committee of adjustment february 25, 2019 - …...plan 1323 lot 61 city of burlington - regional...

COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT

February 25, 2019

Please ensure that cell phones and personal digital assistants (PDAs)

are set to an inaudible function during Committee Meetings


MEETING #02 Meeting Date: February 25, 2019

TIME OF MEETING: 6:30 P.M.

PLACE OF MEETING: Room 247

2nd

Floor

City Hall

AGENDA

DECLARATION OF INTEREST:

HEARING

NO. TIME FILE NO. 540-02- APPLICATION ADDRESS

1) 6:30 P.M. A-084/18 Re: 608 Braemore Rd., Burlington

Ward 4 Pages 1-22

2) 6:30 P.M. A-124/18 Re: 1048 Dovercourt Ave., Burlington

Ward 1 Pages 23-34

3) 6:30 P.M. A-140/18 Re: 1451 Augustine Dr., Burlington

Ward 3 Pages 35-40

4) 6:30 P.M. A-141/18 Re: 1486 Augustine Dr., Burlington

Ward 3 Pages 41-47

5) 6:30 P.M. A-146/18 Re: 243 Malvern Rd., Burlington

Ward 4 Pages 48-54

6)

6:30 P.M.

A-150/18

Re: 3149 Princess Blvd., Burlington

Ward 4 Pages 55-68

7) 6:30 P.M. A-147/18 Re: 3330 South Service Rd., Burlington

Ward 4 Pages 69-75

8) 6:30 P.M. A-008/19 Re: 3330 South Service Rd., Burlington

Ward 4 Pages 76-81

9) 6:30 P.M. A-155/18 Re: 1121 Walker's Line, Burlington

Ward 4 Pages 82-89


MEETING #02 AGENDA FEBRUARY 25, 2019

Page 1

HEARING NO. 1 - 6:30 P.M.

File

540-02-A-084/18 APPLICANT:

Cathy Ann Dowdle, 608 Braemore Rd. Burlington, ON L7N 3E5

PROPERTY: 608 Braemore Rd., PLAN 1323 LOT 61 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton.



Page 2

VARIANCES: 1. To permit a 1.2 m south side yard setback instead of the minimum required 1.56 m (10% x 15.54 m lot width) for additions to an existing detached dwelling.

2. To permit lot coverage of 26.5% instead of the maximum permitted 25% for additions to an existing detached dwelling with an attached garage.

3. To permit floor area ratio of 0.49:1 instead of the maximum

permitted 0.45:1 for additions to an existing detached dwelling.

4. To permit an 8.3 m total hard surface width instead of the

maximum permitted 7.5 m to recognise existing driveway and walkway widths on an existing detached dwelling.

5. To permit a balcony to be located above the first storey in

the side and rear yard of a detached dwelling whereas By-law 2020 does not permit balconies in the side and rear yard to be located above the first storey.

6. To permit a 2.5 m high privacy screen instead of the

maximum permitted 1.8 m for a privacy screen located on the proposed balcony platform.

7. To permit a 4.6 m internal garage depth instead of the

minimum required 6.0 m for renovations to an existing detached dwelling.



Page 3

STAFF REPORTS:

Committee of Adjustment

There are no previous land division or minor variance applications on record for this property.

Date: June 14, 2018 Prepared By: Carson O’Connor

Zoning

The subject property is zoned R3.4, low density residential and is in the designated area for lot coverage, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The R3.4 zone requires, among other things, the following:

4.1 LOT WIDTH, AREA, YARDS

Table 2.4.1

Zone Lot Width Lot Area Front

Yard

Rear Yard Side Yard Street

Side Yard

R3 ZONES

R3.4 12 m 400 m2 6 m 7.5 m (c) (a) 4.5 m

Footnotes to Table 2.4.1 (a) Without attached garage or carport: 10% of actual lot width, 3 m minimum

on one side

4.2 LOT COVERAGE

Table 2.4.3

Dwelling Type Dwelling with Attached

Garage

Dwelling without Attached

Garage

All Dwellings in

Designated Areas (b)

(c)

35% for one storey dwellings including accessory buildings 30% for one and a half storey dwellings including accessory buildings 25% for all other dwelling types including accessory buildings

27% for one storey dwellings plus 8% for accessory buildings 22% for one and a half storey dwellings plus 8% for accessory buildings 17% for all other dwelling types plus 8% for accessory buildings

4.5 FLOOR AREA RATIO (a) A maximum floor area ratio of 0.45:1 shall apply to all properties in

Designated Areas for Lot Coverage.



Page 4

2.3 PATIOS, DECKS, BALCONIES, AND PORCHES – RESIDENTIAL

2.3.3 Balconies are permitted in all zones, provided:

Accessory to dwelling unit Must meet principal building setback with encroachment allowance permitted

in Part 1, Section 2.13 (c) a) Balconies located above the first storey in the side and rear yard of detached

dwellings are not permitted. 2.4.2 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 line: 9 m (e) Setback from side lot line: 1 m (f) Setback from a side lot line that extends from

a common wall dividing dwelling units: 0 m (g) Setback from a rear lot line: 1.5 m (h) Combined length of privacy screens (per unit): 12 m

2.26 GENERAL PARKING PROVISIONS

(1) Parking Space Size & Accessibility

(a) The minimum internal dimensions for a private garage are 6.0m depth x 3.0m width x 2.0m height. The minimum internal dimensions for unobstructed area in the private garage are 5.5m depth x 3.0m width x 2.0m height. One step is permitted in the unobstructed area.

The applicant is proposing the construction of a second storey addition and renovations to an existing detached dwelling including reducing the garage depth to 4.6 m. Variances required:

1. To permit a 1.2 m south side yard setback instead of the minimum required 1.56 m (10% x 15.54 m lot width) for additions to an existing detached dwelling.




Page 5

3. To permit floor area ratio of 0.49:1 instead of the maximum permitted 0.45:1 for additions to an existing detached dwelling.

4. To permit an 8.3 m total hard surface width instead of the maximum permitted 7.5 m to recognise existing driveway and walkway widths on an existing detached dwelling.

5. To permit a balcony to be located above the first storey in the side and rear yard of a detached dwelling whereas By-law 2020 does not permit balconies in the side and rear yard to be located above the first storey.

6. To permit a 2.5 m high privacy screen instead of the maximum permitted 1.8 m for a privacy screen located on the proposed balcony platform.

7. To permit a 4.6 m internal garage depth instead of the minimum required 6.0 m for renovations to an existing detached dwelling.

Notes:

1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed addition. 2. Existing exterior first floor walls are to remain. 3. Conservation Halton approval has been obtained 4. 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: January 8, 2019 REV: January 10, 2019 Prepared By: C. Lipnicky

Site Planning

On September 27, 2018, Planning staff submitted comments for the Committee’s

consideration that included a recommendation that two variances required to

facilitate a second storey addition to an existing house, be refused. Those two

variances related to a proposed Floor Area Ratio increase and also to allow a

second level balcony. Each of these two variances was not deemed to meet the

four tests needed allow for the approval of a Minor Variance. Staff has discussed

its concerns with the applicant and the applicant has agreed to modify the

development plan accordingly.

The subject application represents the applicant’s updated proposal, modified to

more closely meet the current zoning regulations and also to ensure a more

compatible addition to the existing house. The list of required variances has

been updated as a result.



Page 6

Updated Comments:

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 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 2.2.1 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 surrounding area is characterized primarily by back split and side split style homes that minimize upper level massing by shifting mass to the side or back of the house. This minimizes the impact of upper level massing by avoiding large upper level massing and full two storey walls facing the street.

The applicant proposes the construction of a second storey addition above an existing one storey house in order to increase overall utility of the house while retaining the existing house and footprint as a continuing feature within this neighbourhood.      Part III Subsection 2.5.4 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.  



Page 7

   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 surrounding development.  It must be able to co-exist in harmony with surrounding development.  Compatibility is achieved mostly via building siting, massing/bulk, spatial separations (open space) and the preservation of mature vegetation, among other things.     Since consideration of the original submission, the applicant has redesigned the second storey addition to incorporate a sloped roof with dormers versus a straight two storey wall facing the street. This allows for enhanced integration and compatibility with the surrounding area. Staff are satisfied that the applicant has taken the necessary steps needed to ensure that upper level massing no longer dominates the overall house design. The applicant has also modified the previous proposal by adding a solid wood screen as part of the second level balcony design. The screen is meant to mitigate any potential visual impacts to the adjacent neighbour. Staff is satisfied that the screen does limit overlook to the adjacent lot. Staff understands that the retention of the existing house does not allow for compliance with some other aspects of the Zoning By-law as the structure exists in its current location. As a result, variances related to side yard setback, coverage, driveway and garage design are considered to be reasonable to implement the intent of the Official Plan as these variances allow for the retention of an existing structure and existing site features. The intent of the Official Plan will be met in this case.

2) Zoning By-law Designation:


intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law?

Yes

The applicant requests the approval of 7 variances needed to facilitate the proposed development. Several variances were considered as part of the original submission and staff’s comment has not changed on a number of those previous variances. Notwithstanding this, staff will respond to each variance individually as part of this updated application:



Page 8

Variance #1- South Side Yard Setback By-law 2020 requires a side yard setback equal to 10% of the lot width which in this case is 1.56 m (10% of 15.6 m). This is a variable setback that recognizes that houses on larger lots could yield larger homes and so the side yard setbacks are increased as a result. The space afforded by the side yard setback requirement assists with the creation of a pleasing streetscape where built form is punctuated by ample space between houses. In this case the variance recognizes an existing side yard setback and allows the second storey addition to be constructed in line with this existing setback. Subject to design considerations, having the second storey line up with the side wall of the first storey promotes architectural continuity on the site and promotes enhanced integration of the addition as part of the existing built form. Staff supports the approval of the variances to recognize the existing 1.2 m side yard setback.

Variance #2 - Coverage The subject property is zoned R3.4 (Low Density Residential).  Within this classification, the property is located within an area designated for enhanced restrictions regarding lot coverage.  The designation was established in order to curtail over-building within established neighbourhoods.  As such, while a one storey house may maintain a coverage of up to 35%, a two storey structure is limited to a maximum of 25%.  The intent is to limit the impact of a house on the site and surrounding area (open space, vegetation etc) as the house becomes higher.      In this case, the applicant requests a coverage of 27% only to recognize the coverage of the house at it currently exists. There will be no expansion of the coverage to facilitate the second storey addition. Notwithstanding other considerations, the 27% coverage is considered a relatively minor increase in this case and its continuation is deemed to minimize site disruptions at grade. The applicant is not requesting to duplicate the ‘at grade’ coverage/size on the second level and so the intent of the coverage regulation to limit the size of houses as they become higher, will be maintained. Staff supports the continuation of the existing coverage.

Variance #3 – Floor Area Ratio Floor Area Ratio and overall house massing was previously considered by Planning staff as part of applications for Site Plan Approval. That review process was eventually replaced by zoning regulations that provided greater certainty with regards to development requirements in residential zones. By-law 2020.374 updated and



Page 9

enhanced zoning regulations within low density residential zones by limiting Floor Area Ratio to .45:1 on individual properties.      The intent of this regulation is to limit the size of a house, beyond the controls on lot coverage, building height and setbacks etc, in direct recognition of lot area.  The floor area ratio ensures that the massing of a house is right for the property size.   Specifically, it prevents overbuilding on any individual lot by encouraging a reduction to upper level massing especially when site coverage meets or exceeds the maximum permitted by zoning.  The result is usually a stepped upper level design. The applicant had originally proposed a floor area ratio of .53:1 in recognition of the existing 27% lot coverage. The ground floor area was being nearly replicated on the second level. The upper level was not being reduced relative to the ground floor area as compensation for the increased coverage at grade, nor was it reduced in recognition of the zoning requirement.    Staff have discussed the planning matters with the applicant and advised that above all else special care must be taken to avoid an overbuilding situation, including the construction oversized additions.  In this case, the setbacks and coverage are existing on the lot and difficult to change. Mitigation for increased upper level massing must therefore be achieved by a second storey design that takes the relationship between building mass and space that already exists in the area, into account.

Staff has worked closely with the applicant who has committed to design revisions that much more closely meet the intent of this zoning regulation. The upper storey has been redesigned to shift mass away from the front wall of the house and now includes dormer features which help accentuate the first storey as the primary design element facing the street. As a result, the applicant has reduced the proposed floor area ratio from .53:1 to .49:1 to ensure that the upper level not simply replicate the ground floor plan on the second floor. Such revisions ensure that upper level massing not dominate the streetscape and therefore more closely meet the intent of the zoning regulations. Staff is satisfied that the proposed increase to floor area ratio will not yield an unusually large house or a house where upper level massing is uncharacteristically emphasized along this section of Braemore Road.  

Variances #4 and #7 – Hard Surface Width and Internal Garage Dimension      By-law 2020 limits a hard surfaced driveway and walkway width to 7.5 m (6 m driveway and 1.5 m walkway). The intent is to prevent the front yard from large amounts of hard surface. Such hard surfacing may impact site drainage and also impact a site’s ability to provide front landscape and sod (softscaping). The applicant proposes to retain an existing driveway and walkway that maintains a width of 8.3 m. The retention of the driveway/walkway is in conjunction with the retention of the first level of the existing house whereby the design and location of the garage and front house entrance will not be changed. Retaining the existing driveway and walkway in their current configuration allows for this part of the site development to continue unchanged. Staff agrees that



Page 10

minimizing disruption to the site is desirable for functional continuity. The variance is considered to be a small deviation from the by-law requirement and only recognizes an existing situation. Had the driveway or walkway been relocated or revised then compliance with the current regulation could have been more easily accommodated. The garage depth is not ideal however it is also an existing situation. It is questionable as to whether a vehicle could be parked within this garage. The expectation is that this garage will be used primarily for storage, which is acceptable given that two required parking spaces are provided on the driveway. The site will provide the required off-street parking. Staff has no objection to the retention of the garage in its current configuration subject to the retention of the two required parking spaces on the existing driveway The intent of the By-law will be maintained.

Variance #5 and #6 – Balcony and screening

The applicant has included a large second level balcony that extends toward the side and rear (corner) of the second storey addition. By-law 2020 does not permit upper level balconies as part of new infill development, in an effort to minimize impacts on privacy and general overlook to amenity areas on adjacent lots. Staff notes that the property backs onto a creek and so impacts to the rear of the property are minimal if any. Given the corner design of the balcony, it could have a very large impact on the adjacent property to the north. Staff has discussed this concern with the applicant who advises that this specific neighbour has been made aware of the balcony feature and finds it acceptable. Notwithstanding this, staff continues to note a concern going forward not only for this current neighbour but also for any future residents at this adjoining property. The applicant has responded with a proposal to install a solid 2.5 m high privacy screen along the side of the balcony which will in effect act as a side wall. The privacy screen is well integrated with the design of the house and removes any direct overlook to the adjacent property. Visual impacts to the rear do not exist given the existence of the creek at the rear. Staff is satisfied that in this case, the location and design of the balcony with related privacy screen are sufficient to ensure that the intent of the zoning regulations will be met.



Page 11

3) Desirability:

Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law desirable for the

appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?

Yes

In each case, the variances are deemed desirable to allow for a compatible second storey addition to an existing single storey home

4) Minor in Nature:

Is the proposed minor variance from the Zoning By-law considered minor in

nature?

Yes

The variances are considered to be minor with regards to impact to the site, the streetscape and to adjacent properties. The design of the second storey addition included specific considerations in this regard.

Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Individually or together, the variances are deemed to be acceptable to allow for the proposed development.

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 the application as has been revised by the applican, subject to the following condition:

1. The elevated balcony include a 2.5 m high privacy screen as detailed on the plans submitted in support of the subject application.

Date: January 21, 2019 Prepared By: Charles Mulay MCIP RPP

Original Site Planning Comments September 27, 2018

The applicant requests the approval of 6 variances needed to facilitate the construction of a second storey addition with second level balcony to an existing one storey house on Braemore Road. The subject property is located within a mature residential neighbourhood where zoning regulations have been designed to promote compatible

infill development.



Page 12




YES – Variances #1, #2, #4 and #5

NO – Variances #3 and #6

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:     



b. 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 construction of a second storey addition above an existing one storey house in order to increase overall utility of the house while retaining the existing house and footprint as a continuing feature within this neighbourhood. The surrounding area is characterized primarily by back split and side split style homes that minimize upper level massing by shifting mass to the side or back of the house. This minimizes the impact of upper level massing by avoiding large upper level massing and full two storey walls facing the street.      Part III Subsection 2.5.4 Infill Development states the following:  

   c. New infill development shall be compatible with the


  



Page 13

d. 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 surrounding development.  It must be able to co-exist in harmony with surrounding development.  Compatibility is achieved mostly via building siting, massing/bulk, spatial separations (open space) and the preservation of mature vegetation, among other things.     The proposed second storey addition has not been designed in consideration of the built form in the surrounding area. It deviates from the manner in which upper level massing is presented in the surrounding area. Unlike surrounding development, the subject development presents a full two storey house with a two storey wall facing the street. Staff understands that the retention of the existing house does not allow for compliance with some aspects of the Zoning By-law as the structure exists in its current location. As a result, variances related to side yard setback, coverage, driveway and garage design are considered to be reasonable to implement the intent of the Official Plan as these variances allow for the retention of an existing structure and site features. Variances requesting increase to the floor area ratio and to permit a second level balcony raise concerns as they facilitate a size and function that is not considered to promote compatible built form. The design and massing of the second storey addition, including the proposed balcony, has the potential to overwhelm the streetscape and cause an undesirable overlook situation to the adjacent amenity area to the north. The second storey has been designed to replicate the first floor with a two storey wall facing the street rather than to include design features to mitigate for the impact of upper level massing. Staff is of the opinion that Variances #3 and #6 do not encourage development that is compatible or considerate of the mature neighbourhood setting. The intent of the Official Plan will not be met in this regard.



intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law? The applicant requests the approval of 6 variances needed to permit the construction of a second storey addition with a second level balcony above an existing one storey house. Staff will assess each variance individually:

YES - Variance #1 - Side Yard Setback     



Page 14

By-law 2020 requires a side yard setback equal to 10% of the lot width which in this case is 1.56 m (10% of 15.6 m). This is a variable setback that recognizes that houses on larger lots could yield larger homes and so the side yard setbacks are increased as a result. The space afforded by the side yard setback requirement assists with the creation of a pleasing streetscape where built form is punctuated by ample space between houses. In this case the variance recognizes an existing side yard setback and allows the second storey addition to be constructed in line with this existing setback. Subject to design considerations, having the second storey line up with the side wall of the first storey promotes architectural continuity on the site and promotes enhanced integration of the addition as part of the existing built form. Staff supports the approval of the variances to recognize the existing 1.2 m side yard setback.

YES - Variance #2 – Coverage      The subject property is zoned R3.4 (Low Density Residential).  Within this classification, the property is located within an area designated for enhanced restrictions regarding lot coverage.  The designation was established in order to curtail over-building within established neighbourhoods.  As such, while a one storey house may maintain a coverage of up to 35%, a two storey structure is limited to a maximum of 25%.  The intent is to limit the impact of a house on the site and surrounding area (open space, vegetation etc) as the house becomes higher.      In this case, the applicant requests a coverage of 27% only to recognize the coverage of the house at it currently exists. There will be no expansion of the coverage to facilitate the second storey addition. While staff would not object to the continuation of the existing 27% coverage on this property, it is noted that coverage impacts floor area ratio and so staff comments related to floor area ratio are dependant on the existing 27% coverage, and the impact to upper level massing. Staff will discuss the impact of coverage to floor area ratio under Variance #3. Notwithstanding other considerations, the 27% coverage is existing and its continuation would minimize site disruptions at grade. Staff supports the continuation of the existing coverage for the siting of the existing structure in this case.

NO - Variance #3 - Floor Area Ratio      Floor Area Ratio and overall house massing were previously considered as part of applications for Site Plan Approval. That review process was eventually replaced by



Page 15

zoning regulations that provided greater certainty with regards to development requirements in residential zones. By-law 2020.374 updated and enhanced zoning regulations within low density residential zones by limiting Floor Area Ratio to .45:1 on individual properties.      The intent of this regulation is to limit the size of a house, beyond the controls on lot coverage, building height and setbacks etc, in direct recognition of lot area.  The floor area ratio ensures that the massing of a house is right for the property size.   Specifically, it prevents overbuilding on any individual lot by encouraging a reduction to upper level massing especially when site coverage meets or exceeds the maximum permitted by zoning.  The result is usually a stepped upper level design. The applicant is proposing a floor area ratio of .53:1 in this case in recognition of the existing 27% lot coverage. The existing 27% of lot area coverage is to be met by an additional 26% of lot area on the second level for a total of 53% of lot area or .53:1.     The upper level has not been reduced relative to the ground floor area to compensate for the increased coverage at grade. Nor has it been reduced in recognition of the zoning requirement.    Special care must be taken when considering increases to Floor Area Ratio as increases should not result in an overbuilding situation, including oversized additions.  Houses that are too large for the property often encroach into required yards and have associated increases to lot coverage. This can negatively impact the provision of space on a lot as structures become larger. Space is utilized to mitigate for the impact of additional massing on adjacent lots, especially as structures become higher. In this case, the setbacks and coverage are existing on the lot and difficult to change. Mitigation for increased upper level massing must therefore be achieved by a second storey design that takes the relationship between mass and space that already exists in the area, into account. It must not disrupt the established relationship between massing/bulk and space within this part of the neighbourhood.      Staff has assessed the proposed house design and is of the opinion that the floor area ratio could be reduced by a design modification. A partial second storey or second storey design that shifts mass towards the centre or rear of the house would more closely address the intent of the zoning regulation by avoiding a two storey front wall and large two storey house appearance from the street. Since setbacks and coverage are fixed, the upper level massing becomes the only part of the development that can be modified to address the intent of the zoning regulation.

Staff understands that the coverage and front yard setback are existing in this case. However, replicating the large first storey form (27% coverage) on the second level results in an oversized second storey addition with a two storey wall facing the street. The additional floor area will not be accommodated within the site development limit set by zoning or by the design of surrounding neighbourhood.  The result is a built form that is not deemed to be compatible with the surrounding development.   On occasion, there may be rare or unique circumstances whereby some minor deviation from the zoning requirement is warranted.  Such minor deviations are



Page 16

assessed on a case by case basis.  Staff assess structure design and retention of open space on the subject lot and also the spaciousness of surrounding development to determine overall compatibility.

Staff does not support the approval of a variance to increase floor area in this case and recommends that the building design be modified to comply with the current zoning regulations.  Planning staff are open to further discussion on this matter, and to assist with achieving a compatible design.  

YES - Variances #4 and #5 – Hard Surface Width and Internal Garage Dimension      By-law 2020 limits hard surfaced driveway and walkway width to 7.5 m (6 m driveway and 1.5 m walkway). The intent is to prevent the front yard from large amounts of hard surface. Such hard surfacing may impact site drainage and also impact a site’s ability to provide front landscape and sod (softscaping). The applicant proposes to retain an existing driveway and walkway that maintains a width of 8.3 m. The retention of the driveway/walkway is in conjunction with the retention of the first level of the existing house whereby the design and location of the garage and front house entrance will not be changed. Retaining the existing driveway and walkway in their current configuration allows for this part of the site development to continue unchanged. Staff agrees that minimizing disruption to the site is desirable for functional continuity. The variance is considered to be a small deviation from the by-law requirement and only recognizes an existing situation. Had the driveway or walkway been relocated or revised then compliance with the current regulation could have been more easily accommodated. The garage depth is not ideal however it is also an existing situation. It is questionable as to whether a vehicle could be parked within this garage. The expectation is that this garage will be used primarily for storage, which is acceptable given that two required parking spaces are provided on the driveway. The site will provide the required off-street parking. Staff has no objection to the retention of the garage in its current configuration subject to the retention of the two required parking spaces on the existing driveway The intent of the By-law will be maintained.

NO Variance #6 – Balcony The applicant has included a large second level balcony that extends toward the side and rear (corner) of the second storey addition. By-law 2020 does not permit upper level balconies as part of new infill development, in an effort to minimize impacts on privacy and general overlook to amenity areas on adjacent lots. Staff notes that the property backs onto a creek and so impacts to the rear of the property are minimal if any. Given the corner design of the balcony, it does still have a very large impact on the adjacent property to the north. Staff has discussed this concern with the applicant who advises that this specific neighbour has been made



Page 17

aware of the balcony feature and finds it acceptable. While staff are pleased to know that the most affected neighbour is not concerned regarding privacy impact, the intent of the by-law which is to protect the adjacent site’s amenity area for current and future residents will not be met. Staff is especially concerned with the design of the balcony. Its large size and side corner orientation will encourage outdoor activity where noise and light to the adjacent property will become very pronounced. The balcony includes no features that mitigate for this anticipated impact. Staff does not support the approval of this variance as the intent of the By-law regulation will not be met.

3) Desirability:



Yes Variance #1, #2, #4, #5 Staff considers these variances as recognizing the location of the existing building and overall site design. The continuation of these features is considered to be desirable to be able to incorporate the existing house into the new design and also to minimize disruption to the existing site layout.

NO Variance #3 and #6

Variances #3 and #6 are not considered to be desirable as a result of their impact to the streetscape and to the overall neighbourhood.

4) Minor in Nature:


nature?

Yes Variance #1, #2, #4, #5 Staff considers the impact of these variances to be minor as they do not facilitate modifications to the existing ground floor portion of the building or to the site layout.

NO Variance #3 and #6

Variances #3 and #6 are not considered to be minor with regards to impact. The floor area ratio is substantially increased as a result of a desire to replicate first floor massing on the second level. The zoning regulations do not permit this even when the ground floor coverage meets the maximum requirement of 25%. It is of more concern when



Page 18

upper level massing is added to a building with coverage that exceeds the limit. The impact is substantially increased. The impact of the balcony to the adjoining neighbour will be great. The balcony utilizes no design elements to mitigate for noise or overlook into the adjacent rear yard.

Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Variance #3 proposing a Floor Area Ratio of .53:1 has a cumulative impact together with Variance #2 which describes an existing site coverage situation. As Variance #2 describes an existing situation, only Variance #3 can be modified to remove this 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 to the Approval of Variance #1, #2, #4, and #5. 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 Objects to

Variance #3 and #6 for the reasons noted above. Staff is prepared to work with the applicant on design revisions that would meet the tests for minor variances under the Planning Act Date: September 27, 2018 Prepared By: Charles Mulay MCIP RPP

Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: January 14, 2019 Prepared By: A. Capone Further to the resubmission dated January 11, 2019, staff has no objection to the subject variances, however, the applicant must obtain a Grading and Drainage clearance prior to building permit as well as the previously requested Tree Permit. Date: January 14, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone

Building

1. A Building Permit is required for all building construction; 2. Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per

Div. C., Section 3.2 - Qualifications of Designers and OBC 2012.



Page 19

Date: January 25, 2018 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou

Transportation Planning

Transportation Services has no concerns with this Minor Variance Application. Date: January 11, 2019 Prepared By: Trevor Clark

Finance

Notice regarding Development Charges: The owner, its successors and assigns, are hereby notified that City Development Charges may be payable in accordance with the applicable By-law 72-2004, 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) 335-7731.

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: Jan 10/19 Prepared By: L. Bray

Conservation Halton

Re: Minor Variance Application – Revised Submission

File Number: 540-02-A-084/18 608 Braemore Rd., City of Burlington

Dowdle – Applicant/Owner 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 3.1.1-3.1.7 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.



Page 20

Ontario Regulation 162/06

Applicab

le

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 3.1.1-3.1.7 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 the construction of a second storey addition and renovations to an existing detached dwelling. The following variances are required by Zoning:

1. To permit a 1.2 m south side yard setback instead of the minimum required 1.56 m (10% x 15.54 m lot width) for additions to an existing detached dwelling.


3. To permit floor area ratio of 0.49:1 instead of the maximum permitted 0.45:1 for additions to an existing detached dwelling.

4. To permit an 8.3 m total hard surface width instead of the maximum permitted 7.5 m to recognise existing driveway and walkway widths on an existing detached dwelling.

5. To permit a balcony to be located above the first storey in the side and rear yard of a detached dwelling whereas By-law 2020 does not permit balconies in the side and rear yard to be located above the first storey.



Page 21

6. To permit a 2.5 m high privacy screen instead of the maximum permitted 1.8 m for a privacy screen located on the proposed balcony platform.

7. To permit a 4.6 m internal garage depth instead of the minimum required 6.0 m for renovations to an existing detached dwelling.

CH received the following documents submitted with this application on January 10, 2019:

Existing First Floor, Existing Foundation Floor Plan (A1) prepared by R. Crickmore Design dated October 2017;

First Floor Plan, Second Floor Plan (A2) prepared by R. Crickmore Design dated November 2018;

Roof Plan, Cross Section (A3) prepared by R. Crickmore Design dated November 2018;

East & West Elevation, North & South Elevation (A4) prepared by R. Crickmore Design dated November 2018; and,

Plot Plan (A5) prepared by R. Crickmore Design dated October 2017.

Recommendation

CH has no objection to the approval of this Minor Variance Application. These works are associated with CH File A/18/B/51, Permit # 5924 issued May 22, 2018.

Ontario Regulation 162/06

River and Stream Valley Hazards (flooding/erosion) &/or allowances

The subject property, 608 Braemore Rd., is adjacent to lands traversed by a tributary of Tuck Creek and contains a portion of the top of bank erosion hazard associated with the valley of that watercourse. Based on the information available, staff is of the opinion that the top of bank can be approximately correlated to the existing fenceline on site. CH regulates an additional 7.5 metres landward from that location. As such, a portion of the property is considered to be 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/18/B/51. CH Permit #5924 was issued on May 22, 2018 in support of this development.

Revised Drawings: Staff note there are changes to the roof design and configuration of the second floor balcony (decrease in size) when compared to the previously



Page 22

approved drawings for CH Permit #5924. As these changes are minor in association with Ontario Regulation 162/06, CH has no concerns and will not require the applicant to obtain a revised Permit. Please keep CH apprised should any further changes be proposed.

One Window Delegated Authority under PPS

Natural Hazards (Sections 3.1.1-3.1.7 inclusive) While specific comments pertaining to River and Stream Valley Hazards (flooding/erosion) &/or allowances can be found under the heading ‘Ontario Regulation 162/06’, CH staff are of the opinion that the proposed development meets the requirements of Ontario Regulation 162/06 and the PPS.

Summary/Conclusion

The subject property, 608 Braemore Rd, is adjacent to lands traversed by a tributary of Tuck Creek and contains a portion of the top of bank erosion hazard associated with the valley of that watercourse. 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 application is associated with CH Permit #5924 issued on May 22, 2018. Staff has no concerns with the variances proposed as the overall development complies with our Regulation and the direction of the PPS. Based on the above, staff

has no objection to the approval of this Minor Variance Application. We trust the above is of assistance. If you have any further questions, please contact the undersigned at extension 2279. Sincerely, Ola Panczyk Environmental Planning Analyst OP/ Date: January 22, 2019 Prepared By: Originally signed by Ola Panczyk

COPYRIGHT ACT APPLIES TO USE AND REPRODUCTION



Page 23


File

540-02-A-124/18 APPLICANT:

Jorge Manuel Gomes, 259 Wexford Ave S Hamilton, ON L8K 2P4

PROPERTY: 1048 Dovercourt Ave., PLAN 1062 PT PCL A City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton.

VARIANCES: 1. To permit a 8.4m front yard instead of the minimum required 11m for a proposed one storey, detached dwelling.

2. To permit a 1.2m east side yard instead of the minimum required 1.832m (10% x 18.32m lot width) for a proposed one storey, detached dwelling.

3. To permit a 9.2m rear yard to the proposed rear walk-out stairs instead of the minimum required 10m for a proposed one storey, detached dwelling.



Page 24

STAFF REPORTS:


There are no previous land division or minor variance applications on record for this property. Date: September 24, 2018 Prepared By: Carson O’Connor

Zoning

1) Background information (note this not included in the Agenda): 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 R2.1 zone requires, among other things, the following:


Table 2.4.1


Yard


Side Yard

R2.1 18 m 700 m2 11 m (e)(f) 10 m (c) (a)(d) 4.5 m

Footnotes to Table 2.4.1 (b) With attached garage or carport: 10% of actual lot width

2) Proposal: The applicant is proposing the construction of a one-storey, detached dwelling.

3) Variances required:

1. To permit a 8.4m front yard instead of the minimum required 11m for a proposed one storey, detached dwelling.

2. To permit a 1.2m east side yard instead of the minimum required 1.832m (10% x 18.32m lot width) for a proposed one storey, detached dwelling.

3. To permit a 9.2m rear yard to the proposed rear walk-out stairs instead of the minimum required 10m for a proposed one storey, detached dwelling.



Page 25

4) Notes and conditions:

1. The survey provided shows an easement along the west property line for sanitary and storm sewers. The proposed dwelling does not encroach into the easement; however comments from City of Burlington (Site Engineering) and / or the Region of Halton should be taken into consideration, if provided.

2. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed dwelling. 3. Development Charges will be required in accordance with applicable By-laws. 4. The variances identified are based on the plans provided. Any changes to


Date: January 16, 2018 Prepared By: Danielle Beck, CPT

Site Planning Comment

In November of 2018, Planning staff completed comments on an original

application submission proposing the construction of a new one storey detached

dwelling on the subject property. The original house design required the

approval of six variances needed to allow the proposed house to maintain an

increased site coverage, reduced setbacks from adjacent yards and also to

maintain a house length that exceeded the 18 m permitted within this zoning

designation.

Staff supported the proposed setbacks variances related to front yard and to side

yard, but did not support the increased coverage, increased house length and the

encroachment into the rear yard. Staff regarded these variances as cumulatively

indicating an overbuilding situation, the construction of a house that was not

appropriately sized for the lot and which did not achieve the desired level of

overall compatibility with the surrounding area.

Staff met with the applicant and discussed various options to modify the house

design to more closely align with the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-

law. The applicant has been very understanding of the situation and made

modifications to address staff’s concerns. The subject application reflects the

applicant’s revised and updated proposal. Variances to increase site coverage

and to increase the length of the overall house have been removed. Variances to

rear yard setback have been reduced.



Page 26




Yes

The subject property is designated “Residential – Low Density” within the City’s Official Plan. This designation permits single detached residential development up to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare. Such ground oriented housing forms must be compatible with the scale, urban design and community features of the neighbourhood. The subject application proposes the construction of a new one storey house on a lot that is currently vacant. The house design and site layout are considered acceptable to implement the policies and objectives of the Official Plan.




Yes

YES - Variance #1 – Front Yard Setback By-law 2020 requires an 11 m front yard setback in an R2.1 zone designation. This setback is an enhanced front yard setback that recognizes that many homes in older established neighbourhoods maintain large front yard setbacks and that new development should not disrupt this pattern. The enhanced setback also mitigates for potential impact to the streetscape, especially if development is two storey in height (larger massing). In this case, the applicant proposes a setback of 8.4 m. This is 20 cm greater than the originally proposed 8.2 m front yard setback. Staff notes that the setback still occurs at one side of the proposed house only, and is a result of the front property line not being parallel with the front wall of the proposed house. The irregular front lot line creates an encroachment on the north-west side of the front yard but allows compliance with the setback requirement in the opposite side of the front yard. The differential results from the irregular front lot line. It is also noted that the reduced setback facilitates a one storey house whereby impacts of massing to the street are greatly reduced as a result versus a two storey house. Staff continues to be of the opinion that the intent of the By-law regulation will be met in this case.



Page 27

YES – Variance #2 – East Side Yard Setback The R2.1 zone classification requires that side yards be equal to 10% of the lot width. Setbacks increase with the width of a lot. In this case, the side yard setback is calculated to be 1.832 m. The applicant is proposing a setback of 1.2 m. The intent of the regulation is to promote compatible spacing between homes, with increased setbacks required for larger lots that could accommodate larger homes. In this case, staff is satisfied that the 1.2 m setback is sufficient to ensure proper spacing in the east side yard. The requisite space will be maintained to allow outside access and building maintenance. Staff also notes that the reduction accommodates a one storey house which although slightly closer to the lot line mitigates for massing impacts by virtue of the house height and the absence of a second level with second level windows etc. The intent of this regulation will be met.

YES – Variance #3 – Rear Yard Setback Residential development in an R2.1 zone designation requires a rear yard setback of 10 m. The intent of the regulation is to preserve open amenity space in a rear yard and also to align houses on adjacent lots to prevent substantial projections into rear yard areas. The applicant had originally proposed a rear yard setback of 9.2 m for the house and 8.2 m for the rear walk-out stairs. The house has been redesigned to comply with the rear yard setback requirement however, the stairs will now encroach by 80 cm into the required rear yard setback instead of the 1.8 m previously proposed. This is considered a substantial improvement. Staff considers the encroachment of the rear walk out stairs to be minor and is of the opinion that the intent of the zoning regulation will be met in this case.

3) Desirability:



Yes

The variances are considered desirable to allow for the development of this vacant lot, in a manner that is much improved over the original proposal.



Page 28

4) Minor in Nature:


nature?

Yes

In each case, the variances are considered to be minor with regards to impact to the site as well as to adjacent development.

Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Individually or together, the variances are considered acceptable to allow for the development of the subject property.

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: February 8, 2018 Prepared By: Charles Mulay MCIP RPP

Site Planning Comments – Original Application Submission - November 2018




Yes – Variance #1 and #3

No – Variance #2, #4, #5 and #6

The subject property is designated “Residential – Low Density” within the City’s Official Plan. This designation permits single detached residential development up to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare. Such ground oriented housing forms must be compatible with the scale, urban design and community features of the neighbourhood. The subject application proposes the construction of a one storey house on a lot that is currently vacant. The house design is generally acceptable however several variances have been requested in order to address lot design issues and to allow for an expansion of the footprint of this one storey building. Several of the requested variances negatively impact overall compatibility (coverage, house length and rear yard setback). The house should be slightly modified to minimize impact to the site and to



Page 29

surrounding properties. Staff will discuss the impact of each variance below. Minor revisions to the site plan are needed to better align the proposed development with the policies and objectives of the Official Plan.




The applicant proposes the construction of a one storey house on a lot that is currently vacant. The property is surrounded by single detached residential development and also flanks a public walkway on the west side of the lot. This pedestrian walkway connects Dovercourt Ave to Dowland Crescent. Staff will address each variance individually:

YES - Variance #1 – Front Yard Setback By-law 2020 requires an 11 m front yard setback in an R2.1 zone designation. This setback is an enhanced front yard setback that recognizes that many homes in older established neighbourhoods maintain large front yard setbacks and that new development should not disrupt this pattern. The enhanced setback also mitigates for potential impact to the streetscape, especially if development is two storey in height (larger massing). In this case, the applicant proposes a setback of 8.2 m. Staff notes that the setback occurs at the west side of the proposed house only as a result of the front property line not being parallel with the front wall of the proposed house. The irregular front lot line creates an encroachment on the west side of the front yard but allows compliance with the setback requirement in the east side of the front yard. The differential results from the irregular front lot line. Staff notes that the reduced setback facilitates a one storey house whereby impacts of massing to the street are greatly reduced as a result. The intent of the By-law regulation will be met.

NO – Variance #2 and #6 – Rear Yard Setback Residential development in an R2.1 zone designation requires a rear yard setback of 10 m. The intent of the regulation is to preserve open amenity space in a rear yard and also to align houses on adjacent lots to prevent substantial projections into rear yard areas. The 90 cm encroachment for the house and 1.8 m for the stairs into the required rear yard results from the expanded footprint of the proposed house design. Staff notes



Page 30

that this being a new house construction and not an expansion or addition to an existing house, the required rear yard setback could be achieved by way of a minor design revision. While staff agrees that a 90 cm (3 ft) encroachment is not an overly large encroachment, it becomes a large concern when considered in conjunction with Variance #4 and #5 which requests that coverage be increased and that the length of the house be extended beyond the 18 m maximum allowed by the zoning regulations. Together, these aspects of the zoning regulations normally attempt to align the siting of houses and rear amenity areas on adjacent lots. Some improvement is needed with regards to house alignment. Staff recommends that the house be modified to maintain the required rear yard setback especially as it impacts coverage (Variance #4) and the overall length of the house (Variance #5). Staff is prepared to work with the applicant in this regard.

YES – Variance #3 – East Side Yard Setback The R2.1 zone classification requires that side yards be equal to 10% of the lot width. Setbacks increase with the width of a lot. In this case, the side yard setback is calculated to be 1.832 m. The applicant is proposing a setback of 1.2 m. The intent of the regulation is to promote compatible spacing between homes, with increased setbacks required for larger lots that could accommodate larger homes. In this case, staff is satisfied that the 1.2 m setback is sufficient to ensure proper spacing in the east side yard. The requisite space will be maintained to allow outside access and building maintenance. Staff also notes that the reduction accommodates a one storey house which although slightly closer to the lot line mitigates for massing impacts by virtue of the house height and the absence of a second level with second level windows etc. The intent of this regulation will be met.

NO – Variance #4 - Coverage The coverage limit set out under the zoning regulations ensures that new house construction not overwhelm a site or pose an overbuilding situation. Specifically, it limits coverage to 35% for a one storey structure. This is substantially more than the 25% maximum coverage permitted for a two storey structure. The By-law accommodates for different house heights by requiring varied coverages in response to differing house size. Notwithstanding the increased coverage afforded to a one storey house versus a two storey house, the applicant has requested a further increase to 38%. While the increase is not large from a mathematical perspective, it facilitates a reduced rear yard (Variance #2) and an elongated house design (Variance #5). Although a one storey house may have an increased footprint (coverage) versus a two storey house,



Page 31

other performance standards such as house length and rear yard setback should not be negatively impacted as a result. Staff is of the opinion that a revision to the house design is required to address the impact of this variance. Staff is willing to work with the applicant on the revisions needed to achieve this objective.

NO – Variance #5 – House Length By-law 2020 limits the length of a house on a lot to 18 m. House length is one of the design tools required under zoning that promotes compatible housing forms within established neighbourhoods. It avoids the presentation of long walls in areas adjacent to existing development. It also limits the projection of houses into rear open space/amenity areas. In this case, the proposed house will be located almost entirely adjacent to the rear yard of the property to the east and partially adjacent to the rear yard of the property to the west, although that property is buffered by landscaping and the aforementioned public walkway connecting Dovercourt Ave to Dowlands Crescent. As with Variance #2 and #5, the proposed increase is not large from a mathematical perspective. However, it facilitates a reduction in the rear yard setback and increases overall coverage. A modification is required. Staff recommends that the house design be altered to reduced house depth and in doing so more closely meet the rear yard setback and coverage requirements. This will further promote overall compatibility.

3) Desirability:



Yes Variances #1 and #3

No Variances #2, #4, #5 and #6 Variances #1 and #3 are desirable to allow for compatible development on the subject lot. Variances #2, #4, #5 and #6 are in each case slightly over the permitted requirement and together result in an building footprint that is not desirable for the development of the subject lot.



Page 32

4) Minor in Nature:


nature?

Yes Variances #1 and #3

No Variances #2, #4, #5 and #6 Variances #1 and #3 are minor with minimal impact to adjacent development. Variances #2, #4, #5 and #6 are not considered to be minor as they result in a house that pushes too far into the required rear yard in a manner that is not consistent with adjacent development.

Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Variances #2, #4, #5 and #6 create a cumulative impact whereby each variance allows for some increase to the house size. The house depth impacts the coverage and the coverage impacts the rear yard setbacks. In staff’s opinion, a reconsideration of these variances is required.

(Previous) 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 to Variance #1 and Variance #3. 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 objects to

Variances #2, #4, #5 and #6 as requested. Date: November 15, 2018 Prepared By: Charles Mulay MCIP RPP

Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: January 22, 2019 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objection. The applicant shall obtain a grading and drainage clearance prior to building permit. Date: January 22, 2019 Prepared By: A. Capone



Page 33

Building


Div. C., Section 3.2 - Qualifications of Designers and OBC 2012. Date: February 8, 2019 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou



Finance



Date: Jan 18, 2019 Prepared By: L. Bray

Halton Region Regional Staff have now had an opportunity to consider the Revised Minor Variance application (File A-124/18) for 1048 Dovercourt Avenue and offer the following comments from a Regional Planning and Servicing perspective. The Minor Variance application as circulated proposes a number of variances to the R2.1 Zone to permit the construction of a new single detached on a vacant parcel of land. The variances as submitted propose reductions to the front, rear, and east side yards. The Region offers no objection to the proposed variances as submitted. However, while the Region offers no objection to these proposed variances, the Committee and the City should be aware that an easement, in favour of the Region, is currently in place over northern half (west side) of the subject lands. This easement provides for the long-term protection of regional infrastructure from encroachments of



Page 34

buildings and structures. Please be advised that we have reviewed the revised drawings that were recently submitted, and we note that the proposed house and eaves are not within the Region’s easement, but right up to the easement line and completely outside the Region’s easement within private property. Given the existing easement, Regional Staff recommends that the City should continue to carefully review any submitted plans to ensure that all building and structure are outside of this easement. We trust that the above meets with the City’s approval. Should you have any further questions or concerns in this regard please let me know, Kind regards, Adam Date: Jan 18, 2019 Prepared By: Originally signed by Adam Huycke



Page 35


File

540-02-A-140/18 APPLICANT:

Paul Donovan & Staci Stribbell, 1451 Augustine Dr. Burlington, ON L7P 2N1

PROPERTY: 1451 Augustine Dr., PLAN 496 LOT 35 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton.

VARIANCES: 1. To permit a 7.3 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for the proposed second storey addition.

2. To permit a 4.9 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 6.85 m (7.5 m - 0.65 m encroachment)for the proposed front porch including overhang and steps on a proposed two storey dwelling.



Page 36

STAFF REPORTS:


There are no previous land division or minor variance applications on record for this property. Date: November 13, 2018 Prepared By: Carson O’Connor

Zoning

1) Background information (note this not included in the Agenda): The subject property is zoned R2.3 , low density residential and is in the designated area for lot coverage, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The R2.3 zone requires, among other things, the following:


Table 2.4.1


Yard


Side Yard

R2.3 18 m 680 m2 7.5 m 9 m (c) (b) 4.5 m

2.13 ENCROACHMENT INTO YARDS 2.13.1 Every part of a required yard shall be unobstructed with respect to the following encroachments:

(d) The following obstructions may project 65 cm maximum into a required yard:

A roofed-over or screened but otherwise unenclosed 1-storey porch A terrace or unroofed porch A carport

2) Proposal: The applicant is proposing the construction of a second storey addition and front covered porch.


1. To permit a 7.3 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for the proposed second storey addition.



Page 37

2. To permit a 4.9 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 6.85 m (7.5 m - 0.65 m encroachment)for the proposed front porch including overhang and steps on a proposed two storey dwelling.


1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed second storey addition and front covered porch.

2. The variances identified are based on the plans provided. Any changes to the plans resulting in additional variances will be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain.

Date: December 18, 2018 Prepared By: Danielle Beck, CPT

Site Planning

The subject property is located on the northeast side of Augustine Drive, west of Guelph Line and south of Upper Middle Road in the Mountainview Community. The subject property supports a two-storey dwelling. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the second storey and build a new front porch to the existing dwelling, which requires the following variances:

1. To permit a 7.3 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for the proposed second storey addition.

2. To permit a 4.9 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 6.85 m (7.5

m - 0.65 m encroachment) for the proposed front porch including overhang and steps on a proposed two storey dwelling.




Yes The subject property is designated as “Residential – Low Density” in the City’s Official Plan. This designation permits single-detached and semi-detached dwelling units to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare. When development occurs the Official Plan seeks to maintain the character of the neighbourhood, and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding development is achieved in terms of density, built form, scale, height, spacing, and materials. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing second storey, resulting in a larger second storey floor plate that will extend to the boundaries of the first storey floorplate. However, a portion of the front wall of the second storey will extend past the front wall



Page 38

of the first storey by 0.6 m resulting in a deficient front yard setback. A variance is required to permit a front yard setback of 7.3 m is required instead of the minimum 7.5 m for the second storey projection. This second-storey projection extends approximately half the width of the dwelling. Staff note that the front walls of the first storey and other half of the second storey that does not project forward will maintain a front yard setback of 7.9 m. In this regard, the overall mass of the dwelling is situated further away from the front lot line than the projection, which offsets potential visual and massing effects of the 0.6 m projection. In addition, the massing effect of the proposed front porch feature will contribute to mitigating any visual impacts of the projection. Staff is of the opinion that as the massing effect of the projection will be mitigated and does not establish development that is not compatible with the surrounding area, the variance for a reduced front yard setback to the second storey addition meets the intent of the Official Plan. A second variance is required to permit a reduced front yard setback to the proposed front porch including overhang and steps. In the opinion of staff the modest size and massing of the proposed front porch establishes built form that is compatible with the surrounding area. Staff further opines that the front porch feature will enhance the streetscape in a positive manner. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed front porch will not impact the established streetscape and character of the surrounding area in a negative manner, and that the intent of the Official Plan is met.




Yes Front yard setbacks are intended to provide adequate separation between dwellings and the right-of-way, establish a consistent alignment of dwellings, and to provide front yard space to establish streetscape character. The intent of the Zoning By-law regulation for front yard setbacks to a roofed-over porch ensures that they do not negatively impact the streetscape and character of the surrounding area, and that principal building setbacks are maintained. Staff is of the opinion that due to the modest size of the proposed second storey projection and front porch, adequate separation will be maintained between the proposed development and the right-of-way and that impacts to the established front yard are minor. As previously noted, the proposed second storey projection will only extend across approximately half of the dwelling width, and as such only a small portion of the second storey requires a variance. In the opinion of staff, the variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law due to the



Page 39

modest size of the proposed addition and front porch feature.

3) Desirability:



Yes Staff is of the opinion that the proposed addition and new front porch feature are desirable as they will increase the function of the existing dwelling and impact the streetscape in a positive manner, respectively.

4) Minor in Nature:


nature?

Yes Staff is of the opinion that the variances requested are minor in nature as the intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan are met, and that no negative impacts will result to the subject or adjacent properties as a result.

Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Staff is of the opinion that the variances considered separately or cumulatively would not create any adverse impacts on the subject or adjacent properties.

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 25, 2019 Prepared By: Robyn Stebner

Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required Date: November 16, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objection. The applicant shall obtain a grading and drainage clearance as well as a tree permit prior to



Page 40

building permit. Date: January 8, 2019 Prepared By: A. Capone

Building


Div. C., Section 3.2 - Qualifications of Designers and OBC 2012. Date: January 14, 2019 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou



Finance



Date: Dec 20/18 Prepared By: L. Bray



Page 41


File

540-02-A-141/18 APPLICANT:

Gwen Fournier, 1486 Augustine Dr. Burlington, ON L7P 2N2

PROPERTY: 1486 Augustine Dr., PLAN 496 LOT 85 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton.

VARIANCES: 1. To permit a 5.9 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for a proposed single storey addition on the front of a detached dwelling.

2. To permit a 4.6 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 6.85 m (7.5 m – 0.65 m encroachment) for a proposed front porch on an existing detached dwelling.



Page 42

STAFF REPORTS:



Date: November 21, 2018 Prepared By: Carson O’Connor

Zoning

The subject property is zoned R2.3, low density residential and is in the designated area for lot coverage, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The R2.3 zone requires, among other things, the following:


Table 2.4.1


Yard


Side Yard

R2 ZONES

R2.3 18 m 680 m2 7.5 m 9 m (c) (b) 4.5 m

Footnotes to Table 2.4.1 (b) Without attached garage or carport:

(i) One or one and a half storey side: 1.2 m, 3 m other side (ii) Two or more storey side 1.8 m, 3 m other side

4.2 LOT COVERAGE

Table 2.4.3


Garage


Garage

All Dwellings in


(c)



2.13 ENCROACHMENT INTO YARDS 2.13.1 Every part of a required yard shall be unobstructed with respect to the following encroachments:



Page 43

(a) The following obstructions may project 50 cm maximum into a side yard and

1 m maximum into any other yard from the wall of the building: chimney pilaster belt course eave or gutter overhang sill lintel cornice ornamental projection

(b) The following obstructions may project 65 cm maximum into a required yard:


The applicant is proposing the construction of a new front porch and an entry way addition to the front of an existing single storey detached dwelling. Variances required:

1. To permit a 5.9 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for a proposed single storey addition on the front of a detached dwelling.

2. To permit a 4.6 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 6.85 m (7.5 m – 0.65 m encroachment) for a proposed front porch on an existing detached dwelling.

Notes:

1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed additions. 2. The zoning certificate obtained in 2017 (ZC 17/021067) for an accessory

dwelling unit remains in compliance as the overall finished floor area has increased to 183.47 m2 and therefore the accessory dwelling unit is reduced to 36% of the total finished floor area of the dwelling where a maximum 40% is permitted. The revised front yard landscape area is now 60% of the total front yard area where a minimum of 50% is required.


Date: December 10, 2018 Prepared By: C.Lipnicky

Site Planning

The subject property is located on the southwest side of Augustine Drive, west of Guelph Line and south of Upper Middle Road in the Mountainview Community. The



Page 44

subject property supports a one-storey bungalow dwelling. The applicant is proposing to construct a new front porch and an entry way addition to the front of the existing dwellings, which requires the following variances:

1. To permit a 5.9 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for a proposed single storey addition on the front of a detached dwelling.

2. To permit a 4.6 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 6.85 m (7.5

m – 0.65 m encroachment) for a proposed front porch on an existing detached dwelling.




Yes The subject property is designated as “Residential – Low Density” in the City’s Official Plan. This designation permits single-detached and semi-detached dwelling units to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare. When development occurs the Official Plan seeks to maintain the character of the neighbourhood, and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding development is achieved in terms of density, built form, scale, height, spacing, and materials. In the opinion of staff the modest size and massing of the proposed one-storey addition and front porch establishes built form that is compatible with the surrounding area and does not promote development that is out of character with the surrounding area. Staff further note that the proposed addition will only extend across the approximately half of the width of the dwelling, which contributes to reducing the visual impact and massing effect of the proposed addition while maintaining the streetscape character. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development will not impact the established streetscape and character of the surrounding area in a negative manner, and that the intent of the Official Plan is met.




Yes Front yard setbacks are intended to provide adequate separation between dwellings and the right-of-way, establish a consistent alignment of dwellings, and to provide front yard space to establish streetscape character. The intent of the Zoning By-law



Page 45

regulation for front yard setbacks to a roofed-over porch ensures that they do not negatively impact the streetscape and character of the surrounding area, and that principal building setbacks are maintained. Staff is of the opinion that due to the modest size of the proposed addition and front porch, adequate separation will be maintained between the proposed development and the right-of-way and that impacts to the established front yard are minor. As previously noted, the proposed addition will only extend across approximately half of the dwelling width, which assists in maintaining the principal building setback of the existing dwelling. In the opinion of staff, the variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law due to the modest size of the proposed addition and front porch feature.

3) Desirability:



Yes Staff is of the opinion that the proposed addition and new front porch feature are desirable as they will improve the function of the front entry feature of the subject dwelling.

4) Minor in Nature:


nature?

Yes Staff is of the opinion that variances 1 and 2 are minor in nature as the intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan are met, and that no negative impacts will result to the subject or adjacent properties as a result.

Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Staff is of the opinion that the variances considered separately or cumulatively would not create any adverse impacts on the subject or adjacent properties.



Page 46

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 18, 2019 Prepared By: Robyn Stebner

Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: November 23, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objection. The applicant shall obtain a grading and drainage clearance exemption prior to building permit. Date: December 13, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone

Building


Div. C., Section 3.2 - Qualifications of Designers and OBC 2012. Date: December 13, 2018 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou


Transportation Services has no concerns with this Minor Variance Application. Date: December 12, 2018 Prepared By: Trevor Clark

Finance




Page 47


Date: Dec 12, 2018 Prepared By: L. Bray



Page 48


File

540-02-A-146/18 APPLICANT:

Cristian Gheorghiu & Aaron Petsnick, 243 Malvern Rd. Burlington, ON L7N 1B6

PROPERTY: 243 Malvern Rd., PLAN M190 LOT 2 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton.

VARIANCES: 1. To permit a dwelling depth of 19.8 m instead of the maximum permitted 18 m for a proposed detached dwelling.

2. To permit a 0.6 m north side yard eave or gutter encroachment from the wall of the dwelling instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m for a proposed detached dwelling.

3. To permit a 0.6 m south side yard eave or gutter encroachment from the wall of the dwelling instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m for a proposed detached dwelling.

4. To permit a 12.8 m total hard surface width instead of the maximum permitted 5.5 m for combined driveway and walkway widths for a proposed detached dwelling.



Page 49

STAFF REPORTS:


There are no previous land division or minor variance applications on record for this property. Date: November 30, 2018 Prepared By: Carson O’Connor

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:

4.6 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.

2.13 ENCROACHMENT INTO YARDS

2.13.1 Every part of a required yard shall be unobstructed with respect to the following encroachments:

(c) The following obstructions may project 50 cm maximum into a side yard and


2.24 DRIVEWAY WIDTHS AND LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE AREA

1) The width of driveways and walkways shall be measured perpendicular to the direction of travel of the vehicle or person.

4) Unless otherwise specified in this by-law, the following combined maximum

width of all hard surfaces (driveways plus walkways) and landscaped open space area requirements shall apply for detached, semi-detached, duplex, triplex, fourplex, common element townhouse, common element back-to-back townhouse, and street townhouse dwellings:

(b) For front or street side lot lines equal to or greater than 9 m and less than

12 m in width: (i) The combined maximum width of all hard surfaces is 5.5 m.



Page 50

(ii) The remaining lot area between a street line and a building elevation facing a street shall be landscaped open space area.

The applicant is proposing the construction of a new 2 storey detached dwelling. Variances required:

1. To permit a dwelling depth of 19.8 m instead of the maximum permitted

18 m for a proposed detached dwelling. 2. To permit a 0.6 m north side yard eave or gutter encroachment from the

wall of the dwelling instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m for a proposed detached dwelling.

3. To permit a 0.6 m south side yard eave or gutter encroachment from the wall of the dwelling instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m for a proposed detached dwelling.

4. To permit a 12.8 m total hard surface width instead of the maximum permitted 5.5 m for combined driveway and walkway widths for a proposed detached dwelling.

Notes:

1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed dwelling. 2. A letter from the owner indicating they will not be creating a separate self

contained dwelling unit is required. 3. The variances identified are based on the plans provided. Any changes to


Date: January 4, 2019 Prepared By: C. Lipnicky

Site Planning




Yes Variances #1, #2, #3

No Variance #4 The subject property is designated Residential – Low Density within the City’s Official Plan. This designation permits ground-oriented forms of housing to a maximum density of 25 units per net hectare. The proposed development would comply in this regard. The Official Plan also requires new development to be compatible with the surrounding



Page 51

area. Part II, Section 6.5 a) of the Official Plan states that “The density, form, bulk, height, setbacks, spacing and materials of development are to be compatible with its surrounding area”. House size controls are expressed in zoning by way of specific measurements (ie required front yard, rear yard, max height, max house length etc). The siting of a house is also influenced by driveway and walkway design. By including specific regulations related to setbacks, driveway design and house depth, new development is expected to integrate more closely with surrounding development. The applicant proposes four variances needed to allow a new house and related driveway on the subject lot. Specifically, the house will have eves and gutters that encroach into required side yards and a depth that exceeds the 18 m maximum permitted under the By-law. The eve encroachments and extended depth in this case result from the irregular shape of the lot and a need to taper the house at the front, while expanding it slightly at the rear and sides. An associated driveway/walkway will exceed the maximum permitted width for a driveway on this property. The intent of the Official Plan policies as it relates to setbacks, open space, form, bulk etc is to promote compatible infill development within established neighbourhoods. New development must have regard for surrounding development pattern and ensure that new structures and site features relate well with existing ones. In this case, the proposed house is generally compatible with existing development in the area, utilizing a house design that specifically de-emphasizes upper level massing so as to minimize impacts to the overall streetscape. Variances #1, #2 and #3 related to house depth and eve and gutter encroachments are deemed reasonable to allow for compatible development on this irregular shaped lot Variance #4 proposes that the driveway/walkway width be increased to 12.8 m where the By-law limits such widths to a maximum of 5.5 m. Such an expansion negatively impacts front yard open space (softscape). The Official Plan specifically discourages such over development (including with regards to driveways and walkway) as open space is encouraged as a feature that supports overall compatibility. The impact of the proposed variance is emphasized by the irregular wedge shaped lot and associated reduction in front yard open space that already occurs as a result of the lot’s location at the bulb of Malvern Road. An expansion of the driveway width to support the inclusion of an additional parking space along the side of the proposed house, beyond the two internal parking spaces and driveway parking, is not considered to be in keeping with the compatibility considerations of the Official Plan. Staff has assessed the driveway/walkway design and do not support an expansion of the proposed driveway/walkway beyond the width of the permitted garage and to provide access to the house’s front entrance.



Page 52




Yes Variance #1, #2, #3

No Variance #4

By-law 2020 limits the length of a house to 18 m so as to avoid the presentation of a long side wall to adjacent development, especially to adjacent rear yard amenity areas. This type of zoning control assists with the introduction of compatible infill development that does not detract from the surrounding development pattern. In this case, the applicant is proposing a house depth of 19.8 m, being 1.8 m (6ft) longer than the 18 m limit. Staff notes that the house is designed to be somewhat narrow at the front due to the tapered shape of the lot with some additional massing at the sides and rear. Still the additional depth does not cause the house to project into the required rear yard. Staff also notes that the impact of the increased depth is minimized by the house design whereby the roof extends to the top of the first level giving the appearance of a one storey house from the side. Furthermore, the orientation of homes on the lots located on the bulb of Malvern Road and also backing onto the subject lot from Penn Drive are such that there is no house directly abutting the side walls of the proposed house. The 10 cm encroachments for the eave and gutters are considered acceptable especially as they do not facilitate any reduction to the side yard setbacks to be maintained by the house structure itself. Only the eve and gutters encroach. Staff notes that the encroachments occur at defined points of the house only, which has been designed to fit on this irregular wedge shaped lot. By-law 2020 limits the width of a front driveway/walkway to 5.5 m in total. The intent is to avoid devoting large portions of the front yard to hard surface and parking, minimizing naturalized front yard open space. As previously noted, the inclusion of front yard open space is important to ensure compatible infill development. This becomes especially important on the subject property as the lot tapers at the front further reducing the amount of open space that can be provided. Staff has assessed the proposed driveway layout and notes that the increased width primarily facilitates the inclusion of an additional parking space at the side of the house. The proposed development will include a two car garage and a driveway depth that could accommodate up to 4 more cars. As such, an additional car parking space at the side of the house is not easily rationalized. The variance is not deemed to address a design or operational matter as the development may function in its intended manner even in the absence of the additional parking space. Staff does not support the approval of the variance as requested but would support a modified variance that allows for a driveway/walkway width that permits safe vehicle access to the garage and pedestrian access to the house’s main entrance.



Page 53

3) Desirability:




No Variance #4 Variance #1, #2 and #3 are desirable to allow for the construction of compatible house on the subject lot. Variance #4 is not desirable as it facilitates an unusual expansion of hard surface in the front yard, beyond that which is needed to serve the house and double car garage.

4) Minor in Nature:


nature?


No Variance #4 Variances #1, #2 and #3 are considered to be minor with regards to impacts to the site as well as to adjacent development. Variance #4 negatively impacts the site by reducing front yard open space in a location where such open space is deemed necessary to promote overall compatibility.

Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: There are no cumulative impacts from the subject variance application.

Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposed variance #1, #2 and #3 in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and has no objection. Staff has reviewed the proposed variance #4 in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and objects to the variance requested. Date: January 21, 2019 Prepared By: Charles Mulay MCIP RPP



Page 54

Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: November 30, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objection to Variances #1, #2 and #3. However, staff has reviewed the existing and proposed impervious areas of the subject property and has determined that the impervious area

coverage exceeds the normal level for new construction. Staff therefore objects to

Variance # 4. The applicant shall obtain a grading and drainage clearance as well as a tree permit prior to building permit. Date: January 11, 2019 Prepared By: A. Capone

Building




Transportation Services has no concerns with this Minor Variance Application. Date: February 14, 2019 Prepared By: Trevor Clark

Finance






Page 55


File

540-02-A-150/18 APPLICANT:

Kevin & Lili Merritt, 3149 Princess Blvd. Burlington, ON L7N 1G5

PROPERTY: 3149 Princess Blvd., PLAN 220 PT LOTS 59,60 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton.



Page 56

VARIANCES: 1. To permit a 5.8 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required 8.35 m (9 m – 0.65 m encroachment) for a proposed front porch including overhang and steps on a 2 storey detached dwelling.

2. To permit a 1.9 m east side yard setback instead of the minimum required 2.94 m (12% x 24.44 m lot width) for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling.

3. To permit a 1.0 m east side yard eave or gutter encroachment from the wall of the dwelling instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling.

4. To permit lot coverage of 28.2% instead of the maximum permitted 25% for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling.

5. To permit floor area ratio of 0.5:1 instead of the maximum permitted 0.45:1 for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling.

6. To permit the height of columns on the first storey to exceed the height of the ceiling of the first storey whereas By-law 2020 does not permit columns to exceed the height of the ceiling of the first storey.

7. To permit a 3.1 m privacy screen height instead of the maximum permitted 1.8 m for privacy walls located on the east and west sides of the rear roofed over patio.

8. To permit a 12.7m total hard surface width instead of the maximum permitted 12.2 m (50% x 24.44 m lot width) for combined driveway and walkway widths for a proposed detached dwelling.



Page 57

STAFF REPORTS:



Date: December 10, 2018 Prepared By: Carson O’Connor

Zoning

The subject property is zoned R1.2, low density residential and is in the designated area for lot coverage as well as the Roseland Character Area, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The R1.2 zone requires, among other things, the following:


Table 2.4.1


Yard


Side Yard

R1 ZONES

R1.2 24 m 925 m2 9 m 9 m (c) (a)(d) 9 m

Footnotes to Table 2.4.1 (c) 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

(d) Properties located within the Roseland and Indian Point Character Area as identified in Part 2 – Residential Zones, Section 4.9 Character Area Maps: With attached garage or carport:

Lots under 17m in width: 10% of actual lot width Lots between 17-25m in width: 12% of actual lot width Lots greater than 25m in width: 15% of actual lot width up to a maximum of 5 m

4.2 LOT COVERAGE

Table 2.4.3


Garage


Garage



Page 58

All Dwellings in


(c)



4.5 FLOOR AREA RATIO (b) A maximum floor area ratio of 0.45:1 shall apply to all properties in

Designated Areas for Lot Coverage.

4.7 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES (a) On building elevations facing a street, the height of columns on the first

storey shall not exceed the height of the ceiling of the first storey.

2.13 ENCROACHMENT INTO YARDS

2.13.1 Every part of a required yard shall be unobstructed with respect to the following encroachments:

(d) The following obstructions may project 50 cm maximum into a side yard and


(d) The following obstructions may project 65 cm maximum into a required yard:


2.4 FENCING AND PRIVACY SCREENS 2.4.2 Privacy screens are permitted on decks and balconies for detached, semi-

detached, duplex, triplex, fourplex, and townhouse dwellings subject to the following regulations:

(i) Maximum height from grade: 2.5 m (j) Maximum height from platform: 1.8 m (k) Enclosed on two sides only (l) Setback from the street line: 9 m



Page 59

(m) Setback from side lot line: 1 m (n) Setback from a side lot line that extends from

a common wall dividing dwelling units: 0 m (o) Setback from a rear lot line: 1.5 m (p) Combined length of privacy screens (per unit): 12 m

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.

2.24 DRIVEWAY WIDTHS AND LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE AREA

2) The width of driveways and walkways shall be measured perpendicular to the direction of travel of the vehicle or person.

4) Unless otherwise specified in this by-law, the following combined maximum

width of all hard surfaces (driveways plus walkways) and landscaped open space area requirements shall apply for detached, semi-detached, duplex, triplex, fourplex, common element townhouse, common element back-to-back townhouse, and street townhouse dwellings:

(e) Front lot or street side lot lines equal to or greater than 18 m in width: i. The combined maximum width of all hard surfaces is 50% of the

front lot or street side lot line. ii. The remaining lot area between a street line and a building

elevation facing a street shall be landscaped open space area. The applicant is proposing the construction of a new 2 storey detached dwelling with lot coverage and floor area ratio exceeding the maximum permitted. Variances required:

1. To permit a 5.8 m front yard setback instead of the minimum required

8.35 m (9 m – 0.65 m encroachment) for a proposed front porch including overhang and steps on a 2 storey detached dwelling.

2. To permit a 1.9 m east side yard setback instead of the minimum required 2.94 m (12% x 24.44 m lot width) for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling.

3. To permit a 1.0 m east side yard eave or gutter encroachment from the wall of the dwelling instead of the maximum permitted 0.5 m for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling.

4. To permit lot coverage of 28.2% instead of the maximum permitted 25% for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling.



Page 60

5. To permit floor area ratio of 0.5:1 instead of the maximum permitted 0.45:1 for a proposed 2 storey detached dwelling.

6. To permit the height of columns on the first storey to exceed the height of the ceiling of the first storey whereas By-law 2020 does not permit columns to exceed the height of the ceiling of the first storey.

7. To permit a 3.1 m privacy screen height instead of the maximum permitted 1.8 m for privacy walls located on the east and west sides of the rear roofed over patio.

8. To permit a 12.7m total hard surface width instead of the maximum permitted 12.2 m (50% x 24.44 m lot width) for combined driveway and walkway widths for a proposed detached dwelling.

Notes:

1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for the proposed detached dwelling.

2. A demolition permit is to be applied for prior to issuance of the zoning clearance certificate.

3. The applicant is to provide an OLS stamped survey verifying lot area and lot width and all site statistics including, height from fixed grade, lot coverage and setbacks as part of the Zoning Clearance Certificate application


Date: January 4, 2019 Prepared By: C. Lipnicky

Site Planning

The applicant requests the approval of 8 variances needed to allow for the construction of a new, two storey detached residential dwelling with double car garage within the Roseland Neighbourhood. Staff understands that the City’s Site Engineering Section has concerns regarding several of the variances that allow for any increase to hard surface on this property. Planning staff have discussed this matter with Site Engineering staff who advise that their concerns are related specifically to potential site over-development, and that their comments are submitted in consideration of their eventual review of a required Grading and Drainage Certificate. The Grading and Drainage Certificate will be required to allow development on the site and is required ahead of any issuance of a Building Permit, in addition to zoning and variance approval.



Page 61




Yes – Variance #1, #2, #3, #6, #7 and #8

No – Variances #4 and #5 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:     



c. 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 surrounding area is characterized by a mix of one and two storey structures, some original development and some newer infill development. The applicant proposes the construction of a new two storey house with a double garage. Such development is subject to various policies contained within the City’s Official Plan.     Part III Subsection 2.5.4 Infill Development states the following:  

   d. New infill development shall be compatible with the


   e. The creation of new housing that is compatible with existing

neighbourhoods, shall be encouraged  



Page 62

The subject property is also located within the Roseland Neighbourhood Character Area. Part III – Land Use Policies- Urban Planning Area, Section 2.12 Neighbourhood Character Areas states the following: 2.12.1 Objectives

(i) To maintain, protect and enhance neighbourhood character by ensuring that development and re-development within Neighbourhood Character Areas is compatible with and respectful of the neighbourhood character

2.12.2 General Policies

a) Proposed development should respect the existing neighbourhood character by incorporating built form and design elements, architectural features, building separations, lot coverage, scale, floor area ratio, and landscape qualities and characteristics that are prevalent in the Neighbourhood Character Area.

2.12.3 Site Specific Policies

(ii) Roseland is a distinct Neighbourhood Character Area defined by its garden like setting with large and mature trees, strong historic character, and homes with varied and unique architectural styles. Lots are spacious with dwellings that are well proportioned in relation to the property size and having a scale that is compatible with adjacent dwellings and which reinforces  the open space character. Streets within the Neighbourhood Character Area contain wide landscaped boulevards and street lamps that complement the neighbourhood character of the private properties. New development shall protect and enhance these neighbourhood character elements

In order for new development to be considered compatible, it must not detract or cause an unreasonable negative impact to surrounding development.  It must be able to co-exist in harmony with surrounding development.  Compatibility is achieved mostly via building siting, massing/bulk, spatial separations (open space) and the preservation of mature vegetation, among other things.     Within Character areas, compatibility measures are enhanced to not only require that developments co-exist in harmony but also to ensure development that entrenches and strengthens those elements of a neighbourhood that make it distinct.



Page 63

Staff have assessed the neighbourhood elements contained within this portion of the Roseland Neighbourhood and note the existence of varied architectural styles in one and two storey residential forms, peaked residential roofs, the use of natural cladding in light colour tones, the existence of mature trees throughout and houses sited on lots whereby ample front and rear yards are preserved. The applicant requests the approval of 8 separate variances needed to facilitate the construction of new two storey house. While several of the variances are generally minor in nature, Variance #4 and #5 regarding site coverage and Floor Area Ratio are deemed to stress the design expectations for development within a neighbourhood character area. The house poses a size that impacts the ability to balance building mass with open space, especially given the proposed patio and pool features at the rear of the property. New construction offers an ability to adjust design to meet policy requirements and recommendations. Within the Roseland Character Area, houses are to preserve the look and feel of the existing streetscape and also to minimize impacts to the natural setting. The proposed house with its covered rear porch and rear in ground pool impact its ability to be considered properly in balance with open space and natural surroundings. Although the increases to coverage and floor area ratio are relatively small, the impact to the site is not and adherence to the zoning regulations would allow for development that is in closer alignment with the policies of the Official Plan. The development plan negatively impacts the most important characteristic of the Roseland Neighbourhood, its open space and natural surroundings. Staff recommends that the proposed house be modified to meet the coverage requirement and in doing so expect a similar reduction to overall floor area. Planning staff would be pleased to work with the applicant to create such minor adjustments to ensure that the enhanced zoning regulations are adhered to, and also to ensure that the spirit and intent of the Official Plan policies related to the Roseland Character Area and protections of this historic neighbourhood are met.




Yes – Variance #1, #2, #3, #6, #7 and #8

No – Variances #4 and #5 The applicant requests the approval of 8 variances needed to facilitate the construction of a new house in the Roseland Neighbourhood. Staff will assess each variance individually:



Page 64

Variance #1- Front Yard Setback The intent of this regulation is to ensure that houses are sited so as to build upon the built form line along street. New houses are to line up with houses on adjacent lots. This allows for front yards to relate to each other and increases the cumulative sense of space along the street. Staff is satisfied that in this case, the proposed setback is acceptable to achieve this objective. The house will line up with house on adjacent lots and the proposed porch with overhang and steps will act as an interesting architectural feature and a connective element to the public realm (street).

Variance #2 and #3 – East Side Yard Setback Although reduced, the proposed 1.9 m and 1 m setback (structure and eave) are sufficient to allow for outside access around the building and to provide generally acceptable spatial separations between homes. The setbacks on adjacent lots are not unusually large. Staff notes that the proposed setback is approximately 60 cm less than the setbacks provided on both adjacent lots. This is still considered to be in keeping with those setbacks. Staff notes that this setback may be enlarged with a reduction to site coverage but would not object to the approval of these specific variances if a coverage reduction does not alter this side of the proposed house.

Variance #4 – Coverage

The subject property has an R1.2 (Low Density Residential) zoning classification.  Within this classification, the property is located within an area designated for enhanced restrictions regarding lot coverage.  The designation was established to curtail over-building within established neighbourhoods.  As such, while a one storey house may maintain a coverage of up to 35%, a two storey structure is limited to a maximum of 25%.  The intent is to limit the impact of a house on the site and to surrounding development, as it becomes higher and posing additional upper level mass.    In this case, the applicant requests a coverage of 28.2% for a proposed two storey single detached house.  Two storey houses are restricted to a maximum coverage of 25%.      Planning staff are concerned about an increase to coverage.   The increase impacts structure massing and that impacts the open space character of the surrounding area. As a result of the proposed increase to coverage, the floor area ratio has grown to exceed the .45:1 permitted on this property. Together these two performance standards begin to identify an overbuilding situation on this site.



Page 65

The increased coverage negatively impacts the site’s ability to protect open space and the natural surroundings. The Roseland neighbourhood is characterized by homes on spacious lots where open space is considered a defining character trait. Staff recommends that coverage be reduced in recognition of this property’s very sensitive location, where neighbourhood character is to guide house size and design. House size and design should not alter or challenge neighbourhood character in any way. New house construction allows for flexible design.  Staff recommends that the design of the proposed houses be amended to comply with this zoning regulation.  Staff would be please to assist in this regard.  

Variance #5 – Floor Area Ratio

As a result of the enactment of By-law 2020.374, a by-law that updates and enhances zoning regulations within low density residential zones, a variance for increased floor area is required to facilitate the construction of the proposed house.    By-law 2020.374 limits floor area ratio (the amount of floor area permitted based on the size of the lot) to .45:1.    The intent of this new regulation is to limit the size of a house, beyond the controls related to lot coverage, building height and setbacks etc, in direct recognition of lot area.  The floor area ratio ensures that the massing of a house is right for the property size.   It prevents overbuilding on any individual lot. By restricting floor area ratio to .45:1, the regulation ensures that where 25% coverage is permitted on a property, that 25% is not replicated on the second level resulting in a .5:1 floor area ratio. This is exactly what the applicant has proposed in this case.   Staff notes that the proposed house will encroach into front and east side yards and will also exceed the lot coverage limit.  The additional floor area will not therefore be accommodated within the pre-existing site development limits, as set by zoning.  In staff’s opinion, the additional floor area results in a massing that impacts the site’s ability to properly balance built form and open space. Open space should not be impacted by new development within the Roseland Neighbourhood.        Staff recommends that the floor area be reduced in conjunction with a reduction to lot coverage.  Together, these development controls are especially important to ensure compatible development within a Neighbourhood Character Area.   Staff does not support the approval of a variance to increase floor area and recommends that the building design be modified to comply with the current zoning regulation.  Planning staff are open to further discussion on this matter, and to assist with achieving an acceptable design.  The construction of a new house allows for a large amount of flexibility in terms of building footprint and therefore the coverage and floor area ratio.  This flexibility must be



Page 66

used to design houses that are considerate of the surrounding built form and space as well as the policy framework that guides development over the entire neighbourhood.     

Variance #6 – Column Height  The intent of the zoning regulation is to avoid two storey entry features that can overwhelm the architectural design of a house and where they are often considered to be out of keeping architectural with the style of surrounding development. In this case, the increased height of the columns does not pose a two storey entry feature but only allows the column to extend past the first floor roof line to allow for the inclusion of a decorative element that is still part of and defines the first storey. Staff do not consider the feature to be out of keeping with the design of the house are of the opinion that the intent of the By-law will be met in this case.

Variance #7 – Privacy Screens Privacy screens are normally located along lot lines or to define outdoor areas such as elevated decks and balconies. In this case, the two proposed privacy screens are meant to allow side enclosures for a permitted covered rear patio. The height of the screens will not negatively impact any adjacent property and will only act to screen and buffer noise etc from the outdoor patio to adjacent rear yards. Limiting the height of the screen to 1.8 m will leave a gap between the screen and the patio cover. In order to provide a more cohesive design, staff supports the approval of a variance to allow the proposed increase to screen heights.

Variance #8 – Total Hard Surface Width While staff would prefer compliance with this aspect of the By-law, it is understood that the driveway and walkway have been designed to relate to the widths of the proposed garage and front entry feature (porch). The additional width of the walkway allows for a design that best integrates the front walkway and the entry feature. The additional 50 cm width is considered to be minimal to achieve this enhanced integration. The increase is considered to be minor and does not raise any planning concern regarding design or the orderly development of the site.

3) Desirability:



Yes – Variance #1, #2, #3, #6, #7 and #8

No – Variances #4 and #5 All variance except for Variance #4 and #5 are considered to be desirable to allow for the construction of a new single detached home on the subject property.



Page 67

Variances #4 and #5 push the limits of what may be constructed under existing zoning regulations at the expense of space, which is a valued character element in the Roseland Neighbhourhood.

4) Minor in Nature:


nature?

Yes – Variance #1, #2, #3, #6, #7 and #8

No – Variances #4 and #5 All variance except for Variance #4 and #5 are considered to be minor with regards to impact to the site and to adjacent development. Variances #4 and #5 result in a larger home, having a larger footprint on the site and an increased floor area. The impacts to the site are not considered to be minor especially given that this is a new development that may be modified to respond to the existing requirements for development within the Roseland Neighbourhood.

Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: Variance #4 and #5 result in an enlarged house that should be modified to more closely comply with Official Plan and Zoning By-law requirements.

Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposed variances #1, #2, #3, #6, #7 and #8 in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and has no objection. Staff has reviewed the proposed variances #4 and #5 in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and objects to the variances requested. Date: January 25, 2019 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: December 13, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone

Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and Objects to



Page 68

Variances #1, #2, #3, #4 and #8. The reasoning for the objection is that collectively the aforementioned Variances will increase the overall lot imperviousness. Once the front and rear covered porches, driveway, proposed house coverage and any future hardscaping in the rear yard are combined, the resulting impervious lot coverage will be over 50%. No objection to Variances #5, #6, and #7. The applicant shall obtain a grading and drainage clearance as well as a tree permit prior to building permit. Date: January 15, 2019 Prepared By: A. Capone

Building





Finance






Page 69


File

540-02-A-147/18 APPLICANT:

521212 Ontario Limited, 30 Titan Rd. Unit 28 Toronto, ON M8Z 5Y2

PROPERTY: 3330 South Service Rd., CON 3 SDS PT LOT 12 PLAN M157 LOT 1 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton.

Permission: To permit the expansion of a legal non-conforming restaurant use to include the construction of a 300 m2 mezzanine for restaurant uses and an outdoor patio with an area of 270 m2.



Page 70

STAFF REPORTS:


There is 1 previous previous application on record for this property.

File No. A-138/2017 – Approved

To permit the expansion of a legal non-conforming restaurant use to include the construction of a 1020 m2 one storey addition, including a mezzanine for restaurant uses and for an accessory recreational and video games area.


Zoning

ZONING COMMENT

The subject property is zoned BC1, Business Corridor, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The BC1 zone permits restaurant uses and recreational establishment uses subject to footnote (f) of Table 3.2.1. Footnote (f) states:

USES ZONES

BC1

Service Commercial

Standard Restaurant (f)

Standard Restaurant with Dance Floor (f)

Fast Food Restaurant (f)

Convenience Restaurant (f)

Recreation

Recreational Establishment (f)

(f) Permitted on a lot having a total building floor area of 3000 m

2. The total floor

area of all retail, service commercial and recreation uses shall not exceed 15% of the floor area of each building within which a retail or service commercial use is located. Notwithstanding the above, a restaurant may occupy up to 100% of the total floor area of a single building on a lot, provided that the total existing building floor area of all buildings on the lot is not less than 3000 m

2, and

provided the lot abuts an arterial, multi-purpose arterial, or minor arterial road. Where multiple contiguous lots are developed as one comprehensive development or under a single comprehensive site plan, all lots shall be deemed to be one lot for purposes of applying this zoning regulation.

The applicant received permission, under file 540-02-A138/2017, to expand the legal

non-conforming restaurant use. The expansion included a 1020 m2 addition that enclosed

the existing patio area for a rear addition, which included an interior mezzanine. The



Page 71

building addition was to accommodate a games area (video and interactive games, billiards and other enhanced reality games) as well as an additional dining area

mezzanine.

The applicant is now proposing to expand the legal non-conforming restaurant use by the following:

1) Providing a new outdoor patio area in front of the building with a maximum area of 267.7 m

2

2) Increasing the proposed mezzanine area from 173.9 m2 to 299.2 m

2.

Permission required: To permit the expansion of a legal non-conforming restaurant use to include the construction of a 300 m

2 mezzanine for restaurant uses and an outdoor patio with an

area of 270 m2.

Condition: That the permission is granted for the life of the existing legal non-conforming restaurant use only. Should the restaurant use cease operating at any time the accessory recreation and video game area must also cease operations. Notes:

A new zoning clearance would be required for the increase in mezzanine area.

Approval from the MTO will be required prior to zoning clearance issuance.

Development Charges may be required for the proposed increase in mezzanine area and for the proposed outdoor patio.

A separate application for minor variance is required to facilitate the proposed parking space quantity increase in the rear parking area.

Date: January 23, 2019 Prepared By: Mark Dalrymple

Site Planning

The existing standard restaurant use is deemed to be a legal non-conforming use. Although not permitted under the site’s current BC1 (Business Corridor) zoning designation, the use predates the implementation of the zone classification and is therefore permitted to continue until such time as this specific use ceases to exist. In 2017, under File: A138/17, the Committee of Adjustment approved an expansion to the permitted Legal Non-Conforming Use to allow for a 1020 m2, one storey addition to the rear of the restaurant building. Since that time, the applicant has applied for Site Plan Approval to allow for the building construction, internal revisions and upgrades to the site, including to the rear parking area. This work has revealed the need for additional approvals required to allow a front patio, a 300 m2 internal mezzanine level and to allow the rear parking to continue in its existing configuration without the required landscape island breaks limiting parking areas to 150 spaces, after which a physical break is required.



Page 72

Expansion of Legal Non-Conforming The applicant requests approval to further expand the legal non-conforming use by allowing the construction of a 300 m2 internal mezzanine level and an outdoor 270 m2 patio, to operate in conjunction with the existing restaurant.

The City’s Official Plan sets out various criteria that must be satisfied when considering extensions or enlargements of legal non conforming uses. Staff will assess each criterion individually:

i) The proposed extension or enlargement does not represent an

unreasonable increase to the size and intensity of the legal non-conforming use.

Mezzanine The subject application proposes an additional 300 m2 of internal space contained

completely within the existing building as a mezzanine level. Staff considers this a way to optimize space without the need for further building expansion.

Patio The previous restaurant development included a large outdoor patio as the rear of the

site. That patio functioned as part of the restaurant floor area with programmed entertainment (music etc). On occasion that previous patio had been identified as being the source of noise and light trespass to adjacent development. It was not well managed. With the enclosure of that previous patio to become part of the approved building expansion, the applicant requests that a new patio be located at the front of the building to act in conjunction with the legal non-conforming restaurant. The patio will operate in a more traditional manner serving food and drink to patrons but not being used as an extension of the internal floor space. The patio will frame the front of the building animating the space and enhancing the overall appearance of this older building. Staff considers the shifting of the patio space from the rear to the front as helpful to better organize the space and to limit its function to only outdoor service of food/drinks, similar to other standard outdoor patios.

ii) Adequate measures are provided to protect other uses through landscaping, buffering or screening; appropriate setbacks for buildings and structures are provided; and/or devices and measures for reducing nuisance(s) caused by matters such as outside storage, lighting and advertising



Page 73

Mezzanine There will be no impacts related to lighting etc to adjacent properties, as this

modification is internal to the building. Patio Staff have met with the applicant and discussed the process requirements needed to

facilitate the patio development. While the subject Committee of Adjustment application will assess the appropriateness of expanding the restaurant use to include a front outdoor patio, development matters related to buffering, screening and other design issues (needed to promote overall compatibility) would be best addressed as part of a separate application for Site Plan Approval, required prior to the construction of the patio.

In general, the site is large enough to incorporate landscape buffers, fencing or other

design features needed to ensure compatibility with adjacent properties. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to apply for and obtain the appropriate form of Site Plan Approval, needed to formally assess the development plan prior to implementation.

iii) The features of the existing non-conforming use and proposed extension and/or enlargement are considered to be compatible with adjacent uses;

Mezzanine Being an internal expansion, the mezzanine level will have no impact on adjacent uses Patio The proposed patio will be designed to integrate with the existing building, enhance the

appearance of the front elevation of the building and has allowed the enclosing of a rear outdoor patio. The ability for the proposed patio to co-exist in harmony with surrounding uses will be enhanced as a result of increased control of noise, sound (music), lighting, waste management and customer/patron capacity at the front versus the rear of the building.

iv) There are or will be adequate municipal services to meet the additional

needs resulting from the expansion or extension of use The site maintains full services, adequate to support the proposed expansions.



Page 74

v) There are adequate off street parking areas, loading facilities and on-site screening.

The development proposal includes the provision of 173 on-site parking spaces. Staff

of the City’s Transportation Department have assessed the proposed parking plan and deemed it as acceptable to meet the needs of the proposed use as expanded.

vi) traffic and parking conditions in the area shall not be adversely affected and traffic hazards shall be minimized by appropriate design of access points to and from the site, and improvements of site conditions, especially close to intersections.

Impacts to access and traffic generated by the mezzanine and patio additions will be

reviewed in greater detail as part of a future application for Site Plan Approval. However, given the recent approval of a parking and driveway system as part of the previous Site Plan Approval under File: A138 and also given that no changes are currently proposed to the existing driveway entrances or the general layout of the existing parking lot, staff does not anticipate any negative impact to traffic or parking conditions in the area. vii) the intent of the Plan and standards established in the Zoning By-law are

upheld There is no development being proposed that requires any change to the BC1 zoning

regulations. The proposed mezzanine addition and outdoor patio are deemed to support the legal non-conforming restaurant use, and therefore in compliance with intent of this aspect of the zoning regulations.

Staff notes that the restaurant use is an existing use and has already been granted

legal non-conforming status. With no further approvals, the restaurant and a previous rear outdoor patio could have continued to operate legally on this property for the life of these uses. Staff is of the opinion that as a result of the recent approval to enlarge and modify the existing building, the restaurant use will be better organized within a renovated building designed to increase controls on this legal non-conforming use. The patio relocation and redesign will achieve the same objective for the outdoor portion of this development. Rather than overwhelm the surrounding area by the location and scale of the outdoor operation, the patio will be situated at the front and designed to be considerate of its surroundings by way of good site design.

Date: February 8, 2019 Prepared By: Charles Mulay MCIP RPP



Page 75

Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (20m) No road widening required. Date: December 5, 2018 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and have no objection. Date: February 6, 2019 Prepared By: Carol Gulak

Building




Transportation Services has no concerns with this Minor Variance Application. Date: February 13, 2019 Prepared By: Trevor Clark

Finance






Page 76


File

540-02-A-008/19 APPLICANT:

521212 Ontario Limited, 30 Titan Rd. Unit 28 Toronto, ON M8Z 5Y2

PROPERTY: 3330 South Service Rd., CON 3 SDS PT LOT 12 PLAN M157 LOT 1 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton.

VARIANCE: 1. To permit a maximum of 173 parking spaces within the rear parking area without providing the required landscape area instead of the requirement that parking areas shall contain a maximum of 150 parking spaces and shall be separated from adjoining parking areas by a landscape area.



Page 77

STAFF REPORTS:


There is 1 previous Permission application on record for this property.

File No. A-138/2017 – Approved

To permit the expansion of a legal non-conforming restaurant use to include the construction of a 1020 m2 one storey addition, including a mezzanine for restaurant uses and for an accessory recreational and video games area.

Date: January 25, 2019 Prepared By: Shawna Houser

Zoning

ZONING COMMENT

The subject property is zoned BC1, Business Corridor, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The BC1 zone requires among other things, the following:

4.9 PARKING

(c) Parking areas shall contain a maximum of 150 parking spaces and shall be

separated from adjoining parking areas by a 3 m landscape area. Notwithstanding the definition of Landscape Area, a landscape area separating parking areas within a comprehensive development may contain a 2.0 m wide walkway which runs parallel to and within the landscape area provided that the landscape area has a minimum width of 4.5 m. Where more than one parking area is required the average parking area size shall be 100 parking spaces. Connecting driveways may cross a landscape area.

The applicant is proposing to increase the maximum number of parking spaces within the

rear parking area to 173 parking spaces from 150 parking spaces.

Variance required: To permit a maximum of 173 parking spaces within the rear parking area without providing the required landscape area instead of the requirement that parking areas shall contain a maximum of 150 parking spaces and shall be separated from adjoining parking areas by a landscape area.



Page 78

Notes: A related application for the expansion of the legal non-conforming restaurant is in process under file 540-02-A147/2018. Date: January 23, 2019 Prepared By: Mark Dalrymple

Site Planning

The existing standard restaurant use is deemed to be a legal non-conforming use. Although not permitted under the site’s current BC1 (Business Corridor) zoning designation, the use predates the implementation of the zone classification and is therefore permitted to continue until such time as this specific use ceases to exist. In 2017, under File: A138/17, the Committee of Adjustment approved an expansion to the permitted Legal Non-Conforming Use to allow for a 1020 m2, one storey addition to the rear of the restaurant building. Since that time, the applicant has applied for Site Plan Approval to allow for the building construction, internal revisions and upgrades to the site, including to the rear parking area. This work has revealed the need for additional approvals required to allow a front patio, a 300 m2 internal mezzanine level and to allow the rear parking to continue in its existing configuration without the required landscape island breaks limiting parking areas to 150 spaces, after which a physical break is required.

Minor Variance – Parking Space Separation Requirement




Yes

The subject property is designated “Business Corridor” within the City’s Official Plan. The Business Corridor designation is meant to provide locations in the City for prestige-type offices and industrial uses that require good access and high visibility along major transportation routes. The designation also allows limited commercial uses that may include a restaurant if such restaurant is ancillary to and primarily serves businesses within the surrounding employment area. The restaurant that is the subject of this application does provide a service to surrounding businesses however, its primary market extends far beyond the surrounding employment area. Special care must therefore be taken to ensure that the restaurant not negatively impact the ability of surrounding properties to act as employment sites, that the two uses can continue to co-exist in harmony with each other. Staff has implemented design standards that better manage the restaurant use and that help reduce impacts to adjacent properties.



Page 79

It should be noted that the restaurant use predates the zoning and Official Plan designations restricting such use. The restaurant exists as a legal non-conforming use as the passage of an Official Plan policy may not render an existing use as illegal. The legal non conforming status is a legal status that allows the restaurant for the life of the use, so long as the use continues operation. Parking associated with a legal non-conforming use is also permitted to continue, in support of the operation of such use. The variance regarding landscape islands/breaks is not affected by Official Plan policies




Yes Zoning By-law 2020 includes a specific requirement to separate and break up large parking areas by requiring a landscape island/break after 150 parking spaces, creating parking pods. The intent is to soften the appearance of parking areas from the street and from adjacent development and also to avoid very large parking lots that may contribute to the heat island effect, due to lack of shade trees etc. In this case, the rear parking area is existing and only very minor adjustments are proposed to ensure compliance with parking space and drive isle design requirements. The parking area is at the rear of the site and so not directly visible from the roadway and QEW. Staff notes that the number of parking spaces located in the rear parking area is 173. This is 23 spaces over the 150 parking spaces permitted without the required break. Staff does not consider the additional 23 spaces without the necessary break as substantially altering the size or impact of this existing parking lot to adjacent development. Being able to utilize the parking lot as it exists ensures the maximum amount of parking spaces to support this legal non-conforming restaurant use, and that assists with overall compatibility.

3) Desirability:



Yes The variance is considered desirable to allow an existing parking lot to continue and to maximize the provision of parking at this restaurant site.



Page 80

4) Minor in Nature:


nature?

Yes

The variance is considered minor as it recognizes an existing situation and does not pose any additional impact to the site or to adjacent development.

Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters: n/a

Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposed application to expand a legal non-conforming use and minor 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:

1. The applicant applies for and obtains the appropriate form of site plan approval needed to facilitate the proposed development as described in the subject application.

Date: February 8, 2019 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: Febuary 1, 2019 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and have no objection. Date: February 7, 2019 Prepared By: Carol Gulak



Page 81

Building

1. A Building Permit for the shell addition has been applied for and is in review. A Separate Permit is required for the Mezzanine, Sprinkler Work and All Interior Finishing and Renovations.

2. Permit application drawings are to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Div. C., Section 3.2 - Qualifications of Designers and OBC 2012.

Date: February 12, 2019 Prepared By: Kathy Pavlou


For determining parking requirements, the building was split by the existing and new addition dimensions and evaluated with the proposed uses (restaurant and game area). According to these uses as found on the City’s proposed parking standards, the number of spaces required for this site are 160 spaces (restaurant) and 45 spaces (Recreational Establishment) for a total requirement of 205 spaces. The parking proposed on the site plan is for 182 spaces for a deficiency of 23 spaces. Could the applicant please provide a comment on the deficiency. Date: February 13, 2019 Prepared By: Trevor Clark

Finance


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.




Page 82


File

540-02-A-155/18 APPLICANT:

Walkers Line Industrial GP Ltd, 500 Wentworth St. E Unit 1 Oshawa, ON L1H 3V9

PROPERTY: 1121 Walker's Line, CON 2 SDS PT LOT 10 RP 20R17783 PARTS 1,2,3,4,5,6 City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton.

VARIANCES: 1. To permit 298 parking spaces instead of the minimum required 303 parking spaces.

2. To permit no landscape area adjacent to the North Service Road and Walker’s Line realignment where the expansion of the parking is proposed (64 parking spaces) instead of the minimum required 6m landscape area abutting a street having a deemed width of 26m or greater.



Page 83

STAFF REPORTS:

Committee of Adjustment There is 1 previous minor variance applications on record for this property. File No. A046/1998 – Approved

To permit a reduction in parking of 193 spaces instead of the required 219 spaces to accommodate a proposed one storey addition.


Zoning 1) Background information (note this not included in the Agenda): The subject property is zoned GE1 and BC1, general employment and business corridor zones under Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended. The GE1 and BC1 zones require, among other things, the following:

1.7 INTERPRETATION OF ZONE BOUNDARIES

1.7.1 Where any uncertainty exists as to the location of any boundary of any zone, the following rules shall apply:

(g) Where a property or lot has two or more zoning designations, the zoning boundary between the designations shall be the limit from which the zoning regulations shall apply.

2.25 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS

Table 1.2.6: Off-Street Parking Standards

USE PARKING STANDARD

Industrial Uses 1 space per 100 m2 gross floor area

Office: Other 3.5 spaces per 100m2 gross floor area

Retail Store 4 spaces per 100 m2 gross floor area

6. GE1, GE2 ZONE REGULATIONS (GENERAL EMPLOYMENT)

6.5 LANDSCAPE AREA AND BUFFER

Landscape Area:



Page 84

Abutting a street having a deemed width of 26 m or greater: 6 m

Background: In 1998, a Minor Variance was approved to permit a reduction in parking to 198 parking spaces provided for the industrial user. The City is acquiring lands from the subject lands for the future realignment of the North Service Road and Walker’s Line intersection, which will result in the loss of parking spaces. The applicant proposes to add additional parking along Walker’s Line. The applicant has advised that the building has been demised into three units which now includes office and showroom space in addition to the industrial uses which results in additional parking being required.

2) Proposal: The applicant is proposing an expansion of the parking lot for the existing multi-tenant industrial building.


1. To permit 298 parking spaces instead of the minimum required 303 parking spaces.

2. To permit no landscape area adjacent to the North Service Road and Walker’s Line realignment where the expansion of the parking is proposed (64 parking spaces) instead of the minimum required 6m landscape area abutting a street having a deemed width of 26m or greater.



Date: February 4, 2019 Prepared By: Danielle Beck, CPT



Page 85

Site Planning

1) Official Plan Designation: General Employment and Business Corridor



Yes The subject property has two Official Plan land use designations: General Employment and Business Corridor. Both designations are intended to accommodate a range of employment uses that have good access and visibility from transportation routes. The urban design policies of the Official Plan require buildings and site layouts to be compatible with their surrounding area. The existing building and parking layout have generally been in the same configuration for decades. The proposed minor variances are an outcome of a City acquisition of land on the subject property to accommodate a realignment of the North Service Road and associated intersection improvements at Walker’s Line. As such, the onsite parking areas will have to be reconfigured resulting in a minor parking reduction along with reductions in landscape area along certain points of the realigned North Service Road. This minor variance application proposes a reduction of 5 parking spaces. While Planning staff have no issues with this reduction, staff defer to the Transportation Department regarding the appropriateness of a 5 parking space reduction. The reduction in landscape area is not a continuous reduction along the entire North Service Road frontage. It is an outcome of the realignment of a curved portion of the North Service Road whereby it creates some pinch points with some of the parking areas. There is still ample space outside of these pinch points to provide landscaping and vegetation to ensure a compatible interface with the street frontage. It should be noted that this property is regulated by the MTO and an MTO permit may be required for any required site works to accommodate the North Service Road realignment. The proposed minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.



Page 86

2) Zoning By-law Designation: General Employment (GE1) and Business Corridor

(BC1)



Yes The subject property has two Zoning By-law designations: General Employment (GE1) and Business Corridor (BC1). Both designations are intended to accommodate a range of employment uses along with all associated site elements such as parking and landscaping. The existing building and parking layout have generally been in the same configuration for decades. The intent of the Zoning By-law as it relates to the provision of parking is to ensure there is an adequate amount of parking on a property to serve the needs of the uses on site. The proposed minor variance is a reduction of 5 spaces as an outcome of the realignment of North Service Road. Through this application, the applicant is confirming that the proposed parking reduction will meet their needs. Planning staff do not challenge this however we defer to the comments from the Transportation Department to confirm the appropriateness of the parking reduction. The intent of the Zoning By-law as it relates to landscape requirements is to ensure an appropriate interface between a development and the street through the use of vegetated areas. The proposed landscape area reduction is an outcome of the curvature of the North Service Road and occurs at various pinch points between the parking areas and the realigned street; it is not a continuous reduction along the entire North Service Road frontage. As such, there remains ample space between these pinch points for vegetation and landscaping. An appropriate form of site plan approval will be required for the parking lot reconfiguration and provision of appropriate vegetation along the landscape areas. The proposed minor variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

3) Desirability:



Yes The minor variances support the realignment of the North Service Road and associated intersection improvements with Walker’s Line without compromising the functionality of



Page 87

the subject property. The uses on site will continue to operate as they were intended while benefiting from a significant improvement in traffic operations at the intersection of Walker’s Line and North Service Road. The proposed minor variances are desirable for the appropriate use of the land.

4) Minor in Nature:


nature?

Yes The proposed minor variances are small deviations (both numerically and in intent) from the requirements of the zoning by-law. Neither presents a significant concern that could have a negative impact on site functionality. The proposed minor variances are considered 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.

Notes:

1. The Applicant is advised that the appropriate form of site plan approval is required to facilitate the proposed site works.

2. MTO approval may be required for the proposed site works. Date: February 8, 2019 Prepared By: Jamie Tellier

Site Engineering Actual road width is equal to or greater than deemed road width (35m) No road widening required. Date: January 9, 2019 Prepared By: A. Capone Site Engineering has reviewed the proposed minor variances and has no objection. All changes to the site plan will be reviewed and dealt with via a separate application at a



Page 88

later date. Date: February 6, 2019 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


Transportation Planning To determine the parking requirements for the site as presented, the building area was split based on the proposed uses: Industrial Use and Office Space. When evaluating the building using the City’s proposed parking standards for each use it was determined that 19 spaces (Office) and 251 spaces (Industrial) for a total of 270 spaces, are required for this site. However, the sample parking configuration as presented has an area of 15.125m

2 which is lower than the mandatory 16.5m

2 size for a parking spot.

This reduced size is not supported by the City. Additionally, the drive aisle sizes are not presented on the plan that was submitted and must be specified. Please resubmit with the appropriate sizes and dimensions identified. Finally, any future development would be subject to further review and comment by Transportation Services. Date: February 13, 2019 Prepared By: Trevor Clark

Finance Notice regarding Development Charges: The owner, its successors and assigns, are hereby notified that City Development Charges may be payable in accordance with the applicable By-law 72-2004, 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) 335-7731.

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: Feb 6, 2019 Prepared By: L. Bray



Page 89

CN Rail Thank you for circulating CN Rail on the above noted application. I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed works and note that it does not impact the CN right-of-way. Therefore, we have no comments on the site changes. Regards Susanne Date: February 5, 2019 Prepared By: Originally signed by Susanne Glenn-Rigny

committee of adjustment february 25, 2019 - …...plan 1323 lot 61 city of burlington - regional...

Documents