HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2012-09-18COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski, A. Lise and Ms. J. Meader
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking
Analyst, Mr. D. Pimental, Traffic Technologist; 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 9:36 a. m.
MINUTES
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held August 21, 2012, as
mailed to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
1. Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
A 2012-047
Ilona Jambor
120 College Street
Part Lot 8, Registered Plan 401
I. Jambor
None
Written Submissions: J. Knowlton and H. Berg
R. Lofsnes
The Committee previously considered this matter at its meeting held July 17, 2012 at which time
the application was deferred to today's date to provide the applicant with 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.
The Committee was previously 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 an addendum report of the Planning Division, dated September 7,
2012, which reflects new information pertaining to discussions held between City staff and the
applicant and which states:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 237 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
1. Submission No.: A 2012-047 (Cont'd)
Planning staff and the Owner met on August 16, 2012 to discuss parking options for this property.
The Owner is of the opinion that the parking spot is of a suitable size for her use and does not
want to entertain off-site parking arrangements. She requires the parking space to accommodate
her personal vehicle.
The Owner is agreeable to the Potential Conditions of Approval outlined in the staff report dated
July 9, 2012 and presented on July 17, 2012. If the variances are approved, the Owner has
agreed to have the driveway design and location approved by the City's Coordinator of Cultural
Heritage and has agreed to complete the work within a specified time period, suggested to be 12
months from the date of the decision.
Planning staff remain supportive of the recommendation of the staff report dated July 9, 2012.
Should the Committee of Adjustment choose to approve the variances, Planning staff will work
with the Owner to obtain necessary approvals within the specified timeframe.
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
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:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 238 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
1. Submission No.: A 2012-047 (ConYd
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.
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
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 239 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
1. Submission No.: A 2012-047 (Cont'd)
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.
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:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 240 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
1. Submission No.: A 2012-047 (Cont'd)
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 advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee was in receipt of comments from a neighbouring property dated July 14, 2012,
opposing the granting of this variance for the following reasons:
1. The driveway takes up the entire front lawn in this heritage designated neighbourhood.
2. Vehicles must enter and exit this driveway from the neighbouring driveway - as there is no
driveway apron on this property, vehicles cross the sidewalk at a 45 degree angle to the
street. This is dangerous for pedestrians as it is difficult for the driver to see pedestrians in
rear and sideview mirrors when not at a 90 degree angle to the sidewalk. The hedge on
the south side of the applicant's neighbour's driveway compounds the problem of seeing
approaching pedestrians when entering or exiting at a 45 degree angle. This is a hazard
for small children.
3. A larger car would overhang the sidewalk and pose a problem for pedestrians
4. The parked vehicle seems very close to the gas line for the house which poses a further
possible safety issue.
5. Piled snow from driveways can become quite high, further blocking the view when exiting
the driveway.
6. The property was purchased with the knowledge that it did not have parking and other
parking arrangements were made at that time. When College Street was resurfaced in the
early 2000's they requested a parking apron and were told no by city officials as there was
not sufficient space for a driveway. In spite of this, they proceeded to pave over the entire
front lawn with paving stones and create a driveway anyway -relying on the neighbouring
property for access to the space. There is sufficient rentable parking in the neighbourhood
that the loss of parking should not be an undue hardship and one they were willing to
accept when they purchased the home.
Ms. I. Jambor addressed concerns raised by a neighbouring property owner concerning issues of
safety and visibility in relationship to the proposed off-street parking area on the subject lands and
provided illustrative photographs. Ms. Jambor also provided a letter of support from another
neighbouring property owner at 118 College Street.
Mr. G. Stevenson advised that staff had worked with the applicant to evaluate various scenarios
to provide a solution to the off-street parking stall but there remains insufficient room on the
property to provide the required size for the parking stall. He stated that staffs view remains
consistent in that they cannot support the parking stall as proposed but noted that the Committee
is at liberty to approve the variance if deemed appropriate. He added that in the event the
variance is approved, staff have suggested certain conditions be applied that would enable them
to assist the applicant in designing the parking area in keeping with heritage and safety standards
to ensure the parking area is as safe as possible. Mr. Stevenson stated that the applicant has
provided evidence that her vehicle does not overhang the sidewalk but noted that the vehicle is
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 241 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
1. Submission No.: A 2012-047 (Cont'd
small and not of an average sized vehicle. He further confirmed that the applicant cannot be
required to enter into an off-site parking agreement as the property by virtue of legal non-
conforming status is not required to provide off-street parking.
Mr. D. Cybalski questioned the ability of the applicant to meet the heritage related conditions
proposed by staff and questioned how the driveway of the subject lands and the neighbouring
driveway immediately adjacent would function together. Mr. Stevenson advised that the
proposed conditions of approval provide that the applicant's driveway comply with design criteria
outlined in the Civic Centre Heritage Conservation District Plan and that it lead directly from the
street to the off-street parking space. A curb cut is required, to City standards, with independent
access to the parking space and independent access is also to be delineated through appropriate
landscaping that will act as a visual screening between the two driveways. Mr. Stevenson added
that there is sufficient room to comply with these conditions without impeding visibility and any
landscaping would be required to be low level growth.
Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that the applicant has indicated that she would be willing to comply
with the proposed conditions.
Mr. Cybalski stated that while sympathetic, consideration must be given to the long term effect,
noting that the size of the parking stall is only usable for a small vehicle which he suggested could
lead to difficulties with future purchasers of the property.
Ms. J. Meader questioned if the driveway is altered as proposed to accommodate direct
perpendicular access from the street to the parking space, if there are any other properties in the
Heritage District with similar characteristics. Mr. Stevenson advised that there are some
examples where a parking stall has been located in a side yard with a 3m setback, and styles
vary along the street as well as throughout the District. Ms. Meader expressed the view that the
proposed parking presents an issue for pedestrians approaching from the side and she could not
support approval at this time.
Mr. A. Lise commented that the 2.6m width proposed for the driveway is narrower than other
municipal standards, citing an example of Hamilton at a 3m width, and was of the opinion
Kitchener's standards had been put in place to accommodate for smaller vehicles. He
commented on the shortage of on-street parking spaces and noted that vehicles cannot by law
overhang a sidewalk. Mr. Lise added that in respect to visibility the driveway visibility triangle is
not affected and suggested that if there is serious intent around intensification, then he could
consider the requested parking variance to be minor and would support the request subject to the
proposed conditions of staff.
Ms. Jambor stated that College Street and others in the area is full of similar situations and noted
that there is room to widen the driveway beyond 2.6m. She suggested that given the property is
in a Heritage District and the home was constructed in the 1800's, it should not be subject to the
same regulations as properties not within a Heritage District.
Mr. Cybalski questioned the feasibility of applying a condition to require a warning clause to be
included in any future agreement of purchase and sale concerning the size of the parking space.
Ms. Meader questioned that notwithstanding awarning clause how the issue could be enforced.
Mr. Stevenson suggested that enforcement would be through infraction of regulations prohibiting
overhang of the sidewalk. Mr. Lise added that a warning clause would serve to ensure the next
owner would have no reason to dispute the issue of the parking space. Ms. Jambor suggested
that prospective purchasers would not be interested in buying her home if they require 2
bedrooms and / or have a large vehicle and at this time, there is no intent to sell the home. Mr.
Cybalski pointed out that the variance once approved remains forever. He stated that he would
reluctantly support the parking variances based on condition of a warning clause being added to
future agreements of purchase and sale, and in light that staff appear to be somewhat supportive
in having made suggested conditions of approval.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 242 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
1. Submission No.: A 2012-047 (Cont'd)
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Ilona Jambor 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'), on Part Lot 8, Registered Plan
401, 120 College Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, without conditions; and further,
That the application of Ilona Jambor requesting permission 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'), on Part Lot 8, Registered Plan 401, 120 College Street, Kitchener,
Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall submit to the satisfaction of the City's Co-ordinator of Cultural
Heritage, a revised parking plan design showing the proposed location of the driveway and
the design of the driveway must:
a. Comply in style, material, colour, and size with the design criteria outlined in the Civic
Centre Heritage Conservation District Plan;
b. Be a minimum of 4.4 metres in length and a maximum of 2.6 metres wide;
c. Lead directly from the street to the off-street parking space;
d. Include details regarding the required curb cut, to City standards;
e. Have independent access to the off-street parking space without travelling over
neighbouring properties;
f. Include an appropriate landscaped area surrounding the driveway; and,
g. Have planting details, which can be used to provide visual screening.
2. That the existing driveway shall 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, shall be completed entirely within 12
months of the date of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment.
4. That final approval of the minor variance shall not be issued until the driveway installation
is inspected by the City's Co-ordinator of Cultural Heritage.
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 subject lands, to provide that a warning
clause shall be included in agreements of purchase and sale to apprise prospective
purchasers of the subject lands of the size of the on-site parking stall and regulations
which stipulate that any motor vehicle parked in the parking stall is not permitted to
overhang the sidewalk.
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
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 243 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
2. Submission No.: A 2012-055
Applicant: Max Becker Enterprises Ltd.
Property Location: 155 Commonwealth Street
Legal Description: Block 40, Registered Plan 58M-301
Appearances:
In Support: V. Bender
S. Code
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee previously considered this matter at its meeting held August 21, 2012 at which
time the application was deferred to today's date to provide the applicant with an opportunity to
meet further with City staff to explore alternatives to address the issue of off-street visitor parking.
The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a
4 storey apartment building having a southerly side yard setback abutting Max Becker Drive and
a northerly side yard setback abutting Dubrick Crescent of 1.34m (4.4') rather than the required
7.5m (24.61'); a front yard setback of 2.3m (7.55') to the building and 0.33m (1.09') to the canopy
rather than the required 7.5m (24.61'); a setback from Dubrick Crescent of 0.71m (2.33') for
parking rather than the required 3m (9.85'); 1.25 parking spaces per unit rather than the required
1.75 parking spaces per unit; 2 visitor parking spaces rather than the required 8 visitor parking
spaces; a minimum landscaped area of 15.47% rather than the required 20%; a 0.5m (1.64') x
0.5m (1.64') square column obstruction within the corner visibility triangle whereas no obstruction
is permitted within a corner visibility triangle.
The Committee considered an addendum report of the Planning Division, dated September 4,
2012, which reflects new information pertaining to discussions held between City staff and the
applicant and which states:
Since the meeting of August 21, 2012, staff has met and discussed with the applicant options for
providing the 6 required visitor parking spaces for the proposed 33 unit multiple dwelling. In order
to facilitate the required visitor parking the applicant will be securing an Off-Site Parking
Agreement as is permitted pursuant to Section 6.1.1.1 a) ii) iii) of Zoning By-law 85-1. Four visitor
parking spaces will be provided on additional land owned by the applicant at 1187 Fischer
Hallman Road and two spaces will be provided on 155 Commonwealth Street.
In this regard, the applicant has withdrawn their request for a reduction in the number of required
visitor parking spaces and it is requested that this amendment to the application be noted by the
Committee.
Staff recommends approval of the minor variance application as amended subject to conditions.
Recommendation:
That application A2012-055 as amended, requesting the following variances:
1. Relief from Section 42.2.6 to permit a side yard setback abutting a street (Max Becker
Drive and Dubrick Crescent) of 1.34 metres rather than the required 6.0 metres; and,
2. Relief from Section 42.2.6 to permit a front yard setback of 2.3 metres to the building and
0.33 metres to the canopy rather than the required 6.0 metres; and,
3. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1.d)i) to permit parking to be located 0.71 metres from Dubrick
Crescent rather than the required 3.0 metres; and,
4. Relief from Section 6.1.2.a) to provide 1.25 parking spaces per unit rather than the
required 1.75 spaces per unit; and,
5. Relief from Section 42.2.6 to allow a minimum landscaped area of 15.47% rather than the
required 20%; and further,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 244 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
2. Submission No.: A 2012-055 (Cont'dl
6. Relief from Section 5.3 to permit a 0.5 metre x 0.5 metres (square column) obstruction to
be located 1.15 metres within the required 7.5 metre corner visibility triangle whereas no
obstruction is permitted within the corner visibility triangle;
be approved subject to the applicant obtaining site plan approval for the proposed 4 storey 33
unit multiple dwelling and securing an Off-Site Parking Agreement for four visitor parking spaces
to be located at 1187 Fischer Hallman Road.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 9, 2012, advising
that the subject property is located on the west side of Commonwealth Street, between Max
Becker Drive and Dubrick Crescent adjacent to the Williamsburg Town Centre. The subject lot is
zoned Residential Eight Zone (R-8) with Special Regulation Provision 355R. The Official Plan
designation is Mixed Use Node.
The property is presently a vacant green field development site on which the applicant is
proposing to construct a 4 storey 33 unit multiple dwelling. Over the past several years, the
applicant has been developing a variety of uses in the Mixed Use Node to create the
"Williamsburg Town Centre". The proposed medium density residential development is the next
phase in creating higher density residential supporting the Town Centre.
To this end, the applicant is requesting multiple variances from Zoning By-law 85-1. The
variances are as follows:
1. Relief from Section 42.2.6 to permit a side yard setback abutting a street (Max Becker
Drive and Dubrick Crescent) of 1.34 metres rather than the required 6.0 metres;
2. Relief from Section 42.2.6 to permit a front yard setback of 2.3 metres to the building and
0.33 metres to the canopy rather than the required 6.0 metres;
3. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1.d) i) to permit parking to be located 0.71 metres from Dubrick
Crescent rather than the required 3.0 metres;
4. Relief from Section 6.1.2.a) to provide 1.25 parking spaces per unit rather than the
required 1.75 spaces per unit;
5. Relief from Section 6.1.2.b) v) to provide 2 visitor parking spaces on site rather than the
required 8 spaces (5% of the required parking, rather than 20%);
6. Relief from Section 42.2.6 to allow a minimum landscaped area of 15.47% rather than the
required 20%; and
7. Relief from Section 5.3 to permit a 0.5 metre x 0.5 metres (square column) obstruction to
be located 1.15 metres within the required 7.5 metre corner visibility triangle whereas no
obstruction is permitted within the corner visibility triangle.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments.
The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Mixed Use Node
designation in the City's Official Plan supports the development of medium and high rise
residential uses along with the full range of commercial uses to create intensive, transit supportive
development in a compact form. The property is located adjacent to the Williamsburg Town
Centre which has an existing range of commercial, institutional, open space and residential uses.
The proposed 4-storey multiple dwelling is in keeping with the Mixed Use Node designation as it
is of an appropriate height and density in relation to the adjacent low rise residential development.
The variances related to building setback meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following
reasons. The Residential Eight zoning that pertains to the property has defined building setback
requirements in order to ensure adequate separation between uses is maintained and to create
an appropriate streetscape. The reduction in building setback only applies to small portions of the
building as the structure has been designed with numerous recesses which create interesting
building articulation along the street edge. The multiple dwelling is being proposed close to the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 245 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
2. Submission No.: A 2012-055 (Cont'd
street edge as this creates an urban feel, while providing the maximum separation from the
abutting low rise residential development. The 4 storey building is of an appropriate scale and
mass and creates an appropriate transition to the existing subdivision by creating a defined edge
between the Mixed Use Node lands and the Low Rise Residential lands. The proposed building
location will also create a frame for the Max Becker Common community park which is located
immediately across Commonwealth Street.
The variances related to a reduction in the required number of resident parking spaces and visitor
parking spaces meet the intent of the zoning by-law which is to ensure adequate on-site parking
is provided so as not to create adverse impacts on the surrounding street network and properties.
The Williamsburg Town Centre is being development as an `urban' environment in which
residents have the opportunity to walk to places of employment, shopping, worship and open
space areas without the necessity of a motor vehicle. The proposed development also has
access to public transit on Max Becker Drive.
Zoning By-law 85-1 permits parking to be provided at the rate of 1.25 spaces per unit in the urban
areas of the City. As the applicant is developing the Williamsburg Town Centre to function as an
`urban area', it is appropriate to allow parking to be provided at the rate of 1.25 spaces per unit.
Additionally, the applicant is proposing 12 indoor tandem parking spaces. While these spaces
are not counted toward the required parking, twelve of the units will have the benefit of two
parking spaces.
With regard to the reduction in visitor parking spaces, the applicant will provide two dedicated
visitor spaces on site. An additional 5 spaces are proposed to be located immediately in front of
the building on Commonwealth Street. While these are public on-street parking spaces, it stands
to reason that persons visiting the subject development will be able to utilize the on-street spaces
if the on-site spaces are unavailable.
The reduced parking setback from Dubrick Crescent meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the
location will not negatively impact any adjacent residential use, and will still allow the installation
of a landscape buffer to screen the parking from the street.
The proposed reduction in the percentage of landscaped area on the site meets the intent of the
Zoning By-law which is to provide an appropriate amount of green space on a property. The
proposed 15.47% of on-site landscaping will provide adequate green area on the property for the
installation of landscape material. Additionally, residents will have the benefit of the Max Becker
Common community park which is a large public green space located directly across the street
from the proposed development.
The minor obstruction located 1.15 metres into the 7.5 metre corner visibility triangle meets the
intent of the Zoning By-law as the obstruction is a support column only 0.5 x 0.5 metres square,
rather than a solid wall type obstruction. Staff is of the opinion that visibility and vehicular and
pedestrian safety will not be affected in any manner. Beyond the corner visibility triangle is a
substantial municipal right-of-way that will ensure unobstructed sight lines.
The variances are minor for the following reasons. The building setback variances can be
considered minor in nature as there will be no negative impact on adjacent properties and
adequate separation distances will be maintained. The variances pertaining to a reduction in
parking spaces and visitor spaces are considered minor as 1.25 spaces per unit is considered
appropriate for residential development in an urban area, and the ability of visitors to utilize the on
street parking spaces immediately in front of the building will provide adequate opportunity for
visitors to the site.
The reduced parking setback allows adequate space for landscaping to screen the parking area
from the abutting street and is considered minor.
The reduction in landscape area on site is negligible due to the location of Max Becker Common
directly across the street from the subject property.
The variance for a small obstruction in the corner visibility is considered minor in nature as no
safety impacts will be created for vehicular or pedestrian movements at the property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 246 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
2. Submission No.: A 2012-055 (Cont'dl
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons.
The applicant is proposing a unique building type which will add another element to the
Williamsburg community. The additional residential density is compatible with the existing low
rise residential area. The proposed building is of a mass and scale suitable to the size of the
subject lands and the building location creates an excellent interface with the Max Becker
Common.
The applicant is creating aself-sustaining neighbourhood by providing residential, employment,
shopping, worship, education and open space activities all within a short walking distance of the
subject property. The proposed building is the first of three such buildings to be erected along
Commonwealth Street that will create an ideal transition between the existing low rise residential
neighbourhood, and the future high rise residential development to be located at the intersection
of Commonwealth and Cotton Grass Streets.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 1, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Max Becker Enterprises Ltd. requesting permission to construct a 4 storey
apartment building having a side yard setback abutting a street (Max Becker Drive and Dubrick
Crescent) of 1.34m (4.4') rather than the required 6m (19.69'); a front yard setback of 2.3m (7.55')
to the building and 0.33m (1.09') to the canopy rather than the required 6m (19.69'); a setback
from Dubrick Crescent of 0.71m (2.33') for parking rather than the required 3m (9.85'); 1.25
parking spaces per unit rather than the required 1.75 parking spaces per unit; a minimum
landscaped area of 15.47% rather than the required 20%; and a 0.5m (1.64') x 0.5m (1.64')
square column obstruction within the corner visibility triangle whereas no obstruction is permitted
within a corner visibility triangle, on Block 40, Registered Plan 58M-301, 155 Commonwealth
Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall obtain site plan approval for the proposed 4 storey, 33 unit multiple
dwelling, to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development and Customer Services.
2. That the owner shall secure an Off-Site Parking Agreement for four (4) visitor parking
spaces to be located at 1187 Fischer-Hallman Road.
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
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.: A 2012-058
Applicant: The INCC Corp
Property Location: 105 & 235 The Boardwalk (125 The Boardwalk)
Legal Description: Part Lot 39, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support: D. Aston
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 247 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
1. Submission No.: A 2012-058 (Cont'dl
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a
commercial development (Phase 4 - 125 The Boardwalk) with a building structure having a rear
yard setback of 3m (9.85') rather than the required 7.5m (24.61').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 4, 2012,
advising that the subject properties are located at 105 and 125 The Boardwalk and are vacant
undeveloped parcels of land adjacent to Walmart within this plaza complex. The owner is
proposing to erect two separate buildings that will back onto the hydro corridor. The first building
proposed to be constructed is in phase 4 and is currently subject to a site plan application. That
site plan is attached to the application (Figure 1). The second building will be part of a future
phase situated immediately east of phase 4. Both of these buildings will continue to become part
of The Boardwalk commercial development at Ira Needles Boulevard. Constructed in phases, the
entire commercial development equates to a total of 18.1 hectares (44.7 acres). The subject
property is designated Planned Commercial Campus in the Official Plan and zoned Commercial
Campus (C-8) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow fora 3
metre rear yard setback whereas Section 13A of Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum of 7.5
metre rear yard setback.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended Planning staff offers the following comments.
The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The intent of the Planned Commercial Campus
designation is to accommodate large concentrations of commercial and entertainment uses into a
planned functioning unit. The proposed variance has no bearing on the overall plan, and therefore
meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 7.5 metre rear yard setback
requirement for buildings within a Commercial Campus Zone (C8) is to provide adequate
separation from neighbouring lands and in the case of rear access to provide adequate turning
radii for loading. Given these proposed buildings will back onto a hydro corridor and rear
unloading is not proposed, the proposed 3 metre rear yard would be acceptable.
There is also a holding provision of 58 H that has to be lifted on the subject lands. Staff
recommended removal of 58 H holding provision in a report to Council on August 13, 2012. The
holding provision was for an updated traffic study which has been completed and approved by
the Region.
The proposed 3 metre rear yard setback will not create any impacts on neighbouring properties
nor will it have any negative bearing on the overall function of the site. As a result, the variance
can be considered minor.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The variance will allow the
building to be developed in a consistent manner with existing development on this property. No
negative impacts are anticipated as the lands back onto a hydro corridor. As a result, the variance
is appropriate.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 31, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA)
Resource Planner, dated September 6, 2012, advising that they have no objections; however,
information currently available indicates that a portion of the subject property is located within the
allowance adjacent to wetlands located on neighbouring lands. Consequently, a portion of the
property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. Accordingly, the GRCA will
be reviewing the proposed development through the site plan process.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 248 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
Submission No.: A 2012-058 (Cont'd)
That the application of The INCC Corp. requesting permission to construct a commercial
development (Phase 4 - 125 The Boardwalk) with a building structure having a rear yard setback
of 3m (9.85') rather than the required 7.5m (24.61'), on Part Lot 39, German Company Tract, 105-
235The Boardwalk (125 The Boardwalk), BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall obtain final site plan approval, to the satisfaction of the Manager of
Site Development and Customer Services.
2. That a by-law to lift Holding Provision 58H from the subject lands shall be in full force and
effect.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
2. Submission No.: A 2012-059
Applicant: Kay Vollett
Property Location: 385 Duke Street
Legal Description: Part Lots 421 and 422, Plan 376
Appearances:
In Support: C. Owens
J. Owens
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
2.8m (9.19') front yard setback rather than the required 4.5m (14.77'); construction of a rear yard
addition having a southerly side yard setback abutting a public lane of Om rather than the required
1.2m (3.94'); and to permit no maintenance easement whereas a 1.5m (4.93') maintenance
easement is required for both an existing (1983) addition with Om side yard and the proposed
addition.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 7, 2012,
advising that the subject property is zoned Residential Five (R-5) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and
designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The subject property is situated
between a City local street (as identified on Map 4 of the City's Official Plan) and residential lots
as shown on the Location Map above. The applicant is proposing to construct cone-storey
addition at the rear of the existing legal non-complying single detached dwelling. The new
addition will be constructed adjacent to the City local street and will be designed to mimic the
setback of the existing dwelling which is currently built on the property line with a 0.0 metre
setback. In cases where a 0.0 metre setback is being proposed, Section 5.20 of the Zoning By-
law requires that a 1.5 metre maintenance easement be established on the subject abutting lands
for the maintenance of walls, eaves and real property. The applicant has submitted this minor
variance application to request relief from this Section of the Zoning By-law with respect to the
new addition, as well as a request to legalize the existing dwelling. The requested variances are
outlined below:
1) Relief is being sought from Section 5.20 of the Zoning By-law to remove the requirement
of a 1.5 metre maintenance easement pertaining to the proposed 0.0 metre setback of the
proposed addition; and,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 249 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
2. Submission No.: A 2012-059 (Cont'dl
2) Relief is being sought from Section 5.20 of the Zoning By-law to remove the requirement
of a 1.5 metre maintenance easement pertaining to the existing 0.0 metre setback of the
existing dwelling; and further,
3) Relief is being sought from Section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to legalize the existing
front yard setback of 2.8 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning
Act,R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments:
The requested 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 proposed addition will be designed and built in conjunction with
the existing low rise development in the area and will not impact the intensity or scale of the
residential neighbourhood.
Section 5.20 of the Zoning By-law requires a 1.5 metre maintenance easement be established on
abutting lands if a 0.0 metre setback in being proposed on the subject property. The intent is to
allow the owner of the subject property to have legal access onto the abutting lands for the
maintenance of walls, eaves and real property. In this case, the abutting land is a one-way City
local street that runs from Duke Street West to Waterloo Street. The requested variance meets
the intent of the Zoning By-law as it is staffs opinion that the 1.5 metre easement is not required
in this case because the owner already has an established access over the City local street for
the purposes of maintenance of the walls and eaves of the proposed addition. Transportation
Planning staff is in support of this application and has no concerns with this proposed minor
variance to eliminate the requirement for the maintenance easement over the City local street.
In addition, the applicant is requesting a minor variance to legalise an existing front yard setback
of 2.8 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres. The reduced front yard setback will not impact
the property nor impede visibility for vehicles accessing the City local street. It is staffs opinion
that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as well as recognizes a legal non-
complying front yard setback.
The requested variances are considered minor as it is staffs opinion that the owner of the subject
property already has an established access over the City local street for the maintenance of the
proposed addition. As such, the elimination of the maintenance easement requirement will not
impact the subject property or the abutting lands. The remaining variance will legalize the existing
front yard setback that will have no impacts to the subject lands and abutting lands as well.
The requested variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is staffs
opinion that the requested variance will not impact the subject property, adjacent lands or abutting
City local street.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 31, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Kay Vollett requesting permission to legalize an existing 2.8m (9.19') front
yard setback rather than the required 4.5m (14.77'); to permit no maintenance easement for a
proposed Om setback of a proposed rear yard addition rather than the required 1.5m (4.93')
maintenance easement; and to permit no maintenance easement for an existing Om setback for
an existing dwelling rather than the required 1.5m (4.93') maintenance easement, on Part Lots
421 and 422, Plan 376, 385 Duke Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for the
proposed addition.
2. That the owner shall obtain a temporary road closure permit from the City's Transportation
Services Division prior to the commencement of construction of the proposed addition.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 250 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
2. Submission No.: A 2012-059 (Cont'd)
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
3. Submission No.: A 2012-060
Applicant: 2333350 Ontario Ltd.
Property Location: 130-132 Highland Road East
Legal Description: Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract, Part Lot 2, Plan 183
Appearances:
In Support: D. Hallett
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate 8 of 25 required
off-street parking spaces for an office use on another lot (214 Highland Road East) within 400m
(1,312.34') of the lot containing the use requiring the parking in a Neighbourhood Institutional
Zone (I-1) whereas such alternate parking is permitted only in a Commercial-Residential
Industrial Mixed Use Corridor or Downtown Zone.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 7, 2012,
advising that The applicant is requesting a minor variance to locate 8 of the required 25 off-street
parking spaces for amulti-unit office building on another lot (214 Highland Road East) which is
located in an Institutional zone. The City's Zoning By-law permits off-site parking arrangements
provided the parking spaces are located within 400 metres of the subject lot and are within a
Commercial-Residential, Industrial, Mixed Use Corridor or Downtown zone. Therefore, the
applicant is requesting permission to locate the 8 off-site parking spaces on a property (214
Highland Road East) that is within 400 m of the subject lands and is zoned Institutional (I-1 );
whereas the by-law does not permit off-site parking agreements for lands zoned Institutional.
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 and Zoning By-law for the following reasons.
The intent of the regulation is to ensure that off-site parking that is provided is located in a zone
that will not negatively affect the use of the property or the neighbouring properties. The
proposed off-site parking location is at 214 Highland Road East which is used for a church and
has 51 parking spaces but only requires 39 spaces for their use. Therefore there is a surplus of
12 parking spaces. The properties are located approximately 195 metres from each other. A
parking lot for a church functions similarly to a parking lot used for commercial/industrial uses and
staff is of the opinion that this meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
The variance is minor for the following reason. The building located at 130 Highland Road East
was previously used for a printing establishment. The previous owner began conversion of the
building to amulti-tenant office building sometime last year. The new owner wishes to complete
the conversion to office space by renovating the remaining unused portion of the building into an
office unit for a financial service business (office use). The conversion of the entire building into a
multi-tenant office use has increased the parking requirement. Staff is of the opinion that locating
off-site parking on a property used by church in an institutional zone is compatible with the other
zones that permit off-site parking lots.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 251 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
3. Submission No.: A 2012-060 (Cont'dl
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reason. The
church parking lot exists and there is a surplus of parking spaces. The impact of leasing 8
spaces to a nearby commercial use would not appear to affect the use of the church building or to
negatively affect the surrounding area.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 31, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. D. Cybalski requested clarification of reference to a parking agreement. Ms. D. Hallett
advised that there is an existing off-site parking agreement in place; however, there is potential
that the owner of the off-site property may develop it and if developed there would not be
sufficient space for their parking and that of the development. Therefore, an arrangement is
proposed with the owner of 214 Highland Road West as an option. Mr. Cybalski noted that an
off-site parking agreement will have to be entered into with the owners of 214 Highland Road
West and suggested this be a condition of approval.
Ms. J. Meader questioned if it would be necessary to require a condition of approval to provide
signage to direct overflow parking to the site at 214 Highland Road West. Ms. D. Hallett advised
that the overflow parking is intended for staff and not those visiting the subject property,
suggesting signage in this instance is not needed. Ms. J. von Westerholt stated that she would
be wary of imposing such a condition given the potential that the signage may serve to invite
unsanctioned use of the overflow parking.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of 2333350 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to locate 8 of 25 required off-
street parking spaces for an office use on another lot (214 Highland Road East) within 400m
(1,312.34') of the lot containing the use requiring the parking in a Neighbourhood Institutional
Zone (I-1) whereas such alternate parking is permitted only in a Commercial-Residential
Industrial Mixed Use Corridor or Downtown Zone, on Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company
Tract, Part Lot 2, Plan 183, 130-132 Highland Road East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED,
subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for
renovation of any empty space into office space to be completed by no later than
November 1, 2012 and if not completed as required, approval of this minor variance
becomes null and void.
2. That the owner shall secure an off-site parking agreement with the owner of 214 Highland
Road East for the 8 off-site parking spaces.
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
4. Submission No.: A 2012-061
Applicant: Harsch and Anita Khandelwal
Property Location: 39 Susan Crescent
Legal Description: Lot 25, Plan 1787
Appearances:
In Support: A. Khandelwal
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 252 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
4. Submission No.: A 2012-061 (Cont'd)
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a rear yard
addition (sunroom) and covered unenclosed deck having a rear yard setback of 2.9m (9.52')
rather than the required 7.5m (24.61').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 10, 2012,
advising that The subject property is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the Zoning By-law and
designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The site contains an existing singled
detached dwelling.
The Owner is proposing to put an addition onto the single detached dwelling that will extend into
the rear yard. The Owner is requesting relief from Section 37.2 of the City of Kitchener By-law for
a rear yard setback of 2.9 metres whereas the By-law requires 7.5 metres.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments regarding
the requested minor variance:
The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential
designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for modest
alterations. The proposed variance will permit a reduced minimum rear yard for the proposed
addition. The minor change will maintain the low density character of the property and
surrounding neighbourhood.
The purpose of a 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well
adequate separation from neighbouring properties. Staff conducted a site visit on August 31,
2012. There is a large park space located to the rear of the subject property. It is staffs opinion
that a setback of 2.9 metres would continue to allow outdoor amenity space to be provided and
the impact on neighbouring properties is minimal.
The variance is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances will provide
adequate amenity space and will not negatively affect the adjacent properties or surrounding
neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed
residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The proposed variance will allow the
owner to build an addition to the existing single detached dwelling that will better suit the Owner's
personal needs. The scale, massing and height of the subject addition will be appropriate and
consistent with the existing single detached dwelling. The proposed variance will not impact the
existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 31, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. D. Cybalski questioned the feasibility of imposing a condition to require a plan showing that
the personal property of the applicant has been moved and delineation of the subject property
either by fencing or landscaping to provide a physical barrier, given the history of encroachment
onto the neighbouring property. Mr. Lise commented that when the neighbouring property is
developed the applicant will have no choice but to remove any personal property from the
neighbouring lands.
Ms. J. Meader advised that she could not support the proposed condition, noting that this was an
issue raised by the Region of Waterloo to which the applicant has agreed to remove their
personal property; and no harm has been caused to date. She added that this is essentially an
issue between the two property owners.
Ms. A. Khandelwal stated that she was willing to work with the owner of the adjacent property and
had originally been of the understanding that the neighbouring property was City-owned. Mr.
Cybalski pointed out that it is important to understand that it is not appropriate to encroach on a
neighbouring property regardless of whether its is private or City-owned and one must retain
personal property on their own lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 253 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
4. Submission No.: A 2012-061 (Cont'd)
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Harsch and Anita Khandelwal requesting permission to construct a rear
yard addition (sunroom) and covered unenclosed deck having a rear yard setback of 2.9m (9.52')
rather than the required 7.5m (24.61'), on Lot 25, Plan 1787, 39 Susan Crescent, Kitchener,
Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall remove their effects from the lands located east of the subject
property by June 30, 2013 and if not removed, this minor variance will become null and
void.
2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for the
proposed addition (sunroom) and covered unenclosed deck.
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 2012-062
Applicant: David Scott and Heather McKenzie
Property Location: 1834 Old Mill Road
Legal Description: Part of Biehn's Tract
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
Written Submissions
H. McKenzie
D. & J. Oleskevich
D. & J. Oleskevich
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to replace an existing
deck with a newly constructed deck having a rear yard setback of 1m (3.28') rather than the
required 7.5m (24.61') and to construct a 3.7m (12.14') x 4.8m (15.75') accessory building (shed)
having a Om front yard setback rather than the required 4.5m (14.77').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 10, 2012,
advising that the subject property is located at 1834 Old Mill Road and is developed with a single
detached dwelling and an accessory building. The lands back onto the Grand River as shown on
the Location Map above. The property is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the Zoning By-law and
is designated Open Space in the City's Official Plan.
Currently, the accessory building located east of the dwelling straddles the property line and
encroaches onto lands owned by the City and the Grand River Conservation Authority. The
applicant is proposing to rebuild the accessory building so that it is located solely on the subject
property. In order to maximize space and maintain sufficient room for vehicular turnaround on the
driveway, the applicant is proposing to rebuild the accessory building with a 0.0 metre front yard
setback rather than the required 4.5 metre setback. As such, the applicant is requesting relief
from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow an accessory building to have a front yard
setback of 0.0 metres rather than the required 4.5 metres.
In addition, the applicant has advised that the existing wrap-around deck at the rear of the
dwelling is in dire condition and needs to be replaced. The applicant is proposing to rebuild the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 254 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
5. Submission No.: A 2012-062 (Cont'dl
deck in the exact location as it currently exists with a legal non-complying rear yard setback of 1.0
metre. As such relief is being sought from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to legalize a rear
yard setback of 1.0 metre rather than the required 7.5 metre rear yard setback.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments regarding
the requested minor variance:
The subject property is designated Open Space in the Official Plan. This designation plays an
integral role in the determination of the built form of the urban area through the preservation of
both publicly and privately owned lands. The designation also recognizes existing development
and allows for minor alternations. It is staff's opinion that the proposed minor variances will
improve the current situation of the existing accessory building and deck while continuing to
maintain the integrity of the designation.
The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.5 metre front
yard setback to allow sufficient distance from the street line and to ensure the proposed building
is located outside of driveway visibility triangles thus avoiding impediments to traffic. The
proposed accessory building will not be visible from the street as the grade of the subject property
is significantly lower than the street line. As such, a 0.0 metre front yard setback seems
appropriate as it will not interfere with the typical traffic flows in the area. Transportation Planning
staff does not have concerns with the proposed variance. In addition, it is staff's opinion that the
variance request for the existing deck is appropriate and meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as
it will recognize a legal non-complying rear yard setback.
The variances are considered minor. The first requested variance will not interfere with the
functioning of the City right-of-way as the property and the street are at varying grades. The
applicant is attempting to better the current situation as the existing accessory building
encroaches onto City owned lands and lands owner by the GRCA. The second variance will
legalize the existing non-complying rear yard setback. As such, it is staff's opinion that there will
be no impacts to adjacent lands.
The requested variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the
proposed minor alterations will be compatible with the subject property and the abutting lands.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 31, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA)
Resource Planner, dated August 30, 2012, advising that they have no objections; however, the
subject property is located within a slope erosion hazard of the Grand River and is also within the
allowance to the regulated floodplain of the Grand River. The property is entirely regulated by the
GRCA and a permit will be required for any development proposed including, but not limited to,
the relocation, reconstruction or replacement of an accessory structure on this property.
Mr. D. Cybalski noted reference in the staff report to encroachment of the applicant's personal
property on lands owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and the City. He
suggested that a condition of approval be added to require all personal property to be removed
from the lands affected by encroachment.
Mr. Cybalski questioned the rationale for choosing the proposed location for the shed. Ms. H.
MacKenzie advised that they intend to locate the replacement shed entirely on their own property
but require space around the shed for parking and a turning radius for vehicles, as well as a play
area for their children. She added that the nature of the property is of a sloping grade toward the
Grand River and if pushed further back, the shed would be in too close proximity to the slope
which is eroding. She stated that they are asking to rebuild the shed as close to the existing
location as possible.
Ms. J. von Westerholt confirmed that the existing shed is over the property line on GRCA and
City-owned lands and the rebuild is moving to the left off of the encroachment to be placed
entirely onto the applicant's lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 255 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
5. Submission No.: A 2012-062 (Cont'dl
Mr. & Mrs. D. Oleskevich attended to raise concerns regarding the proposed variances, alleging
that the survey drawing submitted with the application was altered. Ms. Von Westerholt advised
that the survey drawing was altered only in respect to adding illustration of the rebuild shed to
show its proposed location on the subject lands.
Ms. MacKenzie stated that they had just purchased the home in June 2012 and wanted to make
improvements to the deck to ensure safety for themselves and their children; and to have use of a
shed which they agree should be moved onto their property but which requires sufficient space
around it.
The Oleskevich's referred to a prior fence variance application they had submitted which resulted
in restrictions on the height of their fence due to objections from the previous owner of 1834 Old
Mill Road; and also referred to other actions taken by the previous owner which they maintained
has resulted in instability of ground beneath the proposed improvements.
Ms. H. MacKenzie advised that the GRCA had inspected the property and were in support of the
proposed improvements. Ms. Oleskevich questioned who considers stability of the ground below
the decking and Ms. J. Meader advised that the GRCA will review all designs for the proposed
improvements and undertake inspections.
Mr. Oleskevich questioned the height of the proposed shed, suggesting it should not be higher
than their 3' front yard fence. Mr. Cybalski advised that fencing is regulated under a differing by-
law and is not relevant to these discussions. Ms. MacKenzie advised that they intend to rebuild
to a similar height as the existing shed. Ms. Von Westerholt added that the height of the shed
would be regulated through the Building permit process.
Ms. Oleskevich raised concerns that the proposed improvements to the deck in the rear yard may
result in further elevating the neighbouring lands above their property such that persons may be
able to step over their side yard fence in certain locations, which they had placed for reasons of
privacy. Ms. Meader advised that the applicant would require a fill permit from the GRCA which
may require the deck to be at a certain height. Mr. Cybalksi added that the GRCA is the
regulating body in respect to the concerns raised and the Oleskevich's were advised that they
could raise their concerns with the GRCA.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of David Scott and Heather McKenzie requesting permission to replace an
existing deck with a newly constructed deck having a rear yard setback of 1m (3.28') rather than
the required 7.5m (24.61') and to construct a 3.7m (12.14') x 4.8m (15.75') accessory building
(shed) having a Om front yard setback rather than the required 4.5m (14.77'), on Part of Biehn's
Tract, 1834 Old Mill Road, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain building permits from the City's Building Division for the
accessory building and the rebuilding of the existing deck.
2. That the owner shall remove their effects which encroach onto lands owned by the City of
Kitchener and the Grand River Conservation Authority situate to the east of their dwelling,
and if not removed, this minor variance will become null and void.
3. That the owner shall obtain a permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority for any
development proposed including, but not limited to, the relocation, reconstruction or
replacement of an accessory structure on the subject lands.
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
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 256 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
5. Submission No.: A 2012-062 (Cont'd)
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
6. Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
A 2012-063
Aberdeen Homes
48 & 56 River Road East
Part Lots 35 and 36, Plan 764
D. Aston
None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct two 3 storey
multi-residential units (Townhouse Blocks A and B) having a front yard setback of 2.81m (9.22')
rather than the required 4.5m (14.77') for a maximum building height of 10.5m (34.45'); a rear
yard setback of 2.5m (8.21') rather than the required 7.5m (24.61'); and a Floor Space Ratio
(FSR) of 0.53 rather than the required 0.6.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 11, 2012,
advising that the subject property is located on the east side of River Road between Victoria
Street and Frederick Street. The property currently contains two single detached dwellings, both
of which were constructed in the late 1940s. The surrounding area contains a wide range of land
uses. The property to the north contains asix-storey apartment building. The property to the
south contains athree-storey apartment building. The area to the east is composed of low
density residential land uses, including a triplex and single detached dwelling located directly to
the rear of the subject property. The opposite side of River Road contains low rise residential
land uses and commercial/business uses. Victoria Street, further to the north, contains a wide
variety of restaurant and service commercial uses. The subject property is designated Medium
Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Eight Zone (R-8 ). City Planning
staff conducted a site inspection of the property on August 17, 2012
In order to facilitate the development of a 30-unit multiple dwelling complex consisting of two 10.5
metre high buildings, the applicant is requesting three minor variances:
1. reduce the minimum front yard from 4.5 metres to 2.81 metres; and,
2. reduce the minimum rear yard from 7.5 metres to 2.5 metres; and further,
3. reduce the minimum floor space ratio from 0.6 to 0.53 (i.e., 2121.18 square metre Building
Floor Area / 3994.98 square metre Lot Area = 0.53).
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.
Variance 1 meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The minimum front yard
regulation is intended to create a safety buffer between buildings and the street and to help to
achieve astreetscape / streetwall that is somewhat consistent with the existing neighbourhood.
In this case, Transportation Services has advised that there are no concerns with the reduced
setback, safety or otherwise. Planning staff has no concerns with the streetscape effect since the
building closest to the street is proposed to be street-oriented and will have a minimum setback
that is more in-line with the existing setbacks of adjacent buildings along this portion of River
Road.
Variance 1 is minor in that it does not have any unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent
properties or the City's road right-of-way. Variance 1 is desirable for the appropriate development
of the land in that it would allow development that implements the City's planning objectives for
medium density development.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 257 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
6. Submission No.: A 2012-063 (Cont'dl
Variance 2 meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The intent of the minimum
rear yard regulation is to allow adequate amenity space for residents and to allow an adequate
buffer between abutting rear yards in order to allow for privacy, prevent visual encroachment,
reduce shadow impact, etc.
Staff notes that the concept plan provided with the application form shows an amenity space that
is central to the site. Staff is of the opinion that this central amenity space is in a more functional
and appropriate location than if located at the rear of the property and would be more accessible
to a larger number of residents. If the variance is not authorized, the size and location of the
central amenity space might become compromised.
It should be noted that the impact of the proposed setback on the adjacent properties to the rear
(which front onto Turner Avenue) would be mitigated due to the significant distance between the
rear of the dwellings fronting onto Turner Avenue and the rear lot line (approximately 40 metres)
and by the existing vegetation in the rear yards. Staff also notes that through the site plan
process, a 1.8 metre high fence would be constructed along the rear lot line and vegetation would
be installed within the rear yard.
It should further be noted that the R-8 zoning of the property would allow a 24 metre high building
(approximately 8 storeys) to be located 7.5 metres from the rear property line. Staff is of the
opinion that a 10.5 metre building (approximately 3 storeys) located 2.5 metres from the rear lot
line is much more desirable and is compatible with adjacent low rise residential development to
the rear. Overall, the variance would allow a development and built form that achieves the
desirable development.
Variance 3 meets the intent of the Official Plan as the concept plan proposes a floor space ratio
(FSR) that is less than the maximum 2.0 FSR required by the Medium Rise Residential
designation. In addition the proposed FSR is generally in-line with the minimum expectation for
FSR contemplated in this designation. Variance 3 is minor in that it does not have any
unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Variance 3 is desirable for the appropriate
development of the land in that it would allow development that implements the City's planning
objectives for medium density development.
The proposed variances do conform to the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 31, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report of the CN Rail Community Planning & Development
Manager, advising that they have no objections to this application, subject to site plan approval or
a Plan of Condominium, at which time the Railway will request an easement for operational
emission to be registered on title and appropriately included in the condominium declaration to
ensure prospective residents are aware of the proximity of railway operations.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Aberdeen Homes requesting permission to construct two 3 storey multi-
residential units (Townhouse Blocks A and B) having a front yard setback of 2.81 m (9.22') rather
than the required 4.5m (14.77') for a maximum building height of 10.5m (34.45'); a rear yard
setback of 2.5m (8.21') rather than the required 7.5m (24.61'); and a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of
0.53 rather than the required 0.6, on Part Lots 35 and 36, Plan 764, 48 and 56 River Road East,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain building permit(s) from the City's Building Division and site
plan approval for construction of the two multi-storey residential units which shall be
substantially similar to the multiple dwellings shown in the drawing submitted with Minor
Variance Application, Submission No. A 2012-063, as prepared by MHBC Planning dated
June 25, 2012, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning, no later than
September 18, 2014.
It is the opinion of this Committee that
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 258 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
6. Submission No.: A 2012-063 (Cont'd)
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
CONSENT
Submission No.: B 2012-027
Applicant: John and Cherie Sajkunovic
Property Location: 196 & 198 Avalon Place
Legal Description: Part Lot 31, Plan 785
Appearances:
In Support: K. Sajkunovic
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
so each half of a 2 storey semi-detached duplex can be dealt with separately. The severed lands
will have frontage on Avalon Place of 9.320m (30.58'), by a depth of 34.297m (112.53') and an
area of 319.4m2 (3,438.11 sq.ft.). The retained lands will have frontage on Avalon Place of
9.319m (30.58'), by a depth of 34.297m (112.53') and an area of 319.7m2 (3,441.34 sq.ft.).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 10, 2012,
advising that the property municipally addressed as 196-198 Avalon Place. Asemi-detached
dwelling is currently under construction on the property. The surrounding area is comprised
mainly of single detached and semi-detached dwellings.
The current property is 639.1 square metres in area with 18.64 metres of frontage on Avalon
Place and a lot depth of approximately 34 metres.
The applicant is requesting consent to sever the lot in half (i.e., along the common wall of the
semi-detached dwelling) in order to allow separate ownership of each semi-detached dwelling
unit.
The application proposes to sever a 319.4 square metre lot with a 9.320 metre lot width and a
34.2 metre lot depth. The proposed retained lot is 319.7 square metres in area with a 9.319
metre lot width and an approximate lot depth of 34.2 metres. The proposed severance would
have the effect of allowing individual ownership of each semi-detached house.
The property is designated Low Rise Residential and is zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6 ). An
analysis of the sketch provided with the application demonstrates that both severed and retained
lots would comply with the Zoning By-law.
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 and that the configuration of the proposed lots can be considered
appropriate for the use of the lands. 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.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community
Services, dated September 7, 2012, advising that they have no objection to the proposed
application, subject to the following condition:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 259 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
1. Submission No.: B 2012-027 (Cont'dl
1. That prior to final approval, the owner/developer submits a Transportation Noise Study to
assess noise levels and indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be
used to abate traffic noise levels from Highway 7/8, or alternatively, because the
residential building is existing on site, in lieu of a Transportation Noise Study, the
owner/developer shall enter into a registered development agreement with the City of
Kitchener, prior to final approval, to include the following noise warning clause in all offers
of purchase /sale or rental agreements for both the severed and retained lots:
"Due to the proximity to Highway 7/8, projected noise levels on this property may
exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
and may cause concern to some individuals".
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of John and Cherie Sajkunovic requesting permission to sever a parcel of
land having frontage on Avalon Place of 9.320m (30.58'), by a depth of 34.297m (112.53') and an
area of 319.4m2 (3,438.11 sq.ft.), on Part Lot 31, Plan 785, 196-198 Avalon Place, 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 land
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed, to the satisfaction of the
City's Director of Operations; which based on current standards, cash-in-lieu contributions
are calculated as follows: 9.32 metres x $9,200 per metre of frontage x 0.05 = $4,287.20
(note that this calculation is subject to changes in the parkland policies).
4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
5. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping
including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands.
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.
7. That the owner shall prepare and receive approval of a Site Servicing Plan showing outlets
to the municipal servicing system, including storm water design sheets, to the satisfaction
of the City's Engineering Services.
8. That the owner shall prepare and receive approval of the Development and
Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form, along with a digital submission of all
AutoCad drawings required for the site with the corresponding correct layer names and
numbering system to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, as per the Public
Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150.
9. That in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, a certificate of
approval for sewage works is required by the Ministry of Environment for the extension of
the municipal storm sewer to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering, prior to final
approval of the severance.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 260 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
Submission No.: B 2012-027 (Cont'd
10. That prior to final approval of the severance, the owner/developer shall submit a
Transportation Noise Study to assess noise levels and indicate to the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo methods to be used to abate traffic noise levels from Highway 7/8;
or alternatively, because the residential building is existing on site, in lieu of a
Transportation Noise Study, the owner/developer may enter into a registered development
agreement with the City of Kitchener, prior to final approval of the severance, to include
the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale or rental agreements for
both the severed and retained lots:
`Due to the proximity to Highway 7/8, projected noise levels on this property may
exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
and may cause concern to some individuals".
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
apse two years from the date of approval, being September 18, 2014.
COMBINED APPLICATIONS
Submission Nos.: B 2012-028 & A 2012-064
Applicant: Carslake and Sons Ltd.
Property Location: 1535 Strasburg Road
Legal Description: Part Lot 3, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1478, Part of Bechtel's Tract
Appearances:
In Support: G. Carslake
N. Bogaert
S. Strongman
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
for future development under the existing Business Park (B1) Zone, having frontage on Strasburg
Road of 46.92m (153.94'), a depth of 50.51 m (165.72`) and an area of 2,002m2 (21,550.06 sq.ft).
The severed lands will be subject to a 10m (32.81') x 50.51m (165.72') easement in favour of the
retained lands for right-of-way /access and both the severed and retained lands will be subject to
a blanket easement for surface drainage. The retained land will have frontage on Strasburg Road
of 42.91m (140.78`), by a depth of 59.684m (195.82`) and an area of 2,377m2 (25,586.66 sq.ft).
The retained land will also require a variance to provide 12 off-street parking spaces rather than
the required 16 spaces for an existing motor vehicle service, repair and detailing business.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 10, 2012, the
subject property is located on the east side of Strasburg Road between Trillium Drive and Battler
Road in the Huron Park Business Park. The surrounding area is comprised of a variety of
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 261 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
1. Submission Nos.: B 2012-028 & A 2012-064 (Cont'd
commercial and industrial uses. The current property is 4379 square metres in area with 89.83
metres of frontage on Strasburg Road and a lot depth ranging from approximately 50 to 60
metres. The current property is subject to an existing site plan agreement.
The applicant is requesting consent to sever the lot in half in order to create a new developable
lot. The application proposes to sever a 2002 square metre lot with a 46.92 metre lot width and
an approximate lot depth of 50.51 metres. The proposed retained lot is 2377 square metres in
area with a 42.91 metre lot width and an approximate lot depth of 59.68 metres. The proposed
severance would have the effect of creating a new developable lot.
The property is designated Business Park in the Official Plan and zoned Business Park (B1) with
special regulation 1R in Zoning By-law 85-1. An analysis of the sketch provided with the
application demonstrates that the severed lands will comply with the Zoning By-law; however, the
applicant is seeking a variance for parking on the retained lands.
As a result, the applicant is requesting the following variance for the retained lands:
i. Relief from Section 6.1.2.a) of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a total of 12 parking spaces
whereas 16 parking spaces are required.
Transportation Services has advised that 4 additional parking spaces can be accommodated on
site. The applicant has advised that 4 additional parking spaces may be accommodated on site;
however, their provision may create other issues. The provision of additional spaces may require
an expansion of the proposed paved area towards the steep slopes at the rear of the property
that are regulated by the GRCA in order to provide adequate space for trucks to enter and exit
the site in a forward motion. Furthermore, the provision of additional parking spaces may
decrease or eliminate the functionality of the existing service bay doors.
Consent and Easement Considerations:
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 uses of the severed and retained
lots are in conformity with the Official Plan and are permitted in Zoning By-law 85-1. Planning staff
is of the opinion that the dimensions and shapes of the severed and retained lots are appropriate
and suitable for the existing use and are compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area.
Planning staff notes that the severed and retained lots front on an established public street.
Planning staff also notes that the retained lot is fully serviced and that highways, utilities and
municipal services are available and adequate for the severed lot.
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 satisfied that the creation of the easement is required to
facilitate safe access to both the retained and severed lands.
With respect to provincial policies and plans, planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed
severance and easement are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 and conforms
to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006.
Minor Variance Considerations:
Requested Parking Variance for the Retained Lands
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments:
The requested variance to permit a reduced number of parking spaces meets the intent of the
Official Plan. The Business Park land use designation caters to the needs of technical and/or
scientific businesses as well as office, commercial and service uses not permitted in other
industrial areas. The intent of the Business Park land use designation is to concentrate specific
uses in planned locations. The existing motor vehicle service business and the proposed
tradesman/contractor business are a permitted uses.
The requested variance to permit a reduced number of parking spaces meets the intent of the
Zoning By-law. The reduced number of parking spaces will result in a total of 12 parking spaces.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 262 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
1. Submission Nos.: B 2012-028 & A 2012-064 (Cont'd)
The intent of regulating the number of parking spaces is to ensure that an adequate supply of
parking is provided on site for the use of the building and property. Aerial photographs and a site
visit revealed that the existing motor vehicle service business is not using 16 parking spaces.
Furthermore, the proposed tradesman/contractor business only requires 12 parking spaces.
Planning staff has also reviewed other parking regulations within the B1 zone. Generally, the
most restrictive parking regulation is 1 space per 28 square metres of gross floor area, which
equates to 12 parking spaces based on the size of the existing building. The requested variance
will provide 12 parking spaces.
The requested variance is considered minor because the existing and proposed uses are
permitted in the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. In addition, the variance is considered
minor because the existing business is not using 16 spaces and the proposed business only
requires 12 parking spaces. As a result, the variance will not negatively impact the surrounding
business park.
The requested variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land because the
existing business is not using the required spaces and the proposed business only requires 12
spaces.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 31, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with Submission No. A 2012-064.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated
September 7, 2012, advising that they have no objection to Submission No. B 2012-028.
The Committee considered the report from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA)
Resource Planner, dated August 31, 2012, advising that they have no objections; however, the
subject property contains steep river valley slopes and is within the regulated allowance of the
floodplain of Strasburg Creek. As such, the Grand River Conservation Authority regulates a
portion of this property through Ontario Regulation 150/06. At the time of development of the
severed parcel an Environmental Impact Study may be required to justify the proximity of the new
development adjacent to Strasburg Creek. At that time, an appropriate site plan will need to be
submitted that demonstrates no negative impacts to the creek.
Submission No. B 2012-028
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Carslake and Sons Ltd. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land for
future development under the existing Business Park (B1) Zone, having frontage on Strasburg
Road of 46.92m (153.94'), a depth of 50.51m (165.72`) and an area of 2,002m2 (21,550.06 sq.ft),
subject to a 10m (32.81') x 50.51m (165.72') right-of-way for access in favour of the retained
lands and a blanket easement for surface drainage over both the severed and retained parcels,
on Part Lot 3, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1478, Part of Bechtel's Tract, 1535 Strasburg Road,
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 Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A2012-064, receive final approval.
4. That the owner shall apply for and receive final approval of a minor change to an approved
site plan to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 263 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
1. Submission Nos.: B 2012-028 & A 2012-064 (Cont'd)
Submission No. B 2012-028 (cont'd)
5. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands and/or retained lands.
6. That any redundant driveways shall be closed with new curb and gutter and boulevard
landscaping, all to City of Kitchener standards.
7. That the owner shall submit a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing
system along with the sanitary and storm sewer design sheets, to the satisfaction of the
City's Engineering Services. The owner shall ensure that the basement elevation of the
buildings can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the
owner shall be required to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line
and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street, to the satisfaction of the
City's Engineering Services.
8. That the owner shall complete and submit a Development and Reconstruction As-
Recorded Tracking Form as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 for
the development along with a digital submission of all AutoCad drawings required for the
site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names, and numbering
system to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services.
9. That a draft reference plan showing the proposed right-of-way for access /easement be
approved by the City's Director of Planning.
10. 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-
way for access /easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be
registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s).
11. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s)
and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, shall be provided
to the City Solicitor.
12. That the City Solicitor shall be provided 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 September 18, 2014.
Submission No. A 2012-064
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 264 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
Submission Nos.: B 2012-028 & A 2012-064 (Cont'd)
Submission No. A 2012-064 (cont'd)
That the application of Carslake and Sons Ltd. requesting permission to provide 12 off-street
parking spaces rather than the required 16 spaces for an existing motor vehicle service, repair
and detailing business on Part Lot 3, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1478, Part of Bechtel's Tract,
1535 Strasburg Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
2. Submission Nos.: B 2012-029 & A 2012-065
Applicant: Karoline Varin-Jarkowski and Miroslav Jarkowski
Property Location: 97 and 101 Park Street
Legal Description: Part Lots 10 and 11, Plan 439, designated as Parts 1, 2 & 3 on
Reference Plan 58R-11473
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
Written Submissions
K. Varin-Jarkowski
None
None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
so each part may be dealt with separately. The severed lands will have frontage on Park Street
of 12.429m (40.78'), by a depth of 30.681m (100.66') and an area of 381.3m (4,104.42 sq.ft.)
which will continue to be used as a duplex residential dwelling. The retained lands will have
frontage on Park Street of 12.198m (40.02'), by a depth of 48.481m (159.06') and an area of
812.3m2 (8,743.81 sq.ft.) which will continue to be used as a mixed use residential dwelling /
upholstery business. The retained lands will also require variances to permit a minimum lot width
of 12.2m (40.03') rather than the required 15m (49.22'); zero loading spaces rather than the
required 1 loading space; and a minimum landscaped area of 4% rather than the required 10%.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 10, 2012, the
subject property is located on the east side of Park Street between Victoria Street South and the
CNR rail line. The property is comprised of two former lots individually addressed as 97 Park
Street and 101 Park Street. 97 Park Street is a duplex. 101 Park Street is a craftsman shop
(upholstery business) with one dwelling unit on the second floor.
The applicant has advised that the properties were registered under different titles at the time of
the purchase. The properties have since been registered in the same name resulting in the
properties merging on title. The applicant was not aware that the properties had merged on title
until they were advised by their financer earlier this year. The financer has a policy that they
cannot fund merged registrations. As a result, in order to re-finance the properties, the applicant
requires consent to sever the property back into the original two lots, which was the situation until
the titles were merged.
In addition to the application for consent to sever, the applicant is requesting the following for the
retained lands:
Relief from Section 53.2.1 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a lot width of 12.2 metres
whereas 15.0 metres is required; and,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 265 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
2. Submission Nos.: B 2012-029 & A 2012-065 (Cont'd
ii. Relief from Section 6.2.2 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit 0 loading spaces whereas 1
loading space is required; and further,
iii. Relief from Section 53.2.1 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit 4% landscaped area
whereas 10% landscaped area is required.
The applicant is seeking relief from the By-law in order to legalize existing conditions.
During the site visit planning and transportation staff noticed that the original driveway for 101
Park Street no longer leads to the rear yard as a fence has been constructed at the rear of the
two-storey brick building blocking access to the parking in the rear yard (See Figure 1). Access to
the parking in the rear yard of 97 Park Street and 101 Park Street is gained from the driveway
located between the two buildings. The driveway located between the two buildings is partly
located on the proposed severed and retained lands. Transportation staff has advised that their
preference is to see the existing access maintained. In order to maintain the existing access over
the proposed severed and retained lands, the applicant will require aright-of-way easement. The
applicant has been advised and has agreed to amend their application to clarify the type and
purpose of the proposed transaction to include an easement/right-of-way. As such, planning staff
recommends that the request to sever the property be amended to include aright-of-way
easement to ensure adequate access to parking in the rear yard of the proposed severed and
retained lands.
During the site visit planning staff also noticed that the retained lands are adequately sized to
provide the minimum landscaped area (10% of lot area) and loading (1 space) as required in
Zoning By-law 85-1.
Consent and Easement Considerations:
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 uses of the severed and retained
lots are in conformity with the Official Plan and are permitted in Zoning By-law 85-1. Although the
retained lands are deficient in lot width, planning staff is of the opinion that the dimensions and
shapes of the severed and retained lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and are
compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. Planning staff notes that the severed and
retained lots front on an established public street and are fully serviced.
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 satisfied that the creation of the easement is required to
facilitate suitable access to the parking in the rear of 97 Park Street and 101 Park Street. The
proposed easement is appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and will formalize the
existing access that has functioned in this manner for at least 15 years.
With respect to provincial policies and plans, planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed
severance and easement are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 and conforms
to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006.
Minor Variance Considerations
Reauested Lot Width Variance for the Retained Lands (101 Park Street
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 to permit a reduced lot width meets the intent of the Official Plan. The
Mixed Use Corridor land use designation recognizes the evolution of uses along major corridors
in the inner city. The intent of the Mixed Use Corridor land use designation is to over time
encourage intensification and the provision of a balanced distribution of commercial and
residential uses through lot consolidation and redevelopment. The existing craftsman shop
(upholstery business) with one dwelling unit on the second floor is a permitted use. The buildings
and uses have existed on the property since 1978 (34 years).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 266 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
2. Submission Nos.: B 2012-029 & A 2012-065 (Cont'd)
The requested variance to permit a reduced lot width meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The
reduced lot width will result in a lot width of 12.2 metres. The intent of the 15.0 metre lot width is:
(i) to ensure that the property is adequately sized to accommodate a building and associated
physical site features (e.g. driveway, parking, loading, landscaping, etc.); and, (ii) to ensure that
the layout of buildings and associated physical site features function adequately. The existing
craftsman shop (upholstery business) with one dwelling unit on the second floor is a permitted
use. The buildings and uses have existed on the property since 1978 (34 years).
The requested variance is considered minor because a balanced distribution of commercial and
residential uses are permitted in the City's Official Plan; a craftsman shop (upholstery business)
with one dwelling unit on the second floor is permitted in the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-
law; the proposed lot width is adequately sized for the existing building use and associated
physical site features; the proposed lot width is consistent with properties on Park Street; and, the
proposed lot width re-establishes the same lot width that existed prior to the property merging on
title. As a result, the variance 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 permitted craftsman shop (upholstery business) and dwelling unit
to continue operations with a lot width that is consistent with the neighbourhood.
Requested Landscaped Area and Loading Variance for the Retained Lands (101 Park Street)
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 to permit a reduced landscape area and no loading space does not meet
the intent of the Official Plan. The Official Plan contains a number of policies relating to site
design. The intent of the site design policies is to ensure that the lands can function appropriately
and not adversely impact adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate landscaped area
on site and an appropriate loading space on site. In addition, the intent of providing an
appropriate landscaped area is to achieve a number of different objectives, including minimizing
visual impact of parking from adjacent properties. The 4% landscaped area currently provided on
site is not appropriate for the size of the site and is not established in a location that minimizes the
visual impact of parking from adjacent properties. With respect to the need for a loading space,
the applicant has advised that the current business receives daily deliveries by cargo van, weekly
deliveries by small truck (e.g.Canpar or UPS truck), and bi-monthly deliveries by large truck. The
provision of no loading space on site is not appropriate based on the number and type of
deliveries received on site.
The requested variance to permit a reduced landscape area and no loading space does meet the
intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the landscaped area regulations is to provide an
attractive streetscape as well as to provide a buffer from parking to adjacent properties. The
landscaped area currently provided on site is a patio along the street with no buffer from parking
to adjacent properties. The intent of the loading space regulation is to provide adequate ingress,
loading area and egress to a site for delivery vehicles so that these vehicles do not stop on the
street. The current business receives daily, weekly and bi-monthly deliveries that require a
loading space. Furthermore, staff is of the opinion that the minimum 10% landscaped area and
the 1 required loading space can be accommodated on site.
As the requested variance to permit a reduced landscaped area and no loading space does not
maintain the intent of the Official Plan or zoning regulations, staff does not consider the variance
to be minor.
The requested variances are not appropriate for the development and use of the land because
the requested variances do not meet the intent of the Official Plan or the Zoning By-law and are
not minor. Furthermore, the minimum 10% landscaped area and the 1 required loading space
can be accommodated on site.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 31, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with Submission No. A 2012-065.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 267 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
2. Submission Nos.: B 2012-029 & A 2012-065 (Cont'd)
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated
September 7, 2012, advising that they have no objection to Submission No. B 2012-029, subject
to the following condition:
That prior to final approval, the owner/developer submits a Transportation Noise Study to
assess noise levels and indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be
used to abate traffic noise levels from Victoria Street South (Regional Road No. 55) and
the adjacent Canadian National Rail Line or alternatively, because the residential building
is existing on site and there are intervening land uses between the proposed new lots and
noise sources, in lieu of a Transportation Noise Study, the owner/applicant may enter into
a registered development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, prior to
final approval, to include the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale or
rental agreements for both the severed and retained lots:
"Due to the proximity to Victoria Street South (Regional Road No. 55), projected noise
levels on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals".
"Due to its proximity to the Canadian National Railway, projected noise levels on this
property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and may cause concern
to some individuals."
"Warning: Purchasers or tenants are to be advised that Canadian National Railway or
its successors or assigns have an operating right-of-way within 300 metres from the
land subject hereof and there may be alterations to the right-of-way, including the
possibility that the Railway may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the
living environment of the residents notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and
vibration attenuating measures in the design of the subdivision and individual Units,
and that the Railway will not be responsible for complaints or claims arising from use of
its facilities and/or operations".
Ms. K. Varin-Jarkowski raised concerns with staffs opinion that the minimum 10% landscaping
could be accommodated on site. She noted that it was suggested that a strip of land in the front
yard, in front of the parking area, could be used to achieve the required percentage; but noted
that parking is accessed between the two buildings which is divided by fencing and in order to
provide the front yard landscaping they would have to remove existing asphalt. As well, she
raised concerns with respect to the impact of snow removal to the front landscaped area, and the
difficulty it may present in backing out of the parking area. She stated that she was open to
suggestions but would prefer to landscape only the area to the back of the property and not the
strip of land in front of the parking area. She pointed out that the property is a business and there
would be some landscaping in front of the building to provide a professional looking environment.
Mr. D. Cybalski noted that placing snow on the landscaped area in the front would actually help to
infiltrate moisture back into the ground which is not the case with asphalt. Ms. Varin-Jarkowski
questioned how they would finish the front yard landscaping to delineate same from the asphalt.
Ms. Von Westerholt advised that the applicant would be required to submit a landscaping design
to be approved by the City.
Ms. Varin-Jarkowski stated that they had no concerns with providing the loading space at the rear
of the property where an existing small shed could be removed to provide the space needed. She
questioned, however, the comments of Traffic staff concerning the business identification sign.
Ms. Von Westerholt clarified that the sign may remain on the City's right-of-way; however, if the
City has to undertake any future works in the right-of-way, the City may remove and relocate the
sign to accommodate the works; and the cost of the sign removal /relocation would be at the
owners' expense. Ms. Varin-Jarkowski also raised concerns regarding the Region of Waterloo's
condition concerning a Noise Study, noting that the railway track has existed in its current location
for many years. Mr. Cybalski clarified that the Region's condition provides for either a Noise
Study or alternatively, for the applicant to enter into an agreement to provide a warning clause in
any future agreements of purchase and sale; and the agreement with the Region would be
registered on title of the subject lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 268 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
2. Submission Nos.: B 2012-029 & A 2012-065 (Cont'd)
Mr. Cybalski noted that an easement for aright-of-way for purpose of access between the two
properties is required and asked if Ms. Varin-Jarkowski was agreeable to amending the
application to provide for the easement. Ms. Varin-Jarkowski concurred with the proposed
amendment to the application.
Submission No. B 2012-029
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Miroslav Jarkowski and Karoline Varin-Jarkowski requesting permission to
sever a parcel of land having frontage on Park Street of 12.429m (40.78'), by a depth of 30.681m
(100.66') and an area of 381.3m2 (4,104.42 sq.ft.), subject to an easement over both the severed
and retained lands in favour of each other to establish aright-of-way for access, on Part Lots 10
and 11, Plan 439, designated as Parts 1, 2 and 3 on Reference Plan 58R-11473, 97 and 101
Park 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 Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A2012-065, shall receive final approval.
4. That a draft reference plan showing the proposed right-of-way for access /easement shall
be approved by the City's Director of Planning.
5. 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-
way for access /easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be
registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s).
6. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s)
and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, shall be provided
to the City Solicitor.
7. That the City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s)
and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
8. That prior to final approval of the severance, the owner/developer shall submit a
Transportation Noise Study to assess noise levels and indicate to the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo methods to be used to abate traffic noise levels from Victoria
Street South (Regional Road No. 55) and the adjacent Canadian National Rail Line; or
alternatively, because the residential building is existing on site and there are intervening
land uses between the proposed new lots and noise sources, in lieu of a Transportation
Noise Study, the owner/applicant may enter into a registered development agreement with
the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, prior to final approval, of the severance to include
the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale or rental agreements for
both the severed and retained lots:
a. "Due to the proximity to Victoria Street South (Regional Road No. 55), projected noise
levels on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals".
b. "Due to its proximity to the Canadian National Railway, projected noise levels on this
property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and may cause concern
to some individuals."
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 269 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
2. Submission Nos.: B 2012-029 & A 2012-065 (Cont'd)
Submission No. B 2012-029 (cont'd)
c. `Warning: Purchasers or tenants are to be advised that Canadian National Railway or
its successors or assigns have an operating right-of-way within 300 metres from the
land subject hereof and there may be alterations to the right-of-way, including the
possibility that the Railway may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the
living environment of the residents notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and
vibration attenuating measures in the design of the subdivision and individual Units,
and that the Railway will not be responsible for complaints or claims arising from use of
its facilities and/or operations".
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being September 18, 2014.
Submission No. A 2012-065
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That part of the application of Miroslav Jarkowski and Karoline Varin-Jarkowski requesting
permission to provide a minimum lot width of 12.2m (40.03') rather than the required 15m
(49.22'), on Part Lot 11, Plan 439, designated as Parts 2 & 3 on Reference Plan 58R-11473, 101
Park Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That a scaled functional parking plan showing the location of driveways, required parking
and required loading shall be submitted to the satisfaction of Transportation Planning.
2. That a scaled landscape plan showing the required landscaped area for the lot shall be
submitted to the satisfaction of the City's Planning Division.
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.
-and-
That part of the application of Miroslav Jarkowski and Karoline Varin-Jarkowski requesting
permission to provide zero loading spaces rather than the minimum 1 loading space required and
a minimum landscaped area of 4% rather than the minimum 10% required, on Part Lot 11, Plan
439, designated as Parts 2 & 3 on Reference Plan 58R-11473, 101 Park Street, Kitchener,
Ontario, BE REFUSED.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 270 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
2. Submission Nos.: B 2012-029 & A 2012-065 (Cont'd)
Submission No. A 2012-065 (cont'd)
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variances requested in this part of the application are considered unnecessary as the
minimum 10% landscaped area and the minimum of 1 loading space required can be
accommodated on the subject property.
2. This part of the application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the
property.
3. This part of the application does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the City of
Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan on the subject property.
Carried
CHANGE OF CONDITIONS -PROVISIONAL CONSENT
Submission No.: CC 2012-005
Applicant: Ian Carter and Gary Maister
Property Location: 700 Strasburg Road
Legal Description: Part Block A, Registered Plan 1416, designated as Part 1 on
Reference Plan 58R-2575
Appearances:
In Support: I. Carter
S. Patterson
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant requests a change in conditions for provisional
consent B 2012-018 to remove Condition No. 5 requiring the severed lands to be added to the
abutting lands to the west known as 5 Rittenhouse Road and title taken in identical ownership;
and to remove Condition No.6 requiring a Solicitor's Undertaking, satisfactory to the City's
Solicitor, to register an Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following registration of the
severance deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 10, 2012, the
Associated Consent Application B2012-018 was heard at the Committee of Adjustment meeting
of June 19, 2012 and was approved by the Committee subject to certain conditions. The
applicant is now requesting a change to the previously approved conditions through the subject
application, as described in the below report.
The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Strasburg Road and Block Line Road
and contains a commercial plaza (Forest Glen Plaza). Low rise residential development is
located on the opposite side of Block Line Road while a townhouse development is located to the
south. The subject property is split zoned, with the majority of the property, including that portion
containing the plaza building, being zoned C-3, 9R. The other portion of the property which is
vacant and located between the plaza and the vacant lot at the corner of Rittenhouse Road and
Block Line Road is zoned R-9, 342U. The subject property is designated Mixed Use Node in the
City's Official Plan. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on June 8,
2012.
The property possesses approximately 265 metres of frontage on Block Line Road,
approximately 340 metres of frontage on Strasburg Road, and is approximately 7.5 hectares
(75,000 square metres) in area.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 271 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
1. Submission No.: CC 2012-005 (Cont'd)
Through Consent Application B2012-018, submitted in June 2012, the applicant requested
consent to sever a parcel of land with frontage on Block Line Road, with a width of approximately
59.0 metres, a depth ranging between 72.7 metres and 91.1 metres, and an area of
approximately 0.5 hectares (4791.2 square metres).
The Committee of Adjustment at the meeting held on June 19, 2012, approved the consent
application subject to seven conditions, including the following two:
5. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands to the west known as 5
Rittenhouse Road (at the south east intersection of Rittenhouse Road and Block Line
Road) and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for
endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed
shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as
amended.
6. That the owner's Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an Application
Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and
prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application
Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration.
Through the subject application, the owner is requesting to change the two above noted
conditions, by deleting them completely. The owner has verbally stated that the reason for the
request is to arrange for viable financing. Staff has carefully considered the implications of
deleting these conditions.
The cover letter provided with the original application states that the owner/applicant has entered
into an agreement of purchase and sale with the owner of the lands addressed as 5 Rittenhouse
Road, located immediately to the west of the severed lands, at the corner of Rittenhouse Road
and Block Line Road.
Earlier this summer, staff conducted a site plan pre-submission consultation meeting with the
purchaser of these lands regarding a proposal to develop two medium density multiple dwellings
on 5 Rittenhouse Road with associated parking located on the severed lands. Generally, staff
does not object to the development concept plan.
The intent of the above noted consent conditions is to ensure that the severed lands are placed
into the same title as 5 Rittenhouse Road, thereby prohibiting independent conveyance of either
parcel. These conditions would prevent the lot with the multiple dwellings to be sold separately
from the lot containing the associated parking.
While staff is adamant that a mechanism is necessary to tie or merge these parcels together, no
formal site plan application has been submitted at the writing of this report. In this regard, staff is
of the opinion that if the parcels are proposed to be developed comprehensively in the future
through a site plan application, that conditions to tie or merge the parcels together should be
imposed at that time. Staff has confirmed that such a mechanism may be implemented at the
time of the site plan application and; therefore, these conditions are not necessary at this time.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community
Services dated September 7, 2012, advising that they have no objection to the proposed change
of Conditions 5 and 6 of application B2012-18 decision. Regional comments dated June 7, 2012
still remain applicable.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Forest Glen Inc. requesting permission to change the conditions of
provisional consent B 2012-018, on Part Block A, Registered Plan 1416, designated as Part 1 on
Reference Plan 58R-2575, 700 Strasburg Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, such that
only the following conditions shall apply to provisional consent B 2012-018:
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 272 - SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
1. Submission No.: CC 2012-005 (Cont'd
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 severance of any blocks within the subject lands shall have separate, individual
service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies, to the
satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services.
4. That the owner shall obtain approval of a site plan revision for 700 Strasburg Road, in the
form of a site plan revision, and shall pay all applicable fees related to the revision to the
satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service.
5. That the owner/developer shall submit a traffic and stationary noise study to assess noise
levels and indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be used to abate
traffic noise levels from Block Line Road and any stationary noise from the adjacent
commercial plaza. If necessary, the owner/developer shall enter into a registered
agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for the implementation of the approved
study. Transportation Noise Studies shall be completed as per Regional Guideline
"Regional Municipality of Waterloo Implementation Guideline for Noise Policies" dated July
14, 1999 and the Noise Consultant must be on the Region's pre-approved list. The
Region requires 4 copies complete with a signed Consultant's Declaration and Owner's
Statement; or alternatively,
That the owner/developer shall enter into a registered development agreement with the
City of Kitchener to agree that prior to site plan approval, a traffic and stationary noise
assessment will be submitted to and reviewed by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
and the owner/developer shall be required to enter into a registered development
agreement (if necessary) with the City of Kitchener to implement any recommendations.
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
apse two years from the date of approval, being September 18, 2014.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 18t" day of September, 2012.
Janet Billett, AMCT
Acting Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment