Variances approved for retirement home at 2170 Ghent
On Feb. 8, the city’s Committee of Adjustment approved variances requested for the proposed 60-unit retirement home at 2170 Ghent.
The previous minor variance application in October 2013 that was approved by the Committee of Adjustment expired in October 2015. The applicants for this project are once again moving forward and hope to begin construction in March. However, they needed to reapply for the expired variances.
The applicants have revised the building design; however, the size, height and location of the proposed building have not changed. As such, the nature and extent of the variances currently being requested are the same as the relief approved by the Committee of Adjustment back in 2013.
For reference, that list of variances is provided below.
A copy of the revised building rendering is attached. The revised building design is currently being reviewed by planning staff through the site plan process.
Residents can attend the Committee of Adjustment meeting Mon. Feb. 8, Room 247, City Hall, 6:30pm, and speak, or you can submit written comments in advance to
If you have any questions or would like further information about this development, you can contact the planner on the file:
Kyle Plas MCIP, RPP
Planner II – Site Plan Review & Urban Design
Planning and Building Department
City of Burlington
426 Brant Street, PO Box 5013
Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6
t (905) 335-7600 ext. 7555
e
LIST OF VARIANCES:
1. To permit a 6 m front yard setback whereas Part 2, Section 9.1, Table 2.9.1
requires a minimum 7.5 m front yard setback for the proposed 4 storey retirement
home
2. To permit a 0 m landscape area abutting a street whereas Part 2, Section 9.2
requires a 4.5 m landscape area abutting a street having a deemed width up to 26
m
3. To permit a 3 m west side setback whereas Part 2, Section 9.1, Table 2.9.1
requires a minimum 4.5 m side yard setback for the proposed 4 storey retirement
home
4. To permit a maximum floor area ratio of 1.26:1 whereas whereas Part 2, Section
9.1, Table 2.9.1 requires a maximum floor area ratio of 1.25:1 for the proposed 4
storey retirement home
5. To permit a minimum of 11 occupant parking spaces whereas Part 1, Section
2.25, Table 1.2.6 requires a minimum 30 occupant parking spaces.
6. To permit 0 occupant accessible parking spaces whereas Part 1, Section 2.26(9),
Table 1.2.7 requires 1 accessible occupant parking space.
7. To permit 0 employee accessible parking spaces whereas Part 1, Section Part 1,
Section 2.26(9), Table 1.2.7 requires 1 accessible employee parking space.
8. To permit a 1.8 m wide walkway to be located within a required landscape buffer
whereas Part 16 – Definitions, a Landscape Buffer means the area of a lot which
serves to provide separation and to partially obstruct the view of adjacent land
uses by means of a dense landscape screen consisting of evergreen trees or a
combination of solid screen fencing with evergreen or deciduous trees, shrubs or
berms.
9. To permit a proposed transformer to be located within a required landscape buffer
whereas Part 16 – Definitions, a Landscape Buffer means the area of a lot which
serves to provide separation and to partially obstruct the view of adjacent land
uses by means of a dense landscape screen consisting of evergreen trees or a
combination of solid screen fencing with evergreen or deciduous trees, shrubs or
berms.
May 27, 2016 @ 1:40 pm
I’m also concerned with the constant disregard for the rules of engagement, and Burlington’s apparent lack of will to enforce the rules that I’m certain would not be relaxed for the average Joe.
However, I am willing to overlook these concerns in this case since the project is filling such a vital need.
It will be nice to engage with the residents, who will undoubtedly be as gentle and gracious as any neighbour could be.
Bravo for a development that “mostly” makes sense.
February 13, 2016 @ 4:23 pm
Re 2170 Ghent variances:
This comment is too late for 2170 ghent but that set of variances prompts me to comment as follows:
Taken individually, the variances are minor, but taken altogether they constitute a major departure from the intent of the OP – reduced setbacks, reduced screening, transformer permitted, MUCH reduced parking, etc. etc. The plans presumably were well thought out – why permit such great departures?
Also, I am always concerned with traffic in view of the years-long problem at Prospect and Drury Lane. Was this looked at in connection with 2170? Two years ago Mr. Popovich said there would be changes to improve this situation. What are they and when will we see them in-place?
Best,
F.
February 13, 2016 @ 8:52 pm
Frank, Drury and Prospect is scheduled for reconstruction/realignment as part of the road work being performed on Drury/New which will begin this year. See the article elsewhere on Ward2News. A public meeting is Feb. 22 to learn more.