in

Variances approved for 730 Brant Street redevelopment

730 & 760 Brant 2On Monday, Jan. 25, the city’s Committee of Adjustment approved all but one of the variances requested to facilitate the redevelopment of 730/760 Brant Street into a four storey condominium with retail along Brant street. The committee did not approve the accessible parking reduction.

The list of variances is below.

For further information about this project, please contact the city planner on the file: Charles.Mulay@burlington.ca

VARIANCES:

1. To apply the zoning regulations to the exterior property lines and not from the limit of the zoning boundary to facilitate the proposed development whereas Part 1, Section 1.7.1 (g) states where a property or lot has two or more zoning designations, the zoning boundary between the designations shall be the limit from which the zoning regulations shall apply

2. To permit direct vehicle access to Brant Street whereas Part 14, Exception 23 (1)(c) states direct vehicle access to Brant Street is not permitted

3. To permit a 1.7 m minimum yard abutting a street (Olga Drive) instead of the minimum required 3 m for the proposed apartment building

4. To permit a 4.9 m maximum yard abutting a street (Hyde Road) instead of the maximum permitted 4.5 m for the proposed apartment building

5. To permit a 1.0 m setback instead of the minimum required 3 m for the proposed balconies abutting Olga Drive

6. To permit a 5 m yard abutting a residential zone instead of the minimum required 12 m for floors 1 to 3

7. To permit a 5 m yard abutting a residential zone instead of the minimum required 15 m for floor 4

8. To permit a 4.2 m yard abutting a residential zone instead of the minimum required 12 m for balconies on floors 1 to 3

9. To permit a 4.2 m yard abutting a residential zone instead of the minimum required 15 m for balconies on floor 4

10.To permit a 0 m landscape area abutting a street (Brant Street) instead of the minimum required 3 m

11.To permit a 1 m landscape area abutting a street (Olga Drive) instead of the minimum required 3m

12.To permit a 4.8 m landscape buffer abutting a residential zone instead of the minimum required 6 m

13.To permit 123 occupant parking spaces instead of the minimum required 194 occupant parking spaces

14.To permit 3 occupant accessible parking spaces instead of the minimum required 6 occupant accessible parking spaces

15.To permit 33 shared parking spaces instead of the maximum permitted 31 shared visitor parking spaces

16.To permit 33 visitor parking spaces instead of the minimum required 52 visitor parking spaces

17.To permit the below grade parking structure to encroach 1 m into the required landscape buffer where as Part 1, Section 2.26(5) and Part 2, Section 1(j) states that below grade parking structures shall not extend into a required landscape buffer and shall be setback 3 m from all other property lines and street lines

18.To permit a 1.7 m setback to a street line (Olga Drive) instead of the minimum required 3 m setback to a street line for the proposed  underground parking garage

19.To permit a maximum 23 m yard abutting a street (Olga Drive) instead of the maximum permit 4.5 m for the proposed accessory building (Community Gardens shed)

 

 

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:

2 Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. I am still concerned about #2. I actually walked from the corner of Ghent and Brant to the proposed location for the access to the underground parking. I counted the steps it took to walk that distance…all 120 of them! I think that this presents will be a real traffic hazard for cars entering and exiting the underground parking and would create additional congestion in both directions on Brant Street.

  2. It appears that developers take the getting of variances for granted, curious what those close to project think of it

What's your take?

$260k raised for Freeman Station: halfway toward goal

Family Day hours and services