Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-15 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 2014 Messrs. A. Head, A. Lise and B. McColl. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. A. Pinnell, Planner; Mr. D. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Pimentel, Traffic Technologist; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer; and, Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk. Mr. A. Head, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held March 18, 2014, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. A 2014-012 Submission No.: Milan Kovacevic Applicants: 20 Emerald Avenue Property Location: Lot 9, Plan 307 Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: D. Kovacevic Contra: B. Pitz Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing whole lot on a plan of subdivision having a lot width of 12.189m (39.99’) rather than the required 13.7m (44.947’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 1, 2014, advising that the subject property is zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in the Zoning By-Law and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. There is a single detached dwelling on the subject lands. 20 Emerald Avenue was originally known as 20 and 22 Emerald Avenue (Lot 8 and 9 of Subdivision Plan 307) The two properties were legally merged together as one property sometime in the past. The owner has recently legally separated the properties [by separating the property Parcel Identification Number (PIN)] thereby creating two legal addresses. This is possible when the original properties were once separate lots within a subdivision. In which case, a consent application is not necessary. Now separate, the lots do not comply with the City’s Zoning By-Law provisions for lot width within an R-3 Zone. The owner is requesting relief from the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law Section 37.2.1 for a minimum lot width of 12.19 metres, rather than the required 13.7 metres. - 60 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 1.A 2014-012 (Cont’d) Submission No.: 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 variance meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of uses and favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The new lot can be developed with a single-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling which will maintain the low density character of the property and neighbourhood. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law. The reduced lot width will continue to maintain sufficient frontage on Emerald Avenue allowing the lot to be developed with a single detached dwelling or duplex dwelling as permitted in the zoning. The variance is considered minor because the reduction in lot width is minimal and will not have any impact to adjacent lands or the overall neighbourhood. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The lands will be appropriately developed with a single detached dwelling or duplex dwelling which is compatible with the proposed surrounding low rise residential development. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 3, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application, Mr. D. Kovacevic was in attendance representing the applicant and advised that he is in support of staff’s recommendation. In response to questions, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that 20 Emerald Avenue and 22 Emerald Avenue consist of two whole lots on a plan of subdivision. She stated that the two properties were legally merged together as one property with one PIN at the Land Registry Office. She indicated that the owner has recently applied to the Land Registry Office and obtain a second PIN number, legally separating the two whole lots and re-establishing 20 Emerald Avenue and 22 Emerald Avenue as separate parcels. The Chair questioned whether the applicant was intending to demolish the existing single detached dwelling and whether a condition should be included as part of the Committees approval. Ms. von Westerholt advised that she is not clear on the applicant’s intentions for development. She noted that the Committee is being requested to legalize an existing condition and the applicant may choose not to demolish the existing single detached dwelling. Mr. B. Pitz advised that he owns a neighbouring property and he would like to confirm what the applicants intentions are with regards to developing the property. He stated he was in opposition of the proposed variance applications if the applicant was proposing to develop a multi-residential building on the subject properties. The Chair advised that the applicant would not be permitted to build anything larger than a single detached dwelling or duplex due to the Zoning on the properties. The Chair questioned why the applicant would be required to complete a Tree Preservation Plan as part of the Committee’s approval. Ms. von Westerholt advised that a Tree Preservation Plan is a requirement under the Tree Preservation By-Law. She indicated that the condition is intended to manage the vegetation on the subject property, and can include, but is not limited to: protection of existing trees; removal of damaged trees; and, documentation of what vegetation existed before and after development. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Milan Kovacevic requesting permission to legalize an existing whole lot on a plan of subdivision having a lot width of 12.19m (39.99’) rather than the required 13.7m (44.947’), on Lot 9, Plan 307, 20 Emerald Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: - 61 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 1.A 2014-012 (Cont’d) Submission No.: 1. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the subject lands. 2. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the subject lands. 3. 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 shall further agree to implement the approved plan prior to the issuance of building permits. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City’s Director of Planning c) That prior to the approval of the minor variance application, a site plan showing the location of the proposed dwelling on the lot and elevation drawings be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, illustrating that the proposed dwelling will be compatible with the neighbourhood in terms of massing, scale and design, and that the drawings be approved prior to the issuance of any building permit. 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 2. A 2014-013 Submission No.: Milan Kovacevic Applicants: 22 Emerald Avenue Property Location: Lot 8, Plan 307 Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: D. Kovacevic Contra: B. Pitz Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing whole lot on a plan of subdivision having a lot width of 12.189m (39.99’) rather than the required 13.7m (44.947’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 1, 2014, advising that the subject property is zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in the Zoning By-Law and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. There is a single detached dwelling on the subject lands. - 62 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 2.A 2014-013 (Cont’d) Submission No.: 20 Emerald Avenue was originally known as 20 and 22 Emerald Avenue (Lot 8 and 9 of Subdivision Plan 307) The two properties were legally merged together as one property sometime in the past. The owner has recently legally separated the properties (by separating the property PINs) thereby creating two legal addresses. This is possible when the original properties were once separate lots within a subdivision. In which case, a consent application is not necessary. Now separate, the lots do not comply with the City’s Zoning By-Law provisions for lot width within an R-3 Zone. The owner is requesting relief from the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law Section 37.2.1 for a minimum lot width of 12.19 metres, rather than the required 13.7 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments regarding the requested minor variance: The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of uses and favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The new lot can be developed with a single-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling which will maintain the low density character of the property and neighbourhood. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law. The reduced lot width will continue to maintain sufficient frontage on Emerald Avenue allowing the lot to be developed with a single detached dwelling or duplex dwelling as permitted in the zoning. The variance is considered minor because the reduction in lot width is minimal and will not have any impact to adjacent lands or the overall neighbourhood. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The lands will be appropriately developed with a single detached dwelling or duplex dwelling which is compatible with the proposed surrounding low rise residential development. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 3, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Mr. D. Kovacevic was in attendance representing the applicant and advised that he is in support of staff’s recommendation. In response to questions, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that 20 Emerald Avenue and 22 Emerald Avenue consist of two whole lots on a plan of subdivision. She stated that the two properties were legally merged together as one property with one PIN at the Land Registry Office. She indicated that the owner has recently applied to the Land Registry Office and obtain a second PIN number, legally separating the two whole lots and re-establishing 20 Emerald Avenue and 22 Emerald Avenue as separate parcels. The Chair questioned whether the applicant was intending to demolish the existing single detached dwelling and whether a condition should be included as part of the Committees approval. Ms. von Westerholt advised that she is not clear on the applicant’s intentions for development. She noted that the Committee is being requested to legalize an existing condition and the applicant may choose not to demolish the existing single detached dwelling. Mr. B. Pitz advised that he owns a neighbouring property and he would like to confirm what the applicants intentions are with regards to developing the property. He stated he was in opposition of the proposed variance applications if the applicant was proposing to develop a multi-residential building on the subject properties. The Chair advised that the applicant would not be permitted to build anything larger than a single detached dwelling or duplex due to the Zoning on the properties. The Chair questioned why the applicant would be required to complete a Tree Preservation Plan as part of the Committee’s approval. Ms. von Westerholt advised that a Tree Preservation Plan is - 63 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 2.A 2014-013 (Cont’d) Submission No.: a requirement under the Tree Preservation By-Law. She indicated that the condition is intended to manage the vegetation on the subject property, and can include, but is not limited to: protection of existing trees; removal of damaged trees; and, documentation of what vegetation existed before and after development. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Milan Kovacevic requesting permission to legalize an existing whole lot on a plan of subdivision having a lot width of 12.19m (39.99’) rather than the required 13.7m (44.947’), on Lot 8, Plan 307, 22 Emerald Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the subject lands. 2. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the subject lands. 3. 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 shall further agree to implement the approved plan prior to the issuance of building permits. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City’s Director of Planning c) That prior to the approval of the minor variance application, a site plan showing the location of the proposed dwelling on the lot and elevation drawings be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, illustrating that the proposed dwelling will be compatible with the neighbourhood in terms of massing, scale and design, and that the drawings be approved prior to the issuance of any building permit. 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 3. A 2014-014 Submission No.: Robert and May Lynn Stuebing Applicants: 10 Newbury Drive Property Location: Lot 41, Plan 1542 Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: R. & M. L. Stuebing - 64 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 3.A 2014-014 (Cont’d) Submission No.: Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to complete an interior modification on the existing attached garage which will reduce the length of required off-street parking space located within the garage to 5.18m (16.994’) rather than the required 5.49m (18.012’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 4, 2014, advising that the subject property is located at 10 Newbury Drive and is currently developed with a single detached dwelling. The property is zoned as Residential Three (R-3) and designated as Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The owner has filed a minor variance application to reduce the size of the required off-street parking space. The owner is proposing to renovate a portion of the existing garage to create an accessible main floor bathroom. The owner is requesting Relief Section 6.1.1.2.e of the Zoning By-Law to allow for a required off- street parking space to be 5.18 metres in length whereas 5.5 metres is required. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments: The requested off-street parking variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential Designation encourages a range of housing types and forms while achieving an overall low intensity of use. The requested off-street parking variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-Law. Parking space dimensions are standardized and are provided in the Zoning By-Law to ensure that a range of vehicles can be accommodated within required off-street parking spaces. The owner has provided dimensional standards for their current vehicle, confirming that it may fit within the proposed revised garage. The requested off-street parking variances are minor. The proposed revised garage may accommodate most personal passenger vehicles. The property is also developed with a two car driveway which can further accommodate the vehicles of the owners and their guests. The requested off-street parking variance is appropriate for the neighbourhood. As the owner’s car will still fit within the proposed revised garage, and due to the fact that two off-street parking spaces are located on the existing driveway, there will be no negative impacts on surrounding properties within the neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 3, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. A. Lise Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Robert & May Lynn Stuebing requesting permission to complete an interior modification on the existing attached garage which will reduce the length of required off-street parking space located within the garage to 5.18m (16.994’) rather than the required 5.5m (18.04’), on Lot 41, Plan 1542, 10 Newbury Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, . BE APPROVED 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 - 65 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 4. A 2014-015 Submission No.: Kenmore Homes (Waterloo Region) Inc. Applicants: 27 Eden Oak Trail Property Location: Part Block 2, Registered Plan 58M-370, being Part 4 on Reference Legal Description: Plan 58R-17149 Appearances: In Support: D. Aston Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single- detached dwelling with a driveway located 8.52m (27.952’) from the intersection of Eden Oak Trail and Stillwater Street rather than the required 9m (29.52'). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated March 31, 2014, advising that the subject property is zoned Residential Four (R-4) with Special Regulation 327R in the Zoning By-Law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The property is located at the north-east corner of Stillwater Street and Eden Oak Trail and will be developed with a single detached dwelling unit in the near future. The applicant is requesting permission to construct an access driveway off Eden Oak Trail at a distance of 8.52 metres to the intersection of the street lines abutting the corner lot, rather than the required 9.0 metres as per Section 6.1.1.1 b) iv) of the Zoning By-Law 85. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments: The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for a variety of low density residential uses. The reduced distance of the access driveway to the intersecting streets will not impact the intensity or scale of the residential area. The intent of the required 9 metre separation from the driveway to the intersection of the street lines abutting the corner lot is to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety. It is staff’s opinion that the 0.48 metre reduction will not impact the property or access to the intersection. The proposed driveway does not encroach into the 7.5 metre Corner Visibility Triangle and Transportation Planning staff have also indicated that they have no concerns with the requested reduction of 9.0 metres to 8.52 metres. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law. The variance is considered minor as it is staff’s opinion that the proposed 8.52 metre setback allows for sufficient separation from the driveway to the intersecting street lines abutting the corner lot and as such will not impact access to the intersection for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is staff’s opinion that the requested variance will not impact the subject property, adjacent lands or abutting intersection. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 3, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Kenmore Homes (Waterloo Region) Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling with a driveway located 8.52m (27.952’) from the intersection of Eden Oak Trail and Stillwater Street rather than the required 9m (29.52'), on Part Block 2, Registered Plan 58M-370, being Part 4 on Reference Plan 58R-17149, 27 Eden Oak Trail, Kitchener, Ontario, . BE APPROVED It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. - 66 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 4.A 2014-015 (Cont’d) Submission No.: 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 5. A 2014-016 Submission No.: Kenmore Homes (Waterloo Region) Inc. Applicants: 39 Eden Oak Trail Property Location: Part Block 3, Registered Plan 58M-370, being Part 8 on Reference Legal Description: Plan 58R-17149 Appearances: In Support: D. Aston Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single- detached dwelling with a driveway located 7.53m (24.704’) from the intersection of Eden Oak Trail and Spring Creek Street rather than the required 9m (29.52'). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated March 31, 2014, advising that the subject property is zoned Residential Four (R-4) with Special Regulation 327R in the Zoning By-Law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The property is located at the north-west corner of Spring Creek Street and Eden Oak Trail and will be developed with a single detached dwelling unit in the near future. The applicant is requesting permission to construct an access driveway off Eden Oak Trail at a distance of 7.53 metres to the intersection of the street lines abutting the corner lot, rather than the required 9.0 metres as per Section 6.1.1.1 b) iv) of the Zoning By-Law 85. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments: The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for a variety of low density residential uses. The reduced distance of the access driveway to the intersecting streets will not impact the intensity or scale of the residential area. The intent of the required 9 metre separation from the driveway to the intersection of the street lines abutting the corner lot is to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety. It is staff’s opinion that the reduced setback will not impact the property or access to the intersection. The proposed driveway does not impact or encroach into the 7.5 metre Corner Visibility Triangle and Transportation Planning staff have also indicated that they have no concerns with the requested reduction of 9.0 metres to 7.53 metres. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law. The variance is considered minor as it is staff’s opinion that the proposed 7.53 metres setback allows for sufficient separation from the driveway to the intersecting street lines abutting the corner lot and as such will not impact access to the intersection for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is staff’s opinion that the requested variance will not impact the subject property, adjacent lands or abutting intersection. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 3, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered correspondence from Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated April 2, 2014, noting that they request approval of this application to be subject to the following condition: - 67 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 5.A 2014-016 (Cont’d) Submission No.: 1. That driveways will be located so as to clear Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. submersible transformer vaults and provide a minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles and street light standards. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Kenmore Homes (Waterloo Region) Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling with a driveway located 7.53m (24.704’) from the intersection of Eden Oak Trail and Spring Creek Street rather than the required 9m (29.52'), on Part Block 3, Registered Plan 58M-370, being Part 8 on Reference Plan 58R-17149, 39 Eden Oak Trail, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: BE APPROVED 1. That the owner shall ensure that all driveways will be located so as to clear Kitchener- Wilmot Hydro Inc. submersible transformer vaults and provide a minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles and street light standards. 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 6. A 2014-017 Submission No.: Milestone Developments Inc. Applicants: 1460 Old Zeller Drive Property Location: Lot 1, Registered Plan 58M-560 Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: P. Haramis Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single- detached dwelling with a northerly side yard setback of 1.2m (3.937’) rather than the required 1.5m (4.92'). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 2, 2014, advising that the property is located on the west side of Old Zeller Drive, south of Watervale Drive. It is zoned Residential Four (R-4) with special provision 597R and has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to construct a single detached dwelling with a northerly side yard setback of 1.2 metres (3.9 ft.) rather than the required 1.5 metres (4.9 ft.). 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 reason. The Low Rise Residential designation accommodates a full range of housing types, including single detached dwellings that achieve a low overall intensity of use. The proposed variance will maintain a low intensity of use. - 68 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 6.A 2014-017 (Cont’d) Submission No.: The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law for the following reason. The proposed dwelling will have a 0 metre southerly side yard, which is permitted provided that a 1.5 m side yard is provided on the opposite side. The intent of the 1.5 metre side yard is for a maintenance easement for dwellings with 0 metre side yards on the abutting land. However, in this case, the abutting property has an existing dwelling, but that dwelling does not have a 0 metre side yard and therefore does not require the 1.5 metres maintenance easement with the subject property. The variance is minor and can be considered appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reason. The deficiency of 0.3 metre (1 ft.) will maintain a sufficient side yard for both the subject property and the abutting land. It is noted that the back portion of the house is to be located at the 1.2 metre setback but the house angles away from the side lot line and is to be the required 1.5 metres setback at the front of the dwelling. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 3, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Milestone Developments Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling with a northerly side yard setback of 1.2m (3.937’) rather than the required 1.5m (4.92'), on Lot 1, Registered Plan 58M-560, 1460 Old Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario,. BE APPROVED 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 7. A 2014-018 Submission No.: Milestone Developments Inc. Applicants: 1550 Old Zeller Drive Property Location: Lot 20, Registered Plan 58M-560 Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: P. Haramis Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single- detached dwelling with a southerly side yard setback of 1.2m (3.937’) rather than the required 1.5m (4.92'). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 2, 2014, advising that the property is located on the west side of Old Zeller Drive, south of Grand Flats Trail. It is zoned Residential Four (R-4) with special provision 597R and has an Official Plan designation of Low Rise Residential. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to construct a single detached dwelling with a southerly side yard setback of 1.2 metres (3.9 ft.) rather than the required 1.5 metres (4.9 ft.). 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. - 69 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 7.A 2014-018 (Cont’d) Submission No.: The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reason. The Low Rise Residential designation accommodates a full range of housing types, including single detached dwellings that achieve a low overall intensity of use. The proposed variance will maintain a low intensity of use. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law for the following reason. The proposed dwelling will have a 0 metre southerly side yard, which is permitted provided that a 1.5 m side yard is provided on the opposite side. The intent of the 1.5 metre side yard is for a maintenance easement for the benefit of dwellings with 0 metre side yards on the abutting land. However, in this case, the abutting property is proposed to be developed with a public walkway. Therefore there is no need for a maintenance easement for the abutting lands. The variance is minor and can be considered appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reason. The deficiency of 0.3 metre (1 ft.) will maintain a sufficient side yard for both the subject property and the abutting land. It is noted that the front portion of the house is to be located at the 1.2 metre setback but the house angles away from the side lot line and is to be the required 1.5 metres setback of the dwelling towards the rear portion of the building. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 3, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Milestone Developments Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling with a southerly side yard setback of 1.2m (3.937’) rather than the required 1.5m (4.92'), on Lot 20, Registered Plan 58M-560, 1550 Old Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE . APPROVED 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 8. A 2014-019 Submission No.: Red Pony Flats Inc. Applicants: 169 Lancaster Street West Property Location: Part of Park Lot 551, Plan 378, Part Lot 119, Closed Streets and Legal Description: Lanes, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-3605 Appearances: In Support: A. Sumner B. Karnupis C. Fernandes Contra: J. O’Neill Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an 18-unit multiple dwelling and legalize an existing 4-storey multiple dwelling proposed to contain 21 dwelling units (currently contains 20 units) having a Floor Space Ratio for multiple dwellings of 0.85, whereas the By-Law permits a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6; the required off-street parking spaces to be located between the front façade of the existing multiple dwelling and the front lot line, whereas the By-Law does not permit off-street parking spaces to be located in this - 70 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 8.A 2014-019 (Cont’d) Submission No.: area; a building height of 11.0 metres (36.089’) for the proposed multiple dwelling, whereas the By-Law permits a maximum building height of 10.5m (34.448’); and to legalize the existing multiple dwelling having a building height of 11.33m (37.073’), whereas the By-Law permits a maximum building height of 10.5m (34.448’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 8, 2014, advising that the subject property is located on the west side of Lancaster Street West, south of Guelph Street. The property abuts Lips Park. Surrounding properties are composed of low density residential land uses, such as single detached dwellings and triplexes. The property contains a four-storey, 20-unit multiple dwelling constructed in approximately 1960. Parking is located between the building and the street along the north side of the driveway, as well as along the entire south side lot line. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The property is split-zoned with the majority of the site being zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) and a small portion of the site near the southwest corner being zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5), with Special Regulation Provision 129U. The owner has submitted a Site Plan Application to allow the construction of an 18-unit multiple dwelling to the rear of the existing multiple dwelling (Application SP14/009/L/AP). The owner is also proposing to intensify the existing multiple dwelling by one dwelling unit through an internal renovation, for a total of 21 dwelling units. A Site Plan Review Committee meeting was held on March 19, 2014 and it was determined that Site Plan Approval in Principle could be granted. One of the approval conditions involves approval of a minor variance application to remedy certain zoning deficiencies, including: floor space ratio, building height, and parking within the front yard. In this regard, the owner is requesting the following minor variances: 1. Requesting a maximum building height of 11.33 metres, whereas the Zoning By-Law allows a maximum building height of 10.5 metres, for an existing multiple dwelling (Section 40.2.6); 2. Requesting a maximum building height of 11.0 metres, whereas the Zoning By-Law allows a maximum building height of 10.5 metres, to allow a proposed multiple dwelling (Section 40.2.6); 3. Requesting non-visitor off-street parking spaces to be located between the facade of an existing multiple dwelling and the front lot line, whereas the Zoning By-Law requires that no non-visitor off-street parking spaces are to be located between the façade of an existing multiple dwelling and the front lot line [Section 6.1.1.1.d)i)]; and, 4. Requesting a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.85, whereas the Zoning By-Law requires a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 for multiple dwellings (Section 40.2.6). It should be noted that after further review, Planning staff is of the opinion that Variance #1 is not necessary, since the existing building height is already legalized under the Existing Uses section of the Zoning By-Law (Section 5.15). This section states that the location of any building that was constructed on or before October 11, 1994 is deemed to comply with the current building height regulations for the use existing on or before October 11, 1994. This section also applies to any currently permitted use that did not exist on October 11, 1994, except where the regulations for the use are more stringent than the use that existed on October 11, 1994 and/or changes to the total building floor area are proposed. Staff advises that this Section 5.15 does apply since the building height regulation for a 20-unit multiple dwelling is no different than for a 21-unit multiple dwelling. Staff also confirms that there are no proposed changes to the building floor area of the building proposed to contain the 21 unit- multiple dwelling. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments: Variance #2 meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The Official Plan states that “Low Rise Residential Districts shall accommodate a full range of housing types. In these districts the City favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve - 71 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 8.A 2014-019 (Cont’d) Submission No.: a low overall intensity of use.” The Official Plan also states “A maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 shall be applied to multiple dwellings and no residential building shall exceed three stories in height at street elevation.” The proposed multiple dwelling is 3-storeys in height at street elevation. It should also be noted that the proposed building may not even be visible from the street, given the great distance between the building and the street and the fact that the existing multiple dwelling blocks its view. Variance #2 meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law for the following reasons. The intent of the maximum building height of 10.5 metres regulation is to implement the maximum 3-storey policy of the Official Plan in order to ensure compatible, low rise buildings in this designation. Planning staff is of the opinion that the increased building height maintains the intent of the Official Plan, as aforementioned. It should also be noted that the proposed 11.0 metre high building is not as high as the existing building (11.33 metres). Variance #2 is minor as it does not cause unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent properties. It should be noted that the proposed building abuts Lips Park to the north, not a residential development. The proposed building maintains an adequate setback from adjacent low density residential land uses to the west and south. Variance #3 meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law for the following reasons. The Official Plan seeks to ensure good urban design. Often this involves creating a streetscape that pushes buildings toward the street while locating parking in a less visible location, usually behind buildings. In this case, the lot orientation/shape does not allow for a building to be constructed close to the street. The existing parking lot is proposed to remain. However, the parking lot would be improved via the Site Plan Application through the removal of parking from the driveway visibility triangles and the installation of landscaping close to Lancaster Street. In this regard, the front yard would be improved through safety measures and through streetscape improvements. It should also be recognized that the number of parking spaces in front of the building would be reduced from between 18 spaces and 20 spaces (staff could not confirm the exact number of existing spaces) to 16 spaces, of which 10 spaces are proposed to be non-visitor off-street parking spaces. Variance #3 is minor as it does not cause unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The existing parking area in front of the existing building would be improved and would be made safer (see above). Variance #4 meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law. The intent of the maximum 0.6 Floor Space Ratio (FSR) policy/regulation is to ensure multiple dwellings are constructed at a low density. The general intent of FSR requirements is to regulate the massing and scale of a development. It should be noted that proposed massing increase would not be visible from the street. In addition, the massing of the proposed building would most impact the property to the north, which is a City Park. However, the grade of the park is much higher than that of the subject property (estimated 2 metres grade difference), so the impact on the park is negligible. Variance #4 is minor as it does not cause unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent properties for the above noted reasons and since adequate setbacks are maintained to adjacent low density residential properties. Variances #2, 3, and 4 are desirable for the appropriate development of the land since they would allow the construction of a unique form of housing, one not found in the surrounding neighbourhood, thereby adding to the mix of housing in this neighbourhood. In addition, the variances are desirable since they conform to an Official Plan policy which states: New additions and modifications to existing buildings are to be directed to the rear yard and are to be discouraged in the front yard and side yard abutting a street, except where it can be demonstrated that the addition and/or modification is compatible in scale, massing, design and character of adjacent properties and is in keeping with the character of the streetscape. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated April 3, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application. - 72 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 8.A 2014-019 (Cont’d) Submission No.: The Committee considered correspondence from Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated April 2, 2014, noting that they request approval of this application to be subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of additional electrical servicing to the existing lands. 2. That the applicant make satisfactory arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. 3. That driveways will be located so as to clear Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. submersible transformer vaults and provide a minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles and street light standards. Ms. J. O’Neill, neighbouring property owner, addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application. She stated that she disagrees with the staff report where it states that the construction of a new 18-unit stacked townhome in the rear of the existing property would have no impact on the surrounding property owners. She further advised that the owners of 169 Lancaster Street West have been renovating the existing multi-residential building since last summer and there is significant debris in the rear of the property that has yet to be removed. The Chair sympathized with the neighbour regarding the construction phase and the debris due to the development. He noted that as part of the development process, the applicant is required to submit a Letter of Credit, which is held until the City is satisfied with the completion of the project. He stated that site clean-up would be a condition for discharging the Letter of Credit. The Chair stated for clarification that the applicant would not require the Committee’s approval to construct a second building in the rear of the property if the proposed building met all of the requirements of the Zoning By-law. Mr. A. Lise expressed concerns with staff’s recommendation to approve an increase in the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to accommodate the construction of the second multi-residential building. He stated that, in his opinion, that the approval of a maximum FSR of 0.85, rather than the permitted maximum FSR of 0.6 for multiple dwellings, is not minor in nature. Mr. A. Pinnell advised that Planning staff have recommended approval for an increased FSR, due to the proposed building setbacks of the stacked townhomes. He stated that the intent of the FSR is to control building mass on adjacent properties and in this situation; the proposed stacked townhomes would have significantly large setbacks between the new building and the adjacent properties. He indicated that due to those setbacks, there would be no adverse impacts on the surrounding properties. He further advised that the proposed building also is shorter in height than the existing building and would not be visible from the street. The Chair questioned whether there would be any significant changes regarding the Low Rise Residential designation in the new Official Plan, which will be presented to Council in June 2014, regarding density and FSR. Mr. Pinnell advised that there would be no significant change to the Low Rise Residential designation. He indicated that the FSR of the Low Rise Residential designation is proposed to permit an increase to the maximum FSR to 0.75 as part of the adoption of the New Official Plan. Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that the New Official Plan is more consistent with the Provincial Policies Statements (PPS) for development. She stated that the intention of the PPS is to maximize the usage of under-utilized properties by encouraging development and infill within the already built boundaries. Ms. von Westerholt sympathized with the neighbours’ concerns regarding the cleanliness of the site and advised that staff would work with the applicant to improve the site’s appearance. In addition, Mr. Pinnell advised that, as per the Site Plan Approval process, the applicant will be required to install a 1.83m (6’) foot high wooden fence between the subject property and the properties on Hill Street. - 73 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 8.A 2014-019 (Cont’d) Submission No.: Mr. B. McColl stated that due to the information regarding the FSR within the new Official Plan he could support staffs recommendation for approval. He indicated that, in his opinion, the increase in FSR would not be substantial in nature. The Chair requested clarification of Condition A of staffs recommendation and whether the deadline of April 15, 2015 was a sufficient amount of time to permit the applicant to receive Site Plan Approval and obtain building permits. Mr. Pinnell advised that that applicant has almost completed all necessary requirements to receive approval in principle for their Site Plan application. He stated that the one year time frame should be sufficient obtain their final approvals and apply for a building permit. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Red Pony Flats Inc. requesting permission to construct an 18-unit multiple dwelling and legalize an existing 4-storey multiple dwelling proposed to contain 21 dwelling units (currently contains 20 units) having a Floor Space Ratio for multiple dwellings of 0.85, whereas the By-Law permits a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6; the required off-street parking spaces to be located between the front façade of the existing multiple dwelling and the front lot line, whereas the By-Law does not permit off-street parking spaces to be located in this area; and, a building height of 11.0 metres (36.089’) for the proposed multiple dwelling, whereas the By-Law permits a maximum building height of 10.5m (34.448’), on Part of Park Lot 551, Plan 378, Part Lot 119, Closed Streets and Lanes, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-3605, 169 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to BE APPROVED the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain final approval of Site Plan Application SP14/009/L/AP and shall obtain the required applicable building permits by April 15, 2015. 2. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of additional electrical servicing to the existing lands. 3. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. 4. That the owner shall ensure that all driveways will be located so as to clear Kitchener- Wilmot Hydro Inc. submersible transformer vaults and provide a minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles and street light standards. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT 1. B 2014-018 Submission No.: CDJ Real Estate Holdings Inc. Applicant: 4166 King Street East Property Locations: Part Lot 9, Beasleys Broken Front Concession, being Parts 1, 4 and Legal Description: 7 on Reference Plan 58R-6134 - and - - 74 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 1.B 2014-018 & B 2014-019 (Cont’d) Submission No.: B 2014-019 Submission No.: Bremal Holdings Inc. Applicant: 4202 King Street East Property Locations: Part Lot 9, Beasleys Broken Front Concession, being Parts 2, 3, 5 Legal Description: and 6 on Reference Plan 58R-6134 Appearances: In Support: S. Patterson Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that through application B 2014-018, the applicant is requesting permission to grant an easement having a width of 10.119m (33.198’), a northerly depth of 19.553m (64.15’) and an area of 187.8 sq.m. (2021.462 sq.ft.) in favour of 4202 King Street East. The Committee was further advised that through application B 2014-019, the applicant is requesting permission to grant an easement having a width of 9.144m (30’), a northerly depth of 17.998m (59.048’) and an area of 172.227sq.m. (1853.836 sq.ft) in favour of 4166 King Street East. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 4, 2014, advising that the subject properties are located at 4202 King Street East, (Keiswetter Mazda) and 4166 King Street East (Mobilife RV Centre). The properties currently share a driveway access and the owners are proposing reciprocal rights-of-way. Until recently, a Shared Laneway Agreement was in place between the two property owners, however it has recently expired. As such, the landowners have applied for reciprocal rights-of- way together with a subsequent Joint Maintenance Agreement to legally recognize the shared use of the existing access. This is the primary access for Mobilife and a secondary access for Kieswetter Mazda. 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 proposed reciprocal rights-of-way (as shown on the applicant’s drawing) are appropriate and necessary in order to allow full movements and access. The proposed consent applications are consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection 3(1) of the Act, and conform to the City’s Official Plan. Staff has inspected the site and note that a ground sign is currently located in the driveway boulevard and within the Regional right-of-way. Staff have no record of a Sign Permit being granted for this sign and note that it does not conform to Sign By-law regulations. As a condition of this consent the existing sign must be removed. The sign may be relocated subject to the issuance of a Sign Permit. The owner should contact the City’s Sign Permit Administrator for further information. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated April 3, 2014, advising that they have no objections to this application subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant shall obtain a Regional Access Permit for the existing access from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant shall enter at their expense, into an encroachment agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the encroachment of any existing structures onto the Regional Road Allowance on King Street East or relocate the existing structures onto private property; and, 3. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant shall remove any existing vehicles that are temporarily located in the King Street East right-of-way. The Committee was in receipt this date of correspondence outlining revised conditions for Consent Applications B 2014-018 and B 2014-019. - 75 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 1.B 2014-018 & B 2014-019 (Cont’d) Submission No.: Ms. von Westerholt noted that revised conditions have been circulated to the Committee and stated that staff in consultation with the applicant, have amended the conditions that were initially proposed within the staff report. Mr. S. Patterson advised that he is in attendance in support of the proposed easement applications and the revised conditions. Submission No. B 2014-018 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of CDJ Real Estate Holdings Inc. requesting permission to grant an easement having a width of 10.119m (33.198’), a northerly depth of 19.553m (64.15’) and an area of 187.8 sq.m. (2021.462 sq.ft) in favour of 4202 King Street East, on Part Lot 9, Beasleys Broken Front Concession, being Parts 1, 4 and 7 on Reference Plan 58R-6134, 4166 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: BE GRANTED 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping Technologist. 3. That a draft reference plan showing the proposed rights-of-way be approved by the City’s Manager of Development Review. The right-of-way depicted on the draft reference plan shall be consistent with the right-of-way contemplated through application B 2014-018. 4. That the owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the right-of- way for access is maintained in perpetuity. The agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 5. That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, be provided to the City Solicitor. 6. That the City Solicitor be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. 7. That the owner shall obtain a sign permit for the existing sign located within the Regional right-of-way. Should a Sign Permit be unable to be obtained, the subject sign shall be removed. 8. That the owner shall obtain a Regional Access Permit for the existing access from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 9. That the owner shall enter at their expense, into an encroachment agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for the encroachment of any existing structures onto the Regional Road Allowance on King Street East or relocate the existing structures onto private property. 10. That the owner shall remove any existing vehicles that are temporarily located in the King Street East right-of-way. It is the opinion of this Committee that: - 76 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 1.B 2014-018 & B 2014-019 (Cont’d) Submission No.: 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 April 15, 2016. Carried Submission No. B 2014-019 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Mr. A. Lise That the application of Bremal Holdings Ltd. requesting permission to grant an easement having a width of 9.144m (30’), a northerly depth of 17.998m (59.048’) and an area of 172.227sq.m. (1853.836 sq.ft) in favour of 4166 King Street East. on Part Lot 9, Beasleys Broken Front Concession, being Parts 2, 3, 5 and 6 on Reference Plan 58R-6134, 4202 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: BE GRANTED 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping Technologist. 3. That a draft reference plan showing the proposed right-of-way be approved by the City’s Manager of Development Review. The right-of-way depicted on the draft reference plan shall be consistent with the right-of-way contemplated through application B2014-019. 4. That the owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the right-of- way for access is maintained in perpetuity. The agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s). 5. That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, be provided to the City Solicitor. 6. That the City Solicitor be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. 7. That the owner shall obtain a Regional Access Permit for the existing access from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 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. - 77 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 1.B 2014-018 & B 2014-019 (Cont’d) Submission No.: 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 April 15, 2016. Carried COMBINED APPLICATION 1. B 2014-017 & A 2014-020 Submission Nos.: Leanne Leeman Applicants: 99 North Hill Place Property Location: Part Lot 54, German Company Tract Legal Description: - and - A 2014-021 Submission No.: Gerald and Leanne Leeman Applicants: 107-109 North Hill Place Property Location: Part Lot 54, German Company Tract Legal Description: Appearances: In Support: G. & L. Leeman Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever two parcels of land from 99 North Hill Place to be conveyed as lot additions to 107-109 North Hill Place. The first parcel being severed is in the rear yard having a width of 25.6m (83.989') a depth of 25.9m (84.973') and an area of 663 sq.m. (7136.473 sq.ft.); the second parcel being severed is from the northerly side of the property fronting on North Hill Place having a width of 34.91m (114.53’) a northerly depth of 55.67m (182.64’) and an area of 1591 sq.m. (17125.381 sq.ft.). Both properties will continue to be used as residential. Due to the requested consent for a lot addition, permission is also being requested for both 99 North Hill Place and 107-109 North Hill Place to change legal non-conforming use, being a single detached dwelling on a legal non-conforming lot that does not abut a public street, but rather a public lane, by changing the lot configuration. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 9, 2014, advising that the subject properties are located at the east end of North Hill Place near Chicopee Ski Hill, in the Centreville Chicopee Planning Community. North Hill Place is classified in the Zoning By-law as a Public Lane, not a Public Street, being that it is less than 12.19 metres at its narrowest point. The subject property addressed as 99 North Hill Place is owned by Ms. L. Leeman, contains a single detached dwelling constructed in approximately 1860, and is zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3). The subject property addressed as 107-109 North Hill Place is owned by Mr. G. Leeman and Ms. L. Leeman, contains a single detached dwelling constructed in approximately 1962 and a garage/garden suite constructed in approximately 2006, and is zoned R-3, with Special Regulation Provision 432R, and Temporary Use By-law 10T. Both properties are considered to be legal non-conforming uses (even though single detached dwellings and garden suites are permitted under their respective zoning) since neither has frontage on a Public Street, as required by Section 5.2 of the Zoning By-law. It should be noted - 78 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 1.B 2014-017, A 2014-020 & A 2014-021 (Cont’d) Submission No.: that even if a use is included in the list of permitted uses of the applicable zoning classification, it is not permitted unless all other applicable zoning regulations are met; otherwise, the use is prohibited. The owners are requesting two lot additions via Consent Application B 2014-017 that would have the effect of severing two parcels of land from the property addressed as 99 North Hill Place (NHP) and conveying them to the property addressed as 107-109 North Hill Place. Through these applications the shapes of both lots would be made more regular, with 99 NHP being made more rectangular, and 107-109 NHP benefitting from more frontage on North Hill Place (the property currently only has a 6.3 metre frontage). In order to allow these lot additions, Permission under Section 45(2)(a)(ii) is necessary because the proposed changes to the lot lines are considered changes to a legal non-conforming uses. While Planning staff is generally supportive of the concept to change the lot sizes/shapes/dimensions, new information received on April 2, 2014 from Mr. Leeman has caused staff concern. Upon staff’s request for a servicing plan, Mr. Leeman advised that 107-109 NHP is not independently serviced directly from North Hill Place (water and sanitary). Instead, separate water and sanitary services for 107-109 NHP extend across 99 NHP and then connect to Chicopee Terrace via a triangular piece of City-owned land. In this regard, 107-109 NHP is dependent on water and sanitary lines that run through a separately conveyable parcel of land. Staff flagged this concern with Mr. Leeman the same day and clearly communicated that the proposal was not supportable without an application for a servicing easement over 99 NHP in favour of 107-109 NHP or without agreeing to a condition to independently service 107-109 NHP directly from the municipal right-of-way and discontinue services to 107-109 NHP that cross 99 NHP. Staff further advised that modifying the consent application to include an easement request would require deferral of the present applications since the applications had already been advertised without an easement request, but that this would be less involved and less expensive than re- applying for all three applications in the future ($1080 deferral fee versus $3449 re-application fee, not including the cost of the present applications). Staff also advised that a survey and servicing plan would be required as part of the necessary modification to the applications in order to accurately delineate the servicing locations, proposed easement locations, and proposed property boundaries. On April 3, staff again contacted Mr. Leeman to determine whether he had considered staff’s above noted suggestions. Staff was surprised to hear that Mr. Leeman, upon consultation with his lawyer, did not agree with either option and clearly expressed intent to proceed with the applications as proposed. In this regard, staff recommends that despite Mr. Leeman’s desire to proceed to a decision, that the applications be deferred to allow opportunity to Mr. Leeman to pursue staff’s suggested options. Should the Committee decide to honour Mr. Leeman’s request for a decision at this time rather than defer, staff would recommend that the Committee refuse all three applications on the basis that adequate servicing is not being provided. Note that there is a municipal interest in ensuring adequate, independent servicing. Since a Planning Act application is being applied for, especially one affecting lot boundaries, Planning staff is of the opinion that now is the time to rectify undesirable and inadequate servicing issues. This position is consistent with Section 51(24) of the Planning Act: “In considering a draft plan of subdivision, regard shall be had, to…(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services.” Planning staff has consulted the City’s Legal Services on this issue and has determined that staff’s position on this matter is well founded. It should be noted that if services for 107-109 NHP are permitted to cross 99 NHP without an easement, any future owner of 99 NHP could legally discontinue services to 107-109 NHP at any - 79 - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 15, 2014 1.B 2014-017, A 2014-020 & A 2014-021 (Cont’d) Submission No.: time, with reasonable or unreasonable intent, leaving the property with no servicing provision. The owner of 107-109 NHP would have no legal right to demand or require servicing over 99 NHP. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be deferred until the July 15, 2014 Committee of Adjustment meeting in order to give the applicant time to decide whether to proceed with an easement or installation of new service connections. This time limit would also provide a reasonable amount of time to prepare quotes for service installation or preparation of a survey, while not deferring the application indefinitely. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Principal Planner, dated April 3, 2014, advising that they have no objection to Submission B 2014-017. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated April 3, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with Submission Nos. A 2014-020 and A 2014- 021. Mr. G. and Ms. L. Leeman addressed the Committee in opposition to staffs’ recommendation to defer the proposed applications. He advised that staff have indicated he would need to provide adequate servicing for both 99 NHP and 107-109 NHP either through the installation of independent service connections or through the establishment of an easement over 99 NHP in favour of 107-109 NHP for existing services. He stated that the servicing of the subject properties has never been questioned previously and, in his opinion, they do not affect the approval of the proposed applications. Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that if services for 107-109 NHP are permitted to cross 99 NHP without an easement, any future owner of 99 NHP could legally discontinue services to 107-109 NHP at any time, with reasonable or unreasonable intent, leaving the property without adequate servicing. She stated that although Mr. and Ms. Leeman own both properties, if the ownership of the properties changed for any reason, an easement would ensure that the owner of 99 North Hill Place has a legal right to the services that currently exist. Mr. A. Pinnell advised that staff have recommended deferral until the July 15, 2014 Committee of Adjustment meeting to give the applicant time to decide whether to proceed with an easement or installation of new service connections. He stated if the applicant chooses to proceed with an easement, they will be required to submit an amended application, including a survey and servicing plan as well as a deferral fee, as the applications would need to be re-advertised. The Committee agreed to defer its consideration of these applications to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday July 15, 2014 to allow Mr. & Ms. Leeman time to consult with Planning staff and decide whether to proceed with an easement or installation of new service connections. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:14 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th day of April, 2014. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment