Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2013-01-15COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 15. 2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. A. Head and Ms. J. Meader. Mr. D. Cybalski was in attendance for part of the meeting. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, 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 10:05 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held December 11, 2012, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: A 2013-001 Applicant: Efrem Usdenski, Naum Epshteyn and Bella Epshteyn Property Location: 78 Pinnacle Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 7, Registered Plan 578, Part Block 10, Registered Plan 1480, being Part 5 on Reference Plan 58R-14146 This application was temporarily set aside and dealt with later on this same date. 2. Submission No.: A 2013-002 Applicant: Shirley Filiatrault Property Location: 84 Maple Hill Drive Legal Description: Part Lots 10 and 11, Plan 877 Appearances: In Support: S. Patterson Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single residential dwelling having a maximum building height of 12.87m (42.23`) rather than the permitted maximum of 10.5m (34.45`) and having a driveway width that exceeds the width of an attached garage, at 18.30m (60.04`) wide rather than the permitted maximum of 14.38m (47.18`) wide. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 4, 2013, advising that 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 - 2 - JANUARY 15, 2013 1. Submission No.: A 2013-002 (Cont'd The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. Low Rise Residential districts are to accommodate a full range of housing types and encourage mixing and integrating different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The proposed use of the land is for a single family dwelling and it will achieve an overall low intensity of residential use. The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of the building height regulation is to ensure that the massing of the building maintains a low intensity. Staff note that the building height is taken from the highest finished grade at the perimeter of the building. For the subject property, the building height is taken from the elevation at the front of the house and facing the street. The proposed variance is requesting additional building height of 2.4 metres (7.8 ft) and is to accommodate the angle of the roof which is keeping with the design of the house. Considering the above reasons and the size of the lot area, the intent of the height regulation can be considered to be met. The intent of the maximum driveway width regulation is to ensure that the pavement does not dominate a streetscape. The proposed house will have afour-car garage with a width of 14.38 metres wide. The driveway is to be 3.92 metres wider than the driveway in order to accommodate vehicle capacity and the orientation of the garages on site, which has grading differences from the street to the garages. As well, the increased paved area will facilitate movement of vehicles entering and exiting the property and allow for a decorative landscape feature in the middle of the driveway towards the entrance. Considering the size of the lot and the garage, as well as the landscaping to be incorporated with the driveway, staff are of the opinion that the intent of the by-law is being met. The variances are minor for the following reasons. The variance for building height is a small portion of the overall height and is to accommodate a roof design in keeping with the architecture of the home. The driveway width variance is required in order to incorporate a landscape area in the middle of the driveway and provide more functional movement of vehicles. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. As noted above, the height variance will maintain the architecture of the house which is appropriate for the size of the lot and in keeping with other properties in the area. The driveway width variance is to incorporate a landscape feature which is desirable not only for the subject property but for the streetscape. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated December 20, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Shirley Filiatrault requesting permission to construct a single residential dwelling having a maximum building height of 12.87m (42.23`) rather than the permitted maximum of 10.5m (34.45`) and having a driveway width that exceeds the width of an attached garage, at 18.30m (60.04`) wide rather than the permitted maximum of 14.38m (47.18`) wide, on Part Lots 10 and 11, Plan 877, 84 Maple Hill Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. 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 - 3 - JANUARY 15, 2013 CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2013-001 Applicant: Peter Johnson Property Location: 317 Edwin Street Legal Description: Lot 21 and Part Lot 22, Plan 660 Appearances: In Support: B. O'Neill Contra: None Other: W. Hu Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land so each half of asemi-detached residential development can be dealt with separately. The severed lands will have frontage on Edwin Street of 9.144m (30`), by a depth of 33.439m (109.71') and an area of 301.82m2 (3248.87 sq.ft.). The retained lands will have frontage on Edwin Street of 9.144m (30'), by a depth of 33.402m (109.59') and an area of 307.1m2 (3305.71 sq. ft. ). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 7, 2013, advising that the subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) 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 9.14 metres, a depth of 33.44 metres and an area of 301.82 square metres, while the retained lot would have a similar frontage of 9.144 metres, depth of 33.4 metres and an area of 307.1 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 Four Zone (R-4). 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 onto 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 January 3, 2013, advising that they have no objections to this application. Mr. W. Hu questioned who the current property owner is of the subject lands and who would become his immediate neighbour. Mr. B. O'Neill advised that since filing this application as the agent for the owner, he has acquired the property and is now the property owner. Mr. A. Head advised Mr. Hu that an immediate neighbour is unknown and would be dependent on future sale of the severed parcel. Mr. Hu questioned if the property lines would or could be changed by the Committee. Ms. J. Meader advised that the Committee has the ability to alter internal property lines to create the new property; and Mr. A. Head added that the Committee cannot, however, change the outer property lines shared between Mr. Wu's property and the subject property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 4 - JANUARY 15, 2013 1. Submission No.: B 2013-001 (Cont'd) Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Peter Johnson requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having frontage on Edwin Street of 9.144m (30`), by a depth of 33.439m (109.71') and an area of 301.82m2 (3248.87 sq.ft.), on Lot 21 and Part Lot 22, Plan 660, 317 Edwin Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener acash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 3. 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. 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 and retained lands. 5. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the removal of any redundant service connections and the installation of new ones that may be required to service this property. 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. 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 January 15, 2015. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 5 - JANUARY 15, 2013 2. Submission No.: B 2013-002 Applicant: A & F Greenfield Homes Ltd. Property Location: 52-54 Fourth Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 77, Plan 254 As no one appeared in sup port of the application, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to the Committee's next meeting scheduled for February 19, 2013. 3. Submission No.: B 2013-003 Applicant: B & W Heat Treating Canada ULC Property Location: 40 Adam Ferrie Place / 60 Steckle Place Legal Description: Lots 26 and 31, Registered Plan 1478, designated as Parts 5 and 11 to 13 on Reference Plan 58R-1111 Appearances: In Support: S. Patterson G. Kuhn P. Petricca Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a vacant parcel of land for manufacturing use within the B-1 Business Park Zone, having frontage on Adam Ferrie Place of 44m (144.36`), by a depth of 99.9m (327.76`) and an area of 6,423.4m2 (69,143.17 sq.ft.). The retained lands are also to be developed for manufacturing use, having frontage on Steckle Place of 49.8m (163.39`), by a depth of 211.2m (692.92`) and an area of 25,007.6 m2 (269,188.38 sq.ft. ). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 7, 2013, advising that the subject property is located south of Steckle Woods in the Trillium Industrial Park Planning Community and comprised of two industrial lots with civic addresses 40 Adam Ferrie Place and 60 Steckle Place. The property addressed as 40 Adam Ferrie Place is currently vacant, whereas the property addressed as 60 Steckle Place is developed with an industrial building used for manufacturing purposes. The applicant has advised the property addressed as 60 Steckle Place was purchased by B&W Heat Treating (1967) Limited in 1974 and the property addressed at 40 Adam Ferrie Place was purchased by B&W Heat Treating (1975) Limited in 1980. The titles for the two properties were registered in the same name in 2006 and therefore the two properties have merged on title. In order to sell either property individually, the applicant requires consent to sever the property back into the original two lots as required by the Planning Act. The property is designated as Business Park in the City's Official Plan and zoned Business Park Zone (B1) in the Zoning by-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the property back into the original two lots, which was the situation before the titles were merged. The proposed retained lot is addressed as 60 Steckle Place. The proposed lot has approximately 49.8 metres of frontage on Steckle Place, a depth of approximately 211.2 metres and a lot area of 24,007.6 square metres. The proposed severed lot is addressed as 40 Adam Ferrie Place. The proposed lot has approximately 44.0 metres of frontage on Adam Ferrie Place, a depth of approximately 99.9 metres and a lot area of 6,423.4 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, Planning Staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lot is desirable and appropriate. The proposed lots (retained and severed) are of the same shape and size as the lots which previously existed. Both lots will be adequately serviced by municipal servicing and each lot fronts on a public road. The current use of the lots is compatible with the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning by-law. The proposed consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Subsection 3 (1) of the Act, and conforms to, or does not conflict COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 6 - JANUARY 15, 2013 1. Submission No.: B 2013-003 (Cont'd) with any applicable provincial plan or policy. Further the severance will allow for the sale and eventual redevelopment of 40 Adam Ferrie Place. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated January 3, 2013, advising that they have no objection to this application. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of B & W Heat Treating Canada ULC requesting permission to sever a vacant parcel of land for manufacturing use within the B-1 Business Park Zone, having frontage on Adam Ferrie Place of 44m (144.36`), by a depth of 99.9m (327.76`) and an area of 6,423.4m2 (69,143.17 sq.ft.) on Lots 26 and 31, Registered Plan 1478, designated as Parts 5 and 11 to 13 on Reference Plan 58R-1111, 40 Adam Ferrie Place and 60 Steckle Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements 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. 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 January 15, 2015. Carried MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2013-001 Applicant: Efrem Usdenski, Naum Epshteyn and Bella Epshteyn Property Location: 78 Pinnacle Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 7, Registered Plan 578, Part Block 10, Registered Plan 1480, being Part 5 on Reference Plan 58R-14146 Appearances: In Support: E. Usdenski N. Epshteyn Contra: J.Oleskevich R. Szydhowski J. Brenner Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 7 - JANUARY 15, 2013 1. Submission No.: A 2013-001 (Cont'd The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to have an off-street parking space for asemi-detached dwelling located 5.6m (18.38`) from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.69`). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 7, 2013, advising that the subject property is asemi-detached residential unit located at 78 Pinnacle Drive is zoned Residential Four (R-4) with Special Regulation 319U in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. The applicant has advised staff that they propose to convert the garage to habitable space. As a result, one required parking space for the semi-detached unit will have to be relocated onto the driveway. The property is irregularly shaped; therefore the parking space will be setback 5.6 metres from the street line. As a result, the applicant has submitted this application to request relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By-law to allow one required parking space for the semi-detached dwelling unit located on the driveway to be setback 5.6 metres from the street line rather than the required 6.0 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of uses and favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The proposed variance will be compatible with the Low Rise Residential development of the area and will legalize the location of the required parking space. The intent of the 6.0 metres required setback is to allow for a vehicle to be safely parked on the driveway without encumbrance to City right-of-way and surrounding properties. The property is irregularly shaped and as such, the closest distance from the proposed parking space to the street line is 5.6 metres. Transportation staff does not have concerns with the proposed variance. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed 0.4 metre distance from the parking space to the street line will continue to meet the intent of the Zoning by-law. Staff does not have concerns with the proposed variance request. The requested reduction of 0.4 metres can be considered minor as it is staffs opinion that the required parking space can still be accommodated on site in a safe manner. The reduced setback from the street line will have minimal impact to adjacent lands and overall neighbourhood. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is compatible with the surrounding low rise residential development. The requested minor variance is necessary as it will legalize the location of the required parking space on the driveway. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated December 20, 2012, advising that they have no concerns with this application. In response to questions from Ms. J. Oleskevich, Ms. J. von Westerholt provided explanation of the relief being requested under Section 6.1.1.1 b i) under Zoning By-law 85-1 and Special Regulation 319U under Residential Four (R-4) zone of the by-law. Further clarification of the requested variance was also provided in that the applicant is seeking to convert garage space to habitable living space for which they are requesting to allow one parking space for the semi- detached dwelling unit to be located on the driveway to be setback 5.6 m rather than the required 6m, equating to a 0.40m (1.3') reduction in the setback. Ms. Oleskevich advised that the driveway has been widened, with part used as a walkway but what is occurring is that more than 2 vehicles are parking in the driveway with as many as 6 in the semi-detached driveways. She added that quite often parked vehicles are jutting out into the street. Mr. Head advised that the number of vehicles being parked in the driveway, as well as, any overhanging the street is not a matter under jurisdiction of the Committee to police but rather is an enforcement matter. Ms. Oleskevich raised concerns of the impact of allowing more parking and Mr. Head pointed out that no more parking is being allowed but rather the application seeks to legalize location of the 2 existing parking spaces. Ms. J. Meader pointed out that the issue to be addressed is the 0.40m reduction to the parking setback in terms of the 4 tests under the Planning Act. Ms. Oleskevich COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 8 - JANUARY 15, 2013 1. Submission No.: A 2013-001 (Cont'd) further raised concerns with future installation of a sidewalk on the street suggesting this would create further issues with overhanging vehicles and was again advised that this is not within the Committee's authority to police. Ms. J. Brenner advised that she resides directly across from the subject property which she maintained is rented to students. She stated that if the variance is approved the Building Division will be legally obligated to issue a building permit for conversion of the garage to living space if it meets building standards and she had concerns that another bedroom would be added. She noted a bedroom in the basement below the garage, raising concerns that cars are parking over a window grate which is an emergency exit for the basement bedroom. Ms. Bender submitted several photographs to illustrate this concern. Ms. J. Meader questioned if Fire Services had been circulated for comment. Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that they had and pointed out that if the application is approved, the applicant will have to apply for a building permit for conversion of the garage, which will be subject to inspection by Building staff. Ms. von Westerholt advised that it has been made clear to the applicants that a duplex or lodging house is not a permitted use and that Planning staff have no authority to enter the premises and must rely on the information provided in the application submitted. She further noted that the number of bedrooms and the number of people living in a residence is not regulated. The owners of the property stated that the residence is not being used as a lodging house and 5 people are living in the home. Ms. von Westerholt reiterated that a lodging house is not permitted, nor would it be sanctioned by City staff and the application before the Committee is to deal with the issue of the driveway setback to now allow the second parking space for the semi-detached dwelling to be located in the driveway. Ms. Bender noted that the definition of lodging house provides that those living together are not related and have a separate room with lock and key, but sharing a common space. Mr. Head stated that while these concerns are understood, again he advised that the Committee has no authority to address these matters. Ms. Meader added that the appropriate venue is through the building permit process and/or filing of a complaint with By-law Enforcement. Ms. Bender commented that this action adds costs to the City, whereas, refusal of the application would prevent issuance of a building permit and thereby reduce some of the concerns. The owners of the subject property advised that the window grate is not an emergency exit but simply a window. They added that the basement bedroom has 2 windows and the room has been inspected by Fire Services and Building staff who had no concerns; and if the application is approved, another inspection would have to be done by Building staff. Mr. R. Szydhowski raised concerns that given a moratorium on duplexing to maintain a proper balance between housing and student rentals, that this application appears to be circumventing by conversion of the garage. Ms. J. von Westerholt stated that the by-law as worded governs how this is regulated and there are no other tools available. Mr. D. Cybalski entered the meeting at this time and assumed the Chair. Ms. J. Meader referred to widening of the driveway with part as a walkway, questioning if staff have determined that it complies. Ms. Von Westerholt advised that they had, noting that it is not permitted to park on the walkway and if being done, would be a matter for enforcement. She expressed appreciation for the concerns raised; however, she stated that staff is limited in respect to the existing by-law which permits the proposed conversion and there is nothing to regulate the number of bedrooms, nor would it be practical to do so as the City would run the risk of discriminating against certain groups which in this case would be students. Ms. J. Meader suggested that a condition of approval be applied that would require the owners to delineate the walkway from the driveway in such a manner that it would prevent vehicles parking on the walkway, such as a concrete curb. Ms. Von Westerholt stated that while it may be onerous to the owners, there is past precedent in applying such a condition. In response to further questions from Ms. J. Oleskevich, Mr. A. Head advised that there are certain triggers that invoke the need for an inspection and the applicants will require an inspection to ensure the conversion meets standards under the Building Code. Ms. Von Westerholt added that as a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to apply for a building permit. Ms. Oleskevich indicated that her greater concern is what is in the driveway and the impact future installation of a sidewalk will have in respect to overhanging vehicles. Ms. J. Meader questioned COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 9 - JANUARY 15, 2013 1. Submission No.: A 2013-001 (Cont'dl if the municipal right-of-way has been increased to provide for a sidewalk. Ms. Von Westerholt advised that she was not aware of any plans to install a sidewalk and if vehicles are within the right-of-way it is a matter for enforcement to address. A motion by Mr. A. Head was brought forward for consideration to approve the requested variance, subject to a condition of approval to require the applicant to obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division. Ms. J. Meader advised that she would like to include a condition to provide that the owner must properly delineate with a physical barrier between the driveway and walkway to prevent vehicles from parking on the walkway. Mr. A. Head suggested that the proposed condition is too onerous given the number of properties City-wide having similar circumstances. Ms. Von Westerholt advised that notwithstanding the issue of vehicles parking on the walkway is an enforcement matter, she was not opposed to invoking the proposed condition. The owners stated that there are many in the area having similar circumstances of vehicles overhanging the right-of-way, noting that it was the previous owners who had widened the driveway and there is enough room to have 2 vehicles side by side. Ms. Meader suggested that in this case then the owners should have no difficulties in delineating the driveway from the walkway. The owners reiterated that there is any number of similar circumstances where vehicles are parking on City property and this is no different. Mr. Head stated that he was of the opinion the proposed condition of approval is unfair as this is primarily an enforcement matter. He added that in terms of precedence there are few applications where such a condition has been imposed and he raised concerns wherein the driveway on one side of the semi-detached would be treated differently than the other. Mr. D. Cybalski requested clarification as to what imposing a physical barrier would mean. Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that she would envision it to be a raised barrier or some type of landscaping that would prohibit vehicles from parking over the walkway and to properly delineate the pedestrian walkway from the driveway. She added that if imposed, a reasonable timeframe for completion of the work to delineate the two areas should be included, suggesting that a deadline to the end of June 2013 would be appropriate. Mr. R. Szydhowski questioned that if the proposed condition is applied to this application, if it would affect all other properties with similar circumstance. Ms. J. Meader advised it would not as the Committee has no authority to do that. Mr. Szydhowski suggested it would be unfair to impose the proposed condition given there are a number of semi-detached dwellings in the area where parking over the walkway occurs. He stated that more of a concern to him is the issue of the number of vehicles parked and those that overhang the property line and lack of enforcement to address these issues. Ms. J. Von Westerholt suggested that the Committee could specify in a condition of approval to provide that no more than 2 vehicles could be parked in the driveway per semi but ultimately this would still remain an enforcement matter. Mr. D. Cybalski expressed the view that this is already covered through standard terms of the by-law as it exists now and did not believe it necessary to add the proposed condition. Ms. J. Meader stated that she was attempting to give the applicant opportunity to provide clear intent but as it appears the proposed condition does not alleviate the neighbours concerns she was prepared to approve the application as recommended by staff. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Efrem Usdenski, Naum Epshteyn and Bella Epshteyn requesting permission to have an off-street parking space for asemi-detached dwelling located 5.6m (18.38`) from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.69`), on Part Lot 7, Registered Plan 578, Part Block 10, Registered Plan 1480, being Part 5 on Reference Plan 58R-14146, 78 Pinnacle Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner(s) shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for the conversion of the garage to habitable space. 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 -10 - JANUARY 15, 2013 1. Submission No.: A 2013-001 (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. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th day of January, 2013. Carried Janet Billett, AMCT Acting Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment