HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2013-02-19
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 19, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. D. Cybalski, A. Lise and B. McColl
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. B. Bateman, Senior Planner, Ms.
M. Drake, 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. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:37 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the minutes of the October 16, 2012 Committee of Adjustment meeting be amended to correct the
legal description contained in the Committee’s decision for Minor Variance Application A 2012-068
(Earth Park Developments Inc.), by deleting in the first paragraph of the decision the phrase ‘on Part 11
and Part Lane, Plan 591, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-14267, 900 Fairway Road North,
Kitchener’ and replacing it with the phrase ‘on Part 11, Plan 591, being Part of Part 2 on Reference Plan
58R-14267, and Block 56, Plan 58M-398, 900 Fairway Road North / Landgren Court, Kitchener’.
Carried
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held January 15, 2013, as
mailed to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
CONSENT
Submission No.:
1. B 2013-002
Applicant:
A & F Greenfield Homes Ltd.
Property Location:
52-54 Fourth Avenue
Legal Description:
Part Lot 77, Plan 254
Appearances:
In Support: A. Rosu
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
This application was before the Committee at its meeting held January 15, 2013 at which time no
one had appeared in support of the application. The application was deferred to today’s date to
allow an opportunity for the applicants to attend in support of their application.
The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a
parcel of land so each half of a semi-detached residential development can be dealt with
separately. The severed lands will have frontage on Fourth Avenue of 7.652m (25.11‘), by a
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 12 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
1. B 2013-002 (Cont’d)
depth of 40.38m (132.48’) and an area of 309m2 (3326.16 sq.ft.). The retained lands will have
frontage on Fourth Avenue of 7.652m (25.11’), by a depth of 40.38m (132.48’) and an area of
308.95m2 (3325.62 sq.ft.).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated December 11, 2012,
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 will contain a semi-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
7.65 metres, a depth of 40.38 metres and an area of 309 square metres, while the retained lot
would have a similar frontage of 7.65 metres, depth of 40.38 metres and an area of 308.95
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 a semi-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 Transportation Planner, dated
January 3, 2013, advising that the subject lands are approximately 160 metres from the Provincial
Highway 8 and approximately 320 metres from Provincial Highway 7/8. Due to the high traffic
volumes on these Highways, the owner/applicant is typically required to prepare a Transportation
Noise Study to indicate the methods to be used to abate noise levels for the new lots from traffic
noise generated on these roads and if necessary, shall enter into a registered agreement with the
City of Kitchener to provide for the implementation of the approved study.
However, since there are intervening land uses between the proposed dwellings and the
Highways and the residential dwellings have been constructed on the retained and severed lot, in
lieu of a Transportation Noise Study in this instance the Developer has the option to do a Noise
Study or enter into an agreement with the City for the requirement for central air conditioning for
both units and to require the following noise warning clause:
“Due to the proximity to Provincial Highway 8 and Provincial Highway 7/8, projected noise levels
on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals. Moreover, this dwelling has been
constructed such that noise attenuation features in the form of central air conditioning are
included”.
Regional staff have no objection to the proposed application, subject to the following condition:
1. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant prepare a Transportation Noise Study, to
the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community
Services, to indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be used to abate
traffic noise levels from Provincial Highway 8 and Provincial Highway 7/8 for all units and if
necessary, the owner enter into a registered development agreement with the City of
Kitchener; OR,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 13 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
1. B 2013-002 (Cont’d)
The owner/applicant may enter into a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener for
the requirement for central air conditioning and to include the following noise warning
clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds and tenancy agreements for all units:
“Due to the proximity to Provincial Highway 8 and Provincial Highway 7/8, projected noise
levels on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals. Moreover, this
dwelling has been constructed such that noise attenuation features in the form of central
air conditioning are included”.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of A & F Greenfield Homes Ltd. requesting permission to sever a parcel of
land having frontage on Fourth Avenue of 7.652m (25.11‘), by a depth of 40.38m (132.48’) and
2
an area of 309m (3326.16 sq.ft.), on Part Lot 77, Plan 254, 52-54 Fourth Avenue, Kitchener,
BE GRANTED
Ontario, , 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 a cash-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.
8. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant shall prepare a Transportation Noise
Study, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and
Community Services, to indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be
used to abate traffic noise levels from Provincial Highway 8 and Provincial Highway 7/8 for
all units and if necessary, the owner shall enter into a registered development agreement
with the City of Kitchener; OR,
The owner/applicant may enter into a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener for
the requirement for central air conditioning and to include the following noise warning
clause in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds and tenancy agreements for all units:
“Due to the proximity to Provincial Highway 8 and Provincial Highway 7/8, projected noise
levels on this property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 14 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
1. B 2013-002 (Cont’d)
Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals. Moreover, this
dwelling has been constructed such that noise attenuation features in the form of central
air conditioning are included”.
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 February 19, 2015.
Carried
This meeting temporarily recessed at 9:43 a.m. to consider an application under Chapter 630 (Fences)
of the City of Kitchener’s Municipal Code and reconvened at 10:18 a.m. with all members present.
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1. A 2013-003
Applicant:
Branthaven River Ridge Inc.
Property Location:
219 Falconridge Drive
Legal Description:
Lot 82, Registered Plan 58M-512
Appearances:
In Support: T. Phan
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to have a driveway
access on a corner lot located 7.5m (24.61’) to the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot
rather than the required 9m (29.53‘).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 8, 2013, advising
that the property is located at the north-east corner of Falconridge Drive and Eaglecrest Street
and will be developed with a single detached dwelling unit in the near future. The subject
property is zoned Residential Six (R-6) with special Regulation 306R and 307R in the City’s
Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting permission to construct an access driveway off
of Falconridge Drive at a distance of 7.5 metres to the intersection of the street lines abutting the
corner lot, rather than the required 9.0 metres as per Section 6.1.1.1 b) iv) of the Zoning By-law
85.
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. The property’s Low Rise Residential
designation allows for a full range of housing types to achieve an overall low intensity of use. The
reduced distance of the access driveway to the intersecting streets will not impact the overall
intensity, density or the type of land use of the residential area.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 15 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
1. A 2013-001 (Cont’d)
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The required 9 metre separation from the
driveway to the intersecting streets is intended to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety. The
reduction of 1.5 metres is minor as it does not compromise safety precautions or impact the
property or access to the intersection. Transportation staff support the 7.5 metres setback from
the intersection of Eaglecrest Street, with the condition of maintaining the visibility triangle of 7.5
metres.
The variance is considered minor the proposed 7.5 metres allows for sufficient separation from
the driveway to the intersecting street lines abutting the corner lot. This variance will not impact
access to the intersection for either vehicular or pedestrian traffic. In addition, the 1.5 metres
reduction will still allow for a 7.5 metres corner visibility triangle as required per the Zoning By-law.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variance will
not impact the subject property, abutting intersection or adjacent lands and properties.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
February 4, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Branthaven River Ridge Inc. requesting permission to have a driveway
access on a corner lot, off Falconridge Drive, located 7.5m (24.61’) to the intersection of the street
lines abutting the lot rather than the required 9m (29.53‘), on Lot 82, Registered Plan 58M-512,
BE APPROVED
219 Falconridge Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, .
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
2. A 2013-004
Applicant:
Dimitri and Ivanka Nenkov
Property Location:
27 Amherst Drive
Legal Description:
Part Lot 5, Plan 1480, designated as Part 2 on Reference Plan
58R-3054
Appearances:
In Support: D. Nenkov
Contra: Y. Fernandes
J. Oleskevich
R. Szydhowski
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to have an off-street
parking space setback 2.08m (6.83’) from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.69‘).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 7, 2013, advising
that the subject property located at 27 Amherst 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 16 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
2. A 2013-004 (Cont’d)
The applicant has advised staff that they propose to convert the garage to habitable space. As a
result, one required parking space for the single detached dwelling will have to be relocated onto
the driveway and will be setback 2.08 metres from the street line. As such, the applicant is
requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By-law to allow the one required parking
space for the single detached dwelling located on the driveway to be setback 2.08 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 one 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. Transportation
Services staff support a 3.92 metre reduction from the required 6 metre parking setback to
provide a 2.08 metre setback, provided a maximum of one (1) vehicle is parked in the driveway.
Planning staff does not have concerns with the proposed variance request.
The requested reduction can be considered minor as it is staff’s 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
February 4, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Dimitri Nenkov advised that the garage space has not been used since purchasing the home in
2002 and is not insulated resulting in cool temperatures in the upper floor. It was his intent to use
the space more efficiently by creating an habitable living space within the existing garage
structure. He noted that it does not affect parking as there is sufficient outdoor parking for the
property.
Mr. D. Cybalski questioned the use of the home and was advised that it is currently a rental
dwelling with 5 tenants (students), each of whom pay rent individually on a month to month basis.
Mr. Nenkov added that conversion of the garage space is for the purpose of creating a common
living room and is not intended to increase the number of tenants.
Mr. Cybalski noted the comments of Fire Prevention which advise the space cannot be used as a
kitchen and Mr. Nenkov acknowledged same.
Ms. J. von Westerholt provided clarification of the proposed parking variance, noting that the
property requires one legal parking space and that space is now proposed to be located in the
driveway.
Mr. Cybalski noted that the driveway appears to be capable of accommodating multiple vehicles,
questioning if it has been recently expanded. Mr. Nenkov advised that the driveway width as it
exists was original to the property at the time he purchased the property and he had redone the
driveway this past fall within its existing boundary. Mr. Cybalski noted that the driveway appears
to extend to the right beyond the width of the garage, questioning if this is of concern and Ms. von
Westerholt advised that the existing situation is not of concern, noting that the owner has the right
to widen the driveway to a certain extent.
Mr. R. Szydhowski raised concerns with regard to the proposed variance, stating that he has
been advised by the City’s By-law Enforcement that an unlimited number of vehicles can be
parked in a driveway as long as they do not jut out onto the road. He suggested that this conflicts
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 17 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
2. A 2013-004 (Cont’d)
with by-law regulations for parking and questioned how it could be addressed if By-law
Enforcement is not enforcing the rules. He suggested that the subject driveway could
accommodate up to 11 vehicles.
Ms. von Westerholt acknowledged the concern of the delegate, noting that he had been before
the Committee previously to raise similar concerns. She pointed out that the variance before the
Committee is to address the issue of a legal parking space, which by-law regulations stipulate is
within the garage; however, by removing the garage parking through conversion to living space it
is proposed to permit the legal parking space to be located in the driveway.
Ms. Y. Fernandes attended to speak to this application, and it was noted that she was doing so
as a private citizen and not in her capacity as a member of Council. She raised concerns with the
potential for the front door to the left of the garage to be blocked by parked vehicles, which could
pose a threat to the safety of tenants.
Mr. B. McColl questioned that beyond the one legal parking space if all others are considered not
to be legal. Ms. von Westerholt advised that all residential properties are regulated to have one
legal parking space but it is common practice for driveways to be sized to accommodate more
than one vehicle. She added that By-law Enforcement does not actively ticket secondary
vehicles on a property that could be a visitor, service provider or any other persons related or
non-related to the property. Mr. McColl commented that the width of the driveway suggests 2
vehicles could be parked side by side with an additional 2 vehicles in tandem but his concerns
remain blocking of the front access door. He noted that actions this date will have no impact on
what may actually occur on the property, suggesting that Planning and By-law Enforcement staff
need to have discussions to determine an appropriate solution, such as not permitting parking in
tandem. Ms. von Westerholt advised that parking in tandem is permitted, particularly for semi-
detached dwellings but acknowledged the concerns, advising that this is an issue that has been
flagged for a pending review of the Zoning By-law.
Mr. Nenkov stated that in regard to fire safety, the home is connected to the City’s Direct Detect
system which provides 24 hour monitoring. In regard to access doors, he stated that there is
room for a second vehicle to the right of the legal space and the access doors remain free of
obstruction at all times. He added that the driveway could potentially be expanded to
approximately 26’ bringing the driveway across the main entrance and he did not see justification
for the concerns raised. Mr. Nenkov noted that across the City more than one vehicle is parked
in any given driveway, with many of the homes having closed the garage space and 3 or 4
vehicles are parked outside in the driveway. He suggested that the City must enforce only one
vehicle in a driveway consistently across the community; otherwise, it would be unfair to this one
application.
Mr. A. Lise questioned that in practical terms it would appear there is no method to enforce
because the City would have to say residents must park in the garage. Ms. von Westerholt
stated that the regulations only state that one legal space is required and the Committee can
determine where it will be located. She added that any given property in the community may be
using the garage as a storage area, with vehicles parked in the driveway.
Mr. B. McColl suggested that given the concerns raised in respect to fire safety, that a condition
be applied if the application is approved to require the area from the street up to the front of the
building be for pedestrian use only. Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff would be amenable to
applying a condition to require a physical barrier to be placed so that a vehicle cannot park in
front of the access door. Following further discussion, it was agreed that the condition requiring a
parking plan be modified to provide that the plan will show an unimpeded separation, either by
physical or visible barrier, between the driveway and pedestrian walkway from the curb to the
front of the building. Mr. Nenkov advised that he would undertake to provide the pedestrian
walkway within the existing driveway lay-out.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Dimitri and Ivanka Nenkov requesting permission to allow a maximum of
one required off-street parking space for the single detached dwelling to be setback 2.08m (6.83’)
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 18 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
2. A 2013-004 (Cont’d)
from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.69‘), on Part Lot 5, Plan 1480, designated as
BE APPROVED
Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-3054, 27 Amherst Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division for the
conversion of the garage to living space.
2. That the owner shall submit a parking plan, which shall show delineation by a physical or
visible barrier of an unimpeded pedestrian walkway to both front entrances to the dwelling,
to the satisfaction of the City’s Transportation Services.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
3. A 2013-005
Applicant:
Ilie and Mariana Meglei
Property Location:
280 Hidden Valley Road
Legal Description:
Lot 39, Plan 986
Appearances:
In Support: I. Meglei
M. Meglei
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to expand an existing
legal non-conforming single residential use by adding non-habitable space (garage - 5.8m x 4.9m
[19.03’ x 16.08’]), and a covered front porch (2.6m x 1.85m [8.53’ x 6.07’] and 1.55m x 2.25m
[5.09’ x 7.39’]).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 6, 2013, advising
that the subject property is located at 280 Hidden Valley Road, which is located east of Fairway
Road South and south of the Kings Hwy 8. The property is developed with a single detached
dwelling and various accessory buildings. The property has a lot frontage of approximately 31.55
metres along Hidden Valley Road and an area of approximately 4.2 hectares. The subject lands
are designated Business Park in the Official Plan and are zoned Business Park (B-1) with special
provisions 59U and 1H in the Zoning By-law.
Special provision 59U speaks to the eventual closure of Hidden Valley Road and to restricting
truck transport terminals from being permitted. As well, 59U speaks to the permission of a private
recreational club and playing fields existing on the date of the passing of By-law No. 92-130.
Special provision 1H is a holding provision that permits only those uses listed below and other
uses normally associated with, or accessory to, such uses, that shall be permitted until such time
as the criteria set out in Part 3, Section 12.3 viii) of the City of Kitchener Official Plan has been
satisfied (generally being that the River Road extension or other transportation solution needs to
be decided along with a municipal servicing solution) and the holding symbol affecting these
lands has been removed by By-law.
• Existing Residential
• Religious Institution
• Veterinary Services
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 19 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
3. A 2013-005 (Cont’d)
• Garden Centre or Nursery
• Farm or Agricultural Uses
The B-1 Zone permits a maximum of three dwelling units on a lot only as an accessory use within
a main building which is used for one or more of the following purposes:
• Computer, Electronic or Data Processing Business;
• Industrial Administrative Office;
• Manufacturing;
• Research and Development Establishment;
• Scientific, Technological or Communications Establishment.
The existing single detached dwelling is the primary use on the subject lands, and has been in
existence prior to the passing of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law. The singled detached
dwelling is deemed to be a legal non-conforming use.
The owner is proposing an addition consisting of an attached garage and covered porch. The
purpose of the addition is to allow the existing house to become more functional and allow for the
protected storage of the Owner’s automobiles. The proposed attached garage is 5.8 metres in
length and 4.6 metres in width (26.68 square metres). The proposed covered porch is 2.6 metres
by 1.85 metres and 1.55 metres by 2.25 metres (approximately 8.3 square metres).
Under normal circumstances, this request would be straight forward. However, the single
detached use has legal non-conforming (LNC) status in the Business Park (B-1) Zone so,
therefore, in order to expand the owner has applied for permission to expand a LNC use under
Section 45(2) of the Planning Act.
It should be noted that an application to extend a legal non-conforming use, in this case by
allowing the addition of the attached garage and covered porch does not have to meet the four
tests for a minor variance. Case law has determined that consideration should be based on:
1. Impact on the surrounding area. Does the proposed use create unacceptable adverse
impacts upon the abutting properties,
2. Desirability for development of the property. Will the proposed use impact the reasonable
possibility of redevelopment for a permitted use in the future; and,
3. Is the proposed use good planning
Section 45(2) of the Ontario Planning Act grants power to the Committee of Adjustment to permit
the enlargement or extension of a legal non-conforming building or structure. Planning Staff is of
the opinion that the single detached dwelling located on the subject property existed before the
passing of the City of Kitchener Zoning Bylaw in 1985 and therefore the use is LNC.
In considering a request for the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming use as outlined in
the tests of Section 45(2) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning
staff offers the following comments:
The closest structure to the subject lands is a single detached dwelling located approximately 150
metres southeast of the existing LNC single detached dwelling. The surrounding neighbouring
properties are very large land parcels generally used for agricultural and business park purposes.
The existing structures are screened by vegetation.
The proposed additions are intended to increase the functionality of the existing singled detached
dwelling. Planning staff is of the opinion that the effect on the surrounding properties is negligible.
With respect to desirability of the proposed additions to the existing LNC building, staff
acknowledges that the existing use of the building is for single detached dwelling purposes. The
proposed additions will increase the utility area of the existing building increasing the space for
vehicle storage and a protected entrance. The proposal does not seek to expand the building
area for habitable use, but creates a more functional entrance and storage space for the users of
the building.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 20 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
3. A 2013-005 (Cont’d)
The proposed additions do not impact any other site design and staff notes that a Site Plan
Application is not required and no additional parking is required as a result of the expansion.
Planning staff notes that the ultimate use of the subject lands is currently intended to be for
industrial/employment purposes. Staff also notes that the extension of River Road may
eventually intersect and/or impact the subject lands. For these reasons, it will be important for the
property owners to understand that Planning staff will not support any further expansion to the
legal non-conforming use for any habitable portion of the dwelling. The 1H holding provision only
allows ‘existing residential’ and other uses normally associated with, or accessory to, such a
garage or porch use. Planning staff is in support of allowing the expansion of the ‘accessory use’
(ie. the attached garage and covered porch), but will not support any future expansion to the
existing residential (habitable) portion of the dwelling.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
February 4, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Ilie and Mariana Meglei requesting permission to expand an existing legal
non-conforming single residential use by adding non-habitable space, being: an attached garage
(5.8m x 4.9m [19.03’ x 16.08’]) and a covered front porch (2.6m x 1.85m [8.53’ x 6.07’] and 1.55m
BE
x 2.25m [5.09’ x 7.39’]), on Lot 39, Plan 986, 280 Hidden Valley Road, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division for the
addition of the attached garage and covered front porch.
It is the opinion of this Committee that the expansion of the legal non-conforming use by adding a
garage and covered front porch is in keeping with the use of the property on the day the by-law
prohibiting this use was passed and is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
Carried
Submission No.:
4. A 2013-006
Applicant:
Sean and Jessica McClinchey
Property Location:
137 Limerick Drive
Legal Description:
Part Lot 24, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession
Mr. B. McColl declared a pecuniary interest in this application as he is a Board member of the Pinegrove
Community Neighbourhood Association and did not participate in any discussion or voting concerning
this application.
Mr. B. McColl left the meeting during consideration of this application and, pursuant to the Municipal
Conflict of Interest Act, the application was considered by the remaining two members.
Appearances:
In Support: S. McClinchey
Contra: None
Written Submissions: Letters of Support (3)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to allow an accessory
building to have a maximum height of 5.71m (18.74‘) rather than the permitted 5.5m (18.05‘); a
maximum height of the underside of the fascia of 5.51m (18.08‘) rather than the permitted 3m
(9.85‘); and to legalize an existing front yard setback of 3m (9.85‘) rather than the required 7.62m
(25‘).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 21 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
4. A 2013-006 (Cont’d)
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 8, 2013, advising
that the subject property is zoned Residential Two (R-2) with special Regulation 233R in the
City’s Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is located at the north-west corner of Limerick Drive and
Greensview Drive and is occupied by a single detached dwelling unit with an accessory garage.
The applicant is requesting relief of the following:
i) Relief from Section 5.5.2 b) to allow an existing accessory building to have a maximum
height of 5.71 metres rather than the required 5.5 metres and a maximum height of the
underside of any fascia of 5.51 metres rather than the required 3 metres.
ii) Relief from special regulation 233R for an existing legal non-complying front yard setback
of 3.0 metres rather than the required 7.62 metres.
City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on January 30, 2013. At the site
visit, staff realized that setbacks as per the map provided with the application were not accurate.
The site map has been updated by the owner and a new map will be provided to Committee
members on the day of the meeting. The new side yard setback for the existing garage is 0.7
metre which does not require an additional variance.
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 on the relief
from Section 5.5.2 b):
It is the opinion of the Planning staff that the variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The
Low Residential designation of this property aims to maintain an overall low intensity. The 0.21
metre and 2.51 metres building height deficiency of the existing garage does not affect the
property’s compliance with the Official Plan, as the site is a large site and this additional height for
the accessory structure is a small increase to the building mass on the subject property. The
increase is negligible given the size of the lot.
The intent of the Zoning By-Law when regulating the height of accessory buildings is to ensure
compatibility between the massing of the residential unit and the accessory unit. It is the opinion
of the Planning staff that the existing accessory building’s height of 5.71 metres with an underside
fascia height of 5.51 metres maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law as it is in scale with the
existing residential dwelling.
The proposed variance of the height of the accessory building does not present any significant
impacts to adjacent lands and the overall neigbourhood.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the property as the increase in height
to the accessory structure is still appropriate for the existing low-rise development.
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 on the relief
from special regulation 233R:
The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of housing types with
an overall low intensity of use. The proposed front yard variance does not affect the property’s
compatibility with the Official Plan.
Special regulation 233R, is a part of the Comprehensive Rezoning of Pioneer Tower West. The
intent of the 7.62 metre front yard setback is to ensure adequate light and sunshine access to the
home and to provide space for recreation. It is the opinion of the Planning staff that the existing
front porch does not affect the residential unit’s lighting and with a large lot, the residents have an
adequate amount of space for outside recreational use. The subject property’s drive way visibility
triangle is maintained, ensuring safe movement between the driveway and the intersecting street.
The proposed minor variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The requested variance for a reduction of 4.62 metres can be considered minor. The existing
legal non-complying front yard setback of 3.0 metres has minimal impacts to adjacent lands and
the overall neighbourhood.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 22 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
4. A 2013-006 (Cont’d)
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 the
front yard legal non-complying setback of the single detached house and covered front porch is
an existing use.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
February 4, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. S. McClinchey attended in support of the application and provided 3 letters of support from
neighbouring property owners.
Ms. J. von Westerholt noted that an on-site inspection of the property brought to staff’s attention a
minor discrepancy in the measurement provided in the mapping accompanying the application
relative to the setback for the existing garage, which has been corrected to 0.7m rather than 0.6m
and which does not require an additional variance.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Sean and Jessica McClinchey requesting permission to allow an
accessory building to have a maximum height of 5.71m (18.74‘) rather than the permitted 5.5m
(18.05‘); a maximum height of the underside of the fascia of 5.51m (18.08‘) rather than the
permitted 3m (9.85‘); and to legalize an existing front yard setback of 3m (9.85‘) rather than the
required 7.62m (25‘), on Part Lot 24, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession, 137 Limerick Drive,
BE APPROVED
Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division for the
second storey addition to the existing detached garage.
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
Submission No.:
5. A 2013-007
Applicant:
Andrew Komer and Julie Gorman
Property Location:
318 Frederick Street
Legal Description:
Part Lots 13 and 14, Plan 111
Appearances:
In Support: A. Komer
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to have an easterly side
yard setback of 2.69m (8.83‘) rather than the required 3m (9.85’) and to allow 2 parking spaces
required for a home based business to be located in the rear of the subject property rather than 1
permitted parking space in the rear yard for the home business.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 13, 2013, advising
that the subject property is located on the north side of Frederick Street between Locust Street
and Filbert Street. The property is designated Low Density Commercial Residential in the Central
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 23 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
5. A 2013-007 (Cont’d)
Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan and zoned Commercial Residential One (CR-1) in the
Zoning By-law. The property contains one legal non-conforming triplex, which the owners are
proposing to convert to a single detached dwelling with a home business (health office).
The applicant is requesting the following:
i. Relief from Section 5.13.2(k) of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit two (2) parking spaces
associated with the home business to be located in the rear yard whereas only one (1)
parking space associated with the home business is permitted to be located in the rear
yard; and,
ii. Relief from Section 44.3.2 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a minimum side yard of 2.69
metres whereas a minimum side yard of 3.0 metres is required.
The applicant is seeking relief from the By-law in order to establish a home business with one
non-resident employee. The By-law requires parking for the single detached dwelling (1 parking
space), the home business (1 parking space), and the non-resident employee of the home
business (1 parking space). The By-law permits the single detached dwelling parking space to be
located in tandem with the home business parking space; however, the non-residential employee
parking space cannot be in tandem. As a result, all parking must be located in the rear yard. The
purpose of the variance is to permit two parking spaces associated with the home business to be
located in the rear yard. In total, three parking spaces will be located in the rear yard.
The applicant is also seeking relief from the By-law in order to legalize the existing minimum side
yard of 2.69 metres. The existing minimum side yard of 2.69 metres is deemed to comply under
Section 5.15.1(a) of Zoning By-law 85-1. The building has existed on the property since
approximately 1930. The purpose of the variance is to formally legalize the existing minimum
side yard setback of 2.69 metres.
Requested Location of Parking Spaces for Home Business Variance
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments:
The requested variance to permit two (2) parking spaces associated with the home business to
be located in the rear yard meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Density Commercial
Residential land use designation permits single detached dwellings, home businesses and health
offices. The intent of the Low Density Commercial Residential land use designation is to provide
for a range of residential and office uses which respect: the role of the Downtown as the
commercial centre of Kitchener; the traffic operational constraints of Frederick Street; and, the
scale, and use of the adjacent low rise, low density residential area. The Low Density
Commercial Residential designation encourages the conservation and continuance of the existing
character and quality of the area through the long term maintenance and improvement of the
existing architecture. The applicant is proposing to retain the existing building and convert the
use to a single detached dwelling with a home business (health office). The single detached
dwelling and home business (health office) are permitted uses.
The requested variance to permit two (2) parking spaces associated with the home business to
be located in the rear yard meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of regulating the
number and location of parking for the home business is to ensure that the use is compatible with
adjacent properties. The Commercial Residential One (CR-1) zone permits a range of
commercial and residential uses. Full commercial uses typically require a parking lot in the rear
yard. Adjacent properties that front Frederick Street currently provide formal (approved site plan)
and informal (gravel area) parking lots. The proposed single detached dwelling with home
business (health office) is a permitted use. The building has existed on the property since
approximately 1930.
The requested variance is considered minor because a balanced distribution of commercial and
residential uses are permitted in the City’s Official Plan; a single detached dwelling with home
business (health office) is permitted in the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law; and, the one (1)
additional parking space associated with the home business will be located in the rear yard with
minimal visibility from the street. As a result, the variance will not negatively impact the
neighbourhood.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 24 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
5. A 2013-007 (Cont’d)
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land because the requested
variance will allow the proposed permitted single detached dwelling and home business (health
office) to operate with sufficient parking. The proposed permitted single detached dwelling and
home business (health office) is compatible with the surrounding area.
Requested Minimum Side Yard Variance
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments:
The requested variance to permit a minimum side yard of 2.69 metres meets the intent of the
Official Plan. The Low Density Commercial Residential land use designation permits single
detached dwellings, home businesses and health offices. The intent of the Low Density
Commercial Residential land use designation is to provide for a range of residential and office
uses which respect: the role of the Downtown as the commercial centre of Kitchener; the traffic
operational constraints of Frederick Street; and, the scale, and use of the adjacent low rise, low
density residential area. The Low Density Commercial Residential designation encourages the
conservation and continuance of the existing character and quality of the area through the long
term maintenance and improvement of the existing architecture. The applicant is proposing to
retain the existing building and convert the use to a single detached dwelling with a home
business (health office). The single detached dwelling and home business (health office) are
permitted uses. The building has existed on the property since approximately 1930.
The requested variance to permit a minimum side yard of 2.69 metres meets the intent of the
Zoning By-law. The intent of the minimum side yard of 2.69 metres is to provide for sufficient
separation between properties and access to the rear yard via the side yard. A minimum side
yard of 2.69 metres will provide sufficient separation between the subject property and the
adjacent duplex at 320 Frederick Street because both properties have functioned with the existing
side yards for approximately 83 years. A minimum side yard of 2.69 metres will also provide
sufficient access to the rear yard because the minimum driveway width required in the By-law is
2.6 metres (see Section 6.1.1.1(b)(ii)(b) of Zoning By-law 85-1). In addition, the existing minimum
side yard of 2.69 metres is deemed to comply in the By-law (see Section 5.15.1(a) of Zoning By-
law 85-1) and the variance will formally legalize the existing condition. The proposed single
detached dwelling with home business (health office) is a permitted use. The building has existed
on the property since approximately 1930.
The requested variance is considered minor because a balanced distribution of commercial and
residential uses are permitted in the City’s Official Plan; a single detached dwelling with home
business (health office) is permitted in the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law; a sufficient side
yard separation is provided between properties; the driveway meets the minimum driveway width
requirement of 2.6 metres; and, the variance will formally legalize the existing condition. As a
result, the variance will not negatively impact the neighbourhood.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land because the requested
variance will allow the proposed permitted single detached dwelling and home business (health
office) to operate with sufficient access to the rear yard. The proposed permitted single detached
dwelling and home business (health office) is compatible with the surrounding area.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
February 4, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Andrew Komer and Julie Gorman requesting permission to have an
easterly side yard setback of 2.69m (8.83‘) rather than the required 3m (9.85’), on Part Lots 13
BE APPROVED
and 14, Plan 111, 318 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, ; and,
That the application of Andrew Komer and Julie Gorman requesting permission to allow 2 parking
spaces required for a home business to be located in the rear yard of the subject property
whereas only 1 parking space associated with the home business is permitted in the rear yard, on
BE APPROVED,
Part Lots 13 and 14, Plan 111, 318 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, subject
to the following condition:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 25 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
5. A 2013-007 (Cont’d)
1. That the owner(s) shall submit a parking plan, including vehicle functionality with
AutoTURN, to the satisfaction of the City’s Transportation Services Division, by no later
than February 19, 2014.
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
Submission No.:
6. A 2013-008
Applicant:
Catherine Owens
Property Location:
385 Duke Street West
Legal Description:
Part Lots 421 and 422, Plan 376
Appearances:
In Support: C. Owens
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 1 storey
covered front porch utilizing an existing concrete patio as a foundation having a front yard setback
of 1m (3.28 ‘) rather than the required 2.8m (9.19‘).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 6, 2013, advising
that the subject property is zoned Residential Five (R-5) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and
designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. Previously through application A
2012-059, the Committee of Adjustment approved a front yard setback of 2.8 metres to legalize
the existing front yard setback for the subject property. The applicant is now proposing to
construct a covered porch over an existing concrete patio with a front yard setback of 1.0 metre.
As such, relief is being sought from Section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law for a front yard setback of
1.0 metre rather than the required 4.5 metres.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments:
The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential
designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for a variety of
low density residential uses. The proposed covered porch is consistent with the existing low rise
development in the area and will not impact the intensity or scale of the residential
neighbourhood.
The requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. It is staff’s opinion the reduced
front yard setback for the proposed porch will not impede visibility for vehicles accessing the
driveway. Staff is confident of this because a small front corner portion of the dwelling is within
the driveway visibility triangle and this situation has persisted since the dwelling was built without
encumbrance to the subject property.
The requested variance can be considered minor as it is staff’s opinion that the proposed covered
porch is comparable to the existing development along Duke Street West and will not affect the
streetscape. The proposed development will also not affect the scale of the subject property and
will have no impact on the adjacent lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 26 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
6. A 2013-008 (Cont’d)
The requested variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. Staff noticed that
a majority of residential dwellings along Duke Street West have a reduced front yard setback
similar to what the applicant is proposing. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed development will
enhance the aesthetics of the dwelling and will not impact the streetscape, the functioning of the
subject property or adjacent lands.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
February 4, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Catherine Owens requesting permission to construct a 1 storey covered
front porch utilizing an existing concrete patio as a foundation, having a front yard setback of 1m
(3.28 ‘) rather than the required 4.5m (14.77‘), on Part Lots 421 and 422, Plan 376, 385 Duke
BE APPROVED
Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division for the
covered front porch.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
7. A 2013-009
Applicant:
1841362 Ontario Inc.
Property Location:
340 Louisa Street
Legal Description:
Lots 461 to 466, Lot 533, Part Lots 460 and 526 to 532, Part Park Lot
‘H’, and Part Lot 38 Streets and Lanes, Plan 376, designated as Part
1 on Reference Plan 58R-16131
Appearances:
In Support: K. Muir
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a residential
development on the portion of Block 4, Plan 30T-11203 affected by the R-6 zone, having a
maximum building height of 36m (118.11‘) rather than the permitted 10.5m (34.45‘) for multiple
dwellings in the form of apartment buildings.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 12, 2013, advising
that the subject lands are located on the block generally bounded by Louisa Street, Blucher
Street, St. Leger Street and Margaret Avenue. The lands were previously used for industrial
purposes but are now presently vacant. The lands were recently purchased by a developer and
began the process of environmental remediation. Staff conducted an inspection of the site on
February 8, 2013.
In June 2012 the lands received Draft Approval of a Plan of Subdivision as well as approval of an
Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zone Change (ZC) to allow the development of more than
950 residential units in the form of townhouses and apartment units. The owner is presently
seeking Site Plan Approval for two 4-storey apartment buildings containing 77 units each close to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 27 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
7. A 2013-009 (Cont’d)
St. Leger Street as well as 220 townhouse units (Site Plan Application SP12/074/S/AP). The
approved vision for the site includes two 8-storey apartment buildings and one 12-storey
apartment building to be completed through a latter phase of development. It should also be
noted that the owner is also currently seeking a minor modification to the draft plan to
accommodate minor block boundary changes.
Prior to Draft Approval of the subdivision, the site vision included the extension of Adam Street
from its present terminus west of the site through to St. Leger Street. Zoning was approved for
this concept which allowed townhouses within the R-6 zoned portion of the site and apartment
buildings within the R-8 zoned portion. The owner was unable to secure lands west of the site in
order to allow Adam Street to be extended, and thus all accesses to the site were approved as
private roads off St. Leger Street. Minor development concept changes occurred as a result of
this issue.
After the Zone Change was approved, it was determined that a narrow portion of two of the
proposed apartment buildings, namely Buildings A and B as shown on Figure 2 included with the
subject application (note that Figure 1 labels these buildings differently), were within the land area
zoned for townhouses (i.e., R-6). While the R-6 zone does allow for apartment buildings, building
height is limited to 10.5 metres. Building A (which is subject to the pending Site Plan Application)
is proposed to be 13.5 metres in height. Building B is subject to a future Site Plan process, but it
was anticipated through the Urban Design Brief, prepared as part of the OPA/ZC/Subdivision
processes, to be 8-storeys in height. Through the subject application, the height is anticipated at
27.0 metres, which generally corresponds to the original 8-storey vision.
The area planned to contain the apartment buildings was comprehensively zoned R-8 with a
special zoning provision to allow buildings 36.0 metres in height in order to accommodate 4-, 8-,
and 12- storey apartment buildings.
In order to be consistent with this special zoning provision, the owner is requesting a maximum
building height of 36.0 metres for the portion of Block 4 on draft plan of subdivision 30T-11203
affected by the R-6 Zone, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a maximum building height of 10.5
metres for multiple dwellings in the form of apartment buildings.
To clarify, the owner is requesting that the proposed variance apply only to the portion of Block 4
of Stage 1 affected by the R-6 Zone on the draft plan proposed to be modified, not to the currently
approved draft plan. As such, an approval condition should be applied since the draft plan has
not yet been modified to allow the block to be officially referenced. The City’s Legal Services has
reviewed this approach and is in agreement with the imposition of such a condition.
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 general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law is to ensure compatibility between land
uses. The development of townhouses and 4-, 8-, and 12-storey apartment buildings was
proposed from the outset of this comprehensively planned community. The previous approval of
a Zone Change, Official Plan Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision accounted for the fact
that townhouses would be located in close proximity to apartment buildings on the site. The
Urban Design Study approved as part of these applications looked at the relationships between
these uses and concluded that there were no compatibility issues. In fact, much of the appeal of
this development is that urban-style townhouses will be integrated into the same community as
apartment buildings. Staff further notes that proposed private Street C will separate the
townhouses from Buildings A and B. Staff is satisfied that the variance meets the intent of the
Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
Staff is of the opinion that allowing the variance for Building A is minor and desirable for the
appropriate development of the land. However, staff is of the opinion that allowing the variance
for Building B is premature since it is not the subject of a pending site plan application and the
appropriateness of variance cannot be determined. Staff is also of the opinion that while staff can
support the variance for Building A since it is within a pending site plan application that has been
vetted through various departments and agencies, the ideal method to rectify such zoning
inconsistencies is to realign the zoning boundaries through a zone change application. Staff
suggests that the owner undertake such a process to remedy the building height for Building B.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 28 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
7. A 2013-009 (Cont’d)
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
February 4, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. K. Muir spoke in support of the application and provided copies of a Design Concept drawing
and Draft Plan of Subdivision map. Mr. Muir advised that he was in agreement with staff’s
recommendations concerning Building ‘A’ but is also seeking the same recommendation for
Building ‘B’. He noted that the variance application is part of a larger subdivision development at
1 Adam Street, which has undergone various planning processes over the past 2 years. He
pointed out that the design brief was originally based on an extension to Adam Street as a public
road through to St. Leger Street. Mr. Muir advised that the owner was unable to secure lands to
the west to provide for the road extension and accordingly, the access from St. Leger Street
reverted to an internal private road access. He noted that at issue in the variance application is
that a narrow portion of Buildings ‘A’ and ‘B’ fall within the R6 Zone which restricts building height
to 10.5m. Mr. Muir advised that the owner wishes to extend approval to Building ‘B’ so the site is
planned overall with a co-ordinated approach. He referred to Figure 2 as attached to the
application, noting that Building ‘B’ was not subject to the site plan process for Building ‘A’ but
was anticipated through the Urban Design Brief to be 8 storeys in height. He added that Building
‘B’ was not included in the site plan for Building ‘A’ as there is desire to undertake development in
a phased approach to allow the market to be tested prior to proceeding and the proposed 8
stories may go up or down dependent on market demand.
Mr. A. Pinnell advised that while the site plan for Building ‘A’ as vetted through various
departments and agencies provides for support of the variance for Building ‘A’, the preferred
means to rectify a shift in zoning boundaries is through a Zone Change Application. As Building
‘B’ is not subject to the current site plan, staff is of the opinion the owner should pursue a Zone
Change Application to remedy the building height for Building ‘B’. Mr. Pinnell further noted that it
may be many years before Building ‘B’ proceeds allowing time for a zone change application to
be pursued. Ms. Von Westherholt added that the zone change process is preferred as it is more
comprehensive in nature and the applicant has indicated uncertainty as to what Building ‘B’ will
look like dependent on market demand.
Mr. Cybalski noted that the zoning process is lengthy, requesting further clarification as to why
Building ‘B’ could not be included in the variance application. Mr. Pinnell noted that in a broader
context the purpose is to move the zoning line between the two buildings and there are unrelated
matters aside that need to be addressed in the zoning process. He added that staff are of the
opinion approval for Building ‘B’ is premature given a site plan application has not been submitted
for this building. Ms. Von Westerholt further suggested that there is risk in that, development
aspects may change pending construction of Building ‘B’ and pointed out that a zone change
application will be required in any event to address the other issues, noting that the intent this
date is in the interim to facilitate proceeding with Building ‘A’.
Mr. Muir advised that he is in disagreement with staff’s opinion that a zone change application is
necessary to address the other issues as these are simply technicalities that he considers
housekeeping in nature.
Mr. Cybalski expressed the view that it is difficult to see how one could be done without the other
and noted that if the road extension had proceeded as planned there would be no need for an
application to this Committee.
Mr. B. McColl expressed similar views that it would seem more logical to do both now, rather than
separately.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of 1841362 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct a residential
development on the portion of Block 4, Plan 30T-11203 affected by the R-6 zone, having a
maximum building height of 36m (118.11‘) rather than the permitted 10.5m (34.45‘) for multiple
dwellings in the form of apartment buildings, on Lots 461 to 466, Lot 533, Part Lots 460 and 526
to 532, Part Park Lot ‘H’, and Part Lot 38 Streets and Lanes, Plan 376, designated as Part 1 on
BE
Reference Plan 58R-16131, 340 Louisa Street / St. Leger Street, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
, subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 29 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
7. A 2013-009 (Cont’d)
1. That the owner shall obtain approval of a modification to Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-
11203 from the City’s Director of Planning which shall show Block 4, Stage 1 as being
substantially similar to that block shown on the plan submitted with the subject minor
variance application containing Building A and Building B (as shown in Figure 2 of Minor
Variance Application A2013-009), by February 19, 2014.
2. That the subject variance shall apply to Building A (as shown in Figure 2 of Minor Variance
Application A2013-009) and the owner shall obtain Site Plan Approval of Application
SP12/074/S/AP for Building A which shall be in general conformity with such building
shown on the above noted figure, to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning, by
February 19, 2014.
3. That the subject variance shall apply to Building B (as shown in Figure 2 of Minor Variance
Application A2013-009) and the owner shall obtain Site Plan Approval of Future
Application to be submitted for Building B which shall be in general conformity with such
building shown on the above noted figure, to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning, by February 19, 2014.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
This meeting temporarily recessed at 11:35 a.m. and reconvened at 11:45 a.m. with all members
present.
Submission No.:
8. A 2013-010
Applicant:
2276457 Ontario Inc.
Property Location:
87 & 93 Cedar Street South
Legal Description:
Part Lot 16, Plan 395
Appearances:
In Support: S. Litt
Contra: S. Constantinou
Other: F. Etherington
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to allow steps located
within the front yard having a height of 2m (6.57‘) above finished grade level within 3m (9.85‘) of a
street line rather than the required maximum height of 0.6m (1.97‘); to allow a porch / terrace
0.6m (1.97’) in height above finished grade level to be setback 0m from the front lot line rather
than the required 3m (9.85‘); to allow a porch / terrace 0.6m (1.97’) in height above finished grade
level to be setback 0.31m (1.02’) from the front lot line rather than the required 3m (9.85‘); and a
porch / terrace, including support beams, floor slab and railing to be located within two driveway
visibility triangles (DVT) whereas the by-law does not permit any obstructions to visibility within a
DVT.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 11, 2013, 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. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on January
23, 2013.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 30 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
8. A 2013-010 (Cont’d)
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.
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. It should be noted that the applicant previously sought
and obtained minor variance approvals in November 20, 2011 (Application A 2011-063) and
November 20, 2012 (Application A 2012-071) for the following:
a) minimum front yard of 2.6 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum front
yard of 4.5 metres.
b) minimum side yard (northeast) of 1.75 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a
minimum side yard of 2.5 metres.
c) minimum rear yard of 6.0 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum rear
yard of 7.5 metres.
d) 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.
e) 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.
f) Maximum floor space ratio of 0.9, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a maximum floor
space ratio of 0.6, to allow occupancy of the attic space of the buildings planned through
Site Plan Application SP11/072/C/AP.
The above variances permitted the owner to obtain a building permit to allow all 36 dwelling units
to be constructed. At the time of the writing of this report, both buildings are under construction
and are substantially complete from the exterior.
Upon construction, it was determined that further matters related to the front porch/terrace and
steps leading to the porch/terrace were not in compliance with the Zoning By-law. As such, relief
is now being sought to reconcile the as-built conditions through the following variances:
1. Requesting steps to be permitted within the required minimum front yard with a height of
2.0 metres above finished grade level within 3.0 metres of a street line, whereas the
Zoning By-law requires steps to have a maximum height of 0.6 metres above finished
grade level within 3.0 metres of a street line. (note the requested height increase from 1.4
metres in the previous variance to 2.0 metres in the subject variance)
2. Requesting a porch/terrace (i.e., the front wall of the below grade porch/terrace) to be
located within the front yard with a minimum setback of 0 metres from the front lot line and
a height of 0.6 metres above finished grade level, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a
porch/terrace with a height not exceeding 0.6 metres in height above finished grade level
to be set back a minimum of 3.0 metres from the front lot line.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 31 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
8. A 2013-010 (Cont’d)
3. Requesting a porch/terrace (i.e., the above grade porch/terrace) to be located within the
required front yard with a minimum setback of 0 metres from the front lot line and a height
of 2.0 metres above finished grade level, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a
porch/terrace with a height not exceeding 0.6 metres in height above finished grade level
to be set back a minimum of 3.0 metres from the front lot line.
4. Requesting a terrace/porch, including support beams, floor slab, and railing, to be
permitted within two Driveway Visibility Triangles (DVT), whereas the Zoning By-law does
not permit any obstructions to visibility within a DVT.
Staff notes that following circulation of the application, Variance 3 was modified to read 0 metre
setback (rather than 0.31 metre setback). No recirculation is considered necessary since
Variance 2 is substantially similar.
It should also be noted that it was determined that there is a slight encroachment of the concrete
steps which lead from the porch/terrace onto the City’s right-of-way. To reconcile this situation,
the applicant is seeking an encroachment agreement from the City through a separate process.
While the encroachment is not the subject of this request, staff recommends a condition to ensure
that an encroachment agreement is entered into by the owner since it is closely related to the
variance request.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments.
Variances 1-3 meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Official Plan
states that: “Where special zoning regulations or minor variances are requested or proposed to
facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special
zoning regulations or minor variances shall be reviewed to ensure the following: ii) Front yard
setback reductions may be considered for new buildings in established neighbourhoods”. In this
case, the front yard reduction for the steps and porch/terrace is appropriate as no vehicular or
pedestrian concerns have been identified by Transportation Services, and Planning staff is of the
opinion that the reduced setback will have a beneficial outcome on the streetscape.
Variance 4 meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Official Plan states
that: “6. All parking areas or facilities shall be designed, constructed and maintained: i) For the
safe and efficient movement of motor vehicles and pedestrians, on the site, and at points of
ingress and egress related to the site…”
In order to ensure visibility is maintained for vehicles and pedestrians entering and exiting the
site, the applicant has agreed to an approval condition to cut openings in the porch/terrace in the
location of both DVTs. For structural and resident safety, certain features must remain within the
area of the DVT including: posts to support the porch/terrace slab, the slab itself, railings to
ensure that users do not fall off the porch/terrace, and see-through guards to ensure people do
not fall into the openings in the porch/terrace. Transportation Services has reviewed and is in
support of this visibility solution.
Variances 1-3 meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of front
yard setback requirement for steps and porch/terrace is to ensure consistent setbacks on the
street as well as to ensure adequate buffer space from the travelled portion of road.
Transportation Services has reviewed this setback and has no concerns. Planning staff is
satisfied that the setback is compatible with the others on the street.
Variance 4 meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of the DVT
requirement is to ensure that pedestrians and motorists have visibility through the intersection of
a driveway and a municipal street. Transportation staff has advised that they have no concerns
with the variance as long as the aforementioned condition is imposed as part of the approval.
Variances 1-4 are minor in nature for the following reasons. Staff is of the opinion that no
unacceptably adverse impacts would be caused as a result of the decreased setback as long as
the above noted condition is imposed.
Variances 1-4 are appropriate for the desirable development of the land since they will allow the
development of front yard amenity space for the residents of the subject multiple dwelling units.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 32 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
8. A 2013-010 (Cont’d)
With respect to Variance 4, staff notes that the ideal method to ensure visibility at the intersection
of a driveway and public street is to not allow any obstructions within the DVT. Having stated this,
staff is of the opinion that the proposed condition to allow visibility through openings in the
porch/terrace in the DVT areas represents an effective and viable solution to remedy an as-built
condition to achieve visibility, while retaining the concept of an urban porch/terrace with street
presence.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
February 4, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. S. Litt advised that the variance application is housekeeping in nature, due to a difference in
how height is measured by the City. He noted that he had attended a meeting with area
residents to address concerns previously raised and had agreed to provide additional fencing
along the rear property, as well as landscaping along Church Street to prevent pedestrians
walking through the properties. He added that the proposed porch / terraces provide tenants with
access to an outdoor amenity and those requiring a variance related to driveway visibility triangles
are being constructed in a manner to allow visibility through the structures.
Mr. D. Cybalski questioned why the variances were not picked up in the site plan or building
drawings. Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that initial drawings were not as detailed and the issue
of the DVT was created afterwards due to a housekeeping amendment to the Zoning By-law
which incorporated DVTs whereas previously same was only contained in the design manual.
Mr. A. Pinnell advised that visibility concerns were raised by the neighbouring property owner at
time of the previous minor variance application and on further site inspection, staff were in
agreement that the height of the porch posed an obstruction to visibility. He noted that the site
plan is a 2D version of the area and it was not until actual grading took place that the issue of
height became evident. He pointed out that this was inadvertent on the part of the applicant and
the applications deal with an as built situation. Ms. Von Westerholt added that staff in
consultation with Transportation Services is of the opinion that they have come up with a safe
solution to these issues.
Mr. D. Cybalski questioned why the porch / terrace on the north side, which has the greatest
impact to a neighbouring property, could not be built in such a way that would not interfere with
the DVT. Mr. Litt advised that the intent is to have a patio above and below for exclusive use of
the tenants and pointed out that the approved building permit shows a landing with a railing but
he is trying to be co-operative in this situation by providing openings for visibility.
Mr. A. Pinnell advised that the site plan team worked with Mr. Litt to engineer a solution and
looked at numerous options aside from the one recommended, noting the other options all have
pros and cons. He stated that it is staff’s opinion the recommended solution presents a workable
solution that does not disrupt the integrity of the structure and allows for visibility.
Mr. Cybalski noted that the drawings show a fence within the DVT and Mr. Litt advised that the
fence has been removed from within the DVT.
Mr. S. Constantinou raised concerns that given the front porch / terrace is intended as tenant
amenity space, any persons standing, or personal items being stored, on the structure will
obstruct visibility to the adjacent driveway on the neighbouring property, owned by his Father.
Mr. S. Litt stated that the original concept provided for a retaining wall, solid in mass at the same
height, noting that what is now proposed provides more visibility. Mr. Cybalski expressed the
view that this does not mean the original concept was right. Mr. Constantinou noted that the
property is sloped and on a hill and when sitting in a vehicle one is not able to see oncoming
traffic. Mr. Litt advised that the difference in slope from the patio to the driveway is approximately
0.9m which is essentially the same as the retaining wall that was there prior to construction. Mr.
Cybalski questioned if the original retaining wall was in the DVT and Mr. Litt confirmed it was, as
well as immediate to the property line.
In regard to the issue of obstructions on the porch / terrace, Ms. J. von Westerholt suggested that
the applicant could include a clause in the Condominium Declaration requiring the area to be
unobstructed which would be registered on title and the condo owner would be made aware of
the clause.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 33 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
8. A 2013-010 (Cont’d)
Mr. Cybalski questioned if there is to be outdoor space in the rear of the building and Mr. Litt
confirmed there will be, as well as between the two buildings. Mr. Cybalski stated that the issues
relate more to the ground floor units and in particular one end unit, questioning the feasibility of
constructing the porch / terrace for the north end unit so that it does not go into the DVT. Mr. S.
Litt stated that the building is substantially done and to reconfigure as proposed would
necessitate ripping out what has been constructed and starting over as there is not sufficient
footing underneath; and may also disrupt underground services. Mr. Pinnell advised that the
construction method referred to was considered in determining a solution and considered not to
be feasible given significant and costly structural changes that would have to be made. Mr.
Cybalski questioned how significant the changes are in the overall context and sake of safety for
the neighbouring property owner. Mr. Litt stated that if required to do so, he would have to do a
o
sunken patio at 45 angle, leaving it open to the elements and the fence would be within the DVT.
Mr. Cybalski suggested that the fence could be constructed to provide visibility with materials
such as wrought iron and the open angle would give light to the unit below.
Mr. McColl questioned if Mr. Constantinou had any view as to how the issue could be resolved to
his satisfaction. Mr. Constantinou advised that he had sent in a suggestion to move the structure
over 6’ which would still give access to the patios but acknowledged it may be costly to do so.
Mr. Litt advised that he was willing to accommodate the suggestion to put a clause in the
Declaration to provide for no outdoor storage, which could be drafted by the City Solicitor and he
would not oppose same.
Mr. McColl questioned if the suggestion of the Chair to construct in a differing manner was
feasible. Mr. Pinnell stated that the cost to do so would be substantial but structurally was most
likely feasible although it may require the need to relocate underground piping. He reiterated that
this was considered and staff remains of the view that the recommended solution will work. Mr.
D. Seller added that Transportation Services is of the view that staff’s recommendation is a good
solution under present circumstance.
Mr. F. Etherington spoke to this application and it was noted that he was doing so as a private
citizen and not in his capacity as a member of Council. He raised concerns that the issue is not
one that was created by the neighbouring property owner, and same should not be blamed, nor
was he certain it was created by the applicant. He stated that he liked the solutions being put
forward by the Committee regarding construction of the porch/terrace for the north end unit in a
differing manner. Mr. Cybalski commented that he was uncertain how these matters had come
about as well but was attempting to determine if there is a solution to soften the impact of the
north end unit for the neighbouring property; and he remained of the opinion it could be
constructed in a different manner.
Ms. von Westerholt suggested that given the concerns of the Committee, that the application
could be deferred to allow an opportunity for staff and the applicant to consult with a professional
engineer or other expert to see what if any other option may be feasible. Mr. Pinnell added that
the proposed reconfiguration would create an awkward space and while it could be done if
sufficient money is put to it, he questioned if it is realistic given the scale of the development.
Mr. S. Litt advised that he had consulted with a third party engineer in design of the development,
stating that the suggested reconfiguration would be costly and he has an approved site plan that
has already been revised and this would create need for more revisions. Mr. Litt requested
clarification as to the existence of 2 driveways on the neighbouring property and Mr. Constantinou
advised there are 2 driveways but they do not wrap around. Ms. von Westerholt added that
egress from the neighbouring property can only be accomplished by backing out onto the street.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of 2276457 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to allow steps located within
the front yard having a height of 2m (6.57‘) above finished grade level within 3m (9.85‘) of a street
line rather than the required maximum height of 0.6m (1.97‘); to allow a porch / terrace 0.6m
(1.97’) in height above finished grade level to be setback 0m from the front lot line rather than the
required 3m (9.85‘); to allow a porch / terrace 2m (6.57’) in height above finished grade level
rather than the maximum height of 0.6m (1.97’) and to be setback 0 m from the front lot line
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 34 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
8. A 2013-010 (Cont’d)
rather than the required 3m (9.85‘); a porch / terrace, including support beams, floor slab and
railing to be located within two driveway visibility triangles (DVT), whereas the by-law does not
permit any obstructions to visibility within a DVT, on Part Lot 16, Plan 395, 87 and 93 Cedar
BE APPROVED
Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1.That the owner shall submit and obtain approval of an application for a minor change to
Site Plan Application SP11/072/C/AP to update mapping to reflect the subject minor
variance approval. Said minor revision shall include, but not be limited to:
the submission of elevation drawings for the front porch/terrace showing openings
in the location of the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) at the south extent, as well
as related structural and safety components, as necessary;
the submission of elevation drawings for the front porch/terrace showing
construction in a manner that does not encroach into the location of the DVT at the
or
north extent; if determined necessary for reasons of fire / safety as determined
by a qualified Engineer or Architect, the submission of elevation drawings for the
front porch/terrace showing openings in the location of the Driveway Visibility
Triangle (DVT) at the north extent, as well as related structural and safety
components, as necessary; and,
That this condition shall be fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager of Site Plan
Development and Customer Service in consultation with the City’s Chief Building Official,
prior to issuance of the revision to the building permit for Building B (building closest to
Cedar Street) to reflect changes associated with the subject Minor Variance Application.
2.That the owner shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for all
development within the City’s right-of-way, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, prior to
site plan approval of the minor change outlined in Condition 1, above.
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
Submission No.:
9. A 2013-011
Applicant:
2296093 Ontario Inc.
Property Location:
387-397 King Street East / 6 Madison Avenue South
Legal Description:
Part Lots 17 and 18, Plan 364 and Part Lot 19, Plan 365; and, Part Lot
19, Plan 365
Appearances:
In Support: J. Fryett
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a mixed use
commercial / retail / residential development having 56 parking spaces rather than the required
60 spaces; a parking setback of 0m to the street line rather than the required 4.5m (14.77‘); a
maximum building height of 20m (65.62‘) rather than the permitted 16.5m (54.14‘); a balcony
having a front yard setback of 0m rather than the required 3m (9.85‘); a canopy having a 1.8m
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 35 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
9. A 2013-011 (Cont’d)
(5.91‘) encroachment into the front yard rather than the permitted 1.5m (4.93‘); and a 0m
driveway visibility triangle on the south side of the east driveway (Madison Avenue) rather than
the required 4.57m (15‘).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 11, 2013, advising
that the subject property is irregular in shape and is located on the south side of King Street East,
situated between Madison Avenue South and Cedar Street South just outside of the designated
Downtown boundary. The subject area is 0.42 hectares. The subject lands comprise two
properties. 387 King Street East is currently used as a commercial parking lot and 6 Madison
Avenue South is a residential property containing a single detached dwelling. Surrounding land
use is characterized as being a mix of commercial and residential.
The subject property is located within the King Street East Mixed Use Corridor of the City’s
Official Plan and zoned Mixed Use Three (MU3) with special regulations 529 & 544. The intent of
the policy framework and zoning is to encourage intensive transit supportive mixed use
development with a floor space ratio ranging from 1 to 4 that is pedestrian oriented and
compatible with adjacent low rise neighbourhoods.
The owner has assembled these lands for the purposes of redevelopment. In that regard, the
applicant has submitted a Site Plan Application (SP12/080/K/BB) that proposes the development
of a five storey mixed use building comprised of main floor commercial retail (with a grocery store
as the major anchor) and upper level residential comprised of 48 units. This plan has received
“Approval in Principle” from the Site Plan Review Committee.
In order to facilitate the proposed development as shown on the attached proposed site plan, a
total of six minor variances have been requested. They are as follows:
1. Requesting a total number of 56 parking spaces whereas 60 are required;
2. Requesting a 0 metre setback for parking spaces in the front yard abutting King Street
East whereas a 4.5 metres setback is required;
3. Requesting a maximum height of building of 20 metres whereas 16.5 metres is required;
4. Requesting a setback of 0 metre for balconies abutting King Street whereas a 3 metre
setback is required;
5. Requesting a setback of 1.5 metres for canopies whereas a 1.8 metre setback is required;
and
6. Requesting a 0 metre setback for a daylight visibility triangle situated at the southerly side
of the Madison Avenue South access whereas a 4.57 metres setback is required.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments.
Variances 1 and 2 (Parking Spaces and Parking Setback)
Variances 1 and 2 explained above, request relief from the required number and front yard
setback of parking for the MU-3 zone. Ironically, variance 1 is required because of variance 2
and while staff supports the reduction of parking, it does not support the reduction in the front
yard setback for reasons explained below.
The general intent of the Official Plan designation is being maintained for variances 1 and 2 as
the 5 storey proposal is in keeping with the policy framework of requiring compact mixed use
development that is transit supportive and pedestrian friendly.
Variance 1 meets the intent of the Zoning By-law by ensuring adequate parking is available. The
minimum number of parking spaces are provided so as to encourage more built form at the edge
of the property. This site layout has been designed to be transit supportive and pedestrian
oriented rather than having expanses of surface parking dominating the streetscape. Staff is
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 36 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
9. A 2013-011 (Cont’d)
confident that given the property’s location relative to existing transit opportunities along King
Street and a future rapid transit station platform along Charles Street, a reduction of 4 spaces is
an acceptable.
In the opinion of staff, variance 2 does not meet the intent of the setback requirement for surface
parking in the MU-3 zone. Special Regulation provision 529R b) indicates that a 0m setback is
permitted for parking that is existing as of the date of the passing of the Zoning By-law. This was
to recognize and legalize the existing setback of the commercial parking lot. However, 529R b) is
superseded by Section 6.1a) v) of the Zoning By-law that requires a 4.5m setback for parking
once new development is proposed. The intent of the setback regulation is to provide a buffer in
order screen any surface parking given the objective of mixed use areas to create a positive
pedestrian experience by encouraging building massing along the street edge. Where surface
parking is proposed along a corridor street edge, it must be adequately screened through the use
of landscaping. Landscaping enhances the public realm and provides for a more pedestrian
friendly streetscape.
Variance 1 is considered minor and appropriate for the use of the land as a reduction of 4 parking
spaces will not have a negative impact on the surrounding lands given the property’s location
relative to existing transit and the future rapid transit line.
Variance 2 is not considered minor and appropriate for the use of land. A 0 metre parking
setback along King Street at this location would provide no separation from the walking public
and is not in keeping with the design objectives of the City. Consequently, staff cannot support
this variance request.
Variance 3 (Building Height)
The applicant requests relief from Special Regulation provision 529R c) of the by-law with respect
to the proposed height of the building. 529R c) states that the maximum building height is 16.5
metres unless properties are consolidated having frontage onto Cedar, King and Madison in
which case there is no height limit. The applicant is proposing a 20 metres building height or 5
storeys.
The general intent of the Official Plan designation is being maintained as the 5 storey proposal is
in keeping with the policy framework of requiring compact mixed use development that is transit
supportive and pedestrian friendly.
The intent of this zoning regulation is to encourage land consolidation. This was partially
achieved with the acquisition of 6 Madison Avenue South. Further attempts to consolidate were
unsuccessful. The reason additional height is being requested is two-fold: to be able to maintain
a 6 metres floor to ceiling height for the ground floor commercial retail plus allow for structural and
mechanical systems above and to meet the minimum Floor Space Ratio requirement of 1.0 for
massing on site. The MU-3 zone requires a minimum 6 metres minimum façade height and a
minimum Floor Space Ratio of 1.0. Additionally, given the grade differential of 1.5 metres across
the site, visually, the impact of the additional height is minimized. As a result of these factors,
staff is of the opinion the intent of the by-law is being maintained.
Variance 3 is considered minor and appropriate for the use of land. The additional height
requested is needed to maintain urban design objectives for height of ground floor commercial
retail as well as meeting minimum floor space ratio requirements for massing on site. Visually,
the impact of additional height is minimized given the slope of the site.
Variances 4 and 5 (Canopy and Balcony Setbacks)
The applicant is requesting relief from the General Provisions section of the by-law that requires
minimum front yard setbacks of 1.8 metres and 3 metres for canopies and balconies,
respectively.
The general intent of the Official Plan designation is being maintained as the 5 storey proposal is
in keeping with the policy framework of requiring compact mixed use development that is transit
supportive and pedestrian friendly. Canopies and balconies are considered important
architectural features of a building that will help enhance the appearance of the King Street East
streetscape.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 37 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
9. A 2013-011 (Cont’d)
The MU-3 zone allows for a building setback of 1.5 metres and typically balconies and canopies
project beyond the front façade. Unfortunately, the General Provisions section that governs such
setbacks was unaltered when the mixed use zoning for this section of King Street was enacted in
2010. Regardless, the intent of the setback requirements for canopies and balconies is to allow
for projections into the required front yard setback providing they do not encroach in to the right-
of-way. The proposed balcony and canopy projections do not encroach into the City’s right-of-
way and therefore, the intent of the by-law is being maintained.
Variances 4 and 5 are considered minor and appropriate for the use of land. The required front
yard building setback in the MU-3 zone is 1.5 metres and canopies and balconies would extend
beyond the building setback. Unfortunately, the General Provisions section has not been
updated to reflect the new setback requirements for canopies and balconies in the Mixed Use
zones. However, the request for a 1.5 metres setback for canopies and a 0 metre setback for
balconies are minor that can be supported by staff.
Variance 6 (Daylight Visibility Triangle)
The Zoning By-law requires 4.57 metres daylight visibility triangles at all driveway access points
intersecting with a municipal roadway. The intent is to ensure that pedestrians and motorists
have visibility through the intersection of a driveway and a municipal street. There are two
accesses to the development proposal: one on King Street East and a second on Madison
Avenue South. At issue is the proposed access onto Madison Avenue requiring 0 metre setback
relief from the southerly daylight visibility triangle requirement. This is because the proposed
drive aisle is situated contiguous to the property boundary, which is immediately adjacent to an
existing residential driveway located at 10 Madison Avenue. Because there is a pinch point
between the proposed building and the property boundary at this location of the site, a design
solution could not be achieved (i.e. short of eliminating the access altogether) in order for this
access to comply with the 4.57metres daylight triangle regulation. This is often a design
challenge with infill proposals.
Lengthy discussions were held between the applicant, Transportation Planning and Planning staff
to discuss and try to address this matter. Although not ideal, staff has agreed to support the
variance for a 0 metre setback given the adjacent driveway is residential in nature and therefore
low traffic usage; the applicant had agreed to eliminate a portion of the proposed building to
address a separate safety concern of having trucks enter and exit the site in a forward motion
and, there is insufficient width at his location of the site in order to shift the location of the access.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
February 4, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated February 6,
2013, advising approval of this application be subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for
the provision of electrical servicing to the properties to be developed.
2. That the applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the properties are developed.
3. Driveways will be located so as to clear our submersible transformer vaults and provide a
minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles, anchoring and street light standards.
Mr. James Fryett advised that the proposed development is to include an approximate 12,000
sq.ft. grocery store and other mixed use, and he was in agreement with staff’s recommendations
save and except that which relates to the requested 0m setback for parking spaces in the front
yard abutting King Street East. He noted that the parking existed at time the property was
rezoned to a mixed use corridor zone and it was his understanding normally, existing situations
are permitted to continue as a legal non-conforming use. In this instance, the Zoning By-law
stipulates that any existing parking is permitted to remain unless complete redevelopment is to
take place. He advised that their intent is to retain the existing parking so as to maximize the
amount of parking on-site for the grocery store use. Mr. Fryett provided photographs depicting
the King Street East frontage, noting that there is a City-owned boulevard with landscaping that
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 38 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
9. A 2013-011 (Cont’d)
provides a buffer. He stated that to comply with the required setback, parking would have to be
setback 4.5m and pointed out that with the 3m City-owned buffer the setback would actually be
7.5m. He noted that the building setback is 1.5m and therefore, the required setback for the
parking spaces seems excessive. Mr. Fryett advised that they are requesting approval of the 0m
setback, noting that the new standards are more restrictive and it was his view that if required to
do so, they would not be able to come close to meeting the new requirements.
In response to Mr. Cybalski, Mr. Fryett provided information as to the configuration of parking on-
site, noting that parking will consist of 3 rows and 2 aisles, with the centre bank to allow service to
both sides. Mr. Cybalski questioned if diagonal parking could be accommodated and Mr. Fryett
advised same is not feasible for the site. Mr. Cybalski commented that a grocery store use would
require considerable parking and was of the view the requested variance for a 0m setback was
practical.
Ms. J. von Westerholt stated that the property is now zoned mixed use corridor and the site backs
onto the route to be established for the future Light Rail Transit (LRT) system. Mr. Cybalski
stated that notwithstanding the future LRT, a grocery store evokes a different type of movement.
Ms. von Westerholt further noted that the grocery store is to be a specialized type that may not
generate the same type of activity as a more traditional grocery store. Mr. Fryett stated that the
site already has limited parking and boundary issues, and is why they are attempting to keep
what parking is already on the site. He added that they would be amenable to providing
enhanced landscaping on the City boulevard fronting King Street East.
Mr. B. Bateman noted that the portion of parking would be in the right-of-way if a road widening
was taken by the City and if approved, the City is left with a parking lot up against the sidewalk
with no ability to provide screening. He added that the regulations recognize that not all can be
changed but is intended to provide for the kind of streetscape desired along King Street; and as
well, the LRT is intended to encourage reduction in parking needs. Ms. von Westerholt reiterated
that the type of grocery store is to be specialized which is more likely to be the type persons
would attend daily for small purchases rather than once a week for a longer period to stock up.
Mr. D. Seller confirmed that angled parking cannot be accommodated on the site. Mr. Cybalski
questioned the feasibility of eliminating some of the end parking to allow for a turning circle and
landscaping treatment. Mr. Seller advised that this would result in the loss of another 3 spaces,
and advised that whether diagonal or parallel it would basically be a wash, suggesting that it is all
or nothing with either a 0m setback with 7 parking spaces, or the required setback of 4.5m with
no parking spaces. Mr. Seller added that typically a drive aisle is 7.3m and parking stalls 2.6m;
and with one aisle at 6.7m he would like to see the parking stalls increased to 3m for the parking
fronting King Street, as well as in the centre bank of parking to provide for manoeuvrability. Mr.
Fryett advised that he could agree with this approach provided the 0m setback is approved.
Mr. B. Bateman reiterated concerns that the 0m setback is not in keeping with the mixed use
corridor zoning and Ms. J. von Westerholt noted that same has only been implemented and staff
is attempting to put the desired streetscape in place. Mr. Cybalski stated that from a practical
viewpoint, there has been a long term desire to have a grocery store on King Street and
regardless of the type, he anticipated it will be busy and it would be beneficial if there is
something that can be agreed upon to the satisfaction of both parties.
Ms. von Westerholt questioned the length of the existing parking fronting King Street East. Mr.
Fryett advised that it would equate to approximately 21m along King Street East.
Mr. Cybalski questioned if the applicant had investigated turning the parking on site and Mr. Fryett
advised that site plan development has been ongoing for approximately 1.5 years during which
numerous variations have been looked at and all has been done that can be to satisfy the intent
of the by-law.
Ms. J. von Westerholt requested that should the Committee be inclined to approve the 0m
setback for parking along King Street East, that the variance approval apply only to the 21m
portion so as not to encompass the entire King Street frontage in respect to future development.
Mr. Cybalski noted conditions of approval required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro and at the request
of Mr. B. Bateman, it was agreed that staff would apply those conditions to the site plan.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 39 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission No.:
9. A 2013-011 (Cont’d)
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of 2296093 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct a mixed use
commercial / retail / residential development having 56 parking spaces rather than the required
60 spaces; a 0m setback for parking spaces in the front yard abutting King Street East rather than
the required 4.5m (14.77‘); a maximum building height of 20m (65.62‘) rather than the permitted
16.5m (54.14‘); balconies abutting King Street having a front yard setback of 0m rather than the
required 3m (9.85‘); canopies having a front yard setback of 1.5m (4.93‘) rather than the required
1.8m (5.91‘); and a 0m setback for the driveway visibility triangle on the south side of the east
driveway (Madison Avenue South) rather than the required 4.57m (15‘), on Part Lots 17 and 18,
Plan 364 and Part Lot 19, Plan 365, 387-397 King Street East, and Part Lot 19, Plan 365, 6
BE APPROVED
Madison Avenue South, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the 0m setback for parking spaces in the front yard shall apply only to the parking
spaces situated along an approximate 21m (68.9’) stretch abutting King Street East, as
shown on Site Plan Application SP/12/080/K/BB.
2. That the parking stalls abutting King Street East (spaces 56 to 62) and those in the centre
bank of parking (spaces 48 to 55) shall be 3m (9.85’) in width.
3. That the owner shall install enhanced landscaping on the City boulevard in front of the
parking spaces along the 21m (68.9’) portion of the subject property abutting King Street
East, to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager of Site Plan Development and Customer
Service.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
CONSENT
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016
Applicant:
Eflriede Czerlinski and Activa Holdings Inc.
Property Location:
262 & 268 Woolwich Street, Redtail Court and Falconridge Drive
Legal Description:
Part Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract, being Part 4 on
Reference Plan 58R-13208 and Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-
12758; and, Block 25, Registered Plan 58M-551; and, Part of Lots 66,
124 and 125, German Company Tract, being Parts 1 and 2 on
Reference Plan 58R-12396, Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-12758
and Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-17500
Appearances:
In Support: J. Malfara
J. Voss
A. Fraser
Contra: None
Other:
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for the following:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 40 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
B 2013-004 – 268 Woolwich Street
Permission to sever a parcel of land having a lot width of 39.106m (128.3‘), by a depth of
130.069m (426.74‘) and an area of 5,011m2 (53,939.72 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition
to 262 Woolwich Street and Part 3, Plan 58R-17500, for future residential use. The retained
lands will continue to be used as residential, having frontage on Woolwich Street of 30.490m
(100.04‘), by a depth of 61m (200.14‘) and an area of 1,861m2 (20,032.3 sq. ft.).
B 2013-005 and B 2013-006 – Redtail Court / Redtail Street
Permission to sever two irregular shaped parcels of land for future residential development, the
first having a lot width of 15m (49.22‘), by an irregular depth and an area of 76.4m2 (822.39 sq.
ft.) and the second having a lot width of 15m (49.22‘), by an irregular depth and an area of 6.9 m2
(74.28 sq. ft.). The retained lands will be used for future residential, having a lot width of 15.055m
(49.4‘), by an irregular depth and an area of 489m2 (5263.73 sq. ft.).
B 2013-007 to B 2013-016 – 262 Woolwich Street / Part of 268 Woolwich Street / Redtail Court
Permission to sever 10 parcels of land for future residential development as follows:
1. an irregular shaped parcel having a westerly depth of 24.2m (79.4‘), a northerly depth of
15.2m (49.87‘) and an area of 161m2 (1733.05 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to
the retained lands on Block 25, 58M-551, Redtail Court, under applications B 2013-005
and B 2013-006;
2. an irregular shaped parcel having a northerly depth of 24.2m (79.4‘), a southerly depth of
40.5m (132.88‘) and an area of 1,034m2 (11,130.25 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot
addition to the severed lands under application B 2013-005, Redtail Court;
3. an irregular shaped parcel having a northerly depth of 40.5m (132.88‘), a southerly depth
of 39.9m (130.91‘) and an area of 918m2 (9881.6 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition
to the severed lands under application B 2013-006, Redtail Court; subject to an easement
in favour of the City of Kitchener for storm water catch basins and piping directing
stormwater to Red Tail Court along the side lot lines, having a width of 2.5m (8.21‘), by a
depth of 39.9m (130.91‘) and an area of 99.8m2 (1074.28 sq. ft.);
4. an irregular shaped parcel having a northerly depth of 39.9m (130.91‘), a southerly depth
of 43.9m (144.03‘) and an area of 1,276m2 (13,735.20 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot
addition to Block 24, Plan 58M-551, Redtail Court; subject to two easements in favour of
the City of Kitchener for storm water catch basins and piping directing stormwater to Red
Tail Court along the side lot lines, firstly having a width of 2.5m (8.21‘), by a depth of 39.9m
(130.91‘) and an area of 99.9m2 (1075.35 sq. ft.) and secondly, having a width of 2.5m
(8.21‘), by a depth of 43.9m (144.03‘) and an area of 116.6m2 (1255.12 sq. ft.);
5. an irregular shaped parcel having a northerly depth of 43.9m (144.03‘), a southerly depth
of 29m (95.15‘) and an area of 447m2 (4811.63 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to
Block 23, Plan 58M-551, Redtail Court; subject to an easement in favour of the City of
Kitchener for storm water catch basins and piping directing stormwater to Red Tail Court
along the side lot lines, having a width of 2.5m (8.21‘), by a depth of 43.9m (144.03‘) and
an area of 103.1m2 (1109.8 sq. ft.);
6. a parcel of land having frontage on Falconridge Drive of 15.2m (49.87‘), by a depth of
30.1m (98.76‘) and an area of 482m2 (5188.38 sq. ft.);
7. a parcel of land having frontage on Falconridge Drive of 15.2m (49.87‘), by a depth of
31.5m (103.35‘) and an area of 503m2 (5414.43 sq. ft.);
8. a parcel of land having frontage on Falconridge Drive of 16.8m (55.12‘), by a depth of
35.9m (117.79‘) and an area of 580m2 (6243.28 sq. ft.);
9. a parcel of land having frontage on Falconridge Drive of 16.8m (55.12‘), by a depth of
38.6m (126.64‘) and an area of 625m2 (6727.67 sq. ft.);
10. a parcel of land having frontage on Falconridge Drive of 16.8m (55.12‘), by a depth of
41.4m (135.83‘) and an area of 671m2 (7222.82 sq. ft.); and,
the retained lands will continue to be used for residential, having frontage on Falconridge Drive of
18.8m (61.68‘), by a depth of 42.4m (139.11‘) and an area of 807m2 (8686.76 sq. ft.).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 13, 2013, advising
that the subject properties are located on the east side of Woolwich Street between Falconridge
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 41 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
Drive and Hawkswood Drive. The subject properties are designated as Low Rise Residential in
the Official Plan. The properties municipally addressed as 268 Woolwich Street and 262
Woolwich Street are zoned Residential Three (R-3) with Special Regulation Provisions 304R,
307R and 634R in the Zoning By-law. 268 Woolwich Street contains a single detached dwelling,
outbuildings and a septic system that will be retained while 262 Woolwich Street is vacant. Block
25 fronting on Redtail Court within Plan of Subdivision 58M-551 is zoned Residential Three (R-3)
with Special Regulation Provisions 304R and 307R. Block 25 is also vacant.
The applicant is proposing a three phase consent application. The end product will result in the
creation of 12 lots. One lot will contain an existing single detached dwelling while the remaining
lots will be vacant for future residential development. Phasing is required to create and merge all
necessary parcels.
Phase I (B2013-004) – 268 Woolwich Street
The applicant is seeking permission to sever a parcel of land for future residential development.
• The parcel of land has a lot width of 39.106 metres, a depth of 130.069 metres and an
area of 5011 square metres, which will be conveyed as a lot addition from 268 Woolwich
Street to 262 Woolwich Street and Part 3, Plan 58R-17500.
• The retained lands will contain an existing single detached dwelling with frontage on
Woolwich Street of 30.490 metres, a depth of 61 metres and an area of 1861 square
metres.
The purpose of Phase I is to sever the rear portion of the property municipally addressed as 268
Woolwich Street in order to convey the lands as a lot addition to 262 Woolwich Street. The
creation of this large parcel of land establishes street frontage on Falconridge Drive in order to
create six new lots by way of future severances outlined in Phase III.
Phase II (B2013-005 and B2013-006) – Redtail Court (Block 25, 58M-551)
The applicant is seeking permission to sever two irregular shaped parcels of land for future
residential development.
• The first parcel of land has a lot width of 15 metres, an irregular depth and an area of 76.4
square metres.
• The second parcel of land has a lot width of 15 metres, an irregular depth and an area of
6.9 square metres.
• The retained lands will be a vacant lot for future residential development with a lot width of
15.055 metres, an irregular depth and an area of 489 square metres.
The purpose of Phase II is to create two new parcels of land along with one retained parcel.
These parcels establish frontage on Redtail Court in order to create three new lots by way of
future severances outlined in Phase III.
Phase III (B2013-007 to B2013-016) – 262 Woolwich Street / Redtail Court (Block 25, 58M-551)
The applicant is seeking permission to sever 10 parcels of land for future residential
development.
• The first parcel of land has an irregular shape, an irregular depth and an area of 161
square metres, which will be conveyed as a lot addition to the retained lands on Redtail
Court under applications B2013-005 and B2013-006 (Phase II).
• The second parcel of land has an irregular shape, an irregular depth and an area of 1034
square metres, which will be conveyed as a lot addition to the severed lands (severance 1)
on Redtail Court under application B2013-005 (Phase II).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 42 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
• The third parcel of land has an irregular shape, an irregular depth and an area of 918
square metres, which will be conveyed as a lot addition to the severed lands (severance 2)
on Redtail Court under application B2013-006; subject to an easement in favour of the City
of Kitchener for storm water catch basins and piping directing stormwater to Retail Court
along the side lot lines. The easement has a width of 2.5 metres, a depth of 39.9 metres
and an area of 99.8 square metres.
• The fourth parcel of land has an irregular shape, an irregular depth and an area of 1276
square metres, which will be conveyed as a lot addition to Block 24, Registered Plan 58M-
551, on Redtail Court; subject to two easements in favour of the City of Kitchener for storm
water catch basins and piping directing stormwater to Redtail Court along the side lot lines.
The first easement has a width of 2.5 metres, a depth of 39.9 metres and an area of 99.9
square metres. The second easement has a width of 2.5 metres, a depth of 43.9 metres
and an area of 116.6 square metres.
• The fifth parcel of land has an irregular shape, an irregular depth and an area of 447
square metres, which will be conveyed as a lot addition to Block 23, Registered Plan 58M-
551, on Redtail Court; subject to an easement in favour of the City of Kitchener for storm
water catch basins and piping directing stormwater to Redtail Court along the side lot lines.
The easement has a width of 2.5 metres, a depth of 43.9 metres and an area of 103.1
square metres.
• The sixth parcel of land has a frontage on Falconridge Drive of 15.2 metres, a depth of
30.1 metres and an area of 482 metres.
• The seventh parcel of land has a frontage on Falconridge Drive of 15.2 metres, a depth of
31.5 metres and an area of 503 square metres.
• The eighth parcel of land has a frontage on Falconridge Drive of 16.8 metres, a depth of
35.9 metres and an area of 580 square metres.
• The ninth parcel of land has a frontage on Falconridge Drive of 16.8 metres, a depth of
38.6 metres and an area of 625 square metres.
• The tenth parcel of land has a frontage on Falconridge Drive of 16.8 metres, a depth of
41.4 metres and an area of 671 square metres.
• The retained lands have a frontage on Falconridge Drive of 18.8 metres, a depth of 41.4
metres and an area of 807 square metres.
Consent and Easement Considerations
Phase I (B2013-004) – 268 Woolwich Street
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, Planning staff is of the opinion that the uses of the retained and severed
lots are in conformity with the Official Plan and are permitted in Zoning By-law 85-1. The retained
lot is suitable for the existing use and is compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area.
The severed lot will facilitate future severances (Phase III Lot Additions and New Lots) that will
create lots that are compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. The retained and
severed lots front on an established public street. The retained lands will maintain the existing
septic system and connect to the municipal water supply. The severed lands are fully serviced.
With respect to provincial policies and plans, Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed
severances are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 and conform to the Growth
Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006.
Phase II (B2013-005 and B2013-006) – Redtail Court (Block 25, 58M-551)
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, Planning staff is of the opinion that the uses of the retained and severed
lots are in conformity with the Official Plan and are permitted in Zoning By-law 85-1. The
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 43 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
dimensions and shape of the retained lot are appropriate and suitable for the proposed use and
compatible in size with lots in the surrounding area. Although the severed lots are deficient in lot
area, Planning staff is of the opinion that the dimensions and shapes of the severed lots are
appropriate in order to facilitate future severances (Phase III Lots Additions and New Lots) that
will create full lots that are compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. The retained
and severed lots front on an established public street and are fully serviced.
With respect to provincial policies and plans, Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed
severances are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 and conform to the Growth
Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006.
Phase III (B2013-007 to B2013-016) – 262 Woolwich Street / Redtail Court (Block 25, 58M-551)
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, Planning staff is of the opinion that the uses of the retained and severed
lots are in conformity with the Official Plan and are permitted in Zoning By-law 85-1. The
dimensions and shapes of the retained and severed lots are appropriate and suitable for the
proposed uses and are compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. The retained and
severed lots front on an established public street and are fully serviced.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, Planning staff is satisfied that the creation of easements is required to
facilitate stormwater catch basins and piping that direct stormwater to Redtail Court. The
proposed easements are appropriate and suitable for the proposed uses.
With respect to provincial policies and plans, Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed
severances and easements are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 and
conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006.
Region of Waterloo Comments:
Regional staff have advised that a water distribution analysis is required in order to determine the
optimal servicing scenario as the lands may be serviced from Waterloo Zone 4 or Kitchener Zone
4a. Regional staff also advised that recommendations from the study entitled “Plan of Subdivision
58M-551 (30T-04210) Subdivision, Lot Severances, Noise Impact Assessment, City of Kitchener”
prepared by Stantec Consulting (Project 1603-34905) and dated January 2012 must be secured
through a registered agreement with the City. Regional conditions are outlined in the
Recommendations section of this report.
City of Waterloo Comments:
Waterloo City staff have advised that driveway access to Woolwich Street for the lot at the
northeast corner of Woolwich Street and Falconridge Drive will be prohibited and that the
driveway access to Falconridge Drive shall be setback from Woolwich Street to the extent
possible. Waterloo City staff requested that sightlines at Woolwich Street and Falconridge Drive
be sufficient to protect public safety. Kitchener Planning staff note that the City’s Zoning By-law
regulates prohibited obstructions in visibility triangles (Section 5.3). No obstruction to visibility,
whether from buildings, motor vehicles, landscaping or other impediments is permitted within the
7.5 metre corner visibility triangle. Similar regulations also exist in the City’s Municipal Code
(Chapter 630 Fences & Chapter 842 Hedges – Other Objects Traffic Hazards). Waterloo City
have advised that a road widening of 3.9624 metres is required on Woolwich Street in order to
achieve the ultimate road allowance of 20 metres as stated in the City of Waterloo’s Official Plan.
Waterloo City staff requested that the owner prepare a noise impact study and enter into an
agreement with the City of Kitchener to implement the approved noise attenuation measures.
Kitchener Planning staff note that a noise impact assessment (see Regional comments above)
was prepared and the noise attenuation measures are being implemented through the conditions
outlined in the Recommendations section of this report. Waterloo City staff have advised that
legal costs, disbursements, and costs due to damage during development, servicing and/or
construction will be the responsibility of the owner and that development on the lands will be
subject to cross border servicing provisions and requirements. City of Waterloo conditions are
outlined in the Recommendations section of this report.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 44 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
Community Input:
In response to the circulation of the applications, one verbal response was received. The property
owners expressed concern with potential impacts to existing trees caused by the proposed
consents and future residential development. Planning staff are confident that potential impacts to
existing trees will be mitigated through standard tree management conditions. The standard tree
management conditions are outlined in the Recommendations section of this report. The property
owners also expressed concern with the potential removal of the existing fence at 262 Woolwich
Street. Planning staff note that the proposed consent applications do not indicate whether or not
the existing fence will be removed. Property owners do not require permits to remove or construct
a fence. All fences must comply with the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 630 Fences).
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated
February 8, 2013 advising that they have no objection to Submission Nos. B 2013-004 to B 2013-
016 inclusive, subject to the following conditions:
B2013-004 to B2013-016
1) That for the severed and retained lands under applications all
inclusive, the owner(s) complete a water distribution analysis to the satisfaction of the
Regional Commissioner of Planning Housing and Community Services. Furthermore, if it
is determined through such analysis that dwelling units be constructed with individual
pressure reducing valves (PRV), the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of
Kitchener to provide for such PRVs. The agreement shall also include a provision to
indicate that the required PRVs not be removed by the occupants of the dwelling;
B2013-007
2) That for the retained lands under application (Lot immediately adjacent to
Woolwich Street, identified as Retained Lands with Area 807 sq m Part of Lot 124, G.C.T.,
on Severance Sketch Part of Lots 66, 124 & 125, G.C.T. prepared by Stantec Geomatics,
Project No. 158000192 January 12, 2012), the owner(s) enter into an agreement with the
City of Kitchener to provide for the following:
a) That the dwelling unit be constructed with a forced air-ducted heating system suitably
sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system
by the occupants.
b) That the following warning clause be included on all offers to purchase and/or rental
agreements:
“Due to its proximity to Woolwich Street, projected noise levels on this property
exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals. Moreover, this dwelling has
been fitted with a forced air-ducted heating system suitably sized and designed to
permit the future installation of a central air conditioning system by the occupants.”
B2013-004
3) That for the retained lands under application (municipally known as 268
Woolwich Street), the owner enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to include
the following warning clause on all offers to purchase and/or rental agreements:
“Due to its proximity to Woolwich Street, projected noise levels on this property
exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals.”
Mr. Jason Malfara, Activa Holdings Inc., provided an overview of the applications, which
represent a phased approach to residential development that will ultimately create 12 new lots. It
was noted that these will be premium lots in terms of lot width in keeping with larger lots in the
surrounding area and concerns raised by a resident of Woolwich Street regarding tree
preservation and setbacks have been addressed through conditions of approval.
Mr. D. Cybalski questioned if the dwelling retained at 268 Woolwich Street will remain on a septic
system. Mr. Malfara advised that was correct; however, he noted that the property also currently
has a well on part of the lands to be severed which is to be decommissioned and 268 Woolwich
Street will then be hooked into the municipal water system. Ms. J. Vos stated that the reason for
retaining a septic system has to do with the location of existing sanitary pipe. It was noted that
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 45 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
sanitary piping is not located on Woolwich Street and in order to provide municipal sanitary
service, the entire home would have to be re-plumbed and an easement would be required to
cross the street. Ms. J. von Westerholt added that Woolwich Street forms part of the boundary
between the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo and the sanitary piping across the street is owned
by the City of Waterloo. Mr. Malfara pointed out that in future when Woolwich Street is proposed
for reconstruction, an Environmental Assessment will be done and there may be potential at that
time to connect to the municipal system.
Submission No. B 2013-004
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Elfriede Czerlinski requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a
2
lot width of 39.106m (128.3‘), by a depth of 130.069m (426.74‘) and an area of 5,011m
(53,939.72 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 262 Woolwich Street and Part 3, Plan 58R-
17500, on Part Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract, being Part 4 on Reference Plan
58R-13208 and Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-12758 268 Woolwich 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 provide 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands addressed as 262
Woolwich Street and title shall be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The
deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be
severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.
P.13, as amended.
4. That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an Application
Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and
prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application
Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration.
5. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with 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, designed in accordance with the Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210), showing outlets to the municipal servicing system
along with the sanitary and storm sewer design sheets as well as the sanitary peak flows
to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
7. 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.
8. That the owner shall complete and submit a Development and Reconstruction As-
Recorded Tracking Form, as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150,
along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading,
Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system, to the
satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
9. That 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 46 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
10. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning and Director of Engineering, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said
agreement shall include the following special conditions:
Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits:
a. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement the approved Storm Water Management
Scheme in accordance with the approved design from Plan of Subdivision 58M-551
(30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
b. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the downstream SWM ponds within Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering
Services.
c. The SUBDIVIDER shall, in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water
Resources Act, submit a certificate of approval from the Ministry of Environment for
the extension of the municipal sewers and water main to the satisfaction of the
City’s Engineering Services.
d. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if the services and above ground works for the
severed lands are installed or connected to infrastructure within the maintenance
period, set in the Plan of Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) Subdivision Agreement
(Instrument Number WR572809), the said services and above ground works shall
be subject to the warranty, maintenance and acceptance requirements within the
said agreement to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
11. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener for the installation
of the required Falconridge Drive works to the satisfaction of the City’s Legal Services and
Engineering Services.
12. That the owner shall have any private wells that are no longer required properly
decommissioned in accordance with MOE guidelines and all applicable laws and
regulations to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Engineering.
13. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5% (residential) of the value of the lands to be severed under consent
applications B2013-004 and B2013-007 to B2013-016.
14. That the owner shall complete a water distribution analysis for the retained and severed
lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning Housing and
Community Services and that if it is determined through such analysis that dwelling units
must be constructed with individual pressure reducing valves (PRV) then the owner shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such PRV, including a
provision indicating that the required PRVs are not to be removed by the occupants of the
dwelling.
15. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener
to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning, in
consultation with the Region of Waterloo, and registered on title of the retained lands. Said
agreement shall include the following warning clause on all offers to purchase and/or
rental agreements:
“Due to its proximity to Woolwich Street, projected noise levels on this property
exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals.”
16. That the owner shall convey a 3.9624 metre widening on the retained and severed lands
adjacent to Woolwich Street to the Corporation of the City of Waterloo, the said
conveyance to be free of charge and clear of encumbrances. The form and content of the
conveyance shall be to the satisfaction of the City of Waterloo.
17. That all legal costs and disbursements incurred by the City of Waterloo with respect to this
application shall be borne by the owner.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 47 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being February 19, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. B 2013-005
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to sever an irregular shaped
2
parcel of land having a lot width of 15m (49.22‘), by an irregular depth and an area of 76.4m
BE
(822.39 sq. ft.), on Block 25, Registered Plan 58M-551, Redtail Court, Kitchener, Ontario,
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 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the owner shall submit a stamped letter from their engineering consultant stating that
servicing, grading and driveway locations are all in accordance with the approved Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
4. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning and Director of Engineering, and shall be registered on title of the severed lands.
Said agreement shall include the following special conditions:
Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits:
a. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement the approved Storm Water Management
Scheme in accordance with the approved design from Plan of Subdivision 58M-551
(30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
b. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the downstream SWM ponds within Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering
Services.
c. The SUBDIVIDER shall, in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water
Resources Act, submit a certificate of approval from the Ministry of Environment for
the extension of the municipal sewers and water main to the satisfaction of the
City’s Engineering Services.
d. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if the services and above ground works for the
severed lands are installed or connected to infrastructure within the maintenance
period, set in the Plan of Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) Subdivision Agreement
(Instrument Number WR572809), the said services and above ground works shall
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 48 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
be subject to the warranty, maintenance and acceptance requirements within the
said agreement to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
5. That the owner shall complete a water distribution analysis for the retained and severed
lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning Housing and
Community Services and that if it is determined through such analysis that dwelling units
must be constructed with individual pressure reducing valves (PRV) than the owner shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such PRV, including a
provision indicating that the required PRVs are not to be removed by the occupants of the
dwelling.
6. That all legal costs and disbursements incurred by the City of Waterloo with respect to this
application shall be borne by the owner.
7. That Consent B2013-004 shall receive final approval and be registered on title at the
Registry Office.
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 February 19, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. B 2013-006
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to sever an irregular shaped
2
parcel of land having a lot width of 15m (49.22‘), by an irregular depth and an area of 6.9m
BE
(74.28 sq. ft.), on Block 25, Registered Plan 58M-551, Redtail Court, Kitchener, Ontario,
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 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the owner shall submit a stamped letter from their engineering consultant stating that
servicing, grading and driveway locations are all in accordance with the approved Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
4. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning and Director of Engineering, and shall be registered on title of the severed lands.
Said agreement shall include the following special conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 49 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits:
a. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement the approved Storm Water Management
Scheme in accordance with the approved design from Plan of Subdivision 58M-551
(30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
b. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the downstream SWM ponds within Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering
Services.
c. The SUBDIVIDER shall, in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water
Resources Act, submit a certificate of approval from the Ministry of Environment for
the extension of the municipal sewers and water main to the satisfaction of the
City’s Engineering Services.
d. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if the services and above ground works for the
severed lands are installed or connected to infrastructure within the maintenance
period, set in the Plan of Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) Subdivision Agreement
(Instrument Number WR572809), the said services and above ground works shall
be subject to the warranty, maintenance and acceptance requirements within the
said agreement to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
5. That the owner shall complete a water distribution analysis for the retained and severed
lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning Housing and
Community Services and that if it is determined through such analysis that dwelling units
must be constructed with individual pressure reducing valves (PRV) than the owner shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such PRV, including a
provision indicating that the required PRVs are not to be removed by the occupants of the
dwelling.
6. That all legal costs and disbursements incurred by the City of Waterloo with respect to this
application shall be borne by the owner.
7. That Consent B2013-004 shall receive final approval and be registered on title at the
Registry Office.
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 February 19, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. B 2013-007
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Elfriede Czerlinski & Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to sever
an irregular shaped parcel of land having a westerly depth of 24.2m (79.4‘), a northerly depth of
2
15.2m (49.87‘) and an area of 161m (1733.05 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to the
retained lands on Block 25, 58M-551, Redtail Court, under applications B 2013-005 and B 2013-
006, on Part of Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 50 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
Plan 58R-12396, Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-12758 and Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-
17500, 262 Woolwich Street, Part of 268 Woolwich Street and Redtail Court / Falconridge Drive,
BE GRANTED
Kitchener, Ontario, , 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 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands currently described as
the retained lands on Block 25, 58M-551 (Redtail Court) created under applications
B2013-005 and B2013-006 and title shall be taken into identical ownership as the abutting
lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the
parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
4. That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an Application
Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and
prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application
Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration.
5. That the owner shall submit a stamped letter from their engineering consultant stating that
servicing, grading and driveway locations are all in accordance with the approved Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
6. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning and Director of Engineering, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said
agreement shall include the following special conditions:
Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits:
i. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement the approved Storm Water Management
Scheme in accordance with the approved design from Plan of Subdivision 58M-551
(30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the downstream SWM ponds within Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering
Services.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if the services and above ground works for the
severed lands are installed or connected to infrastructure within the maintenance
period, set in the Plan of Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) Subdivision Agreement
(Instrument Number WR572809), the said services and above ground works shall
be subject to the warranty, maintenance and acceptance requirements within the
said agreement to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
7. That the owner shall complete a water distribution analysis for the retained and severed
lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning Housing and
Community Services and that if it is determined through such analysis that dwelling units
must be constructed with individual pressure reducing valves (PRV) then the owner shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such PRV, including a
provision indicating that the required PRVs are not to be removed by the occupants of the
dwelling.
8. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener
to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning, in
consultation with the Region of Waterloo, and registered on title of the retained lands (Lot
abutting Woolwich Street and Falconridge Drive, identified as Retained Lands with an area
of 807 square metres, on the Sketch for Consent Application Part of Lots 66, 124 & 125,
G.C.T. prepared by Stantec Geomatics Ltd. (Project No. 158000192) and dated January
12, 2012. Said agreement shall provide for the following:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 51 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
i. That the dwelling unit shall be constructed with a forced air-ducted heating system
suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a central air
conditioning system by the occupants.
ii. That the following warning clause shall be included on all offers to purchase and/or
rental agreements:
“Due to its proximity to Woolwich Street, projected noise levels on this
property exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals.
Moreover, this dwelling has been fitted with a forced air-ducted heating
system suitably sized and designed to permit the future installation of a
central air conditioning system by the occupants.”
9. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener
to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning, in
consultation with the City of Waterloo, and registered on title of the retained lands (Lot
abutting Woolwich Street and Falconridge Drive, identified as Retained Lands with an area
of 807 square metres, on the Sketch for Consent Application Part of Lots 66, 124 & 125,
G.C.T. prepared by Stantec Geomatics Ltd. (Project No. 158000192) and dated January
12, 2012. Said agreement shall include the following special conditions:
i. That the driveway access to Woolwich Street is hereby prohibited unless otherwise
authorized by the City of Waterloo.
ii. That the driveway access to Falconridge Drive shall be setback from Woolwich
Street to the extent possible, to the satisfaction of the City of Kitchener in
consultation with the City of Waterloo.
10. That all legal costs and disbursements incurred by the City of Waterloo with respect to this
application shall be borne by the owner.
11. That Consents B2013-004 to B2013-006 shall receive final approval and be registered on
title at the Registry Office.
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 February 19, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. B 2013-008
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Elfriede Czerlinski & Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to sever
an irregular shaped parcel of land having a northerly depth of 24.2m (79.4‘), a southerly depth of
2
40.5m (132.88‘) and an area of 1,034m (11,130.25 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to the
severed lands under application B 2013-005 (Redtail Court), on Part of Lots 66, 124 and 125,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 52 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
German Company Tract, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-12396, Part 1 on
Reference Plan 58R-12758 and Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-17500, 262 Woolwich Street, Part
BE GRANTED
of 268 Woolwich Street and Redtail Court / Falconridge Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
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 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands currently described as
the severed lands created under application B2013-005 and title shall be taken into
identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any
subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3)
and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
4. That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an Application
Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and
prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application
Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration.
5. That the owner shall submit a stamped letter from their engineering consultant stating that
servicing, grading and driveway locations are all in accordance with the approved Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
6. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning and Director of Engineering, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said
agreement shall include the following special conditions:
Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits:
i. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement the approved Storm Water Management
Scheme in accordance with the approved design from Plan of Subdivision 58M-551
(30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the downstream SWM ponds within Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering
Services.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if the services and above ground works for the
severed lands are installed or connected to infrastructure within the maintenance
period, set in the Plan of Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) Subdivision Agreement
(Instrument Number WR572809), the said services and above ground works shall
be subject to the warranty, maintenance and acceptance requirements within the
said agreement to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
7. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said agreement shall include the
following special conditions:
Prior to Area Grading:
i. In consideration of the wooded character of the lands and the CITY’s desire to
minimize the impact of development on treed areas worth retaining, the
SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit a Detailed Vegetation Plan and to obtain approval
from the City’s Director of Planning.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall provide a digital copy of the approved Detailed Vegetation
Plan showing the approved grading, to the CITY’S Director of Planning.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 53 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
iii. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all approved measures for the protection of
isolated trees, tree clusters and woodlands as approved in the Detailed Vegetation
Plan and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental
Consultant to the CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have
been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY’S Tree
Management Policy.
Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits:
iv. The SUBDIVIDER shall assess all needs of trees to be maintained as set out in
Section 2.8, immediately following the completion of area grading. A Tree
Maintenance Report as outlined in the CITY’S Tree Management Policy detailing all
recommended tree maintenance measures shall be submitted to and approved by
the CITY’S Director of Planning.
v. Where the Detailed Vegetation Plan required in Section 2.8 has identified that there
are trees to be retained or require further study, the SUBDIVIDER shall submit a
Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan to the CITY’S Director of Planning in
accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy for the following lots:
a. Corner lots where site service locations and building type have not been
predetermined;
b. Interior lots having street frontage greater than 13.7 metres;
c. Those where buildings or structures are proposed to be located deeper on
the lots than as approved on the Detailed Vegetation Plan; and,
d. Those on which the revised grading will have an adverse effect on the
vegetation which is to be saved, as determined by the CITY’s Director of
Planning and as shown on the Detailed Vegetation Plan.
vi.
The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all measures for the protection of trees to be
retained as approved in the Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan and to provide
written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant to the
CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented
and inspected in accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy.
Other Timeframes:
vii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers minor damage due to construction,
the SUBDIVIDER shall implement remedial measures such as trimming, dressing,
or bark doctoring at its cost and as directed by its Environmental Consultant who
prepared the approved Detailed Vegetation and Tree Preservation / Enhancement
Plan (if applicable) to the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
viii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers irreparable damage or is judged to be
unsafe in the opinion of the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant or the
CITY’S Director of Planning, the SUBDIVIDER shall remove and replace, at its
cost, each such tree with one at least of equal value based on the tree value
formula set out in “Guide for Plant Appraisal” of the International Society of
Arboriculture, Latest Edition.
ix. Tree replacements shall be located on the same lot as the tree requiring removal to
the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
x. Furthermore, such remedial measures or tree replacements shall be approved and
implemented to the satisfaction of the CITY’S Director of Planning, prior to
occupancy of the unit(s) where the damaged tree is located or, due to weather
conditions, by the next planting season.
8. That the owner shall complete a water distribution analysis for the retained and severed
lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning Housing and
Community Services and that if it is determined through such analysis that dwelling units
must be constructed with individual pressure reducing valves (PRV) then the owner shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such PRV, including a
provision indicating that the required PRVs are not to be removed by the occupants of the
dwelling.
9. That all legal costs and disbursements incurred by the City of Waterloo with respect to this
application shall be borne by the owner.
10. That Consents B2013-004 to B2013-006 shall receive final approval and be registered on
title at the Registry Office.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 54 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being February 19, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. B 2013-009
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Elfriede Czerlinski & Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to sever
an irregular shaped parcel of land having a northerly depth of 40.5m (132.88‘), a southerly depth
2
of 39.9m (130.91‘) and an area of 918m (9881.6 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to the
severed lands under application B 2013-006 (Redtail Court); and to create one easement in
favour of the City of Kitchener for storm water catch basins and piping directing stormwater to
Red Tail Court along the side lot lines, having a width of 2.5m (8.21‘), by a depth of 39.9m
2
(130.91‘) and an area of 99.8m (1074.28 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 66, 124 and 125, German
Company Tract, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-12396, Part 1 on Reference Plan
58R-12758 and Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-17500, 262 Woolwich Street, Part of 268
BE GRANTED
Woolwich Street and Redtail Court / Falconridge Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
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 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands currently described as
the severed lands created under application B2013-006 and title shall be taken into
identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any
subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3)
and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
4. That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an Application
Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and
prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application
Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration.
5. That the owner shall submit a stamped letter from their engineering consultant stating that
servicing, grading and driveway locations are all in accordance with the approved Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 55 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
6. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning and Director of Engineering, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said
agreement shall include the following special conditions:
Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits:
i. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement the approved Storm Water Management
Scheme in accordance with the approved design from Plan of Subdivision 58M-551
(30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the downstream SWM ponds within Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering
Services.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if the services and above ground works for the
severed lands are installed or connected to infrastructure within the maintenance
period, set in the Plan of Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) Subdivision Agreement
(Instrument Number WR572809), the said services and above ground works shall
be subject to the warranty, maintenance and acceptance requirements within the
said agreement to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
7. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener
to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning, and
registered on title of the severed lands. Said agreement shall include the following special
conditions:
Prior to Area Grading:
i. In consideration of the wooded character of the lands and the CITY’s desire to
minimize the impact of development on treed areas worth retaining, the
SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit a Detailed Vegetation Plan and to obtain approval
from the City’s Director of Planning.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall provide a digital copy of the approved Detailed Vegetation
Plan showing the approved grading, to the CITY’S Director of Planning.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all approved measures for the protection of
isolated trees, tree clusters and woodlands as approved in the Detailed Vegetation
Plan and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental
Consultant to the CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have
been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY’S Tree
Management Policy.
Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits:
iv. The SUBDIVIDER shall assess all needs of trees to be maintained as set out in
Section 2.8, immediately following the completion of area grading. A Tree
Maintenance Report as outlined in the CITY’S Tree Management Policy detailing all
recommended tree maintenance measures shall be submitted to and approved by
the CITY’S Director of Planning.
v. Where the Detailed Vegetation Plan required in Section 2.8 has identified that there
are trees to be retained or require further study, the SUBDIVIDER shall submit a
Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan to the CITY’S Director of Planning in
accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy for the following lots:
a) Corner lots where site service locations and building type have not been
predetermined;
b) Interior lots having street frontage greater than 13.7 metres;
c) Those where buildings or structures are proposed to be located deeper on
the lots than as approved on the Detailed Vegetation Plan; and,
d) Those on which the revised grading will have an adverse effect on the
vegetation which is to be saved, as determined by the CITY’s Director of
Planning and as shown on the Detailed Vegetation Plan.
vi. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all measures for the protection of trees to be
retained as approved in the Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan and to provide
written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant to the
CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented
and inspected in accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 56 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
Other Timeframes:
vii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers minor damage due to construction,
the SUBDIVIDER shall implement remedial measures such as trimming, dressing,
or bark doctoring at its cost and as directed by its Environmental Consultant who
prepared the approved Detailed Vegetation and Tree Preservation / Enhancement
Plan (if applicable) to the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
viii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers irreparable damage or is judged to be
unsafe in the opinion of the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant or the
CITY’S Director of Planning, the SUBDIVIDER shall remove and replace, at its
cost, each such tree with one at least of equal value based on the tree value
formula set out in “Guide for Plant Appraisal” of the International Society of
Arboriculture, Latest Edition.
ix. Tree replacements shall be located on the same lot as the tree requiring removal to
the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
x. Furthermore, such remedial measures or tree replacements shall be approved and
implemented to the satisfaction of the CITY’S Director of Planning, prior to
occupancy of the unit(s) where the damaged tree is located or, due to weather
conditions, by the next planting season.
8. That the owner shall complete a water distribution analysis for the retained and severed
lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning Housing and
Community Services and that if it is determined through such analysis that dwelling units
must be constructed with individual pressure reducing valves (PRV) then the owner shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such PRV, including a
provision indicating that the required PRVs are not to be removed by the occupants of the
dwelling.
9. That all legal costs and disbursements incurred by the City of Waterloo with respect to this
application shall be borne by the owner.
10. That Consents B2013-004 to B2013-006 shall receive final approval and be registered on
title at the Registry Office.
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 February 19, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. B 2013-010
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Elfriede Czerlinski & Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to sever
an irregular shaped parcel of land having a northerly depth of 39.9m (130.91‘), a southerly depth
2
of 43.9m (144.03‘) and an area of 1,276m (13,735.20 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to
Block 24, Plan 58M-551 (Redtail Court); and to create two easements in favour of the City of
Kitchener for storm water catch basins and piping directing stormwater to Red Tail Court along
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 57 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
the side lot lines, firstly having a width of 2.5m (8.21‘), by a depth of 39.9m (130.91‘) and an area
2
of 99.9m (1075.35 sq. ft.) and secondly, having a width of 2.5m (8.21‘), by a depth of 43.9m
2
(144.03‘) and an area of 116.6m (1255.12 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 66, 124 and 125, German
Company Tract, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-12396, Part 1 on Reference Plan
58R-12758 and Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-17500, 262 Woolwich Street, Part of 268
BE GRANTED
Woolwich Street and Redtail Court / Falconridge Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
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 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands legally described as
Block 24, Plan 58M-551 and shall title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting
lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the
parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
4. That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an Application
Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and
prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application
Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration.
5. That the owner shall submit a stamped letter from their engineering consultant stating that
servicing, grading and driveway locations are all in accordance with the approved Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
6. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning and Director of Engineering, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said
agreement shall include the following special conditions:
Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits:
i. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement the approved Storm Water Management
Scheme in accordance with the approved design from Plan of Subdivision 58M-551
(30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the downstream SWM ponds within Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering
Services.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if the services and above ground works for the
severed lands are installed or connected to infrastructure within the maintenance
period, set in the Plan of Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) Subdivision Agreement
(Instrument Number WR572809), the said services and above ground works shall
be subject to the warranty, maintenance and acceptance requirements within the
said agreement to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
7. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said agreement shall include the
following special conditions:
Prior to Area Grading:
i. In consideration of the wooded character of the lands and the CITY’s desire to
minimize the impact of development on treed areas worth retaining, the
SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit a Detailed Vegetation Plan and to obtain approval
from the City’s Director of Planning.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall provide a digital copy of the approved Detailed Vegetation
Plan showing the approved grading, to the CITY’S Director of Planning.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 58 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
iii. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all approved measures for the protection of
isolated trees, tree clusters and woodlands as approved in the Detailed Vegetation
Plan and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental
Consultant to the CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have
been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY’S Tree
Management Policy.
Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits:
iv. The SUBDIVIDER shall assess all needs of trees to be maintained as set out in
Section 2.8, immediately following the completion of area grading. A Tree
Maintenance Report as outlined in the CITY’S Tree Management Policy detailing all
recommended tree maintenance measures shall be submitted to and approved by
the CITY’S Director of Planning.
v. Where the Detailed Vegetation Plan required in Section 2.8 has identified that there
are trees to be retained or require further study, the SUBDIVIDER shall submit a
Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan to the CITY’S Director of Planning in
accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy for the following lots:
a) Corner lots where site service locations and building type have not been
predetermined;
b) Interior lots having street frontage greater than 13.7 metres;
c) Those where buildings or structures are proposed to be located deeper on
the lots than as approved on the Detailed Vegetation Plan; and,
d) Those on which the revised grading will have an adverse effect on the
vegetation which is to be saved, as determined by the CITY’s Director of
Planning and as shown on the Detailed Vegetation Plan.
vi. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all measures for the protection of trees to be
retained as approved in the Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan and to provide
written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant to the
CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented
and inspected in accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy.
Other Timeframes:
vii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers minor damage due to construction,
the SUBDIVIDER shall implement remedial measures such as trimming, dressing,
or bark doctoring at its cost and as directed by its Environmental Consultant who
prepared the approved Detailed Vegetation and Tree Preservation / Enhancement
Plan (if applicable) to the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
viii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers irreparable damage or is judged to be
unsafe in the opinion of the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant or the
CITY’S Director of Planning, the SUBDIVIDER shall remove and replace, at its
cost, each such tree with one at least of equal value based on the tree value
formula set out in “Guide for Plant Appraisal” of the International Society of
Arboriculture, Latest Edition.
ix. Tree replacements shall be located on the same lot as the tree requiring removal to
the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
x. Furthermore, such remedial measures or tree replacements shall be approved and
implemented to the satisfaction of the CITY’S Director of Planning, prior to
occupancy of the unit(s) where the damaged tree is located or, due to weather
conditions, by the next planting season.
8. That the owner shall complete a water distribution analysis for the retained and severed
lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning Housing and
Community Services and that if it is determined through such analysis that dwelling units
must be constructed with individual pressure reducing valves (PRV) then the owner shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such PRV, including a
provision indicating that the required PRVs are not to be removed by the occupants of the
dwelling.
9. That all legal costs and disbursements incurred by the City of Waterloo with respect to this
application shall be borne by the owner.
10. That Consents B2013-004 to B2013-006 shall receive final approval and be registered on
title at the Registry Office.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 59 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being February 19, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. B 2013-011
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Elfriede Czerlinski & Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to sever
an irregular shaped parcel of land having a northerly depth of 43.9m (144.03‘), a southerly depth
2
of 29m (95.15‘) and an area of 447m (4811.63 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to Block
23, Plan 58M-551 (Redtail Court); and to create one easement in favour of the City of Kitchener
for storm water catch basins and piping directing stormwater to Redtail Court along the side lot
2
lines, having a width of 2.5m (8.21‘), by a depth of 43.9m (144.03‘) and an area of 103.1m
(1109.8 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract, being Parts 1 and 2 on
Reference Plan 58R-12396, Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-12758 and Part 3 on Reference Plan
58R-17500, 262 Woolwich Street, Part of 268 Woolwich Street and Redtail Court / Falconridge
BE GRANTED
Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , 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 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands legally described as
Block 23, Plan 58M-551 and title shall be taken into identical ownership as the abutting
lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the
parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
4. That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an Application
Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and
prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application
Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration.
5. That the owner shall submit a stamped letter from their engineering consultant stating that
servicing, grading and driveway locations are all in accordance with the approved Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
6. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning and Director of Engineering, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said
agreement shall include the following special conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 60 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits:
i. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement the approved Storm Water Management
Scheme in accordance with the approved design from Plan of Subdivision 58M-551
(30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the downstream SWM ponds within Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering
Services.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if the services and above ground works for the
severed lands are installed or connected to infrastructure within the maintenance
period, set in the Plan of Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) Subdivision Agreement
(Instrument Number WR572809), the said services and above ground works shall
be subject to the warranty, maintenance and acceptance requirements within the
said agreement to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
7. That the owner shall complete a water distribution analysis for the retained and severed
lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning Housing and
Community Services and that if it is determined through such analysis that dwelling units
must be constructed with individual pressure reducing valves (PRV) then the owner shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such PRV, including a
provision indicating that the required PRVs are not to be removed by the occupants of the
dwelling.
8. That all legal costs and disbursements incurred by the City of Waterloo with respect to this
application shall be borne by the owner.
9. That Consents B2013-004 to B2013-006 shall receive final approval and be registered on
title at the Registry Office.
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 February 19, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. B 2013-012
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Elfriede Czerlinski & Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to sever a
parcel of land having frontage on Falconridge Drive of 15.2m (49.87‘), by a depth of 30.1m
2
(98.76‘) and an area of 482m (5188.38 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 66, 124 and 125, German
Company Tract, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-12396, Part 1 on Reference Plan
58R-12758 and Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-17500, 262 Woolwich Street, Part of 268
BE GRANTED
Woolwich Street and Redtail Court / Falconridge Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 61 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
2. That the owner shall provide 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with 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.
4. That the owner shall submit a servicing plan, designed in accordance with the Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210), showing outlets to the municipal servicing system
along with the sanitary and storm sewer design sheets as well as the sanitary peak flows
to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
5. 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.
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.
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.
8. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning and Director of Engineering, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said
agreement shall include the following special conditions:
Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits:
i. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement the approved Storm Water Management
Scheme in accordance with the approved design from Plan of Subdivision 58M-551
(30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the downstream SWM ponds within Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering
Services.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER shall, in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water
Resources Act, submit a certificate of approval from the Ministry of Environment for
the extension of the municipal sewers and water main to the satisfaction of the
City’s Engineering Services.
iv. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if the services and above ground works for the
severed lands are installed or connected to infrastructure within the maintenance
period, set in the Plan of Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) Subdivision Agreement
(Instrument Number WR572809), the said services and above ground works shall
be subject to the warranty, maintenance and acceptance requirements within the
said agreement to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
9. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener for the installation
of the required Falconridge Drive works to the satisfaction of the City’s Legal Services and
Engineering Services.
10. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said agreement shall include the
following special conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 62 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
Prior to Area Grading:
i. In consideration of the wooded character of the lands and the CITY’s desire to
minimize the impact of development on treed areas worth retaining, the
SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit a Detailed Vegetation Plan and to obtain approval
from the City’s Director of Planning.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall provide a digital copy of the approved Detailed Vegetation
Plan showing the approved grading, to the CITY’S Director of Planning.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all approved measures for the protection of
isolated trees, tree clusters and woodlands as approved in the Detailed Vegetation
Plan and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental
Consultant to the CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have
been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY’S Tree
Management Policy.
Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits:
iv. The SUBDIVIDER shall assess all needs of trees to be maintained as set out in
Section 2.8, immediately following the completion of area grading. A Tree
Maintenance Report as outlined in the CITY’S Tree Management Policy detailing all
recommended tree maintenance measures shall be submitted to and approved by
the CITY’S Director of Planning.
v. Where the Detailed Vegetation Plan required in Section 2.8 has identified that there
are trees to be retained or require further study, the SUBDIVIDER shall submit a
Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan to the CITY’S Director of Planning in
accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy for the following lots:
a) Corner lots where site service locations and building type have not been
predetermined;
b) Interior lots having street frontage greater than 13.7 metres;
c) Those where buildings or structures are proposed to be located deeper on
the lots than as approved on the Detailed Vegetation Plan; and,
d) Those on which the revised grading will have an adverse effect on the
vegetation which is to be saved, as determined by the CITY’s Director of
Planning and as shown on the Detailed Vegetation Plan.
vi. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all measures for the protection of trees to be
retained as approved in the Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan and to provide
written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant to the
CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented
and inspected in accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy.
Other Timeframes:
vii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers minor damage due to construction,
the SUBDIVIDER shall implement remedial measures such as trimming, dressing,
or bark doctoring at its cost and as directed by its Environmental Consultant who
prepared the approved Detailed Vegetation and Tree Preservation / Enhancement
Plan (if applicable) to the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
viii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers irreparable damage or is judged to be
unsafe in the opinion of the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant or the
CITY’S Director of Planning, the SUBDIVIDER shall remove and replace, at its
cost, each such tree with one at least of equal value based on the tree value
formula set out in “Guide for Plant Appraisal” of the International Society of
Arboriculture, Latest Edition.
ix. Tree replacements shall be located on the same lot as the tree requiring removal to
the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
x. Furthermore, such remedial measures or tree replacements shall be approved and
implemented to the satisfaction of the CITY’S Director of Planning, prior to
occupancy of the unit(s) where the damaged tree is located or, due to weather
conditions, by the next planting season.
11. That the owner shall complete a water distribution analysis for the retained and severed
lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning Housing and
Community Services and that if it is determined through such analysis that dwelling units
must be constructed with individual pressure reducing valves (PRV) then the owner shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such PRV, including a
provision indicating that the required PRVs are not to be removed by the occupants of the
dwelling.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 63 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
12. That all legal costs and disbursements incurred by the City of Waterloo with respect to this
application shall be borne by the owner.
13. That Consents B2013-004 to B2013-006 shall receive final approval and be registered on
title at the Registry Office.
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 February 19, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. B 2013-013
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Elfriede Czerlinski & Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to sever a
parcel of land having frontage on Falconridge Drive of 15.2m (49.87‘), by a depth of 31.5m
2
(103.35‘) and an area of 503m (5414.43 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 66, 124 and 125, German
Company Tract, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-12396, Part 1 on Reference Plan
58R-12758 and Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-17500, 262 Woolwich Street, Part of 268
BE GRANTED
Woolwich Street and Redtail Court / Falconridge Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
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 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with 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.
4. That the owner shall submit a servicing plan, designed in accordance with the Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210), showing outlets to the municipal servicing system
along with the sanitary and storm sewer design sheets as well as the sanitary peak flows
to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
5. 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 64 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
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.
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.
8. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning and Director of Engineering, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said
agreement shall include the following special conditions:
Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits:
i. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement the approved Storm Water Management
Scheme in accordance with the approved design from Plan of Subdivision 58M-551
(30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the downstream SWM ponds within Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering
Services.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER shall, in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water
Resources Act, submit a certificate of approval from the Ministry of Environment for
the extension of the municipal sewers and water main to the satisfaction of the
City’s Engineering Services.
iv. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if the services and above ground works for the
severed lands are installed or connected to infrastructure within the maintenance
period, set in the Plan of Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) Subdivision Agreement
(Instrument Number WR572809), the said services and above ground works shall
be subject to the warranty, maintenance and acceptance requirements within the
said agreement to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
9. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener for the installation
of the required Falconridge Drive works to the satisfaction of the City’s Legal Services and
Engineering Services.
10. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said agreement shall include the
following special conditions:
Prior to Area Grading:
i. In consideration of the wooded character of the lands and the CITY’s desire to
minimize the impact of development on treed areas worth retaining, the
SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit a Detailed Vegetation Plan and to obtain approval
from the City’s Director of Planning.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall provide a digital copy of the approved Detailed Vegetation
Plan showing the approved grading, to the CITY’S Director of Planning.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all approved measures for the protection of
isolated trees, tree clusters and woodlands as approved in the Detailed Vegetation
Plan and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental
Consultant to the CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have
been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY’S Tree
Management Policy.
Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits:
iv. The SUBDIVIDER shall assess all needs of trees to be maintained as set out in
Section 2.8, immediately following the completion of area grading. A Tree
Maintenance Report as outlined in the CITY’S Tree Management Policy detailing all
recommended tree maintenance measures shall be submitted to and approved by
the CITY’S Director of Planning.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 65 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
v. Where the Detailed Vegetation Plan required in Section 2.8 has identified that there
are trees to be retained or require further study, the SUBDIVIDER shall submit a
Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan to the CITY’S Director of Planning in
accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy for the following lots:
a) Corner lots where site service locations and building type have not been
predetermined;
b) Interior lots having street frontage greater than 13.7 metres;
c) Those where buildings or structures are proposed to be located deeper on
the lots than as approved on the Detailed Vegetation Plan; and,
d) Those on which the revised grading will have an adverse effect on the
vegetation which is to be saved, as determined by the CITY’s Director of
Planning and as shown on the Detailed Vegetation Plan.
vi. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all measures for the protection of trees to be
retained as approved in the Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan and to provide
written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant to the
CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented
and inspected in accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy.
Other Timeframes:
vii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers minor damage due to construction,
the SUBDIVIDER shall implement remedial measures such as trimming, dressing,
or bark doctoring at its cost and as directed by its Environmental Consultant who
prepared the approved Detailed Vegetation and Tree Preservation / Enhancement
Plan (if applicable) to the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
viii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers irreparable damage or is judged to be
unsafe in the opinion of the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant or the
CITY’S Director of Planning, the SUBDIVIDER shall remove and replace, at its
cost, each such tree with one at least of equal value based on the tree value
formula set out in “Guide for Plant Appraisal” of the International Society of
Arboriculture, Latest Edition.
ix. Tree replacements shall be located on the same lot as the tree requiring removal to
the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
x. Furthermore, such remedial measures or tree replacements shall be approved and
implemented to the satisfaction of the CITY’S Director of Planning, prior to
occupancy of the unit(s) where the damaged tree is located or, due to weather
conditions, by the next planting season.
11. That the owner shall complete a water distribution analysis for the retained and severed
lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning Housing and
Community Services and that if it is determined through such analysis that dwelling units
must be constructed with individual pressure reducing valves (PRV) then the owner shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such PRV, including a
provision indicating that the required PRVs are not to be removed by the occupants of the
dwelling.
12. That all legal costs and disbursements incurred by the City of Waterloo with respect to this
application shall be borne by the owner.
13. That Consents B2013-004 to B2013-006 shall receive final approval and be registered on
title at the Registry Office.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 66 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
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 February 19, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. B 2013-014
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Elfriede Czerlinski & Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to sever a
parcel of land having frontage on Falconridge Drive of 16.8m (55.12‘), by a depth of 35.9m
2
(117.79‘) and an area of 580m (6243.28 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 66, 124 and 125, German
Company Tract, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-12396, Part 1 on Reference Plan
58R-12758 and Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-17500, 262 Woolwich Street, Part of 268
BE GRANTED
Woolwich Street and Redtail Court / Falconridge Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
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 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with 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.
4. That the owner shall submit a servicing plan, designed in accordance with the Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210), showing outlets to the municipal servicing system
along with the sanitary and storm sewer design sheets as well as the sanitary peak flows
to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
5. 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.
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.
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.
8. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning and Director of Engineering, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said
agreement shall include the following special conditions:
Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits:
i. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement the approved Storm Water Management
Scheme in accordance with the approved design from Plan of Subdivision 58M-551
(30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the downstream SWM ponds within Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering
Services.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 67 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
iii. The SUBDIVIDER shall, in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water
Resources Act, submit a certificate of approval from the Ministry of Environment for
the extension of the municipal sewers and water main to the satisfaction of the
City’s Engineering Services.
iv. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if the services and above ground works for the
severed lands are installed or connected to infrastructure within the maintenance
period, set in the Plan of Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) Subdivision Agreement
(Instrument Number WR572809), the said services and above ground works shall
be subject to the warranty, maintenance and acceptance requirements within the
said agreement to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
9. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener for the installation
of the required Falconridge Drive works to the satisfaction of the City’s Legal Services and
Engineering Services.
10. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said agreement shall include the
following special conditions:
Prior to Area Grading:
i. In consideration of the wooded character of the lands and the CITY’s desire to
minimize the impact of development on treed areas worth retaining, the
SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit a Detailed Vegetation Plan and to obtain approval
from the City’s Director of Planning.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall provide a digital copy of the approved Detailed Vegetation
Plan showing the approved grading, to the CITY’S Director of Planning.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all approved measures for the protection of
isolated trees, tree clusters and woodlands as approved in the Detailed Vegetation
Plan and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental
Consultant to the CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have
been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY’S Tree
Management Policy.
Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits:
iv. The SUBDIVIDER shall assess all needs of trees to be maintained as set out in
Section 2.8, immediately following the completion of area grading. A Tree
Maintenance Report as outlined in the CITY’S Tree Management Policy detailing all
recommended tree maintenance measures shall be submitted to and approved by
the CITY’S Director of Planning.
v. Where the Detailed Vegetation Plan required in Section 2.8 has identified that there
are trees to be retained or require further study, the SUBDIVIDER shall submit a
Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan to the CITY’S Director of Planning in
accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy for the following lots:
a) Corner lots where site service locations and building type have not been
predetermined;
b) Interior lots having street frontage greater than 13.7 metres;
c) Those where buildings or structures are proposed to be located deeper on
the lots than as approved on the Detailed Vegetation Plan; and,
d) Those on which the revised grading will have an adverse effect on the
vegetation which is to be saved, as determined by the CITY’s Director of
Planning and as shown on the Detailed Vegetation Plan.
vi.
The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all measures for the protection of trees to be
retained as approved in the Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan and to provide
written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant to the
CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented
and inspected in accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy.
Other Timeframes:
vii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers minor damage due to construction,
the SUBDIVIDER shall implement remedial measures such as trimming, dressing,
or bark doctoring at its cost and as directed by its Environmental Consultant who
prepared the approved Detailed Vegetation and Tree Preservation / Enhancement
Plan (if applicable) to the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 68 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
viii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers irreparable damage or is judged to be
unsafe in the opinion of the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant or the
CITY’S Director of Planning, the SUBDIVIDER shall remove and replace, at its
cost, each such tree with one at least of equal value based on the tree value
formula set out in “Guide for Plant Appraisal” of the International Society of
Arboriculture, Latest Edition.
ix. Tree replacements shall be located on the same lot as the tree requiring removal to
the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
x. Furthermore, such remedial measures or tree replacements shall be approved and
implemented to the satisfaction of the CITY’S Director of Planning, prior to
occupancy of the unit(s) where the damaged tree is located or, due to weather
conditions, by the next planting season.
11. That the owner shall complete a water distribution analysis for the retained and severed
lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning Housing and
Community Services and that if it is determined through such analysis that dwelling units
must be constructed with individual pressure reducing valves (PRV) then the owner shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such PRV, including a
provision indicating that the required PRVs are not to be removed by the occupants of the
dwelling.
12. That all legal costs and disbursements incurred by the City of Waterloo with respect to this
application shall be borne by the owner.
13. That Consents B2013-004 to B2013-006 shall receive final approval and be registered on
title at the Registry Office.
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 February 19, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. B 2013-015
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Elfriede Czerlinski & Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to sever a
parcel of land having frontage on Falconridge Drive of 16.8m (55.12‘), by a depth of 38.6m
2
(126.64‘) and an area of 625m (6727.67 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 66, 124 and 125, German
Company Tract, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-12396, Part 1 on Reference Plan
58R-12758 and Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-17500, 262 Woolwich Street, Part of 268
BE GRANTED
Woolwich Street and Redtail Court / Falconridge Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 69 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
2. That the owner shall provide 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with 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.
4. That the owner shall submit a servicing plan, designed in accordance with the Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210), showing outlets to the municipal servicing system
along with the sanitary and storm sewer design sheets as well as the sanitary peak flows
to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
5. 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.
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.
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.
8. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning and Director of Engineering, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said
agreement shall include the following special conditions:
Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits:
i. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement the approved Storm Water Management
Scheme in accordance with the approved design from Plan of Subdivision 58M-551
(30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the downstream SWM ponds within Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering
Services.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER shall, in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water
Resources Act, submit a certificate of approval from the Ministry of Environment for
the extension of the municipal sewers and water main to the satisfaction of the
City’s Engineering Services.
iv. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if the services and above ground works for the
severed lands are installed or connected to infrastructure within the maintenance
period, set in the Plan of Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) Subdivision Agreement
(Instrument Number WR572809), the said services and above ground works shall
be subject to the warranty, maintenance and acceptance requirements within the
said agreement to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
9. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener for the installation
of the required Falconridge Drive works to the satisfaction of the City’s Legal Services and
Engineering Services.
10. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said agreement shall include the
following special conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 70 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
Prior to Area Grading:
i. In consideration of the wooded character of the lands and the CITY’s desire to
minimize the impact of development on treed areas worth retaining, the
SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit a Detailed Vegetation Plan and to obtain approval
from the City’s Director of Planning.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall provide a digital copy of the approved Detailed Vegetation
Plan showing the approved grading, to the CITY’S Director of Planning.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all approved measures for the protection of
isolated trees, tree clusters and woodlands as approved in the Detailed Vegetation
Plan and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental
Consultant to the CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have
been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY’S Tree
Management Policy.
Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits:
iv. The SUBDIVIDER shall assess all needs of trees to be maintained as set out in
Section 2.8, immediately following the completion of area grading. A Tree
Maintenance Report as outlined in the CITY’S Tree Management Policy detailing all
recommended tree maintenance measures shall be submitted to and approved by
the CITY’S Director of Planning.
v. Where the Detailed Vegetation Plan required in Section 2.8 has identified that there
are trees to be retained or require further study, the SUBDIVIDER shall submit a
Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan to the CITY’S Director of Planning in
accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy for the following lots:
a) Corner lots where site service locations and building type have not been
predetermined;
b) Interior lots having street frontage greater than 13.7 metres;
c) Those where buildings or structures are proposed to be located deeper on
the lots than as approved on the Detailed Vegetation Plan; and,
d) Those on which the revised grading will have an adverse effect on the
vegetation which is to be saved, as determined by the CITY’s Director of
Planning and as shown on the Detailed Vegetation Plan.
vi.
The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all measures for the protection of trees to be
retained as approved in the Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan and to provide
written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant to the
CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented
and inspected in accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy.
Other Timeframes:
vii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers minor damage due to construction,
the SUBDIVIDER shall implement remedial measures such as trimming, dressing,
or bark doctoring at its cost and as directed by its Environmental Consultant who
prepared the approved Detailed Vegetation and Tree Preservation / Enhancement
Plan (if applicable) to the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
viii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers irreparable damage or is judged to be
unsafe in the opinion of the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant or the
CITY’S Director of Planning, the SUBDIVIDER shall remove and replace, at its
cost, each such tree with one at least of equal value based on the tree value
formula set out in “Guide for Plant Appraisal” of the International Society of
Arboriculture, Latest Edition.
ix. Tree replacements shall be located on the same lot as the tree requiring removal to
the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
x. Furthermore, such remedial measures or tree replacements shall be approved and
implemented to the satisfaction of the CITY’S Director of Planning, prior to
occupancy of the unit(s) where the damaged tree is located or, due to weather
conditions, by the next planting season.
11. That the owner shall complete a water distribution analysis for the retained and severed
lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning Housing and
Community Services and that if it is determined through such analysis that dwelling units
must be constructed with individual pressure reducing valves (PRV) then the owner shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such PRV, including a
provision indicating that the required PRVs are not to be removed by the occupants of the
dwelling.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 71 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
12. That all legal costs and disbursements incurred by the City of Waterloo with respect to this
application shall be borne by the owner.
13. That Consents B2013-004 to B2013-006 shall receive final approval and be registered on
title at the Registry Office.
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 February 19, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. B 2013-016
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Elfriede Czerlinski & Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to sever a
parcel of land having frontage on Falconridge Drive of 16.8m (55.12‘), by a depth of 41.4m
2
(135.83‘) and an area of 671m (7222.82 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 66, 124 and 125, German
Company Tract, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-12396, Part 1 on Reference Plan
58R-12758 and Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-17500, 262 Woolwich Street, Part of 268
BE GRANTED
Woolwich Street and Redtail Court / Falconridge Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
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 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with 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.
4. That the owner shall submit a servicing plan, designed in accordance with the Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210), showing outlets to the municipal servicing system
along with the sanitary and storm sewer design sheets as well as the sanitary peak flows
to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
5. 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 72 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
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.
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.
8. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning and Director of Engineering, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said
agreement shall include the following special conditions:
Prior to Application for and Issuance of any Building Permits:
i. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement the approved Storm Water Management
Scheme in accordance with the approved design from Plan of Subdivision 58M-551
(30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the downstream SWM ponds within Plan of
Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering
Services.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER shall, in accordance with Section 53 of the Ontario Water
Resources Act, submit a certificate of approval from the Ministry of Environment for
the extension of the municipal sewers and water main to the satisfaction of the
City’s Engineering Services.
iv. The SUBDIVIDER agrees that if the services and above ground works for the
severed lands are installed or connected to infrastructure within the maintenance
period, set in the Plan of Subdivision 58M-551 (30T-04210) Subdivision Agreement
(Instrument Number WR572809), the said services and above ground works shall
be subject to the warranty, maintenance and acceptance requirements within the
said agreement to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
9. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener for the installation
of the required Falconridge Drive works to the satisfaction of the City’s Legal Services and
Engineering Services.
10. That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning, and registered on title of the severed lands. Said agreement shall include the
following special conditions:
Prior to Area Grading:
i. In consideration of the wooded character of the lands and the CITY’s desire to
minimize the impact of development on treed areas worth retaining, the
SUBDIVIDER agrees to submit a Detailed Vegetation Plan and to obtain approval
from the City’s Director of Planning.
ii. The SUBDIVIDER shall provide a digital copy of the approved Detailed Vegetation
Plan showing the approved grading, to the CITY’S Director of Planning.
iii. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all approved measures for the protection of
isolated trees, tree clusters and woodlands as approved in the Detailed Vegetation
Plan and to provide written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental
Consultant to the CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have
been implemented and inspected, in accordance with the CITY’S Tree
Management Policy.
Prior to Issuance of any Building Permits:
iv. The SUBDIVIDER shall assess all needs of trees to be maintained as set out in
Section 2.8, immediately following the completion of area grading. A Tree
Maintenance Report as outlined in the CITY’S Tree Management Policy detailing all
recommended tree maintenance measures shall be submitted to and approved by
the CITY’S Director of Planning.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 73 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
v. Where the Detailed Vegetation Plan required in Section 2.8 has identified that there
are trees to be retained or require further study, the SUBDIVIDER shall submit a
Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan to the CITY’S Director of Planning in
accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy for the following lots:
a) Corner lots where site service locations and building type have not been
predetermined;
b) Interior lots having street frontage greater than 13.7 metres;
c) Those where buildings or structures are proposed to be located deeper on
the lots than as approved on the Detailed Vegetation Plan; and,
d) Those on which the revised grading will have an adverse effect on the
vegetation which is to be saved, as determined by the CITY’s Director of
Planning and as shown on the Detailed Vegetation Plan.
vi. The SUBDIVIDER shall implement all measures for the protection of trees to be
retained as approved in the Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan and to provide
written certification from the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant to the
CITY’S Director of Planning that all protection measures have been implemented
and inspected in accordance with the CITY’S Tree Management Policy.
Other Timeframes:
vii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers minor damage due to construction,
the SUBDIVIDER shall implement remedial measures such as trimming, dressing,
or bark doctoring at its cost and as directed by its Environmental Consultant who
prepared the approved Detailed Vegetation and Tree Preservation / Enhancement
Plan (if applicable) to the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
viii. Where a tree designated to be saved suffers irreparable damage or is judged to be
unsafe in the opinion of the SUBDIVIDER’S Environmental Consultant or the
CITY’S Director of Planning, the SUBDIVIDER shall remove and replace, at its
cost, each such tree with one at least of equal value based on the tree value
formula set out in “Guide for Plant Appraisal” of the International Society of
Arboriculture, Latest Edition.
ix. Tree replacements shall be located on the same lot as the tree requiring removal to
the satisfaction of the CITY’s Director of Planning.
x. Furthermore, such remedial measures or tree replacements shall be approved and
implemented to the satisfaction of the CITY’S Director of Planning, prior to
occupancy of the unit(s) where the damaged tree is located or, due to weather
conditions, by the next planting season.
11. That the owner shall complete a water distribution analysis for the retained and severed
lands to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning Housing and
Community Services and that if it is determined through such analysis that dwelling units
must be constructed with individual pressure reducing valves (PRV) then the owner shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for such PRV, including a
provision indicating that the required PRVs are not to be removed by the occupants of the
dwelling.
12. That all legal costs and disbursements incurred by the City of Waterloo with respect to this
application shall be borne by the owner.
13. That Consents B2013-004 to B2013-006 shall receive final approval and be registered on
title at the Registry Office.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 74 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-004 to B 2013-016 (Cont’d)
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 February 19, 2015.
Carried
COMBINED APPLICATIONS
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-017 & A 2013-012
Applicant:
JT Risty Ltd.
Property Location:
398 New Dundee Road
Legal Description:
Part Lot 8, Beasley’s Old Survey, being Part 4 of Reference Plan
58R-5090
Appearances:
In Support: M. Guerreiro
Contra: None
Written Submissions: W. Weinhardt
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
for residential use having frontage on New Dundee Road of 24.348m (79.89‘), by an irregular
depth of 110.51m (362.57‘) and an area of 2,630m2 (28,310.01 sq. ft.). The retained lands will
continue to be used as residential, having frontage on New Dundee Road of 63.583m (208.61‘),
by a depth of 109.146 (358.09‘) and an area of 5,168 m2 (55,629.71 sq. ft.). Permission is also
being sought for the severed parcel to have a lot area of 0.263 ha (0.65 ac) rather than the
required 0.4 ha (0.99 ac) and a lot width of 24.348m (79.89‘) rather than the required 30m
(98.43‘).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 11, 2013, advising
that the subject property is located on the north side of New Dundee Road, west of Thomas Slee
Drive. The area is primarily composed of large lot single detached dwellings. The subject
property is 0.78 hectares in area and contains a single detached dwelling that was constructed in
approximately 1850. The dwelling is privately serviced for water, sanitary, and stormwater. The
property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and is zoned Residential
One (R-1). City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on February 11, 2013.
Consent Application B2013-017 proposes to sever a vacant parcel of land with a lot area of 0.263
hectares and a lot width of 24.348 metres on New Dundee Road. The severed lot would be used
to construct a single detached dwelling on private services. The retained lot would contain the
existing single detached dwelling and would possess a lot area of 0.517 hectares and a lot width
of 54.985 metres on New Dundee Road (note that Page 2 of the application form inaccurately
states that the frontage is 63.583). The retained lot and dwelling would comply with the Zoning
By-law, however, the severed lot would not. Both lot area and lot width would be deficient. As
such, Minor Variance Application A2013-012 requests a minimum lot area of 0.263 hectares and
a minimum lot width of 24.348 metres for the severed lot, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a
minimum lot area of 0.4 hectares and a minimum lot width of 30.0 metres.
The City’s Official Plan does allow development to be serviced with private systems where
“associated with severances and existing lots in agricultural areas and infilling situations in
existing unserviced developed areas where other forms of servicing are not feasible”. The
question of feasibility is determined by both the Region, in consultation with the City. Regional
Official Policies Plan policy 10.2.1.3 states that “feasibility”:
“…is to be defined on a case-by-case basis by the Region, in consultation with the affected
Area Municipality, and will be based on an evaluation of:
a) The scale and nature of both the specific development proposal and the anticipated
development within the City Urban Area, Township Urban Area, or Rural Settlement Area;
b) Physical or environmental constraints to the provision of wastewater servicing to the
proposed development;
c) Potential cumulative impacts to ground and surface water resources;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 75 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-017 & A 2013-012 (Cont’d)
d) A comparison of costs and benefits of the alternatives including the cost associated with
planning, construction, start-up, operation, maintenance, financing and replacement of the
system or its components;
e) The preferred servicing option if identified in an approved Regional wastewater treatment
master plan; and
f) The willingness of Regional Council to commit funding, if necessary, as demonstrated
through the inclusion of the infrastructure improvements in the Regional Capital Forecast,
or a Front-Ending Agreement or Front-Ending By-law under the Development Charges
Act, as required to implement the preferred servicing option.”
In support of these applications, the applicant has submitted to the Region and City a Sewage
Servicing Feasibility Study from LVM Consulting, stamped by a Professional Engineer. In
addition, the applicant himself has submitted a letter stating that municipal servicing is not
feasible, in this case, under ROPP policy 10.2.1.3.
The City’s Engineering Services and Regional staff have reviewed these documents and are
satisfied that allowing the severance to occur on private services is acceptable.
It should be noted that in 2006 lots having frontage on Thomas Slee Drive were severed from the
subject property.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments.
The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. Staff is satisfied that
the general intent of health and safety with respect to private servicing systems, as outlined in the
Official Plan, is maintained.
The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of the
minimum lot area and lot width regulations is to ensure that adequate area is provided to allow for
adequately sized private septic systems and adequate buffers to property boundaries. Based on
the information submitted and the response from City departments and the Region, staff is
satisfied that these objectives can be met. In addition, the purpose of the minimum lot width
regulation is to ensure compatibility with other large-lot residences. Staff is of the opinion that the
reduced lot area is compatible with others in this area, especially since there are a number of
existing lots that are smaller in area than the severed lot within the same general area and zoning
category. While the lot width would be smaller than others in the area, staff is of the opinion that
the retained lot would be compatible.
The variances are minor. As stated above, staff is of the opinion that the reduced lot area and lot
width are compatible with others in this area and that an adequately sized septic system may be
installed and adequate buffers provided. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances will
not cause unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties.
The variances are desirable for the appropriate use of the land as they would allow residential
infill development that is compatible with adjacent properties on New Dundee Road.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, staff is satisfied that the proposed severance is not premature and is in the
public interest. The dimensions and shapes of the both resultant properties are appropriate. The
lands are suitable for the purposes for which they are to be subdivided.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed lot addition is consistent with the Provincial Policy
Statement issued under subsection 3(1) of the Planning Act, conforms to the Growth Plan for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe, and conforms to the City’s Official Plan.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
February 4, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with Submission No. A 2013-012.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated
February 8, 2013, advising that they have no objection to Submission No. B 2013-017, subject to
the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 76 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-017 & A 2013-012 (Cont’d)
1. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant prepare a Transportation Noise Study, to
the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community
Services, to indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be used to abate
traffic noise levels from Provincial Highway 401 and the severed lands and if necessary,
the owner enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener;
2. That prior to final approval the owner/applicant prepare a Transportation Noise Study, to
the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community
Services, to indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be used to abate
traffic noise levels from Provincial Highway 401 for the retained lands, OR
The owner/applicant may enter into a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener for
the requirement to include the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale,
deeds and tenancy agreements for all units:
“Due to the proximity to Provincial Highway 401, projected noise levels on this property
may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals”.
3. That prior to final approval, the Developer shall obtain a Regional Access Permit for a new
access for the proposed severed lot from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo;
4. That prior to final approval, the Developer shall obtain a Regional Access Permit to close
the unauthorized existing parking space adjacent to New Dundee Road and restore the
boulevard to Regional standards; and,
5. That prior to final approval, the Developer shall submit a Grading & Drainage Plan and
Stormwater Management Report for the retained and severed lots to the satisfaction of the
Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services.
Mr. Mike Guerreiro, agent, spoke in support of the application, questioning the timing for
fulfillment of condition 5 as there currently is no structure in place for development. Mr. A. Pinnell
noted that condition 5 only requires that the applicant enter into an agreement by February 19,
2014, the terms of which will be fulfilled as development proceeds.
Ms. Y. Fernandes spoke to this application and it was noted that she was doing so as a private
citizen and not in her capacity as a member of Council. She noted that the subject property is
listed on the City’s Heritage Register and raised concerns as to the impact to the cultural heritage
landscape for the log cabin situated on the lands to be retained. She suggested that a more
stringent tree plan should be required and would like to see stronger wording for the conditions of
approval related to tree preservation. In addition, she raised concerns with regard to the impact
future development may have on existing wells.
In regard to the concerns regarding impact to wells, Mr. Cybalski advised that a feasibility study,
completed by LVM, was submitted with the application and having read the study, he was
satisfied that these concerns have been addressed.
Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that the application was vetted through Heritage Planning staff,
who indicate they have no concerns and she pointed out that there is a condition of approval for
tree preservation that addresses those concerns.
Ms. Fernandes suggested that notwithstanding a condition of approval matters can change on
site once tree removal begins. She noted that the Region of Waterloo is looking at including
cultural heritage landscapes in their Official Plan, suggesting that this presents opportunity to set
precedent and hold that forward.
Mr. B. McColl suggested that the condition as worded appears straight forward, questioning if
there is something else Ms. Fernandes would like to add in. Ms. Fernandes reiterated her desire
to have stronger wording, suggesting the phrase “potentially impact” is too soft as any tree in
range could be impacted. She noted that there are significant older trees that enhance the
aesthetics of the log cabin and of particular concern was several pine trees to the right of the
cabin.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 77 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-017 & A 2013-012 (Cont’d)
Mr. D. Cybalski pointed out that subclause 4 of condition 5 provides that all trees to be preserved
to be identified and catalogued for inventory prior to the start of development. He added that all is
subject to approval of the City’s Director of Planning and Environmental Planner and is a more
comprehensive approach than has been taken in the past.
Mr. Guerreiro added that the applicants reside in the log cabin and he stated that no one has
more concern regarding aesthetics and tree preservation for the site than the applicants
themselves.
Submission No. B 2013-017
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of JT Risty Ltd. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land for residential
use having frontage on New Dundee Road of 24.348m (79.89‘), by an irregular depth of 110.51m
2
(362.57‘) and an area of 2,630m (28,310.01 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 8, Beasley’s Old Survey, being
BE GRANTED
Part 4 on Reference Plan 58R-5090, 398 New Dundee Road, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
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 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed, being $11,200.08 (based
on 24.348 linear metres of land frontage valued at $9,200 per frontage metre).
4. That the owner shall close and remove the redundant driveway leading to the severed lot,
including installing new curb and gutter and boulevard sodding, all to City of Kitchener
standards. New driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards at grade with the
future sidewalk. All works are at the owner’s expense and all work needs to be completed
to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Engineering Services, prior to February 19,
2014.
5. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by
the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the
following:
That prior to any grading or the application or issuance of a building permit, the owner
shall submit a plan, prepared by a qualified consultant, to the satisfaction and approval of
the City’s Director of Planning showing:
(i) the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings and structures),
decks and driveways;
(ii) the location of any existing buildings or structures to be removed or relocated;
(iii) the proposed grades and drainage;
(iv) the location of all trees to be preserved, removed or potentially impacted on or
adjacent to the subject lands, including notations of their size, species and
condition;
(v) justification for any trees to be removed; and
(vi) outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved.
6. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant shall prepare a Transportation Noise
Study, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and
Community Services, to indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be
used to abate traffic noise levels from Provincial Highway 401 and the severed lands and if
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 78 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-017 & A 2013-012 (Cont’d)
necessary, the owner shall enter into a registered development agreement with the City of
Kitchener.
7. That prior to final approval the owner/applicant shall prepare a Transportation Noise Study,
to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community
Services, to indicate to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be used to abate
OR,
traffic noise levels from Provincial Highway 401 for the retained lands;
The owner/applicant may enter into a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener for
the requirement to include the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale,
deeds and tenancy agreements for all units:
“Due to the proximity to Provincial Highway 401, projected noise levels on this
property may exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals”.
8. That prior to final approval, the Developer shall obtain a Regional Access Permit for a new
access for the proposed severed lot from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
9. That prior to final approval, the Developer shall obtain a Regional Access Permit to close
the unauthorized existing parking space adjacent to New Dundee Road and restore the
boulevard to Regional standards.
10. That prior to final approval, the Developer shall submit a Grading & Drainage Plan and
Stormwater Management Report for the retained and severed lots to the satisfaction of the
Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services.
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 February 19, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. A 2013-012
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of JT Risty Ltd. requesting permission to have a minimum lot area of 0.263
ha (0.65 ac) rather than the required 0.4 ha (0.99 ac) and a minimum lot width of 24.348m
(79.89‘) rather than the required 30m (98.43‘), on Part Lot 8, Beasley’s Old Survey, being Part 4
BE APPROVED
on Reference Plan 58R-5090, 398 New Dundee Road, Kitchener, Ontario, .
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 - 79 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-017 & A 2013-012 (Cont’d)
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission Nos.:
2. B 2013-018 & A 2013-013 / A 2013-014
Applicant:
F. Michael Kropp and Astrid Woerner Kropp
Property Location:
717 Dunbar Road / 261 Union Boulevard
Legal Description:
Lot 13, Plan 350; and, Lot 10 and Part Lot 11, Plan 350
Appearances:
In Support: M. Kropp
T. Fleming
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever an irregular
shaped parcel of land having a southerly depth of 23.084 (75.74‘), a northerly depth of 3.869m
(12.7‘) and an area of 246.81m2 (2656.73 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 261 Union
Boulevard for residential use. The retained lands will continue to be used as residential, having
frontage on Dunbar Road of 20.117m (66‘), by a depth of 28.828m (94.58‘) and an area of
527.56m2 (5678.8 sq. ft.). Permission is also sought for the retained lands to have a lot area of
527.56m2 (5678.8 sq. ft.) rather than the required 929m2 (10,000 sq. ft.) and to legalize an
existing lot width of 20.117m (66‘) rather than the required 24m (78.74‘). Permission is also
sought for 261 Union Boulevard to legalize an existing lot width of 22.826m (74.89‘) rather than
the required 24m (78.74‘); and should concurrent severance application B 2013-018 not be
granted, permission is sought to have a lot area of 808.56m2 (8703.56 sq. ft.) rather than the
required 929 m2 (10,000 sq. ft.) and legalization of an existing rear yard setback of 5.020m
(16.47‘) rather than the required 5.33m (17.49‘).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 4, 2013, advising
that the subject properties are located on Dunbar Road and Union Boulevard. The properties are
irregular shaped lots with intersecting rear yards. Each property contains a two-storey single
detached dwelling. The subject properties are designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s
Official Plan and is zoned Residential Two (R-2) in the City’s Zoning By-law.
Consent Application B 2013-018
Through consent application B 2013-018, the owner is proposing to sever a portion of the rear
yard of 717 Dunbar Road (an area measuring 23.084 metres by 18.311 metres, by 3.869 metres
by 26.554, totalling 246.81 square metres) and add it to the rear yard of 261 Union Boulevard.
The retained lot would continue to contain an existing single detached dwelling, and have 18.288
metres of frontage on Dunbar Road, a new lot depth of 28.828 metres and a new lot area of
527.56 square metres. With the addition of lands to 261 Union Boulevard, the lot would continue
to contain an existing single detached dwelling and have 22.826 metres of frontage on Union
Boulevard, a lot depth of 40.012 metres and a new lot area of 1055.56 square metres.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the uses of the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the
City’s Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lot is appropriate and suitable for
the existing and proposed use, the lands front on an established public street, and adequate
utilities and municipal services are available. Also, the resulting lot addition to 261 Union
Boulevard will create a lot size that will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area.
The retained lot at 717 Dunbar Road will be compatible in size with the adjacent lots along
Dunbar Road.
Minor variance applications A2013-013, A2013-014
Minor variance applications A 2013-013, and A 2013-014 are requested to facilitate the proposed
consent application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 80 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
2. B 2013-018 & A 2013-013 / A 2013-014 (Cont’d)
Variance A 2013-013 - Retained Lands 717 Dunbar Road (Existing Single-Detached Dwelling)
The existing single detached dwelling has a lot width of 18.288 that is legal non-conforming and a
lot area of 774.37 square metres that is legal non-conforming. Should consent application B
2013-018 be approved, the existing site characteristics would change, necessitating approval of a
minor variance application. In this regard, the Owner is requesting the following variances
through minor variance application A 2013-013:
• a reduction of the minimum lot width to 18.288 metres whereas the Zoning By-law requires
24 metres in order to legalize an existing legal non-conforming use; and,
• a reduction of the minimum lot area to 527.56 square metres whereas the Zoning By-law
requires 929 square metres.
Planning Analysis
1. The requested reduced minimum lot width and reduced minimum lot area variances meet
the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the
existing scale of residential development and allows for modest alterations. The proposed
variances will legalize an existing legal non-conforming lot width and permit the reduced
minimum lot area while maintaining the low density character of the property and
surrounding neighbourhood.
2. The requested reduced minimum lot width and reduced minimum lot area meet the intent
of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of a 24 metre minimum lot width and 929 square metre
minimum lot area is to allow a large outdoor amenity area to allow adequate space for
recreational activity. It is staff’s opinion that the use and function of the lot will be
maintained.
3. The requested reduced minimum lot width and reduced minimum lot area on the retained
lands is considered minor. The existing single detached dwelling will maintain adequate
separation from existing surrounding residential dwellings. As such, the reduced minimum
lot width and reduced minimum lot area variances will generally have no impact on the
adjacent lands and overall neighbourhood.
4. The requested reduced minimum lot width and reduced minimum lot area on the retained
lands is appropriate and will provide a similar lot size and lot width compared to what
currently exists within the community. Dunbar Road acts as a transitional area between
the R2 zone (west) and R3 zone (east). Staff is of the opinion that the proposed reduced
minimum lot width and reduced minimum lot area variances are consistent with the low
density development of the neighbourhood.
Variance A 2013-014 - Proposed Lot Addition to 261 Union Boulevard (Existing Single-Detached
Dwelling)
The existing single detached dwelling has a lot width of 22.826 that is legal non-conforming, a lot
area of 808.75 square metres that is legal non-conforming and a rear yard setback of 5.02 metres
that his legal non-conforming.
Should consent application B 2013-018 be approved, the existing site characteristics would
change, necessitating approval of a minor variance application. With the proposed lot addition,
both the required minimum rear yard setback and minimum lot area would comply with Section
36.2.1 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-1, requiring only the existing legal non-
conforming lot width of 22.826 metres to be legalized. In this regard, the owner is requesting the
following variance through minor variance application A 2013-014:
• a reduction of the minimum lot width to 22.826 metres for the existing single detached
dwelling whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 24 metres in order to legalize
an existing legal non-conforming use.
Should consent application B 2013-018 be refused, the applicant is requesting the following
variances through minor variance 2013-014:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 81 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
2. B 2013-018 & A 2013-013 / A 2013-014 (Cont’d)
• a reduction of the minimum lot width to 22.826 metres whereas the Zoning By-law requires
24 metres in order to legalize an existing legal non-conforming use,
• a reduction in the minimum lot area of 808.56 square metres whereas the By-law requires
929 square metres in order to legalize an existing legal non-conforming use,
Planning Analysis
1. The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback, reduced minimum lot area, and
reduced minimum lot width variance meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise
Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and
allows for modest alterations. The proposed variances will permit the reduced rear yard,
reduced lot area and reduced minimum lot width and will maintain the low density
character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood.
2. The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback, reduced minimum lot area and
minimum lot width variance meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of a 7.5
metre rear yard setback is to provide adequate outdoor amenity space. The existing
single detached dwelling at 261 Union Boulevard will maintain adequate amenity space
within the rear yard. This variance will also legalize an existing legal non-conforming use.
3. The purpose of a minimum lot area of 929 square metres for a single detached dwelling in
a Residential Two (R-2) zone is to allow for an executive size lot within the City allows for a
larger dwelling and amenity space in comparison to the neighbouring properties. The
existing single detached dwelling optimizes the permitted building setbacks and height
within the Residential Two (R-2) zone and provides a large lot for the existing residential
use. The size of the lot is consistent with neighbouring land uses. It is staff’s opinion that
the use and function of the lot will be maintained.
4. The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback, reduced minimum lot area and
reduced lot width variance is considered minor. The existing single detached dwelling will
maintain adequate separation from existing and proposed surrounding residential
dwellings. The proposed reduced minimum lot area and reduced lot width will continue to
allow for a residential dwelling that is comparable in size and scale to neighbouring
dwellings. As such, the requested variances will generally have no impact on the adjacent
lands and overall neighbourhood.
5. The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback, reduced minimum lot area and
reduced lot width variance is appropriate and will provide similar setbacks and lot size from
what currently exists within the community. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed
reduced minimum rear yard, reduced minimum lot area and reduced lot width variance are
consistent with the low density development of the neighbourhood.
Staff suggests that all three applications be considered concurrently by the Committee of
Adjustment.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
February 4, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with Submission Nos. A 2013-013 and A
2013-014.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated
February 8, 2013, advising that they have no objection to Submission No. B 2013-018.
The Committee considered the report of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated February 7, 2013,
advising that they do not have a registered easement, but have an existing overhead distribution
system along the rear of these properties. This overhead distribution system is necessary in
order to provide electrical service to these properties. Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. claims an
unregistered easement on this severance along the route of the existing overhead distribution
system. As it is Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc.’s desire to register those easement rights that are
not now registered, whenever possible, it is asked that the applicant be advised of the existing
situation, and that Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. will be contacting them after closing to further
discuss the possibilities of registering the appropriate documentation.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 82 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
2. B 2013-018 & A 2013-013 / A 2013-014 (Cont’d)
Submission No. B 2013-018
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of F. Michael Kropp requesting permission to sever an irregular shaped
parcel of land having a southerly depth of 23.084 (75.74‘), a northerly depth of 3.869m (12.7‘) and
2
an area of 246.81m (2656.73 sq. ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 261 Union Boulevard,
BE GRANTED
on Lot 13, Plan 350, 717 Dunbar Road, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the
following condition:
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 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 two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the owner shall obtain a building permit for the construction of the proposed
swimming pool.
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 February 19, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. A 2013-013
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of F. Michael Kropp requesting permission for a reduction in minimum lot
width to 18.288m (60‘) rather than the required 24m (78.74‘) to legalize an existing legal non-
2
conforming use, and a reduction in minimum lot area to 527.56m (5678.8 sq. ft.) rather than the
2
required 929m (10,000 sq. ft.) and, on Lot 13, Plan 350, 717 Dunbar Road, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE APPROVED
, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division for
construction of the proposed swimming pool.
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 - 83 -FEBRUARY 19, 2013
Submission Nos.:
2. B 2013-018 & A 2013-013 / A 2013-014 (Cont’d)
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. A 2013-014
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of F. Michael Kropp and Astrid Woerner Kropp requesting permission for a
reduction in minimum lot width to 22.826m (74.89‘) rather than the required 24m (78.74‘) to
legalize an existing legal non-conforming use, on Lot 10 and Part Lot 11, Plan 350, 261 Union
BE APPROVED
Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division for
construction of the proposed swimming pool.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 19th day of February, 2013.
Janet Billett, AMCT
Acting Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment