HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2011-03-15COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MARCH 15, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. D. Cybalski, B. McColl and A. Lise
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. K. Anderl, 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. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:32 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of February 15, 2011,
as mailed to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2011-019, B 2011-020 & B 2011-021
and A 2011-015 & A 2011-016
Applicant:
Pilgrim Evangelical Lutheran Church
Property Location:
206 & 210 Duke Street East and
46 & 50 Madison Avenue North
Legal Description:
Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 370, Part Lot 25,
Registered Plan 369
Appearances:
In Support: A. Galloway
Contra: None
Written Submissions: A. Head
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever 2
parcels of land: the first at 50 Madison Avenue will have a width on Madison Avenue of
11.53m (37.82’), a depth of 22.57m (74.04’) and an area of 259 sq. m. (2,787.94 sq. ft.);
the second, at 46 Madison Avenue North, will have a width on Madison Avenue of
9.73m (31.92’), a depth of 20.29m (66.56’) and an area of 196 sq. m. (2,109.79 sq. ft.).
The retained land at 206 & 210 Duke Street East has a width on Duke Street of 33.91m
(111.25’) a depth of approximately 55m (180.44’) and an area of 1,862 sq. m. (20,043
sq. ft.). The 2 severed lots will each be used a single family dwellings and the retained
land contains a church and single family dwelling. The applicant also intends to create
an easement for access on the retained land having a width of 3m (9.84’) on Madison
Avenue by a depth of 20.4m (58.62’) and an area of 61.2 sq. m. (658.77 sq. ft.) for the
benefit of 50 Madison Avenue North, to allow access to their parking. Minor Variances
are required for 50 Madison Avenue North: a northerly side yard of 2.89m (9.48’) rather
than the required 3m (9.84’), a southerly side yard of 0.6m (1.96’) rather than the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
77
1.Submission No.: B 2011-019, B 2011-020 & B 2011-021 and
A 2011-015 & A 2011-016, (Cont’d)
required 1.2m (3.93’) and a front yard of 2.63m (8.62’) rather than the required 4.5m
(14.76’). Minor Variance required for 46 Madison Avenue North are: lot area of 196 sq.
m. (2,109.79 sq. ft.) rather than the required 235 sq. m. (2,529.6 sq. ft.), a northerly side
yard of 0.3m (0.86’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.93’), a front yard of 3.31m (10.85’)
rather than the required 4.5m (14.76’) and a rear yard of 3.95m (12.95’) rather than the
required 7.5m (24.6’).
The Committee considered the written submission from Dryden Smith & Heading
Planning Consultants Ltd. on behalf of the applicant, dated February 28, 2011, advising
that they wish to modify the severance and minor variance applications. The rear lot
line of Lot 2, 46 Madison Avenue North, was expanded by 2.5m to ensure functional
access and parking space. This also provided relief on the requested variances for rear
lot depth and lot area although variances are still required. The access easement was
also increased in depth by 7m to ensure functional access to and from the parking
space.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated March 7, 2011,
advising that the subject properties are located on Duke Street East and Madison
Avenue North, and are legally described as Part of Lot 2, Registered Plan 370, and Part
of Lot 25 of Registered Plan 369. The subject parcels are occupied by The Pilgrim
Evangelical Lutheran Church (206 Duke Street East), a duplex dwelling (210 Duke
Street East) and two single-detached dwellings (46 and 50 Madison Avenue North).
The properties are all owned by the Pilgrim Evangelical Lutheran Church and appear to
have consolidated.
The applicant is looking to sever the two dwellings fronting onto Madison Avenue North
and retain the rear portions of those lots to retain an area to be used for church parking.
A right-of-way for access is proposed, over lands to be retained by the church in favour
of the parcel addressed as 46 Madison Avenue North. Variances are being requested
for the parcels being created along Madison Avenue to recognize lot areas, side yard
setbacks, rear yard setbacks and front yards that do not satisfy the current zoning by-
law requirements.
This application was initially heard by the Committee at the February 15, 2011 meeting,
where it was deferred to March 15, 2011 in order to allow staff and the applicant to work
out staff concerns regarding off-street parking on proposed Lot 2. Staff and the
applicant met, and a revised plan addressing concerns was provided by the applicant.
This report shall speak to that revised plan.
The property is designated Medium Density Multiple Residential in the King Street East
Secondary Plan in the City’s Official Plan. The portion of the property where the church
building is located is zoned Neighbourhood Institutional (I-1), while the rest of the
property is zoned Residential Seven (R-7) in By-law 85-1.
Proposed Severance and Easement:
The applicant has requested two severances to create two parcels along Madison
Avenue North. The proposed parcels are similar to the original lot configuration of 46
and 50 Madison Avenue South, although the applicant has proposed that the rear
portions and a three (3) metre strip between the lots are to stay with the retained parcel
of land. Further, right-of-way for access is proposed over the portion of the retained
lands located between the two proposed severed lots, in favour of proposed Lot 2. This
proposed right-of-way has a width of three (3) metres and a length of 27.1 metres, with
a total area of 81.3 square metres. The right-of-way is proposed to provide access to
the parking space at the rear of 46 Madison Avenue North (Lot 2).
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
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
78
1.Submission No.: B 2011-019, B 2011-020 & B 2011-021 and
A 2011-015 & A 2011-016, (Cont’d)
Official Plan. Staff feel that the severance of both Lots 1 and 2 satisfies the criteria for
the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13,
and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2005) and Places to Grow.
Zoning Compliance – Church Parking:
Under the previous zoning by-law applicable to this part of the City (By-law 4830), the
entire site was previously zoned R-3 (General Residential), which permitted a “church,
convent or monastery”. Ownership information available to staff indicates that the
church purchased and consolidated the four properties on or prior to July 1979, which
was before By-law 85-1 was brought into effect. A letter of zoning compliance dated
1976 in the street file for 50 Madison Avenue North notes that the use of the property for
church parking would only be permitted if there was a church located on the property. If
the parcels had consolidated into one property, the church parking could have legally
expanded to include the rear yards of the Madison Avenue North parcels, although such
an expansion would be subject to Site Plan Control even in the 1970s. Staff notes that
there is no record of the parking area expansion having been the subject of a Site Plan
Review.
When the Zoning By-law was updated in the early 1980s through to 1994, only the
parcel addressed as 206 Duke Street East was rezoned Community Institutional, while
the other three parcels remained Residential Three and were later rezoned to
Residential Seven. Regional mapping imagery from 1993 through 2009 show that the
parking area to the rear of the church and the two residential properties on Madison
Avenue North was in place. If the parking lot had expanded to include the rear yards of
these parcels prior to the zoning on the site changing from R3 to I1 and R7, the
boundaries of the I1 zone should have included the full extent of land being used for
church purposes, including the parking area. As such, staff recommends that the
boundary of the I1 zone be reviewed in the next Housekeeping By-law to include the
entire limits of the proposed retained parcel.
While the church parking use would have been permitted at the time of the acquisition
of the lands by the church, staff cannot find any record of Site Plan Approval being
received for the expansion of the church parking lot, which would have been a
requirement at that time. Staff notes that their support of the severance of these parcels
will be subject to a condition requiring that the applicant make application and receive
approval for a “Deemed Not Development” Site Plan application for the retained lands,
in order to document the extent of development.
Zoning Compliance – Proposed Lots:
The proposed severed parcels on Madison Avenue North require variances from the R-
7 zoning regulations as identified in Table 1. Several of the variances required are not a
direct result of the proposed severance boundaries: they are due to the dwelling
location relative to existing property boundaries that are not proposed to change, but
must be formally recognized as part of the creation of the new parcels.
Table 1 – Variances Requested
YardBy-law Variance Variance a Result
Requirement Requested of Severance?
Lot 1 Side Yard 1.2 metres 0.6 metres Yes
50 Madison Avenue North
Side Yard
3.0 metres 2.89 metres No
(where
parking is
located)
Front Yard 4.5 metres 2.63 metres No
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
79
1.Submission No.: B 2011-019, B 2011-020 & B 2011-021 and
A 2011-015 & A 2011-016, (Cont’d)
YardBy-law Variance Variance a Result
Requirement Requested of Severance?
Lot 2 Lot Area 235 square 217 square Yes
metres metres
46 Madison Avenue North
Side Yard 1.2 metres 0.3 metres Yes
Rear Yard 7.5 metres 6.4 metres Yes
Front Yard 4.5 metres 3.31 metres No
With regards to the variances requested for proposed Lot 1 (50 Madison Avenue North),
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 variances requested would not preclude the structure continuing to function as a
single-detached dwelling, which falls within the parameters of the Medium Density
Multiple Residential designation applicable to the site. Staff feels that the proposed
variances meet the intent of the Official Plan as they do not affect the subject property’s
compliance to its designation as Medium Density Multiple Residential.
As noted in Table 1, only one of the three variances being requested for this lot is a
direct result of the proposed severance. The front yard setback and side yard setback
where parking is located are existing conditions, and would be considered under
Section 5.15 of the Zoning By-law (Existing Residential and Downtown Development) if
this site were not the subject of a consent application. The third variance requested for
this parcel is to allow a side yard setback of 0.6 metres whereas a minimum setback of
1.2 metres is required. Staff notes that this requested variance provides some space to
allow access wholly over the subject property to reach the side of the structure for
building maintenance purposes. This side yard is paved, so there is no grass to
maintain along this yard. Staff therefore considers that the variances requested meet
the intent of the Zoning By-law.
Staff is of the opinion that the variances are minor because it is assumed that the
physical and visual impact of the requested change will be negligible. The affect of the
proposal would be to recognize two non-complying yards that are an existing situation,
and allowing for a reduced side yard adjacent to the church parking driveway.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land, as they allow
for the continued use of the property as a single-detached dwelling while providing the
adjacent church with access to their parking area from Madison Avenue North.
With regards to the variances requested for proposed Lot 2 (46 Madison Avenue North),
Planning staff offers 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 variances requested would not preclude the structure continuing to function as a
single-detached dwelling, which falls within the parameters of the Medium Density
Multiple Residential designation applicable to the site. Staff feels that the proposed
variances meet the intent of the Official Plan as they do not affect the subject property’s
compliance to its designation as Medium Density Multiple Residential.
As noted in Table 1, three of the four variances being requested for this lot are a direct
result of the proposed severance. The front yard setback is an existing condition, and
would be considered under Section 5.15 of the Zoning By-law (Existing Residential and
Downtown Development) if this site were not the subject of a consent application. The
applicant is proposing a reduced lot area, reduced rear yard and reduced side yard
adjacent to the proposed 3 metre easement. The intent of the minimum side yard
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
80
1.Submission No.: B 2011-019, B 2011-020 & B 2011-021 and
A 2011-015 & A 2011-016, (Cont’d)
setback is to allow adequate separation between homes, and to provide space for
access to maintain the home and the lands around it. As an easement for access is
proposed, which cannot be built upon, staff feels that the intent of the side yard
regulation is maintained in the current proposal. The intent of requiring a minimum rear
yard is to provide for reasonable rear yard amenity space for a home, and to again
allow for separation between units, primarily for the purpose of privacy. On this
proposed parcel, the required off-street parking is also located in the rear yard, but
leaves an area for private outdoor use. There is also not another house immediately
behind the subject property, so privacy and overlook of adjacent rear yards is not a
concern in this case. Staff feels that this rear yard setback variance as requested
maintains the intent of the regulation.
The intent of having a minimum lot area is to ensure that a reasonably sized home can
be located on the parcel, subject to required setbacks, and providing space for the
required off-street parking. The size of parcel as now proposed, with the increased
length of the adjacent access easement, will allow the proper function of the proposed
off-street parking space required for the dwelling on the lot. Staff is satisfied that the
proposed lot area maintains the intent of the regulation.
Staff considers all of the variances requested at this time to be minor. The side yard
setback as proposed is minor, as the reduced side yard is offset by an adjacent
easement that will provide for both separation and access. The front yard setback,
which is an existing condition, is minor. The rear yard setback, being a reduction of 1.1
metres from the required distance, is minor as it still provides adequate space for
parking and amenity areas. The reduction in lot area, being 20 square metres less than
the required area, can be considered minor as well.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land, as they allows
for the continued use of the property as a single-detached dwelling while providing the
adjacent church with access to their parking area from Madison Avenue North.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing &
Community Services, dated March 4, 2011, in which they advise that due to existing
traffic volumes on Weber Street East (Regional Road No. 8) and because a residential
dwelling currently exists on the severed and retained parcels, in lieu of a Transportation
Noise Study, a noise warning clause is required to advise future purchasers that sound
levels from Weber Street East (Regional Road No. 8) may exceed Regional Noise
Level Objectives.
Prior to final approval, the owner/applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the severed and retained parcels to include the
following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental
agreements:
“Due to the proximity to Weber Street East (Regional Road No. 8), projected
noise levels on this property may exceed the noise level objectives approved by
the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some
individuals”.
Mr. A. Galloway advised that he is in agreement with staff’s recommendation and the
amendments to the application.
Mr. B. McColl requested clarification from staff regarding the addition of a parkland
dedication condition, page 5 of the staff report references the creation of a new lot and
yet no parkland dedication was requested. Ms. K. Anderl advised that Community
Services staff reviewed the application and commented that no dedication was required
as no new building lots are being proposed to be created.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
81
1.Submission No.: B 2011-019, B 2011-020 & B 2011-021 and
A 2011-015 & A 2011-016, (Cont’d)
Mr. A. Lise stated that he was satisfied with staff’s recommendation and made a motion
to approve these applications.
Submission No. B 2011-019
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Pilgrim Evangelical Lutheran Church requesting permission to
sever a parcel of land having a width on Madison Avenue of 11.53m (37.82’), a depth of
22.57m (74.04’) and an area of 259 sq. m. (2,787.94 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 2, Registered
BE GRANTED
Plan 370, 50 Madison Avenue North, 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 for access is maintained in perpetuity, which shall be
registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s).
4. That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer
Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance
agreement, be provided to the City Solicitor.
5. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer
Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following
registration.
6. That the applicant makes application for, and receives approval of, a “Deemed
Not Development” Site Plan application for the retained lands, to the satisfaction
of the Supervisor of Site Plan Development, no later than July 1, 2011.
7. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo for the severed and retained parcels to include the following noise
warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements:
“Due to the proximity to Weber Street East (Regional Road No. 8), projected
noise levels on this property may exceed the noise level objectives approved by
the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some
individuals”.
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 MARCH 15, 2011
82
1.Submission No.: B 2011-019, B 2011-020 & B 2011-021 and
A 2011-015 & A 2011-016, (Cont’d)
Submission No. B 2011-019 (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 March 15, 2013.
Carried
Submission No. B 2011-020
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Pilgrim Evangelical Lutheran Church requesting permission to
sever a parcel of land having a width on Madison Avenue of 9.73m (31.92’), a depth of
20.29m (66.56’) and an area of 217 sq. m. (2,109.79 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 2, Registered
BE GRANTED
Plan 370, 46 Madison Avenue North, 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 for access is maintained in perpetuity, which shall be
registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s).
4. That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer
Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance
agreement, be provided to the City Solicitor.
5. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer
Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following
registration.
6. That the applicant makes application for, and receives approval of, a “Deemed
Not Development” Site Plan application for the retained lands, to the satisfaction
of the Supervisor of Site Plan Development, no later than July 1, 2011.
7. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo for the severed and retained parcels to include the following noise
warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
83
1.Submission No.: B 2011-019, B 2011-020 & B 2011-021 and
A 2011-015 & A 2011-016, (Cont’d)
Submission No. B 2011-020 (Cont’d)
“Due to the proximity to Weber Street East (Regional Road No. 8), projected
noise levels on this property may exceed the noise level objectives approved by
the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some
individuals”.
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 March 15, 2013.
Carried
Submission No. B 2011-021
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Pilgrim Evangelical Lutheran Church requesting permission to
create an easement for access on the retained land having a width of 3m (9.84’) on
Madison Avenue by a depth of 27.1m (88.91’) and an area of 81.3 sq. m. (875.11 sq. ft.)
for the benefit of 46 Madison Avenue North, on Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 370, Part
BE GRANTED
Lot 25, Registered Plan 369, 206 Duke Street East, 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 for access is maintained in perpetuity, which shall be
registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s).
4. That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer
Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance
agreement, be provided to the City Solicitor.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
84
1.Submission No.: B 2011-019, B 2011-020 & B 2011-021 and
A 2011-015 & A 2011-016, (Cont’d)
Submission No. B 2011-021 (Cont’d)
5. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer
Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following
registration.
6. That the applicant makes application for, and receives approval of, a “Deemed
Not Development” Site Plan application for the retained lands, to the satisfaction
of the Supervisor of Site Plan Development, no later than July 1, 2011.
7. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo for the severed and retained parcels to include the following noise
warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements:
“Due to the proximity to Weber Street East (Regional Road No. 8), projected
noise levels on this property may exceed the noise level objectives approved by
the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some
individuals”.
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 March 15, 2013.
Carried
Submission No. A 2011-015
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Pilgrim Evangelical Lutheran Church requesting permission for
lot area of 217 sq. m. (2,335.77 sq. ft.) rather than the required 235 sq. m. (2,529.6 sq.
ft.), a northerly side yard of 0.3m (0.86’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.93’), a front
yard of 3.31m (10.85’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76’) and a rear yard of 6.4m
(21’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6’), on Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 370, Part Lot
BE
25, Registered Plan 369, 46 Madison Avenue North, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED,
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
85
1.Submission No.: B 2011-019, B 2011-020 & B 2011-021 and
A 2011-015 & A 2011-016, (Cont’d)
Submission No. A 2011-015 (Cont’d)
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 for access is maintained in perpetuity, which shall be
registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s).
4. That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer
Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance
agreement, be provided to the City Solicitor.
5. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer
Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following
registration.
6. That the applicant makes application for, and receives approval of, a “Deemed
Not Development” Site Plan application for the retained lands, to the satisfaction
of the Supervisor of Site Plan Development, no later than July 1, 2011.
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. A 2011-016
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Pilgrim Evangelical Lutheran Church requesting permission a
northerly side yard of 2.89m (9.48’) rather than the required 3m (9.84’), a southerly side
yard of 0.6m (1.96’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.93’) and a front yard of 2.63m
(8.63’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76’), on Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 370, Part
BE
Lot 25, Registered Plan 369, 50 Madison Avenue North, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED,
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
86
1.Submission No.: B 2011-019, B 2011-020 & B 2011-021 and
A 2011-015 & A 2011-016, (Cont’d)
Submission No. A 2011-016 (Cont’d)
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 for access is maintained in perpetuity, which shall be
registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s).
4. That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer
Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance
agreement, be provided to the City Solicitor.
5. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer
Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following
registration.
6. That the applicant makes application for, and receives approval of, a “Deemed
Not Development” Site Plan application for the retained lands, to the satisfaction
of the Supervisor of Site Plan Development, no later than July 1, 2011.
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
This meeting recessed at 9:37 a.m. and reconvened at 10:02 a.m. with the following members
present: Messrs. D. Cybalski, B. McColl and A. Lise
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1. A 2011–018
Applicant:
Efrem Usdenski
Property Location:
59 Doon Valley Drive
Legal Description:
Part 1, Plan of Biehn’s Unnumbered Tract,
being Part 4, Plan 58R-11004
Appearances:
In Support: E. Usdenski
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for the 2
required parking spaces for this duplex to be located side by side in the existing
driveway with a setback from the property line on Doon Valley Drive of 2.19 m (7.18’)
rather than the required 6m (19.68’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 28,
2011, advising that the subject property is a semi-detached duplex residential unit
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
87
1.Submission No.: A 2011–018, (Cont’d)
located at 59 Doon Valley Drive is zoned Residential Five (R-5) in the Zoning By-law
85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s 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 has 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 in keeping with the downsizing
or the limitation of bedrooms created in the Lower Doon By-law. As a result, City By-law
Enforcement staff do not support the proposed variance.
Planning staff is 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 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. The current situation is that there
are a number of vehicles 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 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. Prior to final approval, the
applicant will be required to submit a parking plan to the satisfaction of the Director of
Transportation Planning showing two required off-street parking spaces accommodated
side-by-side and a pedestrian connection from the residential building to the street on
the existing driveway.
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 purpose of the required 6 metre setback from the street line is to allow an
opportunity for both required parking 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 the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law if, prior to final approval,
the applicant submits a parking plan showing two required off-street parking spaces
accommodated side-by-side and a pedestrian connection from the residential building
to the street on the existing driveway.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
88
1.Submission No.: A 2011–018, (Cont’d)
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 March 1, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Usdenski advised the Committee that he has been working with By-law
Enforcement staff to rectify his parking situation.
Mr. Lewis advised the Committee that Transportation Planning staff are requesting
submission of a parking plan and, once approved the owner must implement it by no
later that August 31, 2011.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Efrem Usdenski requesting permission for the 2 required parking
spaces for this duplex to be located side by side in the existing driveway with a setback
from the property line on Doon Valley Drive of 2.19 m (7.18’) rather than the required
6m (19.68’), on Part 1, Plan of Biehn’s Unnumbered Tract, being Part 4, Plan 58R-
BE APPROVED,
11004, 59 Doon Valley Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City’s Building Division for
the conversion of the garage to living space.
2. That the owner shall submit a parking plan to the satisfaction of the City’s
Director of Transportation Planning, showing two required off-street parking
spaces accommodated side-by-side and a pedestrian connection from the
residential building to the street on the existing driveway, within 30 days of
approval of this application.
3. That the owner shall complete any site alterations and/or improvements as
required in the approved parking plan stated in Condition #2 above, to the
satisfaction of the City’s Director of Transportation Planning by August 31, 2011.
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 2011–019
Applicant:
YOG Fellowship Temple
Property Location:
388 Plains Road
Legal Description:
Part Lot 9, New Beasley’s Survey,
being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-1754
Appearances:
In Support: B. Shantz
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
89
2.Submission No.: A 2011–019, (Cont’d)
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to expand a
legal non-conforming religious institution by constructing an addition to the lobby and
storage area.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated March 3, 2011,
advising that the subject property is located at 388 Plains Road, which is located west of
Fischer Hallman Road and is developed with a single detached dwelling and religious
institution building. The property has a lot frontage of approximately 138.4 metres along
Fischer Hallman Road and an area of approximately 13.597 hectares. The subject
lands are designated Agricultural in the Official Plan and are zoned Agricultural (A-1)
with a special provision 117U in the Zoning By-law. The special provision permits a
private recreational club and playing fields existing on the date of the passing of By-law
No. 92-130.
The worship area and hall are currently connected with a narrow hallway that is used by
the temple’s patrons as an area to store coats, and shoes. The purpose of the addition
is to expand the hallway into a proper lobby with added space for storage as well as a
2nd level storage mezzanine. The hallway is proposed to expand from 29 square
metres to 313 square metres which includes a 2nd storey level storage mezzanine. The
new ground floor area is proposed to be 193 square metres and the new lobby is
proposed to have a maximum height of 7.5 metres.
Under normal circumstances, this request would be straight forward. However, the
religious institution use has legal non-conforming (LNC) status in the Agricultural (A-1)
Zone; therefore, in order to expand the owner has applied for permission to expand a
LNC use under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act.
It should be noted that an application to extend a legal non-conforming use, in this case
by allowing the expansion of the lobby and storage area, does not have to meet the four
tests for a minor variance. Case law has determined that consideration should be
based on:
1. Impact on the surrounding area. Does the proposed use create unacceptable
adverse impacts upon the abutting properties, and
2. Desirability for development of the property.
Section 45(2) of the Ontario Planning Act grants power to the Committee of Adjustment
to permit the enlargement or extension of a legal non-conforming building or structure.
Planning Staff is of the opinion that the religious institution located on the subject
property existed before the passing of the City of Kitchener Zoning Bylaw in 1985 and
therefore the use is LNC.
In considering a request for the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming use as
outlined in the tests of Section 45(2) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as
amended, Planning staff offer the following comments:
The closest structure to the subject lands is a single detached dwelling located
approximately 500 metres northeast of the existing LNC religious institution building.
The surrounding neighbouring properties are very large land parcels generally used for
agricultural purposes. The existing structures are well screened by a dense, high row of
cedar trees from both Fischer Hallman Road and Plains Road.
The proposed addition is intended to only increase the lobby and storage area which
connects the two sections of the building. Planning staff is of the opinion that the effect
on the surrounding properties is negligible.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
90
2.Submission No.: A 2011–019, (Cont’d)
With respect to desirability of the proposed addition to the existing LNC building, staff
acknowledges that the proposed use of the building is for religious institutional
purposes. The proposed addition will increase the utility area of the existing building
increasing the space for visitors to place their shoes and coats. The proposal does not
seek to expand the building area for worship use, but creates a more functional
entrance for users of the building.
The proposed addition does not impact any other site design and staff notes that a Site
Plan Application is not required and no additional parking is required as a result of the
expansion.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated March 1, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Schantz presented the application and justification for its approval. He advised that
the current use has existed since 1983 and the use is currently legal non-conforming.
He advised that a dense cedar hedge prevents viewing from the street; the small
addition will not impede the future use of the property. The scale of the addition is very
small and it will be located between the two existing buildings.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of YOG Fellowship Temple requesting permission to expand a legal
non-conforming religious institution by constructing an addition to the lobby and storage
area, on Part Lot 9, New Beasley’s Survey, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-1754,
BE APPROVED,
388 Plains Road, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following
condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division for
the addition.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The proposed addition is desirable for the appropriate development of the
property.
2. The addition will not create an unacceptable adverse impact on the surrounding
area.
Carried
Submission No.:
3. A 2011–020
Applicant:
Michael Kraus Holdings Inc.
Property Location:
416 Lancaster Street West
Legal Description:
Part Lots 3 & 4, Plan 789
Appearances:
In Support: S. Litt
Contra: None
Written Submissions: D. Snider
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert a 12
unit multi-residential building to a 21 unit multi-residential building to have a floor space
ration of 1.0 rather than the permitted 0.6, legalization of the existing building having a
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
91
3.Submission No.: A 2011–020, (Cont’d)
northerly side yard of 2.4 m (7.87’) rather than the required 2.5 m (8.2’), legalization of
the building height of 11 m (36’) rather than the permitted 10.5 m (34.44’); and,
legalization of the location of off-street parking 0m from the lot line along Lancaster
Street rather than the required 3 m (9.84’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated March 7, 2011,
advising that the subject property is located on Lancaster Street West between Union
Street and the Expressway, and is legally described as Part Lots 3 and 4, Registered
Plan 789. The subject parcel is 0.15 hectares (0.37 acres) in size and is occupied by a
4-storey, 12-unit apartment building that was constructed in the 1960s.
The applicant, Stephen Litt, has requested the following four variances:
1. Relief from Section 40.2.6, to permit a multiple dwelling with a maximum Floor
Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.0, whereas the zoning permits a maximum FSR of 0.6;
2. Relief from Section 40.2.6, to permit a side yard setback of 2.4 metres, whereas
the zoning permits a minimum side yard setback of 2.5 metres;
3. Relief from Section 40.2.6, to permit a maximum building height of 11.0 metres,
whereas the zoning permits a maximum building height of 10.5 metres; and,
4. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1(d), to permit visitor parking with a 0 metre setback
from the street line, whereas a minimum setback of 3.0 metres is required.
The property is designated Low Density Multiple Residential in the North Ward
Secondary Plan in the City’s Official Plan. The property is zoned Residential Six (R6) in
By-law 85-1. The site was the subject of a severance in 1994, where it was separated
from 422 Lancaster Street West. At that time, a variance for the side yard setback
adjacent to 422 Lancaster Street West was also granted. While the site does not
appear to have been the subject of a formal Site Plan Review process, a site plan
identifying parking space locations was submitted for review as part of the 1994
severance application.
The applicant is proposing to convert the existing 12-unit building to a 21-unit building,
with a building addition at the rear of the property. The proposed conversion of the
apartment building was the subject of a pre-submission consultation review meeting on
January 18, 2011, at which time the applicant was advised that variances would need to
be sought if proceeding with the proposal as shown. Some modifications have been
made to the proposed site plan, and will be subject to formal Site Plan Approval before
any building permits can be released.
With regards to the variances requested, Planning staff offers 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.
Variance 1 – Increase in Floor Space Ratio
The Low Density Medium Residential designation permits a maximum FSR of 1.0 times
the lot area. The applicant is requesting permission to allow a maximum FSR of 1.0 on
this particular site, which does not exceed the maximum FSR allowed in the
designation. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal meets the intent of the Official
Plan.
The intent of the zoning regulation limiting the FSR to 0.6 is to maintain building
massing at a scale in line with what is normally considered “low rise”, which across the
city is generally 0.6 times the lot area in the Residential Six Zone. This particular
property sits along a strip of low-rise apartments that were constructed, for the most
part, before the current zoning was brought into effect and may already exceed a FSR
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
92
3.Submission No.: A 2011–020, (Cont’d)
of 0.6. The variance proposed would bring the FSR limitation in line with the Official
Plan policies for the land use designation, while still limiting the building massing. Staff
therefore considers that the variance requested meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The existing apartment building at 416 Lancaster Street West has a Building Floor Area
of approximately 1200 square metres.Given the lot area of 1507 square metres, the
FSR of the existing building is 0.8. The proposed increase to allow a FSR of 1.0 would
permit an addition to the building of a maximum of 337 square metres of total building
area. As the building is already four storeys, a four storey addition of this size would
result in a small increase to the building footprint (approximately 84 square metres, or
900 square feet). As such, staff considers the variance to be minor.
The variance could be appropriate for the development and use of the land if designed
properly. While the City does encourage infill development where possible and
appropriate, this particular site is not a location identified in the Growth Management
Plan for intensification. The increase proposed is minor, but given the unique triangular
configuration of the property, the height of the building and the adjacent low-rise
residential uses, consideration must be given to all potential arrangement of the
additional building area and any resulting impacts. Construction of an addition to the
rear of the existing building in accordance with the generic R6 regulations would permit
the building to be a minimum of 2.5 metres (8 feet) from the property line shared with
the rear yards of the homes on Union Street. The increased building mass, this close to
the property line, would give a looming effect over the rear yards of the homes on Union
Street, and may raise privacy and overlook concerns.
While staff is generally supportive of permitting an addition to the building up to a FSR
of 1.0 in accordance with the Official Plan policies, staff feels that the increase in
massing requires consideration of appropriate setbacks from existing adjacent low-rise
uses. Maintaining the existing minimum side yard setback, adjacent to the property line
shared with the rear yards of the homes on Union Street, would be an acceptable
means of mitigating the potential impact of any additions to the building at 416
Lancaster Street West.
Based on the foregoing, planning staff recommends that the request to permit a multiple
dwelling with a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.0, whereas the zoning permits a
maximum FSR of 0.6, be approved subject to a minimum five (5) metre setback being
maintained from the property line shared with the rear yards of the properties on Union
Street for structures more than two (2) storeys in height.
Variance 2 – Reduction of the Minimum Side Yard Setback
The Low Density Medium Residential designation permits the low-rise apartment
building form, and the setback reduction requested recognizes an existing situation.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposal meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The intent of the zoning regulation requiring a minimum side yard setback is to allow
adequate separation between the building and property line for access and
maintenance and, in some circumstances, privacy. The side yard setback reduction
requested for this site would only apply to the setback from the property line shared with
422 Lancaster Street West, and recognizes an existing building location that was
previously granted relief in 1994. As this setback was previously considered to be in
keeping with the regulation, staff considers the variance requested to meet the intent of
the Zoning By-law.
The difference between the required minimum side yard setback and requested
minimum side yard setback is 0.1 metres (4 inches). As such, staff considers the
variance to be minor.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
93
3.Submission No.: A 2011–020, (Cont’d)
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land, because it
recognizes the existing side yard setback and allows for any additions to be flush with
the existing wall.
Based on the foregoing, planning staff recommends that the request to permit a side
yard setback of 2.4 metres along the property line shared with 422 Lancaster Street
West, whereas the zoning permits a minimum side yard setback of 2.5 metres, be
approved.
Variance 3 – Permission to Exceed the Maximum Building Height
The Low Density Medium Residential designation permits the low-rise apartment
building form, and the building height requested recognizes an existing situation. Staff
is of the opinion that the proposal meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The intent of the zoning regulation limiting the building height to 10.5 metres is to
maintain a consistent building form of no more than 3 storeys in neighbourhoods
considered to be “low rise”. In this circumstance, the building exceeds the existing
building height requirements because it was constructed before the current regulations
came into effect. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the building that
will be consistent in height with the existing structure, which sits 3.5 storeys in height
when viewed from Lancaster Street West. As the proposed height of the addition is to
match the existing building and is in keeping with the building form in the immediate
area, staff considers the variance requested to meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The difference between the maximum building height and requested building height
measurement is 0.5 metres (19 inches, or about 1.5 feet). As such, staff considers the
variance to be minor.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land, because it
recognizes the existing building height and allows any additions to be consistent with
that existing building height.
Based on the foregoing, planning staff recommends that the request to permit a
maximum building height of 11.0 metres, whereas the zoning permits a maximum
building height of 10.5 metres, be approved.
Variance 4 – Permission to have Visitor Parking 0 metres Setback from the Street Line
The Official Plan speaks to the desire to have a high standard of Urban Design and
Streetscape, particularly along arterial roads. The applicant is proposing to locate
parking with no setback from the property line adjacent to Lancaster Street West,
leaving no space on the property to provide any sort of landscaping or screening
features between the public realm and any parked vehicles.Staff is of the opinion that
the request for the reduction in parking setback does not meet the intent of the Official
Plan.
The intent of the zoning regulation is to provide a buffer area on private lands between
parking at the public street, to enhance the streetscape by creating separation between
the sidewalk and parking areas. While there are public lands between the sidewalk and
the front property line of the subject property that could be considered a “buffer”
between pedestrians and parked cars at this time, staff must consider what would
happen when Lancaster Street West is widened, possibly bringing the sidewalk right up
to the property line. Further, the proposed parking layout results in parking spaces
within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), that is required for safety reasons. As
such, staff considers that the variance requested does not meet the intent of the Zoning
By-law.
As the variance requested does not maintain the intent of the OP policies or zoning
regulations, staff does not consider the variance to be minor.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
94
3.Submission No.: A 2011–020, (Cont’d)
The applicant has verbally noted to staff that the parking setbacks proposed are in
keeping with what is on-site today. Staff notes, however, that the parking layout on site
today has not been reviewed or received approval from the City, including the lack of a
setback from the front property line along Lancaster Street West. The last plan
reviewed by staff was produced in 1994 and submitted to demonstrate that the parking
required for the 12-unit building could be accommodated on the parcel proposed to be
created by severance. At that time, the space closest to Lancaster Street West was
setback 3.7 metres from the front property line. Staff does not consider the current
parking layout, with no setback from the front property line, to have any sort of status
other than “illegal”. Staff does not support allowing any parking spaces within the
required 3.0 metre setback, as such parking is not consistent with the policies regarding
Urban Design in the Official Plan, and does not maintain the intent of the zoning
regulation.
Based on the foregoing, planning staff recommends that the request to permit visitor
parking with a 0 metre setback from the street line, whereas a minimum setback of 3.0
metres is required, be refused.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated March 1, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Ministry of Transportation Corridor
Management Planner, dated October 2, 2009, advising they have no objection to the
granting of this application. A building/land use permit is required from the ministry
before any grading/construction commences within a 395m radius measured from the
centreline intersection of Highway 85 and any municipal road.
The Committee considered the written submission of a neighbour in opposition to this
application.
Mr. Litt addressed the Committee reviewing the variance requested in this application.
He noted that the property was developed in the late 1950’s, so he is requesting
locational variances. Respecting the floor space ration, he advised that the City’s
Official Plan allows for a floor space ratio of 1.0, whereas the zoning by-law only permits
a floor space ratio of 0.6. Mr. Litt then addressed the concerns outlined in a neighbour’s
written submission, advising that their abutting yard is a rear yard. He also asked that
staff reconsider their request for a 5m side yard along the rear yards of the Union Street
properties.
Mr. Litt then addressed the staff recommendation to refuse the request for a 0m setback
for parking. He advised that he understood staff’s concern and will continue to work
with them.
Again referring to the 5m setback for a building more than 2 storeys in height, Mr. Litt
stated that the improvements he will make to this property will really improve the area
and the building is close to the transportation network. He stated that the neighbours
will have more building mass behind them; however, there will be a better class of
tenants which should improve their situation. He asked that the 5m be reduced to 3m
and Ms. Anderl stated that the property will have to go through the site plan process
before she could comment on the requested 3m.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
95
3.Submission No.: A 2011–020, (Cont’d)
That the application of Michael Kraus Holdings Inc. requesting permission to convert a
12 unit multi-residential building to a 21 unit multi-residential building to have a floor
space ratio of 1.0 rather than the permitted 0.6, legalization of the existing building
having a northerly side yard of 2.4 m (7.87’) rather than the required 2.5 m (8.2’); and,
legalization of the building height of 11 m (36’) rather than the permitted 10.5 m (34.44’),
BE
on Part Lots 3 & 4, Plan 789, 416 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant shall obtain a building/land use permit from the Ministry of
Transportation, if required.
2. That the approval of the variances above is subject to the owner maintaining a
minimum 5m setback from the property line shared with the rear yards of the
properties on Union Street for structures more than 2 stories in height.
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.
- and further -
That the application of Michael Kraus Holdings Inc. requesting legalization of the
location of off-street parking 0m from the lot line along Lancaster Street rather than the
required 3 m (9.84’), on Part Lots 3 & 4, Plan 789, 416 Lancaster Street West,
BE REFUSED.
Kitchener, Ontario,
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is not minor.
2. This variance is not 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 not being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
4. A 2011-021
Applicant:
Stephen Litt
Property Location:
190 Lancaster Street East
Legal Description:
Part Lot 5, Registered Plan 363
Appearances:
In Support: S. Litt
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide one
off-street parking space for a duplex rather than the required 2 parking spaces and
permission for the parking space to be located 2.4m (7.87’) from the lot line along
Lancaster Street rather than the required 6m (19.68’).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
96
4.Submission No.: A 2011–021, (Cont’d)
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated March 4, 2011,
advising that the owner is requesting permission to provide one off-street parking space
for a duplex rather than the required two parking spaces and permission for the parking
space to be located 2.4 metres (7.87 feet) from the lot line along Lancaster Street rather
than the required 6 metres (19.68 feet).
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following
comments.
The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law and can be
considered minor for the following reasons. The intent is to preserve the scale, use and
intensity of existing development. The Official Plan and the Zoning By-law permit both
single family dwellings and duplexes. It is proposed that the two-storey frame building
be renovated and will contain two dwelling units, both of which will have a gross floor
area of less than 51 sq. m. (549 sq. ft.). Units of this size are generally referred to as
bachelor or seniors units and often attract tenants that do not have a vehicle. As well,
the property is centrally located close to the downtown along multiple transit routes.
Therefore requesting a reduction to have one parking space for the two units is
considered minor.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following
reason. The proposed duplex use is permitted and providing one parking space for the
two units would not appear to negatively impact the property or the surrounding
neighbourhood.
Staff notes that the drawing submitted with the application does not accurately indicate
the location of the paved driveway area. A portion of the driveway indicated on the plan
is in fact not paved driveway but actually contains some landscaped front yard and an
internal sidewalk.
It is recommended that approval of this variance be made conditional on the proposed
driveway area being made of the same material (asphalt) in order that it is
distinguishable from all other ground cover or surfacing (as per Section 6.1.1.1 b) vi) of
the Off-street Parking Section of the Zoning By-law)
Staff also notes that there are vehicles located in the front yard. This is a violation of the
zoning by-law as this encroaches onto city lands. The owner is advised that it is not
permitted to park vehicles in the front yard at any time.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated March 1, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Litt advised that the property is currently a distressed single family dwelling and
converting the home to a duplex would make it a more sustainable use. He advised
that the 2 new units would be just under the threshold for bachelor units.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Stephen Litt requesting permission to provide one off-street
parking space for a duplex rather than the required 2 parking spaces and permission for
the parking space to be located 2.4m (7.87’) from the lot line along Lancaster Street
rather than the required 6m (19.68’), on Part Lot 5, Registered Plan 363, 190 Lancaster
BE APPROVED,
Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition:
1. That the landscaping and internal walkways that are on-site and that are within
the driveway area as shown on the submitted sketch shall be removed and the
driveway area be constructed of the same asphalt material by August 31st,
2011.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
97
4.Submission No.: A 2011–021, (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
CONSENT
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2011-022
Applicant:
Robert Simpson, Helen Simpson and Kim Lorna Muir
Property Location:
70-72 Gage Avenue
Legal Description:
Part Lot 20, Registered Plan 402,
being Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-16563
Appearances:
In Support: R. & H. Simpson
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever 70
Gage Avenue from 72 Gage Avenue so each can be dealt with separately. The
severed land will have a width of 7.669 m (25.16’), a depth of 34.339 m (112.66’) and
an area of 257.9 sq. m. (2,776.1 sq. ft.). The retained land will have a width of 7.67 m
(25.16’), a depth of 34.423 m (112.93’) and an area of 257.7 sq. m. (2,773.95 sq. ft.).
Each property will continue to be used as a semi-detached dwelling unit.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated March 7, 2011,
advising that the subject property is located on the south side of Gage Avenue between
Belmont Avenue West and Waverly Road. The property is irregularly shaped and has
15.34 metres of frontage on Gage Avenue and a total lot area of 515.6 square metres.
The property is developed with a newly constructed semi-detached dwelling.
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is
zoned Residential Five (R-5) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The surrounding area is composed
of a mix of residential land uses including single detached dwellings, semi-detached
dwellings, and a cluster townhouse development. St. John Catholic Elementary School
and St. John Catholic Church are also located in the immediate surrounding area.
The owner is requesting consent to sever the subject property in such a way as to allow
for separate ownership of each semi-detached house (the existing lot would be severed
approximately in half). Each proposed lot would be approximately the same area and
dimensions and would result in a symmetrical property division of the semi-detached
dwelling. The proposed severance would result in two lots that both comply with the
Zoning By-law.
The retained lands would have a lot width of 7.67 metres, a lot depth of 34.42 metres,
and an area of 257.7 square metres. The severed lot would have a lot width of 7.67
metres, a lot depth of 34.34 metres, and an area of 257.9 square metres.
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 proposed parcels are in conformity
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
98
1.Submission No.: B 2011–022, (Cont’d)
with the City’s Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are
appropriate and suitable for the proposed use, the lands front on an established public
street, and adequate utilities and municipal services are available. Also, the proposed
lots are compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing &
Community Services, dated March 4, 2011, in which they advise that the subject
property is located in proximity to the Goderich Exeter Railway. Due to rail volumes and
because the residential building is existing on site, in lieu of a Transportation Noise
Study, a noise warning clause is required to advise future purchasers that sounds levels
from Goderich Exeter Railway may exceed Regional Noise Level Objectives
They also advise that prior to final approval, the owner/applicant will be required to enter
into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener to include the
following warning clauses in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements for
the severed and retained lands:
“Due to the proximity of the Goderich Exeter Railway, projected noise levels on
this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals.”
The subject lands are located in close proximity to a stationary noise source (nearby
industrial/commercial operations). Because the semi-detached dwellings exist on the
subject lands, in lieu of a stationary noise study, the owner/applicant will be required to
enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to include the following noise warning
clause in all offers to purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements for the severed and
retained lands:
“Future owners are advised that due to the proximity of industrial/commercial
facilities operating in the area, sound levels from those facilities may at times be
audible and may cause concern to some individuals.”
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of the Robert Simpson, Helen Simpson and Kim Lorna Muir
requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 7.669 m (25.16’), a
depth of 34.339 m (112.66’) and an area of 257.9 sq. m. (2,776.1 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 20,
Registered Plan 402, being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-16563, 70 Gage Avenue,
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 enter into a registered development agreement with the City
of Kitchener to include the following noise warning clause in all offers to
purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements for the severed and retained lands:
“Future owners are advised that due to the proximity of industrial facilities
operating in the area, sound levels from those facilities may at times be audible
and may cause concern to some individuals.”
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
99
1.Submission No.: B 2011–022, (Cont’d)
4. That the owner shall enter into a registered development agreement with the City
of Kitchener for all units to include the following warning clauses in all offers of
purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements:
“Due to the proximity of the Goderich Exeter Railway, projected noise levels on
this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals.”
“Warning: Goderich Exeter Railway or its assigns or successors in interest has
or have a rights-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof.
There may be alterations to or expansions of the railway facilities on such rights-
of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or
successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect
the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the
inclusion of any noise and Goderich Exeter Railway will not be responsible for
any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on,
over or under the aforesaid rights-of-way.”
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 March 15, 2013.
Carried
COMBINED APPLICATIONS
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2011-023 & A 2011-022
Applicant:
Al Kavanagh
Property Location:
711 Westmount Road West
Legal Description:
Lot 35, Registered Plan 810
Appearances:
In Support: B. Flewwelling
Contra: T. Neeb
Written Submissions: J. Topper
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting to sever a parcel of land
having a width on Westmount Road of 10.213 m (33.5’), a depth of 14.674 m (48.14’)
and an area of 150.9 sq. m. (1,624.32 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 701
Westmount Road West.Permission for a lot having an area of 798.8 sq. m. (8,598.49
sq. ft.) rather than the required 929 sq. m. (10,000 sq. ft.), a rear yard of 5.09m (16.69’)
rather than the required 7.5m (24.6’), permission for parking to be located 0m from the
street line rather than the required 6m (19.68’) and permission to access the parking
space via a right-of-way rather than having access on their own property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
100
1.Submission No.: B 2011-023 & A 2011-022, (Cont’d)
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated March 3, 2011,
advising that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a
width on Westmount Road West of 10.213 m (33.5 ft), a depth of 14.674 m (48.1 ft) and
an area of 150.9 sq. m. (1,624.32 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition from 711
Westmount Rd West to 701 Westmount Road West as shown on the map above. The
owner intends to retain a right-of-way over a portion of the land to be severed with a
width of 4 m (13.12 ft) by a depth of 6.6 m (21.65 ft) for access to parking. The owner is
also requesting minor variances to legalize 1) a lot area of 789.8 sq. m (8,598 sq. ft)
rather than the required 929 sq. m .(10,000 sq ft); 2) a lot width of 22.8 m (74.8 ft) rather
than the required 24 m (78.7 ft); 3) a rear yard setback of 5.09 m (16.7 ft) rather than
the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft); and 4) a parking space to be setback 1.1 m (3.6 ft) from the
lot line along Westmount Road rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft) for the lands to be
retained (711 Westmount Rd W).
In 2007, the owner(s) of the 701 and 711 Westmount Rd applied for minor variance
approval to legalize an existing enclosed breezeway having a reduced rear yard and a
driveway width of 12.19 m (40 ft); as well as legalizing a parking lot from which vehicles
exit in a rearward motion rather than the required forward motion. An off-street parking
agreement was also registered on title to permit the occupants of 701 Westmount Rd W
to have one parking space located at 711 Westmount Rd. In the past, 701 and 711
Westmount Rd W were occupied by relatives who shared the driveway/garage between
the two single family dwellings.
The owner(s) now wish to sell the two properties to separate owners and wish to
reverse the parking arrangement and have the garage added to the lot at 701
Westmount Rd, and consequently to have one off-street parking space for 711
Westmount Rd accessed over the existing driveway with a right-of-way agreement.
The lands are designed Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and are zoned R-2 in
Zoning By-law 85-1. The purpose of the applications is to add a piece of land
approximately 150 sq. m. in area to Mr and Mrs Kavanagh’s property located at 701
Westmount Rd W. The land to be added contains an existing garage with a breezeway
that is connected to the dwelling located on 701 Westmount Rd W.
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, the dimensions and shapes of the
proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses 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. Also, the
resultant lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area, especially
with those lots on the opposite side of the street.
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.
In addition, the proposed right-of-way is sufficient in size and would function
appropriately for obtaining access to the parking space.
As a result of the proposed severances four variances are required to legalize the lands
to be retained.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following
comments.
The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reason. The intent of
the Low Rise Residential designation is to ensure a low overall intensity of use. Both
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
101
1.Submission No.: B 2011-023 & A 2011-022, (Cont’d)
properties will continue to be used as single family dwellings and no external changes
are being proposed. Therefore staff is of the opinion that the intent of the Official Plan
is maintained.
The purpose of the minimum lot area and lot width regulations is to ensure adequate
setbacks and lot sizes that are compatible with other properties in the Residential zone.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed reductions recognize an existing situation and
as there are no changes proposed to the physical structures or the frontage onto Union
Boulevard the proposed variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
In regards to the reduction in rear yard setback and further to staff review it has been
determined that the minimum rear yard requirement of 7.5 metres can be met as the
rear yard measurement is taken form the building to the lot line farthest from the front lot
line. Therefore this variance is no longer required.
The purpose of the 6 metre setback requirement for a parking space is to ensure that if
parking is located in a garage there is also space on the driveway to accommodate a
vehicle. As the required space is outdoors and there is limited area to provide a second
space, staff feels that the intent of the by-law is maintained. As well, staff notes that it is
undesirable to further widen the driveway access onto Westmount Rd W. The current
driveway width and parking situation has operated in this manner since 2007 when it
was approved by Minor Variance application A 2007-012 and staff is supportive of
allowing it to continue with the right-of-way.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following
reasons. Both the property to be retained and the property that will contain the lot
addition will function and will maintain the same view from the streetscape. There would
be no change or impact on the neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing &
Community Services, dated March 4, 2011, in which they advise that at this location
Regional Road No. 50 (Westmount Road) has an existing road allowance of 24.38
meters (80 feet) meters and a designated width in the Regional Official Policies Plan
(ROPP) of 26.21 meters (86 feet). The owner/applicant is advised that a 0.914 meter (3
foot) road widening is required prior to final approval.
The subject lands currently contain decorative fencing which will encroach onto the
Regional Road Allowance. As a result, the owner/applicant is required to enter into an
encroachment agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo prior to final
approval.
The owner/applicant is advised that no additional access onto Westmount Road
(Regional Road No. 50) will be permitted. Furthermore, changes or updates to the
existing access will not be permitted.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated March 1, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the written submission from the neighbour in opposition to
these applications.
Ms. Neeb advised that she is new to the neighbourhood and is in attendance for more
information.
Mr. Flewelling advised that in the past the owner did work on the property prior to
obtaining building permits, he has since worked with the Building Division and all the
proper permits have been obtained. He stated that the current situation will be
maintained, noting that nothing will change from the Westmount road perspective. He
added that there is an existing parking agreement between the two properties.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
102
1.Submission No.: B 2011-023 & A 2011-022, (Cont’d)
Ms. Neeb noted that the owners have just sold 341 Union Boulevard and are selling 701
and 711 Westmount Road. There is also talk that they may be selling 220 Claremont
Avenue. She questioned whether these properties could be redeveloped for a more
intense use by a new purchaser. Mr. Flewelling advised that these are still individual
properties.
Submission No. B 2001-023
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Al Kavanagh requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
having a width on Westmount Road of 10.213 m (33.5’), a depth of 14.674 m (48.14’)
and an area of 150.9 sq. m. (1,624.32 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 701
Westmount Road West, on Lot 35, Registered Plan 810, 711 Westmount Road West,
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 receive final approval of Minor Variance Application A 2011-022.
4. a) 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 for access is maintained in
perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately
following the Transfer Easement(s);
b) That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved
Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint
maintenance agreement, shall be provided to the City Solicitor;
The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer
Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following
registration.
5. a) That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and 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 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 shall provide a copy of the registered Application
Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time
following registration.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MARCH 15, 2011
103
1.Submission No.: B 2011-023 & A 2011-022, (Cont’d)
Submission No. B 2001-023 (Cont’d)
6. That at their expense, the owner shall enter into an encroachment agreement
with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the encroachment of decorative
fencing onto the Regional Road Allowance of Westmount Road (Regional Road
No. 50).
7. That the owner shall convey, at their expense, a 3’ (0.914m.) road widening
across the Westmount Road (Regional Road No. 50) frontage of the subject
property to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo 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 March 15, 2013.
Carried
Submission No. A 2011-022
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Al Kavanagh requesting permission for a lot having an area of
798.8 sq. m. (8,598.49 sq. ft.) rather than the required 929 sq. m. (10,000 sq. ft.), a rear
yard of 5.09m (16.69’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6’), permission for parking to
be located 0m from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.68’) and permission
to access the parking space via a right-of-way rather than having access on their own
property, on Lot 35, Registered Plan 810, 711 Westmount Road West, Kitchener,
BE APPROVED.
Ontario,
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 MARCH 15, 2011
104
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th day of March, 2011.
Dianne H. Gilchrist
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment