Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2012-05-15COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 15. 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. J. Meader and Messrs. A. Head and B. McColl OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking Analyst; Mr. C. Gowing, Municipal Building Official; Ms. J. Billett, Acting Secretary-Treasurer and Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk Mr. A. Head, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:35 a. m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held April 17, 2012, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2012-012 Filan Inc. 37 Bruce Street Part Lot 6, Plan 764 None None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that no one was in attendance to support the application at this time It was noted that this is the third occasion for the application to come before the Committee, having been deferred on two previous occasions (February 21 and March 20, 2012). At the Committee meeting of March 20, 2012 the applicant requested that the Committee defer consideration of the application one more time to provide an opportunity to resolve issues regarding requirements for a loading zone and off-street parking. The Committee agreed to the deferral request, setting the meeting date of May 15, 2012 for return of the application to be considered by the Committee and the applicant was so advised. Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that since the March meeting, the applicant has not been in contact with the City in respect to this application. Ms. J. Billett requested that in the event the Committee wishes to consider a further deferral of the application, that it be on condition the applicant is required to submit the current deferral fee to cover the cost of re-advertising the application, as by the time it returns to Committee considerable time will have passed since notice of consideration was first given. Mr. A. Head inquired what would happen if the matter is further deferred and the applicant again does not appear. Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that continual deferral and non-action by the applicant would in effect place the application in limbo. Ms. J. Billett added that it is within the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -124 - MAY 15, 2012 1. Submission No.: A 2012-012 (Cont'd) Committee's authority to proceed to make a decision on the application if so desired, notwithstanding there is no one present in support of the application. Mr. A. Head expressed the view that further deferral would serve no purpose given the time already afforded the applicant, and the applicant has taken no further action to contact the City since the March 20th meeting in respect to resolving the outstanding issues. It was suggested, and agreed, that this matter be temporarily set aside until the start of the regular agenda at 10:00 a.m. to allow additional time for the applicant to arrive. The Committee then recessed at 9:40 a.m. and reconvened at 10:00 a.m. with the following members present: Ms. J. Meader and Messrs. A. Head and B. McColl. The Committee resumed consideration of the Unfinished Business agenda and was again advised that no one was present in support of Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2012-012. The Chair reiterated his view that further deferral of the application would serve no purpose and suggested that the Committee should proceed to decide the matter. Ms. J. Meader concurred with the Chair's comments, as did Mr. B. McColl, who noted that the Committee had discussed the issues with the applicant at length on March 20th and had been accommodating in agreeing to deferral at that time. The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a second storey addition to accommodate conversion of the existing building into office space, to have a southerly side yard of 1.68m (5.5') rather than the required 6m (19.69'); permission to provide 9 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 14; and, permission to have a commercial use without a designated loading zone as prescribed by the By-law. The Committee considered an addendum report of the Planning Division, dated March 8, 2012, previously circulated at the March 20th meeting, which reflects new information that was provided to staff at a meeting with Planning and Transportation Services staff and new Transportation Services comments. The subject property is located on the west side of Bruce Street, immediately north of the Highway 7/8 on ramp. The property currently contains cone-storey commercial building with a gross floor area of 192.7 square metres. The application states that the present use of the property is an adult entertainment establishment and driving school. The property to the north and the property on the opposite side of Bruce Street each contain a commercial plaza. Low density residential land uses occupy much of the land to the south of the Highway 7/8 ramps, on both sides of Bruce Street. The property is designated Arterial Commercial Corridor in the Official Plan and is zoned Arterial Commercial Zone (C-6), with Special Use Provision 3U. The owner is proposing to add a second storey to the existing building, thereby doubling the gross floor area of the building. In addition, he is proposing to convert the whole of the building to office use. A number of minor variances were identified at a site plan pre-submission application meeting held on January 12, 2012. In this regard, in order to facilitate the addition, the owner is requesting approval of three minor variances: 1. Requesting that no loading spaces be required for a building in a Commercial Zone with between 0 and 2,320.0 square metres of gross floor area, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 1 loading space; 2. Requesting a minimum side yard abutting a street of 1.68 metres, whereas the Zoning By- law requires a minimum side yard abutting a street of 6.0 metres; 3. Requesting that 9 parking spaces be provided for 385.4 sq. m. of office use, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 14 parking spaces (office use requires 1 space for each 28.0 sq.m. of GFA; therefore, 385.4 / 28.0 = 13.8). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -125 - MAY 15, 2012 1. Submission No.: A 2012-012 (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. Variances 1 and 3 do not meet the intent of the City's Official Plan for the following reasons. Part 2, Section 8.5 of the City's Official Plan states that it is an objective of the City "To ensure adequate parking standards are in place and enforced." This objective is implemented through the parking and loading provisions of the Zoning By-law. Transportation Planning Division has stated that the proposed parking and loading spaces for the office use are not adequate considering the parking and loading demand. Variance 2 does meet the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The intent of the minimum side yard abutting a street is to ensure adequate setback for privacy reasons and for safety respecting transportation matters. In this case, the property is located beside a Highway 7/8 on ramp and is separated by a wide (approximately 5 metres) untraveled portion of the highway right-of-way as well as by vegetation and chain-link fencing. Variances 1 and 3 do not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of the parking and loading space requirements is to ensure that the parking generated by a use is contained fully on the site containing that use. Parking and loading regulations prevent visitors and delivery persons from parking in parking areas of adjacent properties or on the public right-of-way. The parking and loading standards outlined in the Zoning By-law are accurate and established standards for the proposed use. Staff is concerned that if these variances are authorized, parking and loading may overflow onto other properties. Variances 1 and 3 are not minor as they may cause unacceptably adverse impact on adjacent properties. As stated above, staff is concerned that if these variances are authorized, parking and loading may overflow onto other properties or may occur on-site but in a manner that that is inefficient and dangerous to parking area users or pedestrians and motorists on Bruce Street. Variance 2 is minor as staff does not foresee any adverse impact on adjacent properties. While Variances 1, 2, and 3 would allow intensification of the site for office use (which is a permitted use under the zoning), they would facilitate a degree of intensification is not desirable, given the potential impact on adjacent properties and public roads. As such, staff is of the opinion that the variances are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. While Transportation Services staff has advised that they could support the parking reduction variance on the condition that the owner enter into a registered three-party, off-site parking agreement in accordance with Section 6.1.1.1a)ii) and iii) of the Zoning By-law in order to provide the required parking, the loading deficiency remains unresolved. It should be noted that each minor variance request must meet all four tests as outlined in Section 45(1). If, in the opinion of the Committee, one variance fails to meet one of the four tests, the application is to be refused. Staff is of the opinion that the while Variance 2 meets all four tests, Variances 1 and 3 fail a number of tests. Based on the foregoing, it is the recommendation of staff that the application be refused. It must also be noted that at the site plan pre-submission application meeting of January 12, 2012, Transportation Planning Division staff advised the owner that the proposed parking reduction variance could not be supported by staff due to the severity /impact of such a variance. If the Committee decides to approve the application apart from staff's recommendation, the City's Development Technician has commented that an Occupancy Certificate should be required prior to occupancy of the proposed addition/conversion of the building to office use. In addition, approval of a site plan application and building permit would be required. The proposed variances do conform to the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Committee considered additional comments of the Transportation Services Division included in the Planning Division's report dated March 8, 2012, advising that if the property owner can successfully enter into an off-site parking agreement for 5 parking spaces, we will support said off-site parking agreement as a condition of variance. However, there has been no justification COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -126 - MAY 15, 2012 1. Submission No.: A 2012-012 (Cont'd provided for the reduction of parking and therefore all required parking must be provided on site or through an off-site agreement registered on title. Currently, the site operates with minimal deliveries and the required loading zone has not been a concern due to the minimal deliveries. However, with the proposed second storey addition and subsequent office space, deliveries will likely become a regular occurrence to the site. The drive aisle width is sub-standard and can pose an issue for vehicles wanting to enter/exit the parking spaces at the back of the lot while deliveries are occurring. Due to the existing dimensions of the drive aisle, access to the parking lot and the unknown clients who may occupy the proposed office space at the site, Transportation Services would not be in support of eliminating the requirement of one loading zone space. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated February 10, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Ministry of Transportation, dated February 13, 2012 advising that the ministry has no objection to the granting of this application. A building permit is not required from the Ministry if the foot print of the existing building is not being altered. Any alteration of the existing building footprint will require a permit. If a sign is being proposed on the site a sign permit will be required from the Ministry. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Filan Inc., requesting permission to construct a second storey addition to accommodate conversion of the existing building into office space, to have a southerly side yard of 1.68m (5.5') rather than the required 6m (19.69'); permission to provide 9off-street parking spaces rather than the required 14; and, permission to have a commercial use without a designated loading zone as prescribed by the By-law, on Part Lot 6, Plan 764, 37 Bruce Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are not minor. 2. This application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is not being maintained on the subject property. Carried. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2012-029 Applicant: Savic Homes Ltd. Property Location: 67 Eden Oak Trail Legal Description: Part Block 5, Registered Plan 58M-370, designated as Part 16 on Reference Plan 58R-17149 Appearances: In Support: Mr. Boban Jokanovic Savic Homes Ltd. Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling on a cor ner lot having a driveway located 7.7m (25.26') from the intersection of Eden Oak Trail and River Ridge Street rather than the required 9m (29.52'), to accommodate a two car garage. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -127 - MAY 15, 2012 1. Submission No.: A 2012-029 (Cont'd The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 7, 2012, advising that the subject property is located at the north-east corner of the intersection of Eden Oak Trail and River Ridge Street. The lot is currently undeveloped and the applicant plans to develop the property as a single detached dwelling with an attached double car garage. The subject land is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b) iv) of the Zoning By-law 85-1 which requires that the access driveway on a corner lot not be closer than 9.0 metres to the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot. It is requested that the access driveway be located 7.7 metres from the intersection of Eden Oak Trail and River Ridge Street in order to accommodate a double-car garage. 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 proposed variance does not alter the height and/or density of the proposed single detached house and continues to achieve the intent of the low density designation. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of the 9.0 metres of distance separation between the access driveway and the abutting intersection is to ensure that vehicles do not back directly into the intersection and subsequently into any oncoming traffic from River Ridge Street when they are reversing out of the driveway. It is staffs opinion that since household vehicles are at a maximum of 5.5 metres in length, the proposed distance separation of 7.7 metres between the access driveway and the abutting intersection will still allow vehicles to egress at a safe distance from the intersection when reversing out of the driveway. The variance is considered minor. As mentioned above, the proposed 7.7 metres of separation between the access driveway and the abutting intersection will allow for the safe egress of the vehicle onto the street. Also, with this proposed decrease to the distance separation between the access driveway and the intersection, staff stresses the importance of keeping the corner visibility triangle free of any obstructions in order to provide a clear sightline for the vehicles on River Ridge Street turning right onto Eden Oak Trail. The proposed development follows all other zoning by-law requirements and will thus have minimal impacts on neighbouring properties. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The variance does not alter height and/or density of the proposed development. The proposed building and the two garages will maintain the character of a low rise residential streetscape. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated May 1, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, dated April 30, 2012, advising that they request that approval of this application be subject to the following condition: 1. Driveways will be located so as to clear our submersible transformer vaults and provide a minimum of 1.Om clearance to all poles and street light standards. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Savic Homes Ltd., requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling on a corner lot having a driveway located 7.7m (25.26') from the intersection of Eden Oak Trail and River Ridge Street rather than the required 9m (29.52'), to accommodate a two car garage, on Part Block 5, Registered Plan 58M-370, designated as Part 16 on Reference Plan 58R-17149, 67 Eden Oak Trail, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That driveways will be located so as to clear Kitchener Wilmot Hydro submersible transformer vaults and provide a minimum of 1.Om clearance to all poles and street light standards. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -128 - MAY 15, 2012 1. Submission No.: A 2012-029 (Cont'd) It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 2. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2012-030 Judy & Earl Jack and Amy & Shaun Lomax 905 Parkvale Court Lot 22, Registered Plan 58M-429 Earl Jack Hannah, Farah and Nisar Haq Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a second attached garage with the overall garage width being 93% of the front fapade, rather than the permitted maximum of 70%; and, permission for the accessory structures to have a lot coverage of 17% rather than the permitted maximum of 15%. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 7, 2012, advising the property contains a residential building that has a driveway and an attached garage on the right- hand side of the building. As the lot has a width of greater than 30 metres, two driveways are permitted and there exists a second driveway to the far left of the lot. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to construct a second attached garage with the overall garage width being 93% of the front fapade, rather than the permitted maximum of 70%; and, permission for the accessory structures to have lot coverage of 17% rather than the permitted maximum of 15%. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reason. The intent of the Low Rise Residential designation is to ensure an "integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The predominant land use in Low Rise Residential District is residential". The existing use and proposed addition to the structure maintains this low rise intensity. The variance to the width of the garage meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered minor for the following reason. The applicant, Earl Jack, has stated that he is one of four property owners that live in the building and that the building contains two separate dwelling units. The second garage would be used by the occupants of the lower dwelling unit, who use the existing second driveway on the site. The second driveway would lead to the proposed attached garage and the garage doors would face the rear lot line. The intent of the regulation regarding maximum garage width is to ensure that garages do not dominate the streetscape view of a residential building. In this case, from the street, the front elevation of the proposed garage would have a door and a window and therefore have the look of a dwelling rather than a garage. The variance for the garage width is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reason. The proposed addition will enable occupants of the second dwelling unit to have access to a garage in the already existing second driveway and also provide on-site parking rather than on-street parking for all the inhabitants of the building. As noted above, it will not COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -129 - MAY 15, 2012 2. Submission No.: A 2012-030 (Cont'd negatively impact the streetscape because of the orientation of the garage doors towards the rear lot line. In regards to the minor variance for the lot coverage for detached accessory structures, the intent of the regulation is to ensure that there remains sufficient outdoor amenity area. The property has a large lot area of approximately 781 square metres. The variance to permit a minor 2% increase above the maximum permitted for accessory structures will still permit outdoor amenity areas. As well, for the above noted reason, the variance for the lot coverage is also considered appropriate development of the lot and would not appear to negatively impact the streetscape. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated May 1, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Earl Jack attended in support of the application, advising that he had reviewed the reports and was in agreement with the staff recommendation, including proposed conditions. Anna and Farah Haq advised that their property backs onto 905 Parkvale Court and raised concerns regarding drainage from that property into their back yard and how snow removal would be dealt with once the new garage is constructed; questioning if there will be sufficient room for placement of snow removal. Mr. A. Head advised that all new construction must meet today's Building Code requirements which include provision for drainage to be installed in a manner that all storm water is diverted onto the owner's own property. Mr. Jack advised that he had installed a drainage pipe on the side of the house directed toward the street adjacent to the existing gravel driveway to prevent erosion of the gravel stones. He stated that if this is of concern to the neighbouring property he could remove the drainage pipe, noting that it is only intended to be a temporary measure pending surfacing of the driveway. In respect to snow removal, he gave assurances that it is his intent to blow snow from the driveway toward the front of his property. Mr. A. Head commented that in accordance with Building Code requirements the applicant will have to ensure that the new construction is completed in a manner that does not affect the neighbouring property and must maintain same to City standards; and expressed the view that the concerns raised will not be of issue. Mr. B. McColl raised concerns with respect to the massing of the new garage and impact to the streetscape. Mr. Jack advised that the intent is to build the garage with 2 access doors to be located facing toward the rear of the property and the front elevation will have the appearance of a dwelling rather than a garage. Ms. J. Meader requested clarification in respect to the use of the second storey of the garage. Mr. Jack advised that the elevation equates to a storey and a half with the additional space to be used for storage only. Ms. J. von Westerholt confirmed that the proposed configuration is acceptable provided that the additional storage area is not used as habitable space. Ms. Meader questioned if there is any concern with manoeuvrability in accessing the garage to the rear of the property. Mr. D. Seller advised that Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed access to the garage. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Judy & Earl Jack and Amy & Shaun Lomax, requesting permission to construct a second attached garage with the overall garage width being 93% of the front fapade, rather than the permitted maximum of 70%; and, permission for the accessory structures to have a lot coverage of 17% rather than the permitted maximum of 15%, on Lot 22, Registered Plan 58M-429, 905 Parkvale Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Building Permit No. 12 172562 shall be obtained by the owner(s) for the proposed attached garage. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -130 - MAY 15, 2012 2. Submission No.: A 2012-030 (Cont'd) 2. That if required by the Building Division, a building permit shall be obtained by the owner(s) for the duplex use in the existing building. 3. That if required by Fire Services, an inspection shall be made by a Fire Prevention Officer of the duplex building. 4. That Conditions 1, 2 and 3 shall be satisfied by the owner(s) by December 1, 2012 and if not completed as required, approval of this application shall become null and void. It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variances requested in this application are 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 2012-031 Applicant: BLR Inc. Property Location: 493-499 Lancaster Street West Legal Description: Lots 30, 31, 59, 60 & 61 & Part of Lot 58, Registered Plan 674 Appearances: In Support: Pamela and Mike Bierstock Reema Masri, Architect Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for the expansion of a legal non-conforming commercial building; and, permission for the expansion to have a westerly side lot line of 0.10m (0.32`) rather than the required 3.Om (9.84`). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 30, 2012, advising that the subject property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Lancaster Street West and Bridgeport Road East. The property is 4,633 square metres in area and has 35.9 metres of frontage on Bridgeport Road East, 99.5 metres of frontage on Lancaster Street West and 41.5 metres of frontage on Hamel Avenue, which is technically the deemed to be the front lot line. A convenience store is located toward the southerly corner of the property (closer to Hamel Avenue). A building formerly used as a car service station is located toward the northerly corner of the property adjacent to 543 Bridgeport Road East. Both buildings on the subject site were constructed approximately fifty years ago. Staff conducted a site inspection of the property on April 19, 2012. To the west of the site there are two single detached houses along Bridgeport Road East as well as a church which also has frontage along Hamel Avenue. There is another church across Bridgeport Road East. The majority of the other properties in the immediate area are primarily used for various commercial uses or are vacant. The subject property is designated Mixed Use Corridor in the Municipal Plan. The subject property is zoned Neighbourhood Shopping Centre (C-2) Zone in the Zoning By-law. The subject property is subject to City-initiated zone change ZC09/09/COK/HH which is pending Council approval later this year. The zoning of the subject property and adjacent properties is proposed to change to one of the three Mixed Use Corridor Zones with or without site specific special provisions through this process. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -131 - MAY 15, 2012 3. Submission No.: A 2012-031 (Cont'd The applicant is requesting permission under Section 45(2)(a) of the Planning Act to allow the minor expansion of the existing legal non-complying building located at the north of the site to accommodate a permitted use. The building is proposed to be repurposed for a restaurant use, which is a use permitted by the by-law. The proposed building addition would be in the yard between the existing building fapade and Bridgeport Road East and would extend along the existing 0.10 metre side yard setback. It should be noted that an application to change a legal non-conforming use, in this case by allowing a legal non-conforming structure to be extended, does not have to meet the four tests for a minor variance. Case law has determined that in deciding such a permission application, consideration should be based on: 1. Impact on the surrounding area. Does the proposed use create unacceptable adverse impacts upon the abutting properties; and further, 2. Desirability for development of the property In considering these tests, Planning staff offers the following comments. The property to the west of the proposed building is used as a single detached dwelling. The location of the proposed building addition is adjacent to the driveway to the dwelling, and not adjacent to private amenity or yard area. Furthermore, it should be noted that currently there is a wall of approximately 3 metres in height extending from the existing building toward Bridgeport Road East, as shown in the below aerial photo provided by the applicant. The proposed building addition is intended to follow the same extent as the existing wall, which has existed for many years without issue. It is the opinion of staff that construction of a minor addition along the same limits of the existing wall would not create any unacceptable adverse impacts on the adjacent property. With respect to desirability of the proposed building addition, staff notes that the Municipal Plan policies applicable to the subject site encourage pedestrian-oriented and transit-supportive intensification. The building addition is necessary to facilitate the conversion of the existing non- complying building for a restaurant (cafe) use. The proposed use is more in line with the Mixed Use Corridor Municipal Plan policies than the former use of the building as a car repair shop and would be more desirable. If approved, the proposal would be more in line with the Mixed Use Corridor Municipal Plan policies and pending Mixed Use Corridor Zoning than a car repair shop within the existing legal non-complying building. In addition, staff notes that the pending Mixed Use Corridor Zoning does not require a minimum side yard setback and defines a maximum setback from a street of 7.5 metres. The proposed building addition maintains the existing 0.1 metre side yard setback and would reduce the setback from the Bridgeport Road Street line from 12 metres to 7.5 metres. As such the proposed addition would be consistent with the intent of the pending zoning; to intensify this area by increasing lot coverage and bringing building facades closer to the street line to animate the public realm. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated May 1, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Ministry of Transportation, dated May 4, 2012 advising that the Ministry has no objection to the granting of this application. The owner should be aware that permits are required from the Ministry prior to commencement of any grading/construction and the Ministry requires a copy of the final site plan approved by the City of Kitchener to accompany the Building /Land Use application. A traffic impact study and a stormwater management report is not required for this proposal. Ms. J. Meader questioned the legal non-conforming status of the building subject to the application. Ms. Juliane von Westerholt advised that the building is still used in part for what is considered a legal non-conforming use and staff have made interpretation that the building has not lost its legal non-conforming status as the use has not completely been discontinued. It was noted that the proposed use for the expansion does conform to the intent of the Official Plan and is a permitted use under the Mixed Use Corridor Zone. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -132 - MAY 15, 2012 3. Submission No.: A 2012-031 (Cont'dl The Committee questioned the necessity of adding the Ministry of Transportation's comments related to obtaining a permit as a condition of approval. Ms. Von Westerholt advised that this is a separate process and is required by the Ministry in any event. Mr. A. Head advised the applicants to make note of the Ministry's comments. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of BLR Inc. requesting permission for the expansion of a legal non-conforming commercial building; and, permission for the expansion to have a westerly side lot line of 0.10m (0.32`) rather than the required 3.Om (9.84`) on Lots 30, 31, 59, 60 & 61 & Part of Lot 58, Registered Plan 674, 493-499 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That a building permit shall be obtained for the proposed building addition and the building shall be constructed in general accordance with Site Plan Application SP11/106/L/HH and associated Landscape Plan, no later than May 15, 2013; and if not completed as required, approval of this application shall become null and void. It is the opinion of this Committee that the expansion of the legal non-conforming commercial building along the same extent as the existing wall will not create any unacceptable adverse impacts on the adjacent property; and is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. Carried 4. Submission No.: A 2012-032 Applicant: Heer's Decorating & Design Centres Inc. Property Location: 677 Belmont Avenue West Legal Description: Part of Lot 4, Registered Plan 343, designated as Parts 2 and 4 on Reference Plans 58R-10540 & 58R-2975 Appearances: In Support: Matt Muller and Krista Hulshoe John MacDonald Architect Inc. Contra: None Written Submissions: Letters of Support from Area Residents The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert an existing retail space into a restaurant use on a lot having a width of 12.3m (40.35`) rather than the required 15m (49.21`); permission to provide 2off-street parking spaces rather than the required 3 spaces; permission to provide Ooff-street loading zone, whereas the By-law requires 1 off- street loading zone; and, permission to provide a minimum landscaped area of less than 1% rather than the minimum landscaped area of 10%. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 7, 2012, together with an addendum report dated May 14, 2012 advising that since the publication of Report A2012- 032, it has been brought to staff's attention that the photograph included on page 2 of the report representing the view of the subject building from Belmont Avenue, is actually of the neighbouring building. Accordingly, a photograph of the subject building has been included in the addendum report to assist the Committee in the review of the application. The addendum report does not affect staff's recommendation to approve the requested variances as outlined in the original report dated May 7, 2012. The Planning Division advises that the subject property is located at 677-679 Belmont Avenue West. The property is zoned Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-1) in the City's Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated as Mixed Use Corridor in the City's Official Plan. The existing building was constructed in the 1950's and was built prior to the date that the MU-1 zoning was applied to the land. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -133 - MAY 15, 2012 4. Submission No.: A 2012-032 (Cont'd) The applicant is requesting the following minor variances 1. To permit a lot width of 12.3 metres, whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires 15.0 metres; and, 2. To permit a landscaped area of less than 1 percent, whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum landscaped area of 10 percent; and, 3. To permit 2off-street parking spaces, whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum of 3 off-street parking spaces; and further, 4. To permit 0 loading spaces, whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum of 1 loading space. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The property is designated Mixed Use Corridor in the Official Plan, which is intended to serve adjacent residential neighbourhoods by providing a balanced distribution of commercial, institutional and residential uses. Furthermore, Mixed Use Corridors are intended to be transit-supportive and promote walkability. The proposed conversion of the existing building to a restaurant use is a permitted use that would serve the surrounding area and is transit-supportive and walkable. Therefore the application meets the intent of the Official Plan. The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. 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. Both the existing building facade and access to parking are adequately sized and can be maintained. Therefore, a variance from the lot width requirement would maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of the 10 percent landscaping is to ensure an attractive urban streetscape. The recent reconstruction of Belmont Ave has enhanced pedestrian amenities, improved curb appeal and added green space to the immediate area surrounding the subject property. As such, staff is satisfied that the intent of the zoning by-law to have an attractive urban streetscape is met and that the subject property contributes to an attractive urban streetscape. The parking and loading requirements are intended to ensure adequate onsite vehicular facilities are provided to accommodate the proposed use and demand generated by users. Staff is satisfied that in this case, a loading facility and one additional parking space would not be needed given that loading presently occurs in the public lane (Belmont Lane West) that abuts the rear of the property and there is sufficient municipal street parking located in front of the property. Therefore, the intent of the by-law with respect to providing adequate parking and loading facilities on site is maintained. The variances are minor for the following reasons. The lot width deficiency of 2.7 metres and the landscaping deficiency of approximately 9 percent are existing conditions. Approval of these requested minor variances to legalize the existing conditions would have no discernible impact. The variances for the off-street loading and off-street parking spaces are not expected to have a negative impact on the surrounding area and are also considered minor. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. It allows for conversion of an existing building to a use desired within the Mixed Use Corridor and will provide for a broader range of uses without the need to continually apply for a variance each time there is a change in use, provided the use meets all the other zoning requirements. Any future change in use of the property would require an occupancy permit wherein compliance with the zoning regulations, including parking, can be addressed. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated May 1, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -134 - MAY 15, 2012 4. Submission No.: A 2012-032 (Cont'd) Mr. M. Muller attended in support of the staff recommendation, including the proposed condition and submitted letters of support collected from area residents. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Heer's Decorating & Design Centres Inc., requesting permission to convert an existing retail space into a restaurant use on a lot having a width of 12.3m (40.35`) rather than the required 15m (49.21`); permission to provide 2off-street parking spaces rather than the required 3 spaces; permission to provide Ooff-street loading zone, whereas the By-law requires 1 off-street loading zone; and, permission to provide a minimum landscaped area of less than 1% rather than the minimum landscaped area of 10%, on Part of Lot 4, Registered Plan 343, designated as Parts 2 and 4 on Reference Plans 58R-10540 and 58R-2975, 677 Belmont Avenue West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That a building permit shall be obtained for the proposed renovation from the previous retail use to restaurant use. It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variances requested in this application are 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 2012-033 Applicant: Churchill Developments A Inc. Property Location: 60 - 66 Church Street Legal Description: Part of Lot 39, Registered Plan 394, designated as Parts 1, 2 & 3 on Reference Plan 58R-6499 Appearances: In Support: Stephen Litt Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to change a legal non- conforming use, being two single detached dwellings and one seven unit multiple dwelling in an R9 zone into two duplexes and one seven unit multiple dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 8, 2012, advising that the subject property is located on the north side of Church Street between Benton Street and Eby Street South in the Cedar Hill Planning Community. The property was formed by the purchase and consolidation of three abutting lots by Churchill Development A Inc. The property contains three buildings (from west to east): a 7-unit multiple dwelling (60 Church St), a single detached dwelling (64 Church St), and a single detached dwelling (66 Church St). The property is designated High Density Multiple Residential in the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan and is zoned Residential Nine (R-9) with Special Regulation Provision 136R. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on May 1, 2012. The surrounding area is comprised of a wide variety of land uses, including: low, medium, and high density residential development; religious institution, funeral home, lodging home, residential care facility, and others. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -135 - MAY 15, 2012 5. Submission No.: A 2012-033 (Cont'd) The property is considered legal non-conforming due to the fact that single detached dwellings are not permitted in the R-9 Zone (note that the R-9 Zone is mainly intended for higher density residential land uses). In addition, the property possesses further legal non-complying characteristics, for instance: • 9 parking spaces are required for the 7-unit multiple dwelling, whereas 5 are provided; and • the detached garage in the rear yard (behind the multiple dwelling) is required to be set back a minimum of 0.6m from the rear yard, whereas 0.40m is provided; and, • the detached garage in the rear yard (behind the multiple dwelling) is required to be set back a minimum of 0.6m from the side yard, whereas 0.34m is provided; and further, • a minimum side yard of 6.0 metres is required for the multiple dwelling, whereas 5.1 metres is provided. The owner is proposing to allow a second dwelling unit in each of the existing single detached dwellings (64 and 66 Church St), thereby establishing duplex uses within the existing buildings. It should be noted that duplexes are also not permitted in the R-9 Zone. In order to facilitate these uses, the owner is requesting permission under Section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act to change the legal non-conforming use of the property to two duplexes and one 7-unit multiple dwelling. This section of the Planning Act allows the Committee of Adjustment to consider changes to legal non-conforming uses that do not result in zoning compliance. Under this section, if a new use is authorized by the Committee, it would be permitted under a legal non-conforming status. Such cases do not require the Committee to review the request against the four-part test for Minor Variances outlined in Section 45(1). Instead, under this scenario the following question must be answered: is the proposed use of the property as a 7-unit multiple dwelling and two duplexes more compatible with the R-9 zoning than a 7-unit multiple dwelling and two single detached dwellings? In addition, staff suggests that the Committee consider whether the impact of the proposal on surrounding uses is unacceptably adverse. Staff is of the opinion that duplexes are more compatible with the uses permitted by the R-9 Zone than the existing single detached dwellings, since they represent an increased dwelling unit density. In addition, staff is of the opinion that unacceptably adverse impacts will not be caused as a result of the proposal. Parking may be provided in tandem on the existing driveways for the proposed duplexes. For the multiple dwelling, parking will continue to function in the same manner as the many years the use has continued. The proposed variances conform to the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated May 1, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Churchill Developments A Inc., requesting permission to change a legal non-conforming use, being two single detached dwellings and one seven unit multiple dwelling in an R9 zone into two duplexes and one seven unit multiple dwelling, on Part of Lot 39, Registered Plan 394, designated as Parts 1, 2 & 3 on Reference Plan 58R-6499, 60-66 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that the change in legal non-conforming use is more compatible with the Residential Nine (R-9) zoning of the property and will not create any unacceptable adverse impacts; and is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -136 - MAY 15, 2012 CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2012-013 Applicant: Rexel Electrical Canada Inc. Property Location: 101 Webster Road Legal Description: Lot 21, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1525 Appearances: In Support: Joseph Malfara Shelane Properties Inc Ed Stickel Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a triangular parcel of land having a northerly width of 52.807m (173.25`), a southerly width of 39.739m (130.37`), an easterly width of 45.582m (149.54`) and an area of 879.3 sq. m. (9464.70 sq.ft), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 100 Cress Lane. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 8, 2012, advising that the subject property is located on the south side of Webster Road, between Manitou Drive and Wilson Avenue. The subject property contains a building used for industrial purposes. The property is designated Heavy Industrial in the Official Plan and is zoned Heavy Industrial (M-4 ). City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on May 1, 2012. The owner is proposing to sever a 879.3 square metre triangular parcel of land from the subject property and convey it to the property addressed as 100 Cress Lane (immediately to the west) as a lot addition. The parcel to be severed contains no buildings, and is fenced and sodded. The lands to which the severed parcel will be conveyed contained a single detached dwelling until last year when the dwelling was demolished in order to prepare the site for future redevelopment with industrial use. To date no such development application has been submitted to the City. Cress Lane legally ends as a public right-of-way at the east end of 100 Cress Lane. The lane continues eastward from this point as a private lane owned by the subject property owner and terminates at the Tri-City Ready Mix property at 36 Manitou Drive. The proposed lot addition abuts this private laneway and has no frontage on a public right-of-way; however, the lands to which the severed parcel will be conveyed currently possesses 72.937 metres of frontage on Connor Street and 71.317 metres of frontage on Cress Lane. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, staff is satisfied that the proposed lot addition is not premature and is in the public interest. The dimensions and shapes of the both resultant properties are appropriate. The lands are suitable for the purposes for which they are to be subdivided. The proposed lot addition would have the effect of creating a more usable parcel of land for 100 Cress Lane and would create a more orderly lotting pattern than what currently exists. Staff confirms that both resultant properties would comply with the Zoning By-law. It should be noted that there is presently a site plan agreement that is registered on the title of the subject property. As an approval condition, staff recommends that the owner obtain approval of a revision to the existing site plan to remove the site plan agreement from that portion of the property that is subject to the proposed lot addition. Staff has confirmed that these lands are not required for the proper and orderly function of the subject property and are shown as "Landscaped" on the site plan. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed lot addition is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement issued under subsection 3(1) of the Planning Act, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and conforms to the City's Official Plan. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated May 7, 2012, advising that they have no objection to this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -137 - MAY 15, 2012 1. Submission No.: B 2012-013 (Cont'd) Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Rexel Electrical Canada Inc. requesting permission to sever a triangular parcel of land having a northerly width of 52.807m (173.25`), a southerly width of 39.739m (130.37`), an easterly width of 45.582m (149.54`) and an area of 879.3 sq. m. (9464.70 sq.ft), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 100 Cress Lane, on Lot 21, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1525, 101 Webster Road, 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 lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands municipally addressed as 100 Cress Lane and title shall be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 4. That the owner's Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and shall provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. 5. That the owner shall obtain approval of a site plan revision for 101 Webster Road, in the form of a map amendment and the owner shall pay all applicable fees related to the revision, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service. 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 May 15, 2014. Carried 2. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: B 2012-014 Grand River Conservation Authority 806 Zeller Drive Part Lots 9, 14 & 16, Registered Plan 591 & RP 58R-14711, Parts 6, 11 & 13 lease to Waterloo Region, Well K-81 & K-82 Mr. Paul Puopolo IBI Group COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -138 - MAY 15, 2012 2. Submission No.: B 2012-014 (Cont'd) Samantha Lawson Grand River Conservation Authority Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever an irregular shaped parcel of land having an area of 2.94 hectares, legally described as Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Reference Plan 58R-16640, to be conveyed as a lot addition to Plan of Subdivision 30T-10202. The retained parcel will continue to be open space. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated May 11, 2012, advising that the subject lands are 2.94 hectares in size and owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). They are located in the Grand River South Community along the Grand River, generally as shown above. The applicant is proposing to sever Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 on Plan 58R-16640 provided as part of this application and convey them as a lot addition to the adjacent landowner (Rockway Holdings Ltd). The lands are included in the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision 30T- 10202. The draft approval and zoning contemplates that they will be developed with low rise residential uses, parks, roads etc. The retained lands are located below the Regulatory Flood Elevation and as such are undevelopable and will be retained by the GRCA at this time. 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 dimension and shape of the proposed lot addition is consistent with the boundaries of Draft Approval Plan of Subdivision 30T-10202 to which the lands are proposed to be conveyed. Through the development of the subdivision, the lands have been zoned for the future range of uses and will be serviced. All conditions respecting their future development have been included as conditions of approval of the plan of subdivision. Therefore the consent is not considered to be premature or pre-determining the outcome of future planning processes. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed consent is consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection 3(1) of the Planning Act, conforms to or does not conflict with any applicable provincial plan or plans, and conforms to the City's Official Plan. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated May 7, 2012, advising that the Region has no objection to this application subject to the following conditions related to the retained lands: That prior to final approval, the Owner convey to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo an easement over part of the retained lands (being Part of Lots 14 and 16, Registered Plan 591 together with an easement as in WR541490 and subject to easements as in WR541491 and WR541492, City of Kitchener being PIN 22713-4676, or as may be further described by reference plan) for purposes of the construction, installation, and maintenance of a storm water outflow channel and the conveyance of storm water flows from Regional Road No. 53 (Fairway Road) on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Region's Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services and the Regional Solicitor. 2. That prior to final approval, the Owner convey to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo an easement over part of the retained lands (being Part 7 on 58R-14711, or as may be further described by reference plan) for purposes of the construction, installation, and maintenance of light towers on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Region's Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services and the Regional Solicitor. 3. That prior to final approval, the Owner enters into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to complete a noise study to assess the impact of transportation noise from Regional Road No. 53 (Fairway Road) and stationary noise from the existing pumping station situated at the end of Old Zeller Drive. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -139 - MAY 15, 2012 2. Submission No.: B 2012-014 (Cont'dl 4. That prior to final approval, the Owner enters into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide for the following warning clause: "Prospective purchasers and tenants are advised that portions of the retained lands are located within or in close proximity to one of the flight paths leading into and out of the Region of Waterloo International Airport and that directional lighting along this flight path may cause concern to some individuals". The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated May 7, 2012, advising that the lands to be severed are located outside of the floodplain proper, but within the five metre allowance adjacent to the floodplain. A portion of the retained parcel is located within the floodplain and the allowance adjacent to the floodplain. Consequently, portions of the lands to be severed and lands to be retained are regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority under Ontario Regulation 150/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation). GRCA staff reviewed the development of the severed lands through the approved Plan of Subdivision 30T-10202 and reviewed a zone change application which included appropriate zoning (1R) to recognize that the portion of the severed lands within the allowance adjacent to the floodplain are regulated by the GRCA. As such, the GRCA has no objection to the application. Through the approved zoning, future landowners will be notified that any development on the severed lands within the regulated area will require prior written approval from the GRCA in the form of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. Any development on the retained lands within the regulated areas will also require prior written approval from the GRCA in the form of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. The Permit process involves the submission of a Permit Application to this office, the review of the application by Authority staff and the subsequent approval/refusal of the Permit Application by the GRCA. Ms. J. Meader questioned how Regional Condition 4 is to be dealt with to ensure the warning clause is disclosed to prospective purchasers. Mr. P. Puopolo advised that this will be covered through conditions of the Subdivision Agreement registered on title of the lands, through which the developer will be required to disclose the warning clause. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of the Grand River Conservation Authority, requesting permission to sever an irregular shaped parcel of land having an area of 2.94 hectares, legally described as Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Reference Plan 58R-16640, to be conveyed as a lot addition to Plan of Subdivision 30T- 10202, on Part Lots 9, 14 & 16, Registered Plan 591 & RP 58R-14711, Parts 6, 11 & 13 lease to Waterloo Region, Well K-81 & K-82, 806 Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file shall be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 4. That the owner's Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and shall provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -140 - MAY 15, 2012 2. Submission No.: B 2012-014 (Cont'd) 5. That the owner shall convey to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo an easement over part of the retained lands (being Part of Lots 14 and 16, Registered Plan 591 together with an easement as in WR541490 and subject to easements as in WR541491 and WR541492, City of Kitchener being PIN 22713-4676, or as may be further described by reference plan) for purposes of the construction, installation, and maintenance of a storm water outflow channel and the conveyance of storm water flows from Regional Road No. 53 (Fairway Road) on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Region's Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services and the Regional Solicitor. 6. That the owner shall convey to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo an easement over part of the retained lands (being Part 7 on 58R-14711, or as may be further described by reference plan) for purposes of the construction, installation, and maintenance of light towers on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Region's Commissioner of Transportation and Environmental Services and the Regional Solicitor. 7. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to complete a noise study to assess the impact of transportation noise from Regional Road No. 53 (Fairway Road) and stationary noise from the existing pumping station situated at the end of Old Zeller Drive. 8. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide for the following warning clause: "Prospective purchasers and tenants are advised that portions of the retained lands are located within or in close proximity to one of the flight paths leading into and out of the Region of Waterloo International Airport and that directional lighting along this flight path may cause concern to some individuals.". 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 May 15, 2014. Carried 3. Submission No.: B 2012-015 Applicant: Edwin & Delores Ortlieb Property Location: 20 & 22 Winslow Drive Legal Description: Part Lots 22 & 23, Registered Plan 230 Appearances: In Support: Edwin & Delores Ortlieb Contra: 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 Winslow COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -141 - MAY 15, 2012 3. Submission No.: B 2012-015 (Cont'dl Drive of 9.07m (29.78'), a depth of 36.5m (120') and an area of 331 sq. m. (3,573.6 sq. ft.). The retained land will have a width on Winslow Drive of 9.14m (30'), a depth of 36.5m (120') and an area of 333.6 sq. m. (3,600 sq. ft.). The properties will continue to be used for residential use. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 7, 2012, advising that the subject property is located on Winslow Drive. The property is a rectangular shaped lot with approximately 18.21 metres of frontage on Winslow Drive. There is currently asemi-detached dwelling on the property. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the City's Zoning By-law. 20 and 22 Winslow Drive were merged on title when the Owner purchased both properties under the same ownership title. Application B2012-015 proposes to sever a lot where two lots have merged on title. The severed lot has an existing semi-detached dwelling and will have a lot width of 9.07 metres of frontage on Winslow Drive, a depth of 36.5 metres, and an area of 331.0 square metres. The retained lot contains an existing semi-detached dwelling, and would have 9.14 metres of frontage on Winslow Drive, a lot depth of 36.5 metres and a lot area of 333.6 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 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 May 7, 2012, advising that they have no objection to this application. Mr. A. Head questioned why so many conditions of approval for an application that simply seeks to separate two existing semi-detached dwellings that have accidentally been merged on title; and in particular, the need for the owner to hire a qualified Designer, Architect, or Engineer to do an assessment to address spatial and fire separations. The applicants advised that it is only due to the properties having been merged on title in error and their desire to now sell one half of the semi-detached dwellings, that they have been placed in position of having to submit an application for severance. They further advised that the existing garage is located to the centre of the rear of the property, with approximately 15 ft. on either side and it is not close to any other building structures. The meeting temporarily recessed at 10:30 a. m. to allow a staff member of the Building Division to attend to address questions, and reconvened at 10:40 a.m. with the following members present: Messrs. A. Head and B. McColl. and Ms. J. Meader. Mr. Chris Gowing, Municipal Building Official, reviewed Building Code requirements concerning the spatial separation for unprotected openings in the garage and for fire separation between the two semi-detached buildings. He advised that the condition provides opportunity to confirm that the building structures conform to Building Code requirements and are safe. In respect to the garage, Mr. Head inquired if a photograph of the garage would be sufficient to confirm the number of unprotected openings to satisfy the condition related to spatial separation. Mr. Gowing advised that he would be satisfied with a photograph in that instance but pointed out that the issue of fire separation must still be addressed. Ms. Ortlieb advised that the previous seller had completed an inspection and undertaken work to address fire separation and could provide documentation concerning the work that was done. Mr. Gowing advised that he would need to review the documentation to confirm that the work was completed satisfactorily and by a qualified professional. Ms. J. von Westerholt pointed out that the majority of conditions are standard to any application and if nothing has changed on the subject property, most can likely be easily satisfied by the applicant. She added that the applicant will have a level of comfort in knowing that the property they are selling is safe and meets Building Code requirements. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -142 - MAY 15, 2012 3. Submission No.: B 2012-015 (Cont'd) At the request of the Committee, Mr. Gowing agreed to assist the applicant by providing contact information for known qualified designers that could be retained to fulfill requirements of the condition for spatial and fire separations. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Edwin and Delores Ortlieb, requesting permission to sever a parcel of land so each half can be dealt with separately, with the lands to be severed having a width on Winslow Drive of 9.07m (29.78'), a depth of 36.5m (120') and an area of 331 sq. m. (3,573.6 sq. ft.), on Part Lots 22 & 23, Registered Plan 230, 20 & 22 Winslow Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file 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 retain a Qualified Designer, Architect or Engineer to complete a Building Code assessment to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official, or designate, as it relates to the new proposed property line and addresses: a) spatial separation to address unprotected openings within the existing garage; and, b) fire separation between the semi-detached dwellings. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. That the owner shall complete and submit a Development and Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form, as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150, 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. 8. That the owner shall provide separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm and water, in accordance with City of Kitchener policies and to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. 9. That any new driveway shall be built to City of Kitchener standards and at grade with the existing sidewalk and any redundant driveway or portion thereof is to be closed with new curb gutter and boulevard landscaping to the City of Kitchener standards; all such works shall be at the owner's expense and to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. 10. That the owner shall confirm that the basement elevation of the existing dwelling can be drained by gravity to the municipal sewers; and if not the case, the owner shall be required to provide adequate sanitary disposal to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -143 - MAY 15, 2012 3. Submission No.: B 2012-015 (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 May 15, 2014. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th day of May, 2012. Janet Billett, AMCT Acting Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment