HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-21
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 21, 2015
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. D. Cybalski and B. McColl and Ms. J. Meader.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking
Analyst; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer; and, Ms. H. Dyson,
Administrative Clerk.
Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:04 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held June 16, 2015, as mailed
to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
COMBINED APPLICATIONS:
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2015-039 and A 2015-034
Applicants:
Iain and Heather Harrison
Property Location:
40 Folley’s Lane
Legal Description:
Part Lots 18-20, Plan 374
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the subject applications were initially deferred to this date from
the April 21, 2015 Committee meeting to allow the applicants time to complete a Hydrogeological
Study in accordance with the Region of Waterloo’s Guidelines for Hydrogeological Studies for
Private Services Developments. The applicants have since requested an additional deferral to
finalize that study. The Committee agreed to defer consideration of the subject applications to the
Committee’s meeting scheduled for October 20, 2015, or an earlier meeting if the applicants are
able to complete the requirements for their Study for an earlier Committee meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1. A 2015-044
Applicant:
Donald and Jane Lynes
Property Location:
218 Union Boulevard
Legal Description:
Lots 52 and 53, Plan 352
Appearances:
In Support: J. Lynes
A. Jenkins
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 200 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2015-044 (Cont’d)
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a covered
deck in the rear yard of a single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 6.6m (21.653’)
rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 8, 2015, advising that
the subject property located at 218 Union Boulevard is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the
Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The owners
are proposing to construct a mudroom and covered porch addition onto the single detached
dwelling that will extend into the rear yard. The owners are requesting relief from Section 37.2.1
of the Zoning By-law to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 6.6 metres.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments.
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 housing forms that
achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. The proposed variance will permit a reduced
minimum rear yard for the proposed addition. The minor change will maintain the low density
character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to
the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance to reduce the rear yard
setback is appropriate.
The requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 6.6 metres meets the
intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 7.5 metre setback is to provide adequate amenity
space in the rear yard. The reduction of 0.9 metres from the required 7.5 metres is minor as the
proposed 6.6 metre rear yard setback will continue to provide sufficient amenity space in the rear
yard.
The variance is considered minor. The proposed addition will not extend the entire width of the
house and there will still be ample amenity space in the rear yard. Staff is of the opinion that the
requested variance will provide adequate amenity space and will not negatively affect the
adjacent properties or surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed
residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The scale, massing and height of the
subject addition will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or
surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 2, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Donald and Jane Lynes requesting permission to construct a covered
deck in the rear yard of a single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 6.6m
(21.653’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Lots 52 and 53, Plan 352, 218 Union
BE APPROVED
Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That the owners shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed addition by September
1, 2015 from the Building Division.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 201 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2015-044 (Cont’d)
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 2015-045
Applicant:
Jeffrey and Amy Scott
Property Location:
27 South Creek Drive
Legal Description:
Lot 3, Registered Plan 58M-502
Appearances:
In Support: J. Scott
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a roof
over an existing deck in the rear yard of a single detached dwelling having a setback of 6.1m
(20.013’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 8, 2015, advising that
the subject property located at 27 South Creek Drive is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the
Zoning By-law 85-1 with Special Regulation 465R and designated Low Rise Residential in the
City’s Official Plan. The owners are proposing to construct a roof on their attached addition onto
the single detached dwelling that will extend into the rear yard. The owners are requesting relief
from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 6.1
metres to allow for the roof.
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 followingcomments.
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 housing forms that
achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. The proposed variance will permit a reduced
minimum rear yard for the proposed addition. The minor change will maintain the low density
character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to
the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance to reduce the rear yard
setback is appropriate.
The requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 6.1 metres meets the
intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 7.5 metre setback is to provide adequate amenity
space in the rear yard. The reduction of 1.4 metres from the required 7.5 metres is minor as the
proposed 6.1 metre rear yard setback will continue to provide sufficient amenity space in the rear
yard.
The variance is considered minor. The proposed addition will not extend the entire width of the
house and there will still be ample amenity space in the rear yard. Staff is of the opinion that the
requested variance will provide adequate amenity space and will not negatively affect the
adjacent properties or surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed
residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The scale, massing and height of the
subject addition will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or
surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 2, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 202 -
Submission No.:
2.A 2015-045 (Cont’d)
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Jeffrey and Amy Scott requesting permission to construct a roof over an
existing deck in the rear yard of a single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 6.1m
(20.013’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Lot 3, Registered Plan 58M-502, 27
BE APPROVED
South Creek Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That the owners shall obtain a Building Permit by September 1, 2015 from the Building
Division.
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.:
3. A 2015-046
Applicant:
Nelson and Ruth Kraus
Property Location:
3 Spring Mist Drive
Legal Description:
Part Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-413, being Part 6 on Reference
Plan 58R-15579
Appearances:
In Support: A. Ghent
D. Szusz
Contra: T. Bocchino
R. and C. Lavoie
M. Camozzi
N. Foley
Written Submissions: T. Bocchino
P. George
R. and C. Lavoie
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a roof
structure on an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 3.65m (11.975’)
rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 8, 2015, advising that
the subject property located at 3 Spring Mist Drive is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in the Zoning
By-law 85-1 with Special Regulation 230R, 260R, and 235U, and designated Low Rise
Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The owners are proposing to construct a roof structure onto
the single detached dwelling that will extend into the rear yard. The owners are requesting relief
from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 3.65
metres to allow for the roof.
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 followingcomments.
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 housing forms that
achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. The proposed variance will permit a reduced
minimum rear yard for the proposed addition. The minor change will maintain the low density
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 203 -
Submission No.:
3.A 2015-046 (Cont’d)
character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to
the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance to reduce the rear yard
setback is appropriate.
The requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 3.65 metres meets
the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 7.5 metre setback is to provide adequate
amenity space in the rear yard. The reduction of 3.85 metres from the required 7.5 metres is
minor as the proposed 3.65 metre rear yard setback will continue to provide sufficient amenity
space in the rear yard.
The variance is considered minor. The proposed addition will not extend the entire width of the
house and there will still be ample amenity space in the rear yard. Staff is of the opinion that the
requested variance will provide adequate amenity space and will not negatively affect the
adjacent properties or surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed
residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The scale, massing and height of the
subject addition will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or
surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 2, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered written submissions from two of the neighbouring property owners in
opposition of the subject application.
The Chair noted concerns raised in the written submissions regarding legally registered restrictive
covenants on all of the properties within the subdivision pertaining to additions/alterations. He
noted that the Committee is not in a position to enforce restrictive covenants, adding that they are
agreements between the property owners and the developer. He stated the Committees’
responsibility is to determine a decision based on the Zoning By-law and whether the requested
variance is minor in nature.
Mr. Tony Bocchino was in attendance in opposition of the application, indicating that, in his
opinion, the covenants should be respected and the owner should be required to obtain approval
from the developer for the proposed addition prior to construction. He noted that the covenants
are intended to maintain a certain standard for the subdivision. He further advised that the
proposed roof structure decreases the required rear yard variance by 50% which, in his opinion,
is not minor in nature. He added if the developer was approached with this design, it would not
have been approved.
The Chair reiterated that the Committee cannot enforce developers’ policies; it is a civil matter
between the property owner and the developer.
Ms. M. Camozzi advised that she owns the property in the rear the subject property and stated
she was in attendance in opposition to the application.
Messrs. A. Ghent and D. Szusz advised that they were in attendance on behalf of the property
owner and are in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. Mr. Ghent
advised that the property owners have an existing patio in the rear yard of the subject property
and are requesting to install a covered porch over the patio to increase the use of their outdoor
amenity space. He referenced the drawings included with the application, noting that the structure
is intended to be built with the same finishes as the home and will look as if it was constructed at
the time the home was built. He stated that, in his opinion, the roof structure should increase
property values.
Mr. R. and Mrs. C. Lavoie, neighbouring property owners, advised that they were in attendance in
opposition to the subject application, indicating that, in their opinion, the proposed roof structure is
not minor in nature. Ms. Lavoie advised that there is a significant grading difference between their
property and the subject property, and if the owner is permitted to construct a roof structure it
would negatively impact their outdoor amenity space/covered porch due to the loss of their
unobstructed view. In addition, she noted that they also have concerns with decreasing property
values due to the loss of those views.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 204 -
Submission No.:
3.A 2015-046 (Cont’d)
In response, Ms. J. Meader noted the grade difference between the two properties but added that
there is no mechanism in the Planning Act to protect property owners’ views.
In response to questions, Ms. J. von Westerholt noted for clarification that the proposed structure
is strictly a roof or overhang over the existing patio area; no walls will be constructed. She stated
that staff have recommended approval on the basis that it is an open structure intended to
enhance the property owners’ amenity space. She further advised that the rear yard setback
requirement of 7.5m is intended as outdoor amenity space.
Mr. B. McColl advised that he could sympathize with the concerns raised this date; however, in
his opinion, constructing a roof in the rear yard of the subject property will not reduce the subject
properties’ outdoor amenity space. He noted that the structure is not intended to cover the entire
rear yard of the property, and although he can respect that there are legal covenants on the
property, it is not within the Committee’s jurisdiction to enforce them. He stated that, in his
opinion, the structure can be considered minor in nature as there would be no loss of outdoor
amenity space.
The Chair noted as a means of alleviating some of the concerns that were raised, that the
Committee could impose a Condition requiring the applicant to build the structure as per the plans
submitted with the application.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Nelson and Ruth Kraus requesting permission to construct a roof
structure in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of
3.65m (11.975’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Part Block 1, Registered Plan
58M-413, being Part 6 on Reference Plan 58R-15579, 3 Spring Mist Drive, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE APPROVED
, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owners shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed addition by September
1, 2015 from the Building Division.
2. That the owner shall construct the roof structure as per the plans submitted with the
application.
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 2015-047
Applicant:
Jennifer Ertel and Matt Webb
Property Location:
173 Lydia Street
Legal Description:
Part Lots 22 and 23, Plan 351
Appearances:
In Support: G. Schnarr
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct an
addition in the rear yard of a single detached dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of
0.8107m (2.659’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.937’).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 205 -
Submission No.:
4.A 2015-047 (Cont’d)
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 6, 2015, advising that
the subject property at 173 Lydia Street is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law 85-1
with an designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The owners are requesting
relief from Section 38.2.1 a) of the Zoning By-law to legalize a recently constructed addition to be
located 0.81metres from the side lot line rather than the required 1.2 metre side yard setback.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff 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 housing forms that
achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. The proposed variance will permit a reduced
minimum side yard for the proposed addition. The minor change will maintain the low density
character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to
the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance to reduce the side yard
setback is appropriate.
The requested variance to permit a side yard setback of 0.81 metres from the side lot line meets
the intent of the Zoning By-law. The reduction of 0.39 metres from the required 1.2 metres is
minor. The existing dwelling is located 0.81 metres from the lot line and the addition will retain the
same setback as the existing dwelling. The addition will not have any windows facing the side lot
line and will not affect privacy with adjacent properties
The variance can be considered minor as the reduced setback of 0.39 metres will not present any
significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed
residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The scale, massing and height of the
subject addition and will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or
surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 2, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. G. Schnarr advised that he was in attendance in support of the subject application and the
staff recommendation.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Jennifer Ertel and Matt Webb requesting permission to legalize an
addition in the rear yard of a single detached dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of
0.81m (2.657’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.937’), on Part Lots 22 and 23, Plan 351, 173
BE APPROVED
Lydia Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That the owners shall obtain a Building Permit for the addition from the Building
Division.
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 JULY 21, 2015
- 206 -
Submission No.:
5. A 2015-048
Applicant:
Edelweiss Tavern (1979) Limited
Property Location:
600 Doon Village Road
Legal Description:
Block B, Plan 1309
Appearances:
In Support: R. Karges
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize a multi-tenant
commercial plaza with a total gross floor area for restaurants of 1438 sq.m. (15,484 sq.ft.) to have
142 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 157 off-street parking spaces.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 14, 2015, advising that
the property is zoned Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone (C-2) under By-law 85-1 and has a
designation of Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre in the Official Plan.
The applicant is requesting a minor variance to legalize a multi-tenant commercial plaza with a
total gross floor area for restaurants of 1,438 sq.m (15,484 sq.ft) to have 142 off-street parking
spaces rather than the required 157 off-street parking spaces.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments:
The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reason. The Neighbourhood
Mixed Use Centre designation is intended to serve as a neighbourhood focal point, providing a
mix of appropriately scaled commercial use. As well, properties in this designation are generally
served by public transit and have strong pedestrian linkages with the surrounding residential
community. The designation also encourages cycling facilities and this may be achieved by
adding bike racks, where appropriate, through the updating of the existing Site Plan.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered minor for the following
reasons. The intent of a minimum parking requirement is to ensure that there is sufficient on-site
parking. This plaza complex building has existed since approximately 1985. In addition to a
variety of commercial uses, there are currently three restaurants: Edelweiss Tavern is the main
restaurant tenant and they have a banquet facility in addition to the main restaurant use (1207
sq.m.); a sub shop (142 sq.m.); and, a pizza restaurant (86 sq.m.). The site has functioned for
some time with the three restaurants and there have been no concerns or complaints received. In
addition to vehicular traffic, there is public transportation available adjacent to the property and
there are pedestrian linkages to the site from the neighbouring residential properties to the south.
As well, through the Site Plan process, it will be ensured that adequate bike racks are provided to
encourage accessing the site by bicycle. Based on the above, staff is of the opinion that the
requested reduction of 15 parking spaces meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and is minor.
Staff notes that there are currently two spaces adjacent to the back of the Edelweiss Tavern that
are signed and hatched as “No Parking Edelweiss Van Only”. These spaces must be made
available to the public. As well, all outdoor garbage containers must meet City standards for
enclosures. Both these items will be reviewed through the Site Plan process.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. As
noted above, and supported by Transportation Planning comments, staff are of the opinion that
the proposed variance will not negatively impact the use of the property or the surrounding
neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 2, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. R. Karges provided a brief history of the subject property and of the subject application, noting
that he was in support of the staff recommendation.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 207 -
Submission No.:
5.A 2015-048 (Cont’d)
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Edelweiss Tavern (1979) Limited requesting permission to legalize a
multi-tenant commercial plaza with a total gross floor area for restaurants of 1438 sq.m.
(15,484 sq.ft.) to have 142 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 157 off-street
BE
parking spaces, on Block B, Plan 1309, 600 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall ensure that that Zoning (Occupancy) Certificates are obtained for
all of the restaurants of the plaza from the Planning Division.
2. That the owner shall obtain Site Plan approval from the Planning Division.
3. That the owner shall ensure that above noted Conditions 1 and 2 are completed by
October 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.
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.:
6. A 2015-049
Applicant:
Adrian and Kirstin Bult
Property Location:
73 Wood Street
Legal Description:
Lot 18, Plan 217
Appearances:
In Support: A. Trabulsi
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to convert a duplex
into a triplex on a lot having a width of 12.01m (39.402’) rather than the required 15m (49.212’); a
lot area of 483.56 sq.m. (5204.997 sq.ft.) rather than the required 495 sq.m. (5328.136 sq.ft.);
and, a front yard setback of 3.23m (10.59’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 8, 2015, advising that
the subject property at 73 Wood Street is zoned Residential Five (R-5) in the Zoning By-law 85-1
with and is designated Low Rise Low Rise Conservation in the K-W Hospital Neighbourhood
Secondary Plan. The subject property is presently developed as a duplex and the owners are
requesting relief from Section 39.2.4 of the Zoning By-law to permit a triplex on a lot having a lot
width of 12.01 metres rather than 15.0 metres; a front yard setback of 3.23 metres rather than 4.5
metres and a lot area of 483.56 square metres rather than the required lot area of 495 square
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 JULY 21, 2015
- 208 -
Submission No.:
6.A 2015-049 (Cont’d)
The subject property is designated Low Rise Conservation in the K-W Hospital Neighbourhood
Secondary Plan. The proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a
range of housing forms that achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. The proposed
variance will permit the applicants to convert the existing duplex into a triplex. The minor change
will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood.
Part 2, Section 1.5 (1) (Housing) of the Official Plan states:
The City will encourage and provide opportunities for the creation of additional housing in existing
developed areas, through conversion, infill and redevelopment as an appropriate response to
changing housing needs and to make better use of existing infrastructure and public service
facilities.
The proposed variance conforms to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the
requested variance is appropriate.
The requested variance to legalize a front yard setback of 3.23 metres from the front lot line
meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the front yard setback is to ensure an
appropriate distance separation between dwellings and the street line. The existing front yard
setback is historical, and as a duplex dwelling the setback is considered legal under the Existing
Lot policy of the Zoning By-law. The front yard setback is not proposed to change as a result of
an additional dwelling unit, and no additions to the outside of the structure are proposed. It
appears that the building has been operating as a duplex for a number of years, without any
concerns. As such, it is staff’s opinion that the intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained.
The lot width reduction from 15 metres to 12.01 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The intent of this regulation is to ensure sufficient width for the dwelling and driveways. As per the
attached proposed site layout, these are accommodated on the subject lands. There are no
additions proposed as a result of the additional dwelling unit, therefore, it is Planning staff’s
opinion that the intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained.
The lot area reduction from 495 square metres to 483.56 squares metres to allow a triplex meets
the intent of the Zoning By-law. The reduction of 11.44 square metres is minimal and will provide
a sufficient lot area for a triplex. The reduced lot area is appropriate and meets the intent of the
Zoning By-law.
The variances can be considered minor as the reduced lot area, lot width, and reduced front yard
setback will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall
neighbourhood as no exterior additions are proposed.
The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land, as the proposed
residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The reduced lot width and lot area to
allow for a duplex to be converted into a triplex will not negatively impact the existing character of
the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 2, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Adrian and Kirstin Bult requesting permission to convert a duplex into a
triplex on a lot having a width of 12.01m (39.402’) rather than the required 15m (49.212’); a lot
area of 483.56 sq.m. (5204.997 sq.ft.) rather than the required 495 sq.m. (5328.136 sq.ft.);
and, a front yard setback of 3.23m (10.59’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’), on Lot 18,
BE APPROVED
Plan 217, 73 Wood Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owners shall obtain Site Plan approval to develop a triplex on the subject
property.
2. That the owners shall obtain a Building Permit from the City’s Building Division for the
additional dwelling unit.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 209 -
Submission No.:
6.A 2015-049 (Cont’d)
3. That the owners shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the Planning
Division for the triplex.
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.:
7. A 2015-050
Applicant:
White Birch Lands Limited
Property Location:
395 Westwood Drive
Legal Description:
Part of Fischer Road, Plan 1273, closed by 730137 being Part 14,
58R-2086; Part Block B, Plan 1273 being Parts 1 to 6, 58R-1486 and
Part Reserve K, Plan 1273 being Part 16, 58R-2086
Appearances:
In Support: G. Wellings
Contra: H. Hraiki
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a multi-
residential townhouse development having a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.65 rather than the
permitted maximum FSR of 0.6; and, to locate off-street parking spaces setback 1.5m (4.92’)
from the street line at Fischer Hallman Road rather than the required 3m (9.842’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 10, 2015, advising that
the subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and zoned
as Residential Six (R-6) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is currently vacant and is proposed
to be redeveloped with low-rise stacked townhouse dwelling units.
The owner is seeking relief from Section 40.2.6 to permit a maximum floor Space Ratio of 0.65 for
a multiple dwelling whereas the maximum permitted is 0.6, and seeking relief from Section
6.1.1.1.a) iv) to permit off-street parking within 1.5 metres of Fischer Hallman Road whereas 3.0
metres is required.
Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Variance:
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 followingcomments:
The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The intent of the Low Rise
Residential district is to permit a variety of low density residential uses throughout the City’s
communities. The housing policies in the Official Plan support having a variety of housing types
throughout the City to provide adequate living accommodations for all citizens. Floor Space Ratio
(FSR) is used to regulate the massing of buildings relative to the size of the lot on which they are
located. In this case, the massing is compatible with the surrounding existing land uses. The
proposed buildings do not exceed three storeys in height at the street elevation.
The requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The proposed buildings do not
exceed the maximum building height regulated within the Residential Six (R-6) zone. A majority of
all of the floor area of all buildings have been included in the calculation for FSR, including floors
which are partially below grade. As a result, some floor area that does not contribute to the overall
massing of the buildings is included in the calculation of the FSR, making it arbitrarily higher.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 210 -
Submission No.:
7.A 2015-050 (Cont’d)
The requested variance is minor. The slight increase in FSR from 0.6 to 0.65 will not be visually
detectable and the proposed buildings will be compatible with adjacent residential uses.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. While the walkout design of
the buildings does contribute to the overall FSR, the majority of the lower floors are below grade.
This design is preferred as it accommodates the existing topography of the site and provides for
higher quality outdoor amenity space for the lower units.
Parking Setback Variance:
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 followingcomments:
The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The intensification policies in the
Housing section of the Official Plan support developments that can function appropriately and not
adversely impact adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces
and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site. In this case, the parking is being located
closer to Fischer Hallman Road so that the interior amenity space can increase in size. An
adequate landscape buffer can still be provided.
The requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 3.0 metre
setback is to ensure that parking areas are set back to allow for a streetscape that supports a
variety of transportation options, including cycling and walking. In this case, the site is a through
lot and there is a noise wall blocking any access to Fischer Hallman (except for a small walkway
opening). The requested 1.5 m buffer, coupled with the surplus right-of-way between the noise
wall and the property boundary, will provide ample room for a high-quality landscape area that will
screen the appearance of the wall and will support large canopy trees. The active streetscape
along Westwood Drive is not affected by the proposed variance.
The requested variance is minor. The location of the proposed reduced parking setback is
separated from Fischer Hallman Road by a noise wall. The variance will have no impact on the
streetscape design for Westwood Drive.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. Locating parking towards
the noise wall allows for a larger interior amenity area and still provides for an appropriate
landscape buffer.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 2, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. G. Wellings provided a brief summary of the subject application and noted he was in support
of the staff recommendation.
Mr. H. Hraiki noted that he was in attendance in opposition to the subject application, advising
that he was unclear about what was being proposed for the subject property. He indicated that
the property does not currently have access on Fischer Hallman Road and he would not like to
lose the noise barrier wall to achieve an access point for the proposed development.
Mr. Weilings advised that the existing noise wall is adjacent to the subject property and will
remain, noting that no new access points were being proposed on Fischer Hallman Road. He
indicated that he would be willing to speak with Mr. Hraiki following the meeting to review the
proposal for the subject property. Mr. Hraiki indicated that his primary concern was regarding the
noise barrier wall and indicated that he would be willing to speak with the applicant following the
meeting regarding the proposal to have a better understanding on the proposed development.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mf. J. Meader
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 211 -
Submission No.:
7.A 2015-050 (Cont’d)
That the application of White Birch Lands Limited requesting permission to construct a multi-
residential townhouse development having a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.65 rather than the
permitted maximum FSR of 0.6; and, to locate off-street parking spaces setback 1.5m (4.92’)
from the streetline at Fischer Hallman Road rather than the required 3m (9.842’), on Part of
Fischer Road, Plan 1273, closed by 730137 being Part 14, 58R-2086; Part Block B, Plan 1273
being Parts 1 to 6, 58R-1486 and Part Reserve K, Plan 1273 being Part 16, 58R-2086, 395
BE APPROVED
Westwood Drive, 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 No.:
8. A 2015-051
Applicant:
8 Queen Inc.
Property Location:
8 Queen Street North
Legal Description:
Part Lots 2 and 7, Plan 401, being Parts 1, 3 and 5, on Reference
Plan 58R-12285
Appearances:
In Support: F. Voisin
M. Bolen
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to expand the third floor
on an existing three-storey legal non-conforming office building currently having a Floor Space
Ratio (FSR) of 3.1 to increase the FSR to 3.4 whereas the By-law permits a maximum FSR of
2.0.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 10, 2015, advising that
located in the downtown, the subject property is municipally addressed as 8 Queen Street North,
zoned Downtown One (D-1) in the Zoning By-law, and designated Downtown (Retail Core) and
Urban Growth Centre (Civic Centre District) in the in-effect and approved Official Plans,
respectively.
The property measures 15.2 metres wide and approximately 45 metres long and is occupied with
a commercial building three storey’s in height at the rear and two storey’s at the front facing
Queen Street. The applicant is proposing to construct a glass-enclosed addition that would
complete the third storey and restore the façade to its original architectural style.
Planning permission is required seeking relief from Section 14.3 of the Zoning By-law to expand
the third floor on an existing three-storey legal non-complying office building currently having a
Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 3.1 to increase the FSR to 3.4 whereas the By-law permits a
maximum FSR of 2.0.
Case law sets out the tests to be applied by the Committee of Adjustment in considering
applications under Section 45(2) (a) (I). It should be noted that the test to be applied is not the
four-part test for minor variances under Section 45(1) but rather whether the approval of the
application:
1. Is in the Public Interest;
2. Represents Good Planning; and,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 212 -
Submission No.:
8.A 2015-051 (Cont’d)
3. Creates Unacceptable or Adverse Impact upon abutting properties.
Is Approval in the Public Interest:
In the opinion of staff, approval of this application is in the public interest because it is will result in
an attractive building that will be re-purposed and re-furbished to its original architectural style that
will ultimately help support, strengthen and enhance the viability of the downtown core. The
intended use of the building is commercial (office) which is desirable in the core.
Is it Good Planning:
In the opinion of staff, it is considered good planning. The proposal conforms with the City’s land
use, design and economic development policies; the use complies with the Zoning By-law and
the size of the addition is exempt from any additional parking regulatory requirements.
Any Adverse or Unacceptable Impacts:
In the opinion of staff, expanding the third storey with a glass-enclosed addition will not create any
adverse or unacceptable impacts. The height of the building will be three storeys and is
consistent with the surrounding building context, which is two to three storeys in height. The use
of glass for the third storey is contemporary, open and complimentary to the historic two storey
facade of the building. The size of the addition does not require any additional parking to be
provided.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 2, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Messers F. Voisin and M. Bolen advised that they are in attendance in support of the subject
application and the staff recommendation.
Ms. J. Meader advised that the proposed elevation drawings have been included as part of the
application and it would be her preference that Condition 1 is amended to require the applicant to
construct the proposed addition substantially in accordance with the drawings submitted with the
application.
Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that staff would not object to the proposed amendment, pending it
does not restrict the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service to exactly what is in the
drawings without minor amendments.
Mr. Bolen advised that he does not object to the proposed amendment as the design in the
proposed elevation drawings submitted with the application are relatively final. He indicated that
his only concern with the proposed amendment is any potential changes to accommodate
Building Code requirements that may not have been fully taken into consideration, noting
requirements for glazing as an example.
Ms. Meader advised that her amendment includes the word “substantially” to leave room for
minor adjustments to take into consideration minor changes that still need to be addressed. Ms.
von Westerholt noted that the applicant would also need to receive Site Plan approval.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of 8 Queen Inc. requesting permission to expand the third floor on an
existing three-storey legal non-conforming office building currently having a Floor Space Ratio
(FSR) of 3.1 to increase the FSR to 3.4 whereas the By-law permits a maximum FSR of 2.0,
on Part Lots 2 and 7, Plan 401, being Parts 1, 3 and 5, on Reference Plan 58R-12285, 8
BE APPROVED
Queen Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall construct the addition substantially in accordance with the
drawings submitted with the application.
2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit to the satisfaction of the Chief Building
Official by December 31, 2015.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 213 -
Submission No.:
8.A 2015-051 (Cont’d)
It is the opinion of this Committee that the request for permission to expand a legal non-
conforming use under Section 45 (2) (a) of the Planning Act is appropriate for the following
reasons:
1. The use of this property as a three-storey office building lawfully existed on the day the
by-law was passed to prohibit such use.
2. The approval of this application will not adversely impact the adjacent properties or the
neighbourhood as a whole.
Carried
COMBINED APPLICATIONS:
Submission No.:
1. B 2014-042
Applicants:
Neil Taylor
Property Location:
1016-A Wilson Avenue
Legal Description:
Lot 7, Plan 1522, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-7921
- and -
Submission No.:
B 2015-043
Applicants:
Maria Taylor
Property Location:
1016-B Wilson Avenue
Legal Description:
Lot 6, Plan 1522, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-7921
- and -
Submission No.:
B 2015-044
Applicants:
David and Lynda Thomson
Property Location:
1016-D Wilson Avenue
Legal Description:
Lot 5, Plan 1522, being Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-7921
Appearances:
In Support: N & M. Taylor
C. Pidgeon
S. Code
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
Regarding application B 2015-042, the Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting
permission to grant a blanket easement over Lot 7 (1016-A Wilson Avenue) in favour of Lot 6
(1016-B Wilson Avenue) for the purposes of services and utilities.
Regarding application B 2015-043, the Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting
permission to grant a blanket easement over Lot 6 (1016-B Wilson Avenue) in favour of Lot 7
(1016-A Wilson Avenue) for the purposes of services and utilities.
Regarding application B 2015-044, the Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting
permission to grant an easement over Part 3, Plan 58R-7921 as a right-of-way in favour of Lot 7
(1016-A Wilson Avenue).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 10, 2015, advising that
the subject properties are designated as Open Space in the City’s Official Plan and zoned as
Open Space (P-2) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The properties are each developed with a single
detached residential dwelling. The owners are requesting easements in favour of their lands over
each other’s lands in order to allow for existing servicing and to formalize legal access.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 214 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-042, B 2015-043 and B 2015-044 (Cont’d)
The owners have filed three applications to create three easements to provide access and/or
servicing for each of the three properties, as follows:
Application B 2015-042 is requesting a blanket easement over Part 1 (Lot 7 – 1016-A Wilson
Avenue) in favour of Part 2 (Lot 6 – 1016-B Wilson Avenue) for the purpose of servicing and
utilities;
Application B 2015-043 is requesting a blanket easement over Part 2 (Lot 6 – 1016-B Wilson
Avenue) in favour of Part 1 (Lot 7 – 1016-A Wilson Avenue) for the purpose of servicing and
utilities and access; and.
Application B 2015-044 is requesting a blanket easement over Part 3 (portion of 1016-D Wilson
Avenue) in favour of Part 1 (Lot 7 – 1016-A Wilson Avenue) and in favour of Part 2 (Lot 6 – 1016-
B Wilson Avenue) for the purpose of access.
The subject properties are designated as Open Space. The primary intent of the Open Space
land use category is to preserve the integrity of the natural environment, provide a buffer between
land uses and increase the opportunities for recreation, conservation and general enjoyment of
an area. Open Space includes hazard lands which are defined as those lands which have steep
slopes, rocky or unstable soils, poor drainage and flood susceptibility.
The City’s new Official Plan was adopted by Kitchener City Council on June 30, 2014 and
approved by Regional Council on November 19, 2014, and is currently under appeal. The
properties are designated as Natural Heritage Conversation in the new Official Plan. The policies
in the new Official Plan also support the retention of the natural environment and limit
redevelopment and recognize legally existing uses.
The properties are currently zoned as Open Space (P-2) in the Zoning By-law which does not
permit residential uses. The existing residential uses pre-date the application of the P-2 Zoning
being applied to the lands.
With respect to the criteria 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 is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and
conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The proposed easements simply
legalize the existing access and servicing, which cross over separately owned lands (Parts 1, 2 &
3). There is no new lot configuration proposed to accommodate the existing dwellings and the
applications do not legalize the existing use.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated June 7, 2015, advising that they have no objections to these
applications.
Mr. C. Pidgeon and Mr. and Ms. Taylor were in attendance in support of the subject application.
Mr. Pidgeon provided a brief summary of the application and noted that he was in support of the
staff recommendation.
The Chair questioned whether an additional condition should be included requiring the owner
solicitor to ensure that the proposed blanket easement is not imposed on portions of the
properties where dwellings currently exist on site, and what the implications of a blanket
easement would be for any future structures. He indicated that even with blanket easements
there is typically a requirement to obtain an updated survey identifying the structures on-site to
ensure those areas of the property are not subject to the easement.
Mr. Pidgeon indicated that it was his understanding that the easement could be written to ensure
that it defined the specifics of the easement and the fact that the buildings weren’t identified on a
Reference Plan would not hinder the process, and it was his opinion that obtaining a Reference
Plan to define the structures may be onerous and unnecessary.
Ms. von Westerholt advised that she is unsure whether there would be any issues with the
construction of future structures on the property. She noted that the property is regulated by the
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) and that would potentially restrict future structures.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 215 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-042, B 2015-043 and B 2015-044 (Cont’d)
Ms. J. Meader acknowledged the concerns of the Chair and proposed an amendment to include
an additional Condition stating that the Committee could grant the proposed Blanket Easement
save and except for the portions of the property where structures existed as of July 1, 2015. Mr.
Pidgeon advised that he would have no objections to the proposed amendment. Ms. von
Westerholt requested that the proposed Condition be satisfactory to the City Solicitor.
Submission No. B 2015-042
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Neil Taylor requesting permission to grant a blanket easement over Part
1 (Lot 7 – 1016-A Wilson Avenue) in favour of Part 2 (Lot 6 – 1016-B Wilson Avenue) for the
purposes of servicing and utilities, on Lot 7, Plan 1522, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-
BE GRANTED
7921, 1016-A Wilson Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
1. 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
servicing easement is maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on
title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s);
2. That the owner shall provide a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the
approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint
maintenance agreement, be provided to the City Solicitor;
3. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s)
and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
4. That the owner shall ensure that the proposed blanket easement for servicing and utilities
is granted over the subject lands save and except for the lands developed with structures /
buildings as of July 1, 2015 to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
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 July 21, 2017.
Carried
Submission No. B 2015-043
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Maria Taylor requesting permission to grant a blanket easement over
Part 2 (Lot 6 – 1016-B Wilson Avenue) in favour of Part 1 (Lot 7 – 1016-A Wilson Avenue) for
the purposes of servicing and utilities, on Lot 6, Plan 1522, being Part 2 on Reference Plan
BE GRANTED
58R-7921, 1016-B Wilson Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 216 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-042, B 2015-043 and B 2015-044 (Cont’d)
1. 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 and servicing easement(s) is/are maintained in perpetuity, which
agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s).
2. That the owner shall provide a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the
approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint
maintenance agreement to the City Solicitor.
3. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s)
and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
4. That the owner shall ensure that the proposed blanket easement for servicing and utilities
is granted over the subject lands save and except for the lands developed with structures /
buildings as of July 1, 2015 to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
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 July 21, 2017.
Carried
Submission No. B 2015-044
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of David and Lynda Thomson requesting permission to grant an easement
over Part 3, Plan 58R-7921 (portion of 1016-D Wilson Avenue) as a right-of-way in favour of
Lot 7 (1016-A Wilson Avenue) and Lot 6 (1016-B Wilson Avenue), on Lot 5, Plan 1522, being
BE
Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-7921, 1016-D Wilson Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario,
GRANTED
, subject to the following conditions:
1. 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 and servicing easement(s) is/are maintained in perpetuity, which
agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s);
2. That owner shall provide a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved
Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance
agreement to the City Solicitor;
3. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s)
and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
4. That the owner shall ensure that the proposed blanket easement for a right-of-way is
granted over the subject lands save and except for the lands developed with structures /
buildings as of July 1, 2015 to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 217 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-042, B 2015-043 and B 2015-044 (Cont’d)
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 July 21, 2017.
Carried
Submission No.:
2. B 2015-045, B 2015-046 and B 2015-048
Applicant:
City of Kitchener
Property Location:
83 Elmsdale Drive
Legal Description:
Part Lots 3 and 4, Plan 1021, Part Lot 1, Plan 1022 and Part Lot 3,
Plan 1026
Appearances:
In Support: C. Pidgeon
H. Holbrook
Contra: M. F. Davis
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever 2 parcels of land
for residential development and retaining 1 parcel for future commercial mixed-use development.
The severed parcel identified as ‘Parcel A’ on the plan submitted with the application will have a
width on Elmsdale Drive of 46.7m (153.215’), a northerly depth of 180.7m (592.847’) and an area
of 0.96 ha. The severed parcel identified as ‘Parcel B’ on the plan submitted with the application
will have a width on Elmsdale Drive of 54m (177.17’), a northerly depth of 119.6m (392.4’) and an
area of 1.19 ha. The retained parcel will be irregular in shape having a width on Ottawa Street of
264.4m (867.454’) and an area of 2.67 ha. Permission is also being requested for an ‘L’ shaped
easement having a width on Ottawa Street of approximately 3m (9.842’) over all three parcels in
favour of each other for vehicular access.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 16, 2015, advising that
the subject property at 83 Elmsdale Road is zoned Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone (C-2)
with Special Regulation Provision 649R, Special Use Provision 436U and Holding Provision 71H.
The subject property is designated Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre (with Special Policy) as
approved in Official Plan Amendment 104. Through this Consent application, the applicant is
proposing to sever the subject property into three parcels that will eventually be developed with
multiple dwellings, residential care and retail uses. The applicant is also proposing to create an
easement over the proposed severed and retained lands for the purposes of shared right-of-way
access.
It has come to staff’s attention that an easement having a width of approximately 4.5 metres over
‘Parcel A’ in favour of ‘Parcel B’ for the purposes of stormwater management was not clearly
identified on the application form. It is staff’s opinion that this easement be provided for the
purposes of comprehensive development and good planning principles and it was always
intended to be part of the full application. As such, staff is requesting the Committee of
Adjustment to amend the application to include this easement, which has been included as part of
staff’s recommendation.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 218 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2015-045, B 2015-046 and B 2015-048 (Cont’d)
Since the submission of the application, the applicant has submitted a severance plan that
provides additional clarification on the dimensions for the proposed severed and retained lands.
As a result, the intent of this application will be to create the severed parcel identified as ‘Parcel A’
is proposed to have an approximate width on Elmsdale Drive of 46.7 metres, a northerly depth of
180.7 metres and an area of 0.96 ha; the severed parcel identified as ‘Parcel B’ is proposed to
have a width on Elmsdale Drive of 55.0 metres, a northerly depth of 176.3 metres and an area of
1.19 ha; and the retained parcel identified as ‘Parcel C’ is proposed to have an irregular shape
having a width on Ottawa Street of 265.4m and an area of 2.67 ha. In addition, easements will be
created, such as an ‘L’ shaped easement having a width on Ottawa Street of approximately 14.0
metres, over all three parcels in favour of each other for vehicular access; an easement having a
width of approximately 4.5 metres over ‘Parcel A’ in favour of ‘Parcel B’ for stormwater
management purposes; and easements to be created in favour of the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo for access to Regional groundwater monitoring wells.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the existing and proposed uses of both the severed and retained parcels are
in conformity with the City’s Official Plan. The dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are
appropriate and suitable for the proposed use of the lands. The lands front on an established
public streets and all parcels of land can and will be serviced with independent and adequate
service connections to municipal services. The newly created severed and retained lots will
comply with the minimum lot width and lot area requirements of the Zoning By-law. The proposed
severance and development concept submitted with this application are in keeping with the
development concept considered in the Urban Design Brief adopted by City Council as part of the
previous Zone Change and Official Plan Amendment approval process.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Housing and
Community Services, dated July 17, 2015, advising that although they have no objections to
these applications, they wish the following comments to be noted:
Transportation Planning:
Regional Road Dedication:
Although the existing road allowance is deficient when compared to the designated road
allowance for Ottawa Street South in the Regional Official Plan, the required amount of road
widening has sufficiently been identified in the Functional Servicing Report, Novacore
Communities Corporation, Laurentian Commons, 83 Elmsdale Drive, Project Number 2012-0194-
10, Figure 5 (Preliminary Functional Ottawa Street Design) prepared by WalterFedy dated
November 28, 2013 (revised June 15, 2015). Therefore, only the road widening identified in the
Preliminary Functional Ottawa Street Design will be required under these consent applications. It
is important to note that any property to be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo be excluded from
any Record of Site Condition(s) for the property.
An Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) would have to determine the exact road widening.
The land must be dedicated to the Region of Waterloo for road allowance purposes and must be
dedicated without cost and free of encumbrance.
The applicant/owner must engage an OLS to prepare a draft reference plan which illustrates the
required road allowance widening. A draft Reference Plan shall be created showing the road
widening dedication and submitted to Planning, Development and Legislative Services for review
prior to the deposit of the Reference Plan. The applicant/owner’s solicitor will need to prepare the
land transfer document and submit the document to the Legal Assistant for registration.
Traffic Site Circulation & Access:
The subject property has no existing vehicular access directly onto Ottawa Street South. Region
of Waterloo staff and the applicant/owner have agreed to a new access from the subject property
(Parcel C/retained parcel) to Ottawa Street South directly across from the MacLennan Park
entrance. A secondary access to the subject property is located on Elmsdale Drive. A
Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was submitted to the Region of Waterloo for review under the
OPA/ZCA applications for this property and Regional staff concurred with the conclusions and
recommendations of the TIS which included: an eastbound left turn lane on Ottawa Street South
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 219 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2015-045, B 2015-046 and B 2015-048 (Cont’d)
at Elmsdale Drive, an eastbound left turn lane on Ottawa Street South at the proposed access,
and a pedestrian refuge island on Ottawa Street South at Elmsdale Drive. The TIS found that
traffic signals were not warranted at either the Elmsdale Road/Ottawa Street South intersection or
the proposed access from the development onto Ottawa Street South. A Regional Road Access
Permit will be required for the proposed access onto Ottawa Street and can be deferred to site
plan approval.
Stormwater Management:
Region of Waterloo staff have received copies of the Functional Servicing Report, Novacore
Communities Corporation, Laurentian Commons, 83 Elmsdale Drive, Project Number 2012-0194-
10, Figure 5 (Preliminary Functional Ottawa Street Design) prepared by WalterFedy dated
November 28, 2013 (revised June 15, 2015). Review of the plan is underway by Region of
Waterloo staff and formal comments will be provided prior to final site plan approval.
Transit Planning:
Grand River Transit (GRT) will be implementing a new iXpress route along this section of Ottawa
Street South. There will be a designated transit stop for this new iXpress route immediately in
front of the proposed development. While the exact location of the transit stop is not yet
determined the location will be on Ottawa Street South, approximately 20m east of Elmsdale
Drive.
The transit facilities will consist of a concrete bus landing pad (approximately 3m wide by 15m
long) in the existing Ottawa Street South boulevard as well as a transit shelter with a concrete
shelter pad (approximately 2.3m wide by 7m long). An easement for the transit facilities will be
required on the subject property to accommodate the transit shelter and concrete shelter pad.
The exact size and location of the easement can be determined under a future site plan
application. The final site plan should also try to incorporate pedestrian connections from subject
lands to transit facilities on Ottawa Street South. The existing north bound GRT transit stop on
Elmsdale Drive, servicing Route 3, must be maintained during site work and re-construction on
the site.
The Region will require the applicant/owner to provide funds for the bus landing pad and shelter
pad for the proposed iXpress facilities on Ottawa Street South. The approximate cost of the bus
landing pad will be $5,625 and the approximate cost of the shelter pad will be $2,025, for a total
of $7,650. The funds can be provided to the Region of Waterloo in the form of a letter of credit.
The transit facilities will then be installed under a Region of Waterloo contract before the
implementation of the proposed iXpress route. These items can be deferred to site plan approval.
Other:
A Noise Feasibility Study was completed under the previous OPA/ZCA applications and was
reviewed by Region of Waterloo staff. In accordance with the Holding Provision ‘H’ placed on the
subject property, a detailed Noise Assessment for the property will be required prior to site plan
approval. It would be beneficial for the applicant/owner to undertake this Noise Assessment as
soon as possible to ensure proper setbacks and building materials are included in the site design.
A detailed Noise Assessment is not a requirement of these consent applications.
Please note that this section of Ottawa Street South is identified in the Region Transportation
Capital Program as up for major re-construction and re-habilitation in the year 2020.
Any work required in the Ottawa Street South right-of-way will require Municipal Consent and a
Regional Road Work Permit. In this regard the applicant/owner will be required to submit 6 copies
of the plans illustrating all the proposed grading, servicing, sidewalk and landscaping on the
Regional Road to the Region’s Transportation Engineering Services Division.
Water Services:
Water Services staff has reviewed the latest copy of the Functional Servicing Report dated
November 28, 2013, revised June 15, 2015 and provides the following comments.
Section 4.2 of the report notes additional hydrant flow tests have been conducted to verify static
and residual pressures within the system. However, no copy of the hydrant tests was located in
the report to review the findings and assist in the review of the fire flow analysis.
The proposed three separate water service lines with the required easement are acceptable to
the Region.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 220 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2015-045, B 2015-046 and B 2015-048 (Cont’d)
The results supplied in Appendix A cannot be validated without the copy of the hydrant flow tests.
The Total demand (Maximum Daily + Fire Flow) results do not match with results in the Region’s
existing condition model.
The concerns discussed previously with the applicant/owner with regards to the long dead end
have not been addressed in this updated servicing report. The Region’s Transportation Capital
Program has identified the section of Ottawa Street South from Alpine Road to Westmount Road
to undergo reconstruction and major rehabilitation with design starting in 2016 and construction in
2020. The inclusion of a new city watermain from Elmsdale Drive to Howland Drive would resolve
the dead-end issue and improve fire flow requirements.
Ms. H. Holbrook and Mr. C. Pidgeon advised that they were in attendance in support of the
subject application. Ms. Holbrook provided a brief summary of the application, noting the
amendment proposed by staff pertaining to the easement at the rear of proposed Parcel ‘A’, and
stated they were in agreement with the amendment. She indicated that the recommendation for
the proposed ‘L’ shaped easement over all three parcels only referenced vehicular access,
stating that it is also intended for servicing. She requested an amendment to include servicing as
part of the proposed easement. She further advised that they have reviewed the comments from
the Region of Waterloo and are also in support of their proposed Conditions.
Mr. M. Davis, Manager, Sheridan Nurseries, advised that they do not have any objections with
the proposed development at 83 Elmsdale Drive; however, they have some concerns with safety
and vehicular traffic at the intersection of Elmsdale Drive and Ottawa Street South, and requested
that further consideration be given to installing traffic signals at that location. In response, Mr.
Pidgeon advised that Ottawa Street South is a Regional road, and noted as part of the ongoing
discussions regarding the development at 83 Elmsdale Drive, they have made a similar request
to the Region for the installation of traffic lights at that intersection. He added that the Region has
not yet made their final decision and offered to exchange information with the Nursery to include
them in future discussions.
Submission No. B 2015-045
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of the City of Kitchener requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
identified as ‘Parcel A’ on the plan submitted with the application having a width on Elmsdale
Drive of 46.7m (153.215’), a northerly depth of 180.7m (592.847’) and an area of 0.96 ha.
Permission is also being requested to grant an easement having a width of approximately 5m
(16.404’), a length of 161.9m (531.167’), and an area of 809 sq.m. (8708 sq.ft.) in favour of
Parcels ‘B’ and ‘C’ as per the Plan submitted with the application for vehicular access and
servicing; and, an easement in favour of ‘Parcel B’ at the rear of the property having an
approximate width of 4.5m (14.763’), a depth of 73.7m (241.797’) and an area of 331.7 sq.m.
(3570.389 sq.ft.) for stormwater management purposes, on Part Lots 3 and 4, Plan 1021, Part
BE
Lot 1, Plan 1022 and Part Lot 3, Plan 1026, 83 Elmsdale Drive, Kitchener, Ontario,
GRANTED
, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
charges.
2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .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 make shall make satisfactory financial arrangements to the City's
Director of Engineering, for the installation of all new service connections that may be
required to the severed and retained lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 221 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2015-045, B 2015-046 and B 2015-048 (Cont’d)
4. That the owner shall provide a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing
system along with the sanitary and storm sewer design sheets will be required to the
satisfaction of the City’s Director of Engineering.
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 City’s Director of Engineering.
6. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared
by the City Solicitor and registered on title of both retained and severed lands which
shall include the following:
a) That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the retained and
severed lands in accordance with the City’s Tree Management Policy, to be
approved by the City’s Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented
prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans
shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building
envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved.
b) The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the
said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City’s Director of
Planning.
7. That the owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, shall enter into a
joint maintenance agreement, including cost sharing provisions, to be approved by the
City Solicitor, to ensure that the servicing easement is maintained in perpetuity, which
agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s).
8. That the owner shall provide a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the
approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint
maintenance agreement to the City Solicitor.
9. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer
Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
10. That the owner shall grant the Regional Municipality of Waterloo a temporary easement,
satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor, to the easterly monitoring well nests for ongoing
access and monitoring until such time as the easterly well nests are moved offsite and
the well nests decommissioned, subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
11. That the owner shall grant a permanent easement to the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo, satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor, for the purposes of ongoing access and
monitoring for the monitoring wells adjacent to the Ottawa Street South road allowance
on Parcel B as generally illustrated on “Sketch showing Proposed Severance of Part of
Lots 3 and 4, Municipal Compiled Plan 1021 and Part of Lot 1, Municipal Compiled Plan
1022 and Part of Lot 3, Municipal Compiled Plan 1026 in the City of Kitchener” File
Number KIT-1021-PL-16632 by ACI Survey Consultants dated June 15, 2015.
12. That the owner shall grant a permanent easement to the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo, satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor, for the purposes of ongoing access and
monitoring for the monitoring wells adjacent to the Ottawa Street South road allowance
on Parcel C as generally illustrated on “Sketch showing Proposed Severance of Part of
Lots 3 and 4, Municipal Compiled Plan 1021 and Part of Lot 1, Municipal Compiled Plan
1022 and Part of Lot 3, Municipal Compiled Plan 1026 in the City of Kitchener” File
Number KIT-1021-PL-16632 by ACI Survey Consultants dated June 15, 2015.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 222 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2015-045, B 2015-046 and B 2015-048 (Cont’d)
13. That the owner shall dedicate, at no cost and free of encumbrances to the Region, a
road widening to be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) as illustrated in the
Functional Servicing Report, Novacore Communities Corporation, Laurentian
Commons, 83 Elmsdale Drive, Project Number 2012-0194-10, Figure 5 (Preliminary
Functional Ottawa Street Design) prepared by WalterFedy dated November 28, 2013
(revised June 15, 2015).
14. That the owner shall provide a Phase I and Phase II, if necessary, Environmental Site
Assessment to the Region’s satisfaction in accordance with the Region’s
‘Implementation Guideline for Road Allowance Dedications On and Adjacent to Known
and Potentially Contaminated Sites’ prior to the dedication of the road widening as
noted in Condition 13.
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 July 21, 2017.
Carried
Submission No. B 2015-046
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of the City of Kitchener requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
identified as ‘Parcel B’ on the plan submitted with the application having a width on Elmsdale
Drive of approximately 52.6m (172.572‘), a northerly depth of 178.3m (584.973’) and an area
of 1.19 ha; and, permission to grant an easement having a width of approximately 5m
(16.404‘), a depth of 176.3m (578.412‘); and, and area of 881.5 sq.m. (9488 sq.ft.) in favour of
Parcels ‘A’ and ‘C’ as per the Plan submitted with the application, for vehicular access and
servicing, on Part Lots 3 and 4, Plan 1021, Part Lot 1, Plan 1022 and Part Lot 3, Plan 1026, 83
BE GRANTED
Elmsdale 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 owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Director of Engineering, for the installation of all new service connections that may be
required to the severed and retained lands.
4. 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 JULY 21, 2015
- 223 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2015-045, B 2015-046 and B 2015-048 (Cont’d)
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 City’s Director of Engineering.
6. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared
by the City Solicitor and registered on title of both retained and severed lands which
shall include the following:
a) That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the retained and
severed lands in accordance with the City’s Tree Management Policy, to be
approved by the City’s Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented
prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans
shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building
envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved.
b) The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the
said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City’s Director of
Planning.
7. That the owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, shall enter into a
joint maintenance agreement, including cost sharing provisions, to be approved by the
City Solicitor, to ensure that the servicing easement is maintained in perpetuity, which
agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement(s).
8. That the owner shall provide a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the
approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint
maintenance agreement to the City Solicitor.
9. That the City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer
Easement(s) and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
10. That the owner shall grant the Regional Municipality of Waterloo a temporary easement,
satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor, to the easterly monitoring well nests for ongoing
access and monitoring until such time as the easterly well nests are moved offsite and
the well nests decommissioned, subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
11. That the owner shall grant a permanent easement to the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo, satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor, for the purposes of ongoing access and
monitoring for the monitoring wells adjacent to the Ottawa Street South road allowance
on Parcel B as generally illustrated on “Sketch showing Proposed Severance of Part of
Lots 3 and 4, Municipal Compiled Plan 1021 and Part of Lot 1, Municipal Compiled Plan
1022 and Part of Lot 3, Municipal Compiled Plan 1026 in the City of Kitchener” File
Number KIT-1021-PL-16632 by ACI Survey Consultants dated June 15, 2015.
12. That the owner shall grant a permanent easement to the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo, satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor, for the purposes of ongoing access and
monitoring for the monitoring wells adjacent to the Ottawa Street South road allowance
on Parcel C as generally illustrated on “Sketch showing Proposed Severance of Part of
Lots 3 and 4, Municipal Compiled Plan 1021 and Part of Lot 1, Municipal Compiled Plan
1022 and Part of Lot 3, Municipal Compiled Plan 1026 in the City of Kitchener” File
Number KIT-1021-PL-16632 by ACI Survey Consultants dated June 15, 2015.
13. That the owner shall dedicate, at no cost and free of encumbrances to the Region, a
road widening to be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) as illustrated in the
Functional Servicing Report, Novacore Communities Corporation, Laurentian
Commons, 83 Elmsdale Drive, Project Number 2012-0194-10, Figure 5 (Preliminary
Functional Ottawa Street Design) prepared by WalterFedy dated November 28, 2013
(revised June 15, 2015).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 224 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2015-045, B 2015-046 and B 2015-048 (Cont’d)
14. That the owner shall provide a Phase I and Phase II, if necessary, Environmental Site
Assessment to the Region’s satisfaction in accordance with the Region’s
‘Implementation Guideline for Road Allowance Dedications On and Adjacent to Known
and Potentially Contaminated Sites’ prior to the dedication of the road widening as
noted in Condition 13.
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 July 21, 2017.
Carried
Submission No. B 2015-048
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of the City of Kitchener requesting permission to grant an ‘L’ shaped
easement over Parcel ‘C’ as per the Plan submitted with the application in favour of Parcels ‘A’
and ‘B’ having an approximate width on Ottawa Street South of 14m (45.931‘) for vehicular
access and servicing, on Part Lots 3 and 4, Plan 1021, Part Lot 1, Plan 1022 and Part Lot 3,
BE GRANTED
Plan 1026, 83 Elmsdale Drive, 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 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).
3. That the owner shall provide a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the
approved Transfer Easement(s) and immediately thereafter, the approved joint
maintenance agreement to the City Solicitor.
4. The City Solicitor shall be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement(s)
and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
5. That the owner shall grant the Regional Municipality of Waterloo a temporary easement,
satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor, to the easterly monitoring well nests for ongoing
access and monitoring until such time as the easterly well nests are moved offsite and
the well nests decommissioned, subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 21, 2015
- 225 -
Submission Nos.:
2.B 2015-045, B 2015-046 and B 2015-048 (Cont’d)
6. That the owner shall grant a permanent easement to the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo, satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor, for the purposes of ongoing access and
monitoring for the monitoring wells adjacent to the Ottawa Street South road allowance
on Parcel B as generally illustrated on “Sketch showing Proposed Severance of Part of
Lots 3 and 4, Municipal Compiled Plan 1021 and Part of Lot 1, Municipal Compiled Plan
1022 and Part of Lot 3, Municipal Compiled Plan 1026 in the City of Kitchener” File
Number KIT-1021-PL-16632 by ACI Survey Consultants dated June 15, 2015.
7. That the owner shall grant a permanent easement to the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo, satisfactory to the Regional Solicitor, for the purposes of ongoing access and
monitoring for the monitoring wells adjacent to the Ottawa Street South road allowance
on Parcel C as generally illustrated on “Sketch showing Proposed Severance of Part of
Lots 3 and 4, Municipal Compiled Plan 1021 and Part of Lot 1, Municipal Compiled Plan
1022 and Part of Lot 3, Municipal Compiled Plan 1026 in the City of Kitchener” File
Number KIT-1021-PL-16632 by ACI Survey Consultants dated June 15, 2015.
8. That the owner shall dedicate, at no cost and free of encumbrances to the Region, a
road widening to be determined by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) as illustrated in the
Functional Servicing Report, Novacore Communities Corporation, Laurentian
Commons, 83 Elmsdale Drive, Project Number 2012-0194-10, Figure 5 (Preliminary
Functional Ottawa Street Design) prepared by WalterFedy dated November 28, 2013
(revised June 15, 2015).
9. That the owner shall provide a Phase I and Phase II, if necessary, Environmental Site
Assessment to the Region’s satisfaction in accordance with the Region’s
‘Implementation Guideline for Road Allowance Dedications On and Adjacent to Known
and Potentially Contaminated Sites’ prior to the dedication of the road widening as
noted in Condition 8.
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 July 21, 2017.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 21st day of July, 2015.
Dianna Saunderson
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment