Committee of Adjustment

THAT Consent Application B4-24-ES from Ruchika Angrish, Agent on behalf of 1386250 Ontario Limited c/o Dan Cooper, Owner(s) of lands legally known as SOUTH DUMFRIES CONCESSION 2 PART LOTS 15 TO 17 RP 2R6844 PART 1 RP 2R6892 PART 1, municipally known as 416 Blue Lake Road, County of Brant, Geographic Township of Paris, is requesting a lot line adjustment to transfer a parcel of land having an area of 37 hectares (91.4 acres) from the subject lands identified as 416 Blue Lake Road to be severed and consolidated with the adjacent benefitting parcel legally known as CONCESSION 2 PART LOT 18, municipally known as 468 Blue Lake Road, be APPROVED , subject to attached conditions. and that the reason(s) for approval are as follows: The lot line adjustment will have a minor impact on the area and subject lands and is requested for legal and technical reasons. The application will increase the lot area and viability of the farm parcel(s) and will not result in the creation of new lot. The application is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The application conforms with the policies of the County of Brant Official Plan (2012) and Zoning By-Law.

THAT Consent Application B48-22-SL from Bob Philips, Agent on behalf of Brain and Wendy Pigott, Owner(s) of lands legally described as RANGE 2 SHR PART LOTS 6 TO 8, former geographic Township of Brantford, and municipally known as 138 Langford Church Road, County of Brant proposing a severance for the creation of one (1) new residential building lot on private services, BE APPROVED , subject to the attached conditions and the addition of a condition of potable water. and that the reason(s) for approval are as follows: The lot creation is compatible and consistent within the context of existing development. The application is consistent with the policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and consistent with the policies of Provincial Policy Statement. The application is in conformity/ compliance with the general intent of the policies of the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law.

THAT Application for Minor Variance A4-24-HH from Martin Neumann and Sherry Johnson, Owners of lands legally described as CONCESSION 3 PART LOT 53 PART LOT A REGISTERED PLAN 2R667 PART 1, municipally known as 209 Jerseyville Road, Geographic Township of Brantford, County of Brant, seeking relief from Zoning By-law 61-16, Section 4, Subsection 4.5 (x) to permit a setback of 105 metres (344.48 feet) whereas, 40 metres (131.23 feet) is required to facilitate the construction of a proposed detached additional residential unit, BE APPROVED , subject to the attached conditions noting the removal of condition 2. and that the reason(s) for approval are as follows: The relief requested is considered minor in nature and is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the subject lands; The proposed variance is in keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law 61-16; The proposed variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act.

THAT Application for Minor Variance A3-24-HH from Donald and Linda Farmer, owner of lands legally described as PLAN 70 LOT 3 E, municipally known as 80 Ball Street, Geographic Township of Paris, County of Brant, BE APPROVED subject to the attached conditions. The applicants are proposing to construct an 84.91 m² (914 ft²) attached garage for personal storage and a 14 m² (153 ft²) covered deck. The applicants are requesting relief from Zoning By-Law 61-16, Section 8, Table 8.2.1 – for variances to the rear yard setback and minimum landscaped open space. The applicant is also requesting relief from Section 4, Table 4.44.1 for the purpose of the encroachment of eaves. The following summarizes all variances being sought by the applicant: To permit a reduced rear yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas 6 metres is required. To permit a reduced minimum landscaped open space of 30% to 25%. To permit an encroachment of 0.6 metres, whereas 0.5 metres. and that the reason(s) for approval are as follows: The relief requested is considered minor in nature and is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the subject lands; The proposed variance is in keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law 61-16; The proposed variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act.