Committee of Adjustment

That the agenda for the County of Brant Committee of Adjustment meeting of January 21, 2021 be approved.

That the minutes of the November 19, 2020 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be approved, as printed.

That application A21/20/DN received from Dan & Heidi Aiston, Owner of lands described as PLAN 317 LOT 59 REG 0.18AC 66.00FR 120.12D, County of Brant, requesting relief from Zoning By-Law 61-16, Section 8.2, Table 8.2 to permit a minimum street setback of 4 metres (13.1 feet) from the habitable portion of the dwelling where a minimum setback of 4.5 metres (14.8 feet) is required, and to permit a minimum street setback of 5.5 metres (18 feet) to the attached garage where a minimum setback of 6.0m (19.7 feet) is required be approved .

That application A20/20/KD received from Scott and Jacqueline Yeager, Owner/ Applicant of CON 1 PT LOTS 2 & 3 RP 2R-4832 PARTS 6 & 7, geographic Former Township Of Burford, 423 King Edward Street, County of Brant, requesting relief from Zoning By-Law 61-16, Section 4.4, Table 4.1 – to a maximum gross floor area for an accessory structure of 200.7 square metres (2,160.3 square feet), whereas a maximum of 140 square metres for an accessory structure (1,506.9 square feet) be approved with conditions.

That application A21/20/AW received from David McPherson on behalf of 2715292 Ontario Inc, Owners of lands described as PLAN 205 BLK Q PT LOT 1 REG 0.25 AC 66.00FR 165.00D, in the Former Township of Oakland, located at 2 Queen Street North, County of Brant, seeking relief from Section 9.2, Table 9.2 in regards to street setbacks for lands zoned as Suburban Residential (SR).The applicant is proposing a minimum street setback of approximately 3.04 metres from Oakland Road, whereas a minimum setback of 7.5 metres is required, the applicant is also proposing a minimum street setback of approximately 0.45 metres from Queen Street North, whereas a minimum setback of 7.5 metres is required be approved.

That application A22/20/AW from Engaged Custom Home Design on behalf of Robert Perley, Owner of PT LOT 11 PT LOT 12 E JANE REG 0.20AC 75.00FR 118.00D, 16 Jury Street, Former Town of Paris, seeking relief from Section 8.2, Table 8.2 in regards to interior side yard and street setbacks. The applicant is proposing an interior side yard setback of 0.33 metres (1.1 feet) along the north property line, whereas a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.2 metres (3.9 feet) is required. The applicant is also proposing street setback of 0.6 metres (2 feet), whereas 3 metres (9.8 feet) is required. Staff note the minimum street setback to a dwelling is 4.5 metres (14.8 feet), but a covered structure can encroach 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) per Table 4.6 be approved.

That application B58/20/AW Sol Arch on behalf of 2561277 ONTARIO INC, described as CON 2 PT LOT 29 REG 0.40AC 132.00FR 132.00D & CON 2 PT LOT 29 RP 2R653 PART 2 IRREG 0.20AC 66.00FR D, in the Former Town of Paris, also known as 273-275 Grand River Street N, County of Brant requesting to sever two residential building lots with areas of approximately 1,698 square metres (18,277.1 square feet) and 739 square meters (7,954.5 square feet) and frontages of approximately 42.6 metres (139.8 feet) and 17.6 metres (57.7 feet) along Grand River Street respectively that have inadvertently merged be approved.

That application B57/20/AW from Patterson Planning Consultants Inc on behalf of Elev8 Properties Inc, Owners of lands described as BRANTFORD RANGE 1 EMP PT LOT 5 RP 2R5355 PARTS 1 AND 4 REG 3.30AC 173.70FR D,, known as 478 Burtch Road, Former Township of Brantford, requesting to sever a residential building lot with an area of approximately 1,000 square metres (10,763.9 square feet) and a frontage of approximately 27.7 metres (90.9 feet) along Burtch Road be approved. 6.6 CA-21-01-B58-20-AW, 273 – 275 Grand River Street N, Former Town of Paris B58-20-AW, 273 – 275 Grand River Street N, Former Town of Paris • M.J. Brown introduces item CA-24-54- Application B58-20-AW and turns it over to Planner A. Wyszynski for her presentation. • Planner A. Wyszynski spoke to the purpose of the consent application due to an inadvertent merger. • Planner A. Wyszynski notes that 2 public comments were received inquiring about the future use of the subject lands. • Planner A. Wyszynski described how they were recommending approval of the application. Agent Presentation: • The Agent noted they have read with Staff report and agree to the conditions after clarification of two conditions. • The Agent spoke to the condition raising concern about conveying the daylight triangle. • The Agent requests the condition be removed. • Planner A. Wyszynski will amend the condition to be “if applicable” • The Agent is agreeable to the amendment. • The second clarification sought by the Agent is in respect to