HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-08-19COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 19, 2014
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. A. Head and B. McColl and Ms. J. Meader
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. B. Bateman, Senior Planner, Mr.
S. Bassanese, Urban Designer, Mr. D. Pimentel, Traffic Technologist; Ms. D.
Saunderson, Secretary- Treasurer; and, Ms. S. Delaney, Administrative
Clerk.
Mr. A. Head, Vice - Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held July 15, 2014, as mailed to
the members, be accepted.
Carried
ki I47A-.11bylki l *Itw
khIIki 101:AT/MNle1 ki IN2
1. Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
This application was
2. Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
A 2014 -039
Howe Brownstones Inc.
361 -371 Lancaster Street West
Part Lots 19 and 20, Plan 789
temporarily set aside and dealt with later on this same date
A 2014 -046
Lois Schultz
362 Frederick Street
Part Lot 25, Plan 279
T. Bauman
None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a second
storey roof over an enclosed porch on an existing single detached dwelling having a front yard
setback of 3.Om (9.84') rather than the required 4.5m (14.764'); and, a setback from an arterial
road of 3m (9.84') rather than the required 12m (39.370').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 8, 2014, advising
that the subject property is zoned Commercial - Residential One (CR -1) with special provisions
114R and 128U in the Zoning By -law and designated Low Density Commercial Residential in the
Central Frederick Neighbourhood Plan for Land Use. The site contains a single detached
residential dwelling. The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
The applicant is requesting permission to construct a roof over the second storey porch on an
existing single detached dwelling having a front yard setback of 3 metres (9.84') rather than the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -129- AUGUST 19, 2014
•T il[Ti1 �7i1•���iZC�diL[:1<(K.riTir
required 4.5 metres (143.764'); and a setback from an arterial road of 3 metres (9.84') rather than
the required 12 metres (39.3 ft).
The dwelling was constructed in 1837 and a survey does not exist for the property. Thus, the
setback for the building from the front lot line to the front face of the building may be greater than
the requested 3.0 metres. However, as discussed with the Agent prior to the submission of the
application, they would prefer to be cautious to ensure that they would not require another
variance application if the number was incorrect. The Agent has also assured staff that no
construction, expansion, or renovation of the front fapade of the property without a building permit
would occur as a result of this front yard variance. Furthermore, as a result of a zoning review
staff noted that an additional variance for legalization of a non - conforming setback from an arterial
road is also required. The purpose for the variance application is to construct an extension of the
attached canopy on the second floor balcony, which requires legalization of the non - conforming
front 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 regarding
the requested minor variance:
The requested variance for the front yard setback in order to construct a canopy on the second
floor balcony meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Density Commercial Residential
designation allows for the development, expansion, and renovation of single detached dwellings
which maintain the overall low density characteristic of the neighbourhood. The requested
legalization of the front yard requirement to construct the canopy will continue to conform to the
low density character of the surrounding neighbourhood, considering that it has existed at its
location for 177 years.
The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By -law. The purpose of a front yard
setback of 4.5 metres is to allow for adequate separation from adjacent properties and separation
from the street. Furthermore, the purpose of a front yard setback from an arterial road of 12
metres is to ensure that vibration and noise from the street has no effect on the use and operation
of the dwelling. Considering that the dwelling has existed at its current location since 1837, Staff
is of the opinion that the location of the building is suitable for the neighbourhood, and the effect
that frontage on an arterial road has on the dwelling is negligible.
The variance is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance has provided
an adequately sized front yard and will not negatively affect adjacent properties or surrounding
neighbourhood. As well, the canopy provides weather protection over an area already used for
outdoor amenity. Also, the agent has stated that no construction, expansion, or renovation of the
front fapade of the property without a permit would occur as a result of this front yard variance for
the roofed canopy.
The proposed variance is appropriate for use of the land as the single detached dwelling use is a
permitted use, and the proposed variance will allow the owner to continue the occupation of the
single detached residential dwelling. The scale, massing, and height of the single detached
residential dwelling is appropriate and consistent with the character of the proposed
neighbourhood. The proposed variance will not impact the existing character of the subject
property or surrounding neighbourhood since no expansion to the building's footprint is proposed.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 31, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Lois Schultz requesting permission to construct a second storey roof
over an enclosed porch on an existing single detached dwelling having a front yard setback of
3.Om (9.84') rather than the required 4.5m (14.764'); and, a setback from an arterial road of 3m
(9.84') rather than the required 12m (39.370'), on Part Lot 25, Plan 279, 362 Frederick Street,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division prior to
construction.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -130- AUGUST 19, 2014
2. Submission No.: A 2014 -046 (Cont'd)
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.: A 2014 -047
Applicants: Gabor Pusztahegyi & Erno Bauer
Property Location: 74 Pinnacle Drive
Legal Description: Part Lot 7, Registered Plan 578 & Part Block 10 and Part of Reserve
Block 11, Registered Plan 1480, being Part 3 on Reference Plan
58R -14146
Appearances:
In Support: E. Bauer
Contra: R. Szydlowski
J. Oleskevich
Y. Fernandes
T. Feth
D. Pagett
B. Hartman
G. & M. Morgan
F. Szatmari
Written Submissions: B. Thomas
G. Morgan
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to enclose the
attached garage and convert it into habitable living space on an existing semi - detached dwelling,
with one required off - street parking space to be located 4.5m (14.764') from the street line rather
than the required 6m (19.658').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 1, 2014, advising
that the subject property is a semi - detached residential unit located at 74 Pinnacle Drive is zoned
Residential Four (R -4) with Special Regulation 319U in the Zoning By -law 85 -1 and designated
Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan.
The applicant is proposing to convert the garage to habitable space. As a result, one required
parking space for the semi - detached unit will have to be relocated on the driveway. The property
is irregularly shaped; therefore the parking space will be setback 4.5 metres from the street line.
As a result, the applicant has submitted this application to request relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b i)
of the Zoning By -law to allow one required parking space for the semi - detached dwelling unit
located on the driveway to be setback 4.5 metres from the street line rather than the required 6.0
metres.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments.
The intent of the Low Rise Residential designation in the Official Plan is to encourage a range of
uses and favour the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall
intensity of use. It is staff's opinion that the proposed variance will not interrupt the Low Rise
Residential development of the area as the applicant is not proposing to change the use of the
property. As such it is staffs opinion that the variance meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The intent of the 6.0 metres required parking space setback is to allow a vehicle to be
appropriately parked on the driveway without encumbrance to City road right -of -way and
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 131 - AUGUST 19, 2014
3. Submission No.: A 2014 -047 (Cont'd)
surrounding properties. The property is irregularly shaped and as such, the closest distance from
the proposed parking space to the street line is 4.5 metres. The subject property has a driveway
length that can easily accommodate a permanent parking space without impact or encroachment
on to the adjacent street. Transportation staff do not have concerns with the proposed variance.
Planning staff also does not have concerns with the proposed variance request are of the opinion
that the proposed variance will continue to meet the intent of the Zoning by -law.
The requested variance can be considered minor as it is staffs opinion that the required parking
space can still be accommodated on site in an appropriate manner. It is staffs opinion that the
reduced setback from the street line will have minimal impact to the subject property and adjacent
lands.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is staffs opinion that it
will not cause an impact to the surrounding low rise residential development as the property will
still be used for residential purposes. The requested minor variance is necessary as it will legalize
the location of the required parking space on the driveway.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 31, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered written submissions from the neighbouring property owners in
opposition to the proposed application.
Mr. E. Bauer advised that he is in attendance in support of the application and staffs
recommendation.
Mr. G. Morgan addressed the Committee in opposition to the proposed variance application. He
referenced his written submission, citing concerns for decreasing property values for the homes
in the vicinity of the subject property if the applicant is permitted to convert the garage to habitable
living space.
The Chair stated for clarification that the Committee does not have any jurisdiction to consider
anything beyond what has been requested in the application, noting the request is a variation of
the By -law for the required off - street parking. Ms. J. von Westerholt provided clarification of the
proposed parking variance, noting that the property requires one legal parking space and that
space is now proposed to be located in the driveway.
Questions were raised on whether there were other mechanisms that would help to regulate the
number of garage conversions within the City. Ms. von Westerholt sympathized with the
neighbours in attendance this date; however, the conversion of the garage does not require the
Committees approval. She indicated that as long as the applicant meets all of the requirements
under the Ontario Building Code they would be permitted to convert the garage into living space.
She further advised that currently there are no mechanisms within the Zoning By -law that
regulate the number of persons or bedrooms within a single detached dwelling.
The Chair sympathized with the neighbours about the challenges with student housing, stating
that it appears to be in high demand in the Doon Area; however, the Committee does not have
the authority to approve the actual conversion of the garage. He stated that the Committee can
only consider the merits of the application which is the relocation of the one required parking
space.
Ms. T. Feth advised that she is in opposition to the subject application, expressing concerns for
the lack of resources provided to the homeowners living in subject the area to help mitigate their
concerns regarding the impacts of student housing on their neighbourhood.
Ms. D. Saunderson advised Ms. Y. Fernandes that if she wished to address the Committee she
must do so as a private citizen and not in her capacity as a member of Council.
Ms. Y. Fernandes attended to speak in opposition to this application, advising that she has tried
to deal with the issues surrounding student housing in the Doon area as a member of Council
and has not had any success to this date. She noted that she has concerns with the proposed
garage conversion, that in her opinion, it will make parking on the subject property sub - standard
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -132- AUGUST 19, 2014
ire
in in comparison to the number of people living there; as well as concerns for the safety of tenants in
the event of a fire.
The Chair advised that the Committee does not have any jurisdiction in matters relating to fire
safety and stated that the applicant will need to meet various safety requirements through the
Building permit process.
Ms. Fernandes advised that the applicant would not require the variance for parking if they were
not going to convert the garage into liveable space. She requested that the Committee refuse the
minor variance which would prevent the owner from being able to convert the garage into
habitable living space.
Ms. J. Meader advised that the Committee must approve or refuse an application based on the
four tests for considering a minor variance, and whether approval of the variance is in keeping
with the character of the neighbourhood.
Ms. Fernandes advised that converting garages into habitable living space, in her opinion, is not
in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.
Mr. R. Szydlowski addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application, advising that
he attended a Committee of Adjustment meeting in 2013 to speak in opposition of an application
similar in nature to what is being proposed in the subject application. He expressed concerns
over the number of cars parking in the driveway and commented that although the property
requires one off - street parking space, there are very often 3 to 4 cars parked in the driveway and
over the pedestrian walkway.
The Chair advised that if anyone in attendance has concerns with parking they need to call the
City's By -law Enforcement office. He noted that the Committee does not have the ability to
control where or how people park on their property.
Ms. Feth expressed concerns that it is ultimately up to the residents who live in the
neighbourhood to continue to call By -law Enforcement, because they work on a complaint basis,
to mitigate their concerns regarding the student housing.
In response to questions, Ms. von Westerholt advised that she was unaware how many variance
requests for parking have been made in the Doon area permitting the property owner to relocate
their required off - street parking space due to a garage conversion. She indicated that property
owners submitting planning applications are opting to complete their garage conversions legally
and are ensuring that they meet all of the safety requirements under the Building Code. She
noted that there should be greater concerns for the conversions that are being completed
illegally. She further advised that the Committee does not have the authority to regulate people
or the relationships of people residing in a single detached dwelling.
Ms. Meader questioned the neighbours in opposition to the proposed application on their reasons
for being opposed to garage conversions. Several of the neighbours cited concerns with property
maintenance; property aesthetics if the property owner chooses to remove the garage door as
part of the conversion; and, parking.
Ms. Fernandes submitted photos to the Committee demonstrating the condition of various
properties in the subject neighbourhood.
Ms. von Westerholt suggested as a means of addressing the neighbours concern regarding
aesthetics of the property the Committee could include a condition requiring the applicant to
submit elevation drawings as part the building permit process.
In response to questions, Ms. Fernandes advised that she is aware of several families that have
chosen to move out of the subject neighbourhood due to the increase in rental housing. She
noted that property standards in the area, in her opinion, is deplorable. She indicated that the
Committee's approval would permit the property owner to convert the garage to living space.
Ms. Meader advised that the Planning Act is clear; the Committee cannot approve or refuse an
application based on the relationship of the people that will reside at a property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -133- AUGUST 19, 2014
ire
Mr. Mr. McColl advised that the subject application is becoming more frequent in the Doon area and
although it could be considered minor in nature as an independent application, due to the number
of applications being received in the subject area for variances that are similar in nature, in his
opinion, it is beginning to change the nature of the neighbourhood without a formal planning
process. He noted due to the change in the neighbourhood, he is unable to support the proposed
variance.
The Chair noted that he has been on the Committee for several years and although he can recall
a few applications similar in nature, he does not recall dozens. He stated that communities are
constantly evolving and there appears to be a demand for housing in the subject area. He
indicated that the Committee has approved applications with a similar variance in the past which
may have set precedence up to this date. He further advised that he has greater concerns for the
landlords that are converting their garages without the proper approvals.
Ms. Fernandes advised that she has spoken to the Vice - President of Conestoga College
regarding the demand for student housing and the impacts the students are making on the
surrounding neighbourhood and indicated that the College has not offered any assistance with
the demand for housing. She requested the Committee refuse the application as a means of
encouraging developers to propose more suitable housing solutions for the students.
Ms. Meader advised that the Committee has no jurisdiction over Building Code issues, fire safety
issues, parking enforcement, or people zoning. She sympathized with the neighbours stating that
there may be a larger issue in the subject neighbourhood however; they would need to address
their concerns with City Council. She further advised that, in her opinion, there is no evidence
that there will be a negative impact on the surrounding properties by converting the garage to
habitable living space.
Ms. Meader brought forward a motion to approve Application A 2014 -047 as per the staff
recommendation with an added condition that the owner shall, as part of the building permit
application process, submit full elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning
and the Chief Building Official.
Mr. McColl advised that this application in isolation is minor in nature, however there seems to be
a greater problem in the subject neighbourhood and he noted he cannot support the proposed
application, as it is no longer compatible.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Gabor Pusztahegyi & Erno Bauer requesting permission to enclose the
attached garage and convert it into habitable living space on an existing semi - detached
dwelling, with one required off - street parking space to be located 4.5m (14.764') from the
street line rather than the required 6m (19.658'), on Part Lot 7, Registered Plan 578 & Part
Block 10 and Part of Reserve Block 11, Registered Plan 1480, being Part 3 on Reference Plan
58R- 14146, 74 Pinnacle Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for the
conversion of the garage to habitable space.
2. That the owner shall, as part of the building permit application process, submit full
elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and the Chief Building
Official.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -134- AUGUST 19, 2014
4. Submission No.: A 2014 -048
Applicants: Gabor Pusztahegyi & Erno Bauer
Property Location: 55 Doon Valley Drive
Legal Description: Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, being Part 2 on
Reference Plan 58R -11004
Appearances:
In Support: E. Bauer
Contra: R. Szydlowski
J. Oleskevich
Y. Fernandes
T. Feth
D. Pagett
B. Hartman
G. & M. Morgan
F. Szatmari
Written Submissions: B. Thomas
G. Morgan
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to enclose the
attached garage and convert it into habitable living space on an existing semi - detached dwelling,
with one required off - street parking space to be located 1.7m (5.58') from the street line rather
than the required 6m (19.658').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 11, 2014, advising
that the subject property contains a semi - detached residential unit located at 55 Doon Valley
Drive is zoned Residential Five (R -5) in the Zoning By -law 85 -1 and designated Low Rise
Residential in the City's Official Plan.
The applicant is proposing to convert the garage to habitable space. As a result, one required
parking space for the semi - detached unit will have to be relocated on the driveway. The property
is irregularly shaped; therefore the parking space will be setback 1.7 metres from the street line.
As a result, the applicant has submitted this application to request relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b i)
of the Zoning By -law to allow one required parking space for the semi - detached dwelling unit
located on the driveway to be setback 1.7 metres from the street line rather than the required 6.0
metres.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offesr the following comments.
The intent of the Low Rise Residential designation in the Official Plan is to encourage a range of
uses and favour the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall
intensity of use. It is staff's opinion that the proposed variance will not impact the low rise
residential development of the area as the applicant is not proposing to change the use of the
property. As such it is staffs opinion that the variance meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The intent of the 6.0 metres required parking space setback is to allow a vehicle to be
appropriately parked on the driveway without encumbrance to City road right -of -way and
surrounding properties. The property is irregularly shaped and as such, the closest distance from
the proposed parking space to the street line is 1.7 metres. The subject property has a driveway
length that can easily accommodate a permanent parking space without impact or encroachment
on to the adjacent street. Transportation staff does not have concerns with the proposed
variance. Planning staff also does not have concerns with the proposed variance request and is
of the opinion that the proposed variance will continue to meet the intent of the Zoning by -law.
The requested variance can be considered minor as it is staffs opinion that the required parking
space can still be accommodated on site in an appropriate manner. It is staffs opinion that the
reduced setback from the street line will have minimal impact to the subject property and adjacent
lands.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is staffs opinion that it
will not cause an impact to the surrounding low rise residential development as the property will
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -135- AUGUST 19, 2014
4. Submission No.: A 2014 -048 (Cont'd)
continue to be used for residential purposes. The requested minor variance is necessary as it will
legalize the location of the required parking space on the driveway, as on- street parking in this
area is from 8PM to 4PM, Monday to Friday.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 31, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered written submissions from the neighbouring property owners that
expressed opposition to the proposed application.
The Chair advised that this application is similar in nature to Minor Application A 2014 -047
previously considered by the Committee and requested that the neighbours in attendance in
opposition to the subject application only address the Committee if they were presenting new
information from what was presented on the previous application.
Ms. Y. Fernandes addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application noting, in her
opinion, that variance requested is significantly larger in comparison to the request proposed in
Application A 2014 -047 and requested the application be refused. She further advised that the
applicant has also already begun the garage conversion on this property prior to receiving
approval for the variance.
In response to questions, Mr. D. Pimentel advised that the applicant would have sufficient parking
if the required parking was relocated to the driveway. In addition, he noted that the requirements
for the driveway visibility triangle would also be maintained.
At the request of Ms. Fernandes, the Committee agreed to amend the staff recommendation to
include a similar condition as requested for Application A 2014 -047 requiring the applicant as part
of the building permit application process, submit full elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the
Director of Planning and the Chief Building Official.
Mr. McColl advised that he is unable to support the proposed application as in isolation it can be
considered minor in nature; however, it is beginning to change the nature of the neighbourhood
without a formal planning process and, in his opinion, is no longer compatible.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Gabor Pusztahegyi & Erno Bauer requesting permission to enclose the
attached garage and convert it into habitable living space on an existing semi - detached
dwelling, with one required off - street parking space to be located 1.7m (5.58') from the street
line rather than the required 6m (19.658'), on Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, being Part 2
on Reference Plan 58R- 11004, 55 Doon Valley Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division for the
conversion of the garage to habitable space.
2. That the owner shall, as part of the building permit application process, submit full
elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and the Chief Building
Official.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -136- AUGUST 19, 2014
Submission No.: A 2014 -049
Applicant: Freure Village on Clair Creek Inc.
Property Location: 214 Moorlands Crescent
Legal Description: Lot 4, Registered Plan 58M -541
This application was temporarily set aside and dealt with later on this same date.
Submission No.: A 2014 -050
Applicant: Freure Village on Clair Creek Inc.
Property Location: 218 Moorlands Crescent
Legal Description: Lot 5, Registered Plan 58M -541
This application was temporarily set aside and dealt with later on this same date.
Submission No.: A 2014 -051
Applicant: Liz Habicher
Property Location: 19 Bound Brook Court
Legal Description: Lot 49, Plan 1577
Appearances:
In Support: L. Habicher
S. Sawatzky
Contra: D. & G. Brown
K. & R. Jantzi
A. Jalsovsky
G. & D. Pepall
B. Clarke
J. Padgett
Written Submissions: B. Clarke
D. Brown
K. & R. Jantzi
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a sunroom
on an existing single detached dwelling on a triangular- shaped lot having a driveway with two
access points rather than the permitted one access point; a driveway width of 28m (91.864')
rather than the permitted 8m (26.247'); having a rear yard setback of 4.86m (15.945') rather than
the required 7.5m (24.606'); and, a parking lot to have egress in a backward motion rather than a
forward motion.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 11, 2014, advising
that The subject property is zoned Residential Three (R -3) in Zoning By -law 85 -1 and designated
Low Rise Residential in the existing and newly adopted Official Plan (pending Regional approval).
The site contains a single detached dwelling. As discussed with the Agent, due to the irregular
pie -shape of the lot, the following clarifications were made:
• That the entire yard fronting on Bound Brook Court is the front yard;
• That the northerly yard abutting 27 Bound Brook Court is a side yard;
• That the westerly yard abutting 11 Bound Brook Court is a side yard;
• That the point of intersection of the two side yards is the rear yard; and,
• The lot is therefore not a corner lot.
The original application that was submitted was to obtain a rear yard variance in order to
construct a sunroom and deck with basement storage at the rear of the building. However, as a
result of a zoning review, it was noted that other variances are also required to legalize an
irregular driveway. The driveway was expanded sometime between 2006 and 2007, and although
permits were not required at that time for new driveway accesses, all regulations of the Zoning
By -law for driveways were still required to be conformed with.
After the other variances were added following the zoning review, the updated application was
requesting permission to construct a sunroom at the rear of an existing single detached dwelling
on an irregular pie- shaped lot having:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -137- AUGUST 19, 2014
I��1• rT1�CTi1�C 1�G��iZCdil.Ti�(�Z.TiTiC
1. A rear yard setback of 4.86 metres (15.94 ft) rather than the required 7.5 metres (24.6 ft);
2. A driveway width of 28 metres (91.86 ft) rather than the permitted 8 metres (26.25 ft);
3. A driveway with two access points rather than the permitted one access point; and,
4. A parking lot to have egress in a backward motion rather than a forward motion.
However, after review and consultation of the application and a site visit with Traffic staff,
regarding Variance 3 above, the two accesses are actually located on City right -of -way and
therefore this variance is not required.
Furthermore, regarding the need for Variance 4, a site visit confirmed that it is not possible to fit
four cars across within the subject lot lines. Therefore this is no longer defined as a parking lot,
thus removing the requirement for ingress and egress in a forward motion. While on site, Staff
noticed that a small shrub is situated in the driveway just to the left of the parked vehicle. This
would prohibit the parking of four vehicles and therefore does not meet the definition of a parking
lot. The location of the landscaped shrub was not shown on the original plan that was submitted
along with the application. The measurement of the driveway closest to the house between the
bush and the left side of the garage is 8.2 metres (27 ft). However, as viewed in the aerial, the
driveway then expands to 11 metres within the City right -of -way (not including the `leg' extension).
As the area where four cars can park across the driveway is not located within the subject lot
lines, this variance is also not required.
Therefore Staff recommends that this application be amended to request permission to construct
a sunroom on an existing single detached dwelling on a triangular- shaped lot having:
1. A rear yard setback of 4.86 metres (15.94 ft) rather than the required 7.5 metres (24.6 ft);
and,
2. A driveway width of 28 metres (91.86 ft) rather than the permitted 8 metres (26.25 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 offers the following comments regarding
the requested minor variances:
Variance 1 (rear yard setback):
The requested variance in order to construct a sunroom with below basement storage meets the
intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation allows for the development and
expansion of single detached dwellings which maintain the overall low rise characteristic of the
neighbourhood. The requested reduced rear yard setback to construct the sunroom and below
basement storage will continue to conform to the low density character of the surrounding
neighbourhood and the adjacent properties.
The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By -law. The purpose of a rear yard setback
of 7.5 metres is to allow for separation from adjacent properties as well as amenity area for the
property. Based on the size of the property, the impact of construction on the amount of amenity
area would be negligible. Staff notes that even with the construction of the sunroom and deck, the
property would still be below the Zoning By -law requirement for maximum lot coverage for the
habitable portion of the dwelling. The sunroom would also act as passive amenity space.
Furthermore, the sunroom and deck will have adequate separation from the two abutting
properties and will not be taller than the existing principle building, and will therefore not impact
the views or lighting of the adjacent properties.
The variance is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will still
provide an adequately spaced rear yard with sufficient amenity area and will not negatively affect
adjacent properties or surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for use of the land as the single detached dwelling is a
permitted use and the proposed variance will allow the owner to continue the use. The scale,
massing, and height of the dwelling and the addition is appropriate and consistent with the
character of the proposed neighbourhood. The proposed variance will not impact the existing
character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood.
Variance 2 (driveway):
The requested variance has no direction from the Official Plan. The Official Plan does not include
any policies that direct the shape, location, or sizing of driveways. It is possible to interpret that
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -138- AUGUST 19, 2014
7. Submission No.: A 2014 -051 (Cont'd)
the Low Rise Residential designation does allow for the development and expansion of single
detached dwellings, and by extension, their driveways. However, the directions in the Official Plan
also assert that development in the Low Rise Residential designation should conform to the
character of the neighbourhood. Considering the non - standard shape of the lot and the
circumstances surrounding it, Staff understands the individual merits of the application and the
driveway.
The proposed variance to the driveway width expansion does not meet the intent of the Zoning
By -law. The purpose of the regulation is to minimize the extent to which a driveway can occupy
the front of a lot. A maximum driveway width for this lot is 8 metres and is sufficient to provide
additional parking spaces on a property as well as allow access to an attached garage. As a
result, Staff have concerns with the existing width of the driveway within the subject property line
of 28 metres (91.86 ft).
The variance is not considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance greatly
exceeds the regulations, and has the opportunity to set a precedent for similar variance
applications and can lead to other undesirable driveway alignments.
The proposed variance is not appropriate for use of the land. While properties with single
detached dwellings require driveways in order access the primary parking space as well as to
provide additional parking, Staff is of the opinion that the southerly section of the driveway does
not give direct access into the legal parking space contained within the garage due to the location
of the shrub. However, it is also important to note that based on a conversation with the By -law
Enforcement Division, no official complaints have been documented against the property in
regards to the expansion or use of the driveway.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 31, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered written submissions from the neighbouring property owners in
opposition to the proposed application.
Mr. S. Sawatzky addressed the Committee in support of the proposed application. He noted that
he is in support of staffs recommendation to approve the variance for the sunroom and expressed
concerns for the recommendation to refuse the variance for the driveway. He provided a brief
summary of the subject application noting that his company was retained to install the sunroom in
the rear yard. He indicated that the driveway was installed in 2006 to assist the property owner
with accessibility issues and potential wheel chair access. He further advised that the overall
width of the driveway including the extension is 28m wide; however the actual portion of driveway
directly in front of the garage is only 11 m in width.
In response to questions, Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff have made recommendation to
refuse the driveway on the basis that it could become a parking lot due to its size. She
commented that that applicant did not advise staff the potential for requiring an oversized
driveway for accessibility issues, noting in the initial review staff did not believe that it was
appropriate to have such a long driveway.
Mr. B. Clarke addressed the Committee in opposition to the proposed application, stating in his
opinion, there is no need to have a driveway that significant in size. He advised that he has never
seen anyone with accessibility needs entering or exiting the property, stating that the existing
driveway in front of the garage is large enough to accommodate a wheel care if required.
Ms. G. Brown advised that she is in opposition to the proposed application, stating in her opinion
the oversized driveway is aesthetically unpleasant and is not keeping in character of the
neighbourhood. She expressed further concerns that there could be safety concerns with traffic
and the two access points on the driveway.
Mr. B. Brown expressed concerns in 2006 when the driveway was install because the property
owner advised him that all of the required permits were obtained and he did not believe he could
object. He indicated without the driveway extension the subject property can adequately
accommodate 5 parking spaces, 2 in the garage and 3 in the driveway.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -139- AUGUST 19, 2014
I��1• rT1�CTi1�C 1�G��iZCdil.Ti�(�Z.TiTiC
Mr. K. Jantzi expressed concerns with the construction of the sunroom and the drainage in the
rear yard, noting there is a stormwater swale on the westerly side of the rear yard.
Mr. S. Bassanese advised that as part of the Building Permit process staff would review the
grading and drainage to ensure that the stormwater swale is not adversely impacted by the
construction of the sunroom.
Mr. J. Padgett expressed concerns about the oversized driveway, stating his operates a group
home and the driveway portion located in front of the garage would accommodate an accessibility
vehicle if required. He further advised that he as additional concerns about the aesthetics and
what impact it may have on their property values.
In reference to pictures submitted by a neighbouring property owner, the Chair questioned the
applicant on the current state of the driveway. Ms. L. Habicher advised that the extension on the
driveway does require a repair and noted her intentions to complete the work. She further
advised that the company she retained to install the driveway in 2006 advised her that all the
proper approvals were obtained prior to the installation, noting that the company has since gone
out of business. Ms. Habicher indicated that she did install the driveway to accommodate her
health and potential accesiblity requirements and noted that none of her neighbours have
expressed concerns for the driveway until this date.
Mr. B. McColl advised that he has driven through the neighbourhood and commented that the
property, in his opinion, is unique in shape and size. He indicated that the only reason why the
concerns related to the driveway is due to the request to construct a sunroom in the rear of the
property.
Mr. and Ms. Brown advised that the neighbours were advised that proper approvals had been
obtained so they didn't believe they had the ability to object. Mr. Brown advised that there is a
property similar in nature further down the street and expressed concerns for setting precendence
by approving the driveway as it exists this date.
Questions were raised about the width of the driveway and how it would be measured compared
to the Zoning By -law. Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff have conducted a site visit and the
measurements are consistant with the definitions within the Zoning By -law.
Mr. Brown requested that the Committee consider requiring the applicant to remove the extension
on the driveway, advising that the portion in front of the garage is 11 m in width and is still larger
than what would be permitted under the Zoning By -law.
Mr. McColl advised that he has reviewed the application and noted that Transportation Planning
staff have cited no concerns for the extention attached to the driveway.
Mr. McColl brought forward a motion to approve Minor Variance Application A 2014 -051 for the
rear yard setback as recommended by staff; and, to approve a driveway as it currently exists this
date with a driveway width of 28m rather than the permitted 8m.
Ms. J. Meader advised that she could support the application noting that the Committee's
approval would not be prededent setting for others in the neighbourhood.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Liz Habicher requesting permission to construct a sunroom on an
existing single detached dwelling on a triangular- shaped lot having a driveway width of 28m
(91.864') rather than the permitted 8m (26.247'); and, having a rear yard setback of 4.86m
(15.945') rather than the required 7.5m (24.606'), on Lot 49, Plan 1577, 19 Bound Brook Court,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division prior to
construction of the proposed sunroom.
It is the opinion of this Committee that
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -140- AUGUST 19, 2014
Submission No.: A 2014 -051 (Cont'd)
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
This meeting temporarily recessed at 11:40 a.m. and reconvened at 11:45 a.m. with all members
present.
Submission No.: A 2014 -052
Applicants: Stephen & Peggy Dewar
Property Location: 31 Greenock Drive
Legal Description: Lot 496, Plan 1369
Appearances:
In Support: S. Dewar
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct an
attached garage on an existing single detached dwelling having a lot width of 12.76m (41.863')
rather than the required 13.7m (44.947'); and, a southerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') rather
than the required 1.2m (3.94`).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 6, 2014, advising
that the subject property is zoned Residential Three (R -3) in the Zoning By -law and designated
Low Rise Residential in the existing and newly adopted Official Plan (pending Regional approval).
The site currently contains a single detached dwelling. The purpose for the variance application is
to construct an attached garage near the southerly side yard of the property. The garage would
be 4.21 metres wide, 8.84 metres in length, 2.77 metres in height to the underside of the fascia,
and 5.3 metres in height to the peak of the roofline. The garage would be setback 0.60 metres
from the side yard abutting 37 Greenock Drive, and requires the removal of an existing garden
shed and child's playhouse. Furthermore, upon conducting a zoning analysis, an additional
variance was noted for the legalization of a non - conforming lot width. As such, the Owner is
seeking relief from Section 37.2.1 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By -law in order to permit a
reduction in side yard setback for a garage attached to single detached dwelling to 0.6 metres
whereas 1.2 metres is required, and relief from Section 37.2.1 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-
law in order to legalize an existing lot width of 12.76 metres whereas 13.7 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 offers the following comments regarding
the requested minor variance:
The requested variance to legalize the lot width and the proposed side yard in order to construct
an attached garage meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation
allows for the development and expansion of single detached dwellings which maintain the
overall low rise characteristic of the neighbourhood. The requested reduced side yard
requirement to construct the attached garage will continue to conform to the low density character
of the surrounding neighbourhood as it will be a consistent height with the existing dwelling and
will blend in with the development in the area.
The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By -law. The purpose of a side yard
setback of 1.2 metres is to allow for adequate separation from adjacent properties, access to the
rear of the property, and access to the walls, roof, and eaves of the property for maintenance.
Staff is of the opinion that the opposite side yard, which conforms to the Zoning By -law and has a
setback of 1.55 metres, is sufficient to provide access to the rear of the property. Access to the
walls, roof, and eaves of the proposed new garage can also be accessed from the front or rear
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 141 - AUGUST 19, 2014
:��1.7 �T1�[Ti1 � �7i1•���iZC�dil.'yl(K.TiTiC
face of the garage structure. The 0.6 metre setback for an attached garage also meets the
building code separation requirements. Staff also considers the separation between properties to
be sufficient because the Zoning By -law also has regulations which allow attached garages on
single detached dwellings with specific lot sizes as well as detached garages to be located 0.6
metres from the side lot line. This interpretation is supported by a letter from the Owner which
mentions that the owners of the property adjacent to the construction (37 Greenock Drive) are
aware of the proposal and have no objections.
The variance is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance continues to
provide an adequately spaced side yard with adequate separation between properties and will
not negatively affect the adjacent properties or surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for use of the land as the single detached dwelling use is a
permitted use in the Zoning By -law. The proposed variance will allow the Owner to continue the
use of the single detached dwelling. Furthermore, the scale, massing, and height of the attached
garage is less than the height of the habitable portion of the dwelling, and is appropriate and
consistent with the character of the proposed neighbourhood. The proposed variance will not
impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 31, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Stephen & Peggy Dewar requesting permission to construct an
attached garage on an existing single detached dwelling having a lot width of 12.76m (41.863')
rather than the required 13.7m (44.947'); and, a southerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.97')
rather than the required 1.2m (3.94`), on Lot 496, Plan 1369, 31 Greenock Drive, Kitchener,
Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division prior to
construction of the attached garage.
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
CONSENT
1. Submission No.: B 2014 -028
Applicant: 2211452 Ontario Inc.
Property Locations: 51 Third Avenue
Legal Description: Part Lot 52, Plan 254
Appearances:
In Support: A. & F. Rosu
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
so each half of a semi - detached residential development can be dealt with separately. Both the
severed and retained lots will front onto Third Avenue, with the severed land having a lot width of
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -142- AUGUST 19, 2014
1. Submission No.: B 2014 -028 (Cont'd)
7.878m (25.846'), by a depth of 40.211m (131.925') and an area of 316.78 sq.m. (3409.792
sq.ft.); and the retained land having a lot width of 7.878m (25.846'), by a depth of 40.211m
(131.925') and an area of 316.78 sq.m. (3409.792 sq. ft.).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 12, 2014 advising
that the property is municipally addressed as 51 Third Avenue. A semi - detached dwelling is
currently under construction on the property. The immediately surrounding area is comprised
mainly of low rise residential dwellings.
The property is 633.62 square metres in area with 15.756 metres of frontage on Third Avenue
and a varying lot depth of approximately 40.2 metres.
The applicant is requesting consent to sever the lot in half (i.e., along the common wall of the
semi - detached dwelling) in order to allow separate ownership of each semi - detached dwelling
unit.
The application proposes to sever a 316.82 square metre lot with a 7.878 metre lot width and a
varying lot depth of approximately 40.2 metres. The proposed retained lot is 316.80 square
metres in area with a 7.878 metre lot width and a varying lot depth of approximately 40.2 metres.
The proposed severance would have the effect of allowing individual ownership of each semi-
detached house.
The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned as
Residential Four Zone (R -4). An analysis of the sketch provided with the application
demonstrates that both severed and retained lots would comply with the Zoning By -law.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed severance conforms to
the City's Official Plan and that the configuration of the proposed lots can be considered
appropriate for the use of the lands. Staff is further of the opinion that the proposal is consistent
with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated August
11, 2014, advising that although they have no objections to this application, they noted that since
there are intervening land uses between the proposed dwellings and the Highways and the
residential dwellings have been constructed on the retained and severed lot, in lieu of a
Transportation Noise Study in this instance the Developer has the option to do a Noise Study or
enter into an agreement with the City to require the following noise warning clause:
"Purchasers /tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Highway 8
and Highway 7/8 may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the
levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the
Environment."
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of 2211452 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
having a lot width on Third Avenue of 7.878m (25.846'), by a depth of 40.211 m (131.925') and
an area of 316.78 sq.m. (3409.792 sq.ft.), on Part Lot 52, Plan 254, 51 Third Avenue,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and /or local improvement
charges.
2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or Agn (Microstation) format, as well as
two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted
according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of
the City's Mapping Technologist.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -143- AUGUST 19, 2014
1. Submission No.: B 2014 -028 (Cont'd)
3. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed in the amount of 3,623.88
(2014 rates).
4. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering
Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed and retained
lands.
5. That the owner 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 severed and retained lands.
6. That the owner make arrangements financial or otherwise for the relocation of any
existing City -owned street furniture, transit shelters, signs, hydrants, utility poles, wires
or lines, as required, to the satisfaction of the appropriate City department.
7. A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system along with the
sanitary and storm sewer design sheets will be required to the satisfaction of the City's
Director of Engineering.
8. That the owner prepare and receive approval of the Development and Reconstruction
As- Recorded Tracking Form, along with a digital submission of all AutoCad drawings
required for the site with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system
to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division, as per the Public Sector Accounting
Board (PSAB) S. 3150.
9. That the owner shall prepare a Transportation Noise Study, to the satisfaction of the
Regional Commissioner of Planning, Housing and Community Services, to indicate to
the Regional Municipality of Waterloo methods to be used to abate traffic noise levels
from Provincial Highway 8 and Provincial Highway 7/8 for all units and if necessary, the
owner enter into a registered development agreement with the City of Kitchener;
A]V
That the owner may enter into a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener to
include the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase /sale, deeds and
tenancy agreements for all units:
"Purchasers /tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on
Highway 8 and Highway 7/8 may occasionally interfere with some activities of the
dwelling occupants as the levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo
and the Ministry of the Environment."
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.
Carried
COMBINED APPLICATIONS:
1. Submission Nos.: B 2014 -017
Applicants: Leanne and Gerald Leeman
Property Location: 99 North Hill Place
Legal Description: Part Lot 54, German Company Tract
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -144- AUGUST 19, 2014
Submission No.: B 2014 -028, A 2014 -020 & A 2014 -021 (Cont'd)
- and -
Submission No.: A 2014 -020
Applicant: Leanne Leeman
Property Location: 99 North Hill Place
Legal Description: Part Lot 54, German Company Tract
r of
Submission No.: A 2014 -021
Applicants: Leanne and Gerald Leeman
Property Location: 107 -109 North Hill Place
Legal Description: Part Lot 54, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support: G. & L. Leeman
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to sever two parcels of
land easement 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 26.245m (86.106') a
depth of 25.9m (84.973') and an area of 670 sq.m. (7211.82 sq.ft.); the second parcel being
severed is from the northerly side of the property fronting on North Hill Place having a width of
34.815m (114.22') a northerly depth of 55.651m (182.582') and an area of 1533 sq.m.
(16501.075 sq.ft.). In addition, permission is also being requested for an irregular- shaped
easement having a width of 5m (16.404`) and a length of 75m (246.06') across 99 North Hill Place
in favour of 107 -109 North Hill Place for servicing. Both properties will continue to be used as
residential. Due to the requested consent for the lot additions, 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 August 11, 2014, advising
that the subject properties are located at the east end of North Hill Place (NHP) 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 Leanne 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 NHP is owned by Gerald and Leanne
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 since neither has frontage on a
Public Street, as required by Section 5.2 of the Zoning By -law. It should be noted that even if a
use is included in the list of permitted uses of an applicable zoning classification, it is not
permitted unless all other applicable zoning regulations are met; otherwise, the use is prohibited.
In April 2014, the owners submitted 3 Committee of Adjustment applications: a consent
application for a lot addition and two permission applications to deal with the legal non - conforming
issue. At that time staff was advised by the applicant that 107 -109 NHP is not independently
serviced directly from North Hill Place. Instead, separate water and sanitary services for 107 -109
NHP extend across 99 NHP and then connect to Chicopee Terrace. In this regard, 107 -109 NHP
is dependent on water and sanitary lines that run through a separately conveyable parcel of land.
Consequently, staff recommended that the applications be deferred in order to allow the applicant
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -145- AUGUST 19, 2014
1. Submission No.: B 2014 -028. A 2014 -020 & A 2014 -021 (Cont'd)
opportunity to modify the consent application to request a servicing easement over 99 NHP in
favour of 107 -109 NHP. The Committee deferred the applications as recommended.
The applicant has since modified the consent application to also include the servicing easement
and has provided a corresponding draft reference plan. The revised submission includes 3
applications:
Consent Application B 2014 -017 requests to sever two parcels of land from the property
addressed as 99 NHP (refer to Part 1 and Part 5 on the draft reference plan submitted with the
application) and add them to the property addressed as 107 -109 NHP. Through this application
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 6.4 metre frontage). A servicing easement is also requested via this application.
Specifically:
the resultant lot addressed as 99 NHP would have an approximate lot width of 21.35m, a
depth ranging between 68.314m and 77.69m, and an area of 1834.9 square metres.
the resultant lot addressed as 107 -109 NHP would have an approximate lot width of
41.158m, a depth of 170m, and an area of 6834 square metres.
the servicing easement would be 5.Om wide, would extend from North Hill Place through
99 NHP to 107 -109 NHP. This easement would accommodate existing sanitary and water
services and would ensure access rights for servicing are secured for 107 -109 NHP in the
event of the sale of the property. The existing single detached dwelling would not be
affected by the easement.
Application A 2014 -020 relates to 99 NHP and requests permission under Section 45(2)(a)(ii) of
the Planning Act to change a legal non - conforming use, being a single detached dwelling on a lot
that does not abut a public street, by changing the lot configuration via the above noted consent
application (reduction in area from approximately 4037.9 square metres to 1834.9 square
metres).
Application A 2014 -021 relates to 107 -109 NHP and requests permission under Section
45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act to change a legal non - conforming use, being a single detached
dwelling and garden suite on a lot that does not abut a public street, by changing the lot
configuration via the above noted consent application (increase in area from approximately
4631.16 square metres to 6834 square metres).
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 lot addition request will improve the shapes of both resultant
lots so that they are more rectangular / regular. While the lands do not front onto an established
public street, no new lots are being created and no new /additional uses are proposed, therefore,
the existing legal non - conforming uses are not being exacerbated. The proposed servicing
easement will ensure that 107 -109 NHP is appropriately serviced, while 99 NHP is already
appropriately serviced.
Case law sets out the tests to be applied for permission applications under Section 45(2)(a)(ii) of
the Planning Act. These tests have been shown to be:
1. Whether the approval of the application is in the public interest;
2. Whether the approval represents good planning;
3. Whether the proposed application creates unacceptable adverse impacts upon the
abutting properties; and
4. Is the proposed use similar as required in Section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act.
Staff is satisfied that both permission applications are in the public interest, represent good
planning and do not create unacceptable adverse impacts on abutting properties.
Furthermore, the proposed use of 99 NHP, being a single detached dwelling on a legal non-
conforming lot with a reduced width, depth, and area is similar to the existing legal non-
conforming use. Also, the proposed use of 107 -109 NHP, being a single detached dwelling and
garden suite on a legal non - conforming lot with a reduced width, depth, and area is similar to the
existing legal non - conforming use.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -146- AUGUST 19, 2014
1. Submission No.: B 2014 -028, A 2014 -020 & A 2014 -021 (Cont'd)
It should be noted that if permission for these changes is granted the resulting uses will still be
considered legal non - conforming. Any future changes to those uses, lots or structures would
require an amendment to the zoning by -law or further permission through application to the
Committee of Adjustment under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Principal Planner, dated August
11, 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
July 31, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with Submission Nos. A 2014 -020 and A
2014 -021.
Submission No. B 2014 -017
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Gerald & Leanne Leeman requesting permission to sever two parcels of
land from 99 North Hill Place to be conveyed as a lot additions to 107 -109 North Hill Place.
The first parcel being severed is in the rear yard (as illustrated as Part 5 on the Plan submitted
with the application) having a width of 26.245m (86.106') a depth of 25.9m (84.973') and an
area of 670 sq.m. (7211.82 sq.ft.); the second parcel being severed is from the northerly side
of the property fronting on North Hill Place (as illustrated as Part 1 on the Plan submitted with
the application) having a width of 34.815m (114.22') a northerly depth of 55.651 m (182.582')
and an area of 1533 sq.m. (16501.075 sq.ft.). In addition, permission is also being requested
for an irregular- shaped easement having a width of 5m (16.404`) and a length of 75m (246.06')
across 99 North Hill Place in favour of 107 -109 North Hill Place for servicing, on Part Lot 54,
German Company Tract, 99 North Hill Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and /or local improvement
charges.
2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or Agn (Microstation) format, as well as
two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted
according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of
the City's Mapping Technologist.
3. That the 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
easement illustrated as Part 3 on the plan submitted with the application form is
maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately
following the Transfer Easement(s);
4. 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;
5. The City Solicitor be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and
joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
6. That the lands to be severed, illustrated as Parts 1 and 5 on the plan submitted with the
application form, be added to the abutting lands addressed as 107 -109 North Hill Place
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -147- AUGUST 19, 2014
1. Submission No.: B 2014 -028. A 2014 -020 & A 2014 -021 (Cont'd)
7. That the owner's Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an
Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the
Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of
the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable
time following registration.
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.
Carried
Submission No. A 2014 -020
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Leanne Leeman requesting permission to change legal a 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, on Part Lot 54,
German Company Tract, 99 North Hill Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and /or local improvement
charges.
2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or Agn (Microstation) format, as well as
two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted
according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of
the City's Mapping Technologist.
3. That the 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
easement illustrated as Part 3 on the plan submitted with the application form is
maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately
following the Transfer Easement(s);
4. 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;
5. The City Solicitor be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and
joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
6. That the lands to be severed, illustrated as Parts 1 and 5 on the plan submitted with the
application form, be added to the abutting lands addressed as 107 -109 North Hill Place
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -148- AUGUST 19, 2014
1. Submission No.: B 2014 -028. A 2014 -020 & A 2014 -021 (Cont'd)
7. That the owner's Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an
Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the
Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of
the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable
time following registration.
It is the opinion of this Committee that the request for permission to change 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 under Section 45 (2) (a) of the Planning Act is
appropriate for the following reasons:
1. The use of this property as a single detached 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 use of 99 North Hill Place, being a single detached dwelling on a
legal non - conforming lot with a reduced width, depth, and area is similar in nature to the
existing legal non - conforming use.
Carried
Submission No. A 2014 -021
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Gerald & Leanne Leeman requesting permission to change a legal non-
conforming use, being single detached dwelling and garden suite on a legal non - conforming lot
that does not abut a public street, but rather a public lane, by changing the lot configuration, on
Part Lot 54, German Company Tract, 107 -109 North Hill Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and /or local improvement
charges.
2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or Agn (Microstation) format, as well as
two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted
according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of
the City's Mapping Technologist.
3. That the 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
easement illustrated as Part 3 on the plan submitted with the application form is
maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately
following the Transfer Easement(s);
4. 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;
5. The City Solicitor be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s) and
joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
6. That the lands to be severed, illustrated as Parts 1 and 5 on the plan submitted with the
application form, be added to the abutting lands addressed as 107 -109 North Hill Place
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -149- AUGUST 19, 2014
Submission No.: B 2014 -028, A 2014 -020 & A 2014 -021 (Cont'd)
7. That the owner's Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor's Undertaking to register an
Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the
Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of
the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable
time following registration.
It is the opinion of this Committee that the request for permission to change being single
detached dwelling and garden suite on a legal non - conforming lot that does not abut a public
street, but rather a public lane, by changing the lot configuration under Section 45 (2) (a) of the
Planning Act is appropriate for the following reasons:
The use of this property as a single detached 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 use of 107 -109 North Hill Place, being a single detached dwelling
and garden suite on a legal non - conforming lot with an increased width, depth, and area
is similar in nature to the existing legal non - conforming use.
Carried
Submission Nos.: B 2014 -026 & A 2014 -043
Applicant: Losani Homes
Property Location: 6 Elmbank Trail
Legal Description: Lot 114, Registered Plan 58M -570
Appearances:
In Support: K. Barisdale
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
having a triangular shape with a width on Elmbank Trail of 27.413m, a westerly depth of 22.310m
(73.196'), a northerly depth of 34.388m (112.82'), and an area of 321.2 sq.m. (3457.368 sq.ft.).
The retained land will have a width of 6.198m; an easterly depth of 22.310m; and an area of
157.7 sq.m. (1708.233 sq.ft.). Permission is also being requested for the severed lot to have an
easterly side yard setback of 1.487m (4.878') rather than the required 2.5m (8.202'); a front yard
setback of 3.028m (9.934') rather than the required 4.5m (14.764'); and, a Driveway Visibility
Triangle of 3.546m (11.634') rather than the required 4.5m (14.764'). Both the severed and
retained lands are proposed for residential development.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 7, 2014, advising
that the subject property located at 6 Elmbank Trail is designated Low Rise Residential in the
City's Official Plan and is zoned Residential Six Zone (R -6) in the City's Zoning By -law.
The owner has submitted a site plan application (SP14 /052 /E /MV), for the creation of a row of
street fronting townhouse dwellings along Elmbank Trail.
The owner is proposing to sever 6 Elmbank Trail into two residential lots. The severed lands (4
Elmbank Trail) would have an area of 321.2 square metres, with a lot width of 27.413 metres and
a varying lot depth. The retained lands (6 Elmbank Trail) would have an area of 158.7 square
metres with a lot width of 6.198 metres and a lot depth of approximately 25 metres. Both the
severed and retained lands are proposed to be used for street fronting townhouse dwellings.
If the proposed severance application is approved, it would require three minor variances on the
severed lands due to the severed lot's shape and the proposed location and design of the new
street fronting townhouse dwelling. The owner would require the following minor variances:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -150- AUGUST 19, 2014
Submission No.: B 2014 -026 & A 2014 -043 (Cont'd
1. Relief from section 40.2.5 for a side yard setback of 1.487 metres, whereas the By -law
requires a minimum side yard setback of 2.5 metres;
2. Relief from section 40.2.5 for a front yard setback of 3.028 metres, whereas the By -law
requires a minimum setback of 4.5 metres; and,
3. Relief from section 5.3 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By -law to encroach into the
Driveway Visibility Triangle by 1.02 metres, whereas the By -law requires no obstruction to
visibility within a Driveway Visibility Triangle, which is defined as a triangular area formed
within a lot by the intersection of any driveway line and a lot line, or the projections thereof,
and a straight line connecting them 4.57 metres from their point of intersection.
Consent Application B 2014 -026:
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the uses of the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the
City's Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lot is appropriate and suitable for
the existing and proposed use, the lands front on an established public street, and adequate
utilities and municipal services are available. Also, the resulting new residential lot at 4 Elmbank
Trail will create a lot size that will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area. The
retained lot at 6 Elmbank Trail will be compatible in size with the adjacent lots along Elmbank
Trail.
Minor Variance Application A2014 -043:
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 variances:
The requested variances for the proposed side yard setback reduction, front yard setback
reduction and encroachment into the Driveway Visibility Triangle meet the intent of the Official
Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential
development and allows for modest alterations. The proposed variances will permit reduced side
and front yard setbacks for the proposed townhouse dwelling. The minor change will maintain the
low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposed variances meet the intent of the Zoning By -law. The purpose of a side yard
setback of 2.5 metres is to allow adequate space for the owner to provide access to and from the
rear yard. The proposed side yard setback of 1.487 metres will still allow the Owner adequate
access space to the rear yard. The proposed front yard setback of 3.028 metres will allow
adequate space for amenity area and landscaping. The minor encroachment into the Driveway
Visibility Triangle (DVT) will still allow the safe ingress and egress from the legal parking space
located within the garage. Transportation planning staff supports the requested variance to allow
this DVT encroachment. Only the porch support pillar (which is above 0.9m in height), will be
causing the visual obstruction.
The variances are considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances will
provide adequate access space, landscaping space and maintain safe driving conditions on the
subject lands. The variances will not negatively affect the adjacent properties or surrounding
neighbourhood.
The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed
residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By -law. The proposed variances will allow the
owner to maximize the potential of the subject lands for a street fronting townhouse use while
maintaining rear yard access, adequate front yard landscaping, and safe ingress and egress from
the required legal parking space. The scale, massing and height of the proposed townhouse are
appropriate and consistent with the existing neighbourhood. The proposed variances will not
impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Principal Planner, dated August
11, 2014, advising that they have no objection to Submission No. B 2014 -026.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 31, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with Submission No. A 2014 -043.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 151 - AUGUST 19, 2014
2. Submission No.: B 2014 -026 & A 2014 -043 (Cont'd)
Submission No. B 2014 -026
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Losani Homes requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a
triangular shape with a width on Elmbank Trail of 27.413m, a westerly depth of 22.310m
(73.196'), a northerly depth of 34.388m (112.82'), and an area of 321.2 sq.m. (3457.368 sq.ft.),
on Lot 114, Registered Plan 58M -570, 6 Elmbank Trail, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and /or local improvement
charges.
2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or Agn (Microstation) format, as well as
two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted
according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of
the City's Mapping Technologist.
3. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering
Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the (severed lands and /or
retained) lands.
4. That the owner 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 (severed lands and /or retained) lands.
5. That the owner provides a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing
system to the satisfaction of the City's Engineering Services.
6. That as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 a completed
Development and Reconstruction As- Recorded Tracking Form is required to be
submitted along with a digital submission of all drawings required for approval by the
Engineering Division to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services.
7. That the owner shall receive approval of Minor Variance application A 2014 -043.
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.
Carried
Submission No. A 2014 -043
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Losani Homes requesting permission to construct a street fronting
townhouse having an easterly side yard setback of 1.487m (4.878') rather than the required
2.5m (8.202'); a front yard setback of 3.028m (9.934') rather than the required 4.5m (14.764');
and, a Driveway Visibility Triangle of 3.546m (11.634') rather than the required 4.5m (14.764'),
on Lot 114, Registered Plan 58M -570, 6 Elmbank Trail, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED,
subject to the following condition.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -152- AUGUST 19, 2014
Submission No.: B 2014 -026 & A 2014 -043 (Cont'd)
That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division prior to
construction.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.: B 2014 -029 & B 2014 -030
Applicants: FC Domaine Holdings (Ontario) Corporation
Property Location: 569, 589 & 655 Fairway Road
Legal Description: Part Lots 2, 4 and 6, Plan 1525, being Part 2 on
Reference Plan 58R -1384
Submission Nos.: A 2014 -053
Applicant: FC Domaine Holdings (Ontario) Corporation
Property Location: 569, 589 & 655 Fairway Road
Legal Description: Part Lots 4 and 6, Plan 1525
Appearances:
In Support: N. Michael
R. Richards
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to grant blanket
easements over 569 -589 Fairway Road South and 655 Fairway Road South in their entirety in
favour of each other for vehicular movement and access. Permission is also being requested for
variances on 569 -589 Fairway Road South for a side yard setback for proposed Retail "B" of
0.844m (2.769`) rather than the required 3m (9.84'); a side yard setback for proposed `Restaurant
C' of Om rather than the required 3m (9.84'); a front yard setback for proposed "Restaurant C' of
4.05m (13.287') rather than the required 6m (19.685); a side yard setback for proposed `Retail H'
of 0.1m (0.328') rather than the required 3m (9.84'); and, an off - street parking setback of 2.35m
(7.709') rather than the required 3m (9.84').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 30, 2014, advising that
the subject properties are located on the south side of Fairway Road South between Manitou
Drive and Wilson Avenue. The properties at 569 and 589 Fairway Road South have been
consolidated on title for redevelopment purposes. Both sites consist of commercial development.
The properties are designated Primary Node — Fairway Road Commercial Corridor in the City's
Official Plan and zoned C -8 with Special Use and Regulation Provisions. The Official Plan
designation and zoning permit the use of the properties for commercial plazas.
The three properties which are subject to this application are all First Capital Holdings properties
although they are each owned under a different name, all three properties have been designed to
function as one continuous plaza. The purpose of this application will further facilitate the
contiguous function of the sites.
The proposed redevelopment of 569/589 Fairway Road South has recently undergone Site Plan
Approval which identified the need for minor variances and consent for a blanket easement for
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -153- AUGUST 19, 2014
3. Submission No.: B 2014 -029, B 2014 -030 & A 2014 -053 (Cont'd)
truck and vehicular movements, garbage facilities and sidewalk encroachment onto 655 Fairway
Road South and shared loading spaces.
The applicant is requesting the following minor variances on 569/589 Fairway Road South:
1. Relief from Section 13A.2.1 to allow proposed Retail B building to have a side yard
setback of 0.844 metres rather than the required 3.0 metres;
2. Relief from Section 13A.2.1 to allow proposed Restaurant C building to have a side yard
setback of 0.0 metres rather than the required 3.0 metres;
3. Relief from Section 13A.2.1 to allow proposed Restaurant C building to have a front yard
setback of 4.05 metres rather than the required 6.0 metres;
4. Relief from Section 13A.2.1 to allow proposed Retail H building to have a side yard
setback of 0.1 metres rather than the required 3.0 metres;
5. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1 a) iv) to allow parking spaces to have a setback of 2.35 metres
rather than the required 3.0 metres; and,
The applicant is requesting the following consent:
1. To create blanket easements over 569/589 Fairway Road South and 655 Fairway Road
South.
Minor Variance Considerations:
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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan for the following reasons. The intent
of the Primary Node — Fairway Road Commercial Corridor is to have both a city -wide and
regional orientation providing the largest mix and concentration of employment, tourism, housing
and cultural uses and the full range of commercial uses. While fully accessible to automobile
traffic, new development shall provide pedestrian facilities to allow for pedestrian movement
along the street, between buildings and between the street and buildings. Further, vehicular
access points shall be controlled to minimize disruption to traffic flow and new development may
be required to share common driveways and provide for manoeuvrability between sites.
The site is currently developed with a large commercial plaza that will be expanded with the
addition of new free standing buildings as well as an addition to the existing plaza building on site.
Through the site plan approval process, enhanced pedestrian facilities have been provided and
vehicular manoeuvrability between sites created to reduce traffic impacts on the operation of
Fairway Road. Therefore, staff is satisfied that the general intent of the Official Plan designation
is being maintained.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By -law for the following reasons. The Commercial
Campus Zone (C -8) requires specific building setbacks to property lines to ensure adequate
separation between uses and the public streets. The requested variances for the proposed
development will not create any adverse conditions for the adjoining properties nor have any
negative impacts on the public street.
Variances 1 & 2 for reduced site yard setback are adjacent to additional lands under the same
parent company ownership and the properties are intended to function together creating the
appearance of a contiguous development.
Variance 3 requesting a reduced front yard setback for the proposed restaurant will provide
adequate setback from Fairway Road while still allowing room for landscaping as well as a
pedestrian connection and sidewalk.
Variance 4 requesting a side yard setback of 0.1 metres meets the intent of the zoning by -law as
the building is adjacent to the driveway to the storage facility use on the abutting lot which will not
impact the use and the building will be constructed of maintenance free materials.
Variance 5 requesting a reduced setback to parking adjacent to Fairway Road South meeting the
intent of the by -law as there will still be adequate room for landscape planting and the Regional
Road boulevard is approximately 11 metres wide creating a significant buffer to the street.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -154- AUGUST 19, 2014
3. Submission No.: B 2014 -029. B 2014 -030 & A 2014 -053 (Cont'd)
The variances are considered minor and appropriate for the following reasons. In the opinion of
staff, given the nature of the requested variances for this property, allowing the reduced setback
will allow for a more comprehensive development on the property that will function as a
contiguous plaza while having no impact or creating adverse effects on the abutting lands. The
proposed redevelopment of the site will create additional commercial space which is permitted on
site with new buildings facing Fairway Road South creating a more pedestrian oriented
development of quality urban design.
Consent and Easement Considerations
The applicant is requesting consent to create blanket easements over 569/589 and 655 Fairway
Road South to allow the sites to continue to function as a contiguous plaza with shared truck
routes, vehicular and pedestrian flows along with shared garbage and loading facilities and
shared property management. The easement will also acknowledge the encroachment of
garbage facilities and sidewalk onto 655 Fairway Road South.
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 creating blanket easements over 569/589 and 655
Fairway Road South is appropriate and suitable for the subject properties to accommodate the
existing and future development on the subject lands. All three properties are owned and
managed by the same parent company and staff is satisfied that the creation of blanket
easements is the most appropriate method rather than attempting to identify all potential cross
easements and encroachments on a reference plan.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo Principal Planner, dated August
11, 2014, advising that they have no objection to Submission Nos. B 2014 -029 and B 2014 -030.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 31, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with Submission No. A 2014 -053.
Submission No. B 2014 -029
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of FC Domaine Holdings (Ontario) Corporation requesting permission to
grant a blanket easement over 569 -589 Fairway Road South in its entirety in favour of 655
Fairway Road South for vehicular movement and access, on Part Lots 4 and 6, Plan 1525,
being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R -1384, 569 and 589 Fairway Road South, Kitchener,
Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and /or local improvement
charges.
2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or Agn (Microstation) format, as well as
two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted
according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of
the City's Mapping Technologist.
3. That the 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 said
easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title
immediately following the Transfer Easement.
4. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement
and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, be provided to
the City Solicitor.
5. The City Solicitor be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement and joint
maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -155- AUGUST 19, 2014
3. Submission No.: B 2014 -029, B 2014 -030 & A 2014 -053 (Cont'd)
6. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking agreeing to register a Blanket Easement over
the entirety of 569/589 and 655 Fairway Road South be provided to the City Solicitor.
7. That the owner shall receive approval of Minor Variance application A 2014 -053.
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.
Carried
Submission No. B 2014 -030
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of FC Domaine Holdings (Ontario) Corporation requesting permission to
grant a blanket easement over 655 Fairway Road South in its entirety and in favour of 569 -589
Fairway Road South for vehicular movement and access, on Part Lot 2, Plan 1525, 655
Fairway Road South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and /or local improvement
charges.
2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or Agn (Microstation) format, as well as
two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted
according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of
the City's Mapping Technologist.
3. That the 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 said
easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title
immediately following the Transfer Easement.
4. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement
and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, be provided to
the City Solicitor.
5. The City Solicitor be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement and joint
maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
6. That a satisfactory Solicitor's Undertaking agreeing to register a Blanket Easement over
the entirety of 569/589 and 655 Fairway Road South be provided to the City Solicitor.
7. That the owner shall receive approval of Minor Variance application A 2014 -053.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -156- AUGUST 19, 2014
Submission No.: B 2014 -029, B 2014 -030 & A 2014 -053 (Cont'd)
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Submission No. A 2014 -053
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of FC Domaine Holdings (Ontario) Corporation requesting permission for a
side yard setback for proposed Retail "B" of 0.844m (2.769`) rather than the required 3m
(9.84'); a side yard setback for proposed `Restaurant C' of Om rather than the required 3m
(9.84'); a front yard setback for proposed "Restaurant C' of 4.05m (13.287') rather than the
required 6m (19.685); a side yard setback for proposed `Retail H' of 0.1m (0.328') rather than
the required 3m (9.84'); and, an off - street parking setback of 2.35m (7.709') rather than the
required 3m (9.84'), on Part Lots 4 and 6, Plan 1525, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-
1384, 569 and 589 Fairway Road South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the
following conditions:
That the owner shall receive approval of Consent application B 2014 -029.
2. That the owner shall receive approval of Consent application B 2014 -030.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
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
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.: A 2014 -039
Applicant: Howe Brownstones Inc.
Property Location: 361 -371 Lancaster Street West
Legal Description: Part Lots 19 and 20, Plan 789
Appearances:
In Support: S. Litt
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a multi -
residential development containing two buildings having a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.95,
rather than the permitted 0.6; and, having 28 off - street parking spaces rather than the required 29
off - street parking spaces.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 8, 2014, advising
that the subject properties are located on the north side of Lancaster Street West just east of
Union Street. 361 and 371 Lancaster Street West is described as a relatively flat, rectangular
shaped parcel of land with approximately 61 metres of frontage onto Lancaster Street West with
approximately 48 metres in depth totally an area of 0.29 hectares. Each property is developed
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -157- AUGUST 19, 2014
i��1• Ti1� [Ti1��7�_��iTiC�diX�'I(�.TiTii*
with a residential structure. Surrounding land use is characterized as a mix of low rise residential
including single, duplex and multiple dwellings and commercial (a neighbourhood plaza).
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the current approved Official Plan and
in the adopted Official Plan. The zoning affecting these lands is Residential Six (R -6).
The owner is proposing to redevelop the site with two blocks of 3 storey stacked townhouses
containing 48 dwelling units with surface parking for 28 vehicles as illustrated on the site plan
attached to this report. Site Plan application (SP14 /030 /L/BB) was "Approved in Principle" at the
Site Plan Review Committee meeting of May 14, 2014 subject to fulfilling a number of conditions
including Committee of Adjustment approval for two minor variances required to facilitate the
proposed development.
The variances being sought are relief from:
1) Section 40.6 of the Zoning By -law to allow a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.95 instead of
the required 0.6; and'
2) Section 6.1.2 (a) of the Zoning By -law to allow for a total of 28 parking spaces instead of
the required 29.
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.
Floor Space Ratio Variance Considerations:
The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential (LRR) in the City's Official Plan. The
general intent is to allow for single and semi - detached and multiple residential dwelling at a lower
intensity and scale of development. The FSR requirement in the LRR designation is to regulate
the massing and scale of a development to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area.
Because this development is considered infill and variances are being requested, the infill policies
of Section 2 of the Official Plan also apply. The intent of the infill policies is to ensure impacts
associated with new infill development are assessed.
In the opinion of staff, the general intent of the Official Plan is being met with the proposal. Firstly,
multiple dwellings are considered an appropriate building form in the LRR designation.
Secondly, the development proposal has been extensively reviewed by staff through the site plan
approval process. Staff has evaluated the massing of the buildings, context, compatibility, front
yard setback considerations, rear yard setback and buffering, building elevations and roof line
articulation, parking, amenity area location and overall function of the site. As a result of this
evaluation, staff is satisfied the "tests" outlined in the infill policies of the Official Plan for new
development have been satisfied.
The subject property is zoned Residential Six (R -6). The intent of the 0.6 FSR in the Zoning By-
law is to ensure new residential development is at a scale and size to ensure a lower intensity of
use in keeping with the surrounding low rise residential neighbourhood. Staff is of the opinion the
request for a 0.95 FSR is in keeping with the intent of the zoning by -law for the following reasons.
1. The R -6 zoning permits the use of a multiple dwelling.
2. The development proposal conforms to all setback and height requirements of the R -6
zone as -of- right.
3. The primary reason for the overage in FSR is due to the fact the definition of FSR has
changed to now include the basement floor area. Excluding the basement floor area, the
FSR would be 0.68.
4. Visually, the proposal will appear as a 3 storey multiple. The basement area will be barely
visible from the public realm despite having to count its floor area towards the FSR
calculation.
5. Contextually, multiple dwellings are ideally suited for this property. 361 and 371 Lancaster
Street front onto Lancaster Street which is a Regional roadway designed to carry larger
traffic volumes. It is also situated immediately adjacent to a neighbourhood commercial
plaza which makes a multiple dwelling both a compatible building form and an appropriate
transitional building form adjacent to residential lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -158- AUGUST 19, 2014
i��1• Ti1� [Ti1��7�_��iTiC�diX�'I(�.TiTii*
The proposed variance can be considered minor and appropriate for the development and use of
the land for the above -noted reasons. It is staffs opinion that the proposed minor variance will
have minimal impact due to the location and orientation of buildings proposed on site and given
the overall context and setting of the area.
Parking Space Variance Considerations:
The requested minor variance meets the intent of the City's Official Plan. Staff is satisfied the
intent of the Official Plan is being maintained. The policies within the Low Rise Residential
designation encourage a range of uses and favour the mixing and integration of different forms of
housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use, to ensure the site functions in an orderly and
practical manner and that adequate parking is provided.
The intent of Section 6.1.2 a) of the Zoning By -law is to ensure there are sufficient parking spaces
provided for the proposed use on site. Given the context, location and the fact that Lancaster
Street West is on a bus route, a reduction of one parking space can be supported by
Transportation Services. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance meets the intent of
the Zoning By -law as the loss of one space will not have not have a negative impact.
The reduction in one parking space can be considered minor and appropriate for the use of land
as the proposed variances continue to maintain a low rise residential development. The site
design has been thoroughly reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee and it is staffs opinion
that the applicant has provided sufficient support that the minor variances will not impact the
subject site or the surrounding properties.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 31, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. S. Litt advised that he is in attendance in support of the subject application advising that he is
in support of the staff recommendation.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Howe Brownstones Inc. requesting permission to construct a multi -
residential development containing two buildings having a maximum Floor Space Ratio of
0.95, rather than the permitted 0.6; and, having 28 off - street parking spaces rather than the
required 29 off - street parking spaces, on Part Lots 19 and 20, Plan 789, 361 -371 Lancaster
Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain final approval of Site Plan Application (SP14 /030 /L /BB) by
May 14, 2016 to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development & Customer
Service.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.: A 2014 -049
Applicant: Freure Village on Clair Creek Inc.
Property Location: 214 Moorlands Crescent
Leaal Description: Lot 4. Reaistered Plan 58M -541
Appearances:
In Support: R. Dalling
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -159- AUGUST 19, 2014
2. Submission No.: A 2014 -049 (Cont'd)
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having an westerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') without a maintenance
easement on the adjacent property whereas the By -law requires properties having a side yard
setback of 0.6m (1.97') or less to have a maintenance easement.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 11, 2014, advising
that the subject properties are zoned Residential Four (R -4) with Special Regulation 405R in the
Zoning By -law, and are designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The lots are
currently vacant and are planned to contain single detached residential dwellings. The Owner is
seeking relief from Section 5.5A.2 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By -law in order to permit a side
yard setback of 0.6 metres for a garage attached to a single detached dwelling on a lot having a
width of less than 10.4 metres without an easement on the abutting lands for 214 and 218
Moorlands Crescent.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments regarding
the requested minor variance:
The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential
designation allows for the development of single detached dwellings which maintain the overall
low rise character of the neighbourhood. The requested reduction to the setbacks allows for
construction in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan.
The purpose of a side yard setback is to allow for adequate separation from adjacent properties
as well as access to the rear of the property. The purpose for requiring an easement on the
abutting lands is to ensure that the property owner has access for maintenance of the garage
walls, eaves, and property. Staff notes that detached garages are permitted to have a side yard of
0.6 metres without an easement on the abutting lands. Rear yard access will be provided through
the 1.2 metre side yard on the opposite side of the house, which meets the Zoning By -law
requirement. Staff also notes that access to the roof and eaves of the property is also possible
from the front and back of the structure. Furthermore, the 0.6 metre setback without a
maintenance easement meets the building code separation requirements. Based on the
foregoing, Staff is of the opinion that the intent of the Zoning By -law is maintained.
The variance is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will still
provide an adequate side yard to allow for access to maintain the walls, roof, and eaves of the
property, and will not negatively affect adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for use of the land for the following reasons. The single
detached dwelling use is a permitted use in the Zoning By -law, and the proposed variance will
allow the Owner to construct the single detached dwellings along Moorlands Crescent. The scale,
massing, and height of the single detached dwellings are appropriate and consistent with the
character of the neighbourhood. The reduced side yard requirement will support greater density
and the better use of land. Furthermore, the variance will allow for the double -car garage to
accommodate off - street parking and alleviate the demand for on- street parking. Staff also notes
that the properties are still able to achieve other Zoning By -law requirements such as maximum
driveway width and maximum percentage of garage width compared to the building fapade. The
proposed variance will not impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding
neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 31, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -160- AUGUST 19, 2014
2. Submission No.: A 2014 -049 (Cont'd)
That the application of Freure Village on Clair Creek Inc. requesting permission to construct a
single detached dwelling on a lot with a width less than 10.4m (34.12') having an westerly side
yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property,
whereas the By -law requires properties having a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') or less to
have a maintenance easement, on Lot 4, Registered Plan 58M -541, 214 Moorlands Crescent,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division prior to
construction.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.: A 2014 -050
Applicant: Freure Village on Clair Creek Inc.
Property Location: 218 Moorlands Crescent
Legal Description: Lot 5, Registered Plan 58M -541
Appearances:
In Support: R. Dalling
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having an easterly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') without a maintenance
easement on the adjacent property whereas the By -law requires properties having a side yard
setback of 0.6m (1.97') or less to have a maintenance easement.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 11, 2014, advising
that the subject properties are zoned Residential Four (R -4) with Special Regulation 405R in the
Zoning By -law, and are designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The lots are
currently vacant and are planned to contain single detached residential dwellings. The Owner is
seeking relief from Section 5.5A.2 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By -law in order to permit a side
yard setback of 0.6 metres for a garage attached to a single detached dwelling on a lot having a
width of less than 10.4 metres without an easement on the abutting lands for 214 and 218
Moorlands Crescent.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments regarding
the requested minor variance:
The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential
designation allows for the development of single detached dwellings which maintain the overall
low rise character of the neighbourhood. The requested reduction to the setbacks allows for
construction in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan.
The purpose of a side yard setback is to allow for adequate separation from adjacent properties
as well as access to the rear of the property. The purpose for requiring an easement on the
abutting lands is to ensure that the property owner has access for maintenance of the garage
walls, eaves, and property. Staff notes that detached garages are permitted to have a side yard of
0.6 metres without an easement on the abutting lands. Rear yard access will be provided through
the 1.2 metre side yard on the opposite side of the house, which meets the Zoning By -law
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - 161 - AUGUST 19, 2014
3. Submission No.: A 2014 -050 (Cont'd)
requirement. Staff also notes that access to the roof and eaves of the property is also possible
from the front and back of the structure. Furthermore, the 0.6 metre setback without a
maintenance easement meets the building code separation requirements. Based on the
foregoing, Staff is of the opinion that the intent of the Zoning By -law is maintained.
The variance is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will still
provide an adequate side yard to allow for access to maintain the walls, roof, and eaves of the
property, and will not negatively affect adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for use of the land for the following reasons. The single
detached dwelling use is a permitted use in the Zoning By -law, and the proposed variance will
allow the Owner to construct the single detached dwellings along Moorlands Crescent. The scale,
massing, and height of the single detached dwellings are appropriate and consistent with the
character of the neighbourhood. The reduced side yard requirement will support greater density
and the better use of land. Furthermore, the variance will allow for the double -car garage to
accommodate off - street parking and alleviate the demand for on- street parking. Staff also notes
that the properties are still able to achieve other Zoning By -law requirements such as maximum
driveway width and maximum percentage of garage width compared to the building fapade. The
proposed variance will not impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding
neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 31, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Freure Village on Clair Creek Inc. requesting permission to construct a
single detached dwelling on a lot with a width less than 10.4m (34.12') having an easterly side
yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property,
whereas the By -law requires properties having a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') or less to
have a maintenance easement, on Lot 5, Registered Plan 58M -541, 218 Moorlands Crescent,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City's Building Division prior to
construction.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 19th day of August, 2014.
Dianna Saunderson
Secretary- Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment