Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-02-16 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 16, 2016 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. A Head and B. McColl and Ms. P. Kohli. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking Analyst; Mr. D. Pimentel, Traffic Project Coordinator; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer; Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk and Ms. M. Bird, Transportation Services Co-op Student. Mr. A. Head, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held January 19, 2016, as mailed to the members, and amended, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1. A 2016-017 Applicant: Home Hardware Property Location: 166 Park Street Legal Description: Lots 2 to 26, Plan 317, Part Lots 1, 27 to 29, 35 and 37, Robert Street andCherry Street, being Parts 1 to 3 on Reference Plan 58R-10105 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Chair noted the email correspondence from the applicant and stated at their request the subject application has been withdrawn. Submission No.: 2. A 2016-018 Applicant: Cook Homes Limited Property Location: 106 Stillwater Street Legal Description: Lot 46, Registered Plan 58M-566 Appearances: In Support: T. Allensen Contra: G. Srnicek Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 26 - Submission No.: 2.A 2016-018 (Cont’d) The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a driveway located 6.34m (20.80’') from the intersection of Stillwater Street rather than the required 9m (29.53'); and, to have an interior side yard setback for the attached garage of 0.6m (1.968’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.937’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 4, 2016, advising the subject property is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the City’s Zoning By-law and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The property will be developed with a single detached dwelling in the near future. The owner is requesting permission to locate the access driveway at a distance of 6.34 metres from the intersection of the street lines abutting the corner lot rather than the required 9.0 metre setback as per Section 6.1.1.1 b) (iv) of Zoning By-law 85-1. In addition, the owner is requesting relief from the interior side yard setback for the attached garage from 1.2 metres (Section 38.2.1) down to 0.6 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments regarding the requested minor variances: The requested variances for the proposed location of the driveway to the intersecting street lines and relief from the interior side yard setback requirement meet the intent of the Official Plan. The Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for modest alterations. The proposed variances will permit a reduced setback of the driveway to the intersecting street lines and a reduced interior side yard setback to accommodate the attached garage of the proposed townhouse dwelling. The minor change will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The intent of the required 9 metre separation from the driveway to the intersection of the street lines abutting the corner lot is to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety. It is staff’s opinion that the 2.66 metre reduction is minor and will not impact the property or access to the intersection. Transportation Planning staff has also indicated they have no concerns with the requested reduction of 9.0 metres to 6.34 metres. The intent of the interior side yard setback is to provide sufficient spacing between abutting properties. It is staff’s opinion that the 0.6 metre reduction is minor and will not impact the abutting property. The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By- law. The distance of driveway to intersection variance is considered minor as it is staff’s opinion the proposed 6.34 metre setback from the intersecting street lines allows for sufficient separation from the driveway, and as such will not impact access to the intersection for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, taking into consideration that the portion of roadway will function as a curve. The interior side yard setback variance is considered minor as it is staff’s opinion that the 0.6 metre setback from the property line will not impact access to the rear yard as there is sufficient access on the alternate side. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is staff’s opinion the requested variance will not impact the subject property, adjacent lands or abutting intersection. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated January 28, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated February 2, 2016, requesting approval of this application be subject to the following condition: 1. Driveways will be located so as to clear and provide a minimum of 1.0 clearance to all poles and streetlight standards. Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. noted there is an existing 1.1m by 1.7m direct buried concrete pullbox centered on the lot line of 106 Stillwater Street and 110 Stillwater Street, within the City of Kitchener Right-of-Way. Access to this pullbox will need to be maintained at all times in case of a required repair or replacement of the existing 8,000V primary cable buried in the boulevard. They requested no section of the driveway be installed over this area and if possible the driveway be re-directed away from this location. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 27 - Submission No.: 2.A 2016-018 (Cont’d) Mr. T. Allensen advised he was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. Mr. G. Srnicek, neighbouring property owner, advised he had not yet seen a plan for the proposed development and noted he was in attendance this date to ensure the proposed dwelling was compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. He further advised that he had reviewed the staff report and no longer had any concerns with the subject application. The Chair noted the comments from Kitchener Wilmot Hydro, indicating they have requested a condition as part of the Committee’s decision. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Cook Homes Limited requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a driveway located 6.34m (20.80’') from the intersection of Stillwater Street rather than the required 9m (29.53'); and, to have an interior side yard setback for the attached garage of 0.6m (1.968’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.937’), on Lot 46, Registered BE APPROVED Plan 58M-566, 106 Stillwater Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall ensure the driveways are located a minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles, anchors and street light standards. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 3. A 2016-019 Applicant: DRP Recycling Ltd. Property Location: 355 Riverbend Drive Legal Description: Part Lot A, Plan 40 Appearances: In Support: J. MacDonald Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a fabric coverall accessory building on the subject property that is legal non-conforming; and, to allow the fabric coverall accessory building to have a rear yard setback of 5.84m (19.160’) rather than the required setback of 7.5m (24.606’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 8, 2016, advising the subject property located at 355 Riverbend Drive is designated Business Park in the City’s Official Plan and zoned B-2 Restricted Business Park Zone in Zoning By-law 85-1 with Special Use provision 40U and Special Regulations 32R and 1R. The lands are currently developed with an existing legal non-conforming salvage and recycling yard. The applicant is seeking permission from the Committee of Adjustment to expand the legal non-conforming use, as per Section 45(2) of the Ontario Planning Act, to permit the construction COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 28 - Submission No.: 3.A 2016-019 (Cont’d) of a fabric coverall building on an existing concrete pad. The applicant is also seeking relief from Section 24.3 to allow a reduced rear yard setback of 5.84 metres for the coverall building, whereas 7.5 metres is required. A small portion on the northwest corner of the property is within the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Regulated Floodplain. The proposed fabric coverall building is not located anywhere within the floodplain. The lands are located immediately adjacent to an existing auto wrecker business and back onto vacant City-owned land and Highway 85. 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 Business Park in the City’s Official Plan. This designation generally applies to a large area of land which is planned as a unit, and tends to be regarded as a prestigious location for certain industrial uses due to its access to major transportation corridors, high visibility, and distinct identity. Salvage and scrap yards are prohibited from all areas of the Business Park designation; however, the salvage and recycling yard use has existed on the subject property since approximately 1980 and therefore has legal non-conforming status. As such, staff is satisfied the requested variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The subject property is zoned Restricted Business Park Zone (B-2), which permits a range of industrial uses but prohibits salvage and scrap yards. The applicant is proposing to expand the legal non-conforming salvage and recycling yard use by constructing a fabric coverall structure over an existing concrete pad. The requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 5.84 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 7.5 metre setback is to provide separation between the structure and adjacent properties. Given that the subject property backs onto vacant City-owned land and Highway 85, staff is satisfied the reduction of 1.7 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances can be considered minor. The purpose of the fabric coverall structure is to provide an area for the storage of scrap material, which by providing an enclosed area rather than outdoor storage, will ultimately improve the aesthetics of the site. Given that the property backs onto vacant City-owned land and Highway 85, staff is satisfied the reduction of 1.7 metres is minor. The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the salvage and recycling yard use is existing and located adjacent to similar industrial and scrap yard uses. The proposed fabric coverall building will provide an enclosed area for the storage of scrap material and therefore 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 January 28, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated February 4, 2016, advising although they have no concerns with this application, they noted a portion of the subject property is within the allowance adjacent to the floodplain and erosion hazard. Consequently, a portion of the property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. The Committee considered the report of the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), dated February 9, 2016, advising although they have no concerns with this application, they noted building/land use and sign permits are required from the MTO before any grading/construction commences. Mr. J. MacDonald was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation, noting he had already sought clarification from staff on the requirements relating to Site Plan approval. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 29 - Submission No.: 3.A 2016-019 (Cont’d) That the application of DRP Recycling Ltd. requesting permission to construct a fabric coverall accessory building on the subject property that is legal non-conforming; and, to allow the fabric coverall accessory building to have a rear yard setback of 5.84m (19.160’) rather than the required setback of 7.5m (24.606’), on Part Lot A, Plan 40, 355 Riverbend Drive, Kitchener, BE APPROVED Ontario,, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the property shall be subject to Site Plan Approval to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service. 2. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed coverall structure. 3. That the reduced rear yard setback applies only to the proposed fabric coverall structure, as per the Site Plan, prepared by John MacDonald Architect Inc., dated January 11, 2016. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: 4. A 2016-020 Applicant: Homestead Land Holdings Limited Property Location: 100 Queen Street North & 11 Margaret Avenue Legal Description: Part Lots 7 to 9, Plan 401 and Part Lots 189 and 190, Plan 374 Appearances: In Support: G. Ropp J. Gerrard Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to add 4 additional residential units in an existing multi-residential development currently having 329 residential units for a total 333 residential units, having 359 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 503; 24 off- street visitor parking spaces rather than the required 100; 2 barrier-free off-street parking spaces rather than the required 12; a front yard setback along Margaret Avenue of 11.5m (37.729’) rather than the required 24.85m (81.528’); a westerly side yard setback of 4.32m (14.173’) rather than the required 6m (19.685’); an easterly side yard setback abutting Queen Street North of 16.3m (53.477’) rather than the required 24.85m (81.528’); and, a rear yard setback of 3.4m (11.154’) rather than the required 7.5m (26.606’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 8, 2016, advising the subject property located at 11 Margaret Avenue and 100 Queen Street North is designated High Density Multiple Residential in the City’s Official Plan (Civic Centre Secondary Plan) and zoned Residential Nine Zone (R-9) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The lands are currently developed with an existing mixed-use building containing 329 residential units and 3 commercial units. The owner is proposing to convert existing unused storage areas within the existing building footprint into four new residential units, for a total of 333 units. As such, the owner is requesting relief from Section 6.1.2(a) to permit 359 parking spaces, whereas 503 are required; Section 6.1.2(b)(vi)(B) to permit 24 visitors parking spaces, whereas 100 are required; Section 6.7.1 to permit 2 barrier- free parking spaces, whereas 12 are required; Section 43.2.3 to permit an 11.5 metre front yard, whereas 24.85 metres is required; Section 43.2.3 to permit a 3.4 metre rear yard, whereas 7.5 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 30 - Submission No.: 4.A 2016-020 (Cont’d) metres is required; Section 43.2.3 to permit a 4.32 metre side yard, whereas 6.0 metres is required; and, Section 43.2.3 to permit a 16.3 metre side yard abutting a street, whereas 24.85 metres is required. A previous minor variance was granted for 11 Margaret Avenue (A-166/82) to permit a reduced side yard setback of 2.3 metres to in order to construct a canopy over the entrance to the parking garage. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments. The subject property is designated High Density Multiple Residential in the Civic Centre Secondary Plan. The aim of the High Density Multiple Residential designation is to recognize the existing high-rise apartment buildings located at specific properties, including 11 Margaret Avenue and 100 Queen Street North, which have been constructed in excess of 200 units per hectare. Permitted uses are restricted to multiple dwellings in excess of 200 units per hectare with a maximum FSR of 4.0. As such, staff is satisfied the variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. The requested variances to permit 359 parking spaces, whereas 503 are required; to permit 24 visitors parking spaces, whereas 100 are required; and, to permit 2 barrier-free parking spaces, whereas 12 are required meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of these parking regulations is to ensure adequate parking is provided to meet the needs of residential tenants, visitors, and employees/patrons of the commercial units. The parking provided for the site has existed since the towers were constructed in 1968 and 1973 without any noted issues. The owner has undertaken a parking audit which determined there is a surplus of 53 parking spaces on-site that are currently unused and can accommodate the four proposed units. As the parking for the site is existing and currently underutilized, staff is satisfied the requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The requested variances to permit reduced front yard and side yard abutting the street setbacks of 11.5 metres and 16.3 metres respectively, whereas 24.85 metres is required, meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. Section 43.2.3 requires a setback of 4.5 metres for the portion of a dwelling with a building height not exceeding 10.5 metres and an additional setback of 1.5 metres for every additional portion of 3.0 metres of building height thereafter. The intent of this requirement is to provide step-backs on tall buildings and to ensure there is adequate separation between a building and the street line. As these setbacks are existing and no changes to the building are proposed, staff is satisfied the requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The requested variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 3.4 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required, and a reduced side yard setback of 4.32 metres, whereas 6 metres is required, meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of these setback requirements is to provide separation between the structure and adjacent properties. As these setbacks are existing and no changes to the building are proposed, staff is satisfied the requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances can be considered minor. Given the parking and setbacks are existing and there are no changes proposed to the building and massing, staff is satisfied the requested variances will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties. The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the multiple dwelling use is permitted in the Zoning By-law. No changes are proposed to the scale, massing and height of the existing building, therefore the creation of four new residential units 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 January 28, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Messrs G. Ropp and J. Gerrard were in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. In response to questions regarding visitor parking on-site, Mr. Ropp advised that overall parking on-site is under-utilized and they have never experienced a parking shortage. He noted there is a surplus in the underground parking garage that could be allocated for visitors if required. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 31 - Submission No.: 4.A 2016-020 (Cont’d) Mr. D. Seller advised Transportation Services has not received any complaints regarding parking for the subject property. Questions were raised regarding accessible parking and whether the recommended variance for 2 barrier-free spaces rather than 12 was sufficient. The Chair noted the demographics of the building and questioned whether additional barrier-free spaces could be provided. Mr. J. Gerrard noted the number of accessible spaces on-site could be increased; however, an increase in barrier-free spaces would decrease the number of resident parking spaces available on-site. Ms. J. von Westerholt advised the site will be subject to Site Plan approval. She noted if it was the Committee’s will, and the applicant had no objections, the recommendation could be amended to increase the number of barrier-free parking spaces on-site, staff through the Site Plan approval process could assist the applicant in determining the location of those additional spaces. The Chair noted it would be his preference to amend the application requiring the applicant to provide 8 barrier-free parking spaces rather than the required 12 spaces; and, reduce the requested residential off-street parking spaces to 350 rather than the required 503. He noted a reduction of 9 residential spaces would provide more flexibility for the applicant to accommodate the increase in barrier-free parking spaces. Mr. Gerrard advised that he had no objections to the proposed amendment, pending the location of the spaces could be split between the underground parking garage and surface lot if required. Ms. von Westerholt advised the location of the spaces could be determined through the Site Plan approval process. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Homestead Land Holdings Limited requesting permission to add 4 additional residential units in an existing multi-residential development currently having 329 residential units for a total 333 residential units, having 350 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 503; 24 off-street visitor parking spaces rather than the required 100; 8 barrier-free off-street parking spaces rather than the required 12; a front yard setback along Margaret Avenue of 11.5m (37.729’) rather than the required 24.85m (81.528’); a westerly side yard setback of 4.32m (14.173’) rather than the required 6m (19.685’); an easterly side yard setback abutting Queen Street North of 16.3m (53.477’) rather than the required 24.85m (81.528’); and, a rear yard setback of 3.4m (11.154’) rather than the required 7.5m (26.606’), on Part Lots 7 to 9, Plan 401 and Part Lots 189 and 190, Plan 374, 100 Queen Street North BE APPROVED and 11 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the property shall be subject to Site Plan Approval to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service; 2. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the Planning Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 32 - Submission No.: 5. A 2016-021 Applicant: Lotco Limited Property Location: 1469 Highland Road West Legal Description: Part Lot 38, German Company Tract, being Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-111115 Appearances: In Support: A. Allendorf Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct two 16-storey multi-residential apartment buildings; Building A will have a front yard vertical projection for the 7th to 16th floors of 8.565m (28.1’), whereas the By-law requires a range of setbacks between 8m (26.246’) and 24m (78.74’); Building B will have a side yard vertical projection abutting Highland Road West for the 7th to 16th floors of 8.95m (29.363’), whereas the By-law requires a range of setbacks between 8m (26.246’) and 24m (78.74’); and, a front yard vertical projection abutting Ira Needles Boulevard for the 13th to 16th floors of 17.25m (56.594’), whereas the By-law requires a range of setbacks between 18m (59.055’) and 24m (78.74’). In addition, the site will require a variance to permit the underground parking structure to protrude above grade at a maximum height of 1.26m (4.133’), whereas the By-law does not permit a protrusion for a parking structure beyond grade; and, to permit 437 off-street parking spaces whereas 516 off-street parking spaces are required. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 5, 2016, advising the subject property is located on the northeast side of the roundabout at Highland Road West and Ira Needles Boulevard. The subject property encompasses an area of 3.2 hectares with frontage onto both Highland Road West and Ira Needles Boulevard. The site currently contains 11-, 8- and 10- plex units under Waterloo Condominium Plan 527. These buildings are located on the eastern half of the property while the western portion is undeveloped. Properties to the north of the site are composed of low density residential land uses. To the west and on the opposite side of Ira Needles Boulevard is commercial. To the east are Residential Nine (R-9) zoned lands and to the south on the opposite side of Highland Road are low density residential uses. The property is designated High Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Nine (R- 9). On the undeveloped portion of 1460 Highland Road West, Lotco Limited has submitted a Site Plan application to permit the construction of 2 16-storey apartment buildings, identified as Buildings A and B, totalling 344 units with 441 underground and surface parking spaces. In order to facilitate the approval of the site plan, Lotco Limited is requesting a number of variances. ‘Approval in Principle’ was granted by the Site Plan Review Committee meeting of January 6, 2016, subject to obtaining approval of variances related to front yard/side yard abutting a street setbacks and parking. In this regard, the owner is requesting the following minor variances: 1. Building A will have a front yard vertical projection setback from Ira Needles Boulevard for the 7th to 16th floors of 8.565m, whereas Section 43.2 of the By-law requires setbacks of 8m ( 7th floor), 10.5m (8th floor), 12.0m (9th floor), 13.5m (10th floor), 15.0m (11th floor), 16.5m (12th floor), 18.0m (13th floor), 19.5m (14th floor), 21.0m (15th floor), 22.5m (16th floor) and 24m (top of 16th floor). 2. Building B will have a side yard vertical projection setback abutting Highland Road for the 8th to 16th floors of 8.95m, whereas Section 43.2 of the By-law requires setbacks of 10.5m (8th floor), 12.0m (9th floor), 13.5m (10th floor), 15.om (11th floor), 16.5m (12th floor), 18.0m (13th floor), 19.5m (14th floor), 21.0m (15th floor), 22.5m (16th floor) and 24m (top of 16th floor). 3. Building B will have a front yard vertical projection setback from Ira Needles Boulevard for the 13th to 16th floors of 17.25m, whereas Section 43.2 of the By-law requires setbacks of 18m (13th floor), 19.5m (14th floor), 21m (15th floor), 22.5m (16th floor) and 24m (top of 16th floor). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 33 - Submission No.: 5.A 2016-021 (Cont’d) 4. To permit the underground parking structure to protrude above grade at a maximum height of 1.26m and be setback from Ira Needles Boulevard of 1.86m instead of the required 4.5m in Section 43.3 of the By-law. 5. To permit a total of 441 parking spaces for 344 units instead of 516 parking spaces required by Section 6.1.2a) of the By-law. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments: Intent of the Official Plan: Variances 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 meet the intent of the Official Plan (OP) for the following reasons. The subjects lands are designated High Rise Residential on the Land Use schedule of the City’s OP. The intent of this designation is to provide for a limited range of residential types at a high intensity use with a minimum of 1.0 Floor Space Ratio (FSR) to a maximum of 4.0 FSR. This proposal meets that objective. Section 6 -Urban Design- of the OP seeks to ensure good urban design for development along arterial roadways and at gateway locations. Often this involves creating a streetscape that pushes buildings toward the street, locating parking in a less visible location, and ensuring buildings are better articulated through the use of podiums, architectural features and varying building material finishes. This proposal meets the intent of those design objectives. Intent of the Zoning By-law: Variances 1, 2 and 3 meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of the R-9 zone is to require pedestrian-scaled building massing along the base of buildings, with upper storeys being setback in a step-like fashion. In the opinion of staff, the intent is being maintained. Both these buildings have base-like podium features that are 4 storeys in height followed by a step back and a straight vertical projection. This design promotes human scale and contributes to a better public realm. Keep in mind the variances are only for the setbacks for the 7th / 8th to 16th storey, as the front yard setback is being met up to the 7th / 8th floors of each building, respectively. Rarely are buildings designed with each floor required to be stepped back in a manner the By-law prescribes. Variance 4 meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. An underground parking garage is necessary in order to accommodate the amount of parking required for the size of the development. The reason the underground parking garage protrudes at this location is due to the topography. The site drops 4 metres in height across the site from south to north. The owner has indicated that the proposed grading approach has tried to mitigate the protrusion as best as possible. From staff’s perspective, this is not an ideal situation but staff recognizes the challenges that occur. Staff will be exploring design/landscape options with the applicant to reduce the visual impact of this protrusion through the Site Plan process. Variance 5 meets the intent of the By-law. The intent is to ensure developments adequately provide parking so as not to create any spillover either onto the street or adjacent properties. The owner has requested a parking rate of 1.27 spaces per unit instead of 1.5 spaces equating to 441 parking spaces instead of 516. In support of the reduction, a Parking Justification and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Options Study was prepared by Paradigm. The study concludes the provision of 441 parking spaces is adequate and TDM measures be considered to help offset the reduction. Transportation staff has reviewed the Study and is supportive of the reduction, providing TDM measures are included as conditions of Site Plan approval. Are the Variances Minor and Appropriate for the Use of Land: Variances 1, 2 and 3 are considered minor and appropriate for the use of land as each do not cause unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The location of these buildings are immediately adjacent to two Regional roadways where it has been encouraged to locate the building massing as close to street edge as possible, away from adjacent low rise residential dwellings and to encourage good urban design. It is important to note the design of Building A and Building B do incorporate step-backs as they relate to the existing low rise development to the north and 8/10-plex unit buildings on site. This is necessary to ensure the 45 degree angular plane requirement of the City’s Urban Design Guidelines is being met. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 34 - Submission No.: 5.A 2016-021 (Cont’d) Variance 4 is considered minor and appropriate for the use of land. The protrusion of the underground parking at the location shown on the plan is a result of site topography and, as indicated previously, staff will work with the applicant to explore design/landscape design options to mitigate the visual impact of the protrusion. This will be achieved through the Site Plan process. Variance 5 is considered minor and appropriate as it will not cause unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The applicant is proposing a parking rate of 1.27 spaces per unit which has been corroborated by Paradigm in their Parking Justification Study and supported by Transportationstaff. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated January 28, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. A. Allendorf was in attendance in support of the subject application. He expressed concerns with Condition 2c. of the staff recommendation, specifically with the wording of the Condition requiring the owner to provide subsidized transit passes for all occupants. He stated in his opinion, the Condition is too definitive and does not allow for further discussions with Transportation Services staff on the number of residents that should be eligible for subsidized transit passes. He added they have completed a Parking Justification and TDM Option study report, dated November 2015 that was circulated with the application, and staff have requested conditions based on recommendations from within that Report. He noted the recommendations were TDM proposals and it would be his preference that the Condition be worded to permit exploring opportunities for subsidized transit passes through the Site Plan approval process. He further advised the development has Site Plan approval in principle, noting that final approval is dependent upon receiving approval for the requested minor variances. Mr. D. Seller advised the applicant has not yet contacted Transportation Planning staff regarding the proposed development, and staff have concerns with the applicants’ proposed amendment related to subsidized transit passes. He stated if the Condition is amended as proposed, it is less likely the applicant will implement a subsidized transit pass program. He suggested as a potential option, staff would be willing to amend the Condition to substitute ‘all residents’ with ’75 units’. Questions were raised regarding how the applicant would administer the proposed subsidized transit pass program and the reasoning behind the proposed two-year time limit for the passes. Mr. D. Pimentel advised the two-year time limit is a general benchmark, noting it would be staffs’ desire that if the program was still in high demand after the 2-year time limit, the applicant would continue the program based on the occupancy need. He further advised that the overall administration of the subsudized transit program is yet to be determined. Mr. Allendorf expressed concerns with the proposed amendment, noting he had similar concerns as expressed by the Committee regarding the administration of a subsidized transit pass program for 75 units. He indicated the development has Site Plan approval in principal, which includes the location of the proposed buildings. He noted that Site Plan approval is dependent upon receiving Committee of Adjustment approval under the current Zoning By-law, indicating the Zoning By-law is under review and it is anticipated the location of the buildings would comply with the new By- law. He stated he has not had any significant conversations with Transportation Services staff regarding the proposed parking on-site until approval for the location of the proposed building was received. He further advised they are still in the process of completing the Site Plan agreement and further discussions on the subsidized transit pass program would be more appropriate through that process. In response to questions, Ms. von Westerholt noted, as with similar types of developments, it is not uncommon for the developer to unbundle parking from the units. She commented that a developer could advertise the sale of the units with an option to purchase a parking space, noting incentives such as reduced rental rates / condominium fees being offered to anyone who purchases a unit without a parking space. Mr. B. McColl questioned how much of a discount is typically offered for subsidized transit pass programs. Mr. Pimentel advised that the passes are typically subsidized at 100%. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 35 - Submission No.: 5.A 2016-021 (Cont’d) Mr. Allendorf expressed concerns with the number of unknown variables to date related to subsidized transit passes, noting that further discussions will be had with Transportation Services through the finalization of Site Plan approval and he requested that the Committee allow concerns raised regarding the proposed program be deferred to that process. Ms. von Westerholt advised staff would prefer Condition 2c. be maintained as outlined in the staff report, acknowledging that the concerns raised by the applicant could be addressed through the Site Plan approval process. Mr. McColl questioned the two-year timeframe and when the two years were due to commence. Ms. von Westerholt noted it would likely be two years from the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. Mr. Allendorf noted he was unsatisfied with the Condition as proposed, stating it would be his preference to amend the Condition to reference ’75 units’ rather than ‘all occupants’, as outlined in the staff recommendation. Ms. von Westerholt proposed an amendment to substitute Condition 2c as outlined in the staff report with the following: Provide subsidized transit passes for 75 occupants who do not require parking spaces, for a period of two (2) years following issuance of Occupancy Permits. Mr. Allendorf advised he was satisfied with Ms. von Westerholt’s proposed amendment, noting the amendment provides for flexibility that can be finalized though Site Plan approval. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Lotco Limited requesting permission to construct two 16-storey multi- residential apartment buildings as proposed through Site Plan Application SP15/111/H/BB; Building A will have a front yard vertical projection for the 7th to 16th floors of 8.565m (28.1’), whereas the By-law requires a range of setbacks between 8m (26.246’) and 24m (78.74’); Building B will have a side yard vertical projection abutting Highland Road West for the 7th to 16th floors of 8.95m (29.363’), whereas the By-law requires a range of setbacks between 8m (26.246’) and 24m (78.74’); and, a front yard vertical projection abutting Ira Needles Boulevard for the 13th to 16th floors of 17.25m (56.594’), whereas the By-law requires a range of setbacks between 18m (59.055’) and 24m (78.74’). In addition, the site will require a variance to permit the underground parking structure to protrude above grade at a maximum height of 1.26m (4.133’) with a setback from Ira Needles Boulevard of 1.86m, whereas the By-law does not permit a protrusion for a parking structure beyond grade; and, to permit 437 off-street parking spaces whereas 516 off-street parking spaces are required, on Part Lot 38, German Company Tract, being Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-11115, 1460 Highland Road West, BE APPROVED Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall receive Site Plan approval by January 1, 2018. 2. That the owner shall agree to incorporate the following TDM measures as conditions of site plan approval to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development & Customer Service in consultation with the Director of Transportation Planning: a. Provide secure bicycle storage for a minimum of thirty seven (37) bicycles. b. Charge for parking as a separate cost to occupants. c. Provide subsidized transit passes for 75 occupants who do not require parking spaces, for a period of two (2) years following issuance of Occupancy Permits. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 36 - Submission No.: 5.A 2016-021 (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.: 6. A 2016-022 Applicant: Edelweiss Tavern (1979 Limited Property Location: 600 Doon Village Road Legal Description: Block B, Plan 1309 Appearances: In Support: R. Karges Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission for an existing multi-tenant commercial plaza having a total of 1498 sq.m. (16124.338 sq.ft) as restaurant use to have 142 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 164 off-street parking spaces; and, to provide 2 barrier-free off-street parking spaces rather than the required 6 barrier-free off-street parking spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 4, 2016, advising the property is zoned Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone (C-2) under By-law 85-1 and has a designation of Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre in the Official Plan. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.2 b) ii) a) b) of the Zoning By-law to legalize a multi-tenant commercial plaza with a total gross floor area for restaurants of 1,438 sq.m. to provide 142 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 164 off-street parking spaces; and, requesting further relief from Section 6.7 of the Zoning By-law to provide 2 barrier-free parking spaces rather than the required 6 barrier-free spaces. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing retail unit with a takeout restaurant. The change in use (take out restaurant from retail) has resulted in a parking requirement increase. The existing site layout and building footprint will not be modified. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments. The variance meets the intent of the Official Plan for the following reason. The Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre designation is intended to serve as a neighbourhood focal point, providing a mix of appropriately-scaled commercial uses. As well, properties in this designation are generally served by public transit and have strong pedestrian linkages with the surrounding residential community. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered minor. The intent of a minimum parking requirement is to ensure there is sufficient on-site parking. This plaza complex building has existed since approximately 1985. The plaza is developed with variety of commercial uses and restaurants. The site has functioned for more than thirty years as a commercial plaza with a variety of commercial uses and restaurants and there have been no concerns or complaints received. In addition to vehicular traffic, there is public transportation available adjacent to the property and there are pedestrian linkages to the site from the neighbouring residential properties to the south. Based on the above, staff is of the opinion that the requested reduction of 22 parking spaces and the reduction of 4 Barrier free parking spaces meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and is minor. The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. As noted above, and supported by Transportation Planning comments, staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance will not negatively impact the use of the property or the surrounding neighbourhood. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 37 - Submission No.: 6.A 2016-022 (Cont’d) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated January 28, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Edelweiss Tavern (1979) Limited requesting to legalize an existing multi-tenant commercial plaza having a total of 1498 sq.m. (16124.338 sq.ft.) as restaurant use to have 142 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 164 off-street parking spaces; and, to provide 2 barrier-free off-street parking spaces rather than the required 6 barrier-free off-street parking spaces, on Block B, Plan 1309, 600 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the Planning Division for the takeout restaurant by September 1, 2016. 2. That the owner shall ensure 2 barrier-free spaces meet current barrier free standards and Site Plan approval is obtained from the Planning Division. 3. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the Building Division by September 1, 2016. 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 CONSENT APPLICATIONS: Submission No.: 1. B 2016-002 Applicant: 2037061 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 20 Ottawa Street North Legal Description: Lots 31 to 33, 41 to 50, Plan 309, Part of Lot 1, Plan 309, Part Lot 44, Plan of Subdivision of Lot 1, German Company Tract, Part of Lot 104 of Streets and Lanes, and Part of Park Lot 25 Appearances: In Support: M. Shantz Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to grant a blanket easement in favour of 47 Onward Avenue for surface water runoff. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated January 27, 2016, advising the applicant is requesting consent to create a blanket easement over the property known as 20 Ottawa Street North, to permit the flow of surface drainage from 47 Onward Avenue over 20 Ottawa Street North. Staff has been working with the owner of the adjacent property at 47 Onward Avenue on a Site Plan application. Through the review of the application it was identified the existing surface water drainage is over 20 Ottawa Street North. To facilitate the proposed development on 47 Onward Avenue, it was identified an easement would be required over 20 Ottawa Street North to legalize the flow of surface water. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 38 - Submission No.: 1.B 2016-002 (Cont’d) With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, staff are satisfied that creating a blanket easement over 20 Ottawa Street North to permit the flow of surface drainage is appropriate and suitable for the subject property, as it is an existing condition, that will now be formally recognized through the registration of the easement. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated February 5, 2016, advising although they have no objections to this application, they noted a Storm Water Management (SWM) report would be required as part of any future Site Plan application. This SWM report must take into consideration the areas draining to the subject land. Mr. M. Shantz advised he was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. He noted the comments from the Region of Waterloo and stated through the Site Plan approval process for the property municipally addressed as 47 Onward Avenue, the owner is likely going to be decreasing the hardscaping on the property, thereby improving the current situation related to drainage. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of 2037061 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to grant a blanket easement in favour of 47 Onward Avenue for surface water runoff, on Lots 31 to 33, 41 to 50, Plan 309, Part of Lot 1, Plan 309, Part Lot 44, Plan of Subdivision of Lot 1, German Company Tract, Part of Lot 104 of Streets and Lanes, and Part of Park Lot 25, J.Y. Shantz Survey, Registered Plan BE GRANTED 404, 20 Ottawa Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall provide two full-size copies of Reference Plan 58R-2899 to the satisfaction of the City Clerk. 2. That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking agreeing to register a Blanket Easement over the entirety of 20 Ottawa Street North be provided to the City Solicitor. 3. That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easement be provided to the City Solicitor. 4. The City Solicitor be provided with copies of the registered Transfer Easement immediately 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 February 16, 2018. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 39 - Submission No.: 2. B 2016-003 Applicant: 1271395 Ontario Limited Property Location: Postmaster Drive Legal Description: Part Lot 153 German Company Tract, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-18664 - and - Submission No.: B 2016-004 Applicant: 1271395 Ontario Limited Property Location: Postmaster Drive Legal Description: Part of Block 444, Registered Plan 58M-579, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-18604 Appearances: In Support: G. Bromberg Contra: None Written Submissions: None Through application B 2016-003, the Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having an westerly width of 25.7m (84.317’), a southerly depth of 26.8m (87.926’), and an area of 0.05 hectares to be conveyed as a lot addition to Part of Block 444, Registered Plan 58M-579 fronting onto Postmaster Drive for residential development. Through application B 2016-004, the Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever a triangular-shaped parcel having a width on Postmaster Drive of 31.6m (103.674’), a northerly length of 5.2m (17.060’), an easterly length of 33.4m (109.58’) and an area of approximately 0.01 hectares to be conveyed as a lot addition to Part Lot 153, German Company Tract, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-18664 for residential development. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated February 8, 2016, advising the subject properties are located on the east side of Postmaster Drive, north of West Oak Trail. The properties are split, designated as Low Density Residential Two and Mixed Use One in the Rosenberg Secondary Plan. Similarly, the Zoning of the subject properties is also split, where the lands designated as Low Density Residential Two are zoned as Residential Six (R-6) with Special Regulation Provisions 604R, 606R, and 612R, and where the lands designated as Mixed Use One are zoned as Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU-1) with Special Use Provision 434U and Holding Provision 70H. Portions of the subject lands have been subject to several recent approvals, including a Plan of Subdivision (30T-08201) and several consent and minor variance applications (January 20, 2015, March 17, 2015, and April 21, 2015 Committee of Adjustment meetings). There are existing registered subdivision agreements on title for all of the lands which implement all engineering comments noted in the staff report The owner has now acquired an adjacent piece of irregularly shaped property legally addressed as Part of Block 444, 58M-579 and is proposing to further sever the block into two smaller parcels, which are proposed to be added as a lot additions to lands legally addressed as Part 2 58R-18664, which are also proposed to be severed. The applications in their entirety would result in a lot configuration that would accommodate a street-fronting townhouses block on Postmaster Drive, and a future mixed-use development block with frontage onto West Oak Trail. It is anticipated that the grey block will be developed with four street-fronting townhouses and that the block will be severed in future to allow for individual ownership of each townhouse 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, the uses of the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City’s Rosenberg Secondary Plan and Official Plan. The Rosenberg Secondary Plan encourages a range of land uses that will allow residents the opportunity to live, work and play within the community. The severance of the lands will help to allow for the compatible integration of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 40 - Submission Nos.: 2.B 2016-003 & B 2016-004 (Cont’d) residential and non-residential uses within this area of the community. The dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the proposed use, the lands front on an established public street, and adequate utilities and municipal services are available. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated February 5, 2016, advising they have no objections to this application. In response to questions raised regarding Parkland dedication, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised the subject property has already been subject to previous development applications where Parkland dedication was a requirement. Submission No.: B 2016-003 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of 1271395 Ontario Limited requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having an westerly width of 25.7m (84.317’), a southerly depth of 26.8m (87.926’), and an area of 0.05 hectares to be conveyed as a lot addition to Part of Block 444, Registered Plan 58M-579 fronting onto Postmaster Drive for residential development, on Part Lot 153, German Company Tract, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-18664, Postmaster Drive (vacant land BE GRANTED corner of Postmaster Drive and West Oak Trail), Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. 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 February 16, 2018. Carried Submission No.: B 2016-004 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 16, 2016 - 41 - Submission Nos.: 2.B 2016-003 & B 2016-004 (Cont’d) That the application of 1271395 Ontario Limited requesting permission to sever a triangular- shaped parcel having a width on Postmaster Drive of 31.6m (103.674’), a northerly length of 5.2m (17.060’), an easterly length of 33.4m (109.58’) and an area of approximately 0.01 hectares to be conveyed as a lot addition to Part Lot 153, German Company Tract, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-18664 for residential development, on Part of Block 444, Registered Plan 58M-579, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-18604, Postmaster Drive (vacant land BE GRANTED corner of Postmaster Drive and West Oak Trail), Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. 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 February 16, 2018. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:57 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 16th day of February, 2016. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment