Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2012-11-20COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 20, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. A. Head, A. Lise and B. McColl. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. B. Bateman, Senior Planner, Mr. G. Stevenson, Senior Planner, Mr. A. Pinnell, Senior Planner, Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking Analyst, Mr. D. Pimentel, Traffic Technologist; Ms. J. Billett, Acting Secretary-Treasurer, and Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk. Mr. A. Head, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held October 16, 2012, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2012-069 Applicant: 2276451 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 689 Doon Village Road Legal Description: Part Lot 6, Biehns Tract, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-1026 Appearances: In Support: S. Litt T. McKillican K. Muir A. Teeple A. Overing Contra: B. & E. Churchill S. & W. Krofchick Written Submissions: K. Muir, GSP Group The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 17 unit multi-residential condominium development having a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.9 rather than 0.6, which will allow third floor space to be finished to provide improved diversity of unit layouts. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated November 8, 2012, advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 689 Doon Village Road and is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Pioneer Drive and Doon Village Road. The property is zoned Residential Six (R-6) in the City's Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. In November 2011, the Committee of Adjustment approved minor variance application A2011- 060 granting relief from Section 40.6 the Zoning By-law to permit a front yard setback of 4.0 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required, granting relief for a side yard abutting a street setback of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 287 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Submission No.: A 2012-069 (Cont'd 0.0 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required, and granting relief from Section 6.1.1.1.a.iv the Zoning By-law to permit abarrier-free parking space within 0.0 metres of a municipal road right- of-way (ROW) whereas 3.0 metres is required. The owner of 689 Doon Village Road has obtained final site plan approval to construct a three storey, seventeen unit multiple dwelling building with a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.6, in conformity with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. FSR means the figure obtained when the building floor area on a lot is divided by the lot area. The building is currently under construction and features an attic space that is unfinished and does not have any finished floor area. The attic space was not included in the calculation for FSR. The approved building features 16 one bedroom units and 1 three bedroom unit. The owner is now proposing to expand the 6 one bedroom units on the third floor into larger, 2 storey three bedroom units, with the second storey of each unit being located within the attic space. As proposed, the building make up would include 10 one bedroom and 7 three bedroom units. There are no changes to the exterior of the building or the site and the total number of dwelling units is not changing. In order to develop the attic space, the owner must obtain permission to exceed the maximum FSR of 0.6 in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Relief is being sought from section 40.6 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a multiple dwelling building with an FSR of 0.9 whereas the maximum FSR permitted is 0.6. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments pertaining to the proposed FSR: The requested variance does not meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential district limits the maximum FSR to 0.6 for multiple dwellings. Additionally, the OP states that multiple dwellings in the Low Rise Residential district are to be a maximum of three stories at street elevation. The policies in the Official Plan are intended to control the massing and scale of multiple dwelling buildings and to maintain an overall low residential density while still providing a variety of dwelling types. The building was unconventionally constructed with a large attic space which is considered as an architectural feature. The top side of the third floor ceiling (proposed fourth floor) is unfinished. As there is technically no building floor area on the proposed fourth floor, the attic space was not included in the calculation for FSR. The attic is not considered as a storey either. The owner was required to install windows in the attic space to enhance the architectural appearance of the building and to improve the appearance of the mansard roof. The current building is technically only three stories, although it appears to resemble a four storey building. Although there are no physical changes to the building proposed, the policies in the Plan are clear. The habitation of the fourth floor would increase the total floor area, resulting in a FSR of 0.9. The fourth floor would also mean that the building would be four stories at street elevation (Pioneer Drive). Albeit somewhat unusual, the proposed interior changes will result in a building that does not meet the general intent of the policies of the OP. It is Planning staffs opinion that the proposed minor variance is not the appropriate method to resolve the outstanding OP conformity issues as the general intent of the OP policies is not met. The Committee of Adjustment cannot provide relief from the Official Plan through a minor variance application as the Committee has no authority under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act to do so. Staff recommends that the owner pursue an Official Plan Amendment to obtain the appropriate permission for the additional FSR for the proposed four storey building. The requested variance does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the FSR regulation in the By-law is to control the massing of the building. As discussed above, the unconventional construction method afforded the owner the ability to construct the building with a large attic -making the building appear larger from public view. The building's current total floor area is permitted under the zoning. However, the exterior appearance of the size and massing of the building resembles a building that exceeds the zoning FSR regulation meant to control massing. Although the building design technically meets the zoning regulation, the intent of the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 288 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Submission No.: A 2012-069 (Cont'd FSR regulation is not met. Planning staff recommends that the owner pursue a zone change application to request a special regulation for the increased FSR in the Zoning By-law in conjunction with the Official Plan amendment. The requested variance is minor as the application seeks to legalize the existing building and only interior changes are proposed. There are no additional dwelling units proposed and the conversion of the attic to habitable spaces will allow for a variety of dwelling unit type in the building. The variance is not appropriate for the development of the land. The requested variance would allow relief from the Zoning By-law but does not address the policies in the Official Plan. It is Planning staff's opinion that as per Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, the appropriate process for the owner to peruse to facilitate the proposed attic development is to apply for, and obtain approval of, an Official Plan amendment as well as a Zone Change application. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated November 1, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. S. Litt, applicant, advised that a previous minor variance application was considered by the Committee in November 2011 requesting approval of front and side yard reductions. He advised that since then, site plan approval and issuance of a building permit has occurred and the building construction is primarily finished. The building is a multi-unit structure with a total of 17 units of which the majority are one bedroom and is located at a high traffic intersection, at Doon Village Road and Pioneer Drive, and on a bus route. He stated that the design of the building goes above and beyond in respect to quality of construction and energy efficiency, and the requested variance does not in any way increase density. The objective is to convert the upper storey 1 bedroom units to 3 bedroom units by finishing the attic space which he is basing on market demand. Mr. Litt added that he has received letters of support from an adjacent Co-op building on Doon Village Road and an immediate neighbour on Pioneer Drive. Mr. Kevin Muir, GSP Group Inc., spoke in support of the application advising that there will be no change in building elevation or on-site facilities resulting from the requested variance. He stated that he disagreed with comments of City staff concerning the 4 tests to be met, expressing the view that the application does meet all 4 tests. He stated that the "low rise residential" designation provides for low density development that accommodates a broad range of housing types, including multi-unit dwellings. The special policies concerning height and FSR are to ensure low rise development is maintained and approved in keeping with the Zoning By-law. He stated that there is no impact to height as the requested variance is not changing the building elevation and is still in keeping with the Official Plan. The staff report suggests the necessity of applying for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, which Mr. Muir suggested was not consistent with past decisions of the Committee. He cited a previous example of an application for a property on Wellington Street which requested similar relief to add a rear addition and is identical in planning designations. Mr. Muir stated that in respect to the example, the staff report indicated that the 0.6 FSR is intended to be a guideline rather than a strict regulation and the report makes no mention of requiring amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The minor variance request was accepted and approved by the Committee and the Committee's decision upheld at a subsequent Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing. Mr. Muir expressed the view that the appropriate avenue to consider the request is through consideration of a minor variance application. The R6 zoning implements the Official Plan low rise residential designation and the FSR provides how much space may be occupied. The Committee works with heights and setbacks and nothing is changing to the exterior of the building or on-site facilities. Mr. Muir advised that compatibility and privacy issues have all been determined through the site plan process and nothing is changing. In respect to appropriate development, Mr. Muir stated that all planning policies provide for a broader range of housing types and this is in keeping with those policies. He stated that this is a good site for intensification being located at the intersection of two major roadways and on a bus route. Mr. Muir did agree with staffs opinion the request is minor in nature, stating that this is a technical matter given that there is no change to the exterior building elevations. Mr. Muir expressed the view that the Committee of Adjustment is the appropriate avenue and the application does satisfy all 4 tests to be met. Mr. G. Stevenson, Senior Planner, advised that where he disagrees with the applicant is in respect to meeting the general intent of the Official Plan. He stated that the building exists due to COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 289 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Submission No.: A 2012-069 (Cont'd a technicality within the Zoning By-law. The fourth floor (attic space) is not finished and has no habitable living area. No permission has been granted to use the space for occupancy and it is considered an architectural feature in the Zoning By-law which has not been calculated into the FSR for reasons of complying with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Mr. Stevenson acknowledged that site plan approval has been received and a building permit issued on the basis that construction does not include any works on the 4th floor. To do so, zoning relief is required to be satisfied. Mr. Stevenson advised that the general intent of the low rise designation is to accommodate low rise residential development and 2 policies guide the intent, being a maximum FSR of 0.6 and a building not to exceed 3 storeys in height. He pointed out that the building as designed allows compliance without finishing the attic space. The calculation used to determine FSR takes the area of 3 levels divided by lot area and as the building exists now it meets the 0.6 FSR in the R6 zone and Official Plan. Because the attic is not finished and is an architectural feature, the building is considered to be 3 storeys and in compliance as it exists now. Where it will not meet the general intent of the Official Plan is when the attic space is finished. He stated that staff has been consistent in recommending amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to remedy the two policies and it is his opinion the Committee cannot give relief but rather the applicant should be directed to address the Official Plan conformity issues prior to the zoning issue. Mr. B. Churchill, area resident, advised that he had originally opposed this development and, as it exists now, expressed the view his concerns had been correct. He stated that the existing building is considered 3 storeys but resembles a 4 storey building and is not aesthetically pleasing. He noted that Doon Village Road and Pioneer Drive are busy and it makes no sense to increase traffic and create more safety issues for area children. He expressed the view that using the attic space for living space will increase density allowing the units to be occupied by a greater number of persons. Mr. Churchill suggested that it would appear the developer has been given carte blanche to do as he pleases and is the reason the building was constructed the way it was to provide for the potential of additional living space in the hope that permission could be sought at a later time. He asked that the Committee not to allow increased density in an already burdened community. Mr. S. Krofchick, area resident, spoke in opposition, suggesting the proposal does not meet the Official Plan designation of low rise residential. He expressed the view that the variance is not small and will translate to more people and traffic; adding that the FSR is intended to control massing /scale to maintain low rise residential development and the subject building does not fit within the intent of the Official Plan or the neighbourhood. He also had concerns related to safety of children and pedestrians crossing at Doon Village Road and Pioneer Drive. He expressed the view that the developer had intent from the beginning to increase the FSR given the manner in which the building was constructed and approval would only say that one can build first and ask forgiveness later. Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, advised that the Official Plan designation for this property permits 3 storeys and at this time, the height does not exceed 3 storeys even though it may have the appearance of a 4 storey building. She further clarified that the City has no authority to regulate the number of persons living in the building. Mr. B. McColl commented that he had heard the previous application in 2011 and at that time, he recalled asking as to the intent of the mansard roof and was told that it was just an architectural feature and would not be used for storage or living space. He acknowledged that no one had appeared in opposition to the previous application and it had been approved; however, a year later what was to be empty attic space is now proposed for living space. He questioned that if requested at time of the previous application if the outcome of the original application may have been different. Ms. Von Westerholt advised that the applicant had been advised at time of the first application that if it was intended to use the attic space as living space it would require amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law; and she suggested that at this time it is really the process at question under which the request should be dealt with. Mr. McColl expressed the view that the Committee of Adjustment was the wrong process to consider this matter. He disagreed with the applicant's view that the example of Wellington Street is similar, expressing the opinion that the previous application is substantially different. He added that it was unfortunate that area residents were not aware one year ago that a request would be made to use the attic space as living space in that, there is now no opportunity to change the built form. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 290 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Submission No.: A 2012-069 (Cont'd Mr. A. Lise stated that he views attic space typically as the space between the ceiling and roof line where the joists are located. He noted that the building is square with no peak roof, questioning why it would be built that way if the space was not to be used and if intended to be an architectural feature, then it should remain so. Mr. Lise advised that he did not see increasing the FSR by 30% as minor and expressed the view that the application does not fit the Committee of Adjustment process but rather should be considered through amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Mr. S. Litt stated that the building is 3 storeys and this has not changed since issuance of a permit nor is it planned to change. He maintained that no changes are being made to the exterior building or on-site facilities and the proposal is not adding density. He stated that the building still remains as an R6 development and for these reasons the request should be considered minor. He noted that the basement level is clad in stone to give appearance of a basement and under the Building Code it is considered a basement. 2 floors sit above the basement with the mansard roof above what he considers to be the 2nd floor and it is his view the building structure consists of a basement, 2 floors and a roof even though considered to be a 3 storey building. He advised that the purpose of the requested variance is to improve diversification of the units based on public input he received from holding open houses, adding that he is always open to address concerns and has letters of support for the proposed concept from people who will be moving into the building. Mr. K. Muir commented that the Official Plan is a high level document implemented through the Zoning By-law. The Zoning By-law is structured such that it measures height from the highest grade which provides for the development to conform with zoning but is not in keeping with the Official Plan. He stated that there is a growing body of the opinion many municipal Official Plans overstep the boundary in respect to regulating building structures and that the Zoning By-law is the proper tool. He stated that only the issue of the FSR is under consideration and the application meets the intent of the Zoning By-law in respect to low-rise residential development and there is no change proposed in this regard. Mr. Muir expressed the view that the application meets the 4 tests under the variance process and that the applicant is not attempting to overstep in that the development is in keeping with the Zoning By-law and he has not proceeded with any work in the attic space pending the public process. Mr. Muir also pointed out that in respect to concerns raised regarding traffic, Traffic staff have reviewed the application and indicated they have no concerns. Mr. S. Litt commented that this is a case law society, referring to the example for Wellington Street in which the applicant had requested to add a rear addition, thereby increasing the FSR of the development. He pointed out that all he is asking for is to use the attic space and suggested that many buildings across the City have finished attic space that was achieved without permission. He noted that the Committee had approved the building addition for Wellington Street and reiterated that he is not building an extension but rather only requesting to use the attic space. He expressed the view that the built form is in line with the Provincial Places to Grow policies and the location is one of the best in the community for intensification and is exactly what municipalities want to see today in sustainable infill. Ms. Von Westerholt clarified that the Committee of Adjustment does not consider case law in making its decisions but rather reviews each application on its own merits. She expressed the view that opposition to this application is directed more toward the process undertaken as opposed to the built form. Mr. A. Head agreed that it is a question of whether the Committee of Adjustment is the appropriate vessel to address the request that has brought the matter to this point and pointed out that staff has indicated that the Committee does not have authority to provide relief under present circumstance as it has no authority under the Planning Act to comment on Official Plan policies. Mr. S. Litt pointed out that he has a second application similar in nature before the Committee this date which staff do support. Mr. K. Muir added that in respect to both applications, staff state that the request is minor in nature. Mr. Head pointed out that this is the reason for having 4 tests so there is sufficient means to determine what might trigger reasons for approval and / or refusal. Mr. Muir reiterated that in respect to the Wellington Street application, staff interpreted the 0.6 FSR as a guideline and the Committee has approved similar requests in the past. He suggested COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 291 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Submission No.: A 2012-069 (Cont'd) that the difficulty lies in the Official Plan not giving clear definition, leaving policies open to interpretation. Mr. Head commented that Official Plans are open for interpretation in every community and it falls on the City to determine how development will unfold accordingly. Mr. A. Lise referred to "Vincent v. Degasperis 2005CanLll 24263", suggesting that if case law was to be considered this one would be appropriate, noting that the judgement as written indicates that the Planning Act gives jurisdiction to a Committee of Adjustment to decide the issue of "minor" and whether or not to grant minor variances even when the four tests are satisfied. He expressed the view that no Judge would rule against a Committee's decision in respect to the issue of "minor" and reiterated his opinion that a 30% difference is not minor. Ms. J. von Westerholt clarified that Mr. Muir was correct in his statement that the staff reports indicate the proposed variance is considered minor but added that fora minor variance application to fail it only has to not pass one of the 4 tests. In this instance, the application does not meet the general intent of the City's Official Plan and therefore, from a Committee of Adjustment perspective it has already failed based on the one test. Mr. B. McColl stated that while he supports the philosophy of intensification, he was of the opinion this is the wrong process to deal with this particular request and should rather be addressed through amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of 2276451 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct a 17 unit multi- residential condominium development having a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.9 rather than 0.6 to allow occupancy of the attic space, on Part Lot 6, Biehns Tract, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-1026, 689 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is not being maintained on the subject property as the requested variance would result in a building that does not address Official Plan conformity issues and although the building design technically meets the zoning regulation, the intent of the FSR regulation is not met. 2. This application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property as the requested variance does not address the policies in the Official Plan. Carried 2. Submission No.: A 2012-070 Applicant: Stephen Litt Property Location: 190 Lancaster Street East Legal Description: Part Lot 5, Plan 363 Appearances: In Support: S. Litt Contra: Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide one off-street parking space to be located 2.4m (7.88') from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.69') for a duplex dwelling; to provide one parking space rather than the required 2 parking spaces; and to permit a driveway to be comprised of 2 different materials (concrete and asphalt), rather than one consistent material distinguishable from all other ground cover or surfacing, including landscaping or walkways, within the front yard. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 292 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Submission No.: A 2012-070 (Cont'd The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated November 2, 2012, advising that the property is zoned Residential Five (R-5) with special provision 129U, under By-law 85-1 and the Official Plan designation is Low Rise Conversation `A'. The owner is requesting permission to provide one off-street parking space for a duplex rather than the required two parking spaces, permission for the parking space to be located 2.4 metres (7.87 feet) from the lot line along Lancaster Street rather than the required 6 metres (19.68 feet), and to permit a driveway to be comprised of two different materials (concrete and asphalt), rather than one consistent material distinguishable from all other ground cover or surfacing, including landscaping or walkways. The applicant originally requested approval for two variances to the subject driveway through application A 2011-021 (March 2011). That variance contained a condition that the concrete sidewalk adjacent to the driveway be removed and replaced by asphalt in order that the driveway is constructed of the same material. That condition was not met by the expiry date of August 2011 and consequently the decision became void. The owner has reapplied for the driveway variances and has included a third variance requesting permission to have two different materials in the driveway surface, rather than the maximum permitted one material. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law and can be considered minor for the following reasons. The intent of the regulations is to preserve the scale, use and intensity of existing development. The Official Plan and the Zoning By-law permit both single family dwellings and duplexes. The two-storey frame building contains two dwelling units, both of which have a gross floor area of less than 51 sq.m. (549 sq.ft.). Units of this size are generally referred to as bachelor or seniors units and often attract tenants that do not have a vehicle. The property is centrally located close to the downtown along multiple transit routes. Therefore requesting a reduction to have one parking space for the two units is considered minor. In regards to the driveway material, staff note that this is regulation has existed since 2007 in the by- law and is intended to ensure driveways are materials are consistent and to discourage the use of some materials, such patio stones or gravel, for a driveway widening. The driveway and sidewalk on the subject property have existed for many years and functioned without complaint for the previous owner's use as a single family dwelling. Maintaining the existing material will not change the appearance or use of the driveway for the parking of one motor vehicle and therefore meets the intent of the by-law. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The duplex use is permitted provided regulations are met and providing one parking space for the two units would not appear to negatively impact the property or the surrounding neighbourhood. As noted above, the size of the units tend to attract individuals who do not own a vehicle; as well, the property is within a short walking distance of multiple bus routes. In regards to the driveway material, as noted above, the previous use was for a single family dwelling and the driveway has existed for some time with the both the concrete and asphalt without concern or complaint. Staff are of the opinion that the three variances are appropriate for the development and use of the property and would not appear to negative impact the surrounding streetscape. In regards to front lawn parking, staff note that in the two photos included in this report and in the aerial photo at the top of this document, there are vehicles located in the front yard. This is a violation of the zoning by-law; as well as creating an encroachment issue on city lands as the vehicles overhang the front lot line. The owner is advised that it is not permitted to park vehicles in the front yard at any time. Enforcement action would result if vehicles are parked on the front lawn. As the property is a rental unit, staff strongly suggests that the owner may wish to consider constructing a fence or small hedge in the front yard to discourage front yard parking. Any fence or hedge must meet height restrictions and the owner may contact staff for those regulations. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated November 1, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 293 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Submission No.: A 2012-070 (Cont'd) That the application of Stephen Litt requesting permission to provide one off-street parking space for a duplex dwelling rather than the required 2 parking spaces and the one parking space to be located 2.4m (7.88') from the street line abutting Lancaster Street East rather than the required 6m (19.69'); and a driveway to be comprised of 2 different materials (concrete and asphalt), rather than one consistent material distinguishable from all other ground cover or surfacing, including landscaping or walkways, within the front yard; on Part Lot 5, Plan 363, 190 Lancaster Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. 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 2012-071 Applicant: 2276457 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 87 & 93 Cedar Street South Legal Description: Part Lot 16, Plan 395 Appearances: In Support: S. Litt T. McKillican K. Muir A. Teeple A. Overing Contra: S. Gunz N. & S. Constantinou S. McMath S. & K. Harrison J. Dirks Written Submissions: K. Muir, GSP Group The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 36 unit multi-residential condominium development having a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.9 rather than 0.6, which will allow third floor space to be finished to provide improved diversity of unit layouts. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated November 13, 2012, advising that the subject lands are located on the southeast side of Cedar Street South, between Church Street and St. George Street. The surrounding area is composed of a wide range of building forms and residential uses with Residential Five Zone (R-5) being the predominant zoning category in the area. Interestingly, a 14-storey multiple dwelling within an R-9 zone "pocket" is located directly across the road. A duplex dwelling is located immediately to the northeast. A duplex is located immediately to the southwest. A single detached dwelling is located behind (i.e., to the southeast) of each of the subject lots. Both lots are located within the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan: 87 Cedar Street is designated as Low Rise Multiple Residential, and 93 Cedar Street is designated as Low Rise Multiple Residential with Special Policy #3. Both properties are zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) while Special Regulation Provision 109R is also applied to 93 Cedar Street (only). The R-6 Zone allows multiple residential development. It should be noted that the special regulation provision does not apply to redevelopment of the lands with new buildings. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 294 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 ~. Submission No.: A 2012-071 (Cont'd) The applicant has obtained site plan approval and building permits to construct 36 dwelling units in the form of brownstone style townhouses (though technically they are considered multiple dwellings, not townhouses, under the City's Zoning By-law). The dwelling units are planned to be divided between two buildings: one building is oriented towards Cedar Street and is planned to contain 15 dwelling units, while the other is planned to be located adjacent to the northeast side lot line and will contain 21 dwelling units. All 36 units are planned to be one-bedroom units. At the time of the writing of this report, both buildings are under construction and the frames are substantially complete. It should be noted that in November 2011 the applicant previously sought and obtained minor variance approvals for the following (Application 2011-063): 1. minimum front yard of 2.6 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum front yard of 4.5 metres. 2. minimum side yard (northeast) of 1.75 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum side yard of 2.5 metres. 3. minimum rear yard of 6.0 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres. 4. steps to be located within the minimum front yard with a height of 1.4 metres above finished grade level within 3.0 metres of the street line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a maximum height of 0.6 metres (note: the minimum distance between the street line and the nearest part of the steps is 0.31 metres). 5. an unenclosed terrace attached to a building to be located within the minimum front yard with a minimum setback of 0.31 metres from the front lot line and a maximum height of 1.4 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum setback of 3.0 from the front lot line and a maximum height of 0.6 metres above finished grade level. The above variances permitted the owner to obtain a building permit to allow all 36 dwelling units to be constructed in compliance with the Zoning By-law, including compliance with a regulation requiring a maximum FSR of 0.6 and maximum building height of 10.5 metres. It should be noted that floor space ratio (FSR) is defined as "the figure obtained when the building floor area on a lot is divided by the lot area." Building floor area (BFA) is defined as "the aggregate horizontal floor area measured from the exterior walls of all floors of a building excluding any floor area located totally below the grade of the building's ground floor level." At that time, staff made it clear to the applicant that only the basement and two above grade storeys of the buildings could be occupied and used for habitable/storage space [note: 1199.88 m2 (BFA) / 2024 m2 (lot area) = 0.59 FSR]. The building includes a high mansard-style roof that acts as an architectural feature of the building. The attic space was not planned to be occupied or used for habitable/storage space since such use would result in an FSR exceeding the maximum permitted FSR of 0.6. The owner is now requesting relief from the Zoning By-law via the subject Minor Variance Application to allow a maximum floor space ratio of 0.9, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6. If approved, this variance would allow the attic space of both buildings to be finished, occupied and used for habitable/storage space with a total BFA of 1799.82 m2, resulting in an FSR of approximately 0.9 [note: 1799.82 m2 (BFA) / 2024 (lot area) =approximately 0.9]. Through this proposal, it should be noted that: • No changes to the exterior of the buildings are proposed; the built form of the planned structure will remain as approved through the site plan application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 295 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Submission No.: A 2012-071 (Cont'd) No additional dwelling units are proposed. Twelve of the 36 dwelling units are proposed to be expanded into the attic space such that a portion of the dwelling units is on the second floor and a portion is in the attic. These 12 units are proposed to be modified from one- bedroom units into three-bedroom units (see attached spreadsheet). No changes to the on-site facilities, such as parking, landscaped area, and amenity area, are necessary. Parking is based on 0.165 spaces/unit for units that are <_ 51 m2 in area, up to a maximum of 60% of the units on the site (in this case, 21 units). The remaining units are calculated at 1.25 spaces/unit (in this case, 15 units). The site exceeds the parking requirements by one space. The landscaped area is based on a percentage of the site, not the number of units or BFA/FSR. The proposal complies with parking and landscaped area requirements. No additional amenity space is required under the Zoning By-law or Urban Design requirements. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments. The Low Rise Multiple Residential designation states that: "...Opportunities for residential development are provided to a maximum density of 40 units per hectare. The maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 0.6, that is, the above grade building floor area shall not exceed 0.6 times the lot area. Multiple dwellings may be permitted to exceed 40 units per hectare on an individual site provided the Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 is not exceeded." The intent of this designation is to allow multiple dwellings that are constructed at a low density. The general intent of FSR requirements is to regulate the massing and scale of a development. In the subject context, the Official Plan makes clear that the intent of the FSR policy as outlined in the secondary plan, is also to regulate the unit density of individual sites. In the subject case, the built form of the buildings is not proposed to change; no massing changes are proposed. The attic, which was originally considered as an architectural feature only, is now proposed to be converted to living space. Furthermore, the building is within the height limit outlined in the Zoning By-law. In this case, the proposed occupation of the attic space of the planned buildings in no way increases the massing even though, technically speaking, Building Floor Area, and hence, FSR, are being increased by one third. Staff is of the opinion that the general intent of the FSR policy is maintained since no true building massing changes are proposed. Under the Low Rise Multiple Residential designation, multiple dwellings are limited to a unit density of 40 units per hectare (UPH), unless the FSR is 0.6 or less. Where the FSR does not exceed 0.6, increases in the unit density are permitted. In this case, as currently planned, the unit density of the site exceeds 40 UPH [note: 36 units / 0.2024 ha = 178 UPH] and is within the maximum 0.6 FSR. Under the proposed variance, the general intent of the FSR policy (i.e., massing) is maintained, for the abovementioned reasons, and no increases to this planned unit density are proposed. Twelve of the 36 one-bedroom units are proposed to be expanded into three-bedroom units. No additional units are proposed. The planned and proposed unit density will remain the same at 178 UPH. In this regard, the proposal meets the general intent of the unit density policy. It should be noted that while it is possible that the resident density of the site may be nominally increased due to the expanded unit size of twelve of the units, staff has no way of determining or regulating how many residents will live in any multiple residential dwelling unit, independent of the size of the unit. Part 2, Section 1.6 of the Official Plan deals with cases where minor variances are requested to facilitate residential intensification. The policy states that the overall impact of such variances shall be reviewed to ensure a number of factors including: appropriate massing, scale, and compatibility, 2. appropriate number of parking spaces and landscaping/amenity area, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 296 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 ~. Submission No.: A 2012-071 (Cont'd) 3. that the variance does not compromise the site in achieving objectives of compatible and appropriate site and community design and does not create further zoning deficiencies. Staff has considered these factors and is of the opinion that there are no concerns. The variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The purpose of the FSR regulation in the R-6 Zone is to limit the massing of buildings in order to achieve development that is compatible with the adjacent neighbourhood. For the same reason outlined in the Official Plan test section, above, staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the intent of the FSR regulation of the Zoning By-law: no changes in massing are proposed. The variance is minor for the following reasons. This test seeks to determine whether there will be any unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent properties as a result of the variance. As abovementioned, Zoning By-law requirements related to on-site facilities are being met based on the planned (and proposed) unit density. Staff notes that there are no changes proposed to the building massing, building height, number of units, unit density, setbacks, parking, landscaping, and amenity space. The variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land for the following reasons. The variance would allow two multiple dwellings that are currently planned to contain exclusively one-bedroom units (36 one-bedroom units) to contain a mix of one-bedroom (24 units) and three-bedroom dwelling units (12 units). This mix of unit types is desirable from an Official Plan policy perspective and good planning principle perspective as it creates a range of housing options within the community. Staff recommends that certain conditions be imposed to require: • That the variance shall apply only to the development approved through Site Plan Application SP11/072/C/AP or any approved revision to this Site Plan. • That a minor change to the Site Plan Application SP11/072/C/AP be approved to update mapping to reflect the subject minor variance approval. • That the variance shall apply only if a maximum of 12 units within the development are greater than 51 m2 and a maximum of 24 units within the development are equal to or less than 51 m2. The purpose of this condition is to ensure that the approved dwelling unit configuration does not change so as to increase the number of units/unit density of the site. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. While staff supports the proposed variance based on its planning merits alone, staff would like to express dissatisfaction with the applicant's means to achieve the end result. From the inception of this project, staff raised questions about the perceived usability of the attic space, despite the applicant's assertion that there would be no occupation of the attic (though it had been shown in concept plans). As such, the subject application is somewhat unexpected. In the future, staff requests that the applicant provide the final concept for review from the outset so that a comprehensive project review may be undertaken. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated November 1, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. S. Litt, applicant, commented that the built form in this application is similar to that of the previous application for Doon Village Road and is about 3 to 4 weeks behind in terms of construction. He noted that this development is also pedestrian /transit oriented and will be close to where the future Regional Light Rail Transit is to run, as well as close to the downtown. He stated that the development was planned as 1 bedroom units for which there is demand across the City and exceeds quality standards in energy efficiency and aesthetics. Mr. Litt advised that he is again applying to finish the attic space to improve diversification of the units by converting the upper floor units into 3 bedroom units. There will be no changes to the exterior built form or COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 297 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Submission No.: A 2012-071 (Cont'd outside facilities and he is anticipating first occupancy in January 2013. He reiterated that market demand is the reason he is now requesting to finish the attic space and as a good developer he stays in tune with the community, and is always open to address concerns of the community. Mr. A. Head questioned if Mr. Litt was in agreement with staff's recommendation to approve subject to condition of approval as noted and Mr. Litt concurred. Mr. A. Pinnell was requested to comment on this application, including why this is different from the previous application for Doon Village Road. Mr. Pinnell advised that the Official Plan designations are different, noting that the property is located within the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan, the policies of which also help to govern development of the site; and in this application the built form is considered 3 storeys at street level whereas the Doon Village Road application as presented this date is considered to equate to 4 storeys. He outlined how he had come to his recommendation, noting that this development obtained site plan approval in 2011 for 36, 1 bedroom units and under zoning regulations had met the height regulation. It was also noted that the property had received previous approval for minor variances related to certain setback reductions. Mr. Pinnell reviewed the 4 tests, commenting that the intent of the Official Plan policy for FSR is to regulate massing /scale of development. In addition, for this application the Official Plan makes clear that the intent of the FSR policy as outlined in the Secondary Plan is also to regulate the unit density of individual sites. He stated that the proposed occupation of the attic space in no way increases the density and it was his opinion the general intent of the FSR policy is being maintained. Mr. Pinnell provided information as to how unit density is derived relative to FSR leading to his conclusion that the general intent of the unit density policy is met. It was also noted that no changes to parking, landscaping or exterior amenities is required or proposed for change. Mr. Pinnell commented that the application will increase diversity of the unit types which positively aligns with Official Plan policies that look for diversification and a broad range of housing types and he is recommending approval subject to condition that will ensure there is no real increase in the number of units by requiring a modification to the site plan to be submitted and approved. Mr. Pinnell stated that while the application has been supported based on planning merits, staff is dissatisfied with the manner in which the developer has pursued the end result. Ms. S. Gunz, resident, spoke in opposition suggesting there is no real difference between this application and the previous one. It was her opinion this request also adds a storey to the project and she finds it difficult to consider the request as a minor change. Ms. Gunz noted that the applicant himself stated that 1 bedroom units are in demand yet the application seeks to change units to 3 bedrooms. Ms. Gunz stated that she would like to see the request follow proper process similar to Doon Village Road and if the Committee is not in agreement she would then like to suggest a delay of one meeting on the basis that an agreement be entered into that would require the applicant to meet with neighbouring property owners to resolve their concerns. She suggested that the developer has not been a good neighbour, citing numerous traffic problems resulting from construction, such as sidewalks being blocked and submitted several photographs as illustration. Mr. A. Head acknowledged that with all construction temporary issues arise; however, he pointed out that the issues being raised have no bearing on the application before the Committee this date. Ms. Gunz further raised concerns with regard to fencing. Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that staff would be prepared to modify the condition of approval to provide that a fence between the common property line along the entire perimeter of the subject property be shown on the revised site plan and the developer be required to make satisfactory arrangements with adjacent property owner(s) as to the location and style of fence, with all costs at the owner's sole expense. Mr. S. Litt agreed with the suggested modification to the condition of approval. In respect to Ms. Gunz's request to delay consideration by one meeting, Mr. Head noted that the applicant by condition of approval has to return through the site plan process and concerns raised of a site plan nature can be addressed at that time. He added that the developer will be required to clean up the construction site by virtue of the site plan agreement and while residents may consider that the developer has exhibited improper etiquette it is not a matter for the Committee to address. Mr. Head advised that the Committee would consider deferral or refusal similarly to that of the Doon Village Road application, noting that the issue with the former application differs COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 298 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 ~. Submission No.: A 2012-071 (Cont'dl in that it did not address Official Plan policies to which the Committee has no authority to comment on and is why it was refused; whereas, this application has no infraction to the Official Plan and the Committee has only to deal with the zoning by-law issue. Mr. S. Constantinou, attended along with his father, Mr. N. Constantinou, to raise concerns regarding ability to back out of their driveway adjacent to the development. He stated that the building itself is not the problem, but rather a landing extending from the building that is quite high and approximately 2 ft from the sidewalk. He advised that when exiting from the driveway they cannot see because of the landing and other materials present on the site. Mr. S. Litt advised that the landing is a porch that will have stairs and a railing. Ms. J. von Westerholt noted that the properties are located on a hill which makes visibility difficult in any event but advised that any on- site obstructions must be outside the driveway visibility triangle. She commented that stored construction materials on site should be temporary and suggested this should be addressed by the applicant through clean-up of the site at the earliest convenience. She added that the site plan as approved shows the porch feature not to be inside the driveway visibility triangle. Mr. D. Seller advised that Traffic staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns in respect to traffic matters, either in regard to parking on the site or with the driveway visibility triangle. Mr. S. Constantinou suggested that the driveway visibility triangle is not affected due to a retaining wall; wherein, the basement previously was not above ground but now has been raised an extra 4 feet above ground which he maintained should not be there. Mr. Head advised that the Committee has no authority to address an approved site plan. Ms. Von Westerholt added that as a condition of approval the applicant is to submit an application to modify the site plan and staff can have a closer look at the porch feature at that time to ensure there is no site plan issues. Mr. N. Constantinou reiterated concerns of safety in backing out of his driveway and with construction fencing that was installed in his driveway without permission, which he alleged cracked the driveway. Mr. S. Litt stated that the site is challenging in terms of construction and the fence was erected to address safety issues. He further advised that he would address concerns of Mr. Constantinou as to any damage to the driveway asphalt and will make repairs. Mr. S. Harrison advised that he had nothing further to add to the comments of previous delegations. Ms. K. Taylor-Harrison advised that she had offered the applicant an opportunity to meet at a local community centre with all area residents which was declined. She stated that when the applicant approached residents door to door he came without any plans to look at, and residents had no real idea of what was going on. She expressed the view that the applicant has not gone out of his way to educate area residents and suggested that no one had received notice of the first application, having only come together on receiving notice for this application. Mr. A. Head noted that the neighbourhood would have been circulated with notice of the first application and it is through the Committee of Adjustment process that residents have opportunity to participate in the process. He suggested that it is through this process as to how residents can become educated and it is not necessarily the responsibility of the developer to do so. Ms. Von Westerholt added that it is the City's policy to directly notify all residents within 30m of a subject property and Mr. Constantinou would have received notice of the first application as his property abuts the subject property. Mr. B. McColl added that concerns of not receiving notice have been raised in the past and suggested that it takes a certain type of person to actually pay attention to the information that has been provided. Mr. McColl advised that he was in agreement that this application is substantially different from the Doon Village Road application and even though of concern, the application does meet the general intent of the Official Plan and zoning. He expressed the view that the proposed increase in FSR is pushing the envelope and while considered minor he suggested it is at the extreme end of being minor. Mr. McColl further suggested that the applicant take time to talk with area residents and attempt to resolve their concerns. Mr. A. Head expressed disappointment in how the applicant has pursued this development and was in agreement that while considered minor, the requested variance pushes the envelope. Mr. A. Lise advised that he had opposed the initial application in November 2011 and would not support this application as he was of the opinion an increase in FSR from 0.6 to 0.9 was too much. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 299 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 Submission No.: A 2012-071 (Cont'd) Mr. Head agreed that the increased FSR could be problematic and that he would continue to watch this site with interest; however, in light that the request does not contravene the general intent of the Official Plan and zoning he would reluctantly support it subject to the condition of approval, as amended to also include that the owner will make satisfactory arrangements with the adjacent property owner(s) for fencing and apply to modify the approved site plan to show the fencing prior to occupancy of the first unit. Mr. McColl added that he would also reluctantly support the application on similar grounds but asked that it be noted the decision is not unanimous. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of 2276457 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct a 36 unit multi- residential condominium development having a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.9 rather than 0.6, to allow occupancy of the attic space of the buildings planned through Site Plan Application SP11/072/C/AP and any approved revision to this Site Plan Application; and a maximum of 12 dwelling units greater than 51 m2 in area and a maximum of 24 dwelling units equal to or less than 51 m2 in area; on Part Lot 16, Plan 395, 87 and 93 Cedar Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the owner shall submit and obtain approval of an application for minor changes to Site Plan Application SP 11/072/C/AP to the satisfaction of City's Manager of Site Development and Customer Service. The revised site plan shall reflect the subject minor variance approval and show the location of the fence between the common property line along the entire perimeter of the property. Further, the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the adjacent property owner(s) regarding the location and style of the fence. All costs for the fence shall be at the owner's sole expense. All works shall be completed prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit on the subject property and shall be in compliance with the City's Fence By-law. It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT Submission No.: B 2012-032 Applicant: Kenneth Dale, Rosemary Lee and Tamara Rose McGillivray Property Location: 20 & 24 Sylvia Street Legal Description: Lots 2 and 3, Registered Plan 58M-525 Appearances: In Support: Contra: Written Submissions K. D. McGillivray None None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever an irregular shaped parcel of vacant land as a lot addition to an abutting property for single residential development, having a width on Sylvia Street of 1.554m (5.1') and widening to a width of 15.268m (50.1') at the rear of the subject lands, by a westerly depth of 54.865m (180.01') and an easterly depth of 16m (52.5'), and an area of 304.66m2 (3279.44 sq.ft.). The retained lands are also proposed to be developed as a single residential use, having a width on Sylvia Street of 13.716m (45'), by a depth of 38.866m (127.52') and an area of 533.09m2 (5738.32 sq.ft.). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 300 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 1. Submission No.: B 2012-032 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated November 13, 2012, advising that the subject properties are vacant lots that are located on the southwest side of Sylvia Street with the nearest street intersection being Sylvia Street and Schweitzer Street. The surrounding area is composed of mainly low density residential land uses, though it should be noted that an industrial area is located to the south of the subject lands, less than 75 metres away. Sylvia Park is located directly across Sylvia Street from the subject property. Through this consent application, the owner of the property is requesting to sever a portion of 24 Sylvia Street (Lot 3, Plan 58M-525) with an area of approximately 304.66 square metres, a frontage of 1.55 metres, and a depth of 54.87 metres, and add it to 20 Sylvia Street (Lot 2, Plan 58 M-525 ). It should be noted that the severed lands widen from 1.55 metres at the front to 15.27 metres towards the rear. This configuration will create a resultant lot that is irregular in shape, though it will not be obvious from the street. Staff understands that the purpose of this widened area is to allow the future construction of a detached garage. Staff notes that, under the zoning, this garage may not be used for commercial/industrial purposes, but only as an accessory use to a residential use. Both resultant lots are proposed to be used as single detached dwellings. The subject properties are designated as Residential Low Rise in the City's Official Plan and are zoned Residential Three (R3) in the City's Zoning By-law. Staff has conducted a zoning analysis of both resultant lots and advises that both comply with all regulations, including minimum lot width and minimum lot area. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that proposed lot addition is desirable and appropriate. The configuration of the severed lands can be considered appropriate/suitable for the development of the uses permitted in the zoning and any future development should be compatible with the neighbourhood. Further, staff is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006, and conforms to the City's Official Plan. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated November 7, 2012, advising that they have no objection to this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Kenneth Dale, Rosemary Lee and Tamara Rose McGillivray requesting permission to sever an irregular shaped parcel of vacant land, as a lot addition to an abutting property for single residential development, having a width on Sylvia Street of 1.554m (5.1') and widening to a width of 15.268m (50.1') at the rear of the subject lands, by a westerly depth of 54.865m (180.01') and an easterly depth of 16m (52.5'), and an area of 304.66m2 (3279.44 sq.ft.), on Lots 2 and 3, Registered Plan 58M-525, 20 and 24 Sylvia Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file must be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Design Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with Engineering Services for the removal of any redundant service connections and the installation of new ones that may be required to service the severed and retained lands, all prior to severance approval. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 301 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 1. Submission No.: B 2012-032 (Cont'd) 4. That the owner shall close any redundant driveways with new curb and gutter and boulevard landscaping, all to City of Kitchener standards, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, prior to severance approval. Any new driveways constructed shall be built to City of Kitchener standards at grade with the existing sidewalk. All works are at the owner's expense and all work shall be completed prior to occupancy of the building. 5. 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, prior to severance approval. The sanitary peak flow shall also be submitted to the City's Engineering Services, to run the sanitary capacity modeling. 6. That the owner shall complete and submit a Development and Reconstruction As- Recorded Tracking Form, as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150, along with a digital submission of all 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, prior to severance approval. 7. That the owner shall provide confirmation that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by gravity to the street sewers, to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, prior to severance approval. If drainage by gravity is not possible, 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. 8. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 9. 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. 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 November 20, 2014. Carried 2. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: B 2012-033 2315952 Ontario Inc. 707 & 709 Frederick Street Part Lot 50, Plan 764, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-17464 S. O'Neill Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 302 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 2. Submission No.: B 2012-033 (Cont'd) Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land so each part of an existing semi-detached dwelling may be dealt with separately. The severed lands will have frontage on Frederick Street of 7.581m (24.88'), by a depth of 39.259m (128.81') and an area of 297.62m2 (3203.66 sq.ft.). The retained lands will have frontage on Frederick Street of 7.581m (24.88'), by a depth of 39.284m (128.89') and an area of 297.81 m2 (3205.71 sq. ft. ). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated November 8, 2012, advising that the subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) in the Zoning By-law and contains asemi-detached residential dwelling. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots in such a way as to allow separate ownership of each semi-detached unit. The severed lot would have a frontage of 7.58 metres, a depth of 39.26 metres and an area of 297.62 square metres, while the retained lot would have a similar frontage of 7.58 metres, depth of 39.28 metres and an area of 297.81 square metres. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990. c. P. 13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law 85-1. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal conforms with the regulations of the Residential Five Zone (R-5). Section 4 of the Zoning By-law defines asemi-detached dwelling as "a building divided vertically into two semi-detached houses by a common wall which prevents internal access between semi-detached houses and extends from the base of the foundation to the roof line and for a horizontal distance of not less than 35 percent of the horizontal depth of the building. Each semi-detached house shall be designed to be located on a separate lot having access to and frontage on a street." The proposed severance is required to create separate semi-detached dwelling units and allow separate ownership of each. In addition, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the use of the properties as semi-detached houses, the lands front on an established public street, and both parcels of land will require independent service connections to municipal services for sanitary, storm and water. Also, the resulting lots will be compatible with those in the surrounding area. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated November 7, 2012, advising that they have no objection to this application. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of 2315952 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having frontage on Frederick Street of 7.581m (24.88'), by a depth of 39.259m (128.81') and an area of 297.62m2 (3203.66 sq.ft.), on Part Lot 50, Plan 764, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-17464, 707 and 709 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 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 make satisfactory financial arrangements with Engineering Services for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands and retained lands prior to severance approval. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 303 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 2. Submission No.: B 2012-033 (Cont'dl 4. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with Engineering Services for the removal of any redundant service connections and the installation of new ones that may be required to service this property, prior to severance approval. 5. 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, prior to severance approval. The sanitary peak flow shall also be submitted to the City's Engineering Services, to run the sanitary capacity modeling. 6. That the owner shall complete and submit a Development and Reconstruction As- Recorded Tracking Form, as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150, along with a digital submission of all 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, prior to severance approval. 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 November 20, 2014. Carried 3. Submission No.: B 2012-034 Applicant: 2315952 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 711 & 713 Frederick Street Legal Description: Part Lot 50, Plan 764, designated as Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-17464 Appearances: In Support: S. O'Neill Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land so each part of a proposed semi-detached dwelling may be dealt with separately. The severed lands will have frontage on Frederick Street of 7.581m (24.88'), by a depth of 39.235m (128.73') and an area of 297.44m2 (3201.73 sq.ft.). The retained lands will have frontage on Frederick Street of 7.581m (24.88'), by a depth of 39.259m (128.81') and an area of 297.62m2 (3203.66 sq. ft. ). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated November 8, 2012, advising that the subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) with Special Regulation 182U in the Zoning By-law. The lot contains a semi-detached dwelling unit that is currently under construction. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 304 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 3. Submission No.: B 2012-034 (Cont'd The applicant is requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots to allow separate ownership of each semi-detached unit. The severed lot will have a frontage of 7.581 metres, a depth of 39.259 metres and an area of 297.44 square metres, while the retained lot will have a similar frontage of 7.581 metres, depth of 39.259 metres and an area of 297.62 square metres. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990. c. P. 13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law 85-1. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal conforms with the regulations of the Residential Five Zone (R-5). Section 4 of the Zoning By-law defines asemi-detached dwelling as "a building divided vertically into two semi-detached houses by a common wall which prevents internal access between semi-detached houses and extends from the base of the foundation to the roof line and for a horizontal distance of not less than 35 percent of the horizontal depth of the building. Each semi-detached house shall be designed to be located on a separate lot having access to and frontage on a street." The proposed severance is required to create separate semi-detached dwelling units and allow separate ownership of each. In addition, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the use of the properties as semi-detached houses, the lands front on an established public street, and both parcels of land will require independent service connections to municipal services for sanitary, storm and water. Also, the resultant lots will be compatible with those in the surrounding area. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated November 7, 2012, advising that they have no objection to this application. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of 2315952 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having frontage on Frederick Street of 7.581m (24.88'), by a depth of 39.235m (128.73') and an area of 297.44m2 (3201.73 sq.ft.), on Part Lot 50, Plan 764, designated as Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-17464, 711 and 713 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file must be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Design Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication for the severed lands in the amount of $3,494.85. 4. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with Engineering Services for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands and retained lands prior to severance approval. 5. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with Engineering Services for the removal of any redundant service connections and the installation of new ones that may be required to service this property, prior to severance approval. 6. 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, prior to severance approval. The sanitary peak flow shall also be submitted to the City's Engineering Services, to run the sanitary capacity modeling. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 305 - NOVEMBER 20, 2012 3. Submission No.: B 2012-034 (Cont'd) 7. That the owner shall complete and submit a Development and Reconstruction As- Recorded Tracking Form, as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150, along with a digital submission of all 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, prior to severance approval. 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 November 20, 2014. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 20t" day of November, 2012. Janet Billett, AMCT Acting Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment