COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT September 11, 2017

Transcription

1 September 11, 2017 Please ensure that cell phones and personal digital assistants (PDAs) are set to an inaudible function during Committee Meetings

2 MEETING #16 Meeting Date: September 11, 2017 TIME OF MEETING: 6:30 P.M. PLACE OF MEETING: Room 305/307 3 rd Floor City Hall DECLARATION OF INTEREST: AGENDA HEARING NO. TIME FILE NO APPLICATION ADDRESS 1) 6:30 P.M. A-095/16 Re: 4638 Ashlar Cres., Burlington Ward 6 Pages 1-9 2) 6:30 P.M. A-052/17 Re: 5227 Tamarac Dr., Burlington Ward 5 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-053/17 A-054/17 B-003/17 Re: 1158 Bellview Cres., Burlington Ward 1 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-064/17 Re: 1016 North Shore Blvd. E, Burlington Ward 1 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-076/17 Re: 1323 Hidden Valley Rd., Burlington Ward 1 Pages 42-51

3 6) 6:30 P.M. A-081/17 Re: 1164 Walker's Line, Burlington Ward 4 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-083/17 Re: 217 Hart Ave., Burlington Ward 4 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-090/17 Re: 1293 Roseto Crt., Burlington Ward 1 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-095/17 Re: 932 Shadeland Ave., Burlington Ward 1 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-097/17 Re: 2053 Halton Pl., Burlington Ward 2 Pages OTHER BUSINESS: Correspondence Items for Discussion Date of Next Meeting Approval of Minutes Adjournment

4 Page 1 File A-095/16 HEARING NO. 1-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Bill and Ashlin Bali, 4638 Ashlar Cres., Burlington ON L7M 0E Ashlar Cres., PLAN M1010 LOT 141 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1) To permit a north side yard setback of 1.4 m instead of the minimum required 3.0 m for an existing deck greater than 1.2 m high and over 15 m2. 2) To permit a rear yard setback of 2.0 m instead of the minimum required 6 m for an existing deck greater than 1.2 m high and over 15 m2. 3) To permit a height of 1.9 m instead of the maximum permitted 1.8 m from the deck platform for existing privacy screens on a deck greater than 1.2 m high and over 15 sq m. 4) To permit privacy screens on a deck to be enclosed on three sides instead of the maximum permitted two sides. 5) To permit privacy screen panels constructed of clear plastic and aluminum instead of a decorative wall or fence designed to provide privacy for a deck.

5 Page 2 STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land divison or minor variance applications on record for this property. Date: May 29, 2017 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning The subject property is zoned RAL1, Alton Community Residential, under Zoning By- Law 2020, as amended. The RAL1 zone requires, among other things, the following:

6 Page PATIOS, DECKS, BALCONIES, AND PORCHES RESIDENTIAL Table Regulations for Decks associated with Detached, Semi-Detached, Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex, and Street Townhouse Dwelling Units Deck Requirements Regulation Over 60 cm to 1.2 m High Over 1.2 m High Up to 15 m 2 Over 15 m 2 Maximum Deck Area (a) no maximum 15 m 2 30 m 2 Permitted in a Front Yard no no no Permitted in a Rear Yard yes yes yes Permitted in a Side Yard yes yes yes Setback from a Street Line 3 m 4.5 m 6 m Setback from a Rear Lot Line 1.8 m 4.5 m 6 m Setback from a Side Lot Line in a Rear Yard (See Illustration No. 1 Side Yard) 1.2 m (b) 1.8 m (b) 3 m Maximum coverage (c) 50% of the yard area in which decks are located Footnotes to Table (a) Total combined area of all platforms over 1.2 m high (b) Where a side lot line extends from a common wall dividing attached dwelling units the setback shall not apply. (c) Coverage means the surface area of a yard which may be covered by decks. Privacy Screen A decorative wall or fence having a minimum height of 1.8 m and designed to provide privacy for a patio, deck, balcony or part of a yard. 2.4 Fencing and Privacy Screens Privacy screens are permitted on decks and balconies for detached, semi-detached, duplex, triplex, fourplex, and townhouse dwellings subject to the following regulations: a) Maximum height from grade: 2.5 m b) Maximum height from platform: 1.8 m c) Enclosed on two sides only d) Setback from the street: 9 m e) Setback from side lot line: 1 m

7 Page 4 f) Setback from a rear lot line: 1.5 m g) Combined length of privacy screens (per unit): 12 m The applicant constructed a deck which is 19 sq m in area and 2.13 m high without benefit of a zoning certificate or building permit. Variances are required to permit a reduced rear and north side yard setback. The applicant also installed aluminum and glass panels on three sides of the deck. Variances are required to permit privacy screens enclosed on all sides constructed of material not designed to provide privacy. Variances required: 1. To permit a north side yard setback of 1.4 m instead of the minimum required 3.0 m for an existing deck greater than 1.2 m high and over 15 m To permit a rear yard setback of 2.0 m instead of the minimum required 6 m for an existing deck greater than 1.2 m high and over 15 m To permit a height of 1.9 m instead of the maximum permitted 1.8 m from the deck platform for existing privacy screens on a deck greater than 1.2 m high and over 15 sq m. 4. To permit privacy screens on a deck to be enclosed on three sides instead of the maximum permitted two sides. 5. To permit privacy screen panels constructed of clear plastic and aluminum instead of a decorative wall or fence designed to provide privacy for a deck. Condition: Notes: 1. Existing roof of structure to be removed. 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required. 2. Maximum combined length of privacy screens is 12 m. Based on my calculation the proposed area enclosed is m (3.4 m m m = m). 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: August 1, 2017 Prepared By: Tina Vassalli Site Planning The subject updated application has been submitted in response to a Deferral Decision by the Committee of Adjustment whereby the applicant was directed to address privacy concerns related to the design of the elevated rear deck.

8 Page 5 Planning staff had supported the previous variances needed to allow the deck but had also requested the addition of screening to ensure compatibility with and privacy to adjacent rear yard amenity areas (File: A95/16). The applicant is now proposing the requested screening which results in the need for three additional variances. 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 density of 25 units per net hectare. It also permits uses that are consistent with residential uses including decks. The applicant s proposal to allow an existing rear deck plus privacy screening, 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 Variances #1, #2, #3 and #4 No Variance #5 (Modified) 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. The regulations also ensure the retention of a function landscaped rear yard area on each lot. Variance #1 North Side Yard The intent of the side yard setback requirement is to ensure the provision of an adequate spatial separation between an elevated deck and the back yard on the adjacent lot. Space assists with overall compatibility by minimizing privacy impacts to adjacent lots. In this case, the applicant has constructed a deck that maintains a side yard setback of 1.4 m where the By-law requires a minimum setback of 3 m. Staff notes that the deck is stepped back from the setback currently maintained by the house and so it appears adequately separated from the side lot line. It is further away from

9 Page 6 the lot line than the house itself which is acceptable in terms of overall design In cases such as this, a space reduction must be accompanied by other means of mitigation to ensure overall compatibility with adjacent development. As compensation for the reduced setback, staff had previously recommended that the deck railing/wall be designed to provide enhanced privacy. The applicant has responded by designing a metal and tinted panel wall on all three sides of the deck to ensure privacy to adjacent properties. The privacy screening will be discussed in greater detail under Variances #5. Staff notes that the proposed 1.4 m setback is sufficient to ensure safe passage around the deck for access and maintenance purposes. Variance #2 Rear Yard The intent of this regulation is to provide a spatial separation between the deck and the abutting rear yard on the property to the rear. It also ensures that the subject rear yard retains an adequate amount of natural open space. Specifically the By-law requires a rear yard setback of 6 m. Staff notes that the house currently maintains a rear yard setback of approximately 7.5 m. Although an elevated deck is permitted on this lot, there is little space in the rear to construct a deck that can function as outdoor space. The applicant has constructed a deck that is 3.6 m in depth, leaving approximately 3.6 m as the setback to the rear lot line. However, the applicant has also included a rear stairway to the deck which then further encroaches into the rear yard setback requirement, leaving a setback of 2 m to the rear lot line. Staff does not regard the deck as being overly large or obtrusive in area however due to the location of the existing house and the size of the rear yard, a smaller deck would have been preferred in this case. This would have allowed for a greater setback at the rear and an increased retention of rear yard amenity space. Some limited green space is preserved adjacent to the deck. As is the case with the side yard setback, the reduction to the rear yard setback must be met by means of mitigation to ensure overall compatibility. As compensation for the reduced spatial setback, the applicant has proposed a metal and tinted panel wall on all three side of the deck. This tinted panel wall is meant to ensure a high level of privacy to the adjacent rear neighbour. Screening is discussed further under Variance #5. Variance #3, #4 Height, Number of Sides The privacy screens have been installed ahead of required approvals. While this is not an ideal situation, the applicant has not been required to remove the privacy screens pending consideration of this item by the Committee. Staff has discussed this matter with the applicant who advises that the panels were ordered and installed as they could

10 Page 7 not be stored, but with the full understanding that they would be removed or modified if the required approvals are not granted. Staff considers Variance #3 and #4 acceptable as the height increase is minimal (10 cm). Having the screening on three sides of the deck ensures that all sides are designed to minimize privacy impacts to adjacent yards. This is especially important at the rear where the encroachment into the required yard is the most substantial. Variance #5 Privacy Screen Design By-law 2020 requires that privacy screens consist of a decorative wall or fence designed to provide privacy. The applicant has designed the walls to include tinted panels that minimize visual impact to the adjacent yards. The panels are part of a window system that can be opened or closed. As such, while privacy is maintained in the closed position, the tinted panel could be moved when the window is opened. This would remove the privacy barrier. Staff will require that the tinted panels be permanently fixed to the lowered position where they face the north lot line and the rear lot line, in the areas where the deck is encroaching into a required yard. The north and rear sides of the deck wall must consist of a permanent year round privacy screen. The tinted panel and/or some other visual barrier must cover the lower half of the deck walls up to height of approximately 90 cm from the deck floor. This will ensure that the activity on the deck will not negatively impact the enjoyment of the rear yards on the adjacent properties to the north and to the rear. Staff supports the approval of this variance to allow combination clear and tinted panels on the south wall only where the deck meets the required side yard setback but will require that the tinted panels and/or other visual barrier be permanently fixed in the lower position on the north and rear walls where the deck encroaches into the required yards. Staff has discussed this amendment with the applicant who understands enhanced privacy is required where the deck encroaches into a required yard. 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 Variances #1, #2, #3 and #4 No Variance #5 (modified) The variances are considered desirable to allow for the retention of a rear deck associated with a single detached dwelling unit. Variance #5 is not desirable as applied for as a clear panel will not provide the required privacy in the north and rear yards and

11 Page 8 impact overall compatibility. Variance #5 is to be modified as described above. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes Variances #1, #2, #3 and #4 No Variance #5 (modified) Variances 1 through 4 are considered minor subject to design changes that will increase privacy to adjacent sites. The approval of Variance #5 would result in impacts to adjacent properties that are not considered to be minor. Variance #5 is to be modified as described above. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Subject to modifications to Variance #5, the variances are considered acceptable. 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 to the approval of Variances #1, #2, #3 and #4. Staff has reviewed the proposed variance #5 in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and has no objection to a modified variance applying to the south wall of the deck only, subject to the following: 1. Tinted panels or other solid privacy screen be permanently fixed to the north and rear sides of the elevated deck wall to a height of 90 cm from the deck floor, to provide privacy to adjacent properties. Date: August 16, 2017 Prepared By: Charles Mulay MCIP RPP Site Engineering The actual road width of Ashlar Cres is equal to or greater than the deemed width of 17.0 metres therefore, no road widening is required. Date: August Prepared By: A. Scott

12 Page 9 Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objections. Date: August Prepared By: A. Scott Building 1. A Building Permit is required for all building construction. 2. A Building Permit was applied for July 2016 for an attached deck and stairs but remains in deficiency pending submission of additonal items requested.) Permit application is to reflect the new scope of work - Gazebo as shown on drawing dated April 2017 that was submitted with the current CofA application. 3. Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Div. C., Section Qualifications of Designers and OBC Date: August 25, 2017 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation Planning has reviewed the Minor Variance Application and has no concerns with the proposed variances. Date: August 21, 2017 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 Property taxes must be paid. This includes all outstanding balances plus current year taxes that have been billed but are not yet due. Date: August 16, 2017 Prepared By: Paul Lacelle

13

14 Page 10 File A-052/17 HEARING NO. 2-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Warner Evan Baxter, 5227 Tamarac Dr., Burlington ON L7L 3N Tamarac Dr., PLAN 1061 LOT 82 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1) To permit a 5.8 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for the proposed second storey addition 2) To permit a 5 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for the proposed first storey addition 3) To permit a 4.1 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 6.85 m ( m encroachment allowance) for the proposed porch 4) To permit a 3.4 m front yard setback instead of the required 5.9 m (7.5 m 1.6 m encroachment allowance) for the proposed porch stairs

15 Page 11 STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment There is one previous minor variance application on record for this property. File No. A096/2016 Approved 1. To permit a 0.8 m rear yard setback for the proposed m2 accessory building whereas Zoning By-Law 2020, Part 1, Section 2.2.1(b), requires a minimum of 1.2 m. 2. To permit a 0.8 m east side yard setback for the proposed m2 accessory building whereas Zoning By-Law 2020, Part 1, Section 2.2.1(b), requires a minimum of 1.2 m. 3. To permit an accessory building greater than one storey whereas Zoning By-law 2020, Part 1, Section 2.2.1(b), permits a maximum of one storey. 4. To permit a 0.2 m west side yard setback to the existing shed over 2.5 m in height whereas Zoning By-law 2020, Part 1, Section 2.2.1(b), requires a minimum of 1.2 m.

16 Page To permit a 0.2 m rear yard setback to the existing shed over 2.5 m in height whereas Zoning By-law 2020, Part 1, Section 2.2.1(b), requires a minimum of 1.2 m. Date: April 11, 2017 Prepared By: Ashley Giangualano Zoning The subject property is zoned R2.3, low density residential, in Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended, and is in the designated area for lot coverage. The applicant is proposing a second storey addition over a portion of the existing dwelling and a new covered porch. 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) With attached garage or carport: (i) One or one and a half storey side: 1.2 m (ii) Two or more storey side: 1.8 m Part 1, Section 2.13 ENCROACHMENT INTO YARDS Every part of a required yard shall be unobstructed with respect to the following encroachments: (iii) A bay window, balcony, vestibule, fire escape or open stairway may project 50 cm maximum into a required side yard and 1.6 m maximum into any other required yard, provided that: (i) The sum of the length of these projections does not exceed one third of the permitted length of a building wall, (ii) The length of any one projection does not exceed 3 m. (iii) A bay window that projects into a required yard may not have a foundation and must have at least 30% of the surface area of the projection as a window.

17 Page 13 (iv) Basement walkout only permitted in side and rear yards. (iv) 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 Variances required: 1) To permit a 5.8 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for the proposed second storey addition 2) To permit a 5 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for the proposed first storey addition 3) To permit a 4.1 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 6.85 m ( m encroachment allowance) for the proposed porch 4) To permit a 3.4 m front yard setback instead of the required 5.9 m (7.5 m 1.6 m encroachment allowance) for the proposed porch stairs Notes: A zoning clearance is required for the proposed additions. Comments based upon the plans submitted. Any additional variances determined through further reviews are the applicant s responsibility. No additional variances required under By-law Date: July 31, 2017 Prepared By: Mark Dalrymple Site Planning The subject property is located on the north side of Tamarac Drive, between Cherryhill Crescent and Meadowhill Road and currently supports a single-detached dwelling. The applicant requires variances from the Zoning By-law in order to permit the construction of a second-storey addition on top of the west side of the existing dwelling with a new two-storey portion at the front of the existing dwelling. A single-storey addition is also proposed at the front of the dwelling. Variances are also required for the proposed roofed-over front porch and stairs. Staff notes that the subject application contemplates revisions to the original application, which was deferred by the Committee of Adjustment on June 19, The original application contemplated reduced front yard setbacks for the proposed addition and front porch, which staff felt were incompatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. Staff therefore objected to the original application due to its inability to meet the four tests for Minor Variances. The revised submission affords the dwelling addition and front porch with increased setbacks and incorporates feedback from staff to improve the alignment between the façade of the proposed addition and the two neighbouring dwellings.

18 Page 14 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 The subject property is designated Residential Low Density within the City s Official Plan. Lands within this designation are intended to support ground-oriented forms of housing to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare. The proposed development would maintain the existing use and density on the property. Staff notes that the subject property is located within an established residential neighbourhood. While additions and upgrades to older dwellings in established neighbourhoods are anticipated by staff, proposals requiring variances from the Zoning By-law must be reviewed in accordance with applicable Official Plan policies. The Official Plan directs new residential development to be compatible with its surroundings in order to ensure its harmonious integration into neighbourhoods, and to avoid undue physical or functional adverse impacts to existing or proposed development. While more prescriptive regulations pertaining to building setbacks and porch encroachments are set out in Zoning By-law 2020, Part II of the Official Plan contains the following policy: Policy 6.5 a) The density, form, bulk, height, setbacks, spacing and materials of development are to be compatible with its surrounding area. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed dwelling additions, as revised, are now consistent with the above policy. The front yard setbacks of the one-storey and twostorey additions have been increased and, in the opinion of staff, the overall massing of the addition would be compatible with the streetscape and sufficiently in keeping with the established building line created by the two adjacent dwellings and the existing dwelling. As a result of the reductions to the principal building setbacks of the addition, the porch and stairs would be afforded greater separation from the street. Staff is of the opinion that the porch would be a positive focal point of the dwelling s façade and would not impose on the streetscape to a degree that would preclude compatibility, as compared to the previous proposal. Based on the above, staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

19 Page 15 2) Zoning By-law Designation: R2.3 Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Yes The proposed additions and roofed-over front porch would require the following variances from Zoning By-law 2020: 1. To permit a 5.8 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for the proposed second-storey addition 2. To permit a 5 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for the proposed first-storey addition 3. To permit a 4.1 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 6.85 m (7.5 m 0.65 m encroachment allowance) for the proposed porch 4. To permit a 3.4 m front yard setback instead of the required 5.9 m (7.5 m 1.6 m encroachment allowance) for the proposed porch stairs Front yard setbacks are intended to provide sufficient separation between dwellings and public right-of-ways, promote the alignment of dwellings along the streetscape, and to allow for the incorporation of front yard space as an element of neighbourhood design. With respect to front porches, the zoning regulations are intended to ensure that they do not encroach into the required front yard to a degree that negatively impacts the streetscape, and that they do not detract significantly from front yard space. Variances 1 and 2 Staff objected to the setback relief proposed for the dwelling addition in the original variance application. The original variances would have permitted a dwelling that, in staff s opinion, would have negatively impacted the streetscape by encroaching inappropriately on the established building line of Tamarac Drive and on the public right-of-way. The original proposal would have also detracted from the existing front yard area of the property in a manner that would have been out of keeping with its surroundings. Staff is satisfied that the revised proposal would address the above-noted concerns. Staff notes that the front yard setbacks of the proposed one-storey and two-storey dwelling additions have been increased by 1.2 m in response to staff s comments. The revised proposal is in greater keeping with the established building line created by the two adjacent dwellings and the eastern portion of the existing dwelling and in staff s opinion would no longer pose a significant negative impact on the streetscape. Staff also notes that the furthest encroaching point of the proposed addition would be the one-storey portion, while the two-storey addition would maintain enhanced separation from the roadway. The revised proposal would also allow for more front yard open space to remain on the subject property, which would better respect the character of

20 Page 16 surrounding properties. Variances 3 and 4 As previously mentioned, the increased setback of the revised proposal also allows for the porch and associated stairs to maintain a greater setback from the street. Staff is satisfied that the additional separation now proposed for the front porch is sufficient to maintain adequate separation from the public right-of-way, and that the porch would not negatively impose on the streetscape. The remaining front yard area would be in keeping with surrounding properties. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the proposed variances would maintain the 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 proposed variances are desirable to maintain an existing dwelling while increasing its floor area in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and the streetscape. In staff s opinion, the dwelling addition is an improvement upon the existing dwelling in terms of architectural design, and is now respectful of existing built form. Staff opines that the proposed porch would be a positive architectural element that would define the dwelling s entrance and further improve the streetscape. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the proposed variances can be considered desirable. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes In staff s opinion, the proposed variances would pose no detrimental impacts to the property s surroundings. The previously contemplated relief has been scaled back to a reasonable degree and staff is now satisfied that the proposed development would maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

21 Page 17 Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Staff is of the opinion that the requested relief would no longer generate a negative cumulative impact. 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: August 18, 2017 Prepared By: Paul Klassen Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width of 20.0 m therefore, no road widening is required. Date: Aug Prepared By: A. Scott Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objections. Date: Aug 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: August 17, 2017 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation Planning has reviewed the Minor Variance Application and has no concerns with the proposed variances. Date: August 4, 2017 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.

22 Page 18 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 improvements must be commuted. Date: August 3, 2017 Prepared By: Paul Lacelle

23

24 Page 19 File A-053/ A-054/ B-003/17 HEARING NO. 3-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Patricia Brandino 1158 Bellview Cres., Burlington ON 1158 Bellview Cres., PLAN 179 LOTS 30,31 PT LOT 29 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: Part 1 [Retained lot] A53/17 1) To permit a lot with a 15.3 m lot width instead of the minimum required 18 m. 2) To permit a lot with a 500 m2 lot area instead of the minimum required 700 m2. 3) To permit a 8 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 m. 4) To permit a lot coverage of 41 % instead of the maximum permitted 40% for a proposed 1 storey dwelling with an attached garage. Part 2 [Severed lot] A54/17 1) To permit a lot with a 14 m lot width instead of the minimum required 18 m. 2) To permit a lot with a 525 m2 lot area instead of the minimum required 700 m2. 3) To permit a 8 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 m. 4) To permit a lot coverage of 42 % instead of the maximum permitted 40% for a proposed 1 storey dwelling with an attached garage.

25 Page 20 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: April 12, 2017 Prepared By: Ashley Giangualano Zoning The property is zoned R2.1, low density residential, under Zoning By-law 2020, as amended. The R2.1 zone requires, among other things, the following: Lot width: 18 m Lot area: 700 m2 Front Yard: 11 m Rear Yard: 10 m Side Yard: 10% of actual lot width per side for a house with an attached garage Lot Coverage: 40 % for a one storey house with an attached garage

26 Page 21 Lot Width is defined to mean: The horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured along the front lot line, PROVIDED that where the front lot line is not a straight line, or where the side lot lines are not parallel, the lot width shall be measured by a line 9.1 metres back from and parallel to the chord of the front lot line. For the purposes of this By-law the chord of the front lot line is a straight line joining the two points where the side lot lines intersect the front lot line. The owner proposes to sever the existing lot into two lots. Both the retained and proposed severed lots have a lesser lot width, lot area and front yard setback. Also for each lot, a one storey house is proposed with a lot coverage that exceeds 40% maximum. Variances required: Part 1 [retained lot] A53/17 1. To permit a lot with a 15.3 m lot width instead of the minimum required 18 m. 2. To permit a lot with a 500 m2 lot area instead of the minimum required 700 m2. 3. To permit a 8 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 m. 4. To permit a lot coverage of 41 % instead of the maximum permitted 40% for a proposed 1 storey dwelling with an attached garage. Part 2 [severed lot] A54/17 1. To permit a lot with a 14 m lot width instead of the minimum required 18 m. 2. To permit a lot with a 525 m2 lot area instead of the minimum required 700 m2. 3. To permit a 8 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 m. 4. To permit a lot coverage of 42 % instead of the maximum permitted 40% for a proposed 1 storey dwelling with an attached garage. Other Comments As a condition of approval the existing house, accessory building and swimming pool are required to be removed from the property. Date: May 30, 2017 Prepared By: G. Jin Planning Consent The subject property is a 1025 m2 parcel of land located on the south side of Bellview

27 Page 22 Crescent, west of Maple Avenue. The property owner proposes to sever the property into two lots both fronting onto Bellview Crescent. Each lot will be generally uniform in shape and be similar in size and dimensions (Retained Lot 500 m2 area and 15.3 m width and the Severed Lot 525 m2 in area and 14 m in width). Surrounding uses include single detached residential to the north, south and east and west with condominium single detached cluster housing to the north-east and townhouses to the west around the periphery of the neighbourhood. The subject property is designated Residential Low Density within the City s Official Plan. This designation permits residential development to a maximum density of up to 25 units per net hectare. Part III, Section 2.0 Residential Areas, Subsection 2.1 Principles states the following: d) The City shall address new housing demands, through the best use of existing resources and community infrastructure, and through new community development. Section 2.2 General, Subsection Objectives states the following: a) To encourage 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. The applicant proposes the division of an existing lot in order to create one new developable lot in a part of the city which has exhibited some change over time, with the addition of medium density development in the form of townhouses and cluster detached dwellings around the edges of the neighbourhood. The interior part of the Bellview Crescent streetscape has remained consistently low density residential. Part I Policy Framework, Section 4 Land Use Vision, Subsection 4.3 The Future Built Form and Natural Environment states the following: Structural features that are expected to stay the same over time include: maintaining a variety of stable residential neighbourhoods, an historic central downtown focused on the waterfront; development of employment areas along the Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 403 and Highway 407 corridors; a variety of shopping areas to meet local and visitor needs; and an abundance of green space. Staff considers the subject lot as part of an established streetscape and neighbourhood. It is one of only a few lots in the area that are considered to have an enlarged lot width. The division of the lot would create lots with areas and widths that are more consistent with the surrounding lotting pattern, and would entrench the

28 Page 23 predominant low density residential use along this part of Bellview Crescent. With regards to the issue of underutilization, staff approaches the subject with certain pre-existing expectations as dictated by the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. Underutilization refers to land which by virtue of its land use designation is currently supporting a use or uses which are much below the level of density or intensity expressly permitted by the existing planning documents. In this case, the Official Plan recognizes this neighbourhood as low density and for single detached residential development. The Zoning By-law goes on to require minimum lot area and width requirements of 18 m and 700 m2 to ensure compatible development and redevelopment and to also to promote neighbourhood stability. The existing lot size and dimensions (29.3 m width and 1025 m2 area) far exceed the zoning requirements. This in itself is not an indicator of an underutilized lot. However in this case, surrounding lots are predominately in the 18 m to 21 m wide range. The 29 m wide lot is considered an outlier and not representative of the surrounding lotting pattern. It is staff s opinion that the subject lot is functionally underutilized, supporting one dwelling unit where two units could exist if the lot was divided into a more typical configuration, as already exist along this section of Bellview Crescent. New lots will bring new development and staff is always concerned that such development could negatively impact the streetscape and the amount of open space (green space) provided in the area. In this case, both the severed and retained lots are proposed to have widths and areas that are more in line with lots in the immediate vicinity and so the amount of open space will not appear out of character in the area. The application indicates the construction of two one storey houses. This will certainly assist with overall integration, as the proposed development will avoid large amounts of upper level massing. Subsection Infill Development states the following: b) New infill development shall be compatible with the surrounding development in terms of height, scale, massing, siting, setbacks, coverage and amount of open space; and in the case of individual applications for consent, the additional policies of Part VI, Subsection 4.4 of this plan apply. c) The creation of new housing that is compatible with existing neighbourhoods, shall be encouraged In order for new development to be considered compatible, it must not detract or cause an unreasonable negative impact to the character of the existing neighbourhood. It must be able to co-exist in harmony with surrounding development. Compatibility is achieved by way of lot design/configuration, building siting and massing, spatial separations (open space) and the preservation of mature vegetation, among other things. The test for compatibility must be applied to both the severed and retained lots before it can be applied to any proposed built form.

29 Page 24 The size and dimensions of both the severed and retained lots are considered to be consistent with the surrounding lotting pattern. The impact of one additional lot to the existing streetscape will be minimal. The area is characterized by a mix of single detached homes and medium density townhouse developments. With the division of the lot, care must be taken to ensure that massing and the retention of open space be considered to ensure compatible infill development for this part of Bellview Crescent. Development must ensure a proper balance of building mass and open space on each lot in order to promote compatibility in the neighbourhood. The proposed lot configurations and one storey house designs assist in this regard. Consent Policies Part VI, Subsection 4.4 of the Official Plan contains the policies related to consents. Among other things, when considering applications for severance, the City ensures that the following occur: (iii) (iv) the lot size and proposed consent should conform to the provisions of the Zoning By-law where applicable the lot should have a compatible width and area with lots in the immediate Vicinity Lot configuration is an important consideration when assessing ultimate development potential, especially when new lots are proposed. Similar sized lots tend to develop in a similar manner and this encourages compatible built form and stable neighbourhoods. With this in mind, Planning staff has carried out a review of lots on the south side of Bellview Crescent and finds the average lot width to be 19 m and the average lot area to be approximately 800 m2. Staff considered lots within visual proximity of the subject property that form the established streetscape. The existing lot is 29.3 m wide and maintains an area of 1025 m2. Once divided, the proposed lot dimensions of 15.3 m and 500 m2 and 14 m and 525 m2 are more consistent with the average width and area dimensions of surrounding lots. The new lots are closer to the established lotting pattern on the south side of Bellview Crescent and consistent with the smaller lot expectations of the R3.2 zone designation. Minor Variance The applicant requests the approval of 4 minor variances for the severed lot and 4 minor variances for the retained lot. Severed and Retained Parcel Variance #1and #2 Lot Width and Lot Width

30 Page 25 By-law 2020 requires that lots maintain a minimum width of 18 m and an area of 700 m2. The intent of these regulations is to promote a consistent lotting pattern that encourages the construction of buildings that are compatible with each other in terms of overall massing and siting. The size and dimensions of the property dictates the eventual built form. In this case, the severance of the property will facilitate the construction of two one storey single detached residential dwellings rather than one overly large structure on the property as it currently exists. There will be situations where existing zoning cannot fully ensure compatible development. In staff s opinion, the variances to allow reduced lot widths and areas are appropriate to recognize the lotting pattern on the south side of Bellview Crescent as an established single detached residential development area. Staff also notes that these variances are impacted by the slightly irregular shape of the subject lot whereby it is wider at the street than at the point where the zoning width is measured (9 m back from the front lot line). The width of the subject lot is approximately 2 m wider at the street than at the 9 m measurement point inside the lot, and this further assists with overall visual integration and the provision of space. Variance #3 Front Yard Setback The reduced front yard setbacks are proposed in recognition of the front yard setbacks maintained by adjacent homes, so as to create a consistent streetscape and building edge. The By-law s 11 m setback requirement was established to deter overbuilding on individual lots within established neighbourhoods. Staff is satisfied that the proposed 8 m setback for the severed and retained lots are suitable given the context of the area and will promote compatible infill development. Variance #4 Site Coverage By-law 2020 sets a maximum lot coverage of 40% for one storey dwellings with attached garage. The coverage limit ensures an adequate amount of open space be retained on each lot to provide a balance relative to built form. A one storey structure is permitted an expanded coverage of 40% in recognition of its lower height and reduced massing versus a two storey home. While staff may on occasion consider increases to lot coverage, the application must demonstrate among other things, that the increase has minimal impact to surrounding development. In this case, the building envelopes shown on the plans submitted in support of the subject application show potential building projections into the rear amenity spaces where it may impact the privacy of the amenity areas on adjacent yards. Although the requested variances are mathematically minor (1% and 2% increases), adherence with the zoning regulations for single detached, single storey structures is recommended in this case. The proposed houses can be designed to comply with the zoning requirement.

31 Page 26 Conclusion Staff supports the approval of the consent application and are of the opinion that it meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Staff recommends approval of Variances #1, #2 and #3 for each of the severed and retained parcels. Staff recommends refusal of Variance #4 for each of the severed and retained lots as it has not been demonstrated that the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law will be met. Date: June 28, 2017 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: April 18, 2017 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has no objection to the Land Division (B-003/17) consent being granted subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant to submit an overall servicing, grading and drainage plan for both the severed and retained parcels to the satisfaction of the Directors of Capital Works and Planning and Building to include the following: a. Existing building envelope with finish floor elevation(s) and top of foundation wall elevations b. Maximum allowable building envelope(s) with finish floor elevation(s) and top of foundation wall elevations 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 e. Proposed service connections, and location of existing service connections 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. g. Proposed driveway locations and slopes for retained and severed parcels. h. Hydro poles (existing and proposed), driveways must maintain a min. 1.2m clearance from poles.

32 Page 27 i. Utility boxes j. Closest municipal hydrant (please either show on drawing or indicate location with a note) k. Any proposed retaining walls l. Existing and proposed fence 2. 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 Directors of Capital Works and 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 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. 7772) 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. 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).

33 Page 28 iv. 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. 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. ix. 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. 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 Director of Capital Works has approved the plans and all work (grading, drainage, construction access, fencing, servicing, and driveway locations) shall conform to such plans.

34 Page 29 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 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. 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 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 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 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 Director of Capital Works upon written

35 Page 30 notice by him; such work shall be in accordance with plans approved by the 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: June 23, 2017 Prepared By: Carol Gulak Building 1) A Building Permit is required for each lot. 2) Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Div. C., Section Qualifications of Designers and OBC Date: June 30, 2017 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation Planning has reviewed the Consent and Minor Variance Application and has no concerns with the proposed consent and variances. Date: June 9, 2017 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: June 6, 2017 Prepared By: L. Bray Urban Forestry Staff has reviewed the Consent and Minor Variance Application and has no concerns with the proposed consent and variances.

36 Page 31 The applicant should be advised that a Tree Permit is required for any work to be completed around or on a property abutting a City Tree. Please contact Vanessa Aykroyd xtn 7428 for further information. Date: June 15, 2016 Prepared By: V Aykroyd Region of Halton July 4, 2017 RE: Consent Files: B17/003/B 1158 Bellview Crescent Patricia Brandino City of Burlington, Region of Halton The Region is in receipt of the above noted consent application to sever an existing residential lot into two lots with proposed residential dwellings on each, 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 Region. The subject 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). Section 889(3) of the ROP 2009 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, than an Environmental Site Screening Questionnaire (ESSQ) be completed and submitted for subject lands. An ESSQ was not received as a part of the circulation of this consent application. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to submit an ESSQ and any additional information required as a result of the review of the questionnaire. In review of the proposed Consent, Regional Staff are of the opinion that the proposal conforms to the 2009 Regional Official Plan. Regional Infrastructure The following comments are provided as a review of the proposed consent application as they relate to municipal servicing.

37 Page 32 Details on existing watermain services: A 200mm diameter watermain is located within Bellview Crescent adjacent to the property. Fire flow tests are not available for the area. Details on existing wastewater services: A 200mm diameter wastewater main is located within Bellview Crescent adjacent to the property. From a Regional servicing perspective, Regional Staff offer no objection to the proposed consent application. Conclusion: Based upon the above, Regional Planning Staff offer no objection to the consent application 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 additional material requested by the Region as determined by the review of the Questionnaire (i.e. Phase I, Phase 2, and a RSC). Notes to be included in the Decision: i. The Owner will be required to pay all applicable Regional Development charges in accordance with the Region of Halton Development Charges By-law(s), as amended. Please visit our website at to obtain the most current development charge and Front-ending Recovery Payment information, which is subject to change. ii. 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 contact Halton s Public Works Department, Services Permits Group, (905) ext. 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 on the property, that will not be utilized, currently exist in duplication or are deemed substandard, will be required to be disconnected at their respective watermains 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.

38 Page 33 We 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 Sarah Cranston, M.Pl Planner Extension 7554, Original Signed Alex Gordon Community Planning Summer Student Ministry of Transportation The Ministry has reviewed both the consent and the minor variance applications for 1158 Bellview Crescent. See below for comments: 1. The subject property is within Ministry permit control 2. Any construction on the site will require a Ministry Building and Land Use permit Date: June 23, 2017 Prepared By: Connor McBride, MTO

39

40

41 Page 34 File A-064/17 HEARING NO. 4-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: John Edward Graham, 1016 North Shore Blvd. E, Burlington ON L7T 1X7 PROPERTY: 1016 North Shore Blvd. E, PLAN 180 PT LOTS 2,3,6 RP 20R16610 PART 1 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1) To permit a 70 m2 total deck platform area instead of the maximum permitted 30 m2 for a proposed upper deck combined with an existing lower deck all over 1.2 m high. 2) To permit a 1.4 m west side yard setback instead of the minimum required 3 m for a proposed deck over 1.2 m high and over 15 m2 in area. 3) To permit a 0 m east side yard setback instead of the minimum required 3 m for an existing deck over 1.2 m high and over 15 m2 in area. 4) To permit a 4.6 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required m for an existing front porch. 5) To permit a 0.2 m east side yard setback instead of the minimum required 1.53 m (10% x m lot width) for an existing attached garage addition. 6) To permit the zoning regulations to be taken from the actual street width of North Shore Boulevard instead of the deemed street width (26 m).

42 Page 35 STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land division applications on record for this property. There is one previous minor variance application on record for this property. File No.A072/2008 Approved 1. To permit an east side yard setback of 0.32 m instead of the minimum required 1.52 m for a proposed attached garage. 2. To permit an east side yard setback of 0.15 m instead of the minimum required 1.02 m for a proposed eave or gutter. 3. To permit a front yard setback of 5.67 m instead of the minimum required m for an existing renovated roofed-over front porch. Date: July 20, 2017 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo

43 Page 36 Zoning The subject property is zoned R2.1, low density residential, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The R2.1 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 R2 ZONES R m 700 m 2 11 m 10 m (c) (a) 4.5 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 (c) On a corner lot the rear yard may be 4.5 m 2.13 ENCROACHMENT INTO YARDS Every part of a required yard shall be unobstructed with respect to the following encroachments: (a) 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 Table Regulations for Decks associated with Detached, Semi-Detached, Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex, and Street Townhouse Dwelling Units Deck Requirements Regulation Over 60 cm to 1.2 m High Over 1.2 m High Up to 15 m 2 Over 15 m 2

44 Page 37 Maximum Deck Area (a) no maximum 15 m 2 30 m 2 Permitted in a Front Yard no no no Permitted in a Rear Yard yes yes yes Permitted in a Side Yard yes yes yes Setback from a Street Line 3 m 4.5 m 6 m Setback from a Rear Lot Line 1.8 m 4.5 m 6 m Setback from a Side Lot Line in a Rear Yard (See Illustration No. 1 Side Yard) 1.2 m (b) 1.8 m (b) 3 m Maximum coverage (c) 50% of the yard area in which decks are located Footnotes to Table (d) Total combined area of all platforms over 1.2 m high (e) Where a side lot line extends from a common wall dividing attached dwelling units the setback shall not apply. (f) Coverage means the surface area of a yard which may be covered by decks. The applicant is proposing the construction of a rear deck over 1.2 m high with a floor area of m 2 for the higher portion combined with m 2 for the existing lower portion for a total of m 2. The higher portion has a side yard setback of 1.45 m and the lower portion has a side yard setback of 0 m. In reviewing the site plan submitted it was noted that revised variances are required to recognize the location of the front porch and the garage addition which were granted variances in 2008 under file A072/08. Variances required: 1. To permit a 70 m 2 total deck platform area instead of the maximum permitted 30 m 2 for a proposed upper deck combined with an existing lower deck all over 1.2 m high. 2. To permit a 1.4 m west side yard setback instead of the minimum required 3 m for a proposed deck over 1.2 m high and over 15 m 2 in area. 3. To permit a 0 m east side yard setback instead of the minimum required 3 m for an existing deck over 1.2 m high and over 15 m 2 in area. 4. To permit a 4.6 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required m for an existing front porch. 5. To permit a 0.2 m east side yard setback instead of the minimum required 1.53 m (10% x m lot width) for an existing attached garage addition. 6. To permit the zoning regulations to be taken from the actual street width (25.35 m) of North Shore Boulevard instead of the deemed street width (26 m). Notes: 1. No additional variances are required when reviewed under the Zoning By-law regulations. 2. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed deck.

45 Page The plans submitted for zoning clearance certificate will be required to provide dimensions of both rear decks and must be less than the variance applied for. 4. Conservation Halton approval is to be provided at time of zoning clearance certificate application for the proposed deck. 5. 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: July 20, 2017 Prepared By: C. Lipnicky Site Planning The subject property has previously received approval of minor variances for the development currently under construction. These works now require additional variances as a road widening is required and will reduce the setbacks provided on the subject lot. The applicant is further proposing a new rear deck (upper deck) that has a step down to another deck (lower deck). The existing property has a significant grade differential allowing for a walk out basement that is proposed to have a covered patio upon completion of the decking. This grade differential classifies the lower deck as being over 1.2 m in height regardless that it is at grade adjacent to the garage as it will require above ground supports to the south. 1) Official Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? Yes The subject lands are designated Low Density Residential in the Official Plan which permits single detached dwellings with a density of 25 units per net residential hectare. The rear upper and lower decks and existing dwelling do not change the form or density of residential development. The variance requested is in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: R1.2 Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Yes

46 Page To permit a total deck platform area of 70 m 2 instead of the maximum permitted 30 m 2 for a proposed deck over 1.2 m high. 2. To permit a 1.4 m west side yard setback instead of the minimum required 3 m for a proposed deck over 1.2 m high and over 15 m 2 in area. 3. To permit a 0 m east side yard setback instead of the minimum required 3 m for a proposed deck over 1.2 m high and over 15 m 2 in area. The upper deck is at the same level as the main floor of the dwelling and should not cause any over view issues or privacy concerns. The property has large stone retaining walls along both side lot lines with standard wood privacy fence. Staff feel that the decking meets the intent of the zoning by-law. 4. To permit a 4.6 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required m for an existing front porch. 6. To permit the zoning regulations to be taken from the actual street width (25.35 m) of North Shore Boulevard instead of the deemed street width (26 m). The front yard setback for the front porch was approved previously, as the build-to line along the street is maintained. The reduction in setback is due to the required road widening identified by the City. The front porch is not being modified. This technical variance and the variance for the setbacks to be taken from the actual width instead of the deemed width are in keeping with the intent of the Zoning By-law. 5. To permit a 0.2 m east side yard setback instead of the minimum required 1.53 m (10% x m lot width) for an existing attached garage addition. This variance is required due to a construction error. The previous variance application approved a side yard setback of 0.32m and the garage was constructed 0.2 m from the side lot line. The difference is negligible. Staff are of the opinion the variance is in keeping with 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 The variances are in keeping with the character of the immediate area. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature?

47 Page 40 Yes The required variances are small deviations from the zoning by-law. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Whether considered separately or together, the requested variances are acceptable. 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: August 8, 2017 Prepared By: Kristen Boulard Site Engineering Actual road width is 25.35m and deemed road width is 26m. A 0.64m road widening is required and to be confirmed by an OLS. We will not require the conveyance of the subject widening at this time Date: May 11, 2017 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and have no objection. Date: August 10, 2017 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: August 16, 2017 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation Planning has reviewed the Minor Variance Application and has no concerns with the proposed variances. Date: August 4, 2017 Prepared By: John Zaloznik

48 Page 41 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 improvements must be commuted. Date: August 3, 2017 Prepared By: Paul Lacelle

49

50 Page 42 File A-076/17 HEARING NO. 5-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Alka Chandra, 5352 Hollypoint Ave., Mississauga ON L5V 2L Hidden Valley Rd., PLAN 701 LOTS 17,18 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1) To permit a minimum front yard setback of 0.6 m instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for the proposed dwelling. 2) To permit a minimum front yard setback of 5.3 m instead of the minimum required 6.85 m (7.5 m 0.65 m encroachment allowance) for the proposed front porch (porch platform, stairs and porch roof)

51 Page 43 STAFF REPORTS: Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land division or minor variance applications on record for this property. Date: May 29, 2017 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning ZONING COMMENT The subject property is zoned O3-196, Open Space, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The applicant is proposing a one storey detached dwelling. Exception 196 Zone O2, O3 Map 3 & 4 Amendment Enacted 1. A detached dwelling is permitted on an existing Lot of Record subject to the following: 2. Regulations for a Detached Dwelling on a Lot of Record: Front Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Height: 7.5 m 5 m 9 m 2 storeys maximum Except as amended herein, all other provisions of this By-law, as amended, shall apply Variance required: 1) To permit a minimum front yard setback of 0.6 m instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for the proposed dwelling. 2) To permit a minimum front yard setback of 5.3 m instead of the minimum required 6.85 m (7.5 m 0.65 m encroachment allowance) for the proposed front porch (porch platform, stairs and porch roof) Notes: A zoning clearance is required for the proposed dwelling. o A permit from Conservation Halton has been obtained o MTO approval obtained o MAH approval obtained

52 Page 44 Roof overhangs on the dwelling cannot encroach beyond the front lot line. No additional variances required under By-law Date: August 3, 2017 Prepared By: Mark Dalrymple Site Planning The subject property is located on the east side of Hidden Valley Road, north of Highway 403. The property is currently vacant, but has previously supported a single detached dwelling. The applicant proposes to construct a new one-storey detached dwelling on the property, as well as a new detached garage. The proposed garage does not require relief from the Zoning By-law. The following variances are required: 1. To permit a minimum front yard setback of 0.6 m instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for the proposed dwelling. 2. To permit a minimum front yard setback of 5.3 m instead of the minimum required 6.85 m (7.5 m 0.65 m encroachment allowance) for the proposed front porch (porch platform, stairs and porch roof) 1) Official Plan Designation: Environmental Protection Area 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 located within the North Aldershot Planning Area and is designated as Environmental Protection Area within the City s Official Plan. In this designation, the Official Plan permits single detached dwellings on existing lots created in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of The Planning Act. The Official Plan also contains various environmental policies pertaining to lands within the Environmental Protection Area designation. Staff notes that the subject property is regulated by Conservation Halton, who has issued a permit (Permit No. 5523) for the proposed development. As such, staff is satisfied that the contemplated development can occur in a manner that is consistent with the applicable environmental objectives and policies set out within the Official Plan. Staff notes that Part V Section 2.4 of the Official Plan contains various design policies for the North Aldershot Planning Area. The policies within this section regulate development with the intent of maintaining the established character of North Aldershot, which is defined by its integration of significant environmental features and human settlement. Design policies call for: preservation and restoration of trees and vegetation (2.4 a, x); compatible building design and location with respect to natural landscapes, natural features, open space character, surrounding settlement characteristics, and surrounding structures (2.4 b-d, k, p); maintenance of key viewsheds, views to the open

53 Page 45 landscape setting, and views between buildings (2.4 e-h); and integration of development with existing topography (2.4 q, z). Staff understands that the applicant has designed and sited the proposed dwelling in accordance with Conservation Halton s requirement to maintain the footprint of the previous dwelling, apart from a small projection on its east side. Staff notes that the footprint of the previous dwelling did not comply with the minimum front yard setback requirement, and thus, the proposed dwelling requires the above-noted setback relief. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances would not result in development that is inconsistent with the above-noted design policies. Furthermore, staff recognizes that the applicant has limited options with regards to the design and location of the proposed development, and would be reestablishing a similar single-storey form, which has existed previously on the site. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the requested variances would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: O2-196, O3-196 Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Yes Staff notes that two zoning designations apply to the subject property: O2-196 and O The portion of the property that would contain the proposed dwelling is designated O The applicant requires a variance to permit a front yard setback of 0.6 m for the proposed dwelling instead of the minimum required 7.5 m. A second variance is required for the proposed porch (including stairs and roof) to permit a front yard setback of 5.3 m instead of the minimum required 6.85 m (7.5 m minus a 0.65 m encroachment allowance). The intent of front yard setbacks is to allow for appropriate separation between dwellings and public roadways, to ensure that adequate space is allotted on properties for open front yard area and to encourage the alignment of dwellings along the streetscape. With respect to porches, setback regulations restrict the encroachment of these structures in order to further protect the consistency of the streetscape, preserve front yard space, and maintain appropriate separation between private amenity areas and public roadways. Staff notes that the subject property contains only a small developable area, due to the sharply-sloping topography of the site as well as environmental constraints associated with the property s location within the regulated area of Conservation Halton. Based on the information provided to staff, the proposed dwelling appears to maintain the front yard setback of the previous dwelling on the property and is largely confined to the previous footprint. Staff considers the alignment of the dwelling in relation to adjacent dwellings to be appropriate, given that front and side yard setbacks of existing dwellings along Hidden Valley Road are highly variable due to the terrain and the irregularity of

54 Page 46 parcels in the area. Furthermore, staff notes that the limited buildable area precludes a conventional front yard area on the property. Despite the small numerical value of the proposed dwelling setback, staff is of the opinion that its location would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the Hidden Valley Road streetscape or any surrounding property. Although the proposed porch would be located on the east side of the dwelling and would not encroach into the front yard of the property, it requires relief for its proximity to the front lot line due to the location of the dwelling. Staff notes that the porch would be recessed from the front building wall and would have no negative impact on the streetscape. The porch adds an element of interest to the east end of the building and staff considers its location to be orderly and appropriate. 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: 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 proposed variances would allow for a modestly-sized dwelling and porch structure to be constructed in a manner that respects applicable environmental constraints and utilizes the limited buildable area available on the subject property. The proposed dwelling would maintain the general footprint and massing of the previous dwelling occupying the site. Based on the above, staff considers the requested variances to be desirable. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes The variances are required to permit a new building and porch to be constructed in the general location of the previous dwelling on the property. The proposal respects the concerns of the Conservation Authority and would pose no negative impacts on the property s surroundings. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the requested variances can be considered minor in nature.

55 Page 47 Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: In the opinion of staff, there would be no negative cumulative impacts resulting from the requested variances. 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: August 29, 2017 Prepared By: Paul Klassen Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: June 9, 2017 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objections provided the applicant obtains grading and drainage approval before applying for a building permit. Please contact the Site Engineering Department to discuss the necessary site plan details. Date: August 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 A Building Permit is required for the septic system that will be servicing the dwelling. The applicant shall submit detailed design drawings and calculations prepared by a qualified designer that complies to Part 8 and all other requirements of the Ontario Building Code Date: August 24, 2017 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation Planning has reviewed the Minor Variance Application and has no concerns with the proposed variances. Date: August 14, 2017 Prepared By: John Zaloznik

56 Page 48 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 Property taxes must be paid. This includes all outstanding balances plus current year taxes that have been billed but are not yet due. Date: August 15, 2017 Prepared By: Paul Lacelle Ministry of Transportation The Ministry has reviewed the minor variance application for 1323 Hidden Valley Road. The property is outside of the Ministry s permit control area. The Ministry has no concerns. Date: August 15, 2017 Prepared By: Connor McBride Conservation Halton August 10, 2017 Re: Minor Variance Application File Number: A-076/ Hidden Valley Road, City of Burlington Alka Chandra/ Canada Inc. - 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. Ontario Regulation 162/06 Lake Ontario/Burlington Bay/Hamilton Harbour Shoreline Hazards &/or allowances Applicable

57 Page 49 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 The applicant is proposing a one storey detached dwelling. The following variances are required as indicated by Zoning: 1. To permit a minimum front yard setback of 0.6 metres instead of the minimum required 7.5 metres for the proposed dwelling. 2. To permit a minimum front yard setback of 5.3 metres instead of the minimum required 6.85 metres (7.5 metres 0.65 metre encroachment allowance) for the proposed front porch (porch platform, stairs, and porch roof). Recommendation Staff has no objection to the approval of the required variances subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant enters into an on-title agreement; that agreement, titled Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses is to be registered on-title and a copy of that registration is to be provided to CH. No construction is to occur until that agreement has been registered and a copy provided to CH.

58 Page 50 Ontario Regulation 162/06 River and Stream Valley Hazards (flooding/erosion) &/or allowances The subject property is located in proximity to lands traversed by a tributary of Grindstone Creek and contains the flooding hazard associated with that watercourse and is located within the valley of that watercourse. Conservation Halton (CH) regulates a distance of 15 metres from the limit of the greater of the flooding and erosion hazards associated with Grindstone Creek. The property is entirely regulated by CH 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. The development associated with this Minor Variance Application is associated with CH Permit File A/14/B/01 and was issued Permit #5523 on April 20, 2017 in support of this development. The drawings submitted with this Minor Variance Application indicate the same development (dwelling size & location) approved through the review of Permit #5523. Staff has no concerns with the variances proposed as the overall development complies with our Regulation, subject to various conditions of approval; specific comments pertaining to those Permit conditions are as follows: CH Permit Requirements As the development is proposed entirely within the floodplain CH requires written confirmation that the landowner has entered into an on-title agreement. This agreement will confirm that the landowner acknowledges that the residence and detached garage are flood susceptible, that the landowner will notify future landowners and tenants of this fact, and that the landowner save harmless CH from any damages or liability experienced in the event of a flood. This agreement, titled Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses is to be registered ontitle and a copy of that registration is required to be provided to CH. This requirement has been indicated as Condition d) of Permit #5523. The landowner has already been provided with a draft of that documentation for review by both himself/herself and solicitor. Confirmation of the registration of that agreement has not formalized with CH. Prior to any construction associated with the proposed development on site, the agreement must be registered on-title and provided to CH. One Window Delegated Authority under PPS Natural Hazards (Sections inclusive) As per Policy of CH s Policies and Guidelines for the Administration of Ontario Regulation 162/06, staff works 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 CH policies. Policy of the

59 Page 51 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 River and Stream Valley Hazards (flooding/erosion) &/or allowances can be found under the heading Ontario Regulation 162/06, staff are able to confirm that the proposed development meets the PPS and CH Policy, provided the on-title agreement is registered. Summary/Conclusion The property is entirely regulated by CH pursuant to Ontario Regulation 162/06. In advance of this Minor Variance Application, staff had been working with the applicant to ensure that the proposed development complies with Ontario Regulation 162/06. The development associated with this Minor Variance Application is associated with CH Permit #5523 issued April 20, As the development is proposed entirely within the floodplain, a Condition of that Permit requires written confirmation that the landowner has entered into an on-title agreement. Confirmation of the registration of that agreement has not formalized with CH. CH requires that a condition of this Minor Variance Application be included as follows: The applicant enters into an on-title agreement; that agreement, titled Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses is to be registered on-title and a copy of that registration is to be provided to CH. No construction is to occur until that agreement has been registered and a copy provided to CH. Please note that these comments have not been circulated 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, Cassandra Connolly Regulations Officer

60

61 Page 52 File A-081/17 HEARING NO. 6-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Ontario Inc, 1164 Walker's Line, Burlington ON L7M 1V Walker's Line, PLAN 1503 PT LOTS 1,2 RP 20R7363 PARTS 5,6 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCE: 1) To permit a 4.5 m landscape area abutting Walker s Line instead of the minimum required 6 m landscape area abutting a street having a deemed width of 26 m or greater

62 Page 53 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: June 1, 2017 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning The subject property is zoned GE1, General Employment, in Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The applicant is proposing to expand the parking lot into the landscape area abutting Walker s Line. 6.5 LANDSCAPE AREA AND BUFFER Landscape Area: Abutting a street having a deemed width of 26 m or greater: 6 m Variance required: 1) To permit a 4.5 m landscape area abutting Walker s Line instead of the minimum required 6 m landscape area abutting a street having a deemed width of 26 m or greater Notes: Comments based upon the information provided by the applicant. Any additional variances determined through further reviews are the applicant s responsibility. Date: July 31, 2017 Prepared By: Mark Dalrymple Site Planning The subject property currently supports an existing industrial/commercial building (Weathertech Inc.). The applicant is proposing to make changes to the front of the site, including the removal of some of the parking and landscaping area and the addition of 11 new parking spaces. There is currently an ongoing Site Plan application for the proposed works (MM-002/16). During the Site Plan process, staff identified that a minor variance would be required, as five of the proposed parking spaces were within the required 6 metre landscape buffer. As a result, the applicant has submitted an application for a minor variance to permit a landscape buffer of 4.5 metres instead of the minimum required 6 metres in order to accommodate the five spaces which

63 Page 54 currently do not comply. 1) Official Plan Designation: General Employment 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 General Employment within the City s Official Plan. This designation allows for a range of employment and office uses. Part III, Section a) (i) of the Official Plan also states that industrial uses that involve assembling, fabricating, manufacturing, processing, warehousing and distribution uses, repair activies, communications, utilities, transportation storage, service trades and construction uses are also permitted within the General Employment designation. The applicant is proposing to add parking to the site, which continues to be permitted within the Official Plan. The Official Plan seeks to maintain compatibility amongst the General Employment uses. It should be noted that the proposed works on the site will not dramatically alter the streetscape. The proposed 4.5 metre landscape area is measured from the closest point of one of the proposed parking spaces to the front property line. Due to the angle of the parking spaces in relation to the property line, 4.5 metres is the closest point, and this dimension gradually increases. As such, six out of the 11 proposed parking spaces are outside of the required 6 metre landscape area, and many of the five other spaces are very close to meeting this requirement. The impact of the reduced landscape buffer on the streetscape is therefore minimal. The General Employment designation of the Official Plan aims to bring new businesses into the City of Burlington or to encourage the growth of existing businesses. The proposed parking spaces will allow the existing use to expand without offending the character of the area. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: GE1 Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Yes The intent of having a requirement for a 6 metre landscape buffer is to protect the streetscape within the employment area. As previously mentioned, the requested landscape buffer of 4.5 metres represents a pinch point (or the smallest setback from

64 Page 55 the parking spaces to the property line), with this distance gradually increasing. As such, the majority of the 11 proposed parking spaces are outside of the required 6 metre landscape buffer, and of the five spaces within this 6 metres, there is only one space which is set back 4.5 metres. Staff is satisfied that there is a sufficient landscape buffer from Walker s Line to the proposed parking spaces at the front of the building, and is of the opinion that the proposed impact on the streetscape will be minimal and that the proposal 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 The proposed parking stalls are located at the front of the building, making them easily accessible to those entering the building from the front. Because of the location of the existing building, there is no other location for the parking stalls if they are to be located at the front of the building. Staff is satisfied that the narrowest point of 4.5 metres still allows for sufficient landscaping area, and also notes that the landscape area continues to increase from 4.5 metres. Having parking spaces at the front of the building allows it to be more easily accessible and as such, staff considers this to be desirable. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes As mentioned previously, the parking space closest to the property line has a pinch point of 4.5 metres. The majority of the proposed parking spaces at the front of the building are fully in compliance with the Zoning By-law, with the remainder coming gradually closer to the lot line. Staff is of the opinion that an adequate landscape buffer remains and is therefore of the opinion tha the proposed minor variance is minor in nature. 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: August 10, 2017 Prepared By: Melissa Morgan

65 Page 56 Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (35m) No road widening required. Date: June 9, 2017 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and have no objection. Date: Aug 9, 2017 Prepared By: V Aykroyd Building No Building construction proposed. Date: August 17, 2017 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation Planning has reviewed the Minor Variance Application and has no concerns with the proposed variance. Date: August 14, 2017 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 Property taxes must be paid. This includes all outstanding balances plus current year taxes that have been billed but are not yet due. Date: August 15, 2017 Prepared By: Paul Lacelle Conservation Halton August 9, 2017 Re: Minor Variance Application File Number: A-081/17

66 Page Walkers Line, City of Burlington Ontario Inc. 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. 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 The purpose of the above-noted Minor Variance Application is to permit the expansion of the parking lot into the landscape area abutting Walker s Line. The following Variances are required by Zoning:

67 Page To permit a 4.5 metre landscape area abutting Walker s Line instead of the minimum required 6 metre landscape area abutting a street having a deemed width of 26 metres or greater. Staff has reviewed the following documents submitted with this application: Site Plan A1 prepared by KEI most recently revised August 3, 2017; and, Grading & Erosion Control Plan C101, Servicing Plan C102, Landscape Plan L-1, & Details L-2. Recommendation Staff has no objection to the approval of this Minor Variance Application. The applicant/owner is to apply for, and obtain, a No Objection Letter from Conservation Halton (CH) for the development proposed on site. Ontario Regulation 162/06 River and Stream Valley Hazards (flooding/erosion) &/or allowances The subject property, 1164 Walkers Line, is located adjacent to lands traversed by a tributary of Tuck Creek. Based on our Approximate Regulation Limit (ARL) mapping, the floodplain and valley feature associated with Tuck Creek are located along the southwest property line. CH regulates a distance of 7.5 meters from the greater limits of the flooding or erosion hazards associated with that watercourse. Therefore, the subject property is considered to be regulated by CH pursuant to Ontario Regulation 162/06. It is staffs understanding that the proposed works subject of this Minor Variance Application are associated with Minor Modification Application MM-002/16. Through that Minor Modification Application process, CH confirmed that the proposed development (front yard modifications with additional parking) will be located in the portion of the property not considered to be regulated. In this regard staff has no concerns with the variances proposed as the overall development complies with our regulation. CH Permit Requirements No Objections Letters are to be issued in association with Planning Act Applications where the site is in an area of interest to CH (e.g. natural heritage, natural hazards, and areas adjacent to those features), but the proposed works are located outside of the portion of the site considered to be regulated by CH. A No Objections Letter is to be applied for and issued by CH prior to the initiation of the proposed development on site.

68 Page 59 One Window Delegated Authority under PPS Natural Hazards (Sections inclusive) As per Policy of CH s Policies and Guidelines for the Administration of Ontario Regulation 162/06, staff works 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 CH 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 River and Stream Valley Hazards (flooding/erosion) &/or allowances can be found under the heading Ontario Regulation 162/06, staff are able to confirm that the proposed development meets the PPS and CH Policy. Summary/Conclusion Based on the above, staff has no objection to the approval of this Minor Variance Application. The works are occurring outside of the portion of the property considered to be regulated. Staff is able to confirm that the proposed development meets the PPS and CH Policy. The following is required in advance of the development associated with the variances: 1. The applicant applies for, and obtains, a No Objection Letter from CH for the development associated with the required variances. As a portion of the subject property is regulated by Conservation Halton, future development of this site may require accurate delineation of Conservation Halton s regulated area. 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 Regulations Officer

69

70 Page 60 File A-083/17 HEARING NO. 7-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Hillary Prins, 217 Hart Ave., Burlington ON L7N 1N9 217 Hart Ave., PLAN 136 PT LOTS 13,14, ALLEYWAY PLAN 205 PT LOT 32 RP 20R7940 PART 2 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: Variance required under Zoning By-law 2020: 1) To permit a 1.5 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 9 m for the proposed second storey addition over the existing garage. Variances required under Zoning By-law : 1) To permit a 1.5 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 9 m for the proposed second storey addition over the existing garage. 2) To permit a dwelling building of 21 m instead of the maximum permitted 18 m dwelling depth

71 Page 61 STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment There are no previous land division applications on record for this property. There is one previous minor variance application on record for this property. File No. A072/1986 Approved Side yard and rear yard Date: June 12, 2017 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning ZONING COMMENT The subject property is zoned R1.2, low density residential, Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended, and is in the designated area for lot coverage. The applicant is proposing a second storey addition over the existing garage. 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) 9 m Variance required: 2) To permit a 1.5 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 9 m for the proposed second storey addition over the existing garage. Notes: A zoning clearance is required for the proposed addition. Comments based upon the plans submitted. Any additional variances determined through further reviews are the applicant s responsibility. Date: July 20, 2017 Prepared By: Mark Dalrymple ZONING COMMENT The subject property is zoned R1.2, low density residential, Zoning By-Law , as amended, and is in the designated area for lot coverage and located in the Roseland

72 Page 62 Character Area. The applicant is proposing a second storey addition over the existing garage. 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 4.6 DWELLING DEPTH (a) Maximum depth of a dwelling shall be 18m measured from building wall closest to front lot line to building wall closest to rear lot line. Variance required under By-law : 1) To permit a 1.5 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 9 m for the proposed second storey addition over the existing garage. 2) To permit a dwelling building of 21 m instead of the maximum permitted 18 m dwelling depth Notes: A zoning clearance is required for the proposed addition. Comments based upon the plans submitted. Any additional variances determined through further reviews are the applicant s responsibility. Date: July 20, 2017 Prepared By: Mark Dalrymple Site Planning The applicant is proposing an addition over the existing garage to add additional living space. The footprint and exterior ground floor dimensions do not change. 1) Official Plan Designation: Low Density Residential and Rose land Character Area Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? Yes The subject lands are designated Low Density Residential in the Official Plan which permits single detached dwellings with a density of 25 units per net residential hectare. The proposed single family dwelling complies with this policy.

73 Page 63 The Official Plan includes policies for Neighbourhood Character Areas. The subject property falls within the Roseland Character Area. Subsection states that new development shall enhance and protect the following elements of the area s garden-like setting with large and mature trees, strong historic character, and homes with varied and unique architectural styles. The applicant s proposal to construct an addition above the existing garage will not require an expansion of the buildings footprint, nor the removal of any trees. The existing garage is located in the rear yard and is not visible from the street. The proposed addition will also not be visible from the street. Staff are of the opinion the proposed variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: R1.2 Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Yes 1) To permit a 1.5 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 9 m for the proposed second storey addition over the existing garage. 2) To permit a dwelling building of 21 m instead of the maximum permitted 18 m dwelling depth Both of these variances are existing, the proposed addition above the garage does not affect the variances required. Staff feel that the variances are supportable and meet the intent of the Zoning By-law as they represent an existing situation and the proposed development does not negatively impact these variances. The lot to the rear is quite large and the reduced setback should not cause and over-view issues. There is also a considerable amount of landscaping on both the subject lot and the lot to the rear. 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 proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the area. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes

74 Page 64 As the proposed development does not expand the footprint or contribute to an increase of the required variances, the existing deviations from the zoning by-law are small. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Whether considered separately or together, the requested variances are acceptable. 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: August 8, 2017 Prepared By: Kristen Boulard Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: June 13, 2017 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and have no objection. Date: August 9, 2017 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: August 11, 2017 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation Planning has reviewed the Minor Variance Application and has no concerns with the proposed variances. Date: July 28, 2017 Prepared By: John Zaloznik

75 Page 65 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 Property taxes must be paid. This includes all outstanding balances plus current year taxes that have been billed but not yet due Date: July 28, 2017 Prepared By: Sandra Chau

76

77 Page 66 File A-090/17 HEARING NO. 8-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Belle Chan, 1293 Roseto Crt., Burlington ON L7P 4L Roseto Crt., PLAN M275 LOT 6 PT LOT 14 RP 20R7497 PART 1 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: Variance required under Zoning By-law 2020: 1) To permit an 8.5 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 m for a proposed second storey addition on an existing 2 storey detached dwelling. Variances required under Zoning By-law : 1) To permit an 8.5 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 m for a proposed second storey addition on an existing 2 storey detached dwelling. 2) To permit a 20 m dwelling depth instead of the maximum permitted 18 m for a second storey addition on an existing 2 storey detached dwelling.

78 Page 67 STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment There is one previous minor variance application on record for this property. File No. A042/2008 Approved To permit an 8.9 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 10.0 m to accommodate a one storey rear addition. Date: June 23, 2017 Prepared By: Corina Rose Zoning By-law 2020 The subject property is zoned R2.2, low density residential, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The R2.2 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 700 m 2 11 m 10 m (c) (b) 4.5 m Footnotes to Table (b) With attached garage or carport: (v) One or one and a half storey side: (vi) Two or more storey side: 1.2 m 1.8 m The applicant is proposing the construction of a second storey addition over the existing 3 car garage with a front yard setback of m. Variances required: 1. To permit an 8.5 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 m for a proposed second storey addition on an existing 2 storey detached dwelling. Notes: 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed addition. 2. Conservation Halton approval is required.

79 Page 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. By-law The subject property is zoned R2.2, low density residential, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended by Zoning By-law The R2.2 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 R2 ZONES R m 700 m 2 11 m 10 m (c) (b) 4.5 m Footnotes to Table (b) With attached garage or carport: (vii) One or one and a half storey side: 1.2 m (viii) Two or more storey side: 1.8 m 4.6 DWELLING DEPTH (b) Maximum depth of a dwelling shall be 18m measured from building wall closest to front lot line to building wall closest to rear lot line. The applicant is proposing the construction of a second storey addition over the existing 3 car garage with a front yard setback of and a dwelling depth of m Variances required: 1. To permit an 8.5 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 m for a proposed second storey addition on an existing 2 storey detached dwelling. 2. To permit a 20 m dwelling depth instead of the maximum permitted 18 m for a second storey addition on an existing 2 storey detached dwelling. Notes 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed dwelling. 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.

80 Page 69 Date: July 26, 2017 Prepared By: C. Lipnicky Site Planning ZONING BY-LAW 2020 The subject property is located on the north side of the Roseto Court cul-de-sac. The property currently supports a two-storey detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting relief from the Zoning By-law in order to permit the construction of a second-storey addition above the garage of the existing dwelling. The following variance is required: 1. To permit an 8.5 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 m for a proposed second storey addition on an existing 2 storey detached dwelling. 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 The subject property is designated as Residential Low Density within the City s Official Plan. Ground-oriented housing is permitted in this designation to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare. The proposed dwelling addition would have no bearing on the existing density and use of the subject property. The Official Plan requires new residential development to be compatible with its surroundings in terms of its density, form, bulk, height, setbacks, spacing and materials. The intent is to ensure that new development is integrated harmoniously into existing neighbourhoods. The subject proposal would add second-storey living area above the existing flat-roofed garage, which currently projects beyond the remainder of the dwelling. Staff strongly opposes front-loading garages that project beyond front building walls of dwellings, and is of the opinion that the proposed addition would assist in integrating the existing garage with the balance of the dwelling, and improve the dwelling s overall appearance from the street. None of the existing setbacks would be altered to accommodate the addition and the added massing would remain in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood, which supports many large two-storey dwellings. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the proposed variance would maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: R2.2 Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?

81 Page 70 Yes The requested relief is for an 8.5 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 m. Front yard setbacks allow for appropriate separation between built form and public roadways, encourage the alignment of dwellings for a consistent streetscape, and preserve open space as an element of neighbourhood design. Staff notes that the front yard setback of the attached garage does not currently comply with the minimum requirement. The second-storey addition would maintain the subject dwelling s position in relation to adjacent dwellings and would not detract from the existing front yard area, as it would be constructed within the existing building footprint. Staff is of the opinion that the additional massing would not negatively impact the streetscape or any neighbouring property at the existing setback. As mentioned previously, staff opines that the proposed addition would improve the existing condition. The addition would introduce windows and livable space at the front of the dwelling, which would assist in animating the streetscape. Staff is therefore of the opinion that the existing setback would remain appropriate and compatible if the requested variance were to be approved. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the requested variance would maintain the 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 requested variance would provide the applicant with additional floor area while retaining the existing dwelling and maintaining its current footprint. The proposal would also mitigate an undesirable form of massing by activating the façade of the existing garage. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the requested variance is desirable. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes The proposed variance is required to recognize an existing deficient setback, which staff considers to be appropriate in its current state. The existing condition would not be

82 Page 71 made incompatible by the proposed development, and there would be no resulting negative impacts on the property s surroundings. Therefore, staff considers the variance to be 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: August 11, 2017 Prepared By: Paul Klassen BY-LAW The subject property is located on the north side of the Roseto Court cul-de-sac. The property currently supports a two-storey detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting relief from the Zoning By-law in order to permit the construction of a second-storey addition above the garage of the existing dwelling. The following variances are required: 1. To permit an 8.5 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 m for a proposed second storey addition on an existing 2 storey detached dwelling. 2. To permit a 20 m dwelling depth instead of the maximum permitted 18 m for a second storey addition on an existing 2 storey detached dwelling. 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 The subject property is designated as Residential Low Density within the City s Official Plan. Ground-oriented development to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare is permitted within this designation. The proposed dwelling addition would have no bearing on the existing density and use of the subject property. The Official Plan requires new residential development to be compatible with its surroundings in terms of its density, form, bulk, height, setbacks, spacing and materials. The intent is to ensure that new development is integrated harmoniously into existing neighbourhoods. The subject proposal would add second-storey living area above the existing flat-roofed garage, which currently projects beyond the remainder of the

83 Page 72 dwelling. Staff strongly opposes front-loading garages that project beyond front building walls of dwellings, and is of the opinion that the proposed addition would assist in integrating the existing garage with the balance of the dwelling, and improve the dwelling s overall appearance from the street. The existing dwelling setbacks and depth would remain unchanged by the proposal, and the added massing would remain in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood, which supports many large two-storey dwellings. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the proposed variances would maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: R2.2 Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Yes The requested relief is for an 8.5 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 m, and for a dwelling depth of 20 m instead of the maximum permitted 18 m. Front yard setbacks allow for appropriate separation between built form and public roadways, encourage the alignment of dwellings for a consistent streetscape, and preserve open space as an element of neighbourhood design. The intent of the maximum dwelling depth regulation is to facilitate compatible massing in proposals for new dwellings or dwelling additions and to limit the length of side walls where applicable setback and lot coverage regulations would otherwise permit deeper dwellings. Variance 1 Front Yard Setback Staff notes that the front yard setback of the attached garage does not currently comply with the minimum requirement. The second-storey addition would maintain the subject dwelling s position in relation to adjacent dwellings and would not detract from the existing front yard area, as it would be constructed within the existing building footprint. Staff is of the opinion that the additional massing would not negatively impact the streetscape or any neighbouring property at the existing setback. As mentioned previously, staff opines that the proposed addition would improve the existing condition. The addition would introduce windows and livable space at the front of the dwelling, which would assist in animating the streetscape. Staff is therefore of the opinion that the existing setback would remain appropriate and compatible if the requested variance were approved. Variance 2 Dwelling Depth Staff notes that the depth of the dwelling currently exceeds the permitted maximum, and would remain unchanged by the proposed addition. The closest adjacent property to the addition is to the east (1297 Roseto Court). Staff is satisfied that the depth of the

84 Page 73 subject dwelling is currently compatible with the above-noted property, one reason being that the dwellings are not parallel due to the nature of the cul-de-sac roadway. The angle of the dwellings from the shared lot line allows for ample separation between the two interfacing dwelling walls. Staff also notes that the excess depth of the existing dwelling includes a single-storey sunroom at the rear of the dwelling. The addition is proposed at the front of the dwelling and would pose no privacy impacts on the property to the east. Staff is satisfied that current dwelling depth would remain compatible with the neighbouring property to the east if variance 2 were approved. Staff is also of the opinion that the variance 2 would pose no negative impact on any other nearby property. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the requested variances would maintain the 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 requested variances would provide the applicant with additional floor area while retaining the existing dwelling and maintaining its current footprint. The proposal would also mitigate an undesirable form of massing by activating the façade of the existing garage. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the requested variance is desirable. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes The proposed variances are required to recognize existing deficiencies, which staff consider to be appropriate in their current state. The existing conditions would not be made incompatible by the proposed development, and there would be no resulting negative impacts on the property s surroundings. Therefore, staff considers the variances to be minor in nature. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Staff is of the opinion that variances would not amount to a negative cumulative impact.

85 Page 74 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: August 11, 2017 Prepared By: Paul Klassen Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: June 26, 2017 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variance and has no objection. Date: July 28, 2017 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: August 11, 2017 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation Planning has reviewed the Minor Variance Application and has no concerns with the proposed variances. Date: July 28, 2017 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 Property taxes must be paid. This includes all outstanding balances plus current year

86 Page 75 taxes that have been billed but not yet due Date: July 28, 2017 Prepared By: Sandra Chau Conservation Halton August 2, 2017 Re: Minor Variance Application File Number: A-090/ Roseto Court, City of Burlington Chan 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. 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 Applicable

87 Page 76 Source Protection Plan Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Proposal The purpose of the above-noted Minor Variance Application is to permit the construction of a second storey addition over the existing 3 car garage. The following Variances are required by Zoning: By-law 2020: 1. To permit an 8.5 metre front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 metres for a proposed second storey addition on an existing 2 storey detached dwelling. By-law : 1. To permit an 8.5 metre front yard setback instead of the minimum required 11 metres for a proposed second storey addition on an existing 2 storey detached dwelling. 2. To permit a 20 metre dwelling depth instead of the maximum permitted 18 metres for a second storey addition on an existing 2 storey detached dwelling. Recommendation Staff has no objection to the approval of this Minor Variance Application. The applicant/owner is to apply for, and obtain, a No Objection Letter from Conservation Halton (CH) for the development proposed on site. Ontario Regulation 162/06 River and Stream Valley Hazards (flooding/erosion) &/or allowances The subject property, 1293 Roseto Court, is located adjacent to lands traversed by a tributary of Upper Rambo Creek and contains a portion of the valley associated with that watercourse. CH regulates a distance of 7.5 metres from the limit of the erosion hazard (stable top of bank) associated with that valley feature. Based on a review of the Site Plan Dwg. 2 submitted with this Minor Variance Application, it appears that the proposed second storey addition over the existing garage is located in the portion of the property outside of our Approximate Regulation Limit (ARL). In this regard, staff has no concerns with the development proposed and/or the required variances. CH Permit Requirements No Objections Letters are to be issued in association with Planning Act Applications where the site is in an area of interest to CH (e.g. natural heritage, natural hazards, and

88 Page 77 areas adjacent to those features), but the proposed works are located outside of the portion of the site considered to be regulated by CH. A No Objections Letter is to be applied for and issued by CH prior to the initiation of the proposed development on site. One Window Delegated Authority under PPS Natural Hazards (Sections inclusive) As per Policy of CH s Policies and Guidelines for the Administration of Ontario Regulation 162/06, staff works 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 CH 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 River and Stream Valley Hazards (flooding/erosion) &/or allowances can be found under the heading Ontario Regulation 162/06, staff are able to confirm that the proposed development meets the PPS and CH Policy. Summary/Conclusion Based on the above, staff has no objection to the approval of this above-noted Minor Variance Application. These works are occurring outside of the portion of the property considered to be regulated. Therefore, staff is able to confirm that the proposed development meets the direction of the PPS and CH Policy. The following is required in advance of the development associated with the variances: 1. The applicant applies for, and obtains, a No Objection Letter from CH for the development associated with the required variances (the construction of a 1 storey addition above the existing garage). Staff advise that future works be proposed on site may require a site visit and/or technical information may be required to more accurately define CH s regulated area. 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 Regulations Officer

89

90 Page 78 File A-095/17 HEARING NO. 9-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: Shaun Austin & Linda Axford, 932 Shadeland Ave., Burlington ON L7T 2M5 932 Shadeland Ave., CON BF PT LOT 5 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1) To permit a front yard setback of 8.5 m instead of the minimum required m for a proposed roofed over porch including steps and overhang. 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: June 30, 2017 Prepared By: C. Rose

91 Page 79 Zoning The subject property is zoned R2.1, low density residential, and is located in a designated lot coverage area. The R2.1 zone requires, among other things, the following: 4.0 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 700 m 2 11 m 10 m (c) (a) 4.5 m Footnotes to Table a) Without attached garage or carport: 10% of actual lot width, 3 m minimum on one side 2.13 Encroachment Into Yards Every part of a required yard shall be unobstructed except with respect to the following encroachments: 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 The applicant is proposing the construction of a roofed over front porch. A variance is required to permit a reduced front yard setback of 8.5 m to the roofed over porch including steps and overhang. Variances required: 1. To permit a front yard setback of 8.5 m instead of the minimum required m for a proposed roofed over porch including steps and overhang.

92 Page 80 Note: 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required. 2. The front yard setback for the existing dwelling, assessed as being constructed in 1941 is recognized. 3. The existing south side yard setback for the existing accessory building, assessed as being constructed in 1941 is recognized. 4. A zoning clearance certificate was issued on April 30, 2015, under file 15/006974, for a proposed one storey addition to the north side of the existing dwelling. Zoning interprets the required side yards to be 3 m on the south side (location of legal non conforming detached garage) and 10% on the north side (2.07 m) to the proposed addition. 5. Existing rear deck is <0.60 m above grade (patio). Date: July 26, 2017 Prepared By: Tina Vassalli Site Planning The subject property currently supports a single detached dwelling. The applicant is proposing to construct a roofed over front porch on the existing dwelling. In order to facilitate the construction of the front porch, the applicant is requesting a minor variance to permit a front yard setback of 8.5 metres instead of the minimum required metres. 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 The area is characterized by a mix of one and two storey single detached dwellings, with both older homes and newer development. The existing dwelling located on the subject property, constructed in 1941, will remain in its current location. The applicant is proposing to construct a roofed over porch at the front of the existing dwelling, which would require relief from the front yard setback requirement of the Zoning By-law. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed roofed over front porch would be an improvement to the dwelling as well as the streetscape. While the construction of a roofed over porch is not likely to dramatically alter the character of the area, staff is of the opinion that this design element would enhance the look of the dwelling from the street and would continue to be in keeping with the character. The proposal would maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

93 Page 81 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 purpose of front yard setback requirements is to maintain an attractive and consistent streetscape and ensure that dwellings are not located too close to or far from the front property line in the context of other dwellings. The existing dwelling has a concrete pad which is currently used as a patio. The applicant is proposing to continue to use this same space, but to add a roof as well as design features. In this regard, the patio will continue to function in the same location, however the Zoning regulations will be applied due to the addition of a roof over the current concrete pad. As noted before, the dwelling is existing and will remain in its current location. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal 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 the proposed roofed over front porch will enhance the appearance of the dwelling. Design features such as those which are proposed are encouraged, and staff considers this to be a significant improvement to the design of the dwelling as well as the streetscape. In this regard, staff considers the proposal to be desirable. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Yes The dwelling currently supports a concrete pad at the front which functions as a patio. The applicant is proposing to roof over the concrete pad. The existing dwelling will continue to remain in its current location. The streetscape will be slightly improved and staff considers the proposal to be minor in nature. 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

94 Page 82 objection. Date: July 31, 2017 Prepared By: Melissa Morgan Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: June 30, 2017 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variance and has no objection. Date: July 31, 2017 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: August 11, 2017 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation Planning has reviewed the Minor Variance Application and has no concerns with the proposed variance. Date: August 4, 2017 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 improvements must be commuted. Date: August 3, 2017 Prepared By: Paul Lacelle

95

96 Page 83 File A-097/17 HEARING NO. 9-6:30 P.M. APPLICANT: PROPERTY: William Pugh, 2053 Halton Pl., Burlington ON L7R 1P Halton Pl., PLAN 356 LOT 6 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: Variance required under Zoning By-law 2020: 1) To permit a maximum lot coverage of 27% instead of the maximum permitted lot coverage of 25% for the proposed garage and bay window additions Variance required under Zoning By-law : 1) To permit a maximum lot coverage of 27% instead of the maximum permitted lot coverage of 25% for the proposed garage and bay window additions 2) To permit the attached garage and proposed attached garage addition to project beyond the front wall on the first storey of the existing dwelling instead of the requirement that an attached garage is not permitted to project beyond the front wall on the first storey of a dwelling. 3) To permit the front loading garage and proposed garage addition to exceed 50% of the width of its building elevation instead of the requirement that a front loading garage shall not exceed 50% of the width of its building elevation.

97 Page 84 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, 2017 Prepared By: Shawna Houser Zoning ZONING COMMENT The subject property is zoned R3.2, low density residential, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended and is in the designated area for lot coverage. The applicant is proposing a one storey attached garage addition and two bay window projections.