HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2011-04-19COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 19, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. J. Meader and Messrs. D. Cybalski, B. McColl
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Ms. M. Wade, Heritage
Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Ms. A. Buitenhuis,
Student Planner, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer and Ms. D.
Saunderson, Administrative Clerk
Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:25 a. m.
MINUTES
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of March 15, 2011, as
mailed to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
CONSENT
1. Submission Nos.: 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 June 21, 2011.
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
1. Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
A 2011-023
Victoria Ariens
300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent
Part Lot 12, Beasley's Broken Front Concession and Part
Block 12, Registered Plan 58M-400, being Parts 1, 3 and
4, Reference Plan 58R-15677
J. Ariens
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 106 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-023. (Confd
M. Johnston
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to allow 2 of the
3 off street parking spaces to be located in the drive shed located 4.5m (14.76') from the
street rather than the required 6.Om (19.69'); to allow 1 of the 3 required off street
parking spaces to be located east of the drive shed, set back Om from the street rather
than the required 6.Om (19.69'); to allow 2 additional parking spaces to be located east
of the drive shed to be set back from the street Om rather than the required 3.Om(9.84');
to allow the 3 parking spaces next to the drive shed to have a minimum depth of 4.5m
(14.76') to 3.75m (12.3') rather than the required 5.49m (18.01'); to allow a total
driveway width of 18.Om (59.06') rather than the permitted driveway width of 8.Om
(26.25'); and, to allow a parking lot with vehicles being allowed to egress in a rearward
motion rather than the required forward motion.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 11, 2011,
advising that the subject property is located on the south side of Joseph Schoerg Crescent
and is legally described as Part Lots 3 and 4, Registered Plan 789. The subject property is 0.85
hectares (2.11 acres) in size and is occupied by a single detached dwelling and a drive shed
that were constructed circa 1830.
The applicant, Victoria Ariens, has requested the following six variances:
1. Relief from Sections 6.1.1.1.b.i and 36.2.1, to permit 2 of the 3 required off-street
parking spaces to be located in the drive shed and setback 4.5 metres from the
street line, whereas the zoning requires a minimum front yard setback of 6.0
metres;
2. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1.b.i, to permit 1 of the 3 required off-street parking
spaces to be located east of the drive shed and setback 0 metres from the street
line, whereas the zoning requires a minimum setback of 6.0 metres;
3. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1.iv, to permit 2 additional off-street parking spaces to
be located east of the drive shed and setback 0 metres from the street line,
whereas the zoning requires a minimum setback of 3.0 metres;
4. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1.b.ii.h, to permit a total driveway width of 18.0 metres,
whereas the zoning permits a maximum driveway width of 8 metres;
5. Relief from Section 6.1.2.d, to permit 3off-street parking spaces east of the drive
shed to have a minimum length ranging from 3.75 to 4.5 metres, whereas the
zoning requires a minimum parking space length of 5.49 metres; and,
6. Relief from Section 6.1.2. b, to permit a parking lot with vehicles being allowed to
egress in a backward motion, whereas the zoning requires a parking lot to
provide ingress and egress of vehicles to and from a street in a forward motion
only.
The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The property is
zoned Residential Two (R2) in By-law 85-1 and is subject to special regulation provisions 231 R
and 263R and special use provisions 228U and 236U.
The property is also designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and is subject to a
Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement.
The applicant is proposing to convert the existing drive shed building to a garage in order to
provide two interior required parking spaces. The applicant has installed a driveway that leads to
the proposed garage and the same driveway extends east of the garage in order to provide one
required surface parking space and two additional parking spaces.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 107 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-023, (Cont'd)
Wth regards to the variances requested, 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.
Variance 1 -Permission to have Required Parking within a Building Setback 4.5 metres from
the Street Line
The Low Rise Residential designation in the Official Plan permits the accessory building
(commonly referred to as the drive shed) and the parking setback reduction recognizes
an existing situation. It is the opinion of staff that the variance meets the intent of the
Official Plan.
The intent of the zoning regulation requiring a minimum 6.0 metre setback from the
street line is to allow off-street visitor parking spaces on the driveway in tandem with the
required parking spaces located inside the drive shed. The applicant is proposing to
convert the inside of the drive shed to two required parking spaces. Committee of
Adjustment decision A2008-034 approved three required parking spaces located in front
of the drive shed subject to conditions requiring the minimum parking space depth of
5.5 metres and obtaining approval for an encroachment agreement with the City. As a
result, required and off-street visitor parking spaces may be located in tandem with the
required parking spaces located inside the drive shed. It is the opinion of staff that the
variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The variance recognizes an existing situation, which conserves a built heritage
resource. As a result, staff considers the variance to be minor. The variance is
appropriate for the development and use of land because it recognizes an existing
situation, which conserves a built heritage resource.
Based on the forgoing, staff recommends that the request to permit two of the three
required off-street parking spaces to be located in the drive shed and setback 4.5
metres from the street line, whereas a minimum setback of 6.0 metres is required, be
approved subject to conditions.
Variance 2 -Permission to have Required Parking Setback 0 metres from the Street
Line
The Low Rise Residential designation of the Official Plan encourages a full range of
housing types as well as a mix of non-residential uses in residential areas at a scale
and in locations appropriate to an area of low rise housing. In addition, the special
policies relating to Pioneer Tower West of the Official Plan permit tourist homes within
existing heritage buildings as a means of promoting their preservation. The parking
setback reduction recognizes the need to provide one of two required parking spaces
for the tourist home. It is the opinion of staff that the variance meets the intent of the
Official Plan. Note that the tourist home requires an Occupancy Permit.
The intent of the zoning regulation requiring a minimum 6.0 metre setback from the
street line is to allow off-street visitor parking spaces on the driveway in tandem with the
required parking spaces in the drive shed. The applicant is proposing to convert the
inside of the drive shed to two required parking spaces. Committee of Adjustment
decision A2008-034 approved three parking spaces located in front of the drive shed
subject to conditions requiring the minimum parking space depth of 5.5 metres and
obtaining approval for an encroachment agreement with the City. As a result, off-street
visitor parking spaces may be located in tandem with the required parking spaces
located inside the drive shed.
The Planning justification report submitted in support of the application indicates that
"The introduction of carriage doors onto the front of the drive shed will eliminate the
previously approved three spaces in front of the drive shed. These doors will swing out
approximately 5 feet and as such a vehicle can no longer park in front of the drive
shed." Staff understands that the proposed size of carriage doors will require the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 108 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-023. (Cont'd
applicant to move vehicles parked in front of the driveway in order to access vehicles
inside the drive shed. This situation is no different from any other residential
neighbourhood where owners with vehicles exceeding available garage space must
move vehicles in order to access vehicles inside a garage. It must be noted that when
fully open the proposed carriage doors will encroach on the City's boulevard. Such
encroachment would require an encroachment agreement with the City, which is
subject to a separate review and approval process. Approval of an encroachment
agreement is not guaranteed.
In addition, staff notes that the grades of the property adjacent to the drive shed and
driveway would need to change and/or a retaining wall would need to be constructed if
the required parking was setback a minimum of 6.0 metres from the street line. Based
on the information submitted with the application, a legal parking space with a minimum
depth of 5.5 metres can be accommodated on the subject property. As a result, it is the
opinion of staff that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The variance recognizes a previous Committee of Adjustment decision. In addition, the
variance recognizes the grades of the property, which are important to the cultural
heritage landscape. As a result, staff considers the variance to be minor.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of land because it recognizes
a previous Committee of Adjustment decision as well as the grades of the property,
which are important to the cultural heritage landscape.
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the request to permit one of three
required off-street parking spaces to be located east of the drive shed and setback 0
metres from the street line, whereas a minimum setback of 6.0 metres is required, be
approved subject to conditions.
Variance 3 -Permission to have Additional Parking Setback 0 metres from the Street
Line
The Low Rise Residential designation of the Official Plan encourages a full range of
housing types as well as a mix of non-residential uses in residential areas at a scale
and in locations appropriate to an area of low rise housing. In addition, the special
policies relating to Pioneer Tower West of the Official Plan permit tourist homes within
existing heritage buildings as a means of promoting their preservation. It is the opinion
of staff that the variance meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The intent of the zoning regulation requiring a minimum 3.0 metre setback from the
street line is to provide a buffer on the private lands between the public realm and the
vehicles in order to enhance the streetscape. As a result, it is the opinion of staff that the
variance does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The variance is not minor because it does not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law
and it creates a potential safety hazard by necessitating parking within the Driveway
Visibility Triangle.
The variance is not appropriate for the development and use of land because three
additional parking spaces are already permitted in tandem with the required parking
spaces located within the drive shed. The Planning Justification Report submitted in
support of the application indicates that "the area in front of and beside the drive shed
was historically used for vehicle parking." Reference Plan 58R-14114 dated August 1,
2003 identifies the location of the original driveway. The original driveway was located
outside of the present property boundary. With respect to the regulations of the Zoning
By-law, staff notes that the parking spaces east of the drive shed have not been
reviewed or received approval from the City.
In addition, parking spaces "P3" immediately abuts the fence (commonly referred to as
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 109 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-023. (Cont'd
a dry stone wall) and provides no opportunity for a Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT),
which is required for pedestrian and vehicular safety. No sidewalk exists on the north
side of the street and as a result the sidewalk on the south side of the street is the only
option for pedestrians travelling from the two public park spaces on either side of the
subject property.
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the request to permit a 0 metre setback
from the street line, whereas a 3.0 metre setback from the street line is required, be
refused.
Variance 4 - Permission to have a Driveway Width of 18.0 metres
The Urban Design policies of the Official Plan encourage a high standard of urban
design. It is the opinion of staff that the request for an increased driveway width meets
the intent of the Official Plan.
The intent of the zoning regulation permitting a maximum driveway width of 8 metres is
to provide an attractive and safe streetscape. The zoning for the subject property
permits two driveways with a maximum width of 8.0 metres each. The maximum
driveway width ensures that some of the front yard is landscaped with soft materials
such as grass, shrubs or trees. At the same time, the maximum driveway width limits
the total number of vehicles that may need to egress in a backward motion. The
proposed width of the driveway could accommodate 6 legal parking spaces. If the
applicant had proposed two driveways with a maximum width of 8.0 metres each the
driveways could also accommodate 6 legal parking spaces. Although vehicles that
egress in a backward motion may create safety concerns with pedestrians and
vehicular traffic, Transportation Planning staff have advised that given the nature and
intended use of the site they can support vehicles that egress in a backward motion;
however, it should be noted that Transportation Planning can not support parking space
"P3" due to the safety concerns that may arise as a result of no Driveway Visibility
Triangle. The removal of parking space "P3" will result in the need for a reduced
driveway width variance. It is the opinion of staff that the variance meets the intent of
the Zoning By-law.
The variance recognizes that the proposed 18.0 metre wide driveway and the two 8.0
metre wide driveways permitted under the Zoning By-law could accommodate the same
number of legal parking spaces. As a result, staff considers the variance to be minor.
The variance could be appropriate for the development and use of land if the driveway
was designed properly. Parking space "P3" creates a safety concern for pedestrians
and vehicles since no Driveway Visibility Triangle is provided. While staff is generally
supportive of permitting an increased driveway width, staff feels that the safety concerns
must be addressed.
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the request to permit a driveway width
of 18.0 metres, whereas a maximum driveway width of 8.0 metres is permitted, be
approved subject to conditions.
Variance 5 -Permission to have a Parking Space Depth of 3.75 to 4.5 metres
The Low Rise Residential designation of the Official Plan encourages a full range of
housing types as well as a mix of non-residential uses in residential areas at a scale
and in locations appropriate to an area of low rise housing. In addition, the special
policies relating to Pioneer Tower West of the Official Plan permit tourist homes within
existing heritage buildings as a means of promoting their preservation. It is the opinion
of staff that the variance meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The intent of the Zoning regulation requiring a minimum parking space depth of 5.5
metres is to ensure that vehicles can fit within a parking space on private property
without encroaching onto public property. In order to provide the minimum parking
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 110 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-023. (Cont'd
space depth, parking space "P1", "P2" and "P3" will all encroach onto public property. In
addition, even with the encroachment onto public property, parking space "P3" will not
meet the minimum parking space depth requirement. It is the opinion of staff that the
variance does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The variance is not minor because it does not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law
and it creates a potential safety hazard by necessitating parking over the City
boulevard. The variance is not appropriate for the development or use of land.
The City's legal staff has advised that an existing encroachment agreement allows three
required parking spaces to be located on a portion of the City boulevard directly in front
of the drive shed. The existing encroachment agreement prohibits extensions of the
driveway. As a result, the proposed parking spaces east of the drive shed would require
an encroachment agreement, which is subject to a separate review and approval
process. Approval of an encroachment agreement is not guaranteed. It should be noted
that the circumstances of the existing encroachment agreement are no longer relevant
because alternative parking spaces can be accommodated entirely on the applicant's
property. In addition, Legal staff has advised that parking on the City boulevard is a
contravention of By-law 2007-138 'A by-law to regulate traffic and parking on highways
under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener. Parking on the City
boulevard would require an exemption to By-law 2007-138, which is subject to a
separate review and approval process. Approval of the exemption is not guaranteed. As
a result, should the variance be granted and the encroachment agreement is not
approved then all three parking space depths would be deficient.
Transportation Planning staff has advised that the approximate length of a minivan is
5.0 metres and therefore could not fit into the reduced parking space depths. Staff notes
that the City has no authority to regulate the type of vehicle that may be parked on a
reduced parking space. At the same time, the City has no authority to restrict the
frequency of use of the parking spaces. In addition, the City has no way to effectively or
sufficiently inform and advise new and future owners of the unique parking restrictions
for reduced parking spaces. Furthermore, the applicant has sufficient space on the
subject property to accommodate the full parking space depth.
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the request to have a parking space
depth of 3.7 metres to 4.5 metres, whereas a parking space depth of 5.5 metres is
required, be refused.
Variance 6 -Permission to have a Parking Lot where Vehicles Egress in a Backward
Motion
The Transportation Policies of the Official Plan require parking areas to be designed,
constructed, and maintained for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles and
pedestrians on site and at points of ingress and egress to the site. Given the nature and
intended use of the site, Transportation Planning staff have advised that they can
support parking spaces "B1", "B2", "P1", and "P2" exiting in a backward motion,
provided that parking space "P3" is removed and reinstated in an alternate soft material
that does not support the parking of vehicles. It is the opinion of staff that the request to
allow vehicles to egress in a backward motion meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The intent of the Zoning regulation requiring vehicles in a parking lot to egress in a
backward motion is to ensure the safe and efficient movement of vehicles and
pedestrians both on private and public lands. It is the opinion of staff that the variance
meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
Based on the permitted use of the site (single detached dwelling and two bedroom
tourist home), it is the opinion of staff that the variance is minor.
The variance could be appropriate for the development and use of land if the driveway
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 111 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-023. (Cont'd
was designed properly. Parking space "P3" creates a safety concern for pedestrians
and vehicles since no Driveway Visibility Triangle is provided. While staff is generally
supportive of permitting vehicles to exit in a backward motion, staff feel that the safety
concerns must be addressed.
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the request to permit vehicles in a
parking lot to egress in a backward motion, whereas vehicles in a parking lot must
egress in a forward motion, be approved subject to conditions.
Planning staff are willing to work with the applicant to identify alternatives that meet the
intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
A Heritage Permit Application was required for the installation of paving stones east of
the drive shed since the introduction of a new surface material and the parking of
vehicles may impact the reasons for designation and in particular the cultural heritage
landscape. Staff report DTS-10-179 outlined the concerns of Heritage Planning staff
relating to the cumulative impacts of alterations to the property, including impacts to the
views of the cultural heritage landscape, the health of the front yard maple tree, and the
rural character of the property. Heritage Planning staff recommended refusal of the
Heritage Permit Application. The staff report was considered by Heritage Kitchener on
November 2, 2010. Heritage Kitchener also recommended refusal of the Heritage
Permit Application. The recommendations of Heritage Planning staff and Heritage
Kitchener were considered by Council on November 15, 2010. Council approved the
Heritage Permit Application subject to a condition indicating that the approval of the
Heritage Permit Application was not a waiver of any of the provisions of any by-laws of
the City of Kitchener or legislation including, but not limited to, the regulations of the
Building Code, Fence By-law, Hedges By-law, Zoning By-law or subsequent Heritage
Permit Application approvals required under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The City's Legal Services Division has advised that should the Committee of
Adjustment choose to approve the request to permit a 3.75 metre to 4.5 metre parking
space depth, the approval should be subject to the following conditions:
1. that the applicant apply for, receive approval for, and enter into an encroachment
agreement satisfactory to the City Solicitor;
2. that if the encroachment agreement is not approved or is entered into and
subsequently revoked by the City that this variance is also revoked;
3. that the applicant apply for and receive an exemption to By-law 2007-138; and,
4. that if the exemption to By-law 2007-138 is refused or is granted and
subsequently revoked by the City that this variance is also revoked.
The City's Transportation Planning division advises that they can not support space 3
as proposed on the parking plan provided by the applicant. Parking space 3 does not
meet the minimum required dimensions for a parking space as defined in the "City of
Kitchener Urban Design Manual". At its shortest point the stall is 4.8m in length. For
comparative purposes, the average length of a minivan is app. 5.Om and therefore
could not fit into space 3 as it is proposed. While there is a flagstone path directly
adjacent to the parking stall, given the design (each individual flagstone is surrounded
by sod, and clearly not intended for parking) it can be assumed that vehicles would not
encroach in the pathway, and would instead block a portion of the sidewalk.
Additionally, this stall is directly adjacent to the stone fence, which restricts visibility of
pedestrians/children using the sidewalk. There is minimal clear visibility provided in this
area, and a variance to the driveway visibility triangle can not be supported in this area,
due to pedestrian safety.
While there was a variance granted for the fence within the Driveway (DVT) on the
opposite corner of the property (in front of the drive shed), this variance was granted
under much different context. Firstly, the fence is not directly adjacent to the stall,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 112 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-023. (Cont'd
secondly, the stall recessed deeper into the property so that the vehicle is not directly
adjacent to the sidewalk and thirdly, the sidewalk is curb face, so therefore sufficient
visibility is provided to ensure that pedestrians have a safe path of travel.
Given the nature and intended use of the site (a single family residence/bed and
breakfast that is infrequently used), Transportation Planning can support the approved
parking stalls on site exiting in a rearward motion. Transportation Planning can support
the plan as proposed for spaces P1, P2, B1 and B2, provided that stall P3 is removed
and reinstated in an alternate softscape material that does not support the parking of
vehicles.
It should be noted, however, that Transportation Planning can only support stalls P1
and P2 subject to an encroachment agreement to legalize parking on the City
boulevard. This encroachment agreement is required to achieve minimum parking stall
depth, and will be too small as proposed without said agreement.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated April 4, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority
(GRCA), dated April 8, 2011, noting that the subject property contains steep slopes,
erosion hazard, floodplain associated with the Grand River and allowances adjacent to
these features. Consequently, the subject property is regulated by the GRCA under
Ontario Regulation 150/60 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to
Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation).
Mr. M. Johnston, the applicant's planner, addressed the Committee and provided the
members with printed material in support of these applications. He requested that the
Committee consider the fence application and minor variance application in conjunction
with each other as they are interrelated. He provided a brief history on the property
advising that the Arien's purchased this property in 2003 and have been trying to find a
suitable parking solution that would be satisfactory to the Heritage requirements, the
City and the owners, since the date of purchase. He referenced the material circulated
to the Committee, outlining the variances previously approved and potential solutions to
the concerns outlined in the staff report. He noted that the variances previously
approved are no longer viable, as the owner would like to install forward swinging
carriage doors on the drive shed that would hinder the use of the spaces located directly
in front. Mr. Johnston stated that the owner investigated other potential solutions for
the parking demand; however, the work was going to be onerous and quiet costly. He
commented that the applicant has three cars and operates a bed and breakfast and
would like to maintain the location and number of spaces that are currently being used.
Mr. Johnston, referencing the printed materials, addressed each of the issues outlined
in the staff report. In addressing the concerns for the reduced Driveway Visibility
Triangle (DVT) and the pedestrian and vehicle safety, Mr. Johnston advised that the
applicant in proposing to the reduce the stall widths from 3.Om to 2.53m, increasing the
DVT to 2.53m which would improve the pedestrian and vehicle visibility. He noted that
a 2.53m DVT although not in compliance with the Fence By-Law it is a larger DVT than
what was approved for the opposite side of the driveway in 2008.
In response to the concerns regarding the encroachment on City property, Mr Johnston
advised that with the reduction in width of the parking stalls it varies the location of the
parking spaces closer to the drive shed, increasing the distance to the sidewalk. He
stated that the owner has also proposed to move the spaces further on the property
utilizing the flagstone in front of the driveway for parking, thereby decreasing the
encroachment. He noted that this would not negate the requirement for an
encroachment agreement but would minimize the impacts on City land. He referred to
the photos in his presented material, demonstrating what parking would look like on the
property if the variances were approved.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 113 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-023. (Cont'd
The Chair questioned whether the parking dimensions were a condition of the Heritage
Permit approval, and whether the spaces outlined as P2 and P3 in the provided material
could be aligned in similar location as P1.
Mr. J. Ariens stated that the stall widths were not a condition of the Heritage approval,
the sizes were proposed to maximize the spaces between the vehicles to try and
maintain the heritage vistas from the street. He further advised that he would have no
problem aligning P2 and P3 closer to the location of P1; however, the vehicles would be
partially parked on the flagstone rather then the driveway.
Ms. von Westerholt commented that the amended proposal to narrow the spaces would
be seen as an overall improvement, though it does not change the fact that the
applicant would still be using City land for parking and liability still exists. She noted that
if vehicles were parked over the sidewalk or on a driveway apron they would be ticketed
for parking on City property. Ms. von Westerholt further advised that although the new
doors on the drive shed would be more aesthetically pleasing to the property, the
previous variance would still allow for the applicant to have five parking spaces, three in
front of the drive shed and two located inside. It would be similar to other property
owners having a one lane driveway or forward swinging doors. If one vehicle was
parked in the garage, other vehicles would have to be moved to provide access.
Mr. Ariens advised that with the narrowing of the stall widths it would reduce the number
of variances required; noting, that the Committee could choose to approve the
applications with the condition of getting an encroachment agreement and he would
deal with the Legal Department in fulfilling the condition.
Ms. von Westherholt stated that narrowing the stalls would decrease the variances; it
would not eliminate any of them. She further advised that she could not speak on Legal
Service's behalf, but wanted it noted that there was no guarantee they would
recommend an encroachment agreement. She added that the amended proposal does
show progress and staff would be willing to work with the applicant to find a satisfactory
solution to both the Zoning By-Law and the Heritage requirements.
Ms. Wade commented that as part of the previous Committee of Adjustment decision in
2008, the spaces were to be delineated defining the parking on the property. The
reduction in stall size does not take into consider the current pavers on the property as
the solider coursing design within the pavers is what defines the spaces. By reducing
the stall size the delineating no longer defines the parking spaces. She added that the
suggestion of aligning spaces P2 and P3 would potentially require another variance as
the Zoning By-Law states that driveways must be a consistent material and in this case
the flagstone would be used as a portion of the driveway.
The Chair suggested that planters could be installed in the P3 location or P3 could be
removed in its entirety freeing up those pavers to extend the rear edge of the driveway
to accommodate the realignment of spaces P2 and P3 and to minimize or eliminate the
encroachment concern.
Mr. Ariens advised that he would like to leave the pavers as they are and that a deferral
maybe in order to speak with Heritage Staff and Planning staff to find a more
satisfactory solution.
Mr. B. McColl stated that his one concern about using planters to mitigate parking in the
P3 parking location would be that they are temporary and can be moved to
accommodate parking, as this is not likely something that would be policed in the future.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 114 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-023. (Cont'd
That the application of Victoria Ariens requesting permission to allow 2 of the 3 off street
parking spaces to be located in the drive shed located 4.5m (14.76') from the street
rather than the required 6.Om (19.69'); to allow 1 of the 3 required off street parking
spaces to be located east of the drive shed, set back Om from the street rather than the
required 6.Om (19.69'); to allow 2 additional parking spaces to be located east of the
drive shed to be set back from the street Om rather than the required 3.Om(9.84'); to
allow the 3 parking spaces next to the drive shed to have a minimum depth of 4.5m
(14.76') to 3.75m (12.3') rather than the required 5.49m (18.01'); to allow a total
driveway width of 18.Om (59.06') rather than the permitted driveway width of 8.Om
(26.25'); and, to allow a parking lot with vehicles being allowed to egress in a rearward
motion rather than the required forward motion, on Part Lot 12, Beasley's Broken Front
Concession and Part Block 12, Registered Plan 58M-400, being Parts 1, 3 and 4,
Reference Plan 58R-15677, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, BE DEFFERED, to the
Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for May 17, 2011.
Carried
2. Submission No.: A 2011-024
Applicant: 50 Gateway Park Drive Limited
Property Location: 50 Gateway Park Drive
Legal Description: Lots 1, 2 & 3, Plan 1725
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
As no one appeared in support of this application, the Committee agreed to defer its
consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for May 17, 2011.
3. Submission No.: A 2011-025
Applicant: Ontario Wealth Management Corporation
Property Location: 310 Louisa Street
Legal Description: Part Lots 458 & 459, Plan 376
Appearances:
In Support: B. Smith
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide 10
off-street parking spaces rather than the required 17 off-street parking spaces for a
proposed design business.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 11, 2011,
advising that the subject lands are zoned Residential Six (R-6) with Special Use
Provision 334U and Holding Provision 48H. Special Use Provision 334U states that a
design business is a permitted use on the property. Holding Provision 48H states that a
day care or additional dwelling units are not permitted until such time that the Region of
Waterloo is provided with a Record of Site Condition. The lands are designated
Comprehensive Development Area in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The applicant
is requesting relief from Section 6.1.2 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 to
permit 10 off-street parking spaces whereas the By-law requires 17 spaces.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 115 APRIL 19, 2011
3. Submission No.: A 2011-025. (Cont'd)
The subject lands have a frontage of 16.9 metres on Louisa Street and an area of
1016.62 m2. The property is developed with a two storey structure that is intended to be
used for a design business. It is situated between two single detached dwellings. The
applicant is requesting permission to allow 10 parking spaces on the property whereas
the Zoning By-law requires 17. The site is quite small and it would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to accommodate more than 10 parking spaces. It should be
noted in a letter provided by the applicant with the application that they are willing to
limit occupancy and also are proposing to remove the sheds from the rear area. Staff
notes that the applicant has been advised that they will require site plan approval or that
work will need to be deemed not development. The concept has been reviewed
together with Transportation Planning and staff is generally supportive of the proposed
plan and parking layout.
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 land is designated Comprehensive Development Area in the Official Plan.
Comprehensive Development Area is a land use designation which provides for the
transitional nature of sites where an existing land use is being phased out and replaced
by other land uses. The long term objective for this specific Comprehensive
Development Area is towards residential, institutional and commercial development
consistent with the Medium Rise Residential District. A design business has been
operated on this site in the past and is considered compatible with the surrounding land
uses on Louisa Street. This proposal makes use of an existing building and can function
as a compatible interim use for the site until such time as there is a comprehensive
redevelopment proposed. The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The intent of Section 6.1.2 of the By-law is to ensure that an adequate amount of off-
street parking will be provided for people accessing the site, and also to limit the need
for on-street parking. The site has functioned in the past with fewer parking spaces than
what is being proposed and to the applicant's knowledge there were never any issues
caused by the deficient parking. Transportation Planning has reviewed the application
and determined that the reduction in required parking from 17 spaces to 10 spaces will
be acceptable on the condition that the gross floor area used for a design business is
limited to 386.4 m2 (generally the area of the main level) and the remaining 89 m2 (the
second storey space) is used for storage purposes or remains vacant. This is consistent
with the proposal in the justification report provided by the applicant. This site is
accessible by public transit as well, reducing the demand for parking. Finally, although
relying on on-street parking is not desirable and is highly unlikely in this situation, it is
permitted on Louisa Street should the need for it arise. Therefore, staff is of the opinion
that subject to a condition limiting occupancy for the design business use, the variance
meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The subject lands have previously been used for a design business which operated with
less than 10 parking spaces and there is no record to the applicant's knowledge that an
off-street or an on-street parking problem existed. Based on the proposal to limit usable
gross floor area, the parking space requirement calculations result in a functional
deficiency of 4 spaces rather than 7. The variance is not expected to have a negative
impact on the surrounding area and is considered minor.
A design business is a permitted use on this property under Special Use Provision
334U. A design business has existed here in the past as well. The Comprehensive
Development Area designation permits a very broad range of uses, and a design
business fits within the designation as well as the zoning and will function as a suitable
interim use of the building pending a future redevelopment. The applicant is attempting
to improve the parking situation on the site and staff is of the opinion that the variance is
appropriate for the development and use of the land.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 116 APRIL 19, 2011
3. Submission No.: A 2011-025, (Cont'd)
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated April 4, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. Smith addressed the Committee in response to the staff report, stating that if he
must leave 89 sq. m. of space vacant, then the parking requirement should only be 14
off-street parking spaces. He also commented on staff's recommended condition no. 2
and questioned whether his proposal would require site plan approval under the
Planning Act, as he is not proposing a new building. He advised that he is trying to sell
this property and the requirement of site plan approval would be an impediment. Ms.
von Westerholt advised that the Supervisor of site Development will likely deem this
situation as not development, but a parking plan will be required. Mr. Smith responded
that if this proposal is deemed to be development then the process will be onerous. He
asked that the Committee write the condition in such a way that only a stamped
approval is required.
The Chair agreed to change the wording of condition no. 2 to remove the word "either"
in the second line and replace it with the words "as applicable". The Chair also
questioned ownership of this property and directed that a 3rd condition will be imposed
to satisfy the City Solicitor as to ownership of this property and that this application is
proper.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Ontario Wealth Management Corporation requesting permission
to provide 10 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 17 off-street parking
spaces for a proposed design business, on Part Lots 458 & 459, Plan 376, 310 Louisa
Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall obtain an Occupancy Permit to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning, prior to occupancy and the Occupancy Permit shall permit a
maximum gross floor area of 386.4 m2 to be allocated to the design business.
The remaining 89 m2 may be used for storage accessory to the design business
or shall remain vacant.
2. That the owner shall agree to receive, as applicable, Site Plan Approval or,
approval of a request to deem the work Not Development, together with a scaled
Parking Plan, prior to issuance of building permits or construction of the parking
lot, to the satisfaction of the City's Supervisor of Site Development and the
Director of Transportation Planning.
3. That the owner shall provide confirmation as to the ownership of 310 Louisa
Street to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor to confirm that this Application for
Minor Variance is proper.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
4. Submission No.: A 2011-026
Applicant: Janet Luska
Property Location: 144 Talbot Street
Legal Description: Lot 167 & Part Lot 166, Plan 266
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 117 APRIL 19, 2011
4. Submission No.: A 2011-026. (Cont'd)
Appearances:
In Support: J. Luska
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a
detached garage/workshop that has a height of 3.96m (12.99`) to the underside of the
fascia at the rear of the proposed garage/workshop, rather than the required 3.Om
(9.84`).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 11, 2011,
advising that the subject lands are zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the City of Kitchener
Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener
Official Plan. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 to permit an increase
in the maximum height of the underside of a fascia to 3.96 metres, whereas the City of
Kitchener Zoning By-law requires 3.0 metres. The applicant has supplied a proposed
site plan and elevations to provide the Committee with more information regarding the
layout of the structure and variance required.
The subject lands have frontage of 13.72 metres on Talbot Street and an area of 501.88
square metres. The site is developed with a single detached dwelling and a detached
garage. The applicant is proposing to construct a new detached garage and workshop
and is requesting relief to permit a fascia height of 3.96 metres rather than 3.0 metres
as is permitted by the Zoning By-law. The applicant is seeking this relief because there
is an elevation drop from the front yard to the rear yard resulting in the need for a higher
fascia height at the rear of the building than at the front.
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 Low Rise Residential designation in the City of Kitchener Official Plan encourages
a full range of housing types to achieve a low overall intensity of use. No residential
building shall exceed three stories in height, and the dwelling on the subject lands
meets this criteria. The accessory structure will maintain a height that is not greater than
the single-detached dwelling on the property, keeping the character of a low rise
residential neighbourhood. The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan.
Section 5.5.2 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 states that "for buildings
accessory to single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplex dwellings and
street townhouse dwellings the maximum building height shall be 5.5 metres, the
maximum height of the underside of any fascia shall be 3.0 metres and the maximum
lot coverage shall be 15 percent." While the Zoning By-law measures building height
from the highest grade adjacent to the building, the by-law regulations regarding the
fascia height for accessory structures does not allow this same measurement
technique. As such, this proposal meets the requirements for maximum building height
and maximum lot coverage for the accessory structure, but exceeds the maximum
height of the underside of any fascia by 0.96 metres due to a drop in grade towards the
rear of the property.
The intent of this section of the By-law is to ensure that accessory buildings are
constructed at a reasonable height that will be compatible with the surrounding
neighbourhood, which contributes to a more visually appealing streetscape. For this
proposal, the increased fascia height will not be visible from the street as it only applies
to the rear wall of the garage. The front face of the garage has a fascia height of 2.74
metres, which complies with the By-law. It is the opinion of Planning staff that this
variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 118 APRIL 19, 2011
4. Submission No.: A 2011-026, (Cont'd)
The increased height of 0.96 metres is minimal and only applies to the rear section of
the accessory building. The variance is required in order to construct a garage on the
sloped property. The increased fascia height will not be visible from the street and will
not have an impact on surrounding properties. The front and side walls of the garage
meet the Zoning By-law requirements. For these reasons, the variance is considered
minor.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. A garage already
exists on the property and is being replaced by a garage/workshop structure, which will
remain at a compatible scale to the surrounding neighbourhood. Accessory buildings
are permitted in the Residential Four Zone and the Low Rise Residential designation
and are found on most properties in the surrounding area.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated April 4, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Janet Luska requesting permission to construct a detached
garage/workshop that has a height of 3.96m (12.99`) to the underside of the fascia at
the rear of the proposed garage/workshop, rather than the required 3.Om (9.84`), on Lot
167, Part Lot 166. Plan 266, 144 Talbot Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED,
subject to the following condition:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for
the detached garage/workshop.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
5. Submission No.: A 2011-027
Applicant: Douglas Beamer
Property Location: 147 Merner Avenue
Legal Description: Lot 218, Plan 86
Appearances:
In Support: D. Beamer
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an
attached garage having a southerly side yard setback of 0.61m (2') rather than the
required 1.2m (3.94').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 11, 2011,
advising that the subject lands are zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the City of Kitchener
Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 119 APRIL 19, 2011
5. Submission No.: A 2011-027, (Cont'd)
Official Plan. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 of the City of
Kitchener Zoning By-law to permit a side yard setback of 0.61 metres whereas the
Zoning By-law requires a setback of 1.2 metres.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached garage and construct a
new garage that will be attached to a proposed building addition in the rear of the
property. As a result, the new proposed garage will encroach into the required 1.2 metre
side yard setback. Therefore, the applicant is requesting relief from the City of Kitchener
Zoning By-law to permit a 0.61 metre side yard.
The subject lands have 15.2 metres of frontage on Merner Avenue, a depth of 39.0
metres, and a total area of 595.0 metres square. The property is developed with a
single detached dwelling and a detached garage. The applicant is proposing to
construct an attached garage and in order to accommodate it without creating several
problems for the owner, they are requesting relief to permit a side yard setback of 0.61
metres rather than 1.2 metres as is required in the Zoning By-law.
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 Low Rise Residential designation in the City of Kitchener Official Plan encourages
a full range of housing types to achieve a low overall intensity of use, including single
detached as is the case in this situation. No residential building shall exceed three
stories in height, and the dwelling on the subject lands meets this criteria. The
accessory structure will maintain the a height that is not greater than the semi-detached
dwelling on the property, keeping the character of a low rise residential neighbourhood.
The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan.
Section 38.2.1 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law states that the minimum required
side yard setback in a Residential Four zone is 1.2 metres. The intent of this section of
the By-law is to allow adequate separation between a building and property line for
access and maintenance. The current side yard setback between the garage and side
yard is 0.41 metres. The applicant is proposing a new setback of 0.61 metres, which is
an increase from the current setback. The new setback will provide adequate side yard
separation and will minimally impact the neighbouring property. The variance meets the
intent of the zoning by-law.
The variance is expected to have minimal impact on the neighbouring property and is
actually increasing the current side yard setback. The variance is considered minor as
there is adequate separation is provided between the garage and the side lot line.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is consistent
with existing development in the neighbourhood and is replacing an existing detached
garage. No adverse impacts are expected as a result of this variance.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated April 4, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Douglas Beamer requesting permission to construct an attached
garage having a southerly side yard setback of 0.61 m (2') rather than the required 1.2m
(3.94'), on Lot 218, Plan 86, 147 Merner Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED,
subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for
the garage.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 120 APRIL 19, 2011
5. Submission No.: A 2011-027. (Cont'd)
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
6. Submission No.: A 2011-028
Applicant: Waterloo Catholic District School Board
Property Location: 250 East Avenue
Legal Description: Lots 65, 80 to 84, Part Lots 64, 79 and 110, Plan 351
Appearances:
In Support: C. Schaeffer
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a
new gymnasium having a southerly side yard setback of 4.5m (14.76') rather than the
required 6.Om (19.69').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 11, 2011,
advising that the subject lands are zoned Neighbourhood Institutional (I-1) with Special
Regulation Provision 93R in the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated
Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. The applicant is requesting
relief from Section 31.3.4 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law to permit a side yard
setback of 4.5 metres whereas the By-law requires a setback of 6 metres.
The subject lands have 78.6 metres of frontage on East Avenue, a depth of 183.6
metres, and a total area of 19.3 metres square. The land is developed with a two storey
school, St. Anne Elementary School. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing
gym and construct a new one. The applicant is requesting relief from the Zoning By-law
to permit a 4.5 metre side yard setback rather than the required 6.0 metre setback.
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 predominant land use of the Low Rise Residential designation in the Official Plan is
residential, however educational establishments, excluding secondary schools, are also
permitted at a scale compatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood. St.
Anne Elementary School is considered compatible with the surrounding residential area
as it is one storey and fits the character of the neighbourhood. The variance meets the
intent of the Official Plan.
Section 31.3.4 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1 states that the minimum
required side yard in an Institutional One zone is 6 metres. The intent of this section of
the By-law is to allow adequate separation between a building and property line for
access and maintenance. Currently, the distance between the side yard property line
and the gym is 2.4 metres. The applicant is proposing a new gym which would increase
the setback to 4.5 metres. This would decrease the deficiency from 3.6 metres to 1.5
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 121 APRIL 19, 2011
6. Submission No.: A 2011-028, (Cont'd)
metres. Staff is of the opinion that 4.5 metres would provide adequate space for access
and maintenance and is an improvement over the current conditions. The variance
meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The variance is not expected to have an impact on neighbouring properties. Adequate
separation is provided between the structure and the side yard. Construction of the
proposed gym will increase the currently deficient side yard setback which will create a
more reasonable distance between the gym and side yard. This variance is considered
minor.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. Elementary
schools are permitted in both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and the use already
exists on the property. A minor change to the gym is appropriate development and use
of the land.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated April 4, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Corridor
Management Planner, dated April 1, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this
application.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Waterloo Catholic District School Board requesting permission to
construct a new gymnasium having a southerly side yard setback of 4.5m (14.76')
rather than the required 6.Om (19.69'), on Lots 65 & 80 to 84, and Part Lots 64, 79 &
110, Plan 351, 250 East Avenue, 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.: A 2011-029
Applicant: Regional Municipality of Waterloo
Property Location: 250 Strasburg Road
Legal Description: Part Lot 2, Plan 1022 & Part lots 4, 5, & 6, Plan 1021
Appearances:
In Support: C. Esliger
K. Lane
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide a Om
buffer between the parking lot and the street, along Strasburg Road rather than the
required 3.Om (9.84') buffer, to accommodate the Strasburg Road widening.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 122 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-029. (Cont'd
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 13, 2011,
advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 250 Strasburg Road and
is located at the intersection of Chandler Drive and Strasburg Road. The property is
zoned General Industrial (M-2) in the City's Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated as
Municipal Service and Public Utilities in the City's Official Plan. The property is currently
developed with the Grand River Transit bus terminal.
The applicant is seeking relief from section 6.1.1.1.a.iv of the Zoning By-law to permit a
parking lot with a setback of 0.0 metres from a street line rather than 3.0 metres. By-
law 85-1 requires that all parking spaces, loading spaces, and all drive aisles giving
direct access to abutting parking spaces must be 3.0 metres from any property line
abutting a street. The applicant has recently received site plan approval in principle for
an expansion to the existing transit terminal facility. As part of the site plan application,
the owner is required to dedicate to the City of Kitchener, free of any encumbrance, a
road widening of approximately 3.0 metres along Strasburg Road. After the road
widening is dedicated to the City and the new property boundary is formed, the existing
parking lot will be 0.0 metres from the new right-of-way of Strasburg Road. As a result,
the existing parking lot will not be in compliance with section 6.1.1.1.a.iv of the By-law.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following
comments.
The requested relief meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Municipal Services and
Public Utilities district includes large scale public utilities which are operated by the City
of Kitchener, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario Hydro or other public
agencies. The intent of this District is to identify large public uses which because of
their size or operation have an impact on surrounding land uses. The Municipal
Services and Public Utilities district also recognizes large municipal services and utilities
which may affect surrounding areas due to appearance, noise, traffic and hours of
operation. The existing transit terminal is owned by the Region of Waterloo and is used
exclusively for Grand River Transit. The expansion of the existing facility is in
compliance with the Official Plan and appropriate measures will be implemented
through the site plan to aid in facilitating appropriate buffers between the property and
other adjacent properties. The ultimate road right-of-way of Strasburg Road is identified
as 26.0 metres in Schedule D of the City's Official Plan.
The intent of section 6.1.1.1.a.iv of the Zoning By-law is to create a buffer between off-
street parking lots and a municipal right-of-way. The buffer allows for landscaping
treatments on the property to create a visual barrier between the parking lot and a
sidewalk or street. The property is currently improved with landscaping between the
parking lot and the sidewalk. Transportation Planning staff has advised that there are
no immediate plans to physically widen this section of Strasburg Road and the road
widening is only required at this time as per Schedule D of the Official Plan and as a
condition of site plan approval. As such, the landscape buffer will continue to exist
within the City right-of-way. The realignment of the property boundary and adjustment
of the road right-of-way will not be apparent on site. If the applicant wishes to make
alterations to lands within the City's right-of-way for the installation of a new bus stop,
measures will be undertaken during that review to accommodate landscape buffering
wherever possible.
The requested variance is minor. There are no plans to physically widen Strasburg
Road at this time. The existing landscape buffer and plantings are not proposed to be
removed and will continue to exist in the widened City right-of-way. The variance will
allow the applicant to maintain the existing parking lot in its current location, rather than
relocate it on-site in another location that is in closer proximity to residential lands.
The requested variance to legalize the existing parking lot once the road widening is
dedicated to the City is appropriate. There are no proposed changes to the location of
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 123 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: A 2011-029. (Cont'd
the parking lot and through the site plan process, new elements will be incorporated into
the existing lot design to make it safer and more atheistically pleasing. The legalization
of the parking lot with a 0.0 metre setback from the road right-of-way will ensure that it
can continue to legally operate in its current location. The site was designed such that
all surface parking for visitors and employees will not conflict with any bus movements
on site, ensuring greater operational safety of the transit terminal.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated April 4, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Regional Municipality of Waterloo requesting permission to
provide a Om buffer between the parking lot and the street, along Strasburg Road rather
than the required 3.Om (9.84') buffer, to accommodate the Strasburg Road widening, on
Part Lot 2, Plan 1022 & Part lots 4, 5, & 6, Plan 1021, 250 Strasburg Road, Kitchener,
Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that
The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
CONSENT
Submission Nos.: B 2011-024 to B 2011-026
Applicant: Christian, Stefan, Patrick & Elisabeth Gerling
Property Location: 7 & 23 Old Chicopee Drive & 80 Holborn Drive
Legal Description: Lots 1, 2 & 3, Plan 1278
Appearances:
In Support: A. Galloway
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to create 3
easements in favour of each other's properties for the construction of a new surface
parking lot: the first easement located on 7 Old Chicopee Drive is to have a width of
64.56m (211.81') a depth along Ottawa Street North of 35.9m (117.78') and an area of
2,317.7 sq. m. (24,947.56 sq.ft.); the second easement located on 23 Old Chicopee
Drive is to have a width of 61.04m (200.26'), a depth of 35.9m (117.78') and an area of
2,191.34 sq. m. (23587.34 sq.ft.); the third easement located on 80 Holborn Drive is to
have a width 61.16m (200.66'), a depth on Holborn Drive of 35.9m (117.78') and an
area of 2195.64 sq. m. (23,633.72 sq.ft.). These properties will continue to be used as
multi-residential.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 11, 2011,
advising that the subject property is zoned Residential Nine (R-9) and designated a
Mixed Use Node in the Official Plan. The site contains three (3) apartment buildings with
a total of 161 dwelling units that currently share atwo-level parking garage that contains
161 parking spaces located in the rear of the property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 124 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: B 2011-024 to B 2011-026, (Cont'd
The applicant has advised that the deteriorating existing parking garage structure is
proposed to be demolished and will be replaced with a surface parking lot. In 2010,
under application A2010-035, the owners received approval from the Committee for 161
surface parking spaces. More recently, the owners have undergone apre-submission
meeting for the proposed surface parking facility where it has been determined that site
plan approval will be required along with a demolition permit to remove the existing
parking garage.
The owners are seeking approval from the Committee to allow for reciprocal easements
that would allow for access/right-of-way between the three properties in question for the
proposed new 161 parking space surface parking facility. Currently, there are existing
easements that provide the residents of each building with access and unrestricted use
of the existing parking arrangement but they are not extensive enough to accommodate
the new facility. As such, the following is being requested:
B2011-024 - the owners of 7 Old Chicopee Drive request the creation of an
easement/right-of-way over Blocks 2 and 3 (23 Old Chicopee Drive and 70 Holborn
Drive) as shown on the easement sketch, in favour of the residents and owner for
purposes of providing access to Block 1.
B2011-025 -the owners of 23 Old Chicopee Drive request the creation of an
easement/right-of-way over Blocks 1 and 3 (7 Old Chicopee Drive and 70 Holborn
Drive) as shown on the easement sketch, in favour of the residents and owner for
purposes of providing access to Block 2.
B2011-026 -the owners of 80 Holborn Drive request the creation of an easement/right-
of-way over Blocks 1 and 2 (7 Old Chicopee Drive and 23 Old Chicopee Drive) as
shown on the easement sketch, in favour of the residents and owner for purposes of
providing access to Block 3.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing &
Community Services, dated April 6, 2011, in which they advise that they have no
objections to these applications.
Submission No. B 2011-024
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of the Christian, Stefan and Patrick Gerling requesting permission
to create an easement in favour of 23 Old Chicopee Drive and 80 Holborn Drive, having
a width of 64.56m (211.81'), a depth along Ottawa Street North of 35.9m (117.78') and
an area of 2,317.7 sq.m. (24,947.56 sq.ft.), on Part Lot 1, Plan 1278, 7 Old Chicopee
Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. 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.
2. 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 access/right-of-way easements are maintained in perpetuity,
which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer
Easements;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 125 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: B 2011-024 to B 2011-026, (Cont'd)
Submission No. B 2011-024 (Cont'd)
3. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer
Easements and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance
agreement, shall be provided to the City Solicitor;
4. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer
Easements and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
5. That the owners shall release the existing agreement for access from title to the
satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
6. That the owners shall apply to the City for site plan approval for the new surface
parking area and receive "approval in principle" from the Site Plan Review
Committee.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of
the municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed
lands and the retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal
Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the
above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this
Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 19, 2013.
Carried
Submission No. B 2011-025
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Christian, Stefan, Patrick & Elisabeth Gerling requesting
permission to create an easement in favour of 7 Old Chicopee Drive and 80 Holborn
Drive, having a width of 61.04m (200.26'), a depth of 35.9m (117.78') and an area of
2,319.34 sq. m. (23,587.34 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 1 & 2, Plan 1278, 23 Old Chicopee
Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. 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.
2. 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 access/right-of-way easements are maintained in perpetuity,
which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer
Easements;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 126 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: B 2011-024 to B 2011-026, (Cont'd)
Submission No. B 2011-025 (Cont'd)
3. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer
Easements and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance
agreement, shall be provided to the City Solicitor;
4. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer
Easements and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
5. That the owners shall release the existing agreement for access from title to the
satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
6. That the owners shall apply to the City for site plan approval for the new surface
parking area and receive "approval in principle" from the Site Plan Review
Committee.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of
the municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed
lands and the retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal
Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the
above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this
Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 19, 2013.
Carried
Submission No. B 2011-026
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Christian, Stefan & Patrick Gerling requesting permission to
create an easement in favour of 7 Old Chicopee Drive and 23 Old Chicopee Drive,
having a width of 61.16 m (200.66'), a depth of 35.9m (117.78') and an area of 2,195.4
sq. m. (23,633.72 sq. ft. ), on Lot 3 and Part Lot 2, Plan 1278, 80 Holborn Drive,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. 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.
2. 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 access/right-of-way easements are maintained in perpetuity,
which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer
Easements;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 127 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No.: B 2011-024 to B 2011-026, (Cont'd)
Submission No. B 2011-026 (Cont'd)
3. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer
Easements and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance
agreement, shall be provided to the City Solicitor;
4. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer
Easements and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
5. That the owners shall release the existing agreement for access from title to the
satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
6. That the owners shall apply to the City for site plan approval for the new surface
parking area and receive "approval in principle" from the Site Plan Review
Committee.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of
the municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed
lands and the retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal
Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the
above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this
Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 19, 2013.
Carried
2. Submission Nos.: B 2011-027
Applicant: John & Doris Moyer
Property Location: 1593 Highland Road West
Legal Description: Part Lot 38, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support: S. Elliott
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to give an
easement to the property at 1615 Highland Road West for municipal services: the
easement to have a width of 32.7m (107.28'), a depth of 4.5m (14.76') and an area of
147.15 sq. m. (1583.91 sq. ft.). The property will continue to be used as residential.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 11, 2011,
advising that the subject property is located at 1593 Highland Road West, is designated
Arterial Commercial Corridor in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Arterial Commercial
(C-6) in the City's Zoning By-law.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 128 APRIL 19, 2011
2. Submission No.: B 2011-027. (Cont'd)
The properties in the immediate area are currently on private services as they are not
connected to municipal services. The owner of the adjacent property at 1615 Highland
Road West is proposing to connect to municipal services as part of their future
redevelopment plans. The servicing infrastructure will be installed along the rear of the
subject property and 1603 Highland Road West which will connect to the City's
servicing system along Rauch Court to the south, requiring easements over both
properties. In order to accomplish this, the applicant is seeking to grant a 4.5 metre wide
easement over the subject property in favour of 1615 Highland Road West. The
required easement over 1603 Highland Road West will be considered via application
B2011-028.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff are satisfied that the creation of the servicing
easement is required as part of the proposed redevelopment plans of the adjacent
property (1615 Highland Road West). The proposed easement is appropriate and
suitable for the existing use and any proposed use of the subject and adjacent lands.
The easement over the subject lands will ensure that the proposed redevelopment at
1615 Highland Road West will receive adequate service connections to municipal
services.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing &
Community Services, dated April 6, 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 the John & Doris Moyer requesting permission to give an
easement to the abutting property at 1615 Highland Road West for municipal services:
having a width of 32.7m (107.28'), a depth of 4.5m (14.76') and an area of 147.15 sq.
m. (1583.91 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 38, German Company Tract, 1593 Highland Road
West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to 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 Site Servicing Plan showing the sanitary
connection to the municipal servicing system and the depth of the sanitary pipe
along the easement, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering.
4. 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 servicing easement is maintained in perpetuity, which
agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer
Easement;
5. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer
Easement and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance
agreement, shall be provided to the City Solicitor;
6. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer
Easement and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 129 APRIL 19, 2011
2. Submission No.: B 2011-027. (Cont'd)
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of
the municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed
lands and the retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal
Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the
above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this
Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 19, 2013.
Carried
3. Submission Nos.: B 2011-028
Applicant: Michelle Elliott
Property Location: 1603 Highland Road West
Legal Description: Part Lot 38, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support: S. Elliott
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to give an
easement to the abutting property at 1615 Highland Road West for municipal services:
easement to have a width of 40.1m (131.56'), a depth of 4.5m (14.76') and an area of
180.45 sq. m. (1942.35 sq. ft.). The property will continue to be used as residential.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 11, 2011,
advising that the subject property subject property located at 1603 Highland Road West
is designated Arterial Commercial Corridor in the City's Official Plan and is zoned
Arterial Commercial (C-6) in the City's Zoning By-law.
The properties in the immediate area are currently on private services as they are not
connected to municipal services. The owner of the adjacent property at 1615 Highland
Road West is proposing to connect to municipal services as part of their future
redevelopment plans. The servicing infrastructure will be installed along the rear of the
subject property and 1593 Highland Road West which will connect to the City's
servicing system along Rauch Court to the south, requiring easements over both
properties. In order to accomplish this, the applicant is seeking to grant a 4.5 metre
wide easement over the subject property in favour of 1615 Highland Road West. The
required easement over 1593 Highland Road West will be considered via application
B2011-027.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff are satisfied that the creation of the servicing
easement is required as part of the proposed redevelopment plans of the adjacent
property (1615 Highland Road West). The proposed easement is appropriate and
suitable for the existing use and any proposed use of the subject and adjacent lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 130 APRIL 19, 2011
3. Submission No.: B 2011-028, (Cont'd)
The easement over the subject lands will ensure that the proposed redevelopment at
1615 Highland Road West will receive adequate service connections to municipal
services.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing &
Community Services, dated April 6, 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 Michelle Elliott requesting permission to give an easement to the
abutting property at 1615 Highland Road West for municipal services: easement to
have a width of 40.1m (131.56'), a depth of 4.5m (14.76') and an area of 180.45 sq. m.
(1942.35 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 38, German Company Tract, 1603 Highland Road West,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to 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 Site Servicing Plan showing the sanitary
connection to the municipal servicing system and the depth of the sanitary pipe
along the easement, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering.
4. 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 servicing easement is maintained in perpetuity, which
agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer
Easement.
5. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer
Easement and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance
agreement, shall be provided to the City Solicitor.
6. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer
Easement 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 131 APRIL 19, 2011
3. Submission No.: B 2011-028, (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 April 19, 2013.
Carried
COMBINED APPLICATIONS
Submission Nos.: B 2011-029 & A 2011-030
Applicant: 1368239 Ontario Inc.
Property Location: 1765 Old Mill Road
Legal Description: Part Lot 129, Plan 578, being Part 1,
Reference Plan 58R-9191
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 having a width on Old Mill Road of 0.914m (3;) by a depth of 40.17m
(131.79') and an area of 36.7 sq. m. (395.2 sq. ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to
1763 Old Mill Road. The retained land will have a width on Old Mill Road of 17.35m
(56.92') by a depth of 40.17m (131.79') and an area of 696.91 sq. m. (7,501.47 sq. ft.).
The existing use of both the severed and retained lands will continue to be residential.
The applicant also requests permission for the dwelling on the retained land to have an
easterly side yard of 0.5m (1.64') rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'); to allow a front
yard set back of Om rather then the required 4.5m (14.76'); and, to allow a lot having the
width of 17.35m (56.92`) rather then the required 18m (59.06').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated March 30, 2011,
advising that the subject property is located at 1765 Old Mill Road, which is located
north of Doon Valley Drive and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The
property has a lot width of approximately 18.0 metres along Old Mill Road and an area
of approximately 698 square metres. The subject lands are designated Low Rise
Residential in the Official Plan and are zoned Residential Three (R-3) with regulation
195R (which requires the minimum lot width of 18 metres), in the Zoning By-law.
The owner of 1765 Old Mill Road also owns the adjacent property located at 1763 Old
Mill Road. The owner of these properties is applying for a lot addition that will rectify an
existing walk-way encroachment on 1765 Old Mill Road. The proposed consent will
sever a 0.9 metre by 40 metres strip of land from the westerly portion of 1765 Old Mill
Road and add it to the easterly portion of 1763 Old Mill Road as a lot addition.
The subject property has an existing single detached dwelling that was constructed
prior to the passing of the City's Zoning By-law. Though the setbacks have legally
existed prior to the Zoning By-law, will lose their existing status as a result of the lot line
adjustment (consent) and are therefore requested to be legalized through the proposed
variance.
As part of these applications, the applicant is requesting two items from the Committee
of Adjustment:
Lot Addition - to convey a parcel of land at the westerly side of 1765 Old Mill
Road having an area of approximately 36 square metres to the adjacent lands at
1763 Old Mill Road in the form of a lot addition.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 132 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No. B 2011-029 & A 2011-030 (Cont'd)
2. Minor Variances -the existing single detached dwelling is situated in the north-
east corner of the property. The front-yard and side-yard setbacks have legal
non-conforming status; however this status will be lost due to the proposed lot
addition. The 0.9 metre severance and lot addition will decrease the existing lot
width of the subject property creating a lot width deficiency. The owner is also
requesting to legalize the deficient front and side yards.
Lot Addition -From 1765 Old Mill Road to 1763 Old Mill Road
Staff is satisfied that the lot addition meets the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in
Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended and represents
good planning. Although the retained parcel will result in a lot width deficiency, this
deficiency is minor and will not affect the surrounding community or impact the existing
residential use of the retained parcel. It should be noted that the lot addition being
added onto the adjacent parcel will not impact the land's compliance with the Zoning
By-law.
The area of the lot addition appears to have been used by the adjacent dwelling for
walkway and now that usage could formally take place as part of the neighbouring
pa rce I.
Minor Variance
Relief is being sought from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 where the
applicant is requesting a minor variance for the reduction in side-yard setback on the
east side of the dwelling from the required 1.2 metres to 0.5 metres and a reduction in
front-yard setback from the required 4.5 metres to 0 metres and a reduction in lot width
from the required 18 metres to 17.3 metres in order to facilitate a lot severance of 0.9
metres from the western edge of the property.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the
Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following
comments:
The variances meet 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. Section
1.1 of the Lower Doon Community Secondary Plan requires single family residential lots
to maintain a frontage of 15.2 metres (50 feet), or greater. The proposed variances will
allow the existing legal non-conforming setback deficiencies to be resolved, while
maintaining the scale, use and character as it has previously existed on the property.
The lot width will remain greater than 15.2 metres (50 feet).
The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 1.2 metre side-
yard setback is to provide adequate separation from neighbouring properties and to
allow the property owner to have access to their rear yard via the side-yard. The
purpose of a front yard setback is to create sufficient separation from the dwelling and
street level. Finally, the purpose of an 18 metre lot width is to maintain the character of
the subject lot in relation to the surrounding properties.
Staff notes that the existing front-yard and eastern side-yard setbacks have been in
existence for many years and are not proposed to change as a result of the lot addition.
The lot width variance is minimal and will maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law by
sustaining the existing lotting pattern of the street. Several other properties in the
immediate vicinity exhibit similar setback distances and lot width. The variances will not
impact existing conditions or impact the abutting property owners.
The variances are considered minor as the existing front and eastern side-yard
setbacks are not proposed to change as a result of the lot addition and therefore will not
detrimentally impact on abutting residential properties. The variances for the existing
conditions will have minimal impact to adjacent lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 133 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No. B 2011-029 & A 2011-030 (Cont'd)
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land would be
consistent with the established development within this neighbourhood and no adverse
impacts as a result of the variances are anticipated.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing &
Community Services, dated April 6, 2011, in which they advise that they have no
objections to these applications.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner,
dated April 4, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Ms. K. Murphy advised that severance is intended redefine the property lines and
contain the pathway between the two properties solely on 1763 Old Mill Road. She
noted that the she was in agreement with the recommendation outlined in the staff
report.
Submission No. B 2001-029
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of 1368239 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of
land having a width on Old Mill Road of 0.914m (3;) by a depth of 40.17m (131.79') and
an area of 36.7 sq. m. (395.2 sq. ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to 1763 Old Mill
Road, on Part Lot 129, Plan 578, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-9191, 1765 Old Mill
Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener
for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and or local
improvement charges.
2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the
deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg
(AutoCAd) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the
plan(s). The digital file shall be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's
Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the lands to be severed shall 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.
4. That the owner shall receive final approval of Application for Minor Variance
A2011-030.
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 134 APRIL 19, 2011
Submission No. B 2011-029 & A 2011-030 (Cont'd
Submission No. B 2001-029 (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 April 19, 2013.
Carried
Submission No. A 2011-030
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of 1368239 Ontario Inc. requesting permission for the dwelling on
the retained land to have an easterly side yard of 0.5m (1.64') rather than the required
1.2m (3.93'); to allow a front yard set back of Om rather than the required 4.5m (14.76');
and, to allow a lot having the width of 17.35m (56.92`) rather than the required 18m
(59.06'), on Lot Part Lot 129, Plan 578, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-9191, 1765
Old Mill Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and
Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:37 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 19th day of April, 2011.
Dianne H. Gilchrist
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment