HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-09
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 9, 2014
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. D. Cybalski, A. Head and B. McColl, Ms. J. Meader and
Ms. P. Kholi.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. D. Pimentel, Traffic
Technologist; Ms. M. Drake, Heritage Planner; Ms. D. Saunderson,
Secretary-Treasurer; and, Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk.
Mr. A. Head, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held November 18, 2014, as
mailed to the members, be accepted.
Carried
CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR
On motion by Mr. B. McColl
It was resolved:
That Mr. D. Cybalski be appointed Chair of the Committee of Adjustment and Mr. A. Head be appointed
Vice-Chair of the Committee of Adjustment for a term to expire November 30, 2015.
Carried
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1. A 2014-079
Applicants:
Mary Andrus
Property Location:
650 Dunbar Road
Legal Description:
Lot 92 and Part Lot 91, Plan 350
Appearances:
In Support: P. & G. Andrus
Contra: R. Goetz S. & T. Mavor E. Claxton
Z. Janecki L. Button J. Goemans
R. Hemmerich J. Barlow D. Annable
P. & C. Paleezny F. Millerd D. & J. Garrett
D. Theroux
Written Submissions: R. Goetz D. Garrett S. Mavor
E. & L. Claxton Neighbourhood Petition
Mr. B. McColl advised that he is acquainted with members of the community in the vicinity of the
subject property but noted that he does not have a conflict with the subject application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 286 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2014-079 (Cont’d)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a second
single lane driveway on the south side of the property whereas the By-law only permits one
driveway access on the subject property; and, the construction of a ramp within the existing
garage reducing the size of the required off-street parking space to 2.74m (8.99’) in width and
4.9m (16.08’) in length rather than the required 3.05m (10’) width and 5.49m (18.01’) length.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated December 1, 2014, advising
that the subject property is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated
Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The site contains a single detached dwelling.
The owner is requesting the following variances:
a) relief from Section 6.1.1.1.b) iii) to permit an existing second driveway on a lot with a width
of 21 metres rather than the required minimum width of 30 metres; and
b) relief from Section 6.1.2 e) to reduce the size of the required off-street parking space to
2.74 metres by 4.9 metres rather than the required minimum of 3.04 metres by 5.49
metres.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments regarding
the requested minor variance:
The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation
recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for modest alterations.
The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered minor. The purpose of
the regulation restricting the number of driveways on a lot is to maintain the aesthetics of the
neighbourhood by ensuring that driveways do not dominate the streetscape. The original
driveway located on the left of the dwelling cannot be used for external tandem parking without
interfering with the sidewalk. As well, given the grade change of the property, the original
driveway could not be widened without the need of a retaining wall and steps which would have
created a barrier of access for a resident of the property. As the second driveway maintains the
central view of the dwelling and provides sufficient space between the driveways, it is staff’s
opinion that it does not negatively impact the streetscape.
The purpose of the minimum parking space size in a garage is to ensure a range of vehicles can
be accommodated. The agent has indicated that the garage is infrequently used for parking and
is used primarily as an accessible access to the dwelling. It is staff’s opinion that the reduced
parking size will still accommodate smaller vehicles. This smaller parking space within the
garage has been supported by Traffic staff.
The variances are considered appropriate development for the property and surrounding area. As
the second driveway reduces the occupant and their guest’s use of on-street parking, it will off-
load demand of the neighbourhood school zone which encounters high demand during peak
hours. This is appropriate and desirable for the subject property and surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
November 24, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. P. and Ms. G. Andrus were in attendance in support of the subject application, noting that
they were in agreement with the staff recommendation. Mr. Andrus stated that he is acting as the
agent on behalf of his mother who is the owner of the subject property. He indicated that she
purchased the home in the 1960’s and now requires accessibility measures to continue to reside
at the subject property. He commented that there are challenges in the area with regards to on-
street parking due to the local school, and to accommodate the need for additional parking on-site
a second driveway was installed. He noted that the existing driveway can only accommodate
parking for one car and even if it were expanded it would not meet the accessibility needs of his
mother. He further advised that the installation of a driveway on the south side of the property
permits an additional two parking spaces on-site and ensures that his mother is able to walk 360
degrees around the subject property without encountering stairs.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 287 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2014-079 (Cont’d)
Mr. Andrus stated that he was unaware that approvals from the City were required prior to the
installation of the second driveway. He advised that he hired a contractor to complete the work
and the contractor also did not mention that approvals from the City may be required. Mr. Andrus
indicated that, in his opinion, aesthetically the second driveway is more appropriate for the subject
property than widening the existing one. He further advised that in response to written
submissions provided by the neighbours, it was not his intention to harm the trees on the property
due to the installation of the second driveway. He noted that if they opted to widen the existing
driveway, the tree on the north side of the property would have needed to be removed to
accommodate the expansion.
Questions were raised regarding the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT). Mr. D. Pimentel advised
that Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the second driveway and the
maintenance of the DVT.
Mr. R. Gehts, neighbouring property owner, addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject
application and the variance that would permit the applicant to have two driveways on the subject
property. He stated that the Notice indicates that the applicant is requesting permission to
construct the driveway, when in fact he requires legalization of the second driveway as the
driveway is already completed. He expressed concerns with: endangering the safety of the
students being dropped off for school; compromising the health of the tree located on the
boulevard; and, impacting the heritage features of the property. He further advised that he has
concerns that approval of a second driveway on the subject property would set a precedent in the
neighbourhood.
Mr. D. Garrett, neighbouring property owner, advised that he is in attendance in opposition to the
subject application. He stated that he had spoken with the applicant and the applicant’s contractor
regarding the distance separation requirements between the driveway and the property line as
outlined in the City By-laws, and noted that he also consult with the City prior to the installation of
the driveway as approvals may be required. He commented that, in his opinion, the applicant
was aware of the need to obtain approvals from the City and the variance should not be granted
on that merit. Mr. Garrett further advised that it was his opinion that the existing driveway could
be widened without the use of a retaining wall if the grading on the property had a modest
adjustment.
Ms. S. Maver, neighbouring property owner, addressed the Committee in opposition to the
subject application, noting that the installation of a second driveway on the subject property is
against the Cultural Heritage Landscape of the Westmount Neighbourhood and compromised the
health of the tree located on the boulevard.
Ms. Maver read aloud a written submission on behalf of Ms. L. Claxton, circulated to the
Committee this date. She stated that Ms. Claxton is in opposition to the subject application,
expressing concerns with the approval process and the fact that the applicant is seeking approval
after the driveway has already been installed.
Mr. E. Claxton, neighbouring property owner, addressed the Committee in opposition to the
subject application, stating that, in his opinion, the proposed variance to permit a second driveway
on a property having a lot width of 21m rather than the required 30m is not minor in nature. He
noted that although the definition of minor is subjective and each application needs to be
considered on its own merit, the subject application is a 30% variance from what is permitted. He
expressed further concerns with potential precedence, congestion with on-street parking; and, the
fact that the application in his opinion does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law or Official
Plan.
Mr. Z. Janecki attended to speak to this application, and it was noted that he was doing so as a
private citizen and not in his capacity as a member of Council. He stated that he is in opposition
to the subject application, noting that the property is located in the Westmount Neighbourhood
which has been identified as being within a Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL). He noted that in
discussion with the City’s Heritage Staff, the Westmount Neighbourhood is under consideration
as the next Heritage District within the City. He commented, in reference to the concerns raised
regarding on-street parking congestion, that the problem is temporary. He advised that the
Waterloo Region District School Board is in the process of building a new school and the
construction has diverted the students’ drop-off location to Dunbar Road until the school is
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 288 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2014-079 (Cont’d)
completed. Mr. Z. Janecki further advised that he has driven through the neighbourhood and
there is no other property having a width less than 30m that has two driveways. He expressed
concerns with the approval process and fact that applicant is now seeking the required approvals
after the driveway has already been installed.
The Chair stated that the Committee, when considering the application, must consider the four
tests under the Planning Act when approving applications for minor variances and noted that the
driveway having been installed without permission is irrelevant.
In response to questions, Ms. von Westherholt advised that the applicant may not have required
a variance if they had opted to widen the existing driveway. She noted that when staff were
considering a recommendation for the second driveway, there were several factors taken into
consideration: aesthetics, streetscape perspective, and whether the driveway is compatible with
the character of the neighbourhood. In response to concerns raised with regards to the boulevard
trees, she noted that there is a tree located on the north side of the property next to the existing
driveway that may have been impacted more significantly by the widening of the existing
driveway than the tree on the boulevard. Ms. von Westerholt advised that she had spoken with
Mr. Kim Nihls, Supervisor of Tree Services, who completed an inspection of the tree located on
the boulevard. She noted that his comments were circulated to her in an email, stating that if the
health of the tree was compromised it would have occurred at the time of the driveway
installation. Mr. Nihls noted that as long as there is no more expansion of the driveway apron the
tree should survive.
Ms. J. Meader stated that, in her opinion, the installation of the second driveway is more
aesthetically pleasing than if the applicant would have widened the existing driveway. She noted
that although there are several neighbours in attendance in opposition to the application, she was
in agreement with staff that the application does meet the four tests under the Planning Act. She
suggested, in response to the concerns raised regarding the boulevard tree, that if the Committee
choose to approve the application, consideration be given to include a Condition to monitor the
health of the tree and that the owners replace the tree should it no longer be viable.
Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff would be supportive of an added Condition if the Committee
chose to approve the variance requiring the applicant to monitor the health of the tree and replace
it if the tree did not survive.
Ms. L. Button addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application, stating that in her
opinion, that the installation of the second driveway could have compromised the overall health of
the tree. She noted that it could take up to two years to know the overall impact on the tree’s
condition, indicating that she is unaware whether the tree roots were cut when the second
driveway was being installed. She further advised that the installation of the second driveway has
reduced the size of the boulevard and it can no longer support the growth of a tree of the size that
currently exists this date.
In response to further concerns raised regarding the process and the fact that the driveway was
installed without approvals, the Chair reiterated that the Committee, when considering the
application, can only consider the application on the merit of the four tests under the Planning Act.
He noted that the fact that the driveway already exists is not something the Committee can
consider as part of their decision.
Mr. Andrus stated that he was provided a pamphlet by the City summarizing the City’s
requirements for driveways and the second driveway complies with all of those requirements.
The pamphlet did not reference the fact that his property was not permitted to have a second
driveway. He further advised that it was their intention to improve the accessibility of the property
for his mother to continue to reside at the subject property. He noted that, in his opinion, the
driveway meets the four tests under the Planning Act.
Mr. B. McColl advised that it is his opinion the application does meet 3 of the 4 tests for
determining if an application is minor in nature. He noted that although each application does
need to be considered on its own merit, the Committee also needs to take into consideration
when approving applications whether it could be setting a precedent. He stated that he agrees
the installation of a second driveway is more aesthetically pleasing than expanding the existing
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 289 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2014-079 (Cont’d)
driveway. He further advised that due to the number of people in attendance in opposition to the
subject application, it is his opinion that the application is not minor or compatible with the existing
neighbourhood.
Questions were raised regarding expansion of the existing driveway and whether it could have
been expanded slightly to the left, reducing the size of the expansion on the right-hand side. Mr.
Andrus advised that the driveway could have been expanded 1’ to the left and 5’ to the right, but
that would not have improved functionality of the site for accessibility.
Mr. A. Head questioned why a second driveway was required. Ms. Andrus advised that there are
personal support workers attending the property and there was not adequate on-site or on-street
parking to accommodate the number of vehicles that frequent the property.
The Chair noted that there does not seem to be any objection to the variance to reduce the size
of the off-street parking space within the garage and requested that the variances be considered
separately.
A motion was brought forward by Mr. B. McColl to refuse the variance to legalize a second single-
lane driveway on the south side of the property, on a lot with a width of 21m rather than the
required 30m, whereas the By-law only permits one driveway access on the subject property.
Mr. Head advised that although aesthetically the second driveway is not adversely impacting the
streetscape, it is his opinion that approval of the application may set precedent for the
surrounding property owners.
The following motion was then voted on with Messers A. Head and B. McColl and Ms. P. Kholi
voting in favour; and, Ms. J. Meader voting in opposition.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. A. Head
That the application of Mary Andrus requesting permission to legalize a second single lane
driveway on the south side of the property, on a lot with a width of 21m rather than the required
30m, whereas the By-law only permits one driveway access on the subject property, on Lot 92
BE REFUSED
and Part Lot 91, Plan 350, 650 Dunbar Road, Kitchener, Ontario, .
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is not minor.
2. This application is not desirable or compatible for the appropriate development of the
property.
Carried
A further motion was brought forward by Mr. B. McColl to approve the variance to permit
construction of a ramp within the existing garage reducing the size of the required off-street
parking space to 2.74m (8.99’) in width and 4.9m (16.08’) in length rather than the required 3.05m
(10’) width and 5.49m (18.01’) length.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Mary Andrus requesting permission to construct a ramp within the
existing garage reducing the size of the required off-street parking space to 2.74m (8.99’) in
width and 4.9m (16.08’) in length rather than the required 3.05m (10’) width and 5.49m (18.01’)
BE
length, on Lot 92 and Part Lot 91, Plan 350, 650 Dunbar Road, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 290 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2014-079 (Cont’d)
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 2014-080
Applicant:
Paul and Debbie Mustin
Property Location:
80 Georgian Street
Legal Description:
Lot 173, Plan 1413
Appearances:
In Support: P. Mustin
P. Meier
Contra: None
Written Submissions: D. Kloepfer
D. & D. Rittinger
S. Prevost
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a sunroom in
the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 5.75m (18.86’)
rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated November 28, 2014,
advising that the subject property is located at 80 Georgian Street. The property is developed with
a single detached dwelling and 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
sunroom addition in the rear yard that will reduce the rear yard setback to 5.75 metres. As such,
relief is being sought from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow a rear yard setback of
5.75 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 addition with a rear yard setback of 5.75 will
continue to provide outdoor amenity space for the owner and will be buffered by existing
landscaping which will minimise any impacts on neighbouring properties.
The variance can be considered minor. It is staff’s opinion that the reduced rear yard setback for
a proposed sunroom addition is an appropriate request that will not impact the adjacent
properties.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. It is staff’s opinion that the
proposed addition will be 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
November 24, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Chair noted the comments from the neighbouring property owner in opposition to the subject
application. In response to questions, Mr. P. Meier advised that the proposed sunroom will be
built over the existing interlocking-stone pad in the rear yard of the subject property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 291 -
Submission No.:
2.A 2014-080 (Cont’d)
In response to the neighbours concern, the Chair suggested that the recommendation be
amended to include a Condition requiring the applicant to construct the sunroom as per the plans
submitted with the application. Mr. P. Mustin advised that he was in support of the staff
recommendation including the proposed amendment.
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Paul & Debbie Mustin requesting permission to construct a sunroom in
the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 5.75m
(18.86’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Lot 173, Plan 1413, 80 Georgian Street,
BE APPROVED
Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. The owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City’s Building Division prior to
construction of the proposed sunroom.
2. That approval of Minor Variance application A 2014-080 shall be subject to the plans
submitted with the application.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
3. A 2014-081
Applicant:
44 Beasley Property
Property Location:
44 Beasley Drive
Legal Description:
Lot 35, Plan 1478, being Part 24 on Reference Plan 58R-1111
Appearances:
In Support: D. Schooley
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for the existing two-
storey commercial office building containing 418 sq.m. of gross floor area being used as 100%
Office where as the By-law does not permit the Office use to exceed 25% of the gross floor area.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated November 24, 2014,
advising that the subject property is located on the north side of Beasley Drive between Homer
Watson Boulevard to the east and Steckle Place to the west in the Huron Business Park. 44
Beasley Drive is 41.5 metres wide by 127.5 metres long for an area of 5286 square metres. The
property is currently developed with two buildings. Building 1 is 2 storeys in height with a gross
floor area of 418 square metres and is used for commercial and business park related office and
administrative purposes. Building 2 is one storey in height with 464.5 square metres of gross floor
area used for industrial/vehicle repair purposes. The current “in effect” Official Plan designation is
Business Park, the adopted Official Plan designation is Business Park Employment and the
zoning is Business Park Three (B-3).
The applicant is requesting a minor variance to allow for 100% office use of the gross floor area
(418.06 square metres) of Building 1 shown above whereas the Zoning By-law allows up to 25 %
of a buildings gross floor area to be used as office. 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:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 292 -
Submission No.:
3.A 2014-081 (Cont’d)
The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. According to the Business Park
policies of Section 3 of the Official Plan, Business Park Districts cater to the needs of technical
and/or scientific businesses such as computer, electronic, data processing, and research and
development firms. Further, they provide for additional office, commercial and service uses not
permitted in other industrial areas. Industrial businesses are characterized by those industrial
operations with a commercial component which requires large areas for the storage of goods.
Furthermore, a special policy under Section 2 of the Official Plan allows for free-standing office to
be located near the interchange of Homer Watson and Huron Road. The adopted Official Plan
also allows office to occur within 450 metres of a planned or existing transit corridor. 44 Beasley
Drive is located in close proximity to the Huron Road/Homer Watson interchange and is less than
450 metres from Huron Road – a planned transit corridor. As a result, in the opinion of staff, the
intent of both the “in effect” and adopted Official Plans is being maintained with this request.
The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The B-3 zone permits office as a
use but the amount is restricted to 25 percent of the gross floor area of a building. The intent is to
ensure office remains subordinate to other business park and industrial related uses as the City
does not want employment areas used solely for office. Increasing the amount of floor space to
be used to for office will not significantly alter the intent of the By-law. As mentioned, there are
two buildings on site. Building 1 is intended for office whereas Building 2 will remain for industrial
and vehicle repair services purposes. Building 2 is larger in terms of square footage. As a result,
the net effect of the variance actually increases office from 25% to 45% of the total combined floor
area. Moreover, Building 1 is a purpose-built office as evidenced by the street view photo above.
The variance is considered minor. The request is simply to allow the entire gross floor of Building
1 to be used for office. There is no expansion of the building being considered. To the public, this
building is viewed as an office-type building. This variance will provide greater flexibility for the
owners in terms of tenanting the building as they have had tremendous difficulty in leasing that
space given the limited number of permitted uses in the B3 zone that could practically occupy this
space. The Official Plan encourages office at this location and from a zoning point of view; office
will remain a subordinate use thereby maintaining the intent of the By-law in staff’s opinion.
The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as office is a
permitted in the Zoning By-law limited to 25% of the gross floor area. The proposed variance to
increase the amount of office is confined to Building 1 only. Building 1 is an existing purpose-
built office building and the variance would allow the entire building to be used as such. No new
additional development is being proposed and Building 2 will remain in its current capacity.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
November 24, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
The Chair expressed concerns with the subject application, stating that in his opinion, the
proposal may have adverse impacts on the surrounding properties with such a high increase in
Office Space use on the subject property. He questioned whether a Zone Change Application
would be more appropriate.
Ms. Von Westerholt advised that the Office use is only being proposed for what has been
identified as Building 1 through the application process, which is 418 sq.m., and its overall gross
floor area in comparison to the gross floor area of the entire site can be considered minor in
nature.
Mr. B. McColl questioned whether the recommendation should be amended to include a
Condition that Building 2 must continue to function in the same capacity that exists this date. Ms.
von Westerholt noted that staff would be supportive of a Condition that would limit the Office use
to Building 1.
In response to questions, Mr. Schooley advised that they do not have any intentions to submit a
severance application. He stated that the property is currently Zoned B-3, noting in that 2011 the
City, removed “educational use” from the permitted uses within that Zone and they were no
longer able to accommodate alternative schools, such as driving schools or karate classes. He
indicated that Building 2 is approximately 5000 sq.ft. which is currently a manufacturing use and
there is no intention of changing the use within that building.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 293 -
Submission No.:
3.A 2014-081 (Cont’d)
Questions were raised regarding the total gross floor area percentage of the site and whether the
Committee’s recommendation should be amended to reflect the percentage of gross floor area
that is permitted to be Office use, rather than stating that Building 1 is permitted to be 100%
Office use as outlined in the staff report. Ms. von Westerholt stated that staff would be supportive
of amending the Decision to reflect the percentage of the overall Office use in comparison to the
overall site. Mr. Schooley advised that the square footage of Building 1 comprises approximately
48% of the overall site.
Questions were raised regarding Condition 1 and the requirement that the owner submit a plan
showing the required number of parking spaces for approval. Mr. D. Pimentel advised that there
is no concern that they will not be able to meet the required off-street parking spaces on site.
Transportation Services is requesting a plan that demonstrates the off-street parking spaces as
per City requirements.
A motion as brought forward by Mr. A. Head to approve subject application A 2014-081 for the
existing two-storey commercial office building which currently comprises approximately 48% (418
sq.m.) of the total gross floor area for the entire subject property to be used as 100% Office where
as the By-law does not permit the Office use to exceed 25% of the gross floor area.
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of 44 Beasley Property requesting permission for the existing two-storey
commercial office building which currently comprises approximately 48% (418 sq.m.) of the
total gross floor area for the entire subject property to be used as 100% Office where as the
By-law does not permit the Office use to exceed 25% of the gross floor area, on Lot 35, Plan
BE
1478, being Part 24 on Reference Plan 58R-1111, 44 Beasley Drive, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall submit a plan showing the required number of parking spaces for
approval, and that those spaces be designed and constructed in accordance with the
City’s Urban Design Manual by December 31, 2015, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning in consultation with the Director of Transportation Services.
2. That owner shall obtain an Occupancy Permit by December 31, 2015.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
4. A 2014-082
Applicant:
1604898 Ontario Inc.
Property Location:
4355 King Street East
Legal Description:
Part Lot 9, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession
Appearances:
In Support: M. Jomal
D. Grubb
L. Kron
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 294 -
Submission No.:
4.A 2014-082 (Cont’d)
Mr. B. McColl advised that although the subject application is in close proximity to his
neighbourhood, he does not have a conflict regarding this application.
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a one-storey
fitness centre in the rear yard of an existing hotel having a rear yard setback of 3.1m (10.17’)
rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated December 2, 2014, advising
that the subject property is located on the southwest side of King Street East, immediately
northwest of Sportsworld Drive. The property contains a hotel that was constructed approximately
9 years ago and two stand-alone restaurant uses. The property is designated Service
Commercial in the Official Plan and is zoned Arterial Commercial Zone (C-6), with Special Use
Provision 242U which is not applicable to the subject application.
The applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the minimum rear yard from 7.5 metres to
3.1 metres in order to allow the construction of a one-storey fitness centre addition to the hotel
use. The addition would have a floor area of approximately 28 square metres.
With respect to the criteria for minor variances under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, Planning
staff offer the following comments:
The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the following reasons.
For all functional purposes the technical rear yard, in this case, functions as a side yard since the
subject lot is a corner lot and due to the orientation of the existing hotel. The minimum side yard
setback in the C-6 Zone is 3.0 metres. The requested rear yard setback would slightly exceed
this.
The variance is minor since it will not cause unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent
properties. Note that the adjacent property is also zoned C-6 and, when developed, would also
have to maintain a minimum 3.0 metre setback from the same lot line.
The variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land since it will allow greater
functionality of the existing hotel while maintaining an appropriate setback to the adjacent
property.
In conclusion, Planning staff is satisfied that the requested variance is justifiable and, as such,
recommends approval subject to conditions requiring the owner to obtain a building permit for the
proposed addition and to update the approved landscape plan.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
November 24, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. A. Meader
That the application of 1604898 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct a one-storey
fitness centre in the rear yard of an existing hotel having a rear yard setback of 3.1m (10.17’)
rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Part Lot 9, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession,
BE APPROVED
4355 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division prior to
construction of the proposed addition.
2. That the owner shall obtain approval of a revised landscape plan (related to Site Plan
Application SPR04/50/K/BS) showing the changes to the area surrounding the
proposed addition from the City’s Manager of Site Development and Customer Service.
3. That Conditions 1 and 2, above, shall be completed prior to December 9, 2015. Any
request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of
Development Review (or designate), prior to the completion date set out in this decision.
Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 295 -
Submission No.:
4.A 2014-082 (Cont’d)
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 2014-084
Applicant:
Golden Enterprises
Property Location:
62 Gruhn Street
Legal Description:
Part Lot 9, Registered Plan 387
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
triplex having parking located between the façade and the front lot line whereas the By-law does
not permit parking in the front façade; and to permit the off-street parking spaces to be located
1.2m (3.937’) from the front lot line rather than the minimum 3m (9.84’) setback.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated December 1, 2014, advising
that the subject property is located on the north side of Gruhn Street adjacent to the King Edward
School ball diamond yard. It is zoned Residential Five (R-5) and has an Official Plan designation
of Low Rise Conversation in the K-W Hospital Neighbourhood Secondary Plan.
The applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing triplex having parking located
between the façade and the front lot line whereas the By-law does not permit parking in front of
the façade; and, to permit the off-street parking spaces to be located 1.2 metres from the front lot
line rather than the minimum 3 metre setback.
At this time, staff is recommending deferral of this application. In consultation with Kitchener-
Wilmot Hydro staff, it is noted that there is a hydro pole directly adjacent to parking space #3.
They require a minimum 1 metre clearance between a driveway and a hydro pole, anchors and
street light standards. Consequently, Hydro staff is not in support of the proposed variance.
The applicant may consult with Hydro staff to determine if the pole may be moved, and they note
that the customer must pay 100% for all relocation charges. The applicant may also consult with
Planning staff to consider if reconfiguration of parking space #3 may permit the pole to remain in
its existing location.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
November 24, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with this application.
In response to questions, Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff, when completing their site
inspection, identified a hydro-pole located on the subject property that was not initially identified
and further discussions are required with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro prior to staff making a
recommendation. She requested that the application be deferred to allow for further discussions
to take place.
The Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to the Committee’s meeting
scheduled for February 17, 2015 meeting to allow staff time to consult with Kitchener-Wilmot
Hydro and the owner of the subject property regarding the hydro pole.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 296 -
CONSENT
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2014-111
Applicant:
John Brohman
Property Location:
329-331 Victoria Street North
Legal Description:
Part Lot 23, Plan 33, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-1494
Appearances:
In Support: S. Head
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
Mr. A. Head declared a pecuniary interest with this application, as his firm is representing the
applicant in regards to the subject application and did not participate in any discussion or voting
with respect to this application.
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
so each half of a semi-detached residential development can be dealt with separately. Both the
severed and retained lots will front onto Victoria Street North, with the severed lands having a lot
width of 6.13m (20.11’), by a southerly depth of 26.49m (86.91’) and an area of 154 sq.m.
(1657.642 sq.ft.); and the retained lands having a lot width of 6.97m (22.87’), by a southerly depth
of 21.96m (72.05’) and an area of 133.6 sq.m. (1438.058 sq.ft.).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated December 2, 2014, advising
that the subject property is located on the south side of Victoria Street, west of Lancaster Street in
the Civic Centre Secondary Plan Area. The property contains a dwelling that has been modified
several times since construction in approximately 1900. The application refers to the existing use
as a duplex or single detached dwelling. Significant renovations are currently underway to clad
the exterior of the building in brick, replace all framing with new lumber, and complete the
common wall that vertically separates the dwelling into two dwelling units. A building permit has
been issued by the City’s Building Division to complete this work for a duplex use. According to
the owner, the two dwelling units currently share sanitary and water services, though gas and
hydro services are separate. The property is designated Mixed Use Corridor in the Civic Centre
Secondary Plan and zoned Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU-1) with Special Use
Provision 162U (prohibits museum and hotel uses), and Special Regulation Provision 563R
(includes various regulations including, for example, special rear and side yard requirements,
prohibition on outdoor storage within 15.0 metres of Hermie Place, etc.).
The application requests consent to divide the dwelling and property into two parcels along the
common wall, which would allow separate conveyance of each dwelling unit. The application
would have the effect of changing the use of the building into a semi-detached dwelling (each
dwelling unit would be a semi-detached house).
Planning staff reviewed the property file and discovered a City zoning letter from October 31,
1984 stating that the zoning of the property at that time was Light Industrial and that the
established use was a single detached dwelling. Since that time, the zoning was changed to C-6
(likely in the 1990s) and then to MU-1 (in 2011). The current and two previous zoning
classifications do not permit semi-detached dwellings, though the current zoning does allow
duplexes subject to applicable regulations. Sometime after 1984 a common wall was
constructed, though not to minimum criteria for a semi-detached dwelling, to create two dwelling
units / duplex use.
In order to sever the property to create two separately conveyable dwelling units, the use of the
property must be a legal or legal non-conforming semi-detached dwelling. It should be noted that
the Zoning By-law defines a semi-detached dwelling as:
A building divided vertically into two semi-detached houses by a common wall which prevents
internal access and extends from the base of the foundation to the roof line and for a horizontal
distance of not less than 35 percent of the horizontal depth of the building. Each semi-detached
house shall be designed to be located on a separate lot having individual vehicular access to and
frontage on a street or lane.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 297 -
Submission No.:
1.B 2014-111 (Cont’d)
While the property may be a legal non-conforming duplex, though this has not been confirmed by
Planning staff (noting that the property does not meet the applicable zoning requirements for a
duplex), staff is of the opinion that the existing dwelling is not a legal or legal non-conforming
semi-detached dwelling for the following reasons:
1. The property is not legal as a semi-detached dwelling because this use is not permitted
under the applicable MU-1 zoning, and
2. The property is not legal non-conforming as a semi-detached dwelling because the zoning
to prohibit this use was in place before the property became used as a semi-detached
dwelling. Note well that:
a. the evidence contained within the above noted City record from 1984,
b. the required common wall was not completed to the minimum criteria for semi-
detached dwellings until after the by-law to prohibit semi-detached dwellings was
enacted (a building permit to finalize the required common wall was applied for just
this year), and
c. the requirement for each semi-detached house to be designed to be located on
separate lots is not yet satisfied: water and sanitary services are not yet separate.
Planning staff finds the renovations at the subject property remarkable as they are profoundly
improving the quality of the existing housing stock which is a goal of the Official Plan:
“The City shall support and encourage the ongoing maintenance and stability of the
existing housing stock in the community by: i) Supporting the reuse and adaption of the
housing stock through renovation, conversion and rehabilitation…”
However, Planning staff is of the opinion that the application should be refused since the subject
property is not suitable for the proposed use for which it is to be subdivided [see Section
51.(24)(d) of the Planning Act], noting that the applicable zoning does not allow a semi-detached
dwelling and the semi-detached dwelling is not a legal non-conforming use.
Having stated this, Planning staff may be willing to consider a consent application along with
further planning approval (e.g., Zone Change Application) to justify the use of the property as a
semi-detached dwelling.
Heritage Planning Comments:
The subject property is located adjacent to protected heritage property (Civic Centre Heritage
Conservation District). Heritage Planning staff understand that: the existing building will remain;
no road widenings are required on Hermie Place; and, that Transportation Services staff has no
concerns. Based on this information it is the opinion of Heritage Planning staff that the proposed
consent will not impact the heritage attributes and values of the Civic Centre Heritage
Conservation District. As a result, Heritage Planning staff has no concerns.
The owner is advised that future development may require the submission of a Heritage Impact
Assessment.
Environmental Planning Comments:
No concerns. Application to create separate lots for semi-detached units. No site alteration
proposed.
Building Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed consent. A permit has been issued for
the legalizing of second unit.
Transportation Comments:
Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed severance application.
Engineering Comments:
1. Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service
connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 298 -
Submission No.:
1.B 2014-111 (Cont’d)
2. The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering
Division for the installation of new ones that may be required to service this property, all
prior to severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal
services are currently available to service this property.
3. Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards at grade with the existing
sidewalk. All works is at the owner’s expense and all work needs to be completed prior to
occupancy of the building.
4. A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
5. As per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and
Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted
along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading,
Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
6. The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by
gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the
sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the
property line to the street.
Operations Comments:
A cash-in-lieu of land park land dedication in the amount of $1,127.92 will be required on the
severed parcel as a new developable lot will be created by the severance. The park land
dedication is calculated at the MU zoning rate of 2% of the per metre lineal frontage land value for
the severed portion.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated
November 26, 2014, advising although they have no objections to this application, they note the
following comments:
Regional Road Dedication:
For information purposes, at this location Regional Road 55 (Victoria Street North) has a
designed road allowance width of 26.213m (86ft), as designated in the Region of Waterloo
Official Policies Plan (ROPP). The existing road width in this area of Victoria Street North is
20.117m (66ft); therefore it is estimated that a road allowance widening of 3.048m (10ft) will be
required across the property frontage under a future development application.
At this time based on the circumstances, the Region will not require the dedication of the road
allowance widening under this consent application. If a future, more extensive, development is
proposed for this property the road allowance widening may be taken at that time.
Traffic Site Circulation & Access:
The existing property obtains vehicular access to Victoria Street North via Hermie Place. Please
be advised that an access onto Victoria Street North would not be allowed in the future.
Regional Road Re-construction:
For information, please be advised that this section of Victoria Street North has been identified in
the Region of Waterloo 10-year Transportation Capital Program (TCP). The proposed
construction will consist of road re-surfacing and is scheduled for 2016.
Transportation Noise:
The subject lands are adjacent to Victoria Street North (Regional Road No. 55) within 200m of
Lancaster Street West (Regional Road 29) and within 250m of the CN Railway to the north. Due
to the high traffic volumes on these roads and the noise from the rail line, the Developer is
typically required to prepare a Transportation Noise Study to indicate the methods to be used to
abate noise levels for the new lots from traffic noise generated on these roads and if necessary,
shall enter into a registered agreement with the Region to provide for the implementation of the
approved study.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 299 -
Submission No.:
1.B 2014-111 (Cont’d)
Under the circumstances, in lieu of a Transportation Noise Study in this instance the Developer
has the option to do a Noise Study or enter into an agreement with the Region to require the
following noise warning clauses to be included in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds and tenancy
agreements for all units:
“Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Victoria Street
North (Regional Road No. 55) and Lancaster Street West (Regional Road 29) may occasionally
interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the levels exceed the sound level limits
of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment”.
“Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to railway traffic on the CN Railway line
may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels
exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment.”
Regional staff have no objection to the application, subject to the following condition:
1. That prior to final approval, for both the severed and retained lots, the Developer prepare a
Transportation Noise Study, to the satisfaction of the Region, to indicate the methods to be
used to abate traffic noise levels for the adjacent road and rail noise sources for all units
and if necessary, the Developer enter into a registered development agreement with the
Region of Waterloo; OR
The Developer may enter into a registered agreement with the Region of Waterloo to
include the following noise warning clauses in all offers of purchase/sale, deeds and
tenancy agreements for all units:
“Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on Victoria
Street North (Regional Road No. 55) and Lancaster Street West (Regional Road 29) may
occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the levels exceed
the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment”.
“Purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to railway traffic on the CN Railway
line may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound
levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the
Environment.”
Mr. S. Head stated that he is in attendance in support of the subject application, noting that the
property was purchased by the Brohman family in 1970’s, and since their acquisition there have
always been two units within the subject property. He submitted photos to the Committee this
date, stating that it is clear from the photos that two units exist within the dwelling. He noted from
the records in the Building Department, it was believed that the structure was recognized as a
duplex at one time, as the applicant has been undertaking several renovations to re-establish the
property as semi-detached units and Building permits have been issued under that assumption.
He indicated that Planning staff have recommended refusal of the application, noting that the
semi-detached use is not currently permitted under the current Mixed-Use Zoning on the
property.
Mr. Head requested that the Committee consider approve the application this date; however, if
that was not the Committee’s intention, he requested that the Committee defer the application to
allow time for the applicant to submit a subsequent minor variance application to recognize the
existing use of the property. He stated staff have indicated that properties within the Mixed Use
corridor are intended for re-development. He referenced a map of the property circulated to the
Committee this date, noting that there is a commercial facility to the right of the property that has
recently undergone renovations; to the left of the property is a single detached dwelling; and, to
the rear of the property is a laneway. He stated in his opinion, if the property was going to be
consolidated with neighbouring properties for re-development it would not be in the very near
future.
Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff have reviewed the property file for the subject property and
there is no evidence that the property was ever a duplex. She noted that the property has always
been recognized as a single-detached dwelling and the establishment of a new lot for a semi-
detached dwelling is not permitted under the current Zoning. In response to questions, Ms. von
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 300 -
Submission No.:
1.B 2014-111 (Cont’d)
Westerholt advised that there are no records indicating that the property was ever deeded
separately.
In response to the discussion, Mr. Head requested that the application be deferred to allow him to
submit a minor variance application to recognize the use.
The Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to the Committee’s March 17,
2015 meeting, to allow time for the owner to submit a minor variance application to recognize the
use of the property.
Submission Nos.:
2. B 2014-112
Applicant:
Ruth Scheid
Property Location:
157 and 159 Fourth Avenue
Legal Description:
Lot 1, Plan 1042
Appearances:
In Support: J. Bolduc
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
so each half of a semi-detached residential development can be dealt with separately. Both the
severed and retained lots will front onto Fourth Avenue, with the severed lands having a lot width
of 9.085m (29.806’), by a depth of 39.493m (129.57’) and an area of 344.3 sq.m. (3706.014
sq.ft.); and, the retained lands having a lot width of 8.88m (29.133’), by a southerly depth of
39.283m (128.88’) and an area of 349.3 sq.m. (3759.834 sq.ft.).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated December 1, 2014, advising
that the subject lands contain a semi-detached dwelling and are designated as Low Rise
Residential in the City’s Official Plan and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) in the City’s Zoning
By-law.
The semi-detached dwelling was built on a lot that was created via Plan of Subdivision that was
registered in 1960. Upon further research, staff discovered that the lot had never been severed
since that time. The semi-detached dwelling unit is currently under the same and identical
ownership. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the lands into two lots to allow separate
ownership of each semi-detached unit. The severed lot will have a frontage of 9.085 metres, a
depth of 39.493 metres and an area of 344.3 square metres, while the retained lot will have a
frontage of 8.880 metres, depth of 39.283 metres and an area of 349.3 square metres.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal conforms with the regulations of the Residential
Four Zone (R-4). Section 4 of the Zoning By-law defines a semi-detached dwelling as “a building
divided vertically into two semi-detached houses by a common wall which prevents internal
access between semi-detached houses and extends from the base of the foundation to the roof
line and for a horizontal distance of not less than 35 percent of the horizontal depth of the
building. Each semi-detached house shall be designed to be located on a separate lot having
access to and frontage on a street.” The proposed severance is required to create separate semi-
detached dwelling units and allow separate ownership of each. As per the Zoning By-law, semi-
detached dwellings located with the R-4 Zone are not permitted to be duplexed.
In addition, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the
use of the properties as semi-detached houses, the lands front on an established public street,
and both parcels of land already have independent service connections to municipal services for
sanitary, storm and water. Also, the resultant lots will be compatible with those in the surrounding
area.
Building Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed conveyance provided that a Qualified
Designer, Architect or Engineer is retained to complete a building code assessment as it relates
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 301 -
Submission No.:
2.B 2014-112 (Cont’d)
to the new proposed property line and addresses such items as fire separation between the semi-
detached dwellings, including separation within upper attic space.
Transportation Comments:
Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed severance.
Engineering Comments:
Staff has reviewed the proposed severance application and offer the following comments:
• Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service
connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies.
• The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering
Division for the installation of new ones that may be required to service this property, all
prior to severance approval. Our records indicate sanitary and water municipal services
are currently available to service this property. The storm sewer will need to be extended
down Fourth Avenue.
• Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards at grade with the existing
sidewalk. All work is at the owner’s expense and all work needs to be completed prior to
occupancy of the building.
• A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
• As per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and
Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted
along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading,
Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
• The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by
gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the
sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the
property line to the street.
Community Services Comments:
A cash-in- lieu of land park land dedication in the amount of $4,179.10 will be required on the
severed parcel as a new developable lot will be created by the severance. The park land
dedication is calculated at residential rate of 5% of the per metre lineal frontage land value for the
severed portion.
Environmental Planning Comments:
Staff does not have concerns with the proposed consent application.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated
November 26, 2014, advising that they have no objections to this application.
Ms. J. Bolduc advised that she representing the applicant for B 2014-112 - 157 & 159 Fourth
Avenue as well as the subsequent applications B 2014-110, A 2014-083 and A 2014-085 – 125 &
127 Third Avenue. She advised that the co-owner of the property recently passed away and
applicant intends to sell the properties and live off the proceeds of the sale. She expressed
concerns with Condition 3 of staff’s recommendation for Applications B 2014-112 and B 2014-
110, and requested that the Committee remove the requirement for the cash-in-lieu parkland
contribution as the payment could cause an undue hardship on the applicant.
In response to questions, Ms. von Westerholt advised parkland dedication has never been paid
on either of the properties mentioned in applications B 2014-112 or B 2014-110. Mr. McColl
advised that since the properties were previously separate and the applications were intended to
re-establish what previously existed, he would not object to the removal of the parkland
dedication on either of the applications B 2014-112 or B 2014-110.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 302 -
Submission No.:
2.B 2014-112 (Cont’d)
Ms. Bolduc expressed further concerns with Condition 4 of the staff recommendation regarding
Engineering Services, noting that she only received the staff report when registering for the
meeting and she is unsure at this moment whether the applicant is aware that additional servicing
may be required.
The Chair advised that Condition 4 is a standard condition; it may not mean that the property
requires additional services. He noted that the Condition could be amended to include “if
required”, if that would satisfy the concerns. Ms. Bolduc advised that she would be in support of
the proposed amendment to Condition 4 noting “if required”.
The Chair noted the Comments of the Building Division and requested that their comments be
included in the Committee’s recommendation as a Condition of the consent applications.
A motion was brought forward by Mr. A. Head to approve Application B 2014-112 as outlined in
the staff recommendation including the requirement for the parkland dedication, with the
amendment to Condition 4 of the staff recommendation to include “if required”, and the inclusion
of a Condition referencing the comments from the Building Division.
Mr. J. Meader noted for clarification that the applicant will be required to complete the Conditions
of the severance within one year and will need to convey the severed parcel to a separate entity
within two years or the Decision of this Committee will lapse. Ms. Bolduc advised that she will
ensure that the applicant is aware of those requirements.
Questions were raised about the Committee’s discretion with regards to the inclusion of the
Parkland Dedication Condition. Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff make recommendations for
a parkland dedication as outlined within the City’s Parkland Dedication Policy, she noted it is up to
the Committee’s discretion when making recommendation on whether the Condition should be
included. She noted that the only variance that the Committee can apply regarding the parkland
dedication is whether to include the Condition or to remove it. The amount of money required
through the Parkland Dedication Condition is prescribed by the Planning Act, 5% for residential
properties and 2% for commercial properties.
Moved by Mr. A. Head
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Ruth Scheid requesting permission to sever a parcel of land so each half
of a semi-detached residential development can be dealt with separately. Both the severed and
retained lots will front onto Fourth Avenue, with the severed lands having a lot width of 9.085m
(29.806’), by a depth of 39.493m (129.57’) and an area of 344.3 sq.m. (3706.014 sq.ft.); and, the
retained lands having a lot width of 8.88m (29.133’), by a depth of 39.283m (128.88’) and an area
of 349.3 sq.m. (3759.834 sq.ft.), on Lot 1, Plan 1042, 157 and 159 Fourth Avenue, Kitchener,
BE GRANTED
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 $4,179.10 equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed.
4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services, for the extension of the storm sewer down Fourth Avenue for the
severed lands and retained lands, if required.
5. The owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for
the removal of any redundant service connections and the installation of new ones that
may be required to service this property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 303 -
Submission No.:
2.B 2014-112 (Cont’d)
6. That the owner shall submit a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing
system along with the sanitary and storm sewer design sheets, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Engineering Services.
7. That the owner shall prepare and receive approval of the Development and
Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form, along with a digital submission of all
AutoCad drawings required for the site with the corresponding correct layer names and
numbering system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division, as per the Public Sector
Accounting Board (PSAB) S.3150.
8. That the owner shall provide Engineering staff with confirmation that the basement
elevation of the house can be drained by gravity to the street sewers. If this is not the
case, then the owner would have to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the
property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street to the
satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services.
9. That the owner shall retain a qualified Designer, Architect or Engineer to complete a
Building Code Assessment as it relates to the new proposed property line and addresses
such items as fire separation between semi-detached dwellings, including separation
within the upper attic space.
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 December 9, 2016.
Carried
COMBINED APPLICATIONS:
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2014-110, A 2014-083 and A 2014-085
Applicant:
Ruth Scheid
Property Location:
125 and 127 Third Avenue
Legal Description:
Part Lot 63, Plan 254
Appearances:
In Support: J. Bolduc
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
so each half of a semi-detached residential development can be dealt with separately. Both the
severed and retained lots will front onto Third Avenue, with the severed lands having a lot width of
14.81m (48.589’), by a depth of 20.117m (66’) and an area of 297.9 sq.m. (3206.569 sq.ft.); and,
the retained lands having a lot width of 15.67m (51.41’), by a depth of 20.117m (66’) and an area
of 315.2 sq.m. (3392.785 sq.ft.). Permission is also being requested for the property municipally
addressed as 125 Third Avenue to have a rear yard setback of 2.24m (7.35’) rather than the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 304 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2014-110, A 2014-083 and A 2014-085 (Cont’d)
required 7.5m (24.606’);’ and for the property municipally addressed as 127 Third Avenue to have
a rear yard setback of 4.32m (14.173’)rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated November 28, 2014,
advising that the subject property is municipally addressed as 125 and 127 Third Avenue. The
lands have been developed with a semi-detached dwelling. The lands are zoned Residential Four
(R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated as Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan.
The owner is requesting consent to sever the lot along the common wall of the semi-detached
dwelling to allow separate ownership of each dwelling unit. Minor variances for the retained and
severed lands are also requested.
Consent Application B 2014-110:
The application proposes to sever a 297.9 square metre lot with a 14.81 metre lot width and a lot
depth of 20.117 metres. The proposed retained lot is 315.2 square metres in area with a 15.67
metre lot width and a lot depth of 20.117 metres. The proposed severance would have the effect
of allowing individual ownership of each semi-detached dwelling unit.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed severance conforms to
the City’s Official Plan and that the configurationof the proposed lots can be considered
appropriate for the use of the lands. Staff is further of the opinion that the proposal is consistent
with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 and conforms to the Growth Plan tor the Greater
Golden Horseshoe, 2006. Minor variances are required to bring the proposed lots into conformity
with the Zoning By-law prior to the consent application being approved.
Minor Variance Applications A 2014-085 & A 2014-083:
Severed Lands – A 2015-085:
The applicant is seeking relief from Section 38.2 of the Zoning By-law to legalize an existing rear
yard of 4.32 metres whereas a minimum of 7.5 metres is required.
Retained Lands – A 2014-083:
The applicant is seeking relief from Section 38.2 of the Zoning By-law to legalize an existing rear
yard of 2.24 metres whereas a minimum of 7.5 metres is required.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments for the
retained lands:
1. The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Low Rise Residential designation
recognizes the existing scale of residential development. The proposed variances will
legalize the existing deficient rear yard setbacks.
2. 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. The rear yard variances legalize an existing condition and still
provide sufficient separation from neighbouring properties; moreover, the large side yards
are used as outdoor amenity space.
3. The variances are minor. The existing rear yard setbacks provide adequate separation
from abutting residential properties due to the configuration of the buildings in this location
and as such legalizing the setbacks through a minor variance will have minimal impact on
the adjacent lands and overall neighbourhood.
4. 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, rear) 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.
Environmental Planning Comments:
Although there are trees present, there is no development being proposed. As such, there are no
concerns.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 305 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2014-110, A 2014-083 and A 2014-085 (Cont’d)
Engineering Comments:
Engineering has no issues with the reduction of rear yard setbacks. Existing drainage patterns
must be maintained from adjacent properties.
Severance of any blocks within the subject lands will require separate, individual service
connections for sanitary, storm, and water, in accordance with City policies.
The owner is required to make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division
for the installation of new ones that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance
approval. Our records indicate sanitary, storm and water municipal services are currently
available to service this property. Any further enquiries in this regard should be directed to Licinio
Costa (519-741-2200 ext. 7132).
Any new driveways are to be built to City of Kitchener standards at grade with the existing
sidewalk. All work is at the owner’s expense and all work needs to be completed prior to
occupancy of the building.
A servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system will be required to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
As per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and Reconstruction
As-Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted along with a digital
submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the
corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Division prior to severance approval.
The owner must ensure that the basement elevation of the house can be drained by gravity to the
street sewers. If this is not the case, then the owner would have to pump the sewage via a pump
and forcemain to the property line and have a gravity sewer from the property line to the street.
Building Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed conveyance provided that a qualified
Designer, Architect, or Engineer is retained to complete a building code assessment as it relates
to the new proposed property line to address such items as fire separation between the semi-
detached dwellings, including separation within upper attic space, prior to final approval.
Transportation Comments:
Transportation Services has no concerns with the proposed applications.
Operations Comments:
Parkland dedication is required for the severed lands in the form of cash-in-lieu in the amount of
$6,812.60, which is calculated at residential rate of 5% of the per metre lineal frontage land value
for the severed portion.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Principal Planner, dated
November 26, 2014, advising that they have no objections to application B 2014-110.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
November 24, 2014, advising that they have no concerns with submission Nos. A 2014-083 and
A 2014-085.
Mr. A. Head noted that this application is similar in nature to Application B 2014-112, which was
considered previously, and proceeded to put forward a motion to approve Application B 2014-110
as outlined in the staff recommendation including the Parkland Dedication, with the amendment
to Condition 5 of the staff recommendation relating to Engineering Services to include “if
required”, and the inclusion of a Condition referencing the comments from the Building Division.
Submission No. B 2014-110
Moved by Ms. P. Kholi
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 306 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2014-110, A 2014-083 and A 2014-085 (Cont’d)
That the application of Ruth Scheid requesting permission to sever a parcel of land so each half
of a semi-detached residential development can be dealt with separately. Both the severed and
retained lots will front onto Third Avenue, with the severed lands having a lot width of 14.81m
(48.589’), by a depth of 20.117m (66’) and an area of 297.9 sq.m. (3206.569 sq.ft.); and, the
retained lands having a lot width of 15.67m (51.41’), by a depth of 20.117m (66’) and an area of
315.2 sq.m. (3392.785 sq.ft.), on Part Lot 63, Plan 254, 125 and 127 Third Avenue, Kitchener,
BE GRANTED
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 equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed in the amount of $6,812.60.
4. That the owner shall provide a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing
system along with the sanitary and storm sewer design sheets, to the satisfaction of the
City’s Director of Engineering.
5. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed and
retained lands, if required.
6. 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.
7. That the owner shall prepare and receive approval of the Development and
Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form, along with a digital submission of all
AutoCad drawings required for the site with the corresponding correct layer names and
numbering system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division, as per the Public Sector
Accounting Board (PSAB) S.3150.
8. That the owner shall retain a qualified Designer, Architect or Engineer to complete a
building code assessment as it relates to the new proposed property line and address
such items as fire separation between the semi-detached dwellings, including separation
within upper attic space.
9. That Minor Variance Applications A 2014-083 and A 2014-085 receive final approval.
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 December 9, 2016.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECEMBER 9, 2014
- 307 -
Submission Nos.:
1.B 2014-110, A 2014-083 and A 2014-085 (Cont’d)
Submission No. A 2014-083
Moved by Ms. P. Kholi
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Ruth Scheid requesting permission to have a rear yard setback of
2.24m (7.35’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Part Lot 63, Plan 254, 125 Third
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 2014-085
Moved by Ms. P. Kholi
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Ruth Scheid requesting permission to have a rear yard setback of 4.32m
(14.173’), rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Part Lot 63, Plan 254, 127 Third Avenue,
BE APPROVED
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
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 9th day of December, 2014.
Dianna Saunderson
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment