HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-18
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 18, 2015
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. A. Head and B. McColl and Ms. P. Kohli.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. D. Seller, Traffic Technologist;
Mr. L. Bensason, Coordinator of Cultural Heritage Resources; Mr. G.
Stevenson, Senior Planner; Ms. S. Parks, Heritage Planner; Ms. K. Pietrzak,
Project Manager; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer; and, Ms. H.
Dyson, Administrative Clerk.
Mr. A. Head, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:16 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held July 21, 2015, as mailed to
the members, be accepted.
Carried
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1. A 2015-031
Applicant:
100 Ahrens St. Ltd.
Property Location:
100 Ahrens Street West
Legal Description:
Part Lots 18-20, Plan 374
Appearances:
In Support: B. Dykstra
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission for the existing
commercial building to have 10 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 25; to locate the
required off-street parking 2.867m (9.406’) from the front lot line rather than the required 4.5m
(14.763’) in a mixed-use commercial zone; to permit a parking space within the Driveway Visibility
Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit obstructions within the DVT; and, to provide a
landscaped area of 4% rather than the required 10%.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 6, 2015, advising
that the subject property is zoned Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-2) in Zoning By-law
85-1 with Special Use Provision 410U, and is designated Mixed Use Corridor in the Official Plan.
It is located on the east side of Ahrens Street West and north of Victoria Street North. The site
currently contains a two-storey brick structure that is listed as a non-designated property of
cultural heritage value or interest on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register. Planning Staff
revisited the site on August 6, 2015.
The applicant is permission for the existing commercial building to:
a. have 10 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 25 spaces;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 227 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2015-031 (Cont’d)
b. locate the required off-street parking 2.867 metres (9.4 ft) from the front lot line rather than
the required 4.5 metres (14.8 ft) in a mixed-use commercial zone; and,
c. permit a parking space within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law
does not permit obstructions within the DVT; and further,
d. provide a 4% landscaped area rather than the required 10%.
This application was deferred to this date from the Committee of Adjustment meeting of April 21,
2015, at the request of the owner in order that he may consult further with Transportation staff
regarding their comments. The applicant then resubmitted his application. It is noted that in
working with staff since last month, the applicant has determined that the actual number of
parking spaces required is 27 (rather than 25 spaces as requested above). Therefore staff
recommends that the application be AMENDED to request 10 off-street parking spaces rather
than the required 27 spaces.
Planning Comments:
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments regarding
the requested minor variances.
Parking:
As noted in the staff report for the April meeting, the request for three parking variances (items A
through C above) have been reviewed with regards to the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law as
well as Transportation Planning regulations. Other than a change of proposed tenants (bike repair
shop is no longer proposed), staff’s comments remain the same.
Since the April meeting, the applicant has worked with Transportation Planning and Planning staff
and submitted a TDM checklist for the updated parking space numbers. Staff is able to support
this proposal subject to recommended conditions noted at the end of this report.
Landscaping:
The intent of the variance request to permit a reduced landscape area of 4% rather than the
required 10% meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The intent is to ensure that
the lands function appropriately in a Mixed Use Corridor environment, provide adequate amenity
areas on-site for staff and clients; and, not adversely impact the adjacent properties or
streetscape. This site was originally developed with an industrially-used building and there was
no requirement for landscaped area at that time. Over time, the zoning has changed to mixed
uses. The applicant has worked with Urban Design staff and determined there is an opportunity
for the development of some amenity/landscaped areas which equal approximately 4% of the lot
area (see proposed plan attached to the application). Development of the 4% landscaped area
will be part of the Site Plan approval, which is recommended as a Condition of this variance.
The proposed variance is considered minor and appropriate for the development and use of the
site and surrounding streetscape. Given the limited opportunity for landscaped/amenity area, the
proposed 4% landscaped area will provide some outdoor amenity area for the customers and
staff of the site and meets the intent of both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
Site Development:
The building façade is located at the front lot line. There is a paved City-owned boulevard in front
of the building which is often used for non-approved parking. The owner wishes to have this area
developed with an outdoor patio to be used by a future coffee shop tenant and he is currently
consulting with various City departments for this approval. This will also create additional amenity
area above the 4% landscaped area on his property as noted above.
Staff recommends that the owner receive Site Plan approval as a Condition of the variance in
order to address site safety, illegal parking in the right-of-way, landscaping and lighting plans.
Staff further recommends as a Condition that the owner complete the off-site works process and
provide securities as required by the Director of Engineering Services.
Heritage Comments:
The property municipally addressed as 100 Ahrens Street West is listed as a non-designated
property of cultural heritage value or interest on the City’s Municipal Heritage Register. Heritage
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 228 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2015-031 (Cont’d)
Planning staff has no concerns with the proposed variances. The owner is advised that a
Heritage Impact Assessment and/or Conservation Plan may be required with the submission of a
completed Planning application.
Transportation Comments:
Transportation Services understands the parking constraints of this property, and based on the
submitted Plan, 27 off-street parking spaces are required. Observations indicated that the existing
10 parking spaces are being exceeded and a parking shortfall exists; therefore, as conditional
support for a 17 parking space variance, the following Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) measures are to be incorporated into the site:
• Provide secure bicycle storage for ten (10) bicycles;
• Provide two (2) shower and change facilities;
• Provide subsidized transit passes for all occupants for a period of two (2) years;
• Charge for parking as a separate cost to occupants; and further,
• Agrees to join Travelwise.
Parking generated by the site is not to be accommodated on-street and any additional parking
required for the site is to be accommodated in an off-site parking agreement.
Since a minor portion of a vehicle would be within the DVT and based on the limited amount of
available parking on site, Transportation Services will support a portion of a vehicle to be located
within the DVT.
Ensure that the required barrier free sign is provided on site and all the parking spaces are
demarcated.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 4, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered comments from Canadian National (CN) Railway, dated August 13,
2015, advising that they will not challenge the extent to which the recommendations are
considered (or not) by the municipality, except for issues of fencing, drainage and access.
CN's focus for non-sensitive uses has increasingly been limited to:
• The provision of 1.83 meter chain link security fencing;
• Confirmation that there will be no adverse impacts to the existing drainage pattern on the
railway right-of-way; and further,
• A 30 meter setback of access points to avoid the potential for impacts to traffic safety
when located near at-grade railway crossings.
Mr. B. Dykstra was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff
recommendation.
The Chair noted the comments from CN Rail and questioned whether conditions should be
imposed as part of the Committee’s decision. Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that staff have
spoken to CN Rail and they have advised that conditions could be imposed if the Committee
deemed it relevant to the application. She further advised that nothing is physically changing on
the site so imposing conditions would not likely be relevant at this time.
Questions were raised regarding subsidized transit passes for a two-year requirement and what
would occur following those two years. Mr. D. Seller advised that staff have developed a
Transportation Demand Management Checklist that was used to evaluate parking for the subject
property. He noted that the Checklist is in its infancy but staff have worked diligently on the
proposed recommendation. He noted that the two year requirement should be sufficient time to
see further public transit measures implemented.
Mr. B. McColl questioned whether the site had any concerns with parking in the past. Mr. Seller
advised that he has conducted a site visit and any concerns that were identified have been
addressed through the staff recommendation.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 229 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2015-031 (Cont’d)
That the application of 100 Ahrens St. Ltd. requesting permission for the existing commercial
building to have 10 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 27; to locate the required
off-street parking 2.867m (9.406’) from the front lot line rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’)
in a mixed-use commercial zone; to permit a parking space within the Driveway Visibility
Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit obstructions within the DVT; and, to
provide a landscaped area of 4% rather than the required 10%, on Part Lots 18-20, Plan 374,
BE APPROVED
100 Ahrens Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain Site Plan approval to mitigate remaining issues on site to
the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development and Customer Services. The Site
Plan application shall include:
a. Landscape and lighting plans;
b. That a 6.7 metre drive aisle width is provided for the single loaded parking
spaces on site;
c. That a barrier-free parking sign is provided on site and noted on the plan;
d. That all parking spaces be clearly demarcated on the site.
2. That the owner shall enter into an agreement for any required off-site works processes
and provide securities to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services.
3. That the owner shall submit and receive approval for a Transportation Demand
Management checklist to the satisfaction of the Transportation Demand Management
Coordinator.
4. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate for all uses on site to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
5. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for any proposed interior renovations prior
to construction to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official.
6. That the owner shall complete Conditions 1 through 5 prior to December 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 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.:
2. A 2015-054
Applicant:
Mark Schaefer
Property Location:
88 Bloomingdale Road
Legal Description:
Part Lot 31 and Part Lot 32, of the Small Lots (Unregistered), North
of Horning’s Tract
Appearances:
In Support: M. Schaefer
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 230 -
Submission No.:
2.A 2015-054 (Cont’d)
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a garage
in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a maximum height of 7m (22.965’)
rather than the permitted maximum height of 5.5m (18.044’); and, to have a maximum height of
the underside of the fascia to be 4.3m (14.107’) rather than the permitted maximum height of
3.0m (9.842’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 11, 2015, advising
that the subject property is located on the southeast side of Bloomingdale Road in the Bridgeport
East planning community. The property is located immediately east of Bridgeport Cemetery and
west of deep (>90 metre) single and semi-detached properties that front onto Bloomingdale
Road.
A large, undeveloped parcel of land that possesses low density residential zoning is located to
the rear of the property. There are currently no applications to develop the parcel to the rear of
the subject property at this time; however, there is a Council-adopted Block Plan (Community
Plan) in place that shows several potential low-density residential development scenarios.
The subject property is quite deep for a residential lot (92 metres) and contains a single detached
dwelling constructed in approximately the mid-1940s. The property is designated Low Rise
Residential in the official plan and is zoned Residential Four (R-4). In addition, the property is
designated Residential Low Density in the Bridgeport East Secondary Community Plan (a
Council-adopted community plan).
The owner is proposing to construct a 15.24 metre long by 9.75 metre deep detached garage
near the rear of the property. The garage would meet the minimum setbacks for rear and side
yard. In order to facilitate the construction of the garage, the owner has submitted a minor
variance application requesting relief from Section 5.5.2b) of the Zoning By-law, specifically:
a. a maximum building height of 7.0 metres for a proposed accessory building, whereas the
Zoning By-law requires a maximum height of 5.5 metres; and,
b. that the maximum height of the underside of the fascia for a proposed accessory building
be 4.3 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a maximum height of 3.0 metres.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments.
The maximum building and fascia height variances meet the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning
By-law for the following reasons. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that accessory
buildings do not create visual encroachment issues, shadow impacts, and privacy issues for
adjacent properties, especially as they relate to the rear yard amenity space. In this case, the
proposed building is set back significantly farther from the rear and adjacent side lot line than the
required minimum setback for accessory buildings: 3.0 metres is proposed, whereas only 0.6
metres is required. Staff is of the opinion that this large setback will adequately reduce impacts on
adjacent properties.
The requested variances are minor because, due to the great depth of the adjacent residential
property to the east, there will be no unacceptably adverse impacts on the rear yard amenity
space. Also, as previously stated, the setback to the easterly side lot line and rear lot line is
significant and the proposal would maintain an acceptable 4.87 metre side yard setback to the
cemetery.
The requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land because they
would allow greater functionality and enjoyment of the property while upholding good planning
principles. However, staff is of the opinion that a Tree Preservation Plan be required as a
condition of approval, especially to address trees in shared ownership.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 4, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 231 -
Submission No.:
2.A 2015-054 (Cont’d)
Mr. M. Schaefer advised he was in attendance in support of the subject application. He requested
clarification of Condition 1 related to the Tree Preservation Plan, noting that the location of the
garage was selected to ensure he would not disturb any trees on the subject property.
Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that Environmental Planning staff have requested the Condition
due to the nature of the property and the proximity of the trees that may be in shared ownership
with the neighbouring property owners. She stated that staff would prefer the Condition remain as
part of the Decision, noting that the applicant could follow up with Environmental Planning staff
following the meeting to discuss the nature and scope of the Plan.
Moved by Ms. P. Kohli
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Mark Schaefer requesting permission to construct a garage in the rear
yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a maximum height of 7m (22.965’) rather
than the permitted maximum height of 5.5m (18.044’); and, to have a maximum height of the
underside of the fascia to be 4.3m (14.107’) rather than the permitted maximum height of 3.0m
(9.842’), on Part Lot 31 and Part Lot 32, of the Small Lots (Unregistered), North of Horning’s
BE APPROVED
Tract, 88 Bloomingdale Road, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
1. That in light of the treed nature of the property and the proximity of trees in shared
ownership, the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the 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 removed and/or preserved. The owner further agrees to implement
the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior
approval of the City’s Director of Planning.
2. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City’s Building Division and
construct the proposed accessory building in conformity with, and in the location, shown
on the Plan attached to Minor Variance Application A 2015-054.
3. That the owner shall complete Conditions 1 and 2, prior to August 18, 2016. Any
request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of
Development Review (or designate), prior to the completion date set out in this decision.
Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
3. A 2015-055
Applicant:
Deerfield Homes Limited
Property Location:
Netherwood Road
Legal Description:
Block 95, Registered Plan 58M-558
Appearances:
In Support: M. Miranda
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 232 -
Submission No.:
3.A 2015-055 (Cont’d)
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a street
fronting condominium development where each unit will have direct access to a public road,
whereas the By-law requires Vacant Land of Condominiums to have access to a public road
through a common element registered to the condominium; relief is also being requested for Unit
19 to have a rear yard setback of 6.33m (20.767’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’); and,
for Unit 30 to have a rear yard setback of 5.54m (18.175’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 7, 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 developed with low rise street-fronting townhouse dwelling units.
The owner made two minor variance applications seeking relief from Section 40.2.6 to permit a
reduced rear yard setback of 6.33 metres for Unit 19 and 5.54 metres for Unit 30, whereas 7.5
metres is required. Relief is also being sought from Section 5.21A to permit a street townhouse
dwelling within a Vacant Land Condominium having direct access to a public street, whereas
direct access to an internal private driveway or road that is a common element in a registered
Condominium, is required.
Rear Yard 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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation permits
a variety of low rise residential uses, including street townhouse dwellings.
The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of a 7.5 metre rear yard setback
is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well as adequate separation from neighbouring
properties. In this case, the resulting rear yard continues to be adequately sized to permit an
appropriate outdoor amenity space and allows for the proper separation between the private
driveway and the rear yard property line. In addition, the development includes a common
amenity area that is shared by all unit owners.
The variances are minor. The two rear yard variances are proposed to accommodate an
appropriate setback from the private driveway and to ensure that adequate access can be
provided between units to the common amenity area. In addition, underground storm water
infrastructure is proposed between the rear yards within the common element. The unit
boundaries are proposed such that access to said infrastructure is wholly within the common
element.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The variances will allow
for adequate private rear yard amenity space which is properly setback from the shared private
driveway.
Common Element Condominium 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 Low Rise Residential
designation permits a variety of low rise residential uses, including street townhouse dwellings.
The arrangement of the proposed street townhouse dwelling units facing the streets (rather than
back lotting) meets the intent of the Urban Design policies in the Official Plan.
The requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of Section 2.1A of the
Zoning By-law is to allow for vacant land parcels (lots) to be created without access to a public
street, which is typical for Vacant Land Condominiums. In this case, the site has three street
frontages, and the units are all proposed to be street fronting. The common element provides for
off-street visitor parking, outdoor amenity spaces, and both local and community storm water
infrastructure (infiltration galleries). Access to each of the units is provided from Blair Creek Drive,
Netherwood Road, and Wildflower Street.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 233 -
Submission No.:
3.A 2015-055 (Cont’d)
The requested variance is minor. Appropriate permissions for unit owners, the City, and other
applicable parties over the common element for access and maintenance purposes will be
secured as part of the Vacant Land Condominium approval process.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The variance is technical in
nature and there will be no impact to the community.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 4, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Ms. P. Kohli
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Deerfield Homes Limited requesting permission to construct a street
fronting condominium development where each unit will have direct access to a public road,
whereas the By-law requires Vacant Land of Condominiums to have access to a public road
through a common element registered to the condominium; relief is also being requested for Unit
19 to have a rear yard setback of 6.33m (20.767’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’); and,
for Unit 30 to have a rear yard setback of 5.54m (18.175’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’),
BE APPROVED.
on Block 95, Registered Plan 58M-558, Netherwood Road, 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.:
4. A 2015-056
Applicant:
Savic Homes Ltd.
Property Location:
66 Watervale Drive
Legal Description:
Part Block 20, Registered Plan 58M-370, being Part 19 on
Reference Plan 58R-17149
Appearances:
In Support: B. and D. Savic
P. Chauvin
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a driveway located 7.8m (25.59') from the intersection of Watervale
Drive and Eden Oak Trail rather than the required setback of 9m (29.53').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 30, 2015, advising that
the subject property located at Watervale Drive is designated Residential in the City’s Official Plan
and is zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) in the City’s Zoning By-law.
The subject property is located at the intersection of Watervale Drive and Eden Oak Trail and the
property currently contains no structures. The owner is requesting permission to construct a
single detached dwelling having a driveway located 7.8 metres (25.59’) from the intersection of
Watervale Drive and Eden Oak Trail rather than the required setback of 9 metres (29.53’).
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments regarding
the requested minor variances:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 234 -
Submission No.:
4.A 2015-056 (Cont’d)
The requested variance for the proposed location of the driveway to the intersecting street lines
meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of
residential development and allows for modest alterations. The proposed variance will permit a
reduced setback of the driveway to the intersecting street lines for the proposed townhouse
dwelling. The minor change will maintain the low density character of the property and
surrounding neighbourhood.
The intent of the required 9 metre separation from the driveway to the intersection of the street
lines abutting the corner lot is to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety. It is staff’s opinion that
the 1.2 metre reduction is minor and will not impact the property or access to the intersection.
Transportation Planning staff has also indicated that they have no concerns with the requested
reduction of 9.0 metres to 7.8 metres. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The variance is considered minor as it is staff’s opinion that the proposed 7.8 metre setback from
the intersecting street lines allows for sufficient separation from the driveway and as such will not
impact access to the intersection for vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is staff’s opinion that the
requested variance will not impact the subject property, adjacent lands or abutting intersection.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 4, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated August 7, 2015,
requesting that approval of this application be subject to the following condition:
1. Driveways will be located so as to clear Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. submersible
transformer vaults and provide a minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles, anchors and
street light standards.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Savic Homes requesting permission to construct a single detached
dwelling having a driveway located 7.8m (25.59') from the intersection of Watervale Drive and
Eden Oak Trail rather than the required setback of 9m (29.53'), on Part Block 20, Registered
Plan 58M-370, being Part 19 on Reference Plan 58R-17149, 66 Watervale Drive, Kitchener,
BE APPROVED
Ontario,, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed single detached dwelling
to the satisfaction of the Building Division.
2. That the owner shall ensure that all driveways will be located so as to clear Kitchener-
Wilmot Hydro Inc. submersible transformer vaults and to provide a minimum of 1.0m
clearance to all poles, anchors, and street light standards.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
5. A 2015-057
Applicant:
Connie Kelemen and Bruce Payne
Property Location:
1755 Old Mill Road
Legal Description:
Lot 127, Plan 578
Appearances:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 235 -
Submission No.:
5.A 2015-057 (Cont’d)
In Support: C. Kelemen
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition
in the westerly side yard on an existing single detached dwelling having a side yard setback of
1.16m (3.805’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.93’); and, a front yard setback of 1.07m (3.51’)
rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 7, 2015, advising
that the subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan and
zoned as Residential Three (R-3) with Special Regulation Provision 195R in Zoning By-law 85-1.
The property is developed with a single detached dwelling.
The owner is seeking relief from Section 37.2.1 to legalize the existing deficient front yard setback
of 1.07 metres whereas 4.5 metres is required; and, to legalize the existing deficient side yard
setback of 1.16 metres whereas 1.2 metres is required.
The minor variances are required to legalize the existing dwelling so that the owner may obtain a
Building Permit to improve and expand the existing dwelling.
The existing dwelling is Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register for its design and contextual
values. This 1873 Georgian house is a notable and representative example from the original
village of lower Doon. One of its main features is the side gable roof with return eaves. It
contributes to the continuity and character of the Old Mill Road streetscape.
The City’s Heritage Planner and the owner are in discussions regarding the design of the
proposed alterations to the existing dwelling. Planning staff recommends that the requested minor
variance be approved subject to a Condition requiring the approval of the elevations (all 4 sides)
of the building by the City’s Director of Planning, in consultation with the City’s Coordinator of
Cultural Heritage Planning and Heritage Planner. This Condition is in lieu of requiring the owner
to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment.
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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation permits
a variety of low rise residential uses, including single detached dwellings. The location of the
dwelling is an existing condition and the planned alterations and expansion will be in compliance
with Conservation and Housing policies in the Official Plan.
The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of the front yard setback is to
ensure a consistent street edge and the purpose of the side yard setback is to ensure adequate
separation from neighbouring properties. The minor variance seeks to legalize two existing
conditions. The street edge in this location along Old Mill varies given the historical nature of the
area. The side yard setback is deficient by 0.04 metres which is not detectable on site.
The variances are minor. The two rear yard variances seek to legalize an existing condition. The
location of the dwelling on the property has existing since 1873. Any new floor area will be located
within the rear yard, which is of sufficient size.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The variances will allow
for the owner to obtain a building permit to improve the existing dwelling and be compliant with
the Zoning By-law.
Heritage Comments:
The City’s Heritage Planner met on site with the owner on June 30 to discuss the proposed
addition and alterations to the dwelling, which is Listed on the Municipal Heritage Register for its
design and contextual values. This 1873 Georgian house is a notable and representative
example from the original village of lower Doon. One of its main features is the side gable roof
with return eaves. It contributes to the continuity and character of the Old Mill Road streetscape.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 236 -
Submission No.:
5.A 2015-057 (Cont’d)
In lieu of a Heritage Impact Assessment, as a condition of approval, Heritage Planning staff will
review and approve elevation drawings.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 4, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Ms. C. Kelemen was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff
recommendation.
In response to questions, Mr. G. Stevenson advised that staff have requested a Condition
requiring the applicant to prepare building elevation drawings because the property is listed on
the Municipal Heritage Registrar. He noted that the recommended Condition was proposed in lieu
of the applicant being required to obtain a full Heritage Impact Assessment which would be more
onerous than the elevation drawings.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Connie Kelemen and Bruce Payne requesting permission to construct
an addition in the westerly side yard on an existing single detached dwelling having a side yard
setback of 1.16m (3.805’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.93’); and, a front yard setback of
1.07m (3.51’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’), on Lot 127, Plan 578, 1755 Old Mill
BE APPROVED
Road, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That in light of the treed nature of the property and the proximity of trees in shared
ownership, the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the 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 removed and/or preserved. The owner further agrees to implement
the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior
approval of the City’s Director of Planning.
2. That the owner shall prepare Building Elevation Drawings (all 4 sides), to be approved
by the City’s Director of Planning in consultation with the City’s Coordinator of Cultural
Heritage Planning and the City’s Heritage Planner.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
6. A 2015-058
Applicant:
Adam and Mary Lynn Gilbrook
Property Location:
642 Westheights Drive
Legal Description:
Lot 65, Plan 1448
Appearances:
In Support: A. and M. Gilbrook
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 237 -
Submission No.:
6.A 2015-058 (Cont’d)
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to convert the existing
garage into a salon and locate the required off-street parking space 3.5m (11.48’) from the street
line rather than the required setback of 6m (19.69').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 10, 2015, advising
that the subject property located at 642 Westheights Drive 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 applicant
is proposing to convert the garage into a space for a home business hair salon (personal service).
By converting the garage into a home business hair salon, the subject property can no longer
meet the requirements of Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By-law. The applicant is requesting
relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By-law to allow the one required parking space for
the single detached dwelling to be located in the driveway setback 3.5 metres from the street line
rather than the required 6.0 metres.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments.
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. This
designation permits low density forms of housing such as single detached dwellings with home
businesses. The proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan which encourages a
range of different forms of housing and encourages a mix of non-residential uses in residential
areas. The proposed variance conforms to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the
requested variance to legalize the location of the one required parking space meets the intent of
the Official Plan.
The requested variance to legalize the off street parking space 3.5 metres from the street lot line
meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The reduction of 2.5 metres from the required 6 metres is
minor. The intent of the 6.0 metre required setback is to allow for a vehicle to be safely parked on
the driveway without affecting the City right-of-way and surrounding properties. Transportation
Services staff supports a 2.5 metre reduction from the required 6 metre parking setback to
provide a 3.5 metre setback. It is not anticipated that any negative impacts to the adjacent
residential properties will result from the variance required; therefore, the intent of the Zoning By-
law continues to be maintained.
The variance can be considered minor as it is staff’s opinion that the required parking space can
still be accommodated on-site in a safe manner. The reduced setback of 3.5 metres will not
present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood.
Furthermore, the driveway is wide enough to accommodate two vehicles at any time, which
allows for the dwelling to meet the parking requirements for the residential use and the proposed
home business.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variance
should not impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. The
requested minor variance is necessary as it will legalize the location of the required parking space
on the driveway. The driveway will be able to accommodate 2 parking spaces and provide
adequate parking for the dwelling and proposed home business.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 4, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. A. and Ms. M. Gilbrook were in attendance in support of the subject application. Mr. Gilbrook
requested clarification of Condition 3 regarding resurfacing the driveway in a consistent material,
noting that the driveway that currently exists was completed the previous year. Ms. J. von
Westerholt referenced the photo on the front page of the report, noting that there is a vehicle
parking on what is intended to be a pedestrian walkway. She indicated that staff are requesting
that the driveway be constructed using a consistent material to delineate parking versus
walkways.
Mr. Gilbrook requested a possible extension from November 1, 2015 to August 18, 2016
regarding Condition 3 related to resurfacing. Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff would not
object to the requested extension.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 238 -
Submission No.:
6.A 2015-058 (Cont’d)
That the application of Adam and Mary Lynn Gilbrook requesting permission to convert the
existing garage into a salon and locate the required off-street parking space for the single
detached dwelling setback 3.5m (11.48’) from the street line rather than the required setback
BE
of 6m (19.69'), on Lot 65, Plan 1448, 642 Westheights Drive, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City’s Building Division for the
conversion of the garage to a home business.
2. That the owner shall submit a parking plan to the satisfaction of Transportation
Services.
3. That that owner shall resurface the driveway with a consistent material having a
minimum width of 5.2 metres by August 18, 2016.
4. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate for the home business.
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.:
7. A 2015-059
Applicant:
Franjo Zaja
Property Location:
28 Anvil Street
Legal Description:
Part Lot 47, Plan 1495, being Parts 2 and 3 on Reference Plan
58R-18170
Appearances:
In Support: F., G. and T. Zaja
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 5.01m (16.43’) rather than the required 7.5m
(24.606’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 7, 2015, advising
that the subject property located at 28 Anvil Street is predominately vacant (an existing shed will
be demolished prior to any proposed development). It is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the
City’s Zoning By-law and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The owner is
proposing to construct a single detached dwelling with a footprint larger than the minimum
requirement of the Zoning By-law. As a result, the owner is seeking relief from Section 38.2.1 of
the Zoning By-law to allow a rear yard setback of 5.01 metres rather than the minimum required
7.5 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 variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation
recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for a variety of low-density
residential uses. The proposed development is consistent with the Low Rise Residential
designation.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 239 -
Submission No.:
7.A 2015-059 (Cont’d)
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 7.5 metres rear yard
setback is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well as adequate separation from
neighbouring properties. It is staff’s opinion that the request for a reduced rear yard setback is
appropriate as there is still an opportunity to have an appropriate outdoor amenity area and
sufficient separation from the neighbouring properties. In addition, the proposed rear yard will be
setback further than the existing setback of the adjacent property.
The variance request for a reduced rear yard setback is considered minor as there is still an
opportunity to provide an appropriate outdoor amenity area. The principle buildings on the
neighbouring properties are setback relatively far from subject property, which will provide
sufficient separation distance.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The proposed use is
permitted and it is staff’s opinion that the request for a reduced rear yard setback will not impact
the neighbouring properties, nor will it impact the streetscape of the neighbourhood. The
proposed rear yard will mimic the existing rear yard of the adjacent property.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 7, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Ms. P. Kohli
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Franjo Zaja requesting permission to construct a single detached
dwelling having a rear yard setback of 5.01m (16.43’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’),
on Part Lot 47, Plan 1495, being Parts 2 and 3 on Reference Plan 581R-18170, 28 Anvil
BE APPROVED.
Street, Kitchener, Ontario,
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
8. A 2015-060
Applicant:
Steven Burrows
Property Location:
23 Richmond Ave
Legal Description:
Part Lots 15 and 16, Plan 80, and Part Lot 56, Plan 393
Appearances:
In Support: S. Burrows
Contra: A. Good
Written Submissions: Neighbourhood Submissions
M. and L. Kroeker
A. Good
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert a single
detached dwelling into a duplex having a rear yard setback of 4.2m (13.779’) rather than the
required 7.5m (24.606’); a southerly side yard setback for the stairway entrance of 0.5m (1.64’)
rather than the required 0.75m (2.46’); and, to locate the two required off-street parking spaces
0m from the front lot line rather than the required 6m (19.685’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 6, 2015, advising
that the subject property is located at 23 Richmond Avenue in the Victoria Park neighbourhood.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 240 -
Submission No.:
8.A 2015-060 (Cont’d)
There is an existing 2 and a half storey single detached dwelling that was built at the turn of the
20th century situated on the subject lot. Surrounding development consists of low-rise detached
dwellings on the flanking sides and backs onto open space (Victoria Park). It is zoned Residential
Four (R-5) (1R) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Open Space in the Victoria Park
Secondary Plan of the City’s Official Plan. The R-5 Zoning permits single, semi-detached and
duplex dwellings while the 1R regulation requires development to obtain a fill permit to the
satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) as this property is located within
the flood fringe. The Open Space designation of the Victoria Park Secondary Plan corresponds
with the fact this property lies within the flood fringe.
The applicant is proposing to convert from a single detached to a duplex dwelling. To do so,
however, permission is required from the Committee for the following variances:
1. To seek relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By-law to allow for two parking
spaces to have a front yard setback of 0m instead of the required 6m;
2. To seek relief from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to enclose a portion of a roofed
rear yard deck and have a rear yard setback of 4.2m instead of 7.5m; and
3. To seek relief from Section 5.6.1. b) for a right side yard setback of 0.5m for a set of stairs
instead of the required 0.75m.
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 Open Space in the Victoria Park Secondary Plan of the City’s
Official Plan. The intent of this designation, as it relates specifically to this property, is to limit
development within the flood fringe. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Official Plan
as there is no expansion to the existing building and deck footprint. The conversion to a duplex is
internal and any external work proposed is within limits established through existing building
conditions.
The requested variances to allow for a 0m setback for two parking spaces; a 0.5 m setback in
order to modify an existing set of stairs; and, a 4.2m rear yard setback to enclose a portion of an
existing roofed rear yard deck, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons.
Firstly, the existing driveway is double-wide and is capable of accommodating two parking
spaces. Permission is required because the conversion from a single detached to a duplex
dwelling (which is a permitted use) triggers the parking setback requirement even though the
double wide driveway is also an existing condition. As a result, there is no additional impact to the
streetscape.
Secondly, the proposed enclosure of a portion of the existing roofed deck triggers the
requirement for a 7.5m rear yard setback. In staff’s opinion, the roofed deck is an existing
condition and enclosing the deck portion located at the side of the house does not create any new
or additional impacts beyond the current conditions.
Thirdly, an existing set of stairs has to be modified in order to accommodate the deck enclosure,
resulting in a setback of 0.5m rather than 0.75m. The intent of this regulation is to ensure there is
an adequate amount of space between the stairs and the property line for passage. In the opinion
of staff, this request is considered minor because adequate space is being maintained in order to
be able to negotiate around the stairs. In addition, the left side yard can accommodate access to
the rear yard for lawn mowing.
The variances are considered minor in the opinion of staff because the conversion from a single
detached to a duplex dwelling will not alter the appearance of the house as it currently exists, and
therefore any impacts are considered negligible.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. A duplex dwelling is a
permitted use in the R-5 zoning. It requires two parking spaces. The existing driveway is double
in width and can accommodate the required two spaces without any significant alteration to the
existing condition. There is an existing roofed rear yard deck. Enclosing a portion of the existing
structure and modifying an existing set of stairs will not create any further impacts to the current
streetscape or neighbourhood.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 241 -
Submission No.:
8.A 2015-060 (Cont’d)
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 4, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated
August 7, 2015, advising that although they have no concerns with this application, they noted
that the property is within the flood fringe portion of the Schneider Creek floodplain. Development
in the flood fringe may be permitted in accordance with the policies and standards approved by
the municipality and the GRCA.
The Committee considered written comments from neighbouring property owners in opposition of
the subject application.
Mr. S. Burrows was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff
recommendation. He provided a brief summary of the application, noting that there will be no
change to the exterior of the property. He indicated that he had spoken to a number of
neighbouring property owners regarding his application and circulated a number of written
submissions from neighbouring property owners in support of the subject application.
Ms. A. Good was in attendance in opposition to the subject application. She expressed concerns
with the over-saturation of multi-residential dwellings that are being permitted at that section of
the street, noting that 3 out of 6 properties will be multi-residential. She stated that, in her opinion,
the size of the subject property and dwelling indicates that it is not a good candidate for
duplexing, as it is one of the smallest on the street.
The Chair noted for clarification that the applicant is permitted to duplex the property without
approval from the Committee. He noted that the Committee’s decision is based on whether the
variances requested are minor in nature. He further advised that in his opinion, the variances are
minor in nature, noting there will be little to no change to the exterior of the structure.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Steven Burrows requesting permission to convert a single detached
dwelling into a duplex having a rear yard setback of 4.2m (13.779’) rather than the required
7.5m (24.606’); a southerly side yard setback for the stairway entrance of 0.5m (1.64’) rather
than the required 0.75m (2.46’); and, to locate the two required off-street parking spaces 0m
from the front lot line rather than the required 6m (19.685’), on Part Lots 15 and 16, Plan 80,
BE APPROVED
and Part Lot 56, Plan 393, 23 Richmond Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject
to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain any required fill/alteration permits by August 2016 to
satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority.
2. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit by August 2016 to the satisfaction of the
Chief Building Official.
3. That the owner shall obtain any required heritage approvals by August 2016 to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 242 -
Submission No.:
9. A 2015-061
Applicant:
Activa Holdings Inc./Activa Management Corporation
Property Location:
270 Moorlands Crescent
Legal Description:
Lot 18, Registered Plan 58M-541
- and -
Submission No.:
. A 2015-062
Applicant:
Activa Holdings Inc./Activa Management Corporation
Property Location:
270 Moorlands Crescent
Legal Description:
Lot 19, Registered Plan 58M-541
Appearances:
In Support: R. Dalling
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a westerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') without a maintenance
easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less
than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side
yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') or less.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 7, 2015, advising
that the subject properties are zoned Residential Four (R-4) with Special Regulation 405R in the
Zoning By-law, and are designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The lots are
currently vacant and are planned to contain single detached residential dwellings. The owner is
seeking relief from Section 5.5A.2 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law in order to permit a side
yard setback of 0.6 metres for a garage attached to a single detached dwelling on a lot having a
width of less than 10.4 metres without an easement on the abutting lands for 270 and 274
Moorlands Crescent.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments regarding
the requested minor variance:
The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential
designation allows for the development of single detached dwellings which maintain the overall
low rise character of the neighbourhood. The requested reduction to the setbacks allows for
construction in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan.
The requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the side yard setback
is to allow for adequate separation from adjacent properties as well as access to the rear of the
property. The purpose for requiring an easement on the abutting lands is to ensure that the
property owner has access for maintenance of the garage walls, eaves, and property. Staff notes
that detached garages are permitted to have a side yard of 0.6 metres without an easement on
the abutting lands. Rear yard access will be provided through the 1.2 metre side yard on the
opposite side of the house, which meets the Zoning By-law requirement. Staff also notes that
access to the roof and eaves of the property is also possible from the front and back of the
structure. Furthermore, the 0.6 metre setback without a maintenance easement meets the
building code separation requirements. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the
intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained.
The variance is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will still
provide an adequate side yard to allow for access to maintain the walls, roof, and eaves of the
property, and will not negatively affect adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for use of the land for the following reasons. The single
detached dwelling use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law, and the proposed variance will
allow the owner to construct the single detached dwellings along Moorlands Crescent. The scale,
massing, and height of the single detached dwellings are appropriate and consistent with the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 243 -
Submission Nos.:
9A 2015-061 & A 2015-062 (Cont’d)
character of the neighbourhood. The reduced side yard requirement will support greater density
and the better use of land. Furthermore, the variance will allow for the double-car garage to
accommodate off-street parking and alleviate the demand for on-street parking. Staff also notes
that the properties are still able to achieve other Zoning By-law requirements such as maximum
driveway width and maximum percentage of garage width compared to the building façade. The
proposed variance will not impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding
neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 4, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Submission No. A 2015-061
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a westerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') without a maintenance
easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of
less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they
have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') or less, on Lot 18, Registered Plan 58M-541, 270
BE APPROVED
Moorlands Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit prior to construction to the satisfaction of
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. A 2015-062
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having an easterly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') without a maintenance
easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of
less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they
have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.97') or less, on Lot 19, Registered Plan 58M-541, 274
BE APPROVED
Moorlands Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit prior to construction to the satisfaction of
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 AUGUST 18, 2015
- 244 -
Submission No.:
10. A 2015-063
Applicant:
Terra View Homes Limited
Property Location:
99 Janine Street
Legal Description:
Lot 39, Registered Plan 58M-393
Appearances:
In Support: T. Lesperance
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling with a covered porch in the rear yard having an overall lot coverage of 46.1%,
whereas the maximum lot coverage permitted is 45%; and, to have a rear yard setback of 4.46
(16.632’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 6, 2015, advising
that the subject property is located at 99 Janine Street. The vacant property is zoned Residential
Three (R-3) in the City’s Zoning By-law and designed Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official
Plan.
The owner is proposing to construct a single detached dwelling on the vacant lot. The dwelling is
proposed to have an attached covered deck in the rear yard greater than 0.6 metres in height and
a rear yard setback of 4.46 metres. The Zoning By-law requires a covered deck that is above 0.6
metres in height to have a rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. As such, the owner is requesting relief
from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a rear yard setback of 4.46 metres rather than
the required 7.5 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 requested variance for a reduced rear yard setback meets the intent of the Official Plan. The
Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and
allows for modest alterations. The proposed variance will maintain the low density character of
the property and will not impact the surrounding neighbourhood.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as the purpose of a 7.5 metres rear yard
setback is to provide outdoor amenity space as well as adequate separation from neighbouring
properties. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed deck with a rear yard setback of 4.43 metres will
continue to provide outdoor amenity space for the owner, and there will be no impacts on
neighbouring properties as the subject property backs onto open space.
The variance can be considered minor. It is staff’s opinion that the reduced rear yard setback for
a proposed deck is minimal and will not impact the adjacent properties as it backs onto open
space.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. It is staff’s opinion that the
proposed deck is appropriately designed for the property and will provide outdoor amenity space
for the owner and adequate separation from abutting residential properties. As such, the reduced
rear yard setback will have no impact to adjacent lands.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 4, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Ms. T. Lesperance was in attendance in support of the subject application. She noted that she
has reviewed the staff report and the variance pertaining to the covered porch in the rear yard,
having an overall lot coverage of 46.1% whereas the maximum lot coverage permitted is 45%,
was not included in the Report as part of the recommendation.
Ms. J. von Westerholt noted that it was likely a clerical error, noting that the second variance was
advertised in the notice and included in the application, and requested the Committee to amend
the recommendation to include the variance lot coverage.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 245 -
Submission No.:
10.A 2015-063 (Cont’d)
Mr. B. McColl indicated that he was in support of the amended recommendation and requested
an amendment for consistency that a Condition be included in the Committee’s decision requiring
the applicant to obtain a Building Permit prior to construction.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Terra View Homes Limited requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling with a covered porch in the rear yard having an overall lot coverage of
46.1%, whereas the maximum lot coverage permitted is 45%; and, to have a rear yard setback
of 4.46 (16.632’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Lot 39, Registered Plan 58M-393,
BE APPROVED
99 Janine Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. The owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the single detached dwelling prior to
construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMBINED APPLICATIONS:
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2014-047, A 2015-052 and A 2015-053
Applicant:
Leslie James Brown
Property Location:
355 Greenfield Avenue
Legal Description:
Part Lot 223, Plan 254
Appearances:
In Support: L. Brown
M. Muller
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
identified as Parcel ‘B’ on the Plan submitted with the application to have a width on Eighth
Avenue of 13.1m (42.979’), a depth of 19.2m (62.992’) and an area of 251.5 sq.m. (2707.123
sq.ft). The retained land identified as Parcel ‘A’ on the Plan submitted with the application, will
have a width on Greenfield Avenue of 19.2m (62.992’), a depth of 21.916m (71.902’) and an area
of 420.5 sq.m. (4526.224 sq.ft). Both parcels will continue to be residential. Permission is also
being requested for a minor variance on the retained land (Parcel A) to have a rear yard setback
of 3m (9.842’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’). The severed land (Parcel B) will also
require variances to permit an attached accessory garage with a lot coverage of 16.3% whereas
the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 15%; and, a rear yard setback of 3m (9.842’)
rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 17, 2015, advising
that the subject property is located at the intersection of Greenfield Avenue and Eighth Avenue in
the Vanier planning community. The property contains a 1.5 storey duplex dwelling near the
intersection and a small, one-storey single detached dwelling at the rear, both of which were built
in the mid-1940s. The surrounding area was constructed between the mid-1940s and early 1960s
and contains a mix of low density residential land uses, including single detached dwellings,
duplexes, and low-rise apartments. The neighbourhood contains a wide range of architectural
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 246 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-047, A 2015-052 & A 2015-053(Cont’d)
styles and lot sizes and there is little continuity from one block to the next. The subject properties
are designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and are zoned Residential Four (R-4) in
the Zoning By-law.
The lot proposed to be severed (Lot ‘B’ on the attached) has 13.1 metres of frontage on Eighth
Avenue and a lot area of 251.5 square metres. The new lot would comply with the Zoning By-law
in every respect. The existing 1-storey single detached dwelling at the rear of the property would
be demolished in favour of a new duplex dwelling on the severed lot. The owner has submitted
Minor Variance Application A 2015-053 to facilitate the construction of the new duplex.
Specifically, the owner is requesting the following variances:
1. a minimum rear yard of 3.0 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 7.5 metres; and,
2. a maximum lot coverage of 16.3%, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 15% for an
attached garage.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments. The
variances requested for the rear yard reduction and lot coverage increase meet the intent of the
Official Plan and Zoning By-law, are minor, and are desirable for the appropriate development of
the land for the following reasons:
• The proposed severance would have the effect of changing the technical orientation, but
not the functional orientation, of the lot: the current interior side lot line from which there is
currently a required 1.2 metre setback would become the rear lot line of Lot ‘B’ from which
there would be a 7.5 metre setback. The proposed 3.0 metre setback is sufficient to
prevent visual encroachment and privacy issues as long as second storey windows,
glazed doors, and balconies are limited along the rear elevation of the building. Staff
recommends such a condition to ensure privacy for the residents of 359 Greenfield
Avenue.
• It would allow an adequately sized rear yard amenity space for residents. In addition,
preliminary elevation drawings show a second storey balcony at the front of the duplex that
would provide additional amenity space.
• It would allow for appropriate residential intensification, both in the form of infill and
redevelopment, in an area that contains a wide range of architecture styles and low
density land uses.
• It would allow a new duplex to be constructed that is more compatible with the surrounding
neighbourhood than housing forms that could be constructed without the variances. With
the variances, development on the lot may be much more compatible: a more compatible
building envelope of 125 square metres (1347 sq.ft.) would be possible, whereas a
maximum envelope of only 64 square metres (690 sq.ft.) would be possible without the
variances. Also, a 2-car attached garage would be possible so that required parking would
not have to be located on the driveway.
• The proposal conforms to Part 2, Section 1.6 of the Planning Approvals Review section of
the Official Plan which deals with residential infilling and redevelopment.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the new duplex should be limited in height to 2-storeys due to
the reduced rear yards and should be reviewed from an urban design perspective to ensure
compatible building design and privacy. In this regard, staff is recommending a condition that the
owner submit a Site Plan drawing and building elevation drawings for the new duplex to the
satisfaction of the City.
Planning staff further recommends that the hedge adjacent to Eighth Avenue be entirely removed
in order to prevent driveway visibility encroachments for both Lot ‘A’ and Lot ‘B’.
Staff also notes that the existing single detached dwelling is subject to the City’s Demolition
Control policies. In this regard, the owner is hereby advised that approval of a demolition control
application is necessary to justify the removal of the existing dwelling. This application should be
submitted concurrently with a Building Permit application for the new duplex dwelling.
The lot proposed to be retained (Lot ‘A’) would have 19.2 metres of frontage on Greenfield
Avenue and a lot area of 420.5 metres. The retained lot itself would comply with the Zoning By-
law in every respect; however, the owner has requested Minor Variance Application A 2015-052
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 247 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-047, A 2015-052 & A 2015-053(Cont’d)
because the existing dwelling would have a deficient rear yard due to its location on the retained
lot. Specifically, the owner is requesting a minimum rear yard of 3.0 metres for the existing
duplex, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 7.5 metres.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments. The rear
yard reduction variance meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is minor, and is
desirable for the appropriate development of the land for the following reasons:
• Since Lot ‘A’ is a corner lot, the technical rear yard acts more like an interior side yard.
The minimum interior side yard requirement is only 1.2 metres, whereas a 3.0 metre rear
yard is proposed.
• An adequately sized amenity space is able to be provided in the interior side yard.
• It would allow for appropriate residential intensification, both in the form of infill and
redevelopment, in an area that contains a wide range of architecture styles and low
density land uses.
• The rear yard is able to adequately accommodate the two required parking spaces for the
existing duplex dwelling.
Staff notes that the proposed driveway off Greenfield Avenue will not comply with the Zoning By-
law since the adjacent hedge on 359 Greenfield Avenue would be within a Driveway Visibility
Triangle (DVT). However, as long as the hedge on Lot ‘B’ is removed, the Lot ‘A’ driveway off
Eighth Avenue would be able to accommodate the two required parking spaces in tandem. Staff
recommends a condition that the owner submit a Parking Plan to the satisfaction of the City.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff offers the following comments. The severed and retained lots are
suitable for the proposed uses. Both lots would possess frontage on established public streets
that contain municipal water, sewage, and storm water services. Although the severed lot would
be the smallest within the neighbourhood, it would comply with the Zoning By-law in every
respect. The proposed minor variances and recommended conditions would ensure compatible
building form and orientation on the resultant lots. In this regard, the dimensions and shapes of
the parcels are appropriate.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated August 10, 2015, noting the following comments regarding Application
B 2015-047:
Land Use Compatibility:
The applicant is advised that the subject property is located under the airport take-off approach
surface. Occupants of the severed/retained lots may be subject to noise and the presence of
flying aircraft.
Water Services:
The subject property is located in Kitchener Zone 4 with a static hydraulic grade line of 384.3
mASL. Any development with a finished road elevation below 328.1 mASL will require individual
pressure reducing devices on each water service in accordance with Section B.2.4.7 of the
Design Guidelines and Supplemental Specifications for Municipal Services for January 2015.
Regional staff have no objection to the application, subject to the following condition:
1. That prior to final approval, the Developer submit payment to the Region the Consent
Application Review Fee of $350.00.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 4, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with Applications A 2015-052 and A 2015-
053.
The Committee considered the report of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated August 7, 2015,
advising that approval of these applications be subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 248 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-047, A 2015-052 & A 2015-053(Cont’d)
1. That the applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for
the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
2. That the applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the severances are granted.
3. Driveways will be located so as to provide a minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles,
anchors and street light standards.
Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that staff have a few minor revisions to the recommendation as
outlined in the staff report, indicating the following:
Condition 4 pertaining to Consent Application B 2015-047 should read as follows: “That
the owner shall receive approval of Minor Variance Applications A 2015-052 and A 2015-
053”;
Condition 9a pertaining to Consent Application B 2015-052 should reference a Tree
Preservation Plan for both the severed and retained lands; the Condition initially only
referenced the severed lands; and,
Condition 1 pertaining to Minor Variance Application A 2015-053 should reference a
building 2.5 storeys in height rather than 2 storeys.
Messrs. M. Muller and L. Brown were in attendance in support of the subject applications. Mr.
Muller noted he was in support of the staff recommendation and the proposed amendments.
Questions were raised regarding Condition 11 of the staff report relating to Frontage Charges and
what the fee was pertaining to. Ms. K. Pietrzak advised that when the water service was installed
on the street a number of years ago, the City made an agreement with the property owners that
when development occurred, Frontage Charges would be obtained by the City for the installation
of that service. She noted that now that the lot is now proposed to be severed, the Condition is
being imposed.
Submission No. B 2015-047
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Leslie James Brown requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
identified as Parcel ‘B’ on the Plan submitted with the application to have a width on Eighth
Avenue of 13.1m (42.979’), a depth of 19.2m (62.992’) and an area of 251.5 sq.m. (2707.123
BE GRANTED
sq.ft), on Part Lot 223, Plan 254, 355 Greenfield Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, ,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
charges.
2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as
two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted
according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of
the City’s Mapping Technologist.
3. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication in the amount of $6,026.00, which is equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be
severed.
4. That the owner shall receive approval of Minor Variance Applications A 2015-052 and
A 2015-053.
5. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the retained
lands, if deemed necessary by Engineering Services, and the severed lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 249 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-047, A 2015-052 & A 2015-053(Cont’d)
6. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping
including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands and retained
lands.
7. That the owner shall prepare a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing
system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division, prior to endorsement of the deed
for the severed lands.
8. That the owner shall complete and submit the Development and Reconstruction As-
Recorded Tracking Form 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, in accordance with the Public Sector Accounting Board
(PSAB) S. 3150, to the satisfaction of the City’s to the Engineering Division, prior to
endorsement of the deed for the severed lands.
9. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared
by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed and retained lands which shall
include the following:
a. That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed and
retained 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.
10. That the owner shall make arrangements financial or otherwise for the relocation of any
existing City-owned street furniture, transit shelters, signs, hydrants, utility poles, wires
or lines, as required, to the satisfaction of the appropriate City department.
11. That the owner shall pay Frontage Charges along Greenfield Avenue based on the
current year’s rate ($73.25 / metre) and the property frontage (13.1 metres) along
Greenfield Avenue which equates to $959.58, to the satisfaction of the City’s
Engineering Services.
12. That the owner shall submit a parking plan for the retained land showing an appropriate
parking layout, including one that does not conflict with the 7.5 metre corner and 4.57
metre driveway visibility triangles, for the existing duplex on the retained lot, to the
satisfaction of the City’s Director of Transportation Services and City’s Director of
Planning.
13. That the owner shall remove the coniferous hedge in its entirety, located in the general
vicinity of the proposed driveway entrance to the severed lot, in order to prevent driveway
visibility encroachments for driveways on the severed and retained lots to the satisfaction
of the Director of Planning.
14. That the owner shall submit a payment to the Region the Consent Application Review
Fee of $350.00.
15. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc.
for the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed prior to the severance
being granted.
16. That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. prior to the severance being granted.
17. That the owner shall ensure that the driveways are located a minimum of 1.0m
clearance to all poles, anchors and street light standards.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 250 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-047, A 2015-052 & A 2015-053(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 August 18, 2017.
Carried
Submission No. A 2015-052
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Leslie James Brown requesting permission for an existing duplex on
land to be retained from Consent Application B 2015-047 to have a rear yard setback of 3m
(9.842’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Part Lot 223, Plan 254, 355 Greenfield
BE APPROVED
Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, .
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. A 2015-053
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Leslie James Brown requesting permission for a proposed duplex on
the land to be severed from Consent Application B 2015-047 to have an attached accessory
garage with a lot coverage of 16.3% whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of
15%; and, a rear yard setback of 3m (9.842’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Part
BE APPROVED
Lot 223, Plan 254, 355 Greenfield Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the owner shall submit a Site Plan drawing and building elevation drawings for the
front and rear of the proposed duplex on the severed lands, to the satisfaction of the
City’s Director of Planning and City’s Chief Building Official. The purpose of this
Condition is to limit second storey windows, glazed doors, and balconies at the rear of
the building, in order to ensure privacy of adjacent residents and to ensure compatible
building design with the surrounding built form, including but not limited to, limiting the
building height to two and a half storeys.
2. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed duplex on the severed
land from the City’s Building Division. The building elevation drawings approved through
Condition 1 shall be implemented through this process.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 18, 2015
- 251 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2015-047, A 2015-052 & A 2015-053(Cont’d)
3. That the owner shall complete Conditions 1 and 2, prior to August 18, 2016. Any
request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of
Development Review (or designate), prior to the completion date set out in this decision.
Failure to fulfill these Conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void.
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
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:41 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 18th day of August, 2015.
Dianna Saunderson
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment