To Whom It May Concern:…

To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on ERO posting 025-0461. Please see attached an electronic submission from the City of Burlington. Below are the key points extracted from the submission, c/o of City's Community Planning Department.

1. Minor Variances (As of Right Variation from Setback Requirements):
- Staff are generally supportive of the proposed changes which would enable more flexibility and provide landowners with an option to avoid the time and cost of an application to the Committee of Adjustment.
- The Province could go further and consider delegating undisputed minor variances to staff without the need for a public hearing and Committee of Adjustment approval.
- There are some concerns around impact to storm water drainage or potential infringement on city infrastructure/assets, including the ability to maintain this infrastructure where easements exist. Caveats could be proposed to alleviate this impact.
- Some further clarity may be helpful in implementing the proposed changes:
o What type of development is subject to this provision? The proposed regulation indicates setbacks in ‘specified lands’ will be permitted to deviate without a minor variance. Would this be limited to residential properties only?
o Would the 10% variation apply to accessory buildings and detached Additional Residential Units (ARU) buildings, decks, pools, gazebos, etc.?
o Some Burlington zones have maximum building setbacks – would the variation apply to the maximums as well?
o How would this apply to legal, non-conforming buildings/structures?
o In the event that a property has already received a minor variance for a setback, would a further 10% variation be permitted?
o Confirmation that all other regulations are applicable, and that the setback variations do not override other regulations (e.g., lot coverage).

2. Minister’s Zoning Order:
- No comments.

3. Study Requirements (Complete Application) and Certified Professionals:
- Allowing municipalities to add conditions to a rezoning application or broadening the use of holding provisions would allow for applications to be more readily accepted and processed.
- In addition to how MMAH would determine a qualified professional, staff require additional clarity around:
o Liabilities - i.e., who holds the liability in the event of a dispute or issue?
o The City’s ability to request additional information if submissions are not sufficient to effectively review applications.
o The City’s ability to review studies during the formal development application review process and requiring revisions as conditions of approval.

4. Streamline Planning Approval for Schools:
- City staff are supportive of the premise of “as of right” permissions for schools in residential areas.
- In Burlington, schools and daycares are currently permitted in all residential zones.
- The proposed change does not yet specify if this can be extended to other schools as well – i.e., private schools.
- To support implementation of these changes, some additional clarity around the following may be helpful:
o Does the term “Urban Land” refer to urban, serviced parcels?
o Do the City’s performance standards related to schools (i.e., lot width, type of road the use fronts on, and building setbacks) still apply?

Given the short period for consultation, the attached comments have not been approved by City Council. The contents that supported the development of this letter have been shared with the City’s Committee of the Whole and will be considered by Council on June 17th. Should Council determine that changes to these comments are required, the Province will be advised at the earliest opportunity.