HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2013-05-21
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 21, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. A. Head, A. Lise and B. McColl
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. B. Bateman, Senior Planner; Mr.
D. Pimentel, Traffic Technologist; Ms. J. Billett, Acting Secretary-Treasurer;
D. Livingstone, Committee Administrator and Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative
Clerk.
Mr. A. Head, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:03 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held April 16, 2013, as mailed
to the members, be accepted.
Carried
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1. A 2013-021
Applicant:
Victoria Ariens
Property Location:
300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent
Legal Description:
Part Lot 12, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession and Part Block 12,
Registered Plan 58M-400, being Parts 1, 3 and 4, Reference Plan
58R-15677
Appearances:
In Support: J. Ariens
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to allow 3 required off-
street parking spaces to be located east of the drive shed and setback 0m from the street line
rather than the required 6m (19.69’); two additional parking spaces to be located in the drive shed
and setback 4.5m (14.77’) from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.69’); a total
driveway width of 16m (52.5’) rather than the permitted 8m (26.25’); a parking lot with vehicles
being allowed to egress in a rearward motion rather than the required forward motion; and a
driveway that is comprised of 2 different materials (paving stones and one flag stone) and 2
different colours that are not distinguishable from other ground cover and surfacing rather than
the requirement that a driveway be comprised of a material, pattern or colour that is consistent
throughout and distinguishable from all other ground cover or surfacing, including landscaping or
walkways.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 24, 2013, advising that
minor variance application A 2011-023 was considered and approved with conditions by the
Committee of Adjustment on May 17, 2011. One of the conditions required the applicant to
obtain a building permit to convert the drive shed to a garage and to complete the conversion by
December 31, 2012. The applicant obtained a building permit but did not complete the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 100 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
1. A 2013-021 (Cont’d)
conversion. The minor variance application has lapsed because the condition was not fulfilled
before December 31, 2012. As a result, the applicant has submitted a new minor variance
application. The new minor variance application is slightly different than the original because the
applicant realized that a small change in parking configuration would eliminate the need for one
variance. The details of the new minor variance application are described in this report.
The subject property is located on the south side of Joseph Schoerg Crescent and is legally
described as Part Lots 3 and 4, Registered Plan 789. The subject property is 0.85 hectares (2.11
acres) in size and is occupied by a single detached dwelling and a drive shed that were
constructed circa 1830.
The applicant, John Ariens, has requested the following five variances:
1. Relief from Sections 6.1.1.1.b.i, to permit 3 required off-street parking spaces to be located
east of the drive shed and setback 0 metres from the streetline, whereas the zoning
requires a minimum setback of 6.0 metres;
2. Relief from Section 36.2.1, to permit 2 additional parking spaces to be located in the drive
shed and setback 4.5 metres from the street line, whereas the zoning requires a minimum
setback of 6.0 metres;
3. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1.b.ii.h, to permit a total driveway width of 16.0 metres, whereas
the zoning permits a maximum driveway width of 8.0 metres;
4. Relief from Section 6.1.2.b, to permit a parking lot with vehicles being allowed to egress in
a backward motion, whereas the zoning requires a parking lot to provide ingress and
egress of vehicles to and from a street in a forward motion only; and,
5. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1.b.vi, to permit a driveway that is comprised of two different
materials and two different colours that are not distinguishable from other ground cover
and surfacing, whereas the zoning requires the driveway to be comprised of a material,
pattern or colour that is consistent throughout and that is distinguishable from all other
ground cover or surfacing, including landscaping or walkways.
The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The property is zoned
Residential Two (R2) in By-law 85-1 and is subject to special regulation provisions 231R and
263R and special use provisions 228U and 236U. The property is also designated under Part IV
of the Ontario Heritage Act and is subject to a Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement.
The applicant is proposing to convert the existing drive shed building to a garage in order to
provide two interior parking spaces. The applicant has installed a driveway that leads to the
proposed garage and the same driveway extends east of the garage in order to provide three
required off-street parking spaces.
With regards to the variances requested, staff offer the following comments 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.
Variance 1 – Permission to have Required Parking Setback 0 metres from the Street Line:
1. The Low Rise Residential designation of the Official Plan encourages a full range of
housing types as well as a mix of non-residential uses in residential areas at a scale and in
locations appropriate to an area of low rise housing. In addition, the special policies
relating to Pioneer Tower West of the Official Plan permit tourist homes within existing
heritage buildings as a means of promoting their preservation. The parking setback
reduction recognizes the need to provide the required parking spaces for the single
detached dwelling and the tourist home. It is the opinion of staff that the variance meets
the intent of the Official Plan.
2. The intent of the zoning regulation requiring a minimum 6.0 metre setback from the street
line is to allow visitor parking spaces on the driveway in tandem with the required off-street
parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to convert the inside of the drive shed to two
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 101 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
1. A 2013-021 (Cont’d)
additional parking spaces. In total, the applicant is requesting permission for 3 required
off-street parking spaces and 2 additional parking spaces. The applicant will also have
room for 2 informal visitor parking spaces on the driveway in tandem with the additional
parking located in the drive shed. Visitor parking spaces may also be accommodated on
the north side of Joseph Schoerg Crescent where on-street parking is permitted. It is also
important to consider the grades of the subject property. Staff recognize that the grades
adjacent to the drive shed and driveway would need to change and / or a retaining wall
would need to be constructed if the required parking was setback a minimum of 6.0 metres
from the street line. Changes to the grades may impact the cultural heritage landscape.
As a result, it is the opinion of staff that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
3. The subject property will provide parking for five vehicles. In addition, the variance
recognizes the grades of the property, which are important to maintain the existing cultural
heritage landscape. As a result, staff considers the variance to be minor.
4. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of land because the subject
property will provide parking for five vehicles; recognize the grades of the property, which
are important to maintain the existing cultural heritage landscape; and, the impact to
neighbouring properties is minor because the subject property has a large frontage, the
adjacent properties are open space with no driveways, and Joseph Schoerg Crescent is a
local residential street.
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the request to permit three required off-street
parking spaces to be located east of the drive shed and setback 0 metres from the street line,
whereas a minimum setback of 6.0 metres is required, be approved.
Variance 2 – Permission to have Additional Parking within a Building Setback 4.5 metres from the
Street Line:
1. The Low Rise Residential designation in the Official Plan permits the accessory building
(commonly referred to as the drive shed) and the parking setback reduction recognizes an
existing situation. It is the opinion of staff that the variance meets the intent of the Official
Plan.
2. The intent of the zoning regulation requiring a minimum 6.0 metre setback from the street
line is to allow off-street visitor parking spaces on the driveway in tandem with the parking
spaces located inside the drive shed. The applicant is proposing to convert the inside of
the drive shed to two additional parking spaces. In total, the applicant is requesting
permission for 3 required off-street parking spaces and 2 additional parking spaces. The
applicant will also have room for 2 informal visitor parking spaces on the driveway in
tandem with the additional parking located in the drive shed. Visitor parking spaces may
also be accommodated on the north side of Joseph Schoerg Crescent where on-street
parking is permitted. As a result, staff believe sufficient visitor parking will be available on
the subject property. It is the opinion of staff that the variance meets the intent of the
Zoning By-law.
3. The variance recognizes an existing situation, which conserves a built heritage resource.
As a result, staff consider the variance to be minor.
4. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of land because it recognizes an
existing situation, which conserves a built heritage resource.
Based on the forgoing, staff recommends that the request to permit two additional parking spaces
to be located in the drive shed and setback 4.5 metres from the street line, whereas a minimum
setback of 6.0 metres is required, be approved.
Variance 3 – Permission to have a Driveway Width of 18.0 metres:
1. The Urban Design policies of the Official Plan encourage a high standard of urban design.
It is the opinion of staff that the request for an increased driveway width meets the intent of
the Official Plan.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 102 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
1. A 2013-021 (Cont’d)
2. The intent of the zoning regulation permitting a maximum driveway width of 8 metres is to
provide an attractive and safe streetscape. The zoning for the subject property permits
two driveways with a maximum width of 8.0 metres each. The maximum driveway width
ensures that some of the front yard is landscaped with soft materials such as grass,
shrubs or trees. At the same time, the maximum driveway width limits the total number of
vehicles that may need to egress in a backward motion. The proposed width of the
driveway could accommodate 6 legal parking spaces. If the applicant had proposed two
driveways with a maximum width of 8.0 metres each the driveways could also
accommodate 6 legal parking spaces. Although vehicles that egress in a backward
motion may create safety concerns with pedestrians and vehicular traffic, Transportation
Planning staff have advised that given the nature and intended use of the site they can
support vehicles that egress in a backward motion. It is the opinion of staff that the
variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
3. The variance recognizes that the proposed 16.0 metre wide driveway and the two 8.0
metre wide driveways permitted under the Zoning By-law could accommodate the same
number of legal parking spaces. As a result, staff consider the variance to be minor.
4. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of land because the proposed
driveway and the two maximum driveways permitted could accommodate the same
number of vehicles. In addition, the impact to neighbouring properties is minor because
the scale of the driveway is appropriate based on the large frontage.
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the request to permit a driveway width of 16.0
metres, whereas a maximum driveway width of 8.0 metres is permitted, be approved.
Variance 4 – Permission to have a Parking Lot where Vehicles Egress in a Backward Motion:
1. The Transportation Policies of the Official Plan require parking areas to be designed,
constructed, and maintained for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles and
pedestrians on site and at points of ingress and egress to the site. Given the nature and
intended use of the site, Transportation Planning staff have advised that they can support
parking spaces exiting in a backward motion. It is the opinion of staff that the request to
allow vehicles to egress in a backward motion meets the intent of the Official Plan.
2. The intent of the Zoning regulation requiring vehicles in a parking lot to egress in a
backward motion is to ensure the safe and efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians
both on private and public lands. It is the opinion of staff that the variance meets the intent
of the Zoning By-law.
3. Based on the permitted use of the site (single detached dwelling and two bedroom tourist
home), it is the opinion of staff that the variance is minor.
4. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of land because given the nature
and intended use of the site and the fact that Joseph Schoerg Crescent is a local
residential street.
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the request to permit vehicles in a parking lot to
egress in a backward motion, whereas vehicles in a parking lot must egress in a forward motion,
be approved.
Variance 5 – Permission to have a driveway that is comprised of two different materials and two
different colours that are not distinguishable from other ground cover and surfacing:
1. The Urban Design policies of the Official Plan encourage a high standard of urban design.
It is the opinion of staff that the request for an increased driveway width meets the intent of
the Official Plan.
2. The intent of the Zoning regulation requiring a driveway to be comprised of a material,
pattern or colour that is consistent throughout the driveway and that is distinguishable from
all other ground cover or surfacing is to ensure that vehicles do not park across the full
frontage of a property thereby negatively impacting the quality of the streetscape. This
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 103 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
1. A 2013-021 (Cont’d)
regulation allows additional hard surfacing beyond the maximum driveway width for
walkways and other hard surface landscape features. It is the opinion of staff that the
variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
3. The variance does not create the potential for additional vehicles to park across the
frontage of the property beyond the six vehicles that could be accommodated based on
the total driveway width proposed under variance 3 above. In addition, the applicant has
used different colours as a soldier course to define individual parking spaces or pathways
to individual parking spaces for a total of five parking spaces. As a result, staff consider
the variance to be minor.
4. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of land because it ensures that
vehicles will be parked on the subject property but will not negatively impact the quality of
the streetscape.
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the request to permit a driveway that is comprised
of two different materials and two different colours that are not distinguishable from other ground
cover and surfacing, be approved.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
May 13, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA)
Resource Planner, dated May 13, 2013, advising that they have no objections to this application;
however, information indicates that the property contains the erosion hazard and floodplain
associated with the Grand River as well as the allowances adjacent to these features.
Consequently, the subject property is regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority
(GRCA) under Ontario Regulation 150/06.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Victoria Ariens requesting permission to allow 3 required off-street parking
spaces to be located east of the drive shed and setback 0m from the street line rather than the
required 6m (19.69’); two additional parking spaces to be located in the drive shed and setback
4.5m (14.77’) from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.69’); a total driveway width of
16m (52.5’) rather than the permitted 8m (26.25’); a parking lot with vehicles being allowed to
egress in a rearward motion rather than the required forward motion; and a driveway that is
comprised of 2 different materials (paving stones and one flag stone) and 2 different colours that
are not distinguishable from other ground cover and surfacing rather than the requirement that a
driveway be comprised of a material, pattern or colour that is consistent throughout and
distinguishable from all other ground cover or surfacing, including landscaping or walkways, on
Part Lot 12, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession, being Parts 1, 3 and 4 on Reference Plan 58R-
BE APPROVED
15677, 300 Joseph Schoerg Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the
following condition:
1. That the applicant shall remove the encroachment for three previously approved parking
spaces located in front of the drive shed and shall terminate the existing encroachment
agreement with the City of Kitchener.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 104 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
2. A 2013-022
Applicant:
Mike McKellar
Property Location:
230 Tilt Drive
Legal Description:
Part Lot 5, Biehns Tract, being Parts 1 & 2 on Reference Plan 58R-
4316
Appearances:
In Support: M. McKellar
K. Reycraft
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a detached
garage accessory to a single detached dwelling, having a maximum building height of 7m (22.97’)
rather than the permitted 5.5m (18.05’) and a maximum height of the underside of any fascia of
4m (13.13’) rather than the permitted 3m (9.85’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 13, 2013, advising that
the subject property, municipally addressed 230 Tilt Drive, is zoned both residential three (R-3)
and hazard land (P-3) in Zoning Bylaw 85-1. Although there are two zoning designations for this
property, the proposed development will fall within the Residential Three (R-3) zone, and thus is
regulated by the provisions of this zone. Under the City’s Official Plan, the development envelope
for the proposed accessory building is situated in the Low Rise Residential designation. The
subject property is also positioned within the Doon South Community Plan.
The applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.5.2(b) of Zoning Bylaw 85-1 to permit a
maximum building height of 7.0 metres, as well as a maximum height of the underside of any
fascia at 4.0 m. Under Section 5.5.2(b), a building accessory to a single detached dwelling shall
have a maximum building height of 5.5 metres, and a maximum height of the underside of any
fascia shall be 3.0 metres. The applicant has requested the variance for the building height
exemption in order to allow sufficient height clearance to provide parking for the owner’s truck.
Planning staff notes that the size of the property is rather large (approximately 9.58 acres) in
comparison to some of the neighbouring properties. The adjacent lands to the north contain Tilts
Bush and other core environmental features. To the South, the subject property is adjacent to
registered plan of subdivision 58M-505. The other uses that surround this property compose
primarily of low density residential development, and institutional uses. The location of the
proposed accessory building is also within close proximately to core environmental features and
land uses. Although it appears to be in the vicinity of such features, the variance itself does not
deal specifically with the location of the building, but rather the building height. The location of the
development will need to be determined prior to obtaining a building permit, and will need to
satisfy the requirements of all City departments, the Region of Waterloo, the Grand River
Conservation Authority and other applicable agencies.
In considering the four tests for minor variance 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:
1. It is the opinion of staff that the requested variance to permit a building height of 7.0
metres and a height of 4.0 metres underside of the fascia, meets the intent of the Official
Plan. The Low Rise Residential Designation in the City’s Official Plan encourages a full
range of housing types and forms while achieving an overall low intensity of use. As the
property covers a large area, the proposed accessory building should not have any
impacts on the surrounding lands.
2. The requested variance to permit a building height of 7.0 metres and a height of 4.0
metres on the underside of the fascia, meets the intent of the Zoning Bylaw. The intent of
the Zoning Bylaw when regulating building heights is to ensure compatibility with the
adjacent streetscape and for mitigating potential impacts on adjacent properties. The
development envelope of the proposed accessory building is surrounded by dense
vegetation cover and by natural environmental features. The building height of the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 105 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
2. A 2013-022 (Cont’d)
accessory building will not be adjacent to low density residential development and is a
significant distance away from any public roadway. The increase in building height is
minor and should not have any impact on the adjacent properties.
3. The variance can be considered minor as the increased building height should not present
any significant impacts to the adjacent lands and the overall neighbourhood. Many of the
adjacent properties have yet to be developed. The surrounding lands immediately to the
North, East and West contain natural environmental features that should provide a
sufficient buffer between different land uses. The proposed accessory building will not be
within the view shed of any low density residential uses.
4. The requested variance deals specifically with building height(s), and does not speak
specifically to the location of the proposed development. When considering the building
height(s) exemption, the variance is appropriate for the size of the property and the
building itself should be in a location that provides sufficient separation from residential
land uses. There should not be any adverse effects to the adjacent properties.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
May 13, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report from the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA)
Resource Planner, dated May 13, 2013, advising that they have no objections to this application;
however, information indicates that the subject property is regulated by the Grand River
Conservation Authority due to the presence of wetland, floodplain and steep slopes associated
with Strasburg Creek and Strasburg Creek Provincially Significant Wetland Complex. As such, a
permit from the GRCA will be required for the proposed building and site alteration (grading and
driveway).
Concern was raised in respect to the time it would take to complete all conditions of approval
proposed. It was agreed to include a condition of approval to provide for an 18 month timeframe
in which to complete the conditions, and in the event a request for extension to the deadline is
made such request to be authorized in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or
designate).
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Mike McKellar requesting permission to construct a detached garage
accessory to a single detached dwelling, having a maximum building height of 7m (22.97’) rather
than the permitted 5.5m (18.05’) and a maximum height of the underside of any fascia of 4m
(13.13’) rather than the permitted 3m (9.85’), on Part Lot 5, Biehns Tract, being Parts 1 & 2 on
BE APPROVED
Reference Plan 58R-4316, 230 Tilt Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That a site visit shall be conducted with the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA),
Regional Municipality of Waterloo and City Environmental Planning staff to understand the
proposed development footprint in relation to environmental features, prior to finalizing the
location of the accessory building, and the building permit application being made. The
applicant is to coordinate the site visit with the City of Kitchener Environmental Planning
Staff.
2. That a Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of
the City of Kitchener’s Director of Engineering in consultation with the GRCA, Regional
Municipality of Waterloo and City Environmental Planning staff prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
3. That an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan shall be submitted and approved to the
satisfaction of the City of Kitchener’s Director of Engineering in consultation with the
GRCA, Regional Municipality of Waterloo and City Environmental Planning staff prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 106 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
2. A 2013-022 (Cont’d)
4. That the applicant shall obtain a permit from the GRCA to construct the accessory
building. In order to confirm that there is a viable location for the proposed accessory
building on this property, GRCA staff will require the following documentation to be
submitted as part of a GRCA Permit Application:
a. completed GRCA permit application form;
b. documentation showing conformance with approved EIS of Subdivision 30T-04209
OR additional justification for encroachment into approved wetland buffers that is
acceptable to our technical staff;
c. grading and drainage plan showing maintenance of existing and proposed drainage
and the extent of area to be disturbed/altered to facilitate the proposed building;
and,
d. erosion and sediment control plan.
5. That a building permit shall be obtained from the City of Kitchener’s Building Division for
the proposed residential dwelling.
6. That Conditions 1 to 5 above shall be completed prior to November 21, 2014. No
extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the
Manager of Development Review (or designate), prior to the completion date set out in this
decision.
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
ubmission No.:
3. S A 2013-023
Applicant:
CVD Properties Inc.
Property Location:
311 Victoria Street North
Legal Description:
Part Lots 12, 13, 20 & 21, Plan 33
Appearances:
In Support: E. Freeman
S. Kovacs
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
rear yard setback of 0.43m (1.41’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.61’); an existing northerly
side yard of 0.36m (1.19’) and an existing southerly side yard of 2.62m (8.6’) rather than the
required 3m (9.85’); and to allow a minimum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.42 rather than the
permitted 0.6.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 9, 2013, advising that
the subject property is located on Victoria Street North, near the corner of Victoria Street North
and Lancaster Street East. The lands contain two buildings. There is an office with frontage
along Victoria Street North and a warehouse building at the rear of the property along Hermie
Place. The property owners are proposing to demolish the existing warehouse building and
replace it (within the same location) with a research technology building. The subject property is
designated Mixed Use Corridor in the City’s Official Plan and is zoned Low Intensity Mixed use
Corridor Zone (MU-1), with special provisions 162U and 563R in the City’s Zoning By-law.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 107 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
3. A 2013-023 (Cont’d)
The existing office building and warehouse building have a rear yard, and side yard setback that
are legal non-conforming. The existing Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is also legal non-conforming.
Should the existing warehouse be replaced with a research technology building, 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
2013-023:
• a reduction of the minimum rear yard to 0.43 metres whereas the Zoning By-law requires
7.5 metres,
• a reduction of the minimum side yard to 0.36 metres (north side), 2.62 metres (south side)
whereas the Zoning By-law requires 3.0 metres,
• a reduction of the minimum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to 0.42, whereas the Zoning By-law
requires 0.6.
The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum side yard setback
variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Mixed Use Corridor designation allows for
modest alterations in favour of intensified use to the subject lands. The proposed variances will
legalize the existing deficient rear yard and side yard setbacks. The requested variance to
reduce the required minimum Floor Space Ratio will allow for the conversion of a warehouse
building into a more intensive technological research building and make the overall property more
useable while maintaining the intent of the Mixed Use Corridor designation.
The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum side yard setback
meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of a 3 metre side yard setback is to allow for
adequate separation between the abutting property and sufficient access to the rear yard. It is
staff’s opinion that the rear yard access will be maintained through the parking lot and drive aisle.
The purpose of a 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to provide adequate separation rear adjoining
properties to the rear. There is an existing laneway that abuts the rear of the property. The
proposed research technology building on the subject lands will maintain adequate separation
and maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The purpose of maintaining a minimum 0.6 FSR is to ensure that adequate building massing is
achieved. The proposed variance to reduce the minimum FSR will legalize an existing condition,
and allow the property owner to develop an employment use that is more intensive in nature than
the existing warehouse use.
The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum side yard setback on
the subject lands is considered minor. The proposed development will maintain adequate
separation from surrounding commercial uses. As such, the reduced minimum rear yard and
reduced minimum side yard variances will generally have no impact on the adjacent lands and
overall neighbourhood.
The proposed FSR variance is considered minor. The new research technology building will
replace an existing derelict warehouse building and may potentially create additional employment
opportunities on the subject lands. The existing building massing on the entire subject lands will
remain unchanged as a result of the approval of this variance application.
The requested reduced minimum rear yard setback and reduced minimum side yard setback on
the subject lands are appropriate and will provide similar setbacks from what currently exists
within the community. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed reduced minimum rear yard and
reduced minimum side yard variances are consistent with the mixed use development of the
area.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed minimum FSR, now modified to 0.42 from 0.6 is
appropriate and will allow the redevelopment of the rear warehouse building into a more intensive
employment use.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 108 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
3. A 2013-023 (Cont’d)
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
May 19, 2013, advising that this section of Victoria Street is planned for re-construction in the
year 2016. Under future development applications a 3.048m (10ft.) road widening will be
required from the applicant.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of CVD Properties Inc. requesting permission to legalize an existing rear yard
setback of 0.43m (1.41’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.61’); an existing northerly side yard of
0.36m (1.19’) and an existing southerly side yard of 2.62m (8.6’) rather than the required 3m
(9.85’); and to allow a minimum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.42 rather than the permitted 0.6, on
BE
Part Lots 12, 13, 20 & 21, Plan 33, 311 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
4. A 2013-024
Applicant:
CFN Frederick Inc.
Property Location:
385 Frederick Street
Legal Description:
Subdivision of Lot 3, Part Lot 9, German Company Tract, being Part
Lot X on Plan 414
Appearances:
In Support: S. Patterson
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide a maximum of
2
534 parking spaces for a plaza complex with a gross floor area greater than 600m (6,458.56
2
sq.ft.) rather than the required 579 parking spaces based on 1 space for each 27m (290.64
sq.ft.) of the gross floor area.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 9, 2013, advising that
the subject property is zoned Community Shopping Centre Zone (C-3) and designated a Mixed
Use Node in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan in the City’s Official Plan. The
applicant has submitted a site plan application that proposes to develop a restaurant and
associated drive-through stacking lanes in the northeast corner of the site. The proposed
development will result in a loss in the number of required parking spaces for the existing plaza
complex use.
Section 6.1.2 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 requires plaza complex parking at a rate of 1 space for
each 27 square metres of gross floor area that accommodates the use. This calculation results in
a requirement of 579 spaces whereas 534 are proposed for the plaza complex use. As such, the
applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.2 of the Zoning By-law 85-1 for a parking reduction
of 45 spaces.
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 followingcomments:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 109 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
4. A 2013-024 (Cont’d)
The Mixed Use Node designation in the City’s Official Plan is intended to serve an inter-
neighbourhood function and allow for intensive, transit supportive development in a compact
form. The Official Plan also states that staff may consider reduced parking requirements for
specific developments within this designation. Transportation Services staff has advised that a
parking utilization study was conducted which determined that a surplus amount of parking was
unoccupied on site during various times of the day. It is staff’s opinion that the requested
variance meets the intent of the Official Plan as it can be considered a step towards promoting
transit supportive development as it avoids an excessive amount of parking spaces that are not
required for the actual functioning of a site and its uses, as determined by the utilization study.
The intent of Section 6.1.2 of the Zoning By-law is to ensure that the proposed uses have
sufficient parking on site. Transportation Services staff advised that a utilization study was
conducted which determined that a surplus amount of parking spaces were unoccupied and as
such, do not have concerns with the proposed reduction in parking requirements for the plaza
complex. Staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as parking
can still be accommodated on site without any encumbrance to the subject site and adjacent
properties.
The requested variance can be considered minor as it is staff’s opinion that the plaza complex will
be able to function successfully even with the reduction of 45 required parking spaces.
Transportation Services staff has conducted a utilization study that has determined this and are
supportive of the parking reduction. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the reduction in parking
requirements will not impede the functioning of the site or adjacent properties.
The requested variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as Planning and
Transportation Services staff are of the opinion that the site will continue to function appropriately
even with the reduction of required parking spaces for the plaza complex use.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
May 13, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of CFN Frederick Inc. requesting permission to provide a maximum of 534
2
parking spaces for a plaza complex with a gross floor area greater than 600m (6,458.56 sq.ft.)
2
rather than the required 579 parking spaces based on 1 space for each 27m (290.64 sq.ft.) of
the gross floor area, on Subdivision of Lot 3, Part Lot 9, German Company Tract, being Part Lot X
BE APPROVED
on Plan 414, 385 Frederick Street, 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.:
5. A 2013-025
Applicant:
Forsyth Family Farms Ltd.
Property Location:
75 Ardelt Place
Legal Description:
Part Lot 18, Plan 791
Appearances:
In Support: S. Patterson
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 110 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
5. A 2013-025 (Cont’d)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
front yard setback of 5.3m (17.39’) for an existing industrial use rather than the required 6m
(19.69’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 9, 2013, advising that
the subject property is zoned Heavy Industrial Zone (M-4) in the Zoning By-law and designated
Heavy Industrial in the City’s Official Plan. The site contains an existing industrial building with
accessory office use.
The owner is proposing an addition to an existing industrial building and is constructing a new
recycling facility at the rear of the property. The addition and new building will comply with
required setbacks; however there is an existing legal non-conforming front yard setback that will
require a minor variance prior to the construction of the addition. The owner is requesting relief
from Section 22.3.1 of the City of Kitchener By-law for a front yard setback of 5.3 metres whereas
the By-law requires 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 offers the following comments regarding
the requested minor variance:
The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Heavy Industrial designation
recognizes spatial separation requirements and allows uses that may cause vibration and/or
emissions and odours. The proposed variance will permit an existing reduced minimum front
yard setback. The minor change will maintain the character of the property and surrounding
industrial community.
The purpose of a 6.0 metre front yard setback is to provide an outdoor amenity space for
landscaping and streetscaping. Staff conducted a site visit on May 8, 2013. It is staff’s opinion
that the existing front yard setback of 5.3 metres would continue to allow outdoor amenity space
and allow ample space for landscaping to occur. The impact on neighbouring properties is
minimal.
The variance is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will provide
adequate landscaped space and will not negatively affect the adjacent properties or surrounding
industrial community.
The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed
industrial use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The proposed variance will allow the
owner to legalize an existing deficient front yard setback. The subject addition is proposed to the
rear of the existing building and property and will not create the need for any additional front yard
setback. The requested minor variance is appropriate and consistent with the Heavy Industrial
zone. The proposed variance will not impact the existing character of the subject property or
surroundingcommunity.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
May 13, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Forsyth Family Farms Ltd. requesting permission to legalize an existing
front yard setback of 5.3m (17.39’) for an existing industrial use rather than the required 6m
BE APPROVED
(19.69’), on Part Lot 18, Plan 791, 75 Ardelt Place, 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 111 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
5. A 2013-025 (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.:
6. A 2013-026
Applicant:
Gerry and Carrie Wise
Property Location:
39 Second Avenue
Legal Description:
Lot 28, Plan 254
Appearances:
In Support: G. Wise
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached
garage to a single detached dwelling, having a minimum side yard setback of 0.61m (2.01’) rather
than the required 1.2m (3.94’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 13, 2013, advising that
the subject property is situated on the east side of Second Avenue between Kingsway Drive and
Connaught Street, and is located in the Vanier planning community. The property is occupied by
a single detached dwelling with an existing detached garage.
The applicant is requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 of Zoning Bylaw 85-1 to permit a side yard
setback of 0.61 metres for a new attached garage.
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan, and is zoned
Residential Four (R-4) in the City’s Zoning Bylaw 85-1.
The applicant is seeking relief from the Bylaw in order to address the side yard setback to permit
an attached garage. Since the proposed garage will be attached to the house, the application will
be treated as a building addition to the dwelling as there will be an alteration to the existing home.
Under Section 38.2.1, the side yard setback for single detached dwellings requires a minimum of
1.2 metres. The proposed variance would address a 0.59 metre deficiency by permitting a side
yard setback of 0.61 metres.
Planning staff notes that the existing detached garage is in poor condition. It is noted that the
proposed attached garage will be constructed in the same location as the existing building.
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 Low Rise Residential Designation in the City’s Official Plan encourages a full range of
housing types and forms while achieving an overall low intensity of use. It is the opinion of staff
that the requested variance to permit a side yard setback 0.61 metres away from the side lot line,
meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The requested variance to permit a side yard setback 0.61 metres away from the side lot line,
meets the intent of the Zoning Bylaw. The intent of the Zoning By-Law when regulating building
setbacks from property lines is to ensure compatibility with the adjacent streetscape and
mitigating potential impacts on adjacent properties. The reduction of 0.59 metres from the
required 1.2 metres is minor and should not have any impact on the adjacent residential
properties.
The variance can be considered minor as the reduced setback will not present any significant
impacts to adjacent lands and the overall neighbourhood. The variance provides sufficient access
to the garage for any vehicles using the building.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 112 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
6. A 2013-026 (Cont’d)
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variance
should not impact any of the adjacent land uses nor the subject property.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
May 13, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Gerry and Carrie Wise requesting permission to construct an attached
garage to a single detached dwelling, having a minimum side yard setback of 0.61m (2.01’) rather
BE
than the required 1.2m (3.94’), on Lot 28, Plan 254, 39 Second Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
, subject to the following condition:
1. That a building permit shall be obtained from the City of Kitchener’s Building Division for
the proposed residential dwelling.
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 2013-027
Applicant:
Gerald White
Property Location:
526 Lancaster Street West
Legal Description:
Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, being Parts 11, 12 & 13 on
Reference Plan 58R-6800, Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-819 and
Part Lot 19, Plan 577
Appearances:
In Support: D. Aston
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a
commercial development containing a 1 storey building (Building A) having a front yard setback of
1.17m (3.84’) rather than the required 6m (19.69’) and a side yard setback abutting Bridgeport
Road of 4.86m (15.95’) rather than the required 6m (19.69’); and a 3 storey building (Building B)
having a side yard setback abutting Bridgeport Road of 3m (9.85’) rather than the required 6m
(19.69’) and a loading space 3m x 10.7m (9.85’ x 35.11’) in size rather than the required 4.3m x
15.2m (14.11’ x 49.87’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 14, 2013, advising that
the applicant is requesting a minor variance to construct a commercial development containing a
one-storey building (Building A) having a front yard setback of 1.17 metres (3.84 feet) rather than
the required 6 metres (19.69 feet) and a side yard setback abutting Bridgeport Road of 4.86
metres (15.95 feet) rather than the required 6 metres (19.69 feet); and a three-storey building
(Building B) having a side yard setback from Bridgeport Road of 3 metres (9.85 feet) rather than
the required 6 metres (19.69 feet) and a loading space 3 metres x 10.7 metres (9.85 feet x 35.11
feet) in size rather than the required 4.3 metres x 15.2 metres (14.11 feet x 49.87 feet).
It is noted that the property has split designations with Building A being located in the C-6 zone
with an Official Plan designation of Mixed Use Corridor and Building B being located in the B-2
zone with an Official Plan designation of Business Park.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 113 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
7. A 2013-027 (Cont’d)
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments:
Official Plan Designation
Building A is located within the Mixed Use Corridor designation and the proposed restaurant use
meets the intent of the designation which encourages strong pedestrian linkages, orienting the
mass of the building towards the street and providing pedestrian connections to the abutting
developments or off-site transit facilities.
There will be a pedestrian connection for the abutting building on site, as well as towards the
nearest bus transit stop. In addition, this designation limits vehicular parking between the building
and the street and the proposed site plan has shown all of the parking located behind Building A
which is in keeping with the intent of the designation.
Building B is located within the Business Park designation which is intended to cater to the needs
of technical and scientific businesses. Lands within this designation also provide for additional
office, commercial or service uses not typically permitted in more traditional general or heavy
industrial areas. The Business Park designation permits offices and health offices in specific
locations, including at the intersection of primary and secondary arterial roads where these uses
can serve more of a service function to the surrounding industrial uses.
The subject lands are proposed for an office use which is consistent with the intent of the
Business Park designation. This site is located at the intersection of Lancaster and Bridgeport
Streets both of which are arterial roads. The office use will service the neighbouring community
which also meets the intent of the Business Park designation.
Building A
The two variances for the building setback meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and can be
considered minor for the following reasons. Building A is to be setback 1.17 metres from the
Lancaster Street lot line and 4.86 metres from the Bridgeport Street lot line. As noted above, this
property is in the Mixed Use Corridor designation which encourages pedestrian-oriented buildings
that serve adjacent residential neighbourhoods. New development is required to orient building
mass towards the street. Staff notes that this property is to be rezoned in the future to a more
compatible zoning with the abutting properties on Lancaster Street which are zoned MU-2. The
minimum building setback in the MU-2 zone is 1.5 metres. The proposed reductions are
therefore more in keeping of the future MU zoning of this property, as well as the abutting
properties already zoned MU-2. In addition, the building is proposed to be set at an angle to the
Lancaster Street lot line and therefore only a portion of the building will be setback 1.17 metres
from the property line. The remaining building mass is distributed across the balance of the lands
away from this corner, as shown on the plan attached to the application.
Building B
The setback variance for Building B meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered
minor for the following reasons. The applicant is requesting a building setback of 3 metres rather
than the required 6 metres. Building B is to be developed as a three-storey office building with
parking to the rear of the building. By bringing the building closer to the street line, the applicant
is able to develop a parking lot to the rear of the building which is compatible with the abutting
zoning/official plan designation for Building A. The proposed setback for Building B compatible is
with the proposed Building A setback to the west and provides an appropriate transition for the
buildings to the east located in the business park.
Loading Space in B-2 Zone
The variance for the reduced size of a loading space in B-2 meets the intent of the Zoning by-law
and can be considered minor. The B-2 zone is considered an Industrial zone which normally
requires a loading space to be a minimum of 4.3 metres by 15.2 metres. In contrast, a loading
space in a Commercial zone is required to be a minimum of 3 metres by 10.7 metres in size. The
proposed loading space for the subject building is to be exclusively used for offices with no other
industrial uses. An office use would not require large industrial vehicles to visit the site and
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 114 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
7. A 2013-027 (Cont’d)
therefore a commercial size loading space would be sufficient. As noted by Traffic staff in their
comments below, should the site be redeveloped with additional accesses onto Riverbend Drive,
the proposed loading space would require relocation within the site.
Lastly, for all of the reasons noted above, staff is of the opinion that the variances are appropriate
for the commercial and office development proposed, and is compatible with the use of the
surrounding properties.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
May 13, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Concerns were raised regarding the size of loading zone. Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that the
surrounding area is already zoned mixed use. She pointed out that the subject property is being
rezoned to catch up, having lagged behind area zoning and the size of the loading zone is in line
with all other properties in the mixed use zone.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Gerald White requesting permission to construct a commercial
development containing a 1 storey building (Building A) having a front yard setback of 1.17m
(3.84’) rather than the required 6m (19.69’) and a side yard setback abutting Bridgeport Road of
4.86m (15.95’) rather than the required 6m (19.69’); and a 3 storey building (Building B) having a
side yard setback abutting Bridgeport Road of 3m (9.85’) rather than the required 6m (19.69’) and
a loading space 3m x 10.7m (9.85’ x 35.11’) in size rather than the required 4.3m x 15.2m (14.11’
x 49.87’), on Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, being Parts 11, 12 & 13 on Reference Plan
58R-6800, Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-819 and Part Lot 19, Plan 577, 526 Lancaster Street
BE APPROVED
West, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That Site Plan application SP12/016/L/SR shall have been granted approval in principal no
later than September 1, 2013. If not completed as required, this approval becomes null
and void.
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 No.:
1. B 2013-021
Applicant:
The Vistol Inc.
Property Location:
35 Theresa Street
Legal Description:
Part Lot 6, Plan 49
Appearances:
In Support: T. Oliveira
Contra: None
Other:
Written Submissions: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 115 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
1. B 2013-021 (Cont’d)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
as a lot addition to 31 Theresa Street for residential use, having a lot width of 2.708m (8.89’), by a
2
depth of 29.13m (95.57’) and an area of 78.93m (849.63 sq.ft.). The lands to be retained will
continue to be used as residential, having a lot width of 13.154m (43.16’), by a depth of 29.1m
2
(95.48’) and an area of 382.63m (4,118.73 sq. ft.).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 2, 2013, advising that
the subject property is located on the south side of Theresa Street between Victoria Street South
and Jubilee Drive in the Victoria Park planning community. The property is also designated under
Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act due to its location within the Victoria Park Neighourhood
Heritage Conservation District. The surrounding area is primarily comprised of low-rise
residential land uses. The current property is 460 square metres in area with 15.862 metres of
frontage on Theresa Street and a lot depth of approximately 29 metres. The property contains
one single detached dwelling and one accessory (garage) building.
The applicant is requesting consent to sever a portion of the lot as a lot addition to the adjacent
property municipally address as 31 Theresa Street. The application proposes to sever a 78.93
square metre lot addition with a 2.708 metre width and an approximate depth of 29 metres. The
proposed retained lot is 382.63 square metres in area with a 12.192 metre width and an
approximate depth of 29 metres. The proposed severance would have the effect of creating a
larger side yard for the property municipally addressed as 31 Theresa Street. The larger side
yard will increase the functionality of the existing driveway.
The property is designated Low Rise Conservation in the Victoria Park Neighbourhood
Secondary Plan and zoned Residential Five (R-5) in Zoning By-law 85-1. An analysis of the
severance sketch provided with the application demonstrates that the severed lands (lot addition
to 31 Theresa Street) and the retained lands will comply with the Zoning By-law.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, Planning staff is of the opinion that the uses of the severed and retained
lands are in conformity with the Official Plan and are permitted in Zoning By-law 85-1. Planning
staff is also of the opinion that the dimensions and shapes of the severed and retained lands are
appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and are compatible in size with the lots in the
surrounding area. Planning staff notes that the severed and retained lands 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 lot
Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 rowth Plan
addition is consistent with the and conforms to the G
tor the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006
.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated May
10, 2013, advising that they have no objection to this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of The Vistol Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land as a lot
addition to 31 Theresa Street for residential use, having a lot width of 2.708m (8.89’), by a depth
2
of 29.13m (95.57’) and an area of 78.93m (849.63 sq.ft.), on Part Lot 6, Plan 49, 35 Theresa
BE GRANTED
Street, 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 116 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission No.:
1. B 2013-021 (Cont’d)
3. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands municipally addressed
as 31 Theresa 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 submit a drawing of the entire house wall face proposed to be 1.270
metres from the new property line (left side when facing 35 Theresa Street from the road),
dimensioning the height and width of all walls facing the newly proposed property line, and
shall include the location and size of all windows and doors containing glass; and further, a
building permit shall be obtained to remove and close in any openings if greater than 7%
glazed area exists on this elevation (left side wall) to the satisfaction of the Director of
Building.
6. That the owner shall submit a Heritage Permit Application if a building permit is required to
remove and close in any openings on the left side wall to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning.
7. That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of
encumbrance, an approximate 2.5 metre road widening along the entire frontage of the
retained and severed lands, in order to achieve an ultimate road width of 18 metres and
that a reference plan shall be deposited showing the widening to the satisfaction of the
Director of Transportation 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 May 21, 2015.
Carried
COMBINED APPLICATION
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-022 & A 2013-028
Applicant:
Max Becker Enterprises Ltd.
Property Location:
1170 Fischer Hallman Road
Legal Description:
Part Block 12, Registered Plan 58M-78 and Part Block 2, Registered
Plan 58M-234, being Parts 3-5 on Reference Plan 58R-13783
Appearances:
In Support: C. Robson
S. Code
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 117 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-022 & A 2013-028 (Cont’d)
Written Submissions: N. Biffis
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
for commercial use, having a lot width of 121.37m (398.2’), by a depth of 85.73m (281.27’) and an
2
area of 8,112.2m (87,321.86 sq.ft.) and to convey an easement in favour of the severed lands
over Parts 6 and 7 as shown on the severance sketch, for ingress and egress from and to the
severed lands to and from Fischer-Hallman Road. The lands to be retained will continue to be
used as commercial, having a lot width of 115.38m (378.55’), by a depth of 143.191m (469.79’)
2
and an area of 8,855.4m (95,321.86 sq. ft.) and will retain an easement in favour of the retained
lands over Parts 6 and 7, as shown on the severance sketch, for ingress and egress from and to
the retained lands to and from Westmount Road. Permission is also requested to allow a rear
yard setback of 0m for the retained lands rather than the required 7.5m (24.61’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated May 10, 2013, advising that
1170 Fischer Hallman Road is a through block with frontage onto both Fischer Hallman Road and
Westmount Road located near the intersection of Westmount Road and Fischer Hallman Road.
The site is developed with three separate commercial buildings and the owner has indicated there
are future development plans for the remaining undeveloped portion. This property is designated
Mixed Use Node in the City’s Official Plan and zoned Arterial Commercial (C-6) in By-law 85-1.
The applicant is requesting consent to create an irregular shaped lot with approximately 121
2
metres of frontage onto Westmount Road and an area of 8112m while retaining a lot with
2
approximately 115 metres of frontage onto Fischer Hallman Road and an area of 8854m. The
severed lot will contain the remaining undeveloped portion while the retained lands will contain
the three existing commercial buildings. The purpose of the severance is to be able to secure
separate financing from the balance of the developed portion of the site.
In order to implement the severance, the applicant has also requested consent for a reciprocal
easement for access over the retained and severed lands and will be requesting a blanket
easement over both the severed and retained parcels of land for shared services and joint
maintenance. A minor variance application A 2013-028 is also necessary to approve a rear yard
variance being created on the retained lands as a result of the proposed severance. The
applicant is requesting a 0 metre rear yard setback for the ‘existing brick, concrete block and
metal clad building–automotive service’ building shown on the Severance Sketch dated April 11,
2013.
Planning Comments and Rationale
i) Consent and Easement Considerations
The proposed severance is intended for mortgage purposes to finance the future development of
the severed portion. Ideally it would be staff’s preference to consider this severance request in
conjunction with an application for site plan. However, the applicant assures staff that the
severed parcel of land will remain under the current ownership (only under a different name), and
that approval of this request would enable the owner to obtain financing to move forward with the
next phase of development. In reviewing the size and shape of the proposed severed parcel,
staff is confident it could support an independent development proposal that can be serviced,
albeit through the extension of services from the retained lands. In that regard, MTE has
provided a servicing analysis in support of the consent application and City’s Engineering
Services staff concurs with the analysis. Mr. Craig Robson, Legal Counsel for the owner, has
indicated that a blanket easement over the retained and severed lands will be required at a later
date to address joint site servicing and surface water flows. To ensure this blanket easement
occurs, staff is recommending that the owner provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking as a condition of
approval. The proposed easement is for reciprocal access between the severed and retained
lands as shown the applicant’s severance sketch. Staff has no concerns with the easement.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, Planning staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lot and easement
is desirable and appropriate. The proposed lots are of a size suitable to support the existing
commercial buildings development on the retained lot and proposed redevelopment on the
severed lot. Each property will have frontage onto a public street and an easement is proposed
to ensure mutual access is maintained between the two parcels of land. A blanket easement will
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 118 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-022 & A 2013-028 (Cont’d)
be sought at a later date to address matters of site servicing and surface water flows.
Engineering staff concurs with this servicing approach.
The proposed consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under
Subsection 3 (1) of the Act, and conforms to, or does not conflict with any applicable provincial
plan or policy. Planning staff recommends that Consent Application B2013-022 be approved
subject to conditions noted below in the Recommendation section. Minor variance considerations
will be discussed in the ensuing section.
ii) Minor Variance Considerations
Because a new property line is being created that proposes to run along the back of Building ‘B’ a
minor variance application is required. A 2013-028 requests a 0 metre rear yard setback
whereas the By-law requires 7.5 metres. The ensuing paragraphs discuss the four tests of a
minor variance in relation to the setback variance request.
The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reason. Mixed use Nodes are
intended to serve an inter-neighbourhood function and will allow for intensive, transit supportive
development in a compact form. It is intended that the Mixed Use Nodes will intensify and
provide a balanced distribution of commercial, multiple residential and institutional uses. A broad
range of commercial uses shall be permitted, including freestanding office and small retail. The
site is currently developed with commercial uses that serve an inter-neighbourhood function in a
compact form. It is anticipated that the balance of the lands will be developed in a similar
commercial format. Therefore, staff is satisfied the general intent is being maintained.
This variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reason. The Commercial Six
(C-6) zoning requires a minimum 7.5 metre rear yard setback. The intent is to ensure there is
adequate separation from residential areas when there is transition from commercial to
residential. In this case, a 0 metre setback would be appropriate given it is back-to-back
commercial and the impact would be nil. Furthermore, it is staff’s understanding the owner’s
intention is to extend the existing automotive service building onto the severed land as the next
phase of development. Under this circumstance it would make sense to have a 0 metre setback
but should this occur, the owner is advised he would need to apply for a minor variance
application for a 0 metre rear yard setback for the new building addition keeping in mind the
addition would be on the severed lands.
This variance is considered minor and appropriate for the development and use of the land for the
following reason. In the opinion of staff, given the nature of the request in the location it is
proposed and given the owner’s desire to construct an addition to the automotive service building
that would extend onto the severed lot, the variance would be considered minor and appropriate
for the use and development of the lands.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
May 13, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with Submission No. A 2013-028.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated May
10, 2013, advising that they have no objection to Submission No. B 2013-022, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That prior to final approval, the owner provides the Regional Municipality of Waterloo with
a draft copy of the easements for right-of-way purposes in favour of both the severed and
retained parcels.
2. That prior to final approval, the owner enters into a registered agreement with the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo to complete a road traffic noise study, if deemed necessary by the
Region, prior to occupancy of any sensitive uses proposed on the severed parcel; and
furthermore, to amend such agreement if necessary to implement any recommendations
of such study, to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and
Community Services.
3. That prior to final approval, the owner enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener
to complete a land use compatibility study on the severed parcel, if deemed necessary by
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 119 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-022 & A 2013-028 (Cont’d)
the City in consultation with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, prior to occupancy of
any uses deemed incompatible with adjacent sensitive uses; and furthermore, to amend
such agreement, if necessary, to implement any recommendations of such study.
Mr. A. Head read aloud a letter of opposition received this date from Mr. Nick Biffis, area resident,
in which Mr. Biffis raised concerns regarding: any further construction or maintenance behind his
home without first receiving a fence; reciprocal and blanket easements and 0m rear yard setback,
with respect to the property being developed, particularly at the back of his property that may
result in loss of buffer between his property and the businesses onsite; potential for a back-to-
back commercial” use with a 0m rear yard setback; and, potential to add another automotive
business or an addition to the current ones behind his home.
Concerns were raised in regard to extension of the fence across the rear property of Mr. Biffis.
Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that it would be appropriate to address this concern at time of site
plan application. The Committee also asked that the applicants undertake to provide further
explanation to Mr. Biffis regarding the reconfiguration of the rear yard on the subject lands.
Submission No. B 2013-22
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Max Becker Enterprises Limited requesting permission to sever a parcel of
land for commercial use, having a lot width of 121.37m (398.2’), by a depth of 85.73m (281.27’)
2
and an area of 8,112.2m (87,321.86 sq.ft.), and to convey an easement in favour of the severed
lands over Parts 6 and 7 as shown on the severance sketch, for ingress and egress from and to
the severed lands to and from Fischer-Hallman Road, and to retain an easement in favour of the
retained lands over Parts 6 and 7, as shown on the severance sketch, for ingress and egress
from and to the retained lands to and from Westmount Road, on Part Block 12, Registered Plan
58M-78 and Part Block 2, Registered Plan 58M-234, being Parts 3-5 on Reference Plan 58R-
BE GRANTED
13783, 1170 Fischer-Hallman 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(s) of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, shall enter into a
joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the said
easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title
immediately following the Transfer Easement.
4. That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement and
immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, shall be provided to
the City Solicitor.
5. That the City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement
and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
6. That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking agreeing to register a Blanket Easement over
the severed and retained lands for the extension of services, the handling of surface
drainage and joint maintenance of those services, shall be provided to the City Solicitor.
7. That Minor Variance application A 2013-028 shall be approved.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 120 -MAY 21, 2013
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2013-022 & A 2013-028 (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 May 21, 2015.
Carried
Submission No. A 2013-028
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Max Becker Enterprises Limited requesting permission to allow a rear yard
setback of 0m for lands to be retained under Consent Application B 2013-022, rather than the
required 7.5m (24.61’), on Part Block 12, Registered Plan 58M-78 and Part Block 2, Registered
Plan 58M-234, being Parts 3-5 on Reference Plan 58R-13783, 1170 Fischer-Hallman Road,
BE APPROVED
Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That Consent application B 2013-022 shall be approved.
2. That the 0m rear yard setback shall apply only to the building identified as ‘Existing Brick,
Concrete Block and Metal Clad – Automotive Service’ on the severance sketch dated April
11, 2013 submitted with Consent Application B 2013-022.
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 10:40 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 21st day of May, 2013.
Janet Billett, AMCT
Acting Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment