The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDTS-10-119 - Hidden Valley Road - Amendment REPORT Report To: Development & Technical Services Committee Date of Meeting: June 21, 2010 Submitted By: Alain Pinard, Interim Director of Planning Prepared By: Alexandra Pires, Planning Technician (519-741-3400 x 3177) Ward(s) Involved: Fairview – Gateway (Ward 3) Date of Report: June 14, 2010 Report No.: DTS-10-119 Subject: AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL’S DECISION OF APRIL 19, 2010 REGARDING DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC10/01/H/ATP 1070 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD DAVID DIRKSEN Single detached dwelling to be demolished Location Map: 1070 Hidden Valley Road RECOMMENDATION: That the decision adopted by Council on April 19, 2010 regarding Demolition Control Application DC10/01/H/ATP for one (1) single detached dwelling located at 1070 Hidden Valley Road, owned by David Dirksen, legally described as Lot 3, Registrar’s Compiled Plan No. 1519 , be amended by removing any reference to conditions. ï ó ï BACKGROUND: The Council of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener at its meeting held April 19, 2010 passed a resolution for Demolition Control Application DC10/01/H/ATP requesting permission to demolish one (1) single detached dwelling located at 1070 Hidden Valley Road, owned by David Dirksen, legally described as Lot 3, Registrar’s Compiled Plan No. 1519 be approved, subject to the standard two year redevelopment condition. The condition requires that the owner obtain a building permit for a new dwelling prior to obtaining a demolition permit. The demolition permit would then set out the condition imposing a fine of $20,000 per demolished dwelling unit if redevelopment is not substantially complete within two years after the demolition permit is issued. Subsequent to the final decision, the owner is requesting that the decision be amended (see letter dated May 20, 2010 attached as Appendix A). The reason for this request is that the owner intends to demolish the existing dwelling and sell the property as a vacant lot and from a marketing perspective, leave the future redevelopment plans for the decision of the perspective buyers. REPORT: The adjacent property owners at 1054 Hidden Valley Road applied for a Committee of Adjustment Consent Application (B2010-006) to severe a portion of their property and convey it as a lot addition to the subject property at 1070 Hidden Valley Drive. The application received approval with conditions from the Committee of Adjustment on April 20, 2010. The owner of the subject property now intends to demolish the existing dwelling and sell the enlarged property as a vacant parcel through private sale. The owner is requesting an amendment to the April 19, 2010 decision which included the standard two year redevelopment demolition condition. The owner is proposing to demolish the dwelling immediately so that the property can be sold without conditions, as well as giving the perspective buyer the opportunity to determine their own redevelopment plans. At the time of the original demolition application, a City Building Inspector examined the interior and the exterior of the existing dwelling and determined that the dwelling is inhabitable due to its deteriorating condition. The house appeared to have been vacant for several years and the well and septic system would have to be assessed and updated if used in the future. The house had undergone a number of renovations in the past and the cost of repairing the damaged structure and finishes would be significant. Staff comments In light of this request for an amendment to the April 19, 2010 decision and staff’s knowledge of the consent application which proposes to increase the lot area of the subject property, staff re- examined the proposal to demolish the existing dwelling without conditions. Staff are of the opinion that the existing deteriorating dwelling proposed to be demolished is sufficiently setback from adjacent properties and its removal will not create an evident void in the streetscape nor will it negatively impact the abutting properties. Staff noted this when reviewing the original demolition control application and proceeded to impose the standard two year redevelopment conditions as a means of ensuring that the vacant land would be redeveloped in a timely manner. However, the owner of the subject property now intends to demolish the existing dwelling and sell the proposed-to-be-enlarged property as a vacant parcel through private sale giving the perspective buyer the opportunity to determine their own redevelopment plans. ï ó î It is in the owner’s intent to proceed with the demolition and clean up of the site and address potential safety concerns. When considering the competing interests, the prospect of a vacant lot awaiting redevelopment on this site is considered preferable to a vacant boarded up building within a residential neighbourhood. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No new or additional capital budget requests are expected with this recommendation. COMMUNICATIONS: All property owners within 60 metres of the subject property will be circulated an information letter and information regarding the date and time of the Committee/Council meeting. CONCLUSION: The property owner is requesting an amendment of the April 19, 2010 decision for the removal of a condition of approval requiring that prior to obtaining a demolition permit they obtain a building permit for redevelopment, and that redevelopment be substantially complete within two years. City staff support this recommendation to remove the condition, as the owner has provided clarification that the intent is to sell the lot as vacant for redevelopment. It is also preferable to have a vacant lot as opposed to a derelict building until the lot is sold. REVIEWED BY: Della Ross, Manager of Development Review ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Interim General Manager Development and Technical Services Department Attachments: Appendix A -Request Letter from Thomas Hardacre (IBI Group), dated May 20, 2010 Appendix B - Decision of City Council April 19, 2010 Appendix C - Report DTS-10-068 considered at the April 12, 2010 Development and Technical Services Committee and April 19, 2010 Council meeting ï ó í ï ó ì ï ó ë ï ó ê ï ó é ï ó è ï ó ç ï ó ïð ï ó ïï ï ó ïî ï ó ïí ï ó ïì ï ó ïë