HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-21
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 21, 2015
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. D. Cybalski and A. Head and Ms. J. Meader.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. G. Stevenson, Senior Planner;
Mr. D. Seller, Traffic Technologist; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-
Treasurer; and, Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk, City of Kitchener.
Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:40 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held March 17, 2015, as mailed
to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1. A 2015-010
Applicants:
Andrea Ladecka.
Property Location:
78 Amherst Drive
Legal Description:
Lot 2, Plan 1488
Appearances:
In Support: M. Janus
Contra: R. Szydlowski
J. Oleskevich
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate the required off-
street parking space 2.267m (7.438') from the street line rather than the required setback of 6m
(19.69') so the existing garage can be converted into habitable living space.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated March 5, 2015, advising that
the subject property located at 78 Amherst Drive is zoned Residential Three (R-3) 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 into livable space. By converting the garage into
livable space the subject property can no longer meet the requirements of Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of
the Zoning By-law. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By-law
to allow the one required parking space for the single detached dwelling to be located in the
driveway setback 2.27 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 126 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2015-010 (Cont’d)
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. This
designation permits low density forms of housing such as single family dwellings. The proposed
variance meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of different forms of
housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to the
designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance to legalize the location of the
one required parking space meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The requested variance to legalize the off-street parking space 2.27 metres from the street lot line
meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The reduction of 3.73 metres from the required 6 metres is
minor. The intent of the 6.0 metre required setback is to allow for a vehicle to be safely parked on
the driveway without affecting the City right-of-way and surrounding properties. Transportation
Services staff supports a 3.73 metre reduction from the required 6 metre parking setback to
provide a 2.27 metre setback. It is not anticipated that any negative impacts on the adjacent
residential properties will result from the variance required, therefore the intent of the Zoning By-
law continues to be maintained.
The variance can be considered minor as it is staff’s opinion that the required parking space can
still be accommodated on-site in a safe manner. The reduced setback of 3.73 metres will not
present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variance
should not impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. 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
February 26, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. M. Janus advised that he was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff
recommendation.
The Chair noted concerns with a lack of a detailed plan submitted with the application, making it
challenging to know whether the driveway is adequate is size for the required off-street parking.
Mr. R. Szydlowski advised that he is a neighbouring property owner and stated that he does not
object to the actual variance being requested to relocate the required off-street parking space
from the garage to the driveway; rather, his objections are related to the applicant’s ability to
convert the garage into habitable living space. He stated that, in his opinion, the application is
circumventing previous regulations that prevented duplexing within the lower Doon
neighbourhood. He further advised that the houses were intended to be residential family homes
and they have gradually shifted to student rental accommodations/businesses that do not require
licensing.
Ms. von Westerholt advised that although she sympathized with the neighbouring property owner,
the definition of a duplex is clear in the By-law, and adding an additional room would not change
the Use of the property from a single-detached dwelling. She noted that the Planning Act does
not regulate who lives within a single detached dwelling. 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.
Ms. J. Meader advised that although she sympathizes with the neighbourhood, concerns
regarding student rental properties are comments that would need to be directed to Council. She
noted that this Committee must approve or refuse an application based on the four tests for
considering a minor variance.
Ms. J. Oleskevich addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application, noting that
there are at times four cars parked at the subject property. She stated that currently there are no
sidewalks on Amherst Drive and when the street is reconstructed the City would likely install
sidewalks, and the excess number of cars currently parking on-site would then overhang the
sidewalk.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 127 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2015-010 (Cont’d)
The Chair noted that the Zoning By-law requires that a single detached dwelling has one required
off-street parking space. He noted that the request is to relocate the one required off-street
parking space from the garage to the driveway. He advised that the Committee is not legalizing
the applicant’s ability to park four cars on the subject property.
In response to questions, the Chair noted that if sidewalks were installed on Amherst Drive, By-
law Enforcement staff would have a clear indication that cars are parking beyond the property line
and would likely enforce the excess parking more frequently. He reiterated that if there are
currently four cars parked on the subject property, it is likely that they are already parking over
their property line and could be ticketed for the offence. He noted that that any concerns
regarding excess parking would need to be addressed with By-law Enforcement staff.
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Andrea Ladecka requesting permission to locate the required off-street
parking space 2.267m (7.438') from the street line rather than the required setback of 6m (19.69')
so the existing garage can be converted into habitable living space, on Lot 2, Plan 1488, 78
BE APPROVED.
Amherst Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , 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 living space, prior to construction.
2. That the owner shall submit a Parking Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of
Transportation Services.
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.:
2. A 2015-014
Applicant:
Mark Depass
Property Location:
38 Old Cottage Place
Legal Description:
Lot 125, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support: J. Johnson
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling on an existing lot that fronts onto a private lane having a lot width of 15.24m
(50‘) rather than the required 60m (196.85‘); northerly and southerly side yard setbacks of 1.2m
(3.937‘) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606‘); a lot area of 0.13 ha rather than the required 0.4
ha; and, to permit the dwelling to front on a private lane whereas the By-law requires all
properties to front on a public street.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 9, 2015, advising that
this application was deferred at the March 17, 2015 meeting in order for the applicant to address
staff concerns regarding potential impact to trees which appeared to be situated on the adjacent
property. To address this concern as well as to retain as many trees as possible on the subject
lands, the applicant has undertaken additional investigations and the results are found in an
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 128 -
Submission No.:
2.A 2015-014 (Cont’d)
updated arborist’s report. An amended building location plan has been prepared taking into
account the recommendations of the arborist’s report. Essentially, the report recommends the
retention of the majority trees through the practice of hoarding. The building footprint has
decreased in size and a 3.8 metre southerly side yard setback is now proposed so that trees
located on the property line between lots 38 and 42 Old Cottage Place are unaffected. Staff is
satisfied with the report and recommendations put forth.
Background:
The subject property is municipally addressed as 38 Old Cottage Place, split zoned Agricultural
(A-1) and Existing Use (E-1) in the Zoning By-law, and designated Low Rise Residential in the
Official Plan. The property measures 15.24 metres wide and approximately 86.5 metres long for
an area of 1303 square metres. Approximately a third of the property, extending from the easterly
rear lot line, is regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and as such,
contains the Zoning By-law Special Regulation 1R. The site contains an existing single-detached
dwelling and contains a number of mature trees. The applicant is proposing to demolish the
existing building to construct a new single detached dwelling. As such, the applicant is requesting
relief from:
1. Section 34.3.2 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law to legalize the existing lot width of
15.24 metres instead of 60 metres;
2. Section 34.3.2 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law to legalize the existing lot area of
0.13 hectares instead of 0.4 hectares;
3. Section 34.3.2 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law to reduce the minimum side yard
setback of 7.5 metres for a single-detached dwelling to a northerly side yard setback of 1.2
metres and a southerly side yard setback of 3.8 metres; and
4. Section 5.2 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law to permit the construction of a building
on a lot which fronts onto a lane instead of a street.
Surrounding development is characterized as low rise residential with single detached dwellings
located to the right and left of the subject property. On the opposite side of Old Cottage Place is a
proposed cul-de-sac roadway with lots for single detached dwellings established through a draft
approved Plan of Subdivision, 30T- 11205.
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 regarding
the requested minor variances:
Lot Width, Lot Area, and Side Yard Variances:
The three requested variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential
designation allows for the development of single, semi-detached and multiple dwellings, the
existing scale of residential development and allows for alterations. The proposed variances allow
for an expanded single detached dwelling but still in keeping with the low rise residential nature of
the property and surrounding neighbourhood.
The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the A-1 Zone is to
recognize existing properties that were previously part of the rural residential fabric of the former
Waterloo County (Village of Bridgeport) before being annexed into the City of Kitchener in 1973
and formation of the Region of Waterloo.
The Agricultural Zoning was brought into the City’s Zoning By-law, as most of the Bridgeport
North area was privately serviced and underdeveloped. The pattern of development has changed
considerably over the last 10 years; however, urban residential development now extends in
Bridgeport North, bringing with it lot sizes typical of serviced land. The west side of Old Cottage
Place, for example, has cul-de-sac residential development and Old Cottage Place is upgraded
with full municipal services to just past Old Cottage Court. Full municipal services will be further
extended southwards with the development of the draft approved Sestan Subdivision, 30T-
11205.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 129 -
Submission No.:
2.A 2015-014 (Cont’d)
The variances to recognize the deficient lot width and lot area will not have a negative effect on
adjacent neighbours since the lot size and shape have existed in the present form since prior to
the 1950’s. The proposed side yard variances are consistent with the pattern of existing
development. An examination reveals side yards vary considerably in widths ranging from
approximately 5.5 metres to less than 1.0 metre. The proposed 1.2 metre side yard setback on
one side and 3.8 metres on the other side falls within that range observed. Staff notes that a
defining characteristic of the property is the presence of mature trees. From staff’s perspective,
tree preservation/enhancement is an important consideration involving the City’s Tree Savings
Policy requirements. The applicant has also expressed the desire to retain trees as well. Since
the last meeting, an updated arborist’s report has been prepared and submitted for staff’s review.
It indicates a majority of trees to be retained and the building location has been adjusted from
what was originally proposed. Additional adjustments to the plan may be necessary, but overall
staff is confident with the requested side yard setbacks. To that end, staff has recommended that
conditions be included requiring the owner to prepare a Tree Savings and Landscape Plan.
The variances are considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances will allow
for the continuation of a single detached dwelling on the property, and will not negatively affect
adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposed variances are appropriate for use of the land as the property already contains an
existing single-detached dwelling on a lot that has existed in its present form for decades. The
proposed single detached dwelling is appropriate and consistent with the character of the existing
neighbourhood.
Variance for Frontage onto a Lane vs a Street:
The intent of this regulation is to prohibit the creation of new properties on laneways where right-
of-ways are deficient in width and municipal services are unavailable. However, this property is a
recognized lot of record, developed with a single detached dwelling that is permitted by the
Zoning. As such, Legal has indicated it would be difficult to deny a building permit under the
circumstances, and therefore is appropriate to entertain a variance to legalize frontage onto a
lane. Staff advises that the property is serviced with municipal water and private septic system
but will front onto a “street” once construction commences on the adjacent draft approved
Subdivision, where Old Cottage Place lane will be upgraded to municipal standards. As a result,
staff considers this variance to be a temporary situation that will change in the fullness of time.
Staff foresees this lot and all existing lots located along the east side of Old Cottage Place
remaining in their current form. Staff is therefore satisfied the proposed variance meets the four
tests and is considered good planning.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
February 26, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated
February 26, 2015, advising that although they have no concerns with this application, they noted
that the subject property contains slope hazard, floodplain, is within the allowance to the
Provincially Significant Melitzer Creek Wetland Complex, and is immediately adjacent to the
Grand River. Consequently, the property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation
150/06. Any future development within the regulated area on the subject lands will require the
prior issuance of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06.
Mr. J. Johnson advised that he was in attendance in support of the subject application and the
staff recommendation.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Mark Depass requesting permission to construct a single detached
dwelling on an existing lot that fronts onto a private lane having a lot width of 15.24m (50‘) rather
than the required 60m (196.85‘); a northerly side yard setback of 1.2m (3.937‘) rather than the
required 7.5m (24.606‘); a southerly side yard setback of 3.8m (12.467’) rather than the required
7.5m (24.606‘); a lot area of 0.13 ha rather than the required 0.4 ha; and, to permit the dwelling to
front on a private lane whereas the By-law requires all properties to front on a public street, on
BE
Part Lot 125, German Company Tract, 38 Old Cottage Place, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
, subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 130 -
Submission No.:
2.A 2015-014 (Cont’d)
1. That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan in accordance with the City’s Tree
Management Policy, to be approved by the City’s Director of Planning and where
necessary, implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building
permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed
building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be removed and/or
preserved. The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the
said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the Director of Planning.
2. That the owner shall prepare a Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning.
3. That the owner shall obtain an approved Development, Interference with Wetlands and
Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses permit from the Grand River Conservation
Authority (GRCA) for construction of the dwelling and associated works within the
regulated area.
4. That the owner shall receive approval for the removal of the dwelling in accordance with
the City’s Demolition Control By-law 2013-093 to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning.
5. That the owner shall obtain a demolition permit to the satisfaction of the City’s Building
Division.
6. That the owner shall obtain a building permit for the proposed construction to the
satisfaction of the City’s Building Division.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
This meeting recessed at 9:59 a.m. and reconvened at 10:05 a.m. with the following members present:
Messrs. D. Cybalski and A. Head and Ms. J. Meader.
NEW BUSINESS
Submission No.:
1. A 2015-024
Applicant:
2326035 Ontario Inc. and Finewall Inc.
Property Location:
411 Victoria Street North
Legal Description:
Part of Park Lot 245, Registered Plan 374
Appearances:
In Support: S. O’Neill
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to the severed land
identified as Parcel “A” from Consent Application B 2015-024 to have a lot width of 14.495m
(47.555’) rather than the required 15m (49.212’) due to a Regional Road Widening condition of
the severance.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 7, 2015, advising that
the subject property is municipally addressed as 411 Victoria Street North, zoned Residential Five
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 131 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2015-024 (Cont’d)
(R-5) in the Zoning By-law, and designated Low Rise Conservation B in the Central Frederick
Neighbourhood Plan for Land Use. The site is currently vacant, but is proposed to be constructed
with a single-detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 39.2.1 of the
Zoning By-law to permit a reduction in the required minimum corner lot width from 15 metres to
14.495 metres. The submission of this application was a required condition on combined
applications B 2015-024, B 2015-025, and A 2015-006. As part of the previous severance
application, it was noted that the Region of Waterloo would require a road widening dedication as
well as a 7.62 metre by 7.62 metre daylighting triangle at the intersection of Victoria Street North
and Chestnut Street, which would make the proposed severed Parcel A deficient with respect to
the corner lot width regulations. The Committee thereby added a condition that the owner shall
submit a Committee of Adjustment application to remedy the corner lot width as a condition of the
severance.
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 variance to reduce the required corner lot width meets the intent of the Official
Plan. Section 13.9.3.2 of the Official Plan states, “The intent of the Low Rise Conservation B
designation is to retain the existing low rise, low density residential character of the
Neighbourhood. Retention of the existing low rise, low density neighbourhood scale shall be
encouraged through the long-term maintenance and improvement of the existing housing stock,
and the creation of additional residential units through conversion of the existing residential
structures. New housing through redevelopment shall not exceed the existing scale and density
of the area occurring as of June 12, 1989”. The area surrounding the property is predominately
low-rise residential, and staff is therefore of the opinion that the scale and density of the proposed
single-detached dwelling will conform to the surrounding neighbourhood and the policies within
the Official Plan.
The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the Zoning By-law
provision for a minimum corner lot width is to provide sufficient lot area for the dwelling unit and to
provide sufficient setback from the two abutting streets for amenity and landscaping area.
The variance is considered minor. The lot width is only deficient due to the requirement of the
corner visibility triangle, and the rest of the lot past the 7.62 metres of the front yard is compliant
with the 15 metre corner lot width requirement. Staff is therefore of the opinion that the requested
variance will not negatively affect adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for use of the land as the Zoning currently permits the
development of single detached dwellings. The scale, massing, and height of the building is
appropriate and consistent with the character of the existing neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
April 1, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. S. O’Neill addressed the Committee in support of the subject application. He questioned
whether it would be possible to extend the Building Permit deadline to November 30, 2015. Ms.
von Westerholt noted that staff do not object to the applicants requested deadline amendment.
Ms. O’Neill further requested that Condition 2 regarding notifying prospective purchasers of the
approved driveway location through the Agreement of Purchase and Sale by September 30th
2015 be amended to remove the deadline date, as he has not yet secured a purchaser for the
subject property. Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff do not have any objections to the removal
of the deadline date from Condition 2.
In response to questions, Ms. D. Saunderson advised that staff have received all required
authorizations for the Committee to consider the subject application.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 132 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2015-024 (Cont’d)
That the application of 2326035 Ontario Inc. and Finewall Inc. requesting permission for the
severed lot identified as Parcel “A” from Consent Application B 2015-024 to have minimum corner
lot width of 14.495m (47.555’) rather than the required 15m (49.212’), on Part of Park Lot 245,
BE APPROVED
Registered Plan 374, 411 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit for the proposed single-detached dwelling to
the satisfaction of the Building Division by November 30, 2015.
2. That the owner shall submit a building location plan showing the driveway location to the
satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Services and the owner further agrees to
notify prospective purchasers of the approved driveway location through the Agreement of
Purchase and Sale.
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.:
2. A 2015-025
Applicant:
Emmanuel Verbit and Nathalie Couture
Property Location:
553 Topper Woods Crescent
Legal Description:
Lot 89, Registered Plan 58M-384
Appearances:
In Support: E. Verbit
Contra: None
Written Submissions: M. & M. Radunsky
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
deck 0.9m in height in the rear yard to have a northerly side yard setback of 0m rather than the
required 1.2m (3.937’); and a rear yard setback of 0m rather than the required 4m (13.123’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 13, 2015, advising that
the subject property is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise
Residential in the Official Plan. The site contains a single detached dwelling and it is noted that
the owner did obtain a building permit for the pool (including the fence) in 2010. However, he
subsequently built the deck without a permit and that has now been directed to By-law
Enforcement as a complaint. Also noted for the Committee’s information, is that the pergola does
not require a building permit, nor does it have any setback requirements.
The applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing deck 0.9 metres (3 ft) in height in
the rear yard with a northerly side yard setback of 0 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres
3.9 ft); and, a rear yard setback of 0 metres rather than the required 4 metres (13.1 ft), as found in
Sections 5.6A.4 c) and d) of the Zoning By-law.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments regarding
the requested minor variances:
The requested variance to reduce the setbacks for the deck meets the intent of the Official Plan.
Section 3.1.2 of the Official Plan speaks towards the low intensity residential nature of the Low
Rise Residential designation, and allows for the development of a range of residential housing
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 133 -
Submission No.:
2.A 2015-025 (Cont’d)
types, including single detached dwellings. The requested reduced rear yard requirement to
construct the attached uncovered deck is an extension of the uses allowed with a single-detached
dwelling, and will continue to conform to the low-density character of the surrounding
neighbourhood.
The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the provision for a
setback for an uncovered deck is to provide a buffer between adjacent properties so that
backyard amenity areas do not negatively impact on the enjoyment of persons using adjacent
properties. The existing pool and deck is located towards the back of the property and is adjacent
to a small area of adjoining fence. There is also existing landscaping which helps to buffer the
visual impact between properties. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance meets the
intent of the By-law.
The variance is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will not
negatively affect adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the residential
use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The scale, massing, and height of the deck is
appropriate and for the character of the existing 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
April 1, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered comments from the neighbouring property owner dated April, 2015,
expressing concerns with privacy and safety.
The Chair noted the comments from the neighbouring property owner, stating in his opinion, the
concerns expressed regarding privacy and safety are warranted.
Mr. E. Verbit advised that he is in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff
recommendation.
The Chair questioned how high the deck was in relation to the height of the fence and questioned
whether the Building department may require a railing on top of the fence to ensure the deck
would meet all Building Code requirements. Mr. Verbit advised that he was not sure of the exact
height of the fence in relation to the deck. He noted that the fence is a total of 8 feet in height.
Questions were raised regarding drainage and whether the deck would cause run-off onto the
neighbouring property. Ms. J. von Westerholt noted that that would be reviewed through the
Building Permit process.
The Chair noted as a potential suggestion for addressing the privacy concerns expressed by the
neighbour, that the Committee could impose a condition requiring the applicant to install some
type of privacy screening between the deck and the neighbouring property.
Mr. Verbit noted that he was surprised to receive a compliant from the neighbouring property
owner as the fence between the subject property and the neighbour expressing concerns was
mutually constructed. He stated that the deck was constructed over the pool’s mechanical
features to assist with aesthetics and removal of the deck could potentially cost between $10,000.
to $12,000. He further advised that the deck structure has been in place for over 3 years and he
has never received a complaint from the neighbouring property owner until this date.
Ms. J. Meader advised that although she sympathized with the costs expressed by the applicant
to remove the existing deck, she noted that the Committee cannot consider the financial impacts
as part of their decision. The Chair noted that he would not have likely supported the application if
the deck was not already in existence.
Questions were made regarding the potential requirements for obtaining a Building Permit and
whether there may be a requirement for the installation of a railing. Ms. von Westerholt advised
that she was unsure of what requirements the applicant may have to undertake to obtain a
Permit. She noted, for clarification to the applicant, that although the Committee may approve the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 134 -
Submission No.:
2.A 2015-025 (Cont’d)
variances as requested, the Building Department may not approve the deck in its existing form
when a Building Permit is obtained. She stated that alterations may be required as part of that
process.
The Chair requested an amendment to include a Condition requiring the applicant to install
privacy screening around the deck to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
A motion was brought forward by Mr. A. Head to approve the staff recommendation with an
additional Condition as proposed by the Chair to include a requirement for the application to
install privacy screening around the deck to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
Ms. Meader advised that she would not be willing to support the recommendation, stating that in
her opinion, the applicant was aware that he needed to obtain a permit from the Building Division
for the pool and he proceeded to construct the deck without the required approvals.
The Chair stated that from the photos submitted by the neighbouring property owners, there are a
number of second storey decks in the vicinity of the subject property. He noted although it may
not be the optimal solution, the installation of privacy screening should assist in addressing the
concerns raised by the neighbouring property owner.
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Emmanuel Verbit & Nathalie Couture requesting permission to legalize an
existing deck 0.9m (3’) in height in the rear yard to have a northerly side yard setback of 0m
rather than the required 1.2m (3.937’); and a rear yard setback of 0m rather than the required 4m
(13.123’), on Lot 89, Registered Plan 58M-384, 553 Topper Woods Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE APPROVED
, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the existing deck to the satisfaction of the
Building Division.
2. That the owner shall complete Condition 1 prior to July 1, 2015. Any request for a time
extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or
designate), prior to completion date set out in this decision. Failure to fulfill these
conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void.
3. That the owner shall install privacy screening to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
3. A 2015-026
Applicant:
Branthaven River Ridge Inc.
Property Location:
58 Eaglecrest Street
Legal Description:
Lot 109, Registered Plan 58M-512
Appearances:
In Support: G. Enriquez
R. McKee
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 135 -
Submission No.:
3.A 2015-026 (Cont’d)
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a driveway width of 9.05m rather than the permitted maximum width of
8m (26.246’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 10, 2015, advising that
the subject property located at 58 Eaglecrest Street is zoned Residential Six (R-6) with Special
Regulations 306R, & 307R in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the
City’s Official Plan. The applicant is proposing to legalize a proposed driveway having a width of
9.05 metres. The driveway width will not exceed 50 percent of the lot width, and the proposed
driveway will be as wide as the attached garage. The applicant is requesting relief from Special
Regulation 307 b) ii) of the Zoning By-law to allow a driveway width of 9.05 metres rather than the
maximum 8.0 metre width. The driveway and its widening will not exceed 6.0 metres within 3.0
metres of the front lot line.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments.
The requested variance for proposed driveway width meets the intent of the Official Plan. The
Low Rise Residential designation encourages a range of different forms of housing to achieve a
low density neighbourhood. The minor change will maintain the low density character of the
property and surrounding neighbourhood.
The requested variance to widen the driveway meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent
of the maximum 8.0 metres driveway width is to have an aesthetically pleasing streetscape by
having an appropriate balance of driveway and front yard amenity space. The driveway width will
not exceed 6.0 metres in width within 3.0 metres of the front lot line, which maintains the balance.
The requested variance can be considered minor. The reduced driveway width is minimal and it
will provide the home owner full access to their attached garage. It is the opinion of Planning staff
that there will be no impact to adjacent lands and the overall neighbourhood.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variance
should not impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
April 1, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. R. McKee was in attendance in support of the subject application. He referenced the
Condition as requested by staff regarding the maximum width of driveway not exceeding 6
metres within 3 metres of the front lot line and questioned whether that was a standard Condition.
Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that staff recognize the desire to have a driveway width beyond
what the By-law permits; however, the intent of the maximum 8.0 metre driveway width is to have
an aesthetically pleasing streetscape by having an appropriate balance of driveway and front yard
amenity space, noting that the Condition proposed is intended to maintain that balance.
Mr. Mckee advised that he was in support of the staff recommendation.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Branthaven River Ridge Inc. requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a driveway width of 9.05m rather than the permitted maximum width of
BE
8m (26.246’), on Lot 109, Registered Plan 58M-512, 58 Eaglecrest Street, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall ensure that maximum width of the driveway will not exceed 6.0
metres within 3.0 metres of the front lot line in accordance with the sketch attached to this
application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 136 -
Submission No.:
3.A 2015-026 (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.:
4. A 2015-027
Applicant:
Gerald and Leanne Leeman
Property Location:
107-109 North Hill Place
Legal Description:
Part Lot 54, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support: L. Leeman
N. Seeds
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to seek relief from
Temporary Use Provision 10T which expires June 20, 2015, to allow the existing garden suite to
be permitted (for three years) until June 20, 2018.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 15, 2015, advising that
the subject property is 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 is owned by Gerald and Leanne Leeman and 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. These uses are considered legal non-conforming since they are on a lot that
does not abut a public street. The garden suite is presently occupied by Leanne Leeman’s
mother, while the Leeman’s live in the single detached dwelling.
In June 2005, Council passed a Zoning By-law for the subject property permitting a garden suite
until June 20, 2015, being a period of 10 years, via Temporary Use Provision 10T.
The owners are now requesting relief from Temporary Use Provision 10T to allow the existing
garden suite to be permitted until June 20, 2018 (an extension of approximately 3 years). This
extension would allow the owner’s mother to remain in her residence.
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 regarding
the requested minor variance:
The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law since it will allow the
extension of a use that is currently permitted under the Zoning By-law. The variance is minor
since it does not create any unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The variance
is desirable for the appropriate use of the land since it will allow the current resident to continue to
live comfortably on the property without disruption.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
April 1, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 137 -
Submission No.:
4.A 2015-027 (Cont’d)
Questions were raised regarding the Committee’s authority to provide a variance to a Temporary
use provision. Ms. von Westerholt advised that in consultation with the City Solicitor, it was
agreed that the Committee could approve a variance to specifically the date of expiration on a
Temporary Use provision that previously received Council approval. She noted that staff have
recommended approval for a three-year extension as that is what is outlined in the Planning Act
regarding garden suites.
A motion was brought forward by Mr. A. Head to approve the recommendation as outlined in the
staff recommendation, advising that he would support the application based on the advice
provided by the City’s Legal Division.
Ms. J. Meader advised that she could not support Mr. Head’s motion to approved, as it was her
opinion that the Committee does not have the authority to consider an application to approve an
extension to a Temporary Use provision.
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Gerald & Leanne Leeman requesting permission to seek relief from
Temporary Use Provision 10T which expires June 20, 2015, to allow the existing garden suite to
be permitted (for three years) until June 20, 2018, on Part Lot 54, German Company Tract, 107-
BE APPROVED
109 North Hill Place, Kitchener, Ontario, .
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.:
5. A 2015-028
Applicant:
8951586 Canada Ltd.
Property Location:
351 Louisa Street
Legal Description:
Part Lots 24 & 25, Plan 34
Appearances:
In Support: D. Radmore
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
industrial/residential building to have an ‘office’ use with a gross floor area of 34% rather than the
permitted maximum of 25%; to locate the required off-street parking spaces 2.4m (7.87’) from the
street line rather than the required 3m (9.842’); and, to have a parking lot with a hammerhead for
the required off-street parking spaces of 1.22m (4.002’) rather than the required 3m (9.842’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 14, 2015, advising that
the subject property is located at the south-west corner of Louisa and St. Leger Streets and is
zoned General Industrial (M-2) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The Official Plan designation is General
Industrial. The site contains an existing multi-unit building.
The applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing industrial/residential building to
have an ‘office’ use with a gross floor area of 34% rather than the permitted maximum of 25%; to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 138 -
Submission No.:
5.A 2015-028 (Cont’d)
locate the required off-street parking spaces 2.4 metres (7.8 ft) from the street line rather than the
required 3 metres (9.8 ft); and, to have a parking lot with a hammerhead for the required parking
spaces 1.2 m (4.0 ft) from the street line rather than the required 3 metres (9.8 ft).
In the past, this property has been used for a barber shop, hair salon and a shoe repair business;
as well as an accessory dwelling unit. It is noted that one dwelling unit is permitted as an
accessory use for the owner, caretaker or security guard. It is also noted that a previous owner
has added additional pavement to the parking lot and has actually paved onto City right-of-way.
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 meet the intent of the Official Plan. The General Industrial designation is
assigned to inner-city industrial areas that act as appropriate buffering to adjacent neighbouring
areas. The subject property is located east, west and south of residential properties and north of
an industrial property. The proposed variances will permit the site to function as a mixed
industrial-residential property which is also recognized by the Zoning By-law.
The proposed variances meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered
minor. The M-2 (General Industrial) Zone permits all three uses for the property: office, health
office and an accessory dwelling unit. The variance for the parking will ensure the location of the
parking spaces meet regulations. As part of this decision, staff are recommending that Site Plan
approval be obtained for the parking area. The applicant is aware that the non-complying
pavement will have to be removed and landscaping installed in its place.
The increase of office area from 25% to 34% also meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. It is
intended that office use be in a building with other permitted M-2 uses in order to maintain the
industrial use of the Zoning for the property. A health office will also be located in the building. As
well, the location of this property directly adjacent to residential zones makes office use more
appropriate than a more purely industrial use.
The proposed variances are appropriate for use of the land. As noted above, the owner is aware
of the Site Plan approval requirement and the parking will be modified to comply with this
variance and all other Zoning regulations. The required changes to the existing parking area will
enhance the streetscape/neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
April 1, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Chair noted the comments from the City’s Transportation Services Division regarding the
removal of the non-complying asphalt on site and requested that it be included as a Condition in
the Committee’s decision.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of 8951586 Canada Ltd. requesting permission to legalize an existing
industrial/residential building having an ‘office’ use with a gross floor area of 34% rather than the
permitted maximum of 25%; to locate the required off-street parking spaces 2.4m (7.87’) from the
street line rather than the required 3m (9.842’); and, to have a parking lot with a hammerhead for
the required off-street parking spaces of 1.22m (4.002’) rather than the required 3m (9.842’), on
BE APPROVED
Part Lots 24 & 25, Plan 34, 351 Louisa Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the owner shall receive Site Plan approval from the Planning Division.
2. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the Planning Division.
3. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the Building Division.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 139 -
Submission No.:
5.A 2015-028 (Cont’d)
4. That the owner shall complete Conditions 1 to 3 prior to September 1, 2015. Any request
for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review
(or designate) prior to the completion date set out in this decision. Failure to fulfill these
conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void.
5. That the owner shall remove any non-complying pavement and return those areas to
landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
6. A 2015-029
Applicant:
Lucas and Paul Rowe
Property Location:
449 Stirling Avenue South
Legal Description:
Part Lot 18 Plan 25, being Parts 1 and 4 on Reference Plan
58R-18096
Appearances:
In Support: L. Rowe
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for the existing semi-
detached dwelling to have the required off-street parking space located 2.62m (8.595’) from the
street line rather than the required 6m (19.685’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 10, 2015, advising that
the subject property located at 449 Stirling Ave South is zoned Residential Six (R-6) in the Zoning
By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The applicant is
requesting to legalize a proposed driveway and two parking spaces located in the front yard of
the subject property. Application A 2013-042 was approved which legalized the existing deficient
side yard setback; and, application A 2013-061 was approved which legalized the existing lot
width and reduced the parking space setback of 3.65 metres from the street line. Application A
2013-061 required the porch to be removed and a 1.2 metre sidewalk to be installed between the
parking area and the principal entrance of the building; however, the applicant has indicated that
removing the porch, which is attached to the foundation of the house, will cause structural and
cosmetic damages.
The applicant is requesting to keep the porch to avoid structural damages and is requesting
further relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By-law to allow the required parking space for
the semi-detached dwelling to be located in the driveway setback 2.62 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 subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The proposed
variance meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a range of different forms of
housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to the
designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance to legalize the location of the
parking spaces is appropriate.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 140 -
Submission No.:
6.A 2015-029 (Cont’d)
The requested variance to legalize the off-street parking spaces 2.62 metres from street lot line
meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The reduction of 3.38 metres from the required 6 metres is
minor. The intent of the 6.0 metre required setback is to allow for a vehicle to be safely parked on
the driveway without affecting the City right-of-way and surrounding properties. Transportation
Services staff supports a 3.38 metre reduction from the required 6 metre parking setback to
provide a 2.62 metre setback. There are various existing parking spaces located in the front yards
of neighbouring properties and the proposed variance is appropriate for the neighbourhood.
The variance can be considered minor as it is staff’s opinion that the required parking space can
still be accommodated on-site in a safe manner. The reduced setback of 3.38 metres will not
present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variance
should not impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
April 1, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. L. Rowe was in attendance in support of the subject application. He noted Condition 3 of the
staff recommendation regarding the removal of the visual obstruction, specifically trimming the
hedge, and stated that he would be willing to satisfy the Condition; however, he was unsure this
date whether the hedge was actually on the subject property or whether it was on the
neighbouring property.
The Chair added as a suggestion that Condition 3 of the recommendation could be amended to
include that the shrub should be trimmed and maintain “so long as it is on the subject property” as
part of the Condition. Mr. Rowe advised that he was in support of the suggested amendment.
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Lucas & Paul Rowe requesting permission for an existing semi-detached
dwelling to have two off-street parking spaces located 2.62m (8.595’) from the street line rather
than the required 6m (19.685’), on Part Lot 18, Plan 25, being Parts 1 and 4 on Reference Plan
BE APPROVED
58R-18096, 449 Stirling Avenue South, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the owner shall submit a new Parking Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of
Transportation Services.
2. That the maximum width of the driveway shall be 5.2 metres and that the owner shall
remove any existing asphalt that exceeds 5.2 metres and convert it to landscaping by July
19, 2015 to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service.
3. That the owner shall trim and maintain the visual obstruction (shrub) within the driveway
visibility triangle to a maximum height of 0.9 metres, as long asthe shrub is located on the
subject property, to the satisfaction of the director of Transportation Services.
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 APRIL 21, 2015
- 141 -
Submission No.:
7. A 2015-030
Applicant:
Milestone Developments Inc.
Property Location:
91 Rivertrail Avenue
Legal Description:
Lot 1, Registered Plan 58M-575
Appearances:
In Support: P. Haramis
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a driveway located 8.22m (26.968’) from the intersection of Eden Oak
Trail and Rivertrail Avenue rather than the required 9m (29.52').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 7, 2015, advising that
the subject property is municipally addressed as 91 Rivertrail Avenue, zoned Residential Four (R-
4) in the Zoning By-law with Special Regulation 597R, and designated Low Rise Residential in
the Official Plan. The site is currently vacant, but is proposed to be constructed with a single-
detached dwelling. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 (b) (iv) of the Zoning By-
law in order to permit a reduction in access driveway setback from an intersection for a single-
detached dwelling to 8.22 metres whereas 9.0 metres is required.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments regarding
the requested minor variances:
The requested variance for the proposed reduced access driveway setback from an intersection
meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation allows for the
development of predominately residential units. The minor change will conform to the low-density
character of the property and proposed subdivision.
The Zoning By-law’s intent for the required 9 metre separation from the driveway to the
intersection of the street lines abutting the corner lot is to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety.
It is staff’s opinion that the 0.78 metre reduction will not impact the property or access to the
intersection. The proposed driveway does not encroach into the 7.5 metre Corner Visibility
Triangle and Transportation Planning staff has indicated that they have no concerns with the
requested reduction of 9.0 metres to 8.22 metres.
The variance is considered minor as it is Staff’s opinion that the proposed 8.22 metre setback
allows for sufficient separation from the driveway to the intersecting street lines abutting the
corner lot and as such, will not impact access to the intersection for vehicular and pedestrian
traffic.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is Staff’s opinion that
the requested variance will not impact the subject property, adjacent lands, or the abutting
intersection.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
April 1, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated April 8, 2015,
recommending that the application be refused due to the existing hydro plant located at the
corner of Rivertrail Avenue and Eden Oak Trail that will be conflict with the proposed driveway.
Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that staff, since receiving the comments from Kitchener-Wilmot
Hydro Inc. requesting that the application be refused, have contacted Hydro and have reached an
agreement on a Condition that would satisfy their concerns regarding the underground hydro
infrastructure at the corner of Rivertrail Avenue and Eden Oak Trail. She stated that Hydro does
not object to the application being approved pending a condition is included requiring the
applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. that a minimum
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 142 -
Submission No.:
7.A 2015-030 (Cont’d)
separation distance of 1m is provided and maintained between the pull box and the proposed
driveway apron. She circulated this date a copy of the Condition proposed on behalf of Kitchener-
Wilmot Hydro Inc.
Mr. P. Haramis was in attendance noting he was in support of the staff recommendation and the
proposed Condition from Kitchener-Wimot Hydro Inc.
Ms. D. Saunderson noted that there was a clerical error in the staff recommendation, noting that
the application number that should have been referenced is A 2015-030 rather than the A 2015-
017.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Milestone Developments Inc. requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a driveway located 8.22m (26.968’) from the intersection of Eden Oak
Trail and Rivertrail Avenue rather than the required 9m (29.52'), on Lot 1, Registered Plan 58M-
BE APPROVED
575, 91 Rivertrail Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit for the proposed single detached dwelling
prior to construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division.
2. That the owner shall ensure that the 7.5 metre corner visibility triangle is maintained to the
satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Services.
3. That the owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. that a
minimum separation distance of 1m is provided and maintained between the pull box and
the proposed driveway apron.
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.:
8. A 2015-031
Applicant:
100 Ahrens Street Ltd.
Property Location:
100 Ahrens Street West
Legal Description:
Part Lots 18-20, Plan 374
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Written Submissions: B. Dykstra
The Committee was advised that the applicant has requested a deferral to allow time for them to
speak with Transportation Services regarding their comments regarding the subject application.
The Committee agreed to defer its consideration of these applications to the meeting scheduled
for Tuesday July 21, 2015, or an earlier meeting if they are able to come to an agreement with
Transportation Services and application can be rescheduled accordingly.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 143 -
CONSENT
Submission No.:
1. B 2015-034
Applicant:
2040796 Ontario Limited
Property Location:
Postmaster Drive
Legal Description:
Block 444, 58M-579
Ms. J. Meader declared a pecuniary interest with this application, as her firm has acted on behalf
of neighbouring property owners on other matters and did not participate in any discussion or
voting with respect to this application.
Appearances:
In Support: D. Riley
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a triangular
parcel of land having a width on Postmaster Drive of 57.055m (187.188’), a northerly depth of
9.064m (29.737’), a westerly dimension of 110.546m (362.683’) and an area of approximately
259 sq.m. (2787.853 sq.ft); the severed parcel is intended to be conveyed as a lot addition to the
abutting property identified as Parcel ‘B’ in Consent Application B 2015-008 for future residential
development. The retained parcel has a width on Postmaster Dive of 50.8m (166.667’), a
northerly depth of 16.726m (54.875’) and an area of approximately 655 sq.m. (7050.361 sq.ft.),
which will be conveyed as a lot addition to the abutting property identified Parcel ‘E’ in Consent
Application B 2015-011 for future residential development.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 9, 2015, advising that
the subject property proposed to be severed is registered as a ‘future development block’ - Block
444 on Registered Plan 58M-579 (Plan of Subdivision 30T-08201). The applicant is proposing to
sever the subject property so that the retained and severed lands can be added as lot additions to
the adjacent lands (also known as the ‘Bromberg Lands’) for future comprehensive residential
development.
The proposed severed portion will have a triangular shape with frontage of 57.06 metres on
Postmaster Drive, a maximum of 9.06 metres in depth, resulting in an approximate area of 259
square metres. The proposed retained parcel will have an irregular shape with frontage of 50.80
metres on Postmaster Drive, a maximum depth of 38.1 metres and an approximate area of 655
square metres.
The subject property is designated as Low Density Residential Two in the Rosenberg Secondary
Plan in the City’s Official Plan. The Low Density Residential Two designation will accommodate a
full range of low density housing types including single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings,
semi-detached dwellings, townhouse dwellings and low-rise multiple dwellings.
The subject property is currently zoned Residential Six (R-6) with Special Regulation Provisions
604R, 606R and 612R. The R-6 zone permits a range of residential uses from single detached
dwellings to multiple dwellings. The special regulation provisions associated with the subject
property provide additional requirements for building setbacks and projections into the Driveway
Visibility Triangles (DVT) for the permitted residential uses in the parent R-6 zone.
The applicant is proposing to sever the subject property in order to facilitate the severance
process that has recently taken place on the adjacent Bromberg Lands. Part 1 (retained lands),
as shown on the Plan submitted with the application, will be merged in the future with an adjacent
severed lot created on the Bromberg Lands through previous consent application B 2015-011.
Part 2 (severed lands), as shown as shown on the Plan submitted with the application, will also
be merged in the future with an adjacent severed lot recently created on the Bromberg Lands
through previous consent application B 2015-020. The future merged lots are proposed to be
developed with street-fronting townhouse dwellings on Postmaster Drive as permitted in the City’s
Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 144 -
Submission No.:
1.B 2015-034 (Cont’d)
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 configurationof 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, 2005 and conforms to the Growth Plan tor the Greater
Golden Horseshoe, 2006.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated April
13, 2015, advising that they have no objections to this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated
April 8, 2015, advising that although they have no concerns with this application, they noted that
this application is related to Registered Plan 58M-579 for the Trillium Community subdivision (i.e.
Stage 4 of Draft Plan 30T-08201). Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff were
involved in the review of 30T-08201, providing clearance for registration of Stage 4 on August 21,
2014.
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of 2040796 Ontario Limited requesting permission to sever a triangular
parcel of land having a width on Postmaster Drive of 57.055m (187.188’), a northerly depth of
9.064m (29.737’), a westerly dimension of 110.546m (362.683’) and an area of approximately
259 sq.m. (2787.853 sq.ft); the severed parcel is intended to be conveyed as a lot addition to the
abutting properties identified as Parcel ‘B’ in Consent Application B 2015-008 and Parcel ‘N’ in
Consent Application B 2015-020 for future residential development. The retained parcel has a
width on Postmaster Dive of 50.8m (166.667’), a northerly depth of 16.726m (54.875’) and an
area of approximately 655 sq.m. (7050.361 sq.ft.), which will be conveyed as a lot addition to the
abutting property identified Parcel ‘E’ in Consent Application B 2015-011 for future residential
BE GRANTED
development, on Block 444, 58M-579, Postmaster Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the lands to be severed and retained be added to the abutting lands and title shall be
taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall
include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with
Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
4. That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide 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.
5. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed and
retained lands.
6. That the owner shall provide a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing
system along with the sanitary and storm sewer design sheets to the satisfaction of the
City’s Director of Engineering.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 145 -
Submission No.:
1.B 2015-034 (Cont’d)
7. That the owner shall 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 City’s Director of Engineering, as per the
Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S.3150.
8. That the owner shall provide Engineering staff with confirmation that the basement
elevation of the house can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the
case, then the owner would have to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the
property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street to the
satisfaction of the City’s Director of Engineering Services.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 21, 2017.
Carried
Submission Nos.:
2. B 2015-035 to B 2015-038
Applicant:
Country Green Homes
Property Location:
50 Burgetz Avenue
Legal Description:
Part Lot 4, Plan 589
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: R. & S. Voisin
B. Ziffle
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever 4 parcels of land
for residential development having frontage on Burgetz Avenue and retain 1 parcel currently
Zoned as Institutional:
Application B 2015-035 – Permission sever a parcel of land identified as “Lot 1” on the plan
submitted with the application, having a width on Burgetz Avenue of 12.41m (40.715’), an
easterly depth of 26.52m (87.008’) and an area of 474.6 sq.m. (5108.552 sq.ft.). The new lot is
intended for a residential semi-detached development.
Application B 2015-036 – Permission to sever a parcel of land identified as “Lot 2” on the plan
submitted with the application, having a width on Burgetz Avenue of 12.55m (41.174’), an
easterly depth of 26.53m (87.040’) and an area of 471 sq.m. (5069.802 sq.ft.). The new lot is
intended for a residential semi-detached development.
Application B 2015-037 – Permission to sever a parcel of land identified as “Lot 3” on the plan
submitted with the application, having a lot width on Burgetz Avenue of 11.88m (38.976’), an
easterly depth of 26.53m (87.040’) and an area of 481.1 (5177.441 sq.ft.). The new lot is intended
for a residential semi-detached development.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 146 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2015-035 to B 2015-038 (Cont’d)
Application B 2015-038 – Permission to sever a parcel of land identified as “Lot 4” on the plan
submitted with the application, having a lot width on Burgetz Avenue of 15m (49.212’), an
northerly depth of 31.45m (103.182’) and an area of 470.2 sq.m. (5061.191 sq.ft.). The new lot is
intended for a residential semi-detached development.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 8, 2015, advising that
subject property is municipally addressed as 50 Burgetz Avenue (A.K.A. 50 Thaler Avenue)and
contains the former St. Patrick Catholic School (closed in 2010). The applicant, Country Green
Homes has entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the Waterloo Catholic District
School Board to purchase this school site. The applicant is proposing to sever four residential lots
from the subject lands to allow the construction of four semi-detached dwellings (8 units in total).
The retained lands are contemplated be redeveloped in the future with permitted residential uses
through a Site Plan Approval process.
The subject applications seek to sever four lots for semi-detached dwellings from the land
holdings. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and are zoned
Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (I-1). The current designation and Zoning permits the lands to
be used for low-density forms of housing, including the proposed semi-detached dwellings;
however, the lands are intended for redevelopment and staff would prefer to consider the
redevelopment of these lands in a comprehensive manner. The creation of these lots in advance
of the pre-submission consultation for the site’s redevelopment may preclude options for its
redevelopment. As a result, staff is requesting a deferral at this time in order to allow the applicant
to come in and consult with the City at a pre-submission meeting on the entire site’s
redevelopment.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated April
13, 2015, advising that at this location the proposed development may encounter environmental
noise sources (Traffic) as it is located within 200 metres of River Road immediately to the east.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the proposed residential development is not
affected by environmental noise sources. The applicant can either retain an acoustic consultant,
approved by the Region of Waterloo, to prepare a transportation noise study to assess the impact
of noise from River Road on the development or, enter into an agreement with the City of
Kitchener to provide a noise warning clause and retrofitting for air conditioning in the offers to
purchase, deeds or rental agreements for each unit. The noise warning clauses would read as
follows:
“Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on River
Road may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the
sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of
the Environment.”
“This dwelling unit has been supplied with a central air conditioning system which will allow
windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound
levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of
Environment.”
Regional staff have no objection to the application, subject to the following condition:
1. That prior to final approval, for all four severed lots, the Developer prepare a
Transportation Noise Study, to the satisfaction of the Region, to assess the impact of noise
from River Road on the development; OR
The Developer may enter into a registered agreement with the City of Kitchener to provide
a noise warning clause and retrofitting for air conditioning in the offers to purchase, deeds
or rental agreements for each unit. The noise warning clauses would read as follows:
“Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on
River Road may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling
occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of
Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment.”
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 147 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2015-035 to B 2015-038 (Cont’d)
“This dwelling unit has been supplied with a central air conditioning system which
will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the
indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and
the Ministry of Environment.”
The Committee considered comments from Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated April 8, 2015,
requesting that approval of these applications be subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for
the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
2. That the applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the severances are granted.
3. Driveways will be located so as to provide a minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles,
anchors and street light standards.
The Committee was in receipt this date of email correspondence from Mr. Dave Aston, MHBC
Planning, the agent for the subject applications, noting he was in agreement with staffs
recommendation to defer the subject applications.
The Committee agreed to defer its consideration of these applications to the meeting scheduled
for Tuesday May 19, 2015, in order to allow time for the applicant to consult with the City at a pre-
submission meeting on the entire site’s redevelopment.
COMBINED APPLICATIONS:
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033
Applicant:
1271395 Ontario Inc.
Property Location:
Vacant Lot Corner of Huron Road and Fischer Hallman Road
Legal Description:
Part Lot 153, German Company Tract, being Part 4 on Reference
Plan 58R-8992
Ms. J. Meader declared a pecuniary interest with this application, as her firm has acted on behalf
of neighbouring property owners on other matters and did not participate in any discussion or
voting with respect to these applications.
Appearances:
In Support: C. Pidgeon
A. Tepperman
V. Bender
J. Grubb
G. Bromberg
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is specifically requesting the following:
B 2015-029 (Amended) – Permission to grant an “F” shaped easement on Lot ‘C’ as outlined on
the plan submitted with the application, having a top northerly length of 146.9m (481.955’), a
minimum width of 10.9m (35.761’) and a maximum width of 13m (42.650’), having one branch
length of 53.5m (175.524’) and a width of 7m (22.965’), having a second branch length of 53.7m
(176.18’), a width of 2.0m (6.56’) and an overall approximate area of 1796 sq.m. (19,331.983
sq.ft) in favour of the City of Kitchener for sanitary and storm sewers.
B 2015-030 (Amended) – Permission to grant a ‘C’ shaped easement on Lot ‘B’ as outlined on
the plan submitted with the application, with a northerly length of 66.0m (216.535’), having a width
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 148 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033 (Cont’d)
of 11.0 m (36.089’), with a branch length of 46.7m (153.215’), having a width of 12.0m (39.37’);
and, a second branch length of 55.8m (183.070’), having a width of 2m (6.56’) with an overall
approximate area of 1398 sq.m. (15047.947 sq.ft), in favour of the City of Kitchener for sanitary
and storm sewers.
B 2015-031 - Permission to grant an easement on ‘Lot A’ on the plan submitted with the
application, having a width of 5.9m (19.356’), a depth of 61.3m (201.115’) and an area of 361.67
sq.m. (3,892.99 sq.ft) in favour of Lot D on the plan submitted with the application, for vehicular
access.
B 2015-033 - Permission to grant an easement having a width of 4.1m (13.451’), a depth of
45.6m (149.606’) and an area of 186.96 sq.m. (2,012.42 sq.ft) in favour of ‘Lot A’ on the plan
submitted with the application, for vehicular access.
A 2015-016 - Permission is being requested for the future commercial development to have
façade openings to be 9.8% of the primary ground floor façade facing West Oak Trail on a
building over 6500 sq.m in area, to be devoted to display windows or entrances rather than the
minimum of 40%; having a horizontal distance along the primary ground floor façade of 9.75m
(31.988’) between display windows or entrances rather than the maximum 4m (13.123’); having
façade openings devoted to display windows or entrances to be 13.6% of the primary ground
floor façade facing Fisher Hallman Road rather than the required minimum 40%; and, to permit
no minimum or maximum horizontal distance between display windows or entrances along the
primary ground floor façade facing Fisher Hallman Road rather than the required maximum of
4m. In addition, the proposed commercial residential development will also require permission to
have a rear yard setback of 3.9m (12.795’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’); front yard and
side yard setbacks of 0m rather than the required 1.5m (4.921’); a minimum width of primary
ground façade for non-residential buildings to be 30% of the length lot line abutting Fisher
Hallman Road rather than the required 50%; a minimum floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.4 whereas
the By-law requires a FSR of 0.6; and, a retail outlet with a maximum gross floor area of 6850
sq.m. (73732.786 sq.ft.) rather than the permitted maximum gross floor area of 6500 sq.m.
(69965.418 sq.ft.)
A 2015-033 - Permission to construct a commercial building having a gross floor area of more
than 6500 sq.m. on Lot ‘D’ as outlined on the plan submitted with the application, having 2
loading spaces rather than the required 3; to have a side yard abutting the future West Oak Trail
of 0m rather than the required 1.5m (4.921’); to have a setback for a drive-through stacking lane
of 1.0m from the street line of Fischer Hallman Road street line rather than the required 4.5m
(14.763’); and, to locate the required off-street parking spaces 0m from the street line of rather
than the required 4.5m (14.763’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 15 2015, advising that
on January 20, 2015 the Committee of Adjustment approved severance applications B 2015-008
to B 2015-020 to facilitate the future development of the property with commercial and residential
uses. The site includes two large commercial parcels, two large residential parcels, two parkland
blocks, two future residential development parcels (lot additions), one large permanent storm
water management facility, one public road (West Oak Trail extension), and all required road
widening slivers for Huron and Fischer Hallman Roads.
Further, on March 17, 2015 the Committee of Adjustment deferred Servicing Easements
Applications B 2015-029 & B 2015-030, and Access Easement Applications B 2015-031 and B
2015-033, to allow for a technical review of the proposed development for Lot D by the City’s Site
Plan Review Committee. The size of the easements were revised as a result of that review, and
were advertised as discussed below.
The owner is now seeking approval for servicing and access easements as well as site-specific
minor variances to the zoning for Lot D, as outlined below.
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Fischer Hallman Road and Huron
Road. The site is currently vacant and is now proceeding through the development review
process. The surrounding area north of Huron Road is comprised of newly developed, and
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 149 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033 (Cont’d)
planned, low rise residential uses. Lands to the south of the subject property are planned for the
future City-owned South District Park and recreational grounds. Lands to the southeast of the
subject property are planned for commercial and residential uses.
The site is approximately 9 hectares in size and is proposed to be developed with future
commercial uses, low to medium density residential dwellings, a public road (extension of West
Oak Trail), and a publicly owned storm water management facility (wet pond).
Official Plan – Rosenberg Secondary Plan:
The properties are designated in the Rosenberg Secondary Plan. Different portions of the
property are designated for different uses and densities.
Minor Variance Applications A 2015-016 and A 2015-033 pertain to the lands shown as future Lot
D and are designated as Mixed Use Two. These areas are generally intended to provide
commercial and office uses that serve the entire Rosenberg Community and adjacent Planning
Communities, along with residential uses that are at higher densities than the surrounding area
while achieving a built form that is compatible, accessible, safe and efficient for all modes of
travel. Permitted non-residential uses include Retail, including Major Retail. Notwithstanding the
maximum floor space ratio contained in the Mixed Use policies above, the City may permit a
maximum floor space ratio of up to 4.0 in the Zoning By-law to individual properties where higher
intensity development is desirable and appropriate. Building heights will be encouraged to be
between 3 and 10 storeys and are further regulated through the Zoning By-law.
The intersection of Huron and Fischer Hallman roads is identified as a Community Gateway,
within the Node and within the Fischer Hallman Mixed-Use Corridor. Nodes and Corridors are
planned to provide a balance of commercial, office, institutional, and multiple residential uses that
serve the Rosenberg and surrounding Planning Communities in a compact and intensive
development pattern along the Fischer Hallman Corridor. The built form must frame the
intersection and provide an attractive and defining entrance at neighbourhood and community
gateways.
The Rosenberg Secondary Plan policies also provide direction for subsequent development
applications, including future site planning. The built form should frame the intersection and define
an attractive entrance to the community and address the street in a manner that supports an
active streetscape. Development along arterial and collectors shall be “street-facing”. Public roads
that support active transportation are required, including West Oak Trail. West Oak Trail is shown
as a minor collector on the Rosenberg Secondary Plan Transportation Map. Noise Mitigation
should be addressed through site design, grading, built form materials, and/or development
timing (extractions of aggregate). Passive noise control measures, including noise warning
clauses are to be used to mitigate impacts wherever possible.
Urban Design Brief and Master Site Plan:
GSP Group prepared an Urban Design Brief (UDB) and Master Site Plan to guide the
development of these lands. The UDB illustrates three design concepts for the subject property;
an immediate concept, a long-term concept, and the final ultimate concept for the property. It is
anticipated that while minor variances are required to accommodate the initial development (mix
of immediate and long-term concept) at this time, the zoning also accommodates the ultimate
concept.
Zoning By-law:
The zoning of the property was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). On June 6,
2014, the OMB issued a decision for Case PL090773. The zoning of the subject area varies to
align with the intent of the Official Plan policies. The zoning of future Lot D is Medium Intensity
Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU-2) with Special Use Regulation 435U, Special Regulation
Provision 648R, and Holding Provision 70H.
B 2015-029 – Lot C - The owner has requested permission to grant a “F” shaped easement
(previously advertised “T” shaped easement) having a top northerly length of 146.9m, a minimum
width of 10.9m and a maximum width of13m, having one branch length of 53.5m and a width of
7m, having a second branch length of 53.7m and a width of 2.0m and an overall approximate
area of 1796 sq.m. in favour of the City of Kitchener for sanitary and storm sewers.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 150 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033 (Cont’d)
B 2015-030 – Lot B - The owner has requested permission to grant an ‘L’ shaped easement
(previously advertised “C” shaped easement), having a northerly length of 66.0m with a width of
11.0 m a branch length of 46.7m and a width of 12.0m and a second branch length of 55.8m, and
a width of 2m and an overall approximate area of 1398 sq.m. in favour of the City of Kitchener for
sanitary and storm sewers.
B 2015-031 – Lot A - The owner has requested permission to grant an easement having a width
of 5.9m, a depth of 61.3m, and an area of 361.67 sq.m. in favour of Lot D on the plan submitted
with the application, for vehicular access.
B 2015-033 – Lot D - The owner has requested permission to grant an easement having a width
of 4.1m, a depth of 45.6m, and an area of 186.96 sq.m. in favour of Lot A on the plan submitted
with the application, for vehicular access.
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 easements conform to
the City’s Official Plan and that the configuration of the easements are suitable to service the
lands and to provide mutual access for the proposed Lots A and D. Staff is further of the opinion
that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 and conforms to the
Growth Plan tor the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006.
Minor Variance Application 2015-016 (Lot D):
Floor Space Ratio:
Relief is requested from Appendix D Section 648R.ix of the Zoning By-law to permit a minimum
Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.4 for Proposed Lot D, whereas 0.6 metres is required. On June 6,
2014, The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) issued a Decision PL090773 which implemented
zoning for the subject property. The Special Regulation Provision for the property requires
Kitchener Council approval of the UDB to order to allow for phased-in development as shown.
Where initial phases of development do not achieve a minimum FSR of 0.6, approval of the UDB
is required. Planning staff submits that Kitchener City Council is the appropriate approval
authority for the phasing in of the FSR based on the approved zoning, and will formally seek
Council approval on April 20, 2015 from the City’s Community and Infrastructure Services
Committee. As such, Planning staff recommend refusal of the request.
Façade Openings – West Oak Trail:
Relief is being sought from Section 54.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to permit façade openings for
buildings over 6500 square metres in area to be devoted to display windows or entrances to be
9.8% of the primary ground floor façade facing West Oak Trail for Proposed Lot D, whereas a
minimum of 40% is required, and seeking relief from Section 54.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to
permit the horizontal distance along the primary ground floor façade for buildings over 6500
square metres in area facing West Oak Trail between display windows or entrances to be 9.75
metres for Proposed Lot D, whereas a maximum of 4.0 metres is required.
Planning staff is in receipt of conceptual building elevations for all sides of the building and
recommended support for a modified variance. Planning staff recommend a variance be
approved to permit display windows or entrances to be 21.5% of the primary ground floor façade
facing West Oak Trail for Proposed Lot D instead of the sought 9.8%. Planning staff support a
façade with window openings and entrances in all three locations shown below, not just the
centre section as proposed by the applicant.
The amended variance meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is minor in nature,
and is appropriate for the development of the land. The Rosenberg Secondary Plan promotes a
built form that addresses the street in a manner that supports an active streetscape for
pedestrians and encourages building entrances to be oriented towards the public realm. Further,
the Plan states that continuous, blank facades will not be permitted and the City will regulate
ground floor facades, window openings, and entrances through the Zoning By-law. Using the
interior ceiling height as a measure to determine the ground floor façade area, has resulted in a
smaller ratio of openings when compared to a 3.0 metre height vertical height normally
considered for the height of a storey. Based on a linear measure of the façade (62.331 metres)
and the length of the three window panels (27.022 metres), 43.35% of the linear face of the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 151 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033 (Cont’d)
building would be display windows and openings. Planning staff support an increase in the
separation distance between window openings from 4.0 metres to 9.650 metres in order to
achieve the three large display areas as shown above. Planning staff supports the elevations
shown above such that all three glass areas are fitted with visible windows, with an entrance in
the centre section, rather than only the centre section being visible glass and the two others being
spandrel, or non-transparent openings.
Façade Openings – Fischer Hallman Road:
Relief from Section 54.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to permit façade openings for buildings over 6500
square metres in area to be devoted to display windows or entrances to be 13.6% of the primary
ground floor façade facing Fischer Hallman Road for Proposed Lot D, whereas a minimum of
40% is required, and relief is being sought from Section 54.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to permit no
minimum or maximum horizontal distance between display windows or entrances along the
primary ground floor façade for buildings over 6500 square metres in area facing Fischer Hallman
Road for Proposed Lot D, whereas a maximum of 4.0 metres is required.
Planning staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan
and Zoning By-law, is minor in nature, and is appropriate for the development of the land. While
adjacent to Fischer Hallman Road, meaning the front face of the building is also a primary ground
floor façade, the front portion of the building will be positioned and oriented towards the interior of
the property. Planning staff have reviewed preliminary site plan drawings for the whole site and is
confident that a smaller building at the exterior edges of the property will be more productive in
contributing to the pedestrian realm along Fischer Hallman Road. It should be noted that Planning
staff support the requested variance only for buildings greater than 6500 square metres, and only
for the Fischer Hallman façade - 40% window openings and 4.0 metre separations regulations
will be met for all other buildings shown on the site plan (on primary ground floor facades).
Rear Yard Setback:
Relief is being sought from Section 54.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to permit a rear yard setback of
3.9 metres for Proposed Lot D, whereas 7.5 metres is required.
The requested rear yard setback meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is minor
in nature, and is appropriate for the development of the land. The rear yard of Lot D functions like
a side yard abutting a street (along West Oak Trail and Huron Road). The reduced rear yard will
ensure a continuous built form along the street edge of both streets. Coupled with the setback of
the adjacent property, an appropriate landscape buffer will be provided for planting both
coniferous and deciduous trees which will help ensure an appropriate buffer between the
commercial and residential uses.
Front Yard Setback Abutting Fischer Hallman Road:
Relief is being requested from Section 54.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to permit a front yard setback
of 0.0 metres along Fischer Hallman Road and a side yard setback of 0.0 metres along Huron
Road, for Proposed Lot D, whereas 1.5 metres is required.
The requested front yard setback meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is minor
in nature, and is appropriate for the development of the land. The Rosenberg Secondary Plan
and the Fischer Hallman Road Mixed Use Corridor Urban Design Brief promote compact mixed
use development that is oriented to the street, transit, and the public sidewalk. The Fischer
Hallman Road Mixed Use Corridor is planned to be a walkable environment designed to be
comfortable, safe, interesting, and inviting to the pedestrian. Bringing the building face to the
street will encourage use of the future multi-use pathway planned for the right-of-way along
Fischer Hallman Road. Identified as a Community Gateway, within a Node, the built form of the
buildings must frame the intersection of Fischer Hallman Road and Huron Road and provide an
attractive and defining entrance to the neighbourhood.
Maximum Gross Floor Area:
The applicant is also requesting relief from Appendix D Section 648R.vi of the Zoning By-law to
permit a retail outlet with a maximum gross floor area of 6850 square metres for Proposed Lot D,
whereas a maximum gross floor area of 6500 metres is required.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 152 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033 (Cont’d)
The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is minor in
nature, and is appropriate for the development of the land. Lands designated as Mixed Use Two
are generally intended to provide commercial and office uses that serve the entire Rosenberg
Community and adjacent Planning Communities. It is understood that due to internal layout
requirements and the proposed warehouse racking system, a larger floor area is required to
accommodate the future furniture store tenant. A retail building with a gross floor area of 6500
square metres was supported by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision for Case
PL090773. The additional floor area, being 350 square metres, or 5.3%, is marginal for a project
of this size.
Primary Ground Floor Façade – Fischer Hallman Road:
The applicant is requesting relief from Section 54.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to permit the primary
ground floor façade to be 30% of the length of abutting street lines, rather than 50%.
The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is minor in
nature, and is appropriate for the development of the land. The intent of the regulation is to
ensure that the pedestrian realm along Fischer Hallman Road is enhanced with a built form that is
pedestrian scaled. In this case, the surface parking area and drive through stacking lanes (see
minor variance application A 2015-033 (Lot D) discussion below) are separated by both a
landscaped area and by a change in topography. The private landscaped area, and the potential
future municipal planting area within the right-of-way along Fischer Hallman Road, will serve as
an appropriate screening area and will create a pleasant environment enhanced with natural
elements in addition to the proposed built elements. The change in topography is such that the
parking areas will be lower than the street and less visible. The built form along West Oak Trail,
the future local street, exceeds the 50% requirement.
Minor Variance Application 2015-033 (Lot D):
Side Yard Setback – West Oak Trail:
Relief is being sought from Section 54.2.1 to reduce the side yard abutting the future West Oak
Trail, 1.5 metres to 0.0 metres.
The design of West Oak Trail is currently under review and is proposed to feature angled parking,
street furniture, and wide sidewalk in an effort to achieve a pedestrian scaled, urban village feel.
The Rosenberg Secondary Plan promotes canopies and awnings for buildings situated in
locations such as along a local street like West Oak Trail. Planning staff does not support the
reduction in the side yard setback abutting a street in this location in order to allow for canopies,
awnings, and other architectural features to protrude from the future buildings without being
located within the right-of-way. The 1.5 metre landscape buffer will help to soften the mass of the
larger retail building, particularly given the relief to the façade opening as discussed above.
Landscaping will help to break up the hard surface materials between the building façade and the
sidewalk.
Loading Spaces:
Relief is being sought from Section 6.2.2 to reduce the number of required loading spaces for a
building with a gross floor area greater than 6500 square metres from 3 to 2.
Planning staff supports the requested variance and is of the opinion that the variance meets the
intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is minor in nature, and is appropriate for the
development of the land. The intent of the loading space regulation is to ensure that deliveries
and customer pick-ups for a retail use can be accommodated without interfering with the function
of the parking areas. In this case, a separate 10-space customer loading area is being provided
in addition to the two standard loading spaces. The applicant has shown a third loading space on
the site plan, but it is used exclusively for refuse. Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the
minor variance application and the proposed Site Plan and has no concerns.
Drive-Through Stacking Lane Setback:
The applicant is seeking relief from Section 6.1.1.1.a.v to reduce the setback for a drive-through
stacking lane from the Fischer Hallman Road street line from 4.5 metres to 1.5 metres.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 153 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033 (Cont’d)
Planning staff supports the requested variance and is of the opinion that the variance meets the
intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is minor in nature, and is appropriate for the
development of the land. The intent of the 4.5 metre setback for properties within a Mixed Use
corridor is to support the pedestrian realm adjacent to the property. In this case, pedestrian
connections will be provided into the site at the intersection of Fischer Hallman and Huron Roads,
midblock along Fischer Hallman Road, and in two locations from West Oak Trail. Further, the
applicant is dedicating a road widening to the Region of Waterloo along Fischer Hallman Road to
ensure that there is adequate room to provide a multi-use trail which will be offset from the
property line. The topography of the site is such that a retaining wall is required along Fischer
Hallman Road, resulting in a drive-through that is lower in grade. With the proposed retaining wall
located outside of the proposed 1.5 metre setback, the setback will accommodate an appropriate
landscaping area which will include larger trees that will buffer the drive through from view of the
street.
Off-Street Parking Setback – Huron Road:
The final requested minor variance is for relief from Section 6.1.1.1.a.v to reduce the setback for
an off-street parking space from Huron Road street line from 4.5 metres to 0.0 metres.
The owner is dedicating a road widening to the City of Kitchener for Huron Road for the future
roundabout at the intersection of Huron Road and Fischer Hallman Road based on a “worst-case
scenario”. Combined with the existing right-of-way for Huron Road, the total road width will
exceed typical requirements for this road type. As such, there is a high likelihood that the physical
distance between the parking spaces and the future multi-use pathway on Huron Road will be
greater than 4.5 metres. Even still, based on the site plan that was reviewed by Planning staff, it
is recommended that the requested variance be amended to specifically accommodate the
irregular property line to help ensure that an appropriate landscape buffer is provided. Planning
Staff recommend a setback of 0 metres for no more than seven (7) parking spaces along Huron
Road, and a setback of 1.5 metres for not more than seven (7) parking spaces. This will ensure
that a sufficient planting area is provided between the end of the large building and Huron Road.
As such, Planning staff supports the requested variance as amended and is of the opinion that
the variance meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is minor in nature, and is
appropriate for the development of the land.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated April
13, 2015, noting the following comments regarding Application Nos. B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B
2015-031, B 2015-033 and A 2015-033:
B 2015-029 (amended) – permission to grant an “F” shaped easement over Lot C on the plan
submitted with the application in favour of the City of Kitchener for sanitary and storm sewers
purposes.
B 2015-030 (amended) – permission to grant a “C” shaped easement over Lot B on the plan
submitted with the application in favour of the City of Kitchener for sanitary and storm sewers
purposes.
B 2015-031 – permission to grant an easement over Lot A in favour of Lot D on the plan
submitted with the application for vehicular access.
B 2015-033 – Permission to grant an easement over Lot D in favour of Lot A on the plan
submitted with the application for vehicular access.
The Region’s issues and concerns associated with development of the lands subject to the above
applications have been previously addressed through the Committee’s decision of January 20,
2015 on consent applications B 2015-008 to B 2015-020, all inclusive.
For information, this segment of Fischer-Hallman Road is proposed to have a future 4-lane X-
section with a traffic median in the centre restricting any northbound left turn movement into the
site. Access from Fischer-Hallman Road to the subject lands must be via Lot G as shown on the
plan submitted with the application (i.e., extension of West Oak Trail Drive as a municipal street to
Fischer-Hallman Road). No other individual access will be allowed from Fischer-Hallman Road to
any individual blocks or properties.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 154 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033 (Cont’d)
A 2015-033 – Permission to construct a commercial building having a gross floor area of more
than 6500 sq.m. on Lot “D” as outline on the plan submitted with the application; having 2 loading
spaces rather than the required 3; to have a side yard abutting the future West Oak Tail of 0m
rather than the required 1.5m; to have a setback for a drive-through stacking lane of 1.0m from
the street line of Fischer-Hallman Road rather than the required 4.5m; and to locate the required
off-street parking spaces 0m from the street line rather than the required 4.5m.
a) A widening along Fischer-Hallman Road was required under Committee of Adjustment
decision of January 20, 2015 (Condition 11). Regional staff has not yet seen a draft
Reference Plan for this widening, but it will be required in order to confirm the future
property line along Fischer-Hallman. The Reference Plan will be required prior to approval
of any development on lands abutting Fischer-Hallman Road on the above property.
b) A 0 (zero) building setback from the future Fischer-Hallman property line has been
proposed in the application. However, Regional staff have expressed concerns with the
zero building setback from future Fischer-Hallman property line from a public safety
perspective. It is strongly recommended that City of Kitchener look into the matter before
allowing a zero building setback from the future Fischer-Hallman Road property line.
c) A setback of 1.0 m for a drive-thru stacking lane from the Fischer-Hallman Road street line
has been requested. The actual setback of the buildings components (including any
retaining walls) will be subject to the final design of any proposed retaining walls along
Fischer-Hallman Road (located on private property). Basic design parameters for any
proposed retaining wall have been provided to the applicant and City staff. Approval of the
Site Plan application(s) on these lands will be subject to review and approval of any
proposed retaining wall design by the Region.
d) No building components/steps/retaining walls/encroachment will be allowed into the
widened Fischer-Hallman Road right-of-way.
e) The design for the West Oak Trail Drive connection at Fischer-Hallman Road has not yet
been finalized and may affect the future property lines at the above intersection.
f) Special Note: In the above comments, all property line(s) refer to the future property line(s)
along Fischer-Hallman Road/Huron Road after dedication of the road widenings.
The Committee also considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner,
dated February 26, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with Application No. A 2015-016.
Mr. C. Pidgeon addressed the Committee in support of the subject applications. He noted that he
has reviewed the staff recommendations and advised that he in support of the staff
recommendations except for the variance outlined in application A 2015-016, to permit the future
commercial development, proposed for Lot ‘D’ to have façade openings facing West Oak Trail on
a building over 6500 sq.m in area to be 9.8% of the primary ground floor façade devoted to
display windows or entrances rather than the minimum of 40%; and, to permit the future
commercial development, proposed for Lot ‘D’ to have horizontal distance of 9.75 metres
between display windows or entrances along the primary ground floor façade facing West Oak
Trail of a building exceeding 6500 square metres in area rather than the maximum distance
separation of 4 metres. He stated that the proposed facility is under agreement for lease for
Tepperman’s furniture store and the proposed tenant has concerns with the increase in façade
openings on West Oak Trail.
Mr. Pidgeon advised that they have been working with staff and have come to a number of
agreements regarding the site, but in this situation the future tenant has worked with an interior
designer on the interior floor plan and the proposed façade openings on West Oak Trail would
adversely impact their business operations. He noted they have concerns with furniture fading
and building and product security. He stated that he would respect the Committee’s decision if it
was their will to approve the recommendation as outlined in the staff recommendation; however,
he wanted the Committee to be aware that if the variance was approved as recommended, the
applicant would likely cover over the openings, or post murals on the openings creating a false
façade covering the openings along West Oak Trail.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 155 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033 (Cont’d)
Mr. Pidgeon noted that he had spoken with the Manager of Site Plan Development and Customer
Service regarding the 40% requirement for façade openings in a Mixed Use Zone and she was
unable to provide an example of a building that meets that requirement. He provided additional
an example where the Committee had approved a variance for reduced façade openings, noting
that in his opinion the requirements were outdated and excessive.
Mr. A. Tepperman was in attendance in support of the subject applications, noting that he is the
owner of Tepperman’s Furniture and they have gone to great lengths for the store proposed on
the subject property to ensure that the interior will provide for a successful retail experience. He
noted that there have already been concessions made on the number of windows proposed for
the development, and that it would be their preference to reduce the number of façade openings
on West Oak Trail.
The Chair noted concerns with the staff recommendation, stating that he does not want to
approve recommendations that would potentially dictate challenges for the operations of the
future tenant. He requested clarification on the staff recommendation and whether it was strictly
relating to aesthetics, and their reason for refusing the recommendation as requested.
Mr. G. Stevenson advised that there are a variety of different issues that staff have considered
when reviewing the subject applications. He noted that the design and future plan for West Oak
Trail is to have an open, very pedestrian friendly experience. He stated that the Rosenberg
Secondary Plan and Fischer Hallman Mixed Use Urban Design Brief promotes an active
streetscape for pedestrians and encourages building entrances to be oriented toward the public
realm. He noted that staff is in receipt of conceptual building elevations for all sides of the
building and are compromising for the corridor along West Oak Trail, by recommending approval
of a variance to permit display windows or entrances to be 21.5% of the primary ground floor
façade.
Mr. Pidgeon reiterated that if the Committee approved a recommendation beyond the 9.8% of the
primary ground floor façade facing West Oak Trail being devoted to display windows or
entrances, the applicant would be using some type of window treatment to reduce the view from
the exterior of the building.
The Chair questioned the applicant on what they would apply to the exterior of the building if the
Committee opted to approve the requested 9.8% devoted to display windows or entrances. Mr. V.
Bender advised that there would be architectural features such as bump-outs or spandrels, so it
isn’t one long blank wall. Mr. Bender advised that they have tried to work with the City to find
compromises, noting that they share the same vision for the Rosenberg Secondary Plan as staff
regarding the pedestrian focused development of the property. He further advised that when
preparing the conceptual building elevations, they initially were of the opinion that they met the
requirements for primary ground floor façade on the guidelines for measurement provided to
them by staff. He noted following some clarification around the measurements and what was to
be included to determine the percentage, it was discovered that a variance would be required.
The Chair questioned whether staff had a potential compromise in response to the concerns
raised by the applicant this date. Mr. Stevenson advised that staff have put forward a compromise
which has been outlined within the staff recommendation. He stated rather than refusing the
variance request for West Oak Trail, staff are recommending a variance of 21.5% of the primary
ground floor façade facing West Oak Trail. He further advised that requirements for the
Rosenberg Plan and Urban Design briefs are not outdated policies. He stated that they were only
finalized just over one year ago and staff have demonstrated some flexibility in those
requirements by recommending a variance of almost 50%.
In response to questions, Mr. Stevenson advised that staff would prefer that the applicant install
the recommended windows and doors at the time of construction. He noted, in his opinion, it
would be less likely if the use of the building changed, to get the owner to install windows after the
building has been fully constructed.
The Chair questioned whether the Committee could include a condition requiring the applicant to
install lentils to the satisfaction of the Planning Division during construction that could be utilized
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 156 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033 (Cont’d)
in the future, if the building use changed and additional windows / doors were required. Mr.
Stevenson advised that staff would prefer that a condition not be included as part of a decision as
a condition of that nature would be very hard to clear.
Mr. Head advised that he respects staffs recommendation, but in his opinion that consideration
should be given to the unique use of the building in size and scale, and requested that
Recommendation V. Paragraph 2 of the staff recommendation should be amended to permit
façade openings for buildings over 6500 square metres in area to be devoted to display windows
or entrances to be 9.8% of the primary ground floor façade facing West Oak Trail for Proposed
Lot D, whereas a minimum of 40% is required; and, to permit the horizontal distance along the
primary ground floor façade for buildings over 6500 square metres in area facing West Oak
between display windows or entrances to be 27.002 metres for Proposed Lot D, whereas a
maximum of 4.0 metres is required.
Ms. D. Saunderson noted for clarification that Clause VII of the recommendation indicating that
Recommendations I through VI inclusive, for applications B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031,
B 2015-033, A 2015-016, and A 2015-033 based on the site plan concept included in this report,
will be amended to include that the date of the site plan concept of March 16, 2015 as the
application was amended from its initial submission and there were two plans relating to the file.
Mr. Pidgeon advised that he was in support of the clarifying amendment.
Submission No. B 2015-029
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of 1271395 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to grant an “F” shaped
easement on Lot ‘C’ as outlined on the plan submitted with the application, having a top northerly
length of 146.9m (481.955’), a minimum width of 10.9m (35.761’) and a maximum width of 13m
(42.650’), having one branch length of 53.5m (175.524’) and a width of 7m (22.965’), having a
second branch length of 53.7m (176.18’), a width of 2.0m (6.56’) and an overall approximate area
of 1796 sq.m. (19,331.983 sq.ft) in favour of the City of Kitchener for sanitary and storm sewers,
on Part Lot 153, German Company Tract, being Part 4 on Reference Plan 58R-8992, vacant land
BE GRANTED
at the corner of Huron Road and Fischer Hallman Road, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
2. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, prepared by the
City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning, and registered on title of
all the subject lands. Said agreement shall include arrangements for performance
securities and municipal engineering services.
3. That approval of B 2015-029 is based on the Site Plan submitted with the application
dated March 16, 2015. Any major revisions to the Site Plan shall require Committee of
Adjustment approval prior to future Building Permit issuance, at the discretion of the
Committee of Adjustment.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 157 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033 (Cont’d)
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 21, 2017.
Carried
Submission No. B 2015-030
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of 1271395 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to grant a ‘C’ shaped
easement on Lot ‘B’ as outlined on the plan submitted with the application, with a northerly length
of 66.0m (216.535’), having a width of 11.0 m (36.089’), with a branch length of 46.7m (153.215’),
having a width of 12.0m (39.37’); and, a second branch length of 55.8m (183.070’), having a
width of 2m (6.56’) with an overall approximate area of 1398 sq.m. (15047.947 sq.ft) in favour of
the City of Kitchener for sanitary and storm sewers, on Part Lot 153, German Company Tract,
being Part 4 on Reference Plan 58R-8992, vacant land at the corner of Huron Road and Fischer
BE GRANTED
Hallman Road, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
2. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, prepared by the
City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning, and registered on title of
all the subject lands. Said agreement shall include arrangements for performance
securities and municipal engineering services.
3. That approval of B 2015-030 is based on the Site Plan submitted with the application
dated March 16, 2015. Any major revisions to the Site Plan shall require Committee of
Adjustment approval prior to future Building Permit issuance, at the discretion of the
Committee of Adjustment.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 21, 2017.
Carried
Submission No. B 2015-031
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 158 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033 (Cont’d)
That the application of 1271395 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to grant an easement on ‘Lot
A’ on the plan submitted with the application, having a width of 5.9m (19.356’), a depth of 61.3m
(201.115’) and an area of 361.67 sq.m. (3,892.99 sq.ft) in favour of Lot D on the plan submitted
with the application, for vehicular access, on Part Lot 153, German Company Tract, being Part 4
on Reference Plan 58R-8992, vacant land at the corner of Huron Road and Fischer Hallman
BE GRANTED
Road, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
2. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, prepared by the
City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning, and registered on title of
all the subject lands. Said agreement shall include arrangements for performance
securities and municipal engineering services.
3. That the owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, shall enter into a joint
maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the (right-of-
way for access / easement) 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, shall be provided
to the City Solicitor.
5. That the City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s)
and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
6. That approval of B 2015-031 is based on the Site Plan submitted with the application
dated March 16, 2015. Any major revisions to the Site Plan shall require Committee of
Adjustment approval prior to future Building Permit issuance, at the discretion of the
Committee of Adjustment.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 21, 2017.
Carried
Submission No. B 2015-033
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 159 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033 (Cont’d)
That the application of 1271395 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to grant an easement having
a width of 4.1m (13.451’), a depth of 45.6m (149.606’) and an area of 186.96 sq.m. (2,012.42
sq.ft) in favour of ‘Lot A’ on the plan submitted with the application, for vehicular access, on Part
Lot 153, German Company Tract, being Part 4 on Reference Plan 58R-8992, vacant land at the
BE GRANTED
corner of Huron Road and Fischer Hallman Road, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
2. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, prepared by the
City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning, and registered on title of
all the subject lands. Said agreement shall include arrangements for performance
securities and municipal engineering services.
3. That the owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, shall enter into a joint
maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the (right-of-
way for access / easement) 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, shall be provided
to the City Solicitor.
5. That the City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s)
and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
6. That approval of B 2015-033 is based on the Site Plan submitted with the application
dated March 16, 2015. Any major revisions to the Site Plan shall require Committee of
Adjustment approval prior to future Building Permit issuance, at the discretion of the
Committee of Adjustment.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 21, 2017.
Carried
Submission No. A 2015-016
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 160 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033 (Cont’d)
That the application of 1271395 Ontario Inc. requesting permission for the future commercial
development to have a minimum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.4 rather than the required FSR of
0.6, on Part Lot 153, German Company Tract, being Part 4 on Reference Plan 58R-8992, vacant
BE REFUSED
land at the corner of Huron Road and Fischer Hallman Road, Kitchener, Ontario, .
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is not minor.
2. This application is not 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
not being maintained on the subject property.
- and -
That the application of 1271395 Ontario Inc. requesting permission for the future commercial
development to have façade openings to be 9.8% of the primary ground floor façade facing West
Oak Trail on a building over 6500 sq.m. in area, to be devoted to display windows or entrances
rather than the minimum of 40%; having a horizontal distance along the primary ground floor
façade facing West Oak Trail of 27.002m (88.589’) between display windows or entrances rather
than the maximum 4m (13.123’); having façade openings devoted to display windows or
entrances to be 13.6% of the primary ground floor façade facing Fisher Hallman Road rather than
the required minimum 40%; and, to permit no minimum or maximum horizontal distance between
display windows or entrances along the primary ground floor façade facing Fisher Hallman Road
rather than the required maximum of 4m. In addition, the proposed commercial residential
development will also require permission to have a rear yard setback of 3.9m (12.795’) rather
than the required 7.5m (24.606’); front yard and side yard setbacks of 0m rather than the required
1.5m (4.921’); a minimum width of primary ground façade for non-residential buildings to be 30%
of the length lot line abutting Fisher Hallman Road rather than the required 50%; and, a retail
outlet with a maximum gross floor area of 6850 sq.m. (73732.786 sq.ft.) rather than the permitted
maximum gross floor area of 6500 sq.m. (69965.418 sq.ft.), on Part 4 on Reference Plan 58R-
8992, vacant land at the corner of Huron Road and Fischer Hallman Road, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE APPROVED
, subject to the following condition:
1. That approval of A 2015-016 is based on the Site Plan dated March 16, 2015 submitted
with the subject application. Any major revisions to the Site Plan shall require Committee
of Adjustment approval prior to future Building Permit issuance, at the discretion of the
Committee of Adjustment.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. A 2015-033
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of 1271395 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct a commercial
building having a gross floor area of more than 6500 sq.m on Lot D as outlined on the plan
submitted with this application to have a side yard setback of 0m abutting the future West Oak
Trail rather than the required 1.5m (4.921’), on Part Lot 153, German Company Tract, being Part
4 on Reference Plan 58R-8992, vacant land at the corner of Huron Road and Fischer Hallman
BE REFUSED.
Road, Kitchener, Ontario,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 161 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-029, B 2015-030, B 2015-031, B 2015-033, A 2015-016 and
A 2015-033 (Cont’d)
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is not minor.
2. This application is not 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
not being maintained on the subject property.
- and -
That the application of 1271395 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct a commercial
building having a gross floor area of more than 6500 sq.m. on Lot ‘D’ as outlined on the plan
submitted with the application, having 2 loading spaces rather than the required 3; to have a
setback for a drive-through stacking lane of 1.5m (4.921’) from the street line at Fischer Hallman
Road rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); to locate not more than 7 off-street parking spaces
0m from the street line at Huron Road rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); and, to locate no
more than 7 off-street parking spaces set back 1.5m (4.921’) from the lot line at Huron Road
rather than the required 4.5m (14.763), on Part Lot 153, German Company Tract, being Part 4 on
Reference Plan 58R-8992, vacant land at the corner of Huron Road and Fischer Hallman Road,
BE APPROVED
Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That approval of A 2015-033 is based on the Site Plan submitted with the application
dated March 16, 2015. Any major revisions to the Site Plan shall require Committee of
Adjustment approval prior to future Building Permit issuance, at the discretion of the
Committee of Adjustment.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission Nos.:
2. B 2014-111 and A 2015-032
Applicant:
John Brohman
Property Location:
329-331 Victoria St. N.
Legal Description:
Part Lot 23, Registered Plan 33
Mr. A. Head declared a pecuniary interest with this application, as his firm is representing the
applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application.
Appearances:
In Support: S. Head
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 Victoria Street North, with the severed lands having a lot
width of 5.91m (19.389’), an easterly depth of 26.518m (87.001’) and an area of 148.5 sq.m
(1598.441 sq.ft.); and, the retained lands having a lot width of 7.2m (22.87’), a southerly depth of
22.19m (72.05’) and an area of 139.7 sq.m. (1503.718 sq.ft.). Permission is also being requested
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 162 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2014-111 & A 2015-032 (Cont’d)
for a minor variance to recognize the existing dwellings as semi-detached units whereas the By-
law does not permit semi-detached dwellings in the MU-1 Mixed use Zone; and, to recognize the
existing lot areas, front yard setbacks, side yard setbacks and rear yard setbacks which do not
meet the requirements of the MU-1 Use Zone.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 16, 2015, advising that
the subject property is located on the south side of Victoria Street, west of Lancaster Street in the
Civic Centre Secondary Plan Area. The property contains a dwelling that has been modified
several times since construction in approximately 1900. The application refers to the existing use
as a duplex or single detached dwelling. The property is designated Mixed Use Corridor in the
Civic Centre Secondary Plan and zoned Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU-1) with
Special Use Provision 162U (prohibits museum and hotel uses), and Special Regulation
Provision 563R (includes various regulations including, for example, special rear and side yard
requirements, prohibition on outdoor storage within 15.0 metres of Hermie Place, etc.).
In 2014 the applicant submitted a consent application (B 2014-111) to sever the dwelling and
property into two parcels along the common wall which would allow separate conveyance of each
dwelling unit. If approved, the application would have the effect of changing the use of the
building into a semi-detached dwelling (each dwelling unit would be a semi-detached house).
The application was originally heard at the Committee of Adjustment meeting of December 9,
2014. During this meeting staff recommended that that the application be refused since the
applicable zoning does not allow a semi-detached dwelling and the semi-detached dwelling
currently does not legally exist and is not a legal non-conforming use.
After some discussion between the applicant, staff and the Committee, the Committee deferred
consideration of the application to allow time for the owner to submit a minor variance to attempt
to recognize the use of the property as a semi-detached dwelling and thereby permit the
severance.
Under section 45(1) of the Planning Act the Committee may authorize a minor variance in respect
of the land, building or structure or the use thereof, subject to the satisfaction of the usual ‘four
tests’. In this regard, the applicant has now submitted a minor variance application to:
1. Permit the existing dwelling units located at 329 and 331 Victoria Street to function as
semi-detached units; and,
2. To recognize the existing side yards, front yard setback, rear yard setback and lot areas
which do not meet the requirements of the MU-1 Mixed Use Zone.
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 regarding
the requested minor variance:
The requested variance does not meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Mixed Use Corridor
designation states:
Mixed Use Corridors provide residential redevelopment opportunities together with
appropriate commercial and institutional uses that primarily serve adjacent residential
neighbourhoods. Over time it is intended that the Mixed Use Corridors shall intensify and
provide a balanced distribution of commercial, multiple residential and institutional uses.
Individual properties within Mixed Use Corridors shall be zoned to achieve this distribution
of uses.
While the Official Plan does explicitly allow multiple residential, there is no allowance for other
types of residential including semi-detached dwellings, which are not considered multiple
residential. While the implementing Zoning category (i.e., MU-1) does allow single detached and
duplex uses, it allows them only if they already exist so as to legalize existing dwellings. New
single detached dwellings and duplexes are not permitted. Also, the MU-1 Zone omits semi-
detached dwellings as a permitted use, likely because they hinder redevelopment by making
consolidation of lands more difficult by splitting title of the property and allowing separate
conveyance of both parcels. The proposal would hinder future redevelopment and intensification
opportunities contemplated in the Official Plan.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 163 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2014-111 & A 2015-032 (Cont’d)
The requested variance does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The MU-1 Zone requires
a minimum lot width of 15.0 metres for most uses. By contrast, the proposed semi-detached
dwelling use and severance would create one lot that is only 5.91 metres and another that is only
7.20 metres wide. This would be going against the Zoning By-law’s intent to create parcels that
are a minimum width of 15.0 metres. It should be noted that even put together the two lots would
not satisfy the minimum lot width outlined in the MU-1 Zone at only 13.11 metres. Consolidation
of the subject lands with adjacent lands is necessary to achieve this minimum lot width. The
subject proposal would bring the lots further from the City’s goals, not closer to fulfilment.
The requested variance is minor. Staff does not foresee any unacceptably adverse impacts on
adjacent properties considering the building is existing.
The requested variance is not desirable for the appropriate use of the land. Planning staff is of the
opinion that a semi-detached dwelling is not appropriate and should not be permitted so as to
facilitate the severance of the land since this would frustrate future consolidation and
redevelopment opportunities. The subject property is large enough to be very useful to adjacent
properties for consolidation purposes. If consolidated with adjacent properties, especially the one
to the west, the land could accommodate a significant portion of a building, or landscaped area,
or parking, or combinations thereof.
Based on the failure of the variance to meet the four tests and the rationale provided in staff’s
consent report for the December 9, 2014 Committee meeting (attached), Planning staff
recommends that the applications be refused. Notwithstanding staff’s recommendation, should
the Committee wish to approve the applications, the following conditions are suggested for B
2014-111:
1. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2. That the owner provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as one full
size paper copy 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 pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication
equal to 2% of the value of the lands to be severed.
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 lands and
retained lands.
5. A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
Heritage Planning Comments:
No concerns
Environmental Planning Comments:
No concerns.
Building Comments:
B 2014-111: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. A building permit
has been issued for this property.
A 2014-032: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. A building permit
has been applied for and issued to legalize the second dwelling unit.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 164 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2014-111 & A 2015-032 (Cont’d)
Transportation Comments:
B 2014-111: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed severance. The
applicant should ensure the driveway visibility triangles (4.57 metres) are maintained for the
retained and severed portions.
A 2015-032: Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed application.
Engineering Comments:
B 2014-111:
1. Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service
connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies.
2. The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering
Division for the installation of new ones that may be required to service this property, all
prior to severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal
services are currently available to service this property.
3. Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards at grade with the existing
sidewalk. All works are at the owner’s expense and all work needs to be completed prior to
occupancy of the building.
4. A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
5. As per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and
Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted
along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading,
Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
6. The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by
gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the
sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the
property line to the street.
Operations Comment:
B 2014-111: A cash-in-lieu of park land dedication in the amount of $1,087.44 will be required on
the severed parcel as a new developable lot will be created by the severance. The park land
dedication is calculated at 2% of the per metre lineal frontage land value for the severed portion.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated April
13, 2015, noting the following comments regarding Application No. B 2014-111:
The purpose of the application is to sever the subject property so that each half of a semi-
detached residential development can be dealt with separately.
Water Services:
Given the proximity to a 600 mm Ductile Iron regional watermain, the applicant should be made
aware that no connection to regional watermains will be permitted in accordance with Section
B.2.1.4.1 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for
January 2014.
Section B.2.12.3 of the Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal
Services for January 2013 states:
No more than one individual property shall be serviced by the same service regardless of
ownership.
In situations where a fire service is required due to infilling or site development after the water
distribution system has been installed, private hydrants can be supplied by a separate service at
the discretion of the municipality as long as it can be demonstrated that the fire line service will
not be interconnected now or later with the domestic water system.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 165 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2014-111 & A 2015-032 (Cont’d)
In the case of multi-unit blocks, on-site servicing can be arranged to the property owner’s
convenience; however, there shall only be one service from the municipal system.
In unique circumstances and with the approval by the Chief Municipal Engineer, more than one
service may be allowed to one property. However, a testable backflow preventer in accordance
with CAN/CSA-B64-10 shall be installed on each service to eliminate the possibility of system
flow through private property.
Regional Road Dedication:
For information purposes, at this location Regional Road 55 (Victoria Street North) has a
designed road allowance width of 26.213m (86ft), as designated in the Region of Waterloo
Official Policies Plan (ROPP). The existing road width in this area of Victoria Street North is
20.117m (66ft); therefore it is estimated that a road allowance widening of 3.048m (10ft) will be
required across the property frontage under a future development application.
The Region of Waterloo will not require the dedication of the road allowance widening under this
consent application, as the consent application is minor in nature and the purpose of the consent
is recognize an existing legal non-conforming situation. If a future, more extensive, development
application (i.e. Site Plan or Consent to merge properties for the purpose of re-development) is
applied for this property the road allowance widening will be taken at that time.
Traffic Site Circulation & Access:
The existing property obtains vehicular access to Victoria Street North via Hermie Place. Please
be advised that an access onto Victoria Street North would not be allowed in the future.
Regional Road Re-construction:
For information, please be advised that this section of Victoria Street North has been identified in
the Region of Waterloo 10-year Transportation Capital Program (TCP). The proposed
construction will consist of road re-surfacing and is scheduled for 2016.
Transportation Noise:
The subject lands are adjacent to Victoria Street North (Regional Road No. 55) within 200m of
Lancaster Street West (Regional Road 29) and within 250m of the CN Railway to the north. Due
to the high traffic volumes on these roads and the noise from the rail line, the Developer is
typically required to prepare a Transportation Noise Study to indicate the methods to be used to
abate noise levels for the new lots from traffic noise generated on these roads and if necessary,
shall enter into a registered agreement with the Region to provide for the implementation of the
approved study.
Under the circumstances, in lieu of a Transportation Noise Study in this instance, the Developer
can enter into an agreement with the Region to require the following noise warning clauses to be
included 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 Victoria
Street North (Regional Road No. 55) and Lancaster Street West (Regional Road 29) 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”.
“Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to railway traffic on the CN Railway
line may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound
levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the
Environment.”
Regional staff have no objection to the application, subject to the following condition:
1. That prior to final approval, for both the severed and retained lots, the Developer enter into
a registered agreement with the Region of Waterloo to include the following noise warning
clauses in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds and tenancy agreements for all units:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 166 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2014-111 & A 2015-032 (Cont’d)
“Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on
Victoria Street North (Regional Road No. 55) and Lancaster Street West (Regional
Road 29) 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”.
“Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to railway traffic on the CN
Railway line may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling
occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of
Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment.”
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
April 1, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with application A 2015-032.
The Committee considered the report of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated November 24, 2014,
advising that they have no concerns with the subject applications, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for
the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed and retained before the
severances are granted.
2. That the applicant make arrangements for granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the severances are granted.
Mr. S. Head addressed the Committee in support of the subject applications, noting that he had
spoken with staff initially in December when the consent application was submitted and it was
debated whether they property owner should seek a Zone Change or proceed with consent
application and submit a subsequent minor variance application to recognize the subject property
as semi-detached dwellings. He provided a brief history on the subject property, advising that it
has always functioned as semi-detached units in form. He indicated that the current owner has
been renovating the property in compliance with the Building Code as a semi-detached dwelling;
however, the Mixed Use Zoning does not recognize the semi-detached use. He further advised
that the Mixed-use Zone does recognize Duplex and Townhouse Uses.
Mr. Head stated that staff have indicated that the properties current Zoning is intended for future
consolidations and redevelopment; however, in his opinion, the future redevelopment of the
property would be challenging. He circulated a sketch demonstrating what potential
redevelopment of the existing property could look like and he noted that it is not large enough to
meet the current setback regulations of the Mixed Use Zone. He indicated that although Mixed-
use Zoning is intended to increase intensification the current Zoning/Policies that are in place
would be extremely challenging. He further advised that he has reviewed the comments from the
public agencies and none of them have expressed objections to the subject applications.
In response to questions, Mr. Head advised that the properties were never two completely
separate properties that merged on title. He stated that the dwelling units have always been side-
by-side units.
Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff have recommended refusal due to the fact that the Mixed
Use Zone is intended for future consolidations and redevelopment. She noted that staff are
aware that there would be challenges to redeveloping the site; however, the creation of an
additional lot would add further frustrations to potential redevelopment and intensification. She
stated that staff acknowledge that the property looks and functions more as a semi-detached
dwelling and have outlined conditions in the staff report that are appropriate to apply to an
approval decision if it is the will of the Committee to grant the subject applications.
The Chair noted he was inclined to approve the subject application on the basis that the property
has functioned in its current state for some time and the applicant has been renovating the
property in an attempt to improve the state of the dwellings on site.
Ms. Meader advised that she was in agreement with the comments made by the Chair and
brought forward motion to approve the subject applications, subject to the 5 Conditions outlined
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 167 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2014-111 & A 2015-032 (Cont’d)
on page 3 of the staff report, the 4 additional Conditions outlined by the City’s Engineering
Division; as well as the Conditions proposed by the Region of Waterloo and Kitchener-Wilmot
Hydro Inc..
Submission No. B 2014-111
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of John Brohman requesting permission to sever a parcel of land so each
half of a semi-detached residential development can be dealt with separately, with the severed
land having a lot width on Victoria Street North of 5.91m (19.389’), an easterly depth of 26.518m
(87.001’) and an area of 148.5 sq.m. (1598.441 sq.ft.), on Part Lot 23, Registered Plan 33, 329-
BE GRANTED
331 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an
Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full
sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the
City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping
Technologist.
3. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication in the amount equal to 2% of the value of the lands to be severed.
4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands and retained lands.
5. That the owner shall provide a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing
system will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance
approval.
6. That the owner shall ensure that the severance of any blocks within the subject lands will
have separate, individual service connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance
with City policies.
7. That the owner shall ensure that any new driveways will be built to City of Kitchener
standards at grade with the existing sidewalk, and that works are at the owner’s expense
and completed prior to occupancy of the building.
8. That the owner shall 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 City’s Director of Engineering, as per the
Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S.3150.
9. That the owner shall ensure that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by
gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the
sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the
property line to the street.
10. That the owner shall enter into a registered agreement for both the severed and retained
lands with the Region of Waterloo, to include the following noise warning clauses 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
Victoria Street North (Regional Road No. 55) and Lancaster Street West (Regional
Road 29) 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”.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 168 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2014-111 & A 2015-032 (Cont’d)
“Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to railway traffic on the CN
Railway line may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling
occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of
Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment.”
11. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for
the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed and retained prior to the
severances being granted.
12. That the owner shall make arrangements for granting any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the severances are granted.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 21, 2017.
Carried
Submission No. A 2015-032
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of John Brohman requesting permission to recognize the existing dwellings
as semi-detached units whereas the By-law does not permit semi-detached dwellings in the MU-1
Mixed Use Zone; and, to recognize the existing lot areas, front yard setbacks, side yard setbacks
and rear yard setbacks which do not meet the requirements of the MU-1 Use Zone, Part Lot 23,
BE APPROVED.
Registered Plan 33, 329-331 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario,
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission Nos.:
3. B 2015-039 and A 2015-034
Applicant:
Iain and Heather Harrison
Property Location:
40 Folley’s Lane
Legal Description:
Lots 9 & 10, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession, Together with
Right-of-Way
Appearances:
In Support: I. Harrison
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 169 -
Submission Nos.:
3.B 2015-039 & A 2015-034 (Cont’d)
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
having a width on Folley’s lane (a private right-of-way) of 9.656m (31.679’), a southerly depth of
260.513m (854.701’) and an area of 5,726 sq.m. (61634.151 sq.ft.); and, permission to grant an
easement over Parts 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the severed land as outlined on the plan submitted with the
application in favour of the retained lands for access. The retained land will have a width of 58m
(190.28’), an easterly depth of 63.607m (208.684’) and an area of 3692 sq.m. (39740.357 sq.ft.).
Both parcels will continue to have a residential use. Permission is also being requested for minor
variances on the retained land to have a lot width of 0m rather than the required 30m (98.425’);
and, to allow the retained parcel to not have frontage on a public street, rather access will be
provided through an easement as requested through Consent application B 2015-039, whereas
the By-law requires all properties to have frontage on a public street. The severed land will also
require a minor variance to permit a lot width of 9.656m (31.679’) rather than the required 30m
(98.425’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated April 16, 2015, advising that
the subject property is municipally addressed as 40 Folley’s Lane and is currently developed with
a single detached dwelling. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official
Plan and zoned Residential Two (R-2) with Special Regulation Provision 233R in the City’s
Zoning By-law. The designation and zoning allows for low density residential uses and Special
Regulation 233R requires lots to have a minimum width of 30.0 metres.
The applicant is requesting permission to sever the subject lands with the intent to retain the
existing dwelling and develop the severed lands with a new residential dwelling, as permitted in
the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law. In order to facilitate this project, the applicant has
submitted a consent application (B 2015-039) to sever the lands and to create a mutual access
easement in favour of both severed and retained lands for legal access to and from the public
street. The applicant has also submitted a minor variance application (A 2015-034) requesting
relief from Special Regulation Provision 233R for a reduced lot width of 9.656 metres for the
severed lands rather than the required 30.0 metres. In addition, the applicant is also requesting
relief from Section 5.2 of the Zoning By-law to permit a building to be built upon a lot (retained
lands) that does not abut a street.
Regional Municipality of Waterloo Comments:
Individual Water and Wastewater Services:
• The subject property is currently not serviced by municipal water or wastewater services.
There are currently water services within 350 meters of the property and wastewater
services within 850 meters of the property.
• In accordance with Policies 10.2.1.1 and 10.2.1.3 of the Regional Official Policies Plan
(ROPP) an evaluation of the feasibility for the extension of municipal water services should
be completed to determine if it is feasible to extend municipal water services to this site.
• If the property is to be serviced by private well and septic, in order to evaluate the
suitability of the proposed lot size, the applicant is required to submit a Hydrogeological
Study in accordance with the Region’s Guidelines for Hydrogeological Studies for Privately
Serviced Developments, to the satisfaction of the Region to evaluate the suitability of the
lands for development on individual wastewater treatment systems and private wells. The
study needs to demonstrate that safe potable water can be obtained on each lot, that the
soils are suitable for a conventional on-site sewage disposal system on each lot, and that
the sewage disposal will not impair the use of groundwater resources either onsite or in
adjacent areas.
• In light of the need for additional information, Regional staff proposes that the application
be deferred until the necessary study is submitted, to the satisfaction of the Region.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 170 -
Submission Nos.:
3.B 2015-039 & A 2015-034 (Cont’d)
City Engineering Services Comments:
Staff has reviewed the proposed severance application and provide the following comments:
• Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service
connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies.
• The City’s records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal services are not currently
available to service this property. The storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain will
need to be extended on Folley’s Lane to provide services to the severed lot. The owner is
required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the
installation of new services that may be required to service this property, all prior to
severance approval.
• In the event that the extension of the sanitary and storm services is not feasible, the
applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Engineering and the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo, through a Hydrogeological Study and other applicable
studies as required by staff, that the proposed lot can be serviced with private sanitary
services with no adverse impacts to adjacent and subject lands.
Planning Comments:
Staff has reviewed the comments received on the proposed subject applications, specifically
relating to the proposed servicing of the proposed severed lands. The Regional Municipality of
Waterloo’s Regional Official Policies Plan (ROPP) Policies 10.2.1.1 and 10.2.1.3, an evaluation of
the feasibility for the extension of municipal water services should be completed to determine if it
is feasible to extend municipal water services to this site. As such, City Planning staff are
recommending that the subject applications be deferred as noted in the Recommendation
Section below.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated April
15, 2015, regarding Application B 2015-039, noting that the subject property is currently not
serviced by municipal water or wastewater services. There are currently water services with 350
meters of the property and wastewater services within 850 meters of the property.
In accordance with Policies 10.2.1.1 and 10.2.1.3 of the Regional Official Policies Plan (ROPP)
an evaluation of the feasibility for the extension of municipal water services should be completed
to determine if it is feasible to extend municipal water services to this site.
If the property is to be serviced by private well and septic, in order to evaluate the suitability of the
proposed lot size, the applicant is required to submit a Hydrogeological Study in accordance with
the Region’s Guidelines for Hydrogeological Studies for Privately Serviced Developments, to the
satisfaction of the Region, to evaluate the suitability of the lands for development on individual
wastewater treatment systems and private wells. The Study needs to demonstrate that safe
potable water can be obtained on each lot, that the soils are suitable for a conventional on-site
sewage disposal system on each lot, and that the sewage disposal will not impair the use of
groundwater resources either on-site or in adjacent areas.
In light of the need for additional information, Regional staff propose that the application be
deferred until the necessary Study is submitted, to the satisfaction of the Region.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
April 1, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with application A 2015-032.
The Committee considered the report of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated April 8, 2015,
advising that they have no concerns with the subject applications, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for
the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
2. That the applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the severances are granted.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 21, 2015
- 171 -
Submission Nos.:
3.B 2015-039 & A 2015-034 (Cont’d)
3. Driveways will be located so as to clear Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. padmount /
submersible transformer vaults and provide a minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles,
anchors and street light standards.
The Committee, on the recommendation of staff, agreed to defer its consideration of the subject
applications until the applicant has had the opportunity to submit a Hydrogeological Study in
accordance with the Region of Waterloo’s Guidelines for Hydrogeological Studies for Private
Services Developments. It was noted that the subject applications would be deferred to the
Committee’s meeting scheduled for Tuesday July 21, 2015, or an earlier meeting if the applicants
are able to complete their Hydrogeological Study in accordance with the Region of Waterloo’s
Guidelines for an earlier meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 21st day of April, 2015.
Dianna Saunderson
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment