record for this property. Date: September 19, 2016 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning The applicant is proposing a new deck at the rear of the house that is 47 m2. A minor variance is required to permit the increased deck area. Variance Required 1. To permit a deck residential with a maximum size of 47 m2, whereas Zoning By-law 2020 only permits 30 m2 maximum. Condition: A Zoning Clearance Certificate is required. Date: September 30, 2016 Author: G. Jin Site Planning The subject property is located on the south side of Forestvale Drive, in the Tyandaga Planning Community. The property currently contains a 1-storey single-detached dwelling. The applicant has requested relief from the maximum deck area requirement of Zoning By-law 2020, as amended (the By-law ), in order to facilitate the construction of a new deck on the subject property. 1) Official Plan Designation: Residential Low Density Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? Yes

92 Page 55 The subject property is designated Residential Low Density on Schedule B (Comprehensive Land Use Plan Urban Planning Area) of the City s Official Plan. This designation permits single-detached and semi-detached dwelling forms to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare. Staff is satisfied that the proposed development is in keeping with the policies of this designation as there are no proposed changes to the existing building form or density. In this regard, staff is of the opinion that the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the City s Official Plan. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: Low Density Residential (R2.2) Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned Detached Residential (R2.2) on Map No. 11 W under the By-law. The current zoning permits one detached dwelling and accessory uses, buildings, and structures thereto. Yes The applicant requests approval of a variance to permit a deck area of 47 m 2 instead of the maximum permitted 30 m 2 for decks over 1.2m high. The requested variance will facilitate the replacement and enlargement of an attached deck on the subject property. The intent of the deck regulations is to support the orderly development of accessory structures in a residential setting by ensuring that new decks and patios are appropriately sized and maintain sufficient setbacks. These requirements mitigate any concerns respecting privacy and compatibility between adjacent properties. Moreover, the By-law sets out that the higher a proposed deck is, the greater the required setbacks are from the property lines. Staff note that the proposed deck will comply with the required setbacks. Also, because the property slopes from front to back such that the main floor of the proposed dwelling is located slightly higher above grade at the rear. Thus, the proposed deck will be higher than 1.2m and subject to the more restrictive performance standards. Moreover, the subject property abuts an open space (creek) block at the rear. In light of the above, staff is of the opinion that the requested relief is a minor deviation from the zoning requirement and is not anticipated to negatively impact compatibility with adjacent properties. Accordingly, the variance meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. 3) Desirability: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?

93 Page 56 Yes The requested variance is considered desirable as relief in this case will allow the property owners to improve their backyard amenity space in a compatible manner. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes It is staff s opinion that no adverse impacts will be created on the adjacent properties as a result of the requested variance. For these reasons, the variance can be considered minor. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Not applicable. Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposed variance in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and has no objection. Date: October 21, 2016 Prepared By: Todd Evershed, MCIP, RPP Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: September 21, 2016 Prepared By: A. Capone No objection to variance as proposed. Date: October 5, 2016 Prepared By: A. Capone Building 1) A Building Permit is required for all building construction; 2) Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Div. C., Section Qualifications of Designers and OBC Date: October 17, 2016 Prepared by: Kathy Pavlou

94 Page 57 Transportation Planning Transportation has reviewed the Minor Variance Application and has no concerns. Date: October 18, 2016 Prepared By: John Zaloznik Finance Notice regarding Development Charges: The owner, its successors and assigns, are hereby notified that City Development Charges may be payable in accordance with the applicable By-law , as may be amended, upon issuance of a building permit, at the rate in effect on the date issued. For further information, the owner is advised to contact the City Building Department (905) Tax Pay all property taxes owing. The taxes owing includes any outstanding balances plus current year taxes that have been billed to the satisfaction of the Director of Finance. Local improvement must be commuted. Date: Oct 3, 2016 Prepared By: L. Bray Conservation Halton Re: Minor Variance Application File Number: A-121/ Forestvale Drive, City of Burlington Cevdet and Belbez, Applicants Conservation Halton (CH) staff has reviewed the above-noted application as per our responsibilities under Ontario Regulation 162/06; the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (delegated responsibility for comments relating to provincial interests under Sections inclusive); the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, 1999) with Halton Region; and as a public body under the Planning Act. These responsibilities are not mutually exclusive. Comments that pertain to items contained in the MOU may also apply to areas regulated under Ontario Regulation 162/06. The following comments relate to the items marked as applicable for this specific application. Comments under Ontario Regulation 162/06 are clearly identified and are requirements. Other comments are advisory. Ontario Regulation 162/06 Lake Ontario/Burlington Bay/Hamilton Harbour Shoreline Hazards &/or allowances Applicab le

95 Page 58 River and Stream Valley Hazards (flooding/erosion) &/or allowances Wetlands &/or Other Areas* Hazardous Lands (Unstable Soil/Unstable Bedrock) CH Permit Requirements One Window Delegated Authority under PPS Natural Hazards (Sections inclusive) CA/MOU Impacts on Lakes and Rivers Wildlife Habitat Endangered & Threatened Species Fish Habitat Stormwater Management (as per Schedule I) Sub-watershed Planning/Master Drainage Planning Other Comments (as a Public Body) Niagara Escarpment Plan Watershed Plan Greenbelt Plan Source Protection Plan Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Proposal To permit the construction of a new 47 square metre deck at the rear of the house. The following variances are required as indicated by Zoning: 1. To permit a deck residential with a maximum size of 47m 2, whereas Zoning By-law 2020 only permits 30 m 2 maximum. Through the review of the associated Conservation Halton Permit Application (Permit No. 5379, File A/16/B/56), staff have reviewed the following documents submitted with this Minor Variance Application received October 4, 2016, and can provide the following comments: Site Plan Belbez Residence, prepared by Jason De Brum, dated August 9, 2016 Deck Layout Belbez Residence, prepared by Jason De Brum, dated August 9, 2016 Rear Elevation Belbez Residence, prepared by Jason De Brum, dated August 10, 2016 Side Elevation Belbez Residence, prepared by Jason De Brum, dated August 10, 2016 Staff understand that the drawings included within the Minor Variance Application are identical to those approved through Conservation Halton s permitting process.

96 Page 59 Recommendation Staff have no objection to the approval of the requested variance. Ontario Regulation 162/06 River and Stream Valley Hazards (flooding/erosion) &/or allowances The subject property abuts lands traversed by a tributary of Upper Hager Creek and contains a portion of the flooding and erosion hazards associated with that watercourse. Conservation Halton regulates a distance of 7.5 metres from the limit of the greatest hazard associated with Upper Hager Creek. As such, a portion of the property is considered to be regulated by Conservation Halton, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 162/06. Development within the regulated area may be restricted or not permitted, and requires permission from Conservation Halton. Proposed Development In advance of this Minor Variance Application, staff issued Permit No (File A/16/B/56) for the proposed deck, as the development complies with Conservation Halton Policy It appears that the drawings submitted with this Minor Variance Application are the same as those stamped approved in association with the aforementioned Permit. As such, staff have no concerns with the development from a regulatory perspective. One Window Delegated Authority under PPS As per Policy of Conservation Halton s Policies and Guidelines for the Administration of Ontario Regulation 162/06, staff work with the applicant and municipality to ensure no new development, be permitted within the flooding and erosion hazard limits, that would be contrary to the Provincial Policy Statement and/or Conservation Halton policies. Policy of the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 (PPS) states that, development shall generally be directed to areas outside of: b) hazardous lands adjacent to river, stream, and small inland lake systems which are impacted by flooding and/or erosion hazards. While specific comments relating to Natural Hazards can be found under the heading Ontario Regulation 162/06, staff confirm that the proposed deck development adheres to applicable hazard setbacks in accordance with PPS and Conservation Halton Policies. Summary/Conclusion As per the above, the proposed deck adheres to applicable Conservation Halton Policy and a Conservation Halton Permit No (File A/16/B/56) has been issued for the associated development. Staff understand that the drawings submitted with this Minor Variance Application are the same as those stamped approved in association with the aforementioned Permit. As such, staff have no objection to the approval of this Minor Variance Application. Please note that a new permit from Conservation Halton may be required should plans be modified.

97 Page 60 As the subject property is regulated by Conservation Halton, future works may require additional site visits, technical information, and Permits from Conservation Halton. The applicant is encouraged to consult with staff prior to initiating any future development on site. Should plans associated with this Minor Variance Application be revised, please circulate Conservation Halton staff for further comment. Please note that Conservation Halton has not circulated these comments to the applicant and we trust that you will provide them as part of your report. We trust the above is of assistance. If you have any further questions, please contact the undersigned at extension Yours truly, Original Signed Cassandra Connolly Environmental Planning Analyst

98 (905) (905) FILE NO A-121/16 Committee of Adjustment October 21, 2016 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The owners of 1071 Forestvale Dr., Burlington have applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a Minor Variance to the requirements of Zoning By-law 2020, as amended (see attached key map). The applicant is proposing a new deck at the rear of the house. This proposal results in the following variance (for your assistance see the attached sketch): 1. To permit a deck residential with a maximum size of 47 m2, whereas Zoning By-law 2020 only permits 30 m2 maximum. You have received this notice as your property is within 60 metres of the property noted above. The Committee of Adjustment will meet on MONDAY NOVEMBER 7, 2016, at City Hall Room 247, 2nd Floor, to consider the above application under Section 45 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended. This application is scheduled to be heard at 6:30 P.M. You may attend the meeting and/or submit written comments ( or letter) to the Committee. If you are submitting comments in advance of the meeting please attempt to submit them by the Thursday Prior to the Hearing Date, so that they can be given to Committee Members in advance of the meeting. Please or your send letter to the undersigned. A copy of the Agenda, containing staff reports, can be obtained from the Committee of Adjustment, 2 nd Floor, City Hall, on or after Tuesday October 25, 2016, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect to this application, you must submit a written request to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant or another member of the public. Any submissions or for more information about this matter, contact Sean Kenney, Secretary Treasurer, Sean.Kenney@burlington.ca or visit the City of Burlington Planning Department, 426 Brant Street Burlington ON L7R 3Z6 The Applicant is advised it is mandatory that either the Applicant or an authorized Agent be present at the Hearing. Yours truly, Sean Kenney Sean Kenney Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Personal information including comments and public feedback, is collected under the legal authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter c. P.13, as amended, and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, which will be used to process the application and in the decision making process and becomes the property of the City of Burlington, and is considered to be a public record and will be disclosed to any individual (including being posted on the internet) upon request. Questions about this collection should be directed to the Secretary-Treasurer, Burlington Committee of Adjustment, Planning And Building Department, 426 Brant Street, P.O. Box 5013, Burlington, Ontario; L7R 3Z6 (905)

99 Key Map

100 Variance 1 *The drawings are provided for context only and full plans are available to view at the Planning Dept. as per the accompanying letter

101 City of Burlington 1 : Meters Date Department Comments Monday, September 19, 2016 Planning - Committee of Adjustment 1071 Forestvale Drive The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.

102 City of Burlington 1 : Meters Date Department Comments Monday, September 19, 2016 Planning - Committee of Adjustment 1071 Forestvale Drive The information contained herein is compiled from other documentation and may contain errors, omission or inaccuracies. The City of Burlington, its officers, employees and agents are not responsible for, and the users by accepting this document hereby waive as against the said City, its officers, employees, agents, any claim for damages arising from or in any way related to any errors, omissions, misrepresentation or inaccuracies contained in this document whether due to negligence or otherwise. Any user is advised to verify all information and assume all risk in relying on the information contained hereon.