in

Committee approves 6 single family homes at 2130/2136 New St; to council Sept. 24

The Planning & Development Committee on Sept. 11 approved a development of six, single detached homes at 2130 and 2136 New St., with three parking spaces each (no additional on-site visitor parking).

The units are proposed to be 4 bedrooms, with a $1.4 to $1.5 million price tag.

Changes to the project include elimination of site elevation, which brings the back decks down to one step above existing grade.

The applicant intends to replant trees lost due to redevelopment. Permission from neighbouring residents is required to damage or remove co-owned or neighbouring trees (trees on a defined shared boundary line) because they are protected by the Forestry Act of Ontario (Section 10).

Below is a table of the existing and proposed regulations:

Table 2 – Overview of Existing and Proposed R5 Zoning

R5 Regulations Proposed R5-490 Staff Comment.
Lot width 12 m 49.5 m Meets regulation.
Lot area 2000 m2 2647.2 m2 Meets regulation.
Maximum density 25 units/ha 22.7 units/ha Meets regulation.
Maximum height 2 storeys to

10 m

2 storeys to

9.11 m

Meets regulation.
Yard abutting a street (New Street) 7.5 m Unit 1: 3 m

Unit 6: 4.7 m

Support. The proposed reduced yard abutting New Street would allow the proposed buildings to be aligned to the neighbouring property to the east at 440 Swanson Court and create a consistent street edge on this section of New Street.
Maximum projection of roofed over unenclosed 1-storey porch into a required yard 65 cm Porches for Unit 1 and Unit 6 are shown to be 1.9 m and 2.8 m from front lot line (encroaching approximately 1.7 m into required yard abutting New Street). Support. The increased porch encroachment will add visual interest and contribute to a pedestrian oriented streetscape.
Yard abutting a rear building elevation 9 m abutting R3 zone 6 m Support. The requested yard will be able to accommodate the required 3 m landscape buffer and will be compatible with the existing neighbourhood.
Yard abutting a side building elevation 4.5 m abutting R3 zone

(Unit 3: 3 m;

Unit 4: 4.5 m)

3 m Support. The reduced side yard for Unit 4 will provide sufficient space for the required landscape buffer. Access to the amenity space for Unit 4 is proposed on the other side of the building.
Landscape area abutting a street 4.5 m 1.9 m Support. The proposed reduction in landscape area abutting street is a result of the proposed reduced the yard abutting New Street and increased porch encroachment.
Landscape buffer abutting R1, R2, R3 zones 3 m 3 m, but:

 Snow storage is shown to be 2 m from rear lot line;

 Chimney for Unit 4 is 2.6 m from rear lot line; and

 Privacy fences separating the amenity areas of each unit are shown to be 1.2 m from side lot lines.

Support. The Zoning By-law does not allow chimneys, snow storage areas, or privacy fences to encroach into landscape buffers. Staff support the reduced buffer along the rear lot line because no amenity area is proposed along that side of the property, and a double board fence will be required at the end of the private road to mitigate light trespass. Staff support the encroachment of the individual privacy fences, because they will help establish the amenity areas for each unit.
Off-street parking

for cluster homes

2 occupant spaces and 0.5 visitor spaces per unit 3 occupant spaces and 0 visitor spaces Support with 3 occupant spaces per unit. Staff are satisfied that visitor parking can be adequately accommodated because the proposed number of occupant spaces and total spaces per unit exceed requirements.
Separation between dwellings No regulations 2.4 m Support and include as a regulation in the by-law.

The proposed separation is adequate for drainage, privacy and access to the rear amenity space for each dwelling.

The recommendation heads to City Council Sept. 24 for a decision. Residents can attend, watch the webcast of the meeting online (also carried on Cogeco TV), or Register as a Delegation to speak to the item.

Resources:

1.PB-50-18 2130, 2136 New Street.pdf

2.PB-50-18 – Appendix A – Sketches.pdf

3.PB-50-18 – Appendix B – Proposed Zoning Regulations.pdf

4.PB-50-18 – Appendix C – Public Comments.pdf

 

My Take:  I’m generally supportive of the project given the compatibility with the neighbourhood in built form, the change in plans so the height of the property isn’t elevated, and the fact the back decks are now only one step off the ground. I’m concerned about the loss of 5 rental units in the home, but new information provided by staff is that the Municipal Act doesn’t allow a municipality to prevent demolition/conversion of less than six units. The relevant information from the act is below:

Municipal Act 2001
“Section 99.1   Demolition and conversion of residential rental properties
(1) A local municipality may prohibit and regulate the demolition of residential rental properties and may prohibit and regulate the conversion of residential rental properties to a purpose other than the purpose of a residential rental property.  2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 40.
 
(2) The power to pass a by-law respecting a matter described in subsection (1) includes the power,
(a) to prohibit the demolition of residential rental properties without a permit;
(b) to prohibit the conversion of residential rental properties to a purpose other than the purpose of a residential rental property without a permit; and
(c) to impose conditions as a requirement of obtaining a permit.  2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 40.
 
(2.1) If a condition referred to in clause (2) (c) requires an owner of land to which a by-law passed under this section applies to enter into an agreement with the municipality, the municipality may,
(a) register the agreement against the title to the land to which it applies; and
(b) enforce the agreement against the owner and any subsequent owners of the land. 2017, c. 10, Sched. 1, s. 7.
 
(3) The municipality cannot prohibit or regulate the demolition or conversion of a residential rental property that contains less than six dwelling units.  2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 40.

 

I also plan to bring a motion to council to “undelegate” the site plan application, so residents can have input on fencing, perimeter tree planting and other matters. Undelegation brings the decision back to council (rather than staff) and provides for public input.

Written by Marianne Meed Ward

A Better Burlington began in 2006 after my neighbours said they felt left out of city decisions, learning about them only after they’d been made.

As journalist for 22 years, I thought “I can do something about that” and a website and newsletter were born. They’ve taken various forms and names over the years, but the intent remains: To let you know what’s happening at City Hall before decisions are made, so you can influence outcomes for A Better Burlington.

The best decisions are made when elected representatives tap the wisdom of our community members, and welcome many different perspectives.This site allows residents to comment and debate with each other; our Commenting Guidelines established in 2016 aim to keep debate respectful.

Got an idea or comment you want to share privately? Please, get in touch:

Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. This is unacceptable. The removal of 59 out of 64 trees will only contribute to the failing grade from Conservation Halton of our urban tree canopy. The location is in an established neighourhood that is not an intensification area under the Proposed Official Plan. This development will continue to make New Street a treeless streetscape along with several applications approved by Council removing 90% of mature healthy trees. If Council had not accepted cash in lieu at the OPA stage, the Site Plan Guidelines would require equivalent caliper tree replacement that could not be fitted on the property. The applicant ” has proposed to plant trees close to the City’s recommended target replacement caliper.” There are no details.

    Affordable housing is to be 30% of all new housing in Halton ($362,000) but Council waived this requirement.

    Just because there are loopholes doesn’t mean staff and Council can not stand up to these applications.

    There are ways to achieve development with tree protection and affordable housing. Staff and Council are not pursuing these concepts that have been proven all over the country.

What's your take?

Loading…

0

Comments

0 comments

Contribution to Freeman Station, affordable housing, park improvements among Community Benefits proposed for 22 storey at Brock

Update on 2100 Brant St townhouse development proposal; residents request further modifications