The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda - Committee of Adjustment - 20230112Town of Aurora Committee of Adjustment Meeting Agenda Date:Thursday, January 12, 2023 Time:7:00 p.m. Location:Video Conference Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, meetings will be available to the public via live stream only on the Town’s YouTube Channel. To participate electronically, please visit aurora.ca/participation. Pages 1.Call to Order 2.Land Acknowledgement 3.Approval of the Agenda That the Agenda as circulated by the Secretary-Treasurer be approved. 4.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 5.Receipt of the Minutes 5.1 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2022, Meeting Number 22-12 That the Committee of Adjustment Minutes from Meeting Number 22-12 be adopted as circulated. 6.Presentation of Applications 6.1 MV-2022-48 - Yu - 15032 Yonge Street (*Application deferred at the request of the applicant) 6.2 MV-2022-13 - 2352107 Ontario Inc - 1588 St. John's Sdrd (Block 1)1 6.3 MV-2022-40 - Hilsenteger - 3 Jarvis Avenue 14 6.4 MV-2022-49 - Nugent - 86 Tyler 36 7.New Business 8.Adjournment 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Committee of Adjustment Report No. MV-2022 -13 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Minor Variance Application 2352107 Ontario Inc. 1588 St John’s Side Road (Block 1) Part of Lot 26 Concession 3 File: MV-2022-13 Relate Files: SP-2020-09; SUB-2015-02; ZBA-2015-05 Prepared by: Kenny Ng, Planner Department: Planning and Development Services Date: January 12, 2023 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Application The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended, to facilitate the development of two new drive- through restaurants. The drive-through restaurants are proposed at the northeast corner of Leslie Street and the future Melvin Robson Avenue, as part of the Aurora Mills Business Park area. A conceptual overall and subject site plan are attached as Appendix ‘B’ to this report for further reference. Proposed Variance The following relief is being requested: a) Section 5.4 of the Zoning By-law requires a total of 58 parking spaces for the restaurant uses. The applicant is proposing a total of 52 parking spaces, thereby requiring a variance of 6 spaces. Background Subject Property and Area Context The subject lands are municipally known as 1588 St. John’s Sideroad and are part of the Aurora Mills Business Park area located north of St. John’s Sideroad and east of Leslie Page 1 of 45 January 12, 2023 2 of 8 Report No. MV-2022-13 Street. The subject lands are considered Block 1 for the overall Business Park subdivision, and are specifically located at the northeast intersection of Leslie Street and the future Melvin Robson Avenue, which will serve as an interior east-west collector road for the Business Park area. The subject lands have an approximate lot area of 0.871 hectares (2.15 acres), and an approximate lot frontage of 90.88 metres (298.2 feet) onto Melvin Robson Avenue. The subject lands are currently vacant and undergoing earthworks, with the associated Site Plan application for the restaurant (SP-2020-09) also submitted to the Town. The initial Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for the overall business park was also approved by Council on June 6, 2017 (SUB-2015-02 and ZBA-2015-05). Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding land uses for the subject property are as follows: North: Environmental Protection land; South: Vacant future Employment land; East: Vacant future Employment land; and West: Residential Neighbourhood. Official Plan The subject lands are designated ‘Business Park 1’ by the Town of Aurora Official Plan (OPA 73). The intent of this designation is to provide a full range of employment opportunities as well as opportunities for ancillary service uses, which includes the proposed restaurant use as permitted. Zoning The subject lands are zoned E-BP (504) (Employment-Business Park Exception Zone) by Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended, which permits restaurants. Related Planning Applications On June 6, 2017, Council approved a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for the Aurora Mills Business Park area to define the block areas and establish the permitted uses. With the subdivision blocks and permitted uses now established, individual site-specific applications can now be pursued. A site plan application to facilitate the restaurant use on the subject property (SP-2020-09) has been received by the Town, which is currently under review. The subject variance is required in order to facilitate the approval of the related site plan application. Page 2 of 45 January 12, 2023 3 of 8 Report No. MV-2022-13 Preliminary Zoning Review A Preliminary Zoning Review (PZR) has been completed by the Town of Aurora’s Building Division. The PZR identified the above-mentioned required variances, and no other non- compliance was identified. Applicant’s stated reason(s) for not complying with the Zoning By-law As stated on the application form, “After the previous Committee of Adjustment meeting we took the comments made by the committee back to our design t eam as well as planning staff and worked on an alternative plan that would provide greater stacking spaces and better mobility within the plan. The reconfiguration allowed us to achieve all stacking spaces required for both Building A and Building B. We did provide a plan to show the turning radii does function for the entrance of the drive thru on Building A and relocated the entrance of the drive thru for Building B to separate the two. Furthermore, we reconfigured some of the parking spaces to make it mo re accessible and have less crossings over drive thru areas. This solution requires a reduction of parking by 6 spaces or 10% of the required parking (since last meeting we also had to add 3 spaces to the parking calculation for the addition of a freezer in Building B which would not host people but is considered in the GFA due to OBC regulations). Even with 6 reduced parking we still believe the integrity of the parking standards can be maintained with the parking that has been provided as the reduction is minor in nature.” Planning Comments Planning Staff have evaluated Minor Variance Application MV-2022-13 pursuant to the prescribed tests as set out in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act, as follows: a) The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan The proposed variance will support the development of a draft approved employment subdivision block and provide uses that will enhance the viability of the employment area. The site plan follows applicable urban design policies by siting the buildings to be closer to Leslie Street to frame the streetscape, improve the pedestrian environment and partly screen the parking and stacking spaces. Despite the deficiency in parking spa ces, it is not expected to generate any significant impacts to the functionality of the subject site. In considering the context of Official Plan policies, the variances requested are not anticipated to have any negative impacts or non-conformities, and they fulfill the objective of providing ancillary service uses for the area. Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. Page 3 of 45 January 12, 2023 4 of 8 Report No. MV-2022-13 b) The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law The general intent of the parking space requirement is to ensure that sufficient parking spaces are provided to meet the needs of the proposed facilities and that vehicle spillover will not occur for overcrowding the subject site. The applicant submitted a Parking Justification letter prepared by C.F. Crozier & Associates Inc., dated December 6, 2022, which concluded that the proposed parking spaces are adequate. This review was performed based on a review of comparable municipal zoning by-law requirements as well as parking demand forecast using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual. Based on the findings of this letter, the proposed vehicle parking supply for the development is expected to adequately accommodate peak parking demand at the site. As determined by Town transportation staff, the letter provides sufficient evidence that the reduction in parking spaces is not anticipated to result in negative impacts on the development and the operation of the proposed restaurants, nor will there be any negative impacts to the surrounding areas. Furthermore, the development provides for the required barrier-free vehicle parking spaces, and further compensates the site users with additional bicycle parking spaces which exceed municipal requirements. As the business park builds out, it is anticipated that the area will become more walkable to accommodate patrons, thus also further reducing the need for parking spaces. Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. c) The proposed variance is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the land The proposed variance is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the land in the context of the site and the adjacent neighbourhood. The parking study sufficiently demonstrates that the proposed spaces are satisfactory in accommodating the parking needs of the site. The study has been reviewed by the Town’s Traffic/Transportation analyst and no traffic related concerns have been raised. It is in the opinion of staff that the reduced parking spaces are sufficient to accommodate the proposed restaurants. Furthermore, the easterly portion of the subject Block (shown as retained for future development on site plan) will be severed and merged with westerly portion of Block 2, which is the block to the east of the subject property. A self -storage facility is proposed to be erected on the future block and alongside the other future employment uses that Page 4 of 45 January 12, 2023 5 of 8 Report No. MV-2022-13 the Business Park area will generate, the proposed restaurants will be walkable and beneficial in servicing the ancillary needs of the employment area. Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the property. d) The proposed variance is considered minor in nature In considering the impact and scale of the requested variance, it is considered to be minor in the context of better utilizing the site for the permitted uses. Staff note that the applicant has made significant improvements compared to the previous/initial submission, the revised site plan provides for sufficient stacking spaces for both drive- thru restaurants and the entrance to the northern drive-thru has been re-positioned to improve the flow of internal traffic and pedestrian safety. It is also worth noting that despite the freezer component being a storage area and not intended to be occupied by patrons, it still contributes to the total GFA calculation of the building, thereby increasing the parking space requirement, despite not having tangible impacts on the scale of use for the property. In conclusion, the parking space shortfall is minor and staff are of the opinion that the proposed spaces are able to sufficiently meet the future site synergies when the adjacent blocks are developed. The employees of the nearby future offices and industrial units may also choose to walk or bike to access the site rather than drive. The functionality of the site will not be negatively affected by the proposed variance, and the circulation, ease of access, safety and screening have all been improved since previous submissions. Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature. Additional Comments The minor variance application was circulated to Town Department/Divisions and to external agencies for review and comment. The following comments were provided: Department or Agency Comments Building Division Preliminary Zoning Review was completed on December 9, 2022 to confirm the variances required for the proposed development. Engineering Division (Traffic/Transportation) Comments provided stating no concerns with proposed variance application (dated December 23, 2022) Page 5 of 45 January 12, 2023 6 of 8 Report No. MV-2022-13 Department or Agency Comments Operational Services (Parks) No comments received at the time of writing this report. Operational Services (Public Works) No comments received at the time of writing this report. Central York Fire Services No comments received at the time of writing this report. York Region Comments provided stating no comments/concerns with proposed application (dated December 13, 2022) LSRCA Comments provided stating no comments/concerns with proposed application (dated December 13, 2022) Alectra No concerns with the proposed minor variance (dated December 14, 2022) Ministry of Transportation No concerns with the proposed minor variance (dated December 13, 2022) Public Correspondence Written submissions were not received at the time of writing of this report. Should written submissions be received after the writing of this report, the Secretary Treasurer will provide the submission(s) to Committee members at the meeting. Conclusion Planning staff have reviewed the application with respect to Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act for the granting of minor variances. Staff recommend approval of the requested variances subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix ‘A’. Page 6 of 45 January 12, 2023 7 of 8 Report No. MV-2022-13 Attachments Appendix ‘A’ – Recommended Conditions of Approval Appendix ‘B’ – Site Plan Page 7 of 45 January 12, 2023 8 of 8 Report No. MV-2022-13 Appendix ‘A’ – Recommended Conditions of Approval The following conditions are required to be satisfied should application MV-2022-13 be approved by the Committee of Adjustment: 1. That the variance only applies to the subject property, in substantial conformity with the plan(s) attached as ‘Appendix B’ to this Staff Report, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services or designate. Page 8 of 45 DRIVE THRU BUILDING E PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT 1-STOREY B L O C K 1 B L O C K 2 B L O C K 3 B L O C K 6 B L O C K 7 B L O C K 5 B L O C K 4BUILDING L PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT 1ST FLOOR BUILDING F PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT 1-STOREY BUILDING K PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT 1-STOREY BUILDING A2 PROPOSED RESTAURANT 1-STOREY BUILDING B PROPOSED DQ GRILL & CHILL 1-STOREY BUILDING A1 PROPOSED STARBUCKS 1-STOREY BUILDING I PROPOSED MULTIPLE UNIT 1-STOREY BUILDING L PROPOSED OFFICE 2ND FLOOR 14 23 18 16 19 6 5 13 16 6 40 21 17 2 17 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 20 2 2 4 4 1 4 34 14 14 66 711 5 11 162 2 2 4 8 8 SITE PLAN APPROVAL BLOCK 5&6 06/20/2022 OVERALL SITE PLAN A0.2 CLIENT REVIEW CLIENT REVIEW 12/01/2021 SEAL : This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of Paul marques Architect Inc. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all dimensions and conditions on site and must notify Paul Marques Architect Inc. of any variations from the supplied information. This drawing is not to be scaled. The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the appropriate consultant's drawings before proceeding with the work. Construction must conform to all applicable codes and requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. The contractor working from drawings not specifically marked 'For Construction' must assume full responsibility and bear costs for any corrections or damages resulting from his work. REV.DATE:ISSUED FOR: Checked by : Drawn by : Date :Proj no. : Scale : Drawing No :North : Drawing Name : Project : AURORA MILLS MASTER PLAN LESLIE AND ST.JOHN'S SIDE ROAD, AURORA ON. OCT 201818-714 CV PM AS NOTED CLIENT REVIEW 12/09/2021 CLIENT REVIEW 01/25/2022 CLIENT REVIEW 01/31/2022 CLIENT REVIEW 02/03/2022 CLIENT REVIEW 02/04/2022 CLIENT REVIEW 02/15/2022 CLIENT REVIEW 02/18/2022 CLIENT REVIEW 06/13/2022 CLIENT REVIEW 10/21/2022 CLIENT REVIEW 10/28/2022 CLIENT REVIEW 11/01/2022 CLIENT REVIEW 11/08/2022 11/14/2022 CLIENT REVIEW 11/23/2022 SCALE: A0.2 1 1:750 OVERALL SITE PLAN SCALE:A0.2 2 SITE STATISTICS SCALE:A0.2 3 R-207 SIGN & PAV. SCALE:A0.2 4 R-215 CURB DETAIL SCALE:A0.2 5 CONCRETE CURB CLIENT REVIEW 12/02/2022 Appendix ‘B’Page 9 of 45 DRIVE THRU 6 A0.4 6 A0.4 6 A0.4 6 A0.4 SITE PLAN SEAL : This drawing, as an instrument of service, is provided by and is the property of Paul marques Architect Inc. The contractor must verify and accept responsibility for all dimensions and conditions on site and must notify Paul Marques Architect Inc. of any variations from the supplied information. This drawing is not to be scaled. The architect is not responsible for the accuracy of survey, structural, mechanical, electrical, etc., information shown on this drawing. Refer to the appropriate consultant's drawings before proceeding with the work. Construction must conform to all applicable codes and requirements of authorities having jurisdiction. The contractor working from drawings not specifically marked 'For Construction' must assume full responsibility and bear costs for any corrections or damages resulting from his work. REV.DATE:ISSUED FOR: Checked by : Drawn by : Date :Proj no. : Scale : Drawing No :North : Drawing Name : Project : BLOCK 1 - BUILDING B 1588 ST. JOHN'S SIDEROAD AURORA, ON. OCTOBER 201818-714B KS PM AS NOTED TIGRIS engineering inc 6751 PROFESSIONAL COURT UNIT #203 MISSISSAUGA ON L4V 1Y3 TEL: 905-462-7524 FAX: 416-352-7524 400-3 CONCORDE GATE TORONTO, ON. M3C 4H9 TEL: 416-447-7405 FAX: 416-447-2771 A0.2b SCALE: A0.2b 1 1:150 BLOCK 1 - BUILDING "B" SITE PLAN SCALE:A0.2b 2 LEGEND CLIENT REVIEW 11/30/2022 Page 10 of 45 211 Yonge Street Suite 600 Toronto, ON, M5B 1M4 416-477-3392 T www.cfcrozier.ca info@cfcrozier.ca Page 11 of 45 211 Yonge Street Suite 600 Toronto, ON, M5B 1M4 416-477-3392 T www.cfcrozier.ca info@cfcrozier.ca Page 12 of 45 211 Yonge Street Suite 600 Toronto, ON, M5B 1M4 416-477-3392 T www.cfcrozier.ca info@cfcrozier.ca Page 13 of 45 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Committee of Adjustment Report No. MV-202 2 -40 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Minor Variance Application Hilsenteger 3 Jarvis Avenue PLAN 65M2122 LOT 31 File: MV-2022-40 Prepared by: Kenny Ng, Planner Department: Planning and Development Services Date: January 12, 2023 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Application The applicant is requesting relief from the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 6000- 17, as amended, to facilitate the installation of two Molok garbage and recycling enclosures in the front yard of the property. The Molok enclosures are intended to be screened and would offer the property owner larger capacity garbage and recycling storage with disposal services provided by a private company. A conceptual site plan and details on the Molok enclosures are attached as Appendix ‘B’ to this report, and an independent temperature and odour test report for the Molok system is attached as Appendix ‘C’. Proposed Variance The following relief is being requested: a) Section 4.20 of the Zoning Bylaw does not list garbage enclosures as a permitted encroachment in the front yard. The applicant is proposing a garbage enclosure in the front yard and seeks a variance to recognize it as a permitted encroachment. Page 14 of 45 January 12, 2023 2 of 9 Report No. MV-2022-40 Background Subject Property and Area Context The subject lands are municipally known as 3 Jarvis Avenue and are located south of Vandorf Sideroad on the east side of Jarvis Avenue. The subject lands have an approximate lot area of 0.71 hectares (1.76 acres), and an approximate lot frontage of 71.1 m (233.27 ft). The subject lands currently contain a two-storey single-detached dwelling with an approximate gross area of 797.58 square metres (8,582 square feet). The subject property is part of a larger estate neighbourhood and also features rows of mature trees that are present on the property lines. Surrounding Land Uses The subject lands are situated within an established estate residential neighbourhood and are surrounded by large, separated estate residential dwellings in a low density setting. Official Plan The property is designated as “Estate Residential” in the Town of Aurora Official Plan. Single detached dwellings are permitted by the Official Plan, with the Estate Residential designation being an area accommodating low density residential uses. Zoning The subject property is zoned ER (Estate Residential Zone) by Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended, which permits single detached dwellings. The Estate Residential Zone requires the greatest lot frontage and setbacks within any residential zone to accommodate its low-density nature and features. Preliminary Zoning Review A Preliminary Zoning Review (PZR) has been completed by the Town of Aurora’s Building Division. The PZR identified the required variances and no other non- compliance was identified. Applicant’s stated reason(s) for not complying with the Zoning By-law As stated on the application form: “The property owners would like larger capacity garbage storage and disposal service to be provided by a private company without company vehicles entering property grounds. This calls for concealed ‘Molok’ storage units to be located in the front yard relative to the primary house location.” Page 15 of 45 January 12, 2023 3 of 9 Report No. MV-2022-40 The applicant also provided further reasoning of using Moloks rather than municipal waste collection service in a separate response to staff: “The property owners like the Molok system because they can keep garbage/recycling items underground and it is more sanitary and a better use of space that way. The primary main garage has been repurposed into a gym, and they have a car charger in the smaller garage. They are a large family of 7 and very often have grandparents and other family members visiting, so they do produce more garbage than a small household. They feel it’s a more sensible solution to keep it away from the garage and in an enclosed underground can.” Planning Comments Planning Staff have evaluated Minor Variance Application MV-2022-40 pursuant to the prescribed tests as set out in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act, as follows: a) The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan The general intent of the Estate Residential designation is to accommodate low intensity residential uses with dwellings separated from one another in a low density setting. New development shall reflect the established heights, massing and landscape quality found in the area and shall be integrated in a sensitive manner within the natural environment and alongside the established residential fabric. The neighbourhood is characterized by large single-detached dwellings situated on sizable lots with ample lot frontage, and mature vegetation is present in the interior of the site and along the lot lines of the property. The proposed Moloks will be located in the front yard behind existing mature trees and there is also a proposed landscape buffer consisting of tall shrubs/hedges with layered landscaping to be provided which offer screening from public view. It is also noted by the applicant that the height of the enclosures can be installed to be less than 1.0 metres above grade, which can help minimize its exposure and overall visibility to public view. Staff also note that there are no sidewalks on Jarvis Avenue, with proximity or direct exposure to the garbage enclosures not anticipated for pedestrians. The installation of the Moloks do not change the planning use of the property and are acceptable within the low density setting. It is Planning Staff’s opinion that the proposed variance will not result in negative impact on the character and streetscape of the existing estate residential neighbourhood, and as such, Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. Page 16 of 45 January 12, 2023 4 of 9 Report No. MV-2022-40 b) The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law The general intent of regulating the front yard encroachment is to ensure that there is no negative impact to the character of an area or streetscape. Although the installation of a garbage enclosure is not permitted as a front yard encroachment in the Zoning By-law, other listed/permitted encroachments include flagpoles, clothes lines, and even retaining walls. The intent of the Zoning By-law provision is again focused on maintaining a high quality public realm, and although it does not list every instance or item of potential encroachment, so long as there are no negative visual, noise, or odour impacts, the intent of the Zoning By-law is met. The Moloks are modest in their overall massing, scale and height thus resulting in minimal visual obstruction and impact. The proposed Moloks are not intended for large scale commercial/industrial uses and therefore the footprint is significantly reduced from a standard industrial/commercial sized Molok. The requested variance will result in minimal visual impacts as there is ample building separation and front yard area. The Moloks will be buffered by existing trees and planned landscaping and there is ample distance (more than 12 metres) from the Moloks to the south property line, along with existing mature tree row along the south property line which acts as landscaped buffer screening the enclosures. The applicant has also submitted an independent study (attached as Appendix ‘C’) of the Molok in-ground waste and organics storage system conducted by the Earth Rangers Centre for Sustainable Technology (ERC), to evaluate its ability to buffer changes in outdoor temperature and control odours. The study was conducted for over two years, and findings of the study conclude that temperatures are kept low within the Molok system, and that the low temperature results in minimal to no odour. Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. c) The proposed variance is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the land The requested minor variance to accommodate the installation of two Moloks has been considered in the context of the site and the adjacent neighbourhood. It is in the opinion of staff that even with the addition of the two Moloks in the front yard, the property will continue to be in keeping with the other surrounding estate properties of the neighbourhood area. The proposed Moloks are of moderate size and height and are strategically located to reduce visual obstruction and impact to the public realm. Staff do not anticipate that the variance as requested will result in significant negative impacts Page 17 of 45 January 12, 2023 5 of 9 Report No. MV-2022-40 and that the appearance of the property will remain compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. Commercial activities are not planned on the property, and as such, the Moloks are not intended to assist any commercial/business purpose. The Moloks are significantly reduced in its overall footprint and size as compared to Moloks intended for commercial/multi-unit residential use. Any unpermitted commercial use would be strictly enforced. The collection will be completed through a private company service. As noted by the applicant, Molok garbage is planned to be collected biweekly, and the collection times will be during regular business hours between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. As confirmed by Town Public Works staff, the Molok garbage truck would result in similar noise level as a regular GFL garbage truck, while the length of time for a Molok garbage collection would be slightly longer than municipal garbage collection process, requiring approximately 2 ½ minutes to pickup and reinstall the waste container. The garbage collection truck will park on the driveway’s entrance portion in front of the proposed gate and is not anticipated to disrupt the public realm during the collection process. In conclusion, the collection process is very similar to municipal curbside garbage pickup with comparable noise level and would only require slightly longer pickup duration. As noted in a third party study of Molok system submitted as part of the application (attached as Appendix ‘C’), Molok units can control temperature by allowing a cool climate within its system, thus able to keep waste and organics at lower temperatures to slow decomposition and reduce odours emanating from within the containers. Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the property. d) The proposed variance is considered minor in nature In considering the scale and size of the proposed Moloks there is minimal impact resulting from their installation in the front yard. The streetscape will largely remain unaltered as the Moloks will be positioned behind existing mature trees located on the road side, and additional landscaping (perennials/shrubs measured 1.2 metres or higher) will also be planted around the Moloks. These measures will help mitigate the visual impacts of the Moloks by effectively screening the proposed structures for the abutting properties and from public view. Furthermore, abundant front yard space lessens the proposed structures’ visual impedance. The character of the neighbourhood is maintained as the instalaltions will not generate any concerns relating to overall appearance, massing and scale. The operation of garbage pickup is similar to regular Page 18 of 45 January 12, 2023 6 of 9 Report No. MV-2022-40 municipal pickup process and the usage of Moloks is not anticipated to result in odour or any other related issues that can result in public nuisance. Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature. Additional Comments The minor variance application was circulated to Town Department/Divisions and to external agencies for review and comment. The following comments were provided: Department or Agency Comments Building Division Preliminary Zoning Review was completed on December 7, 2022 to confirm the variance required for the proposed development. Engineering Division Comments provided stating no comments/concerns with proposed application (dated December 20, 2022). Operational Services (Parks) Comments provided stating no comments/concerns with proposed application (dated November 28, 2022). Operational Services (Public Works) No comments received at the time of writing this report. Central York Fire Services No comments received at the time of writing this report. York Region Comments provided stating no comments/concerns with proposed application (dated December 13, 2022). LSRCA Comments provided stating no comments/concerns with proposed application (dated December 13, 2022). Alectra Comments provided stating no objections to its approval, subject to comments in letter (dated December 14, 2022) Page 19 of 45 January 12, 2023 7 of 9 Report No. MV-2022-40 Public Correspondence Three (3) written submissions were received at the time of writing of this report. The written submissions express similar concerns to one another and are summarized below including staff’s responses to the comments: Concern with the appropriateness of Moloks that are commercial/industrial in nature in an estate residential neighbourhood The proposed Moloks are designed to be much smaller scale than Moloks intended for commercial or industrial uses, to accommodate for the residential use purpose. The height of the Moloks are comparable to a regular large sized garbage bin, which ranges from 1 - 1.15 metres, while the diameter of 1.3 metres only slightly exceeds most conventional garbage bin sizes which have a diagonal range from 1 – 1.15 metres. The Moloks will be a shorter, and only slightly wider version of a regular large size garbage container. The exterior of the Moloks will be wood panel with metal rim and matte black plastic lid. The design can help mitigate its physical presence and the wood panel exterior can help to imitate the surrounding landscaped environment. In short, the Moloks are partially screened and strategically placed to be out of public view. Its overall mass, bulk and height is not too egregious that it would result in incompatibility with the general neighbourhood at-large. Despite being an alternative form of garbage storage and collection, the pickup method is similar to that of curbside garbage pickup. The resulting noise level and duration of pickup is not anticipated to be deemed as a public nuisance. Based on a third party study of Moloks performance (attached as Appendix ‘C’), the Moloks are found to be able to effectively control temperature within the containers, thereby eliminating the emission of unpleasant odour or result in waste leakage. Concern with the location and lack of buffering/screening The proposed location is partially screened by existing mature trees adjacent to the driveway entrance. Additional landscaping measures are also proposed to provide added screening to the Moloks from public view. There is also abundant separation distance from the Moloks to any adjoining lands preventing it from direct exposure to neighbouring residents. Page 20 of 45 January 12, 2023 8 of 9 Report No. MV-2022-40 The garbage pickup truck will be parking on the driveway during collection process, which minimizes any disruption to the public realm and adjoining property owners. To account for this concern, staff have also recommended a condition of approval being to ensure landscape screening as shown in Appendix ‘B’ is provided to buffer the Moloks. Concern with overall aesthetics and appeal of the property The Moloks are limited in size and height, and are also screened partially by landscaping and mature trees, which would prevent them from being physically imposing to the public realm. As mentioned, a condition to require the landscaped screening is also included. Conclusion Planning staff have reviewed the application with respect to the Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act for the granting of minor variances. Staff recommend approval of the requested variances subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix ‘A’. Attachments Appendix ‘A’ – Recommended Conditions of Approval Appendix ‘B’ – Site Plan Appendix ‘C’ – Molok temperature and odour study Page 21 of 45 January 12, 2023 9 of 9 Report No. MV-2022-40 Appendix ‘A’ – Recommended Conditions of Approval The following conditions are required to be satisfied should application MV-2022-40 be approved by the Committee of Adjustment: 1. That the variance only applies to the subject property, in substantial conformity with the plan(s) attached as ‘Appendix B’ to this Staff Report, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services or designate; and, 2. That the Owner shall provide and maintain appropriate screening to screen the proposed Moloks, which includes, but not limited to: a landscaped buffer strip containing shrubs, hedges, plantings or other ground cover, and any other additional screening measures, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services or designate. Page 22 of 45 SITE INFORMATIONZONING TABLE:ZONE: ER ( ESTATE RESIDENTIAL)STANDARDREQUIREDREMARKSLOT AREA (MIN.)LOT FRONTAGE (MIN.)FRONT YARD (MIN.)-WESTREAR YARD (MIN.) -EASTINTERIOR SIDE (NORTH)YARD (MIN.)INTERIOR SIDE (SOUTH)YARD (MIN.)ACCESSORY BUILDING CALCULATION:ACCESSORY/ OTHER BUILT AREAPROPOSEDNEW ACCESSORY BUILDING (CABANA)LOT COVERAGE:FLOORALLOWEDTOTAL PROPOSED FOOTPRINT(W/ATTACHED GARAGE AND CABANA)PROPOSED8000 m²45 m15 m22 m4.5 m9.0 mALLOWED-NO CHANGENO CHANGENO CHANGENO CHANGENO CHANGE13.37%NO CHANGEBUILDING HEIGHT (MAX.)10 m1065.49 m²(11464.67 ft²)15.00%TOTAL PROPOSED FOOTPRINT(W/ GARAGE AND CABANA) IN %EXISTINGEXISTINGEXISTING7103.27 m²71.1 m45.41 m31 m9.7 m6.31-11.22%8.53 mNO CHANGE102 m²(1098 ft²)ADDITIONCOMPLIES797.58 m²(8582 ft²)950.03 m²(10222.32 ft²)COUNTY OF YORKLOT-31OF REGISTERED PLANPLAN #65 M- 2122IN THETOWN OF AURORAACCESSORY/ OTHER BUILT AREACOVERAGE AREA152.45 m²(1640 ft²)(2.14 %)--COMPLIESMIN. REAR YARD SETBACK FORACCESSORY BUILDING (ER ZONE)COMPLIES-4.5 m(14'-9" )8.62 m(28'-3.5" )MAX. HEIGHT OF ACCESSORY/OTHER BUILT COVERAGE AREACOMPLIES4.5 m(14'-9" )4.33 m(14'-2.75" )-COMPLIESNEW ACCESSORY BUILDING (UTILITY SHED)--17.93 m²(193 ft²)ADDITIONNEW ACCESSORY BUILDING (STANDS)--31.31 m²(337 ft²)ADDITIONMAIN BUILDING CALCULATION:GENERAL NOTES & SYMBOLS LEGENDPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED BUILDING OUTLINEEXISTING BUILDING OUTLINEPROPOSED PAVED DRIVEWAYMAN DOOROVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR2%DIRECTION AND SLOPE OFDRAINAGELANDSCAPE LIGHTING SYMBOLS LEGENDGROUND LIGHTSIN-LITE, FUSHION 22 RVS OR EQUIV.TRIM FINISH: TBD.BOLLARDSIN-LITE OR EQUIV. ACE HIGH DARK 3"X4"COLOR: TBD. EAN 8717051004247WALL LIGHTSIN-LITE. ACE DOWN OR EQUIV.3.94" H X 3.74" LX 2.52 W. COLOR: TBD.HIDDEN STAIR LIGHTSIN-LITE OR EQUIV. EVO HYDE 550COLOR: BLACK. 21" L OR AS REQ'D.OUTDOOR SPOT LIGHTING/ UP LIGHTINGIN-LITE. BIG SCOOP NARROW OR EQUIV.COLOR: BLACK. 2.99"H X 2.6"DIAFLOOD LIGHTSHUBBELL OUTDOOR LIGHTINGRATIO FAMILY. COLOR: BLACKOUTDOOR POST LIGHTBRAND AND FINISHBY INT. DESIGNERDECORATIVE FAIRY LIGHTSIN-LITE. ACE DOWN OR EQUIV.3.94" H X 3.74" LX 2.52 W. COLOR: TBD.*HARDSCAPE MATERIALS KEYBRICK POSTS TO MATCHBRICK DETAILS1POURED CONCRETE SLAB,FINISH: TBD BY OWNER2345POOL STONE EDGING6FINISH: TBD.NOTE: FOR SOFT LANDSCAPPING,REFER TO DWG. BY ADG LANDSCAPPING.6" TURF REVEAL TO DRAIN72'-6" WIDE POURED CONCRETE COPING,FINISH: TBD BY OWNERRESERVEDRESERVED11'-2" 8" 45'-0" [13716]20'-0"[6096]10'-8"[3251]12'-0"[3663]40'-6" [12345] 5'-0" [1524]49'-3" [15021] 20'-5" [6222] ±14'-2" [4318]60'-0"[18287]NEW DOOR& PATH TOSPORTS COURT±12'-6" [3810]EXTERIORSHOWER150'-6"[45863]33'-9" [10287] 44'-11" [13685] 20'-9" [6319] 30'-2" [9202]151'-7"[46206]100'-5" [30606 ] 98'-6" [30016 ] 89'-1" [27159 ] 81'-4" [24800 ]EXISTING TWO (02) STORIEDBRICK RESIDENTIALBUILDINGPROPOSEDCABANA(ACCESSORY BLDG.)102 m² (1098 ft²)PROPOSEDPOOLSPORTS COURTEXISTINGDRIVEWAYJARVIS AVENUE71.196 106.511124.62551.981101'-9"[31004]1.22m (HEIGHT)CHAIN-LINK FENCETO REMAIN1.22m (HEIGHT)CHAIN-LINK FENCE1.22m (HEIGHT)CHAIN-LINK FENCE FRENCH DRAIN 2%FRENCH DRAIN2-4%2-4% 2% 50'-8" [15444]ALL DOORS LEADING INTO THE POOLAREA FROM THE HOUSE OR GARAGESHALL HAVE A LATCHING DEVICELOCATED MIN. 1.5M FROM THE BOTTOMOF INSIDE DOOR, TYP.1.22 m HIGH SELF-CLOSINGSELF-LATCHING GATE24'-5" [7443]37'-5"[11395]26'-1" [7950]28'-3"[8622]ALL DOORS LEADING INTO THEPOOL AREA FROM CABANASHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A DEADBOLT AND A CHAIN LATCHLOCATED MIN. 1.5M FROM THEBOTTOM OF INSIDE DOOR, TYP.26'-6" [8074]DO NOT RAISE GRADEWITHIN 0.45m OF PROPERTYLINE, TYP. REFER TOLANDSCAPE DWG. FORGRADING AND DETAILS.1'-6" [450]2%CONSTRUCTION VEHICLEACCESSVIA EXISTING DRIVEWAY11'-8" [3556]16'-6"[5029]24'-7"[7492]4'-0"[1220]2'-1"[626]24'-7"[7506]5'-6" [1679]20'-0"[6094]45'-5"[13846]SOD11'-3"[3435]PROPOSED UTILITY SHED,REFER TO SHEET-A501a,A501b & A501cPROPOSEDSTANDSAREA : 337 ft² (31.31 m²)ACCESSACCESSGATEMETAL NET SPORTSCOURT ENCLOSURE W/ACCESS GATEWADINGAREA8'-0"[2438]36'-9"[11210]7'-6" [2287]FENCE ENCLOSURE W/ACCESS GATE, COLOR TOMATCH ADJACENT BLDG.116'-4"[35453]29'-1"[8858]19'-10"[6050]20'-9" [6316]5"[126]24'-9" [7532]64'-4"[19602]6'-4" [1921](8'-0" X 9'-0")31'-10" [9708]OPT.111111222333322222666622FD.FD.2'-7"[800]ZAMBONIPORCHPORCH 40'-0" [12181] 41'-1" [12520] ±26'-1" [7950]±37'-4"[11370]±42'-5" [12919]±17'-4"[5283]±9'-10" [2997]±24'-6"[7468]±7'-5"[2261]±7'-11"[2413]3'-7"[1087]18'-11" [5776] 20'-1" [6116] 5'-0" [1524] 6'-0" [1829] 21'-9"[6620]20'-0"[6097], TYP.9'-0"[2743]6'-0"[1829]38'-0"[11582]74'-8"[22769]45'-4" [13817] 23'-11" [7299]9'-0"[2743]8'-4"[2540]6'-0"[1829]25'-6" [7766]1'-8"[505]35'-8"[10865]1.22 m HIGHSELF-CLOSINGSELF-LATCHING GATE8'-0"[2433]77'-9"[23709]8'-0"[2444]13'-10"[4209]19'-6" [5938] 6'-0" [1833] 67'-0" [20424] 16'-0" [4877] 61'-3" [18673] 8'-0" [2438]26'-6" [8085] ±29'-4" [8951]±38'-2"[11627]8'-0"[2439]±13'-4"[4064]14'-9"[4486]21'-6"[6566]8'-3" [2526] 50'-1" [15253] 9'-6" [2896] 16'-7" [5054]39'-6"[12049]DRAIN @ SLAB EDGE BBQ. AREA8'-0"[2438]1.22m (HEIGHT)CHAIN-LINK FENCE1.22 m HIGH SELF-CLOSINGSELF-LATCHING GATE4'-8" [1432] 4'-9" [1451] 16'-7" [5067]12'-0"[3658], TYP.8'-6"[2591], TYP. 8'-0" [2438]10'-6" [3192] 6'-0" [1829] 13'-5" [4090]SLIDING WHITE FENCEEQ.EQ.℄±10'-9"[3283]EQ.EQ.14'-4" [4364]5'-0"[1523]5'-0"[1523]CONC.PADCONC.PAD42'-11" [13077 ]HOSE BIBBHEATED CONCRETE STEPS w/ FLAGSTONEw/ PAINTED GALV. RAILINGS& 6" REVEALS6" REVEAL BETWEEN STAIRS& ARMOURSTONE RETAINING WALL6" REVEAL BETWEEN STAIRS& ARMOURSTONE RETAINING WALL7777779'-0" [2743]8'-0"[2438]1'-11"[594]HEATED CONCRETE STEPS w/ FLAGSTONEw/ PAINTED GALV. RAILINGS& 6" REVEALS6" REVEAL BETWEEN STAIRS& ARMOURSTONE RETAINING WALLHEATED CONCRETE WALKWAY4'-0" [1216] 36'-7" [11160] 11'-8" [3553] 11'-3" [3418] 6'-0" [1829] 16'-9" [5112], TYP. 6'-0" [1829]20'-0"[6106], TYP.6'-0" [1833] 6'-0" [1829] 6'-0" [1834]℄EQ.EQ.20'-0"[6096], TYP.20'-0"[6096], TYP.72215'-2"[4618], TYP.EQ.EQ.℄ ℄NO SOLDIER COURSE PASTOF THIS GATE, TYP.NO SOLDIER COURSE PASTOF THIS GATE, TYP.LINE OF EMBEDDED HEATING CABLE LINE OF EMBEDDED HEATING CABLE 1A1031A1031A501STORE12'-0" [3658] EQ.EQ.8'-0"[2437]EQ. EQ.EQ.1A5044'-2"[1260]±5'-6"[1676]±6'-10"[2083]TRANSFORMER PAD,REFER TO MANUFACTURERFOR DETAILS AND PADEXACT SIZING6" (150mm) RAISEDCONCRETE PADMOLOK GARBAGE AND RECYCLE BIN.1.0m OR LESS ABOVE FINISHED GRADEMODEL: M-3000, 4.0 yd³ (EACH)SEE SHEET A105 FOR DETAILSEXISTING SEPTIC BEDTO BE REPLACEDEXISTING SEPTIC BEDSAND MANTLE333333333222224'-0"[1212]8'-5"[2553]22'-7"[6883]8'-4"[2540]℄℄℄℄14'-9" [4505]2'-0"[613]15'-7" [4761]4'-0"[1219]23'-8"[7203]25'-3"[7699]11'-7" [3521] 4'-0" [1219]21014'-8"[1432]4'-0"[1219]15'-0"[4577]11'-7"[3518]2'-8"[812]216'-9"[5104]17'-3"[5263]HEAVY DUTY CONCRETEPAVING. SEE DETAIL 3/A101.DRAIN @ SLAB EDGEDRAIN @ SLAB EDGE DRAIN @ SLAB EDGE DRAIN @ SLAB EDGE DRAIN @ SLAB EDGEWALKWAY3'-1" [933]TRENCHDRAINTRENCHDRAIN40'-6"[12344]137'-8"[41952] 77'-0" [23459 ] 130'-1"[39651]EXISTING LANDSCAPE BERM TOREMAINHICKS YEW, TAXUS MEDIAHICKSII, OR SIMILAR DENSEEVERGREEN SHRUB ROW.TO BE MAINTAINED AT MIN.1.2m ABOVE GRADE TOCONCEAL MOLOKS FROMSTREET.334'-4"[10455]25'-1"[7647]R55'-10"[R17014]41'-8"[12709]51'-4"[15646]331'-3"[381]1'-3"[381]GROUND LIGHT IN CONCRETECOPINGCONCRETE COPINGEDGE OF CONCRETE DRIVEWAY2'-6"[762]6" GRANULAR A COMPACTED TO100% SPMDD14" GRANULAR B COMPACTED TO100% SPMDDFILTER CLOTH 360R TERRAFIXOR EQUALCOMPACTED SUBGRADE3-1/2" RIGID INSULATION w/ HEATINGPIPE8" 32MPA POURED CONCRETEDRIVEWAY BANDING w/ 10M BARS@15" O.C. B.W.AS NOTED19.125MAHCCP20.07.14A101SITE PLANNO.DATE REVISIONIT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATECONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALLDIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORSAND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALLPERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.COPYRIGHT RESERVED.FOR REVIEW20.09.181.CABANA3 JARVIS AVENUEAURORA, ONTARIOSITE PLAN1A101SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0"NFOR REVIEW20.09.292.FOR REVIEW20.10.013.FOR REVIEW20.10.064.FOR PERMIT20.10.075.ROAD OCCUPANCY PERMIT20.10.296.FOR REVIEW20.11.097.ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION20.11.108.FOR REVIEW20.11.259.REVISED FOR CONSTRUCTION20.12.011021.01.2211FOR REVIEW21.01.2912FOR REVIEW21.02.0413FOR REVIEW21.02.1114FOR REVIEW21.03.2315FOR REVIEW21.05.0716FOR REVIEWCSPACEARCHITECTURE5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY, BOLTON, ON L7E 2X8T: 647.588.1784 E: info@cspace.ca21.07.1617FOR REVIEW21.08.0618FOR REVIEW21.09.2119FOR REVIEW21.09.2820FOR PERMIT21.10.1821FOR REVIEW21.11.0922REV. FOR PERMIT22.03.0223FOR REVIEW22.04.0724FOR REVIEW22.05.1125FOR REVIEW22.05.2426FOR REVIEW22.05.2527FOR REVIEWTYPICAL GROUND LIGHTING DETAIL2A101SCALE 1/2" = 1'-0"HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVING3A101SCALE 1/2" = 1'-0"22.09.0828FOR MINOR VARIANCE22.10.2529FOR REVIEW22.12.0230FOR MINOR VARIANCE23.01.0331FOR MINOR VARIANCEAppendix 'B'Page 23 of 45 ℄℄℄℄℄℄6'-0"[1829]8'-0"[2438]±5'-6" [1676]±6'-10"[2083]8'-412" [2553] 22'-7" [6883] 8'-4" [2540] 5'-714" [1708]4'-812"[1432]4'-0"[1219]15'-014"[4577]11'-612"[3518]2'-8"[812]16'-9"[5104]17'-314"[5263]40'-6" [12344] JARVIS AVENUECONSTRUCTION VEHICLEACCESSVIA EXISTING DRIVEWAYTRANSFORMER PAD,REFER TO MANUFACTURERFOR DETAILS AND PADEXACT SIZINGPOURED CONCRETE PADMOLOK GARBAGE AND RECYCLE BIN.1.0m OR LESS ABOVE FINISHED GRADEMODEL: M-3000, 4.0 YD³ (EACH)SEE SHEET A105 FOR DETAILSHEAVY DUTY CONCRETEPAVING. SEE DETAIL 3/A101.POURED CONCRETE PAD3'-214" [970]3'-134"[957]5'-314"[1607]3'-112"[955]2'-93 4" [855] 2'-912" [853] Ø4 ' - 3 1 4"[Ø 1 3 0 0 ]6" DRAINAGE GAP W/TURF/GRASS3/4" CONTROL JOINTMIN. 8" FROMEDGE OF OPENINGTO SLAB EDGE,TYP.2A1046" [150]EXISTING LANDSCAPE BERM TO REMAINHICKS YEW, TAXUS MEDIAHICKSII, OR SIMILAR DENSEEVERGREEN SHRUB ROW.TO BE MAINTAINED AT MIN.1.2M ABOVE GRADE TOCONCEAL MOLOKS FROMSTREET.6"-8" GRANULAR A COMPACTEDTO 100% SPMDD6" 32MPA POURED CONCRETE PADw/ 10M BARS @15" O.C. B.W.FILTER CLOTH 360R TERRAFIX OREQUALCOMPACTED SUBGRADE6"[152]6" DRAINAGE GAP w/ TURF/GRASS3-1/2" RIGID INSULATION w/ HEATINGPIPE6" 32MPA POURED CONCRETEDRIVEWAY BANDING w/ 10M BARS@15" O.C. B.W.AS NOTED19.125MAHCCP20.07.14A104PARTIAL SITE PLANNO.DATEREVISIONIT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATECONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALLDIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORSAND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALLPERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.COPYRIGHT RESERVED.FOR REVIEW20.09.181.CABANA3 JARVIS AVENUEAURORA, ONTARIOPARTIAL SITE PLAN1A104SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"NFOR REVIEW20.09.292.FOR REVIEW20.10.013.FOR REVIEW20.10.064.FOR PERMIT20.10.075.ROAD OCCUPANCY PERMIT20.10.296.FOR REVIEW20.11.097.ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION20.11.108.FOR REVIEW20.11.259.REVISED FOR CONSTRUCTION20.12.011022.05.2527FOR REVIEW21.01.2211FOR REVIEW21.01.2912FOR REVIEW21.02.0413FOR REVIEW21.02.1114FOR REVIEW21.03.2315FOR REVIEW21.05.0716FOR REVIEWCSPACEARCHITECTURE5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWY, BOLTON, ON L7E 2X8T: 647.588.1784 E: info@cspace.ca21.07.1617FOR REVIEW21.08.0618FOR REVIEW21.09.2119FOR REVIEW21.09.2820FOR PERMIT21.10.1821FOR REVIEW21.11.0922REV. FOR PERMIT22.03.0223FOR REVIEW22.04.0724FOR REVIEW22.05.1125FOR REVIEW22.05.2426FOR REVIEW22.09.0828FOR MINOR VARIANCECURB/SLAB EDGE DETAIL2A104SCALE 3/4" = 1'-0"22.10.2529FOR REVIEW22.12.0230FOR MINOR VARIANCEHICKS YEW - DENSE EVERGREEN SHRUB ROW3A104SCALE NTS23.01.0331FOR MINOR VARIANCEPage 24 of 45 C:\Users\cpret\Cspace Architecture Dropbox\Cspace - PROJECTS\19.125_HAW_3Jarvis\2.0_ARCH\2.1_CLIENT-CORRESPONDENCE\2.1.1_EMAIL\IN\220406-Molok Info\PDF Images\Copy of 20220307_Catalogue_Technical Specs9914d8e7.pngSignage / Use: Garbage Recyclables Paper GlassM-3000Capacity: 3,000 L / 4.0 yd3 Quick SystemLid Type: Standard lid: Bear lid Hinged lidUser Opening: Full open Cardboard TACtile Public TACtile Secure Locking LatchUser Lid Colour: Black Blue Brown GreenLifting Bags and Containers Standard lifting bag Hard-sided lifting container Semi-hard lifting bagFraming: Eon®plastic framing cedar mahogany blue black grey green Aluminum framing silver black1.3 m / 4’-3"<1.0 m / 3’-3" 1.7 m / 5’-7" 0.9 m / 2’-11" 2.7 m / 8’-10"ALTERNATIVEMOLOK GARBAGE AND RECYCLING BINS,MODEL M-1300, 1.7 YD³ (EACH)CSPACEARCHITECTURE5B-8841 GEORGE BOLTON PKWYBOLTON, ONT. L7E 2X8647.588.1784info@cspace.caAS NOTED19.125MAHCCP20.11.25A105MOLOK BIN DETAILSNO.DATEREVISIONIT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPROPRIATECONTRACTOR TO CHECK AND VERIFY ALLDIMENSIONS ON SITE AND REPORT ALL ERRORSAND OR OMISSIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.ALL CONTRACTORS MUST COMPLY WITH ALLPERTINENT CODES AND BY-LAWS.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.THIS DRAWING MAY NOT BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED.COPYRIGHT RESERVED.3 JARVIS AVENUEAURORA, ONTARIOMOLOK DETAILS1A105SCALE N/AFOR REVIEW22.03.021.22.09.0828FOR MINOR VARIANCE22.10.2529FOR REVIEW22.12.0230FOR MINOR VARIANCE23.01.0331FOR MINOR VARIANCEPage 25 of 45 Molok - Independent Temperature & Odour Test Report Nov 2017 9520 Pine Valley Drive, Woodbridge ON L4L 1A6 Phone: 905-417-3447 Fax: 905-417-8734 Corporate: www.earthrangers.org Kids: www.earthrangers.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Earth Rangers Centre for Sustainable Technology (ERC) was retained to complete an independent study of the Molok in-ground waste and organics storage system for its ability to buffer changes in outdoor temperature and thus reduce odours. The following two (2) findings are discussed in more detail in the report below and represent a testing over one (1) year of measurements. FINDING 1: Temperatures measured from 50” from the top to the bottom of both the waste and organics Moloks at all times were lower than the average temperature of our temperature controlled waste room. From the top to 25” below the top, temperatures were on average lower than that of our conditioned waste room 78.7% of the time. FINDING 2: At no time did odours, measured by our calibrated odour meter, directly outside the Molok exceed that of our temperature controlled waste room Overall, our findings indicate that the Molok outperformed our temperature controlled waste room in slowing decomposition by keeping waste and organics at lower temperatures and reducing odours emanating from Moloks. METHODOLOGY Temperature probes were installed in the interior bag of the Molok waste organics container and on the interior tube of the Molok organics container. In total, four (4) temperature probes were installed on each Molok container at the following levels: Top of Bin 25” from Top of Bin 50” from Top of Bin Bottom of Bin The temperature data logger on both Molok containers was set to measure temperatures every hour. This log was downloaded every 2 weeks and the data collected for one (1) years. Odours were measured using the following equipment: Levitt Safety IAQ monitor set to measure CO2, SO2, NO, O2, and ambient temperature KanoMax Handheld Odor Meter OMX-ADM, which measure hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, ammonia and other odour causing substances. Odours and temperatures were measured bi-weekly (every 2 weeks) for a period of one (1) year. Odours were measured at the Molok area and also in our waste room for comparison purposes. Appendix 'C'Page 26 of 45 Molok - Independent Temperature & Odour Test Report Nov 2017 9520 Pine Valley Drive, Woodbridge ON L4L 1A6 Phone: 905-417-3447 Fax: 905-417-8734 Corporate: www.earthrangers.org Kids: www.earthrangers.com SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based on the results of our one (1) year study on temperatures and odours emanating from the Waste and Organics Molok containers, we measured the temperatures at intervals of one (1) hour for at four (4) different depths for each Molok container. The below colour coded chart represents the average temperatures for each month found at the different depths of measurement. Note that the average summer temperature of the ERC conditioned waste room was 22.0 °C. TOP OF BIN 25" from TOP 50" from TOP BOTTOM TOP OF BIN 25" from TOP 50" from TOP BOTTOM Jan 0.9 0.7 0.9 3.2 0.4 0.2 1.3 2.4 Feb -0.6 -0.3 0.1 2.2 1.7 1.5 0.7 1.5 Mar 0.2 -0.3 0.2 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.2 2.0 Apr 9.0 7.3 6.4 5.4 11.9 12.9 7.8 7.1 May 12.2 11.6 10.8 9.1 14.8 14.4 13.4 11.0 Jun 20.4 18.4 16.8 13.8 22.3 20.9 21.5 17.9 Jul 22.4 21.3 20.2 17.4 24.6 24.0 21.4 19.5 Aug 21.9 20.9 19.9 18.5 23.6 23.0 19.6 19.7 Sep 20.7 19.3 18.0 18.0 22.6 21.7 19.0 18.8 Oct 16.2 15.5 15.4 16.5 17.2 16.7 16.4 16.1 Nov 9.3 9.3 9.3 11.0 Dec 0.6 0.6 1.1 2.9 1.2 1.3 3.2 5.0 Fall 11.1 10.5 10.6 11.7 11.9 11.6 11.6 12.4 Winter -0.3 -0.3 0.2 2.1 1.0 0.8 1.1 2.1 Spring 11.8 10.4 9.4 7.9 14.3 14.2 12.0 10.2 Summer 21.6 20.4 19.2 17.6 23.4 22.7 20.1 19.3 Waste Molok Container Organics Molok Container Avg. Temp. (°C) Malfunction in Data Logger Areas shaded in blue represent Molok temperatures that are lower than the average summer ERC conditioned waste room temperature and areas shaded in red represent temperatures that are above. From this we can see that the top 25” of the Organics Molok container, on average, in the months of July and August, may cause temperatures to be slightly higher. However, the bottom of the Organics Molok container to 50” from the top are significantly cooler. We hypothesize that the Organics Molok container has warmer temperatures than the waste container due to 3 possible differences: 1) As organics decompose, they release heat; 2) The organics Molok container is made of a rigid plastic that insulates better than the waste Molok container bag; and 3) The larger diameter of the waste Molok container and shape of the bag (i.e. tied at the bottom) allow for better natural convection than the relatively slimmer profile and rigid cylindrical shape of the organics Molok container The Kanomax odour monitor was provided the most accurate readings of odours and measured odours on a scale from 0 to 999 with 0 being no detectable presence of any odour causing Page 27 of 45 Molok - Independent Temperature & Odour Test Report Nov 2017 9520 Pine Valley Drive, Woodbridge ON L4L 1A6 Phone: 905-417-3447 Fax: 905-417-8734 Corporate: www.earthrangers.org Kids: www.earthrangers.com molecules. Odours were detected in the waste room throughout the year while odours were only detected from Molok in May, directly following a recent Molok pick-up. Page 28 of 45 Molok - Independent Temperature & Odour Test Report Nov 2017 9520 Pine Valley Drive, Woodbridge ON L4L 1A6 Phone: 905-417-3447 Fax: 905-417-8734 Corporate: www.earthrangers.org Kids: www.earthrangers.com OTHER FINDINGS A chart of the standard deviation for temperature is expressed as the average of the deviations per month away from the mean temperature is below. A trend is that the further from the top of the Molok container reduces the standard deviation of the temperatures – meaning that there is less variance and overall swing in temperatures towards the bottom of the Molok container. TOP OF BIN 25" from TOP 50" from TOP BOTTOM TOP OF BIN 25" from TOP 50" from TOP BOTTOM Jan 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.2 3.3 2.8 1.7 1.6 Feb 2.8 2.1 1.8 1.2 5.5 4.7 1.7 1.4 Mar 5.0 3.7 2.2 1.3 6.3 5.1 2.3 1.8 Apr 5.5 3.5 3.0 1.6 7.5 7.8 2.8 2.1 May 5.7 4.6 4.0 1.6 7.3 6.6 1.8 1.6 Jun 5.9 3.7 2.3 1.8 7.6 7.4 3.5 2.1 Jul 4.9 3.2 2.3 0.9 7.1 6.4 2.0 0.7 Aug 5.5 3.5 2.2 1.0 7.2 6.7 1.1 1.1 Sep 7.8 5.0 3.3 1.2 8.5 7.5 1.2 1.0 Oct 5.7 4.1 2.6 2.6 6.3 5.6 1.4 1.8 Nov 2.2 1.8 1.0 0.8 Dec 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.2 3.1 2.9 2.0 2.2 Fall 10.2 9.1 8.2 7.4 10.9 10.3 6.9 6.0 Winter 3.6 2.8 1.8 1.4 4.8 3.9 1.8 1.7 Spring 8.1 6.7 5.8 4.0 9.2 8.7 6.8 5.2 Summer 5.9 3.8 2.7 1.3 7.4 6.8 1.9 1.0 Waste Organics Malfunction in Data Logger Std. Dev. (°C) This is further illustrated in the below charts that plot the hour by hour temperature for the waste and organics Molok containers for all four (4) temperature probes. Page 29 of 45 Molok - Independent Temperature & Odour Test Report Nov 2017 9520 Pine Valley Drive, Woodbridge ON L4L 1A6 Phone: 905-417-3447 Fax: 905-417-8734 Corporate: www.earthrangers.org Kids: www.earthrangers.com Page 30 of 45 Molok - Independent Temperature & Odour Test Report Nov 2017 9520 Pine Valley Drive, Woodbridge ON L4L 1A6 Phone: 905-417-3447 Fax: 905-417-8734 Corporate: www.earthrangers.org Kids: www.earthrangers.com Page 31 of 45 Molok - Independent Temperature & Odour Test Report Nov 2017 9520 Pine Valley Drive, Woodbridge ON L4L 1A6 Phone: 905-417-3447 Fax: 905-417-8734 Corporate: www.earthrangers.org Kids: www.earthrangers.com Page 32 of 45 Molok - Independent Temperature & Odour Test Report Nov 2017 9520 Pine Valley Drive, Woodbridge ON L4L 1A6 Phone: 905-417-3447 Fax: 905-417-8734 Corporate: www.earthrangers.org Kids: www.earthrangers.com Page 33 of 45 Molok - Independent Temperature & Odour Test Report Nov 2017 9520 Pine Valley Drive, Woodbridge ON L4L 1A6 Phone: 905-417-3447 Fax: 905-417-8734 Corporate: www.earthrangers.org Kids: www.earthrangers.com CONTACT This study was supervised by Gavin Yeung; contact provided below. All measurements and analysis were completed at the Earth Rangers Centre for Sustainable Technology lo cated at 9520 Pine Valley Dr., Woodbridge, ON. Please contact the undersigned should you have any additional questions or inquiries regarding this report. Gavin Yeung, H.Bsc., MBA, LEED®AP, CPMP, BCxP Manager, Earth Rangers Centre For Sustainable Technology eMail: gyeung@earthrangers.com Office: 905.417.3447 x 2228 Mobile: 416.859.4994 9520 Pine Valley Drive | Woodbridge, ON L4H 2Z6 Page 34 of 45 This study also encompassed a comparison of temperatures and odours from our temperature controlled waste room. ERC completed this study over a period of two (2) years. With the only differences being: • in the second year of the study the measurement frequency for odours was greater than in the first year; and • in the second year of the study we measured the energy consumption of our temperature controlled waste room in order to estimate the energy cost of operating our waste room The following two (3) findings are discussed in more detail in the report below and represent a testing over two (2) year of measurements. FINDING 1: Temperatures measured from 50” from the top to the bottom of both the waste and organics Molok containers at all times were lower than the average temperature of our temperature controlled waste room. From the top to 25” below the top, temperatures were on average lower than that of our conditioned waste room 78.7% of the time. FINDING 2: At no time did odours, measured by our calibrated odour meter, directly outside the Molok container exceed that of our temperature controlled waste room Overall, our findings indicate that the Molok container outperformed our temperature controlled waste room in slowing decomposition by keeping waste and organics at lower temperatures and reducing odours emanating from Molok containers. FINDING 3: Based on data collected from building submeters. The total energy consumption to condition our waste room was 2,940 kWh which equates to a cost to condition our waste room of approximately $323.42. The Molok containers did not cost any energy to condition or maintain in 2018. Therefore, the net savings if we were to only use the Moloks for waste, recycling and organics would be $323.42 per year. METHODOLOGY Temperature probes were installed in the interior bag of the Molok waste organics container and on the interior tube of the Molok organics container. In total, four (4) temperature probes were installed on each Molok container at the following levels: Top of Bin, 25” from Top of Bin, 50” from Top of Bin, Bottom of Bin The temperature data logger on both Molok containers was set to measure temperatures every hour. This log was downloaded every 2 weeks and the data collected for one (1) years. Odours and temperatures were measured bi-weekly (every 2 weeks) for a period of one (1) year. Odours were measured at the Molok area and also in our waste room for comparison purposes. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based on the results of our two (2) year study on temperatures and odours emanating from the Waste and Organics Molok containers, we measured the temperatures at intervals of one (1) hour for at four (4) different depths for each Molok container. The below graph shows the temperatures from the waste and organics Molok containers vs the temperatures from our conditioned waste room. Please note that the temperatures were much more constant 50” from the top of the bin to the bottom of the bin for both the waste and organics Molok containers. The Earth Rangers Centre for Sustainable Technology (ERC) was retained to complete an independent study of the Molok in-ground waste and organics storage system for its ability to buffer changes in outdoor temperature and thus reduce odours. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - INDEPENDENT STUDY 9520 Pine Valley Drive, Woodbridge ON L4L 1A6 Phone: 905-417-3447 Fax: 905-417-8734 Corporate: www.earthrangers.org Kids: www.earthrangers.com April 2019 Page 35 of 45 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Committee of Adjustment Report No. MV-202 2 -49 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Minor Variance Application Nugent 86 Tyler Street File: MV-2022-49 Prepared by: Mark Chuang, Planner Department: Planning and Development Services Date: January 12, 2023 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Application The applicant is requesting relief from the requirements of the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended, to allow a proposed one-storey garage addition and a one-storey rear addition. The proposed garage addition is 18.8 m2 (202 ft2) and the rear addition is 74.5 m2 (802 ft2), with the existing dwelling being 291.8 m2 (3,141 ft2) on the 973.1 m2 (10,474 ft2) lot. PROPOSED VARIANCE The following relief is being requested: a) Section 7.2 of the Zoning By-law restricts lot coverage to a maximum of 35.0%. The applicant is proposing a one-storey garage addition and a one-storey rear addition which will result in a total lot coverage of 39.6%, thereby requiring a variance of 4.6%. Background Subject Property and Area Context The subject property, municipally known as 86 Tyler Street, is located on the north side of Tyler Street, west of George Street. The property contains an existing 2-storey detached dwelling with an attached garage. There is a swimming pool located in the rear yard and mature trees located in the front yard. The property has an area of 973.1 m2 (10,474 ft2) and an approximate lot frontage of 16.13 metres (approximately 53 feet). The Page 36 of 45 January 12, 2023 2 of 7 Report No. MV-2022-49 surrounding neighbourhood is residential and generally characterized by one and two storey dwellings, with instances of new infill development. Proposal The owner is proposing a one-storey garage addition to provide additional length for existing parking spaces and additional storage space. There is no work occurring to the existing driveway itself, and there are no other non-conformities other than the lot coverage. Additionally, the owner is proposing a one-storey rear addition that is to serve as a three-season room and provide additional semi-outdoor living space while being protected from the elements. The owner also intends on constructing a covered front porch to provide additional covered area and enhanced curb appeal. As per the Town’s Zoning By-law, the covered front porch is excluded in the lot coverage calculation. Official Plan The subject property is designated “Stable Neighbourhoods” by the Town of Aurora’s Official Plan, which seeks to ensure that residential neighbourhoods are protected from incompatible forms of development, while allowing the neighbourhoods to be enhanced over time. Further, the Stable Neighbourhoods designation provides for single detached dwellings as a permitted use. Zoning The property is zoned R3 “Detached Third Density Residential Zone”, which permits single detached dwellings. The property is not located within the Town’s specific site plan control areas for Stable Neighbourhoods. Preliminary Zoning Review A Preliminary Zoning Review (PZR) has been completed by the Town of Aurora’s Building Division. The PZR identified the required variances and no other non-compliance was identified. The owner was also asked to provide confirmation that there is no work occurring to the existing driveway, which was confirmed by the owner over email, to again ensure no other non-compliance with the proposal. Applicant’s stated reason(s) for not complying with the Zoning By-law As stated on the application form, “the garage addition provides additional length for existing parking spaces due to larger vehicles and provides additional storage to the Page 37 of 45 January 12, 2023 3 of 7 Report No. MV-2022-49 already existing shallow garage. The covered front porch provides additional covered area from the elements when entering the house and enhances curb appeal. The three season room addition provides additional outdoor living space while being protected from the elements.” Planning Comments Planning Staff have evaluated Minor Variance Application MV- 2022-49 pursuant to the prescribed tests as set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as follows: a) The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan The intent of the Official Plan designation is to ensure neighbourhoods are protected from incompatible forms of development, while allowing the neighbourhoods to be enhanced over time. The Official Plan states that new development abutting existing residential development shall be sympathetic to the form and character of existing development with regards to building scale and urban design. The proposal features high quality design and material such that there will be no negative impacts on the streetscape or character of the area. The additional garage parking also ensures that cars will not be parked on the road and are also out of sight from the public realm. The front of the property features mature trees and landscaping which will be retained as well. Staff are of the opinion that the general intent of the Official Plan is maintained. b) The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the maximum lot coverage provision is to ensure that adequate open space on a lot is provided for privacy, landscaping, access, and drainage. The applicant is requesting a lot coverage of 39.6%, whereas the Zoning By-law limits the lot coverage to a maximum of 35%. Engineering Staff and Bylaw Staff have provided comments stating no objections particularly related to potential drainage issues. Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance is in keeping with the intent of the Zoning By-law and provides for privacy, spacing between dwellings and appropriate drainage of the lands. c) The proposed variance is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the land Staff are of the opinion that the garage addition and the rear addition will not negatively impact the existing neighbourhood character. The property benefits from substantial landscape screening and the proposal will feature high quality materials and design to Page 38 of 45 January 12, 2023 4 of 7 Report No. MV-2022-49 have no negative impacts on the streetscape. The garage space for cars and storage also ensures the overall tidiness of the lot. Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. d) The proposed variance is considered minor in nature The garage addition and the rear addition are considered moderate in scale and the requested variance is not anticipated to result in any negative impacts to the neighbourhood or abutting properties. As such, Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature. Additional Comments The minor variance application was circulated to Town Department/Divisions and to external agencies for review and comment. The following comments were provided: Department or Agency Comments Building Division Preliminary Zoning Review was completed November 17, 2022. Engineering Division Comments provided stating no comments/concerns with proposed application. Operational Services (Parks) The application does not reference impact to existing trees, however there are trees situated on the subject property/adjacent property that may require protection due to potential impacts related to excavation or construction. Access to rear yard appears very limited. In view of the above, Parks staff recommend that the Committee impose conditions if this application is approved. (Refer to Appendix ‘A’ for recommended conditions of approval) Operational Services (Public Works) No comments received at the time of writing this report. Central York Fire Services No comments received at the time of writing this report. Page 39 of 45 January 12, 2023 5 of 7 Report No. MV-2022-49 Department or Agency Comments LSRCA We have no comments as this property is outside of an area that is regulated by the LSRCA and do not warrant any technical review per our MOU with the Town. York Region The Regional Municipality of York has completed its review of the above minor variance and has no comment. Alectra Comments provided stating no objections to its approval. Public Correspondence Written submissions were not received at the time of writing of this report. Should written submissions be received after the writing of this report, the Secretary Treasurer will provide the submission(s) to Committee members at the meeting. Conclusion Planning staff have reviewed the application with respect to the Section 45(1) if the Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act for granting of minor variances. Staff recommend approval of the requested variance, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix ‘A’. Attachments Appendix ‘A’ – Recommended Conditions of Approval Appendix ‘B’ – Site Plan and Elevations Page 40 of 45 January 12, 2023 6 of 7 Report No. MV-2022-49 Appendix ‘A’ – Recommended Conditions of Approval The following conditions are required to be satisfied should application MV-2022-49 be approved by the Committee of Adjustment: 1. That the variance only applies to the subject property, in substantial conformity with the plan(s) attached as ‘Appendix B’ to this Staff Report, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services or designate. 2. That the owner may be required to provide an Evaluation Report prepared by a Certified Arborist or Professional Registered Forester outlining all aspects of the impacts that this proposal will have on existing and current remaining vegetation, The report shall include recommendations and an action plan on the mitigation of negative effects to vegetation , during and post construction periods as well as measures aimed at tree health care and protection for trees effected by the project and any remaining trees in the vicinity of the project that require applicable maintenance. 3. In addition the report shall include a schedule of monitoring the ongoing site work through a series of scheduled site visits by the Arborist / Forester during and post construction to ensure the vegetation preservation measures remain in compliance throughout the project, each site visit to be documented and any resulting action items required by the Arborist /Forester shall be implemented and confirmed on site forthwith by the Arborist /Forester following each visit. 4. The owner may be required to provide vegetation compensation and a replanting plan in accordance with the Town of Aurora TREE REMOVAL/PRUNING AND COMPENSATION POLICY to the satisfaction of the Director of Operational Services as compensation for trees removed to facilitate construction. Compensation planting shall be completed prior to release of the financial securities. 5. The owner shall agree to comply with the Aurora Tree Permit By-law # 5850 -16 prior to the removal of any trees on the property. 6. The owner shall agree to provide financial securities based on the total value of the Tree Compensation evaluation and all Arboriculture works as defined by the Town and the Owners Arborist/ Forester. To the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. Page 41 of 45 January 12, 2023 7 of 7 Report No. MV-2022-49 7. All of the above shall be included as terms and conditions in a Letter of Undertaking with the Town of Aurora to guarantee compliance with the Conditions of Approval and all related site works. Page 42 of 45 DN7.59 m24' - 10 1/2"11.86 m 38' - 11" LOT SIZE: 10474 SQFT EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT: 3141 SQFT EXISTING LOT COVERAGE: 29.9% 3 SEASON ROOM: 802 SQFT GARAGE ADDTION: 202 SQFT COVERED PORCH: 156 SQFT NEW LOT COVERAGE: 4145/10474 = 39.57% MAX. ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE 35%6.00 mFRONT YARD SETBACK19' - 8"1.50 m INTERIOR SIDE YARD 4' - 11" 1.50 m INTERIOR SIDE YARD 4' - 11"7.50 mREAR YARD SETBACK24' - 7 1/2"3 SEASON ROOM ADDITION EXISTING HOUSE3.28 m10' - 9"0.71 m 2' - 4" 0.56 m 1' - 10" APP. POOL LOCATION STAIRS 2.53 m8' - 3 1/2"PROPOSED GARAGE ADDTION COVERED FRONT PORCH 5.49 m18' - 0"6.40 m21' - 0"2.64 m8' - 8"6.43 m21' - 1"9.90 m32' - 5 1/2"2.53 m8' - 3 1/2"0.72 m 2' - 4" 5.94 m 19' - 6" 6.39 m 20' - 11 1/2" 0.09 m 0' - 3 1/2" 16.13 m PROPERTY 52' - 11" 16.13 m PROPERTY LINE 52' - 11"60.23 mPROPERTY LINE197' - 7 1/2"60.42 mPROPERTY LINE198' - 3"NEIGHBOUR ZONED R3NEIGHBOUR ZONED R3NEIGHBOUR ZONED R3 TYLER ST PUBLIC TRAVELED ROAD, 3.5M WIDE 23.34 m76' - 7"25.83 m84' - 9"2.32 m7' - 7 1/2"12.49 m40' - 11 1/2"13.31 m43' - 8"EXISTING DRIVEWAY THE UNDERSIGNED HAS REVIEWED & TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS DESIGN, & HAS THE QUALIFICATIONS & MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS SET OUT IN THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE TO DESIGN THE WORK SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS QUALIFICATION INFORMATION REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER DIV. C - 3.2.5.1 OF THE BUILDING CODE DANA EVANS 100332 NAME SIGNATURE BCIN REGISTRATION INFORMATION REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER DIV. C - 3.2.4.1 OF THE BUILDING CODE 209 DESIGN 101521 FIRM NAME BCIN STAMPED & REVIEWED BY NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DANA EVANS 15905 SIDE ROAD 17 SUNDERLAND ONTARIO 647-297-8300 DRAWING DATE SCALE DWG NO. PAGE ADDRESS 86 TYLER ST AURORA ON NOV 17, 2022 SITE PLAN 1:150 Page 43 of 45 DN 2' - 0"8' - 0"1' - 10"8' - 0"2' - 0" 21' - 10"28' - 8 1/2"8' - 0"19' - 4 1/2" EXISTING GARAGE PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION 18' - 1"EXISTING FRONT DOOR EXISTING WINDOW FRONT GRADE 0' -0" HOUSE FOUNDATION 0' -6" BASEMENT FLOOR -7' -6" SOFFIT 9' -10" ROOF PEAK 26' -3" MAIN FLOOR 1' -3" BACK GRADE -3' -3" HOT TUB FLOOR -0' -7" SUNROOM FOUNDATION -2' -9" EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN EXISTING WINDOW TO REMAIN 8' - 0"8' - 0" THE UNDERSIGNED HAS REVIEWED & TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS DESIGN, & HAS THE QUALIFICATIONS & MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS SET OUT IN THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE TO DESIGN THE WORK SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS QUALIFICATION INFORMATION REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER DIV. C - 3.2.5.1 OF THE BUILDING CODE DANA EVANS 100332 NAME SIGNATURE BCIN REGISTRATION INFORMATION REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER DIV. C - 3.2.4.1 OF THE BUILDING CODE 209 DESIGN 101521 FIRM NAME BCIN STAMPED & REVIEWED BY NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DANA EVANS 15905 SIDE ROAD 17 SUNDERLAND ONTARIO 647-297-8300 DRAWING DATE SCALE DWG NO. PAGE ADDRESS 86 TYLER ST AURORA ON NOV 17, 2022 GARAGE ADDITION 1/8" = 1'-0" GARAGE ADDITION FRONT ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" GARAGE ADDTION 1/8" = 1'-0" Page 44 of 45 DN 7' - 10 1/2"9' - 3 1/2"6' - 4 1/2"6' - 10"6' - 7 1/2"2' - 3 1/2"27' - 3 1/2"8' - 0 1/2"20' - 3 1/2"4' - 8"38' - 3" 4' - 1 1/2"5' - 3" FRONT GRADE 0' -0" HOUSE FOUNDATION 0' -6" BASEMENT FLOOR -7' -6" SOFFIT 9' -10" ROOF PEAK 26' -3" MAIN FLOOR 1' -3" BACK GRADE -3' -3" HOT TUB FLOOR -0' -7" SUNROOM FOUNDATION -2' -9"13' - 1 1/2"14' - 2 1/2"THE UNDERSIGNED HAS REVIEWED & TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS DESIGN, & HAS THE QUALIFICATIONS & MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS SET OUT IN THE ONTARIO BUILDING CODE TO DESIGN THE WORK SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS QUALIFICATION INFORMATION REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER DIV. C - 3.2.5.1 OF THE BUILDING CODE DANA EVANS 100332 NAME SIGNATURE BCIN REGISTRATION INFORMATION REQUIRED UNLESS DESIGN IS EXEMPT UNDER DIV. C - 3.2.4.1 OF THE BUILDING CODE 209 DESIGN 101521 FIRM NAME BCIN STAMPED & REVIEWED BY NO.DESCRIPTION DATE DANA EVANS 15905 SIDE ROAD 17 SUNDERLAND ONTARIO 647-297-8300 DRAWING DATE SCALE DWG NO. PAGE ADDRESS 86 TYLER ST AURORA ON NOV 17, 2022 3 SEASON ROOM 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 SEASON ROOM REAR ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 SEASON ROOM ADDTION 1/8" = 1'-0"GAS OR ELECTRIC FIREPLACEBBQ AREAHOT TUB Page 45 of 45