Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-09-15 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski and A. Head and Ms. J. Meader. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mr. L. Tansley, Assistant City Solicitor; Mr. B. Bateman, 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 10:08 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held August 18, 2015, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1. A 2015-064 Applicant: Markus Moos and Sarah de Waal Property Location: 32 Delisle Avenue Legal Description: Lot 32, Plan 241 Appearances: In Support: S. de Waal D. Erb Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to reconstruct and enclose the front porch on an existing single detached dwelling having a front yard setback of 3.37m (11.056’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); a westerly side yard setback of 2.74m (8.989’) rather than the required 3m (9.842’); having stairs exceeding 0.6m (1.968’) in height to be located 2.5m (8.202’) from the street line rather than the required 3m (9.842’); having a 2m (6.56’) encroachment into the 4.5m (14.763’) Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit any encroachments into the DVT; and, to legalize a second driveway on the subject property whereas the By-law only permits one driveway. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 4, 2015, advising that the subject property located at 32 Delisle Avenue is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The lands are developed with an existing single detached dwelling. The owners are proposing to enclose the existing covered front porch, and as such are requesting relief from: Section 38.2.1 to legalize the existing front yard setback of 3.37 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; Section 38.2.1 to legalize the existing side yard setback (westerly) of 2.74 metres, whereas 3 metres is required; Section 5.6.1 to allow stairs to be higher than .6 metres above grade and to be located 2.5 metres from the streetline, whereas 3.0 metres is required; Section 5.3 to allow the porch, stairs, and railing to encroach 2.0 metres into the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT); and Section 6.1.1.1.b.iii to legalize the existing second driveway, whereas only one driveway is permitted. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 - 253 - Submission No.: 1.A 2015-064 (Cont’d) 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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan, which encourages a range of housing forms that achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. The minor changes will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variances conform to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variances are appropriate. The requested variances to reduce the front yard setback from 4.5 metres to 3.37 metres and the side yard setback from 3.0 metres to 2.74 metres meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.5 metre front yard setback is to provide separation between the structure and the street line. Because the setback is existing, staff is satisfied the reduction of 1.13 metres from the required 4.5 metres will maintain adequate separation. The intent of the 3.0 metre side yard setback is to provide access to the rear yard. Given that the reduced side yard is existing and the applicant is not proposing any further encroachment, staff is satisfied the reduction of .26 metres from the required 3.0 metres will maintain access to the rear yard. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance to permit stairs to be higher than .6 metres above grade and to be located 2.5 metres from the street line, whereas 3.0 metres is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 3.0 metre setback is to provide separation between the stairs and the street line. Given the height of the existing entrance to the dwelling, it is appropriate for the stairs to be higher than .6 metres and staff is satisfied that the .5 metre reduction from the required 3.0 metre setback will provide adequate separation from the street. The requested variance to allow the enclosed porch, stairs, and railing to encroach 2.0 metres into the DVT meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.57 metre DVT is to provide visibility for vehicles exiting the driveway. Though the existing porch and proposed stairs and railing will encroach 2.0 metres into the DVT, visibility is maintained by the remaining 2.5 metre separation from the street. However, staff recommends the Committee impose a condition requiring the applicant to construct the railing using non-obstructive materials (i.e. spindles). The applicants are requesting to legalize the existing second driveway on the easterly side of the property. As this driveway is existing, staff is satisfied the requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances can be considered minor as the reduced front and side yard setbacks, increased height of stairs, reduced street line setback for stairs and railings, encroachment into the driveway visibility triangle, and second driveway will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. No major changes are proposed to the scale, massing and height of the subject porch, therefore it 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 August 26, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered a written submission from a neighbouring property owner, dated August 31, 2015, in opposition of the subject application, and were noted by the Chair. Ms. S. de Waal and Mr. D. Erb were in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. In response to questions, Ms. de Waal advised that the second driveway existed, including the necessary curb cuts, when she purchased the home in 2011. She indicated that the street had recently been reconstructed and at that time the City reinstalled the curb cuts for both driveways on the subject property. She further advised that the second driveway is not their primary driveway; however, they would like to continue to maintain it for visitors to the property. Mr. D. Seller advised that staff reviewed the history of the subject property and have determined that the second driveway has existed since at least 1997. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 - 254 - Submission No.: 1.A 2015-064 (Cont’d) The Chair requested clarification whether there were any concerns related to the DVT due to the reconstruction of the front porch. Mr. Seller noted that staff have requested that the proposed staircase railings are constructed with a non-obstructive material, otherwise Transportation Planning staff have no concerns with the subject application. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Markus Moos and Sarah de Waal requesting permission to reconstruct and enclose the front porch on an existing single detached dwelling having a front yard setback of 3.37m (11.056’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); a westerly side yard setback of 2.74m (8.989’) rather than the required 3m (9.842’); having stairs exceeding 0.6m (1.968’) in height to be located 2.5m (8.202’) from the street line rather than the required 3m (9.842’); having a 2m (6.56’) encroachment into the 4.5m (14.763’) Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit any encroachments into the DVT; and, to legalize a second driveway on the subject property whereas the By-law only permits one driveway, on BE APPROVED Lot 32, Plan 241, 32 Delisle Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed covered porch and stairs by December 1, 2015. 2. That the owners shall ensure that the proposed railing is constructed using non- obstructive materials in order to maintain driveway visibility. 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 2015-065 Applicant: Andrew Pace Property Location: 258 Edgewater Crescent, Unit 17 Legal Description: Level 1, Unit 9, Waterloo Condo Plan 483 Mr. A. Head declared a pecuniary interest with this application, as the applicant is a client with his firm, and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Appearances: In Support: A. Ghent Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a covered patio in the rear year of a single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 3.48m (11.417’) rather than the required 7m (22.965’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 4, 2015, advising that the subject property located at 258 Edgewater Crescent is zoned Residential Six (R- 6) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 with Special Regulation 1R and 381R and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The owner is proposing to construct a covered patio attached to the existing single detached dwelling that will extend into the rear yard. As such, the owner is requesting relief from Special Regulation 381R to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.0 metres to 3.48 metres to allow for the covered patio. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 - 255 - Submission No.: 2.A 2015-065 (Cont’d) 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 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 is appropriate. The requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.0 metres to 3.48 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 7.0 metre setback is to provide amenity area in the rear yard. The reduction of 3.52 metres from the required 7.0 metres is minor, as the proposed 3.48 metre rear yard setback will continue to provide sufficient amenity space in the rear yard. The variance is considered minor. The proposed covered patio will not extend the entire width of the house, therefore staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will maintain sufficient amenity space in the rear yard and 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 existing residential use is permitted in the Zoning By-law. The scale, massing and height of the covered patio 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 August 26, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated September 2, 2015, advising that although they have no concerns with this application, they noted that the entire property is within the regulatory allowance of the Provincially Significant Idlewood Swamp, which is located on adjacent properties. Consequently, the property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. Any future development within the regulated area on the subject lands will require prior written approval from the GRCA in the form of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. The Chair noted the comments from the GRCA and requested that a condition be included as part of the Committee’s approval requiring the applicant to obtain any necessary approvals from the GRCA. Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Andrew Pace requesting permission to construct a covered patio in the rear year of a single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 3.48m (11.417’) rather than the required 7m (22.965’), on Unit 9, Waterloo Vacant Land Condominium Plan 483, 258 BE APPROVED Edgewater Crescent, Unit 17, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed addition by December 1, 2015. 2. That the reduced rear yard setback applies only to the covered patio, as shown on the Site Plan included with the application. 3. The owner shall obtain a permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority for the proposed covered patio. 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 SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 - 256 - Submission No.: 2.A 2015-065 (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.: 3. A 2015-066 Applicant: Kevin and Katherine Wiltshire Property Location: 19 Red Maple Place Legal Description: Lot 26, Plan 1401 Appearances: In Support: K. Wiltshire Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to legalize a covered deck in the rear yard of a single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 5.04m (16.535’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 28, 2015, advising that the subject property is located on the cul-de-sac bulb of Red Maple Place in the Forest Heights Planning Community. The surrounding area is comprised almost exclusively of single detached dwellings. The subject property contains a single detached dwelling constructed in approximately 1976. The property backs onto the Forest Heights Community Trail/hydro corridor. The rear of the house possesses a 4.9 metre by 4.1 metre (20 sq.m./216 sq.ft.) covered deck that is attached to the house that existed prior to the purchase of the house by the present owners. In addition, a pergola structure is located at the rear of the house, immediately beside the covered deck that was constructed by the current owners. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the official plan and is zoned Residential Three (R-3). The owners are requesting approval of a minor variance to legalize a rear yard of 5.04 metres for the existing covered deck, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres. The adjacent pergola structure does not require a minor 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 following comments. The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The purpose of the minimum rear yard requirement is to ensure privacy for properties that back onto the subject property and to ensure adequate outdoor amenity space. It should be noted that the covered deck meets the side yard setbacks; only a minimum rear yard reduction is being sought. The property to the rear is a 60 metre wide hydro corridor with a City trail running through the centre. In this regard, there is no privacy issue. Also, adequate rear yard amenity space continues to be provided in the form of: covered (covered deck); semi-covered (pergola); and, open amenity space. The requested variance is minor because there is no negative impact on the adjacent property to the rear (hydro corridor and trail) and adequate side yards continue to exist: approximately 7.6 metres on the west side, and approximately 4.8 metres on the east side. The requested variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land because they would allow the continuation of an appropriate rear yard amenity structure. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated August 26, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 - 257 - Submission No.: 3.A 2015-066 (Cont’d) Questions were raised on whether the recommendation, as outlined in the staff report, would also permit covering the existing pergola structure as part of the approval. Mr. B. Bateman stated that at this time he is unsure if it may be permitted through the recommendation as outlined. Ms. J. Meader requested an amendment to Condition 1 to ensure that the variance approval and Building Permit shall be limited to the existing covered deck. Moved by Mr. A Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of Kevin and Katherine Wiltshire requesting permission to legalize a covered deck in the rear yard of a single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 5.04m (16.535’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Lot 26, Plan 1401, 19 Red Maple BE APPROVED Place, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owners shall obtain a Building Permit, which shall be limited to the roof structure over the rear yard deck, from the City’s Building Division. 2. That the owners shall complete Condition 1 prior to September 15, 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 variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT APPLICATIONS: Submission No.: 1. B 2015-048 Applicant: First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation Property Location: 685-695 Fairway Road South and 10 Manitou Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 2, Plan 1525, being Parts 2 to 8 on Reference Plan 58R-5665 - and - Submission No.: . B 2015-049 Applicant: First Capital (Fairway) Corporation Property Location: 655 Fairway Road South Legal Description: Part Lot 2, Plan 1525, being Parts 1 to 3 on Reference Plan 58R-10040 Appearances: In Support: R. Richards Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to grant two blanket easements for pedestrian and vehicle access: Application B 2015-048 - in favour of 655 Fairway Road South. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 - 258 - Submission Nos.: 1.B 2015-048 and B 2015-049 (Cont’d) Application B 2015-049 - in favour of 685-695 Fairway Road South and 10 Manitou Drive. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 4, 2015, advising that the subject properties are located on the south side of Fairway Road South between Manitou Drive and Wilson Avenue. Both sites consist of commercial development. The properties are designated Primary Node - Fairway Road Commercial Corridor in the City’s Official Plan and zoned C-8 with Special Use and Regulation Provisions. The Official Plan designation and zoning permit the use of the properties for commercial plazas. The two properties which are subject to this application are both First Capital Holdings properties although they are each owned under a different name. The properties have been designed to function as one contiguous plaza. The purpose of this application will further facilitate the contiguous function of the sites. The property at 685-695 Fairway Road South and 10 Manitou Drive is presently undergoing Site Plan approval for redevelopment of the property. The proposed design of the site will create three access locations between 685-695 Fairway Road South and 10 Manitou Drive and 655 Fairway Road South for pedestrian, vehicular and truck movements between the properties necessitating the need for consent to create blanket easements over the two properties. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, staff is satisfied that creating blanket easements over 685-695 Fairway Road South and 10 Manitou Drive and 655 Fairway Road South is appropriate and suitable for the subject properties to accommodate the existing and future development on the subject lands. Both properties are owned and managed by the same parent company and staff is satisfied that the creation of blanket easements over both properties is the most appropriate method to create easements rather than attempting to identify all the potential cross-easements on a reference plan. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated September 8, 2015, advising that they have no objections to these applications. Mr. R. Richards was in attendance in support of the subject applications and the staff recommendations. The Chair questioned whether an additional condition should be included in the Committee’s decision requiring the owner’s 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. L. Tansley advised that the proposed blanket easements could include language which would limit the rights of the easement to portions of the lands without buildings or structures. He noted that if it was the Committee’s will, an additional condition could be imposed to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor for the easement to be limited to the portions of the property without structures. Mr. Richards noted that he had no objections to the additional Condition as proposed. Submission No. B 2015-048 Moved by Mr. A Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of the First Capital Holdings (Ontario) Corporation requesting permission to grant a blanket easement in favour of 655 Fairway Road South for pedestrian and vehicle access, on Part Lot 2, Plan 1525, being Parts 2 to 8 on Reference Plan 58R-5665, 685-695 BE GRANTED Fairway Road South and 10 Manitou Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 - 259 - Submission Nos.: 1.B 2015-048 and B 2015-049 (Cont’d) 1. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping Technologist. 2. That the owner shall enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the easements are maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement. 3. That the owner shall provide to the City Solicitor a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement. 4. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. 5. That the owner shall provide to the City Solicitor a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking agreeing to register a Blanket Easement over the entirety of 685-695 Fairway Road South and 10 Manitou Drive. 6. That the owner shall ensure that the proposed blanket easement for pedestrian and vehicle access is granted over the subject lands subject to the inclusion of language which limits enjoyment of the easement rights to portions of the lands without buildings or structures, 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 September 15, 2017. Carried Submission No. B 2015-049 Moved by Mr. A Head Seconded by Ms. J. Meader That the application of the First Capital (Fairway) Corporation requesting permission to grant a blanket easement in favour of 685-695 Fairway Road South and 10 Manitou Drive for pedestrian and vehicle access, on Part Lot 2, Plan 1525, 655 Fairway Road South, Kitchener, BE GRANTED 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 - 260 - Submission Nos.: 1.B 2015-048 and B 2015-049 (Cont’d) 2. That the owner shall enter into a joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the easements are maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title immediately following the Transfer Easement. 3. That the owner shall provide to the City Solicitor a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement. 4. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer Easement and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration. 5. That the owner shall provide to the City Solicitor a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking agreeing to register a Blanket Easement over the entirety of 655 Fairway Road South. 6. That the owner shall ensure that the proposed blanket easement for pedestrian and vehicle access is granted over the subject lands subject to the inclusion of language which limits enjoyment of the easement rights to portions of the lands without buildings or structures, 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 September 15, 2017. Carried COMBINED APPLICATIONS: Submission Nos.: 1. B 2014-050 and A 2015-067 Applicant: Claremont Avenue Red Door Salon Inc. Property Location: 9 Claremont Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 4, Plan 343, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-10540 - and - Submission Nos.: A 2015-068 Applicant: Linda and Robert Nelson Property Location: 681-683 Belmont Avenue West Legal Description: Part Lot 4, Plan 343, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-2975 Appearances: In Support: R. Nelson Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 - 261 - Submission Nos.: 1.B 2015-050, A 2015-067 and A 2015-068 (Cont’d) The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to sever a parcel of land from 9 Claremont Avenue having a depth on Belmont Avenue of 3.05m (10.006’), a width on Claremont Avenue of 16.5m (54.133’), and an area of 108.2 sq.m. (1164.655 sq.ft) to be conveyed as a lot addition to 681-683 Belmont Avenue. Permission is also being requested for minor variances on 9 Claremont Avenue to legalize a lot width of 7.1m (23.293’) rather than the required 15m (49.212’); legalize the westerly side yard setback abutting Belmont Lane West of 0m rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); and, to have a landscaped area of 21 sq.m. (226.042 sq.ft) whereas the By-law requires a landscaped area of 28 sq.m. (301.389 sq.ft). In addition, permission is being required for variances on 681-683 Belmont Avenue to legalize a lot width of 14.9m (48.884’) rather than the required 15m (49.212’); and, having a side yard setback abutting Claremont Avenue of 3m (9.842’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 4, 2015, advising that the subject properties are municipally addressed as 9 Claremont Avenue and 681- 683 Belmont Avenue West. The subject properties have been developed with commercial units. The lands are zoned MU-1, 424R, and 573R in Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated as Mixed Use Corridor in the City’s Official Plan. The owner of 9 Claremont Ave is requesting consent to allow a portion of their lands to be severed as a lot addition to 681-683 Belmont Ave West. Minor variances for the retained and severed lands are also requested. Planning Comments: Requested Consent (Application B 2015-050): The application proposes to sever a parcel of land from 9 Claremont Avenue and add it to the abutting property at 681-683 Belmont Ave West (i.e. lot addition). The proposed parcel of land to be severed has a width of 16.5 metres, a depth of 3.05 metres, and an area of 108.2 square metres; With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed severance conforms to the City’s Official Plan and that the configuration of the proposed lot addition can be considered appropriate for the use of the lands. Minor variances are required to bring the proposed lot addition into conformity with the Zoning By-law prior to the consent application being approved. Requested Minor Variances (Applications A 2015-067 & A 2015-068): A 2015-067- 9 Claremont Avenue: The applicant is seeking relief from Section 53.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to legalize an existing side yard setback abutting a street of 0 metres whereas a minimum of 4.5 metres is required and requesting further relief from Section 53.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to permit a lot width of 7.1 metres whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 15 metres. Furthermore, the applicant is requesting relief from section 4.2 of the Zoning By-law to permit a lot with 21 square metres of landscape area whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 28 square metres. A 2015-068 – 681-683 Belmont Avenue West: The applicant is seeking relief from Section 53.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to permit a side yard setback abutting a street of 3 metres whereas a minimum of 4.5 metres is required, and requesting further relief from Section 53.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to permit a lot width of 14.9 metres whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot width of 15 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 for the retained lands: The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Mixed Use Corridor designation recognizes the existing scale of commercial development. The proposed variances will legalize the deficient side yard setbacks, deficient lot widths and deficient landscape area. The requested minor variances for a reduced side yard abutting a street, and reduced lot width for the severed lands and the reduced side yard abutting a street, reduced lot width and reduced COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 - 262 - Submission Nos.: 1.B 2015-050, A 2015-067 and A 2015-068 (Cont’d) landscaped area of the retained lands meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed variances are in keeping with the planned function and scale of the approved Zoning for this property. The variances are minor. The existing buildings on the subject lands are not increasing in size. The reduced side yard setbacks, lot widths and deficient landscape area of the lands will have minimal impacts on the adjacent lands and overall neighbourhood. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The variances are required to legalize the yards because, as a result of the requested consent application, the legal location of the yards (front, side, and landscape area) have changed - there are no physical changes contemplated to the site as a result of these applications. The variances are minor and appropriate for the development and use of the land. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated September 8, 2015, advising that they have no objections to Application B 2015-050. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated August 26, 2015, advising that they have no concerns with Applications A 2015-067 and A 2015- 068. The Chair questioned why the recommendation did not include a condition requiring the applicant to pay parkland dedication. Mr. B. Bateman noted the comments from Parks Operations indicating that parkland dedication would not be required, as a new developable lot is not being created through the proposed severance application. He noted that parkland dedication is being deferred until such time that a development application is submitted for 681-683 Belmont Avenue West. Submission No. B 2015-050 Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of the Claremont Avenue Red Door Salon Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land from 9 Claremont Avenue having a depth on Belmont Avenue of 3.05m (10.006’), a width on Claremont Avenue of 16.5m (54.133’), and an area of 108.2 sq.m. (1164.655 sq.ft) to be conveyed as a lot addition to 681-683 Belmont Avenue, on Part Lot 4, Plan 343, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-10540, 9 Claremont Avenue, BE GRANTED 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 receive final approval of Minor Variance Applications A 2015-067 and A 2015-068. 4. That the owner shall submit a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system and to confirm if a separate sanitary service exists for 681-683 Belmont Avenue, (or if there is an easement currently in place) to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 - 263 - Submission Nos.: 1.B 2015-050, A 2015-067 and A 2015-068 (Cont’d) 5. That the owner shall prepare and receive approval of the Development and Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form, along with a digital submission of all AutoCad drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division, as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S.3150. If no new servicing is being installed this requirement can be omitted. 6. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 7. That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. 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 September 15, 2017. Carried Submission No. A 2015-067 Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Claremont Avenue Red Door Salon Inc. requesting permission to legalize a lot width of 7.1m (23.293’) rather than the required 15m (49.212’); legalize the westerly side yard setback abutting Belmont Lane West of 0m rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); and, to have a landscaped area of 21 sq.m. (226.042 sq.ft) whereas the By-law requires 28 sq.m. (301.389 sq.ft), on Part Lot 4, Plan 343, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference BE APPROVED. Plan 58R-10540, 9 Claremont Avenue, 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 - 264 - Submission Nos.: 1.B 2015-050, A 2015-067 and A 2015-068 (Cont’d) Submission No. A 2015-068 Moved by Ms. J. Meader Seconded by Mr. A. Head That the application of Linda and Robert Nelson requesting permission to legalize a lot width of 14.9m (48.884’) rather than the required 15m (49.212’); and, having a side yard setback abutting Claremont Avenue of 3m (9.842’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’), on Part Lot BE APPROVED. 4, Plan 343, 681-683 Belmont Avenue West, 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 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:36 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th day of September, 2015. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment