Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2013-09-17 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 17,2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski and A. Lise and Ms. J. Meader. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. Lesley MacDonald, Director of Legal Services and City Solicitor, Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner, Mr. A. Pinnell, Planner, Mr. D. Pimentel, Traffic Technologist, Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer, and Ms. H. Dyson,Administrative Clerk. Mr. D. Cybalski, 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 August 20, 2013, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: A 2013-046 Applicant: Churchill Developments B. Inc. Property Location: 98 Church Street Legal Description: Part Lot 5, Plan 367 Appearances: In Support: S. Litt Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing lot width of 13.7m (44.95') rather than the required 15m (49.21'); an easterly side yard setback of 1.72m (5.643') rather than the required 6m (19.66'); a westerly side yard setback of 2.42m (7.94') rather than the required 6m (19.66'); to provide 2 off street parking spaces rather than the required 3 off street parking spaces; to locate one of the parking spaces 0.56m (1.837')from the front lot line rather than the required 3m (9.84'); and to locate parking between the front fapade and the front lot line whereas the By-law does not permit parking within the front fapade and the front lot line to accommodate a multiple residential dwelling containing 4-units. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 10, 2013, advising that the property is zoned Residential Nine (R-9) in By-law 85-1 and the Official Plan designation is High Density Multiple Residential in the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan. It is located on the north side of Church Street between Eby and Peter Streets. The minor variances are to acknowledge an existing building which was built around 1930. Records in the City file indicate that there was a multiple dwelling use in existence since at least the 1950's (when the regulations would have compiled) to the mid-1990's (when the regulations where considered legal non- conforming). However, as the multiple dwelling use has not existed since the mid-1990's, it has lost any legal non-conforming status and therefore minor variance approval is being sought. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -184- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 1. Submission No.: A 2013-046(Cont'd) The applicant is requesting a minor variance to legalize an existing lot width of 13.7 metres (44.95 ft) rather than the required 15 metres (49.21 ft); an easterly side yard setback of 1.72 metres (5.64 ft) rather than the required 6 metres (19.66 ft); a westerly side yard setback of 2.4.2 metres (7.94 ft) rather than the required 6 metres (19.66 ft); to provide 2 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 3 off-street parking spaces; to locate one of the parking spaces 0.56 metres (1.837 ft)from the front lot line rather than the required 3 metres (9.84 ft); and to located parking between the front fapade and the front lot line whereas the By-law does not permit parking within the front fapade and the front lot line to the accommodate a multiple residential dwelling containing 4-units. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1)of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The designation of the property notes that residential uses are restricted to multiple dwellings. It also comments that the lands must "function appropriately and not adversely impact adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site." As noted in the comments below, parking has been reviewed and supported by both Planning and Traffic staff. In regards to outdoor amenity area, there is a sufficiently sized rear yard that may be used for outdoor enjoyment. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and may be considered minor for the following reasons. The reduction of 1.3 metres for the existing lot width may be considered minor as it is a small portion of the overall requirement and the existing building and parking area can still function for use as a multiple dwelling. The minimum side yard setback requirement is 6 metres; however, the existing building has side yards of 1.72 metres and 2.42 metres. The intent of the 6 metre setback is to provide sufficient drive aisle to the rear yard which would normally accommodate the parking area for a multiple dwelling. In this case, the number of parking spaces required is minimal and can be accommodated in the side and front yard. The 6 metres in the R-9 zone also provides a buffer for higher density buildings with greater height and more storeys that the existing building. The reduced side yard setbacks will not impact the neighbouring properties and therefore meet the intent of the by-law and can be considered minor. In regards to parking, one of the four units is under 51 sq.m. in gross floor area and the by-law does not require it to have a parking space. Consequently, the remaining three units require one space each. However, the reduction from three to two parking spaces may be considered to meet the intent of the by-law as the location of the property is close proximity to multiple transit stops, as well as a future LRT transit stop. One of the two parking spaces is to be located in front of the building fapade, which is not permitted for multiple dwellings. The intent of the regulation is to ensure that large areas of parking for higher density buildings are not located in the front yard which would negatively impact the streetscape. However, as noted above, this building is to contain four units and the location of one space in front of the fapade will not impact the streetscape. The parking space has existed for some time when the property was used as a single family dwelling. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The building floor area and parking area are not changing from what has existed for many years. Based on this and the above noted comments, it is staff's opinion that the proposed use in the existing building is appropriate for the use of the land and surrounding area. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 6,2013,advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr.A. Lise That the application of Churchill Developments B. Inc. requesting permission to legalize an existing lot width of 13.7m (44.95') rather than the required 15m (49.21'); an easterly side yard setback of 1.72m (5.643') rather than the required 6m (19.66'); a westerly side yard setback of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -185- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 1. Submission No.: A 2013-046(Cont'd) 2.42m (7.94') rather than the required 6m (19.66'); to provide 2 off street parking spaces rather than the required 3 off street parking spaces; to locate one of the parking spaces 0.56m (1.837') from the front lot line rather than the required 3m (9.84'); and to locate parking between the front fapade and the front lot line whereas the By-law does not permit parking within the front fapade and the front lot line to accommodate a multiple residential dwelling containing 4-units, on Part Lot 5, Plan 367, 98 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the City's Planning Division. 2. That the owner shall apply for and obtain approval of a Site Plan application from the City's Director of Planning. 3. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division. 4. That the owner shall not be permitted to widen the driveway in the front yard beyond 7.1 m (23.293')as outlined on the plan submitted with this application. 5. That the owner shall satisfy Conditions 1,2 and 3 by November 1,2013, or the approval of Minor Variance application A 2013-046 will become null and void. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 2. Submission No.: A 2013-047 Applicant: Ilie and Mariana Meglei Property Location: 280 Hidden Valley Road Legal Description: Lot 39, Plan 986 Appearances: In Support: I. and M. Meglei Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to demolish a legal non- conforming single detached dwelling in a B-1 Zone and construct a new single detached dwelling having the same ground floor area, in its place. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 9, 2013, advising that the subject property is located on the northern "leg" Hidden Valley Road, in the Hidden Valley Planning Community. The property contains a one-storey single detached dwelling built in the late 1940s, a 128 square metre (1400 sq.ft.) metal-clad accessory building, as well as a number of other, smaller accessory buildings. The subject residential property is long (145.2 metres) and narrow (31.5 metres) and is surrounded on three sides by a single, privately owned property that is characterized by a woodlot immediately to the east and vacant lands to the west. Highway 8 is located to the north, immediately beyond a narrow strip of land (approximately 21 metres—26 metres deep) that is part of the property containing the above noted woodlot and vacant lands. The property further west is used for public hydroelectric facilities. The lands on the opposite side of Hidden Valley Road are used for agricultural purposes. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -186- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 1. Submission No.: A 2013-047(Cont'd) The subject property and all immediately surrounding lands and lands on the opposite side of Hidden Valley Road are designated Business Park with Special Policy#3 in the City's Official Plan and are zoned Business Park (B-1), with Special Use Provision 59U, and Holding Provision 1 H. Part 3, Section 12.3. viii) of the Official Plan is part of Special Policy #3 and applies to the subject property and surrounding properties. This policy states that: "Notwithstanding the Business Park designation within the Hidden Valley Business Park, excluding approximately 3.2 hectares located at the intersection of the proposed River Road - Goodrich Drive Extension with Hidden Valley Road and referred to as Site "A" in the Hidden Valley Industrial Community Plan, truck transport terminal shall not be a permitted use and all remaining industrial and Business Park uses shall be withheld from development until such time as either: a)The Goodrich Drive-River Road Extension has been constructed, complete with a full interchange with Highway No. 8; or, b) Wabanaki Drive has been constructed from Wilson Avenue to Fairway Road to a level acceptable to the City's General Manager of Public Works together with the additional transportation system improvements approved by Regional Council and identified in the Fairway Road/River Road Traffic Study(May 1994). A holding symbol shall be applied to these lands in the implementing Zoning By-law for Hidden Valley Business Park and shall only be removed upon satisfactory completion of either of the transportation system improvements identified in a) or b) above. Until the holding symbol affecting such lands has been removed by by-law, only existing residential, religious institutional; veterinary services; garden centre or nursery; farm, or agricultural uses, and any other uses normally associated with or accessory to such uses, shall be permitted." With respect to the zoning, the B-1 Zone permits a wide range of "prestige industrial" uses. Special Use Provision 59U prohibits truck transport terminals in accordance with the above noted Special Policy. In accordance with the same Special Policy, Holding Provision 1H requires that: "....only those uses listed below and other uses normally associated with, or accessory to, such uses, shall be permitted until such time as the criteria set out in Part 3, Section 12.3 viii)of the City of Kitchener Official Plan has been satisfied and the holding symbol affecting these lands has been removed by By-law. Existing Residential Religious Institution Veterinary Services Garden Centre or Nursery Farm or Agricultural Uses" Although Wabanaki Drive has been extended from Wilson Avenue to Fairway Road, not all of the "additional transportation system improvements" have been completed according to the Region. In this regard, the Holding Provision preventing most of the B-1 uses must remain in place until the improvements have been completed and a Zone Change Application has been approved to lift the Holding Provision. It must be noted that the B-1 Zone does not allow single detached dwellings or any stand- alone residential uses. The fact that the existing single detached dwelling pre-dates the B-1 zoning renders the dwelling legal non-conforming. Staff further notes that "Existing Residential", as outlined in Holding Provision 1H, does not provide for demolition and replacement, but rather acknowledgement only of existing residential structures. In February 2013 the Committee of Adjustment approved (with staff support) the expansion of the existing legal non-conforming single detached dwelling by allowing the addition of non- habitable space including an attached garage and a covered porch under Section 45(2) of the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -187- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 1. Submission No.: A 2013-047(Cont'd) Planning Act (Permission Application A2013-005). The application was supported by staff, being desirable since it was intended to allow residents to live more comfortably within the existing single detached dwelling, providing better functionality and protected storage of automobiles. Staff issued a caveat to the owner within the staff report for that application: "...the ultimate use of the subject lands is currently intended to be for industrial/employment purposes. Staff also notes that the extension of River Road may eventually intersect and/or impact the subject lands. For these reasons, it will be important for the property Owners to understand that Planning staff will not support any further expansion to the legal non-conforming use for any habitable portion of the dwelling. The 1H holding provision only allows `existing residential' and other uses normally associated with, or accessory to, such a garage or porch use. Planning staff is in support of allowing the expansion of the `accessory use' (ie. the attached garage and covered porch), but will not support any future expansion to the existing residential (habitable) portion of the dwelling." Notwithstanding this caveat,the owner is now requesting permission under section 45(2)of the Planning Act to change a legal non-conforming use, being a single detached dwelling in a B-1 Zone, in order to redevelop the lot with a new single detached dwelling that has the same building footprint as the existing single detached dwelling. Succinctly, the owner plans to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new single detached dwelling in the same place. Building Division staff notes that based on the drawings submitted with the application, the proposed dwelling would technically contain only one-storey with the potential to create a usable attic space in the future. Section 45(2) of the Planning Act allows the Committee to make changes to legal non- conforming uses with the intention that those uses will cease over time. In Sudbury (Regional Municipality) vs Sudbury Committee of Adjustment (1993), 30 O.M.B.R. 224 (O.M.B.), the OMB decision stated that: "Application of this subsection involves a delicate balancing between public and private rights. Uses once lawful but not now permitted should eventually disappear but, at the same time, some degree of protection is available to the owner to extend or enlarge a building or structure." The tests for applications under Section 45(2) are not the four-part test applied to minor variances. Case law has established that consideration of such applications is to be based upon: 1. Desirability for development of the property. This has been held to require determination of desirability relative to both the subject land, building, or structure as well as to the neighbouring lands; and further, 2. Impact on the surrounding area; that is, whether the proposed use creates unacceptable adverse impacts upon the abutting properties. In considering the subject request for a change to a legal non-conforming use under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments: The permission request to allow redevelopment of the property with a new single detached dwelling is not desirable. The proposed new dwelling will perpetuate the residential use for many years to come. The surrounding lands are designated and zoned for business park uses, many of which are not compatible with residential land uses. Future development of the surrounding greenfield lands with non-residential uses may have significant negative impacts on the residential use, should it be perpetuated. Also, if permission is granted, future business park uses may be constrained due to Ministry of the Environment minimum distance separation requirements between industrial and residential land uses which seek to minimize negative industrial impacts on sensitive land uses. This may be considered as an adverse impact on development rights of abutting properties that are preserved for business park uses. The request is also not desirable since it will perpetuate development on private services (well and septic). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -188- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 1. Submission No.: A 2013-047(Cont'd) Furthermore, it should be noted that the subject property is within the study area for the River Road Extension Class Environmental Assessment (EA). This study is being led by the Region and has been underway since the early 1980s. While zoning intent is not a test for Permission Applications, it must be noted that Holding Provision 1H seeks to restrict development until area transportation improvements have been completed (via the above noted EA). Regional Project Manager, Wayne Cheater, has advised that the study recommendations will likely be presented to Regional Council in early 2014. The Region will be hosting a Public Consultation Centre on October 1, 2013 to communicate to the public the potential extension/alignment of River Road as well as new on/off ramps to/from Highway 8. The improvements proposed through the EA may also bring municipal services to the subject area. City Planning staff is of the opinion that it is not desirable to allow the subject property to be redeveloped in advance of the completion of the study, which may have direct negative impacts on the residential use (see below Regional comments for more information). In addition, the intent of the 1H Holding Provision is to recognize the existence of legal non- conforming dwellings, among other uses within the area where the provision is applied. The intention is that those dwellings will eventually cease. Staff suggests that an opportune time for such a use to cease is at the end of the natural life-cycle of a building. Staff is of the opinion that the previous request for permission represents a sufficient balance of private and public rights—one that allows further comfort and functionality for residents but which does not perpetuate the use since the original dwelling would remain the limiting factor as the primary investment on the property. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 6, 2013, advising that a preliminary design through the ongoing Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed River Road Extension will include Hidden Valley Road and proposes a major 4 lane divided roadway at this location. In addition, a Highway 8 ramp is proposed immediately to the south (east)of this property. There will be significant transportation noise impacts on the lands. In addition, access to the property will be restricted to right-in, right- out movements. Other impacts on the property may be determined through the EA and detailed design of the River Road Extension. A Public Consultation Centre on this project is proposed for October 1,2013. Mr. I. Meglei advised that he has read the staff report and he is not in support of staffs' recommendation for refusal of the application. He stated that he has owned the subject property for 10 years and, in his opinion,the home is unsafe and deteriorating beyond repair. He indicated that although his home is legal non-conforming, he is not making a request to enlarge, expand or change the current use. He stated that he would like permission to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new single detached dwelling having the same footprint, in its place. Mr. Meglei further advised that, in his opinion, the Committee should grant his request for the following reasons: his home has a number of safety issues and there are elements that do not comply with the building code; the Committee has previously approved a variance for a new porch and an attached garage; the construction of a new home would not adversely impact the neighbouring area because it would be a replacement of what currently exists; and, under Section 23 of the Zoning By-law defining a Business Park Zone (B-1), permitted uses include Day Care Facilities and Dwelling units which could be accommodated by the newly constructed home if the property was sold in the future. The Chair requested clarification on how long the subject property has been zoned B-1, and under what circumstances the Committee granted approval for a minor variance for construction of a new front porch and attached garage. Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that the Zoning pre- dates the construction of the single family dwelling. She further advised that staff were supportive of the variance approved in February 2013 because it did not seek to expand the area for habitable use, but created a more functional entrance and storage space for home owners. Mr. A. Pinnell further advised that in considering an application to alter a legal non-conforming property,staff must take into consideration the desirability for development of the property relative to the subject land, building, or structure as well as to the neighbouring lands; and, Impact on the surrounding area; that is,whether the proposed use creates unacceptable adverse impacts upon the abutting properties. He stated that the reconstruction of a new single detached dwelling would perpetuate the residential use for many years to come and the surrounding lands are COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -189- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 1. Submission No.: A 2013-047(Cont'd) designated and zoned for business park uses, many of which are not compatible with residential land uses. He indicated that a single detached dwelling may also have adverse impacts on a number of the neighbouring properties that are currently Warehouse District Zone D-6, and their permitted function,due to their proximity to a single family home. In response to questions regarding the holding provision, Mr. Pinnell advised that Holding Provision 1H, currently applied to the subject property, recognizes the existence of legal non- conforming dwellings, among other uses within the area where the provision is applied. He stated that it also seeks to restrict development until area transportation improvements have been completed, specifically the Region of Waterloo River Road Extension Class Environmental Assessment(EA). He noted that the Region has anticipated making their recommendation on the proposed alternatives to Regional Council in early 2014. Mr. Pinnell further advised that it is staffs'opinion that it is not desirable to allow the subject property to be redeveloped in advance of the completion of the study,which may have direct negative impacts on the residential use. The Chair questioned whether the applicant would be prohibited from completing interior renovations due to the legal non-conforming status. Mr. Pinnell indicated that the applicant would be permitted to complete interior renovations. He would not be permitted to obtain a building permit without approval of the variance if the house was demolished. The Chair noted the comments from the Region of Waterloo. Ms. M. Meglei advised that she has spoken to the Region and in their initial discussions, Regional staff have indicated that the proposed alternative being considered for the River Road Extension would not have any impacts on the subject property. Ms. J. Meader questioned whether the applicant had any documentation on the status of the homes' safety. Mr. Meglei advised that he has a structural engineers report indicating that the foundation at the front of the property is not sufficient to support any new construction. He stated that the engineers report outlines two options, maintaining the existing foundation which would require a parallel foundation,or the construction of a common foundation. Ms. Meader advised that in this situation she was inclined to favour the property rights of the applicant rather than the City's long-term planning. She indicated that if the dwelling was destroyed by fire or significant storm, the applicant would likely be permitted to construct a new single family dwelling in its place. She further advised that she would be willing to support the applicant pending the construction was completed within one year of the Committee's approval. The Chair stated that staff has indicated that the B-1 Zoning and Holding Provision were in place prior to the applicants purchasing the property and due to the fact that other measures can be taken for interior renovations which do not involve demolishing the current structure, he was supportive of staffs recommendation to refuse this application. He stated that he could not support the approval of the application. Mr.A. Lise also spoke against an approval. Mr. Lise then put forward a motion to refuse this application which was voted on and carried with Ms. Meader voting in opposition. Moved by Mr.A. Lise Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Ilie and Mariana Meglei requesting permission to demolish a legal non- conforming single detached dwelling in a B-1 Zone and construct a new single detached dwelling having the same ground floor area, in its place, on Lot 39, Plan 986, 280 Hidden Valley Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that the permission request under section 45(2)of the Planning Act to change a legal non-conforming use, being a single detached dwelling in a B-1 Zone, in order to redevelop the lot with a new single detached dwelling that has the same building footprint as the existing single detached dwelling, is not desirable for the development of the property and would have unacceptably adverse impacts on the surrounding area. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -190- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 3. Submission No.: A 2013-048 Applicant: Pinnacle Holdings Corporation Property Location: 1060 Guelph Street Legal Description: Part Lot A, Plan 40, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-9563 Appearances: In Support: E. Doering R. Masri Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 2-storey office building, such that 105 off-street parking spaces will be provided rather than the required 117 spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 6, 2013, advising that the subject property is zoned Restricted Business Park Zone (B-2), with special provisions 32R and 40U in the Zoning By-law and designated Business Park in the City's Official Plan. Special provision 40U permits office use on the subject lands. The site contains an industrial office building. The applicant is proposing to construct a second 1,743 square metre industrial office building which will increase the total gross floor area of office to 3,258 square metres. As a result, the parking space requirements for the subject lands will increase from 55 parking spaces to 117 parking spaces (1 space per 28 square metres of office space). The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.2.a of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law to allow a 10% reduction (12 parking spaces) of the entire site to require 105 parking spaces rather than the required 117 spaces for an office use. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1)of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments regarding the requested minor variance: The requested reduced minimum parking space requirement variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. Section 8.5.2 of the City of Kitchener Official Plan allows consideration of reduced parking requirements for properties within areas, where it can be demonstrated that such reductions will not negatively affect the community. Staff is of the opinion that a reduction of 12 parking spaces (10% reduction) will not interfere with or be detrimental to the office use operations or with the surrounding community. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the parking regulations in the Zoning By-law is to ensure that there is adequate parking on a site to meet the needs of users. Planning staff is of the opinion that a reduction of 12 parking spaces meets the intent of the Zoning By-law to ensure that there is adequate parking to meet the needs of the site, with the current range of tenants. The proposed variance can be considered minor and appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding Business Park and Industrial uses. Staff feels that the variance will aid in increasing the usability of a site, and will make efficient use of existing and proposed parking spaces. The applicant is also proposing to implement end-of-trip alternative transportation facilities such as indoor bicycle parking and showing facilities. The subject lands are also serviced at a close proximity by public transit. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 6,2013,advising that they have no concerns with this application. Ms. J. Meader requested clarification from staff on the Variance request and whether they had any additional concerns to the number of off-street parking spaces being provided for the proposed development. Mr. D. Pimentel advised that Transportation staff have no objection to the reduction in parking spaces. He indicated that the applicant, through the Site Plan approval process, has indicated that they will be implementing additional Traffic Demand Management (TDM)practises that will accommodate the reduction in off-street parking. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -191 - SEPTEMBER 17,2013 3. Submission No.: A 2013-048(Cont'd) Ms. Meader questioned whether a condition should be added requiring the applicant to implement the end-of-trip alternative transportation facilities as proposed on the plan provided with the application as a condition of the Committee's approval. Ms. Masri advised that she would not be opposed to the additional condition pending it does not hinder the Site Plan approval process. Ms. von Westerholt noted that the condition as requested would not prevent the applicant from finalizing Site Plan approval. Moved by Mr.A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Pinnacle Holdings Corporation requesting permission to construct a 2- storey office building, such that 105 off-street parking spaces will be provided rather than the required 117 spaces, on Part Lot A, Plan 40, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-9563, 1060 Guelph Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED,subject to the following condition: 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit,the owner shall submit plans demonstrating that end-of-trip alternative transportation facilities such as indoor bicycle parking and showering facilities will be implemented in the new office building proposed at 1060 Guelph Street to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried 4. Submission No.: A 2013-049 Applicant: Branthaven River Ridge Inc. Property Location: 251 Falconridge Drive Legal Description: Lot 74, Registered Plan 58M-512 Appearances: In Support: T. Haase Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling with a garage having a width equal to 55% (5.94m/ 19.48')of the lot width (5.49m / 18.01') rather than the maximum of 50%; and a driveway width equal to 55% (5.94m/ 19.48')of the lot width rather than the maximum of 50% (5.49m/18.01'). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 9, 2013, advising that City Planning visited the subdivision on August 29, 2012. The neighbourhood is a new low rise residential neighbourhood with a mix of single detached and street townhouse dwellings. The applicant is requesting minor variances to allow: 1. A maximum garage width of 55%of the lot width rather that 50%. 2. A maximum driveway width of 55%of the lot width rather than 50%. The applicant has applied for the above noted minor variances as they have sold an incorrect model to a purchaser. They have entered into a contract with the purchaser for the model as COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -192- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 4. Submission No.: A 2013-049(Cont'd) shown on the plans submitted with the application, and realized after the contract was binding that the model does not comply with the zoning regulations for the lot. Staff has considered the circumstances of the variance and question whether the house design or lot could be adjusted so that the dwelling would comply with the zoning by-law. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1)of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments. The subject lands are designed Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan which permits low rise housing such as the single detached dwelling proposed for the lot. Staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The property is zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) with Special Regulation Provisions 306R and 307R. The R-6 zone permits single detached dwellings, however Special Regulation Provision 307R limits the maximum projection of garages to 1.8 metres and the maximum width of attached garages and driveways to 50% of the lot width. The intent of this regulation is to ensure that the neighbourhood's streets are not dominated by houses with large garages and driveways that project in front of the dwelling. The subject dwelling conforms to the maximum garage projection, however the proposed 5.94 metre width of the garage equate to 54% of the lot width (10.97m). The increase in width of the garage from 50% to 55% represents 0.45 metres. On a neighbourhood scale, having one dwelling which exceeds the maximum width by 5%will not be a significant detriment to the streetscape, and staff feels that in this instance the intent of the by-law is maintained. Staff is of the opinion that the small increase in garage and driveway width, for one house on a street, can be considered minor as it will not have a major visual impact on the streetscape. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the variance is appropriate for the development and use of the lands. However, the owner is cautioned that any subsequent requests of this nature will start to constitute a pattern, which when considered cumulatively may not be considered as meeting the intent of the zoning by-law, being considered minor, or being appropriate for the development and use of the lands. As the cumulative impact would be more significant, staff may not be supportive of any future variances to this regulation. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated September 6,2013,advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr.A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Branthaven River Ridge Inc. requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling with a garage having a width equal to 55% (5.94m/ 19.48')of the lot width (5.49m / 18.01') rather than the maximum of 50%; and a driveway width equal to 55% (5.94m/ 19.48')of the lot width rather than the maximum of 50% (5.49m/ 18.01'), on Lot 74, Registered Plan 58M- 512, 251 Falconridge Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for the single detached dwelling. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -193- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 CONSENT 1. Submission No.: B 2013-035 Applicant: Emanuel Housing Co-operative Inc. Property Location: 35 Howe Drive Legal Description: Blocks S and T and Part Block U, Part of Howe Drive (Closed), Plan 1240, being Parts 1 to 8, Reference Plan 58R-5981 Appearances: In Support: M. MacDonald Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to grant a servicing easement having an irregular shape with a width on Howe Drive of 28.477m (93.428'), a southerly depth of 67.207m (220.495')and an area of 2770 sq.m. (29816.032 sq.ft),for access to surface and storm water flow/drainage in favour of the abutting property at 23 Howe Drive. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 5, 2013, advising that the subject lands located at 35 Howe Drive is designated Low Rise Residential and Open Space in the City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Six (R-6) and Existing Use (E-1) in the City's Zoning By-law. The townhouse development at 23 Howe Drive requires an easement over the subject lands at 35 Howe Drive to allow for surface and storm water flow/drainage. The applicant advised staff that the proposed easement will allow the owners of the adjacent lands at 23 Howe Drive to use, maintain, inspect, repair and replace a storm and surface water drainage outlet and a rip rap overflow area located on the subject lands. As such, the applicant is seeking to grant an easement with frontage on Howe Drive of 28.477 metres and area of 2770 square metres over the subject lands in favour of 23 Howe 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, staff is satisfied that the creation of the easement is required for the proper functioning from an engineering/servicing perspective of the adjacent property at 23 Howe Drive. The proposed easement is appropriate and suitable for the existing use of the subject and adjacent lands. The easement over the subject lands will ensure that the townhouse development on the adjacent lands have a legal outlet for surface and storm water flow/drainage. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated September 4,2013, advising that they have no objection to this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated September 5, 2013, advising that although they have no concerns with this application, they noted that a portion of lands to be severed and lands to be retained contain floodplain associated with Shoemaker Creek as well as the allowance associated with this feature. 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. The Chair noted the comments from the Grand River Conservation Authority and requested that a condition be added to the recommendation to request that the applicant obtain a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Water Courses Regulation permit, if required. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr.A. Lise That the application of Emanuel Housing Co-operative Inc. requesting permission to grant a servicing easement having an irregular shape with a width on Howe Drive of 28.477m (93.428'), a southerly depth of 67.207m (220.495')and an area of 2770 sq.m. (29816.032 sq.ft),for access to surface and storm water flow/drainage in favour of the abutting property at 23 Howe Drive, on COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -194- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 1. Submission No.: B 2013-035(Cont'd) Blocks S and T and Part Block U, Part of Howe Drive (Closed), Plan 1240, being Parts 1 to 8, Reference Plan 58R-5981, 35 Howe Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s)prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad)or Agn (Microstation)format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands shall enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor,to ensure that the servicing easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement. 4. That the owner's solicitor shall provide the City Solicitor with a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement. 5. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. 6. That the owner shall submit a Grading Plan, a Site Servicing Plan and draft reference plan showing the proposed easement subject to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering. 7. That if required by the Grand River Conservation Authority, the owner shall obtain a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Water Courses Regulation permit. 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 September 17,2015. Carried 2. Submission No.: B 2013-036 and B 2013-037 Applicant: Harold Boettger and Sheila Ims Property Location: 31 Macville Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, being Parts 2 and 3, on Reference Plan 58R-3834 Appearances: In Support: H. Boettger P. Chauvin COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -195- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 2. Submission No.: B 2013-036&B 2013-037 (Cont'd) Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create 2 new lots for residential use and retain one residential lot. The retained lot will have a frontage on Macville Avenue of 53.09m (174.18'), a depth of 40m (131.23') and an area of 2950 sq.m. (31753.536 sq.ft). The retained land will contain the existing single family dwelling. New Lot A will have a width on Macville Avenue of 14m (45.93'), a depth of 38.6m (126.64'), and an area of 547 sq.m. (5887.859 sq.ft). New Lot B will have a width on Macville Avenue of 14m (45.93'), a depth of 38.8m (127.29'), and an area of 544 sq.m. (5855.567 sq.ft). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 6, 2013, advising that the subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) with Special provision 179R in the Zoning By-law. The subject property contains a single detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the subject property into three lots in such a way as to allow separate ownership of two new lots fronting onto MacVille Avenue. The proposed severed lots would be developed with single detached dwellings. The severed lands will have the following measurements: Lot A would have a frontage of 14 metres, a depth of 38.6 metres and an area of 547 square metres; Lot B would have a frontage of 14 metres, a depth of 38.8 metres and an area of 544 square metres, while the retained lot would have a frontage of 54.7 metres, depth of 40 metres and an area of 2,950 square metres along MacVille Avenue. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24)of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990. c.P. 13, the uses of the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law 85-1. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal conforms with the regulations of the Residential Three Zone (R-3). The proposed severance will create separate ownership of the severed and retained lands. The proposed severance will create two new residential lots that will front onto MacVille Avenue. In addition, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the use of the properties as future single detached dwellings, the severed and retained lands front on an established public street, and all three 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 September 4, 2013, advising that although they have no concerns with this application, they noted that the subject property is located in Kitchener Zone 4 with a static hydraulic grade line of 384.3 metres Above Sea Level (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 Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated September 6, 2013, advising that although they have no concerns with this application, they noted that portions of the lands to be severed and lands to be retained are within the regulated allowance associated with the Provincially Significant Melitzer Creek Wetland Complex. Consequently, portions of the subject lands are regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. Any future development within the regulated area on the retained or severed parcels will require the prior issuance of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. Mr. P. Chauvin advised that he was in attendance in support of staffs' recommendation. The Chair noted the comments from the Grand River Conservation Authority and requested that a condition be added to the recommendations to request that the applicant obtain a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Water Courses Regulation permit, if required. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -196- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 2. Submission No.: B 2013-036&B 2013-037 (Cont'd) B 2013-036 Moved by Mr.A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Harold Boettger and Sheila Ims requesting permission to sever a parcel of land, identified as "Lot A" on the plan submitted with the application, having a width on Macville Avenue of 14m (45.93'), a depth of 38.6m (126.64'), and an area of 547 sq.m. (5887.859 sq.ft), on Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, being Parts 2 and 3, on Reference Plan 58R-3834, 31 Macville Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s)prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad)or Agn (Microstation)format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5%of the value of the lands to be severed. 4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. 5. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees,and a paved driveway ramp,on the severed lands. 6. That the owner shall submit a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system along with the sanitary and storm sewer design sheets to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 7. That the owner shall submit and complete a Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 a Development along with a digital submission of all Auto Cad drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names, and numbering system to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. 8. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the following: a) That the owner 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 owner further agrees 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. 9. That if required by the Grand River Conservation Authority, the owner shall obtain a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Water Courses Regulation permit. 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 -197- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 2. Submission No.: B 2013-036&B 2013-037 (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 September 17,2015. Carried B 2013-037 Moved by Mr.A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Harold Boettger and Sheila Ims requesting permission to sever a parcel of land, identified as "Lot B" on the plan submitted with the application, having a width on Macville Avenue of 14m (45.93'), a depth of 38.8m (127.29'), and an area of 544 sq.m. (5855.567 sq.ft), on Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, being Parts 2 and 3 on Reference Plan 58R-3834, 31 Macville Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s)prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad)or Agn (Microstation)format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5%of the value of the lands to be severed. 4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. 5. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees,and a paved driveway ramp,on the severed lands. 6. That the owner shall submit a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system along with the sanitary and storm sewer design sheets to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Engineering Services. 7. That the owner shall submit and complete a Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 a Development along with a digital submission of all Auto Cad drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names, and numbering system to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services. 8. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the following: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -198- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 2. Submission No.: B 2013-036&B 2013-037 (Cont'd) a) That the owner 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 owner further agrees 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. 9. That if required by the Grand River Conservation Authority, the owner shall obtain a Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Water Courses Regulation permit. 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 September 17,2015. Carried 3. Submission No.: B 2013-038 Applicant: York Queen Inc. and York Queen KW Inc. Property Location: 202 and 214 Queen Street South Legal Description: Part Lot 2, Plan 393 Appearances: In Support: J. Knowles Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for a partial discharge of mortgage and to mortgage a parcel of land having a width on Queen Street South of 9.0526m (29.7'), a depth of 38.009m (124.7'), and an area of 344.080 sq.m. (3703.649 sq.ft). The existing use of the property is residential. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 9, 2013, advising that the applicant is requesting consent for a partial discharge of mortgage and change of beneficial ownership. The parcels that are subject of this application are 202 Queen Street South and 214 Queen Street South. These two parcels were purchased in separate legal names by York Queen KW Inc. and York Queen Inc. in July 2012. On closing, a Trust Declaration was executed which provided that the beneficial ownership for both properties belonged to the same beneficial owners being: Banam Three Investments Limited (10% interest), and Equity Thirteen Holdings Inc. (90% interest). As a result of the Trust Declaration, the properties were inadvertently merged under the provisions of Section 50 of the Planning Act. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -199- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 3. Submission No.: B 2013-038(Cont'd) This application is being made as a technical breach of the Planning Act has occurred. The applicant is requesting consent for the following: 1. To obtain a Partial Discharge of a Charge registered in favour of Home Trust Company over Part Lot 2, Plan 393, being 202 Queen Street South, Kitchener, which Charge was registered as Instrument Number WR750495 on April 25,2013; 2. To obtain a Partial Discharge of a Charge registered in favour of Equity Finance One Corp. over Part Lot 2, Plan 393, being 202 Queen Street South, Kitchener, which Charge was registered as Instrument Number WR751868 on May 1,2013; and 3. To change the beneficial ownership of 202 Queen Street South to: a. Banam Three Investments Limited as to a 10%ownership, b. Equity Thirteen Holdings Inc. as to an 85%ownership, and c. 2354651 Ontario Limited as to a 5%ownership. The two parcels (202 Queen Street South and 214 Queen Street South) are already two distinct properties for municipal purposes, and title is held under separate legal names. The result of this application will be to rectify the beneficial ownership. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated September 4,2013, advising that they have no objection to this application. Ms. J. Knowles advised that her client purchased the subject properties in July 2012 under separate legal names:York Queen KW Inc. and York Queen Inc. On closing, a Trust Declaration was executed which provided that the beneficial ownership for both properties belonged to the same beneficial owners being: Banam Three Investments Limited (10% interest), and Equity Thirteen Holdings Inc. (90% interest). She noted that as a result of the Trust Declaration, the properties were inadvertently merged under the provisions of Section 50 of the Planning Act. The Chair requested clarification on whether the mortgage lender was aware of the merger and whether a letter of consent would be required from the mortgage company acknowledging the partial discharge of mortgage on 202 Queen Street South. Ms. Knowles advised that an acknowledgement letter from the lender could be provided if the Committee required it as part of the consent approval. She stated that the applicant was intending on refinancing 214 Queen Street South and it was the lender that identified that the properties had been merged. Ms. J. Meader requested clarification on whether the Committee could approve the Consent application, noting that it is the applicant that is requesting the discharge, not the mortgage company. Ms. L. MacDonald advised that the Committee does have the authority to approve a partial discharge of mortgage under the Planning Act. She stated that, in this situation, there are already two distinct parcels (202 Queen Street South and 214 Queen Street South), that are two distinct properties for municipal purposes, and title is held under separate legal names. She indicated that the merge on title is a technicality that was only created through the Trust Declaration which needs to be corrected for mortgage purposes. The Chair questioned whether additional conditions should be added to require the applicant to provide an acknowledgement letter from the lending company as part of the approval; and, to request that the applicant provide the transfer documents to the City Solicitor prior to registration for verification. Ms. Knowles advised that she does not object to the additional conditions as part of the Committee's approval. Moved by Mr.A. Lise Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of York Queen Inc. and York Queen KW Inc. requesting permission for a partial discharge of mortgage and to mortgage a parcel of land having a width on Queen Street South of 9.0526m (29.7'), a depth of 38.009m (124.7'), and an area of 344.080 sq.m. (3703.649 sq.ft),on Part Lot 2, Plan 393, 202 Queen Street South, and on Part Lot 57, Plan 393,214 Queen Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -200- SEPTEMBER 17,2013 3. Submission No.: B 2013-038(Cont'd) 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 Agn (Microstation)format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist 3. That the owner shall provide acknowledgment of the partial discharge of mortgage from the lender to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. 4. That the owner shall submit the proposed deed to the City Solicitor for approval prior to registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being September 17,2015. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion,the meeting adjourned at 10:54 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 17th day of September,2013. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment