Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2012-04-17COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 17, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski and A. Lise and Ms. J. Meader OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer, Ms. J. Billett, Committee Administrator and Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:03 a. m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of March 20, 2012, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2012-024 Melanie Devine 84 Everglade Crescent Lot 117, Registered Plan 58M-224 M. Devine None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a deck and sunroom addition in the rear yard having a setback of 4.65m (15.25`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'); and, legalization of a side yard setback abutting a street of 4.41m (14.46`) rather than the required 4.5m (17.76'). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated March 29, 2012, advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 84 Everglade Crescent. The property is zoned Residential Four (R-4) 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 38.2 the Zoning By-law to permit a rear yard setback of 4.65 metres whereas 7.5 metres is required to allow for a sunroom addition at the rear of the existing duplex. The applicant is also seeking relief from Section 38.2 to legalize the existing side yard abutting a street of 4.4 metres whereas 4.5 is required for the existing covered entry to the lower unit. The property is considered a corner lot according to the City's Zoning By-law. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 107 APRIL 17, 2012 Submission No.: A 2012-024 (Cont'd In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments pertaining to the proposed setback reductions: The requested variances for the rear yard setback and side yard abutting a street setback meet the intent of the Official Plan. Low Rise Residential districts allow for a variety of low density residential uses, including duplex dwellings. 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 proposed rear yard setback is appropriate. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for modest alterations. The proposed rear yard variance will permit a small sunroom addition to the rear of the existing building. The proposed reduction of the side yard abutting a street of 4.4 metres whereas 4.5 is required is being sought by the Applicant to legalize the existing covered entry way for the lower unit. The purpose of the side yard abutting a street setback is to ensure that there is adequate separation between a building and the road right-of-way. The existing cover entry was incorrectly located during construction. The intent of the 7.5 metres minimum rear yard setback 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 as well as within the rear yard that is not being developed with the sunroom. A deck is also being proposed for passive outdoor amenity space. The rear yard also functions as a buffer between adjacent properties to ensure adequate privacy and separation of living space. The lands adjacent to the rear yard are utilized for storm water management purposes and cannot be developed for residential use. The requested variance for the side yard abutting a street setback legalizes the existing situation. Due to the nature of the alignment of Everglade Crescent, there are no other structures or buildings along this section of the street. The reduction of the side yard to 4.4 metres is not evident and does not interfere or create a negative experience for pedestrians travelling along the sidewalk. The requested variances are minor. The development of the property with a new sunroom in the rear yard is permitted by the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The rear yard variance is requested in order to accommodate the expansion of interior living space adjacent to a storm water management facility. Sufficient outdoor amenity space will remain once the sunroom is constructed. The legalization of the side yard abutting a street will not have any impact on the surrounding properties. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed configuration of the sunroom on the lot would be consistent with the established development within this neighbourhood and no adverse impacts as a result of this variance are anticipated. The side yard abutting a street variance legalizes an existing situation. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated April 10, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Melanie Devine, requesting permission to construct a deck and sunroom addition in the rear yard having a setback of 4.65m (15.25`) rather than the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 108 APRIL 17, 2012 Submission No.: A 2012-024 (Cont'd required 7.5m (24.6'); and, legalization of a side yard setback abutting a street of 4.4m (14.46`) rather than the required 4.5m (17.76'), on Lot 117, Registered Plan 58M-224, 84 Everglade Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City of Kitchener Building Division for the proposed sunroom. 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 2. Submission No.: A 2012-025 Applicants: Millard and Catherine Snyder Property Location: 87 Onward Avenue Legal Description: Lot 18, Plan 299 Appearances: In Support: M. Snyder Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a garage and deck having a rear yard setback of 4.8m (15.75`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'); permission for the proposed garage to have a maximum fascia to ground height of 3.46m (11.35`) rather than the permitted maximum height to the underside of a fascia of 3m (9.48`); permission lot coverage for habitable buildings/structures of 51.1% rather than the permitted 45%; legalization of an existing accessory storage shed on the easterly side of the property having a maximum fascia to ground height of 4.22m (13.85`) rather than the permitted maximum height to the underside of the fascia of 3m (9.48`); and, legalization of the side yard setback for the existing accessory building of Om rather than the required 0.6m (1.96`). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 3, 2012, advising that the subject property is zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5), in the Zoning By-law and designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The site contains an existing singled detached dwelling. The owner is proposing to put an addition onto the existing attached garage that will extend into the rear yard as well as put an addition onto the existing rear yard deck. Through this variance application, the owner would also like to legalize an existing storage shed that is located in the rear yard. The owner is requesting the following variances through minor variance application A2012-025: • a reduction of the minimum rear yard to 4.8 metres for the existing building whereas the Zoning By-law requires 7.5 metres (Section 39.2.1); • an increase of the maximum lot coverage for habitable buildings/structures to 51.5% whereas the Zoning By-law requires 45% (Section 39.2.1); COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 109 APRIL 17, 2012 2. Submission No.: A 2012-025 (Cont'dl an increase of the maximum height to the underside of any fascia to 3.46 metres for the attached garage whereas the Zoning By-law requires 3.0 metres (Section 5.2.2b); and, an increase of the maximum height to the underside of any fascia to 4.22 metres for the storage shed whereas the Zoning By-law requires 3.0 metres (Section 5.2.2b); and further, a reduction of the minimum side yard for accessory structures to 0 metres whereas the Zoning By-law requires 0.6 metres (Section 5.2.2c). 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: The requested 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 minimum side yard for the existing accessory structure, reduced minimum rear yard for the attached garage, increased maximum fascia height for both the attached garage and accessory structure and increased maximum lot coverage for the habitable portion of the existing dwelling/structure. The minor changes will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The purpose of a 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is staff's opinion that a setback of 4.8 metres would continue to allow outdoor amenity space to be provided and the impact on neighbouring properties is minimal. The purpose of the 45% maximum lot coverage for the habitable portion of the dwelling is to ensure that there is adequate amenity space. It is staffs opinion that an increase to 51.5% maximum lot coverage for the habitable portion of the dwelling will continue to allow adequate outdoor amenity space to be provided. The rear yard deck also provides additional amenity space to supplement the 4.8 metre rear yard setback and 51.5% lot coverage for the habitable portion of the dwelling. The requested minor variance for an increase to the maximum fascia height for the storage shed is an existing situation. The purpose of the required 3.0 metre maximum fascia height is to restrict the overall height of an accessory building. Both the existing storage shed and proposed garage addition will have flat roofs and therefore will be maintained at an acceptable height for accessory buildings. The requested minor variance for a reduced side yard for a storage shed recognizes an existing situation. The purpose of the required 0.6 metres side yard setback for accessory structures is to allow for adequate separation from the abutting property to allow for an overhang from the roof. The requested 0 metre minimum side yard setback for the accessory shed is adequate as the shed has a flat roof and does not protrude into the adjacent property. As the roof is flat and sound to walk on, access to the eaves can be achieved from on top of the shed. 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. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances will provide adequate amenity space and will not negatively affect the adjacent properties or surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The proposed variances will allow the owner to build an addition to the existing attached garage that will better suit the owner's personal carpentry needs. The scale, massing and height of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 110 APRIL 17, 2012 2. Submission No.: A 2012-025 (Cont'd) the subject accessory buildings will be maintained to an appropriate level and is consistent with the existing accessory buildings. The proposed variances will not impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated April 10, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Millard and Catherine Snyder, requesting permission to construct a garage and deck having a rear yard setback of 4.8m (15.75`) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6'); permission for the proposed garage to have a maximum fascia to ground height of 3.46m (11.35`) rather than the permitted maximum height to the underside of a fascia of 3m (9.48`); permission for lot coverage of habitable buildings/structures of 51.5% rather than the permitted 45%; legalization of an existing accessory storage shed on the easterly side of the property having a maximum fascia to ground height of 4.22m (13.85`) rather than the permitted maximum height to the underside of the fascia of 3m (9.48`); and, legalization of the side yard setback for the existing accessory building of Om rather than the required 0.6m (1.96`), on Lot 18, Plan 299, 87 Onward 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 3. Submission No.: A 2012-026 Applicant: GE & B Inc. Property Location: 1003 Weber Street East Legal Description: Lot 95, Plan 307 Appearances: In Support: G. Baker Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for the expansion of a legal non-conforming dwelling to accommodate a second storey expansion for additional living space, as well as a solar generator; legalization of a lot having an easterly side yard of 0.98 (3.21`) and a westerly side yard of 1.3m (4.26`) rather than the required 3.Om (9.48`); legalization of a lot having a width of 12.19m (39.99`) rather than the required 16m (52.49`); and legalization of the required off-street parking to be located 3.4m (11.15`) from the street rather than the required 6.Om (19.68` ). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 4, 2012, advising that the subject property is located on 1003 Weber Street East and is currently used as a Legal Non-conforming residential dwelling. The property is zoned Arterial Commercial (C-6) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Arterial Commercial Corridor in the Official Plan. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 111 APRIL 17, 2012 3. Submission No.: A 2012-026 (Cont'd) The applicant is proposing to construct a second storey addition above the existing garage. The existing residential use is not permitted in the C-6 Zone but has Legal Non- conforming status as the residential use existed prior to the passing of the by-law and continued until the date of this application to the Committee. As such the applicant is requesting permission under Section 45(2)(a) of the Planning Act to extend a legal non- conforming residential use, to allow for the second storey addition. It should be noted that an application to extend a legal non-conforming use, in this case by allowing the second storey addition, does not have to meet the four tests for a minor variance. Case law has determined that consideration should be based on: 1. Impact on the surrounding area. Does the proposed use create unacceptable adverse impacts upon the abutting properties, and 2. Desirability for development of the property. In considering these tests, Planning staff offers the following comments: The proposed second storey development is a minor addition to the existing building that will maintain the existing side yard setback and will not encroach closer to the adjacent property. Staff is of the opinion that the extension of the Legal Non-conforming residential use will not create unacceptable adverse impacts on the abutting properties as the use has existed and has continued to exist since the passing of the by-law without any encumbrance to the surrounding area. With respect to the desirability for the development of the property, the applicant has advised that in addition to the Legal Non-conforming residential use, in the future they would like to operate a use permitted in the C-6 Zone as well. Staff is of the opinion that this will result in the use of the property that is more compatible with the C-6 Zone, rather than the Legal Non-complying single detached dwelling use that currently exists. In turn, this may encourage the future conversion of the site to a use that is currently permitted in the C-6 Zone, bringing it into closer conformity with the C-6 Zone. Furthermore the proposed addition will require minor variances under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended. Staff advised the applicant that since the garage had been previously converted to a habitable space, the legal parking space for the single detached dwelling would have to be relocated to the driveway. Therefore, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b i) to allow an off-street parking space to be 3.4 metres setback from the street line rather than the required 6.0 metre setback. The applicant is also requesting minor variance approval to allow the existing left side yard setback to be 0.98 metres and the right side yard setback to be 1.30 metres rather than the required 3.0 metres setback for both side yards; and where the existing lot width is 12.19 metres rather than the required 16 metres as per Section 12.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1. 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 requested minor variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The applicant is proposing to operate acommercial/business use in the future. The Arterial Commercial Corridor designation recognizes a broad range of commercial and industrial business uses for low density redevelopment. The subject property will be consistent in form and use with other development along Weber Street East. The purpose of the required 6.0 metres setback from the street line is to ensure that adequate buffer exists between the garage and the street line to allow an opportunity for a visitor's car to be parked off the road right-of-way and on the subject property. The City of Kitchener's standard parking stall dimensions are 2.6 metres by 5.6 metres. The proposed garage is set back approximately 10 metres from the street line therefore staff COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 112 APRIL 17, 2012 3. Submission No.: A 2012-026 (Cont'd) is of the opinion that there is sufficient space for a car to be parked between the garage and the street line without encroaching onto the street right-of-way. The request for a reduced parking space setback of 3.4 metre from the street line rather than the required 6.0 metre setback meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. 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. Staff is of the opinion that the requested minor variance for the reduced side yard setbacks recognizes an existing situation and will continue to provide adequate separation from the adjacent properties. The requested reduction of the left side yard setback to 0.98 metres and right side yard setback to 1.30 metres is appropriate as staff conducted a site visit and concluded 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 City local street (identified as such in the City's Official Plan). Further, the requested minor variance for a reduced lot width 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 variance request for a reduced parking setback to the street line can be considered minor because parking can still be accommodated on-site. Transportation staff does not have any concerns with the proposed reduction as they are of the opinion that there will be minimal impact to adjacent lands and overall neighbourhood. The additional variances are considered minor as well as staff is of the opinion that the existing left and right side yard setbacks are sufficiently wide to provide adequate access to the rear. The existing City local street abutting the rear of the subject property will also provide additional access and therefore the requested minor variances will not impede the current functioning of the site and overall neighbourhood. The requested minor variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as it will allow the subject property to blend well with the balance of buildings along Weber Street East. The parcel size, the current and proposed uses and building design and features are very common along this street. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated April 10, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. G. Baker advised that he is in support of staff's recommendation; however, he is unsure at this time whether he will be expanding the building to accommodate a residential use. He questioned whether the decision would lapse if he chose not to expand the building, due to the recommended condition for a building permit. Ms. von Westerholt noted that if the applicant chooses not to expand the legal non- conforming dwelling, the requested variances would still be required and the condition for a building permit would then make the decision null and void. She stated that staff would be fine with amending their recommendation to remove the condition for the building permit. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of GB & E Ltd., requesting permission for the expansion of a legal non-conforming dwelling to accommodate a second storey expansion for additional living space, as well as a solar generator; legalization of a lot having an easterly side yard of 0.98 (3.21`) and a westerly side yard of 1.3m (4.26`) rather than the required 3.Om (9.48`); legalization of a lot having a width of 12.19m (39.99`) rather than the required 16m (52.49`); and legalization of the required off-street parking to be located 3.4m (11.15`) from the street, rather than the required 6.Om (19.68`), on Lot 95, Plan 307, 1003 Weber Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 113 APRIL 17, 2012 3. Submission No.: A 2012-026 (Cont'd) It is the opinion of this Committee that the request for permission to expand a legal non- conforming use under Section 45 (2) (a) of the Planning Act is appropriate for the following reasons: The use of this property as a residential dwelling lawfully existed on the day the by-law was passed to prohibit such use. 2. The approval of this application will not adversely impact the adjacent properties or the neighbourhood as a whole. It is the further opinion of the Committee that the request for minor variances under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act are appropriate for the following reasons: 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 2012-27 Applicants: Stephen and Debra Tulloch and Michael Morrice Property Location: 107 Cherry Street Legal Description: Lot 23, Part Lots 23 & 24, Plan 329 Appearances: In Support: S. Tulloch Contra: J. Williams E. & D. Schuiling N. & P. Dahl R. Gulka Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for the 2 required off-street parking spaces to be located within 0.6m (1.96`) of the street line whereas 6.Om (19.68`) is required; and, legalization of an existing westerly side yard of 1.1m (3.6`) rather than the required 1.2m (3.93`). The existing garage is being proposed to be converted into habitable living space. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 4, 2012, advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 107 Cherry Street, which is located slightly southwest of the Cherry Street and Strange Street intersection. The subject lands are zoned Residential 5 (R-5) with Special Regulation Provision 1-R in the City of Kitchener By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan. This lot contains a single detached dwelling with an attached garage. The property changed ownership recently on March 01, 2012. The current owners have noted that the garage have been previously converted into a workshop prior to their acquisition of the property. Also, the exterior garage door was removed and replaced with windows and a door. The parking space that was displaced from inside the garage has been moved to the front of the property. In addition, the driveway has been widened and another parking space was added adjacent to the first space. It should be noted that no permits were obtained for the alterations made to the property. Thus, the recommendations of this report will not take into consideration the fact that the situation requested in this variance is pre-existing since the alterations to the property were made without any City approvals. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 114 APRIL 17, 2012 4. Submission No.: A 2012-027 (Cont'dl The additional front entrance and parking space were added by the previous owners with the intention of turning the house into a duplex for rent. The new owners share the same intentions and are thus requesting to have the property legally recognized as a duplex. It should be noted that while the alterations to the exterior of the building were completed, the interior of the former attached garage still remains a workshop. The applicants require the approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to convert the existing workshop into a living space. A duplex use is allowed by the R-5 zoning. However, the current parking situation is illegal under Zoning By-law 85-1 regulation. Thus, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b) i) of the Zoning By-law 85-1 which requires at least one of the two parking spaces allowed for a duplex be setback 6.0 metres from the property line abutting the street. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the two parking spaces located at the front of the property to have a setback of 0.6 metres from the front lot line. The applicant is also requesting a variance to legalize the westerly side yard setback of 1.1 metres whereas 1.2 metres are required as outlined in Section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1. 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 intent of this designation is to accommodate a full range of housing types to achieve an overall low density. The proposal to convert the existing single detached dwelling into a duplex dwelling will only have a minor effect on the overall density of the neighbourhood with the additional one unit added. It is staff's opinion that the proposed variance will continue to achieve the low density residential characteristic of the neighbourhood. The Official Plan also has language that supports intensification of buildings for residential use. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of the required setback of off-street parking from the front lot line is to ensure that the parked vehicles do not obstruct the pedestrian and vehicular right of way and do not encroach onto public owned lands. Also, the minimum 6.0 metres of setback to parking for residential uses supports the possibility of single detached dwellings to be converted to duplex dwellings where an additional parking space may be located in the setback zone and in tandem to the first parking space as set out in Section 6.1.1.1 b) i) of the Zoning By-law. Since the bylaw already allows one parking spot to be located within the 6.0 metre setback zone, it is staffs opinion that having both the proposed parking spaces be set back 0.6 metres from the front lot line will still adequately ensure that the parked vehicles do not obstruct public right of ways or encroach into public lands. Transportation Services has no concerns with the adjacent placement of the parking spaces. The driveway complies with Section 6.1.1.1 g) and is the maximum 5.2 metres of width allowed. The purpose of any side yard setback is to maintain adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is staff's opinion that the westerly side-yard setback of 1.1 metres would not negatively impact the neighbouring property. The variance is considered minor. As mentioned above, the proposed placement of the two parking spaces in the front yard and at a setback of 0.6 metres will have minimal impact on neighbouring properties since the spaces will not affect pedestrian or vehicular traffic and do not encroach onto public or private neighbouring lands. Staff believes that the spaces will have minimal impact on the aesthetics of the neighbourhood since vehicles are visible in the front yards of the other properties along the streetscape as well. The subject property is also observed by staff to have an adequate ratio of landscaped area to paved area in the front yard. However, it has been COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 115 APRIL 17, 2012 4. Submission No.: A 2012-027 (Cont'dl brought to the attention of staff by a neighbouring resident that situations may arise in the future where the residents of the subject property may require more than the two permanent parking spaces proposed. The owners of the subject property should be mindful that on-street parking is not to be used to accommodate the permanent parking of additional vehicles. The westerly side-yard setback of 1.1 metres has existed since the construction of the house in 1938 and there have been no complaints from the abutting property. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The conversion of the subject property from a single detached dwelling into a duplex dwelling will maintain the low rise residential characteristic of the neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated April 10, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Resource Planner, dated April 11, 2012, advising that the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) is not in a position to support the above-noted minor variance application. The GRCA requires a survey of the property with the elevations of existing grades as well as floor level and all openings (windows/doors) of the proposed habitable space to ensure that the new habitable floor space is above the Regulatory Floodplain Elevation. The neighbourhood residents expressed their concerns about the subject property and the approval of this application noting that the garage has already been converted into living space without the proper permits; the property is currently being used as a rental property with four people living there, with other unknown people staying and parking there regularly; the application is requesting permission to locate two parking spaces in the driveway, and yet there is already parking overflow, with 3 cars regularly parked in the driveway and several more on the street; and, concern for the future use of the property and the fact the owner would like to duplex the property and potentially have more tenants living at the property full-time. Ms. von Westerholt advised that under provincial regulations property owners are permitted to duplex their properties. She noted that the applicant has purchased the property after some of the work has been conducted onsite without proper permits and this applicant through this application is attempting to correct these issues. She indicated that neither staff nor the Committee have any authority to enforce the number or type of people living at any one property. Ms. von Westerholt further advised that the property has the ability to accommodate 2off-street parking spaces within the driveway and anything beyond the 2 spaces would be enforceable by the City's By-law Department. She indicated that the neighbours would have to call and complain in order for the illegally parked vehicle to be enforced. Ms. J. Williams questioned whether the neighbours would need to call every day to ensure that there are no cars parked illegally on the property. Ms. von Westerholt noted that properties that are continually reported for enforcement would be identified as suspicious properties and would be watched more closely in the future. The Chair noted the comments of the comments of the GRCA and requested a condition be added to the recommendation. Mr. S. Tulloch advised he is in support of staffs recommendation and noted that he would be fine with the additional condition to satisfy the GRCA. He stated that he has just purchase the property and he thanked the neighbours for expressing their concerns. He noted that currently it is his intention to duplex the property as he would like to move into the property in the future and have the rental income to assist with his retirement. He stated that it is not his intention to turn the property into student housing, although there are four mature students living there currently. He further advised that COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 116 APRIL 17, 2012 4. Submission No.: A 2012-027 (Cont'd) he was not aware that there could not be three cars parked in the driveway and indicated that he will work with the current tenants to try and mitigate the parking overflow concerns expressed by the neighbours. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Stephen and Debra Tulloch and Michael Morrice, requesting permission for the 2 required off-street parking spaces to be located within 0.6m (1.96`) of the street line whereas 6.Om (19.68`) is required; and, legalization of an existing westerly side yard of 1.1m (3.6`) rather than the required 1.2m (3.93`), on Lot 23, Part Lots 23 & 24, Plan 329, 107 Cherry Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the owners shall obtain a Building Permit from the City of Kitchener Building Division for converting a single family dwelling into a duplex and the conversion of the existing garage into living space. 2. That the owners shall provide the Grand River Conservation Authority a survey of the property including elevation of the existing grades as well as floor level and all openings (windows/doors) of the proposed habitable space to ensure that the new habitable floor space is above the Regulatory Floodplain Elevation. 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 2012-028 Applicants: Scott Martin and Amber Sundy Property Location: 86 South Drive Legal Description: Lot 128, Plan 230 Appearances: In Support: S. Martin & A. Sundy Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to relocate the existing driveway on a corner lot property from Perth Road to South Drive, to be located 7.06m (23.16`) from the intersection than the required 9m (29.52'); and, permission for the required off-street parking to be located 1.78m (5.83`) from the street line rather than the required 6.Om (19.68`). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 5, 2012, advising that the subject property is located at the corner of South Drive and Perth Road in the Southdale Planning Community. The subject area is composed of a variety of low density residential land uses. The property contains a single detached dwelling constructed in approximately 1951. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Five (R-5) in the Zoning By-law. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 117 APRIL 17, 2012 5. Submission No.: A 2012-028 (Cont'dl The property currently has one driveway with access to Perth Road. The owner is proposing to close the existing driveway and construct a new driveway with access to South Drive. The owner has stated that the purpose of this proposal is to create a safer vehicular access onto South Drive since the current driveway is in a location that has high traffic volume and poor visibility for vehicles turning right onto Perth Road from South Drive. For these reasons, backing out of the current driveway is problematic. The proposed driveway with access to South Drive would have less conflict with traffic and better visibility. The proposal would also allow the front door to be used as the functional entrance to the dwelling since the front door is closer to the proposed driveway than the rear door to the current driveway. In order to allow the new driveway with access to South Drive, approval of two minor variances is necessary. As such the owner is requesting: • relief from section 6.1.1.1 b)i) of the Zoning By-law to allow the required parking for a single detached dwelling to be located 1.78 metres from the street line rather than the required minimum of 6.0 metres, and • relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b)iv) of the Zoning By-law to allow a corner lot access driveway to be located 7.06 metres from the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot, rather than the required minimum of 9.0 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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The Official Plan states that "All parking areas or facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained for the safe and efficient movement of motor vehicles and pedestrians, on the site, and at points of ingress and egress related to the site". In this case the City's Transportation Services Division has stated that it has no concerns with the proposed driveway location and parking layout. The proposed driveway setback to the intersection is acceptable. Given the relatively small lot area of the property and for aesthetic purposes, staff recommends that the driveway entrance with access to Perth Road be closed as an approval condition. The owners have stated that they are in agreement with this condition. In addition, staff is of the opinion that the proposed driveway will blend into the general environment of the area and will be aesthetically acceptable. The variances are minor for the following reasons. The proposed driveway will not encroach into the neighbour's driveway visibility triangle. In addition, given the relatively narrow width, the driveway should not have any unacceptably adverse impacts on the streetscape or neighbouring properties. The variances are appropriate for the desirable development and use of the land for the following reasons. The proposed driveway represents a safer location than the existing driveway. In addition, the proposed driveway is in a more convenient location for the owners and will aid in improving functionality of the property. Transportation Services staff has stated that the proposed required parking space location does not present any concerns with respect to safety or other matters. The proposed variances do 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 April 10, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 118 APRIL 17, 2012 5. Submission No.: A 2012-028 (Cont'dl Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Scott Martin and Amber Sundy, requesting permission to relocate the existing driveway on a corner lot property from Perth Road to South Drive, to be located 7.06m (23.16`) from the intersection rather than the required 9m (29.52'); and, permission for the required off-street parking to be located 1.78m (5.83`) from the street line rather than the required 6.Om (19.68`), on Lot 128, Plan 230, 86 South Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the asphalt and gravel driveway existing at the time of application submission, with access to Perth Road, be closed and the surface be removed and reinstated with landscaping, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, within one year of the date of approval of Minor Variance Application A 2012-028, being April 17, 2013. 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 CONSENT Submission No.: B 2012-011 Applicant: Canadian Railway Company Property Location: CN Rail Property on the Corner of Breithaupt Street and Ahrens Street West Legal Description: Part Lots 223, 224, 225 and 226, Registered Plan 376 Appearances: In Support: R. Blunt Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever an irregular parcel of land having a width on Breithaupt Street of 7.2m (23.62`), a northerly depth of 72.8m (238.84') and an area of 487.09 sq.m. (5242.99 sq.ft.), which will be conveyed as a lot addition to 108 Ahrens Street West. The retained land will be an irregular shape having a width on Breithaupt Street of 15.3m (50.19`), and southerly depth of 72.8m (238.84') and an area of 1,119.45 sq.m. (12049.66 sq.ft). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 4, 2012, advising that the subject property is designated General Industrial in the Official Plan and zoned General Industrial (M-2) in the Zoning By-law 85-1. The subject property is owned by the Canadian National Railway Company. The owner is proposing to sever approximately 487 square metre of the subject land that abuts the active rail corridor as it is not directly related to the railway's present use of the area. The owner has advised that the severed parcel will be added as a lot addition to 108 Ahrens Street as it is surplus to its railway operations. The owner will maintain ownership of the proposed retained parcel which will be used for railway support services and the railway itself. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 119 APRIL 17, 2012 Submission No.: B 2012-011 (Cont'd The proposed severed parcel will have approximately 7.2 metres of frontage on Breithaupt Street and is partially encumbered with part of the building situated at 108 Ahrens Street. There will be no changes to the building at 108 Ahrens Street or to the railway alignment and as such this application is solely for the purposes of property lot line adjustment that will offer 108 Ahrens Street additional lot area and frontage on Breithaupt Street. 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 any proposed use of the lands, and the lands front on an established public street. The severed parcel which currently contains a portion of the existing building on 108 Ahrens Street will be added as a lot addition to 108 Ahrens Street. The resultant parcel is currently serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. The size of the retained parcel is appropriate for the railway support services and the railway itself. The proposed property lot line adjustment does not involve any changes to the existing building or realignment to the railway line; therefore staff is of the opinion that the request to sever is appropriate and will not impact the subject lands and surrounding area. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated April 10, 2012, advising that the Region has no objections to this application. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Canadian Railway Company, requesting permission to sever an irregular parcel of land having a width on Breithaupt Street of 7.2m (23.62`) (42.65'), a northerly depth of 72.8m (238.84') and an area of 487.09 sq. m. (5242.99 sq.ft.), which will be conveyed as a lot addition to 108 Ahrens Street West, on Part Lots 223, 224, 225 and 226, Registered Plan 376, CN Rail Property at Breithaupt Street and Ahrens Street 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 must be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Design 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 2% of the value of the lands to be severed. 4. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 5. That the owner's Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 120 APRIL 17, 2012 Submission No.: B 2012-011 (Cont'd) It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 17, 2014. Carried 2. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: B 2012-012 603489 Ontario Inc. 14-16 Rauch Court Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 58M-535 B. Blackmere None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land so each half can be dealt with separately. The land to be severed will have a width on Rauch Court of 7.58m (24.86'), a westerly depth of 29.89m (98.06') and an area of 235 sq. m. (2529.51 sq. ft.). The retained land will have a width on Rauch Court of 7.75m (25.42'), an easterly depth of 29.89m (98.06') and an area of 400.05 sq. m. (4306.102 sq. ft. ). The properties will be constructed with semi-detached dwellings. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 2, 2012, advising that the subject property is located on Rauch Court. The property is a pie shaped lot with approximately 15.14 metres of frontage on Rauch Court. The property is currently under construction with a new semi-detached dwelling. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four (R-4), and Arterial Commercial Zone (C-6) in the City's Zoning By-law. The C-6 zoning is a remnant of the previous nursery use and is located at the rear side of the property. The C-6 zoning does not affect the proposed residential use or the subject severance application. Application B2012-012 proposes asemi-detached dwelling on a new lot with 7.39 metres of frontage on Rauch Court, a depth of 29.89 metres, and an area of 235 square metres. The retained lot would contain asemi-detached dwelling, which would have 7.75 metres of frontage on Rauch Court, a lot depth of 29.89 metres and a lot area of 400.05 square metres. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the uses of the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan, and Zoning By-law. The dimension and shape of the proposed lot is appropriate and suitable for the existing and proposed use. The COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 121 APRIL 17, 2012 2. Submission No.: B 2012-012 (Cont'd) subject lands front on an established public street. Staff notes that adequate utilities and municipal services are available. The resulting new lot will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated March 9, 2012, advising that they have no objections to this application. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of 603489 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Rauch Court of 7.58m (24.86'), a westerly depth of 29.89m (98.06') and an area of 235 sq. m. (2529.51 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 58M- 535, 16 Rauch Court, 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 must be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Design Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner shall have their engineering consultant prepare and submit a letter to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services Division stating that servicing, grading and driveway locations are all in accordance with the approved Registered Plan 58M-535. It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 17, 2014. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 122 APRIL 17, 2012 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:31 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 17th day of April, 2012. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment