COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT February 21, 2017

Transcription

1 February 21, 2017 Please ensure that cell phones and personal digital assistants (PDAs) are set to an inaudible function during Committee Meetings

2 MEETING #03 Tuesday February 21, 2017 TIME OF MEETING: 6:30 P.M. PLACE OF MEETING: Room nd Floor City Hall DECLARATION OF INTEREST: AGENDA HEARING NO. TIME FILE NO APPLICANT 1) 6:30 P.M B-008/16 A-137/16 Re: 5041 Mainway, Burlington Ward 5 Pages 1-9 2) 6:30 P.M. A-002/16 Re: 560 and 566 Brant St., Burlington Ward 2 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-159/16 Re: 941 Tanager Ave., Burlington Ward 1 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-166/16 Re: 2050 Appleby Line, Burlington Ward 6 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-167/16 Re: 2119 Bellwood Ave.,

3 Burlington Ward 2 Pages ) 6:30 P.M. A-002/17 Re: 690 Hager Ave., Burlington Ward 2 Pages 36-41

4 Page 1 HEARING NO. 1-6:30 P.M. File B-008/ A-137/16 PROPERTY: CONSENT: VARIANCES Retained Lot (Part 1): 5041 Mainway, CON 2 SDS PT LOT 5 RP 20R12483 PART 7 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. To sever a parcel of land to create one new lot. 1. To permit an existing building on the retained lot [Part 1] with a minimum floor area ratio of 0.24:1, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 0.5:1 minimum. 2. To permit a 2.8 m wide landscape area abutting a 02 Zone [west lot line], whereas the Zoning By-law requires 3 m minimum. 3. To permit a 5.8 m wide landscape buffer abutting a URM Zone [north lot line], whereas the Zoning By-law requires 6 m minimum.

5 Page 2 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 minor variance application on record for this property. A099/2005 Approved To permit a front yard setback of 91 m + or - instead of the maximum 22 m for a proposed building. Date: July 5, 2016 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning The subject property is zoned UOP, Uptown Mixed Use Centre Zones, under Zoning By-law 2020, as amended. Severed Lot [Part 2] This parcel is vacant and complies with the minimum lot width and area requirements. Retained Lot [Part 1] This parcel complies with the minimum lot width and area requirements. Floor Area Ratio With regards to minimum floor area ratio, this parcel has a ratio of 0.24:1, which is less than the required 0.5:1. A minor variance is required to address the less floor area ratio. Landscape Area The retained parcel complies with the percentage of landscape area. However, the applicant has advised that the width of the existing landscape area abutting the O2 Zone [creek] is only 2. 8 m and is therefore deficient. Landscape Buffer The width of the existing landscape buffer abutting the URM zone [north lot line] is only 5.8 m and does not comply with the 6 m minimum.

6 Page 3 Variances required: 1. To permit an existing building on the retained lot [Part 1] with a minimum floor area ratio of 0.24:1, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 0.5:1 minimum. 2. To permit a 2.8 m wide landscape area abutting a 02 Zone [west lot line], whereas the Zoning By-law requires 3 m minimum. 3. To permit a 5.8 m wide landscape buffer abutting a URM Zone [north lot line], whereas the Zoning By-law requires 6 m minimum. Date: November 24, 2016 Author: G. Jin Site Planning Consent The subject 1.5 ha property is located at the northwest corner of Mainway and Lampman Avenue. The applicant is proposing to sever a m2 parcel of land from the existing 1.5 ha lot to create one new building lot. The retained parcel would continue to support an existing one-storey office building with associated parking. Staff notes that the resulting parcels would meet both the minimum lot width and lot area requirements of Zoning By-law 2020, as amended. The severance is meant to facilitate the future development of the severed parcel. Staff has reviewed the proposal in accordance with the City s Official Plan policies relating to lot creation. This section requires the following, among other things, to be considered per Part VI Implementation, Section 4.4 Consent Policies within the Official Plan: ii) the lot size and proposed use of the proposed consent should conform to the provisions of the Zoning By-law, where applicable; iv) the lot should have a compatible width and area with lots in the immediate vicinity; and, v) any new lots intended for building must front on an existing public or common element road. The applicant has indicated that the proposed use of the severed lands will be industrial. The Zoning By-law contemplates industrial uses for the lands and prescribes minimum lot widths and areas to ensure that future development will be appropriate for these uses. The proposed lot would have frontage on both Lampman Avenue and Mainway. If approved, the new lot would not negatively impact the existing street network, nor would it inhibit future development on properties in the surrounding area.

7 Page 4 Staff has assessed the size of lots in the immediate vicinity with special regard for lot areas and widths. Staff notes that the proposed severed and retained lots would be smaller in size than some of the lots in the area, notwithstanding adherence to zoning regulations. Staff attributes the large size of lots in the area to the size and number of buildings on these lots. Staff notes that surrounding lots which provide similar employment uses either support one very large building which requires a larger parcel of land (ie Mainway); or multiple buildings located on one parcel (ie and 5050 Mainway). While the consent would yield smaller lots, the streetscape would not be negatively impacted by the severance as the built form (two buildings), spacing and location of buildings would remain consistent with the surrounding area. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed consent is in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. 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? The subject lands are designated Mixed Use Centre in accordance with the City s Official Plan. The Official Plan further defines the property as Uptown Office Business Park. This designation permits, among other things, office uses. The intent of this designation is to establish this part of the City s Uptown area as an employment type area that benefits from its proximity to major arterial roads and which offers a variety of office, employment and mixed uses. It should be noted that no changes are proposed to the site beyond the creation of an additional building lot. The existing office building on the retained portionof land will remain. In this regard, staff notes that the existing development is in keeping with 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? Variance #1 The property is zoned Uptown Office Park within the City s Zoning By-law. This Zone Category requires, among other things, a minimum Floor Area Ratio of 0.5:1. The intent

8 Page 5 of this provision is to achieve a density that will make best use of land resources and bring significant employment into the area. It is important to note that while the Floor Area Ratio of the existing development is proposed to be 0.24:1, the existing Floor Area Ratio is currently much lower as the existing property is much larger (ahead of severance). As a result, the approval of the consent (which would ultimately reduce the lot size) and related minor variances would bring the Floor Area Ratio closer to conformity with the requirement under the Zoning By-law. Variances #2 and #3 Staff notes that the applicant is also seeking a reduced landscape buffer along the north and west lot lines. The intent of the required landscape buffers is to reduce the impact of the development on abutting uses. The property abuts an open space area to the west and residential uses to the north. It should be noted that the landscape buffers are existing and that no change is proposed. The proposed variances are therefore to recognize the reduced landscape buffers as they exist. Staff is satisfied that the reduced buffers have been functioning without significant impact to abutting properties and will continue to do so. In this regard, staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances meet 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? The proposed consent would create one additional building lot. While development on the severed lot would be subject to further development approvals, it would provide opportunity for growth within the employment area. The proposed minor variances for the retained lands would facilitate the proposed consent. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances are therefore desirable. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? As previously mentioned, the proposed variances relate to an existing development, which is not proposed to change. Future development is not part of the subject

9 Page 6 application and will be reviewed by staff when further applications are submitted by the applicant. In this regard, the proposed variances are minor in nature. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: N/A Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposed consent and minor 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: December 1, 2016 Prepared By: Melissa Morgan Site Engineering There is a +/- 2.0 metre wide road widening required along the Mainway frontage. No road widening along Lampman Dr. Only an OLS can determine the exact road widening dimension. Date: November 2, 2016 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has no objection to the variance or the consent. Date: December 8, 2016 Prepared By: Carol Gulak Building 1) A Building Permit is required for all building construction; 2) Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Div. C., Section Qualifications of Designers and OBC ) Applicant to verify compliance to OBC Spatial Separation and Exposure Protection for existing (retained) office building. Date: December 14, 2016 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation Planning has reviewed the consent and minor variance application and has no issues with the consent and variances being proposed. Date: December 13, 2016 Prepared By: John Zaloznik

10 Page 7 Finance Notice regarding Development Charges: The owner, its successors and assigns, are hereby notified that City Development Charges may be payable in accordance with the applicable By-law , as may be amended, upon issuance of a building permit, at the rate in effect on the date issued. For further information, the owner is advised to contact the City Building Department (905) Tax Pay all property taxes owing. The taxes owing includes any outstanding balances plus current year taxes that have been billed as of the date of Final Consent. Local improvement must be commuted. Date: July 5, 2016 Prepared By: L. Bray Urban Forestry Staff advises that Pursuant to Public Tree By-Law , a Tree Permit and Arborist report may be required for future development of driveways, services and buildings. For futher information, the applicant is advised to contact the Landscape Technician at ext Staff has no objections to the severance of 5041 Mainway. Date: July 28, 2016 Prepared By: M. Hunter Region of Halton RE: Consent Files: B16/008-B 5041 Mainway Rd. Widex Canada Ltd. City of Burlington, Region of Halton Regional Staff have reviewed the above noted consent application to permit the creation of a new lot for future industrial/office purposes at the lands municipally known as 5041 Mainway Rd., and offer the following comments: Matters of Regional Interest: The Region s Official Plan 2009 (2009 ROP) provides goals, objectives and policies to direct physical development and change in Halton. The lands are designated Urban Area by the 2009 ROP. Regional staff is satisfied the development conforms to the Urban Area policies of the ROP. Section 89(3) of the ROP 2006 requires that all new development within the Urban Areas be on the basis of connection to Halton s municipal water and wastewater

11 Page 8 service. Further comments with respect to municipal servicing are outlined below. The Region s Protocol for Reviewing Development Applications with Respect to Contaminated and Potentially Contaminated Sites requires, at a minimum, that an environmental site screening questionnaire be completed and submitted for subject lands. An environmental site screening questionnaire was not received as part of the circulation of this consent application. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to submit a site screening questionnaire and any additional information required as a result of the review of the questionnaire. Regional Infrastructure The following comments are provided as a review of the proposed consent application as they relate to municipal servicing. The existing services in the area of the site include: Watermains: Details on existing watermain services: 300mm diameter and 600 mm diameter watermains are located within Mainway adjacent to the property. A 300mm diameter watermain is located within Lampman Avenue adjacent to the property. Fire flow test results are not available for the area. Wastewater: Details on existing wastewater services: A 300mm diameter wastewater main is located within Mainway adjacent to the property. There is no wastewater mains located within Waterdown Road adjacent to these lands. Regional Staff offer no objection to the proposed consent application from a regional servicing perspective. Regional Staff recommend that a note be attached to the decision on this proposed consent application advising the applicant of the Regional Service Permit process. Finance The Owner will be required to pay all applicable Regional development charges in accordance with the Region of Halton Development Charge By-law(s), as amended. Please visit our website at to obtain the most current development charge information, which is subject to change. Conclusion: Based upon the above review and comments, Regional Planning Staff offer no objection to the consent application subject to the following condition:

12 Page 9 1. Prior to final approval, the applicant is required to submit to Halton Region a completed Regional Environmental Site Screening Questionnaire, and any addition material requested by the Region as determined by the review of the Questionnaire (i.e. Phase 1, Phase 2, and a RSC). Regional Staff do request that the following notes be added to the Committee s decision on this consent application. i. The Owner is advised that once all conditions have been satisfied, and the final consent for the severance has been granted, the Owner will be required to contact a Services Permit Technician in Halton's Public Works Department, extension 7878, 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. Please provide a copy of the Consent Decision to the Region. I trust these comments are of assistance to you. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Original Signed Original Signed Adam Huycke, MCIP, RPP, CPT Sarah Cranston Intermediate Planner Community Planning Summer Student Extension 7604 Extension 7554 adam.huycke@halton.ca sarah.cranston@halton.ca

13 Page 10 HEARING NO. 2-6:30 P.M. File A-002/16 PROPERTY: VARIANCES: 560 Brant Street, PLAN 144 LOT 5 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. 566 Brant Street, PLAN 144 LOT 6 City of Burlington Regional Municipality of Halton. 1. To permit a building with a 38% maximum lot coverage, whereas Part 2, Section 4.2-Table restricts a two or more storey building [with an attached garage] to 35% maximum. 2. To permit a three storey building, whereas Part 1, Section Table restricts the height of a flat roof building to 2 storeys maximum. 3. To permit a flat roof building with a 11 m linear height, whereas Part 1, Section 2.31-Table restricts the linear height a flat roof building to 7 m maximum. 4. To permit a front porch with a 4 m minimum front yard setback, whereas Part 1, Section [d] requires a 5.35 m minimum setback [ 6 m 0.65m encroachment]. 5. To apply the zoning regulations from the actual street width of Brant Street rather than the deemed street width [26 m].

14 Page 11 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: November 22, 2016 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning The subject property is zoned DC-344, Downtown Mixed Use Centre, under Zoning Bylaw 2020 as amended. A 3 storey, flat roof office building is proposed on the subject property. Staff have reviewed the minor variance application and have determined the following minor variances are required. 1. To permit a building with a 38% maximum lot coverage, whereas Part 2, Section 4.2-Table restricts a two or more storey building [with an attached garage] to 35% maximum. 2. To permit a three storey building, whereas Part 1, Section Table restricts the height of a flat roof building to 2 storeys maximum. 3. To permit a flat roof building with a 11 m linear height, whereas Part 1, Section 2.31-Table restricts the linear height a flat roof building to 7 m maximum. 4. To permit a front porch with a 4 m minimum front yard setback, whereas Part 1, Section [d] requires a 5.35 m minimum setback [ 6 m 0.65m encroachment]. 5. To apply the zoning regulations from the actual street width of Brant Street rather than the deemed street width [26 m]. Note: These zoning comments were based on the assumption that the two properties at 560 & 566 Brant will be merged to form one development lot. These zoning comments were prepared prior to a formal site plan application. During the site plan review process if other variances are determined to be required, it will be the applicant s responsibility to obtain the additional variances. Date: January 17, 2017 Prepared By: G. Jin

15 Page 12 Site Planning This minor variance application was originally heard by the Committee of Adjustment in September At that hearing, the committee deferred their decision on the application to allow the applicant an opportunity to address community concerns and revise the plans accordingly. As such, the application has been revised by: eliminating 3 variances dealing with reduced front yard setbacks and reduced landscape area along Brant Street; reducing the proposed height of the building from 12.5m to 11m; reducing the proposed lot coverage from 42% to 38%; and increasing the front yard setback for the front porch from 3.6m to 4m. 1) Official Plan Designation: Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? The property is designated Downtown Core Precinct by the City s Official Plan. The Downtown Core Precinct is intended to provide for higher intensity development consistent with the role of Brant Street as a major spine of the Downtown Mixed Use Centre. Notwithstanding this objective, the subject property is located within lands intended to preserve the existing low-rise, residential appearance and character of this area and to ensure compatibility with the abutting residential neighbourhood to the west. The applicant has designed the proposed building with an appropriate low rise residential appearance and that it not negatively impact the low density residential properties to the west. As such, the proposed minor variances meet the urban design objectives of the official plan and will not generate any compatibility or streetscape issues. Staff is of the opinion that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? The subject property is zoned DC-344, Downtown Mixed Use Centre, under Zoning Bylaw Exception 344 of the by-law requires that all permitted uses be subject to R3.2 zone regulations. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that new development in this area is built to a low density residential built form. Despite the

16 Page 13 underlying DC zone which allows for non residential uses such as medical office buildings, the R3.2 zone that exception 344 references for this area does not specifically contemplate non residential uses thereby creating a zoning implementation challenge. The minor variances are to support a proposed medical office building and have been updated from those heard by the committee in September 2016 as follows: front yard setback for the front porch increased to 4m instead of 3.6m as originally proposed; lot coverage decreased to 38% instead of 42% as originally proposed; linear building height decreased to 11m instead of 12.5m as originally proposed; increased storeys (this variance remains the same with a proposed 3 storey building instead of maximum 2 storeys); and Zoning regulations taken from actual instead of deemed width of Brant Street. The reduced front yard setback is along Brant Street where a pedestrian oriented main street is contemplated. Bringing the building closer to the street facilitates a positive relationship for non residential uses and public sidewalks along a main street in the downtown. The additional lot coverage is the product of assembling two lots. Rather than build two separate buildings on both lots, the additional lot coverage fills in the space between the two potential buildings to make one larger building on one lot. The proposed increase in lot coverage is 3% greater than what the by-law allows. It should be noted that the building meets rear yard setbacks and exceeds side yard setbacks to offset any potential impacts to adjacent properties. Despite the limitation of 2 storey buildings in the zoning by-law, there are historic 2 ½ storey buildings in the area. The maximum height for a 2 ½ storey building with a peaked roof is 13m. Although the proposed building is considered to have a flat roof, the third storey is built into a mansard roofline minimizing the apprearance of its flatness. The proposed 11m linear height of the 3 storey building is not out of character with the surrounding area. It should be noted that the revised architectural elevations indicate that there are no windows on the third floor of the rear elevation (facing adjacent low density residential) and all windows on first and second floor of the rear elevation are frosted to provide enhanced privacy to adjacent properties. Additionaly, the third floor has been stepped back an additional 2.345m (thus exceeding the minimum rear yard setback) to compensate for any impacts from the proposed additional height of the building. A condition of approval for this minor variance application will require that these features be included in the approved site plan. Planning staff have no objection to the application of zoning from actual instead of deemed width but defer to Site Engineering and Transportation staff to determine if it is appropriate. Based on their comments in this report, it would appear that they

17 Page 14 do not have any objections to the variance. As such, the proposed minor variances meet the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law. 3) Desirability: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure? The proposed minor variances are desirable as they facilitate a medical office building in the downtown that maintains the low density residential character of the area. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? The proposed minor variances are minor in nature as they reconcile the challenges of applying low density residential zoning regulations to a medical office building use and do not result in a built form that is out of character with what is contemplated for the area. Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: N/A Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposed variance in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and has no objection subject to the following condition of approval: 1. The approved site plan shall be substantially in accordance with the plans presented with this minor variance application. Note: The Applicant is advised that the appropriate form of site plan approval is required to facilitate the proposed development. Date: January 25, 2017 Prepared By: Jamie Tellier

18 Page 15 Site Engineering 566 Brant St The actual road width is equal to or greater than the deemed width of 26.0 metres therefore, no road widening is required. 560 Brant St The actual road width is metres and the deemed width is 26.0 metres therefore, a road widening of 1.59 metres may be required. City staff determined the widening requirement from compiled information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions. Any widening information supplied by City staff must be verified by a licensed Ontario Land Surveyor. Site engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objections provided the appropriate level of site plan is approved. Date: January 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 NOTE: Spatial Separation requirements. Date: January 31, 2017 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation Planning has reviewed the Minor Variance Application and has no issues with the variances being proposed. Date: January 30, 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)

19 Page 16 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: Jan 17/17 Prepared By: L. Bray

20 Page 17 HEARING NO. 3-6:30 P.M. File A-159/16 PROPERTY: 941 Tanager Ave., PLAN 873 LOT 246 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCES: 1. To permit an 8.6 m front yard setback for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling instead of the minimum required 11 m. 2. To permit a 7.6 m front yard setback for a proposed front porch on a new 2 storey detached dwelling instead of the minimum required m.(11 m -.65 m encroachment) 3. To permit a 0.7 m north side yard setback for a proposed 2 storey dwelling instead of the minimum required 1.83 m. (10% x m lot width) 4. To permit 0.6 m north side yard roof overhangs to eave or gutter for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m. 5. To permit a 1.4 m south side yard setback for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling instead of the minimum required 1.83 m. (10% x m lot width) 6. To permit 0.6 m south side yard roof overhangs to eave or gutter for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m. 7. To permit 0.9 m south side yard setback for a proposed front porch on a new 2 storey detached dwelling instead of the minimum required 1.18 m. (1.83m -.65 m encroachment) 8. To permit a 3.9 m height for an existing accessory structure (tree house) instead of the maximum permitted 3.7 m.

21 Page 18 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: December 2, 2016 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning The subject property is zoned R2.1, low density residential and is in the designated area for lot coverage, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The applicant is proposing the construction of a new 2 storey dwelling over the existing footprint as well as a new attached garage with a front yard setback of 8.66

22 Page 19 m and a side yard setback of 0.71 m. Variances required: 1. To permit an 8.6 m front yard setback for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling instead of the minimum required 11 m. 2. To permit a 7.6 m front yard setback for a proposed front porch on a new 2 storey detached dwelling instead of the minimum required m.(11 m -.65 m encroachment) 3. To permit a 0.7 m north side yard setback for a proposed 2 storey dwelling instead of the minimum required 1.83 m. (10% x m lot width) 4. To permit 0.6 m north side yard roof overhangs to eave or gutter for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m. 5. To permit a 1.4 m south side yard setback for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling instead of the minimum required 1.83 m. (10% x m lot width) 6. To permit 0.6 m south side yard roof overhangs to eave or gutter for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m. 7. To permit 0.9 m south side yard setback for a proposed front porch on a new 2 storey detached dwelling instead of the minimum required 1.18 m. (1.83m -.65 m encroachment) 8. To permit a 3.9 m height for an existing accessory structure (tree house) instead of the maximum permitted 3.7 m. Notes: 1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed dwelling. 2. The applicant has been advised that the proposed reconstruction is substantial, and therefore the proposed dwelling is considered a new dwelling. As such an OLS stamped proposed building location survey verifying height from fixed grade, lot coverage and setbacks has been provided. 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. 4. The applicant is advised that the width of the walkway at the widest point is to be shown on the site plan for zoning clearance certificate submission. Date: January 6, 2017 Prepared By: C. Lipnicky Site Planning 1) Official Plan Designation: Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

23 Page 20 The subject property is designated Residential Low Density within the City s Official Plan. This designation allows for low-density residential development. The intent of the Official Plan is to maintain the existing character of the area which is currently comprised primarily of older bungalows. Staff recognizes that growth and redevelopment are inevitable in older neighbourhoods; however it is important to ensure that it is done in such a way that minimizes intrusion on privacy and the streetscape and respects the sensitive nature of the character of the area. The applicant is proposing a new two-storey single detached dwelling in a neighbourhood that is characterized primarily by bungalows. It should be noted that in order to effectively manage this change and minimize the impact, the applicant is proposing to construct the new dwelling over the same footprint as the existing dwelling. The proposed variances related to the proposed dwelling therefore reflect the location of the existing dwelling. Staff notes further that the proposed dwelling incorporates design elements such as window design and size, columns at the front door and a single car garage which help minimize any potential negative impacts on the surrounding area. Staff recognizes that redevelopment will undoubtedly occur in these areas and is satisfied that such redevelopment is being managed appropriately in this case. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? The purpose of the Zoning By-law as it relates to the subject Minor Variance application is to ensure appropriate siting and massing of the dwelling, as it will include a second storey, whereas the existing dwelling is only one storey. Variances #1-7 The applicant is requesting variances relating to front yard setbacks to the front wall and proposed front porch, reduced side yard setbacks and reduced side yard roof overhangs to eave or gutters for a proposed two-storey single detached dwelling. Staff notes that the new dwelling is proposed to be located over the footprint of the existing dwelling with the exception of a proposed porch in the front yard, covered patio in the rear yard and garage addition in the north side yard. It should be noted, however, that the garage addition will continue to maintain the existing setbacks.

24 Page 21 Staff notes that the front yard setbacks of the existing and proposed dwelling footprints are in keeping with the existing established front yard setbacks along this portion of Tanager Avenue. Similarly, the side yard setbacks are in keeping with existing setbacks in the neighbourhood. While the proposal will include a second storey which will alter the massing from what is existing, staff is of the opinion that it is appropriate and has regard for the area s character. Variance #8 The applicant is requesting a height of 3.9 metres for an existing accessory structure instead of the permitted 3.7 metres. The intent of the height provision for accessory structures is to ensure that unsightly structures do not negatively impact the public realm or the privacy of adjacent properties. Staff notes that the structure is existing. It is also located a substantial distance from adjacent dwellings and does not threaten further impacts on privacy. Staff is of the opinion that the existing structure is therefore in keeping with 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? In neighbourhoods with older dwellings, redevelopment will inevitably occur. It is important to ensure that when it does, it is achieved in a matter that respects the established neighbourhood as much as possible. While the dwelling will be two storeys whereas others on the street are not, staff is satisfied that the design incorporates the character and some design features of the existing dwellings to ensure less of a negative impact. Further, the proposed dwelling will be constructed within the footprint of the existing dwelling. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed dwelling will create an appearance that is an improvement to the existing dwelling and that the proposed redevelopment achieves growth in a manner that is respectful to and desirable for the area. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Staff notes that most of the minor variances that have been applied for as part of the subject application are existing development standards on the subject property. Further, many dwellings in the area have similar development standards. Staff is satisfied that the proposed two-storey dwelling has respect for the existing neighbourhood character

25 Page 22 and negative impacts will be minimized. As such, staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances are considered 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: January 20, 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: December 6, 2016 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objections. Please Note: Site Engineering will require grading and drainage plans, for approval, prior to building permit issuance. Date: January 13, 2017 Prepared By: J. Medeiros Building 1) A Building Permit is required for all building construction; 2) Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Div. C., Section Qualifications of Designers and OBC Date: January 19, 2017 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation Planning has reviewed the Minor Variance application and has no issues with the variances being proposed. Date: January 13, 2017 Prepared By: John Zaloznik

26 Page 23 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: JAN 11, 2017 Prepared By: L. Bray

27 Page 24 HEARING NO. 4-6:30 P.M. File A-166/16 PROPERTY: VARIANCE: 2050 Appleby Line, CON 1 SDS PT LOT 6 RP 20R12110 PART 1 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. To permit a minimum building height of one storey instead of the minimum required building height of two storeys

28 Page 25 STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment Thre is one land division application on record for this property. File No. B00/031/B Approved Appleby Line Lease of a building exceeding 21 years with an area of 5,572 m squared. There are two minor variance applications on record for this property. File No. A031/99 Approved 2010 Appleby Line To permit the temporary use of a tent for the purpose of operating an outdoor garden centre between April 15, 1999 to June 30, 1999 instead of the maximum permitted 14 days. File No. A-171/16 Active This application is undergoing zoning review for minor variances. Date: December 21, 2016 Prepared By: Amanda D Angelo Zoning The subject property is zoned H-UCR1-74 Uptown Commercial/Residential 1, H-UCR2-75, Uptown Commercial/Residential 2 and UC, Uptown Commercial, under Zoning By- Law 2020, as amended. The applicant is proposing an addition to the existing building for a standard restaurant with an outdoor patio. Variance required: 1) To permit a minimum building height of one storey instead of the minimum required building height of two storeys. Notes: A Zoning Clearance Certificate is required for the proposed development. City/Region/School Board Development charges and park dedication fees will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Applicant to fill out and provide the applicable Development Charge form. Date: January 25, 2017 Prepared By: Mark Dalrymple

29 Page 26 Site Planning 1) Official Plan Designation: Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? The subject lands are designated Mixed Use Centre within the City s Official Plan. The lands are further described as being within the Uptown Commercial portion of the Mixed Use Centre in accordance with Schedule F Uptown Mixed Use Centre Land Use Plan. The intent of the Official Plan designation is to recognize the Uptown Mixed Use Centre as a secondary node to the Downtown, acting as a focal point for north-east Burlington. Development is to utilize a more urban form rather than support suburban attributes. Part III Land Use Policies, Section 5.6 Uptown Mixed Use Centre, Subsection Uptown Commercial, states the following: c) ii) residential development is to be located in the upper storeys of buildings containing other permitted uses The Official Plan anticipates that redevelopment of the site will take on a more urban form which includes mixed use buildings of at least two storeys in height. The subject proposal does not describe the redevelopment of the site or even a reconstruction of the existing restaurant building. The proposal is to repurpose an existing one storey restaurant building and to allow minor exterior modifications needed for a viable operation. A variance allowing the restaurant in a one storey building form is considered to be consistent with the Official Plan policies as it does not detract from an eventual redevelopment potential of the site in a more urban form. Staff is satisfied that while the building will not achieve the minimum two storey height, it will continue to serve the needs of the community which is an overarching objective of the Official Plan designation. The proposal is subject to Site Plan approval, and an application was made in October, 2016 (File No. MM-019/16). That application is assessing the overall use and design of the repurposed restaurant building, especially as it relates to the remainder of this large plaza property.

30 Page 27 2) Zoning By-law Designation: Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? The intent of the Zoning By-law is to create a more urban streetscape that is attractive, animated and compatible with the surrounding area. Higher building forms that include such uses are encouraged. While the existing building (as modified) does not meet the minimum height requirement of the Zoning By-law, staff recognizes that the one storey restaurant is existing and that it will be remain an active space and a meeting place for surrounding residents. Staff considers this an urban feature. The proposed building modifications improve the design of the existing one storey building and do not impede the potential redevelopment of this portion of the overall property. In this regard, staff is of the opinion that the proposal is in keeping with 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? Staff notes that the proposed development will create a visual improvement in terms of its design and façade improvements, and the existing one storey height will not be exacerbated by the proposed development proposal. Staff is therefore of the opinion that the proposed minor variance is desirable. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? The number of storeys will remain the same should the minor variance application be approved. The gross floor area (GFA) of the building is proposed to increase, however the proposed GFA and all development standards with the exception of building height are in keeping with the Zoning By-law requirements. Staff is therefore of the opinion that the request is minor in nature.

31 Page 28 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: January 30, 2017 Prepared By: Melissa Morgan Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (40m). However, since this is a regional road, the road width analysis will need to be confirmed by regional transportation staff. Date: January 3, 2017 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering staff have no objection to the variance required. Date: February 2, 2017 Prepared By: J. Medeiros Building 1) A Building Permit is required for all building construction and storage containers. 2) Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Div. C.,Section Qualifications of Designers and OBC Date: February 3, 2017 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation Planning has reviewed the Minor Variance Application and has no issues with the variance being proposed. Date: January 30, 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)

32 Page 29 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: Jan 26/17 Prepared By: L. Bray

33 Page 30 HEARING NO. 5-6:30 P.M. File A-167/16 PROPERTY: 2119 Bellwood Ave., PLAN 356 LOT 82 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCE: 1. To permit lot coverage of 23.7% instead of the maximum permitted 17% for a proposed rear addition.

34 Page 31 STAFF REPORTS: PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Committee of Adjustment There are no previous COA applications on record for this property. Date: December 21, 2016 Prepared By: Sean Kenney Zoning The subject property is zoned R3.2, low density residential, and is located in a designated lot coverage area. The applicant is proposing an extension of the second storey to the rear of the existing dwelling as well as a new one storey rear addition. Variance required: 1. To permit lot coverage of 23.7% instead of the maximum permitted 17% for a proposed rear addition. Note: A zoning clearance certificate is required. Date: January 16, 2017 Prepared By: Tina Vassalli Site Planning The subject property, known municipally as 2119 Bellwood Avenue, is located on the north side of the subject street, and is abutted on all sides by single-detached residential dwellings. There is currently a 1.5-storey single-detached dwelling on the property, as well as a shed in the rear yard. The applicant is seeking relief from the regulations of the Zoning By-law as it relates to maximum lot coverage in order to permit the construction of a one-storey addition at the rear of the existing 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? The subject property is designated Residential Low Density within the City s Official Plan. Single-detached housing units with a density to a maximum of 25 units per net

35 Page 32 hectare are permitted within this designation. The intent of the Residential Low Density designation is to establish or maintain low-density neighbourhoods that primarily serve a residential function. Staff notes that the application constitutes an addition to an existing single-detached dwelling; therefore, no changes to the established land use or density are proposed. While specific requirements pertaining to lot coverage are set out in the Zoning By-law, the Official Plan contains policies that guide new residential development to be compatible with surrounding properties, and also states that development in general is to be compatible with its surroundings in terms of density, form, bulk, height, setbacks, spacing, and materials. The intent of the compatibility requirement is to ensure that new development integrates harmoniously into existing communities without posing adverse effects on surrounding uses or unacceptable risks to environmental and/or human health. In staff s opinion, the proposed addition is compatible with the surrounding properties. The addition would be a single storey, and would add approximately 23 m 2 of floor area to the rear portion of the existing dwelling. The proposal is modest and respectful of the surrounding area in terms of its form and bulk, and would maintain an appropriate height, rear yard setback, and amount of rear yard space in the context of the neighbourhood. Staff also notes that the peaked roof of the proposed addition would assist in maintaining the traditional low-density residential character of the neighbourhood. Based on the above, staff is satisfied that the application maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan. 2) Zoning By-law Designation: R3.2 Does the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? Zoning By-law 2020 regulates lot coverage within residential areas. The subject property is within a Designated Area for lot coverage. Within Designated Areas, 1.5- storey dwellings without attached garages are subject to a maximum lot coverage regulation of 17 % for the dwelling plus 8 % for all accessory buildings on a property. The intent of the lot coverage regulation is to prevent overbuilding of lots within established residential neighbourhoods. The subject application would require a variance to permit a lot coverage of 23.7 % instead of the maximum permitted 17 % for the dwelling. Staff notes that the existing shed on the property is exempt from the lot coverage regulation, as it is less than 10 m 2 in area (6.28 m 2 ). In the opinion of staff, the proposed addition would not constitute overbuilding of the subject property. The addition would be fully contained within the

36 Page 33 current rear yard of the property and would represent a modest one-storey extension of the principal building to allow for an expanded kitchen and dining area. The addition would comply with all other zoning regulations, including the required rear yard setback of 9 m, thus maintaining a suitable amount of rear yard space, and adequate separation from surrounding properties. Staff notes that the proposed addition does not span the entire length of the existing rear wall of the house, providing space between the new structure and a group of private trees near the east property line. The applicant is encouraged to investigate the proper measures required for the preservation of these trees, as they contribute to the character of the neighbourhood. Staff also notes that the siting of the addition does not impede access around the redesigned dwelling. Staff has discussed the subject application with the City s Engineering section and has been advised that there will be no adverse impacts to grading and/or drainage on the property or to adjacent properties as a result of the proposed development. Given the above, staff is satisfied that the application maintains 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? The proposed variance is desirable to allow for an existing dwelling to be retained, promoting stability within an established neighbourhood. The proposed addition would provide space and added functionality to an existing dwelling in a manner that is considerate of the neighbourhood context. The proposal is also desirable to retain a significant amount of open space on the subject property. 4) Minor in Nature: Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in nature? Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance allows for a modest dwelling addition that would pose no adverse effects on the surrounding properties and would meet the intent and purpose of the City s Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The variance can therefore be considered minor.

37 Page 34 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: February 2, 2017 Prepared By: Paul Klassen Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (18m). No road widening required. Date: January 3, 2017 Prepared By: A. Capone Comment: Site Engineering has no objection. Date: January 26, 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: February 3, 2017 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou Transportation Planning Transportation Planning has reviewed the Minor Variance Application and has no issue with the variance being proposed. Date: January 27, 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

38 Page 35 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: Jan 24, 2017 Prepared By: L. Bray

39 Page 36 HEARING NO. 6-6:30 P.M. File A-002/17 PROPERTY: 690 Hager Ave., PLAN 361 LOT 11 BLK 51 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton. VARIANCE: 1. To permit a 1.8 m front yard setback for a proposed 1 storey roofed over porch including overhangs instead of the minimum required 5.35 m