Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2010-04-20COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 20, 2010 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. C. Balcerczyk and Messrs D. Cybalski and B. McColl OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. B. Bateman, Senior Planner, Ms. A. Pires, Planning Technician, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic Technologist, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, Ms. L. Garovat, Administrative Clerk and Ms. D. Saunderson, Administrative Clerk Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:20 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of March 16, 2010, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission Nos.: A 2010-004 Applicant: Patricia Reeve Property Location: 34 Ellen Street East Legal Description: Part Lot 9, Plan 417, being Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-4827 - and - Submission Nos.: A 2010-005 Applicant: Patricia and Andrew Reeve Property Location: 36 Ellen Street East Legal Description: Lot 8, Plan 417 The Committee was in receipt of e-mail correspondence from the applicants advising that they do not wish of proceed with these applications; consequently, these applications are considered to be withdrawn. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission Nos.: A 2010-019 Applicant: Parents for Community Living KW Inc. Property Location: 64 Casey Drive Legal Description: Lot 3, Plan 1595 Appearances: In Support: M. Linka Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 50 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-019 (Cont'd The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for a residential care facility to provide 2 parking spaces in tandem rather than side by side, with parking to be located in the driveway, 3.9m (12.79') from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.68'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated April 9, 2010, advising that the subject property is located on 64 Casey Drive and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The property is zoned Residential Six (R-6) in the Zoning By-law and is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. Relief is being sought from Section 6.1.1 .b i) to allow an off-street parking space located on a driveway to be 3.9 m setback from the street line rather than the required 6 m setback and to be arranged in tandem for a proposed residential care facility which will accommodate 5 residents. The applicant has applied for an occupancy permit for the residential care facility; however, issuance is dependant on the decision of this application. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments regarding the requested minor variance: The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of uses including a small residential care facility, and favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The proposed variance will be compatible with the Low Rise Residential development of the area and will legalize the location of the tandem parking space on the driveway as well as maintain the low density character of the property and neighbourhood. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of the required 6 m setback from the street line is to ensure adequate buffer between the garage and Casey Drive and to allow an opportunity for two vehicles to be parked off the road right-of-way on the property. The subject property contains a single car garage and a driveway length of 9.44 m and a width of 5.2 m. The off-street parking by-law requires two parking spaces for a residential care facility containing 3 to 8 residents. One parking space will be located in the garage and the second space can be fully achieved on the driveway without encroaching onto the street right-of-way. The variance is considered minor because parking can still be accommodated on-site. The reduction in the setback from the street line will have minimal impact to adjacent lands and overall neighbourhood. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the scale of the proposed residential care facility is compatible with the surrounding low rise residential development. The applicant is proposing a residential care facility for a maximum of 5 residents therefore keeping with the low density development of the neighbourhood and the intention of the Official Plan. The requested minor variance is necessary as it will legalize the location of the tandem parking space on the driveway. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated March 25, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Parents for Community Living KW Inc. requesting permission for a residential care facility to provide 2 parking spaces in tandem rather than side by side, with parking to be located 3.9m (12.79') from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.68'), on Lot 3, Plan 1595, 64 Casey Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 51 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-019 (Cont'd) 1. That the owner shall obtain Occupancy Permit # 10-106646 for the proposed residential care facility from the City's Planning Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission Nos.: A 2010-022 Applicant: Richard Downey & Kelly Kernaghan Property Location: 19 West Avenue Legal Description: Part Lots 20 & 21, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: R. Downey R. Krynicki Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to add a second storey to an existing single family dwelling to have a northerly side yard of 1.772m (5.81 `) rather than the required 3m (9.84`) and a southerly side yard of 0.59m (1.93`) rather than the required 1.2m (4'). The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated April 9, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at 19 West Avenue and is developed with a legal non-conforming single detached dwelling. The subject property has approximately 14.6 metres of frontage on West Avenue and has an area of approximately 498 square metres. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned Residential Six (R-6) in the Zoning By-law. The applicant is requesting permission to add a second story addition to the existing legal non-conforming single detached dwelling with a left side yard setback of 0.59 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres and a right yard set back abutting aright-of- way of 1.77 metres rather than the required 3.0 metres. The existing building is legal non-conforming and existed on the day of the passing of Zoning By-law 85-1. The required parking is located in the rear of the property and irrevocable legal access is provided by a right-of-way registered on title. In considering Section 45(2) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, the Committee may permit the enlargement or extension of a legal non- conforming building structure if the use of the building or structure was legal on the day the by-law was passed. The existing building was constructed in approximately 1927 before the passing of By- law 85-1. The purpose of the minimum side yard setback in the current Zoning By-law is to ensure adequate space remains between properties. The applicant is proposing to construct a second storey to be built onto an existing structure, and will not be altering COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 52 APRIL 20, 2010 2. Submission No. A 2010-022 (Cont'd any of the existing setbacks. The impact of the second storey is not anticipated to be any different than the conditions that exist today. The proposed second storey addition is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and therefore staff is of the opinion that the request is appropriate. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated March 25, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Richard Downey & Kelly Kernaghan requesting permission to add a second storey to an existing legal non-conforming single family dwelling to have a northerly side yard of 1.772m (5.81 `) rather than the required 3m (9.84`) and a southerly side yard of 0.59m (1.93`) rather than the required 1.2m (4'), on Part Lots 20 & 21, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract, 19 West Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission Nos.: A 2010-023 Applicant: Lisa Moses & Simon Cooper Property Location: 256 Lydia Street Legal Description: Part Lots 17 & 18, Plan 284 As no one appeared in support of this application, the Committee agreed to defer its consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for May 18, 2010. Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: A 2010-024 18123124 Ontario Inc. 232 Bleams Road Block 55, Registered Plan 58M-328 S. Patterson B. Nimer Contra: None Written Submissions: Kiryat Developments Inc The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to develop a property, with a carwash, that has a width on Bleams Road of 32.8m (107.61 `) rather than the required 38m (124.67`); permission for a portion of the proposed building to have an interior side yard of 1.5m (4.92`) rather than the required 3m (9.84`); and, permission to provide 2 vehicle waiting spaces (14 spaces) for each washing bay rather than the required 4 vehicle waiting spaces (28 spaces). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 53 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-024 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated April 14, 2010, advising that the subject property is located at the corner of Bleams Road and Fallowfield Drive. It is zoned Commercial Residential Two (CR-2) with Special Regulation 94R and designated as a Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre in the Official Plan. The applicant is proposing to develop a carwash facility on the currently vacant site therefore the property is subject to regulations under Section 12 -Arterial Commercial Zone (C-6) of the Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 12.2.2 (Regulations for Carwash) of the Zoning By-law 85-1 as follows: Reduction in lot width from the required minimum 38 metres to 32.8 metres. Reduction of the required side yard set back from the required 3.0 metres to 1.5 metres. Reduction in the required number of waiting spaces in sequence for each self service washing bays from four (4) to two (2). In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments: The requested minor variances meet the general intent of the zoning for the following reasons. The intent of the required lot width of 38 metres is to ensure that there is sufficient area on site to include all provisions for a carwash (self service and/or automatic) and that appropriate traffic movement is maintained on site. Transportation and Planning staff are of the opinion that the reduction in lot width is appropriate and will not affect the traffic movement and operation of the site. The intent of the required 3.0 metres side yard setback is to ensure adequate space is provided between neighbouring properties. The applicant is requesting relief to allow the proposed building to be located within 1.5 metres rather than the required 3.0 metres side yard setback. This portion of the property will be separated by a drive aisle located on the adjacent property and staff is of the opinion that adequate space will be maintained for the proper functioning of both sites. The intent of the stacking requirements as per the Zoning By- law is to ensure that car wash queuing and operational features (such as dry-off and vacuuming) can be accommodated on site without causing undue traffic impacts. The applicant submitted a traffic study titled "232 Bleams Road -Car Wash Queuing Analysis" dated February 2010, prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited (traffic study). Transportation Planning staff have reviewed the study, which indicated that the maximum number of cars stacked for self service wash bays at any given time during the study period (the peak operating time for this use was defined as weekend between 10:OOam and 4:OOpm) was 1.88 vehicles per bay, which is consistent with a previous study conducted in December 2002. Planning staff are of the opinion that the study provides adequate data to support the requested minor variance for a reduction in the required number of waiting spaces for the self service washing bays. The subject site is designated as a Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre in the Official Plan. Lands within this designation are primarily intended to meet the day to day convenience or service-oriented needs of the surrounding residential areas. The plan also recognizes a broad range of commercial uses. Considering the aforementioned, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested minor variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan. The request for a reduced lot width can be considered minor as it recognizes an existing situation. The request for a reduced side yard can also be considered minor as this portion of the proposed building will abut a drive aisle on the adjacent property and will provide sufficient separation between both properties. Upon review of the traffic study submitted by the applicant, Transportation Planning staff concludes that the reduction in stacking for self service wash bays is justified and the minor variance will COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 54 APRIL 20, 2010 4. Submission No. A 2010-024 (Cont'dl not impede operation and traffic movement within the site. Planning staff are of the opinion that the effect of the requested minor variances is minor. The requested minor variances are appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The proposed development is consistent with the commercial uses in the surrounding area. Staff is of the opinion that the scale and intensity of the proposed use can be accommodated on site and will be addressed during the site plan process. Staff is committed to working with the applicant to ensure that proposed development does not impede the functioning or aesthetics of the surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated March 25, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the written submission from Kiryat Developments inc. stating the objection that approval of this application would compromise traffic and public safety. Mr. Patterson provided the Committee with copies of e-mail correspondence, dated Friday April 16, 2010, from Kirat Developments Inc. withdrawing the objection. Mr. McColl questioned the fact that the submitted plan shows no sidewalks on Fallowfield Drive, where there is an on-going subdivision to the north of this property and the adjacent property is a Beer Store. Mr. Patterson responded that there will be sidewalks along Fallowfield Drive, installed by the subdivision to the south, which is a requirement in the subdivider's agreement with the City. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of 18123124 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to develop a property with a carwash, that has a width on Bleams Road of 32.8m (107.61 `) rather than the required 38m (124.67`); permission for an interior side yard of 1.5m (4.92`) rather than the required 3m (9.84`); and, permission to provide 2 vehicle waiting spaces for each self service washing bay rather than the required 4 vehicle waiting spaces, on Block 55, Registered Plan 58M-328, 232 Bleams Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2010-025 Women's Crisis Services of Waterloo Region Heritage and Ottawa Street Lots 63 to 73 and Blocks 74, 75, Plan 1598 V. Varga None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 55 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-025 (Cont'd) The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to develop this property with a residential care facility, such that the building will have a rear yard of 18m (59') rather than the required 30m (98.42`); with parking to be located between the building and the rear lot line, 3m (9.84`) from Heritage Drive and from Oldfield Drive, whereas the zoning by-law does not permit parking between the fascade of a building and a street. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated April 9, 2010, advising that the subject property is located on Ottawa Street North between Heritage Drive and Oldfield Drive. The property is currently vacant. The lands are planned to contain the future home of Anselma House - a local women's crisis centre. The applicant intends to pursue site plan approval for the subject lands this spring. The plan attached to the application is preliminary and the depicted variances represent the maximum reductions that may be required. The applicant is requesting minor variances as follows 1. to reduce the rear yard setback to 18 metres from the rear lot line whereas Special Regulation Provision 310R requires a 30 metre setback to the rear lot line. 2. to permit off-street parking to be located a minimum of 3 metres from a side lot line abutting a street whereas Zoning By-law Regulation 6.1.1.1. d) i) specifies that no off-street parking may be located between the building fagade and the side lot line abutting a street or within a minimum side yard setback abutting a street, being 6 metres for the subject lands. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. With respect to the requested reduction in rear yard setback, staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The lands are designated Mixed Use Node which permits the use of the lands as a residential care facility. Further, Mixed Use Nodes are intended to support intensive, compact development. A reduction in the rear yard setback will support additional density on the subject lands. The lands are zoned Community Institutional Zone (I-2) with Special Regulation Provision 310R and Special Use Provision 230U. The Special Use and Special Regulation Provisions were applied to the lands in 1999 as part of a site specific proposal for a funeral home. The intent of the 30 metre setback to the rear property line is unclear to staff. There is no discussion with respect to this special regulation in the Planning Report which accompanied the creation of this regulation. Staff can only speculate that it may have been intended to help increase the separation distance between the proposed funeral home and existing dwellings on Ebydale Drive. Based on the plans submitted with this application, most of the proposed residential care facility would be located more than 18 metres from the rear lot line, and the setback remains at about 30 metres near Oldfield Drive. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the intent of the zoning by-law is maintained. Staff is of the opinion that the reduction in rear yard setback from 30 metres to 18 metres is minor and that it is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The typical minimum rear yard setback for a residential care facility in an I-2 zone is 7.5 metres. The proposed minimum setback of 18 metres is more than double the minimum required setback. Based on the preliminary plans most of the building would be located more than 18 metres from the rear lot line and near Oldfield Drive the setback appears to be about 30 metres which is consistent with the existing regulation. Where the reduced rear yard setback approaches 18 metres nearby uses are institutional and include a large church and a community theatre. Staff is of the opinion that these uses will not be negatively impacted by the reduced setback. The building is COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 56 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-025 (Cont'd proposed to be low rise and therefore shadowing impacts will be minimal. Further, the lands within the rear yard would be used for parking whether designed with an 18 or 30 metre setback. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed 18 metre setback would be able to accommodate a parking lot, the final design of which would be approved through the formal Site Plan application to ensure that standards are met. Based of the foregoing, staff recommends that the proposed rear yard variance be approved. Staff offer the follow comments with respect to the proposed variance requesting relief from section 6.1.1.1 .d) i) to permit parking to be located 3 metres from a side lot line abutting a street whereas the zoning by-law specifies that no off-street parking may be located between the building fagade and side lot line abutting a street or within a minimum side yard setback abutting a street (being 6.0 metres for the subject lands). Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The intent of the Official Plan is to ensure attractive streetscape design. The subject lands are designated Mixed Use Node which permits a range of commercial uses as well as residential care facility and staff note that the subject regulation would not apply to commercial uses. In commercial areas staff encourages buildings to be located so that they address the street, and urban design policies state that the City shall enhance the character of urban streets through coordination of building and landscape design. The proposed building design is quite successful in locating the building so that it addresses the front yard and the majority of the side yards abutting the streets. Landscaping features will be considered through the Site Plan Approval Process and staff is of the opinion that 3 metres is sufficient to accommodate landscaping buffers between the parking lot and the street. Staff also notes that parking is not proposed within the front yard or even in the majority of the side yard areas. The zoning regulations prohibit parking between the building fagade and a lot line abutting a street, within a required side yard setback abutting a street, and in any case not within 3.0 metres of a street line are intended to improve the streetscape. For residential care facilities parking is encouraged to be located in the rear yard or internal side yards and so that it is screened from the street by the building. In this case, the lot has frontage onto three streets which significantly limits options to locate parking so that it is screened by buildings. In order to accommodate sufficient parking so that it is located mainly in the rear yard about 5 - 6 spaces are proposed to encroach into the minimum side yard setback abutting a street and the loading/service area is proposed be located between the building fagade and street. Staff is of the opinion that landscaping within the 3.0 metres will provide sufficient screening of these areas and will help enhance the streetscape. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance is minor and is appropriate for the development and use of the lands. Staff notes that lands in the vicinity of the property have been largely developed with commercial and institutional uses. If commercial and non-residential institutional uses had been proposed for the subject property parking spaces would be permitted between the fagade and the street and within the minimum side yard abutting a street provided they are setback a minimum distance of 3.0 metres - which is the setback being sought by the applicant. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance will have a minimal impact to the streetscape and that this impact can be mitigated with appropriate landscaping will be considered as part of the Site Plan Approval process. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the requested variance be approved. Planning staff note that the subject lands contain several parcels which are lots in a Registered Plan of Subdivision. These lots should be consolidated at the Registry Office prior to these lands being developed. Conditions of approval have been included in this regard. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated March 25, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 57 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-025 (Cont'd) Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Women's Crisis Services of Waterloo Region requesting permission to develop this property with a residential care facility, such that the building will have a rear yard of 18m (59') rather than the required 30m (98.42`); with parking to be located between the building and the rear lot line, 3m (9.84`) from Heritage Drive and from Oldfield Drive, whereas the zoning by-law does not permit parking between the fascade of a building and a street, on Lots 63 to 73 and Blocks 74, 75, Plan 1598, Heritage and Ottawa Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the variances as approved in this application shall apply only to a residential care facility located on a lot having a size greater than 0.6 hectares. 2. That the owner shall consolidate all active PIN's for the subject lands pursuant to Ontario Land Registration Legislation, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and prior to the issuance of Site Plan Approval. It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission Nos.: A 2010-026 Applicant: Jafar Konood & Parvaneh Hayati Property Location: 283-285 Lancaster Street West Legal Description: Lot 109, Plan 318 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: A. Tadros Written Submissions: None The Committee was in receipt of a written request from the owner to defer consideration of this application to the meeting to be held on May 18, 2010 and the Committee agreed to this request. Submission Nos.: A 2010-027 Applicant: City of Kitchener Property Location: 20 Tyson Drive Legal Description: Lots 47 to 51, Part Lots 43, 46, 52 & 61 to 65, Tagge Survey, Plan 577 Appearances: In Support: M. Petricevic M. Hildebrand R. Martinez COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 58 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-027 (Cont'd) F. Prior Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to expand the Bridgeport Community Centre by demolishing a portion of the existing structure and reconstructing it in the same location, with a higher ceiling and constructing a 99.9 sq. m. (1,076 sq. ft.) addition on the easterly side of the existing building; whereas, the Existing Use (E-1) zone does not permit major expansions to existing uses. The Committee considered the report of the Development and Technical Services Department, dated April 14, 2010, advising that Bridgeport Community Centre located at 20 Tyson Drive is located within an Existing Use Zone (E-1) as per the City's Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Open Space in the Official Plan. The subject property is located entirely within the floodplain of the Grand River and lies within the floodway of a Two-Zone Floodplain Policy Area. As such, the property is regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) under Ontario regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation). The applicant is proposing to renovate the existing Bridgeport Community Centre building which includes the demolition of a portion of the building to allow for a new structural support for a higher ceiling to accommodate a new gym; and to allow for an addition of approximately 20% of the existing Gross Floor Area (GFA). In order to accommodate the aforementioned renovations, the applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow the addition and alterations to exceed the required maximum 25% of the existing building GFA as per Section 48.3.2 of the Zoning By-law. In addition, the applicant is further requesting relief the Zoning By-law to allow fora 5.0 metres rear yard setback rather than the required 7.5 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. Do the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? The subject property is designated Open Space in the Official Plan. This designation plays an integral role in the determination of the built form of the urban area through the preservation of both publicly and privately owned lands. The primary intent of this designation is to preserve the integrity of the natural environment, provide a buffer between land uses and increase the opportunities for recreation, conservation and general enjoyment of the area. The plan also recognizes existing development and allows for minor expansions and alterations. The proposed minor variances will intensify and perpetuate the use of the property and will not contribute to or encourage the conservation of the area nor will it preserve the integrity of the natural environment. In addition, lands designated as Open Space that have flood susceptibility require approval of the GRCA prior to the placement of fill or structures. The applicant has not yet received approval from the GRCA for the proposed development. Therefore considering the aforementioned, Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested minor variances do not maintain the general intent of the Official Plan. 2. Do the requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-1aw85-1? The subject property is within the Existing Use Zone (E-1) as per the City's Zoning By- COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 59 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-027 (Cont'd law. The zoning permits existing uses and allows building expansions up to a 25% increase. The intent of the E-1 zone is to protect existing properties within the floodplain by appropriately controlling new development (additions and alterations) so as to allow modest increases to building area and investment without substantially perpetuating the life of the building. The applicant is proposing alteration/replacement and an addition to the existing building that will exceed the required maximum 25% of the total GFA. Planning staff are of the opinion that the request for relief from Section 48.3.2 of the Zoning By-law does not maintain the general intent of the zoning as it will significantly perpetuate the development, intensify the usability of the site and will allow for new development within an area susceptible to flooding. 3. Is the effect of the requested variances minor? The third test outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act is to determine whether the effect of the proposed variance can be considered minor. Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed variance to exceed the required maximum 25% of the total GFA of the existing building will significantly change the physical state of the existing building, intensify the usability of the site and will perpetuate the longevity of the development within the floodplain and therefore cannot be considered minor. In addition, it is Planning staff's opinion that the requested minor variance for a rear yard set back of 5 metre rather than the required 7.5 metre is minor relative to the overall proposal. 4. Are the requested variances considered appropriate for the development and use of the land? Planning staff have been advised by Community Services that throughout the years, the existing building and its location has earned significant value from the surrounding community. Planning staff are of the opinion that since the location of the community centre is not changing and that the proposed renovations will be conducted on the existing building, the applicant will continue to maintain the value gained by the surrounding community and patrons using the facility. Planning staff advise that a community centre use is an appropriate land use for the Bridgeport Community. City of Kitchener Planning staff are not in a position to support application A2010-027 as the requested minor variances do not comply with three of the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated March 29, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority Resource Planner, dated April 14, 2010, advising no objection to the approval of this minor variance application, subject to the following condition: "The approval and issuance of a permit from the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation) for the renovations of the existing building within the Grand River Regional Storm floodplain." Mr. Petricevic advised the Committee that City staff working on this project have tried to be respectful of Official Plan policies and the requirements of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). He stated that he believes the proposal is respectful; however, Planning staff seem to have a concern about the proposed work. Mr. Petricevic then advised that a big part of the work is reconstructing the gymnasium, which requires that the roof be removed to raise the height of the walls; however, the footprint of the room will remain the same. A small addition will be constructed which COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 60 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission No. A 2010-027 (Cont'd will increase the floor area by 20%, which is less than the 25% permitted in the zoning by-law. Ms. vonWesterholt advised that Planning staff is concerned because this property is in the flood plain and it is regulated by the GRCA. Staff believes that the 4 tests for a minor variance can not be met. The Chair noted that written comments have been received from the GRCA, advising that they have no concerns with this application provided that the owner obtains a permit from them. Mr. Petricevic advised that they are working with the GRCA to review their policies and determine what they will approve. Mr. McColl questioned whether the addition has a gross floor area exceeding 20% of the existing building. Mr. Petrocevic advised that they are keeping as much of the existing building as makes sense. The floor print for the gymnasium is remaining the same and the proposed addition is only 20% of the existing floor area. Ms. A. Pires responded that although the addition is only 20% of the floor area of the existing building, they will exceed 25% of the building floor area because of the renovations and alterations. Planning staff has not determined a specific percentage but the overall scheme exceeds 25%. Mr. Petricevic stated that if you consider the gross floor area of the existing building, the addition is only 20%; which is within the guideline of 25%. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of City of Kitchener requesting permission to expand the Bridgeport Community Centre by demolishing a portion of the existing structure (gymnasium) and reconstructing it in the same location, with a higher ceiling but the same floor area, and constructing a 99.9 sq. m. (1,076 sq. ft.) addition on the easterly side of the existing building; whereas, the Existing Use (E-1) zone does not permit major expansions to existing uses that exceed a 25% increase, and a rear yard of 5m (16.4') rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'), on Lots 47 to 51, Part Lots 43, 46, 52 & 61 to 65, Tagge Survey, Plan 577, 20 Tyson Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall receive approval and issuance of a permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority under Ontario Regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation) for the renovation and expansion of the existing building within the Grand River Regional Storm floodplain. 2. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed alterations, renovations and addition only as shown on the plan submitted with this application, prepared by AECOM Canada Architects Ltd., dated 19 February 2010. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 61 APRIL 20, 2010 CONSENT 1. Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: B 2010-005 Helmut & Pauline Hober 1310 Doon Village Road Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract H. & P. Hober None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide a sanitary sewer easement across this property, having a width of 49.399m (162`), a depth of 5m (16.4`) and an area of 250.7sq. m. (2698.6 sq. ft.), in favour of the property at 1304 Doon Village Road. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated April 10, 2010, in which they advise that the subject property is located at on Doon Village Road just north of Doon South Drive and backing onto Homer Watson Boulevard (Regional Road #28). The applicant is requesting consent for a servicing easement having a width of 49.399m (162'), a depth of 5m (16.4') and an area of 250.7sq. m. (2698.6 sq. ft.) in favour of 1304 Doon Village Road, in order to facilitate the sanitary sewer servicing of 1304 Doon Village Road via the pumping station at 2200 Homer Watson Boulevard. The applicant's lands are approximately 6510 square metres in area, and were the subject of a severance in 1997 (660/97) that created the adjacent property addressed as 1304 Doon Village Road. The property was also the subject of a minor variance application in 2003 to permit a reduced side yard setback for a sunroom addition. The subject property shares a mutual driveway with 1314 Doon Village Road. Planning comments: The applicant has requested the servicing easement to allow access for sanitary sewage servicing having a width of 49.399m (162'), a depth of 5m (16.4') and an area of 250.7sq. m. (2698.6 sq. ft.), in favour of the property at 1304 Doon Village Road. This easement will allow 1304 Doon Village Road to connect to the pumping station at 2200 Homer Watson Boulevard. The applicant has identified that 1304 Doon Village Road will be developed as asingle-detached dwelling, and while the property could be developed utilizing a private sanitary bed as per a sanitary study submitted in support of the 660/97, the owner would prefer to develop on public servicing if possible. The proposed easement appears to run between the existing dwelling and a pond in the rear yard of the subject property. Both the subject property and 1304 Doon Village Road fall within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan, and are part of the Upper Doon Secondary Plan. Section 50 of the Upper Doon Community Plan speaks to servicing of this community, and notes that portions of the community designated "Upper Doon Residential" should continue on the basis of private sanitary services until such time as the Regional Medical Officer of Health determines that the provisions of municipal sanitary services are required. The reason for this provision is to encourage the maintenance of the rural character found in the historical Upper Doon community, including large lots and a rural street profile. The proposed easement does not disturb the rural street profile of Doon Village Road, and runs behind the existing dwelling at 1310 Doon Village Road. The servicing will be completely underground and not visible from the street. The location of the easement may limit expansion of the existing dwelling at 13010 due to its proximity to the dwelling, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 62 APRIL 20, 2010 1. Submission No. B 2010-005 (Cont'dl but development on the property is also subject to other environmental and heritage constraints and reviews, so expansion of the dwelling may not be feasible or desired. So as not to set a precedent for such easements in this unique heritage neighbourhood, staff notes that their support of this particular easement has only been evaluated with regards to servicing 1304 Doon Village Road; any expansion of servicing to neighbouring properties will require easements in favour of those properties to be sought from the Committee of Adjustment. Heritage Comments: The property municipally addressed 1310 Doon Village Road is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as it is located within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District. The Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan contains guidelines and policies for change within the neighbourhood. Section 5.15 of the Plan indicates that "The plan intends that the present level of servicing prevail both as an adequate method and in concert with relatively large minimum lot sizes to conserve the spacious rural character of the Village." The specific policy indicates that "Private individual inground sewage systems will be an acceptable method of sewage disposal." Application number B60/97 severed 1310 Doon Village Road in order to create one new building lot (1304 Doon Village Road). Heritage Planning staff supported the application because the new lot was compatible with the rural character of large open areas and dwellings with substantial setbacks from Doon Village Road. In order to maintain the rural character, the severance was conditional on the owner entering into an agreement registered on title of both the severed and retained lands whereby the owner agreed that no new fencing would be permitted within 35 metres of Doon Village Road or within the floodplain of Schneider Creek. A new house has not yet been constructed at 1304 Doon Village Road. Please note that alterations, new construction and demolitions within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District require a Heritage Permit. Heritage Planning staff understand that the current application requests an easement in order to provide municipal sanitary service to 1304 Doon Village Road. The easement will be located in the rear yard away from Doon Village Road and the services will be buried underground. The rural character of Doon Village Road will not be impacted. As a result, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns with the proposed easement for sanitary services. Engineering Comments: The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the removal of any redundant service connections and the installation of new ones that may be required to service this property. Our records indicate municipal services are currently available to service this property. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated April 12, 2010, in which they advise that they have no objections to this application. Mr. & Mrs. Hober advised that they have a concern with condition no. 1 as recommended by staff, as it relates to a previous Application for Consent to create the new building lot at 1304 Doon village Road. Ms. vonWesterholt advised that a letter from the owners stating that they agree to contact the City's Heritage staff regarding any required heritage application, will be sufficient. Moved by Ms. C. Balcerczyk Seconded by Mr. B. McColl COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 63 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission No. B 2010-005 (Cont'd) That the application of Helmut & Pauline Hober requesting permission to provide a sanitary sewer easement across this property, having a width of 49.399m (162`), a depth of 5m (16.4`) and an area of 250.7sq. m. (2698.6 sq. ft.) in favour of the property at 1304 Doon Village Road, on Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, 1310 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and or local improvement charges. 2. That the owners shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCAd) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file shall be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owners shall agree in writing to obtain any required heritage application and building permit approvals prior to the construction of any building, services or roadways. 4. That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands and any required modification to service connections to the retained lands as a result of the severance. 5. That the owners shall receive the approval of the City Solicitor for the Transfer Easement(s) creating the easement for sanitary servicing prior to registration. 6. That the owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands shall enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 7. That a Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, as well as to provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration, which shall be provided in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 20, 2012. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 64 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: B 2010-006 Paul & Sandra Dirksen 1054 Hidden Valley Road Lot 4, Registrar's Complied Plan 1519 T. Hardacre None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a triangular shape, located immediately behind 1070 Hidden Valley Road, having a depth of 134.9m (442.58`) and an area of 0.661 ha (1.63336 ac), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 1070 Hidden Valley Road. The retained land will have a width on Hidden Valley Road of 66.508m (218.2`), a depth of 191.054m (626.81 `) and an area of 1.336 ha (3.29 ac). The existing and proposed use of the retained land is a single family dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated April 9, 2010, in which they advise that the subject land is located at 1054 Hidden Valley Road and is currently designated Limited Service Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential One Zone (R-1 ). The parcel is currently 1.997 hectares in size and contains a single detached dwelling and accessory buildings. The owner is proposing to sever a triangular portion of land from the subject property as a lot addition to 1070 Hidden Valley Road. With the additional lands the lot at 1070 Hidden Valley Road will conform to minimum lot area requirements of the R-1 zone. This would allow the existing single detached dwelling at 1070 Hidden Valley Road to be redeveloped. The lands to be severed are proposed to have a width of 98.005 metres, which is the same width as the lands to which they will be conveyed and an area of 0.661 hectares. The resultant lot will be slightly over 1 hectare in size. The retained lands will be 1.336 hectares in size. Both lots will conform to the existing R-1 zoning by-law regulations. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan and the zoning by-law, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and proposed use of the lands. Also, the resultant lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. With respect to servicing, the house on the subject lands is currently on private well and a private septic system. The applicant has indicated that the exact location of the septic system is unknown, but the owner suspects that it may be partially or wholly located on the lands to be severed. If this is the case, the owner will need to relocate the septic system so that it is wholly within the retained lands. A condition has been included in this regard. The existing dwelling is currently on a private well. Staff notes that municipal water services are available in Hidden Valley Road; however, the use of the well is an existing situation which is not impacted by the proposed consent. The well is located wholly on the lands to be retained and is not proposed to be changed. While staff would prefer that the existing house on the retained lands be connect to the municipal water supply staff does not recommend that this be made a condition of the consent. However, if the owner would like to connect to the municipal water supply they should contact the City to make arrangements. For the time being, servicing will remain as is for the house located at 1070 Hidden COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 65 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission No. B 2010-006 (Cont'd Valley Road. However, staff understands that the purpose of this severance is to create a larger lot at 1070 Hidden Valley Road which will comply with the R-1 zoning regulations so that it may be redeveloped. Through this redevelopment, the owner may be required to decommission any private water supply and connect to the municipal water supply at such time as this redevelopment occurs. This may be further discussed through a future building permit process. The proposed consent does not conflict with the Provincial Policy Statement issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Planning Act and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated April 12, 2010, in which they advise that they have no objections to this application. Ms. vonWesterholt advised that she has been informed by the Community Services Department that parkland dedication is not required for this application; consequently condition no. 3 in the staff report should be removed. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczky That the application of Paul & Sandra Dirksen requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a triangular shape, located immediately behind 1070 Hidden Valley Road, having a depth of 134.9m (442.58`) and an area of 0.661 ha (1.63336 ac), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 1070 Hidden Valley Road, on Lot 4, Registrar's Complied Plan 1519, 1054 Hidden Valley Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and or local improvement charges. 2. That the owners shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCAd) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file shall be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owners shall submit and receive approval from the City's Director of Planning for a draft reference plan showing the boundaries of the lands to be conveyed. 4. a. That the lands to be severed from 1054 Hidden Valley Road shall be added to the abutting lands at 1070 Hidden Valley Road, and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. b. That the owner's Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an `Application Consolidation Parcels' immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered `Application Consolidation Parcels' to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. 5. That the owner shall submit a plan showing the location and extent of the septic system for 1054 Hidden Valley Road to the satisfaction of the City's Director of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 66 Submission No. B 2010-006 (Cont'd) APRIL 20, 2010 Planning in consultation with the City's Chief Building Official. Should the plan show that the septic system is not located a minimum of 3.0 metres from the new property line the owner shall: a. Decommission the existing septic system and shall install a new septic system on the retained lands; or, b. Relocate any portion of the septic system which is not located a minimum of 3 metres from the new property line. Further, the owner shall obtain Building Permits with respect to the options outlined above, in accordance with Part 8 of the Building Code, and to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 20, 2012. Carried Submission Nos.: B 2010-007 Applicant: Pinnockhill Property Inc. Property Location: 37 Barbara Crescent Legal Description: Lot 21, Plan 702 Appearances: In Support Contra: Written Submissions: S. Tenant B. Snider T.Fuchka B. &. S. Longstaff T. Ziolkowski Neighbourhood Petition The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Barbara Crescent of 12.91 m (42.35`), a depth of 18.897m (62`) and an area of 243.96 sq. m. (2,626.04 sq. ft.), to be developed with a single family dwelling. The retained land will have a width on Barbara Crescent of 18.8976 m. (62') by a depth of 23.65m (77.59') and an area of 446.75 sq. m. (4,808.93 sq. ft.), and will contain the existing single family dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated April 12, 2010, in which they advise that 37 Barbara Crescent is a COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 67 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission No. B 2010-007 (Cont'd corner property with 20 metres of frontage and 37 metres in length. The property currently contains a single detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting consent to sever an infill lot from the rear half of the subject lands, in order to construct a new single detached dwelling that will also front onto Barbara Crescent. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan, and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4). Surrounding land use is characterized as low rise residential (i.e. single and semi-detached and small-scale apartments). The applicant is proposing to sever a lot with a width of approximately 13+/- metres, a depth of 20+/- metres, and an area of approximately 238 square metres. The retained parcel will have 18.9 metres of frontage with a depth of 24 metres. The width of the proposed infill lot is average for lots in the immediate vicinity; however, the depth is considerably less than other lots. In order to demonstrate that the proposed lot can accommodate a dwelling, the owner has submitted a conceptual site plan showing dimensions with a ground floor area of approximately 72 square metres (775 square feet) while meeting the front, side and rear yard setbacks stipulated under the R-4 zoning. Accordingly, it is the opinion of Planning staff that the lot is large enough to accommodate the proposed dwelling as depicted, while complying with all minimum setbacks and maximum lot coverage regulations. Engineering staff confirm that municipal services are available to service the infill lot. This proposal represents a moderate form of infill development. Barbara Crescent contains a mixture of lot sizes and dwelling types. To that end, Staff has assessed impact and compatibility. Staff is of the opinion that impact on abutting properties will be minimal as the proposed lot will back onto the rear yard of 43 Barbara Crescent and side onto the rear yard of 160 Avalon Place. The proposed lot is oriented to provide street fronting presence consistent with the lotting pattern on the opposite side of Barbara Crescent. The proposed lot width of 13+/- metres is comparable in size to surrounding lot widths. No variances are required on either the retained or severed parcel in order to facilitate the proposal. To help ensure the house will be compatible with the neighbourhood, a condition requiring the approval of a site plan and elevation drawings has been included. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the existing and proposed uses of the lands to be retained and severed are in conformity with the City's Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. The lands to be retained are fully serviced, and services are available for the lands to be severed; however, the owner will be required to make arrangements with Engineering Services to extend water and sanitary services to the property line for the future single detached dwelling. Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS sets the policy foundations for regulating the development and use of land. The key objectives include: building strong communities; wise use and management of resources; and protecting public health and safety. In that regard, staff is of the opinion that this proposal conforms with the PPS as this type of consent (infill) is a way of creating new and affordable infill housing that make better use of existing infrastructure without the need for additional infrastructure. This is also consistent with the City's Official Plan policies under Section 1 -Housing. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated April 12, 2010, in which they advise that they have no objections to this application. The Committee considered written submission from the neighbours in opposition to this application. Ms. B. Snider addressed the Committee advising that there are many long term COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 68 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission No. B 2010-007 (Cont'd residents in this neighbourhood who have chosen to retire here. Their greatest concerns are with safety issues, as cars speed around this bend in Barbara Crescent. Their other concern is that green space will be lost for ever and children will be forced to play out on the street. Mr. McColl noted that this is an older neighbourhood and the lot widths in this area are 15-20 m.; whereas this lot will only be 12 m. wide and there will be no amenity area. He was of the opinion that this severance will have a adverse impact on the neighbourhood. Ms. vonWesterholt stated that if this application is approved, one of the recommended conditions is to submit an elevation for the house, as well as a site plan; which is not normally required for a single family dwelling. The Chair responded that not having those drawings now makes it difficult to decide on this application. Mr. Tennant advised that he could provide photos of the house he is thinking of building on this lot. He also stated that he has been a builder for a long time and he takes pride in what he builds. Ms. Snider advised that she has seen Mr. Tennant's web site and his buildings are attractive; however, she believes a house is not going to be appropriate on this property, in this neighbourhood. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of Pinnockhill Property Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Barbara Crescent of 12.91 m (42.35`), a depth of 18.897m (62`) and an area of 243.96 sq. m. (2,626.04 sq. ft.), on Lot 21, Plan 702, 37 Barbara Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that the resulting parcels of land are not compatible with the pre-existing neighbourhood. Carried Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: B 2010-008 William Seip 1615 Highland Road West Part Lot 38, German Company Tract W. Seip None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide an easement for drainage across the property, having a width of 91.46m (300`), a depth of 4m (13.12`) and an area of 377.8 sq. m. (4066.73 sq. ft.) in favour of 1603 Highland Road West. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated April 14, 2010, in which they advise that the subject property is located between Trussler Road and Ira Needles Boulevard on the south side of Highland Road West. The property contains a single detached dwelling constructed in approximately 1975. The property contains a pond at the western side of the lot. The COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 69 APRIL 20, 2010 Submission No. B 2010-008 (Cont'd lands to the west and on the north side of Highland Road are used for industrial purposes, while the lands to the east and south are used for low rise residential purposes. The property is designated Arterial Commercial Corridor in the Official Plan and is zoned General Industrial (M-2) with Special Regulation Provision 28R and Special Use Provision 43U. Neither special zoning provision is applicable to the subject application. The single detached dwelling is considered legal non-conforming since it was constructed prior to zoning being enacted that prohibits single detached dwelling as a permitted use. It should be noted that the current zoning of the subject property is out-of-sync with the more recent Official Plan designation. Staff notes that this inconsistency would normally be resolved through aCity-initiated zone change to harmonize the zoning with the Official Plan. In this particular instance, the City's Legal Services has advised that this inconsistency does not affect the subject consent application. According to the owner, the subject property is currently subject to a blanket easement for drainage in favour of the property immediately to the east (addressed as 1603 Highland Road West), which is used as a single detached dwelling. Currently, drainage from the adjacent property flows westward through a drainage swale into the pond at the western side of the subject property. The applicant is requesting the establishment of an approximately 97.4 metre long, 4.0 metre wide easement in favour of the property to the east, for drainage, as shown in the Severance Sketch submitted as part of the subject application. The majority of the proposed easement appears to be approximately 20 metres south of the existing drainage swale. The owner's stated intent in establishing the proposed specific easement is to relinquish the need for the blanket easement over the whole of the lands. The blanket easement has the effect of prohibiting all development, including additions, on the property. In this regard, staff advises that the current zoning and Official Plan designation of the property do not allow single detached dwelling as a use, although this use is considered legal non-conforming. Any changes to the current use, including additions, would require Planning Act approval from the City (e.g., permission application to extend a legal non- conforming use or a zone change application). Staff is of the opinion that although the City's intent for this property is to not allow single detached use of the property, the Official Plan would allow a diverse range of commercial development, although the zoning would have to be updated to accommodate many of such uses. If the proposed easement is established and the blanket easement is removed, the property would be made more available for commercial redevelopment that is consistent with the Official Plan objectives. In addition, the adjacent neighbour's drainage rights would continue to be protected. Staff recommends that an approval condition be imposed to require that the blanket easement be relinquished. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated April 12, 2010, in which they advise that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. C. Balcerczyk That the application of William Seip requesting permission to provide an easement for drainage across the property, having a width of 91.46m (300`), a depth of 4m (13.12`) and an area of 377.8 sq. m. (4066.73 sq. ft.) in favour of 1603 Highland Road West, on Part Lot 38, German Company Tract, 1615 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 70 APRIL 20, 2010 4. Submission No. B 2010-008 (Cont'd) 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCAd) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file shall be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into an easement agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement. 4. That a Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, as well as to provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration, which shall be provided in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor. 5. That the owner shall relinquish the blanket easement for drainage (Instrument Number 317767) within one year of the approval of Consent Application 62010- 008. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 20, 2012. Carried Submission Nos.: B 2010-009 to B 2010-013 Applicant: Will-O Homes Property Location: Rosemount Drive and River Road Legal Description: Lots 12 & 13, Registered Plan 937 As recommended by staff and agreed to by the applicant, the Committee agreed to defer its consideration of these applications to its meeting scheduled for Tuesday June 15, 2010. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 71 APRIL 20, 2010 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 20th day of April, 2010. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment