HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2012-07-17COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 17. 2012
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. J. Meader and Messrs. D. Cybalski and B. McColl
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking
Analyst; Ms. J. Billett, Acting Secretary-Treasurer, Ms. H. Dyson,
Administrative Clerk and Ms. A. Gingerich, Administrative Clerk.
Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:00 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 June 19, 2012, as mailed
to the members, be accepted.
Carried
NEW BUSINESS
APPOINTMENT OF AN ACTING SECRETARY-TREASURER
Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
"That Mr. Randy Gosse, Director of Legislated Services & City Clerk, be appointed as an Acting
Secretary-Treasurer to the Committee of Adjustment for a term to expire November 30, 2014."
Carried.
MINOR VARIANCE
1. Submission No.: A 2012-047
Applicant: Ilona Jambor
Property Location: 120 College Street
Legal Description: Part Lot 8, Registered Plan 401
Appearances:
In Support: Ilona Jambor
Contra: None
Written Submissions: Jean Knowlton
Howard Berg
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
westerly side yard setback of 0.5m (1.64') rather than the required 1.2m (3.94') and an existing
front yard setback of 2.2m (7.22') rather than the required 4.5m (14.77'); to locate a parking stall
Om from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.69') and being 4.4m (14.44') in length
rather than the required 5.5m (18.05'); and to have one (1) on-site parking space for a duplex
dwelling rather than the required two (2) spaces.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 9, 2012, advising that
the subject property is located at 120 College Street and is currently developed with a duplex
dwelling that is approximately 133 years old. The property has a frontage of 9.48 metres, a depth
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -175 - JULY 17, 2012
1. Submission No.: A 2012-047 (Cont'd)
of 37.78 metres and a lot area of 355.0 square metres. The property is zoned as Residential Five
(R-5) and designated as Low Rise Residential Preservation in the Civic Centre Secondary Plan.
The subject property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act by virtue of its
location within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. A site visit of the
subject property was completed on May 18, 2012.
The Owner has filed a minor variance application to the Committee of Adjustment to legalize one
(1) off-street parking space. The Owner has recently completely renovated the existing duplex
building over the past few years. In part with that work, the Owner has also constructed an illegal
parking pad with stone pavers at the front of the existing building. Access to the parking pad is
over the neighbour's property. The location of the duplex (setbacks) and lack of off-street parking
is legal non-conforming. The Owner is requesting that the Committee of Adjustment legalize the
existing deficient side and front yard setbacks, and approve one undersized off-street parking
space within the front yard.
The following variances are being requested with this application;
i. Relief from Section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to legalize an existing side yard setback of
0.5 metres whereas 1.2 metres in required, and
ii. Relief from Section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to legalize an existing front yard setback of
2.2 metres whereas 4.5 metres in required, and
iii. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1.b.i of the Zoning By-law to allow for a required off-street parking
space to be located 0.0 metres from the street line whereas a setback of 6.0 metres is
required, and
iv. Relief from Section 6.1.1.2.c. i of the Zoning By-law to allow for a required off-street parking
space to be 4.4 metres in length whereas 5.5 metres is required.
The Owner also requested relief form Section 6.1.2.a of the Zoning By-law to allow for a duplex
dwelling to have one (1) off-street parking space whereas two (2) are required. This variance
request is not required as the duplex dwelling is legal non-confirming and there is not a required
to provide any off-street parking spaces.
Requested Side and Front Yard Setback Variances:
The existing side yard and front yard setbacks are legal non-confirming. The owner has
requested to legalize these setbacks in conjunction with the off-street parking minor variance
application.
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 requested side yard and front yard setback reduction variances meet the intent of the Official
Plan. Policies in the Low Rise Residential Preservation district in the Civic Centre Secondary
Plan promote the retention of the existing single detached residential character of the
neighbourhood. Existing houses and streetscapes are to be preserved wherever possible.
Permitted residential uses are restricted to single detached dwellings as well as duplexes or
multiple dwellings to a maximum of 3 units which were converted prior to the adoption of the
current Official Plan.
The requested side yard and front yard setback reduction variances meet the intent of the Zoning
By-law. The side yard and front yard setbacks are an existing condition that was a result of
development that pre-dates the current zoning regulations. The majority of the east side yard
setback is approximately 0.73 metres, where the narrowest section of the side yard setback being
0.5 metres due to the existing chimney. The purpose of the front yard setback is to create a
consistent street edge. The front yard has been developed with an attached porch that is
covered and greater than 0.6 metres above the highest finished grade. The porch is
characteristic of the neighbourhood and contributes to the established streetscape along this
section of College Street.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -176 - JULY 17, 2012
1. Submission No.: A 2012-047 (ConYd
The requested side yard and front yard setback reduction variances are considered minor as they
are proposing to legalize an existing situation that has occurred for many years.
The requested side yard and front yard setback reduction variances are appropriate as it will
allow for the legalization of the existing building.
Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the requested side yard and front yard
setback reduction variances be approved without conditions.
Requested Parking Variances:
The Owner has created an illegal parking pad at the front of the building with paver stones. In
order to retain the parking pad at the front of the house, the Owner must legalize the existing
parking situation. The Owner has requested that the Committee of Adjustment legalize the
parking pad by approving two minor variance requests, to reduce the size of an off-street parking
space and to reduce the setback of a required parking space from the street line.
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 requested off-street parking variances do not meet the intent of the Official Plan. Policies in
the Low Rise Residential Preservation district in the Civic Centre Secondary Plan support the
retention of the existing single detached residential character of the Neighbourhood and permits
duplex and multiple dwellings (maximum 3 units) conversions where there is sufficient floor area
for the conversion and where the site is capable of providing adequate off-street parking in
accordance with By-law requirements. While there is no By-law requirement to provide off-street
parking for the duplex as the construction of the duplex supersedes the Zoning By-law and
Official Plan, the legalization of the parking pad must be in conformity of the current policies in the
Plan. It is my opinion that the proposed parking pad does not meet the intent of the off-street
parking policies as there is not sufficient room on site.
The requested off-street parking variances do not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The
purpose of the 6.0 metre setback for a parking space from the street line is twofold; to provide
room for an off-street visitor parking space, and in the case of a duplex, to allow for a tandem
arrangement of the required parking spaces. College Street is subject to the downtown on-street
parking regulations, which limit on-street visitor parking to a maximum of two consecutive hours.
No re-parking within the downtown is permitted within 3 hours, once the two hour time limit has
expired. In the downtown, visitor parking is best accommodated on site or within a designated
public or private off-street parking lot. The 5.5 metre length for an off-street parking space is a
consistent City standard, which is established to ensure that legal off-street parking spaces can
accommodate the majority of passenger vehicles, despite the size of vehicle that a property
owner or tenant may currently own. The parking regulations in the Zoning By-law are aCity-wide
standard meant to ensure that all legal off-street parking spaces are consistent and can
accommodate the required parking needs of a development. As the Owner is not required to
provide off-street parking for the legal non-confirming duplex, there is no requirement for the
Owner to enter into an off-site parking agreement in accordance with Section 6.1.1.1.a of the
Zoning By-law should the requested variances not be approved by the Committee.
The requested off-street parking variances are not minor. Transportation Services staff apply the
same standard for the size of an off-street parking space across the City to ensure that any
parking space legalized by the Committee of Adjustment is sized sufficiently to accommodate a
variety of passenger vehicles. The proposed parking space is deficient in size and may not
accommodate future owner or tenant needs.
The requested off-street parking variances are not appropriate for the neighbourhood. Parking
within the front yard is not consistent with the established street edge and the existing parking
pad is not consistent with the policies of the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District Plan.
Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the requested off-street parking
variances be refused.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -177 - JULY 17, 2012
1. Submission No.: A 2012-047 (Cont'd)
Potential Conditions of Approval if so desired by the Committee of Adjustment:
Notwithstanding the above section, should the Committee of Adjustment approve the requested
off-street parking variances, staff recommend that consideration being given of the following
conditions of approval;
That the Owner submit to the satisfaction of the City's Coordinator of Cultural Heritage, a
revised parking plan design showing the proposed location of the driveway.
The design of the driveway:
a. Must comply in style, material, colour, and size with the design criteria outlined in
the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District Plan; and,
b. Be a minimum of 4.4 metres in length and a maximum of 2.6 metres wide, and,
c. Lead directly from the street to the off-street parking space, and,
d. Include details regarding the required curb cut, to City standards; and,
e. Have independent access to the off-street parking space without travelling over
neighbouring properties; and,
f. Include an appropriate landscape area surrounding the driveway; and further,
g. Have planting details, which can be used to provide visual screening.
2. That the existing driveway be rebuilt in accordance with the approved parking plan, as
required by Condition 1 above.
3. That all work required by Conditions 1 and 2 above, be completed in entirely within 12
months of the date of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment.
4. That final approval of the minor variance not be issued until the driveway installation is
inspected by the City's Coordinator of Cultural Heritage.
Heritage Comments:
The subject property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act by virtue of its
location within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District.
Cultural heritage planning staff notes that part of the subject application is seeking relief to
legalize the location of a parking stall in the front yard. The Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage
Conservation District Plan makes the following recommendations with regard to vehicular parking
in Section 7.4.4 of the HCD Plan:
A. Continue to encourage parking to the side or rear lot areas, rather than in front yards or
boulevards.
B. Where parking in the front yard is unavoidable, parking areas should be screened with low
hedges or fences. Hard surface areas should be kept to a minimum by paving only the
area required for tire tracks, rather than the entire parking area. Where possible,
permeable types of paving should be employed, such as gravels, or permeable paving
stones, to maximize infiltration of stormwater, particularly when in close proximity to
mature trees.
Heritage planning staff note that while it appears as if the existing parking space does not comply
with the recommendations made in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation
District Plan, the establishment of the parking space as proposed in the application does not
require formal heritage permit approval under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
June 29, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -178 - JULY 17, 2012
1. Submission No.: A 2012-047 (Cont'd
Ms. Ilona Jambor attended in support of the application. In regard to the issues raised concerning
off-street parking, she advised that parking to the front of the home has taken place for about 30
years, resulting from lost ability to park in the rear of the property due to closure of a lane; the
lands of which were taken over by a neighbouring property.
Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that staff have concerns that the parking pad is deficient in size to
accommodate larger vehicles, as well as, with safety in respect to the ingress /egress to the
parking space. She explained that currently vehicles are being parked sideways on the pad and
access to the pad is reliant on using the neighbouring driveway, which is not consistent with the
City's parking standards. Ms. von Westerholt advised that the variances to the parking space are
considered too great to support legalization as it exists now.
Ms. Jambor stated that her dwelling is a heritage home prohibiting her from demolishing the
building and constructing a new dwelling to current standards. She added that another property
in the neighbourhood has an existing parking space that is smaller than the one on her property.
Mr. D. Seller commented that there is concern in the event a future tenant or property owner has
a larger vehicle than what is shown in the photograph, such as a pick-up truck, the vehicle will
overhang the sidewalk. Ms. Jambor stated that a family member owns a truck and has been able
to park on the parking pad and in today's economy, she expressed the view that smaller vehicles
are more desirable to the consumer.
Mr. B. McColl questioned what could be done in situations such as this, where it would appear
that there is no other solution. Ms. von Westerholt commented that there is risk in setting an
undesirable precedent that would see the City's standards changing into streets that would
resemble a parking lot and in this instance, the variances to the parking space do not sufficiently
satisfy City standards to be considered minor in nature.
Mr. D. Cybalski questioned the feasibility of the applicant pursuing an agreement with a
neighbouring property to provide an off-site parking space. Ms. Jambor stated that she was not
familiar with such arrangements and maintained that she requires parking on her property. Mr.
Cybalski expressed the view that the Committee has little alternative but to support staffs position
unless more evaluation of the parking situation is done.
Mr. B. McColl referred to suggested conditions of approval provided by staff in the event the
Committee is inclined to approve the parking as it exists, suggesting that the issue of accessing
the parking space from the neighbouring driveway could likely be resolved between the property
owners. Mr. Cybalski pointed out that such arrangement is only viable if the neighbouring
property owner is willing to allow the access. Mr. McColl suggested that it may be appropriate to
defer this application to allow further research into the parking issue. Mr. Cybalski expressed the
view that the application as submitted in respect to the parking issue is incomplete and if the
Committee is to pursue the issue further more needs to be done to address the issue. He noted
that the conditions of approval provided by staff are only guidelines and are not weighted toward
staff's suggested recommendation of refusal. He added that there is no indication in the report
that staff would support approval based on imposing the proposed conditions. Ms. von
Westerholt advised that the report is written in recognition that it is the Committee that makes the
final decision in the matter and the conditions were provided only as a suggestion and not as an
indication of staff's support.
Mr. Cybalski reiterated his view that with no indication as to how access to the parking space is to
be resolved the application is incomplete. He suggested to the applicant that either the matter
could be deferred to allow time to work out further details or the Committee could proceed to
make a decision today that is likely to support staffs recommendation of refusal. He suggested
that the applicant could benefit from professional advice, either through further discussion with
City staff or retention of a professional consultant, to gain an understanding of the technical
issues involved. Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff could meet with the applicant to explain
the technical issues and explore potential alternatives. Ms. Jambor agreed to this approach.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -179 - JULY 17, 2012
1. Submission No.: A 2012-047 (Cont'dl
That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2012-047, applied for by Ilona Jambor for the
property known municipally as 120 College Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE DEFERRED to the
Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on Tuesday, September 18, 2012, to allow the
applicant an opportunity to meet further with City staff to explore alternatives to address the issue
of off-street parking for the subject lands, such as a third party parking arrangement on a
neighbouring property, and to consider need of the applicant to retain professional advice.
Carried
2. Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
A 2012-048
Victoria Hill Plaza Limited
101 Hazelglen Drive
Block T, Registered Plan 1286
Mike Hacking
Franneca Hacking
None
Written Submissions: Petition in Support
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct apatio/deck
having a westerly side yard setback of 20m (65.62') and a rear yard setback of 16m (52.5') from a
residential zone rather than the required 30m (98.43').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated June 25, 2012, advising that
City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on June 25, 2012.
The subject property is located on the south side of Hazelglen Drive between Mooregate
Crescent and Dalegrove Drive. The property is designated as a Neighbourhood Mixed Use
Centre in the City's Official Plan, and zoned Neighbourhood Shopping Centre (C-2) with Special
Use Provision 12U in the City's Zoning By-law.
The property is presently developed with a commercial plaza serving the needs of the Victoria
Hills community. The proprietor of an existing restaurant in the plaza would like to add an
accessory outdoor patio in a paved area in the side yard abutting Dalegrove Drive.
To this end, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.6.B a) of Zoning By-law 85-1 which
regulates uses accessory to a restaurant. Section 5.6.B a) requires a patio or deck accessory to
a restaurant to be located a minimum of 30.0 metres from any Residential Zone or Institutional
Zone. The applicant is requesting permission to locate a patio accessory to a restaurant to be
located 20.0 metres from a residential zone along the side yard abutting Dalegrove Drive, and
16.0 metres from a residential zone along the rear yard.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments.
The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Neighbourhood Mixed Use
Centre designation is intended to serve as a neighbourhood focal point, providing a mix of
appropriately scaled multiple residential, commercial and institutional uses, primarily intended to
meet the day to day convenience or service-oriented needs of the surrounding residential areas.
The existing plaza supports the surrounding residential areas with opportunities to meet their day
to day convenience needs and a restaurant is permitted as a commercial use.
The variance does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. While a restaurant is a permitted
use in the C-2 zoning, a 30 metre setback regulation is incorporated into the General Regulations
of Zoning By-law 85-1 to ensure that patios accessory to a restaurant are adequately separated
from residential areas so they will not create undue nuisance or noise issues. In this particular
case, the proposed patio will be located directly across the street (Dalegrove Drive) facing
existing single detached dwellings and their associated front doors, and along the rear yard
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -180 - JULY 17, 2012
2. Submission No.: A 2012-048 (Cont'dl
adjacent to a 6-storey multiple dwelling. The potential impact of an outdoor patio for a restaurant
cannot be considered to meet the intent of the by-law with a 20 metre setback from single
detached dwellings and a 16 metre setback from a multiple dwelling.
The variance is not minor for the following reasons. The hours of operation for the outdoor patio
could extend well into the night or early morning hours creating a situation of incompatibility
between the proposed patio and the existing residential land use. The 30 metre separation
distance requirement in the zoning by-law has been incorporated in order to minimize impacts
and to ensure compatibility between differing adjacent land uses by providing appropriate buffers.
The proposed patio location clearly does not meet this intent and therefore cannot be considered
minor.
The variance is not appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons.
The City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law provide policies and regulations to ensure that different
types of uses are appropriately located from one another to ensure that no particular group is
subject to undue hardship from an adjacent property or use and that uses are compatible with
each other. When considering whether a use is desirable and/or meets the intent of the Official
Plan and Zoning By-law, compatibility is a consideration in our review. The proposed outdoor
patio is not considered compatible as it would have negative impacts on the adjacent residential
uses. The proposed patio location is not appropriate given its proximity to single detached
dwellings and a multiple dwelling.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
June 29, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. M. Hacking attended in support of the application and submitted a petition signed by property
owners on Hazelglen Drive and Dalegrove Drive, who support the application and who will be
most directly affected by the proposed patio. The petition also contains signatures in support
from a variety of other property owners in the surrounding neighbourhood. Mr. Hacking further
pointed out that the apartment building referenced in the staff report, when measured from the
corner of the proposed patio to the apartment building structure, is approximately 60m distant and
the building front faces the opposite direction. He noted that the patio could be built to the front of
the restaurant business without requiring permission; however, this would result in a substantial
loss of parking spaces and it is more convenient to the business operation to locate the patio to
the side of the building. Mr. Hacking advised that a 6' fence will be constructed around the patio
area and in regard to noise, he noted that the neighbourhood is a high traffic area that is already
accustomed to traffic noise.
Mr. D. Cybalski questioned if the owner has submitted an application for a liquor license for the
patio. Mr. Hacking advised that a liquor licence has not yet been applied for pending the outcome
of a decision on this application. He stated that the licence application will cost approximately
$1,600. which is non-refundable and the owner did not want to incur the cost until assured
approval of the minor variance application. Mr. Cybalski questioned the hours of operation for the
patio. Mr. Hacking stated that it was his assumption the liquor licence for the patio would follow
the same operating hours as the restaurant. Mr. Cybalski indicated that would not necessarily be
the case as patios can remain open beyond the time serving of food is discontinued in the
restaurant. Mr. Hacking stated that he would be willing to self-impose a closing hour, suggesting
10:00 p. m. to coincide with closing of the restaurant.
Mr. B. McColl advised that in light that similar patios exist elsewhere in the City he could support
approval of the application subject to stipulation of a closing hour of 10:00 p. m. and installation of
a double board fence with appropriate landscaping. It was noted that a new, or revised, site plan
to show the fence and landscaping would be required, as well as, a building permit for
construction of the patio.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Victoria Hill Plaza Limited requesting permission to construct apatio /deck
having a westerly side yard setback of 20m (65.62') and a rear yard setback of 16m (52.5') from a
residential zone, rather than the required 30m (98.43'), on Block T, Registered Plan 1286, 101
Hazelglen Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -181 - JULY 17, 2012
2. Submission No.: A 2012-048 (Cont'd)
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for
construction of the proposed patio /deck.
2. That a new, or revised, site plan for the proposed patio /deck shall be submitted and
approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
3. That the owner shall either provide the City Solicitor with a satisfactory Solicitor's
Undertaking or enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the
City Solicitor, to confirm that the patio /deck is to be closed daily at 10:00 p.m.
4. That the owner shall enclose the patio /deck with a double boarded fence and install
appropriate landscaping, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Site Development &
Customer Service.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. 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.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
A 2012-049
James Dorscht and Becky Mueller
34 Mansion Street
Part Lot 29, Registered Plan 379
James Dorscht
Becky Mueller
None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached
garage having a westerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') rather than the required 1.2m (3.94')
and a minimum Floor Space Ratio of 0.2 rather than the required 0.6.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 9, 2012, advising that
the subject property is located at 34 Mansion Street and is developed with a single detached
dwelling. The property is designated Low Density Multiple Residential in the Civic Centre
Neighbourhood Secondary Plan and is zoned Residential Eight (R-8) in Zoning By-Law 85-1.
The property is also designated under Part V (Heritage Conservation District) of the Ontario
Heritage Act, and is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation
District.
The applicant is seeking relief from Section 39.2.1 to permit a southern side yard setback of 0.6
metres for an attached garage, whereas the by-law requires a setback of 1.2 metres. Relief is
also sought from Section 42.2.1 for a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.2, whereas a minimum of 0.6
is required. The requested variances will facilitate the construction of a two-car attached garage
in the side yard.
Further to staff review of aerial photography and drawings of the site, it is recommended by staff
that the application be amended to include a variance for a driveway setback of 0 metres from the
side lot line, whereas Section 6.1.1.1 b) ii) e) in the by-law requires a minimum setback of 0.6
metres when a driveway leads to a parking space in a garage.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -182 - JULY 17, 2012
3. Submission No.: A 2012-049 (Cont'dl
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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The intent of the Medium Density Multiple
Residential designation is to permit redevelopment or conversion "which will be compatible with
the existing development and particularly the single detached dwellings in the interior of the
neighbourhood". The variances will maintain the existing single detached dwelling use of the
property and the proposed garage will increase the FSR on the property. Therefore the intent of
the Official Plan will be met.
The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 1.2 metres side yard
setback is to provide for sufficient separation between properties and access to the rear yard via
the side yard. A setback of 0.6 metres will provide sufficient separation between the subject
property and the townhouses on 28 Mansion Street. As well, it is noted that a 3-metre right-of-
way exists between the two properties.
It is noted that there is no setback indicated on the plans for the garage eaves. Eaves are
permitted in the required side yard, provided that they do not project more than 0.6 metres into
the required yard and do not encroach onto the neighbouring lands.
The intent of the minimum FSR requirement of 0.6 is to ensure that buildings constructed after
the R-8 was applied to the land occurs at a medium density. The proposed development will not
meet the minimum FSR requirement. However, Planning Staff notes that that the use of the
property is recognized as an existing legal use in both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-Law,
and that it is unreasonable to require a single detached dwelling to achieve a density of 0.6 FSR,
especially in the present case, where the building is situated on a large lot. Furthermore,
although Section 42.2.1 does not exempt additions or alterations to pre-existing single detached
dwellings from the minimum FSR requirement, Section 42.2.2 states that such development is to
be undertaken in accordance with Section 39.2.1 (R-5), which does not specify FSR
requirements. Thus, it is the opinion of Planning Staff that the proposed variance meets the intent
of the Zoning By-Law.
The intent of the minimum 0.6 metre driveway setback when leading to an attached garage is to
provide a buffer between neighbouring driveways and attached garages for aesthetic purposes
and to provide adequate drainage to the street from the side yards. Planning staff is of the
opinion that a setback of 0 metres for the subject property will provide adequate buffer space
between the driveway and garage and would continue to allow drainage to occur as it does today.
The variances are considered minor. As mentioned above, the requested 0.6 metre side yard
setback will provide sufficient separation between properties, and thus will have minimal impact
on the neighbouring dwellings. The requested variance to the required minimum FSR is minor
because it legalizes an existing deficiency and thus will not negatively impact the surrounding
neighbourhood. The variance for the driveway setback is minor because, as mentioned above,
staff is of the opinion that the existing 0 metre setback will provide sufficient separation between
the subject driveway and the neighbouring driveways. Lastly, staff is of the opinion that the
variances will not have a negative impact on the streetscape or on neighbouring properties
because the proposed garage will be located approximately 26 metres from the front lot line and
there is a 3 metre right of way beside the property that will separate the driveway from the
neighbouring townhouse dwellings.
The requested variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The variances
are for an attached garage which is accessory to a permitted use and the use is compatible with
the surrounding dwellings. The proposed garage will maintain the heritage character of the
neighbourhood and will be compatible with the existing dwelling and streetscape.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
June 29, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -183 - JULY 17, 2012
3. Submission No.: A 2012-049 (Cont'd
That the application of James borscht and Becky Mueller requesting permission to construct an
attached garage having a westerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') rather than the required
1.2m (3.94'), a minimum Floor Space Ratio of 0.2 rather than the required 0.6, and a driveway
setback of Om from the side lot line rather than the required 0.6m (1.97'), on Part Lot 29,
Registered Plan 379, 34 Mansion Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the
following conditions:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for
construction of the attached garage.
2. That prior to any grading, or the application or issuance of a building permit, the owner
shall submit a plan, prepared by a qualified consultant, to the satisfaction and approval of
the City's Director of Planning showing:
(i) the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings and structures),
decks and driveways;
(ii) the location of any existing buildings or structures to be removed or relocated;
(iii) the proposed grades and drainage;
(iv) the location of all trees to be preserved, removed or potentially impacted on or
adjacent to the subject lands, including notations of their size, species and condition;
(v) justification for any trees to be removed; and,
(vi) outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved.
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
Submission No.: A 2012-050
Applicant: Gavin and Renee Meier
Property Location: 203 Sheldon Avenue North
Legal Description: Part Lot 126, Registered Plan 651
Appearances:
In Support: Gavin Meier
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a second
storey addition above existing main floor having a southerly side yard setback of 0.384m (1.26')
rather than the required 1.2m (3.94').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 3, 2012, advising that
the subject property is located at 203 Sheldon Avenue North, between Brentwood Avenue and
Fairmount Road. The site contains an existing single detached dwelling. The subject lands are
designated Low Rise Residential and are zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law.
The applicant is seeking relief from Section 38.2.1 a) for a right side yard setback of 0.384 metres
whereas the Zoning By-law 85-1 requires 1.2 metres. The subject side yard variance will legalize
existing conditions and facilitate the construction of a second storey addition to the existing
dwelling. The proposed addition will comply with all other zoning requirements.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -184 - JULY 17, 2012
4. Submission No.: A 2012-050 (Cont'dl
The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The intent of the Low
Rise Residential designation is to accommodate a mix of housing forms to achieve an overall low
intensity of use. The proposed variance will allow the existing side-yard setback deficiencies to
be rectified, while maintaining the single detached dwelling use of the property. Furthermore, the
Low Rise Residential designation allows for residential buildings that are up to three stories in
height. Therefore, the intent of the Official Plan is met.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of the
side yard setback is to provide sufficient separation between neighbouring properties and to
provide the property owner with access to the rear yard via the side yard. The deficiency in the
right side yard has existed for a number of years without incidence, which suggests that the
existing setbacks provide sufficient separation between properties and adequate rear-yard
access. During the site visit, Planning Staff also observed that there is adequate access to the
rear yard via the right side yard.
The variance is minor. Allowing the variance will not result in any discernable impact on the
neighbourhood character or on neighbouring properties, as it will legalize an existing deficiency.
As mentioned, the variance will provide sufficient separation from neighbouring properties. The
proposed second storey addition will be compatible with adjacent properties, which are also two
storeys tall, and consequently will not negatively impact the streetscape.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The variance will enable
the construction of a second storey addition that is compatible with the character of the
neighbourhood. Planning staff does not anticipate that the variance will negatively affect the
neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
June 29, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Gavin and Renee Meier requesting permission to construct a second
storey addition above the existing main floor having a southerly side yard setback of 0.384m
(1.26') rather than the required 1.2m (3.94'), on Part Lot 126, Registered Plan 651, 203 Sheldon
Avenue North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for
construction of the second storey addition.
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 2012-051
Applicant: Janet Lean and Lawrence Wayne
Property Location: 9 Hilda Place
Legal Description: Lot 163, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support: Lawrence Wayne
Chris Paterson
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -185 - JULY 17, 2012
5. Submission No.: A 2012-051 (Cont'd)
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a verandah
having a front yard setback of 0.9m (2.96') rather than the required 4.5m (14.77') and to have a
3m (9.85') obstruction to visibility within a driveway visibility triangle whereas the Zoning By-law
provides that there shall be no obstruction.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 5, 2012, advising that
the subject property is municipally addressed as 9 Hilda Place and is located on the south side of
the street near the dead end of Hilda Place. The property is zoned Existing Use (E-1) in the
City's Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is designated as Open Space in the Victoria Park
Secondary Plan within the City's Official Plan. The property is designated under Part V of the
Ontario Heritage Act as it is located within the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District.
The Applicant is seeking relief from Section 48.3.2 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a front yard
setback of 0.9 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required. The applicant is also seeking relief from
Section 5.3 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a 3.0 metre obstruction to visibility within the driveway
visibility triangle whereas obstructions to visibility within the driveway visibility triangle are not
permitted. The Applicant is seeking relief from the By-law in order to construct a front porch with
stairs.
Traffic staff has advised that they do not support the application because the variance impacts
the driveway visibility triangle. They have explained that the reduced driveway visibility triangle
may create safety issues due to reduced visibility of the sidewalk and street while exiting the
driveway. It is the opinion of Planning staff that potential safety issues are low based on the
context of the property. The property is located on Hilda Place, which is a narrow, short, and
dead end street with 11 properties and 6 driveways. Only 4 properties and 2 driveways are
located east of the property towards the dead end. In addition, no public pedestrian or vehicular
access to the adjacent neighbourhood and street (Queen Street South) is available at the end of
the street. Both private properties that back on to the dead end have fences. As a result, it is the
opinion of Planning staff that the variance is reasonable because potential safety issues are
limited. This opinion is outlined in detail below.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments:
The requested variances to permit a reduced front yard setback and a reduced driveway visibility
triangle meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Open Space land use designation recognizes the
presence of existing urban development in the floodway. Existing development is zoned to permit
legally existing uses subject to the Grand River Conservation Authority regulations. The existing
single detached dwelling is a permitted use.
The requested variances to permit a reduced front yard setback and a reduced driveway visibility
triangle meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The reduced front yard setback will result in the new front porch being setback 1.35 metres and
the new stairs being setback 0.9 metres. The intent of the front yard setback is to maintain a
consistent setback along the street. The existing streetscape features both original and newer
porches with similar setbacks. The properties immediately adjacent to the subject property
feature porches with a front yard setback of approximately 1 metre and stairs with a front yard
setback of approximately 1 foot. As a result, the reduced front yard setback will be consistent
with neighbouring properties.
The requested variances to permit a reduced driveway visibility triangle will result in a 1.35 metre
corner visibility triangle. The intent of the driveway visibility triangle is to provide clear and
unobstructed site lines to pedestrian and vehicular traffic passing by when vehicles exit the
driveway in order to minimize potential conflicts. Hilda Place is a short (approximately 80 metres)
dead end street with 11 properties and 7 driveways (see Photo 2 & 3). Only 4 properties and 2
driveways are located east of the subject property towards the dead end. No public pedestrian or
vehicular access to the adjacent neighbourhood and street (Queen Street South) is available at
the end of the street (see Photo 4). Both private properties that back on to the dead end have
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -186 - JULY 17, 2012
5. Submission No.: A 2012-051 (Cont'd)
fences (see Photo 4). The existing streetscape features both original and newer porches with
similar driveway visibility triangles. The properties immediately adjacent to the subject property
feature porches that obstruct visibility resulting in a reduced driveway visibility triangle of
approximately 1.2 metres. A low chance of potential conflict resulting from reduced visibility is
expected due to the total number of properties and driveways combined with the fact that Hilda
Place is a dead end.
The requested variances are considered minor because existing legally permitted uses located in
the floodway are permitted in the City's Official Plan; a single detached dwelling is permitted in
the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law; the porch will feature a similar massing, scale and
design to existing porches on Hilda Place; an adequate front yard setback will be provided
ensuring consistency along the streetscape; and, an adequate driveway visibility triangle is
provided based on the context of the property, which is located on a short, dead end street. As a
result, the variances will not negatively impact the neighbourhood.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land because the requested
variances will allow the existing dwelling to reintroduce a previously demolished front porch with
massing, scale and design that is consistent with both the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation
District Plan and the existing historic porches along the Hilda Place streetscape.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
June 29, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. B. McColl noted concerns raised by Traffic staff, questioning if there is any liability to the City
if the application is approved and someone were to be injured within the reduced driveway
visibility triangle. Ms. von Westerholt commented that while there is risk of injury such injuries
could happen anywhere in the City at any time a pedestrian is walking in the area of a driveway.
She noted that this is a heritage home and staff is attempting to find a balance that respects
heritage aspects as well as the needs of the property owner. She advised that it is common in
this area to see homes close to the street line and this home is on a dead-end street with only 2
driveways after the driveway in question. She expressed the view that in this instance there is
minimal risk for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians and while it is recognized that Traffic
staff must comment from a technical point of view, the recommendation to approve is in the
context that this is a small street with low traffic and the proposed porch will return the home in
keeping with what was there originally.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Janet Lean & Lawrence Wayne requesting permission to construct a
verandah having a front yard setback of 0.9m (2.96') rather than the required 4.5m (14.77') and to
have a 3m (9.85') obstruction to visibility within a driveway visibility triangle whereas the Zoning
By-law provides that there shall be no obstruction, on Lot 163, Subdivision of Lot 17, German
Company Tract, 9 Hilda Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following
condition:
That the owner shall obtain Building Permit No. 12 177636 from the City's Building Division
for construction of the front verandah.
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
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -187 - JULY 17, 2012
6. Submission No.: A 2012-052
Applicant: Orion Electronics Supplies Inc.
Property Location: 25 Hillcrest Lane
Legal Description: Lot 14, Registered Plan 1503
Appearances:
In Support: Brian Blackmere
Contra: Mirko Teich
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a westerly side yard setback of 3.63m (11.91') rather than the required
4.5m (14.77').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 4, 2012, advising that
the subject property is located at 25 Hillcrest Lane, which is located west of Woolwich Street. The
land is currently vacant and is proposed to be developed with a single detached dwelling. The
subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential and are within the Bridgeport North Special
Policy Area. The lands are zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the Zoning By-law.
Relief is being sought from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 for a reduction in side yard
setback abutting a street from the required 4.5 metres to 3.63 metres. The applicant explains that
the requested side yard variance will allow the proposed development to have a front yard
setback of 8.0 metres, which is consistent with the setback of adjacent properties and is
necessary for the retention of the two trees that currently exist on the site.
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 variance meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The subject property
is designated Low Rise Residential and is located within the Bridgeport North Special Policy
Area. The intent of the Low Rise Residential designation is to accommodate a mix of housing
forms to achieve an overall low intensity of use. The proposed variance will facilitate the
development of a single detached dwelling and therefore will maintain the intent of the Low Rise
Residential designation.
The intent of the Bridgeport North Special Policies is to permit buildings and uses accessory to
outdoor recreation uses on lands adjoining the Grand River flood plain; minimize adverse impacts
of outdoor recreation uses on the residential community; and coordinate the development of the
area south of Melitzer Creek. Since the use of the proposed development is residential and not
accessory to recreation uses, and the subject lands are not located south of Melitzer Creek, the
intent of the Bridgeport North Special Policies will be maintained.
The Official Plan also outlines criteria for consideration when reviewing minor variance
applications that are proposed to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands.
New buildings are encouraged to be appropriate in massing and scale, and be compatible with
the built form and character of the neighbourhood. Furthermore, new buildings are to be
sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and be appropriately screened or buffered to
mitigate any adverse impacts.
The proposed dwelling will be appropriate in massing and scale, and will be compatible with the
existing character of the neighbourhood.
It is the opinion of planning staff that the proposed house will be sensitive to and will not have an
adverse impact on adjacent properties. The variance will allow the building to be setback in a
manner that is consistent with the rest of Hillcrest Lane, and will therefore be sensitive to the
exterior areas of adjacent properties.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of a 4.5 metres side yard
setback abutting a street is to provide adequate separation from the street and access to the rear
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -188 - JULY 17, 2012
6. Submission No.: A 2012-052 (Cont'dl
yard via the exterior side yard. It is staffs opinion that a setback of 3.63 metres will allow for
sufficient access to the rear yard and provide an adequate buffer between the building and the
street.
The variance is considered minor. It is staffs opinion that a reduction of 0.87 metres to the
required exterior side yard setback is minor. The variance will also be minor in its impact on
surrounding properties and the streetscape. The proposed development will be consistent in use
and in streetscape presence with existing properties on the street, and therefore will not
negatively impact the properties adjacent to the subject site
Environmental Planning staff has concerns about the impacts of construction on trees that abut
the subject property and recommends that a Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan be
undertaken prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The proposed development
is a permitted use that is compatible with the neighbourhood. Furthermore, the variance will
support a front yard setback that is compatible with the existing streetscape and allow the
preservation of two large hardwood trees.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
June 29, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. B. Blackmere attended in support of the application, advising that during site planning the
front yard setbacks of lots to the west were taken into consideration which are at 7.5m and in
excess of the current zoning requirement of 4.5m. He advised that they have chosen to maintain
a 7.5m setback to be consistent with what exists on the street, pointing out that the larger setback
has created the need for the exterior side yard variance. Mr. Blackmere advised that property
owners across the street who would be most directly affected were consulted and have indicated
they have no objections.
Mr. M. Teich attended in opposition to the application, advising that he owns property immediately
to the east side of the subject lands. He noted that he had not been consulted and suggested
that the variance requested would negatively affect enjoyment of his rear yard. He stated that he
did not have any knowledge of what is proposed to be built on the vacant lands and having only
received notice this past week had not had time to obtain legal counsel. He asked for
consideration of an adjournment to allow him to do so.
Mr. Cybalski expressed the view that obtaining legal counsel was not necessarily required in this
instance although Mr. Teich was at liberty to do so. He expressed the view, however, that the
requested variance is very minor in nature, pointing out that had the property owner opted not to
be consistent with existing front yard setbacks and chose instead to use the 4.5m setback they
could have proceeded without requiring permission of the Committee of Adjustment. Mr.
Blackmere added that the required side yard adjacent to Mr. Teich's property is being met, with
the variance on the other side of the vacant lands and what is to be constructed will have no
impact to Mr. Teich's rear yard as it will align with his home.
Mr. Blackmere reviewed the plans with Mr. Teich, advising that a 2 storey home is to be
constructed which will comply with the side yard requirements adjacent to the Teich property, and
the driveway location and front yard setback will match the Teich property. Mr. Teich advised that
he has a raised bungalow situate sideways on his lot suggesting a 2 storey structure would have
impact to his property. Mr. Blackmere pointed out that there will be over 12m of rear yard and
that by-law regulations permit construction of a 2 storey structure on the subject lands.
Mr. Cybalski questioned if the 2 storey structure is to sit directly beside the Teich home, facing the
same way and to approximately the same depth and Mr. Blackmere concurred that it would be
constructed essentially in the same manner. Mr. Cybalski expressed the view that the requested
variance is minor being a difference in the westerly exterior side yard from 4.5m to 3.6m and a
deferral was not necessary.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -189 - JULY 17, 2012
6. Submission No.: A 2012-052 (Cont'dl
That the application of Orion Electronics Supplies Inc. requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a westerly side yard setback of 3.63m (11.91') rather than the required
4.5m (14.77'), on Lot 14, Registered Plan 1503, 25 Hillcrest Lane, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for
construction of the single detached dwelling.
2. That prior to any grading, or the application or issuance of a building permit, the owner
shall submit a plan, prepared by a qualified consultant, to the satisfaction and approval of
the City's Director of Planning showing:
(i) the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings and structures),
decks and driveways;
(ii) the location of any existing buildings or structures to be removed or relocated;
(iii) the proposed grades and drainage;
(iv) the location of all trees to be preserved, removed or potentially impacted on or
adjacent to the subject lands, including notations of their size, species and condition;
(v) justification for any trees to be removed; and,
(vi) outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved.
3. That the owner shall obtain a permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority pursuant
to Ontario Regulation 150/06 (GRCA's Regulation of Development, Interference with
Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses) for construction of the single
detached dwelling.
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
Submission No.: A 2012-053
Applicant: Frances Peister
Property Location: 25 Cressman Avenue
Legal Description: Lot 12 and Part Lot 22, Registered Plan 698
Appearances:
In Support: Pierre Chauvin
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a duplex unit
above an existing garage on a single detached residential lot on private services whereas full
municipal services is required; and to legalize an existing lot area of 1,359.59 m2 (14,632.84
sq.ft.) rather than the required 2,023 m2 (21,776.11 sq.ft.), an existing lot width of 27.4m (89.90')
rather than the required 30m (98.43') and an existing rear yard setback of 4.61m (15.13') rather
than the required 7.5m (24.61').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 9, 2012, advising that
the subject property is located at 25 Cressman Avenue and is currently developed with a large
single detached dwelling. The property has a frontage of 27.57 metres, a depth of approximately
42 metres and a lot area of 1359.39 square metres. The property is zoned as Residential Two
(R-2) with Special Use Regulation 233R. The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in
the City's Official Plan. A site visit of the subject property was completed on June 20, 2012.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -190 - JULY 17, 2012
7. Submission No.: A 2012-053 (Cont'd)
Planning Comments:
The Owner is proposing to duplex the existing single detached dwelling by constructing a
secondary dwelling unit above the existing garage. The Owner has filed a minor variance
application to the Committee of Adjustment to permit a duplex on private services and to legalize
the existing lot width, lot area, and rear yard setback.
The following variances are being requested with this application;
i. Relief from Section 5.25 and Section 36.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to permit a duplex
dwelling on private services whereas public services are required, and
ii. Relief from Section 233R of Appendix D of the Zoning By-law to legalize the existing lot
area of 1359.39 square metres whereas 2023.0 square metres in required, and
iii. Relief from Section 233R of Appendix D of the Zoning By-law to legalize the existing lot
width of 27.4 metres whereas 30.0 metres in required, and
iv. Relief from Section 36.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to legalize an existing rear yard setbacks
of 4.61 metres in length whereas 7.5 metres is required.
Requested Lot Width, Lot Area, and Rear Yard Setback Variances:
The existing lot width, lot area, and rear yard setbacks are legal non-confirming. As the Owner is
proposing to construct an addition and increase the floor area of the building, the legal non-
conforming status for the lot width, lot area, and rear yard setbacks will be lost.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments:
The requested lot width, lot area, and rear yard setback variances meet the intent of the Official
Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential
development and allows for a variety of low density residential uses. The legalization of the
existing lot width, lot area, and rear yard setback will allow the Owner to improve the existing
building.
The requested lot width, lot area, and rear yard setback variances meet the intent of the Zoning
By-law. The Special Regulation Provision for the lot width and lot area was applied to the subject
property to preserve the existing low density residential development. The lot is existing and
never met the minimum requirements of the Special Use Provision when it was applied to the
property. Legalizing the existing lot will continue to ensure a low density residential use while
allowing the Owner to enhance the property with the development of a secondary dwelling unit.
The rear yard setback is an existing situation and is the result of an irregular lot shape at the rear
of the property.
The requested lot width, lot area, and rear yard setback variances are considered minor as they
are proposing to legalize an existing situation that has occurred for many years.
The requested lot width, lot area, and rear yard setback variances are appropriate as it will allow
for the legalization of the existing lot.
Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the requested lot width, lot area, and
rear yard setback variances be approved without conditions.
Requested Duplex on Private Services Variances:
The Owner is proposing to duplex the existing single detached dwelling and to install a new septic
field to accommodate the increased demand for sanitary capacity. The Owner has submitted a
Sewage System Design Report, prepared by LVM Inc., which concludes that the required
increased sanitary capacity demand of the proposed duplex can be accommodated on a private
septic system.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -191 - JULY 17, 2012
7. Submission No.: A 2012-053 (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 offer the following comments:
The requested duplex on private services variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low
Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows
for a variety of low density residential uses. The owner is proposing to develop the property with
a duplex dwelling on a large lot, which is compatible with the surrounding residential built form.
The proposed location of the addition will have little impact on the streetscape.
The requested duplex on private services variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The
purpose of requiring duplexes on public services is to ensure that there is capacity in the sanitary
waste system for both units. In this case, the Owner is proposing to construct a new septic field
to accommodate the increased capacity of both units. The Building Department will formally
review the Sewage Systems Design Report prepared by LVM Inc. as submitted by the Owner
during the septic permit issuing process. The report concludes that the proposed septic field will
accommodate the requirements of the proposed duplex.
The requested duplex on private services variances are minor. There will be no impact on the
surrounding neighbourhood and the proposed septic field will accommodate the increased
sanitary demand of the proposed duplex.
The requested duplex on private services variances are appropriate as it will allow for the
duplexing of the existed single detached dwelling.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
June 29, 2012, advising that the noise from road traffic on King Street East (Regional Road #8)
could be an issue to tenants in the proposed apartment addition.
Mr. B. McColl commented that being the owner of a property within a neighbourhood serviced by
wells and septic systems he was aware of the challenges that go along with this type of servicing.
He asked to see the Engineer's report, which was provided and questioned where the septic
system is to be located on the lot.
Mr. P. Chauvin advised that the upgraded septic system will remain in the location of the existing
system between the back of the house and pool. He pointed out that the proposed duplex will be
subject to obtaining a building permit which will address requirements of the septic system. He
added that the owner is aware that the existing septic system is old and in need of updating and
will be undertaking those improvements regardless. Mr. Chauvin advised that the duplex is
intended to house a caretaker for the current property owner so he may live out his life there. Mr.
McColl expressed support for the intended use; however, raised concerns with regard to potential
noise and odor from the upgraded septic system. Mr. Cybalski noted that the system would be
required to be designed to accommodate the added use. Mr. McColl maintained concerns with
the space to be used for the septic system and while he could support the application in general,
he asked that careful attention be paid by the builders and engineers in respect to the septic
system. Mr. Chauvin acknowledged the concerns raised and advised that his client has
recognized the importance of providing a proper septic system by retaining a reputable
engineering firm to design and install the system.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Frances Peister requesting permission to construct a duplex unit above an
existing garage on a single detached residential lot on private services whereas full municipal
services is required; and to legalize an existing lot area of 1,359.59 m2 (14,632.84 sq.ft.) rather
than the required 2,023 m2 (21,776.11 sq.ft.), an existing lot width of 27.4m (89.90') rather than
the required 30m (98.43') and an existing rear yard setback of 4.61m (15.13') rather than the
required 7.5m (24.61'), on Lot 12 and Part Lot 22, Registered Plan 698, 25 Cressman Avenue,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -192 - JULY 17, 2012
7. Submission No.: A 2012-053 (Cont'd)
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
CONSENT
1. Submission No.: B 2012-019
Applicant: St. John's Roman Catholic Church
Property Location: 85 Strange Street
Legal Description: Lot 1, Part Lot 493, Registered Plan 375
-and -
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
B 2012-020
Waterloo Catholic District School Board
99 Strange Street
Part Lots 493 and 494, Registered Plan 375
Lindsay Ford
None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant of 85 Strange Street is requesting permission to
give 2 easements to benefit the abutting property (99 Strange Street) for access and parking: one
easement faces Waverly Road and measures 8.41 m (27.59'), by a depth on the northerly side of
52.19m (177.22') and an area of 362m2 (3,896.67 sq.ft.); the second easement faces Strange
Street and measures 1.44m (4.73') by 29.9m (98.10') with an area of 43m2 (462.87 sq.ft.). The
property will continue to be used as a church.
The Committee was also advised that the applicant of 99 Strange Street is requesting permission
to give 2 easements to benefit the abutting property (85 Strange Street) for access and parking:
one easement faces Waverly Road and measures 30m (98.42') by 36m (118.11') with an area of
1,156m2 (12,443.49 sq.ft.); the second easement will have a width on Strange Street of 17m
(55.78'), an irregular depth of 78m (255.91') and an area of 1,166m2 (12,551.13 sq.ft.). The
property will continue to be used as an elementary school.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 4, 2012, advising that
the subject properties front on to Strange Street and are bounded by Waverly Road to the south
and Gage Avenue to the west. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the Official
Plan and are zoned Neighbourhood Institutional (I-1) with Special Regulation 93R which allows a
day care facility in conjunction with an educational establishment or religious institution.
The property known as 85 Strange Street (legally described as Part Lot 493 Registered Plan 375)
is developed with a religious institution while 99 Strange Street (legally described as Part Lot 493
Registered Plan 375) is developed with an educational establishment.
The owner of 99 Strange Street has recently received Site Plan Approval in Principle for an
addition to the existing school which has necessitated the consent applications to establish
easements for right-of-way access and is a condition of site plan approval.
The applicant is requesting consent to create reciprocal easements that will affect both properties.
Historically, the church and school have functioned as one property and have had an informal
shared parking arrangement as the church has no parking of its own. However, the addition to
the school precipitated a new parking and driveway layout, resulting in the need for reciprocal
easements.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -193 - JULY 17, 2012
1. Submission No.: B 2012-019 & B2012-020 (Cont'd)
This application previously received approval with conditions from the Committee of Adjustment
on January 18, 2011 (B2011-001 & B2011-002). However, due to delays in construction, the
applicant was unable to fulfill the condition to submit a reference plan that illustrates the
easement, and the approval has since lapsed. No changes have been made to the application
since the Committee's original approval.
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 proposed reciprocal easements (as indicated on the applicant's
drawing) are appropriate and necessary in order to allow full movement and access between the
subject parcels of land. The proposed consent applications are consistent with the policy
statements issued under subsection 3(1) of the Act, are in conformity with the Provincial Policy
Statements and conform to the City's Official Plan.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community
Services, dated July 5, 2012, advising that they have no objection to these applications.
Submission No. B 2012-019
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of the Roman Diocese of Hamilton (St. John's Roman Catholic Church)
requesting permission to give easements /right-of-ways to the Waterloo Catholic District School
Board to benefit the abutting property for access and parking over firstly, a parcel of land facing
Waverly Road, measuring 8.41m (27.59'), by a depth on the northerly side of 52.19m (177.22')
and an area of 362m2 (3,896.67 sq.ft.); and secondly, over a parcel of land facing Strange Street,
measuring 1.44m (4.73') by 29.9m (98.10') with an area of 43m2 (462.87 sq.ft.); on Lot 1, Part Lot
493, Registered Plan 375, 85 Strange Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited
reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn
(Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file 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 owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, shall enter into a joint
maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the right-of-
ways /easements are maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on
title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s).
4. That the owner's solicitor shall provide the City Solicitor with a satisfactory Solicitor's
Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter,
the approved joint maintenance agreement.
5. That the owner's solicitor shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered
Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -194 - JULY 17, 2012
1. Submission No.: B 2012-019 & B2012-020 (Cont'd)
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 July 17, 2014.
Carried
Submission No. B 2012-020
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board requesting permission to give
easements /right-of-ways to the Roman Diocese of Hamilton (St. John's Roman Catholic
Church) to benefit the abutting property for access and parking over firstly, a parcel of land facing
Waverly Road, measuring 30m (98.42') by 36m (118.11') with an area of 1,156m2 (12,443.49
sq.ft.); and secondly, over a parcel of land having a width on Strange Street of 17m (55.78'), an
irregular depth of 78m (255.91') and an area of 1,166m2 (12,551.13 sq.ft.); on Part Lots 493 and
494, Registered Plan 375, 99 Strange Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited
reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn
(Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file 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 owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, shall enter into a joint
maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the right-of-
ways /easements are maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on
title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s).
4. That the owner's solicitor shall provide the City Solicitor with a satisfactory Solicitor's
Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter,
the approved joint maintenance agreement.
5. That the owner's solicitor shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered
Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
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 July 17, 2014.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -195 - JULY 17, 2012
2. Submission No.: B 2012-021
Applicant: Amberland Development Inc.
Property Location: 112 Fairfield Avenue
Legal Description: Part Lots 42 and 43, Registered Plan 750, designated as Part 2,
Reference Plan 58R-4478
Appearances:
In Support: Ken Murphy
Contra: Ethel Bellefeuille
Lynda Gelineau
Leonard Roth
Written Submissions: Doreen Roth
Leonard Roth
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
having frontage on Ridgewood Avenue of 12.257m (40.22'), a depth of 31.236m (102.48') and an
area of 336.1 m2 (3,617.87 sq.ft) for future single detached residential development. The retained
lands will continue to be used as a single detached residential dwelling.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 6, 2012, advising that
the subject property is located between Margaret Avenue and St. Leger Street in the Fairfield
Planning Community. Specifically, the property is located at the northeast corner of Ridgewood
Avenue and Fairfield Avenue. The subject property contains cone-storey single detached
dwelling constructed in approximately 1952. The surrounding area contains mainly one to one-
and-a-half storey single detached dwellings constructed in approximately the same era.
The property possesses approximately 17.5 metres of frontage on Fairfield Avenue, 38.1 metres
of frontage on Ridgewood Avenue, and is 881.6 square metres in area. The property is
designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four Zone
(R-4). City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on July 4, 2012.
The applicant is requesting consent to sever a parcel of land from the rear of the property with the
following characteristics: frontage on Ridgewood Avenue only with a lot width of 12.3 square
metres, a depth ranging between 26.8 metres and 31.2 metres, and a lot area of approximately
336.1 square metres. The severed lot is proposed to contain a new single detached dwelling.
The retained lot would possess the following characteristics: 17.5 metres of frontage on Fairfield
Avenue, 25.8 metres of frontage on Ridgewood Avenue, a depth of 25.0 metres, and a lot area of
approximately 545.5 square metres. The retained lot would contain the existing single detached
dwelling.
The severed lot would represent the narrowest lot on Ridgewood Avenue (the second narrowest
lot is approximately 15 metres in width); however, there are numerous examples of 12 metre wide
lots in the neighbourhood. In addition, the proposed lot exceeds the minimum lot width
requirement outlined in the Zoning By-law by over 3 metres.
In terms of lot area, staff advises that the lot area proposed would represent one of the smallest in
the area; however, similar sized lots do exist. For instance, other streets in the neighbourhood do
possess lots with areas in the 360 square metre range. In addition, staff advises that the lot area
proposed exceeds the minimum lot area requirement outlined in the Zoning By-law by
approximately 43 percent.
An analysis of the sketch provided with the application demonstrates that the resultant lots would
comply with the Zoning By-law for the proposed uses and, therefore, no minor variance approval
is necessary.
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, Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed severance conforms to
the City's Official Plan, that highways, utilities and municipal services are available and adequate,
and that the configuration of the proposed lots can be considered appropriate for intended uses.
Staff is further of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement,
2005 and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -196 - JULY 17, 2012
2. Submission No.: B 2012-021 (Cont'd)
In order to ensure preservation of trees where feasible, a consistent front yard setback for the
proposed dwelling, and that accessory buildings do not encroach on abutting lands, staff
recommends that certain conditions be imposed as outlined in the Recommendation section of
this report.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community
Services, dated July 5, 2012, advising that they have no objection to this application.
Mr. D. Cybalski questioned if plans have been submitted for the severed lands and/or if there is a
prospective purchaser. Mr. K. Murphy advised that at this time there are no immediate plans to
build, nor is there a prospective purchaser for the severed lands. Mr. Cybalski raised concerns
with the proposed size of the lot and questioned how consistent it is with other lots on the street.
Mr. Murphy advised that the lot size exceeds the current by-law requirements and while it will be
one of the smallest lots on the street it is not the smallest lot in the surrounding neighbourhood.
He stated that the average lot size in the area is 55', primarily housing bungalows or 1 '/2 storey
homes and is an older area of the City.
Ms. E. Bellefeuille and Ms. L. Gelineau attended in opposition, raising concerns of weekend
parties held at the subject lands and resulting high volume of cars parked on the road. They also
spoke on behalf of the property owner at 18 Ridgewood Avenue, to the immediate north of the
subject lands, who is elderly and concerned with removal of existing structures in the rear yard of
the subject lands that may have impact to her rear yard privacy. Mr. Cybalski noted that the
concerns raised are outside of the Committee's jurisdiction. The delegation noted that the
neighbourhood consists primarily of retired persons and maintained that if another building is
constructed the situation would worsen especially given the small size of the lot.
Mr. Cybalski raised concerns with how a building structure would be plotted in relationship to 18
Ridgewood Avenue and where the driveway would be located. Mr. K. Murphy stated that with a
40' frontage it will be challenging to build a home to fit with the existing neighbourhood. Mr.
Cybalski commented that the Committee is challenged to assess the merits of the application with
no conceptual plans to better indicate how the dwelling would be integrated and function within
the neighbourhood. Mr. Murphy noted that a site plan and building permit would be required for
the property prior to construction of a dwelling.
Mr. L. Roth attended to raise concerns with a large tree situate in the rear of his property that may
be impacted by construction on the proposed severed lands and did not want it to be taken down.
Mr. Murphy advised that the tree drip line is approximately 5 to 6m into the proposed severed
lands but is not within the building envelope.
Ms. J. Meader pointed out that a condition of approval will address protection of the tree, which
requires the applicant to submit a plan showing the location of trees to be preserved, removed or
potentially impacted both on the severed lands and adjacent lands.
Ms. J. von Westerholt added that the applicant will be required to submit site plans to show how a
dwelling will fit on the subject lands and without creating any minor variances. She pointed out
that from a technical standpoint the lot size proposed meets the zoning requirements.
Ms. Bellefeuille raised further concerns with the location of a driveway to the severed lands,
pointing out that the driveway to 18 Ridgewood Avenue is immediately adjacent to what will
become the northerly side yard of the severed lands.
It was noted that a typical driveway width is 12m and Mr. Murphy pointed out that this equates to
less than a third of the proposed lot frontage.
Mr. Cybalski questioned the feasibility of imposing a condition of approval to require that any
driveway built on the severed lands be located on the south side. Ms. von Westerholt indicated
that staff would concur with this suggestion given the location of the driveway on the neighbouring
property. Mr. K. Murphy also agreed with the suggested condition regarding the driveway
location.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -197 - JULY 17, 2012
2. Submission No.: B 2012-021 (Cont'dl
Mr. B. McColl questioned the ability to construct a dwelling compatible with the surrounding
neighbourhood given the small lot size. Ms. von Westerholt advised that there are other lots in
the area smaller in size. She added that there is some measure of assurance in that, if any
variances are created in respect to what is proposed to be built on the lands, an application will
have to be brought back to the Committee for consideration.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of the Amberland Development Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel
of land having frontage on Ridgewood Avenue of 12.257m (40.22'), a depth of 31.236m (102.48')
and an area of 336.1m2 (3,617.87 sq.ft) for future single detached residential development, on
Part Lots 42 and 43, Registered Plan 750, designated as Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-4478, 112
Fairfield Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited
reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn
(Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file 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 5% of the value of the lands to be severed.
4. That the existing metal shed and detached garage shall be removed or relocated to the
retained lands, and the lands shall be restored with sod or landscaping, to the satisfaction
of the City's Director of Planning. Prior to the removal of these structures, the owner shall
obtain a demolition permit from the City's Building Division if these structures are greater
than 10.0 m2 in area (108 sq.ft.).
5. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by
the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the
following (note that Clause (i) shall include a requirement to locate the setback of the
proposed building in a manner that is consistent with the existing buildings on Ridgewood
Avenue):
"That prior to any grading or the application or issuance of a building permit, the owner
shall submit a plan, prepared by a qualified consultant, to the satisfaction and approval
of the City's Director of Planning showing:
(i) the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings and
structures), decks and driveways; and any new driveway to be built on the
severed lands shall be located on the south side of the lands;
(ii) the location of any existing buildings or structures to be removed or relocated;
(iii) the proposed grades and drainage;
(iv) the location of all trees to be preserved, removed or potentially impacted on or
adjacent to the subject lands, including notations of their size, species and
condition. This shall include, but not be limited to, the lands within the municipal
boulevard and the neighbouring tree in the rear yard.
(v) justification for any trees to be removed; and,
(vi) outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved.
Any alteration or improvement to the lands including grading, tree removal and the
application or issuance of any building permits shall be in compliance with the
approved plan. Any changes or revisions to the plan require the approval of the City's
Director of Planning."
6. That the owner shall make arrangements financial or otherwise for the relocation of any
existing City-owned street furniture, transit shelters, signs, hydrants, utility poles, wires or
lines, as required, to the satisfaction of the appropriate City department.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -198 - JULY 17, 2012
2. Submission No.: B 2012-021 (Cont'dl
7. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services, for the removal of redundant service connections and the
installation of new service connections to the severed lands and retained lands.
8. That the owner shall close any redundant driveways with new boulevard landscaping to
City of Kitchener standards and any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener
standards at grade with the sidewalk. All work shall be completed at the owner's expense
and shall be completed prior to occupancy of the buildings.
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 July 17, 2014.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:25 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 17th day of July, 2012.
Janet Billett, AMCT
Acting Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment