HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2013-08-20
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 20, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. A. Head, A. Lise and Ms. J. Meader.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Mr. B. Bateman, Senior Planner, Mr. D. Pimentel, Traffic Technologist,
Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer, and Ms. A. Lacoursiere,
Administrative Clerk.
Mr. A. Head, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held July 16 , 2013, as mailed
to the members, be accepted.
Carried
This meeting temporarily recessed at 10:01 a.m. to consider applications under Chapter 680 (Signs) and
Chapter 630 (Fence) of the City of Kitchener’s Municipal Code and reconvened at 10:06 a.m. with all
members present.
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1. A 2013-038
Applicant:
Eric Hauser
Property Location:
671 Glasgow Street, Unit 6
Legal Description:
Waterloo North Condo Plan 139, Level 1, Unit 6
Appearances:
In Support: T. Martin
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a roof
structure over an existing deck having a side yard setback of 2.13m (6.99’) rather than the
required 7.6m (24.93’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 12, 2013, advising
that the applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow a 2.1 metre side yard setback for a
roofed/screened deck whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum 7.62 metre setback.
The subject property is located in a condominium complex that was built in the 1980’s and
contains seven single detached dwellings. While the proposed structure is located in the ‘rear
yard’ of the subject dwelling, because this is a condo development, and for zoning purposes, the
proposed structure is located in the side yard of the overall site.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 156 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
1. A 2013-038 (Cont’d)
The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan which permits different
forms of housing including single detached dwellings at a low intensity of use. Staff is of the
opinion that the intent of the Official Plan is maintained.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance maintains the intent of the zoning by-law. The
property is zoned Residential Two Zone (R-2) with Special Regulation Provision 152R. This
zoning permits the subject development and requires a side yard setback of 7.62 metres for the
subject dwelling. The owner intends to construct a roof structure for the deck which may also be
screened in. Section 5.6A.4 of the zoning by-law regulates decks. This regulation states that any
covered or enclosed deck (as is proposed) must comply with the setback provisions of the
dwelling. The owner is proposing a 2.1 metre side yard setback. The purpose of this regulation
is to recognize that the side yard functions like a rear yard for the subject dwelling and is intended
to ensure private outdoor amenity space. The rear yard is currently developed with a large deck,
which provides a large outdoor amenity space for the residents. Staff is of the opinion that the
proposed roof structure will preserve and enhance the use of the deck and outdoor amenity
space and that there is also additional grassed space available for other outdoor uses. Staff also
comments that if the roofed deck were a free standing screened gazebo (accessory structure) it
would be permitted to be located with a setback of only 0.6 metres to a side or rear lot line.
The owners have indicated that the proposed roof structure will make the private outdoor space
more useable. Plans show that the roof structure will be integrated into the roof of the dwelling
and will only be one story high. As such, staff is of the opinion that it will have minimal impact to
neighbours within the development, and that the impact is not different than that of a screened
free standing gazebo which is permitted. Furthermore, the proposed structure is adjacent to a
green space owned by the City of Kitchener; therefore there are no neighbours to the ‘rear’ that
could be impacted by the proposed structure. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that
the variance is minor and is appropriate for the development and use of the lands.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 12, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Eric Hauser requesting permission to construct a roof structure over an
existing deck having a side yard setback of 2.13m (6.98’) rather than the required 7.62m (25’), on
Waterloo North Condo Plan 139, Level 1, Unit 6, 671 Glasgow Street, Unit 6, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE APPROVED
, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Kitchener’s Building Division
for the proposed roof structure.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance approved 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 2013-039
Applicant:
Roger McGraw and Lori Prokopetz
Property Location:
222 Sydney Street South
Legal Description:
Lot 261, Plan 262
Appearances:
In Support: R. McGraw
C. Beaumont
L. Prokopetz
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 157 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
2. A 2013-039 (Cont’d)
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing lot
width of 13.15m (43.13’) rather than the required 15m (49.21’) and a northerly side yard setback
abutting Bedford Road of 2.19m (7.19’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76’) to accommodate a
rear addition.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 10, 2013, advising
thatthe applicant is requesting minor variances to permit:
1. a 2.19 metre setback for side yard abutting a street whereas Zoning By-law 85-1
requires a minimum 4.5 metre setback for a side yard abutting a street; and,
2. a lot width of 13.15 metres for a corner lot whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a
minimum lot width of 15 metres for a corner lot.
The owner is proposing a rear yard addition to the house in line with the existing side wall.
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.
The lands are designated Low Rise Conservation in the Mill Courtland Secondary Plan. The
intent of the designation is to preserve the existing low rise, low density housing stock. Staff is of
the opinion that the proposed variances maintain the intent of the Official Plan.
The lands are zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) with Special Regulation Provision 1R. The
Special Regional indicates that the lands are regulated by the Grand River Conservation
Authority (GRCA). Staff note that the proposed addition is outside the regulated area, however
the GRCA may provide comment directly to the Committee.
With respect to the proposed reduction to lot width, the lot width is historical and is not proposed
to change as a result of the application. The lot width is deemed to comply to the by-law through
regulation 5.15 for the existing dwelling, however when additional floor space is added the
regulation no longer applies. The intent of the 15 metre lot width is to allow sufficient width for the
dwelling and a driveway, and a 7.5 metre corner visibility triangle. The driveway and garage for
the site are located off of the side yard abutting Bedford Road so this does not need to be
accommodated within the lot width. The location of the existing dwelling on the lot
accommodates the 7.5 metre corner visibility triangle, and is not impacted by the proposed
addition. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the intent of the by-law is maintained.
Similarly, the side yard setback abutting the street is considered legal for the existing dwelling
under regulation 5.15, however, a variance is required for the proposed addition. The intent of
the 4.5 metre setback for a side yard abutting a street is to ensure sufficient distance between the
building and the sidewalk/street edge to maintain corner visibility, preserve a consistent
streetscape. The existing dwelling is setback 2.19 metres and the addition is proposed to
maintain this setback. As the dwelling is located to the rear of existing structure there will be no
impact to corner visibility. It is also located sufficiently far from the garage/driveway so that there
is no impact to driveway visibility. With respect to streetscape, the dwelling is located in an older
neighbourhood and in many instances dwellings are set closer to the street than is currently
permitted by the by-law.In fact, none of the dwellings located at the intersection of Sydney Street
South and Bedford Street comply with current by-law requirements for the side yard abutting a
street. Therefore, a consistent streetscape is maintained and staff is of the opinion that the
addition will not be inconsistent with the streetscape. As such, staff is of the opinion that the
intent of the by-law in maintained.
At the site visit, staff noticed that there is a wooden fence currently located along the exterior side
yard (adjacent to Bedford Street) which does not appear to comply with the fence by-law. The
fence appears to be more than 0.9 metres high but less than 1.8 metres high. A fence located in
an exterior side yard must be setback a minimum of 1.5 metres from the street line if they are
between 0.9 and 1.8 metres high. If the fence is between 1.8 metres high and 2.4 metres high it
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 158 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
2. A 2013-039 (Cont’d)
must be setback 4.5 metres from the property line. In addition, the fence must be removed from
the driveway visibility triangle. As a condition of this variance, the owner of the property will be
required to bring the fence into conformity with the City’s Fence By-law. Additional information
with respect to the City’s Fence By-law and locational requirements may be obtained from the
Planning Division.
The proposed variance will allow for an addition which maintains the setback of the existing
dwelling and improves the usability of the dwelling for residents. The impact of the variance to
the streetscape will be minor, and as a condition of the variance the non-conformingfence will be
brought into conformity with the Fence By-law, improving the streetscape. The lot width is
historical, and the proposed addition will not have any impact to corner or driveway visibility. Staff
is of the opinion that the proposed variances are minor and are appropriate for the development
and use of the lands.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 12, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA),
dated August 7, 2013, advising that although they have no concerns with this application, they
noted that a portion of the property is within the allowance associated with a floodplain.
Consequently, the subject property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation
150/06. Any future development within the regulated area on the subject lands will require the
prior issuance of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Roger McGraw and Lori Prokopetz requesting permission to legalize an
existing lot width of 13.15m (43.13’) rather than the required 15m (49.21’) and a northerly side
yard setback abutting Bedford Road of 2.19m (7.19’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76’) to
accommodate a rear addition, on Lot 261, Plan 262 , 222 Sydney Street South, Kitchener,
BE APPROVED
Ontario,, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owners shall obtain a building permit from the City of Kitchener’s Building Division
for the proposed addition.
2. That the owners shall ensure that the fence located in the exterior side yard, adjacent to
Bedford Street, is in compliance with the City’s Fence By-law by November 30, 2013, to
the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances approved 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.:
3. A 2013-040
Applicant:
Accelerated Real Estate Solutions
Property Location:
44 Heiman Street
Legal Description:
Part Block A, Plan 1343, being Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-1057
Appearances:
In Support: J. Montag
M. Morningstar
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 159 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
3. A 2013-040 (Cont’d)
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
side yard setback of 2.11m (6.92’) rather than the required 2.5m (8.2’); a northerly side yard
setback of 2.16m (7.08’) rather than the required 2.5m (8.2’); and to provide 3 off street parking
spaces located within 3.0m (9.84’) of the front street line and located between the front façade
and the front lot line whereas the By-law does not permit parking within the front façade and the
front lot line to accommodate the conversion of a single family dwelling into a multiple dwelling
containing 3-units.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 8, 2013, advising
that the subject property located at 44 Heiman Street, situated on the north side of the street
midblock between Courtland Avenue and Highland Road East. The subject property is zoned
Residential Six (R-6) in Zoning By-law 85-1 and is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s
Official Plan. The site is developed with a single detached dwelling.
The applicant is proposing to convert the existing dwelling to a 3 unit multiple dwelling which is a
permitted under the R-6 zoning. Because of the proposed change from a single detached
dwelling to a 3 unit multiple dwelling, the owner has applied to the Committee seeking relief from
the following zoning regulations:
Section 6.1.1.1 d) i) – to allow required parking to be located between the front facade
and front lot line and be setback 2.23 metres as opposed to the required 3 metres
from the front lot line and,
Section 40.6 - to allow for right and left side yard setbacks of 2.16 and 2.11 metres,
respectively, instead of the required 2.5 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 followingcomments:
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
providing. According to the Official Plan, where an application is proposing intensification within
an established residential neighbourhood, impact and compatibility must be addressed. In the
opinion of staff, the proposal to convert to a 3 unit multiple requiring variances will be compatible
with the Low Rise Residential development of the area because there are no external physical
changes being proposed to the dwelling. The only impact is with the addition of a third parking
space in effect having to widen the current driveway to a width of approximately 8 metres.
A “multiple dwelling” is defined as being 3 or more units, according to the City’s Zoning By-law.
As such, there are different regulations for a multiple versus a single or duplexed dwelling in the
R-6 zone. One of the differences is that parking is discouraged in the front yard. The intent of
zoning regulation 6.1.1.1 d) i) is to encourage parking to be located at the rear of multiples and to
ensure there is minimum separation of 3 metres between the sidewalk and parking area to
provide for vegetation and screening. This regulation was meant more for medium and larger
scale multiple developments with larger surface areas of parking which is necessary in order to
create a more visually pleasing public realm. However, under the subject proposal, staff is
supportive of parking in the front yard because the side yards are not wide enough to allow
vehicular access to the rear; visually the dwelling will remain the same as there are no external
additions proposed or an increase in height. The addition of a third parking space, resulting in a
driveway width of approximately 8 metres, would not negatively impact the public realm, adjacent
properties nor exceed 50% of the lot width which is the maximum allowable width for a driveway,
according to the By-law. Transportation Services staff would prefer the location of the third
parking space be located away from the front entrance. To afford staff and the applicant the
opportunity to discuss this further and to address other matters such as landscaping and/or
screening, staff will be asking for site plan approval as a condition of minor variance approval.
The intent of zoning regulation 40.6 is to ensure there is greater side yard separation for a
multiple dwelling, particularly one with a height of 3 storeys as the R-6 zoning allows. Because
the owner is proposing no changes to the external portion of dwelling and the height will remain at
2 storeys, there is no additional impact of height because of the existing condition. As a result,
staff has no concerns with the existing side yard setbacks of 2.11 and 2.16 metres.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 160 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
3. A 2013-040 (Cont’d)
The requested reduction can be considered minor as it is staff’s opinion that the requested
variances will have minimal impact to adjacent lands and overall character of neighbourhood.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the R-6 zoning allows
the use of a multiple dwelling, there are no external changes to the existing dwelling thus
ensuring the multiple use is compatible with the surrounding low rise residential development.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 12, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Ms. J. Meader noted the concerns from the City’s Transportation regarding the stall identified as
parking 3, in front of the existing covered porch and the suggestion that the parking stalls be
relocated to keep the porch clear of any parked vehicles. She questioned whether the proposed
relocation could require any additional variances to accommodate the required parking. Mr. B.
Bateman advised that the concerns of Transportation Services can be handled through the Site
Plan approval process and additional variances would likely not be required.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Accelerated Real Estate Solutions Inc. requesting permission to legalize
an existing southerly side yard setback of 2.11m (6.92’) rather than the required 2.5m (8.2’); a
northerly side yard setback of 2.16m (7.08’) rather than the required 2.5m; and to provide 3 off
street parking spaces located 2.23m (7.32’) of the front street line rather than the required 3.0m
(9.84’), and to locate off street parking between the front façade and the front lot line whereas the
By-law does not permit parking within the front façade and the front lot line to accommodate the
conversion of a single family dwelling into a multiple dwelling containing 3-units, on Part Block A,
BE
Plan 1343, being Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-1057, 44 Heiman Street, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Kitchener’s Building Division
for the proposed conversion of a single family dwelling into a multiple dwelling containing
3-units.
1. That the owner shall apply for and receive site plan approval from the Manager of Site
Development and Customer Service in consultation with the Director of Transportation
Services to address such matters as parking location, landscaping and/or screening,
amenity area, pedestrian connection and tree saving.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances approved 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 2013-041
Applicant:
Owen Wilfong and Nyssa Biedermann
Property Location:
1209 Doon Village Road
Legal Description:
Part Lot 3, Biehn’s Tract, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-11304
Appearances:
In Support: O. Wilfong
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 161 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
4. A 2013-041 (Cont’d)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
family dwelling have a lot width of 24.55m (80.54’) rather than the required 30.48m (100’); a lot
area of 1575.9 sq.m. (16962.85 sq.ft.) rather than the required 2023 sq.m. (21775.39 sq.ft.); and
legalization of the existing shed having a westerly side yard setback of 0.57m (1.87’) rather than
the required 4.5m (14.76’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 13, 2013, advising
that the subject property is located in the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District at the
southeast corner of Wilfong Drive and Doon Village Road. The property contains a single
detached dwelling built in the mid-1950s and an accessory building (shed). The subject property
is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and is zoned Residential Two Zone
(R-2) with Special Regulation Provision 1R and Special Use Provision 187U.
The property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act by virtue of its location in the
Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District; however, the property is identified as a Non-Historic
building.
The owner intends on demolishing the dwelling (but retaining the foundation) and constructing a
larger single detached dwelling with a larger footprint in its place. The owner has received a
Heritage Permit Approval to renovate the existing shed and has filed a Heritage Permit
Application seeking Council’s approval to demolish the existing single detached dwelling and
construct a new one. The owner has also filed a demolition control application to demolish the
single detached dwelling. The City’s Building Division will not issue a building permit to demolish
the existing dwelling and construct a new one until these approvals have been granted.
The R-2 Zone permits single detached dwellings while Special Use Provision 187U requires such
dwellings to possess a minimum lot width of 30.48 metres (100 feet) and a minimum lot area of
2023.0 square metres (1/2 acre). These two special zoning provisions implement policies
contained within the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan. Accordingly, the subject lot
is considered legal non-conforming since has a lot width of only 24.550 metres (frontage on Doon
Village Road) and a lot area of only 1575.9 square metres.
Special Regulation Provision 1R requires that prior to the development of any land, or
interference with wetlands or alterations to shorelines or watercourses, a permit shall be obtained
from the Grand River Conservation Authority. In this regard, the City’s Building Division will not
issue a building permit for the new house until a GRCA permit is obtained.
In order to allow the property to be redeveloped with a new, larger single detached dwelling, the
owners are requesting minor variances to:
a. reduce / legalize the required minimum lot width from 30.48 metres to 24.550 metres
for the existing lot,
b. reduce / legalize the minimum lot area from 2023.0 square metres to 1575.9 square
metres for the existing lot, and;
c. reduce / legalize the minimum side yard abutting a street (i.e., Wilfong Drive) from 4.5
metres to 0.57 metres for an existing shed.
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.
The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Low Rise
Residential designation of the property “favours the mixing and integration of different forms of
housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use.” In this case, the existing lot (including area and
width) has existed for many decades in its current state. It should be noted that there are many
lots in the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District that possess a much smaller lot area and
lot width, and also many that are larger in area and width. Staff is of the opinion that the varied lot
shapes and sizes in this immediate area are characteristic of the district as a whole and
contribute to the desirable mixing and integration of different forms and scales of housing.
The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. Heritage Planning
staff has advised that the intent of the minimum lot area and minimum lot width regulation is to
ensure that the creation of new lots is in keeping with the village/rural character of the Upper
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 162 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
4. A 2013-041 (Cont’d)
Doon Heritage Conservation District, not to restrict redevelopment on existing lots. The design of
the proposed new dwelling itself, and the renovation of the shed are being reviewed for
conformity with the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan. In addition, Heritage
Planning staff has advised that they support the retention and renovation of the existing shed
and, therefore, the proposed side yard abutting a street variance. There are no Corner or
Driveway Visibility Triangle concerns with the proposed variances.
The variances are minor for the following reasons. The new dwelling on the subject property will
have to comply with the required setbacks of the R-2 Zone. The shed has existed in its current
state with its current side yard setback for decades; a minor variance is only being sought to
legalize the existing situation and to allow for new development elsewhere on the property. The
proposed lot width and lot area should not have any unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent
properties.
The variance is appropriate for the desirable development and use of the land for the following
reasons. The proposed new structure will be required to conform to the Upper Doon Heritage
Conservation District Plan, whereas the current structure, due to its construction prior to the Plan,
may not be characteristic of the District. The variances will allow the retention and renovation of
the existing shed which is subject to the Plan. The end result of the redevelopment of this
property, via the proposed variance, is development that is desirable within this neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 12, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA),
dated August 9, 2013, advising that although they have no concerns with this application, they
noted that the entire property is within the flood fringe of a Two-Zone Floodplain Policy Area
associated with Schneider Creek. Consequently, the subject property is regulated by the
GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. Any development within the regulated area on the
subject lands will require the prior issuance of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06.
Ms. J. Meader noted condition number one of staffs recommendation and questioned whether
Site Plan approval would be more appropriate due to the formal appeal process. She indicated
that the applicant would be solely at staffs’ discretion with regards to clearing the condition. Mr.
B. Bateman advised that staff do try and work with the applicant to find a suitable design that
would satisfy all parties and in this situation Site Plan approval would be onerous. He noted that
if the applicant was unsatisfied with the approval process they would be permitted to address
their concerns with a manager or director.
Mr. O Wilfong was in attendance and advised that he was in support of staffs recommendation.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Owen Wilfong and Nyssa Biedermann requesting permission to construct
a single family dwelling have a lot width of 24.55m (80.54’) rather than the required 30.48m
(100’); a lot area of 1575.9 sq.m. (16962.85 sq.ft.) rather than the required 2023 sq.m. (21775.39
sq.ft.); and legalization of the existing shed having a westerly side yard setback abutting Wilfong
Drive of 0.57m (1.87’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.76’), on Part Lot 3, Biehn’s Tract, being
BE
Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-11304, 1209 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owners shall submit a plan, prepared by a qualified consultant, to the satisfaction
and approval of the City’s Director of Planning, prior to any grading or the application or
issuance of a building permit, showing:
(i) the proposed 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;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 163 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
4. A 2013-041 (Cont’d)
(v) justification for any trees to be removed; and
(vi) outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved.
2. That the owners shall obtain approval of a Heritage Permit Application from the City
Council to demolish the existing residence and build a new residence on the property.
3. That the owners shall obtain a permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority for the
proposed redevelopment of the property with a new single detached dwelling.
4. That the owners shall obtain Demolition Control Approval from the City for the demolition
of the existing dwelling.
5. That the owners shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division for the
proposed redevelopment of the property with a new single detached dwelling. Through
the review of the permit the City’s Building Division shall ensure that conditions 1 through 4
are appropriately addressed.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances approved 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 2013-042
Applicant:
Lucas Rowe
Property Location:
449 Stirling Avenue South
Legal Description:
Part Lot 18, Plan 25
Appearances:
In Support: L. Rowe
D. Wishart
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
westerly side yard setback of 0.893m (2.93’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 12, 2013, advising
that the subject property is located near the intersection of Highland Road East and Stirling
Avenue South. The property is zoned Residential Six (R-6) in the City’s Zoning By-law 85-1.
Under the City’s Official Plan, the subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential.
The applicant is requesting relief from Section 40.2.2 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to legalize the side
yard setback between the western property line and the existing dwelling. The existing side yard
setback is 0.893 metres, whereas 1.2 metres is required. This variance application is needed in
support of a future addition to the existing dwelling in the side yard that will be located along the
eastern property line.
The applicant is seeking relief from the By-law in order to address the conditions of Section 5.15
which state that a building built before October 11, 1994 and the lot upon building was
constructed, shall be deemed to comply with all current regulations and provided the use is
permitted and that there have been no changes to the total building floor area. The owner has
indicated that he will be building an addition to the existing home in the side yard along the
eastern property boundary. As there will be a proposed change in the total building floor area, any
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 164 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
5. A 2013-042 (Cont’d)
setbacks and applicable regulations that don’t comply with By-law 85-1 will need to be addressed.
The side yard setback along the western property line is deficient. Under Section 40.2.2 of Zoning
By-law 85-1, a side yard setback for a duplex dwelling in a R-6 zone shall not be closer than 1.2
metres. The proposed variance would address a 0.361 metre deficiency from the side lot line.
Planning staff notes that the subject property contains an existing duplex dwelling that is situated
in the Southdale Planning Community. The surrounding neighbourhood consists predominantly of
low density residential, commercial, and institutional uses.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments:
The requested variance to legalize the side yard along the eastern property line, meets the intent
of the Official Plan. The intent of the Low Rise Residential land use designation is to allow for a
full range of housing types to maintain a low overall intensity. As the home is an existing use, and
the requested variance is for the purpose of permitting a building addition, Planning staff is of the
opinion that the reduced side yard setback should not impact: the overall intensity, the type of
land use, or the adjacent residential properties.
The requested variance to legalize the side yard along the eastern property line, meets the intent
of the Zoning Bylaw. The required 1.2 metre setback is intended to provide a sufficient buffer
between adjacent residential uses. The existing duplex was most likely constructed at a time in
which 0.893 metre setback was permitted for this property. Since the owner will be increasing the
total building floor area, zoning setback deficiencies will need to be addressed. The reduction of
0.361 metres to legalize the existing 0.893 metre setback, whereas 1.2 metres would be required,
is minor and should not have any impact on the subject property; or adjacent uses.
The requested variance is considered minor as the dwelling is an existing use. The purpose of
this application is to legalize the side yard setback to support a future home addition. This
variance should not have any impact to the subject property or adjacent residential uses.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variance
should not impact any of the adjacent lands/uses, the subject property, nor the abutting street.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 12, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. L. Rowe was in attendance and advised that he was in support of staffs recommendation.
Ms. D. Wishart owner of a neighbouring property advised that she was in attendance for
clarification on the proposed variance and noted that she does not have any objection to the
approval of the application.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Lucas Rowe requesting permission to legalize an existing westerly side
yard setback of 0.893m (2.93’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94’), on Part Lot 18, Plan 25, 449
BE APPROVED
Stirling Avenue South, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Kitchener’s Building Division
for the proposed addition.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance approved 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
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 165 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
6. A 2013-043
Applicant:
William O’Connor
Property Location:
39 Roland Street
Legal Description:
Part Lots 7 & 8, Plan 35
Appearances:
In Support: B. O’Connor
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to to construct two
separate 1 storey additions (front and side entry ways) increasing the maximum ground floor area
existing on the date that the E-1Zone was applied to the land of 33% rather than the permitted
25%; and a rear yard setback of 7.32m (24.01’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated , advising
August 12, 2013
that subject property is municipally addressed 39 Roland Street and is located in the Victoria Park
planning community. The property is zoned Existing Use Zone (E-1) in the City’s Zoning By-law
85-1, and contains an existing single-detached dwelling. The subject lands are designated Open
Space in the Victoria Park Secondary Plan. The property is designated under Part V of the
Ontario Heritage Act as it is located within the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District.
The applicant is requesting relief from Section 48.3.2 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a 39.1
square metre (421 square foot) building addition(s) in the front and side yard of the property with
a rear yard setback of 7.32 metres and a maximum additional building floor area of 33% (39.1
22
m/421 sq. ft.), whereas 7.5 metres and 25% (29.5 m/318 sq. ft.) would be required.
The applicant is seeking relief from the By-law in order to support a proposed 39.1 square metre
addition to the existing home. The applicant has indicated that the addition is necessary to
provide further living space on the main level of the existing home. Under Section 48.3.2 of
Zoning By-law 85-1, a rear yard setback for a single detached dwelling in an E-1 zone shall not
be closer than 7.5 metres, and any additional building floor area added to the dwelling shall not
exceed 25% of the total ground floor area of that portion of a building located within an E-1 zone.
The applicant is applying for a variance in order to permit a 7.32 metre rear yard setback and an
additional building floor area of 33%. The proposed variance would address a 0.18 metre rear
yard setback and an 8% additional building floor area deficiency.
Planning staff notes that the subject property contains an existing single detached dwelling that is
situated directly adjacent to Victoria Park. The surrounding neighbourhood consists of a variety of
residential and commercial uses. The existing residential dwelling appears to be relatively newer
in comparison to some of the older homes in the neighbourhood. The application indicates the
date of construction as being 1985.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments.
The requested variance to permit a rear yard setback of 7.32 metres and a maximum additional
building floor area of 33%, meets the intent of the Official Plan. The intent of the Open Park land
use designation in the Victoria Park Secondary Plan is to recognize existing development which
is zoned to permit all legally existing uses. As the home is an existing use, and the requested
variance is for the purpose of permitting a 39.1 m2 (421 sq. ft.) home addition, Planning staff is of
the opinion that the proposed variance should not impact: the overall intensity, the type of land
use, or the adjacent properties.
The requested variance to permit a rear yard setback of 7.32 metres and a maximum additional
building floor area of 33%, meets the intent of the Zoning Bylaw. The intent of the minimum rear
yard and the maximum additional building floor area provision is to ensure that additions to
existing uses are keeping with the character of the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District.
Through heritage permit HPA-2013-V-018, the design and compatibility of the proposed building
addition(s) have been reviewed for conformity with the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation
District Plan. Furthermore, the required 7.5 metre setback is intended to provide a sufficient buffer
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 166 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
6. A 2013-043 (Cont’d)
between adjacent land uses. The intention of the maximum additional building floor area provision
is to limit the size and scale of additions to buildings existing on the date that the E-1 zone was
applied. Although the owner is proposing a 33% increase in the total ground floor area whereas
25% would be required, this increase only translates to a deficiency of 9.5 m2 (101 sq. ft.). The
proposed building addition is relatively small and would add only additional building space to the
existing dwelling on the ground floor. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances
are minor and should not have any impact on the subject property; or adjacent uses.
The requested variance is considered minor as the proposed 7.32 metres rear yard setback
allows for sufficient separation from the building addition to the rear property line. The proposed
33% increase in the total ground floor area is also considered minor. A 33% maximum additional
building floor area of the total ground floor area only translates to a 9.5 m2 (101 sq. ft.) deficiency
from the required 25%. These variances should not have any significant impacts to the adjacent
lands and the overall neighbourhood.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The proposed building
addition(s) will be required to conform to the Victoria Park Heritage District Plan. The requested
variance should not impact any of the adjacent lands/uses, the subject property, nor the abutting
street.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 12, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA),
dated August 9, 2013, advising that although they have no concerns with this application, they
noted that the entire property is within the floodplain associated with Schneider Creek.
Consequently, the subject property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation
150/06. Any future development within the regulated area on the subject lands will require the
prior issuance of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of William O’Connor requesting permission to to construct two separate 1
storey additions (front and side entry ways) increasing the maximum ground floor area existing on
the date that the E-1 Zone was applied to the land of 33% rather than the permitted 25%; and a
rear yard setback of 7.32m (24.01’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.6’), on Part Lots 7 & 8, Plan
BE APPROVED
35, 39 Roland Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City of Kitchener’s Building Division
for the proposed building additions.
2. That the owner shall obtain a heritage permit for the construction of the proposed building
additions.
3. That the owner shall submit a plan, prepared by a qualified consultant, to the satisfaction
and approval of the City’s Director of Planning, in consultation with the City’s Director of
Operations, prior to any grading or the application or issuance of a building permit,
showing:
a. the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings and structures),
decks and driveways;
b. the location of any existing buildings or structures to be removed or relocated;
c. the proposed grades and drainage;
d. 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;
e. justification for any trees to be removed; and
f. outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved.
Any alteration or improvement to the lands including grading, tree removal and the
application or issuance of any building permits shall be in compliance with the approved
plan. Any changes or revisions to the plan require the approval of the City’s Director of
Planning.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 167 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
6. A 2013-043 (Cont’d)
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances approved 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.:
7. A 2013-044
Applicant:
Martin and Carrie Cote
Property Location:
252 Lydia Street
Legal Description:
Lot 16 and Part Lot 17, Plan 284
Appearances:
In Support: M. & C. Cote
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a two-storey
rear yard addition on a single family dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.97m (3.18’)
rather than the required 1.2m (3.94’); and to construct a detached garage having a southerly side
yard of 0.25m (0.82’) rather than the required 0.6m (1.97’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 12, 2013, advising
that The subject property is situated on the east side of Lydia Street between Stirling Avenue
North and Pandora Avenue North, and is located in the Auditorium 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 to construct a home addition at the rear of
the existing house with a side yard setback of 0.97 metres, whereas 1.2 metres is required. The
applicant is also requesting relief from Section 5.5.2(c) to permit a side yard setback of 0.25
metre for a proposed detached garage (accessory building), whereas 0.6 metres is required.
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
a proposed 2-storey addition and covered deck at the rear of the existing house. The side yard
setback to the proposed addition will align parallel to the existing dwelling which also has a
setback of 0.97 metres from the property line. Under Section 38.2.1, the side yard setback for
single detached dwellings requires a minimum of 1.2 metres. The variance would address a 0.23
metre deficiency for the existing dwelling and the proposed building addition.
The applicant is also proposing to demolish an existing detached garage in order to construct a
new detached garage in the rear yard of the property. Under Section 5.5.2(c), an accessory
building which has a gross floor area in excess of 9.9 square metres or a building height in
excess of 3.0 metres shall have a minimum side yard of 0.6 metres. The applicant is proposing to
have a side yard setback of 0.25 metres for the detached garage. The existing detached garage
slated for demolition has a 0.25 metre setback; thus the proposed accessory building will align
parallel with the existing garage. The variance would address a 0.35 metre deficiency from the
side yard.
It is noted that the proposed detached accessory building and home addition will have the same
setbacks as the existing garage and existing single detached dwelling.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 168 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
7. A 2013-044
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 0.97 metres for the home addition and
an accessory building having a side yard setback of 0.25 metres from the side lot line, meets the
intent of the Official Plan.
The requested variance to permit a side yard setback 0.97 metres for the home addition and an
accessory building having a side yard setback of 0.25 metres from the side lot line, meets the
intent of the Zoning By-law. 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 0.97 metres from the required 1.2
metres, and 0.25 metres from the required 0.6 metres (accessory building) 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. It is noted that both the accessory
building and home addition will have the same side yard setbacks as the existing detached
garage and single family dwelling respectively. The variance provides sufficient access to the
garage for any vehicles using the accessory building, as well that it allows the owner to maximize
the square footage of the home. The setback for the home addition will also provide the home
owner with the opportunity to integrate the addition with the characteristics of the existing
dwelling.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variances
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
August 12, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Martin and Carrie Cote requesting permission to to construct a two-storey
rear yard addition on a single family dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.97m (3.18’)
rather than the required 1.2m (3.94’); and to construct a detached garage having a southerly side
yard of 0.25m (0.82’) rather than the required 0.6m (1.97’), on Lot 16 and Part Lot 17, Plan 284,
BE APPROVED
252 Lydia Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That the owners shall obtain a building permit from the City of Kitchener’s Building Division
for the proposed home addition and detached garage.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances approved 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.:
8. A 2013-045
Applicant:
Nancy Cameron
Property Location:
807-809 Queens Boulevard
Legal Description:
Lot 13, Plan 230
Appearances:
In Support: D. Digiandomenico
J. Lacoursiere
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 169 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
8. A 2013-045
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
northerly side yard setback of 0.33m (1.08’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94’) to
accommodate the reconstruction of a second floor fire access.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 6, 2013, advising
that the subject property is located at 809 Queens Boulevard and is currently developed with a
duplex residential dwelling. The lands are zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) in the Zoning By-
law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The residential building
has an existing emergency wooden stairway structure located in the left side yard setback. The
structure is approximately 4.0 metres in height with a 0 metre side yard setback and encroaches
approximately 0.02 metres on the adjacent property. Due to its deteriorating condition, the
applicant is proposing to remove this structure and construct a new emergency stairwell which
will have a new side yard setback of 0.33 metres. The applicant requires a minor variance as
Section 38.2.1 of the Zoning By-law requires a 1.2 metres side yard setback. As such, the
applicant is requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a 0.33 metres left
side yard setback rather than the required 1.2 metres side yard setback.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments:
The requested minor 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 structure will provide a greater setback from the
adjacent property compared to the existing setback. It is staff’s opinion that the variance request
will allow the construction of a safer emergency stairwell structure that will not impact the intensity
or scale of the residential property or surrounding area.
The requested minor variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law 85-1. The purpose of the
required 1.2 metres side yard setback is to provide adequate allowance for access to the rear
yard and sufficient separation from the adjacent property. The new structure will provide a greater
side yard setback compared to the existing situation. The applicant has advised that the existing
stairwell has to be replaced as it is in dire condition and may cause safety concerns. As such, it is
staff’s opinion that the minor variance is appropriate and will improve the safety of the subject
property and will not impact the adjacent property.
The requested variance can be considered minor. The new structure will provide a greater
separation in the side yard from the current situation. The variance approval will allow the
construction of a safer emergency access stairwell which will be set back further from the
property line and will not encroach onto the adjacent property as the current situation exhibits.
The requested variance will not negatively affect the subject or adjacent lands.
The requested minor variance is appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The
applicant has advised that the existing structure is unsafe for the use of the occupants of the
residential dwelling. The variance approval will allow the construction of a safer emergency
access stairwell that will be setback at an appropriate distance from the side lot line and will not
encroach onto the neighbouring property as the current situation shows.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
August 12, 2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Nancy Cameron requesting permission to to legalize an existing northerly
side yard setback of 0.33m (1.08’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.94’) to accommodate the
reconstruction of a second floor fire access, on Lot 13, Plan 230, 807-809 Queens Boulevard,
BE APPROVED
Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit is obtained from the City of Kitchener’s
Building Division for the reconstruction of a second floor fire access.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 170 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
8. A 2013-045 (Cont’d)
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances approved 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 2013-031
Applicant:
Mandeep and Dalip Dhillon
Property Location:
86 Fourth Avenue
Legal Description:
Lot 72, Registered Plan 254
Appearances:
In Support: M. Dhillon
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
so each half can be dealt with separately. The land to be severed will have a width on Fourth
Avenue of 7.803m (25.6’), a depth of 40.32m (132.28’) and an area of 314.61 sq. m. (3,573.6 sq.
ft.). The retained land will have a width on Fourth Avenue of 12.332m (40.46'), a depth of 40.32m
(120') and an area of 497.28 sq. m. (5352.68 sq.ft.). The properties will continue to be used for
residential use.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 6, 2013, advising
that the subject lands are located near the northern end of Fourth Avenue, between Kingsway
Drive and Connaught Street. The property is 811.89 square metres in area with 20.14 metres of
frontage on Fourth Avenue. Construction of a semi-detached dwelling on the property is currently
in progress. The surrounding properties are used for residential purposes, with most containing
single detached dwellings.
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and zoned
Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law.
A semi-detached dwelling is currently being constructed in place of a single detached dwelling
that was recently demolished. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the lands along the
common wall of the semi-detached dwelling (i.e., building), in order to create separate ownership
of each semi-detached house (i.e., part of the dwelling on one side of the common wall). Staff
understands from the owner that the each semi-detached house will contain two dwelling units, in
accordance with the Zoning By-law definition.
The application proposes to sever a 314.61 square metre lot with a depth of 40.32 metres and
7.80 metres of frontage on Fourth Avenue. The proposed retained lands will have a lot area of
497.28 square metres with a depth of 40.32 metres and 12.33 metres of frontage. Section
6.1.2.a) of the Zoning By-law requires that semi-detached dwellings have at least one parking
space per dwelling unit, and driveways that are no wider than 5.2 metres and located no closer
than 0.6 metres to a side lot line. The proposed development complies with this regulation – one
parking space is located in each attached garage and one space on each driveway. In addition,
Planning staff confirms that there are no Driveway Visibility Triangle concerns.
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 of the opinion that the uses of the proposed severed and retained
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 171 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
1. B 2013-031 (Cont’d)
lands conform to the policies and regulations outlined in the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-
law. The shapes and dimensions of the proposed lots are characteristic of the residential
properties located within the neighbourhood and the uses are compatible with those of the
surrounding area. The subject lands are located on a street that is fully serviced.
With respect to Provincial policies and plans, staff is of the opinion that the proposed severance is
consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 and conforms to the Growth Plan for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated August
12, 2013, advising that no objection to this 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
The owner/applicant may enter into a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener 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”.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of Mandeep and Dalip Dhillon requesting permission to sever a parcel of
land so each half can be dealt with separately. The land to be severed will have a width on
Fourth Avenue of 7.803m (25.6’), a depth of 40.32m (132.28’) and an area of 314.61 sq. m.
BE
(3,573.6 sq. ft.), on Lot 72, Registered Plan 254, 86 Fourth Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario,
GRANTED
, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owners 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 owners 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 owners 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 in the amount of
$3,589.38.
4. That the owners shall make financial arrangements for the removal of any redundant
service connections and the installation of any new services required, to the satisfaction
of the City’s Engineering Services.
5. That the owners shall provide a servicing plan clearly displaying outlets to the municipal
servicing system, to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services.
6. That the owners shall complete and submit the Development and Reconstruction As-
Recorded Tracking Form as required by the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB)
S.3150, along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings related to the site with
the corresponding layer names and number system, to the satisfaction of the City’s
Engineering Services.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 172 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
1. B 2013-031(Cont’d)
7. That the owners 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 enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener ; OR
The owners may enter into a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener 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”.
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 August 20, 2015.
Carried
Submission No.:
2. B 2013-032
Applicant:
George and Dorothy Reiner
Property Location:
514 Ottawa Street South
Legal Description:
Lot 43, Plan 791
Mr. A. Head declared a pecuniary interest with this application, as his firm has acted for the
applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. A.
Lise chaired the meeting for consideration of this application.
Appearances:
In Support: P. Jocsak
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever an irregular
parcel of land from the rear yard of 514 Ottawa Street South having a width of 18.675m (61.27‘),
a southerly side yard of 15.240m (50‘), a northerly side yard of 8.534m (28.99‘), and an area of
219.6 sq.m. (2363.76 sq.ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to an abutting property. The
retained lands will have a width of 18.637m (61.15‘) on Ottawa Street South, a depth of 88.631m
(290.78’) and an area of 1,653.4 sq.m. (17797.05 sq.ft). Both parcels of land will continue to be a
residential use.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 6, 2013, advising
subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned Residential
Six Zone (R-6) in the Zoning By-law and will contain a single detached dwelling and stacked
townhouse dwellings (to the rear of the property).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 173 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
2. B 2013-032 (Cont’d)
The applicant is requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots in such a way as to
allow separate ownership of the rear portion of the lands. The severed lot would be added to the
lands at the rear and south west of 514 Ottawa Street South. The severed lands would have a
width of 18.675 metres, a depth of 15.24 metres and an area of 219.6 square metres, while the
retained lot would have a frontage of 18.637 metres, depth of 88.631 metres and an area of
1,653.4 square metres along Ottawa Street South. Both parcels of land will continue to be used
for residential purposes.
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
Six Zone (R-6). The proposed severance will create separate ownership of the severed and
retained lands. The proposed severance is required for a lot addition to the rear and south-west
property owner’s lands so that adequate access is created to utilize an existing vacant parcel.
In addition, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the
use of the properties as future townhouse dwellings, the retained 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, Principal Planner, dated August
12, 2013, advising that they have no objection to this application.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Lise
That the application of George and Dorothy Reiner requesting permission to sever an irregular
parcel of land from the rear yard of 514 Ottawa Street South having a width of 18.675m
(61.27‘) , a southerly side yard of 15.240m (50‘), a northerly side yard of 8.534m (28.99‘), and
an area of 219.6 sq.m. (2363.76 sq.ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to an abutting property,
BE GRANTED
on Lot 43, Plan 791, 514 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
charges.
3. That the owners 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.
4. That the owners 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.
4. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into
identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that
any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections
50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
5. 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.
6. That the owners 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:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 174 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
2. B 2013-032 (Cont’d)
a) That the owners shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed lands in
accordance with the City’s Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City’s
Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading,
tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among
other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone,
landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved.
b) The owners further agree to implement the approved plan. No changes to the
said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City’s Director of
Planning.
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 August 20, 2015.
Carried
Mr. A. Head resumed the Chair at this time.
Submission No.:
3. B 2013-033
Applicant:
Activa Holdings Inc.
Property Location:
2 Parkvale Drive
Legal Description:
Block 185, Registered Plan 58M-426
- and -
Submission No.:
B 2013-034
Applicant:
Activa Holdings Inc.
Property Location:
571 Huron Road
Legal Description:
Lot 4, Registered Plan 1382
Ms. J. Meader declared a pecuniary interest with this application, as her firm has acted for the
applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application.
Appearances:
In Support: J. Malfara
M. Marquez
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that through application B 2013-033 the applicant is requesting
permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Parkvale Drive of 16.805m (55.13‘), a
depth of 23.262m (76.32‘) and an area of 383.3 sq.m. (4125.81 sq.ft) to be conveyed as a lot
addition to an abutting property. The retained lands will have a width of 14.405m (47.26‘), a
depth of 22.480m (73.75‘), and an area of 315.2 sq.m. (3392.79 sq.ft). The parcels are intended
for future residential development, in conjunction with severance application B 2013-034 (571
Huron Road).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 175 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
3. B 2013-033 & B 2013-034 (Cont’d)
Through application B 2013-034 the applicant is requesting permission to sever an irregular
parcel of land having a width on Huron Road of 30.622m (100.47‘), a northerly depth of
14.405m (47.26‘) and an area of 400.9 sq.m. (4315.25 sq.ft) to be conveyed as a lot addition to
an abutting property fronting on Parkvale Drive. The retained lands will have a width of
25.041m (82.16‘), a northerly depth of 16.805m (55.13‘), and an area of 366.1 sq.m. (3940.67
sq.ft). The parcels are intended for future residential development, in conjunction with
severance application B 2013-033 (2 Parkvale Drive).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 8, 2013, advising
that subject properties 571 Huron Road and 2 Parkvale Drive are located adjacent to an existing
subdivision and are currently undeveloped. The properties are zoned Residential Three Zone (R-
3) with Special Regulation Provision 403R and Special Regulation Provision 1R and designated
Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan.
The applicant is proposing a two phase consent application process. The end product will result
in the creation of two lots for future residential development that will front onto Parkvale Drive.
Phasing is required to create and merge all necessary parcels.
The applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land for the creation of two lots that
will front onto Parkvale Drive:
severed
The parcel has a width of 16.805 metres, a depth of 23.262 metres and an area of
383.3 square metres.
retained
The parcel has a width of 14.405 metres, a depth of 22.480 metres and an area of
315.2 square metres.
The purpose of Phase 1 is to sever the lands for the creation of two residential lots that will
eventually be merged with future lots (that will be created later through Phase 2 (B2013-034) in
the rear for the creation of larger developable lots with frontage onto Parkvale Drive.
The applicant is requesting permission to sever land for the creation of four parcels as shown
above:
severed
The parcel has a width on Huron Road of 30.622 metres, a depth of 14.405 metres
and an area of 400.9 square metres.
retained
The parcel has a width of 25.041 metres, a depth of 16.805 metres and an area of
366.1 square metres.
landscape buffer
The parcel labelled in Figure 2 above has a width of 32.366 metres, a depth
of 4.5 metres and an area of 141.7 square metres.
potential widening
The parcel labelled in Figure 2 above has a width of 33.528 metres, a
depth of 3.0 metres and an area of 98.8 square metres.
The purpose of this application is to sever land to create two developable lots in order to convey
the parcels as lot additions to adjoining lots created previously in Phase 1 (B2013-033). This
application will also create two additional parcels along Huron Road that will be dedicated to the
City as part of this consent application for road allowance/widening purposes.
The draft reference plan included with the application shows the proposed final lotting fabric. The
applicant has advised that the overall intent for the subject consent applications is to firstly create
Parts 1 to 6 and subsequently through plan registration to merge Part 1 and Part 6 and Part 2 and
Part 5 to create two development lots with frontage onto Parkvale Drive. In addition, Part 3 and
Part 4 are intended to be dedicated to the City as part of this application for the Huron Road
allowance/widening. Staff advises that Parts 4, 5 and 6 will not be permitted to remain as
independent parcels as they do not have legal frontage on a street. Therefore Part 5 and Part 6
will be required to merge with Part 2 and Part 1 respectively for legal frontage onto Parkvale
Drive; and as previously mentioned Part 4 will be dedicated to the City, as part of this application.
Phase 1 (B2013-033) – 2 Parkvale Drive
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 future 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 shape of the severed lots are appropriate and suitable for the proposed use and
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 176 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
3. B 2013-033 & B 2013-034 (Cont’d)
compatible in size with lots in the surrounding area. Although the retained lot is deficient in lot
area, planning staff is of the opinion that the dimension and shape of the retained lot is
appropriate in order to facilitate the future severance and lot addition that will occur in Phase 2
(B2013-034) that will eventually create a lot that is compatible in size with the lots in the
surrounding area. Both lands front onto an established public street and will be serviced in the
future with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services.
With respect to provincial policies and plans, planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed
Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 rowth
severances are consistent with the and conform to the G
Plan tor the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006
.
Phase 2 (B2013-034) – 571 Huron 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, planning staff is of the opinion that the creation of the proposed parcels is
desirable and appropriate. Subsequent to the creation of the severed and retained parcels
through this application, the lands will be conveyed as lot additions to adjoining parcels created in
Phase 1 (B2013-033) with the end result being the creation of larger developable lots fronting
onto Parkvale Drive. The configuration of the new lots can be considered appropriate for the
development of the uses permitted in the zoning and any future development should be
compatible with the neighbourhood. Therefore the consent is not considered to be premature or
pre-determining the outcome of future planning processes. The retained and severed lots will
eventually front on an established public street and will be 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 tor the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006.
Building Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent applications.
Traffic Comments:
Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed consent applications.
Engineering Comments:
Application #B2013-033 – 2 Parkvale Drive
Engineering staff typically requires the following conditions on such applications. However staff
has advised that the applicant has already fulfilled all conditions and as such, staff does not have
any further concerns with the proposed severance application. The conditions below have been
noted in this report for recordkeeping only and will not be made conditions for approval.
• The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the
Engineering Division for the removal of any redundant service connections and the
installation of new ones that may be required to service this property, all prior to
severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal
services are currently available to service this property.
• Any redundant driveways are to be closed with new curb and gutter and boulevard
landscaping, all to City of Kitchener standards and any new driveways are to be built
to City of Kitchener standards at grade with the existing sidewalk. All works is at the
owner’s expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the
building.
• A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to
the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
• As per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and
Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted
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 Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
• The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by
gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to
pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity
sewer from the property line to the street.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 177 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
3.B 2013-033 & B 2013-034 (Cont’d)
Application # B2013-034 – 571 Huron Road
Engineering staff typically requires the following conditions on such applications. However staff
has advised that the applicant has already fulfilled all conditions and as such, staff does not have
any further concerns with the proposed severance application. The conditions below have been
noted in this report for recordkeeping only and will not be made conditions for approval.
• The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the
Engineering Division for the removal of any redundant service connections and the
installation of new ones that may be required to service this property, all prior to
severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal
services are currently available to service this property. Any further enquiries in this
regard should be directed to Katie Pietrzak (519-741-2200 ext. 7135).
• Any redundant driveways are to be closed with new curb and gutter and boulevard
landscaping, all to City of Kitchener standards and any new driveways are to be built
to City of Kitchener standards at grade with the existing sidewalk. All works is at the
owner’s expense and all work needs to be completed prior to occupancy of the
building.
• A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to
the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
• As per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and
Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted
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 Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
• The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by
gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to
pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity
sewer from the property line to the street.
Community Services Comments:
The City of Kitchener is requiring that parkland dedication for 571 Huron Road to be conveyed to
the City in the form of land. This land shall be taken equally along the Northeast side of both the
retained and severed lands, totaling the 5 percent requirement which is 0.004ha. In addition to
the 5 percent requirement, the City of Kitchener also requires, at fair market value, additional land
in the form of a trail easement along this same northeast side of the property. The total width of
lands required, including the parkland dedication conveyance and easement, shall be 6 meters.
Please refer to the sketch below for the Parkland Dedication and Trail Easement location.
The City requires the parcel of land and easement along the Northeast edge of 571 Huron Road
in order to implement the City’s Integrated Transportation System objectives, as identified within
the Draft City of Kitchener Official Plan document (pending Council approval). Obtaining this
parcel of land and easement is also necessary in order to meet the objectives of the City of
Kitchener’s Multi-Use Pathways and Trails Master Plan, approved by City Council in May 2012.
This Type 2 multi-use pathway (MUP) corridor is clearly identified as a priority route.
The proposed MUP corridor at 571 Huron Road has been well identified by the above-noted City
of Kitchener documents and represents a critical link in the City of Kitchener’s multi-use pathway
network, creating connections between communities on both sides of Huron Road, linking to
pedestrian and cycle routes along Huron Road, and linking communities to the Huron Natural
Area trails network and other sections of the city-wide MUP network. Due to the existing Huron
Road bridge crossing of Strasburg Creek and existing grades within the regulated area of
Strasburg Creek including the City owned P-3 zoned lands, acquiring the MUP corridor at 571
Huron Road is the only means to creating this multi-use pathway connection that will enable the
City to meet the objectives of the City’s transportationand MUP master plans.
Recommendations for implementation of the MUP network in the Council approved Multi-Use
Pathways and Trails Master Plan (2012) includes:
5-7) All city departments and staff involved in long range planning, development planning,
transportation planning, site plan and subdivision development review, urban design,
infrastructure design and implementation shall include the planning and implementation of the
approved Multi-use Pathway Network and related facilities into their standard processes and
projects. Where necessary, staff will revise their standard processes to include the planning and
implementation of the approved Multi-use Pathway Network.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 178 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
3.B 2013-033 & B 2013-034 (Cont’d)
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated August
12, 2013, advising that the properties were the subject of an earlier zone change (Application ZC
13/02/H/ATP) which was subsequently approved by way of By-law 2013-085. Majority of the
Regional concerns / issues were addressed through that application with implementation related
to future development of the lands being deferred to these consent applications.
Road Traffic Noise Study
Staff notes the applicant completed a road traffic Noise Study entitled “571 Huron Road
Environmental Noise Assessment”, MTE Consultants., January 7, 2013 as part of the zone
change but that implementation of the recommendations would be secured by way of the subject
consent applications. Although Regional staff concurs with the conclusions and
recommendations of the noise study based on the assumptions used, City staff must confirm the
traffic volume forecast assumed in the Study is acceptable given Huron Road is under the
jurisdiction of the City of Kitchener. Staff recommends the recommendations noted in the
conditions below be secured by way of agreement with the City and the applicant.
Water Servicing
The subject properties are located in Kitchener Zone 4 with a static hydraulic grade line of 384.3
mASL. Any development with a finished road elevation below 328.1 mASL will require individual
pressure reducing devices on each water service in accordance with Section B.2.4.7 of the
Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2013.
The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City to secure implementation
of this requirement including a clause advising that such device not be removed by the
homeowner / occupant.
Transit Stop Location
The driveway accesses to these proposed lots must be separated at least by 12.0m to avoid
conflict between landowner use of the driveways and a stopped transit bus for passenger drop-off
and pick-up. A transit landing pad 8.6m long has been constructed just south of the existing
entrance to 6 Parkvale Drive. The access to 2 and 4 Parkvale Drive may occasionally be blocked
by a transit bus.
When Huron Road is urbanized there may be potential for Grand River Transit to relocate this
current bus stop on Parkvale Drive to Huron Road so the stop would be adjacent to the side of
one of these proposed lots. Until then, the current transit stop on Parkvale Drive will remain.
Staff recommends a warning clause be included in an agreement to advise future homeowners,
at 2 and 4 Parkvale Drive, of this transit stop and the occasional transit vehicle interfering with
use of the driveway accesses. This agreement may be with the Region or the City (recognizing
this is the only Regional requirement necessitating a Region agreement).
Source Water Protection
For information, the properties are within a Wellhead Protection Sensitivity Area 7 as designated
on Map 6a of the 2009 Regional Official Plan. The purpose of this mapping and corresponding
policies in Chapter 8 of the Plan is to protect the region’s long term municipal groundwater
supplies. The proposed use is keeping with the policies.
Regional staff has no objection to these consent applications subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for the
following:
2 Parkvale Drive (Corner Lot)
a. The proposed dwelling must be provided with central air conditioning installed prior
to occupancy.
b. The following noise warning clause to be included on all offers of purchase and/or
rental agreements:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 179 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
3.B 2013-033 & B 2013-034 (Cont’d)
“Due to the proximity to Huron Road, projected noise levels on this property exceed
the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Region of Waterloo and may cause
concern to some individuals. Moreover, the dwelling and the lands have been
developed such that noise attenuation features are included”.
c. A Durisol pre-cast noise attenuation wall 2.1m high and 34.0m long with a minimum
density of 20 kg/m2 as depicted in Figure 2 in the report.
d. A grading plan showing the proposed noise attenuation barrier and appropriate
cross sections for the area where the noise attenuation barrier is proposed must be
reviewed and approved by City of Kitchener.
e. The building components (windows, walls, etc.) must be designed to achieve indoor
sound level criteria (40dBA night-time-bedrooms / 45 dBA day-time-living rooms).
f. Prior to submission of the building permit, architectural details of the building
components must be verified by a Professional Engineer duly qualified to do so, in
the province of Ontario to ensure the required sound transmission loss rating will be
acceptable to meet indoor sound levels.
g. City of Kitchener must enter into an agreement with the owner(s) as deemed
appropriate by the City staff regarding maintenance & inspection for the proposed
noise attenuation barrier on private property / Huron Road right-of-way.
4 Parkvale Drive
a. The proposed dwelling must be fitted with a forced air-ducted heating system
suitably sized to allow for future installation of Central air conditioning.
b. The building components must be constructed in compliance with Ontario Building
code.
c. The following noise warning clause to be included on all offers of purchase and/or
rental agreements:
“Due to the proximity to Huron Road, projected noise levels on this property exceed the Noise
Level Objectives approved by the Region 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 and also the lands have been developed such that noise attenuation features are
included”.
2. That the owner enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide for the
following:
That the owner installs individual pressure reducing valves on any dwellings constructed
on the severed and retained parcels under applications B2013-033 and B2013-034; and
furthermore that these pressure reducing valves not be removed by the homeowner /
occupants.
3. That the owner enters into an agreement with the City of Kitchener or the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo to provide for the following warning clause on both the severed
and retained parcels under applications B2013-033 and B2013-034:
“Due to proximity of the Grand River Transit stop on Parkvale Drive, a stopped transit bus
for passenger drop-off and pick-up may occasionally interfere with the homeowner’s /
occupant’s use of the driveway access.”
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority
(GRCA), dated August 9, 2013, advising that although they have no concerns with this
application, they noted that the regulated allowance to the floodplain (5 metres inward
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 180 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
2. B 2013-033 & B 2013-034 (Cont’d)
from the rear lot lines) extends onto the proposed lots. Consequently, the subject property is
regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. Any development within the
regulated area on the subject lands will require the prior issuance of a permit pursuant to
Ontario Regulation 150/06.
Mr. J. Malfara was in attendance in support of these applications. He advised the Committee that
he read the staff report and is in agreement with the recommendation except for condition
number 4 requesting the conveyance of land for parkland dedication. He noted that Community
Services staff have indicated that they would like a 1m conveyance of land and an additional 5m
of land, at fair market value, in the form of a trail easement along the northwest side of these
properties. He indicated that there was a significant grade difference at the rear of these
properties and although the City has identified the subject lands in the City of Kitchener’s Multi-
use Pathways and Trails Master plan, actually converting the lands identified into a muti-use
pathway corridor would be onerous. He requested that the condition be amended to request a
cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed
rather than the conveyance of land.
Mr. M. Marquez owner of a neighbouring property advised that he was in attendance for
clarification and does not have any objections to the consent applications being granted.
Mr. B. Bateman advised that the applicant is correct, the subject properties do have significant
grade differences and whether the City will undertake the proposed muli-use pathway connection
at Huron Road from the rear of these properties has yet to be confirmed. He indicated that he
would be willing to propose an amendment to the condition to allow for Parks Operations staff an
opportunity to work with the applicant to determine whether land conveyance or cash-in-lieu
would be appropriate.
The Chair noted that he would not be willing to amend the recommendation to eliminate the
potential for the conveyance of parkland dedication in its entirety. He noted that if a multi-use
pathway is identified for the rear of the subject properties in the Trails Master Plan the City should
have the opportunity to covey the land through this application. He advised that he could support
recommending approval if the condition favoured the City being able to obtain conveyance of land
for parkland dedication and / or cash-in-lieu for parkland dedication.
Both the applicant and staff advised that they could support an amended condition providing
options for either the conveyance of land for parkland dedication and / or cash-in-lieu for parkland
dedication.
B 2013-033
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
having a width on Parkvale Drive of 16.805m (55.13‘), a depth of 23.262m (76.32‘) and an area
of 383.3 sq.m. (4125.81 sq.ft), on Block 185, Registered Plan 58M-426, 2 Parkvale 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.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 181 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
3. B 2013-033 & B 2013-034 (Cont’d)
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 August 20, 2015.
Carried
B 2013-034
Moved by Mr. A. Lise
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
having a width on Parkvale Drive of 16.805m (55.13‘), a depth of 23.262m (76.32‘) and an area
of 383.3 sq.m. (4125.81 sq.ft), on Lot 4, Registered Plan 1382, 571 Huron Road, Kitchener,
BE GRANTED
Ontario,, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall receive final approval of Consent Application B2013-033.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements for the conveyance of land for
park dedication equal to 5% of the land to be severed; or a cash-in-lieu contribution for
park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed; or a combination
thereof, to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning in consultation with the
Director of Parks Operations.
5. That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of
encumbrance, Part 3 and Part 4 as shown in Figure 3 included with the application
above for road allowance/widening purposes along the Huron Road frontage.
6. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into
identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that
any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections
Planning Act
50(3) and/or (5) of the , R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
7. 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.
8. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared
by the City Solicitor, and registered on title which shall include the following:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 182 -AUGUST 20, 2013
3. Submission No.:
B 2013-033 & B 2013-034 (Cont’d)
2 Parkvale Drive (Corner Lot)
a) The proposed dwelling must be provided with central air conditioning installed
prior to occupancy.
b) The following noise warning clause to be included on all offers of purchase
and/or rental agreements:
“Due to the proximity to Huron Road, projected noise levels on this property
exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Region of Waterloo and may
cause concern to some individuals. Moreover, the dwelling and the lands have
been developed such that noise attenuation features are included”.
c) A Durisol pre-cast noise attenuation wall 2.1m high and 34.0m long with a
2
minimum density of 20 kg/mas depicted in Figure 2 in the report.
d) A grading plan showing the proposed noise attenuation barrier and appropriate
cross sections for the area where the noise attenuation barrier is proposed must
be reviewed and approved by City of Kitchener.
e) The building components (windows, walls, etc.) must be designed to achieve
indoor sound level criteria (40dBA night-time-bedrooms / 45 dBA day-time-living
rooms).
f) Prior to submission of the building permit, architectural details of the building
components must be verified by a Professional Engineer duly qualified to do so,
in the province of Ontario to ensure the required sound transmission loss rating
will be acceptable to meet indoor sound levels.
g) City of Kitchener must enter into an agreement with the owner(s) as deemed
appropriate by the City staff regarding maintenance & inspection for the
proposed noise attenuation barrier on private property / Huron Road right-of-way.
4 Parkvale Drive
a) The proposed dwelling must be fitted with a forced air-ducted heating system
suitably sized to allow for future installation of Central air conditioning.
b) The building components must be constructed in compliance with Ontario
Building code.
c) The following noise warning clause to be included on all offers of purchase
and/or rental agreements:
“Due to the proximity to Huron Road, projected noise levels on this property
exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Region 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 and also
the lands have been developed such that noise attenuation features are
included”.
9. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared
by the City Solicitor, and registered on title which shall include the following:
“That the owner installs individual pressure reducing valves on any dwellings
constructed on the severed and retained parcels under applications B2013-033 and
B2013-034; and furthermore that these pressure reducing valves not be removed by the
homeowner / occupants.”
10. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener or the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo to provide for the following warning clause on both the severed
and retained parcels under applications B2013-033 and B2013-034:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 183 -AUGUST 20, 2013
Submission No.:
3. B 2013-033 & B 2013-034 (Cont’d)
“Due to proximity of the Grand River Transit stop on Parkvale Drive, a stopped transit
bus for passenger drop-off and pick-up may occasionally interfere with the homeowner’s
/ occupant’s use of the driveway access.”
11. That the owner shall obtain all necessary permits from the Grand River Conservation
Authority.
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 August 20, 2015.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:58 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 20th day of August, 2013.
Dianna Saunderson
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment