hearing no. 1 - 6:30 pm

Transcription

Page 1
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
HEARING NO. 1 - 6:30 P.M.
File
540-02 A037/2012
APPLICANT:
Joanne Godin
Gerald Godin
139 Secord Lane, Burlington ON L7L 2H6
PROPERTY:
139 Secord Lane,
PLAN 1233 LOT 9
City of Burlington - Regional Municipality of Halton.
Variance:
To permit a 0.9 m east side yard setback instead of the minimum
required 2.63 m for a proposed single storey addition on an existing
two storey detached dwelling
Page 2
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
STAFF REPORTS
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT
No previous minor variance applications on record.
ZONING COMMENTS
The subject property is zoned R1.2, low density residential, under Zoning By-law 2020, as
amended. The R1.2 zone requires among other things, the following:
Minimum side yard setback
2.63 m (10% x 26.213 m lot width)
1.6
COMPLIANCE WITH THIS BY-LAW
1.6.2
No buildings or structures may be erected or used unless:
(b)
i)
The municipal urban road standard of base course asphalt is
provided adjacent to the frontage of the lot or connecting the lot
to an assumed municipal road; or,
ii)
For lots serviced by a private road or lane and deemed to be a
public road elsewhere in the By-law or for lots serviced by a
private road or lane that existed on July 4, 2005, the existing road
standard is provided adjacent to the frontage of the lot or
connecting the lot to an assumed municipal road; or,
iii)
For lots of record that existed on July 4, 2005, not meeting the
requirements of (i) and (ii) above, the existing municipal road
standard is provided adjacent to the frontage of the lot or
connecting the lot to an assumed municipal road;
The applicant is proposing to construct a single storey garage addition on an existing two storey
detached dwelling, with a proposed side yard setback of 0.94 m.
Variances Required:
1.
To permit a 0.9 m east side yard setback instead of the minimum required 2.63 m for a
proposed single storey addition on an existing two storey detached dwelling.
NOTES:
1. A zoning clearance certificate is required.
Page 3
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
STAFF REPORTS cont’d
2. It is the applicant‟s responsibility to ensure that no building or structure is located on any
easement.
3. The applicant is to confirm the front yard setback to the closest point of the proposed
garage addition as part of the submission for zoning clearance certificate. * A variance
will be required if setback is less than 9.0 m.
4. Floor plans indicating all rooms, their uses and all walls and doorways (existing and
proposed) as well as the internal garage dimensions are to be included in the submission
for zoning clearance certificate. If any additional variances are identified as a result of
the review of these plans, it will be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain. ( ie.
Minimum internal garage dimensions)
Date: May 15, 2012
Prepared By: C. Lipnicky
SITE PLANNING COMMENT
The subject property is located on the north side of Secord Lane, between Blue Water Place and
the remainder of Secord Place, south of Lakeshore Road. The property currently contains a two
storey detached dwelling with a attached one car garage. Secord Lane is a private road and the
surrounding area is low density residential characterized by a mixture of lot and dwelling sizes.
The applicant requests the approval of one variance to allow for the construction of a one storey
single car garage addition. The variance will be discussed in the paragraphs below.
1) Official Plan Designation:
DOES THE PROPOSED MINOR VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BY-LAW
MAINTAIN THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN?
YES
The subject property is designated as “Residential – Low Density” under the City‟s Official Plan.
This designation permits, among other things, single detached dwellings to a maximum density
of 25 units per net hectare.
The applicant does not propose to change the residential use of the property and is maintaining
only one dwelling unit on the existing lot. Therefore, the applicant‟s proposal is in keeping with
this OP designation.
The City‟s OP does not contain any specific numerical criteria setbacks for single detached
dwellings in residential designations. This detail is provided through the City‟s Zoning By-law.
Page 4
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
The City‟s OP does, however, contain objectives and policies aimed at ensuring that new
development is compatible with its surroundings, particularly in terms of density, form, bulk,
height, setbacks, spacing and materials.
Staff is satisfied that the proposed variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the City‟s
Official Plan. The proposed addition is small in scale and will not overwhelm adjacent
properties. Staff did have a concern that the proposed setback would bring the addition close to
the dwelling on the adjacent property at 135 Secord Lane. Staff do not have a measurement of
the side yard setback for 135 Secord Lane, but based on airphoto measurement it appears to be
greater than 1 m. Given that the separation between structures will likely be greater than 2 m,
staff‟s concern no longer exists.
2) Zoning By-law Designation:
MAINTAIN THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING BY-LAW?
YES
The subject property is zoned “R1.2 – Low Density Residential” under Zoning By-law 2020.
This designation contains provisions for setbacks for a dwelling within a lot. The intent behind
the side yard setback provisions is to ensure a consistent and attractive streetscape, to allow for
access to the rear yard, and to allow for construction and maintenance of a structure from within
the property it is situated on. Although the setback is less than half of what is required, Staff is
of the opinion that the proposed variance maintains these intents. Based on airphoto analysis it
appears as though other dwellings in this area provide setbacks less than the required 10% of lot
width, and/or similar to that proposed under this application. Further, the small size of the
proposed addition will not overwhelm the area in terms of massing or visual impact. Staff notes
that no grading and drainage concerns were raised by engineering staff.
3) Desirability:
IS THE PROPOSED MINOR VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BY-LAW DESIRABLE
FOR THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT OR USE OF THE LAND, BUILDING OR
STRUCTURE?
YES
The proposed addition will allow for additional vehicular and/or personal item storage space for
the property owners. Staff notes that the dwelling provides a two car driveway but currently only
has a single car garage. Constructing the addition will allow the driveway and garage to match
Page 5
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
up. Further, the addition will not be imposing nor will it introduce an unacceptable impact to
neighbouring properties.
4) Minor in Nature:
IS THE PROPOSED MINOR VARIANCE
CONSIDERED MINOR IN NATURE?
FROM
THE
ZONING
BY-LAW
YES
The proposed variance will allow for a small building addition that can be accommodated easily
on the lot without introducing an unacceptable situation to the neighbourhood.
Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters:
N/A
Recommendation:
Staff has reviewed the proposed variance in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the
Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and has no objection.
Date: May 25, 2012
Prepared By: Mike Crough
SITE ENGINEERING COMMENT
Transportation Review
Secord Lane
Note: This property fronts onto a Private Lane. We have has no comments regarding lane width.
Date: May 9, 2012
Prepared By: F. Gottschling
No objection from an engineering perspective.
Note: Additional run-off from new roof shall not be directed onto adjacent properties.
Date: May 9, 2012
BUILDING COMMENT
1) A Building Permit is required for all building construction;
Page 6
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
2) Spatial Separation to 2006 OBC 9.10.14.4.
3) Permit application drawings to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Section 3.2 Qualifications of Designers - OBC 2006.
Date: May 23, 2012
Prepared By: S.Krizan
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
No issue with the Variance Required
Date: May 28, 2012
Prepared By: Joshua Medeiros
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
NOTICE: Re: 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.
BURLINGTON HYDRO INC.
In response to your correspondence(s), a member of our Engineering Department has reviewed the
information and has the following comments.
We have no objection(s) to the proposed application. However, we would like to stipulate the
following:
 Service is available under B.H.I.'s latest Standard Service Conditions
http://www.burlingtonhydro.com/docs/BHI-ConditionsOfService.pdf
 Relocation, modification or removal of existing hydro facilities, if required, shall be at the
customer‟s expense. B.H.I. will apply to the latest Ontario Electrical Safety Code when
the clearances between existing hydro facilities and existing/proposed building structures
are questioned.
 Hydro easement (if any) is to remain clear of heavy vehicle traffic.
 Developer is to ensure that B.H.I. has access to the hydro facilities.
 Developer to acquire any easements for Burlington Hydro, if required.
 Project must meet City of Burlington Standards.
 Machine excavation within one metre of underground plant is not permitted.
 Do not excavate within two metres of hydro poles and anchors with the exception of the
termination pole where the duct structure shall be terminated by the developer under the
supervision of B.H.I. inspector.
Page 7
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
 Please arrange for underground hydro cable locate(s), prior to beginning construction, by
contacting Ontario One. Call @ 1-800-400-2255.
 Please refer to the latest edition of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for
Construction Projects when work is planned to be performed in the proximity of hydro
distribution system.
 Arrange for disconnect and isolation of the power supply if a person or any equipment is to
encroach on the minimum distance permitted under the Act and ESA.
 Please arrange for a site meeting with BHI representative, calling Eng. Desk at 905 332-2250,
prior to beginning any construction/demolition near existing overhead or underground hydro
facilities in order to get approved hydro service layout and avoid any further complications
and safety issues.
*
*
*
*
Page 8
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
File
File 540-02-A043/2012
APPLICANT:
Access Self Storage Inc.
100 Canadian Rd , Toronto ON M1R 4Z5
PROPERTY:
4305 Fairview St.,
PLAN M267 LOTS 9,10,11,12
Variances:
1) To permit the addition to an existing building with a
maximum yard of 19 m, whereas the MXE zone only allows a
4.5 m maximum yard
2) To permit an addition to an existing building which will
result with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.56:1, whereas the
MXE zone only allows a 0.5:1 maximum floor area ratio
Page 9
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
STAFF REPORTS
ZONING COMMENTS
The subject property is zoned MXE, Mixed use Employment under Zoning By-law 2020 as
amended.
The following regulations apply:
Yard
Minimum:
Maximum:
3m
4.5 m
Floor Area Ratio [maximum]
0.5:1[for industrial buildings]
The applicant proposes an addition at the north side of the existing storage building. The
location of the proposed addition will be greater than 4.5 m from the lot line abutting Darlene
Court. With the proposed addition the total floor area ratio will also exceed 0.5:1 ratio.
Variances are required to address both items.
Variances required:
1)To permit the addition to an existing building with a maximum yard of 19 m,
whereas the MXE zone only allows a 4.5 m maximum yard.
2)To permit an addition to an existing building which will result with a maximum
floor area ratio of 0.56:1, whereas the MXE zone only allows a 0.5:1 maximum floor
area ratio.
Note: the original application was for one minor variance. Upon reviewing this application the
Zoning Examiner found another variance; variance #2 was added to this application.
Date: May 8, 2012 Prepared By: G. Jin
Page 10
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
The subject property is located on the northeasterly corner of Fairview Street and Darlene Court.
The property contains an existing personal storage business which is located in several buildings.
The main building was repurposed to a personal storage facility from a former commercial use,
and the perimeter buildings were added at that time. Previous planning approvals were granted
through the site plan approval process.
The applicant proposes a building addition to the existing 2 storey building in the central portion
of the site. This addition is intended to expand the personal storage space of the property and is
designed to blend with the existing building.
It should be noted that zoning staff have identified variances for an increased setback from
Darlene Court and for an increased floor area ratio. However, Planning staff have spoken with
the applicant and have reached agreement that the variance for increased floor area ratio will not
be pursued at this time. Staff were unable to recommend approval of that variance and the
applicant has indicated it is not required. Therefore, planning comments will deal with the
setback variance only. Staff expect that the applicant will confirm withdrawal of the floor area
ratio variance at or before the Committee meeting date of June 25, 2012. The applicant has
indicated that the proposed plans will be revised to comply with the maximum floor area ratio
provision.
Variance 1 – Increased setback for proposed addition
YES
The subject property is designated as “Mixed Use Corridor – Employment” under the City‟s
Official Plan. This designation permits a number of uses, including warehousing and storage.
The “Mixed Use Corridor – Employment” designation is to provide for higher intensity, transit
and pedestrian oriented employment development. Accordingly, the following policies are found
under subsection 5.3.4 of Part III of the City‟s OP:
e)
Zoning By-law regulations affecting Mixed Use Corridor-Employment locations shall be
based on the following:
(iii)
buildings should be located so as to front and face the street, to provide a sense of
human comfort and pedestrian scale and interest, and in close proximity to the
Page 11
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
street and to transit services;
g)
Transit-supportive and pedestrian-oriented urban design shall be required in the
development of Mixed Use Corridor-Employment sites
Further, the City‟s OP contains objectives and policies that pertain to mixed use corridors in
general. The policies are found under subsection 5.3.2 of Part III, and include the following:
d)
Zoning By-law regulations affecting Mixed Use Corridors shall be based on the
following
factors:
(iii)
g)
the implementing zoning by-law shall indentify a minimum portion of all buildings
abutting the corridor street to be located in close proximity to the corridor street.
These setbacks may be modified for specific corridors following the completion of
Council-approved Corridor studies;
The design and development of Mixed Use Corridors shall ensure compatibility between
the Mixed Use Corridor uses and adjacent land uses, particularly residential uses. The
following factors shall be considered in reviewing proposals for new and/or expanding
Mixed Use Corridor uses:
(i)
Buildings should be located so as to be in proximity to the street, to provide a sense of
human comfort and pedestrian scale and interest, and should be in close proximity to
transit services
h)
Transit-supportive and pedestrian-oriented urban design shall be required in the
development of Mixed Use Corridor sites.
i)
The design and development of Mixed Use Corridors shall encourage the use of public transit,
pedestrian and bicycle travel as an alternative to the automobile and shall maximize personal
safety by encouraging site plan features such as:
(i)
Buildings should be oriented to the street and transit services, and buildings should be
located so as to be in proximity to, and face the street, to provide a sense of human
comfort and pedestrian scale and interest
The applicant is proposing a building addition that will provide a setback to Darlene Court of
approximately 19 m instead of the maximum permitted 4.5 m. The above-referenced OP policies
encourage buildings to locate close to the street, but use the specific directive of “should”. This
provides flexibility in applying the policies, where a compelling reason for not complying with
this requirement can be provided. In this case, staff are of the opinion that it is acceptable for the
proposed addition to be built in line with the existing building which exceeds the maximum
permitted setback. Given the location of the existing buildings within the site, that the abutting
street is a court which does not currently have a high degree of pedestrian activity, and that
Page 12
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
vehicular and Fire Department access is required to the rear of the site, staff are satisfied with the
setback proposed.
Staff discussed the proposal with the applicant prior to submitting these comments. The
applicant is aware that site plan approval will be required to facilitate a proposed addition. At
that time, staff will pursue various measures for increasing pedestrian and transit friendly design
for the entire site, including connections to adjacent walkways, landscaping, etc.
YES
The subject property is designated as “MXE – Mixed Use Corridor (Employment Oriented)”
under Zoning By-law 2020. This designation contains provisions for maximum setbacks to
adjacent streets for buildings. The intent behind the maximum setback provision is to ensure that
buildings are located in proximity to corridor streets to develop a consistent pedestrian and
transit-oriented built form.
The applicant proposes a rear building addition that will be built in line with the existing
structure. The existing structure and proposed addition will not comply with the maximum
permitted 4.5 m setback from Darlene Court.
Although staff would like to see all mixed use corridors built to the standards in the Zoning Bylaw, staff is of the opinion that it is acceptable in this case to provide the setback proposed. As
mentioned, the abutting Darlene Court is not a street with a high degree of pedestrian activity.
Further, the nature of the use proposed means that the majority of visitors to the site will be
arriving by personal vehicle or truck. Therefore, staff will focus efforts on other areas of the
property when reviewing the forthcoming site plan application to ensure that other pedestrian and
transit oriented measures are implemented, particularly in relation to Fairview Street.
Page 13
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
3) Desirability:
STRUCTURE?
YES
The proposed variance will allow for a building addition that will expand the intensity of the
existing use which is in keeping with the “Mixed Use Corridor” designations. As well, the
proposed addition will not compromise the pedestrian or transit-oriented objectives for the area.
The proposed addition will require site plan approval, which will allow the opportunity to
address other areas of the site such as pedestrian connections and landscaping.
4) Minor in Nature:
FROM
THE
ZONING
BY-LAW
YES
The proposed variance represents a fairly substantial numerical deviation from the By-law
required maximum setback. However, staff does not view the proposed addition as something
that will compromise the overall objective of providing an employment oriented mixed use
corridor along Fairview Street. The addition will blend with the existing building.
As mentioned, site plan approval will be required to facilitate the proposed addition. Staff have
discussed potential upgrades to the site with the applicant in general terms, and will be pursuing
enhancements to the property at the site plan stage.
Recommendation:
Page 14
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
Note: The Applicant is advised that the appropriate form of site plan approval is required to
facilitate the proposed development.
Date: May 24, 2012
Based on registered plan 1529, both Darlene Court and Fairview Street are at deemed widths of
20m and 36m respectively. No additional widenings are required.
Date: April 23 2012
Prepared By: Be Nguyen
From an engineering perspective, we have no objections to the variances as applied for.
Date: May 11, 2012
BUILDING COMMENT
1)
2)
A Building Permit is required for all building construction;
Permit application drawings to be prepared by a qualified designer as per Section 3.2 Qualifications of Designers - OBC 2006.
Date: May 23, 2012
Prepared By: S. Krizan
Transportation Services has no issues with the variances required
Date: May 30, 2012
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Page 15
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
following:
are questioned.
and safety issues.
*
*
*
*
Page 16
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
File
540-02-A044/2012
APPLICANT:
Access Self Storage Inc.
100 Canadian Rd , Toronto ON M1R 4Z5
PROPERTY:
2191 and 2177 Plains Rd. E ,
PLAN 99 PT LOT 17
Variances:
1) To permit a 1 m landscape area abutting a street having a
deemed width of 26 m or greater (Plains Road East) instead of
the minimum required 6 m
2) To permit a 1 m setback abutting a street having a deemed
width of 26 m or greater (Plains Road East) instead of the
minimum required 15 m for the proposed 1 storey addition
3) To permit a 0 m side yard setback instead of the minimum
required 4.5 m for the proposed 1 storey addition
4) To permit a 0 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum
required 7.5 m for the proposed 1 storey addition
Page 17
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
STAFF REPORTS
ZONING COMMENTS
The subject property is zoned GE1, General Employment, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as
amended.
6.1
LOT WIDTH, AREA, YARDS
Table 3.6.1
Regulation
GE1 Zone
Yard abutting a street having a deemed width of 26 m or greater
15 m
Yard abutting a street having a deemed width less than 26 m
9m
Side Yard
4.5 m
Rear Yard
7.5 m
6.5
LANDSCAPE AREA AND BUFFER
Landscape Area:
Abutting a street having a deemed width of 26 m or 6 m
greater:
Page 18
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
Applicant is proposing to construct a one storey addition to the existing building at 2177 Plains
Road East. The following variances are required:
1) To permit a 1 m landscape area abutting a street having a deemed width of 26 m or
greater (Plains Road East) instead of the minimum required 6 m
2) To permit a 1 m setback abutting a street having a deemed width of 26 m or greater
(Plains Road East) instead of the minimum required 15 m for the proposed 1 storey
addition
3) To permit a 0 m side yard setback instead of the minimum required 4.5 m for the
proposed 1 storey addition
4) To permit a 0 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for the
proposed 1 storey addition
Notes:
Zoning Clearance has been applied for, for the proposed addition and internal mezzanine
City, Region and School Board development charges are applicable for the proposed
addition and mezzanine
Comments are based on the properties at 2177 Plains Road East and 2191 Plains Road
East being consolidated.
Variances noted are based upon the information provided and without a complete
site plan review. Additional variances that are determined through the complete site
plan application review are the applicant’s responsibility.
Date: May 9, 2012 Prepared By: Mark Dalrymple
The subject site is located on the north side of Plains Road E, south of the QEW highway and
east of Brant Street. Staff are currently processing a site plan application under File 535-002/12.
The application proposes development of the subject lands for a personal storage business.
The applicant requests the approval of 4 variances. These variances are required to permit
proposed modifications to the existing vacant building on the southwesterly portion of the site, as
well as to allow for the addition of a one storey personal storage building along the permiter of
the southwesterly portion of the property. The variances will be dealt with in the following
paragraphs.
Page 19
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
DO THE PROPOSED MINOR VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING BY-LAW
YES
The subject property is designated as “General Employment” under the City‟s OP. This
designation permits a range of employment uses, including storage and warehousing. This
designation is intended to allow for a full range of industrial, manufacturing and office uses
while stipulating the objective of encouraging aesthetically pleasing development through the use
of measures such as site plan control. The designation contains general design criteria in
addition to requiring that the urban design criteria contained under Section 6.0 of Part II of the
OP are met.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the
OP. There are no specific numerical criteria for landscape buffers or building setbacks. Staff is
satisfied that the proposed development will be compatible with its surroundings as there are no
adjacent land uses in the area of the site where variances are being sought, with the exception of
a railway corridor and portions of the road allowance for Plains Road. Staff will work with the
applicant through the site plan process to secure numerous site upgrades (i.e. asphalt paving, new
landscaping, building materials, etc.).
YES
The subject property is designated as “GE1 – General Employment” under Zoning By-law 2020.
This designation allows for storage uses, but contains provisions for building setbacks and
landscape buffers. The intent behind the setback and landscape buffer provisions for areas
abutting a street is to encourage an aesthetically pleasing, consistent and functional employment
area. The intent behind the rear and side yard setback provisions is to ensure that buildings are
separated an adequate distance from structures on adjacent properties, to provide areas for
landscaping and vehicular parking and access and to help prevent properties from being
overbuilt.
In this case the property is in a scenario where it is abuts a railway corridor, and underutilized
portions of the road allowance to Plains Road E. The only abutting employment use is to the
northeast, which is well away from the proposed building addition and modification.
Page 20
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
With respect to the 0 m side yard setback, this abuts an enlarged portion of the road allowance
for Plains Road. A large grade differential exists between Plains road and southwesterly portion
of the subject lands. This widened road allowance and grade differential provide a buffer from
the actual width of Plains Road and will screen the proposed building from view. Therefore,
staff are satisfied that the general intent and purpose of the By-law is being maintained.
In examining the 0 m rear yard setback, this area of the property abuts a railway corridor. Given
that the proposed use will not have human occupation for prolonged periods of time, that to date
no concerns have been raised by CN over the proposed 0 m setback, and that pushing the
building to the site boundaries will allow for better internal circulation and a required fire access
route, staff are satisfied that this proposed reduced setback maintains the general intent and
purpose of the By-law.
Lastly, the applicant proposes a 1 m landscape buffer and a 1 m building setback abutting Plains
Road. Staff note that the setback and landscape buffer for the proposed building increase from
west to east. Staff view this variance as partly technical, given the aforementioned grade
differential. The majority of the proposed building will not be visible from the Plains Road
corridor. The small portion that will face the street will be enhanced with building materials
(such as brick or stone) and will be screened with upgraded landscaping.
3) Desirability:
ARE THE PROPOSED MINOR VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING BY-LAW
DESIRABLE FOR THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT OR USE OF THE LAND,
BUILDING OR STRUCTURE?
YES
The proposed variances will allow for the development and upgrading of an existing employment
property that will allow staff to apply current development standards to the entire site (i.e. asphalt
paving, stormwater management, landscaping, etc.). Staff view the proposed plans as a major
upgrade over the existing condition of the property, which can be further refined through the site
plan approval process. The proposed variances will not compromise the aesthetic objectives of
the OP policies or Zoning By-law regulations, and will not negatively impact Plains Road or the
adjacent railway corridor.
4) Minor in Nature:
YES
Page 21
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
Although the variances each represent a considerable numerical deviation from the by-law
requirements, staff feel that the location of the property and the nature of its surroundings warrant
consideration of alternative numbers from those stipulated in the by-law. The proposed
development has been put through an initial site plan review and no major concerns have been
identified by internal or external agencies.
5) Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters:
N/A
6) Recommendation:
Note: The Applicant is advised that the active site plan application must be finalized in order to
Date: May 25, 2012
Preliminary Transportation Review:
There is no additional widening required, however, a portion of the road fronting 2211 Plains Rd
E described as Pts 4, 5, 6 and 7 on Plan 20R17335 was stopped up and closed and sold to the
owner of 2211 Plains Rd E.
There is also a letter to file from 2007 which states :
“It is the intent of the City of Burlington to stop up and close the parcel in front of 2211 Plains Road East and sell it
to the owner of 2211 Plains Road East. We may also offer the surplus land in front of 2191, 2201 and 2209 to the
owners of these properties.”
Excess lands as referred to in the above note are described on plan 20R17335. Possible sale of
surplus lands to the owner of 2191 Plains East is being investigated by the City‟s real estate
manager.
Deemed: 30m, Existing: 30m. No road widening required.
Date: April 23 2012
Page 22
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
Possible sale and assembly of surplus City lands with the site have no bearing on the requested
variances. From an engineering perspective we have no objection to the variances being granted
as applied for.
Date: May 11, 2012
BUILDING COMMENT
Date: May 23, 2012
No issues with the Variances required
Date: May 28, 2012
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
following:
are questioned.
Page 23
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012










Hydro easement (if any) is to remain clear of heavy vehicle traffic.
Developer is to ensure that B.H.I. has access to the hydro facilities.
Developer to acquire any easements for Burlington Hydro, if required.
Project must meet City of Burlington Standards.
Machine excavation within one metre of underground plant is not permitted.
Do not excavate within two metres of hydro poles and anchors with the exception of the
Please arrange for underground hydro cable locate(s), prior to beginning construction, by
Please refer to the latest edition of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for
Arrange for disconnect and isolation of the power supply if a person or any equipment is to
Please arrange for a site meeting with BHI representative, calling Eng. Desk at 905 332-2250,
and safety issues.
*
*
*
*
Page 24
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
File
540-02-A049/2012
APPLICANT:
Christine Michelle Doering
540 Locust St. , Burlington ON L7S 1V5
PROPERTY:
540 Locust St.,
PLAN 70 PT LOTS 14,15
Variances:
1) To permit an 8.07 m rear yard, instead of the minimum required 9
m for a proposed one storey addition on an existing single storey
detached dwelling
2) To permit a 1.09 m side yard setback, instead of the minimum
required 1.2 m for a proposed deck less than 1.2 m high
3) To permit a 0.05 m front yard setback from the deemed street
width, instead of the minimum required 5.35 m for a proposed front
porch
4) To permit 0 m front yard setback from the deemed street width,
instead of the minimum required 4.4 m for the open stairway on the
proposed front porch
5) To permit a 35.7% lot coverage, instead of the maximum permitted
17% for 2 storey dwelling in the designated lot coverage
Page 25
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
STAFF REPORTS
Previous minor variance application found from 1988 relating to the front yard setback. File
reference # A098/88.
Date: May 3, 2012
Prepared By: Marcus Bowman
ZONING COMMENTS
The subject property is zoned DRL, downtown residential low density, under the zoning By-law
2020, as amended and is in the designated area for lot coverage. DRL is subject to R3.2
regulations and footnote (a) of Table 2.3.1. The R3.2 zone requires, among other things, the
following:
Rear: 9 m min
Side: 1.2 m min (1 storey, without an attached garage)
Lot Coverage: 17% max
2.13
ENCROACHMENT INTO YARDS
2.13.1
Every part of a required yard shall be unobstructed except with respect to the
following encroachments:
(c) A bay window, balcony, vestibule, fire escape or open stairway may project 50 cm
maximum into a required side yard and 1.6 m maximum into any other required
yard, provided that:
(i)
The sum of the length of these projections does not exceed one third of the
permitted length of a building wall,
(ii) The length of any one projection does not exceed 3 m.
(iii) A bay window that projects into a required yard may not have a foundation and
must have at least 30% of the surface area of the projection as window.
(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.
Page 26
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
2.3
PATIOS AND DECKS - RESIDENTIAL
2.3.1
Patios, as defined in Part 16 are permitted in all zones.
(a) Patio roofs shall be subject to the yard and setback regulations contained in Tables
1.2.1 and 1.2.2
2.3.2
Decks, as defined in Part 16 are permitted in all zones subject to Tables 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.
Table 1.2.1
Regulations
for
Decks
associated
with
Detached, Semi-Detached, Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex and Street Townhouse
Dwelling Units
Regulation
Over 60 cm to Over 1.2 m High
1.2 m High
Up to 15m² Over 15m²
Maximum Deck Area (a)
no maximum
15m2
30m2
Permitted in a Front Yard
no
no
no
Permitted in a Rear Yard
yes
yes
yes
Permitted in a Side Yard
yes
yes
no
Setback from a Street Line
3m
4.5 m
6m
Setback from a Rear Lot Line
1.8 m
4.5 m
6m
Setback from a Side Lot Line
1.2 m (b)
1.8 m (b)
3m
Maximum Coverage (c)
50 % of the yard area in which decks are
located
Page 27
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
Footnotes to Table 1.2.1
(a) Total combined area of all platforms over 1.2 m high.
(b) Where a side lot line extends from a common wall dividing attached dwelling units the
setback shall not apply.
(c) Coverage means the surface area of a yard which may be covered by decks.
The applicant is proposing to construct a one storey addition on an existing one storey detached
dwelling. The applicant is also proposing to construct a deck and front porch.
Variances Required:
1. To permit an 8.07 m rear yard, instead of the minimum required 9 m for a proposed one
storey addition on an existing single storey detached dwelling.
2. To permit a 1.09 m side yard setback, instead of the minimum required 1.2 m for a
proposed deck less than 1.2 m high.
3. To permit a 0.05 m front yard setback from the deemed street width, instead of the
minimum required 5.35 m for a proposed front porch.
4. To permit 0 m front yard setback from the deemed street width, instead of the minimum
required 4.4 m for the open stairway on the proposed front porch.
5. To permit a 35.7% lot coverage, instead of the maximum permitted 17% for 2 storey
dwelling in the designated lot coverage.
NOTES:
2. Applicant is to contact Engineering Department regarding a possible encroachment
permit.
Date: May 16, 2012
Prepared By: A. Garavito
Page 28
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
The subject property is located on the west side of Locust Street north of Caroline Street within
an established neighbourhood in the City‟s downtown core. The applicant requests approval of
five variances for proposed construction of a rear, one storey addition, a covered front porch and
a side deck. The property currently holds a two storey detached dwelling.
1) Official Plan Designation: “Downtown Mixed Use Centre- St Luke‟s Neighbourhood
Precinct”
DOES THE PROPOSED MINOR VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BYLAWMAINTAIN THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE OFFICIAL
PLAN?
YES
The subject property is located within the “St. Luke‟s Neighbourhood Precinct” in the City‟s
“Downtown Mixed Use Centre” designation. This designation permits among other things,
detached dwellings to a maximum density of 25 units per hectare. Staff notes that the proposed
development is in keeping with the permitted uses and density.
The Official Plan also requires any redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods to be
compatible with surrounding development and existing neighbourhood character in terms of
scale, massing, height, siting, setbacks, coverage, and amount of open space. The “Downtown
Mixed Use Centre” designation provides for a mix of residential, commercial and other uses and
aims to increase the resident population and provide a variety of housing types. The Plan
encourages the preservation and integration of the Downtown‟s cultural heritage resources. The
subject application aligns with these policies.
The Plan further establishes planning precincts within the Downtown, each with their own
distinct character and specific planning policies. The subject property is located within the St.
Luke‟s Neighbourhood Precinct. The objective of this designation is to preserve the stable
residential and heritage character of the neighbourhood and to ensure that any redevelopment is
compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood. It is staff‟s opinion that the
variances maintain the intent of this policy.
The design of the wood siding addition is compatible with the existing red brick dwelling and
materials found in the neighbourhood. Furthermore, height and mass of the proposed
development is consistent with and does not dominate existing development on the subject
property.
Page 29
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed development has consistent features with adjacent
properties including height, bulk, setbacks, spacing and materials referred to in Subsection 6.5 a)
of Part II of the City‟s Official Plan. Staff is satisfied with the variances and is of the opinion that
they meet the intent of the Official Plan.
2) Zoning By-Law Designation: DRL- Downtown Residential Low Density (Subject to R
3.2 zoning regulations)
YES
Variance 1 & 2- reduced rear yard and side yard setbacks for addition and deck.
The applicant requires an 8.07 m rear yard setback instead of the minimum required 9 m for a
one storey addition to an existing two storey dwelling; and a 1.09 m side yard setback instead of
the minimum required 1.2 m for a proposed deck. Minimum rear and side yard setbacks are
implemented to maintain circulation of outdoor area, sufficient amenity space and to maintain
consistency in the streetscape. Staff is of the opinion that proposed development maintains
adequate space on site and therefore meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law
for rear and side yard setbacks.
Variances 3 & 4- Reduced front yard setbacks for porch and stairs
To construct a front porch with an open stairway, applicant requests a reduced 0.05 m front yard
setback for the covered porch instead of the minimum required 5.35 m; and a 0 m front yard
setback for the open stairway instead of the minimum required 4.4 m. The intent of the Zoning
By-law for front yard setbacks is to ensure compatible streetscape for a neighbourhood and to
ensure sufficient open space from a streetscape perspective. Most dwellings adjacent to the
subject property have front porches with similar setbacks to what is proposed in the subject
application which allow for a visually appealing and functional use of front yards as well as a
consistent streetscape. Staff is of the opinion that a front porch will have positive functions that
promote a community environment and that the variances maintain the intent of the zoning bylaw with respect to front yard setbacks.
Page 30
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
Variance 5- Increase lot coverage for addition
To accommodate a 47m² single storey addition to the existing two storey dwelling, a variance to
permit increased lot coverage of 35.7% instead of the maximum 17% is required. The intent of
maximum lot coverage requirements in the Zoning By-law are meant to avoid over building in a
neighbourhood and to ensure a sufficient amount of amenity and circulation area is maintained.
Surrounding dwellings have been evaluated and found to be comparable in size with slightly
larger lot sizes, hence the need for a variance for subject property. The new rear addition will
replace and be slightly larger than the existing rear addition. Staff is of the opinion that the
request for increased lot coverage maintains the general intent of the Zoning By-law and does not
impact overall massing of the neighbourhood.
The Zoning by-law 2020, as amended, permits detached dwellings in the Downtown Residential
Low Density zone. Staff is of the opinion that proposed development requires variances from the
zoning by-law that still maintain the intent for setbacks and lot coverage. Staff notes that
proposed development is not increasing in density or changing permitted uses.
3) Desirability
FOR THE APPROPRIATEDEVELOPMENT OR USE OF THE LAND, BUILDING OR
STRUCTURE?
YES
Staff is of opinion that the variances are maintaining the character of the neighbourhood because
the front porch will add function to the front yard and the addition will allow for an increase in
living area that will not negatively affect adjacent properties. The development proposed
complements the streetscape and architecture of adjacent properties as stated in the Urban Design
Guidelines for Low Density Residential dwellings.
4) Minor in nature
YES
FROM
THE
ZONING
BY-LAW
Page 31
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
Variance 1 & 2
Staff is of the opinion that the variances for the rear and side yard setback are minor deviations
from the required setbacks from the Zoning By-law and are not likely to have negative impacts to
adjacent properties.
Variance 3, 4 & 5
Although these variances have larger deviations from the Zoning By-law, staff is of the opinion
that they are still minor in nature within the context of the existing lot and surrounding
neighbourhood.
Cumulative Effects of Multiple Variances and Other Planning Matters
Staff is of the opinion that the culmination of the proposed variances are considered to be minor.
Recommendation:
Staff has reviewed the proposed variances in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of
Official Plan and requirements of the Zoning By-law and has no objection.
Note: the Applicant is advised that the appropriate form of site plan approval is required to
Date: May 30, 2012
Prepared By: A.Garavito
Reviewed By: M. Iglesias
Existing Road Width: 16.38m
Deemed Road Width: 18.00m
In order to meet deem road width a 1.62m widening must be shown on the plan.
Date: May 11 2012
During the site plan stage, a site grading plan must be submitted showing proposed and existing
site drainage patterns. Indicate if any trees will be removed for the development of the addition.
Date: May 22 2012
Page 32
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
BUILDING COMMENT
Date: May 23, 2012
Transportation Services has no issue with the variances requested
Date: May 29, 2012
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
following:
are questioned.
Page 33
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
and safety issues.
*
*
*
*
Page 34
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
File
540-02-A051/2012
APPLICANT:
Loblaw Properties Ltd.
1 President's Choice Cir. Floor 4, Brampton ON L6Y 5S5
PROPERTY:
2515 Appleby Line,
CON 1 SDS PT LOT 5 RP 20R16217 PARTS 7,11
Variance:
Notwithstanding Part 1 - Section 2.22 (c)(iv), to permit 5 tents
(covered tents or shade structures) to be used for the seasonal sale of
flowers, plants, shrubs, trees and other garden materials and
landscape products, provided the zoning of the property permits the
sale of these items, for a maximum period of 120 days (April 15 to
August 15) and limited to one occasion in a 12 month period
Page 35
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
STAFF REPORTS
ZONING COMMENTS
The property is subject is CR, commercial under Zoning By-law 2020.205, as amended. The CR
permits a supermarket/grocery store & garden store uses. A tent associated with a seasonal
garden centre use is permitted subject to Part 1 - 2.22 (c )(iv) [Prohibited Uses] which reads:
One tent may be used for the seasonal sale of flowers, plants, shrubs, trees and other garden
materials and landscape products, provided the zoning of the property permits the sale of these
items, for a maximum period of 90 days and limited to one occasion in a 12 month period.
And
Where a temporary structure, tent, trailer or recreational vehicle is permitted by this section it
shall be setback a minimum of 3 m from a street line and shall not be located within a required
landscape area or landscape buffer.
The applicant is requesting approval to have a seasonal garden centre with 5 tents instead of one.
The applicant is also requesting to extend the maximum time period from 90 days to 120 days [
April 15th to August 15th].
Variance required:
Notwithstanding Part 1 – Section 2.22 [c][iv], to permit 5 tents [covered tents or shade
structures] to be used for the seasonal sale of flowers, plants, shrubs, trees and other garden
items, for a maximum period of 120 days [April 15 to August 15] and limited to one occasion in
a 12 month period.
Note: A zoning clearance certificate is required for the tents.
Date: May 7, 2012
Prepared By: G. Jin
Page 36
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
YES
The site is designated Regional Commercial in the City Official Plan. The objective of lands
designated Regional Commercial are to provide locations within the City for major commercial
uses that are intended to serve the needs of residents within the City as well as the populations of
adjacent municipalities. Although the Official Plan does not contain policies specifically
pertaining to seasonal garden centers, Part III, Section 4.3.2 (g) outlines considerations to be
reviewed during the site plan review stage for new development within Regional Commercial
designations.
A site plan application was approved on May 14, 2012 under file MM-037/11 to permit a
seasonal garden centre on the subject property. Through the staff review of the site plan
application it was determined that the layout and location of the garden centre continued to
promote a safe, orderly and functional site plan. The approved site plans and the plans submitted
in support of the variance application are identical in terms of location and overall floor area of
the garden centre. The difference between the plans approved site plan shows the installation of
one large tent, whereas the plans submitted with the variance application show the installation of
several smaller tents. In staff‟s opinion, given that the overall size of the garden centre will not
be altered through the variance application the increase in the number of tents being proposed is
inconsequential. Given that the seasonal garden centre layout continues to implement the Official
Plan‟s site plan policies, staff is of the opinion that the variances are within the general intent and
purpose of the Official Plan.
YES
The intent of the Zoning By-law regulations with respect to temporary garden centers is to
manage the proliferation of temporary structures within a site and to ensure that these uses are
installed on a seasonal basis only.
Plans submitted in support of the variance application indicate that although more temporary
Page 37
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
structures are proposed to be installed, the structures will continue to be clustered within one area
of the site, therefore maintaining the intent of the By-law. Furthermore, staff is of the opinion
that the requested increased in maximum time frame of operation of the garden centre to 120
days is within the intent of the By-law, given that it is congruent with the spring-summer growing
season.
1) Desirability:
STRUCTURE?
YES
Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are desirable for the development and use of
the land given that they support the installation of a supplementary use to a supermarket, which is
a retail use that is permitted within lands designated Regional Commercial.
2) Minor in Nature:
FROM
THE
ZONING
BY-LAW
YES
Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances are minor, given that no adverse planning
impacts will result with respect to safety or function of the site.
Staff is of the opinion that the variance is within the scope of a minor variance application.
Recommendation:
Date: June 05, 2012
Prepared By: Melissa Roberts, MCIP, RPP
Page 38
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
Appleby Line is a regional road.
Date: May 7 2012
No objections from an engineering perspective
Date: May 26, 2012
BUILDING COMMENT
2) A Building Permit is required for the erection of all tents.
Date: May 23, 2012
No Issues with this variance.
Date: May 28, 2012
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
following:

Page 39
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
 the clearances between existing hydro facilities and existing/proposed building structures
are questioned.
and safety issues.
*
*
*
*
Page 40
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
HEARING NO. 6 – 6:55 P.M.
File
540-02-A052/2012
APPLICANT:
Loblaws Properties Limited
1 Presidents Choice Cir. Floor 4, Brampton ON L6Y 5S5
PROPERTY:
1059 Plains Rd. E,
PLAN 99 PT LOT 13 CON 1 EF PT LOT 1 RP 20R10007 PARTS 2,
9 TO 21,26 J L RP 20R7011 PARTS 1,2 S/E RP 20R8790 PART 1
Variance:
Notwithstanding Part 1 - Section 2.22 [c][iv], to permit 5 tents
[covered tent or shade structures] to be used for the seasonal sale of
sale of these items, for a maximum period of 120 days [April 15 to
August 15] and limited to one occasion in a 12 month period
Page 41
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
STAFF REPORTS
Previous minor variance applications on record:
File # A064/97
Allowing a tent for five years.
Variance granted May 13,1997, ended March 4, 2002
Date: May 4, 2012
ZONING COMMENTS
The subject property is zoned CR, commercial under Zoning By-law 2020, as amended. The CR
zone permits, among other uses, a supermarket/grocery store.
A tent for a temporary garden centre is regulated under Part 1 Prohibited Use. Section 2.22
[c][iv] reads:
and
As per the wording of this section, only ONE tent is permitted. A typical garden centre has a
covered tent [for the cash register] and one or more shade structures to shield the plant material
from the sun.
The applicant is requesting permission to have up to 5 tents [covered or shade structure], for a
seasonal garden centre associated with the supermarket use. The applicant is also requesting to
extend the maximum period from 90 days to 120 days. The location of the proposed tents will
be located greater than 3 m from a street line and will not be located within a required landscape
area.
Page 42
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
Variance required:
Notwithstanding Part 1 – Section 2.22 [c][iv], to permit 5 tents [covered tent or shade structures]
to be used for the seasonal sale of flowers, plants, shrubs, trees and other garden materials and
landscape products, provided the zoning of the property permits the sale of these items, for a
maximum period of 120 days [April 15 to August 15] and limited to one occasion in a 12 month
period.
Date:
May 18, 2012 Prepared By: G. Jin
YES
The site is designated Regional Commercial in the City Official Plan. The objective of lands
designated Regional Commercial are to provide locations within the City for major commercial
uses that are intended to serve the needs of residents within the City as well as the populations of
adjacent municipalities. Although the Official Plan does not contain policies specifically
pertaining to seasonal garden centers, Part III, Section 4.3.2 (g) outlines considerations to be
reviewed during the site plan review stage for new development within Regional Commercial
designations.
A site plan application was approved on May 2, 1999 under file MM-017/99 to permit a seasonal
garden centre on the subject property. Through the staff review of the site plan application it was
determined that the layout and location of the garden centre continued to promote a safe, orderly
and functional site plan. The approved site plans and the plans submitted in support of the
variance application are identical in terms of location and overall floor area of the garden centre.
The difference between the plans approved site plan shows the installation of one large tent,
whereas the plans submitted with the variance application show the installation of several smaller
tents. In staff‟s opinion, given that the overall size of the garden centre will not be altered
through the variance application the increase in the number of tents being proposed is
Page 43
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
YES
season.
3) Desirability:
STRUCTURE?
YES
a retail use that is permitted within lands designated Regional Commercial.
Minor in Nature:
FROM
THE
ZONING
BY-LAW
YES
Page 44
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
Recommendation:
Date: June 05, 2012
Existing Street Width: 36m
Deemed Street Width: 36m
Date: May 10th 2012
No objections from an engineering perspective
Date: May 26, 2012
Prepared By: F.Gottschling
BUILDING COMMENT
Date: May 23, 2012
No issues with this variance
Date: May 28, 2012
Page 45
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
following:
are questioned.
and safety issues.
*
*
*
*
Page 46
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
File
540-02-A053/2012
APPLICANT:
I P C F Properties Inc
1 Presidents Choice Cir. Floor 4, Brampton ON L6Y 5S5
PROPERTY:
2025 Guelph Line,
PLAN M290 BLK 72
Variance:
Notwithstanding Part 1 - Section 2.22 [c][iv], to permit 5 tents
[covered tent or shade structures] to be used for the seasonal sale of
sale of these items, for a maximum period of 120 days [April 15 to
August 15] and limited to one occasion in a 12 month period
Page 47
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
STAFF REPORTS
Two previous minor variance applications on record:
File # A053/2004 –Lapsed due to failure to satisfy conditions
Variances allowing a garden centre in a specific location within a marked plan with a
maximum area of 1607.17m2
File # A020/99
Variance permitting 9.1m x 18.2m tent between April 15, 1999 and June 30, 1999
Date: May 4, 2012
ZONING COMMENTS
The subject property is zoned CC1-64, commercial under Zoning By-law 2020, as amended. The
CC1 zone permits, among other uses, a supermarket/grocery store. Exception number 64
specifically permits an outdoor garden centre as an additional use.
A tent for a temporary garden centre is regulated under Part 1 Prohibited Use. Section 2.22
[c][iv] reads:
and
As per the wording of this section, only ONE tent is permitted. A typical garden centre has a
covered tent [for the cash register] and one or more shade structures to shield the plant material
from the sun.
The applicant is requesting permission to have up to 5 tents [covered or shade structure], for a
seasonal garden centre associated with the supermarket use. The applicant is also requesting to
extend the maximum period from 90 days to 120 days. The location of the proposed tents will
Page 48
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
be located greater than 3 m from a street line and will not be located within a required landscape
area.
Variance required:
Notwithstanding Part 1 – Section 2.22 [c][iv], to permit 5 tents [covered tent or shade structures]
to be used for the seasonal sale of flowers, plants, shrubs, trees and other garden materials and
landscape products, provided the zoning of the property permits the sale of these items, for a
maximum period of 120 days [April 15 to August 15] and limited to one occasion in a 12 month
period.
Date: May 18, 2012
Prepared By:
G. Jin
YES
The site is designated Community Commercial in the City Official Plan. The objective of lands
designated Regional Commercial is to provide locations within the City for retail and commercial
uses that are intended to serve the needs surrounding residential and business areas. Although the
Official Plan does not contain policies specifically pertaining to seasonal garden centers, Part III,
Section 4.4.2 (h) outlines considerations to be reviewed during the site plan review stage for new
development within Community Commercial designations.
A site plan application was approved on May 7, 2005 under file MM-010/05 to permit a seasonal
garden centre on the subject property. Through the staff review of the site plan application it was
determined that the layout and location of the garden centre continued to promote a safe, orderly
and functional site plan. The approved site plans and the plans submitted in support of the
variance application are identical in terms of location and overall floor area of the garden centre.
The difference between the plans approved site plan shows the installation of one large tent,
whereas the plans submitted with the variance application show the installation of several smaller
tents. In staff‟s opinion, given that the overall size of the garden centre will not be altered
through the variance application the increase in the number of tents being proposed is
Page 49
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
YES
season.
3) Desirability:
STRUCTURE?
YES
a retail use that is permitted within lands designated Community Commercial.
Minor in Nature:
YES
FROM
THE
ZONING
BY-LAW
Page 50
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
Recommendation:
Date: June 05, 2012
Upper Middle Road and Guelph Line are Regional roads.
Date: May 10th 2012
No objections form an engineering perspective.
Date: May 26, 2012
BUILDING COMMENT
Date: May 23, 2012
No issues with this variance
Date: May 28, 2012
Page 51
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
following:
are questioned.
Page 52
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
 facilities in order to get approved hydro service layout and avoid any further complications
and safety issues.
*
*
*
*
Page 53
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
File
540-02-A055/2012
APPLICANT:
Paul Wu
Jean Wu
1313 Hazelton Blvd , Burlington ON L7P 4V5
PROPERTY:
1455 Lakeshore Rd. Unit G 14,
HALT CONDO PLAN 222 LEVEL 1 UNIT 14
Variance:
Notwithstanding footnote [g] of Table 6.2.1 - Part 6, to permit office
uses on ground floor units of a building [Units 14 &15] that is
located within 15 m of a public street, whereas the by-law requires
office uses be located greater than 15 m from a public street
STAFF REPORTS TO FOLLOW
Page 54
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
File
540-02-A061/2012
APPLICANT:
Keith Williams
339 Delaware Ave, Burlington ON L7R 3B3
PROPERTY:
339 Delaware Ave.,
PLAN 145 LOT 168
Variance:
To permit a street side yard setback abutting Bruce Street of 2.9 m
instead of the minimum required 7.5 m for a proposed accessory
building
Page 55
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
STAFF REPORTS
Date: May 23, 2012
Prepared By: Melissa Morgan
ZONING COMMENTS
The subject property is zoned R3.2, low density residential (designated lot coverage), under
Zoning By-Law 2020, as amended.
2.2
ACCESSORY
EQUIPMENT
BUILDINGS
AND
STRUCTURES
AND
UNITARY
2.2.1
The following regulations shall apply to buildings and structures, when accessory to
detached, semi-detached, duplex, triplex, fourplex or street townhouse dwellings :
(b) Regulations for Accessory Buildings greater than 10 m2 in floor area and/or
greater than 2.5 m in height:
(i)
Not permitted in front yard, street side yard, or required side yard.
Permitted in a rear yard subject to the following:
Setback from a rear lot line:
1.2 m
Setback from a side lot line:
1.2 m
Setback from a side lot line abutting a street: 7.5 m
Page 56
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
Floor Area and Height:
Maximum floor area:
50 m2
Maximum height (peaked roof):
One storey to a maximum of 4.6 m
Maximum height (flat roof):
One storey to a maximum of 3.5 m
Part 1, Section 2.27 Deemed Street Width:
2.27.1 For the purpose of establishing building set-backs or for the application of any other
provision of this By-Law, the streets listed in Table 1.2.8 “Deemed Street Widths”, shall be
deemed to be the width shown, streets not included in Table 1.2.8 shall be deemed to be 20 m
wide.
The deemed street width of Bruce Street is 18 m. The actual street width is 17.678 m. A 0.161
m widening would be required on each side of the street to bring the property up to the deemed
street width. The Engineering Department has confirmed that a road widening will not be taken
to bring the property up to the deemed street width but all setbacks are required to be taken from
the deemed.
The applicant is proposing the construction of a 33.82 sq m accessory building in the rear yard of
a corner lot. A variance is required to permit a reduced street side yard setback of 2.9 m from
the deemed street width of Bruce Street.
Variance required:
1. To permit a street side yard setback abutting Bruce Street of 2.9 m instead of the
minimum required 7.5 m for a proposed accessory building.
Note:
Page 57
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
Date: May 25, 2012
Prepared By: Tina Vassalli
The subject property is located at the southeasterly corner of Delaware Avenue and Bruce Street.
The property contains an existing one storey dwelling without attached garage. The property has
a two car driveway at the northeasterly corner. There are no accessory buildings or structures on
the property. The surrounding neighbourhood is a mature low density residential area with
mature vegetation and a mixture of housing styles and sizes.
The applicant requests the approval of one variance to allow the construction of a detached
garage. Originally the applicant applied for a reduced street side yard setback to Bruce Street of
2.9 m instead of the minimum required 7.5 for the proposed garage. After discussions with
planning, transportation and zoning staff, the plans have been revised to provide a 3.9 m setback
to Bruce as well as an expanded driveway. The variance will be discussed in the following
paragraphs.
YES
The subject property is designated as “Residential – Low Density” under the City‟s Official Plan.
This designation permits single detached dwellings to a maximum density of 25 units per net
hectare. No changes to use or density are proposed under this application.
The City‟s Official Plan requires new development to be compatible with its surroundings. Staff
has visited the site and has observed development along Bruce Street and Delaware Avenue.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed garage will be compatible with this area. The structure
is not overly large in terms of height or area, and will very closely match in design a detached
garage that exists on the opposite side of Bruce Street at 345 Delaware Avenue. A detached
garage with a reduced street side yard setback is a typical condition found for the corner
properties at Bruce Street and Delaware Avenue. Further, the increased setback and expanded
driveway now proposed will allow for two vehicles to park on the subject property (one in the
proposed garage, one parked parallel to Bruce Street) without encroaching into the road
allowance.
Page 58
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
YES
Zoning By-law 2020 contains provisions for setbacks from a side lot line abutting a street for
accessory buildings and structures. The intent behind these provisions is to help encourage a
consistent and attractive streetscape so that accessory structures do not negatively impact the
streetscape. The provision also anticipates that some of these structures will function as detached
garages and therefore require suitable separation from the road allowance.
In this case, the applicant has revised the plans to provide a street side yard setback similar to the
main dwelling. In addition, as noted earlier the setback and garage will be consistent with corner
properties at this intersection. Further, staff notes comments from Transportation requesting a
minimum 4 m setback to the street side lot line, anticipating that an overhang will occur. The
applicant is essentially meeting this requirement while also expanding the driveway to allow for
parking of two vehicles on the subject property. This arrangement will ensure that vehicular
storage will not be a burden to the Bruce Street right of way.
3) Desirability:
STRUCTURE?
YES
The proposed structure is relatively modest in size and will provide for covered vehicular storage
on the subject property, which currently does not exist. The property is somewhat constrained by
an existing dwelling and narrower width of 12 m. Allowing for the reduced setback in
combination with the proposed driveway arrangement will ensure adequate parking is provided.
4) Minor in Nature:
FROM
THE
ZONING
BY-LAW
YES
The numerical deviation proposed is substantial in terms of a percentage reduction in the
Page 59
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
required setback. However, the result will be a garage that is not unique to this area of the
neighbourhood and one that will provide the required vehicular storage.
N/A
6) Recommendation:
Date: June 8, 2012
Delaware deemed = 17.5 m. Existing exceeds deemed.
Bruce Ave deemed = 18.0 m. Existing 17.678. Setbacks should be taken from deemed. A 0.16 m
widening will not be taken.
Date: May 23, 2012
Prepared By: Carol Gulak
Comment:
Site Engineering has no objection.
Date: June 8, 2012
Prepared By: Carol Gulak
BUILDING COMMENT
1)
2)
Date:
Prepared By:
Transportation Services cannot support a 2.9m side yard setback. Recognizing that it is the
Page 60
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
applicant‟s intention to build a garage on the subject property, the standard setback requirement
from the face of any building to the property line is 6.0m. However, considering that the
proposed garage is being built in an existing established neighborhood, we will accept a 4.0m
side yard setback, and allow vehicle overhang onto city property in order for to permit an
appropriate driveway length from Bruce Street .
Date: May 29, 2012
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
following:
are questioned.
Page 61
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
and safety issues.
*
*
*
*
Page 62
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
File
540-02-A131/2011
APPLICANT:
New Horizon Development Group (Haven)Inc.
69 John St. S Unit 304, Hamilton ON L6N 2B9
PROPERTY:
1401 Appleby Line,
CON 2 SDS PT LOT 5 RP 20R12483 PART 3
Variance:
1) To permit a building with a 26 m+ maximum yard an other street
[Lampman avenue] whereas the zoning by-law requires 22 m maximum
2) To permit parking lot or driveway to be located within 3 m of a window of
habitable room [townhouses], whereas the Zoning by-law requires 3 m
minimum
3) Notwithstanding Part 7 - 4.12, to permit balconies on building elevations
facing Corporate Drive, whereas the Zoning By-law does not permit it
4) To permit the setback of the underground parking structure 2.8 m from
Appleby Line, whereas the Zoning by-law requires 3 m minimum
Corporate Drive, whereas the Zoning by-law requires 3 m minimum
the hypotenuse [Appleby Line @ Corporate Drive], whereas the Zoning
by-law requires 3 m minimum
7) To permit the setback of the apartment building one 2.74 m from the
hypotenuse [Appleby Line @ Corporate Drive], whereas the Zoning bylaw requires 3 m minimum
8) To permit the setback of the stone entry feature [accessory structure] 0 m
from the hypotenuse [Appleby Line @ Corporate Drive], whereas the
Zoning by-law requires 3 m minimum
9) To permit a 5 m high stone entry feature [accessory structure] within a
visibility triangle [Appleby Line @ Corporate Drive], whereas the Zoning
by-law only permits a fence or landscaping within a visibility triangle with
a maximum height of 1 m
10) To permit landscaping greater than 1m high within a visibility triangle
[Lampman Drive @ Corporate Drive], whereas the Zoning by-law only
permits landscaping within a visibility triangle with a maximum height of
1m
Page 63
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
STAFF REPORTS
ZONING COMMENTS
The subject property is zoned UCR3, Uptown Mixed Use Centre, under Zoning By-law 2020 as
amended. The UCR3 zone permits, a variety of uses such as retail, service commercial, office,
hospitality. With regards to residential uses, the UCR3 zone permits a townhouse and an apartment
building.
The applicant has recently filed a site plan application [refer to file 535-019/2011] to construct 3 blocks
of townhouses and 2 apartment buildings on this property. Zoning Staff have reviewed the site plan
application and have initially identified 10 items which require „other planning approval‟. The applicant
has advised that he will not be building the entry feature. As a result items 8 to 10 are no longer
required, and only 7 items need to be addressed.
Setback [building]
For a yard all other street [excluding Appleby Line] the UCR3 zone has a 22 m maximum setback. The
proposed building is setback approximately 26 m+- from Lampman Avenue. A minor variance is
required to address the greater setback.
Page 64
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
Setback [Underground parking structure]
With reference to Part 1 – 2.26[5] an underground parking structure shall be setback 3 m from all other
property lines and street lines. The location of the proposed underground parking structure is 2.8 m from
Appleby Line and 0.9 m from Corporate Drive. A minor variance is required to address the lesser
setback of the underground parking structure.
Setback [from Hypotenuse]
With reference to Part 1 – 2.11, the minimum distance of any building or structure from the hypotenuse
of a daylight triangle is 3 m. The proposed location of the apartment building and the underground
parking structure is 2.74 m from the hypotenuse [Appleby Line @ Corporate Drive]. A minor variance is
required to allow the proposed building/ underground parking structure with a lesser setback from the
hypotenuse.
Separation Distance for Windows with Habitable Rooms
With reference to Part 2 – 1(i)a, For townhouses, back to back townhouses, stacked townhouses, cluster
homes and apartment buildings up to 3 storeys, driveways and parking lots shall be setback 3 m from a
wall of a building containing windows of habitable rooms, except, where a parking space and
driveway is for the exclusive use of the unit occupant the setback shall not apply. The applicant is
proposing a row of parking stalls that are located less than 3m from the west side of the townhouse
blocks. A minor variance is required to permit the location of the row of parking stalls with a lesser
setback than 3 m from the townhouse block.
Balconies
With reference to Part 7 – 4.12, balconies shall not be permitted on building elevations facing Corporate
Drive. On the 3 townhouse blocks and 2 apartment buildings, the applicant is proposing balconies on the
building elevation facing Corporate Drive. A minor variance is required to permit the proposed balconies
on the building elevations facing Corporate Drive.
Variance required [7 items]:
1. To permit a building with a 26 m+- maximum yard from another street [Lampman
Avenue] whereas the zoning by-law only allows 22 m maximum.
2. To permit parking lot or driveway to be located within 3 m of a window of habitable
room [townhouses], whereas the Zoning by-law requires 3 m minimum.
3. Notwithstanding Part 7 – 4.12, to permit balconies on building elevations facing
Corporate Drive, whereas the Zoning By-law does not permit it.
Page 65
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
4. To permit the setback of the underground parking structure 2.8 m from Appleby Line,
whereas the Zoning by-law requires 3 m minimum.
5. To permit the setback of the underground parking structure 0.9 m from Corporate Drive,
whereas the Zoning by-law requires 3 m minimum.
6. To permit the setback of the underground parking structure 2.74 m from the hypotenuse
[Appleby Line @ Corporate Drive], whereas the Zoning by-law requires 3 m minimum.
7. To permit the setback of the apartment building [#1] 2.74 m from the hypotenuse
[Appleby Line @ Corporate Drive], whereas the Zoning by-law requires 3 m minimum.
Note: Therefore these zoning comments were prepared at the applicant‟s request, as staff have
not received or reviewed a revised site plan. Therefore, the items in this minor variance
application are applied for at the owner/applicant‟s risk. The applicant has been advised that
should additional zoning items be identified from the revised site plan application, a further
minor variance application may be required, at cost by the owner/applicant.
Date: May 25, 2012/June 7, 2012
Prepared By: G. Jin
The subject property is located on the southeasterly corner of the intersection of Appleby Line
and Corporate Drive, south of Upper Middle Road. The property is currently vacant but some
site work has been done to prepare for development. The property previously contained a sales
office for the proposed development, which was installed without planning approvals. This sales
office has been moved to another location in the City, since most units within the proposed
development have been sold. The surrounding land uses are mixed, and include the following:
North – two storey townhouses on Corporate Dr.
East – high density residential at Lampman Ave and Corporate Dr.
South – undeveloped parcel containing a low density residential use
West – employment uses
The applicant requires the approval of 7 variances to permit the construction of a large multibuilding residential development consisting of 246 units. The proposed development consists of
of two 4 storey apartment buildings and two 2 storey townhouses. Staff are processing a site plan
Page 66
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
application under File 535-019/11 and have issued draft site plan approval subject to, among
other things, the applicant obtaining the necessary minor variances as identified.
Staff have attempted to work with the applicant on a variety of site plan issues. Minor
adjustments to the plans have been made, which are not reflected in the plans circulated with this
application. These items include slightly revised building elevations, additional streetscaping
items along Appleby Line, an entrance feature near the Corporate Drive access, etc., but there are
no proposed changes to the building location or parking layout. As a result of the changes,
variances 8-10 as identified by Zoning staff are no longer required. Staff will work with the
applicant through the site plan process to design a pedestrian streetscape element adjacent to the
Appleby and Corporate intersection that meets all applicable design and by-law requirements.
Variance 1 – Maximum Setback From Lampman
YES
Staff view this variance as somewhat technical in nature, due to the shape of the property. The
variance applies to easterly elevation of Condo Building #2. The shape of the property presents
challenges for extending the building closer to Lampman Ave because of the curved Corporate
Drive lot line. Although portions of the building could be extended, staff are of the opinion that
the visual impact to Lampman would be minimal. In addition, Condo Building #2 is already
undesirably long for a building of this height, and lengthening it would further emphasize this
negative trait. It doesn‟t appear as though the applicant is able to shift the building, as currently
designed, in order to make up the entire 4 m shortfall.
Variance 2 – To Permit Parking/Driveway Within 3 m of Window of Habitable Room
YES
This variance applies to the parking spaces adjacent to the proposed townhouse units. The
majority of the parking does comply with the required 3 m setback. There are no numerical
setback criteria in the City‟s Official Plan that pertain to setbacks of parking spaces from
dwellings.
Page 67
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
Variance 3 – To Permit Balconies Facing Corporate Drive
YES
This variance applies to the northerly and easterly elevations of Proposed Building #2, as well as
the northerly elevations of the townhouses fronting onto Corporate Drive. There are no policies
within the City‟s OP restricting balconies from facing Corporate Drive. However, the OP does
contain a policy stating that any existing design guidelines within Mixed Use Activity Areas shall
be used in the evaluation of development proposals in these areas. A set of design guidelines are
in place for the Uptown Mixed Use Center, and these guidelines do not permit projecting, open
air balconies facing Corporate Drive.
Staff are of the understanding that the requirement to not allow open air balconies facing
Corporate Drive was intended to provide a certain aesthetic for the street. Given that the
majority of balconies for Condo Building #2 will be screened or are separated by distance from
Corporate Drive, and that the number and size of the balconies on the proposed townhouses are
small and partially integrated with the buildings, staff are of the opinion that this requirement is
being met.
Variances 4 – 7 – Reduced setback of Underground Parking Structure and Condo Building #1
YES
These variances pertain to the location of the underground parking structure in relation to the
adjacent lot lines, and as Condo Building #1. The proposed underground parking location
generally coincides with the above-ground building locations adjacent to Appleby Line and
Corporate Drive. The City‟s OP does not contain any provisions restricting the location of
underground parking structures, but does encourage buildings to locate in proximity to adjacent
streets. Although the reduced setback for the underground parking structure along Corporate
Drive eliminates potential area for substantial tree plantings, the applicant has proposed planting
specimens appropriate for such a circumstance. In addition, the reduced setbacks adjacent to
Appleby and the Appleby/Corporate intersection are marginally smaller than the by-law
requirement.
Page 68
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
Variance 1 – Maximum Setback From Lampman
YES
As mentioned, staff view this variance as somewhat technical in nature due to the shape of the
lot. While adjustments could be made to the design and location of Condo Building #2, staff are
of the opinion that the difference in setback would not have a significant impact on Lampman
Ave. This building is already undesirably long and adding length would further emphasize this
negative trait. In addition, the applicant has proposed landscaping in the eastern area of the
property which will add visual interest to the street. Through the site plan process, staff will
pursue some decorative fencing in this location to help define the street edge, as well as an
upgraded building elevation facing Lampman.
Variance 2 – To Permit Parking/Driveway Within 3 m of Window of Habitable Room
YES
Zoning By-law 2020 contains provisions requiring parking areas to be setback a suitable distance
from windows of habitable rooms. The intent behind these provisions is to lessen the impacts of
automobiles on adjacent residences, such as exhaust fumes, headlights, alarms, etc. The majority
of the proposed parking area exceeds this setback requirement. There are several pinch points
where this requirement is not met for Townhouse Buildings #2 and 3 respectively. Because of
the angle of the parking and the adjacent buildings, this reduced setback occurs at point locations
only and is not reduced in a linear fashion for an entire townhouse unit or block.
Variance 3 – To Permit Balconies Facing Corporate Drive
YES
Zoning By-law 2020 contains a provision applicable to the UCR3 zone that prevents balconies
on building elevations facing Corporate Drive. This restriction does not apply to any other
Page 69
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
streets. The provision is a direct implementation of the urban design guidelines which treat
Corporate Drive as a main urban boulevard leading to the Burloak Office Park. The guidelines
state that balconies facing Corporate Drive should be incorporated within the building structure
as enclosed, windowed amenity areas.
The variance applies to second floor balconies on the front elevations of the proposed
townhouses as well as the balconies on the northerly and easterly facades of Condo Building #2.
In each case the balconies are partially integrated into the building design, but are not enclosed.
The balconies themselves are not overly large and do not project substantially from the facades.
Variances 4 – 7 – Reduced setback of Underground Parking Structure and Condo Building #1
YES
Zoning By-law 2020 contains provisions within the UCR3 zone that specify minimum setbacks
for buildings. In addition, Zoning By-law 2020 contains a general provision allowing a below
grade parking structure to encroach into a required yard, but cannot encroach into a required
landscape buffer and must maintain a minimum 3 m setback from a street line or property line.
The intent behind these provisions is to ensure that buildings and underground structures are
located a suitable distance from the road allowance, to develop a consistent and attractive
streetscape, and to leave room for adequate landscaping on the property.
The underground parking structure location generally matches the aboveground building
locations. With the exception of the 0.9 m setback proposed to Corporate Drive for the
underground parking structure, the setbacks proposed are less than 1 foot smaller than required.
3) Desirability:
Variances 1 – 7 – Setbacks, Balconies, etc.
DESIRABLE FOR THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT OR USE OF THE LAND,
BUILDING OR STRUCTURE?
YES
The proposed variances will allow for building placement and parking layout that will maximize
unit count for the property. The development will provide housing stock within the City.
Page 70
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
4) Minor in Nature:
Variances 1 – 7 – Setbacks, Balconies, etc.
YES
The variances represent minor numerical deviations from the By-law requirements, with the
exception of the variance pertaining to balconies facing Corporate Drive. This variance is not
based on numerical criteria, but is minor in nature.
As mentioned, staff are processing an active site plan application under File 535-019/11.
6) 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.
Note: The Applicant is advised that the active site plan application must be finalized to facilitate
the proposed development.
Date: June 7, 2012
Prepared By: Planning Department
Appleby Line
Existing road width = 38.53m
Deemed road width = 47.00m
A road widening of +/- 4.41m will be required to bring the road to deemed width.
(Region of Halton will need to be contacted for exact widening criteria since this is a Regional
Road).
A 15m x 15m Daylight Triangle is required for this property.
Revised Transportation Review
Appleby Line
Page 71
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
A road widening of +/- 0.92m widening required to bring road to deemed width.
(Region of Halton will need to be contacted for exact widening criteria since this is a Regional
Road).
A 5m x 5m Daylight Triangle is required for this property.
Date: March 2, 2012
Prepared By: Mike Korobkin
Corporate Drive
No road widening requird.
Lampman Ave.
No road widening required.
Date: January 9, 2012
No objection.
Date: June 6, 2012
BUILDING COMMENT
1)
2)
Date: May 23, 2012
Prepared By: s. Krizan
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Page 72
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
following:
are questioned.
and safety issues.
*
*
*
*
Page 73
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
HEARING NO.11 – 7:20 P.M.
File
540-02-A045/2012
APPLICANT:
Dawn Victoria (Oakville) Limited
1550 Yorkton Crt. Suite 18, Burlington ON L7P 5B7
PROPERTY:
181 Plains Rd. W,
CON 1 EF PT LOT 8 RP 20R3743 PARTS 1,2
Variances:
1) To permit proposed townhouse block three to be located 34 m to be
confirmed within a public street having a deemed width of 26 m or greater
instead of the minimum required 55 m
2) To permit a front yard setback of 0 m instead of the minimum required 3 m
for proposed buildings 1 and 2
3) To permit a front yard setback of 0 m instead of the minimum required 2.0
m for proposed eaves or gutters on buildings 1 and 2
4) To permit a west side yard setback of 2.5 m instead of the minimum
required 12 m abutting a residential zone for proposed Building One
5) To permit a 0 m landscape area abutting a street instead of the minimum
required 3 m
6) To permit a 1.5 m landscape buffer abutting a residential zone (west)
instead of the minimum required 6 m
7) To permit a 0 m wide walkway from the street connecting the sidewalk to
the principle access of buildings 1 and 2 instead of the minimum required
3m
8) Notwithstanding Part 5, Subsection 5.1 footnote (a), to eliminate the
requirement for the maximum yard to be 10 m for 60% of the length of the
building abutting the street line
9) To permit an east side yard setback of 1.5 m instead of the minimum
required 3 m to proposed blocks 6 and 7
10) To permit driveways and parking lots to be setback 0.94 m from a wall of
a building containing windows of habitable rooms instead of the minimum
required 3.0 m
11) To permit the privacy areas for the units in Buildings 3-5 to have privacy
screens which are open on the side opposite the building instead of the
requirement to provide privacy screens on all sides of the privacy areas
12) To permit a fence height of 1.2 m within 3 m of the front property line
instead of the minimum required 1.8 m on lands abutting a residential zone
(west property line)
Page 74
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
STAFF REPORTS
Previous minor variance application on record prior to Zoning By-law update in 1999; therefore,
no longer relevant.
ZONING COMMENTS
The subject property is zoned MXG-239, Mixed Use General, under Zoning By-Law 2020, as
amended. The MXG-240 zone permits, among other things, the following:
Page 75
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
2.0 Permitted Uses
The uses permitted in a Mixed Use Corridor Zone shall be in accordance with Table 5.2.1.
Table 5.2.1
USES
ZONES
MXG
Residential
Apartment Building
Retirement Home
Dwelling
Units
in
commercial/office building
Back to Back
Subsection
Townhouse
(see
Townhouse
Subsection
MXC
MXE
MXT (m)
√
√
a √
√ (a)
√
√
√
√
√
(see  (o)
5)
 (o)
 (o)
5)  (p)
 (p)
 (p)
Footnotes to Table 5.2.1
(o) Buildings containing back to back townhouse units are not
permitted within 25 metres of a public street having a deemed
width of 26 m or greater.
(p) Buildings containing townhouse units are not permitted within 55
metres of a public street having a deemed width of 26 m or greater.
Yard abutting Plains Road west of the Queen 3 m minimum; 23 m maximum
Elizabeth Way
Part 1, Section 2.13 Encroachment into Yards:
Page 76
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
(a) Eave or gutter – may project 1 m maximum into a required front yard (3 m – 1 m = 2 m)
Yard abutting a Residential zone
Floors
1
Floors
4
Floor 6: 18 m
4.4 Landscape Area and Buffer
Landscape Area abutting a street:
3m
Landscape Buffer abutting a residential zone:
to
and
3:
5:
12
15
m
m
6m
4.6 Parking
(f) Pedestrian Walkway: A 3 m wide walkway shall be provided from the street connecting the
sidewalk to the principal access of the building and shall be unencumbered except that a
driveway may cross the walkway
Subsection 5.1 Table 5.5.1
Front yard (a)
Abutting a street having a deemed width of 26 m or greater: 3 m, except that the entrance
elevation for an attached or detached garage shall be setback 6 m from the and the maximum
yard shall be 10 m for 60% of the length of the building abutting the street
5.0 Townhouse, Stacked Townhouse and Back to Back Townhouse Regulations
5.1
LOT WIDTH, AREA, YARDS, FLOOR AREA RATIO, BUILDING
HEIGHT
Table 5.5.1
Regulation
Townhouse, Stacked Townhouse and Back to Back
Townhouse
Side Yard
3m
Building setback abutting a creek 7.5 m
block
Page 77
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
Part 2 General Provisions (i) Parking Spaces and Driveways
a) For townhouses, back to back townhouses, stacked townhouses, cluster homes and
apartment buildings up to 3 storeys, driveways and parking lots shall be setback 3 m from
a wall of a building containing windows of habitable rooms, except, where a parking
space and driveway is for the exclusive use of the unit occupant the setback shall not
apply.
Parking spaces shall be setback at least 6 m from an R1, R2 R3 zone
5.5 Privacy Area
Standard Townhouse:
20 sq m per unit
Privacy Area
Means an area reserved for the exclusive use of the occupants of a dwelling unit and
which is separated from other privacy areas and communal areas by a privacy screen. A
Privacy Area may include a patio, deck, balcony, solarium or other such area.
Privacy Screen
Means 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.
2.36 SETBACKS ABUTTING CREEK BLOCKS, 02 ZONES, 03 ZONES and RG ZONES
Notwithstanding the other provisions of this by-law, all buildings and structures, including:
dwellings and garages;
above-ground and in-ground swimming pools;
patios, decks, sheds, sunrooms, gazebos, unitary equipment;
paved walkways;
at-grade parking areas or above or below-grade parking structures;
shall maintain the following setbacks from a creek block, 02 zone, 03 zone or RG zone:
15 m for those areas located on Zoning Maps 1-W, 1-E, 2-W, 2-E, 3-W north of Plains Road West, 3E north of the CNR railway, 4-W, and 4-E; those areas zoned 03 on Maps 29-E, 30-W, and 30-E, and
those areas zoned RG on Maps 31-E and 32-E; Proposed: 0 m
7.5 m for all other areas; 4.5 m if block includes a 3 m buffer.
The above provision shall not apply to Uptown Centre, Orchard Community and Alton Community zones,
where only the setbacks of the base zoning apply.
The above setbacks may be reduced to the applicable setback requirement contained in the base zoning,
provided the approval of Conservation Halton is obtained.
Page 78
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
4.9
FENCING
On lands abutting a residential zone fencing shall be installed along the
common boundary with the residential zone and shall have a minimum height
of 1.8 m, which may be a solid screen fence or a combination of chain link
fence and landscape planting to form a dense year-round screen.
The applicant is proposing a mixed use development consisting of 18 standard condominium
townhouses (3 blocks, 3 storeys), 24 back to back townhouses (2 blocks, 3 storeys), 9 apartment
units (2 blocks, 3 storeys) above 9 commercial/retail units (2 blocks, 3 storeys). The following
variances are required to facilitate the proposed development.
Variances required:
1.
To permit proposed townhouse block #3 to be located 34 m to be confirmed within a public street
having a deemed width of 26 m or greater instead of the minimum required 55 m.
2. To permit a front yard setback of 0 m instead of the minimum required 3 m for proposed buildings 1
and 2.
3. To permit a front yard setback of 0 m instead of the minimum required 2.0 m for proposed eaves or
gutters on buildings 1 and 2.
4. To permit a west side yard setback of 2.5 m instead of the minimum required 12 m abutting a
residential zone for proposed Building #1.
5. To permit a 0 m landscape area abutting a street instead of the minimum required 3 m.
6. To permit a 1.5 m landscape buffer abutting a residential zone (west) instead of the minimum
required 6 m.
7. To permit a 0 m wide walkway from the street connecting the sidewalk to the principle access of
buildings 1 and 2 instead of the minimum required 3 m.
8. Notwithstanding Part 5, Subsection 5.1 footnote (a), to eliminate the requirement for the maximum
yard to be 10 m for 60% of the length of the building abutting the street line.
9. To permit an east side yard setback of 1.5 m instead of the minimum required 3 m to proposed blocks
6 and 7.
10. To permit driveways and parking lots to be setback 0.94 m from a wall of a building containing
windows of habitable rooms instead of the minimum required 3.0 m.
11. To permit the privacy areas for the units in Buildings 3-5 to have privacy screens which are open on
the side opposite the building instead of the requirement to provide privacy screens on all sides of the
privacy areas.
12. To permit a fence height of 1.2 m within 3 m of the front property line instead of the minimum
required 1.8 m on lands abutting a residential zone (west property line).
Note:
1. A zoning clearance certificate is required for each building.
2. Conservation Halton approval is required.
Page 79
AGENDA
MEETING #11
JUNE 25, 2012
Condition:
The zoning section is unable to compile a complete list of variances required until the limits of
the creek block are confirmed and accepted by Conservation Halton. The variances identified are
therefore incomplete and represent a partial list of variances required. Additional variances are
the responsibility of the applicant to obtain.
The following additional variances will be required to be applied for and approved, prior to draft
site plan approval, once the limits of the creek block are finalized by Conservation Halton.
Please note that additional variances may be required as the limit of the creek block may impact
the location of the buildings and floor area ratio:
1. To permit a 0 m setback abutting a creek block instead of the minimum required 15
m for those areas located on Zoning Map 3-W north of Plains Road West, for the
proposed buildings and structures including patios, decks, paved walkways and atgrade parking areas.
2. To permit a building setback of 0 m abutting a creek block instead of the minimum
required 7.5 m.
Date: May 11, 2012, revised June 8, 2012
Prepared By: Tina Vassalli
SITE PLANNING COMMENTS TO FOLLOW
Plains Road E
No road widening required.
Date: April 24, 2012
From an engineering perspective we have no objection to the variances as applied for.
Date: May 14, 2012
Page 80
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
BUILDING COMMENT
1)
2)
Date: May 23, 2012
No issues with the variances required
Date: May 28, 2012
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
following:
are questioned.
Page 81
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
and safety issues.
CONSERVATION HALTON
Staff of Conservation Halton have reviewed the above noted application as per the following checklist,
which includes: Conservation Halton‟s regulatory responsibility; the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Conservation
Authorities with respect to providing the provincial interest comments related to natural hazards;
Conservation Halton‟s Level II Agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to review
applications pursuant to Section (35) of the Fisheries Act; the MOU between the Region of Halton and
Conservation Halton; and, the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Agreement (only pertains to
those applications that are within the Hamilton Harbour watershed). The following comments relate
strictly to this specific application. Additional items not marked as “applicable” may apply to
future applications:
Applicable
Conservation Halton Regulation
MNR/MMAH/CA MOU
PPS – Natural Hazards
DFO Level II Agreement
CA/Halton MOU
Flood Hazards
Wetlands
Top of Bank Erosion Limits
Lakes and Rivers Impacts
Wildlife Habitat Impacts/Mitigation
Endangered and Threatened Species
Further
Study
Page 82
MEETING #11
AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2012
Fish Habitat Impacts/Mitigation
Stormwater Management
Subwatershed Planning
Hamilton Harbour RAP Agreement
There are numerous variances requested to the zoning for the subject property. Conservation
Halton has comments specific to variances #12 and #13 as listed on the circulation. Specifically,
these variances request the following:
To permit a 0m setback abutting a creek block instead of the minimum required 15m for those
areas located on Zoning Map 3-W north of Plains Road West, for the proposed buildings and
structures including patios, decks, paved walkways and at-grade parking areas;
To permit a building setback of 0m abutting a creek block instead of the minimum required 7.5m.
Staff wish to clarify that the location of the stable top of bank has not yet been approved by
Conservation Halton. Through the zoning amendment process, staff of Conservation Halton
continue to work with the applicant to establish the precise limit of the stable top of bank. Once
this limit is defined, a 15 metre setback will be applied which will form the limit of Conservation
Halton‟s regulated area. In addition, there is an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) on the
subject property some of which extends outside of the area regulated by Conservation Halton.
The northern property line will be based on the greater of the 15 metre setback from stable top of
bank and a 10 metre setback from the dripline of the ESA. The valleyland, stable top of bank
setback and ESA setback will all then be zoned Open Space (presumably creek block) which has
necessitated the variance to the zoning. Once Conservation Halton has accepted the stable top of
bank line, and associated 15 metre setback to property line, staff will have no objection to the
variances as sought. However, until such time as the hazards and setback are identified to our
satisfaction, staff cannot comment on whether the plan attached to the variance request is an
accurate depiction of the ultimate Open Space zone.
We trust the above is of assistance. If you require additional information, please contact the
undersigned at extension 266.
Yours truly,
Jennifer Lawrence, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Environmental Planning
May 28, 2012
*
*
*
*

hearing no. 1 - 6:30 pm

Transcription

Similar documents

Board of Zoning Appeals Variance Application BEGINNING JULY 1

V-11-063

What does “Commercial/Industrial Mean to NAHBA Today?

Precinct: 4 Name: Sandra Shaw # Article Name Yes No A Lexington

MLK - Landcroc

Creekside at Berkeley Hills

CITY OF NAVASOTA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

BENSALEM TOWNSHIP

Pool Permit Application