Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2011-11-15COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 15, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. A. Head, B. McColl and A. Lise OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Mr. D. Seller, Traffic Technologist, Ms. D. Saunderson, Acting Secretary-Treasurer and Ms. L. Garovat, Administrative Clerk Mr. A. Head, Vice Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. APPOINTMENT ACTING SECRETARY-TREASURER Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That Ms. D. Saunderson be appointed as the Acting Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment. Carried MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of October 18, 2011, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2011-048 Applicant: Suncor Energy Inc. Property Location: 4341 King Street East Leaal Descriation: Part Lot 9. Beaslev's Broken Front Concession Appearances In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: None At the request of the applicant, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for December 13, 2011. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 276 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 1. Submission No.: A 2011-060 Applicant: 2276451 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 689 Doon Village Road Legal Description: Part Lot 6, Biehn's Tract, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-1026 Appearances: In Support: S. Litt Contra: None Written Submissions: K. Rogerson W. Howard The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a three storey multi-residential building having a front yard setback of 4.Om (11.48`) along Pioneer Drive, rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'); a northerly side yard setback of along Doon Village Road of Om rather than the required 4.5m (14.76"); and, permission to locate a barrier free parking space Om from the lot line rather than the required 3m (9.84'). The existing single family dwelling will be demolished. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated November 8, 2011, advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 689 Doon Village Road and is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Pioneer Drive and Doon Village Road. The property is zoned Residential Six (R-6) in the City's Zoning By- law 85-1 and designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 40.6 the Zoning By-law to permit a front yard setback of 4.0 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required, and to permit a side yard abutting a street setback of 0.0 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required. The applicant is also seeking relief from Section 6.1.1.1.a.iv the Zoning By-law to permit abarrier-free parking space within 0.0 metres of a municipal road right-of-way (ROW) whereas 3.0 metres is required. The applicant has recently applied for site plan approval for a fourteen (14) unit, three (3) storey, stacked townhouse styled, multiple dwelling building. The proposed plan provides six (6) one (1) bedroom units that front onto Pioneer Drive at grade. These units feature patios in the front yard, within the 3.5 metre front yard. The second floor above grade consists of two (2) four (4) bedroom units without walkout access to the parking lot in the rear. The third floor is proposed to accommodate six (6) two (2) bedroom units. The units on the second and third floor are proposed to have a shared outdoor amenity patio area. Proposed Front Yard and Side Yard Abutting a Street Setbacks 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 pertaining to the proposed setback reductions: The requested variances for the front yard and side yard abutting a street, setbacks meet the intent of the Official Plan. Low Rise Residential districts allow for a variety of low density residential uses, including multiple dwellings where permitted by the Zoning By-law. The Official Plan outlines criteria for consideration when a minor variance is requested for infill development. The compatibility of the massing and scale of the proposed building as well as compatibility of the streetscape is encouraged for new infill residential developments within existing neighbourhoods. The requested reduction of the front yard setback to 4.0 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required, will maintain and enhance the existing streetscape at the intersection. The proposed private patios and landscaping will provide an enhanced environment for COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 277 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Submission No. A 2011-060 (Cont'd pedestrians along Pioneer Drive. The positioning of the building closer to Pioneer Drive will allow for the required off-street parking to be located behind the proposed building at the rear of the property. The proposed reduction of the side yard abutting a street of 0 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required is being sought by the applicant to accommodate for the right-of-way (ROW) of Doon Village Road. Due to the alignment of underground municipal infrastructure, the ROW of Doon Village Road exceeds the City's standards at this point. The purpose of the side yard abutting a street setback is to ensure that there is adequate separation between a building and the road ROW. The applicant is proposing to utilize the landscaped portion of the ROW for this purpose. The setback from the proposed building and the existing City-owned sidewalk along Doon Village Road exceeds 4.0 metres in the closest location. The building will help define the intersection and will be compatible with the adjacent townhouse development. The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the front yard and side yard setback abutting a street is to maintain a consistent setback along the street. The requested 4.0 metre front yard setback will allow for the proposed development to be closer to the street to create an enhanced, pedestrian friendly environment with active street frontage. There is adequate room for private patios and landscaping within the 4.0 metre setback. The building will be closer to the street ROW than the other existing buildings along Pioneer Drive, which will help identify the proposed building as a prominent architectural feature at the intersection. The requested variance for the side yard abutting a street setback will allow the proposed building to appear to feature the same side yard setback as other buildings along Doon Village Road. The owner is proposing a multiple dwelling and has provided a draft site plan with their application. As multiple dwellings are subject to full site plan approval and subject to the policies of the City's Urban Design Manual, Planning staff will ensure that all required features associated with the proposed future development will be accommodated on site in accordance to all City policies. The requested variances are minor because the development of the property with a multiple dwelling is permitted by the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The variances are requested in order to accommodate a new built form and to ensure compatibility of the proposed development within an existing neighbourhood on an existing, irregularly shaped, lot. The variances will allow the proposed building to enhance the pedestrian realm along Pioneer Drive and will ensure compatibility along Doon Village Road. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land because, with the requested variance, the existing lot can appropriately accommodate the proposed new development. The redevelopment of the subject property is an infill and intensification opportunity, where new investment is introduced into an existing stable residential neighbourhood. Proposed Parking Space 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 offers the following comments pertaining to the proposed parking setback reduction: The requested relief meets the intent of the Official Plan. Low Rise Residential districts allow for a variety of low density residential uses, including multiple dwellings where permitted by the Zoning By-law. The proposed multiple dwelling, complete with required parking, is in compliance with the Official Plan and appropriate measures will be implemented through the site plan to aid in facilitating appropriate buffers between COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 278 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Submission No. A 2011-060 (Cont'd the parking lot and the adjacent ROW. The proposed reduction is being sought by the applicant to accommodate for the irregular ROW of Doon Village Road. Due to the alignment of underground municipal infrastructure, the ROW of Doon Village Road exceeds the City's standards at this point. The purpose of the parking setback is to ensure that there is adequate separation between aoff-street parking and the ROW. The applicant is proposing to utilize the landscaped portion of ROW for this purpose. 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 ROW. The buffer allows for landscaping treatments on the property to create a visual barrier between the parking lot and a sidewalk or street. Through a registered Section 41 Site Plan Agreement, the owner will be obligated to landscape the adjacent City-owned lands within the ROW, implemented through a Landscape Plan in part with the Site Plan application. The proposed landscape buffer will provide an adequate visual barrier between the proposed barrier-free parking space and the street line. The requested variance is minor. The proposed landscape buffer and plantings will exist in the ROW. The variance will allow the applicant to develop abarrier-free parking space at the front of the property within a reasonable distance to the principle entrance of the barrier-free dwelling unit. The requested variance is appropriate. The proposed changes to the entire site are subject to site plan approval, ensuring that new visual elements will be incorporated into the landscape design to make it more aesthetically pleasing. The variance will allow for a barrier-free parking space with a 0.0 metre setback from the ROW. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated November 1, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered written submissions from the neighbours in support of this application. Mr. S. Litt advised that he is in support of staff's recommendation. In response to questions regarding tree preservation, Ms. J. von Westerholt noted that tree management is part of the site plan approval process. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of 2276451 Ontario Inc., requesting permission to construct a three storey multi-residential building having a front yard setback of 4.Om (11.48`) along Pioneer Drive, rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'); a northerly side yard setback of along Doon Village Road of Om rather than the required 4.5m (14.76"); and, permission to locate a barrier free parking space Om from a municipal road right-of-way rather than the required 3m (9.84'), on Lot 19 & 20, Plan 655, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R- 16790, 689 Doon Village Road, 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 279 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 2. Submission No.: A 2011-063 Applicant: 2276457 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 87 & 93 Cedar Street South Legal Description: Part Lot 16, Plan 395 Appearances: In Support: S. Litt Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a three storey multi-residential building having a front yard setback of 2.6m (8.53') along Cedar Street South, rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'); a rear yard setback of 6.Om (19.68`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`); a northerly side yard setback of 1.75m (5.74`) rather than the required 2.5m (8.2`); and, permission to locate a terrace and stairs exceeding 1.4m in height, 0.31m from the lot line rather than the required 3.Om (9.84'). The existing multi-residential dwellings will be demolished. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated November 4, 2011, advising that the subject lots abut each other and are located on the southeast side of Cedar Street South, between Church Street and St. George Street. Each lot currently contains afive-dwelling-unit multiple dwelling. The surrounding area is composed of a wide range of building forms and residential uses with Residential Five Zone (R-5) being the predominant zoning category in the area, limiting multiple dwellings to three dwelling units. Interestingly, a 15-storey multiple dwelling within an R- 9Zone "pocket" is located directly across the road. A duplex dwelling built in 1894 is located immediately to the northeast. A duplex constructed in 1912 is located immediately to the southwest. A single detached dwelling is located behind (i.e., to the southeast) of each of the subject lots. Both lots are located within the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan: 87 Cedar Street is designated as Low Rise Multiple Residential, and 93 Cedar Street is designated as Low Rise Multiple Residential with Special Policy #3. Both properties are zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) while Special Regulation Provision 109R is also applied to 93 Cedar Street (only). The R-6 Zone allows multiple residential development while the special regulation provision does not apply to redevelopment of the lands with new buildings. The owner has assembled the two subject lots for the purposes of redevelopment. In this regard, the applicant has submitted a Site Plan Application (SP11/072/C/AP) that proposes the development of 36 dwelling units in the form of brownstone style townhouses (though technically they are considered multiple dwellings, not townhouses, under the City's Zoning By-law). The dwelling units would be divided between two blocks: one block would be oriented towards Cedar Street and would contain 15 dwelling units, while the other would be located adjacent to the northeast side lot line and would contain 21 dwelling units. The applicant has submitted a Demolition Control Application (DC11/17/C/AP) to demolish the two existing five-dwelling-unit multiple dwellings located on the subject lands in order to allow redevelopment. This application is currently in circulation for comment. The Site Plan Application has been discussed at a Site Plan Review Committee meeting. Approval in principle will be granted upon resolution of certain minor issues. The owner is now requesting relief from the Zoning By-law via the subject Minor Variances Application: 1. Requesting a minimum front yard of 2.6 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum front yard of 4.5 metres. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 280 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 2. Submission No. A 2011-063 (Cont'dl 2. Requesting a minimum side yard (northeast) of 1.75 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum side yard of 2.5 metres. 3. Requesting a minimum rear yard of 6.0 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres. 4. Requesting steps to be located within the minimum front yard with a height of 1.4 metres above finished grade level within 3.0 metres of the street line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a maximum height of 0.6 metres (note: the minimum distance between the street line and the nearest part of the steps is 0.31 metres). 5. Requesting an unenclosed terrace attached to a building to be located within the minimum front yard with a minimum setback of 0.31 metres from the front lot line and a maximum height of 1.4 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum setback of 3.0 from the front lot line and a maximum height of 0.6 metres above finished grade level. 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. Variances 1, 4, and 5 request relief from the minimum front yard requirements for the proposed building, stairs, and terrace. The Official Plan states that: "Where special zoning regulations or minor variances are requested or proposed to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulations or minor variances shall be reviewed to ensure the following:... Front yard setback reductions may be considered for new buildings in established neighbourhoods provided the front yard setback is similar to adjacent properties and supports and maintains the character of the streetscape." Proposed variances 1, 4, and 5 meet the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and are minor for the following reasons. The proposed building to face Cedar Street will maintain the approximate setback established by the existing five-plex at 87 Cedar Street South. This setback was established decades ago through an addition to the front of the dwelling. The dwelling at the corner of Church and Cedar Streets (addressed as 133 Church Street) possesses a front setback from Cedar Street of 2.3 metres, which is less than the proposed setback. The property addressed as 77 Cedar Street possesses a setback of 3.2 metres. Staff is of the opinion that these building setbacks are similar to the 2.6 metre proposed setback and that the established streetwall along Cedar Street will not be adversely impacted. In addition, Transportation Planning has not identified any concerns with the height of the terrace and steps with respect to vehicular and pedestrian safety. Furthermore, no road widenings are planned along this section of Cedar Street. With respect to the variance for side yard setback, the Official Plan states that: "Where special zoning regulations or minor variances are requested or proposed to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulations or minor variances shall be reviewed to ensure the following:... New buildings... are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts." The variance for side yard setback meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By- lawand is minor for the following reasons. The main intent of the side yard requirement is to ensure adequate buffering from exterior areas of adjacent properties for reasons such as fire safety, privacy, etc. In this case, the existing dwelling at 87 Cedar Street is closer to the northeasterly side lot line than the proposed townhouses. At worst, the existing setback is 1.13 metres, which is 0.62 metres closer than the proposed setback. The proposed dwelling will have a maximum height of less than 10.5 metres as regulated by the R-6 Zone. This is the same maximum height limit that is required in COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 281 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 2. Submission No. A 2011-063 (Cont'd) the R-5 Zone and that applies to the property immediately to the northeast. The minimum side yard setback in the R-5 Zone for all uses is 1.2 metres. In this case, the owner is proposing a setback that is 1.75 metres, which is greater than the minimum setback required in the R-5 Zone for buildings of the same height. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed setback meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. With respect to the rear yard variance, the Official Plan States that: "Where special zoning regulations or minor variances are requested or proposed to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulations or minor variances shall be reviewed to ensure the following:... iv) New buildings, additions, modifications and conversions, are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts. v) The lands can function appropriately and not adversely impact adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site." The variance for rear yard setback meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By- law and is minor for the following reasons: the two lots to the rear of the subject properties contain single detached dwellings.; and, the rear of the dwelling addressed as 94 Madison Avenue is approximately 20 metres from the rear lot line, while the rear of the dwelling addressed as 98 Madison Avenue is approximately 30 metres from the rear lot line. In addition, through the Site Plan Application, staff is requiring submission of a Tree Management Plan in which an attempt will be made to preserve at least two mature trees that are partially located on the subject lands. During the spring and summer these trees will provide a significant visual buffer between the proposed multiple residential and existing single detached land uses. While the rear yard is often the location where an amenity area is located, in this case the amenity areas are distributed throughout the proposed development: • the proposed site plan includes 12 "bistro patios" on the terrace in front of each development block. • an amenity area is provided to the rear of the Cedar Street facing development block. • an amenity area is provided at the rear of the property, behind the interior development block. • the proposed development meets the 20% landscaping requirement of the Zoning By-law. The variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the proposed building. The proposed 36-unit multiple dwelling has great potential to benefit the community of Cedar Hill. The proposed development, if constructed, may be the first multiple residential development on Cedar Hill in many years. One of policies of the Official Plan states that: "The City will encourage and provide opportunities for the creation of additional housing in existing developed areas, through conversion, infill and redevelopment as an appropriate response to changing housing needs and to make better use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities." Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances would facilitate the type of redevelopment that the City is seeking. Additionally, through the Site Plan Application, staff will be seeking to encourage high quality site and exterior building design and to achieve appropriate siting and massing of the proposed development. In addition, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 282 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 2. Submission No. A 2011-063 (Confdl safety, accessibility, attractiveness and compatibility of the proposed development with the site context and overall urban landscape will be considered. The proposed variances conform to the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated November 1, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. S. Litt commented that he is in support of staffs recommendation. He advised that the subject properties are located within the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan and the previous owners neglected and mismanaged the properties. He stated that the proposed development is a 36-unit brownstone style townhouse. The proposed development has already completed the initial stages of Site Plan approval and after several meetings with Council and the neighbourhood association, there has been an overall support for the development. Mr. A. Lise indicated that he had some concerns with the proposed development and the variances being requested. He advised that the front yard setback reduction, while it is in keeping with the current setback, the impact on the streetscape from the new development will be significantly different due to the scale of the development. He noted that the Official Plan states that the City shall enhance the character of urban streets through coordination of site, building & landscaping design on and between individual sites. The front yard setback requested for this development would be an exception compared to the rest of the properties and, in his opinion, can not be supported because the proposal is not an improvement to the streetscape. In response to the concern regarding the proposed front yard setback, Mr. Litt advised that the proposed development is also subject to policies of the City's Urban Design Manual. The urban design manual states that parking where possible shall be located in the rear of the property. Although this requirement is somewhat contradictory to the Zoning By-law, the site is an urban site and street fronting townhomes with parking in the rear is the preferred option recommended by staff. To accommodate the required parking, the front yard setback will be required. Ms. J. von Westerholt noted that when considering minor variance applications members must remember to consider the appropriateness of the development as a whole and whether there will be negative impacts on the neighbouring properties. She advised that this area of the City is an urban area in transition where density is being encouraged. It is likely that this area will see more consolidation projects and a greater number of infill developments. Mr. Lise stated that he was in opposition to the front yard setback, as the impact seems greater than what currently exists. The Chair noted that there have been applications presented to this Committee in the past where they were being requested to approve several variances for vacant lots or redevelopment projects that were not yet under construction. Ms. von Westherholt advised the staff is currently in the process of updating the City's Official Plan and it is anticipated that the Zoning By-law will be updated following approval of the Official Plan. She further advised that this is a time of transition for urban development and the Committee of Adjustment is an opportunity for developers to receive their required approvals in the interm. Mr. B. McColl advised that he was in support of this application. He noted that compatibility is one of the things that must be considered and this development is similar and compatible to the neighbourhood. He further advised that another indication that the development is consistent with the neighbourhood is the fact that no one is in attendance in opposition to this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 283 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 2. Submission No. A 2011-063 (Cont'd) Mr. Lise stated that he is not against development; he just wants to ensure that the public is properly consulted and any new developments will not negatively impact the neighbourhoods. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of 2276457 Ontario Inc., requesting permission to construct a three storey multi-residential building having a front yard setback of 2.6m (8.53') along Cedar Street South, rather than the required 4.5m (14.76'); a rear yard setback of 6.Om (19.68`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`); a northerly side yard setback of 1.75m (5.74`) rather than the required 2.5m (8.2`); and, permission to locate a terrace and stairs exceeding 1.4m in height, 0.31m from the lot line rather than the required 3.Om (9.84'), on Part Lot 16, Plan 395, 87 & 93 Cedar Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall ensure that the proposed development to which the variances shall apply be substantially similar to the development shown on the drawing submitted with Minor Variance Application A 2011-063, dated October 11, 2011, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. 2. That the owner shall obtain final approval of Site Plan Application SP11/072/C/AP for the proposed development. 3. That the owner shall obtain a building permit for the proposed development. Through this process the designer shall ensure compliance with spatial separation, including maximum permitted unprotected openings on wall faces in close proximity to property lines and buildings on the same property. 4. That the owner shall obtain demolition permits to demolish the existing buildings on the property. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT 1. Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: Written Submissions B 2011-053 AI Kavanagh 711 Westmount Road West Lot 35, Registered Plan 810 B. Flewwelling N. & N. Krivokapic F. Campbell COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 284 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-053 (Cont'd The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Westmount Road of 10.2 m (33.5'), a depth of 14.7m (48.22') and an area of 151.4 sq. m. (1629.65 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 701 Westmount Road West. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated, November 2, 2011, advising that the owner of the lands is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land measuring 10.325 metres by 14.722 metres as a lot addition to 701 Westmount Road West. The subject lands currently contain a single detached dwelling and a detached garage. The lands to be severed would contain a garage which would be conveyed to the neighbouring lands at 701 Westmount. A previous version of this application was approved by the Committee in March 2011 (B 2011-023) together with a minor variance application (A 2011-022). This approval contemplated that aright-of-way be created in favour of the retained lands, over the lands to be severed to allow access to a parking stall. The owner has attempted to sell the lands with this right-of-way and is finding the situation problematic. As such, they have reapplied for consent to sever without the right-of-way, and are proposing that a new driveway be created off Union Boulevard for the retained house. Staff are satisfied with this proposal. The proposed driveway location is appropriate and conforms to zoning regulations. As a new driveway is proposed to accommodate parking for 711 Westmount Road West, staff requires the removal of the existing parking space which is accessed via the existing shared driveway on Westmount Road West. The driveway for 701 Westmount Road West should be reduced so that it leads directly from the street to the parking spaces within the garage. A number of variances were approved in March 2011 in support of the proposed consent. These variances will remain in effect, and those that pertained to the previously proposed irregular parking stall will become irrelevant as the proposed driveway will rectify that situation. The retained lands conform to other zoning by-law regulations. Through the previous application the Region of Waterloo identified that a road widening was required along Westmount Road. While Regional comments were not available at the time of writing, planning staff anticipates that this will continue to be a Regional condition of the severance application. In addition, through the previous application the owner was required to enter into an encroachment agreement with the Region for the decorative fencing. Staff understands that in lieu of entering into this agreement, the owner may alternatively remove or relocate the fence so that it does not encroach. Regional conditions should address these matters. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the use of the retained lands and the lands to which to lot addition is to be conveyed are in conformity with the City's Official Plan. The dimensions and shapes of the resultant lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and any proposed use of the lands, the resultant lots front onto established public streets, and both lots are currently serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. Also, the resultant lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. Planning staff is of the opinion that this application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and does not conflict with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated November 3, 2011, advising that, at this location, Westmount Road West (Regional Road No. 50) has an existing road allowance of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 285 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-053 (Cont'd 24.38 meters (80 feet) meters and a designated width in the Regional Official Policies Plan (ROPP) of 26.21 meters (86 feet). The owner/applicant is advised that a 0.914 metre (3 foot) road widening along the entire frontage is required prior to final approval. The exact road widening must be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor. The Surveyor should be advised to provide a draft Reference Plan to the Region for a preliminary review. Along with a registerable deed to convey the road widening, the applicant must provide a mylar copy of the registered reference plan at no cost to the Region of Waterloo. The subject lands currently contain decorative fencing which will encroach onto the Regional Road Allowance after the road widening lands have been dedicated to the Region. As a result, the owner/applicant is required to enter into an encroachment agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo or move the existing fencing onto private property prior to final approval. The owner/applicant is advised that no additional access onto Westmount Road (Regional Road No. 50) will be permitted. Furthermore, changes or updates to the existing access will not be permitted. The Region has no objections to this application, subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant convey, at their expense, a 0.914 metre (3 foot) road widening across the entire frontage of Westmount Road West (Regional Road No. 50) to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Along with a registerable deed to convey the road widening, the applicant must provide a mylar copy of the registered reference plan at no cost to the Region; and, 2. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant shall, at their expense; enter into an encroachment agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the encroachment of decorative fencing onto the Regional Road Allowance on Westmount Road West (Regional Road No. 50) or move the existing decorative fencing onto private property. The Committee considered the written submission from the neighbours in opposition to this application. Ms. N. and Mr. N Krivokapic were in attendance in opposition to this application. Ms. Krivokapic advised that they bought their home in January 2011 from the applicant who had previously owned 711 Westmount Road West, 701 Westmount Road West and 341 Union Street and treated the properties as one property. She advised there was a communal patio area, wooden deck and trellis that overlapped the rear of all three properties. She stated that when they purchased their property, the applicant never remedied the situation to redefine the property boundaries. The applicant cut back the wooden deck but the communal patio area still exists, causing a trespassing issue as there is no clear definition of property lines. She provided photos to the Committee demonstrating the condition of the stone patio area. Ms. Krivokapic further advised that the applicant has just installed a new driveway at 701 Westmount Road, reducing the amount of on-street parking on Union Street and adding safety concerns that people will avoid driving around the cul-de-sac properly to enter the driveway. In addition, she noted that the applicant had previously come before this Committee and did not fulfill the conditions of the approval; she questioned what assurances there were that the conditions would be fulfilled this time. Ms. J. von Westerholt stated that the applicant came before the Committee in March 2011 and received an approval for the lot addition, as well as an easement for a shared driveway. The owner has since put the property on the market and has discovered that no one is willing to purchase the property without a proper driveway. She noted that the owner has met all of the City's requirements and setback required for a driveway on the Union Boulevard street frontage. In response to the neighbours' concern regarding the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 286 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-053 (Cont'd communal patio in the rear yard, conditions could not be requested as part of this approval as the patio is not located on either of the properties referenced in this application. She advised that any concerns for trespassing are unfortunately something the City would not get involved in. Staff has spoken with the applicant and their agent about redefining the property lines, but there is no mechanism for the City to enforce this work. Ms. Krivokapic indicated that there is a lack of communication with the neighbour to help remedy some of their concerns. She advised that when they purchased their home it was with the understanding that the shared patio would be removed. She noted that she would be willing to extend the current hedge between her property and 701 Westmount Road, but she is hoping that the applicant would still be willing to assist in removing the patio stones. Mr. B. Flewwelling advised that visually, nothing will change than what currently exists today. He advised that some work has been done to date to remove the communal area behind the three properties; however, he will speak with the applicant regarding the patio, as additional work will still need to be completed in the rear of 711 and 701 Westmount Road and the patio could potentially be addressed at that time. The Chair questioned whether there was consideration to drawing the property line straight back from the street line, rather than severing just the garage. In response, Mr. Flewwelling advised that the reasoning for the lot line is to provide an outdoor amenity space for 701 Westmount Road. Mr. Lise advised the neighbours that a temporary solution to the trespassing concerns, they could purchase some construction fencing and install it until a better solution can be reached. Mr. McColl stated that he could support the application; however, he encouraged the neighbours to continuing working towards a suitable solution to redefining the property boundaries and addressing the patio area. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of AI Kavanagh, requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Westmount Road of 10.2 m (33.5'), a depth of 14.7m (48.22') and an area of 151.4 sq. m. (1629.65 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 701 Westmount Road West, on Lot 35, Registered Plan 810, 711 Westmount 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. a) That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 287 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-053 (Cont'd b) That the owners' Solicitor shall provide the City Solicitor with a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. 4. That the owner shall make arrangements financial or otherwise, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services in consultation with Transportation Planning for the installation of a new driveway from Union Boulevard for the retained lands. The new driveway shall be built to City of Kitchener standards, and at grade with the existing sidewalk. Further, any redundant driveway or portion thereof from Westmount Road West is to be closed with new curb, gutter and boulevard landscaping, to the City of Kitchener's standards. All such works are at the owner's expense and to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. 5. That the owner shall make arrangements financial or otherwise for the relocation of any existing City-owned street furniture, signs, hydrants, utility poles, wires or lines, as required, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. 6. That the owner shall remove the parking stall from the lands to be retained, which are currently accessed from Westmount Road West, and realign the existing driveway so that it leads directly from Westmount Road West to the parking located with the garage on the lands to be conveyed, at their cost and to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. a) That the owner shall submit a drawing of the garage wall faces proposed to be 1.250m from new property lines for the north and west walls of the existing garage. The drawing shall include dimensioning the height and width of these two wall faces, and the location and size of all windows and doors containing glass, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. b) The owner shall remove and close in any openings containing glazed area greater than 7% on either of the two wall faces, and shall obtain a building permit for such works if required, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official. 8. That the owner shall convey, at their expense, a 0.914 metre (3 foot) road widening across the entire frontage of Westmount Road West (Regional Road No. 50) to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Along with a registerable deed to convey the road widening, the applicant must provide a mylar copy of the registered reference plan at no cost to the Region. 9. That the owner shall, at their expense; enter into an encroachment agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the encroachment of decorative fencing onto the Regional Road Allowance on Westmount Road West (Regional Road No. 50) or move the existing decorative fencing onto private property. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 288 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Submission No. B 2011-053 (Cont'd 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being November 15, 2013. Carried 2. Submission No.: B 2011-054, A 2011-064 & A 2011-065 Applicant: Teeple Holdings Ltd. Property Location: 204 Stonybrook Drive Legal Description: Lot 86, Plan 955 Appearances: In Support: S. Litt Contra: None Written Submissions: J. McDougall J. Guthrie The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Sweetbriar Drive of 18.17m (59.61`), a depth of 24.38m (79.98`) and an area of 400.13 sq. m. (4306.96 sq.ft). The retained land will have a width on Stonybrook Drive of 20.73m, a depth of 20.66m (67.78`) and an area of 448.84 sq. m. (4831.27 sq.ft.). The proposed use for each property is residential. The severed land will require a variance to permit a lot having an area of 400.13 sq.m. (4306.96 sq.ft`) rather than the required 411 sq. m. (4423.96`). The retained land will also require a variance to permit a rear yard setback of 3.2m (10.49`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated November 8, 2011, advising that the subject property is located at the intersection of Stonybrook Drive and Sweetbriar Drive. The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1. The property features 20.7 metres of frontage onto Stonybrook Drive and 38.8 metres of frontage onto Sweetbriar Drive and has a lot area of 848.9 square metres. The property currently contains a single detached dwelling. The surrounding land use is mainly single detached and duplex dwellings. Forest Hill Public School is located within 100 metres of the subject property and there is a commercial plaza located within 400 metres of the property. The applicant is requesting consent to sever a lot that is 400.0 square metres that fronts onto Sweetbriar Drive in order to construct a new single detached dwelling. The existing single detached dwelling is proposed to be located on the retained lands with 20.7 metres of frontage onto Stonybrook Drive and 20.6 metres onto Sweetbriar Drive. In addition to the application for consent to sever, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 37 of Zoning By-law 85-1 for the retained lands to permit a rear yard of 3.2 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required, and the applicant is requesting relief from Section 37 of Zoning By-law 85-1 for the severed lands to permit a lot area of 400.0 square metres whereas 411.0 square metres is required. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 289 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 2. Submission No. B 2011-054. A 2011-064 & A 2011-065 (Cont'dl Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS sets the policy foundations for regulating the development and use of land. The key objectives include: building strong communities; wise use and management of resources; and protecting public health and safety. In that regard, staff is of the opinion that this proposal conforms with the PPS as it is a means of creating new and affordable infill housing that is not disruptive to the neighbourhood while utilizing existing infrastructure. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and the future proposed use of the lands, and the lands front on an established public street. The severed and retained lots will be smaller, but compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. The nearby neighbourhood contains a mix of dwelling types including single and duplex dwellings on varying lot sizes. The proposed severed lot would have a width of approximately 18.1 metres, an average depth of approximately 22.0 metres, and an area of 400.0 square metres. The lands to be retained are fully serviced, and services are available for the lands to be severed, however, the owner will be required to make arrangements with Engineering Services to extend water and sanitary services to the property line for the future single detached dwelling. In addition to the consent application, the applicant has requested a minor variance from the Zoning By-law for a reduced rear yard for the retained lands and a reduced lot area for the severed lands. Retained Lands 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 for the retained lands: The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development. The intent is to accommodate a full range of housing types to achieve an overall low density and the proposed development will not affect such density. The proposed variance to reduce the required rear yard is appropriate. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the intent of the 7.5 metres minimum rear yard set back is to allow for adequate outdoor amenity area for the residents. In this case, outdoor amenity space can be provided in the side yard abutting the street (Sweetbrier Drive). The applicant has illustrated a privacy fence on the severance sketch adjacent to Sweetbrier Drive to provide privacy and separation for the amenity area from the street line. In addition to any proposed fencing, the existing landscaping also provides visual screening for the amenity space from the public realm. All future fencing must be in compliance with the City's Fence By-Law. The variance is considered minor as there is adequate outdoor amenity space provided in the side yard abutting the street. The Zoning By-law states that any lot line abutting a street, except a lot line forming part of a corner visibility triangle, may be deemed to be the front lot line, only for the purpose of determining front, side and rear yard requirements for a lot containing or proposed to contain a single detached, semi- detached or duplex dwelling. In this case, the applicant has identified the lot line abutting Stonybrook Drive to be the front yard, resulting in a proposed rear yard for the retained lands to be adjacent to the proposed severed lands. The 3.2 metre yard allows for the require off-street parking space to be located 6.0 metres from the street line, and 0.6 metres from the lot line of the adjacent property. The proposed rear yard will function as a side yard. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 290 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 2. Submission No. B 2011-054. A 2011-064 & A 2011-065 (Cont'dl The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the intent of the variance is to facilitate the redevelopment of the under-utilized portion of the existing rear yard with an appropriate and compatible infill development, being a new single detached dwelling. Severed Lands 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 for the severed lands. The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development. The intent is to accommodate a full range of housing types to achieve an overall low density and the proposed development will not affect such density. The proposed variance to reduce the lot area from 411.0 square metres to 400.0 square metres meets the intent of the Low Rise Residential policies in the City's Official Plan. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The minimum lot area Zoning regulation applicable to the proposed severed lot is to provided to ensure compatibility of any new lots with existing lots and to have an overall low density residential neighbourhood. The subject lands are 848.97 square metres in size, which could be divided equally (by lot area) into two new lots that each comply with the minimum lot area required by the Zoning By-law. In this case, due to the location of the existing dwelling, an irregular lot pattern would result. The proposed lot areas for each lot are the result of the location of the severance line. The applicant is proposing a severance line that is perpendicular to the front lot line, to prevent an irregular lot configuration and to create uniform and consistent lotting along Sweetbrier Drive. The proposed severance line creates consistent lotting fabric and is more compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The variance is considered minor as each lot is still adequately sized to accommodate a single detached dwelling, with required off-street parking, and outdoor amenity space. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land, as the intent of the variance is to accommodate a reduced lot size to facilitate the redevelopment of the under-utilized portion of the existing rear yard with an appropriate and compatible infill development, being a new single detached dwelling. Staff are in support of the requested minor variances. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated October 14, 2011, advising that the subject land is approximately 100 metres from Westmount Road East (Regional Road No. 50) and approximately 200 metres from Provincial Highway 7/8. Typically, due to the high traffic volumes on Westmount Road East (Regional Road No. 50) and Provincial Highway 7/8, the owner/applicant is required to prepare a Transportation Noise Study to indicate the methods to be used to abate noise levels for the severed lot from traffic noise generated on these roads and, if necessary, shall enter into a registered agreement with the Region of Waterloo to provide for the implementation of the approved study. Since there are several intervening land uses between the proposed dwelling and the traffic sources, and the residential dwelling is existing on the retained lot, in lieu of a Transportation Noise Study, the owner/applicant has the option to conduct a Noise Assessment or enter into a registered development agreement with the Region of Waterloo prior to final approval, to include the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements for the severed and retained lands: "Due to the proximity to Westmount Road East (Regional Road No. 50) and Provincial COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 291 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 2. Submission No. B 2011-054. A 2011-064 & A 2011-065 (Cont'dl Highway 7/8, projected noise levels on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals". For information purposes, the owner is advised that the lands, or a portion of the lands, are subject to the Region of Waterloo International Airport Zoning Regulations issued under the federal Aeronautics Act. The purpose of the Regulations is two-fold: 1) to prevent lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Region of Waterloo International Airport site from being used or developed in a manner that is incompatible with the safe operation of the airport or an aircraft; and, 2) to prevent lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of facilities used to provide services relating to aeronautics from being used or developed in a manner that would cause interference with signals or communications to and from aircraft or to and from those facilities. It is the landowner's responsibility to be aware, and to make all users of the land aware, of the restrictions under these Regulations which may include, but not limited to, height restrictions on buildings or structures, height of natural growth, and activities or uses that attract birds. The Region has no objection to this application, subject to the following condition: That prior to final approval, the owner/developer submits a Transportation Noise Study to assess noise levels and indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be used to abate traffic noise levels from Westmount Road East (Regional Road No. 50) and Provincial Highway 7/8. Or alternatively, because the residential building is existing on site and there are several intervening land uses between the proposed new lot and noise sources, in lieu of a Transportation Noise Study, the owner/applicant may enter into a registered development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, prior to final approval, to include the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements for both the severed and retained lots: "Due to the proximity to Westmount Road East (Regional Road No. 50) and Provincial Highway 7/8, projected noise levels on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals". The Committee considered the written submissions of the neighbours in opposition to these applications. Mr. B. McColl advised that he had read the concerns of the neighbours and disagrees with their concerns that the subject property could not support a second dwelling. The property is one of the largest ones in the area and, in his opinion, a house on the rear portion of this property would be compatible with the area. Mr. A. Lise questioned whether the applicant had considered building a home without a garage. Referencing the plan provided with the application, he advised that if the applicant eliminated the garage it would eliminate the requirement for the variance. Mr. S. Litt stated that the rear yard setback on the existing house is compensated in outdoor amenity space in both the side and front yards that far exceed the setback requirements. He further advised that the previous owner did not maintain the rear yard and it has been significantly overgrown and neglected. There has already been significant work done to improve the properties' appearance. Submission No. B 2011-054 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 292 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 2. Submission No. B 2011-054. A 2011-064 & A 2011-065 (Cont'dl That the application of Teeple Holdings Ltd., requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Sweetbrier Drive of 18.17m (59.61`), a depth of 24.38m (79.98`) and an area of 400.13 sq. m. (4306.96 sq.ft), on Lot 86, Plan 955, 204 Stonybrook Drive, 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 pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of: all new service connections, new curb and gutter, boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands. 5. That the owner shall retain a Qualified Designer, Architect or Engineer to complete a building code assessment, as it relates to the new proposed property line, to address such items as; spatial separation of glazed areas on existing buildings' wall face for 204 Stonybrook Drive (rear wall) to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. 6. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for any remedial work upgrades required as per Condition 5, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. 7. That the owner shall submit a Transportation Noise Study to assess noise levels and indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be used to abate traffic noise levels from Westmount Road East (Regional Road No. 50) and Provincial Highway 7/8. Alternatively, because the residential building is existing on site and there are several intervening land uses between the proposed new lot and noise sources, in lieu of a Transportation Noise Study, the owner may enter into a registered development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, to include the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds or rental agreements for both the severed and retained lots: "Due to the proximity to Westmount Road East (Regional Road No. 50) and Provincial Highway 7/8, projected noise levels on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals". 8. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 2011-064 requesting a minor variance from Section 37 of Zoning By-law 85-1 for the retained lands to permit a rear yard of 3.22 metres receive full approval. 9. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 2011-065 requesting a minor variance from Section 37 of Zoning By-law 85-1 for the severed lands to permit a lot area of 400.11 square metres receive full approval. It is the opinion of this Committee that: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 293 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 2. Submission No. B 2011 A 2011-064 & A 2011-065 (Cont'd 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 November 15, 2013. Carried Submission No. A 2011-064 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Teeple Holdings Ltd., requesting permission for a rear yard setback of 3.2m (10.49`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`), on Lot 86, Plan 955, 204 Stonybrook Drive, Kitchener, 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 Submission No. A 2011-065 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Teeple Holdings Ltd., requesting permission for a lot having an area of 400.13 sq.m. (4306.96 sq.ft`) rather than the required 411 sq.m. (4423.96`), on Lot 86, Plan 955, 15 Sweetbrier Drive, Kitchener, 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 294 NOVEMBER 15, 2011 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:04 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th day of November, 2011. Dianna Saunderson Acting Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment