The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAdjustment - 2011-01-18 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 18, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. J. Meader and Messrs. A. Head and B. McColl OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. B. Bateman, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Mr. D. Seller, Traffic Technologist, Ms. A. Buitenhuis, Student Planner, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer, Ms. M. Burleanu, Administrative Clerk and Ms. D. Saunderson, Administrative Clerk Mr. A. Head, Vice Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:06 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of December 14, 2010, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS Submission Nos.: 1. B 2010-048 Applicant: Ricenberg Developments Limited & Hightree Developments Limited Property Location: Ottawa Street North / Lackner Boulevard Legal Description: Part Lot 120, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: A. Allendorf At the request of the applicant, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for Tuesday May 17, 2011. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1. A 2011–001 Applicant: Efrem Usdenski & Naum Epshteyn Property Location: 57 Doon Valley Drive Legal Description: Part of Biehn’s Unnumbered Tract, being Part 3, Plan 58R-11004 Appearances: In Support: E. Usdenski N. Epshteyn COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 2 1.Submission No.: A 2011–001 (Cont’d) Contra: J. Oleskevich R. Szydlowski Written Submissions: None Mr. B. McColl advises that he is familiar with this property and has friends who live in the area but he does not have a pecuniary interest in this application. The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate 2 parking spaces for a duplex in the existing driveway, to be located 2.19m (7.18’) from the lot line along Doon Valley Drive rather than the required 6m (19.68’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 7, 2011, advising that the subject property is a semi-detached duplex residential unit located at 57 Doon Valley Drive is zoned Residential Five (R-5) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The applicant has illegally converted the garage of the semi-detached duplex dwelling into habitable space. As a result, one legal parking space for the semi-detached duplex dwelling will have to be relocated onto the driveway. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By-law to allow only two required parking spaces for a duplex to be located side-by-side on the driveway and setback 2.19 metres from the streetline, rather than having one required parking space setback less than 6.0 metres from the streetline. City By-law Enforcement staff have been involved with the subject property due to a number of Municipal By-law violations such as the illegal conversion of the garage to living space and the illegal parking situation that currently exists on site. The tenants residing at the subject property do not have sufficient parking spaces for each of their vehicles and are therefore parking on the lawn, on adjacent properties and on the City’s right-of-way. The changes made at this property are not keeping with the downsizing or the limitation of bedrooms created in the Lower Doon By-law. As a result, City By-law Enforcement staff does not support the proposed variance. Planning staff are willing to support the requested variance on the basis that the two required parking spaces (one for each duplex unit) can be accommodated side-by-side on the existing legally widened driveway. Since the length of the driveway is only 7.69 metres, the parking of additional vehicles (more than two) in tandem will not be supported by City staff as they will encroach onto the City right-of-way. When City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on November 2, 2010 which shows the current situation where more than the allowed number of vehicles are illegally parked on the driveway and as a result, encroach onto City property. City By- law Enforcement and Planning staff has advised the applicant that a maximum of two vehicles will be allowed to park side-by-side on the widened driveway as per the requirements of the Zoning By-law. Further violations of the Municipal By-law will be dealt with through City By-law Enforcement protocol. 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 which encourages a range of uses and favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The proposed variance will be compatible with the Low Rise Residential development of the area and will legalize the location of only two required parking spaces on the driveway. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of the required 6 metre setback from the street line is to allow an opportunity for both required parking COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 3 1.Submission No.: A 2011–001 (Cont’d) spaces to be located on the driveway and off of the road right-of-way. Although the driveway on the subject property is not long enough to accommodate the two required parking spaces to be located in tandem, staff is of the opinion that since the driveway has been legally widened, it can adequately accommodate the two required vehicles beside each other and off of the road right-of-way. The variance is considered minor because both the required parking spaces parking can still be accommodated on-site. The reduction in the setback from the street line will have minimal impact to adjacent lands and overall neighbourhood only if a maximum of two vehicles are parked side-by-side on the driveway at any given time. The variance 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 December 29, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff has been working with the applicant, who has been advised that only 2 parking spaces will be permitted in the driveway. Mr. McColl stated that this is a complicated issue throughout the area; noting that a look at the aerial photograph of the area shows the problem of many parked cars. Ms. Von Westerholt advised that By-law Enforcement staff is well aware of the parking problem and they will police the area. Mr. Usdenski advised that this situation occurs throughout this area and he is trying to legalize his second parking space. When questioned by the Committee about the necessary building permit, Mr. Usdenski responded that he will get one as soon as possible. Ms. Meader noted that there is extra illegal parking on the next door property and Ms. Von Westerholt advised that she is not aware of what By-law Enforcement is doing at that property but they are able to ticket those cars. Further, this applicant has submitted this application because someone complained. Ms. Meader moved the recommendation contained in the staff report. Mr. McColl raised concerns about problems accessing the front door but noted that it will be the responsibility of By-law Enforcement to take care of that. Mr. McColl then seconded Ms. Meader’s motion. Mr. Szydlowski stated that the properties at 53-59 Doon Valley Drive have between 18 and 20 cars parked there at any one time. He stated that unfortunately this Committee is only dealing with one of those properties. He stated that there must be a stricter application of the by-laws; as the whole area is becoming unmanageable. Ms. Oleskevich stated that the problem with 57 Doon Valley Drive is its width. This property is asking for 2 parking spaces and #59 has 3 cars; further, many times there are 24 cars parked across 4 properties. She advised that that morning, there were cars parked on the front lawn and across the end of the driveway. Ms. Oleskevich also advised that she understands that By-law Enforcement polices the parking; however, the officer can not be there all the time. Mr. McColl suggested that they work with their neighbourhood association or with their new ward Councillor. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. B. McColl COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 4 1.Submission No.: A 2011–001 (Cont’d) That the application of Efrem Usdenski & Naum Epshteyn requesting permission to locate 2 parking spaces for a duplex in the existing driveway, to be located 2.19m (7.18’) from the lot line along Doon Valley Drive rather than the required 6m (19.68’), on Part of Biehn’s Unnumbered Tract, being Part 3, Plan 58R-11004, 57 Doon Valley BE APPROVED, Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the applicant shall obtain a Building Permit from the City’s Building Division for the conversion of the garage to living space. 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 Submission No.: 2. A 2011–002 Applicant: 1175109 Ontario Limited Property Location: 65 Waterloo Street Legal Description: Lot 28, Plan 376 Appearances: In Support: C. Baker Contra: B. Masyk R. Masyk K. Lippert Written Submissions: Neighbourhood Petition D. Pellerin The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a triplex (multiple dwelling) on a lot having a width of 12.4m (40.68’) rather than the required 15m (49.21’), an area of 337 sq. m. (3627.55 sq. ft.), and to have a front yard setback of 3m (9.84’) rather than the required 6m (19.68’) The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 10, 2011, advising that the applicant is requesting relief from section 39.2.4 of the Zoning By-law to allow a lot area of 337.0 square metres for a multiple dwelling whereas 495.0 square metres is required, relief from section 39.2.4 of the Zoning By-law to allow a lot width of 12.4 metres for a multiple dwelling whereas 15.0 metres is required, and relief from section 39.2.4 of the Zoning By-law to allow a front yard setback of 3.0 metres for a multiple dwelling whereas 6.0 metres is required. The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and zoned Residential Five (R-5) in the City’s Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is currently developed as a single detached dwelling fronting onto Waterloo Street with a driveway access from the adjacent municipal laneway. The lot features 12.4 metres of frontage along Waterloo Street and a depth of 27.1 metres and a lot area of 337.0 square metres. The owner is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and rebuild a new three unit multiple dwelling on the subject property. Multiple dwellings with a maximum of three units are a permitted use in the R-5 zone, are subject to full site plan approval, and require a City-issued Occupancy Permit prior to occupancy. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 5 2.Submission No.: A 2011–002 (Cont’d) 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 variances for the lot area, lot width, and the front yard setback meet the intent of the Official Plan. Low Rise Residential districts allow for a variety of low density residential uses, including multiple dwellings where permitted by the Zoning By- law. The Official Plan outlines criteria for consideration when a minor variance is requested for infill development. The compatibility of the massing and scale of the proposed building as well as compatibility of the streetscape is encouraged for new infill residential developments within existing neighbourhoods. The requested reduction in the lot area and lot width recognizes the existing lot dimensions in the area. The requested front yard setback of 3.0 metres will maintain and enhance the existing streetscape along the subject block of Waterloo Street, ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with the existing streetscape and existing built form. The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the front yard setback is to maintain a consistent setback along the street. The requested 3.0 metre front yard setback will allow for the proposed development to feature the same front yard setback as the existing building, which is consistent with the other buildings along this block of Waterloo Street. The requested lot width and area variances also meet the intent of the Zoning By-law as the intent of the lot regulations for multiple dwellings is to ensure that a property will be large enough to accommodate all of the required physical features associated with a multiple dwelling development including off- street parking, garbage and recycling facilities, amenity area, and landscaped areas. The owner is proposing a three unit multiple dwelling and has provided a draft drawing with their application. As multiple dwellings are subject to full site plan approval and subject to the policies of the City’s Urban Design Manual, Planning staff will ensure that all required features associated with the proposed future development will be accommodated on site in accordance to all City policies. The requested variances are minor because the development of the property with a three unit multiple dwelling is permitted by the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The variances are requested in order to accommodate a new built form and to ensure compatibility of the proposed development within an existing neighbourhood on an existing lot. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land because with the requested variance, the existing lot can appropriately accommodate the proposed new development. The redevelopment of the subject property is an infill and intensification opportunity, where new investment is introduced into an existing stable residential neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated December 29, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the petition submitted by neighbourhood residents in opposition to this application and a written submission in support of this application. Ms. Baker advised the Committee that she is in support of the staff recommendation. She also advised that a triplex is a permitted use on this property and that the setback from the street is in line with other buildings in this area. Mr. McColl referred to the comments in the staff report respecting the massing and scale of the building. He advised of his concerns respecting the streetscape and compatibility as the building shown in the elevation drawings is different than the 2 storey homes in this area. Ms. von Westerholt advised that this development is subject to site plan control and the concerns of this Committee can be brought forward at the site plan stage. The owner COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 6 2.Submission No.: A 2011–002 (Cont’d) can look at alternatives for this building and bring it more into conformity with the neighbouringbuildings. Mr. R. Masyk advised of his concern about how many cars will park on the laneway. He stated that his property boarders the laneway and the laneway allows access to other properties on Louisa Street and Wellington Street. The Chair explained that this property will not be using the laneway for parking but will be using it to gain access to their parking lot. Mr. Masyk stated that all the people on the laneway should have been provided with notice of this application as they will all be affected. Mr. Masyk was advised that the required Notice of Hearing was published in the Record and a courtesy notice was mailed to all property owners within 30m of the subject property but he was not satisfied that everyone who owns property on the laneway was given the notice they should have received. Mr. Masyk also stated that no one on the committee has taken a look at the laneway; and, the Committee is going to affect the people on the laneway. He stated that before consideration of this application is continued the Committee should know how many people are affected by this application. Ms. B. Masyk addressed the Committee advising that she is an abutting neighbour and stating her concerns: her fence is on her property and not on the neighobur’s property; property values; will construction affect her foundation; and, potential drainage problems from a flat roof. The Chair recommended that Ms. Masyk take photographs of her house and contact the City’s Building Division to see what can be done to protect her property. Ms. Meader questioned whether the neighbours can be involved in the architecture of this building. Ms. von Westerholt advised that neighbours are not normally involved; as it gives them a false impression that they can appeal where there is no appeal process. Mr. McColl questioned whether there is any opportunity to make the architectural features more compatible with the existing buildings and Ms. Baker advised that she will ask her client. Mr. McColl then stated that this proposal is a good use of land. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 1175109 Ontario Limited requesting permission to construct a triplex (multiple dwelling) on a lot having a width of 12.4m (40.68’) rather than the required 15m (49.21’), an area of 337 sq. m. (3627.55 sq. ft.), and to have a front yard setback of 3m (9.84’) rather than the required 6m (19.68’), on Lot 28, Plan 376, 65 BE APPROVED, Waterloo Street, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall receive final Site Plan Approval for the proposed three unit multiple dwelling, largely in keeping with the drawing prepared by the GSP Group, dated December 2, 2010 and attached to minor variance application form A2011-002, dated December 8, 2010. 2. That the owner shall submit for approval, building elevations to the satisfaction of the Supervisor of Site Plan Development, and that the required Section 41 Development Agreement shall include conditions to ensure the approved elevation drawings are implemented. 3. That the owner shall obtain an Occupancy Certificate from the Planning Division for the three unit multiple dwelling prior to it being occupied. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 7 2.Submission No.: A 2011–002 (Cont’d) 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 Submission No.: 3. A 2011-003 Applicant: 1175109 Ontario Limited Property Location: 321-323 Duke Street West Legal Description: Part Lot 73, Plan 376 Appearances: In Support: C. Baker Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate 2 parking spaces in the front yard whereas, parking is not permitted in the front yard; and, to allow front yard parking to be located 1.5m (4.92’) front the front lot line along Duke Street West rather than the required 3m (9.84’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 10, 2011, advising that the subject property is located on Duke Street West, between Wellington Street North and Breithaupt Street and is legally described as Part 1, Plan of Part of Lots 73 and 146, Registered Plan 376. The subject parcel is occupied by a two storey building with a detached garage, and for many years a bicycle shop operated on the premises. Staff has visited the site on several occasions in the latter months of 2010, as it was also the subject of a Pre-Submission Consultation review. The applicant is looking to redevelop the site by converting the interior space to three (3) residential units within the existing building footprint. A Pre-Submission Consultation meeting was held with staff in October 2010. As the existing building was constructed before October 11, 1994, the building setbacks, minimum lot width and floor space ratio are deemed to comply. The applicant is requesting permission to allow two (2) parking spaces in the front yard of the subject site, whereas Section 6.1.1.1.d(i) of the Zoning By-law prohibits the required off-street parking for a multiple dwelling from being located within the front yard. The applicant has also requested permission to allow a setback for a required off- street parking space from the front property line (street line) of 1.5 metres instead of the 3.0 metre setback required by Section 6.1.1.1.a(iv) the Zoning By-law. The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) in By-law 85-1. The applicant’s proposal to convert the internal space of the building into three (3) residential units means that three (3) off- street parking spaces must be provided on site. One space is proposed to be located within an existing detached garage at the rear of the property with access off the laneway. The other two spaces are proposed to be located at the front of the building. The area at the front of the building appears to have been used as a parking area for years, with paving covering the entire front yard and extending to the public sidewalk along Duke Street. The applicant is proposing to remove most of this asphalt, creating COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 8 3.Submission No.: A 2011-003 (Cont’d) a green space between the parking area and the sidewalk. This includes 1.5 metres of green space between the parking area and the front property line, and approximately four (4) metres between the front property line and the public sidewalk. Access to the two parking spaces at the front of the property is proposed to be off of the laneway. With regards to the variance 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 would permit the conversion of the existing building to add three residential units, and as Site Plan Approval is required for the conversion, a number of upgrades are likely to be made to the landscaping and general appearance of the property. The use falls within the parameters of the Low Rise Residential designation, and given the proximity of the property to the downtown core and other resources (transit, community centre, schools and churches), staff does not feel that subtle intensification such as this is out of order. Staff feels that the proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan as it does not affect the subject property’s compliance to its designation as Low Rise Residential. Given the size of the subject property and the location of the existing building, there are very few options for the provision of off-street parking for any uses on the property. At this time, nearly all of the front yard is paved, as well as the section of the public right-of- way up to the public sidewalk on Duke Street, and is used for parking. The applicant is proposing to remove a great deal of this asphalt, restoring landscaping to provide a 1.5 metre setback between the parking area and front property line. The intent of the 3.0 metre setback requirement for parking from the street line is to allow for a buffer between the parking area and the sidewalk / right-of-way. While the applicant is not able to provide the full 3.0 metres due to space constraints on the site, their proposal is an improvement from the existing conditions. Therefore, staff feels that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. Staff is of the opinion that the variance is minor because it is assumed that the physical and visual impact of the requested change will be negligent. The affect of the proposal would be to permit the primary “required” parking space to be located 1.5 metres from the property line which, when combined with the distance between the property line and public sidewalk, would result in a setback of approximately 5.5 metres between the sidewalk and the parking space closest to the street. Even if Duke Street was widened and the sidewalk was brought closer to the property line, there would still be space remaining for a buffer between the parking and the sidewalk, which is an improvement over existing conditions on site. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land, as it allows for the conversion of the site to be utilized as a multiple dwelling, which is permitted by the current zoning. Improvements proposed to be made through Site Plan Approval will include the removal of a majority of the existing asphalt in the front yard and new landscaping in the front yard and public right-of-way, which will be an improvement over the current parking arrangement on the site. The subject property is 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, and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) and Places to Grow. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated December 29, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Ms. C. Baker advised that she agrees with the staff recommendation. She clarified that there are already 2 units in this building and the owner is adding 1 more unit. In response to a question from the Committee, Ms. Baker advised that they will be making improvements to the front of the building. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 9 3.Submission No.: A 2011-003 (Cont’d) Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 1175109 Ontario Limited requesting permission to locate 2 parking spaces in the front yard whereas, parking is not permitted in the front yard; and, to allow front yard parking to be located 1.5m (4.92’) front the front lot line along Duke Street West rather than the required 3m (9.84’), on Part Lot 73, Plan 376, 321-323 Duke BE APPROVED Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owners shall receive final site plan approval for the conversion of the structure to a multiple dwelling with three units, which will include the approval of a Landscape Plan. 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 Submission No.: 4. A 2011–004 Applicant: Christina Fiorenza Property Location: 744 Glasgow Street Legal Description: Part Lot 33, Germany Company Tract Appearances: In Support: W. Dahms Contra: None Written Submissions: A. MacLeod The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a new single family swelling with a height at the centre of the building to be 12.5m (41’) rather than the permitted 10.5m (34.44’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 7, 2011, advising that the subject property located at 744 Glasgow Street is zoned Residential Two (R-2) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated as Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The applicant intends to demolish the existing dwelling entirely and replace it with a new single detached residential dwelling. The new dwelling is proposed to have an overall building height of 12.5 metres. The maximum building height allowed under the current zoning is 10.5 metres. As a result, relief is being sought from Section 36.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow the new residential dwelling to have a building height of 12.5 metre rather than the required maximum building height of 10.5 metre. Staff advises the applicant that Demolition Control Approval from City Council will be required prior to the issuance of a Demolition Permit to demolish the existing residential dwelling, as well as a Building Permit for the proposed new residential dwelling. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 10 4.Submission No.: A 2011–004 (Cont’d) The proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and does not allow any residential building to exceed three stories in height. The applicant has advised that the purpose of increasing the existing height of the roof by 2 metres is for aesthetic reasons only. The building will not exceed three storeys in height as a result of the proposed development and therefore is consistent with the Low Rise Residential designation. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 10.5 metre maximum building height is to maintain low rise residential developments which do not exceed three storeys in height. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed additional 2 metre increase in height will continue to maintain the current aesthetics of the neighbourhood and will further enhance the architectural features of the newly proposed residential dwelling. The proposed variance is minor when considering the overall size of the existing residential dwelling. The 2 metre increase in height will compliment the appearance of the proposed dwelling and the stepped roof design will likely have no impact to adjacent lands due to the sufficient separation distance between abutting residential properties. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the increase in height of the roof will align with and mirror the current aesthetics of the surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated December 29, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the written submission from the neighbour in support of this application. Mr. Dahms advised that he agrees with staff’s conclusion. Ms. von Westerholt responded to questions from the Committee concerning tree preservation, noting that according to the plans, 3 trees are to be removed; however, the owner will be adding more trees. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Christina Fiorenza requesting permission to construct a new single family dwelling with a height at the centre of the building to be 12.5m (41’) rather than the permitted 10.5m (34.44’), on Part Lot 33, Germany Company Tract, 744 BE APPROVED Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall submit elevation drawings, similar to that submitted with this minor variance application, to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning, prior to the approval of a building permit for the new residential dwelling. 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 11 Submission No.: 5. A 2011–005 Applicant: Howard & Beatrice Mutrie Property Location: 916 Keewatin Place Legal Description: Lot 45, Plan 1829 Appearances: In Support: S. Sawatzky Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a sunroom addition on the rear of the existing house to have a rear yard of 5.12m (16.79’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 6, 2011, advising that the subject property is located at 916 Keewatin Place, which is located east of Lackner Boulevard and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The property has a lot width of approximately 15.3 metres along Keewatin Place and an area of approximately 630 square metres. The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and are zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the Zoning By- law. Relief is being sought from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 where the applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 5.12 metres to allow for the construction of a sunroom in the rear yard. 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. The intent of this designation is to accommodate a full range of housing types to achieve an overall low density. The proposed variance will allow the construction of the sunroom, while maintaining the low density character of the property. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 7.5 metres rear yard setback is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is staff’s opinion that a setback of 5.12 metres would continue to allow outdoor amenity space to be provided and the impact on neighbouring properties is minimal. The variance is 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 as the proposed configuration of the sunroom on the lot would be consistent with the established development within this neighbourhood and no adverse impacts as a result of this variance are anticipated. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated December 29, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. B. McColl COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 12 5.Submission No.: A 2011–005 (Cont’d) That the application of Howard & Beatrice Mutrie requesting permission to construct a sunroom addition on the rear of the existing house to have a rear yard of 5.12m (16.79’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6’), on Lot 45, Plan 1829, 916 Keewatin Place, BE APPROVED Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. The owner shall obtained a building permit from the City’s Building Division for the sunroom addition. 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 Submission No.: 6. 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. Green B. Flewwelling M. Elliott P. Snyder Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide 9 parking spaces for a multi-use building rather than the required 32 parking spaces, to locate parking 0m from the front lot line along Ahrens Street rather than the required 3m (9.84’), to allow vehicles to exit these parking spaces in a rearward motion rather than the required forward motion; and, to provide no loading space for this building rather than the required 1 loading space. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated , January 11, 2011 advising that 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 nearly completely covered by buildings. Staff understands that site has previously been used for plumbing wholesale, warehousing and accessory office. The new owner would like to renovate and convert the building into 8 separate office and warehouse spaces. The building has a total gross floor area of about 1578m2. The building occupies nearly the entire site, and the north portion of the building encroaches into the railway corridor. Staff understands that the owner has entered into an agreement with the railway company for this encroachment and for use of the triangle of lands located just east of the building. However, the owner is proposing to demolish a portion of the building which encroaches onto the railway corridor. The southern boundary of the building is located adjacent to a 4.5 metre (15 foot) wide City owned laneway which leads to the informal parking area located on railway lands. Staff understands that up to 7 vehicles could be accommodated here; however, because the lands are owned by the railway company and because there is no official off-site COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 13 6.Submission No.: A 2011–006 (Cont’d) parking agreement registered on title, these spaces cannot formally be counted towards achieving minimum parking requirements for the subject lands. 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. permission for 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. to reduce the number of required loading spaces from 1 to 0 spaces, and 5. a reduction of parking spaces from 32 required spaces to 9 spaces. 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 staff’s 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 isof 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 staff’s 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 improve aesthetics of the site. As such, staff requests the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the building elevations, so that the overall aesthetics of the site can be maximized. A condition has been included in this regard. 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 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 14 6.Submission No.: A 2011–006 (Cont’d) many years, and there is little opportunity to provide parking in any other configuration due to the location of the existing building, staff accept 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. As mentioned, 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 applicant has requested that the number of required parking spaces onsite be reduced from 32 to 9. Planning and Transportation Planning Staff have considered the proposal and are of the opinion that the variance being sought is not supportable. The owner is proposing that the building be separated into 8 units: 5 office type units with a total GFA of 894m2, and 3 warehouse units with a total GFA of 685m2. One of the major concerns shared by Planning and Transportation Planning staff is that there is currently an unknown tenant complement. This is problematic because different uses have different zoning by-law parking requirements, so that it is difficult to establish an actual requirement in a mixed use building without knowing the tenants; therefore, without knowing the tenants it is difficult to evaluate the appropriateness of the variance. Staff understands that the owner has calculated the ‘required’ parking based on intended mix of warehouse and office type space. This can reasonably establish the maximum amount of parking that may be required for the site. However, without knowing the range and operations of businesses in the building, staff cannot evaluate what the ‘actual’ parking demand may be, and whether it is appropriate to reduce the parking requirements. Typically, staff will only give consideration to a significant reduction in parking if there is a known range of users and it can be established that there is reasonable evidence, on a case-by-case basis, to support the proposed reduction. The applicant has based the proposed parking reduction on the parking demands generated by another building operated by the same owner which is located at the corner of St. Leger Street and Breithaupt Street. This is also a central city, mixed use, industrial site. These lands contain a larger building with 6224.5 m2 and a total of 83 parking spaces. Staff does not have occupancy permits on file for all the tenants on this site, so it is difficult to establish what the by-law parking requirement is for the mix of tenants. The applicant has submitted a Parking Justification Letter which shows that on average 25 parking spaces are used at any given time. Upon examination of the numbers provided the typical peak is about 32 spaces being used. Staff notes that in considering reductions we typically consider a recurring peak, but not anomalies (i.e. if there was one instance noted where there were 65 spaces in the lot, this would be discounted). This parking justification was reviewed by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Limited. Their review finds that if there was a similar tenant mix to that found at 72 St. Leger Street, approximately 10 spaces would be sufficient. City staff notes that at this time, despite future best efforts of the owner, we cannot assume that the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 15 6.Submission No.: A 2011–006 (Cont’d) subject site will ultimately have a similar range of complementary tenants, generating as low levels of parking demand as that found at 72 St. Leger Street. Paradigm in their review, state that based on relative average occupancy levels, 24 parking spaces could be supported for the office type component with 1 additional space being required for the warehouse units. This represents a requirement of 25 spaces for the site. Transportation staff has indicated that they would give further consideration to a requested variance of this magnitude would be given however, 25 spaces could not be accommodated on site. The owner suggests that if the subject lands were located in the Downtown area, which is one block away from the subject lands, approximately 13 spaces would be required. Staff notes that this is still more than could be accommodated on this site. If this site was located in the downtown, the owner would be responsible for paying cash-in-lieu of parking at a rate of $35,000 per space that is not accommodated on site to help support the City owned and operated facilities. Staff will no longer consider parking variances in downtown areas. Cash-in-lieu of parking is an option only available in the downtown, and cannot be extended to the subject property. Parking is reduced in the downtown because there are increased transit options, greater levels of walkabiltiy. Transportation staff notes that Transportation Demand Management measures could help to justify a less significant reduction in the number of parking spaces; however, this would not reduce the requirement to 9. Based on the foregoing, and the position of Transportation Planning Staff, Planning staff recommends that the proposed variance to the number of parking spaces be refused. Staff is of the opinion that the variance fails the four tests of a minor variance. The intent of the Official Plan designation is to support a range of industrial business uses. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed reduction in parking would be a detriment to future industrial businesses as there is a strong likelihood that there will not be enough parking to support the uses on site. Furthermore, Official Plan Policy only supports reduced parking requirements where, “it can be demonstrated that such reductions will not negatively affect the community” (2.8.5.2). Staff is of the opinion that the amount of office type space contemplated cannot be support by the number of spaces proposed. This may place an undue high demand on limited amounts of on- street parking in nearby neighbourhoods, which is intended for the use of residents of those areas. The intent of the parking regulations in the zoning by-law is to ensure that there is adequate parking available for the businesses locating on a site. Planning and Transportation Planning staff is of the opinion that 9 spaces will not meet the needs of the proposed mix of uses on the site. The owner is proposing about 894m2 of office type space which requires 32 parking spaces. The proposed warehouse space only generates a fraction of one space. As discussed above, staff is of the opinion that 9 spaces is not adequate for the usage of the building. Staff is of the opinion that the owner is proposing too intensive a development and that they should consider a range of uses which require less parking such as more warehousing, wholesaling, manufacturing and industrial businesses, perhaps together with a small complement of office type uses. Based on the discussion provided, the proposed variance is not minor or appropriate for the use of the lands. Staff is of the opinion that 9 parking spaces is not suitable for the intensity of use that is being contemplated for the site. Staff suggests that subject to the approval of variances 1 – 4, the owner may begin to occupy the site with permitted industrial uses. Parking requirements will be tracked using the Occupancy Permit System. Once the tenancy of the building has reached or exceeded the available amount of parking, staff would be willing to give further consideration to reasonable variance requests on a case-by-case basis. Any further request will need to be supported by a justification based on the current actual parking demands of existing tenants, the anticipated need of the proposed tenant, opportunities COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 16 6.Submission No.: A 2011–006 (Cont’d) for shared time-of-day parking, transportation demand management measures, etc. The owner may also wish to explore additional opportunities for onsite parking, as well as off-site parking via a registered Off-Site Parking Agreement. Staff is of the opinion that the recommendations of this report do not conflict with the Provincial Policy Statement and conform to the Places to Grow Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the Regional Official Plan. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated December 29, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Green advised the Committee that he read the staff report and agrees with most of it except the recommended refusal on the parking reduction. He distributed a written submission in this regard. He stated that this recommendation is not a satisfactory outcome. He explained that he owner has applied for a building permit; the zoning of the property is M-2 which permits a range of industrial uses; and there is a small part of the building, at the back, that is being demolished. He then reviewed the variance to allow 9 parking spaces in the front yard. Their dilemma is the fact that 9 parking space will only allow them to occupy part of the building. Given the size of the property they are not able to satisfy the parking requirement. He advised that this property has enjoyed a long term lease of land from the owner of the abutting railway and have used this land for 21 parking spaces. He noted that the zoning by-law allows for off-site parking provided that the lease is registered on title of both the land requiring the parking and the land containing the parking; however, the owner of the railway land will not allow the lease to be registered on title of their land. He provided, in his written submission, the wording of Section 6.1.1.1 a)iii) of the zoning by-law noting that there is one exception for Hydro land, where the lease for parking only has to be registered on the title of the land benefitting from the easement. Consequently, there is already an exemption established for a utility.He requested that the Committee consider a variance to allow the off-site parking with the lease agreement to be registered on title of 108 Ahrens Street West only. He suggested that this proposal is the only practical way to solve this problem in a reasonable time frame. Mr. Green then pointed out that this property is only 1 block from downtown and if the property was located downtown, they would only have to provide 13 parking spaces. He advised that hey have looked at a number of options and have completed a parking study and there is no retail uses proposed for this property. Further they own another property on St. Leger Street and the mix of uses in these two properties will be the same. Mr. Green then advised that he has no issues with the staff comments and when asked for elevation drawings, they were immediately provided. A revised parking plan was also permitted. He stated that they have given their best efforts to provide as much parking as possible and this is the most that they can reasonably do. Ms. von Westerholt responded to Mr. Green’s proposal advising that she has concerns with counting the parking spaces on the railway land toward the required parking. She acknowledged the existing situation and the fact that this property is one block from the downtown; however, Mr. Green’s proposal provides no assurance. She stated that she needs an opportunity to discuss this proposal with staff of Legal Services and Transportation Planning, as this is an unconventional situation and she needs time to consider it. The Chair advised that he would support a deferral of this application but could not support the application at this time. Mr. Green stated that he understands that staff’s primary concern is use, and he would accept a deferral of variance #5 but requested approval of the rest of the application so that they can receive their building permit. A discussion on the deferral request took place. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 17 6.Submission No.: A 2011–006 (Cont’d) Mr. Snyder stated that he agrees to a 30 day deferral. He explained that for more than 50 years the railway land has been leased for parking. The by-law does not stipulate “long term” parking and the railway will only lease the land for 1 year at a time. If we can not get relief from the by-law then we will not be able to use the parking that has been used for the last 50 years. The committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for Tuesday February 15, 2011, to allow staff an opportunity to consider Mr. Green’s proposal to allow parking to be located on the railway land without an agreement being registered against the title of the railway land. CONSENT Submission Nos.: 1. B 2011–001 and B 2011-002 Applicant: Roman Catholic Diocese of Hamilton & Waterloo Catholic District School Board Property Location: 85 & 99 Strange Street Legal Description: Part Lot 493, Plan 375 Appearances: In Support: L. Ford Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant in B 2011-001 is requesting permission to give an easement to the abutting property for access and parking: easement to have a width on Waverly Road of 8.41m (27.59’), a depth of 52.19m (177.22’) and an area of 405 sq. m. (4,359.52 sq. ft.). The property will continue to be used as a church. In application B 2011-002 the applicant is requesting permission to give 2 easements to benefit the abutting property: one easement faces Waverly Road and measures 30m (98.42’) by 36m (118.11’) and will be used for parking; the second easement will have a width on Strange Street of 17.77m (58.3’), a depth of 79m (259.18’) and an area of 1166 sq. m. (12, 551.13 sq. ft.), to be used for access and parking. The property will continues to be used as an elementary school. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated December 23, 2010, advising that the subject properties front on to Strange Street and are bounded by Waverly Road to the south and Gage Avenue to the west. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and are zoned Neighbourhood Institutional (I-1) with Special Regulation 93R which allows a day care facility in conjunction with an educational establishment or religious institution. The property known as 85 Strange Street (legally described as Part Lot 493 Registered Plan 375) is developed with a religious institution while 99 Strange Street (legally described as Part Lot 493 Registered Plan 375) is developed with an educational establishment. The owner of 99 Strange Street has recently received Site Plan Approval in Principle for an addition to the existing school which has necessitated the consent applications to establish easements for right-of-way access and is a condition of site plan approval. The applicant is requesting consent to create reciprocal easements that will affect both properties. Historically, the church and school have functioned as one property and have had an informal shared parking arrangement as the church has no parking of its COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 18 1.Submission Nos.: B 2011–001 and B 2011-002 (Cont’d) own. However, the addition to the school precipitated a new parking and driveway layout, resulting in the need for reciprocal easements. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, the proposed reciprocal easements (as indicated on the applicant’s drawing) are appropriate and necessary in order to allow full movement and access between the subject parcels of land. The proposed consent applications are consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection 3(1) of the Act, are in conformity with the Provincial Policy Statements and conform to the City’s Official Plan. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated January 10, 2011, in which they advise that they have no objections to these applications. Ms. Ford advised that she has no concerns with staff’s recommendations. Submission No. B 2011-001 Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Hamilton requesting permission to give an easement / right-of-way to the Waterloo Catholic District School Board over a parcel of land having a width on Waverly Road of 8.41m (27.59’) by a depth on the northerly side of 47.09m (154.49’) and on the southerly side of 52.19m (177.22’) and an area of 405 sq. m. (4,359.52 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 493, Plan 375, 85 Strange Street, BE GRANTED Kitchener, Ontario, , 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 owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, shall enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the right-of-way / easements are maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 4. That the owner’s solicitor shall provide the City Solicitor with an undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter the approved joint maintenance agreement. 5. That the owner’s solicitor shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 19 1.Submission Nos.: B 2011–001 and B 2011-002 (Cont’d) Submission No. B 2011-001, cont’d 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried Submission No. B 2011-002 Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board requesting permission to give 2 easements / rights-of-way to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Hamilton over 2 parcels of land: one facing Waverly Road and measuring 30m (98.42’) by 36m (118.11’) to be used for parking and the second having a width on Strange Street of 17.77m (58.3’), a depth of 79m (259.18’) and having an area of 1166 sq. m. (12,551.13 sq. ft.) for access and parking, on Part Lot 493, Plan 375, 99 Strange Street, BE GRANTED Kitchener, Ontario, , 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 owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, shall enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the right-of-way / easements are maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 4. That the owner’s solicitor shall provide the City Solicitor with an undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter the approved joint maintenance agreement. 5. That the owner’s solicitor shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 20 1.Submission Nos.: B 2011–001 and B 2011-002 (Cont’d) Submission No. B 2011-002, cont’d 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried Submission Nos.: 3. B 2011–003 Applicant: Herbert Quickfall Property Location: 50 Kraft Drive, Township of Woolwich Legal Description: Part Lot 71, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: K. Murphy Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land, used as a laneway, having a width on Bloomingdale Road of 20.117m (66’) by a depth of 254.779m (835.88’) and having an area of 5,128.5 sq. m. (55204.52 sq. ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to 153 Bloomingdale Road. The retained land has a width on Kraft Avenue of 333.381m (958’), a depth of 246.15 m (807.57’) and an area of 11.75 ha (29 acres). The retained land is used for farming and will continue to be used that way. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 12, 2011, advising that the subject property is located both within the City of Kitchener and the Township of Woolwich (50 Kraft Drive). The portion of the land within the City of Kitchener (commonly known as “the laneway”) is proposed to be severed (severed lands) and consolidated with a property within the City of Kitchener municipally addressed as 153 Bloomingdale Road. The retained lands will be wholly within the Township of Woolwich. The laneway is currently designated as Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the City’s Zoning By-law 85-1. The laneway has 20.1 metres of frontage onto Bloomingdale Road and a depth of 254.7 metres and an area of 5128.5 square metres. The Committee of Adjustment has previously issued permission to expand the legal non-conforming use (single detached dwelling) for the property municipally addressed as 153 Bloomingdale Road on January 19, 2010 A2009-072). Permission was required from the Committee because the property did not have physical access onto Bloomingdale Road and was not in compliance with section 5.2 of the City of Kitchener zoning by-law, which requires that no lot shall be built upon, a building for any purpose in any zone, unless the lot abuts a street. The Owners of 153 Bloomingdale Road are the listed applicants on consent application A2011-003 and are under a purchase and sale agreement for the severed lands. They COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 21 3.Submission Nos.: B 2011–003 (Cont’d) have indicated that the severed lands will be consolidated with 153 Bloomingdale Road in order to establish a physical connection to Bloomingdale Road. The retained lands will continue to have access onto Kraft Drive in the Township of Woolwich. Currently, the laneway functions as the legal access for 151 Bloomingdale Road and 153 Bloomingdale Road and as a secondary access for 155 Bloomingdale (rear yard garage). There is an existing access agreement over the laneway lands between the property owners but the agreements are not registered on title. Planning staff recommend that the Committee of Adjustment grant an access easement over the severed lands in favour of 151 and 155 Bloomingdale Road, to formalize the access agreement that has been in place since the properties were created. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City’s Official Plan and the zoning by-law, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and proposed use of the lands. Also, the resultant lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. With respect to servicing, the single detached dwelling located at 153 Bloomingdale is currently on a private well and a private septic system. The dwelling located at 50 Kraft Drive in the Township of Woolwich is also on a private well and a private septic system. The septic systems are located wholly on the subject lands and are not proposed to be changed. The proposed consent does not conflict with the Provincial Policy Statement issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Planning Act and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The 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 Committee report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated January 10, 2011, in which they advise that at this location Regional Road No. 20 (Bloomingdale Road) has an existing road allowance of approximately 63 feet (19.2 metres) and a designated width in the Regional Official Policies Plan (ROPP) of 86 feet (26.2 metres). The applicant is advised that a 23 foot (7 metre) road widening is required prior to final approval. The Region has no objection to this application subject to the following condition: 1. That prior to final approval, the owner shall convey a 23 foot (7 metre) road widening across the frontage of Bloomingdale Road (Regional Road No. 20) to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. A registered deed for the road widening and a mylar copy of the registered reference plan must be submitted to the Region. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Resource Planner, dated January 4, 2011, advising that they have no objection to the above noted consent application. Portions of the subject lands contain wetlands, floodplain, valley slopes and erosion hazard. Consequently, the subject lands are regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses). Any future development within the regulated areas will require a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses permit. Mr. Murphy advised that he read the staff report and disagrees with the recommended condition that would required an easement for each of 151 and 155 Bloomingdale Road, to be registered on title. He stated that 155 Bloomingdale Road does not COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 22 3.Submission Nos.: B 2011–003 (Cont’d) currently have a registered easement and he does not want to register an easement that never existed. Further, the existing registered easement for 151 Bloomingdale Road 60 years old and is loosely worded; never the less, it is a registered easement which does not have to be registered again. Mr. Murphy stated that he has no objection too allowing the owner of 155 Bloomingdale Road to continue using this property as long as it does not have to be registered on title. Ms. von Westerholt stated that staff do not want to take away anyone’s rights and hesitates to make a recommendation that may do so. She asked that the need for an easement in favour of 155 Bloomingdale Road be clarified to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Mr. Murphy responded that he will uphold the current agreement with the owner of 155 Bloomingdale Road for as long as he owns the property. The Committee discussed the easement situation and agreed not to impose staff’s recommended condition in that regard. Instead the Committee chose to impose the following conditions: that the owner provide the owner of 155 Bloomingdale Road with a letter allowing him to use the lane for as long as he owns the property; and, that Mr. Murphy provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a copy of the existing registered easement document in favour of 151 Bloomingdale Road. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Herbert Quickfall requesting permission to convey a parcel of land, as a lot addition to 153 Bloomingdale Road, having a width on Bloomingdale Road of 20.177 m (66’) by a depth of 254.779m (835.88’) and an area of 5,128.5 sq. m. 55204.52 sq. ft.), subject to the existing easement in favour of 151 Bloomingdale Road, on Part Lot 71, German Company Tract, 50 Kraft Drive, Township of Woolwich & City of BE GRANTED Kitchener, Ontario, , 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 50 Kraft Drive shall be added to the abutting lands at 153 Bloomingdale Road, and that title 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 the City Solicitor with 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 23 3.Submission Nos.: B 2011–003 (Cont’d) 5. That the owner shall provide the owner of 155 Bloomingdale Road with a letter allowing him/her use of the severed lands to access her/her property for as long as the current owner of 155 Bloomingdale Road owns that land, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 6. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a copy of the registered easement in favour of 151 Bloomingdale Road. 7. That the owner shall convey to the Region of Waterloo without cost and free of encumbrance a 23 foot (7 meter) road widening across the Bloomingdale Road (Regional Road No. 20) frontage of the severed land and shall provide the Region with a registered deed for the road widening and a mylar copy of the registered reference plan. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried Submission Nos.: 4. B 2011–004 Applicant: Barrel Works Market Shops Inc Property Location: 290 King Street East Legal Description: Part of Lot 12 Marked N. Ziegler and Part of Lot 18 North of King Street and West of Cedar Street B. Eby’s Survey, Registered Plan 364 Appearances: In Support: J. Buisman Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to give 2 easements to benefit the abutting property: one easement faces Waverly Road and measures 30m (98.42’) by 36m (118.11’) and will be used for parking; the second easement will have a width on Strange Street of 17.77m (58.3’), a depth of 79m (259.18’) and an area of 1166 sq. m. (12, 551.13 sq. ft.), to be used for access and parking. The property will continues to be used as an elementary school. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 8, 2010, advising that the subject lands are located at 290 & 310 King Street East, which forms part of the new Kitchener Market buildings. The lands were developed by Barrel Works Market Shops and the ownership is split so that the City of Kitchener owns the public components at 300 King Street East which houses the Kitchener market, while Barrel COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 24 4.Submission Nos.:B 2011–004 (Cont’d) Works owns the office and residential buildings. To facilitate the shared use and access to these building by the parties there are extensive and complicated easements which describe the rights and encumbrances associated with the different components of the buildings. These are defined in what is known as a Strata Reference Plan (58R-15060). This plan shows 50 parts separated between the 5 levels of the building, including the underground parking. The two buildings that are the subject of this application are owned by Barrel Works Market Shops and are known as 290 King Street East and 310 King Street East. The owner is in the process of selling one of the two buildings. The solicitor representing the owner is of the opinion that consent is required to sever these buildings before they can be sold independently. This is because the buildings are described together with common, overlapping easements on the same deed. The desired end result of this application is to create two separate parcels each with its own set of easements, rather than two parcels, which share the same defined easements. However, the numbering of the parts will not need to be redefined on a new reference plan, and the parcels will continue to enjoy rights and be encumbered as is currently provided for. The difference is that as a result of the consent they will technically be defined on two separate deeds, rather than on the same deed. This application serves to clarify any possible misinterpretation of title. The City Solicitor has advised planning staff that it was always intended that the two parcels would be able to be sold independent of one another and is of the opinion that the consent is a technical process to clarify the deed for the owner. Planning staff is of the opinion that this application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and does not conflict with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The application also conforms to the Official Plan and is consistent with zoning regulations. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated January 10, 2011, in which they advise that they have no objections to these applications. Mr. Buisman advised that he has no concerns with the staff report. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Barrell Works Market Shops Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land, with its easements, having a width on King Street of 28.8m (94.48’), a width on Eby Street of 17.8m (58.39’) and an area of 512 sq. m. (5511.3 sq. ft.), on Part of Lot 12 Marked N. Ziegler and Part of Lot 18 North of King Street and West of Cedar Street B. Eby’s Survey, Registered Plan 364, 290 King Street East, 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 submit the proposed deeds for each parcel to the City Solicitor for approval, prior to registration. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 25 4.Submission Nos.:B 2011–004 (Cont’d) 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried Submission Nos.: 5. B 2011–005 Applicant: Irene Shouftas Property Location: 1054 Hidden Valley Road Legal Description: Lot 4, Plan 1519 Appearances: In Support: K. Green Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a triangular parcel of land, having an area of 0.47 ha (1.16 ac), as a lot addition to 1070 Hidden Valley Road. The retained land will have a width on Hidden Valley Road of 66.7m (218.83’), will have an irregular shape and an area of 1.53 ha (3.78 ac). The use of the property is residential and this use is intended to continue. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated December 16, 2010, advising that the subject lands are located at 1054 Hidden Valley Road and are currently designated Limited Service Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential One Zone (R-1). The parcel is currently 1.997 hectares in size and contains a single detached dwelling and accessory buildings. This property was the subject of consent application B2010-006 in April 2010. This purpose of this consent was to sever a triangular portion of land from the subject property as a lot addition to 1070 Hidden Valley Road in order to allow the lot at 1070 Hidden Valley Road to conform to the minimum lot area requirements of the R-1 zone and to facilitate the redevelopment of the site. Since the approval of this original consent application, ownership of 1054 and 1070 Hidden Valley Road has changed. The new owner is now applying to modify the approved severance line slightly. The lands to be severed are proposed to have a width of 98.014 metres, which is the same width as the lands to which they will be conveyed and an area of 0.47 hectares. The resultant lot will be slightly under 1 hectare in size. The retained lands will be 1.53 hectares in size. Both lots will conform to the existing R-1 zoning by-law regulations. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City’s Official Plan and the zoning by-law, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and proposed use of the lands. Also, the resultant lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. With respect to servicing, the house on the subject lands is currently on private well and a private septic system. The septic system is located wholly on the lands to be retained and is not proposed to be changed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 26 5.Submission Nos.:B 2011–005 (Cont’d) The existing dwelling is currently on a private well. Staff notes that municipal water services are available in Hidden Valley Road however, the use of the well is an existing situation which is not impacted by the proposed consent. The well is located wholly on the lands to be retained and is not proposed to be changed. While staff would prefer that the existing house on the retained lands be connected to the municipal water supply, staff is not recommending that this be made a condition of the consent. However, if the owner would like to connect to the municipal water supply they should contact the City to make the necessary arrangements. For the time being, servicing will remain as is for the house located at 1070 Hidden Valley Road. However, staff understands that the purpose of this severance is to create a larger lot at 1070 Hidden Valley Road which will comply with the R-1 zoning regulations so that it may be redeveloped. Through this redevelopment, the owner may be required to decommission any private water supply and connect to the municipal water supply at such time as this redevelopment occurs. This may be further discussed through a future building permit process. The proposed consent complies with the Provincial Policy Statement issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Planning Act and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated January 10, 2011, in which they advise that they have no objections to these applications. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of I. Shouftas requesting permission to convey a triangular shaped parcel of land as a lot addition to 1070 Hidden Valley Road, having an area of 0.47 ha BE (1.16 ac.), on Lot 4, Plan 1519, 1054 Hidden Valley Road, Kitchener, Ontario, 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 convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, a road widening along the entire frontage of the severed land, in order to achieve an ultimate road width of 18 metres and that a reference plan shall be deposited showing the widening to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Planning. 4. 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. 5. a) That the lands to be severed from 1054 Hidden Valley Road shall be added to the abutting lands at 1070 Hidden Valley Road, and title shall be taken 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 27 5.Submission Nos.:B 2011–005 (Cont’d) b) That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide the City Solicitor with 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. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried Submission Nos.: 6. B 2011–006 to B 2011-014 Applicant: 2067298 Ontario Ltd, c/o Ridgewood Holdings Inc Property Location: 33-45 & 51-57 Woolwich Street Legal Description: Lot 4, Plan 1519 Appearances: In Support: S. Patterson Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission in applications B 2011-006 to B 2011-011 to sever 6 residential lots for street fronting townhouses and retain 1 lot for this same use. All lots will have frontage on Woolwich Street and will have the following dimensions: B 2011-006 Width – 5.5m (18.04’) Depth – 26.6m (87.27’) Area – 148 sq. m. (1,593.11 sq. ft.) B 2011-007 Width – 5.5m (18.04’) Depth – 26.6m (87.27’) Area – 148 sq. m. (1,593.11 sq. ft.) Subject to a .9m (2.95’) side easement across the rear of the property to the benefit of the lot to be created through B 2011-006, for rear yard access. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 28 6.Submission Nos.: B 2011–006 to B 2011-014 (Cont’d) B 2011-008 Width – 5.5m (18.04’) Depth – 26.6m (87.27’) Area – 148 sq. m. (1,593.11 sq. ft.) Subject to a .9m (2.95’) side easement across the rear of the property to the benefit of the lot to be created through B 2011-006 & B 2011-007, for rear yard access. B 2011-009 Width – 5.5m (18.04’) Depth – 26.6m (87.27’) Area – 148 sq. m. (1,593.11 sq. ft.) Subject to a .9m (2.95’) side easement across the rear of the property to the benefit of the lot to be created through B 2011-006, B 2011-007 & B 2011-008, for rear yard access. B 2011-010 Width – 5.5m (18.04’) Depth – 26.6m (87.27’) Area – 148 sq. m. (1,593.11 sq. ft.) Subject to a .9m (2.95’) side easement across the rear of the property to the benefit of the lot to be created through B 2011-006, B 2011-007, B 2011-008 & B 2011-009, for rear yard access. B 2011-011 Width – 7.3m (23.95) Depth 26.6m (87.27’) Area – 220 sq. m. (2,368.13 sq. ft.) Subject to a 0.9m (2.95’) wide easement along the north side and across the back of the proposed lot for access, to the benefit of all the other lots to be created through these applications. Retained Land Width – 17.9m (51.43’) Triangular shape Area – 243 sq. m. (2,615.71 sq. ft.) The applicant is also requesting permission in applications B 2011-012 to B 2011-014 to sever 3 residential lots for street fronting townhouses and retain 1 lot for this same use. All lots will have frontage on Woolwich Street and will have the following dimensions: B 2011-012 Width – 5.9m (19.35’) Depth – 25.7m (84.31’) Area – 159 sq. m. (1711.51 sq. ft.) B 2011-013 Width – 5.9m (19.36’) Depth – 25.7m (84.31’) Area – 159 sq. m. (1711.51 sq. ft.) Subject to a .9m (2.95’) wide easement across the rear of the property to the benefit of the lot to be created through B 2011-012, for rear yard access. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 29 6.Submission Nos.: B 2011–006 to B 2011-014 (Cont’d) B 2011-014 Width – 7.8m (25.59’) Depth – 25.7m (84.31’) Area – 232 sq. m. (2,497.3 sq. ft.) Subject to a 0.9m (2.95’) wide easement from front to rear on the south side of the property and across the rear of the property to the benefit of the lot created through B 2011-013, for rear yard access. Retained Land Width – 8.7m (28.54’) Depth – 26.6m (87.27‘) Area – 232 sq. m. (2,497.3 sq. ft.) The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 5, 2011, advising that the subject properties subject properties, comprised of two separate blocks, are legally described as Parts 2 and 3, 58R-16543, Part of Lot 59, GCT. Parts 2 and 3, 58R-16543 and are located on the west side of Woolwich Street between Bridge Street and Hillcrest Lane in Bridgeport North. These two blocks were legally created through application numbers B2008-018 and B2008-024 and the townhouse development is subject to site plan approval. Part 2 encompasses an area of 243 square metres with 17.9 metres of frontage onto Woolwich Street. Part 3 encompasses an area of 232 square metres with 8.7 metres of frontage. The subject properties are developed with street townhouses as shown in Figure 1 above. The applicant is proposing to sever nine lots to be described as Parts 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16 and 17, to retain two lots (Parts 1 and 18) and also to create rear yard access easements ( Parts 4, 5 , 8 , 9 14 and 15) over Parts 3, 6, 7 10 and 11 13 and 16.The purpose is to create free hold lots together with access easements. A site visit was conducted on December 30, 2010. According to the Official Plan the subject property is designated Low Rise Residential. This designation accommodates a full range of low rise housing types with a maximum net density of twenty-five (25) units per hectare. The zoning, under By-law 85-1, is Residential Six (R-6) which permits single, semi-detached and multiple dwellings. As such, the proposal meets the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law 85-1. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement and the City’s Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and any proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an established public street, and both parcels of land are currently serviced with independent and adequate municipal service connections. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated January 10, 2011, in which they advise that the subject property is located within an area subject to the Bridgeport Development Cap, this development was constructed in accordance with the existing zoning and these consent applications do not result in the creation of any additional units then what were previously permitted in the existing zoning and have no objections to these applications. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 30 6.Submission Nos.: B 2011–006 to B 2011-014 (Cont’d) Submission No. B 2011-006 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 2067298 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having width on Woolwich Street of 5.5m (18.04’) by a depth of 26.6 m (87.27’) and an area of 148 sq. m. (1,593 .11 sq. ft.), together with an easement over the rear 0.9 m (2.95’) of 37 – 45 Woolwich Street and along the northerly 0.9 m (2.95’) of 45 Woolwich Street for rear yard access, on Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, 35 BE GRANTED Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , 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 owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the access easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 4. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter the joint maintenance agreement. 5. The owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 31 6.Submission Nos.: B 2011–006 to B 2011-014 (Cont’d) Submission No. B 2011-007 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 2067298 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having width on Woolwich Street of 5.5m (18.04’) by a depth of 26.6m (87.27’) and an area of 148 sq. m. (1,593.11 sq. ft.), subject to a 0.9m (2.95’) wide easement across the rear of the property to the benefit of 35 Woolwich Street and together with an easement over the rear 0.9 m (2.95’) of 39 – 45 Woolwich Street and along the northerly 0.9 m (2.95’) of 45 Woolwich Street, on Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, BE GRANTED 37 Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , 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 owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the access easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 4. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter the joint maintenance agreement. 5. The owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 32 6.Submission Nos.: B 2011–006 to B 2011-014 (Cont’d) Submission No. B 2011-008 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 2067298 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having width on Woolwich Street of 5.5m (18.04’) by a depth of 26.6 m (87.27’) and an area of 148 sq. m. (1,593.11 sq. ft.), subject to a 0.9m (2.95’) wide easement across the rear of the property to the benefit of 35 & 37 Woolwich Street for rear yard access and together with an easement over the rear 0.9 m (2.95’) of 41 – 45 Woolwich Street and along the northerly 0.9 m (2.95’) of 45 Woolwich Street, , on Part Lot 59, BE GRANTED German Company Tract, 39 Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , 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 owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the access easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 4. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter the joint maintenance agreement. 5. The owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 33 6.Submission Nos.: B 2011–006 to B 2011-014 (Cont’d) Submission No. B 2011-009 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 2067298 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having width on Woolwich Street of 5.5m (18.04’) by a depth of 26.6 m (87.27’) and an area of 148 sq. m. (1,593.11 sq. ft.), subject to a 0.9m (2.95’) wide easement across the rear of the property, to the benefit of 35, 37 & 39 Woolwich Street and together with an easement across the rear 0.9m (2.95’)of 43 & 45 Woolwich Street, and a 0.9m (2.95’) and along the northerly 0.9m (2.95’) of 45 Woolwich Street, on Part BE Lot 59, German Company Tract, 41 Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario, 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 owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the access easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 4. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter the joint maintenance agreement. 5. The owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 34 6.Submission Nos.: B 2011–006 to B 2011-014 (Cont’d) Submission No. B 2011-010 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 2067298 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having width on Woolwich Street of 5.5m (18.04’) by a depth of 26.6 m (87.27’) and an area of 148 sq. m. (1,593.11 sq. ft.) subject to a 0.9m (2.95’) wide easement across the rear of the property, to the benefit of 35, 37, 39 & 41 Woolwich Street and together with an easement across the rear 0.9m (2.95’) and along the northerly 0.9m (2.95’) of 45 Woolwich Street, on Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, 43 Woolwich BE GRANTED Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , 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 owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the access easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 4. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter the joint maintenance agreement. 5. The owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 35 6.Submission Nos.: B 2011–006 to B 2011-014 (Cont’d) Submission No. B 2011-011 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 2067298 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having width on Woolwich Street of 7.3 m (23.954’) by a depth of 26.6 m (87.27’) and having an area of 220 sq. m. (2,368.13 sq. ft.) subject to a 0.9 m (2.95’) wide easement along the north side and across the rear of the lot, to the benefit of 33-43 Woolwich Street, on Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, 45 Woolwich Street, BE GRANTED Kitchener, Ontario, , 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 owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the access easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 4. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter the joint maintenance agreement. 5. The owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 36 6.Submission Nos.: B 2011–006 to B 2011-014 (Cont’d) Submission No. B 2011-012 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 2067298 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having width on Woolwich Street of 5.9 m (19.35’) by a depth of 25.7m (84.31’) and having an area of 159 sq. m. (1711.51 sq. ft.), together with an easement over the southerly 0.9m (2.95’) of 53 Woolwich Street and the rear 0.9m (2.95’) of 53 & 55 Woolwich Street, on Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, 57 Woolwich Street, BE GRANTED Kitchener, Ontario, , 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 owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the access easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 4. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter the joint maintenance agreement. 5. The owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 37 6.Submission Nos.: B 2011–006 to B 2011-014 (Cont’d) Submission No. B 2011-013 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 2067298 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having width on Woolwich Street of 5.9 m (19.35’) by a depth of 25.7m (84.31’) and having an area of 159 sq. m. (1711.51 sq. ft.), subject to an easement across the rear 0.9m (2.95’) of the property to the benefit of 57 Woolwich Street; and, together with an easement over the southerly 0.9m (2.95’) and rear 0.9m (2.95’) of 53 Woolwich Street, on Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, 55 Woolwich Street, 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 owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the access easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 4. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter the joint maintenance agreement. 5. The owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 38 6.Submission Nos.: B 2011–006 to B 2011-014 (Cont’d) Submission No. B 2011-014 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 2067298 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having width on Woolwich Street of 7.8 m (25.595’) by a depth of 25.7m (84.31’) and having an area of 232 sq. m. (2,497.3 sq. ft.) subject to an easement over the southerly 0.9m (2.95’) and the rear 0.9m (2.95’) to the benefit of 55 & 57 Woolwich Street, on Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, 53 Woolwich Street, 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 owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the access easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 4. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter the joint maintenance agreement. 5. The owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 39 Submission Nos.: 8. B 2011–015 & B 2011-016 Applicant: 742989 Ontario Inc Property Location: 221 McIntyre Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 14, Registrar’s Compiled Plan 1471, being Part Lots 10, 35 & 36, Reference Plan 58R-5668 Appearances: In Support: J. Mondell G. Ramanick J. Malowty Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever 2 lots and retain 1 lot; currently the 2 proposed lots are vacant and are intended to remain that way, and the retained lot has a parking lot and a fenced compound. The first lot to be created will have a width on McIntyre Drive of 32.9m (107.93’), by a depth on the easterly side of 120.2m (394.35’), and a depth on the westerly side of 113.3m (371.71’), and an area of 0.37 ha.(0.92 acres). The second lot to be created will have a width on McIntyre Drive of 36m (118.11’), by a depth on the easterly side of 113.3m (371.71’) and on the westerly side of 105.75m (346.94’) and an area of 0.38 ha (0.95 acres). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 10, 2011, advising that the subject property is located on McIntyre Drive, just west of where it intersects with McBrine Drive, and is legally described as Part of Lot 14, Registered Plan 1471, Part 36 of Reference Plan 58R-5668. The subject parcel is vacant, and was conditionally approved to be severed from 221 McIntyre Drive by the Committee of Adjustment at their meeting of November 23, 2010 (application B2010-044). The applicant is looking to further sever the parcel to create two new parcels, resulting in a total of three properties of similar size. The retained property is proposed to have a frontage of 31.7 metres and an area of 0.94 acres. The first severed parcel (B2011- 015) is proposed to have a frontage of 32.9 metres, with an area of 0.92 acres. The second severed parcel (B2011-016) is proposed to have a frontage of 36 metres with an area of 0.95 acres. The property is designated as Business Park in the City’s Official Plan and zoned Residential Business Park Zone (B-1) in By-law 85-1. The proposed severed and retained parcels meet the applicable zoning regulations for minimum lot width and area. A portion of the parcels to be severed are within the Grand River Conservation Authority’s regulated area; staff expects that the Grand River Conservation Authority will want to impose conditions on the applications. The proposed severance satisfies the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) and Places to Grow. 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 Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated January 10, 2011, in which they advise that they have no objections to these applications. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Resource Planner, dated January 5, 2011, advising that portions of the lands to be severed and lands to be retained are regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06 due to the presence of the regulatory floodplain of Strasburg Creek and the proximity to Provincially Significant Strasburg Wetland Complex. As such, the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 40 8.Submission Nos.: B 2011–015 & B 2011-016 (Cont’d) GRCA recommends deferral of this application to allow the applicant an opportunity to provide additional information to support this application. As part of our review we will require the following information: 1. Evidence that “safe access” can be achieved for proposed lots; and, 2. Final site plan showing the location of the survey regulatory floodplain. In response to a question from the Chair concerning the request of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Mr. Ramanick advised that the owner was recently before this Committee to sever the parcel of land which is now being further subdivided. At that time, the GRCA requested a deferral for the same reasons. Mr. Ramanick advised that instead of deferring the previous application, this committee imposed a condition that the owner must satisfy the concerns of the GRCA and he requested the same condition for these applications. Submission No. B 2011-015 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 742989 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on McIntyre Drive of 32.9m (107.93’) by a depth on the easterly side of 120.2m (394.35’) and having an area of 0.37 ha. (0.92 ac.), on Part Lot 14, Registrar’s Compiled Plan 1471, being Part Lots 10, 35 & 36, Reference Plan 58R- BE GRANTED 5668, 221 McIntyre Drive, Kitchener Ontario, , 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 to and receive approval from the Grand River Conservation Authority for the following: a. evidence that ‘safe access’ can be achieved for the proposed lot; and, b. final site plan showing the location of the surveyed regulatory floodplain. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 41 8.Submission Nos.: B 2011–015 & B 2011-016 (Cont’d) Submission No. B 2011-015 cont’d 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 January 18, 2013. Carried Submission No. B 2011-016 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 742989 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on McIntyre Drive of 36m (118.11’) by a depth on the easterly side of 113.3m (371.71’) and on the westerly side of 105.75m (346.94’) and having an area of 0.38 ha (0.95 ac.), on Part Lot 14, Registrar’s Compiled Plan 1471, 221 McIntyre BE GRANTED Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , 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 to and receive approval from the Grand River Conservation Authority for the following: a. evidence that ‘safe access’ can be achieved for the proposed lot; and, b. the final site plan showing the location of the surveyed regulatory floodplain. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 42 COMBINED APPLICATIONS Submission Nos.: 1. A 2011-007 & B 2011-017 Applicant: Edmill Solid Wood Property Location: 647 and 659 Victoria Street South Legal Description: Part Lots 99, 100 & 101, Plan 786 Appearances: In Support: C. Baker Contra: S. & V. Maxwell Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Victoria Street South of 31.05m (101.87’) by a depth of 62.06m (203.6’) on the easterly side, having a “P” shape and having an area of 3,227.2 sq. m. (34,738.42 sq. ft.). The retained land will have a width on Victoria Street South of 15.5m (50.85’) by a depth of 31.84m (104.46’) and an area of 546 sq. m. (5,877.26 sq. ft.). The existing and proposed use of both the severed and retained lands is residential. Permission to the dwelling on the retained land to have an easterly side yard of 0.3m (0.98’) and a westerly side yard of 0.6m (1.96’) rather than the required side yards of 0m on one side and 1.2m (3.93’) on the other side. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 7, 2011, advising that the subject properties are municipally addressed as 647 and 659 Victoria Street South and are located on the south side of Victoria Street between Westmount Road and Paulander Drive. 647 Victoria Street South contains an apartment building and 659 Victoria Street South contains a single detached dwelling. The subject properties are zoned R-7 in By-law 85-1 and designated Medium Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The ownership of 647 and 659 Victoria Street South has merged on title. The applicant is requesting to separate title by severing a parcel of land that is 31.05 metres wide with an area of 3,227.2 square metres. The severed lot is for the apartment building. The retained lands will contain the single detached dwelling on a lot that measures 15.5 metres wide with an area of 546 square metres. The applicant is also requesting to legalize the non-conforming left side yard of the existing single detached dwelling of 0.6 metres instead of the required 1.2 metres on the retained lands. The R-7 zoning allows for a 0.0 metre setback on one side yard and 1.2 metres on the other side yard. No other variances are being created to facilitate the severance. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the lot addition is appropriate as the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the dimensions and shapes of the retained lot are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and any proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an established public street, and both parcels of land are currently serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated January 10, 2011, in which they advise that the subject lands are located adjacent to Victoria Street South (Regional Road No. 55). Due to the traffice volumes and because the residential buildings are existing on site, in lieu of a Traffic Noise Study, a noise warning clause to advised future purchasers that sound levels from Victoria Street South (Regional Road No. 55) exceed Regional Noise Level Objectives is required. Prior to final approval, the owner/applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the severed and retaining lands to include the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 43 1.Submission Nos.: A 2011-007 & B 2011-017 (Cont’d) “Due to its proximity to Victoria Street South (Regional Road No. 55), projected noise levels on this property exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals.” The Region has no objections to this application, subject to the following condition: 1. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant shall enter into a registered development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo agreeing to include the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements for the severed and retained parcels: “Due to its proximity to Victoria Street South (Regional Road No. 55), projected noise levels on this property 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 December 29, 2010, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Ms. Baker advised the Committee that she is in agreement with the staff report. She also advised that the 2 properties merged and the owner wants the single family dwelling to be separated so that it can be sold. In response to concerns raised by Mr. Maxwell, Ms. Baker advised that the variance is between the 2 properties being separated from each other and it will not affect his property. The situation on the ground will remain as it has been for the last 50 years. Mr. Maxwell then advised that he no longer has any concerns with these applications. Submission No. A 2011-007 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Edmill Solid Wood requesting permission for the dwelling on the retained land to have an easterly side yard of 0.3m (0.98’) and a westerly side yard of 0.6m (1.96’) rather than the required side yards of 0m on one side and 1.2m (3.93’) on the other side, on Part Lot 101, Plan 786, 659 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. 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 Submission No. B 2011-017 Moved by M Seconded by M That the application of Edmill Solid Wood requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Victoria Street South of 31.05m (101.87’) by a depth of 62.06m (203.6’) on the easterly side, having a “P” shape and having an area of 3,227.2 sq. m. (34,738.42 sq. ft.), on Part Lots 99, 100 & 101, Plan 786, 647 Victoria Street South, BE GRANTED Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 18, 2011 44 1.Submission Nos.: A 2011-007 & B 2011-017 (Cont’d) Submission No. B 2011-017, cont’d 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCAd) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file shall be submitted according to the City of Kitchener’s Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner shall receive final approval of Minor Variance Application A2011- 007. 4. That the owner shall submit a Building Code Assessment and agree to implement the recommendations therein to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. 5. That the owner shall enter into a registered development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo agreeing to include the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements for the severed and retained parcels: “Due to its proximity to Victoria Street South (Regional Road No. 55), projected noise levels on this property exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals.” It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 18, 2013. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:24 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 18th day of January, 2011. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment