COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT June 18, 2018

Transcription

1 June 18, 2018 Please ensure that cell phones and personal digital assistants (PDAs) are set to an inaudible function during Committee Meetings

2 Meeting #11 Meeting Date: June 18, 2018 TIME OF MEETING: 6:30 P.M. PLACE OF MEETING: Room nd Floor City Hall DECLARATION OF INTEREST: AGENDA HEARING NO. TIME FILE NO APPLICATION ADDRESS 1) 6:30 P.M. A-011/18 Re: 4271 Couples Cres., Burlington Ward 6 Pages 2) 6:30 P.M. A-022/18 Re: 120 Crestwood Crt., Burlington Ward 4 Pages 3) 6:30 P.M. A-028/18 Re: 530 Emerald St., Burlington Ward 2 Pages 4) 6:30 P.M. A-036/18 Re: 5211 Spruce Ave., Burlington Ward 5 Pages 5) 6:30 P.M. A-044/18 Re: 627 Wilene Dr., Burlington Ward 4 Pages

3 6) 6:30 P.M. A-051/18 Re: 419 Pine Cove Rd., Burlington Ward 4 Pages 7) 6:30 P.M. A-058/18 Re: 433 Rossmore Blvd., Burlington Ward 4 Pages 8) 6:30 P.M. A-060/18 Re: 1981 Fieldgate Dr., Burlington Ward 1 Pages

4 Page 1 File A-011/18 HEARING NO. 1-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Catherine Lynn Grenier, 4271 Couples Cres., Burlington ON L7M 4Z Couples Cres., PLAN M868 LOT 88 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1. To permit the width of a front loading attached garage to be 9.3 m (61.7%) instead of the maximum permitted 7.5 m (50%) of the width of its building elevation. 2. To permit an attached garage with a garage door facing the street to project beyond the front wall on the first storey of the dwelling. 3. To permit a 12.2 m total hard surface width instead of the maximum permitted 7.5 m for combined driveway and walkway widths for a proposed driveway expansion.

5 Page 2 STAFF REPORTS: Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land division or minor variance applications on record for this property. Date: January 26, 2018 Prepared By: Robyn Stebner Zoning The subject property is zoned R2.3, low density residential and is not located in a designated lot coverage, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The R2.3 zone requires, among other things, the following: Table Zone Lot Width Lot Area Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Street Side Yard R2 ZONES R m 680 m m 9 m (c) (b) 4.5 m (b) With attached garage or carport: (i) one ore one and a half storey side: 1.2 m (ii) Two or more storey side: 1.8 m 4.8 GARAGES Every part of a required yard shall be unobstructed with respect to the following encroachments: (a) The width of a front loading attached garage shall not exceed 50% of the width of its building elevation. (b) An attached garage with a garage door facing the street is not permitted to project beyond the front wall on the first storey of a dwelling 2.24 DRIVEWAY WIDTHS AND LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE AREA 1) Unless otherwise specified in this by-law, the following combined maximum width of all hard surfaces (driveways plus walkways) and landscaped open space area requirements shall apply for detached, semi-detached, duplex, triplex, fourplex, common element townhouse, common element back-to-back townhouse, and street townhouse dwellings:

6 Page 3 (d) For front or street side lot lines equal to or greater than 12 m and less than 18 m in width: i. The combined maximum width of all hard surfaces is 7.5 m. ii. The remaining lot area between a street line and a building elevation facing a street shall be landscaped open space area. The applicant is proposing the construction of a single car attached garage in addition to an existing two car attached garage. Variances required: 1. To permit the width of a front loading attached garage to be 9.3 m (61.7%) instead of the maximum permitted 7.5 m (50%) of the width of its building elevation. 2. To permit an attached garage with a garage door facing the street to project beyond the front wall on the first storey of the dwelling. 3. To permit a 12.2 m total hard surface width instead of the maximum permitted 7.5 m for combined driveway and walkway widths for a proposed driveway expansion. 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: February 16, 2018 Prepared By: Tina Vassalli 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 ground-oriented forms of housing to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare. The proposed development would comply in this regard. The Official Plan also requires new development to be compatible with the surrounding area. Part II, Section 6.5 a) of the Official Plan states that The density, form, bulk, height, setbacks, spacing and materials of development are to be compatible with its surrounding area.

7 Page 4 The size and form of a house are influenced by zoning regulations including those related to garage and driveway design. By including specific regulations related to form and design, new development more closely integrates with surrounding development. This promotes compatible infill development within established neighbourhoods, by encouraging regard for the surrounding development pattern. The applicant proposes an expansion of an existing two car garage to include a third car bay. Subject to design considerations as contained in zoning, a three car garage is considered to be a residential type feature that does not alter the status of the house as a single detached residential dwelling. The intent of the Official Plan will be met. 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 applicant proposes the construction of a garage expansion, to include a third car bay. Three variances are required to facilitate this expansion. Staff will assess each variance individually: Variance #1 Garage Width By-law 2020 limits the width of a front loading garage to 50% of a building s front elevation. The intent is to avoid situations whereby garages dominate the front façade of a house and move the livable portion of the house and main entrance to the rear as a subordinate feature along the streetscape. In this case, the garage expansion is proposed as a third bay addition, to be recessed and set back from the front of the existing two car garage and located along the side of the existing building. Although the expansion increases the garage s portion of the front building façade to 61.7%, the expansion is set back so as to minimize visual impact to the street. In fact, due to the configuration of Couples Crescent at this location (a bend in the street) and the slightly irregular shape of the subject lot, the garage expansion occurs in a spacious area between two houses which minimizes impact to the overall streetscape. Staff notes that the adjoining neighbour to the west has a similar garage expansion which has been designed in a similar manner, but constructed prior to the zoning regulations limiting width of garages coming into effect. Given these somewhat unique set of circumstances, the proposed garage expansion is regarded as compatible and consistent with the surrounding area.

8 Page 5 Variance #2 Garage Projection The existing house currently includes a two car garage that protrudes substantially from the front wall of the house, having been constructed prior to the applicable zoning regulation coming into effect. Although the third car bay addition is set back from the front wall of the existing garage, it is still slightly forward (protruding) from the front wall of the existing house. The impact of this garage protrusion to the house is minimal especially given the location of the garage addition on the opposite side of the existing protruding garage. The variation in garage setback, between the existing double garage and the garage addition, minimizes the impact of this variance on the building s front facade. Variance #3 Driveway Hard Surface In conjunction with the limitation on garage width relative to the width of a detached house, the By-law also limits the width of hard surface (driveway and walkway) on a lot to ensure the retention of a naturalized area in the front yard. The By-law limits hard surface to a width of 7.5 m which normally captures a double wide driveway and walkway. In this case, the driveway is proposed to be widened to 9.5 m from approximately 6 m that is existing. A 2.9 m wide walkway leading to the front door is added to the hard surface width measurement. The Zoning Examiner calculates the exact total width of hard surface to be 12.2 m. Staff notes that the driveway expansion is tied directly to the addition of a third garage bay. There are no changes proposed to the existing sodded front yard space. The expansion of hard surface towards the side lot line has been reviewed by the City s Engineering staff who had originally raised a concern regarding impacts to an existing drainage swale, the loss of impervious surface and a concern regarding the proximity of the proposed driveway to a driveway on an adjacent lot. The applicant has responded to these engineering concerns with revised plans and driveway design. The engineering concerns have now been satisfactorily addressed 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 the expansion of an existing garage in a manner that is similar to the development on the adjacent lot.

9 Page 6 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 impact to adjacent properties and to the streetscape. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Individually or together, these variance allow for an acceptable development plan 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: May 24, 2018 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: February 1, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone Further to my original comments (below), the applicant has provided a revised drawing addressing previous issues. As such, provided Variance 3 is ammended to reflect the applicant s sketch, Site engineering has no objection provided the applicant obtains a Grading and Drainage Clearance Exemption prior to building permit. Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and cannot comment at this time until a grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review. The proposed additional garage together with the proposed increased driveway area pose issues with the deletion of the side yard swale (drainage), loss of grassed boulevard area and overall increase in impervious area coverage. Additionally, with the extension of the new driveway to the curb-line, there may also be an issue with driveway separation with the adjoining property. A grading and drainage plan addressing these issues will allow for a proper review. Date:February 28, 2018, Revised March 22, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone

10 Page 7 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: March 1, 2018 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning No transportation concerns with this minor variance application. Date: March 1/2018 Prepared By: Dan Ozimkovic 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: Feb 26/18 Prepared By: L. Bray

11

12 Page 8 File A-022/18 HEARING NO. 2-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Peter Botting, 120 Crestwood Crt., Burlington ON L7L 2V8 120 Crestwood Crt., PLAN 1247 LOT 7 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1. To permit a 4.5 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 9 m for a proposed sunroom addition on an existing detached dwelling. 2. To permit a 2.8 m east side yard setback instead of the minimum required 6.5 m (7.11 m -.65 m encroachment) for a proposed front porch on an existing detached dwelling. 3. To permit a 0.7 m east side yard eave or gutter encroachment from the wall of the dwelling instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m for renovations and additions to an existing detached dwelling. 4. To permit a balcony to be located above the first storey in the side yard whereas Zoning By-law 2020 does not permit balconies in the side yard to be located above the first floor.

13 Page 9 STAFF REPORTS: Committee of Adjustment There is one (1) previous minor variance application on record for this property. File No. A229/1989 Approved West side yard setback to facilitate an addition Date: February 27, 2018 Prepared By: Robyn Stebner Zoning The subject property is zoned R1.2, low density residential and is in the designated area for lot coverage, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The R1.2 zone requires, among other things, the following: 4.1 LOT WIDTH, AREA, YARDS Table Zone Lot Width Lot Area Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Street Side Yard R1 ZONES R m 925 m 2 9 m 9 m (c) (a)(d) 9 m Footnotes to Table (a) With attached garage or carport: 10% of actual lot width Without attached garage or carport: 10% of actual lot width, 3 m minimum on one side Lot Line, Rear The lot line or point of intersection of the side lot lines farthest from and opposite the front lot line ENCROACHMENT INTO YARDS Every part of a required yard shall be unobstructed with respect to the following encroachments: (a) The following obstructions may project 50 cm maximum into a side yard and 1 m maximum into any other yard from the wall of the building: chimney pilaster belt course eave or gutter overhang sill lintel cornice ornamental projection

14 Page 10 (d) The following obstructions may project 65 cm maximum into a required yard: A roofed-over or screened but otherwise unenclosed 1-storey porch A terrace or unroofed porch A carport 2.3 PATIOS, DECKS, BALCONIES, AND PORCHES RESIDENTIAL Balconies are permitted in all zones, provided: Accessory to dwelling unit Must meet principal building setback with encroachment allowance permitted in Part 1, Section 2.13 (c) a) Balconies located above the first storey in the side and rear yard of detached dwellings are not permitted. The applicant is proposing the construction of a new front porch, new roof and a rear yard addition with a second floor balcony. Variances required: Notes: 1. To permit a 4.5 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 9 m for a proposed sunroom addition on an existing detached dwelling. 2. To permit a 2.8 m east side yard setback instead of the minimum required 6.5 m (7.11 m -.65 m encroachment) for a proposed front porch on an existing detached dwelling. 3. To permit a 0.7 m east side yard eave or gutter encroachment from the wall of the dwelling instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m for renovations and additions to an existing detached dwelling. 4. To permit a balcony to be located above the first storey in the side yard whereas Zoning By-law 2020 does not permit balconies in the side yard to be located above the first floor. 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed additions. 2. Conservation Halton approval is required. 3. 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: April 18, 2018 Prepared By: C. Lipnicky

15 Page 11 Site Planning The subject property is located on the west side of the Crestwood Court cul-de-sac and abuts Lake Ontario to the south. A two-storey detached dwelling is currently located on the property. The proposed development includes the construction of a new front porch, new dwelling roof, and a rear yard addition with a second-storey balcony above. The following variances are required to facilitate the proposed development: 1. To permit a 4.5 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 9 m for a proposed sunroom addition on an existing detached dwelling. 2. To permit a 2.8 m east side yard setback instead of the minimum required 6.5 m (7.11 m m encroachment) for a proposed front porch on an existing detached dwelling. 3. To permit a 0.7 m east side yard eave or gutter encroachment from the wall of the dwelling instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m for renovations and additions to an existing detached dwelling. 4. To permit a balcony to be located above the first storey in the side yard whereas Zoning By-law 2020 does not permit balconies in the side yard to be located above the first floor. 1) Official Plan Designation: Residential Low Density Do the proposed minor variances 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 ground-oriented residential development to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare. The proposed development would have no bearing on the existing use and density of the property. The Official Plan aims to achieve general compatibility between existing established development and new development in residential communities. More specifically, Part II, Subsection 6.5 a) directs new residential development to be compatible with its surroundings in terms of density, form, bulk, height, setbacks, spacing, and materials. Variances 1-3 would allow for minor aesthetic and functional exterior additions to an existing dwelling. Staff is of the opinion that none of these variances would detract from the established compatibility of the existing dwelling with the surrounding neighbourhood. Staff is also of the opinion variance 4 would not preclude compatibility with the surrounding area. The proposed second-storey balcony is limited in size and its location would present no significant privacy impacts to adjacent properties.

16 Page 12 Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the proposed variances would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: R1.2 Do the proposed minor variances from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Yes The applicant requires variances to facilitate setback deficiencies for a reconstructed sunroom and reconstructed porch roof, as well as a new roof overhang encroachment. The Zoning By-law regulates dwelling setbacks and limits the degree to which specific building elements can encroach into required yards with the intent of maintaining compatible and consistent separation between residential built form within the neighbourhood context. Setback and encroachment regulations also ensure that sufficient access is maintained around the perimeter of dwellings. Staff notes that the configuration of the roadway and the subject property warrants the unique application of certain zoning regulations. Variance 1 Rear yard setback With respect to variance 1, staff notes that the functional west side yard of the property is technically classified as the rear yard, while the functional rear yard of the property, which abuts the lake, is considered to be the south side yard. The existing sunroom at the south end of the dwelling, which would be reconstructed as part of the proposal, consequently requires a variance to address a deficient rear yard setback of 4.5 m instead of the minimum required 9 m. Staff notes that there would be no additional floor area added to the existing sunroom and there would be negligible changes to its massing. Because the reconstructed sunroom would utilize the existing foundations, it would remain in essentially the same location and would maintain the current setback from the west property line. In staff s opinion, the continuation of the current setback would suffice to maintain appropriate separation and access. Variance 2 East side yard setback (porch) As mentioned previously, the configuration of the subject property and adjacent roadway is atypical. Because the front lot line conforms to the curve of the cul-de-sac, the width of the lot is measured by a line 9.1 m back from and parallel to the chord of the front lot line. The Zoning By-law defines the chord of a front lot line as a straight line joining the two points where the side lot lines intersect the front lot line. The resulting technical lot width of the subject property is unusually large at m. The abnormal lot width of the property pertains to variance 2 because in the R1.2 zone, side yard setback requirements are associated with the width of individual properties. Lot width-based setback requirements are intended to assist in preserving character

17 Page 13 within established neighbourhoods exhibiting a variety of lot sizes. In this case, the setback requirement for each side yard equates to 10 % of the width of the subject lot (71.01 m). Front porches are permitted to encroach 0.65 m into any required yard. Encroachment allowances are limited in side yards to ensure that amenity areas are adequately separated from adjacent properties and that they do not undermine the intent of principal building setbacks. Because the existing front porch roof already encroaches into the east side yard of the property, a variance is necessary to recognize essentially the same setback for the reconstructed porch. The porch would encroach to a setback of 2.8 m from the east lot line instead of the minimum required 6.5 m (7.11 m minus a 0.65 m encroachment allowance). Staff views the proposed porch reconstruction as a continuation of an existing condition and acknowledges that the minimum setback required for the porch is onerous due to the technical lot width of property. The existing porch structure and amenity area are appropriately sited and staff is of the opinion that the reconstructed porch would maintain compatible separation with the property to the east. Variance 3 - East side yard overhang encroachment The applicant proposes to remove and replace the roof of the existing dwelling. On the east side of the roof, a proposed overhang would extend 0.7 m from the east dwelling wall, instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m. The intent of the Zoning By-law as it relates to roof overhang encroachments is to ensure that these elements remain within a reasonable distance of principal dwelling walls to facilitate consistency in built form and to ensure that adequate separation is achieved between overhangs and neighbouring structures. Limiting overhang elements also improves access for various maintenance activities. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed overhang would maintain appropriate separation from the property and dwelling to the east, and would pose no impact on access in the east side yard of the property. Furthermore, staff feels that the additional encroachment being requested would have little to no visual impact on the established streetscape. Variance 4 Second-storey balcony A fourth variance is required to permit a second-storey balcony above the reconstructed sunroom at the southwest corner of the dwelling. The Zoning By-law prohibits secondstorey balconies in side and rear yards of detached dwellings in order to prevent issues of privacy and overlook between adjacent properties. This recent prohibition was deemed necessary because these structures have the potential to create significant privacy issues in many of the City s low density residential neighbourhoods. When an application to allow a second-storey balcony is submitted, despite the new regulation, staff has the opportunity to evaluate the proposed balcony in the context of the

18 Page 14 individual property in question. Based on the materials submitted to staff and a site visit to the subject property, several factors suggest that the balcony would pose a negligible privacy impact to adjacent properties. Because the subject property abuts Lake Ontario to the south, staff has focused its review on the proposed balcony s potential impacts on the adjacent properties to the east and west. In regards to the adjacent property to the east (114 Crestwood Court), staff notes that the south dwelling wall is slightly staggered to the south of that of the subject dwelling. Both properties support a similar amount of open amenity space abutting the lake. Upon visiting the subject site, staff observed a significant drop in grade across the subject property that presently allows some overlook from grade to the adjacent rear amenity area. Staff notes that overlook is more probable along the lakeshore due to a variety of natural and constructed conditions, which create disparities in topography. Because the proposed balcony would be located near the west lot line of the subject property, the bulk of the adjacent rear amenity area to the east would be afforded separation in excess of 25 m. Furthermore, the balcony would be accessible only from the master bedroom, and at just over 16 m 2 in area, staff anticipates the nature of its use to be limited. Based on the location of the proposed balcony, its limited size, and the existing topographical conditions, staff is of the opinion that privacy impacts on the property to the east would not be significantly increased by the proposed balcony. The adjacent property to the west (118 Birett Drive) is significantly larger than the subject property. The dwelling on this property is staggered with the subject dwelling and sited further north, creating an interface between the west side of the subject dwelling and the adjacent south amenity area. The south wall of the subject dwelling is aligned roughly with the south edge of a swimming pool area in the adjacent rear yard and the proposed balcony would extend slightly further to the south of this area. During a site visit to the subject property, staff observed several large coniferous trees located on the neighbouring property that appeared to provide significant screening for the pool area and other formal amenity spaces located closer to the adjacent dwelling. The existing vegetative screening combined with the location of the proposed balcony would limit overlook to the south lawn area and a vegetated slope to the lake. Staff notes that the proposed balcony would be located at a setback of 4.57 m from the shared east property line, and further separation is afforded to the adjacent rear lawn area by a vegetated area along the east property line. In consideration of the limited capacity of the proposed balcony discussed earlier in this report, combined with the other factors mentioned above, staff is of the opinion that the proposed second storey balcony would not pose undue privacy impacts on the adjacent property to the west. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the requested variances would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. 3) Desirability: Are the proposed minor variances from the Zoning By-law desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?

19 Page 15 Variances 1-3 would permit cosmetic upgrades to an existing dwelling. Maintaining existing dwellings assists in upholding character and established relationships between built form and space in stable neighbourhoods. Variance 4 would allow for a modest amenity area to be established, which would increase owner s enjoyment of the subject property in a manner that acceptably respects the privacy of adjacent landowners. For the above reasons, staff considers the proposed variances to be desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property. 4) Minor in Nature: Are the proposed minor variances from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? The requested variances allow for the continuation of established built form (variances 1 and 2), a slight deviation from the Zoning By-law (variance 3), and a small outdoor amenity space to be located in a manner that poses no significant negative impacts to surrounding development (variance 4). For the above reasons, staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are minor in nature. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: N/A 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: May 23, 2018 Prepared By: Paul Klassen Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: February 1, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objection. Please note that a grading and drainage clearance as well as a tree permit may be

20 Page 16 required prior to building permit. Date: April 27, 2018 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: May 6, 2018 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation has revied the proposed minor variances and has no objection. Date: May 2, 2018 Prepared By: Steve Lucas 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: April 23, 2018 Prepared By: L. Bray Conservation Halton The applicant has been working with Conservation Halton to obtain a permit. Final comments by Conservation Halton will submitted as evidence at the hearing.

21

22 Page 17 File A-028/18 HEARING NO. 3-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Mattwood Construction Limited, 3023 New St., Burlington ON L7R 4L6 530 Emerald St., PLAN 78 BLOCK A PT LOT 3 RP 20R20751 PART 2 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1. To permit lot coverage of 34% instead of the maximum permitted 30% for a proposed 1 ½ storey dwelling with an attached garage. 2. To permit a floor area ratio of 0.46:1 instead of the maximum permitted 0.45:1 for a proposed 1 ½ storey dwelling with an attached garage.

23 Page 18 STAFF REPORTS: Committee of Adjustment There is one previous land division or minor variance application on record for this property. File: B-013/2016 A consent to sever 534 Emerald St to create an additional lot in compliance with the zoning bylaw Date: June 7, 2018 Prepared By: Carson O Connor Zoning The subject property is zoned DRL, downtown residential low density subject to R3.2 low density residential and is in the designated area for lot coverage, under Zoning By- Law 2020, as amended. The R3.2 zone requires, among other things, the following: Table Dwelling Type All Dwellings in Designated Areas (b) (c) 4.2 LOT COVERAGE Dwelling with Attached Garage 30% for one and a half storey dwellings including accessory buildings Dwelling without Attached Garage 22% for one and a half storey dwellings plus 8% for accessory buildings 4.5 FLOOR AREA RATIO (a) A maximum floor area ratio of 0.45:1 shall apply to all properties in Designated Areas for Lot Coverage. The applicant is proposing the construction of a new 1 ½ storey detached dwelling with a lot coverage of 33.9% and floor area ratio of 0.457:1 Variances required: 1. To permit lot coverage of 34% instead of the maximum permitted 30% for a proposed 1 ½ storey dwelling with an attached garage. 2. To permit a floor area ratio of 0.46:1 instead of the maximum permitted 0.45:1 for a proposed 1 ½ storey dwelling with an attached garage.

24 Page 19 Notes: 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed dwelling. 2. Development charges as per the development charge by-laws of the City, Region and Boards of Education will be payable at time of permit issuance. 3. 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: May 15, 2018 Prepared By: C. Lipnicky Site Planning The subject property is located on the west side of Emerald Street, between Caroline Street and Emerald Crescent, and is currently vacant. The applicant proposes to construct a 1.5-storey dwelling on the subject property, which would require the following variances: 1. To permit lot coverage of 34 % instead of the maximum permitted 30 % for a proposed 1.5-storey dwelling with an attached garage. 2. To permit a floor area ratio of 0.46:1 instead of the maximum permitted 0.45:1 for a proposed 1.5-storey dwelling with an attached garage. 1) Official Plan Designation: Mixed Use Centre Emerald Neighbourhood Precinct Do the proposed minor variances from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? Yes The subject property is designated Mixed Use Centre Emerald Neighbourhood Precinct within the City s Official Plan. Within this designation, detached dwellings to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare and a maximum building height of 2.5 storeys are permitted. The proposed 1.5-storey detached dwelling is consistent with the maximum density and height provisions noted above. The Official Plan states that development within the Emerald Neighbourhood Precinct shall be compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood in terms of matters such as height, setbacks, massing, design, and community features. New development in general is also to be compatible with its surrounding area in terms of its density, form, bulk, spacing, and materials, as per Part II, Policy 6.5 a) of the Official Plan. Staff is of the opinion that the design and siting of the proposed dwelling would be respectful of its immediate surroundings and of the overall character of the Emerald Neighbourhood Precinct. The 1.5-storey, peaked-roof design that is contemplated limits height and massing impacts on adjacent properties and the public realm. The massing

25 Page 20 being introduced would be located in a manner that would be consistent with the established relationship between built form and spacing in the subject neighbourhood. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the proposed variances would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: DRL Do the proposed minor variances from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Yes Staff notes that the subject property is located within a Designated Area for lot coverage as per the Zoning By-law. Within Designated Areas, more restrictive lot coverage regulations and maximum floor area ratios are applicable to new development. The proposed dwelling would have lot coverage of 34 % instead of the maximum permitted 30 % for a 1.5-storey dwelling as well as a floor area ratio of 0.46:1 instead of the maximum permitted ratio of 0.45:1. Designated Areas are intended to provide certain established residential areas with enhanced protection from overbuilding to assist in maintaining their unique characteristics. Lot coverage regulations generally ensure that an appropriate amount of open space is included on properties as an element of neighbourhood design. Floor area ratio regulations provide for additional control of massing, as they take into account floor space above the ground level. In Designated Areas, floor area ratio regulations augment lot coverage regulations to further limit the size of buildings. In the opinion of staff, the proposal does not result in the overbuilding of the subject property. Despite the requested increases in lot coverage and floor area ratio, the proposed dwelling would conform to all applicable setback regulations, as well as the applicable maximum height and dwelling depth regulations. Staff is satisfied that the proposed variances would be mitigated by the massing and location of the proposed dwelling. The peaked roof elements facing the front and rear lot lines are positioned in a manner that limits massing impacts on the adjacent amenity areas to the north and south, while the main roof peak, which is parallel to the front and rear lot lines, limits massing impacts on the property to the west and on the streetscape. The proposed dwelling is sited in a manner that balances reasonable alignment with existing built form along the streetscape and alignment with rear walls of adjacent dwellings. The dwelling would extend minimally beyond the rear wall of the adjacent dwelling to the south, and would employ a covered rear deck at the northwest corner of the dwelling for reduced massing impacts on the rear yard of the property to the north. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the proposed variances would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

26 Page 21 3) Desirability: Are the proposed minor variances from the Zoning By-law desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure? Yes The proposed variances would permit the amount of floor area desired by the applicant without detracting from the distinctive qualities of the subject neighbourhood. Staff believes the applicant has put forth an aesthetically-pleasing proposal that would be well-integrated with its surroundings. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property. 4) Minor in Nature: Are the proposed minor variances from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes The proposed variances would allow for appropriate deviations from the Zoning regulations that would pose no negative impacts to surrounding development. Based on the above, staff considers the proposed variances to be minor in nature. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Whether considered together or separately, staff anticipates that no significant negative impacts would result from the proposed variances. 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: June 5, 2018 Prepared By: Paul Klassen Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (17m) No road widening required. Date: February 22, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone

27 Page 22 Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objection. Please note that a grading and drainage clearance will be required prior to building permit. Date: May 24, 2018 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: May 30, 2018 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning No Transportation concerns with this Minor Variance Application. Date: June 5, 2018 Prepared By: Trevor Clark 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: May 24, 2018 Prepared By: L. Bray

28

29 Page 23 File A-036/18 HEARING NO. 4-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: David St. Pierre & Jane Ballantyne, 5211 Spruce Ave., Burlington ON L7L 1N Spruce Ave., PLAN 1061 LOT 173 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1. To permit a south west side yard setback of 1.8 m instead of the minimum required 3.0 m for a proposed one storey addition. 2. To permit a south west side yard encroachment of 0.70 m instead of the maximum permitted 0.50 m projection from the wall of the building for existing and proposed overhangs including gutters.

30 Page 24 STAFF REPORTS: Committee of Adjustment There is one (1) previous minor variance applications on record for this property. File No. A2705/1981 Approved Side yard setback Date: March 7, 2018 Prepared By: Robyn Stebner Zoning The subject property is zoned R2.3, low density residential, and is located in a designated area for lot coverage, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The R2.3 zone requires, among other things, the following: 4. R1, R2, R3 ZONE REGULATIONS 4.1 LOT WIDTH, AREA, YARDS Table Zone Lot Width Lot Area Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Street Side Yard R2 ZONES R m 680 m m 9 m (c) (b) 4.5 m Footnotes to Table (b) Without attached garage or carport: (i) One or one and a half storey side: (ii) Two or more storey side 1.2 m, 3 m other side 1.8 m, 3 m other side 2.13 ENCROACHMENT INTO YARDS Every part of a required yard shall be unobstructed with respect to the following encroachments: (b) The following obstructions may project 50 cm maximum into a side yard and 1 m maximum into any other yard from the wall of the building:

31 Page 25 chimney pilaster belt course eave or gutter overhang sill lintel cornice ornamental projection The applicant is proposing the construction of a one storey addition on the south west side of the existing dwelling. Variances required: Note: 1. To permit a south west side yard setback of 1.8 m instead of the minimum required 3.0 m for a proposed one storey addition. 2. To permit a south west side yard encroachment of 0.70 m instead of the maximum permitted 0.50 m projection from the wall of the building for existing and proposed overhangs including gutters. 1. Zoning clearance certificate required. 2. Committee of adjustment approved a minor variance on September 8, 1981, under file A62/81, to permit a west side yard setback of 1.83 m instead of the minimum required 3.0 m for a proposed addition. 3. Zoning By-law , as amended, back to at least 1980 permitted a maximum projection of 0.50 m for overhangs. Variance #2 added to permit overhangs greater than 0.50 m for the existing building and proposed addition. Date: May 16, 2018 Prepared By: Tina Vassalli Site Planning The subject property is located on the north side of Spruce Avenue, between White Pines Drive and Cheltenham Road. The applicant proposes the construction of a onestorey addition at the southwest corner of the existing detached dwelling on the property, which requires the following variances: 1. To permit a south west side yard setback of 1.8 m instead of the minimum required 3.0 m for a proposed one storey addition. 2. To permit a south west side yard encroachment of 0.7 m instead of the maximum permitted 0.50 m projection from the wall of the building for existing and proposed overhangs including gutters.

32 Page 26 1) Official Plan Designation: Residential Low Density Do the proposed minor variances 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 ground-oriented housing forms to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare. The proposed development would have no bearing on the current use or density of the property. Staff also notes that Part II, Subsection 6.5 a) of the Official Plan directs new residential development to be compatible with its surroundings in terms of density, form, bulk, height, setbacks, spacing, and materials. It is staff s opinion that the proposed development would maintain compatibility as sought by the Official Plan. The proposed addition is very modest in size and would maintain virtually the same southwest side yard setback as the existing dwelling. Furthermore, staff opines that the existing southwest overhang is unobtrusive in its current state. The proposed extension of this overhang to an even lesser extent along the new addition would maintain the compatibility of this interface with the property to the southwest. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the proposed variances would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: R2.3 Do the proposed minor variances from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Yes The applicant requests a southwest side yard setback of 1.8 m instead of the minimum required 3.0 m for the proposed addition. Because the dwelling has no attached garage, it is subject to an enhanced minimum side yard setback to accommodate vehicle parking on the property. Side yard setbacks also ensure that separation between dwellings is compatible and consistent and provide for sufficient access around dwellings. Staff notes that the proposed dwelling addition would be quite limited in size at approximately 9 m 2 and would maintain alignment with the existing southwest dwelling wall. In staff s opinion, the continuation of virtually the same setback to facilitate the proposed addition is appropriate and poses no further impact to the established pattern of separation between dwellings or to the degree of access in the southwest side yard

33 Page 27 of the property. Furthermore, the site plan provided indicates that the appropriate number of parking spaces can be accommodated in the balance of the existing driveway. A second variance is required for the existing southwest roof overhang, which would be extended along the wall of the new addition. Staff notes that the new portion of the overhang would largely comply with the maximum encroachment allowance of 0.5 m, while the existing overhang encroaches in the amount of 0.7 m from the southwest dwelling wall. The intent of restrictions on overhang encroachments is to achieve consistency in built form as well as sufficient access for maintenance purposes. The proposed overhang would project to an extent of 0.5 m from the proposed addition and would continue along the new addition from the existing 0.7 m overhang. In staff s opinion, the existing and proposed overhangs would pose no issue in terms of access and would not appear out of keeping with surrounding built form. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the proposed variances would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. 3) Desirability: Are the proposed minor variances from the Zoning By-law desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure? Yes The proposed variances would afford the existing dwelling with added functionality by facilitating the location of a small mudroom and storage room in a manner that is appropriately integrated with the existing dwelling and surrounding development. Staff therefore considers the requested variances to be desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property. 4) Minor in Nature: Are the proposed minor variances from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes Variance 1 allows for the continuation of an existing setback to facilitate a modest dwelling addition and variance 2 would allow a reasonable deviation to an encroachment regulation to continue. The variances would not result in any adverse impacts to the environs of the subject property. Based on the above, staff considers the proposed variances to be minor in nature.

34 Page 28 Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: N/A 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: May 23, 2018 Prepared By: Paul Klassen Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m). No road widening required. Date: March 9, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objections. Please note, a Grading and Drainage Certifiacte will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Date: June 5 th, 2018 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: May 30, 2018 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning No Transportation Concerns with this Minor Variance Application. Date: May 25, 2018 Prepared By: Trevor Clark

35 Page 29 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: May 24, 2018 Prepared By: L. Bray

36

37 Page 30 File A-044/18 HEARING NO. 5-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Kelly Carson & Anthony Shaw, 627 Wilene Dr., Burlington ON L7L 2B3 627 Wilene Dr., PLAN 1350 LOT 24 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1. To permit lot coverage of 19.9% instead of the maximum permitted 17% for a proposed second storey addition. 2. To permit lot coverage of 8.7% instead of the maximum permitted 8% for an existing m2 accessory building. 3. To permit a south side yard encroachment of 0.70 m instead of the maximum permitted projection of 0.50 m from the wall of the building for proposed overhangs including gutter.

38 Page 31 STAFF REPORTS: Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land division or minor variance applications on record for this property. Date: March 14, 2018 Prepared By: Robyn Stebner Zoning The subject property is zoned R3.2, low density residential, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The property is also located in the designated area for lot coverage. The R3.2 zone requires, among other things, the following: 4. R1, R2, R3 ZONE REGULATIONS 4.1 LOT WIDTH, AREA, YARDS Table Zone Lot Width Lot Area Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Street Side Yard R3 ZONES R m 425 m 2 6 m 9 m (c) (b) 4.5 m Footnotes to Table (b) Without attached garage or carport: (iii) One or one and a half storey side: (iv) Two or more storey side 1.2 m, 3 m other side 1.8 m, 3 m other side Table Dwelling Type All Dwellings in Designated Areas (b) (c) 4.2 LOT COVERAGE Dwelling with Attached Garage 35% for one storey dwellings including accessory buildings 30% for one and a half storey dwellings including accessory buildings Dwelling without Attached Garage 27% for one storey dwellings plus 8% for accessory buildings 22% for one and a half storey dwellings plus 8% for accessory buildings

39 Page 32 25% for all other dwelling types including accessory buildings 17% for all other dwelling types plus 8% for accessory buildings Footnotes to Table (a) One accessory building less than 10 m 2 and less than 2.5 m in height shall be exempt from the lot coverage requirements of Table (b) Designated Areas are shaded on ZONING MAPS in Part ENCROACHMENT INTO YARDS Every part of a required yard shall be unobstructed with respect to the following encroachments: (c) The following obstructions may project 50 cm maximum into a side yard and 1 m maximum into any other yard from the wall of the building: chimney pilaster belt course eave or gutter overhang sill lintel cornice ornamental projection The applicant is proposing to construct a second storey addition over the existing dwelling. Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended permits a maximum lot coverage of 27% for a one storey dwelling without attached garage and 17% for a two storey dwelling without attached garage. A variance for increased lot coverage has been identified due to the conversion of the dwelling from one storey to two storeys. A variance is also required to permit proposed overhangs to project 0.70 m into the side yard instead of the maximum permitted 0.50 m from the wall of the building including gutters. On July, 1981 permit C11712 was issued for the construction of a m 2 accessory building. The site plan submitted with this application indicates the existing m 2 accessory building was constructed larger than approved. A variance is therefore required to permit increased lot coverage of 8.7%. Variances required: 1. To permit lot coverage of 19.9% instead of the maximum permitted 17% for a proposed second storey addition. 2. To permit lot coverage of 8.7% instead of the maximum permitted 8% for an existing m 2 accessory building. 3. To permit a south side yard encroachment of 0.70 m instead of the maximum permitted projection of 0.50 m from the wall of the building for proposed overhangs including gutter.

40 Page 33 Notes: 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required. 2. By-Law enacted September 8, 2009 changed the minimum side yard setback for an accessory building from 0.90 m to 1.2 m. The existing north side yard setback of 0.90 m is therefore recognized for the existing accessory building constructed in Date: May 15, 2018 Prepared By: Tina Vassalli Site Planning The subject property is located south of Fairview Street and east of Walker s Line in the Shoreacres Community. The property currently contains a one and a half storey sidesplit dwelling with a detached garage. The lots in this area contain single-detached dwellings that range between 1 ½ storeys to 2 storey dwellings that are primarily sidesplits. The applicant proposes to construct a second-storey addition over a portion of the existing dwelling and a single storey roofed-over front porch. The following variances are required for the proposed second storey addition and to recognize an existing detached garage: 1. To permit lot coverage of 19.9% instead of the maximum permitted 17% for a proposed second storey addition. 2. To permit lot coverage of 8.7% instead of the maximum permitted 8% for an existing m 2 accessory building. 3. To permit a south side yard encroachment of 0.70 m instead of the maximum permitted projection of 0.50 m from the wall of the building for proposed overhangs including gutter. 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 as Residential Low Density in the City s Official Plan. This designation permits single-detached and semi-detached dwelling units to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare. When development occurs the Official Plan seeks to maintain the character of the neighbourhood, and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding development is achieved in terms of density, built form, scale, height, spacing, and materials. The subject property is located in an established neighbourhood and within the designated lot coverage area. The applicant proposes to build a second-storey addition over a portion of the existing dwelling, which requires two variances to recognize the existing dwelling lot coverage and the proposed overhang encroachment of the addition. Further, a variance is

41 Page 34 required to recognize the existing lot coverage of the detached garage. Staff is of the opinion the massing effect of the proposed second-storey addition will maintain compatibility with the surrounding area and adjacent properties as setbacks and spacing between dwellings are maintained. Further, staff note that variances 1 and 2 recognize an existing situation as the footprint of the existing dwelling and detached garage will remain unchanged with the proposed development. In the opinion of staff, the proposed variances meet 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 Variance 1 Dwelling Lot Coverage The subject property is located within a designated lot coverage area, which has a lower lot coverage allowance than other areas in the City to maintain the character of established neighbourhoods. The intent of these regulations is to promote compatibility in this area by preventing overbuilding on lots and inappropriate massing in relationship to existing development. Further, lot coverage regulations ensure there is adequate open space to provide a balance between built form and landscape features. Further, as the subject property is located within the designated lot coverage area it is subject to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) zoning regulation. FAR regulations are intended to ensure dwellings are massed accordingly to the size of the subject lot and to ensure overbuilding does not occur. As the proposed development does not require a variance to permit an increase in FAR from the maximum permitted FAR, staff is of the opinion the proposed addition will not establish an inappropriate massing effect or overbuilding of the property. Staff note that the proposed addition will be built within the existing building footprint and that additional variances are not required for height or setbacks. As an addition is proposed to the existing dwelling, a variance is required to permit an increase in lot coverage from the permitted 17% to 19.9%, which is equivalent to an additional 15.6 sq.m of ground floor space than permitted. The existing dwelling is a side-split and the proposed addition will maintain the side-split character of the dwelling. In this regard the proposed second-storey addition will be approximately half of the overall dwelling footprint, which reduces the massing effect of the addition. The subject street contains both one-and-a-half storey and two-storey side split dwellings, and as such the proposed development will be compatible and appropriate with the surrounding area.

42 Page 35 Variance 1 meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law as the proposed addition will be compatible and maintain the character of the established neighbourhood. Variance 2 Accessory Building Lot Coverage As stated above, the intent of lot coverage regulations ensure that properties are not overdeveloped and that there is an appropriate relationship between built form and landscape features. Specifically, lot coverage regulations for accessory buildings ensure that adequate amenity area and open space is provided on residential lots, and is an additional measure to ensure that accessory buildings remain subordinate to dwellings. Staff note that the required variance is for an existing garage to permit an increase in the maximum permitted lot coverage from 8% to 8.7%. This increase in lot coverage of 0.7% (3.8 sq.m) is minimal and does not negatively impact the rear amenity area in the opinion of staff. In this regard, the variance required meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Variance 3 Overhang Encroachment The intent of the overhang encroachment regulation is to ensure that large overhangs do not detract from the separation established between dwellings from side yard setback regulations. Limiting the size of overhangs prevents the roofs of adjacent dwellings from being too closely located to one another. The applicant requires a variance to permit an overhang encroachment of 0.7 m instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m from the south wall of the proposed addition. Staff is of the opinion that there is considerable distance between the subject and adjacent dwelling, and considers that the proposed overhang encroachment will not detract from the dwelling separation as only a small portion (0.2 m) of the overhang will encroach into the side yard setback at the rear end of the south side wall for approximately 4.5 m. The dwelling at the closest point to the south side yard is 3.5 m and 3.8 m at the furthest point, whereas the zoning by-law requires 3 m. in the opinion of staff, the required 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? Yes Staff is of the opinion that variances 1 and 2 for the proposed addition are desirable as the addition to the existing dwelling will increase the amount of living space. Further,

43 Page 36 variance 3 is required to recognize an existing garage, which will maintain the garage on the property. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances for the proposed addition are minor in nature as the overall impact to the subject property and surrounding area will be minimal. Further, variance 2 recognizes an existing situation that has existed without adverse impacts and as such the variance is minor in nature. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: N/A 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: June 1, 2018 Prepared By: Robyn Stebner Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: March 21, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and have no objections. Please note, a Grading and Drainage Certificate will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Date: May 30, 2018 Prepared By: J.Medeiros

44 Page 37 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: May 30, 2018 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning No Transportation concerns with this Minor Variance Application. Date: May 25, 2018 Prepared By: Trevor Clark 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: May 24, 2018 Prepared By: L. Bray

45

46 Page 38 File A-051/18 HEARING NO. 6-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Milan Grsic & Grsic, 220 National Dr, Hamilton ON L8G 5B5 419 Pine Cove Rd., PLAN 172 PT LOT 5 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1. To permit a west side yard setback of 1.3 m instead of the minimum required 1.8 m for the proposed second storey addition. 2. To permit an east side yard setback of 1.3 m instead of the minimum required 1.8 m for the proposed second storey addition. 3. To permit a lot coverage of 29% instead of the maximum permitted 25% for the proposed 2 storey detached dwelling with an attached garage. 4. To permit a floor area ratio of 0.58:1 instead of the maximum permitted 0.45:1 for the proposed 2 storey detached dwelling.

47 Page 39 STAFF REPORTS: Committee of Adjustment There is one (1) previous minor variance applications on record for this property. File No. A1139/1969 Approved Variances for lot width and area Date: March 27, 2018 Prepared By: Robyn Stebner Zoning 1) Background information (note this not included in the Agenda): The subject property is zoned R3.1, low density residential and is in the designated area for lot coverage, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The R3.1 zone requires, among other things, the following: 4.1 LOT WIDTH, AREA, YARDS Table Zone Lot Width Lot Area Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Street Side Yard R3 ZONES R m 500 m 2 6 m 9 m (c) (b) 4.5 m Footnotes to Table (b) With attached garage or carport: (i) One or one and a half storey side: (ii) Two or more storey side: 1.2 m 1.8 m 4.2 LOT COVERAGE Table Dwelling Type All Dwellings in Designated Areas (b) (c) Dwelling with Attached Garage 25% for all other dwelling types including accessory buildings

48 Page 40 Footnotes to Table (c) One accessory building less than 10 m 2 and less than 2.5 m in height shall be exempt from the lot coverage requirements of Table (b) Designated Areas are shaded on ZONING MAPS in Part FLOOR AREA RATIO (b) A maximum floor area ratio of 0.45:1 shall apply to all properties in Designated Areas for Lot Coverage. 2) Proposal: The applicant is proposing the construction of a second storey addition to the existing single detached dwelling. 3) Variances required: 1. To permit a west side yard setback of 1.3 m instead of the minimum required 1.8 m for the proposed second storey addition. 2. To permit an east side yard setback of 1.3 m instead of the minimum required 1.8 m for the proposed second storey addition. 3. To permit a lot coverage of 29% instead of the maximum permitted 25% for the proposed 2 storey detached dwelling with an attached garage. 4. To permit a floor area ratio of 0.58:1 instead of the maximum permitted 0.45:1 for the proposed 2 storey detached dwelling. 4) Notes and conditions: 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed second storey 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: May 8, 2018 Prepared By: Danielle Beck 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

49 Page 41 Plan. This designation permits ground-oriented forms of housing to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare. The proposed development would comply in this regard. The Official Plan also requires new development to be compatible with the surrounding area. Part II, Section 6.5 a) of the Official Plan states that The density, form, bulk, height, setbacks, spacing and materials of development are to be compatible with its surrounding area. The siting and size of a house on a lot are influenced by zoning regulations including those related to required setbacks, site coverage and floor area ratio limitations. By including specific regulations related to setbacks, coverage and floor area, new development more closely integrates with surrounding development in terms of house siting and overall massing. This promotes compatible infill development within established neighbourhoods by encouraging regard for the surrounding development pattern. The subject application requests the approval of variances needed to facilitate the construction of a second storey addition above an existing one storey house. There is no expansion proposed at grade. As a result building siting and the provision of open space will not be directly impacted. Expanding the existing one storey home to a two storey structure makes use of an existing building, promotes neighbourhood stability and is deemed to be consistent with the policies 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 application requests the approval of four variances needed to facilitate renovations and a second storey expansion to an existing one storey house. There are no changes proposed at grade. Staff will address each variance individually: Variance #1 and #2 Side Yard Setbacks The intent of the zoning regulations regarding east and west side yard setbacks is to ensure that there is a sufficient spatial separation between any structure and a side lot line, for access and maintenance purposes and also to provide a spatial buffer to adjacent development. The applicant is proposing setbacks of 1.5 m on each side where 1.8 m is the minimum requirement. Staff notes that these are existing setbacks utilized by the existing one storey house. While staff would normally expect larger setbacks for a two storey dwelling compared to a one storey dwelling, it is noted that the second storey is proposed to be built in line with the walls of the existing house so as to promote

50 Page 42 architectural continuity on the site and to avoid simply stepping the second storey in by 50 cm to achieve compliance. The design of the house is improved by these variances. The provision of 1.5 m setbacks in the east and west yards meets the intent of the zoning regulation. Variance #3 - Coverage The subject property has an R3.1 (Low Density Residential) zoning classification. Within this classification, the property is located within an area designated for enhanced restrictions regarding lot coverage. The designation was established to curtail overbuilding within established neighbouhoods. As such, while a one storey house may maintain a coverage of up to 35%, a two storey structure is limited to a maximum of 25%. The intent is to limit the impact of the house on the site and to surrounding development as it becomes higher and with additional upper level mass. In this case, the existing one storey home maintains a coverage of 29%. This will not change with the construction of the second storey addition. Although slightly larger than the 25% maximum permitted for a two storey home, it is still substantially less than the maximum permitted for a one storey house (35%). A 29% coverage is almost directly between the two limits and although staff would prefer full compliance with the two storey coverage limit, it is understood that coverage in this case is influenced by the retention of the one storey home as the base for the second storey addition. The coverage will not be expanded as a result of the second storey addition and staff is satisfied that maintaining the existing coverage is less disruptive to the site and to the established streetscape. Variance #4 Floor Area Ratio As a result of the enactment of By-law , a by-law that updates and enhances zoning regulations within low density residential zones, a variance for increased floor area is required. By-law limits floor area ratio (the amount of floor area permitted based on the size of the lot) to.45:1. The intent of this new regulation is to limit the size of a house, beyond the controls related to lot coverage, building height and setbacks, in direct recognition of lot area. The floor area ratio ensures that the massing of a house is right for the property. It prevents overbuilding on any individual lot. The applicant is proposing a floor area ratio of.58:1. Special care must be taken when considering increases to Floor Area Ratio as increases should not result in an overbuilding situation. Houses that are too large for the property often encroach into required yards around the house and this negatively impacts space on the lot and between developments on adjacent properties. Space is a key element in promoting compatible infill development.

51 Page 43 In this case, the house will not encroach into any required yard and will not exceed the height limit for this zone designation. Staff notes that the second storey addition will be constructed on the existing one storey house footprint and will utilize a stepped design in the front so that upper level massing does not dominate the front façade. The second floor is a direct extension of the first floor design. The house retains a single car garage and a front entry feature with an open porch for enhanced connectivity with the street. These are desirable features within this neighbourhood. Staff also notes that the proposed house will maintain a height of approximately 9.3 m (as shown on plan submitted in support of the subject application). This height is approximately midpoint between the 8.5 m height permitted for a 1/1/2 storey house and the 10 m maximum height permitted for a 2 storey house. Staff is of the opinion that the impact of the additional floor area is somewhat mitigated by the height of the proposed building being below the maximum permitted for a two storey structure. Constructing a second level addition above an existing one storey building includes limitations as to what can be achieved in terms of controls on the floor area ratio. A second level addition normally lines up with the walls of an existing one storey structure. Staff must therefore balance floor area limits with a desire to construct a compatible and well integrated addition. Such circumstances are reviewed on a case by case basis. Although not proposed in this application, the construction of a new house would have allowed for greater flexibility in terms of building footprint and therefore the coverage and floor area ratio. Should the subject development plan be modified to remove the existing one storey building and propose a new house, staff would expect that the building design would be modified to comply with the current zoning regulations. 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 In each case the variances are considered desirable to allow for a second storey addition that building on the size and location of the existing house.

52 Page 44 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes In each case the impact of the variance will be minor as each variance builds on an existing zoning condition (existing setbacks, coverage and floor area over existing floor plate). Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Individually or together the proposed variance are considered acceptable to allow for a compatible second storey addition 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: May 23, 2018 Prepared By: Charles Mulay MCIP RPP Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (15m). No road widening required Date: April 4, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objection. Please note that a grading and drainage exemption as well as a tree permit will be required prior to building permit. Date: May 9, 2018 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: May 20, 2018 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou

53 Page 45 Transportation Planning No Transportation concerns with this Minor Variance Application. Date: May 25, 2018 Prepared By: Trevor Clark 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: May 10, 2018 Prepared By: L. Bray

54

55 Page 46 File A-058/18 HEARING NO. 7-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Agata Vecia & Salvatore 433 Rossmore Blvd., Burlington ON L7N 1R9 433 Rossmore Blvd., PLAN 219 PT LOT 38 RP 20R6883 PART 1 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1. To permit a 5.9 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 8.35 m ( 9 m m encroachment) for a proposed front porch including overhang and steps on a 2 storey detached dwelling. 2. To permit a 7.9 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 9 m for a proposed 2 storey addition on a 2 storey detached dwelling.

56 Page 47 STAFF REPORTS: Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land division or minor variance applications on record for this property. Date: April 19, Prepared By: Carson O Connor Zoning 1) Background information (note this not included in the Agenda): The subject property is zoned R1.2, low density residential and is within the Roseland Character Area, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The R1.2 zone requires, among other things, the following: 4.1 LOT WIDTH, AREA, YARDS Table Zone Lot Width Lot Area Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Street Side Yard R1 ZONES R m 925 m 2 9 m 9 m (c) (a)(d) 9 m 2.13 ENCROACHMENT INTO YARDS Every part of a required yard shall be unobstructed with respect to the following encroachments: (d) The following obstructions may project 65 cm maximum into a required yard: 2) Proposal: A roofed-over or screened but otherwise unenclosed 1-storey porch A terrace or unroofed porch A carport The applicant is proposing the construction of a two storey addition and one storey covered porch addition to the front of the existing detached dwelling.

57 Page 48 3) Variances required: 1. To permit a 5.9 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 8.35 m ( 9 m m encroachment) for a proposed front porch including overhang and steps on a 2 storey detached dwelling. 2. To permit a 7.9 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 9 m for a proposed 2 storey addition on a 2 storey detached dwelling. 4) Notes and conditions: 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed addition. 2. Zoning Clearance was issued for the rear second storey addition. 3. 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: May 15, 2018 Prepared By: Danielle Beck Site Planning The subject property is located on the southeast corner of New Street and Rossmore Boulevard in the Roseland Community. The property currently contains a two-storey single detached dwelling. The applicant proposes to construct a new two-storey addition and porch addition to the existing dwelling, as well as upgrade the front façade by installing a new style of windows and façade materials. Variances are required to facilitate the proposed front porch and two-storey addition and are as follows: 1. To permit a 5.9 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 8.35 m ( 9 m m encroachment) for a proposed front porch including overhang and steps on a 2 storey detached dwelling. 2. To permit a 7.9 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 9 m for a proposed 2 storey addition on a 2 storey detached dwelling. 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 as Residential Low Density and is located within the Roseland Character Area as outlined in the City s Official Plan. Official Plan policies for the City s Neighbourhood Character Areas have been adopted by Council and are as follows:

58 Page Policies a) Neighbourhood Character Areas shall be identified in the City s Zoning By-law. b) City Council may add or delete Neighbourhood Character Areas or alter the boundaries of existing Neighbourhood Character Areas from time to time through further amendment to the Zoning By-law, without the need for an Official Plan Amendment. c) Notwithstanding the policies of Subsection a) and b) of this Plan, permitted residential uses in Neighbourhood Character Areas shall be restricted to single-detached dwellings. d) Proposed development should respect the existing neighbourhood character by incorporating built form and design elements, architectural features, building separations, lot coverage, scale, floor area ratio, and landscape qualities and characteristics that are prevalent in the Neighbourhood Character Area. e) Healthy mature trees contribute to neighbourhood character. Development shall be consistent with the policies of Subsection 4.3. (Urban Forestry) In addition, the Roseland Character Area has an area specific policy as follows: Site Specific Policies ii) Roseland is a distinct Neighbourhood Character Area defined by its garden-like setting with large mature streets, strong historic character, and homes with varied and unique architectural styles. Lots are spacious with dwellings that are well proportioned in relation to the property size and have a scale that is compatible with adjacent dwellings and which reinforces the open space character. Streets within the Neighbourhood Character Area contain wide landscaped boulevards and street lamps that complement the neighbourhood character of the private properties. New development shall protect and enhance these neighbourhood character elements. The applicant proposes to construct a two-storey addition and front porch feature to the existing dwelling. The addition will be used as a foyer and new entrance to the dwelling. The size of the addition is considered minor and will add 8.1 sq.m of floor space to the existing dwelling. As such, the built form and scale of the existing dwelling will be altered in a minimal manner, which will not negatively impact the spacious nature of the subject property. In the opinion of staff, the proposed development will add definition to the front façade of the dwelling, which has been designed in manner that reflects the character of and architectural features found within the Roseland Character Area. The proposed development in the opinion of the staff will improve the streetscape and will enhance the Roseland character. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed changes to the dwelling will establish a front facade and streetscape that builds on the character of the Roseland area.

59 Page 50 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 Front yard setbacks are intended to provide adequate separation between dwellings and the right-of-way, establish a consistent alignment of dwellings, and to provide front yard space to establish character of the streetscape. Further, the intent of the Zoning By-law regulation for front yard setbacks to a roofed-over porch ensures that they do not negatively impact the streetscape and character of the surrounding area. Staff note that the existing dwelling is 9.3 m at the closest point to the front yard and 10.8 m at the furthest point. The Zoning By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 9 m. As the proposed development contemplates the addition of a front foyer and porch feature, staff is of the opinion that the development will contribute to the streetscape in a positive manner by providing character to the front façade of the dwelling. Front porches are a common feature throughout the Roseland Character Area. Further at the closest point, the proposed porch and stairs will be 6.8 m and 5.6 m from the front yard respectively, which maintains adequate separation to the street. Lastly, the proposed addition is in alignment with the adjacent dwelling. In the opinion of staff, the variances meet 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 subject property is located within the Roseland Character Area, which has a distinct character. The applicant proposes to construct a new addition and front porch feature, as well as change the front façade of the dwelling. The foyer addition and front porch feature are common design elements in the area. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances will contribute to the Roseland Character Area in a positive manner maintaining the overall character, which is desirable.

60 Page 51 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes The variances required to facilitate the proposed development are minor in nature in the opinion of staff. The proposed foyer and front porch addition will not create any physical adverse impacts to the property, adjacent properties or to the Roseland Character Area. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: N/A 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: May 30, 2018 Prepared By: Robyn Stebner Site Engineering This is a corner lot and Rossmore Blvd. actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m). New St. actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (35m). No road widenings required. Date: April 23, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering staff have reviewed the proposed minor variances and have no objections. Please note, a Grading and Drainage Certificate will be required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Date: June 1, 2018 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: June 4, 2018 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou

61 Page 52 Transportation Planning No transportation concerns with this minor variance application. Date: May 29/2018 Prepared By: Dan Ozimkovic 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: May 23, 2018 Prepared By: L. Bray

62

63 Page 53 File A-060/18 HEARING NO. 8-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Edward & Suzanne Anderson, 1981 Fieldgate Dr., Burlington ON L7P 3H Fieldgate Dr., PLAN 1538 LOT 52 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCE: 1. To permit an 8.7 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 m for proposed dormers on the front of an existing detached dwelling.