Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2011-12-13COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 13, 2011 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. J. Meader and Messrs. D. Cybalski, B.McColl, A. Head and A. Lise OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. J. Lewis, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Ms. D. Saunderson, Acting Secretary-Treasurer, Ms. L. Garovat, Administrative Clerk and H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:55 a. m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of November 15, 2011, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR On motion by Mr. A. Lise It was resolved: That Mr. D. Cybalski be appointed Chair of the Committee of Adjustment and Mr. A. Head be appointed Vice-Chair of the Committee of Adjustment for a term to expire November 30, 2012. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2011-048 Applicant: Suncor Energy Inc. Property Location: 4341 King Street East Legal Description: Part Lot 9, Beasley'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 February 21, 2012. This meeting recessed at 10:00 a.m. and reconvened at 10:07 a.m. with the following members present: Ms. J. Meader and Messrs. D. Cybalski, B.McColl, A. Head and A. Lise. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 296 DECEMBER 13, 2011 NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2011-066 Eastforest Homes Ltd. 901 Steepleridge Court Part Block 6, Registered Plan 58M-487, being Part 88, Reference Plan 58R-17144 L. Orchard None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling on an irregular shaped corner lot having a rear yard setback of 6.5m (21.32`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated November 28, 2011, advising that the subject property located at 901 Steepleridge Court is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The applicant is proposing to construct a single detached dwelling on the irregularly shaped lot located at the corner of Steepleridge Court and Steepleridge Street. The proposed dwelling complies with all regulations of the R-4 zone except for the rear yard setback requirement. Due to the irregular lot configuration, the applicant has advised that the proposed dwelling cannot be reoriented to avoid the requirement of a variance. Therefore, relief is being sought from Section 38.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow a rear yard setback of 6.5 metres rather than the required minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments: The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for a variety of low density residential uses. The proposed development is consistent with the Low Rise Residential designation. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 7.5 metres rear yard setback is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well as adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is staffs opinion that a reduced rear yard setback of 6.5 metres will continue to allow access to outdoor amenity space and sufficient separation from adjacent properties. The variance is considered minor as there is adequate separation from the proposed dwelling to abutting residential properties and as such will have no impact to adjacent lands. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed dwelling cannot be reoriented in any other way due to configuration of the irregularly shaped corner lot. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated December 1, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 297 DECEMBER 13, 2011 Submission No.: A 2011-066 (Cont'd Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Eastforest Homes Ltd., requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling on an irregular shaped corner lot having a rear yard setback of 6.5m (21.32`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`), on Part Block 6, Registered Plan 58M-487, being Part 88, Reference Plan 58R-17144, 901 Steepleridge Court, 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 2. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2011-067 Highland Road Plaza Corp. 324 Highland Road West Lots 52 to 57, & 60, Part Lots 58 & 59, Plan 786, being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-3084 B. Luey None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing commercial retail building having a northerly side yard setback of 0.82m (2.69`) rather than the required 3.Om (9.84'); a rear yard setback of 0.64m (2.09') rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`); and, permission to construct and addition having a rear yard setback of 0.64m (2.09') rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated November 28, 2011, advising The subject property is zoned Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone (C-2) with special provision 1 R in the Zoning By-law. Special provision 1 R requires a Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Permit prior to the construction of any building. The subject property is designated as a Mixed Use Node in the Official Plan. The site contains a plaza defined as a group of commercial establishments which have been planned, developed, managed and operated as three units with shared on-site parking. The applicant is proposing an addition to the existing Shoppers Drug Mart (building `C' according to attached site plan -Appendix A). The applicant is proposing a side yard setback of 0.82 metres where the By-law requires a side yard setback of 3.0 metres. The applicant is also proposing a rear yard setback of 0.64 metres where the By-law requires a rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. This request recognizes an existing legal non-conforming rear yard 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 regarding the requested minor variance: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 298 DECEMBER 13, 2011 2. Submission No.: A 2011-067 (Cont'd) The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Mixed Use Node designation is intended to serve an inter-neighbourhood function and allow for intensive development in a compact form. The Mixed Use Node designation recognizes a broad range of commercial uses. The subject property is consistent in form and use with other development along Highland Road West. The purpose of the required 3.0 metres side yard setback is to allow for adequate separation from the abutting property and sufficient access to the rear yard for maintenance and emergency purposes. The requested 0.82 metre side yard setback and 0.64 rear yard setback will continue to be used as a walkway to access the rear of the property. Staff conducted a site visit and concludes that sufficient space will be maintained for access from the front portion to the rear portion of the subject property and vice versa. The rear portion of the property can also be accessed via a drive aisle located to the side of Building A. The requested minor variance for a reduced rear yard recognizes an existing situation and staff is of the opinion that the requested minor variances are in conformity with the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances are considered minor as staff is of the opinion that the existing 0.64 metre walkway will be maintained along the rear lot line abutting the proposed addition and is sufficiently wide to provide adequate access to the rear of the building. The existing drive aisle abutting the side of Building A will also provide additional access and therefore the requested minor variances will not impede the current overall function of the site and adjacent neighbourhood. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the commercial retail use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law and will cater to the needs of the surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated December 1, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Resource Planner, dated December 5, 2011, advising that a portion of the subject property is located within the floodplain including the location for the proposed addition. The GRCA also advised that the applicant needs to receive a permit for the proposed addition and associated works. In response to questions, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that the site would also be subject to the Site Plan application process. The Chair requested that a condition be added to include the Site Plan approval process as part of the approval. He further advised that an additional condition should be added to include the GRCA comments regarding a permit for the proposed addition. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Highland Road Plaza Corp., requesting permission to legalize an existing commercial retail building having a northerly side yard setback of 0.82m (2.69`) rather than the required 3.Om (9.84'); a rear yard setback of 0.64m (2.09') rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`); and, permission to construct an addition having a rear yard setback of 0.64m (2.09') rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`), on Lots 52 to 57, & 60, Part Lots 58 & 59, Plan 786, being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-3084 324 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall receive approval of a Site Plan Application from the City's Supervisor of Site Plan Development. 2. That the owner shall apply and receive a permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority for the proposed addition. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 299 DECEMBER 13, 2011 2. Submission No.: A 2011-067 (Cont'dl It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 3. Submission No.: A 2011-068 Applicant: Paul Emerton Property Location: 5 Rose Street Legal Description: Part Lot 77, Plan 414 Appearances: In Support: P. Schmidt Contra: None Written Submissions: L. M. Carle The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to replace a front porch to have a front yard setback of 2.4m (7.87`) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76`); a northerly side yard setback of 0.8m rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`); and permission to reconstruct a staircase to the front porch, exceeding 0.6m (1.97`) in height, to have a front yard setback of 0.6m (1.97`) rather than the required 3.Om (9.84'). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated December 5, 2011, advising that the subject property is located at 5 Rose Street and is currently developed with a single detached dwelling. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Five (R-5) in the City's Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant has indicated that sewer and water services to the house need to be updated and in order to complete the work, the existing porch needs to be removed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting permission to reconstruct the existing front porch having a front yard setback of 2.4 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres and a left yard setback of 0.8 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres; and to reconstruct a staircase to the front porch, exceeding 0.6 metres in height, having a front yard setback of 0.6 metres rather than the required 3 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments regarding the requested minor variances. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation encourages a full range of housing types while maintaining a low overall intensity of use. The proposed variances will allow the reconstruction of an existing porch and will continue to maintain the low density character of the property. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of a front yard setback is to create sufficient separation between the dwelling and the street. Similarly, the purpose of a side yard setback is to provide adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is staff's opinion that the proposed variances are appropriate as an adequate amount of separation is still maintained. The footprint of the porch is not proposed to change during its reconstruction, and will maintain the original character of the building when it was constructed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 300 DECEMBER 13, 2011 3. Submission No.: A 2011-068 (Confd) The proposed variances can be considered minor as it is the intent of the applicant to maintain the original size and shape of the existing porch. Adequate separation will be maintained between the porch, abutting residential properties and the street. As such, the proposed variances will likely have minimal impact on adjacent lands. The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The use of the land is not intended to change and the reconstructed porch would be consistent with the existing streetscape and compliment the appearance of the existing dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated December 1, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. P. Schmidt advised that he was in attendance in support of staffs recommendation. Mr. B. McColl questioned whether the tree located in the front yard would be preserved through the construction process, or whether it had to be removed. Mr. Schmidt advised that the tree was located over the municipal servicing and would likely have to be removed. He noted that at this time he was not certain if the owner was planning to replace the tree. Ms. J. Meader questioned the applicant on the anticipated timeline required to complete the project and whether the variance for the stairs is greater than what currently exists. Mr. Schmidt noted it would likely take a week to complete the construction. He further advised that the variance for the stairs is slightly greater than what currently exists; the owner has requested that there no longer be a 90 degree bend in the stairs towards the driveway and instead, they would go straight down into the front yard. Moved by Mr. B. McCall Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Paul Emerton, requesting permission to replace a front porch to have a front yard setback of 2.4m (7.87`) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76`); a northerly side yard setback of 0.8m rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`); and permission to reconstruct a staircase to the front porch, exceeding 0.6m (1.97`) in height, to have a front yard setback of 0.6m (1.97`) rather than the required 3.Om (9.84') on Part Lot 77, Plan 414, 5 Rose Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City of Kitchener Building Division. 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 4. Submission No.: A 2011-069 Applicant: Anoy Ng, Sherry Wu, Mindy Paice and Andrew Paice Property Location: 197 Weber Street East Legal Description: Part Lot 58, Plan 129 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 301 DECEMBER 13, 2011 4. Submission No.: A 2011-069 (Cont'dl Appearances: In Support: A. Ng K. Marshall A. Douglas Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert a residential duplex to a residential triplex having a lot width of 11.58m (37.99`) rather than the required 15m (49.21`); and, legalization of a southerly side yard setback of 0.9m (2.95`) rather than the required 2.5m (8.2`). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated December 5, 2011, advising that the subject property is located at 197 Weber Street East, between Pandora Avenue North and Fairview Avenue. The property is zoned Residential Six in the City's Zoning By-law 85-1 and is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The property is presently being used as a triplex but is legally recognized as a duplex. Parking is provided to the rear of the building, accessed by the driveway off of Weber Street. Staff notes that a triplex requires three separate parking spaces. Submitted drawings indicate that three parking spaces can be provided in the rear parking area. In order to convert the residential duplex to a residential triplex, the applicant is requesting minor variances for a lot width of 11.58 metres rather than the required 15 metres, and a side yard setback of 0.9 metres rather than the required 2.5 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments regarding the requested minor variances. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for a variety of low density residential uses. The use of the property as a triplex is consistent with this designation. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of the minimum lot width requirement is to have wide enough lots to allow for buildings with suitably sized facades while maintaining enough space to provide access for parking. The purpose of a side yard setback is to provide adequate separation from neighbouring properties. Both the lot width deficiency of 3.42 metres and the side yard setback deficiency of 1.6 metres are existing conditions. No external changes are proposed and the intent of the Zoning By-law would be maintained. The proposed variances are considered minor. As mentioned, the lot width deficiency and side yard setback deficiency are existing conditions. Approval of the requested minor variances would legalize these existing conditions and have no discernible impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The variances will not alter the external appearance of the building and will legalize an existing situation. Multiple residential is compatible with surrounding development and the subject property will remain consistent with the character of the neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated December 1, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. A. Ng advised that he is in support of staffs recommendation. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 302 DECEMBER 13, 2011 4. Submission No.: A 2011-069 (Cont'd) Ms. J. Meader questioned whether a condition should be included to define the parking spaces at the rear of the property. Mr. J. Lewis noted that the lot only has the ability to accommodate the required parking spaces, so the delineation condition would not be required. Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Andy Ng, Sherry Wu, Mindy Paice and Andrew Paice, requesting permission to convert a residential duplex to a residential triplex having a lot width of 11.58m (37.99`) rather than the required 15m (49.21`); and, legalization of a southerly side yard setback of 0.9m (2.95`) rather than the required 2.5m (8.2`), on Part Lot 58, Plan 129, 197 Weber Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City of Kitchener Building Division. 2. That the owner shall obtain an Occupancy Certificate from the City of Kitchener Planning Division for the 3 unit multiple dwelling. 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 2011-070 Applicant: Krestena Sullivan and Ian Carswell Property Location: 97 Lydia Street Legal Description: Part Lots 158 & 159, Plan 414 Appearances: In Support: R. Clements Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a rear yard addition on a single family dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.8m (2.62`) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated December 5, 2011, advising that the subject property is located at 97 Lydia Street and is developed with a single detached dwelling. The property is zoned Residential Five (R-5) in the Zoning By-law and is designated Low Rise Conservation A in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan in the City's Official Plan. The applicant is proposing an addition at the rear of the existing building and has advised that the addition will have a right side yard setback of 0.8 metres to align with the existing side yard setback of the dwelling. The Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 303 DECEMBER 13, 2011 5. Submission No.: A 2011-070 (Cont'd) minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres and therefore the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 39.2.1 for a reduced side yard setback of 0.8 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments regarding the requested minor variance: The intent of the Low Rise Conservation A designation is to preserve the scale, use and intensity of the existing development. It is staff's opinion that the applicant is proposing an addition that will maintain the scale (2 storeys), the use (residential) and will not increase the intensity of the existing dwelling. The side yard setback of the existing dwelling is 0.8 metres. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed addition to continue this existing side yard setback. Staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as it will legalize the existing setback of 0.8 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres. The requested variance is considered minor as the proposed development will occur within the existing setback and as such will likely have no impact on the adjacent lands and overall neighbourhood. The requested variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed addition will provide the same separation from the side lot line than what currently exists. The proposed addition will be compatible with the subject property and the balance of dwellings within the neighbourhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the low density development of the neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated December 1, 2011, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Krestena Sullivan and Ian Carswell, requesting permission to construct a rear yard addition on a single family dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.8m (2.62`) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`), on Part Lots 158 & 159, Plan 414, 97 Lydia Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City of Kitchener Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 6. Submission No.: A 2011-071 Applicant: KW Working Centre for the Unemployed Property Location: 87-91 Victoria Street North Legal Description: Lot 70 and Part Lot 69, Plan 374 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 304 DECEMBER 13, 2011 5. Submission No.: A 2011-070 (Cont'dl 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 to its meeting scheduled for January 17, 2012. COMBINED APPLICATIONS Submission Nos.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 Applicant: Estate of Bonnie Nagy Property Location: 156 Waterloo Street Legal Description: Part Lot C, Plan 386 Appearances: In Support: B. Eby R. Merrill M. Kemerer Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create 2 new lots for residential use and retain one residential lot. The retained lot will have a frontage on Waterloo Street of 20m (65.61`), a depth of 29.06 (95.34`) and an area of 568.25 sq.m. (6116.59 sq.ft). The retained land will contain the existing single family dwelling. The retained land will also require a variance to permit a rear yard setback of 2.7m (8.85`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`); a northerly side yard setback of 0.9m rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`); legalization of the off-street parking being located within 6.Om of the street line; and, permission to locate a driveway having the width of 10.4m (34.12`) within 0.1m (0.32`) of the rear lot line rather than the required 0.6m (1.96`). The Committee also considered that through applications B 2011-055 and B 2011-056, the applicant is requesting permission to create 2 new parcels of land containing semi- detached dwellings. New Lot A will have a width on Bismark Avenue of 8m (26.24`), a depth on the northerly side of 25m (82.02`), and an area of 192.6 sq. m. (2073.129 sq.ft). This parcel requires a variance for a rear yard setback of 3.5m (11.48`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`); and, permission for the area of Lot A to be 192.6 sq. m. (2073.12 sq. ft.) rather than the required 235 sq. m. (2529.51 sq. ft.). New Lot B will have a width on Bismark Avenue of 8.1m (26.57`), a depth of 25m (82.02`), and an area of 200 sq.m. (2152.78 sq.ft). This parcel requires a variance for a rear yard setback of 6.5m rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`); and, permission for the area of Lot B to be 200 sq. m. (2152.78 sq. ft.) rather than the required 235 sq. m. (2529.51 sq. ft. ). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated, November 25, 2011, advising that the subject property is located on Waterloo Street, on the north east corner of the intersection of Waterloo Street and Bismark Avenue. The property is an irregular shaped lot with 20 metres of frontage on Waterloo Street and 45.26 metres of frontage on Bismark Avenue. The property contains a one and ahalf-storey single detached dwelling located toward the Waterloo Street frontage. The property's driveway is located along Bismark Avenue. The portion of the property adjacent to COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 305 DECEMBER 13, 2011 1. Submission No.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 (Cont'd) Bismark Avenue is vacant, and contains a driveway leading to the single detached house at 156 Waterloo Street. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Five (R-5) in the City's Zoning By- law. Consent Applications B2011-055 and B2011-056 Through consent applications B2011-055 and B2011-056, the owner is proposing to create two new lots in addition to the retained lands by severing the rear portion of the property. Application B2011-055 proposes a new lot with 8.07 metres of frontage on Bismark Avenue, a depth ranging from 20.17 metres to 25.63 metres, and an area of 190 square metres. Application B2011-056 proposes a new lot width of 8.12 metres of frontage on Bismark Avenue, a depth of 25.63 metres, and an area of 200 square metres. The retained lot would contain the existing single detached dwelling, would have 20 metres of frontage on Waterloo Street, a lot depth of 29.07 metres and a lot area of 568.25 square metres. Consent Applications B2011-055 and B2011-056 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 the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lot is appropriate and suitable for the existing and proposed use, the lands front on an established public street, and adequate utilities and municipal services are available. Also, the resulting new lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. Minor Variance applications A2011-072, A2011-073, and A2011-074 Minor Variance applications A2011-072, A2011-073, and A2011-074 are requested to facilitate the two consent applications. Retained Lands (Existing Single-Detached Dwelling) Variance A2011-072 The existing single detached dwelling has a rear yard that is legal, a side yard that is legal non-conforming, and an off-street parking space that is legal non-conforming. Should consent applications B2011-055 and B2011-056 be approved, the existing site characteristics would change, necessitating approval of a minor variance application. In this regard, the owner is requesting the following variances through minor variance application A2011-072: • a reduction of the minimum rear yard to 2.7 metres for the existing building whereas the Zoning By-law requires 7.5 metres, • a reduction of the minimum side yard to 0.9 metres for the existing building whereas the Zoning By-law requires 1.2 metres, • an off-street parking space for a single detached dwelling to be located zero (0) metres from a street line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires six (6) metres from the street line Through minor variance application A2011-072, the owner is also requesting a variance to permit an off-street parking space on a lot with a width greater than 10.4 metres, to be located no closer than 0.1 metres from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law requires the off-street parking space to be located no closer than 0.6 metres from the side lot line. Staff has determined that this variance is not required as part of this application. Planning Analysis 1. The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum side COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 306 DECEMBER 13, 2011 1. Submission No.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 (Cont'd) yard setback variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for modest alterations. The proposed variances will permit the reduced rear yard and side yard setbacks and will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. 2. The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum side yard setback meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of a 1.2 metre side yard setback is to allow for adequate separation between the abutting property and sufficient access to the rear yard. It is staff's opinion that the rear yard access will be maintained. The purpose of a 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to provide adequate outdoor amenity space. The single detached dwelling on the retained lands will maintain adequate amenity space through the use of the side yard (abutting Bismark Ave) and front yard amenity areas. The purpose of maintaining a six (6) metre separation between the street line and off-street parking space is to allow neighbouring drivers greater visibility and safety while in a reversing or forward motion. The applicant is proposing to locate the off-street parking space on the retained lands at a zero (0) metre setback from the property line which, in this instance is at the side-walk. The proposed location of the off-street parking space on the retained lands is within a driveway sight-line triangle and does not meet the intent of the Zoning-by law. Through further consultation with the applicant, staff has recommended the adjustment of the proposed off-street parking space to a location that is set back further from the property line and closer to the existing single detached dwelling. The applicant has agreed to these terms, and has relocated the proposed off- street parking space 4.23 metres from the property line, whereas the Zoning By- law requires a minimum setback of six (6) metres. The new proposed location of the off-street parking space continues to necessitate the requirement of a minor variance, however the proposed location is at a distance from the property line that staff can support as it does not create an immediate visibility danger to future adjacent property owners. 3. The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum side yard setback on the retained lands is considered minor. The existing development will maintain adequate separation from existing and proposed surrounding residential dwellings. As such, the reduced minimum rear yard and reduced minimum side yard variances will generally have no impact on the adjacent lands and overall neighbourhood. The proposed location of the retained lands off-street parking space, now modified to 4.23 metres from the property line, is considered minor. The modified proposed location will allow neighbouring drivers adequate visibility to reverse or pull out from their garages and driveways. 4. The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum side yard setback on the retained lands is appropriate and will provide similar setbacks from what currently exists within the community. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed reduced minimum rear yard and reduced minimum side yard variances are consistent with the low density development of the neighbourhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed location of the retained lands off-street parking space, now modified to 4.23 metres from the property line, is appropriate and will allow the utilization of an existing driveway location. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 307 DECEMBER 13, 2011 1. Submission No.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 (Cont'd) Proposed Lot `A' Variance (Proposed Semi-Detached Dwelling) Variance A2011-073 Should consent applications B2011-055 and B2011-056 be approved, the proposed semi-detached dwelling will require a minor variance for a reduced rear yard setback and reduced minimum lot area requirement. In this regard, the owner is requesting the following variances through minor variance application A2011-073: a reduction of the minimum rear yard to 3.5 metres for the proposed semi- detached dwelling whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 7.5 metres, a reduction of the minimum lot area to 190 square metres whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 235 square metres. Planning Analysis The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum lot area variance meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for modest alterations. The proposed variances will permit the reduced rear yard and reduced lot area and will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. 2. The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum lot area variance meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of a 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to provide adequate outdoor amenity space. The proposed semi detached dwelling on Lot `A' will maintain adequate amenity space within the rear yard. The purpose of a minimum lot area of 235 square metres for a semi detached dwelling in a Residential Five (R-5) zone is to allow for adequate dwelling size and building massing in comparison to the neighbouring properties. The proposed semi-detached dwellings will optimize the permitted building height within the Residential Five (R-5) zone and will continue to be of sufficient size for the severed residential use. The size of the lot is consistent with neighbouring land uses. 3. The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum lot area variance on Lot `A' is considered minor. The existing development will maintain adequate separation from existing and proposed surrounding residential dwellings. The proposed reduced minimum lot area will continue to allow for a residential dwelling that is comparable in size and scale to neighbouring dwellings. As such, the requested variances to Lot `A' will generally have no impact on the adjacent lands and overall neighbourhood. 4. The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum lot area variance on Lot `A' is appropriate and will provide similar setbacks and lot size from what currently exists within the community. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed reduced minimum rear yard and reduced minimum lot area variance are consistent with the low density development of the neighbourhood. Proposed Lot `B' Variance (Proposed Semi-Detached Dwelling) Variance A2011-074 Should consent applications B2011-055 and B2011-056 be approved, the proposed semi-detached dwelling will require a minor variance for reduced rear yard setback and reduced minimum lot area requirement. In this regard, through minor variance application A2011-074, the owner is requesting the following variances: a reduction of the minimum rear yard to 6.5 metres for the proposed semi- detached dwelling whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 7.5 metres, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 308 DECEMBER 13, 2011 1. Submission No.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 (Cont'd) a reduction of the minimum lot area to 200 square metres whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 235 square metres. Additionally, staff notes that the width of the interior parking spaces provided in the proposed semi-detached dwellings do not comply with the Zoning By-law. Section 6.1.1.2 e) requires that when a parking space is to be provided within a building, with direct access from a driveway, it shall have a minimum width of 3.04 metres and a minimum length of 5.49 metres. The proposed plan illustrated the interior parking spaces with a width of 2.9 metres. After consultation with the applicant, the interior off- street parking spaces be expanded to 3.04 metres in width so as not to necessitate the requirement of an additional minor variance and the plans were revised to 3.04 metres. At this time the proposed interior parking space width deficiency has been resolved. With this revision, staff has no concerns with the dimensions of the interior parking spaces within the proposed semi-detached dwellings. 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 regarding the requested minor variances: Planning Analysis The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum lot area variance meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for modest alterations. The proposed variances will permit the reduced rear yard and reduced lot area and will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. 2. The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum lot area variance meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of a 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to provide adequate outdoor amenity space. The proposed semi detached dwelling on Lot `B' will maintain adequate amenity space within the rear yard. The purpose of a minimum lot area of 235 square metres for a semi detached dwelling in a Residential Five (R-5) zone is to allow for adequate dwelling size and building massing in comparison to the neighbouring properties. The proposed semi-detached dwellings will optimize the permitted building height within the Residential Five (R-5) zone and will continue to be of sufficient size for the severed residential use. The size of the lot is consistent with neighbouring land uses. 3. The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum lot area variance on Lot `B' is considered minor. The existing development will maintain adequate separation from existing and proposed surrounding residential dwellings. The proposed reduced minimum lot area will continue to allow for a residential dwelling that is comparable in size and scale to neighbouring dwellings. As such, the requested variances to Lot `B' will generally have no impact on the adjacent lands and overall neighbourhood. 4. The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum lot area variance on Lot `B' is appropriate and will provide similar setbacks and lot size from what currently exists within the community. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed reduced minimum rear yard and reduced minimum lot area variance are consistent with the low density development of the neighbourhood. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed applications provided: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 309 DECEMBER 13, 2011 1. Submission No.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 (Cont'd) 1. A Qualified Designer, Architect or Engineer is retained to complete a building code assessment as it relates to the new proposed property line and addresses such items as: 2. Spatial separation of glazed areas on existing buildings' wall face for 156 Waterloo Street (rear wall) to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. 3. A building permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/ upgrades required by the building code assessment. 4. The parking space within the garage to be increased to the minimum size of 3.04m x 6.49m as regulated by the zoning bylaw. Traffic Comments: A 2011-072 - 156 Waterloo Street (retained) Transportation Planning has reviewed the application for the retained lands and is in support of variances 1, 2, and 4. However, variance 3 (report Greystone Design Group Inc. dated November 7, 2010) relating to the parking space must be set back to 6.Om from the property line to maintain the visibility triangle for the adjacent property. • In consultation with the applicant, the off-street parking space has been re- located 4.23 metres from the property line. Planning staff has confirmed this is to the satisfaction of Transportation Planning staff. A 2011-073, B 2011-055 - 156 Waterloo Street (Lot A) Transportation Planning has no concerns with the proposed variance and severance. However, it is noted that the width of each internal parking space for the new semi- detached dwellings be revised to meet the City's standard of 3.04 m as noted in Section 6 of the Zoning by-law. • In consultation with the applicant, staff has recommended that the interior off- street parking spaces be expanded to 3.04 metres in width so as not to necessitate the requirement of an additional minor variance. At this time the proposed interior parking space width deficiency has been resolved. Revised plans now indicate an interior parking space width of 3.04 metres. With this revision, staff has no concerns with the dimensions of the interior parking spaces within the proposed semi-detached dwellings. A 2011-074, B 2011-056 - 156 Waterloo Street (Lot B) Transportation Planning has no concerns with the proposed variance and severance. However, it is noted that the width of each internal parking space for the new semi- detached dwellings be revised to meet the City's standard of 3.04 m as noted in Section 6 of the Zoning by-law. In consultation with the applicant, staff has recommended that the interior off- street parking spaces be expanded to 3.04 metres in width so as not to necessitate the requirement of an additional minor variance. At this time the proposed interior parking space width deficiency has been resolved. Revised plans now indicate an interior parking space width of 3.04 metres. With this revision, staff has no concerns with the dimensions of the interior parking spaces within the proposed semi-detached dwellings. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 310 DECEMBER 13, 2011 1. Submission No.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 (Cont'd) Engineering Comments: A2011-072 - 156 Waterloo Street (retained) A2011-073 - 156 Waterloo Street (Lot A, 8 Bismark Ave) A2011-074 - 156 Waterloo St (Lot B, 10 Bismark Ave) • Engineering has no comments for the variances at 156 Waterloo Street B2011-055 - 156 Waterloo Street (Lot A, 8 Bismark Ave) B2011-056 - 156 Waterloo St (Lot B, 10 Bismark Ave) Engineering staff have reviewed both severance applications and offer the following comments: The severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies. The proposed new lots will be required to have adequate sump pump outlets by way of either on-site infiltration or through the connection of the storm sewer. Should the owner wish to utilize on-site infiltration, a geotechnical report will be required to demonstrate how on-site infiltration will be accommodated. In the event that on-site infiltration cannot be used, and in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, a certificate of approval for sewage works will be required by the Ministry of Environment for the extension of the municipal storm sewer to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Staff notes that the severance of Lot `A' will require the closure of the redundant driveway with the installation of new curb and gutter and boulevard landscaping, all to City of Kitchener standards. In addition, staff notes that the new proposed driveway on Lot `A' is to be built to City of Kitchener standards at grade with the existing sidewalk. All work is at the owner's expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the proposed semi-detached dwellings. The owner is required to provide a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system along with the sanitary and storm sewer design sheets to the satisfaction of the Engineering Services. The owner is also required to submit a sanitary peak flow report to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. As per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 a Development and Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form is to be completed and submitted along with a digital submission of all Auto Cad drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system. The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street. Our records indicate municipal sanitary and water services are currently available to service this property. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to Katie Pietrzak (519-741-3400 ext. 3328). Environmental Planning: From the 2007 and 2009 aerial photo it appears that a number of trees are on and/or boarding the property. A Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan as per the City's Tree Management Policy will be required. Also, (if applicable) written confirmation in support of the proposed tree protection measures, tree protection location or tree removals for trees in joint ownership will be required from adjacent property owners. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 311 DECEMBER 13, 2011 1. Submission No.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 (Cont'd) • The applicant has provided environmental planning staff with a Tree Preservation Plan as per the City's Tree Management Policy. Environmental planning staff have reviewed the plan and are satisfied this condition has been met. Community Services Comments B2011-055 - 156 Waterloo Street (Lot A) Park dedication in the form of cash in lieu of land is required, in the amount of $3,712 calculated as follows: lot frontage x generic value $9,200 per lineal metre frontage x 5% [8.069 x $9,200 x 5% _ $3,712]. B2011-056 - 156 Waterloo Street (Lot B) Park dedication in the form of cash in lieu of land is required, in the amount of $3,733 calculated as follows: lot frontage x generic value $9,200 per lineal metre frontage x 5% [8.115 x $9,200 x 5% _ $3,733]. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated November 2, 2011, advising that the subject lands are located approximately 112 metres from Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway. Typically, due to the potential rail traffic noise, 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 lots from rail noise generated from this source and if necessary, shall enter into a registered agreement with the Region of Waterloo to provide for the implementation of the approved study. However, since there are several intervening land uses between the proposed dwellings 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 Traffic Noise Assessment or enter into a registered development agreement with the Region of Waterloo prior to final approval, to include the following noise warning clauses in all offers of purchase/sale, or rental agreements for the severed and retained lands: "Due to the proximity of the Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway or its successors or assigns, projected noise levels on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals." "Warning: Purchasers or tenants are to be advised that Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway or its successors or assigns, have an operating right-of-way within 300 metres from the land subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the railway facilities on such rights-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuation measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid rights-of-way". The Region has no objection to applications B 2011-055 and B2011-056, 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 the Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway. Or alternatively, because the residential building is existing on site and there are several intervening land uses between the proposed new lots and noise source, 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 312 DECEMBER 13, 2011 1. Submission No.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 (Cont'd) warning clauses in all offers of purchase/sale, or rental agreements for both the severed and retained lots: "Due to the proximity of the Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway or its successors or assigns, projected noise levels on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals." "Warning: Purchasers or tenants are to be advised that Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway or its successors or assigns, have an operating right-of-way within 300 metres from the land subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the railway facilities on such rights-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuation measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid rights-of-way". Mr. B. Eby gave a presentation and provided the Committee with an information package outlining the development including: a draft severance plan; a preliminary tree management inventory; an overall landscape concept and landscape plan; and, a conceptual drawing of the new semi-detached dwellings. Mr. M. Kreamer requested an amendment to Condition No. 5 recommended in the staff report for both Consent Applications, B 2011-055 and B 2011-056. He requested that the condition be reflected to include the option for an on-site infiltration system. Ms. J. von Westerholt noted that staff were satisfied with the proposed Condition change. Ms. J. Meader requested clarification on the Condition requesting a Reconstruction As- Recorded Tracking Form. She questioned whether this requirement could be applied to private property. Ms. von Westerholt noted that the condition is being requested by the Engineering division as an added tracking system. She advised that it was not just applicable to public properties, and will likely be a condition that will be requested again in future consent applications. Submission No. B 2011-055 Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Estate of Bonnie Nagy, requesting permission to sever a parcel of land on Bismark Avenue having a width of 8.07 m (26.24`), a depth on the northerly side of 25m (82.02`), and an area of 192.662 sq. m. (2073.797 sq. ft.), on Part Lot C, Plan 386, 156 Waterloo Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 313 DECEMBER 13, 2011 1. Submission No.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 (Cont'd) Submission No. B 2011-055 (Cont'd) 3. That the owner shall prepare, receive approval and implement a tree preservation plan to the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Planning staff. 4. 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. 5. That the owner shall demonstrate that an adequate and appropriate sump pump outlet, including an on-site infiltration system, can be provided to or on the site to the satisfaction of City's Engineering Services; and, a. that, in the event that the municipal storm sewer must be extended to service the subject development, a certificate of approval for sewage works will be required by the Ministry of Environment in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. 6. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Engineering Services Division for the removal of any redundant service connections and/or the installation of all new service connections to the (severed lands and/or retained) lands that may be required to service this property. 7. That the owner shall submit a servicing plan to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services showing the location of all service connections required to service the subject lands. 8. That the owner shall submit a sanitary peak flow report to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services demonstrating that there is adequate capacity. 9. That the owner shall submit and complete a Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 a Development along with a digital submission of all Auto Cad drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names, and numbering system to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. 10. That the owner shall confirm that the sanitary flow for the proposed dwelling can be drained by gravity to the municipal sewers. Should the owner not be able to demonstrate that the site can be serviced by gravity, the owner shall be required to provide adequate sanitary disposal to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. 11. 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 and address such items as: a. Spatial separation of glazed areas on existing buildings' wall face for 156 Waterloo Street (rear wall) to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. b. A building permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/upgrades required by the building code assessment. c. The parking space within the garage to be increased to the minimum size of 3.04m x 6.49m as regulated by the zoning bylaw. 12. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the following: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 314 DECEMBER 13, 2011 1. Submission No.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 (Cont'd) Submission No. B 2011-0551Cont'd) a. That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved. b. The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. 13. 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 the Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway. Or alternatively, because the residential building is existing on site and there are several intervening land uses between the proposed new lots and noise source, 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 clauses in all offers of purchase/sale, or rental agreements for both the severed and retained lots: "Due to the proximity of the Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway or its successors or assigns, projected noise levels on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals." "Warning: Purchasers or tenants are to be advised that Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway or its successors or assigns, have an operating right-of-way within 300 metres from the land subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the railway facilities on such rights-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuation measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid rights-of-way". It is the opinion of this Committee that: 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 December 13, 2013. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 315 DECEMBER 13, 2011 1. Submission No.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 (Cont'd) Submission No. B 2011-056 Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Estate of Bonnie Nagy, requesting permission to sever a parcel on Bismark Avenue having a width of 8.2m (26.57`), a depth of 25.632 m (84.094`), and an area of 202.39 sq. m. (2178.508 sq. ft.), on Part Lot C, Plan 386, 156 Waterloo Street, 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 prepare, receive approval and implement a tree preservation plan to the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Planning staff. 4. That the owner 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. 5. That the owner shall demonstrate that an adequate and appropriate sump pump outlet, including an on-site infiltration system, can be provided to or on the site to the satisfaction of City's Engineering Services, and a. that, in the event that the municipal storm sewer must be extended to service the subject development, a certificate of approval for sewage works will be required by the Ministry of Environment in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. 6. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Engineering Services Division for the removal of any redundant service connections and/or the installation of all new service connections to the (severed lands and/or retained) lands that may be required to service this property. 7. That the owner shall submit a servicing plan to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services showing the location of all service connections required to service the subject lands. 8. That the owner shall submit a sanitary peak flow report to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services demonstrating that there is adequate capacity. 9. That the owner shall submit and complete a Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 a Development along with a digital submission of all Auto Cad drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names, and numbering system to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. 10. That the owner shall confirm that the sanitary flow for the proposed dwelling can be drained by gravity to the municipal sewers. Should the owner not be able to demonstrate that the site can be serviced by gravity, the owner shall be required to provide adequate sanitary disposal to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 316 DECEMBER 13, 2011 1. Submission No.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 (Cont'd) Submission No. B 2011-056 (Cont'd) 11. 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 and address such items as: a. Spatial separation of glazed areas on existing buildings' wall face for 156 Waterloo Street (rear wall) to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. b. A building permit shall be obtained for any remedial work/upgrades required by the building code assessment. c. The parking space within the garage to be increased to the minimum size of 3.04m x 6.49m as regulated by the zoning bylaw. 12. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the following: a. That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved. b. The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. 13. 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 the Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway. Or alternatively, because the residential building is existing on site and there are several intervening land uses between the proposed new lots and noise source, in lieu of a Transportation Noise Study, the owner/applicant may enter into a registered development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, to include the following noise warning clauses in all offers of purchase/sale, or rental agreements for both the severed and retained lots: "Due to the proximity of the Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway or its successors or assigns, projected noise levels on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals." "Warning: Purchasers or tenants are to be advised that Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway or its successors or assigns, have an operating right-of-way within 300 metres from the land subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the railway facilities on such rights-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuation measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). Waterloo St. Jacobs Railway will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid rights-of-way". It is the opinion of this Committee that: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 317 DECEMBER 13, 2011 1. Submission No.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 (Cont'd) Submission No. B 2011-056 (Cont'd) 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 December 13, 2013. Carried Submission No. A 2011-072 Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Estate of Bonnie Nagy, requesting permission for a lot having a rear yard setback of 2.7m (8.85`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`); a northerly side yard setback of 0.9m rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`); and, permission to locate the off-street parking space for a single detached dwelling to be located 4.23m from the street line, whereas the By-law requires 6.Om from the street line, on Part Lot C, Plan 386, 156 Waterloo Street, 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 2011-073 Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Estate of Bonnie Nagy, requesting permission for a lot having a rear yard setback of 3.5m (11.48`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`); and, permission for a lot area of 192.662 sq. m. (2073.797 sq. ft.) rather than the required 235 sq. m. (2529.51 sq. ft.), on Part Lot C, Plan 386, 8 Bismark 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 318 DECEMBER 13, 2011 1. Submission No.: B 2011-055, B 2011-056, A 2011-072, A 2011-073 & A 2011-074 (Cont'd) Submission No. A 2011-073 ICont'd 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 2011-074 Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Estate of Bonnie Nagy, requesting permission for a lot having a rear yard setback of 6.5m rather than the required 7.5m (24.60`); and, permission for a lot area of 202.39 sq. m. (2178.508 sq. ft.) rather than the required 235 sq. m. (2529.51 sq. ft.), on Part Lot C, Plan 386, 10 Bismark Avenue, 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 10:28 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 13th day of December, 2011. Dianna Saunderson Acting Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment