HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2013-10-15 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 15,2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski and A. Head and B. McColl.
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior 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 10:02 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr.A. Head
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held September 17, 2013, as
mailed to the members, be accepted.
Carried
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
1. Submission No.: A 2013-050
Applicants: Vesna Pavlovic, Lidija Pavlovic and Chris Riehl
Property Location: 48 Walnut Street
Legal Description: Part Lot 487, Plan 378, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-12501
Appearances:
In Support: V. Pavlovic
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to legalize a duplex
and a multiple residential dwelling containing 4-units on a lot having a width of 12.19m (39.99`)
rather than the required 15m (49.21'); a front yard setback of 1.75m (5.71') rather than the
required 4.5m (14.76') and a northerly side yard setback for the duplex of 1.11m (3.64') rather
than the required 2.5m (82).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated October 7, 2013, advising
that the applicants are requesting a minor variance to legalize a multiple dwelling (duplex and a
four-plex)on a lot having a lot width of 12.19 metres rather than 15.0 metres; a front yard setback
of 1.75 metres rather than 4.5 metres and a left yard setback of 1.11 metres (for the duplex)
rather than 2.5 metres.
The subject property was developed in 2003 with 5 dwelling units (one unit at the front of the site,
and 4 in a multiple dwelling to the rear). The development includes 5 parking spaces. Two of
these are located on the subject lands, and 3 on adjoining lands via an encroachment agreement
which is recognized through the Section 41 Development Agreement registered on title. The
existing 5 parking spaces meet the parking requirements of the zoning by-law for the additional
unit. A minor variance was granted by the Committee in 2003 (A 2003-067) in support of this
development for the lot width. The single unit dwelling at the front of the site was considered
legal under the existing lot policy and therefore variances for front and side setbacks were not
required. In 2008, the single unit dwelling was destroyed by fire, and the owners rebuilt the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -202- OCTOBER 15,2013
1. Submission No.: A 2013-050 (Cont'd)
dwelling on the existing foundation. At that time, the owners were permitted to construct a 2
storey one unit building,without requiring variances for the existing side or front yard deficiencies,
which were considered to comply under section 5.15 of the zoning by-law.
Since 2008, the 2 storey one unit building was split into two dwelling units. The property is now
for sale and the current owners wish to legalize the lot and setback for 6 dwelling units. Building
staff indicated that building permits must be obtained for the sixth dwelling unit. As a condition of
this application, the owners will be required to apply for and receive appropriate permits and
approvals from the building division. If these cannot be obtained, or if any required improvements
are not made to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official, the variance should be
considered null and void, and the second unit removed. Conditions are included in this regard.
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 subject lands are designated Low Rise Multiple Residential in the Victoria Street
Neighbourhood Plan for Land Use. This designation permits multiple dwellings and duplexes on
sites having a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.6. According to the approved Site Plan,
the existing FSR is 0.36, and as this is not proposed to change as a result of this application it is
planning staff's opinion that the intent of the Official Plan is maintained.
The property is zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6), which permits multiple dwellings and duplex
dwellings. The lot width reduction from 15 metres to 12.19 metres was previously considered and
approved by the Committee. The intent of this regulation is to ensure sufficient width for the
dwelling and driveways. As per the approved site plan, these are accommodated on the subject
lands. There are no changes proposed or required as a result of the additional dwelling unit,
therefore, it is planning staff's opinion that the intent of the zoning by-law is maintained.
The intent of the front and side yard setbacks are to ensure an appropriate distance separation
between dwellings and the street line and dwellings and neighbouring properties. The existing
setbacks are historical, and as a single unit dwelling the setbacks were considered legal under
the Existing Lot policy of the Zoning By-law. The front and side yard setbacks are not proposed
to change as a result of the additional dwelling unit, and no changes to the outside of the
structure are proposed. It appears that the building has been operating as a duplex for a number
of years,without any concerns. As such, it is staff's opinion that the intent of the Zoning By-law is
maintained.
Zoning by-law regulations for multiple dwellings require that a private patio area be provided for
each ground floor unit. As a single unit dwelling, a patio was not required, however with the
addition of a second unit the owner is required to provide a patio to conform to the zoning by-law
regulations. The private outdoor space may be located in the front yard (within the 2.5 metre
setback). The owner is required to update the Landscape Plan approved as part of the Site Plan
to show the location and planting details associated with the patio space. If the owner fails to
install the patio as required, the site will not be in compliance with the City's Zoning By-law
regulations.
The variances are considered minor and are appropriate for the development and use of the land.
While the owner has not followed the proper procedures for duplexing the dwelling, provided
appropriate permits are obtained, there are no concerns with an additional unit on the site. The
built form will not change there will be no visual impact to the neighbourhood, and the required
addition of an at grade patio space will help to enhance the public realm and the enjoyment of the
unit for tenants. There is sufficient parking on the site to accommodate the additional unit. The
nature of the variances is technical and are only required as the number of units will be
increasing.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
September 26,2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -203- OCTOBER 15,2013
1. Submission No.: A 2013-050 (Cont'd)
Moved by Mr.A Head
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Vesna Pavlovic, Lidija Pavlovic and Chris Riehl requesting permission to
legalize a duplex and a multiple residential dwelling containing 4-units on a lot having a width of
12.19m (39.99`)rather than the required 15m (49.21'); a front yard setback of 1.75m (5.71)rather
than the required 4.5m (14.76') and a northerly side yard setback for the duplex of 1.11m (3.64')
rather than the required 2.5m (82), on Part Lot 487, Plan 378, being Part 2 on Reference Plan
58R-12501, 48 Walnut Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owners shall obtain building permits from the City's Building Division for the sixth
dwelling unit.
2. That the owners shall prepare and receive approval of a Landscape Plan in association
with the Approved Site Plan be amended to include the required private patio area for the
ground floor unit in front dwelling. The Landscape Plan musts be submitted to and
approved by the City's Manager of Site Development and Customer Service by December
31, 2013. All landscape works must be completed by June 30, 2014, to the satisfaction of
the City's Director of Planning.
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 2013-051
Applicants: Yves and Carrie LePage
Property Location: 5 Rusholme Road
Legal Description: Lots 41 and 51, Registered Plan 352
Appearances:
In Support: Y. &C. LePage
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to convert an existing
garage into habitable living space and construct a double car garage on a single family dwelling
with a front yard setback of 3.2m (105) rather than the required 6.Om (19.69'); a maximum
driveway width of 11.8m (38.71') rather than the required 8m (26.24'); and, the driveway to be
located 2.6m (8.53') from the street line rather than the required 3.Om (9.84'). The current
driveway on Union Street will be closed and relocated onto Rusholme Road.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated October 2, 2013, advising
that the subject property is located at 5 Rusholme Road, which is located at the intersection of
Rusholme Road and Union Boulevard. The property is located on a large, atypical lot, having
an extremely large frontage forming an arc from Rusholme Road to Union Boulevard. The
applicants are proposing to convert the existing garage to living space, alter the existing
roofline and to add a new attached garage to the existing dwelling as shown on the Concept
Plan. As part of the renovation, the driveway is proposed to be re-oriented so that it has
access from Rusholme Road, rather than Union Boulevard. In addition, the City's right-of-way
includes an oversized boulevard in the triangle formed by the intersection of Rusholme Road
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -204- OCTOBER 15,2013
2. Submission No.: A 2013-051 (Cont'd)
and Union Boulevard. In order to accommodate the proposed addition, the owners are
requesting variances for both the driveway location and the setback for the proposed attached
garage as follows:
1. To permit a 3.2 metre front yard setback for an attached garage, whereas section 36.2
of the Zoning By-law requires a 6.0 metre front yard setback for an attached garage;
and,
2. To permit a driveway having a maximum width of 11.8 metres, whereas section
6.1.1.1.b.ii.e of the Zoning By-law permits a driveway having a maximum width of 8.0
metres; and further,
3. To permit a driveway to be setback 2.6 metres from the streetline, whereas section
6.1.1.1.a.iv of the Zoning By-law requires that a driveway be setback 3.0 metre from the
streetline.
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 subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. This
designation permits low density forms of housing such as single detached dwellings. The
proposed additions conform to the designation and staff is of the opinion that the variances meet
the intent of the Official Plan.
The subject property is zoned Residential Two Zone (R-2). The R-2 zone permits single
detached dwellings on larger lots. With respect to the three requested variances staff offers the
following comments with respect to the zoning by-law and whether the variances are minor and
appropriate for the development and use of the lands.
Front Yard Setback:
The regulations of the R-2 zone require that garages attached to the dwelling be setback 6
metres from the street line. The applicants are proposing that the garage be setback 3.2 metres
from the street line. The intent of the 6.0 metre setback is to ensure that there is sufficient space
between the garage and the sidewalk to allow a vehicle to be parked in the driveway and to
ensure appropriate distance between the building and the street. The proposed garage is
oriented so that the doors do not face the nearest street edge (as shown on the Concept Plan
provided with the application)and provide for a driveway which is longer than 6 metres.
Staff notes any portion of the building other than an attached garage is required to be setback 4.5
metres from the street line. This regulation ensures an appropriate minimum separation between
the building and the sidewalk and protects driveway and corner visibility triangles. Due to the
unique orientation of the lot, and the significant depth of the City's boulevard, in staffs opinion the
garage will be setback sufficiently far from both the sidewalk and street edge. As there are no
neighbours immediately adjacent, the setback will not be inconsistent with neighbouring
dwellings. The proposed garage will not block any driveway visibility triangles and there are no
impacts to intersection visibility. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the intent of
the by-law is maintained.
Staff is of the opinion that a reduction to a 3.2 metre setback for the attached garage is minor and
is appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The house and garage have been
designed so the garage doors do not face the street, however the side and rear walls of the
garage should be designed so that they present an attractive elevation to the street, which may
include windows, doors and/or other architectural features (not blank walls). The large City-
owned boulevard also helps to provide a greater separation between the attached garage and the
sidewalk/street. Furthermore, the owners are proposing intensive landscaping and a low
architectural wall to help provide separation between the public and private realms. As a
condition of approval, staff request that a landscape plan be prepared and approved by staff, and
that the required landscaping be completed within six months of the completion of the addition (or
in the case of winter conditions by the next June 30th).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -205- OCTOBER 15,2013
2. Submission No.: A 2013-051 (Cont'd)
Increased Driveway Width:
The applicant is proposing a driveway having a maximum width of 11.8 metres rather than 8.0
metres. The intent of the regulation is to ensure that streets are not dominated by driveways
cluttered with numerous vehicles, and that some of each front yard is dedicated to landscaping.
The applicant is proposing a non-standard driveway, as shown on the Concept Plan). The 11.8
metre maximum width is located immediately in front of the attached garage, creating a `motor
court' and is used to provide for a vehicle turnaround and parking area. Allowing vehicles to turn
around in front of the dwelling will improve navigation of the proposed single car width driveway
and will allow residents to both enter and exit the site in a forward motion. In addition, the
applicant is proposing extensive landscaping along the entire frontage and a low architectural wall
in the vicinity of the motor court to provide visual and physical separation. Staff recommends that
a condition be included to limit the area of variance to the motor court, and not the full length of
the driveway. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion the proposed increase to the
driveway width is minor and is appropriate for the development and use of the lands.
Reduced Setback of Driveway to the Street:
The applicant is proposing that the driveway be setback a minimum distance of 2.6 metres to the
street rather than 3.0 metres to accommodate a hammerhead turnaround. The intent of the 3.0
metre setback is to ensure appropriate separation between parked vehicles and driveway aisles
and the sidewalk. Typically, this regulation does not require consideration in a residential context
as driveways lead directly from a garage or parking space to the street. However, because this
property has such significant frontage, and due to the orientation of the proposed garage, this
regulation applies to the `motor court' portion of the driveway.
Staff considered whether the variance could be eliminated by altering the design of the motor
court. However, the existing dwelling is being retained and is fixed and staff understands that a
minimum width of 11.8 metres is required to accommodate the turning movements as vehicles
back out of the garage and turn around. Due to these factors,there is little flexibility in altering the
width of the motor court. In other instances, such as for commercial parking lots,when staff has
considered a request to reduce the required 3.0 metres setback between parking and the street
line, landscape and hardscape features (such as low seat walls) have been required to help
mitigate the visual impact and to create a physical separation between the driveway/parking and
the public sidewalk. For this property, the owner is proposing landscape and hardscape features
in the front yard that are consistent with what planning staff has required elsewhere. These will
create a physical and visual separation between the motor court and the sidewalk/public realm.
As such, and subject to the installation of these landscape and hardscape features, staff are of
the opinion that the intent of the by-law is maintained.
Staff is also of the opinion that the requested reduction is minor and is appropriate for the
development and use of the lands. The proposed reduction from 3.0 metres to 2.6 metres does
not extend for the entire length of the motor court (due to the arc of the frontage). As such, in
some areas the motor court will be setback more than in other areas. Further, because of the
deep City boulevard, the motor court will be well removed from the street and will be visually and
physically separated by landscape and hardscape features.
Heritage Planning Comments:
The subject property has potential cultural heritage value. The house was designed by the local
architectural firm of Jenkins and Wright. William Stuart Jenkins formed a partnership with
Sherman W. Wright in 1945 and their firm is best known for their designs of municipal arena
complexes in several Ontario towns. Jenkins and Wright designed the present Kitchener
Memorial Auditorium on East Avenue in 1950. In addition, Jenkins and Wright designed, built
and raffled the home at 5 Rusholme Road to raise funds to build the Kitchener Memorial
Auditorium. An elevation and floor plan of the home was published in the Kitchener Waterloo
Record on August 19, 1950. The home was also featured as an example of modern architecture
in the "Kitchener Centennial— 1854-1954" publication. The home is a typical example of modern
architecture.
The applicants are seeking relief from the front yard setback, maximum driveway width and
driveway/parking setback from street line regulations. Heritage Planning staff is concerned that
the minor variances may permit an addition (garage) that may impact the cultural heritage value
of the property. Heritage Planning staff also notes that the drawings submitted with the
application show changes to the existing roofline and the addition of a gable with columns over
the main entryway. These changes may also impact the cultural heritage value of the property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -206- OCTOBER 15,2013
2. Submission No.: A 2013-051 (Cont'd)
Heritage Planning staff has discussed these concerns with the applicants and understand that the
applicants are interested in staying true to the architecture of the building. Heritage Planning staff
believes that potential impacts may be minimized through design treatments (e.g. roofline, door
and window placements; materials; colours; etc.) and encourage the applicants to consider the
Parks Canada "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada" in
finalizing their design and elevations. Heritage Planning staff suggests that elevation drawings be
required as a condition of the variance in order to ensure that the addition is complementary to,
but distinguishable from, the original building and to ensure that the addition is compatible with
the context and character of the neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
September 26,2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
In response to questions, Ms. von Westerholt noted that Condition 3 would require the owners to
complete a landscaping plan and install the approved landscaping within six months of the
completion of the addition, or in the case of winter conditions, by June 30, 2014. Ms. LePage,
expressed concerns for the June 30, 2014 deadline, indicating that they are working with the City
and the neighbourhood association to ensure that the proposed landscaping they propose is
complementary to the landscaping being proposed for the City flower bed located in front of their
property.
The Chair suggested an amendment to Condition 3 to increase the deadline from June 30,2014,
to September 30,2014 to ensure there is sufficient time to install the approved landscaping. Both
staff and the applicants were satisfied with the proposed amendment.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr.A. Head
That the application of Yves and Carrie LePage requesting permission to convert an existing
garage into habitable living space and construct a double car garage on a single family
dwelling with a front yard setback of 3.2m (105) rather than the required 6.Om (19.69'); a
maximum driveway width of 11.8m (38.71') rather than the required 8m (26.24'); and, the
driveway to be located 2.6m (8.53') from the street line rather than the required 3.Om (9.84'),
on Lots 41 and 51, Registered Plan 352, 5 Rusholme Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the subject variances only apply to a site design, including garage and driveway
widths, location and orientation that is consistent with the plans provided in support of
application A 2013-051, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning.
2. That prior to the application for or issuance of a building permit, the owners shall receive
approval of a siting plan and elevation drawings for the attached garage from the City's
Manager of Site Development and Customer Service, in consultation with the City's
Coordinator of Cultural Heritage Planning. The owners agree that the approved siting
plan and elevation drawings will be implemented through the building permit process.
The intent of this condition is to ensure that the attached garage is oriented in
accordance with the concept considered through this application, that the elevations of
the garage appropriately address the streetscape, and that the garage addition is
physically and visually complementary to, but distinguishable from the original building,
in accordance with the recommendations of Heritage Planning staff.
3. That prior to the application for or issuance of a building permit, the owners shall receive
approval of a landscape plan for the proposed landscape and hardscape works
proposed in the front yard, from the City's Director of Planning. Further, the owners
agree to complete the approved works within six months of the completion of the
addition, or in the case of winter conditions, by September 30, 2014. The intent of this
condition is to ensure the provision of landscape and hardscape features which will
provide attractive visual separation between the outside walls of the attached garage,
the motor court and the street line.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -207- OCTOBER 15,2013
2. Submission No.: A 2013-051 (Cont'd)
4. That the increased driveway width of 11.8 metres shall be limited to that area
immediately in front of the attached garage and may not extend for a distance of more
than 15 metres. In no case may the driveway exceed the maximum width permitted by
the by-law at the point that it intersects with the street line.
5. That the owners shall obtain building permits from the City's Building Division for the
conversion of existing garage to living space and construction of new garage. Through
the review of the permit the City's Building Division shall ensure that the approved
building elevations are implemented.
6. That the owners shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan 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, driveway, landscaped area and vegetation to be
preserved. 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. 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
3. Submission No.: A 2013-052
Applicant: Hallman Construction Limited
Property Location: 1428 Old Zeller Drive
Legal Description: Part Block 2, Registered Plan 58M-369, being Part 21 on Reference
Plan 58R-15707
Appearances:
In Support: D.Aston
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for a single family
dwelling, under construction, to have a front yard setback of 5.792m (19.0') rather than the
required 6.Om (19.69') and a rear yard setback of 7.376m (24.2') rather than the required 7.5m
(24.6`).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated October 7, 2013, advising
that the subject property is municipally addressed 1428 Old Zeller Drive and is located near the
intersection of Watervale Crescent and Old Zeller Drive. The property is zoned Residential Four
(R-4) in the City's Zoning By-law 85-1, with Special Regulation Provision 327R. Under the City's
Official Plan,the subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential.
The applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow a 5.792 metre front yard setback whereas
Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum 6.0 metre front yard setback. In addition,the applicant is
requesting a minor variance to allow a 7.376 metre rear yard setback whereas Zoning By-law 85-
1 requires a minimum 7.5 metre rear 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 following comments.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -208- OCTOBER 15,2013
3. Submission No.: A 2013-052 (Cont'd)
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 Four Zone (R-4)with Special Regulation Provision 327R. The
R-4 zone permits single detached dwellings, with Special Regulation Provision 327R dictating
that the minimum lot width for single detached dwellings and semi-detached houses be 9 metres.
The intent of this regulation is to ensure that the neighbourhood's streets do not contain lots
narrower than 9 metres. The subject dwelling conforms to the minimum lot width, however the
proposed 5.792 metre front yard setback represents a setback deficiency of 0.208 metres. The
proposed 7.376 metre rear yard setback represents a setback deficiency of 0.124 metres. On a
neighbourhood scale, having one dwelling which fails to meet the front yard and rear yard
setbacks, as set out in Zoning By-Law 85-1 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 setback deficiencies outlined in this report, 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, or may not be considered minor, or be 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 26,2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr.A. Head
That the application of Hallman Construction Limited requesting permission for a single family
dwelling, under construction, to have a front yard setback of 5.792m (19.0') rather than the
required 6.Om (19.69') and a rear yard setback of 7.376m (24.2') rather than the required 7.5m
(24.6`), on Part Block 2, Registered Plan 58M-369, being Part 21 on Reference Plan 58R-15707,
1428 Old Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
4. Submission No.: A 2013-053
Applicant: David Bradshaw
Property Location: 116 Cameron Street North
Legal Description: Part Lot 16, Plan 124
Appearances:
In Support: D. Bradshaw
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to change a legal non-
conforming convenience retail store to a third dwelling unit.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -209- OCTOBER 15,2013
4. Submission No.: A 2013-053 (Cont'd)
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated October 8, 2013, advising
that the subject property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cameron Street
North and Troy Street in the Auditorium Neighbourhood of Kitchener. The surrounding area is
comprised of mainly low density residential development including one-storey street townhouses
and single detached dwellings found within R-4 and R-6 zones.
The subject property contains a two-storey brick building constructed in the early 1900s. The
building contains two dwelling units on the second floor. The basement is used for accessory
storage. The main floor was used for legal non-conforming convenience retail purposes until late
2008. The front yard and side yard abutting Troy Street (including the municipal boulevard) are
entirely paved with asphalt and are used for parking. The property is designated Low Rise
Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Four(R-4).
In June 2009 the owner sought permission under Section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act to
change the legal non-conforming convenience retail use to a "more compatible" legal-non
conforming third dwelling unit within the existing building. The application was approved by the
Committee subject to the condition that the owner submit and obtain approval of a site plan
application for the proposed three-unit multiple dwelling. Further site-specific conditions were
included as part of the approval. At the time of the one-year deadline the owner had submitted a
Site Plan application (Application No. SP09/070/C/AP), but had not followed through on any of
the other requirements. Subsequently the approval lapsed on June 16,2010.
In early 2011 the City's By-law Enforcement Division received a complaint from the
neighbourhood regarding the subject property. The complaint was related to the occupancy of
the main floor of the subject property for residential purposes. By-law Enforcement Division
investigated the situation and verified the illegal occupancy of the main floor as a third dwelling
unit within the building. Staff also confirmed that changes to the building were completed without
obtaining required building permits.
In June 2011, Councillor Glenn-Graham, Enforcement, and Planning staff met with the owner to
discuss courses of action for rectifying this situation. At this meeting the owner was directed to
re-apply and obtain permission from the Committee and obtain all necessary permits. Corrective
and punitive measures were stayed pending the outcome of Permission Application A 2011-050.
This application was approved by the Committee subject to similar conditions and a deadline to
fulfill such conditions by August 16,2012.
When this approval lapsed due to the owner not fulfilling all of the conditions within the one-year
deadline, Planning staff advised the owner that in order to legalize the triplex he needed to re-
apply and obtain approval of a third Permission application (subject application). Again, By-law
Enforcement Division has stayed charges pending the outcome of this Permission application.
Consequently, the owner is now requesting permission under Section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning
Act to change the legal non-conforming convenience retail store to a "more compatible" third
dwelling unit within the existing building (i.e., establishing a triplex use).
The property is considered legal non-conforming (LNC) since convenience retail is not a
permitted use in the R-4 Zone. Additionally, the two dwelling units do not comply with the R-4
regulations for side yard (1.05 metres is provided, whereas 1.2 metres is required)and rear yard
(0.87 metres is provided, whereas 7.5 metres is required). Furthermore, the property does not
comply with the parking regulations of the Zoning By-law in the following respects:
• Parking spaces for the store are located less than 3.0 metres from the Troy Street and
Cameron Street street lines.
• Parking spaces for the two dwelling units are located less than 6.0 metres from the Troy
Street and Cameron Street street lines.
• The driveway width for the two dwelling units is greater than 5.2 metres on Cameron
Street and is more than 50%of the side lot line abutting Troy Street.
• Parking spaces with access to Troy Street are a minimum depth of 4.84 metres whereas
the Zoning By-law requires a minimum depth of 5.49 metres.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -210- OCTOBER 15,2013
4. Submission No.: A 2013-053 (Cont'd)
It should be noted further that the property would not comply with zoning that does allow three-
unit multiple dwellings (e.g., R-5 Zone) for most of the above and additional reasons, such as
non-compliance with minimum lot area regulations.
Case law sets out the tests to be applied by the Committee of Adjustment in considering
applications under Section 45(2)(a)(ii). It should be noted that the test to be applied is not the
four-part test for minor variances under Section 45(1) but rather whether the change in use is
similar in purpose to the one previous or is more compatible in purpose [OMB decision: Tanafara
v. Niagara Falls (2000)]. In the subject case, the applicant has specifically asked the Committee
to consider the "more compatible" scenario. Under this scenario the following question must be
answered:
Is the proposed use of the property as a three-unit multiple dwelling and associated legal
non-conforming characteristics (e.g., parking, etc.)more compatible with the R-4 Zone and
surrounding neighbourhood than a convenience retail store with two dwelling units and
associated legal non-conforming characteristics.
In addition, staff suggests that the Committee consider whether the impact of the proposal on
surrounding uses is unacceptably adverse. Staff notes that, if approved, the resultant change in
use of the property and associated site characteristics would continue to be considered legal non-
conforming.
Staff has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments in light of the above noted
tests. The proposed three-unit multiple dwelling and associated legal non-conforming
characteristics are more compatible with the R-4 Zone and surrounding neighbourhood than a
convenience retail store with two dwelling units and associated legal non-conforming
characteristics for the following reasons.
Generally speaking, convenience retail use generates significantly higher parking demand than
residential use. Keeping in mind that meeting the intent of the Zoning By-law is not a test for
Permission applications, but as an example and for comparison, a convenience retail store of the
area described in the application would require 7 parking spaces, whereas a dwelling unit would
require 1 parking space under the Zoning By-law. The proposed use is expected to generate
less traffic and require less parking than a commercial use, representing a decrease in the
degree of legal non-compliance. Additionally, the owner has agreed to remove the parking and
asphalt along Cameron Street which should help create a streetscape that is more compatible
with the R-4 Zone.
The legal non-conforming side and rear yards present a challenge since they do not allow
adequate useable, outdoor amenity space for residents. The establishment of a third dwelling
unit represents an increase in the degree of non-compliance since there is an increase in the
number of households with no increase in amenity space. To address this issue, the owner has
agreed to landscape the parking area adjacent to Cameron Street as outlined on the plan
submitted with the application. This area would be used for amenity space purposes. In this
regard, there would be an increase in usable amenity space from nearly zero square metres for
two households to approximately 70 square metres for three households (approximately 20% of
the lot). The establishment of usable amenity area represents a significant step towards the
intent of the R-4 Zone for private amenity space.
The proposed three-unit multiple dwelling is more compatible with the uses permitted by the R-4
zoning of the surrounding area than the existing use of the property as a convenience retail store
and two dwelling units. Most of the surrounding area is zoned R-4 which does not allow any
commercial use except home businesses. Although three-unit multiple dwellings are not
permitted in the R-4 Zone, the zone does allow semi-detached dwellings,which can be "stacked"
resulting in four units per dwelling. Therefore, the R-4 Zone does support dwellings containing
four dwelling units, whereas the subject proposal, if approved, would allow only three units. The
opposite side of Cameron Street, which contains recently constructed street townhouse
dwellings, is zoned R-6 which would allow multiple dwellings with more than three dwelling units.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed three-unit multiple dwelling and associated legal non-
conforming characteristics are more compatible with the R-4 Zone and surrounding
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -211 - OCTOBER 15,2013
4. Submission No.: A 2013-053 (Cont'd)
neighbourhood than a convenience retail store with two dwelling units and associated legal non-
conforming characteristics, provided the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of
this report are satisfied.
In addition, staff is of the opinion that the proposal does not create unacceptably adverse impacts
on surrounding properties.
Staff notes that this property is unique in its physical characteristics and current use. In addition,
the subject application is unique in nature. Staff advises the Committee in dealing with such
applications in the future, that each proposal should be reviewed on its individual merits and that
care be taken when considering application of precedent to subsequent cases.
Staff also advises that punitive/corrective measures as a result of recurring non-compliance
issues associated with the subject property owner and project are not the responsibility of
Planning staff nor the Committee of Adjustment. These matters are the responsibility of other
City departments. Only the above noted case law tests should be considered when deciding
Permission applications.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated
September 26,2013, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr.A. Head
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of David Bradshaw requesting permission to change a legal non-conforming
convenience retail store to a more compatible third dwelling unit within the existing building, on
Part Lot 16, Plan 124, 116 Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED,subject to
the following conditions:
1. The owner shall obtain approval of Site Plan Application SP09/070/C/AP from the City's
Manager of Site Development and Customer Service. Site plan approval shall include,
apart from other standard site plan conditions, the following conditions which shall all be
fully implemented by July 1, 2014 (for reference purposes, see the proposed Site Plan
submitted with Minor Variance Application A 2013-053):
a. All parking spaces and boulevard ramps leading to such parking spaces except
Parking Spaces 1, 2, and 3 and those boulevard ramps leading to these parking
spaces shall be removed,with the ground cover being removed and the land being
landscaped. In addition, concrete curbing along the traveled portion of the street
shall be reinstated in areas where parking/ramps are removed.
b. All ground cover within the boulevard on Cameron Street and Troy Street shall be
removed and replaced with landscaping except for the driveway ramp leading to
Parking Spaces 1,2, and 3.
C. The owner shall submit Building Elevation drawings, which demonstrate how the
building facades meet the intent of the City of Kitchener Urban Design Manual.
This may involve changes to the fapades and removal of the cantilevered canopy.
d. The owner shall prepare a Landscape Plan showing planting and surfacing details
for all areas not covered by the building and parking spaces.
2. The owner shall apply for and obtain an occupancy permit for each of the three dwelling
units proposed to be contained within the existing building.
3. The owner shall apply for and obtain building permit(s)to convert the existing building into
a three-unit multiple dwelling.
It is the opinion of this Committee that the request for permission to change a legal non-
conforming convenience retail store to a more compatible third dwelling unit within the existing
building under Section 45 (2)(a)of the Planning Act is appropriate for the following reasons:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -212- OCTOBER 15,2013
4. Submission No.: A 2013-053 (Cont'd)
1. The use of this property as a residential dwelling lawfully existed on the day the by-law
was passed to prohibit such use.
2. The approval of this application will not adversely impact the adjacent properties or the
neighbourhood as a whole.
3. That the proposed three-unit multiple dwelling and associated legal non-conforming
characteristics are more compatible with the R-4 Zone and surrounding neighbourhood
than a convenience retail store with two dwelling units and associated legal non-
conforming characteristics.
Carried
CONSENT
1. Submission No.: B 2013-039
Applicant: Eastforest Homes
Property Location: 327 Steepleridge Street
Legal Description: Part Block 3, Registered Plan 58M-487, being Part 52 on Reference
Plan 58R-17144
Appearances:
In Support: S. Robb
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
having a width of 0.226m (0.74'), a depth of 37.212m (122.09') and an area of 8.2 sq.m. (88.264
sq.ft.), to be conveyed as a lot addition to 331 Steepleridge Street. Both parcels are intended for
residential development.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated October 4, 2013, advising
that the undeveloped subject property is located at 327 Steepleridge Street. The applicant is
requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Steepleridge Street of 0.226
metres, a depth of 37.163 metres and an area of 8.20 square metres, to be conveyed as a lot
addition to the adjacent lot located at 331 Steepleridge Street. The retained lands will have a
width of 9.198 metres, a depth of 37.163 metres and an area of 332.0 square metres. The
applicant is proposing the lot addition so that the resultant lot is more appropriately sized for the
proposed residential building product.
The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan which
encourages a range of uses and favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing
to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The severed and retained parcels are zoned Residential
Four (R-4) and will be developed with single-detached residential dwellings as permitted in the
Zoning By-law
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24)of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lot is desirable and
appropriate as a lot addition to the adjacent lot at 331 Steepleridge Street. The configuration of
the severed lot and resultant lot(subsequent to the lot addition)can be considered suitable for the
development of the uses permitted in the zoning. The proposed consent is consistent with the
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under Subsection 3 (1)of the Act, and conforms to, or
does not conflict with any applicable provincial plan or policy.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated
October 7,2013, advising that they have no objection to this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -213- OCTOBER 15,2013
1. Submission No.: B 2013-039 (Cont'd)
Moved by Mr.A. Head
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Eastforest Homes requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a
width of 0.226m (0.74'), a depth of 37.212m (122.09')and an area of 8.2 sq.m. (88.264 sq.ft.), to
be conveyed as a lot addition to 331 Steepleridge Street, on Part Block 3, Registered Plan 58M-
487, being Part 52 on Reference Plan 58R-17144, 327 Steepleridge Street, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE GRANTED,subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and or local improvement charges.
2. That the owner shall provide the Secretary-Treasurer with 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 2 full size paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file shall
be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the
satisfaction of the City's Mapping Technologist.
3. That the lands to be severed 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.
4. That the owner's Solicitor shall provide the City Solicitor with satisfactory 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.
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 October 15,2015.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion,the meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th day of October,2013.
Dianna Saunderson
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment