HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2011-02-15COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 15, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. J. Meader and Messrs. D. Cybalski and A. Lise
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. E. Brown, Planner, Mr. S. Bassanese, Urban Designer, Mr. B.
Bateman, Senior Planner, Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner,
Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Ms. A. Buitenhuis, Student
Planner, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, Ms. M. Burleanu,
Administrative Clerk and Ms. D. Saunderson, Administrative Clerk
Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:45 a. m.
MINUTES
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the minutes of the reg ular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of January 18, 2011,
as mailed to the members, be accepted.
Carried
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
1. Submission No.: A 2011-006
Applicant: The Allen Building Inc.
Property Location: 108 Ahrens Street West
Legal Description: Part Lots 223 & 224, Plan 376
Appearances:
In Support: B. Flewwelling
Contra: None
Written Submissions : B. Flewwelling
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide 17
parking spaces for amulti-use building rather than the required 32 parking spaces; to
locate 9 parking spaces 0 m from the lot line along Ahrens Street rather than the
required 3m (9.84'); to allow vehicles to exit the 9 parking spaces in a rearward motion
rather than the required forward motion; to allow a parking agreement with the owner of
the abutting railway lands for the location of 8 parking spaces on that property, to be
registered on title of 108 Ahrens Street West only rather than having the agreement
registered on title of the railway land as well. In addition, the applicant is requesting
permission to provide no loading spaces rather than the 1 required loading space; and,
legalization of the location of the existing building having a front yard setback of 0.27 m
(0.88') rather than the required 6 m (19.68').
The Committee considered the written submission from the GSP Group on behalf of the
applicant, dated February 4, 2011, advising that they wish to withdraw the variances
requesting permission to provide 17 parking spaces for amulti-use building rather then
the required 32 spaces; and, to allow a parking agreement with the owner of the
abutting railway lands for the location of 8 parking spaces on that property, to be
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 46 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-006. (Cont'd
registered on title of 108 Ahrens Street West only rather then having the agreement
registered on title of the railway land as well.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 7, 2011,
advising that this application was previously heard by the Committee on January 18,
2011. At the Committee meeting the applicant requested an amendment to variance #5
fora 'reduction from 32 parking spaces to 9 parking spaces' to 'a reduction from 32
parking spaces to 17 parking spaces'. In addition to the amended variance, the
applicant also proposed a sixth variance to vary off-site parking regulations. The
Committee deferred their decision to allow staff to consider the request. Staff discussed
their concerns regarding the revised application with the applicant, and the applicant
has formally withdrawn their request for a reduction in parking and variance to the off-
site parking regulations. Planning continues to recommend approval of variances 1 - 4
as discussed below.
The subject property is located at 108 Ahrens Street West which is located between the
railway tracks and Breithaupt Street. This parcel is irregularly shaped and is largely
covered by buildings. The owner would like to renovate and convert the buildings into
separate offices and warehouses.
To facilitate the proposed renovation the applicant is requesting minor variances to
allow:
1. a 0.27 metre front yard setback, whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a
minimum 6.0 metre front yard setback,
2. a 1.0 metre setback for parking located adjacent to a street whereas Zoning By-
law 85-1 requires a minimum 3.0 metre setback,
3. a vehicle to enter a street in a rearward motion, whereas Zoning By-law 85-1
requires that egress from a parking lot be in a forward motion,
4. zero loading spaces, whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires 1 loading space.
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 subject property is designated General Industrial which permits a range of industrial
and business uses. The proposed variance to the front yard setback will recognize the
existing location of the building, supporting the retention of an industrial building. Staff
is of the opinion that the variance meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The purpose of the front yard setback in the zoning by-law is to ensure that there is
sufficient setback between buildings and the street. In this case, the building has
existed and operated for many years without problems. This should not change as a
result of the changes in use of the building. Therefore, it is staffs opinion that the
proposed variance meets the intent of the zoning by-law. Furthermore, as the variance
will not result in any changes to the front yard setback of the existing building, staff is of
the opinion that the variance is minor and appropriate for the development and use of
the lands.
The General Industrial designation permits a range of industrial and business uses.
The proposed variances facilitate the use of the nine existing parking spaces, which
supports the use of the building for industrial uses. Staff is of the opinion that the
variance meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The intent the zoning regulation requiring a 3.0 metre setback to the street for parking
spaces is to ensure that there is adequate space for landscaping to help improve the
aesthetics of the site. While staffs focus is on urban design, it is recognized that in this
instance there is no other opportunity to provide parking on the subject lands and the
parking has historically been located in this location. Staff understands that the owner
intends to generally make design improvement to the exterior of the building, helping to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 47 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-006. (Cont'd
Improve the aesthetics of the site. Urban Design staff has reviewed and provided
preliminary approval of the proposed building elevations. Final approval of the elevation
drawings is recommended to be included as a condition of approval.
The intent of the zoning regulation requiring that vehicles enter the street in a forward
motion is to help to ensure visibility for drivers entering the street, and to ensure that
vehicles make a smooth egress onto the roadway with minimal disruption to on-street
traffic. Ahrens Street is a local street and does not carry high levels of traffic. This is
similar to most residential streets where it is common for vehicles to back out onto the
roadway. Transportation Planning staff is of the opinion that drivers will be able to see
clearly to back out onto the street. Therefore, staff is satisfied that the intent of the by-
law is maintained.
Staff is of the opinion that the variance for the setback to the street and egress in a
rearward motion are minor and appropriate for the development and use of the land.
Such a situation would not be contemplated for a new site or if the site were to be
significantly reconfigured; however, as the current parking situation has existed for
many years, and there is little opportunity to provide parking in any other configuration
due to the location of the existing building, staff accepts the current situations.
The General Industrial Designation permits a range of industrial business uses. It is
common for such uses to require loading facilities; however, this site has operated as a
warehouse and industrial business for many years in the current configuration. The
proposed variance will allow the building to continue to be used for industrial business
purposes.
The intent of the Zoning By-law regulations requiring loading spaces is to ensure proper
functioning of the site. The subject building previously contained warehouse space
without a full size loading space. The new owner is proposing to create several small
warehouse spaces in the building. Staff is of the opinion that a full size loading space
cannot be accommodated on the site as there is currently only a 6.5 metre deep paved
area between the building and the property line. This may be suitable for small delivery
vehicles which can park in the parking spaces; however, it will not accommodate
delivery trucks. There is a City owned laneway immediately adjacent to the site which
forms part of the railway corridor. This laneway only provides access to the rear of the
subject building. Staff is of the opinion that it would be acceptable for any larger
vehicles to make use of this laneway for loading and unloading purposes. Therefore, it
is staff's opinion that the variance to permit no loading spaces on site is minor and is
appropriate for the development and use of the lands.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated January 27, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Flewwelling advised that he is in agreement with the staff report including the
amendment, which was also requested in his letter.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of The Allen Building Inc. requesting legalization of a building
having a front yard setback of 0.27 m (0.88') rather than the required 6 m (19.68'),
permission to provide a 1 m (3.28') setback from Ahrens Street for parking rather than
the required 3 m (9.84'), permission for a vehicle to enter a street in a rearward motion
rather than egress from a parking lot to be in a forward motion and permission to
provide 0 loading spaces rather than the required 1 loading space, on Part Lots 223 &
224, Plan 376, 108 Ahrens Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to
the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 48 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-006. (Cont'd
That prior to occupancy of the building, the owner shall agree to either receive
Site Plan Approval or receive approval of a request to Deem the work Not
Development, to the satisfaction of the City's Supervisor of Site Development.
2. That prior to issuance of either Site Plan Approval or approval for 'Deemed not
Development' the owner shall receive final approval of elevation drawings from
the Supervisor of Site Development.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
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
2. Submission No.: A 2011-008
Applicant: Jirina Kepka
Property Location: 196 Victoria Street North
Legal Description: Part Lots 27 & 28, Plan 374
Appearances:
In Support: L. Navaleza
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a
second floor addition on a building that will contain a bake shop and the sale of wedding
gowns, on a lot having a width of 15.6m (51.18') rather than the required 16m (52.49'), a
side yard on the building at the rear of the property of 0.39m (1.27') rather than the
required 3m (9.84'); permission to provide 7off-street parking spaces rather than the
required 10 off-street parking spaces and permission not to provide a loading space
rather than the 1 required loading space.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 25, 2011,
advising that the subject property is located on the northwest side of Victoria Street
North close to the Margaret Avenue intersection. The property is 704 square metres in
area and has 15.6 metres of frontage on Victoria Street North. The rear lot line is
coincident with the CN Rail right of way. There are two buildings on the property. The
building located near the rear of the property is used for residential purposes. The other
building was originally constructed as a single detached house in approximately 1900.
The main floor has been occupied as a cake shop for more than twenty years and the
upper storey was previously rented as residential units.
The surrounding area is in transition. It is comprised of single detached residential
buildings some currently used for dwelling units, others that have been converted for
various commercial purposes including office, retail and personal service uses. Some
properties in the immediate area have recently redeveloped and been converted for
new uses, including the adjacent property at 200 Victoria Street North (recently
converted for a hair salon use).
The subject property and surrounding properties along the northwesterly side of Victoria
Street North are designated Mixed Use Corridor in the Official Plan and are zoned
Arterial Commercial (C-6) in the Zoning By-law. The property is also subject to Special
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 49
2. Submission No.: A 2011-008, (Cont'd)
FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Use Provision 3U in the Zoning By-law which regulates specific types of manufacturing
uses. These properties are all subject to City-initiated zone change ZC09/06/COK/HH
which is pending Council approval later this year. The zoning of the subject property is
proposed to change to Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-2) Zone with Special
Use Provision 410U (which proposes to prohibit establishing new sensitive land uses
along the railway) and Special Regulation Provision 555R (which proposes to legalize
the loading and parking deficiencies of proposed Site Plan Application
SP10/090/COK/HH). The zoning of adjacent properties is also proposed to change to
MU-2 zoning with and without site specific special provisions.
Site Plan approval for SP10/090/COK/HH, which proposes a small building addition to
accommodate retail space on the second storey of the existing building, requires
Committee of Adjustment approval for several zoning deficiencies because the timing of
the application precedes the pending approval of City-initiated zone change application
ZC09/06/CO K/H H.
The applicant is requesting the following minor variance permissions:
• To provide a lot width of 15.6 metres whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a
minimum lot width of 16.0 metres;
• To provide a side yard of 0.39 metres whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a
minimum side yard of 3.0 metres;
• To provide seven on site parking spaces whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a
minimum often on site parking spaces; and
• Not to provide any loading spaces whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a
minimum of one loading space.
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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The property
is designated Mixed Use Corridor in the Official Plan, which is intended to serve
adjacent residential neighbourhoods by providing a balanced distribution of commercial,
institutional and residential uses. Furthermore, Mixed Use Corridors are intended to be
transit-supportive and promote walkability. The proposed minor addition and conversion
of a portion of the existing building for convenience retail use is a permitted use that
would serve the surrounding area and is transit-supportive and walkable. Therefore the
application meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The
purpose of the minimum lot width requirement is to have wide enough lots to allow for
buildings with suitably sized facades while maintaining enough space to provide access
for parking. Both the existing building facade and access to parking are adequately
sized and can be maintained. Therefore, a variance from the lot width requirement
would maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law. The side yard setback requirement is a
compatibility measure and is intended to maintain an adequate separation between new
buildings and uses. The side yard setback is an existing condition. The building addition
in no way decreases the existing separation distance, therefore there is not a
compatibility concern and the intent of the By-law is maintained with respect to side yard
setback. The parking and loading requirements are intended to ensure adequate onsite
vehicular facilities are provided to accommodate the proposed use and demand
generated by users. Staff are satisfied that in this case a loading facility and three
additional parking spaces would not be needed given the type and scale of business
proposed. Therefore, the intent of the by-law with respect to providing adequate parking
and loading facilities on site is maintained.
The variances are minor for the following reasons. The lot width deficiency of 0.4 metres
and side yard setback deficiency of 2.61 metres are existing conditions. Approval of
these requested minor variances to legalize the existing conditions would have no
discernable impact. The variances for the onsite loading and onsite parking spaces are
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 50 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
2. Submission No.: A 2011-008, (Cont'd)
being requested because the small building addition and conversion for business use is
not likely to generate the demand for more parking or loading needs. Staff is also
satisfied that parking demands of the bakery business at this location over the past
twenty years demonstrate that there is not a parking supply issue. Approval of these
requested minor variances would therefore be minor.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following
reasons. It allows for conversion of an existing building to establish a compatible mix of
uses on the property. It will provide for a broader range of uses without the need to
continually apply for a variance each time there is a change in use, provided the use
meets all the other zoning requirements. Any future change in use of the property would
require an occupancy permit wherein compliance with the zoning regulations, including
parking, can be addressed.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated January 27, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Jirina Kepka requesting permission to construct a second floor
addition on a building that will contain a bake shop and the sale of wedding gowns, on a
lot having a width of 15.6m (51.18') rather than the required 16m (52.49'), a side yard
on the building at the rear of the property of 0.39m (1.27') rather than the required 3m
(9.84'); permission to provide 7off-street parking spaces rather than the required 10 off-
street parking spaces and permission not to provide a loading space rather than the 1
required loading space, on Part Lots 27 & 28, Plan 374, 196 Victoria Street North,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
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
3. Submission No.: A 2011-009
Applicant: 845026 Ontario Limited
Property Location: David Bergey Drive at Ottawa Street
Legal Description: Part Lot 46, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support: S. Head
M. Schmidt
J. Parisi
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a
single family dwelling and garage on a property having an area of 5.16 ha (12.75 ac.)
rather than the maximum permitted lot area of 1.2 ha. (3 ac.).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 51 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
3. Submission No.: A 2011-009. (Cont'dl
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 7, 2011,
advising that the subject property is located at the south-west corner of Ottawa Street
South and David Bergey Drive, and is legally described as Part of Lot 46, German
Company Tract. The subject parcel is 5.29 hectares (13.06 acres) in size and is vacant
but forested with several wetland areas. The applicants are looking for relief from
Section 34.3.2 of the Zoning By-law in order to permit asingle-detached dwelling to be
constructed on a parcel larger than 1.2 hectares. Staff has visited the site on several
occasions over the last few years.
The property is designated Open Space, Special Policy Area 18 in the City's Official
Plan. The property is also noted as Open Space, subject to Section 2.3 in the
Laurentian West Community Plan. The entire property is zoned Agricultural (A-1) in By-
law 85-1.
The site is the subject of Zone Change Application ZC08/20/O/BB, requesting to rezone
the property from Agricultural (A-1) to Residential Six (R-6) and Hazard Land Zone (P-
3). Staff has met with the applicants and their agent several times regarding the
property and this application, and the applicants' agent has noted that if the variance
request is successful, the zone change request will be withdrawn.
Special Policy Area 18 in the Official Plan notes that notwithstanding the Open Space
designation on the subject lands, large-lot single-detached residential development will
be permitted subject to the following:
(i) Other policies in [the Official Plan] and Regional Official Policies Plan;
(ii) A Secondary Plan containing policies governing woodlot use;
(iii) Approved ecological studies and tree management plans;
(iv) A site plan indicating the location of residential dwellings.
The Laurentian West Community Plan further notes that the forest located on these
lands as a significant natural resource, but that development be permitted on the lands
subject to an Environmental Impact Study being undertaken and approved by staff. The
applicants commissioned and submitted a General Vegetation Overview (July 28, 2008)
and an Environmental Impact Study (December 2010) for the proposed development of
the subject lands. Staff has reviewed these studies and tailored conditions for the
approval of this variance request to implement the recommendations made by those
studies.
With regards to the variances requested Planning staff offer the following comments
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.
The variance requested would permit the parcel to be used for one single-detached
dwelling. While Special Policy 18 in the Official Plan permits "large lot single-detached
dwellings" within this policy area, no definition is noted in the glossary of the Official
Plan or Community Plan for "large lot single-detached residential development".
However, staff is of the opinion that the a single dwelling proposed on the subject site
could be considered to be in line with what may have been envisioned when the those
policies were written. The applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Study
(EIS) for review and approval, as noted in the Official Plan and Community Plan, as well
as a site plan showing the proposed building location. Staff notes that the site plan in
the EIS differs from that attached to the Committee of Adjustment application. As such,
staff is requesting a revised site plan as a condition of support of the requested
variance. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The intent of the restriction on lot size for asingle-detached dwelling in an agricultural
zone is to prevent the loss of viable farmland to estate residential development. On this
particular lot, the land is covered in a mature woodlot instead of being cultivated for
traditional farming. The desire to maintain the woodlot has resulted in a proposal for
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 52 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
3. Submission No.: A 2011-009. (Cont'dl
only one residential dwelling. Staff therefore considers that the variance requested to
meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
Given the fact that this is an existing parcel that likely pre-dates the current zoning
regulation, and as the request is allow a lot size 3.96 ha larger than what the current
regulations permit, staff considers the variance to be minor.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land, because it allows
for the limited development of the property in a manner that is in keeping with the
Official Plan and Community Plan policies (large lot development), while protecting the
woodland and wetland features on the property through the recommendations of the
EIS and the requested Tree Preservation /Enhancement Plan and Conservation
Easement.
Planning, Environmental Planning, GRCA and Regional staff met to discuss the
variance request and EIS submitted to support the variance application, to ensure that
the concerns of all three regulatory bodies were resolved or addressed through
requested conditions. The conditions recommended in this report incorporate those
recommended by staff from the City of Kitchener, GRCA and Region of Waterloo.
Based on the foregoing, planning staff recommends that the request to permit asingle-
detached dwelling on a parcel that is 5.29 hectares in size in an A-1 Zone be approved,
subject to conditions.
These comments are exclusively in respect to the development application proposal for
a minor variance to the Zoning By-law to permit a single detached dwelling on a lot
greater than 1.2 hectares in area. Environmental Planning staff can support the minor
variance, subject to conditions.
An Environmental Impact Study (EIS, GWS Ecological & Forestry Services Inc.,
December 2010) was submitted in support of this application and has been reviewed.
Comments to guide this study were provided by the City in correspondence from
Environmental Planning staff to the applicant dated both June 19, 2009 and May 3,
2010. The EIS now addresses the broad range of potential environmental impacts that
may arise from development within this woodland, consistent with the requirements of
Policy 2.1 of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) regarding natural heritage
(endangered and threatened species and significant woodlands), the Kitchener Official
Plan and Special Policy 18 regarding the West Laurentian Wetland /Forest, and
Kitchener's Laurentian West Community Plan.
Data has been provided and analyzed consistent with the requirements of Kitchener's
Council-adopted Tree Management Policy (rev. 2001), but staff are not yet in
agreement with respect to all of the removals and clearance area proposed. This policy
will be fully addressed both in the drafting of conditions in a Conservation Easement,
which is to be registered on the title of the property, and by a requirement to complete a
Tree Preservation /Enhancement Plan prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
property. This is consistent with Environmental Planning advice in the May 3, 2010
correspondence to (restrict (the) construction envelope including access /servicing /
house and garage / hardscaping /landscaping to as small a footprint as possible.
These matters can be addressed concurrently with those issues identified by both the
GRCA and Regional environmental planning staff, to the satisfaction of those authorities
and the City. Amending the EIS and reflecting the acceptable amendments in a
Conservation Easement and, ultimately, in a site and grading/drainage plan submitted
to support the Tree Preservation /Enhancement Plan and building permit application is
the recommended approach.
Environmental Planning staff would be pleased to provide more details and/or
comments on the EIS submission from the perspectives of both the Kitchener Tree
Management Policy as well as the requirements for a Conservation Easement to be
registered on the entire property in favour of the City. These issues can be addressed in
an amended EIS.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 53 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
3. Submission No.: A 2011-009, (Cont'd)
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.
Any redundant driveways are to be closed with new boulevard landscaping, all to City of
Kitchener standards and any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener
standards at grade with the sidewalk. All works is at the owner's expense and all work
needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the building.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Principal Planner,
dated February 8, 2011, advising that the application was submitted prior to Provincial
approval of the 2009 Regional Official Plan (ROP), the following comments are made
pursuant to the 1995 Regional Official Policies Plan (ROPP) and the 2005 Provincial
Policy Statements (PPS) which were in force at the time the application was submitted.
Subject to any zoning regulations under the City's Zoning Bylaw for this property,
Regional staff acknowledges that this property is considered a legal lot of record under
the 1995 ROPP, and that the landowner may be entitled to a dwelling on the property.
Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for
Proposed Residential Development on the Schmidt Property, City of Kitchener (GWS
Ecological and Forestry Services Inc., December, 2010).
The Regional Official Policies Plan does not address this woodland specifically, but
Policy 5.4.2 would apply. This requires the Region to give consideration to:
a. the potential impact of the proposed use on the productive or potentially
productive woodlot; and
b. opportunities to restore or re-establish productive forest habitats consisting of
native species following the development of the proposed use.
The EIS speaks to the rather small portion of the wooded property that would be
affected by the application, and the average to poor quality of many of the trees.
Through good forest management, there is potential to enhance the productivity of the
woodland. These objectives can be achieved through a Conservation Easement.
The PPS would allow approval of development or site alteration which could be
demonstrated not to result in negative impacts. For the purposes of this application, the
extended definition of "adverse environmental impacts" provided in the ROPP will be
used. Of the thirteen categories of impacts listed in the definition, none of them should
be generated to a significant degree if appropriate conditions of approval are imposed.
The Regional Woodland Conservation By-law covers woodlands over one hectare in
size, and so would apply to the subject property. In addressing the construction in
woodlands of structures requiring Building permits, its intent is to minimise the number
of trees removed. With respect to the subject application, section 3(k) of the by-law
would prohibit the destruction of trees except to:
(i) erect a building, structure or thing in respect of which a building permit has been
issued by a municipality provided no tree of a protected species being injured or
destroyed is located more than ten metres from the outer edge of the building,
structure or thing;
(ii) install and provide utilities to the construction or use of the building, structure or
thing in respect of which a building permit has been issued by a municipality; or
(iii) provide a single lane driveway for vehicular access to the building, structure or
thing in respect of which a building permit has been issued by a municipality.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 54 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
3. Submission No.: A 2011-009, (Cont'd)
The proposed building envelope illustrated on Figure 7.0 of the EIS, would generally
conform to the requirement except for the extreme southern tip which appears to extend
about 14 metres from the nearest corner of the house. The rationale for such an
extension would have to be discussed with Regional staff.
The subject property lies within a Core Environmental Feature designated in the 2009
Regional Official Plan (ROP). The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) erroneously
states that the designation of the woodland as a Core Environmental Feature in the
ROP "does not, however, automatically preclude any development from this area
provided it can be demonstrated that development or site alteration will not result in an
adverse impact to this feature on[sic] its ecological functions." In fact, ROP Policy 7.C.8
would preclude the current application. The statement would be truer of Policy 2.1.4 of
the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).
In considering the application and the recommended conditions of approval which follow
below, staff has also been cognizant of the Core Environmental Features/woodland
policies of the 2009 ROP, to protect the significant woodland on the property.
If the Kitchener Committee of Adjustment approves the subject application, it is
recommended that the following be attached as conditions of approval:
1. That, prior to any tree-cutting, the footprint of the future house, driveway, and
daylighting triangle be staked on the ground to the satisfaction of the City of
Kitchener, and that prior to any subsequent tree cutting within or immediately
adjacent to this envelope, any trees to be removed or significantly pruned be
marked to the satisfaction of City and Regional staff;
2. That the removal of trees be carried out in such a manner and at such a season
of the year as to minimise damage to residual trees and other woodland flora,
and that it also be consistent with the requirements of the Migratory Birds
Convention Act;
3. That stormwater from the proposed house and driveway be managed so as to
prevent the creation of erosion rills into the residual woodland, and preferably,
that roof runoff be conveyed to a soakaway pit to the satisfaction of the City of
Kitchener;
4. That, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner salvage native plants
from the area to be cleared, graded, and/or built upon for re-location to other
appropriate localities on the subject property, or that the owner permit the City
and/or Region to salvage native plants from said area at amutually-agreed upon
time between May and early October for transplant to other appropriate natural
areas;
5. That, prior to any site alteration, erosion and sedimentation controls acceptable
to the City and Grand River Conservation Authority be installed along the limit of
the area to be disturbed, and that such controls be maintained in good order and
replaced as necessary until site restoration and landscaping are complete;
6. That, prior to final approval of the minor variance, a Conservation Easement in
favour of either the City or Region be registered on the entire subject property to
address, among other matters:
a. protection of the wetland areas, to the satisfaction of the Grand River
Conservation Authority;
b. appropriate demarcation of the building envelope within the subject
property;
c. conservation of trees and native flora and fauna on the site;
d. prohibition on introducing invasive non-indigenous plant species;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 55 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
3. Submission No.: A 2011-009, (Cont'd)
e. prohibition of fencing along the western and southern boundaries of the
property within the woodland;
f. directional lighting;
g. prohibition of further lot creation or other development.
Regional Transportation Planning staff has no concerns with this application
The Committee considered correspondence from Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated
February 2, 2011, advising that any approval of this application should include
conditions that require the applicants to make satisfactory arrangements with Hydro for
the provision of electrical servicing to this land, including granting any easements that
they may require.
Mr. Head addressed the Committee advising that this proposed development started
with a zone change application, then the possibility of an Application for Minor variance
was considered. This property is located in an Agricultural zone but is designated Low
Density Residential in the City's Official Plan and Open Space in the Community Plan,
so this proposal is consistent with the Official Plan and the Community Plan for a single
family dwelling. Mr. Head also advised that he already met with staff from the City,
Region and Grand River Conservation Authority. He suggested that City staff's
recommendation seems onerous, as the site is 13 acres in area and the applicant only
wants to build one single family dwelling which will be located in the middle of the
property and not close to any neighbours.
With respect to the City's recommended condition #5, Mr. Head requested a time limit
of 1 year rather than 1 month, as the owner has appealed the Region's Official Plan
which contains conditions respecting this property. Ms. von Westerholt agreed to this
change to condition #5.
Ms. J Meader questioned why this application is before the Committee when the
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) has not yet been approved. Ms. E. Brown
responded that the EIS has been reviewed by the City, Region and GRCA and all are
generally in agreement with it and generally in agreement with the proposed location for
the house as shown in the EIS.
The Chair questioned the need for condition 4 g) respecting directional lighting, which
will be addressed in the conservation easement agreement, noting that it should be
removed from the list of conditions.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of 845026 Ontario Limited requesting permission to construct a
single family dwelling and garage on a property having an area of 5.16 ha (12.75 ac.)
rather than the maximum permitted lot area of 1.2 ha. (3 ac.), on Part Lot 46, German
Company Tract, David Bergey Drive at Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall submit a revised Environmental Impact Statement,
incorporating the comments received by the Grand River Conservation Authority
(GRCA), the Region of Waterloo and the City of Kitchener received as part of
this application review. This revised EIS is to be submitted, to the satisfaction of
the GRCA, Region of Waterloo and City of Kitchener, no later than December
31, 2011.
2. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be
registered on title of the subject property, agreeing to complete a Tree
Preservation /Enhancement Plan prior to building permit issuance as required
by the City's Tree Management Policy (rev.2001), no later than December 31,
2011.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 56 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
3. Submission No.: A 2011-009, (Cont'd)
3. That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the single-detached dwelling,
the owner shall submit a revised site plan to the satisfaction of the GRCA,
Region of Waterloo and City of Kitchener, incorporating the approved
recommendations of the revised Environmental Impact Study and Tree Saving /
Preservation Plan noted in Conditions No.1 and 2 above.
4. That the owner shall enter into a Conservation Easement, to the satisfaction of
the City of Kitchener's Director of Planning and in consultation with both the
Region of Waterloo and GRCA, no later than December 31, 2011. This
conservation easement must address the entire subject property and must deal
with matters including, but not limited to:
a. Protection of the wetland areas identified in the revised Environmental
Impact Statement, to the satisfaction of the GRCA.
b. Appropriate demarcation of the building envelope within the subject
property, consistent with the Tree Management /Enhancement Plan and
the required revised site plan.
c. Erosion and sediment controls to be installed in advance of any site
alteration, their maintenance and replacement as necessary until site
restoration and landscaping are complete.
d. Conservation of trees and native flora and fauna on the site.
e. Prohibition of the introduction of invasive non-indigenous plant species.
Prohibition of fencing along the western and southern boundaries of the
property within the woodland.
g. Prohibition of further lot creation or other development on the subject
property.
h. Management of on-site storm water, including the use of soak-away pits
for roof runoff, as deemed acceptable by the City of Kitchener
Engineering Department and GRCA.
5. That the property owner shall request, in writing, to close file ZC08/20/O/BB no
later than one (1) year from the date of the notice of decision.
6. 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.
7. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot
Hydro Inc. for the provision of electrical servicing to the lands, including granting
them any easements they may require.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
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 57 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
4. Submission No.: A 2011-010
Applicant: Zalagenas & Ward Prof. Corp.
Property Location: 19 Wilton Place
Legal Description: Part Lot 7 North of King St and Part Lot 1, Plan 364
Appearances:
In Support: K. Murphy
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a
duplex on a property that has frontage on a laneway having a width of 6m (19.68')
rather than on a public street having a minimum width of 12.19m (40').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 7, 2011,
advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 19 Wilton Place and is
legally described as Part Lot 7 and Part Lot 1 of Registered Plan 364. The property
does not have frontage onto a public street but access over a public lane, being Wilton
Place. Registered Plan 364 shows Instrument Number 121747(2) which is a right of
way over the lands commonly known as Wilton Place.
The subject property has an area of approximately 379 square metres and is zoned
Commercial Residential (D-5) with special use provision 140U. D-5 zoning permits a
variety of commercial and residential uses, including a dwelling unit. Special use
provision 140U permits retail but only in the buildings existing on the day of the passing
of By-law Number 92-232 or in accordance with the regulations of Section 15.3 of
Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is designated as Commercial Residential in the
Downtown District in the City's Official Plan.
The applicant is seeking relief from Section 5.2 of the Zoning By-law to permit a lot with
frontage onto a public lane rather than a public street. The existing duplex dwelling was
constructed in 1922 and has been used as a duplex from 1922 until 1999. In 2005, the
building reverted back to a duplex use. The owner has obtained a Letter of Compliance
from the City's Planning Division which confirms that the duplex dwelling has lost its
legal non-conforming status, as there is no frontage onto a public street, and the duplex
use was not a continuous use since the passing of Zoning By-law 85-1 (single detached
use from 1999-2005). Previous owners have obtained minor variances approvals to
legalize the deficient yards. The owner has applied to the Committee of Adjustment to
legalize the duplex use on a public lane. There will be no additional units developed at
this property.
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 offers the following
comments.
The requested relief meets the intent of the Official Plan. The majority of buildings in
Commercial Residential Downtown District were originally single detached dwellings
and many have been converted to commercial, multiple residential, or mixed use. In
order to allow for the extension of retail use from Market Village, retail uses are also
permitted in this district either in existing buildings or buildings of a similar scale. The
Official Plan recognizes the existing built form and conservation of existing buildings.
The legalization of the duplex onto a public lane will allow for the duplex use to become
legal again.
The intent of Section 5.2 of the zoning by-law is to ensure that free and unencumbered
access is available from a public street to any lot within the City. From 1922-1999, the
existing duplex dwelling was legal and had access over a lane, being Wilton Place. The
legal non-conforming status was lost in 1999 when the building was used as a single
detached dwelling without frontage onto a street. In 2005, the building reverted back to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 58 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
4. Submission No.: A 2011-010. (Cont'dl
a duplex use with access only on a public lane. In order to establish frontage onto a
public street as per Section 5.2 of the By-law 85-1, the owner would be required to
consolidate the subject property with additional properties on Wilton Place.
Consolidation of multiple properties would likely occur when and if the area was
redeveloped comprehensively. Through the approval process of any future
development, Section 5.2 of the zoning by-law would be applicable, and frontage onto a
street would be required. It is planning staffs opinion that legalizing the existing duplex
with frontage onto a lane is not contrary with the intent of zoning by-law as staff is
recommending that only the existing duplex be legalized. Staff is recommending a
conditional approval, and if the owner wishes to expand the existing building, add
additional units, and/or receive final approval of a site plan application, frontage onto a
public a street will be required, as per Section 5.2 of the zoning by-law.
The requested variance is minor. The existing building has been used as a duplex
since it was constructed in 1922 expect for the years between 1999 and 2005. The new
Owner has applied to legalize the existing use and it not proposing any new
development. Staff are recommending a condition to legalize the existing duplex only in
it's current form, and staff are not recommending that the any future development of the
property be permitted until such time as frontage is provided on a public street.
The requested variance is appropriate to legalize the existing duplex. The duplex was
constructed in 1922 before the City of Kitchener had established a zoning by-law.
Future redevelopment of the immediate area, including the subject property, will be
required to have frontage onto a public street. It is staff's opinion that it is appropriate to
legalize the existing duplex, but not to legalize any future development of the property
without frontage onto a street.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated January 27, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Ms. Murphy clarified that the variance is for an existing duplex and not for new
construction.
Ms. von Westerholt suggested that the condition recommended in the staff report be
incorporated in the body of the decision and removed as a condition.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Zalagenas & Ward Prof. Corp. requesting legalization of an
existing duplex (in its current form as of February 15, 2011) on a property that has
frontage on a laneway having a width of 6m (19.68') rather than on a public street
having a minimum width of 12.19m (40'), on Part Lot 7 North of King St and Part Lot 1,
Plan 364, 19 Wilton Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
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 59 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
5. Submission No.: A 2011-011
Applicant: Jennifer Hennelly
Property Location: 215 Belmont Avenue West
Legal Description: Lot 30, Plan 778
Appearances:
In Support: J. Hennelly
P. Hennelly
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an
addition to the existing building, to accommodate a home business of pet grooming, to
have a 44% lot coverage rather than the permitted 25%, and permission to allow the 2
required parking spaces in the driveway, 2.7296m (8.95') from the lot line on Metzloff
Drive rather than the required 6m (19.68').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 4, 2011,
advising that the subject property is located at 215 Belmont Avenue West. The property
is zoned Existing Use Zone (E-1) with Special Regulation 409U to allow Canine and
Feline Grooming as a home business, and designated Low Rise Residential in the
City's Official Plan. The applicant is proposing an addition of approximately 44% of the
Gross Floor Area (GFA) of the existing building. As a result, the applicant is requesting
a minor variance to allow the addition to exceed the required maximum 25% of the
existing building GFA as per Section 48.3.2 of the Zoning By-law.
In addition, since the proposed addition will encroach into required a parking area, two
required legal parking spaces for the single detached dwelling (one parking space for
the residential use and one for the home business use) will have to be relocated onto
the driveway. As a result, the applicant is further requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b
i) to allow the two required parking spaces for the single detached dwelling to be located
side-by-side on the driveway and setback 2.73 metres from the streetline rather than
the required 6.0 metres. Staff advised that in order to locate both required parking
spaces side-by-side on the driveway, the existing driveway will have to be legally
widened to a maximum width of 5.2 metres as per Section 6.1.1.1 b) of the Zoning By-
law 85-1.
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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation
recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for expansions and
alternations. The intent is to accommodate a full range of housing to achieve an overall
low density and the proposed addition will be compatible. It is Planning staffs opinion
that the applicant's plans are small in scale and will be compatible with the surrounding
area.
The proposed variance for a reduction in parking setback from the streetline will be
compatible with the Low Rise Residential development of the area and will legalize the
location of two required parking spaces on the legally widened driveway.
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 only
modest increases to the building area and investment without substantially perpetuating
the life of the building. The applicant has advised that the proposed addition will
generally follow the footprint of the existing attached structure and will not dominate the
subject property. Staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 60 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
5. Submission No.: A 2011-011, (Cont'd)
By-law as the scale of the proposed additional will be compatible with the existing
development in the neighbourhood and will not significantly intensify the usability of the
site.
The requested variance for the reduced parking setback meets the intent of the Zoning
By-law as the purpose of the required 6 metre setback from the streetline is to allow an
opportunity for both required parking spaces to be located on the driveway and off the
road right-of-way. The applicant has advised that upon approval of this application, the
driveway will be legally widened to City standards in order to adequately accommodate
the two required vehicles beside each other and off of the road right-of-way.
The variance for the proposed addition is considered minor because 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 not extensively change the physical state of the
existing building nor significantly intensify the usability of the site and therefore can be
considered minor.
The requested variance for the reduced parking setback is considered minor because
both the required parking spaces parking can be accommodated on-site when the
driveway is legally widened as proposed by the applicant. The reduction in the setback
from the street line will have minimal impact to adjacent lands and overall
neighbourhood only if a maximum of two vehicles are parked side-by-side on the
driveway at any given time.
The variance for the proposed addition is appropriate for the development and use of
the land as it is compatible with the surrounding low rise residential development. The
proposed addition will generally follow the footprint of the existing attached structure
and will not dominate the subject property.
The variance for the reduced parking setback is appropriate for the development and
use of the land as it is compatible with the surrounding low rise residential development.
The requested minor variance is necessary as it will legalize the location of the required
parking spaces on the driveway.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated January 27, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority
Resource Planner, dated February 3, 2011, advising that they do not object to the
application as proposed in the circulated material. They advised that the subject
property is located within the floodplain of Schneider Creek. As such, the property is
regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference
with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses). They also advised that
they issued Permit # 636/10 for the proposed addition.
Upon questioning staff advised that the requested parking plan is to be submitted within
90 days.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Jennifer Hennelly requesting permission to construct an addition
to the existing building, to accommodate a home business of pet grooming, to have a
44% lot coverage rather than the permitted 25%, and permission to allow the 2 required
parking spaces in the driveway, 2.7296m (8.95') from the lot line on Metzloff Drive
rather than the required 6m (19.68'), on Lot 30, Plan 778, 215 Belmont Avenue West,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain Building Permit #10 109726 from the City's Building
Division for the proposed addition.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 61 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
5. Submission No.: A 2011-011, (Cont'd)
2. That the owner shall submit a scaled parking plan to the satisfaction of the
Director of Transportation Planning, within 90 days of the date of this decision.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
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
6. Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
A 2011-012
Dereck & Denise Landry
15 East Avenue
Lot 20, Part Lot 19, Plan 301
D. Landry
None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for a second
storey modification on a house having a southerly side yard of 0.5m (1.64') and a
northerly side yard of 1.14m (3.7') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 30, 2011,
advising that the subject property is located at 15 East Avenue, which is located east of
Frederick Street and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The property has a
lot width of approximately 22.3 metres along East Avenue and an area of approximately
790 square metres. The subject lands are designated Low Rise Conservation A in the
Official Plan and are zoned Residential Five (R-5) 129U (where multiple dwellings are
not allowed), in the Zoning By-law.
Relief is being sought from Section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 where the
applicant is requesting a minor variance for the reduction in side-yard setback on the
south side of the dwelling from the required 1.2 metres to 0.5 metres and a reduction in
side-yard setback on the north side of the dwelling from the required 1.2 metres to 1.14
metres for a second story modification.
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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The intent of the Low Rise
Conservation - A designation is to preserve the scale, use and intensity of existing
development. This designation is applied to those portions of the community where the
vast majority of land use is single detached dwellings The proposed variances will allow
the existing side-yard setback deficiencies to be rectified, while maintaining the scale,
use and character of the property.
The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 1.2 metres side
yard setback is to provide adequate separation from neighbouring properties and to
allow the property owner to have access to their rear yard via the side-year. It is staff's
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 62 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
6. Submission No.: A 2011-012, (Cont'd)
opinion that a setback of 1.14 metres and 0.5 metres (existing) would provide adequate
side-yard separation and minimally impact on neighbouring properties.
The variances are considered minor as there is adequate separation from the proposed
addition to abutting residential properties and as such will likely have minimal impact to
adjacent lands.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land would be
consistent with the established development within this neighbourhood and no adverse
impacts as a result of the variances are anticipated.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated January 27, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Dereck & Denise Landry requesting permission for a second
storey modification on a house having a southerly side yard of 0.5m (1.64') and a
northerly side yard of 1.14m (3.7') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'), on Lot 20, Part
Lot 19, Plan 301, 15 East Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the
following condition:
That the owners shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for
the second storey modification.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
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 No.: A 2011-013
Applicant: Judith Turek
Property Location: 9 St. Leger Street
Legal Description: Part Lot 233, Plan 374
Appearances:
In Support: J. Turek
D. Voegtle
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of a dwelling
having a front yard setback of 4.05m (13.28') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 30, 2011,
advising that the subject property is located at 9 St. Leger Street, which is located west
of Queen Street North and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The property
has a lot width of approximately 15 metres along St. Leger Street and an area of
approximately 369 square metres. The subject lands are designated Low Rise
Residential Preservation in the Civic Centre Secondary Plan and are zoned Residential
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 63 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-013. (Cont'd
Five (R-5) 127U (where dwelling type and additions are restricted), in the Zoning By-
law.
Relief is being sought from Section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 for a reduction in
front yard setback from the required 4.5 metres to 4.05 metres for a front porch roof
reconstruction.
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 variance meets the intent of the Official Plan and Secondary Plan. The subject
property is located in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District.
The intent of the Low Rise Residential Preservation designation is to retain the existing
single detached residential character of the neighbourhood and limit redevelopment.
Existing houses and streetscapes are to be preserved wherever possible. The
proposed variance for the reconstruction of the front porch will allow the existing front-
yard setback deficiency to be rectified, while maintaining the character of the
surrounding neighbourhood.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 4.5 metres front
yard setback is to provide adequate front-yard setback and separation from the street. It
is staffs opinion that a setback of 4.05 metres (existing) is consistent with the existing
homes within the area. The variance is required for the reconstruction of an existing
porch. The footprint of the porch is not proposed to change. The variance will have
minimal impact on neighbouring properties.
The variance is considered minor as there is an adequate front setback in relation to the
street. The existing setback of 4.05 metres is consistent with existing development and
character of the neighbourhood.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land and would be
consistent with the established character of the neighbourhood. No adverse impacts as
a result of the variance are anticipated.
The subject property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as it is
located within the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District. Heritage Planning staff
have reviewed Application A 2011-013 and have conducted a site visit. The new
verandah roof and second floor guard have already been constructed. As a result,
Heritage Planning staff will not require a Heritage Permit Application. Please note that
any future exterior changes may require the submission and approval of a Heritage
Permit Application prior to the commencement of work.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated January 27, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Judith Turek requesting legalization of a dwelling having a front
yard setback of 4.05m (13.28') rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'), on Part Lot 233,
Plan 374, 9 St. Leger Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain Building Permit #10 130293 from the City's Building
Division for the roof replacement.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 64 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-013, (Cont'd)
2. That prior to the issuance of Building Permit #10 130293, the owner shall provide
the City's Co-ordinator of Cultural Heritage Planning with a letter acknowledging
that any future alterations to the exterior of the structure may require a Heritage
Permit application and approval thereof prior to commencement of work.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
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
8. Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
A 2011-014
Highland Corners Shopping Centre Ltd
491 Highland Road West
Part Lot 20, Plan 1004
M. Desrosicis
None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an
addition of approximately 28.52 sq. m. (307 sq. ft.) on the rear of the plaza to have a
rear yard of Om rather than the required 1.5m (4.92').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 4, 2011,
advising that the subject property is located at the intersection of Highland Road West
and Westmount Road West and is currently developed with a small commercial plaza
and associated parking. The property is adjacent to another commercial plaza at 525
Highland Road West, which is owned by the same company. The two commercial
properties function as one, with reciprocal parking and access. The subject property is
designated Mixed Use Node in the City's Official Plan and zoned Neighbourhood
Shopping Centre (C-2) with Special Regulation 318R in the Zoning By-law.
The applicant is requesting permission to construct a small building addition to the
existing plaza to have a rear yard setback of 0 metres, rather than the required 1.5
metres. The proposed addition would have an area of 28.52 square 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.
The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Mixed
Use Node designation on the subject property supports a full range of commercial uses
intended to serve an inter-neighbourhood function and encourages intensification of
development. The proposed addition is to allow for a slightly larger unit for a personal
service use (nail salon) that has been very successful in the neighbourhood. Allowing a
small addition will implement the policies of the Mixed Use Node designation.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The
subject property is zoned Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone (C-2) with Special
Regulation 318R which allows a rear yard setback of 1.5 metres. This zoning permits
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 65
8. Submission No.: A 2011-014, (Cont'd)
FEBRUARY 15, 2011
the use of a personal service use (nail salon) and the minor reduction in rear yard
setback from 1.5 metres to 0 metres is only for a small portion of the proposed addition
due to the triangular configuration of the property. The reduced setback will not impact
any adjacent property.
The variance is minor for the following reasons. The subject plaza currently has a
surplus of parking on site, and the proposed addition will continue to maintain parking
on site beyond the minimum requirement. On the adjacent property to the south of the
proposed addition is a parking structure for an apartment building, and the property to
the west contains another commercial plaza, which is owned by the same company.
The reduced setback of 0 metres will only pertain to the most westerly corner of the
addition which can be considered minor as it will not impact the adjoining properties.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following
reasons. Both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law permit the commercial plaza and the
Official Plan encourages intensification of uses on site. By allowing the small building
addition for the existing personal service use, staff is of the opinion that a favoured
neighbourhood business will continue without the necessity of relocating to another site.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated January 27, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Highland Corners Shopping Centre Ltd. requesting permission to
construct an addition of approximately 28.52 sq. m. (307 sq. ft.) on the rear of the plaza
to have a rear yard of Om rather than the required 1.5m (4.92'), on Part Lot 20, Plan
1004, 491 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the
following condition:
The owner shall apply for and receive approval of a minor change to an
approved site plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
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
CONSENT
Submission Nos.: B 2011-018
Applicant: Heathshore Homes Limited
Property Location: 731 Huron Road
Legal Description: Lot 2, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1382
Appearances:
In Support: P. Chauvin
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 66 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Submission No.: B 2011-018. (Cont'd
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a
parcel of land having a triangular shape and having an area of 368 sq. m. (3,961.24 sq.
ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property on the corner of Maitland Street and
proposed Rochefort Street. The retained land has a width of 236m (774.27') on Huron
Road and an area of 2.6 ha. (6.42 ac. ). Both the severed and retained land will be used
for residential development.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 7, 2011,
advising that the applicant is requesting consent to sever an irregularly shaped parcel
with an area of 368 square metres near the future intersection of Maitland Street and
Rochefort Street. The retained and severed lands are zoned as Residential Three (R-3)
with holding provision 17HSR, which is a holding provision prohibiting the issuance of
any building permits until such time as there are adequate roads and services available
to the lands. The proposed severed lands will be a lot addition with the lands adjacent
to the north, being Block 3 of the draft approved plan of subdivision 30T-01201 (Stage
16 ).
The proposed lands to be severed are subject to zone change application
ZC11/01/H/APT which proposes Residential Six (R-6) zoning which is consistent with
the adjacent lands. The lot addition will allow for appropriate development fronting onto
the future extension of Maitland Street (Stage 16 of 30T-01201). The subject property
is currently developed with a single detached dwelling that is currently vacant. The
retained lands will be redeveloped under a separate subdivision application at a later
date.
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, staff is satisfied that the proposed lot addition is
desirable and appropriate. The configuration of the severed lands is suitable for the
development of the uses permitted in the zoning and any future lot fabric through
subsequent lotting plans in conjunction with the registration of Stage 16 of draft plan of
subdivision 30T-01201. Therefore, the consent is not considered to be premature or
pre-determining the outcome of future planning processes. It is the opinion of staff that
the proposed lot addition is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement issued under
subsection 3(1) of the Act, does not conflict with the Places to Grow Growth Plan for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe, and conforms to the Regional Official Plan and City of
Kitchener Official Plan.
With respect to servicing, the house on the subject lands is currently on private well and
a private septic system. The applicant has not indicated the exact location of the septic
system, but it is assumed that it is wholly located on the retained lands adjacent to the
existing dwelling. If this is not the case, the Owner will need to relocate the septic
system so that it is wholly within the retained lands, prior to final of approval of the
consent application. A condition has been included in this regard.
The subject properties are located in the City Urban Area in the current ROPP, and the
proposal conforms to the designation assigned to the lands in the City of Kitchener
Official Plan.
The proponent is advised that future severance of any blocks within the subject lands
would require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm and water, in
accordance with City policies. 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. Any redundant driveways are to be closed with new boulevard landscaping,
all to City of Kitchener standards and any new driveways are to be built to City of
Kitchener standards at grade with the sidewalk. All works are at the owner's expense
and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of any building(s).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 67 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Submission No.: B 2011-018, (Cont'd)
The subject property is listed on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings.
Heritage Planning staff have reviewed the current consent application and have no
concerns. Please note that the property will be re-evaluated through the Council
approved 4-Step Listing Process for listing non-designated property of cultural heritage
value or interest to the Municipal Heritage Register.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing &
Community Services, dated February 7, 2011, in which they advise that they have no
objections to this application.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of the Heathshore Homes Limited requesting permission to sever a
parcel of land having a triangular shape and having an area of 368 sq. m. (3,961.24 sq.
ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to Block 3 of 30T- 01201 (Stage 16), on Part Lot 2,
Registrar's Compiled Plan 1382, 731 Huron Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED,
subject to the following conditions:
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 shall submit a draft reference plan showing the boundaries of the
lands to be conveyed for approval by the City's Director of Planning.
4. a) That the lands to be severed from 731 Huron Road shall be added to the
abutting lands being Block 3 of 30T-01201 (Stage 16) and that title shall
be taken into 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 confirm in writing to the Manager of Development Review
that the existing septic system is wholly located with the retained lands.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 68 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Submission No.: B 2011-018. (Cont'd
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 February 15, 2013.
Carried
COMBINED APPLICATIONS
Submission Nos.: B 2010-046, B 2010-050 & A 2011-017
Applicant: Chris and Rochelle McNabb
Property Location: 814 Glasgow Street
Legal Description: Part Lot 33, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support: S. Patterson
E. Reimer
Contra: J. Gallivan
S. Homer
M. Kohler
D. Good
R. Repke
Written Submissions: I. Atkinson
M. & S. Kohler
J. E. Kaufman
J. & D. McKenzie
M. & O. Schmid
P. Jasper
M. & J. Kalman
A. MacLeod
G. Slinger
K. Laflamme
R. & D. Repke
G. Graham
S. Homer
J. Gallivan
J. Chapman
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create 2 new
lots for residential use and retain one residential lot. The retained land will have a width
on Glasgow Street of 15.3m (50.19') and a width on Silvercrest Drive of 53.181m
(174.47') and an area of 2,115.1 sq. m. (22,767.49 sq. ft.). New Lot B will have a width
on Glasgow Street of 25.042m (82.15'), an irregular shape and an area of 929.05 sq.
ft.). New Lot A will have a width on Glasgow Street of 34.14m (112',) a width on
Silvercrest Drive of 26.13m (85.72') and an area of 740.9 sq. m. (7,975.24 sq. ft.). Also,
permission for the area of Lot A to be 740.9 sq. m. (7,975.24 sq. ft.) rather than the
required 929 sq. m. (10,000 sq. ft.) in order to contain the private services on the
retained land.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 7, 2011,
advising that Consent Applications B2010-046 and B2010-050 were heard at the
December 14, 2010 Hearing date. These applications were deferred to the February 15
meeting to afford City staff and the applicant the opportunity to work together
concerning lot configuration and/or adjustment of severance lines to avoid the need for
an easement over proposed Lot A for maintenance in favour of the retained lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 69 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Submission Nos.: B 2010-046. B 2010-050 & A 2011-017. (Cont'd
Since the meeting, staff met with the applicant and owner on several occasions -
including an on-site meeting - to discuss the proposal in more detail. Planning staff has
also requested the assistance of the City's Urban Design staff to assess technical
aspects such as dwelling locations, grading and tree preservation and to provide an
opinion on the merits and feasibility of the proposal. Based on these discussions and
the opinion of the Urban Designer, Planning staff has a better understanding and are
more accepting of the proposal with changes to application B2010-046. As a result,
the applicant has submitted both a revised consent application and a minor variance
application for consideration.
The applicant is proposing to sever two irregular-shaped lots in the configuration shown
below in Figure 2. Lot A (B2010-046) now has a 26 metre frontage, 34 metres of depth
with an area of approximately 741 square metres. The lot area of Lot A has been
reduced in size from what was originally requested in order to eliminate the need for an
easement over Lot A. Lot B (B2010-050) has remained unchanged with a 25 metre
frontage, 50 metres of depth with an approximate area of 929 square metres. The
retained parcel has 24 metres of frontage, 65 metres of depth with an increased area of
approximately 2115 square metres. The retained parcel has increased in size as a
result of Lot A being smaller so that the well is situated on the retained lands as staff
had requested at the Hearing.
In support of the proposal, the owner has provided a sketch showing proposed building
envelopes for single detached homes in the order of 233 square metres (2508 square
feet). The owner has to demolish the existing indoor pool for Lot B to be functional and
will be required to obtain a demolition permit as a condition of approval. These building
envelopes can be accommodated on the proposed lots without the need for minor
variances for setbacks; however, a variance is required for a lot area reduction for Lot
A. This will be discussed in the Minor Variance Considerations section of this report.
Consent applications are assessed based on "good planning" principles set out in
Section 51(24) of the Planning Act. Upon further consideration based on the opinion of
the City's Urban Designer staff and consultation with the applicant, staff is willing to
conditionally support the revised consent proposal for the following reasons:
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) promotes building 'healthy, livable and safe
communities', providing an appropriate mix of different land use types, efficiently using
services and facilities, maximizing opportunities for public transit use, and promoting
intensification. Staff is of the opinion that the revised severance proposal conforms with
the PPS because it: 1. promotes intensification through infill; 2. provides for the more
efficient use of services; and 3. promotes the conservation of trees by saving as many
trees as possible. While the PPS encourages full municipal servicing and Lot A and
Lot B will be on municipal services, staff does not have the ability to mandate that the
retained lands (currently privately serviced) be serviced municipally. Staff is
encouraged by the fact that the applicant has dropped his request for a maintenance
easement over Lot A for a well that provides water to the existing home located on the
retained lands. The well will be situated entirely upon the retained lands.
According to the City's Plan for Land Use, this property is designated as "Low Rise
Residential". The intent of this designation is to encourage a variety of housing types at
a lower intensity of use. As such, the proposed use (single detached dwellings) and
density would conform to the land use designation.
Part 2, Section 1 policies of the Official Plan encourage and promote infill as a means of
better utilizing the City's infrastructure and this proposal would also help achieve that
goal. These same policies also want to ensure that infill does not have a detrimental
impact on established neighbourhoods and streetscapes. For example, Sections 1.53
and 1.6 of Part 2 require new development in established areas to be sensitive to the
scale, massing, design and character of the neighbourhood. Staff was originally of the
opinion that the lotting did not conform to the scale and character of the neighbourhood,
particularly with the large wooded lots along this section of Glasgow Street. However,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 70 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Submission Nos.: B 2010-046. B 2010-050 & A 2011-017. (Cont'd
upon further consideration and input from the City's Urban Design staff, Planning staff
concede the subject property is located at a transitional edge of smaller residential
development to the west and south and larger estate residential to the east. As a result,
the proposed lot sizes with the larger single detached dwellings would in fact provide
adequate transition and would therefore be sensitive to the scale, massing, and design
considerations of the neighbourhood.
As mentioned in the previous Planning report, the definable feature that characterizes
the Glasgow Streetscape is the amount of trees on properties and the tree canopy they
provide. Trees give the area character which help set it apart from most other areas of
the City. The lot at 814 Glasgow typifies this. Staff was concerned this proposal would
result in a significant loss of trees that would negatively affect the character of the
neighbourhood. To address this concern, the owner has prepared a tree management
plan. This plan has been most recently reviewed the by the City's Urban Design staff
and an on-site meeting was held with the owner's Landscape Architect. Trees will
undoubtedly be affected by development. Through a combination of mitigating
measures outlined as conditions of approval to be implemented through on-site best
construction practices, as well as the owners' commitment to transplant/replace trees
that will be lost, staff has a much greater degree of comfort the trees will remain as a
prominent feature and will continue to contribute to the character of the area.
According the Zoning By-law, the subject lands are zoned R-2. The proposed use of
the lots and proposed lot size of Lot B and the retained lands conform to the R-2 zoning.
Lot A is deficient in lot area as the R-2 zoning requires a minimum lot area of 929
square metres whereas Lot A is now 741 square metres. Ideally, staffs preference
would be to increase the lot size to conform but due to a combination of factors,
including the location of the existing access off Silvercrest Drive to the house, location
of the well and the grades, made it impractical to do so. As a result, application A2011-
017 has been submitted with the consent application B2010-046.
In addressing the four tests of a minor variance under the Planning Act, staff wishes to
provide the following opinion. According to the City's Official Plan for Land Use, this
property is designated as "Low Rise Residential". The intent of this designation is to
encourage a variety of housing types at a lower intensity of use. As such, the proposed
use as single detached dwellings and density would conform to the land use
designation.
The intent of the R-2 lot area zoning regulation is to ensure lot sizes are large enough to
support a home that is in keeping with surrounding context and to maintain an estate
type atmosphere. In staff's opinion, the intent of the zoning is being maintained and the
variance is considered minor for the following reasons. The applicant has submitted a
sketch in support of the application showing that Lot A can support a larger single
detached dwelling in the 2500 square foot range without the need for setback
variances. Plus the retention of trees in combination with wrought iron or similar type
fencing will assist in maintaining an estate type atmosphere. Lot A is situated at the
corner of Silvercrest Drive and Glasgow Street with smaller single detached lots directly
across. As a result, in the opinion of staff, Lot A provides for a transition in lot sizes
from smaller lots to the west to the large estate lots to the east.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following
reasons. The applicant has successfully demonstrated that Lot A can support a single
detached dwelling for a use that is permitted under the zoning. Originally, the lot area of
Lot A conformed to the zoning but an easement was required over it in favour of the
retained lands for the location of the well. This was not good planning in the opinion of
staff, and in turn, the applicant was requested to re-configure Lot A without the
easement. Several attempts were made to re-configure Lot A so that the lot area
conformed but due to the location of the existing driveway access to home on the
retained lands, the location of the well plus the existing grades made it impractical to do
so.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 71 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Submission Nos.: B 2010-046. B 2010-050 & A 2011-017. (Cont'd
Mr. Sandro Basanese, Urban Designer, met with Mr. Scott Henderson, Landscape
Architect, on site and reviewed the existing vegetation as well as topography. The
implementation of both of these units will be challenging in regards to maximizing tree
preservation and accommodating grading and drainage on site. Mr. Basanese is of the
opinion that as part of the severance process conditions should be put in place to
ensure that the above noted items are addressed. He would also request additional
conditions including, building elevations, tree management plan and a landscape plan
all of which would deal with the proposal in relation to the adjacent properties and
surrounding context. He would suggest that these items are made a condition of
severance and that no grading tree removal or building permits are released until all the
severance conditions are approved by the appropriate City staff. This will ensure that
the site can in fact be built and function correctly with minimal impacts to the
surrounding neighbourhood.
The City's Engineering Services offers the following comments:
Severance: The proponent is advised that future severance of any blocks within the
subject lands would require separate, individual service connections for sanitary and
water, in accordance with City policies.
Servicing: 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, all prior to site
plan approval. Our records indicate municipal water services are currently available to
service this property. The sanitary sewers must be extended down Glasgow St for a
connection.
Servicing: The sanitary sewer is required to be extended in order to achieve a positive
outlet for the site at the owner's sole expense and to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Division prior to site plan approval.
Driveways: Any redundant driveways are to be closed with new curb and gutter and
boulevard landscaping, all to City of Kitchener standards and any new driveways are to
be built to City of Kitchener standards at grade with the existing sidewalk. All works is at
the owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the
building.
Park dedication is required for the two new lots. Based on the land use appraisal which
is Street Fronting Residential [$9,200 per metre] the dedication is for Lot A is.$ 9,476.00
and for Lot B is $10,414.00 for a total dedication of $ 19,890.00.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing &
Community Services, dated February 7, 2011, in which they advise that due to existing
traffic volumes on Fisher Hallman Road (Regional Road No. 58) and Glasgow Street,
the owner/applicant shall prepare a Transportation Noise Study to indicate the methods
to be used to abate noise levels for the severed parcels. If necessary, shall enter into a
registered development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to
provide for the implementation of the approved study.
Because a residence exists on the retained parcel, in lieu of a Transportation Noise
Study, a noise warning clause is required to advise future purchasers that sounds levels
from Fisher Hallman Road (Regional Road No. 58) and Glasgow Street exceed
Regional Noise Level Objectives.
Prior to final approval, the owner/applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the retained parcel to include the following noise
warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements:
"Due to the proximity to Fisher Hallman Road (Regional Road No. 58) and Glasgow
Street, projected noise levels on this property may exceed the noise level objectives
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 72 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Submission Nos.: B 2010-046. B 2010-050 & A 2011-017. (Cont'd
approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some
individuals".
In summary, the Region has no objections to this application, subject to the following
conditions:
That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant shall prepare a Transportation
Noise Study for the severed parcels, to the satisfaction of the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo, to indicate to the Region methods to be use to abate
traffic noise levels from Fisher Hallman Road (Regional Road No. 58) and
Glasgow Street. If necessary, the owner/applicant shall enter into a registered
development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide for
the implementation of the approved noise study attenuation measures;
2. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant shall enter into an agreement
with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the retained parcel to include the
following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental
agreements:
"Due to the proximity to Fisher Hallman Road (Regional Road No. 58) and
Glasgow Street projected noise levels on this property may exceed the noise
level objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may
cause concern to some individuals";
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated January 27, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered correspondence from Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated
February 2, 2011, advising that any approval of this application should include
conditions that require the applicants to make satisfactory arrangements with Hydro for
the provision of electrical servicing to this land, including granting any easements that
they may require.
The committee considered the written submissions from neighbourhood residents in
opposition to these applications.
Mr. Patterson addressed the Committee advising that he was before this Committee
regarding this proposed development on December 14, 2010. Since that time, as
directed by this Committee, he has worked with staff both in the office and on site. He
advised that he has reviewed the staff report and is generally in agreement with it;
however, he requested that the dollar figure in staff recommended condition no. 3 be
removed. Mr. Patterson also advised that he read several of the written submissions
from neighbours; however, he agrees with staff and noted that the proposal meets the
requirements of the Official Plan and the zoning by-law except for the lot area of one of
the proposed lots. He also noted that even if this Committee approves these
applications, there are many other approvals still required.
Mr. Patterson submitted a floor plan for the building to be constructed on Lot A, stating
that it matches the building envelope shown on the submitted site plan. In response to a
question from Mr. Good, Mr. Basanese advised that grading and tree management
plans will be required. Some of the trees will have to be removed and the preservation
of trees at the street will be maximized.
Mr. Good than questioned if the house to be built on Lot B will be 2 storeys in height
and level with the street. Mr. Patterson advised that the owners have not decided what
is to be built on Lot B. Mr. Good then expressed his concerns that these houses will
only be 4.5m from Glasgow Street, which does not conform to the setbacks on the rest
of the street. Further, the distance between the 2 homes will only be 2m. He stated
that this is a one of a kind neighbourhood and this proposed development will drive up
property taxes. Mr. Good then stated that this development is being driven by
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 73 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Submission Nos.: B 2010-046. B 2010-050 & A 2011-017. (Cont'd
personal profit because the owner is a builder and he does not care about what he is
doing to the lot or to the neighbourhood.
Mr. M. Kohler next addressed the Committee advising that he will speak on his own
behalf and on behalf of Mr. Kaufman who could not attend this meeting. He stated that
the proposed development is not in character with its surrounding. He disagreed that
the property is in transition; the transition zone is outside of this neighbourhood which
has a park like setting. Mr. Kohler then referred to 728 Glasgow Street, stating that the
severance which took place on that property seems to have set a precedent; and,
although they have done a nice job on the landscaping, it is not similar to the other
properties on the street.
Mr. Kohler then remarked on a statement in the staff report that this property is in
proximity to smaller lots across Glasgow Street. He asked the Committee to disregard
this comment, noting that Mr. Good's property has an area of 2034 sq. m. and his
neighbour's lot has an area of 2185 sq. m. Further, he stated that in general,
undersized lots are a concern and are not in the spirit of the character of the
neighbourhood. He stated the position that the lot sizes permitted by the zoning by-law
are too small.
Mr. Kohler stated that Lot B is a triangular shaped lot which will require the house to be
close to the street, the retained lot will be at quite a different grade from Lots A and B
and this proposal is creating a hodge podge of carved up lots. With respect to the
Provincial Policy Statement, Mr. Kohler acknowledged that land in this region is scarce
but the neighbours do not want small lots on Glasgow Street; further, infill does not have
to take place in every area of the City. He suggested a compromise which would be to
remove the existing house and divide the property into 2 lots facing Silver Crest.
Ms. Meader questioned Mr. Patterson about the suggestion for 2 lots and he responded
that such a proposal has been discussed; however, the existing house has intrinsic
value and to tear it down would be a shame. Further, he can only speak to planning
considerations.
Ms. S. Homer addressed the Committee stating that this is part of Old Westmount and
recent development is breaking up this area. She questioned where in Forest Height or
anywhere else do you see a house being built behind another.
The Chair then questioned whether comments are available from Heritage staff; as he
wants a general opinion as to whether there is heritage value in this area. He also
questioned whether there is consideration being given to tabling this area as a heritage
district in the near future.
Ms. von Westerholt advised that Heritage Planning staff are aware of this proposal and
have not provided any comments on them. She also advised that a heritage district in
this area has been discussed; however, she had no idea if it will be in the near or distant
future.
The Chair then advised that as a Committee we must deal with the guidelines in place
and what we have at hand. If this area was a Heritage District the conversation would
be much different.
Mr. Kohler then stated that there are a couple of regulations but a lot of grey area. The
proposal must be "in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood" is one of them;
however, this proposal harms the streetscape and the existing house.
Mr. Patterson stated that he understands the neighbours' concerns; however, the
abutting neighbours to the east and west of the subject property are not in attendance
at this meeting and their privacy will not be affected. Mr. Good responded that those
neighbours live in Toronto and their house is generally empty. Mr. Kohler disagreed
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 74 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Submission Nos.: B 2010-046, B 2010-050 & A 2011-017, (Cont'd)
with Mr. Patterson's comments stating that the proposal is impacting the neighbours
who are in attendance.
Mr. Lise commented that this lot does not have to be built out and infill could be a
condominium downtown. Mr. Bateman responded stating that it is clear that the Official
Plan does support in-fill in this area. Mr. Lise then stated that the spirit and character of
the neighbourhood is one of the criteria to be considered. Mr. Basanese questioned
how to define "neighbourhood". He asked the Committee to look at the site in light of
silver Crest and Westwood Drive, also stating that staff believes this to be a transition
area.
Mr. Lise stated that in December 2010, staff was opposed to these applications
because of lot sizes and private services. Mr. Bateman responded that staff is now to
the opinion that these applications can go forward with a lot of costly conditions.
Further, there are ways of mitigating the development to fit in with the rest of the street.
Mr. Gallivan addressed the Committee stating that the proposed lot sizes are not in
keeping with properties in the neighbourhood; they may meet the letter of the law but
not the spirit of the neighbourhood. Once the lots are established, there is no turning
back. He stated that creating 2 lots would be a reasonable proposal and that 3 lots will
have a dynamic impact.
Ms. J. Meader moved approval of these applications subject to all the conditions
requested by the public agencies.
The Chair stated his opinion that having 3 lots on the parcel of land is over
intensification; although technically they meet all requirements, it is not in conformity
with the neighbourhood. He stated that he could not support the motion. Mr. Lise also
spoke against the motion.
Mr. Lise then put forward a motion to refuse these applications which was voted on and
carried with Ms. Meader voting in opposition.
Submission No. A 2011-017
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Chris and Rochelle McNabb requesting permission for a lot area
of 740.9 sq. m. (7,975.24 sq. ft.) rather than the required 929 sq. m. (10,000 sq. ft.), for
the land to be severed in B 2010-046, on Part Lot 33, German Company Tract, 814
Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that this application is not desirable for the
appropriate development of the property.
Carried
Submission No. B 2010-046
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Chris and Rochelle McNabb requesting permission to sever a
parcel of land having a width on Glasgow Street of 34.14m (112',) a width on Silvercrest
Drive of 26.13m (85.72') and an area of 740.9 sq. m. (7,975.24 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 33,
German Company Tract, 814 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 75 FEBRUARY 15, 2011
1. Submission Nos.: B 201
B 2010-050 & A 2011-017. (Cont'd
It is the opinion of this Committee that the lot to be created through this application is
not appropriate development:
a) it does not conform to adjacent development,
b) the dimensions and shape of the proposed lot is not appropriate and,
c) the need to conserve natural resources (trees) has not been adequately
addressed.
Carried
Submission No. B 2010-050
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Chris and Rochelle McNabb requesting permission to sever a
parcel of land having a width on Glasgow Street of 25.042m (82.15'), an irregular shape
and an area of 929.05 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 33, German Company Tract, 814 Glasgow
Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that the lot to be created through this application is
not appropriate development:
a) it does not conform to adjacent development,
b) the dimensions and shape of the proposed lot is not appropriate and,
c) the need to conserve natural resources (trees) has not been adequately
addressed.
Carried
2. Submission Nos.: B 2011-019, B 2011-020 & B 2011-021
and A 2011-015 & A 2011-016
Applicant: Pilgrim Evangelical Lutheran Church
Property Location: 206 & 210 Duke Street East and
46 & 50 Madison Avenue North
Legal Description: Part Lot 2, Plan 370, Part Lot 25, Plan 369
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Written Submissions: A. Head
At the request of the applicant's agent, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of
these applications to its meeting scheduled for Tuesday March 15, 2011.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th day of February, 2011.
Dianne H. Gilchrist
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment