HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-21
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 21, 2016
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Messrs. A. Head and B. McColl and Ms. J. Meader.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking
Analyst; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer and Ms. H. Dyson,
Administrative Clerk.
Mr. J. Wigglesworth, Region of Waterloo
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 May 17, 2016, as mailed to
the members, and amended, be accepted.
Carried
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
1. A 2016-040
Applicant:
Activa Holdings Inc.
Property Location:
346 Woodbine Avenue
Legal Description:
Lot 6, Registered Plan 58M-546
Appearances:
In Support: M. Miranda
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a side yard abutting Sorrento Court of 3.38m (11.089’) rather than the
required 4.5m (14.763’); a front yard setback for an off-street parking space of 5.7m (18.7’) rather
than the required 6m (19.685’); and, a driveway located 8.1m (26.574’) from the intersection of
Woodbine Avenue and Sorrento Court rather than the required 9m (29.53').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated June 13, 2016, advising the
subject property located at 346 Woodbine Avenue is designated Low Rise Residential in the
City’s Official Plan and zoned Residential Four (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1 with Special
Regulation 405R. The property is to be developed with a single detached dwelling which is
currently under construction. The owner is requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 to permit a
reduced front yard setback of 5.7 metres for an attached garage, whereas 6.0 metres is required;
and, Section 6.1.1.1 b) iv) to locate the access driveway at a distance of 8.1 metres from the
intersection of the street lines abutting the corner lot, whereas 9.0 metres is required.
A third variance was requested in the application with regards to the setback for the covered
porch, which is proposed at 3.38 metres from the side lot line abutting a street. Upon further
review by staff, it has been determined that no variance is required as the covered porch
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 111 -
Submission No.:
1.A 2016-040 (Cont’d)
complies with the existing zoning, per section 5.6A.4 a), which permits a minimum setback of 3.0
metres from the side lot line abutting a street for a covered porch provided it is not enclosed and
does not exceed 0.6 metres in height. As such, staff recommend the decision be modified to
exclude this requested relief from the Zoning 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 followingcomments:
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP). The
proposed variances meet the intent of the OP, which encourages a range of housing forms that
achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. The minor changes will maintain the low density
character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variances conform to
the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variances are appropriate.
The requested variance to legalize the location of the existing off-street parking space at 5.7
metres from the street line, whereas 6.0 metres is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-
law. The purpose of the 6.0 metre setback is to provide separation between the parking space
and the street line. Staff is satisfied the reduction of 0.3 metres will maintain adequate separation
between the parking space and the street line.
The requested variance to legalize the 8.1 metre separation from the driveway to the intersection
of the street lines abutting the corner lot, whereas 9.0 metres is required, meets the intent of the
Zoning By-law. The purpose of the 9.0 metre setback is to ensure pedestrian and vehicular
safety. It is staff’s opinion that the 0.9 metre reduction is minor and will not impact the property or
access to the intersection. As such, staff is satisfied the variance meets the intent of the Zoning
By-law.
The variances can be considered minor as the reduced parking space setback and reduced
distance of driveway to intersection of street lines will not present any significant impacts to
adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood.
The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed
residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. No major changes are proposed to the
scale, massing and height, therefore the proposed variances 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
June 9, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a front yard setback for the attached garage of 5.7m (18.7’) rather
than the required 6m (19.685’); and, a driveway located 8.1m (26.574’) from the intersection of
Woodbine Avenue and Sorrento Court rather than the required 9m (29.53'), on Lot 6,
BE APPROVED
Registered Plan 58M-546, 346 Woodbine Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, .
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 112 -
Submission No.:
2. A 2016-041
Applicant:
Sean and Carmen McQuillin
Property Location:
39 Dekay Street
Legal Description:
Lot 21, Plan 133
Appearances:
In Support: S. McQuillin
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to enclose the existing
porch and construct a second storey dormer addition on a single detached dwelling having a front
yard setback of 3.358m (11.017’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); a rear yard setback of
7.34m (24.081’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’); having an existing driveway width of
2.4m (7.874’) rather than the minimum required width of 2.6m (8.530’); and, to permit a 3.35m
(10.990’) Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), whereas the By-law requires a 4.5m (14.763’) DVT.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated June 13, 2016, advising the
subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP) and zoned
Residential Four Zone (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The lands are developed with an existing
single detached dwelling. The owners are proposing to partially enclose and extend the existing
covered front porch, and as such are requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 to legalize the existing
front yard setback of 3.35 metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required; Section 38.2.1 to legalize the
existing rear yard setback of 7.34 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required; Section 5.3 to allow a
portion of the existing covered porch to encroach 1.22 metres into the DVT; and, Section 6.1.1.1
b) ii) b) to legalize the existing driveway width of 2.4 metres, whereas 2.6 metres is required.
Upon further review by staff, it was determined the side yard setback does not comply with
Section 38.2.1, which requires a minimum side yard setback of 3 metres when the driveway is
located in the side yard, whereas 2.4 metres is existing. This setback is an existing situation and
no changes are proposed, thereby making it legal non-complying. However, staff recommends
the decision be modified to include this variance for the purpose of bringing the building
completely into compliance with current zoning regulations.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments.
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP). The
proposed variances meet the intent of the OP, which encourages a range of housing forms that
achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. The minor changes will maintain the low density
character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variances conform to
the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variances are appropriate.
The requested variances to reduce the front yard setback from 4.5 metres to 3.35 metres and the
rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 7.34 metres meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent
of the 4.5 metre front yard setback is to provide separation between the structure and the street
line. Because the setback is existing, staff is satisfied the reduction of 1.15 metres from the
required 4.5 metres will maintain adequate separation. The intent of the 7.5 metre rear yard
setback is to provide adequate amenity space in the rear yard and separation between the
building and neighbouring properties. Given that the reduced rear yard setback is existing and the
applicant is not proposing any further encroachment, staff is satisfied the reduction of 0.16 metres
meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The requested variance to allow the enclosed porch to encroach 1.2 metres into the DVT meets
the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.57 metre DVT is to provide visibility for
vehicles exiting the driveway and pedestrians. Though the existing porch encroaches 1.22 metres
into the DVT, visibility is maintained by the remaining 3.35 metre separation from the street. As
such, staff is satisfied the requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The applicant is requesting relief to legalize the existing 2.4 metre wide driveway, whereas a
minimum width of 2.6 metres is required. Further, staff has identified an additional variance to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 113 -
Submission No.:
2.A 2016-041 (Cont’d)
legalize the existing side yard setback of 2.4 metres, whereas 3 metres is required where the
driveway is located in the side yard. As the proposed driveway width and side yard setback are
both existing conditions, staff is satisfied the variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The variances can be considered minor as the reduced front, side, and rear yard setbacks,
encroachment into the DVT, and reduced driveway width will not present any significant impacts
to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. The purpose of these variances is to
legalize existing conditions in order to facilitate a minor expansion to the existing front porch. As
such, the impact of these variances will be negligible.
The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed
residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. No major changes are proposed to the
scale, massing and height of the subject building, therefore it will not negatively impact the
existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
June 9, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. S. McQuillin was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff
recommendations.
Ms. J. von Westerholt noted as mentioned on Page 2 of the staff report, through further review of
the subject application it was determined that an additional variance was required to legalize the
existing side yard setback of 2.4 metres, whereas 3 metres is required where the driveway is
located in the side yard. Staff have included the additional variance in the staff recommendation.
In response to questions, Ms. von Westerholt advised the requested variances are to legalize the
existing house and are not required for the applicants proposed additions/modifications to the
dwelling.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Sean & Carmen McQuillin requesting permission to enclose the
existing porch and construct a second storey dormer addition on a single detached dwelling
having a front yard setback of 3.358m (11.017’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); a rear
yard setback of 7.34m (24.081’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’); having an existing
driveway width of 2.4m (7.874’) rather than the minimum required width of 2.6m (8.530’);
having a northerly side yard setback of 2.4m (7.87’) whereas the By-law requires a side yard
setback of 3m (9.842’) when the driveway is located in the side yard; and, to permit a 1.22m
(3.28’) encroachment in the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT), whereas the By-law does not
BE
permit encroachments into DVT, on Lot 21, Plan 133, 39 Dekay Street, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit by December 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
Submission No.:
3. A 2016-042
Applicants:
Eastforest Homes Ltd.
Property Location:
479 Moorlands Crescent
Legal Description:
Lot 63, Registered Plan 58M-541
Appearances:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 114 -
Submission No.:
3.A 2016-042 (Cont’d)
In Support: M. Miranda
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a side yard abutting South Creek Drive of 3.17m (10.4’) rather than the
required 4.5m (14.763’).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated June 13, 2016, advising the
subject property located at 479 Moorlands Crescent is designated Low Rise Residential in the
City’s Official Plan and zoned Residential Four (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1 with Special
Regulation 405R. The lands are currently vacant and proposed to be developed with a single
detached dwelling and as such, the owner is requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 to permit a
reduced side yard abutting the street setback of 3.17 metres, whereas 4.5 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 offers the followingcomments:
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP). The
proposed variance meets the intent of the OP, which encourages a range of housing forms that
achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. The minor changes will maintain the low density
character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to
the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate.
The requested variance to reduce the side yard setback abutting the street from 4.5 metres to
3.17 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.5 metre side yard setback
abutting the street is to provide separation between the structure and the street line. Staff is
satisfied the reduction of 1.33 metres from the required 4.5 metres will maintain adequate
separation and therefore meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The variance can be considered minor as the reduced side yard setback abutting the street will
not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed
residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. No major changes are proposed to the
scale, massing and height, therefore the proposed variance 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
June 9, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. M. Miranda was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff
recommendations.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Eastforest Homes Ltd. requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a side yard abutting South Creek Drive of 3.17m (10.4’) rather than
the required 4.5m (14.763’), on Lot 63, Registered Plan 58M-541, 479 Moorlands Crescent,
BE APPROVED
Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed single detached dwelling
by December 1, 2016.
2. That the owner shall ensure the reduced side yard abutting the street setback applies
only to the proposed single detached dwelling, as depicted on the Survey Sketch
prepared by Black, Shoemaker, Robinson & Donaldson, dated April 27, 2016.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 115 -
Submission No.:
3.A 2016-042 (Cont’d)
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 2016-043
Applicant:
Ela and Leslaw Zolyniak
Property Location:
256 Belmont Avenue North
Legal Description:
Lot 17, Plan 778
Appearances:
In Support: E. Zolyniak
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting legalization of an existing single
detached dwelling with a home business having a driveway located 1.5m (4.92’) from the
intersection of Belmont Avenue West and Sandra Avenue rather than the required 9m (29.53').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated June 13, 2016, advising the
property is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in By-law 85-1 and has an Official Plan (OP) designation
of Low Rise Residential in the current and also the new OP (under appeal).
The applicants are requesting a minor variance to legalize an existing single detached dwelling
with a home business having a driveway located 1.5 metres (4.92 ft) from the intersection of
Belmont Avenue West and Sandra Avenue and extending along the Sandra Avenue property line
rather than the required 9 metres (29.53 ft).
The existing use as a single detached dwelling with a home business (personal service) is
permitted in the Zoning By-law provided all regulations are met. The previously existing single-car
driveway was located approximately 3 metres from the intersection of the property lines and was
considered legal non-conforming. Since 1995, a 9-metre setback for driveways from intersections
of corner property lines was established. Sometime between 2007 and 2009 the single-car wide
driveway was widened by the current owners and the pavement located up to and over the
property line along Sandra Avenue. This is considered a safety concern for pedestrians as well as
not appropriate development for the streetscape, therefore the owners were advised staff is not in
support of the existing parking spaces located leading up to the sidewalk. After consultation, the
owners have agreed to remove some non-complying pavement and replace with grass, as noted
in the drawing submitted with this application.
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 for the single dwelling with a home business meets the intent of the current and new
OP. The intent of the Plan is to ensure a mixture and integration of different forms of housing to
achieve a low overall intensity of use. The predominant land use is to be residential; however,
non-residential uses at appropriate scale and in appropriate locations may be accommodated.
The existing uses are in keeping with the intent of the OP.
The proposed driveway variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered
minor for the following reasons. The proposed variance to locate the driveway 1.5 metres from
the intersection of the lot lines and along Sandra Avenue would maintain the setback existing at
the driveway entrance from Belmont Avenue and also provide some separation between the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 116 -
Submission No.:
4.A 2016-043 (Cont’d)
vehicle parking and pedestrians using the sidewalk. The proposed driveway modifications will
result in a driveway that provides parking for the owners and their clients. It is noted that a home
business permits a maximum of three clients to the property at one time. Traffic staff is in support
of the proposed modification to the existing driveway.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land based for the reasons noted
above. As noted above, by removing the pavement within the City owned lands and also within
1.5 metres of the property line along Sandra Avenue, a buffer will be created between the
sidewalk for safety and also provide a better streetscape for the property and neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
June 9, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Ms. E. Zolyniak was in attendance in support of the subject application. She indicated she had no
objections to the removal of the asphalt as proposed by staff in the recommendation; however,
she requested an amendment to the date as outlined in Condition 4 that all the work must be
completed by September 1, 2016. She suggested a deadline of November 1, 2016 for Condition
4.
Ms. J. Meader expressed some concerns with suggested date, noting the applicant may have
some difficultly installing grass in November. The Chair noted he had no concerns with the
suggested deadline, indicating the extension would provide adequate buffer time to complete all
of the work to the City’s satisfaction.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Ela & Leslaw Zolyniak requesting legalization of an existing single
detached dwelling with a home business having a driveway located 1.5m (4.92’) from the
intersection of Belmont Avenue West and Sandra Avenue extending along the Sandra Avenue
property line rather than the required 9m (29.53'), on Lot 17, Plan 778, 256 Belmont Avenue
BE APPROVED
West, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall remove non-complying asphalt on City lands between the sidewalk
and the Sandra Avenue property line and replace it with grass, as per City of Kitchener
standards.
2. That the owner shall remove the non-complying asphalt from the Sandra Avenue
property line and into the property a distance of 1.534 metres and replace it with grass,
as shown on the Plan submitted with this application.
3. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate for the home business
from the Planning Division.
4. That the owner shall complete Conditions 1 to 3 above by November 1, 2016. Any
request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of
Development Review (or designate) prior to completion date set out in this decision.
Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 117 -
Submission No.:
5. A 2016-044
Applicants:
2495513 Ontario Inc.
Property Location:
169 Lancaster Street West
Legal Description:
Part of Park Lot 551, Plan 378, Part Lot 119, Closed Streets and
Lanes, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-3605
Appearances:
In Support: F. Lahouti
B. McCulloch
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct an 18-unit
multiple dwelling and legalize an existing 4-storey multiple dwelling proposed to contain 21
dwelling units (currently contains 20 units) having a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.85, whereas the
By-Law permits a maximum FSR of 0.6 for multiple dwellings; the required off-street parking
spaces to be located between the front façade of the existing multiple dwelling and the front lot
line, whereas the By-Law does not permit off-street parking spaces to be located in this area; a
building height of 11.0 metres (36.089') for the proposed multiple dwelling, whereas the By-Law
permits a maximum building height of 10.5m (34.448'); and, to legalize the existing multiple
dwelling having a building height of 11.33m (37.073'), whereas the By-Law permits a maximum
building height of 10.5m (34.448').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated June 15, 2016, advising the
subject property is located on the west side of Lancaster Street West, south of Guelph Street.
The property abuts Lips Park to the north. Surrounding properties are composed of low density
residential land uses, such as single detached dwellings and triplexes. The property contains a
four-storey, 20-unit multiple dwelling constructed in approximately 1960. Parking is located along
the north side of the driveway, including between the building and the street. The property is
designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan (OP). The property is split-zoned with the
majority of the site being zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) and a small portion of the site near the
southwest corner being zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5), with Special Regulation Provision
129U.
In February 2014, the previous owner of the property applied for Site Plan approval (Application
SP14/009/L/AP) to construct an 18-unit multiple dwelling to the rear (west) of the existing multiple
dwelling, and to intensify the existing 20-unit multiple dwelling with one unit through an internal
renovation, for a total of 39 units. The Site Plan received Approved in Principle in March 2014 and
included several conditions, including the need for several minor variances. Accordingly, the
previous owner submitted Minor Variance Application (A 2014-019) which was heard at the April
2014 Committee Meeting and requested:
1. A maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.85, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a maximum
Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 for multiple dwellings (Section 40.2.6);2. A maximum building
height of 11.3 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law allows a maximum building height of
10.5 metres, for an existing multiple dwelling (Section 40.2.6); and,
3. A maximum building height of 11.0 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law allows a maximum
building height of 10.5 metres, to allow a proposed multiple dwelling (Section 40.2.6); and
further,
4. Non-visitor off-street parking spaces to be located between the facade of an existing
multiple dwelling and the front lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires that no non-
visitor off-street parking spaces are to be located between the façade of an existing
multiple dwelling and the front lot line [Section 6.1.1.1.d)i)].
At that time the Committee approved the variances subject to several conditions, including: ‘That
the owner shall obtain final approval of Site Plan Application SP14/009/L/AP and shall obtain the
required applicable Building Permits by April 15, 2015.’
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 118 -
Submission No.:
5.A 2016-044 (Cont’d)
Unfortunately, the above condition was not fulfilled by the April 15, 2015 deadline, and
consequently the variance lapsed. Since that time, the property has been purchased by a new
owner who has reactivated the Site Plan application. The lapsed minor variance approval was
identified though the review of the reactivated Site Plan application. Accordingly, in order to
proceed with the aforementioned development, the new owner has re-applied for all of the above
noted variances through the subject application.
It should be noted that the subject Minor Variance application also contains an additional request
(Variance 5): ‘requesting a hedge on the adjacent property addressed as 165 Lancaster Street
West to be located within the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) for the subject property’. Although
this hedge encroachment into the DVT at the southeast corner of the subject property was
identified as a zoning compliance issue for the subject property, staff is unable to process this
variance request because the hedge is located on a neighbouring property and would require the
authorization of the neighbouring property owner. In this regard, zoning compliance for this issue
will have to be achieved in some other manner in order to proceed with development of the
proposed multiple dwelling.
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.
Variance 1, above, meets the intent of the Official Plan (OP) and Zoning By-law. The intent of the
maximum 0.6 Floor Space Ratio (FSR) policy/regulation is to ensure multiple dwellings are
constructed at a low density. The general intent of FSR requirements is to regulate the massing
and scale of a development. It should be noted the proposed massing increase would not be
visible from the street. In addition, the massing of the proposed building would mostly impact the
property to the north, which is a City park. Since the grade of the park is much higher than that of
the subject property (estimated 2 metres grade difference), the impact on the park is negligible.
Variance 1 is minor as it does not create unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties for
the above noted reasons and since adequate setbacks are maintained to adjacent low density
residential properties.
Variances 2 and 3 meet the intent of the OP for the following reasons. The OP states that ‘Low
Rise Residential Districts shall accommodate a full range of housing types. In these districts the
City favours the mixing and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall
intensity of use’. The OP also states ‘A maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 shall be applied to
multiple dwellings and no residential building shall exceed three stories in height at street
elevation’.
The proposed multiple dwelling is 3-storeys in height at street elevation. It should also be noted
that the proposed building may not even be visible from the street, given the great distance
between the building and the street and the fact that the existing multiple dwelling blocks its view.
The existing multiple dwelling has been in existence for over half a century.
Variances 2 and 3 meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The intent of
the maximum building height regulation is to implement the maximum 3-storey policy of the OP in
order to ensure compatible, low rise buildings in this designation. Planning staff is of the opinion
the requested building height variances maintain the intent of the OP.
Variances 2 and 3 are minor as they do not cause unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent
properties. It should be noted the proposed buildings abut Lips Park to the north, not residential
development. The existing and proposed buildings maintain an adequate setback from adjacent
low density residential land uses to the west and south.
Variance 4 meets the intent of the OP and Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The OP
seeks to ensure appropriate urban design. This often involves creating a streetscape that locates
buildings close to the street while locating parking in a less visible location, usually behind
buildings. In this case, the lot orientation/shape does not allow for a building to be constructed
close to the street. The existing parking lot is proposed to remain. However, the parking lot would
be improved via the Site Plan Application, through the removal of parking from the northeasterly
DVT and the installation of landscaping close to Lancaster Street. In this regard, the front yard
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 119 -
Submission No.:
5.A 2016-044 (Cont’d)
would be improved through safety measures and through streetscape improvements. It should
also be recognized that the number of parking spaces in front of the building would be reduced
from between 18 to 20 spaces (staff could not confirm the exact number of existing spaces) to 16
spaces, of which 7 spaces are proposed to be visitor parking spaces.
Variance 4 is minor as it does not cause unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties.
The existing parking area in front of the existing building would be improved and would be made
safer (see above).
Variances 1 through 4 are desirable for the appropriate development of the land since they would
allow the construction of a unique form of housing, one not found in the surrounding
neighbourhood, thereby adding to the mix of housing. In addition, the variances are desirable
since they conform to an OP policy which states:
New additions and modifications to existing buildings are to be directed to the rear yard and are to
be discouraged in the front yard and side yard abutting a street, except where it can be
demonstrated that the addition and/or modification is compatible in scale, massing, design and
character of adjacent properties and is in keeping with the character of the streetscape.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
June 9, 2016, advising while the existing hedge location may reduce the ability of drivers exiting
the driveway at 169 Lancaster Street West, Regional staff understand that the hedge is located
on the adjacent property and may not be able to be removed. If removal of the hedge is not
viable, appropriate signage should be provided at the driveway to alert exiting drivers of the
reduced visibility. The appropriate signage can be provided through the Site Plan process and
included in a future Regional Road Access Permit.
Messrs. B. McCulloch and F. Lahouti were in attendance in support of the subject application and
staff recommendation. Mr. McCullouch provided a brief overview of the application, noting
following the submission of the application further consultation was had with Planning staff and he
acknowledge the inability to receive a variance for the hedge located in the DVT, recognizing it is
on the neighbouring property.
Mr. McCullouch stated the property is subject to the Site Plan approval process, noting he is
aware action will be required with regard to the hedge located in the DVT to receive Site Plan
approval. He further advised staff have suggested three potential options for consideration,
including: contacting the neighbouring property owner to seek their permission to trim the hedge
to a maximum 0.9m in height; installing signage advising drivers of reduced visibility; or, following
up with the City to request enforcement of the edge under the Property Standards By-law. He
commented that his preferred option is to follow up with the neighbouring property owner to seek
permission to trim the hedge on their behalf.
In response to questions, Mr. McCullouch advised the hedge has been there for some time and
there have not been any issues regarding visibility identified to date.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of 2495513 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct an 18-unit
multiple dwelling and legalize an existing 4-storey multiple dwelling proposed to contain 21
dwelling units (currently contains 20 units) having a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.85, whereas
the By-Law permits a maximum FSR of 0.6 for multiple dwellings; the required off-street
parking spaces to be located between the front façade of the existing multiple dwelling and the
front lot line, whereas the By-Law does not permit off-street parking spaces to be located in
this area; a building height of 11.0 metres (36.089') for the proposed multiple dwelling,
whereas the By-Law permits a maximum building height of 10.5m (34.448'); and, to legalize
the existing multiple dwelling having a building height of 11.33m (37.073'), whereas the By-Law
permits a maximum building height of 10.5m (34.448'), on Part of Park Lot 551, Plan 378, Part
Lot 119, Closed Streets and Lanes, being Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 58R-3605, 169
BE APPROVED
Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain final approval of Site Plan Application SP14/009/L/AP and
shall obtain the required applicable Building Permits by December 31, 2016.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 120 -
Submission No.:
5.A 2016-044 (Cont’d)
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
6. A 2016-045
Applicant:
2322211 Ontario Inc. (Intown Inc.)
Property Location:
8 Bismark Avenue
Legal Description:
Part Lot C, Plan 386, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-17424
Appearances:
In Support: B. Eby
Contra: R. Serroul
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to add ‘semi-detached duplex
dwelling’ use existing after July 31, 2014, whereas the By-law does not permit semi-detached
duplex dwelling use.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated June 13, 2016, advising the
subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP) and zoned
Residential Five Zone (R-5) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The lands are currently vacant and are
proposed to be developed with a new semi-detached duplex dwelling. As such, the owner is
requesting relief of Section 39.1 to permit the semi-detached duplex dwelling use after July 31,
2014, whereas the use is not currently permitted.
The property was previously subject to applications B 2011-055 and A 2011-073. The purpose of
these applications was to create the new lot from the property municipally addressed as 156
Waterloo Street; to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 3.5 metres; and, a reduced lot area of
190 square metres. These applications were approved by the Committee on December 13, 2011.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments:
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s OP. The proposed
variances meet the intent of the OP, which encourages a range of housing forms that achieve an
overall low density neighbourhood. Staff is satisfied the minor changes will maintain the low
density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood as well as provide a mix of
housing types. As such, the proposed variances conform to the OP designation and it is the
opinion of staff that the requested variances are appropriate.
Staff is satisfied the requested variance to permit the semi-detached duplex dwelling use meets
the intent of the Zoning By-law. In 2013, the City initiated a City-wide zone change to reduce the
number of zones which permit the semi-detached duplex dwelling use as-of-right. As a result of
this zone change, this use is only permitted in the Residential Six (R-6) and Residential Seven
(R-7) zones. The By-law was subsequently appealed and later approved, as amended, by the
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on August 6, 2014. The intent of this zone change was to restrict
the location of semi-detached duplex dwellings throughout the City and allow the City to have
greater control over where they are developed. The property subject to this application is located
within an existing low rise residential neighbourhood with development ranging from existing 1-
2.5 storey single detached dwellings to a 2.5 storey multiple dwelling to the east of the subject
lands. Staff is satisfied that the proposed use represents a form of infill development that is
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 121 -
Submission No.:
6.A 2016-045 (Cont’d)
appropriate for the subject property and surrounding neighbourhood. As such, staff is satisfied the
requested variance to add the semi-detached duplex dwelling use meets the intent of the Zoning
By-law.
The variances can be considered minor as the proposed semi-detached duplex dwelling use will
not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. The
proposed semi-detached duplex dwelling use will provide a new housing form at a scale and
density that is appropriate for the context of the existing neighbourhood.
The requested variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The
redevelopment of these properties will be sympathetic to the surrounding area and bring a new
context-appropriate unit type to the neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
June 9, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. B. Eby was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendations. He
provided a brief overview of the application, noting the subject property was before the
Committee of Adjustment in 2010 and at that time duplexing semi-detached dwellings was
permitted, otherwise an additional request would have been made at that time.
Ms. R. Serroul, neighbouring property owner, addressed the Committee in opposition to the
subject application, noting she had concerns with construction on the subject property and the
inability for her to access her driveway. She noted there is no parking permitted on the north side
of the street and yet when service providers attend the subject property, they inevitably park
illegally and she is unable to enter/exit her driveway. She indicated her concerns specifically
relate to the construction on the subject property and how it would impact the use of her
driveway.
The Chair noted although he sympathizes with the neighbour’s concerns, parking issues need to
be addressed through By-law Enforcement. He noted the Committee is only able to consider the
merits of the subject application.
In response to questions, Mr. Eby advised he has done a number of infill projects to date and he
has always had good working relationships with the neighbours. He indicated he would have no
concerns with exchanging contact information with the neighbouring property owner in hopes to
alleviate any concerns raised regarding the construction phase.
In response to questions regarding the changes to the By-law related to duplexing semi-detached
dwellings, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that the subject property is not grandfathered to permit
the semi-detached dwellings to be duplexed, and that is the purpose of the application. She noted
there was a significant public engagement process in 2014 to amend the Zoning By-law to restrict
duplexing semi-detached dwellings. She added the intention was to add further clarity and
additional control when semi-detached dwellings would be permitted for duplexing. She stated
individuals are now required to seek permission to approve the use, which provides staff greater
control on where duplexing semi-detached dwellings would be permitted.
Mr. B. McColl questioned whether the one-bedroom suite would require an off-street parking
space. Ms. von Westerholt advised that it would require one off-street parking space.
Mr. Eby noted Condition 1 of the staff recommendation and the deadline of December 1, 2016.
He requested an amendment to the Condition to extend the deadline to one-year from this
meeting date. He stated it is not his intention to delay the project significantly; he was just seeking
some additional time to ensure the decision does not lapse.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of 2322211 Ontario Inc. (Intown Inc.) requesting permission to add ‘semi-
detached duplex dwelling’ use existing after July 31, 2014, whereas the By-law does not permit
semi-detached duplex dwelling use, on Part Lot C, Plan 386, being Part 2 on Reference Plan
BE APPROVED
58R-17424, 8 Bismark Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 122 -
Submission No.:
6.A 2016-045 (Cont’d)
1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed semi-detached duplex
dwelling by June 21, 2017.
2. That the owner shall submit a Site Plan and elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the
City’s Manager of Site Development and Customer Service.
3. That the owner shall install and certify tree protection fencing, as per the approved
Preliminary Tree Management Inventory prepared by Greystone Design Group Inc.
dated 11/27/201, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
7. A 2016-046
Applicant:
2322213 Ontario Inc. (Intown Inc.)
Property Location:
10 Bismark Avenue
Legal Description:
Part Lot C, Plan 386, Being Part 3 on Reference Plan 58R-17424
Appearances:
In Support: B. Eby
Contra: R. Serroul
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to add ‘semi-detached duplex
dwelling’ use existing after July 31, 2014, whereas the By-law does not permit semi-detached
duplex dwelling use.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated June 13, 2016, advising the
subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP) and zoned
Residential Five Zone (R-5) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The lands are currently vacant and are
proposed to be developed with a new semi-detached duplex dwelling. As such, the owner is
requesting relief of Section 39.1 to permit the semi-detached duplex dwelling use after July 31,
2014, whereas the use is not currently permitted.
The property was previously subject to applications B 2011-056 and A 2011-074. The purpose of
these applications was to create the new lot from the property municipally addressed as 156
Waterloo Street; to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 6.5 metres; and, a reduced lot area of
202.39 square metres. These applications were approved by the Committee on December 13,
2011.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments:
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s OP. The proposed
variances meet the intent of the OP, which encourages a range of housing forms that achieve an
overall low density neighbourhood. Staff is satisfied the minor changes will maintain the low
density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood as well as provide a mix of
housing types. As such, the proposed variances conform to the OP designation and it is the
opinion of staff that the requested variances are appropriate.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 123 -
Submission No.:
7.A 2016-046 (Cont’d)
Staff is satisfied the requested variance to permit the semi-detached duplex dwelling use meets
the intent of the Zoning By-law. In 2013, the City initiated a City-wide zone change to reduce the
number of zones which permit the semi-detached duplex dwelling use as-of-right. As a result of
this zone change, this use is only permitted in the Residential Six (R-6) and Residential Seven
(R-7) zones. The By-law was subsequently appealed and later approved, as amended, by the
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on August 6, 2014. The intent of this zone change was to restrict
the location of semi-detached duplex dwellings throughout the City and allow the City to have
greater control over where they are developed. The property subject to this application is located
within an existing low rise residential neighbourhood with development ranging from existing 1-
2.5 storey single detached dwellings to a 2.5 storey multiple dwelling immediately to the east of
the subject lands. Staff is satisfied that the proposed use represents a form of infill development
that is appropriate for the subject property and surrounding neighbourhood. As such, staff is
satisfied the requested variance to add the semi-detached duplex dwelling use meets the intent of
the Zoning By-law.
The variances can be considered minor as the proposed semi-detached duplex dwelling use will
not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. The
proposed semi-detached duplex dwelling use will provide a new housing form at a scale and
density that is appropriate for the context of the existing neighbourhood.
The requested variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The
redevelopment of these properties will be sympathetic to the surrounding area and bring a new
context-appropriate unit type to the neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
June 9, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. B. Eby was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendations. He
provided a brief overview of the application, noting the subject property was before the
Committee of Adjustment in 2010 and at that time duplexing semi-detached dwellings was
permitted, otherwise an additional request would have been made at that time.
Ms. R. Serroul, neighbouring property owner, addressed the Committee in opposition to the
subject application, noting she had concerns with construction on the subject property and the
inability for her to access her driveway. She noted there is no parking permitted on the north side
of the street and yet when service providers attend the subject property, they inevitably park
illegally and she is unable to enter/exit her driveway. She indicated her concerns specifically
relate to the construction on the subject property and how it would impact the use of her
driveway.
The Chair noted although he sympathizes with the neighbour’s concerns, parking issues need to
be addressed through By-law Enforcement. He noted the Committee is only able to consider the
merits of the subject application.
In response to questions, Mr. Eby advised he has done a number of infill projects to date and he
has always had good working relationships with the neighbours. He indicated he would have no
concerns with exchanging contact information with the neighbouring property owner in hopes to
alleviate any concerns raised regarding the construction phase.
In response to questions regarding the changes to the By-law related to duplexing semi-detached
dwellings, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that the subject property is not grandfathered to permit
the semi-detached dwellings to be duplexed, and that is the purpose of the application. She noted
there was a significant public engagement process in 2014 to amend the Zoning By-law to restrict
duplexing semi-detached dwellings. She added the intention was to add further clarity and
additional control when semi-detached dwellings would be permitted for duplexing. She stated
individuals are now required to seek permission to approve the use, which provides staff greater
control on where duplexing semi-detached dwellings would be permitted.
Mr. B. McColl questioned whether the one-bedroom suite would require an off-street parking
space. Ms. von Westerholt advised that it would require one off-street parking space.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 124 -
Submission No.:
7.A 2016-046 (Cont’d)
Mr. Eby noted Condition 1 of the staff recommendation and the deadline of December 1, 2016.
He requested an amendment to the Condition to extend the deadline to one-year from this
meeting date. He stated it is not his intention to delay the project significantly; he was just seeking
some additional time to ensure the decision does not lapse.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of 2322213 Ontario Inc. (Intown Inc.) requesting permission to add ‘semi-
detached duplex dwelling’ use existing after July 31, 2014, whereas the By-law does not permit
semi-detached duplex dwelling use, on Part Lot C, Plan 386, Being Part 3 on Reference Plan
BE APPROVED
58R-17424, 10 Bismark Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed semi-detached duplex
dwelling by June 21, 2017.
2. That the owner shall submit a Site Plan and elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the
City’s Manager of Site Development and Customer Service.
3. That the owner shall install and certify tree protection fencing, as per the approved
Preliminary Tree Management Inventory prepared by Greystone Design Group Inc.
dated 11/27/2011, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
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
COMBINED APPLICATIONS:
Submission Nos.:
1. B 2016-019, A 2016-047 and A 2016-048
Applicants:
2317445 Ontario Inc. (Intown Inc.)
Property Location:
156 Waterloo Street
Legal Description:
Part Lot C, Plan 386, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-17424
Appearances:
In Support: B. Eby
Contra: R. Serroul
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised 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. The severed
land will have a width on Waterloo Street of 7.9m (25.918’), a depth of 29.061m (95.344’), and an
area of 228.7 sq.m. (2461.706 sq.ft.). The retained land will have a width of 11.92m (39.107’), a
depth of 29.079m (95.403’), and an area of 339.3 sq.m. (3652.195 sq.ft.). Permission is also
being requested for the severed parcel to have a lot area of 228.7 sq.m. (2461.706 sq.ft.) rather
than the required 235 sq.m. (2529.519 sq.ft); and, to add "semi-detached duplex dwelling" use
existing after July 31, 2014, whereas the By-law does not permit semi-detached duplex dwelling
use. The retained parcel will require permission to have a driveway located 8.6m (28.215’) from
the intersection of Waterloo Street and Bismark Avenue rather than the required 9m (29.53'); a lot
width of 11.9m (39.04’) rather than the required 12.5m (41.010’); and, to add "semi-detached
duplex dwelling" use existing after July 31, 2014, whereas the By-law does not permit semi-
detached duplex dwelling use.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 125 -
1.Submission No.: B 2016-019, A 2016-047 and A 2016-048 (Cont’d)
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated June 13, 2016, advising the
subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP) and zoned
Residential Five Zone (R-5) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The lands are currently developed with an
existing single detached dwelling and are proposed to be redeveloped with a new semi-detached
duplex dwelling.
The owner is requesting permission to sever the subject lands with the intent to redevelop the
lands with a new semi-detached duplex dwelling and allow separate ownership of each semi-
detached unit (B 2016-019). The severed lot would have a lot width of 7.9 metres, a depth of 29.6
metres, and an area of 228.7 square metres, while the retained lot would have a lot width of 11.9
metres, depth of 29.6 metres, and an area of 339.3 square metres. In addition, the owner has
submitted two minor variances applications:
A 2016-047 (severed lot) – requesting relief from Section 39.1 to permit the semi-detached
duplex dwelling use after July 31, 2014 and Section 39.2.2 to permit a reduced lot area of 228.7
square metres, whereas 235 square metres is required.
A 2016-048 (retained lot) – requesting relief from Section 39.1 to permit the semi-detached
duplex dwelling use after July 31, 2014; Section 39.2.2 to permit a reduced corner lot width of
11.9 metres, whereas 12.5 metres is required; and, Section 6.1.1.1 b) ii) iv) to permit the driveway
to be located 8.6 metres from the intersection of the street lines abutting the lot, whereas 9
metres is required.
The property was previously subject to applications B 2011-055, B 2011-056, and A 2011-072.
The purpose of these applications was to create two new lots, now municipally addressed as 8
and 10 Bismark Avenue; and, to permit a reduced rear, side, and off-street parking setbacks for
the existing single detached dwelling. These applications were approved by the Committee on
December 13, 2011.
Consent Application – B 2016-019:
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 both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the
City’s Official Plan (OP) and meet the intent of Zoning By-law 85-1. Minor variances have been
requested to permit the semi-detached duplex dwelling use after July 31, 2014.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal conforms with the regulations of the Residential
Five Zone (R-5), subject to approval of the concurrent minor variance applications. The proposed
severance conforms to the City’s OP and the configuration of the proposed lots can be
considered appropriate for the use of the lands. The proposed severance is required to create
separate semi-detached dwelling units and allow separate ownership of each.
Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that Consent Application B 2016-019,
requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots to allow separate ownership of each
semi-detached dwelling unit, be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the Recommendation
section of this report.
Minor Variance Applications – A 2016-047 and A 2016-048:
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments:
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP). The
proposed variances meet the intent of the OP, which encourages a range of housing forms that
achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. Staff is satisfied the minor changes will maintain
the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood as well as provide a mix
of housing types. As such, the proposed variances conform to the OP designation and it is the
opinion of staff that the requested variances are appropriate.
Staff is satisfied the requested variance to permit the semi-detached duplex dwelling use meets
the intent of the Zoning By-law. In 2013, the City initiated a City-wide zone change to reduce the
number of zones which permit the semi-detached duplex dwelling use as-of-right. As a result of
this zone change, this use is only permitted in the Residential Six (R-6) and Residential Seven
(R-7) zones. The By-law was subsequently appealed and later approved, as amended, by the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 126 -
1.Submission No.: B 2016-019, A 2016-047 & A 2016-048 (Cont’d)
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on August 6, 2014. The intent of this zone change was to restrict
the location of semi-detached duplex dwellings throughout the City and allow the City to have
greater control over where they are developed. The property subject to this application is located
within an existing low rise residential neighbourhood with development ranging from existing 1-
2.5 storey single detached dwellings to a 2.5 storey multiple dwelling to the east of the subject
lands. Staff is satisfied that the proposed use represents a form of infill development that is
appropriate for the subject property and surrounding neighbourhood. As such, staff is satisfied the
requested variance to add the semi-detached duplex dwelling use on each of the proposed
severed and retained parcels meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The requested variance to permit a reduced lot area of 228.7 square metres for the proposed
severed parcel, whereas 235 square metres is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The purpose of the minimum 235 square metre lot area requirement is to ensure the lot is of
adequate size to support a building envelope and parking, as well as to provide adequate amenity
space on site. The proposed semi-detached duplex dwelling meets all other zoning regulations
with regards to setbacks and lot width and provides a generous amount of amenity space in the
rear yard. As such, staff is satisfied the reduction of 6.3 square metres meets the intent of the
Zoning By-law.
The requested variance to permit a reduced corner lot width of 11.9 metres, whereas 12.5 metres
is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of the 12.5 metre corner lot width
requirement is to ensure corner lots are of adequate size to accommodate front and side yard
abutting the street setback requirements with regards to the building and parking. The proposed
semi-detached duplex dwelling has been designed such that it complies with all setback
requirements with respect to the building and required parking, with the exception of the driveway
setback from the intersection of the street lines. As such, staff is satisfied the reduction of 0.6
metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The requested variance to permit the driveway to be located 8.6 metres from the intersection of
the street lines abutting the property, whereas 9 metres is required, meets the intent of the Zoning
By-law. The purpose of this 9-metre setback is to prevent conflicts between vehicles
entering/exiting the driveway and vehicles at the street intersection, as well as pedestrian safety.
As such, staff is satisfied the requested 0.4 metre reduction meets the intent of the Zoning By-
law.
The variances can be considered minor as the proposed semi-detached duplex dwelling use,
reduced lot area (severed lot), reduced lot width (retained lot), and driveway setback (retained lot)
will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. The
proposed semi-detached duplex dwelling use will provide a new housing form at a scale and
density that is appropriate for the context of the existing neighbourhood.
The requested variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The
redevelopment of these properties will be sympathetic to the surrounding area and bring a new
context-appropriate unit type to the neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated June 13, 2016, advising they have no objections to application B
2016-019 subject to the following condition:
1. That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region the Consent
Application Review Fee of $350.00.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
June 9, 2016, advising they have no concerns with applications A 2016-047 and A 2016-048.
The Committee considered the report of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated June 7, 2016, noting
they have no objections to Consent Application B 2016-019 to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for
the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed and retained before the
severances are granted.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 127 -
1.Submission No.: B 2016-019, A 2016-047 & A 2016-048 (Cont’d)
2. That the applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the severances are granted.
3. Driveways will be located so as to provide a minimum of 1.0 clearance to all poles,
anchors and streetlight standards.
Mr. B. Eby provided a brief overview of the subject applications, noting he was in attendance in
support of the subject applications and staff recommendations.
Ms. R. Serroul, neighbouring property owner, addressed the Committee in opposition of the
subject applications for similar reasons as expressed for Minor Variance Applications A 2016-045
and A 2016-046. She noted she had one additional concern related to the hedge on the property
line abutting Waterloo Street and what the impacts on the hedge would be.
Mr. Eby advised that a Tree Preservation Plan is a requirement of one of the Conditions outlined
in the staff recommendation and it will address the trees/hedge located on the subject property.
Mr. B. McColl noted the comments from the Region of Waterloo and Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro
requesting conditions be imposed as part of the Committee’s decision.
Ms. J. von Westerholt noted the deadline in Condition 1 related to the minor variance applications
related to obtaining a Building Permit. She indicated as per the applicants request on the previous
variance applications to extend the deadline, staff have no objections to extending the deadline
for the subject minor variance applications. Ms. D. Saunderson advised the deadline could be
stricken from the Condition, indicating the condition proposed for Consent Application B 2016-019
for the applicant to receive final approval of Minor Variance Applications A 2016-047 and A 2016-
048 would impose a one-year deadline through approval of that decision.
Submission No.: B 2016-019
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of 2317445 Ontario Inc. (Intown Inc.) requesting permission to sever a
parcel of land so each half of a semi-detached residential development can be dealt with
separately. The severed land will have a width on Waterloo Street of 7.9m (25.918’), a depth of
29.061m (95.344’), and an area of 228.7 sq.m. (2461.706 sq.ft.). The retained land will have a
width of 11.92m (39.107’), a depth of 29.079m (95.403’), and an area of 339.3 sq.m. (3652.195
sq.ft.), on Part Lot C, Plan 386, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-17424, 156 Waterloo
BE GRANTED
Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a Tax Certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that
there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the
City’s Revenue Division.
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 Minor Variance applications A 2016-047 and A 2016-048 shall receive final
approval.
4. That the owner shall submit a Site Plan and elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the
City’s Manager of Site Development and Customer Service.
5. That the owner shall obtain Demolition Control approval to the satisfaction of the City’s
Manager of Development Review prior to the demolition of the existing single detached
dwelling.
6. That the owner shall obtain a Demolition Permit to the satisfaction of the City’s Building
Division prior to the demolition of the existing single detached dwelling.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 128 -
1.Submission No.: B 2016-019, A 2016-047 & A 2016-048 (Cont’d)
7. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared
by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed and retained lands which shall
include the following:
a. That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed and
retained lands in accordance with the City’s Tree Management Policy, to be
approved by the City’s Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented
prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans
shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building
envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved.
b. The owner further agrees to implement the approved Plan. No changes to the
said Plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City’s Director of
Planning.
8. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication on the severed parcel equal in the amount of $3,716.80. The park land
dedication is calculated at the residential rate of 5% of the per metre lineal frontage land
value for the severed portion.
9. That the owner shall make financial arrangements for the installation of any new service
connections to the severed and/or retained lands to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services.
10. That the owner shall ensure any new driveways be built to City of Kitchener standards
at the owner’s expense prior to occupancy of the building to the satisfaction of the City’s
Engineering Services.
11. That the owner shall provide a Servicing Plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing
system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services.
12. That the owner shall submit a complete Development and Reconstruction As-Recorded
Tracking Form (as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150) together
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 Director of Engineering Services.
13. That the owner shall provide Engineering staff with confirmation that the basement
elevation 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.
14. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc.
for the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed and retained.
15. That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc.
16. That the owner shall ensure all driveways will be located so as to provide a minimum of
1.0 clearance to all poles, anchors and streetlight standards.
17. That the owner shall submit payment to the Region of Waterloo the Consent Application
Review Fee of $350.00.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 129 -
1.Submission No.: B 2016-019, A 2016-047 & A 2016-048 (Cont’d)
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 June 21, 2018.
Carried
Submission No.: A 2016-047
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of 2317445 Ontario Inc. (Intown Inc.) requesting permission for the
severed parcel to have a lot area of 228.7 sq.m. (2461.706 sq.ft.) rather than the required 235
sq.m. (2529.519 sq.ft.); and, to add "semi-detached duplex dwelling" use existing after July 31,
2014, whereas the By-law does not permit semi-detached duplex dwelling use, on Part Lot C,
Plan 386, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-17424, 156 Waterloo Street, Kitchener,
BE APPROVED
Ontario,, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed semi-detached duplex
dwelling.
2. That the owner shall submit a Site Plan and elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the
City’s Manager of Site Development and Customer Service.
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.: A 2016-048
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of 2317445 Ontario Inc. (Intown Inc.) requesting permission to have a
driveway located 8.6m (28.215’) from the intersection of Waterloo Street and Bismark Avenue
rather than the required 9m (29.53'); a lot width of 11.9m (39.04’) rather than the required
12.5m (41.010’); and, to add "semi-detached duplex dwelling" use existing after July 31, 2014,
whereas the By-law does not permit semi-detached duplex dwelling use, on Part Lot C, Plan
BE
386, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-17424, 156 Waterloo Street, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
.
1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed semi-detached duplex
dwelling.
2. That the owner shall submit a Site Plan and elevation drawings to the satisfaction of the
City’s Manager of Site Development and Customer Service.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 130 -
1.Submission No.: B 2016-019, A 2016-047 & A 2016-048 (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. B 2016-020, A 2016-049 and A 2016-050
Applicants:
Waterloo Catholic District School Board
Property Location:
81 and 91 Moore Avenue
Legal Description:
Part Lot 457, Plan 385, Lot 5, Plan 413 and Part Lot 43, Plan 376
Appearances:
In Support: K. Barisdale
Contra: T. & L. Wright
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever an irregular-shaped
parcel of land municipally addressed as 81 Moore Avenue having a width on Moore Avenue of
73.5m (241.141’), an approximate depth of 168.3m (552.165’) and an area of 0.88 hectares, to be
conveyed as a lot addition to the property municipally addressed as 79 Moore Avenue/54-68
Shanley Street. Permission is also being requested to grant an easement as per the plan
submitted with the application, over 91 Moore Avenue in favour of 81 Moore Avenue having an
approximate width of 7.5m (24.606’) for mutual driveway access; and, various easements as per
the plan submitted with the application over 81 Moore Avenue in favour of 91 Moore Avenue. The
first easement has an approximate width on Braun Street of 7.5m (24.606’) for mutual driveway
access; the second easement is irregular in shape having an approximate width of 5m (16.404’)
for storm drainage; the third easement is irregular in shape having varying widths from 5m
(16.404’) to 8.1m (26.574’) for surface drainage. The retained lands municipally addressed as 91
Moore Avenue will require minor variances to permit a front yard setback of 3.2m (10.498’) for the
existing commercial dwelling rather than the required 6m (19.685’); and, a side yard setback of
3.6m (11.811) rather than the required 6.0m (19.685’). The severed lands municipally addressed
as 81 Moore Avenue will also require minor variances to permit a northerly side yard setback of
2.5m (8.202’) rather than the required 6m (19.685’); and, a rear yard setback abutting Braun
Street of 6.1m (20.013’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’). There are no changes to the
proposed uses of the subject properties.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated June 15, 2016, advising the
subject property is located on the west side of Moore Avenue, between Mount Hope Cemetery
and Shanley Street, in the KW Hospital Planning Community. The subject property is owned by
the Waterloo Catholic District School Board (WCDSB).
The surrounding neighbourhood is comprised of a range of low density residential land uses,
especially single detached dwellings. Mount Hope Cemetery is located immediately to the
northwest.
The two properties pertinent to this application include:
1. The subject property, which is owned by the WCDSB, is located between Mount Hope
Cemetery and Sacred Heart Church, and is addressed as 81 and 91 Moore Avenue:
a. 81 Moore Avenue: contains the former Sacred Heart School (2-3 storeys) which
has been vacant for the past 8-10 years, a smaller one-storey building close to the
Braun Street frontage which is currently used as an educational establishment
(WALES Group/Extend-A-Family Waterloo Region), and associated parking. The
property is designated Neighbourhood Institutional with Special Policy #9 in the KW
Hospital Secondary Plan and is zoned Neighbourhood Institutional (I-1). This
portion of the subject property is considered surplus by the WCDSB.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 131 -
2.Submission No.: B 2016-020, A 2016-049 & A 2016-050 (Cont’d)
b. 91 Moore Avenue: contains a 2-storey office building owned by the WCDSB which
is currently occupied by Extend-A-Family Waterloo Region and associated parking.
The property is designated Neighbourhood Institutional with Special Policy #9 in the
KW Hospital Secondary Plan and is zoned Neighbourhood Institutional (I-1) with
Special Use Provision 353U (which permits office and social service establishment
uses). This portion of the subject property is considered an asset to the WCDSB
because it contains key fibre optic infrastructure for the school board.
2. The ‘Receiving Parcel’ (as shown on the attached Master Site Concept): The parcel
immediately to the south of the subject property, addressed as 79 Moore Avenue/54-68
Shanley Street: This property is owned by the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of
the Diocese of Hamilton and contains 4 buildings: Sacred Heart Church; an office for the
church that is connected to the church; a vacant building formerly used as a convent
(identified on the attached Master Plan Concept as “Comboni Missionaries”); and, what
appear to be two single detached dwellings.
The applicant is requesting:
1. Consent via Application B 2016-020 to:
a. Convey a portion of the subject property as a lot addition to the receiving parcel.
The severed parcel would contain Sacred Heart School, the smaller one-storey
building close to Braun Street (both 81 Moore Avenue), and approximately 84
parking spaces. The severed parcel would have an irregular shape, approximate
area of 0.88 hectares, and width at Moore Avenue of 73.5 metres.
The retained parcel would contain the office building occupied by Extend-A-Family
(91 Moore Avenue) and approximately 42 parking spaces. The retained parcel
would have an irregular shape, approximate area of 0.33 hectares, and width at
Moore Avenue of 59.1 metres.
b. Create easements over the retained parcel for driveway access in favour of the
severed parcel; and, over the severed parcel in favour of the retained parcel, for:
driveway access; storm water drainage; and, surface water drainage.
2. Minor Variance via Application A 2016-049 for the retained parcel (containing an office
building) to allow a front yard of 3.2 metres, whereas Section 31.3.4 of the Zoning By-law
requires a minimum front yard of 6.0 metres; and, to allow a side yard of 3.6 metres,
whereas Section 31.3.4 of the Zoning By-law requires a minimum side yard of 6.0 metres.
3. Minor Variance via Application A 2016-050 for the severed parcel (containing the Sacred
Heart School building) to allow a side yard of 2.5 metres, whereas Section 31.3.4 of the
Zoning By-law requires a minimum side yard of 6.0 metres; and, to allow a rear yard (from
Braun Street) of 6.1 metres, whereas Section 31.3.4 of the Zoning By-law requires a
minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres.
The conveyance of the severed parcel to the receiving parcel as a lot addition would facilitate:
1. The WCDSB’s sale of the severed parcel to the Diocese of Hamilton (Sacred Heart
Church). The severed parcel is considered surplus land by the WCDSB; and,
2. The continued viability of the parish of Sacred Heart Church through the provision of
parking that might otherwise be lost through the WCDSB’s sale of the severed parcel. The
church has stated that it requires the school parking in order to ensure its continued
existence as a congregation. The church has used the WCDSB’s lands for parking for
many years under an informal agreement.
Prior to submission of the subject applications, numerous meetings were held between staff and
the owner/applicant to discuss the various aspects of the WCDSB and Diocese’s plans, including
discussion regarding the future use of the convent building addressed as 79 Moore Avenue.
Through these meetings staff identified that Sacred Heart School is listed on the City’s Municipal
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 132 -
2.Submission No.: B 2016-020, A 2016-049 & A 2016-050 (Cont’d)
Heritage Register. City Heritage staff acknowledges the WCDSB’s cooperation in implementing
maintenance measures requested by the City to prevent further degradation of the school. The
WCDSB has further agreed to an approval condition to register an agreement on the title of the
property to ensure maintenance measures continue until redevelopment/adaptive reuse of the
school occurs.
Through these meetings, staff also requested the submission of a Site Function and Optimization
Plan as part of the application, to ensure that the severed and retained parcels are able to
support existing and potential future adaptive reuse scenarios and to ensure that the
reorganization of the lands takes place in an efficient, orderly, and functional manner.
While it is not possible to predict exactly what use will locate within the school building in the
future, the Site Function and Optimization Plan demonstrates that the retained and severed
parcel (in conjunction with the receiving parcel) could realistically support other uses. Parking has
been organized in a manner that provides sufficient parking for the retained lands and maximizes
parking for the receiving parcel.
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 both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the
City’s Official Plan (OP), the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and
suitable for the existing uses, the lands front onto established public streets, and the severed and
retained parcels are able to be serviced with adequate municipal services. Furthermore, the
severed and retained parcels are viable for certain various adaptive reuse and/or redevelopment
scenarios. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed conveyance is in the public interest.
Furthermore, the proposed easements for surface drainage, storm drainage, and driveway
access are appropriate as they allow for mutually beneficial access and servicing rights and will
allow the resultant parcels to function in an orderly manner following the severance. The City’s
Engineering Services does not have concerns with said easements.
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 front and side yard variances for the retained parcel (A 2016-049) meet the intent
of the OP and Zoning By-law, are minor, and appropriate for the desirable development of the
land; these variances would have the effect of legalizing an existing legal non-conforming
building/situation that has existed for many decades and would facilitate Consent Application B
2016-020.
The requested side and rear yard variances for the severed parcel (A 2016-050) meet the intent
of the OP and Zoning By-law, are minor, and appropriate for the desirable development of the
land. The requested side yard reduction requires further study to determine whether Ontario
Building Code compliance can be achieved with respect to spatial separation. Building Division
staff recommends that a condition be applied to the consent approval to ensure that spatial
separation is achieved. The requested rear yard reduction would have the effect of legalizing a
building setback (currently legal non-conforming) that has existed for many decades and would
facilitate Consent Application B 2016-020.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated June 13, 2016, advising they have no objections to application B
2016-020.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
June 9, 2016, advising they have no concerns with applications A 2016-049 and A 2016-050.
Ms. K. Barisdale provided a brief overview of the subject applications, noting she was in support
of the staff recommendation.
Mr. T. & Ms. L. Wright noted concerns with the subject applications, advising that their property
fronts on to Shanley Street abutting onto 81 Moore Avenue containing the old Sacred Heart
School. They indicated when they purchased their property they had an understanding that there
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 133 -
2.Submission No.: B 2016-020, A 2016-049 & A 2016-050 (Cont’d)
would be an alley-way at the rear of their property that was never constructed. Ms. Wright
advised that there is still a lack of clarity regarding the rear property line between their property
and 81 Moore Avenue.
The Chair noted the survey provided with the application was completed by an Ontario Land
Surveyor likely for the purpose of the application which clearly defines the property limits for 81
and 91 Moore Avenue. He requested, and Ms. Barisdale agreed, to follow up with the neighbours
to provide them with a copy of the Reference Plan submitted with the application.
Mr. Wright requested further clarification regarding the intended future use of the Sacred Heart
property. In response, Ms. Barsidale advised that a future use has yet to be determined, noting
the property is on the Municipal Heritage Registry and would require additional approvals prior to
any significant changes taking place. The Chair noted that the Zoning on the property would also
impact any future development and encouraged the neighbours to consult the Zoning By-law on
the permitted uses for the subject properties.
Ms. Barsidale requested clarification on Condition 7 and whether there was some flexibility in the
wording of the Condition related to removal of redundant services and the installation of new
services that may be required. She indicated 81 Moore Avenue currently has two service
connections and following the discussions with Engineering Services, the property may be
permitted to maintain the existing service connections. Ms. J. von Westerholt noted Engineering
Services staff would have the flexibility to clear the Condition if they are satisfied with the
Servicing Plan.
Ms. D. Saunderson requested that Condition 10 of the staff recommendation be removed, noting
that under the Planning Act, the applicant would have one-year to fulfill their conditions before the
Consent approval would lapse.
Submission No.: B 2016-020
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board requesting permission to
sever an irregular-shaped parcel of land municipally addressed as 81 Moore Avenue having a
width on Moore Avenue of 73.5m (241.141’), an approximate depth of 168.3m (552.165’) and
an area of 0.88 hectares, to be conveyed as a lot addition to the property municipally
addressed as 79 Moore Avenue/54-68 Shanley Street. Permission is also being requested to
grant an easement as per the plan submitted with the application, over 91 Moore Avenue in
favour of 81 Moore Avenue having an approximate width of 7.5m (24.606’) for mutual driveway
access; and, various easements as per the plan submitted with the application over 81 Moore
Avenue in favour of 91 Moore Avenue. The first easement has an approximate width on Braun
Street of 7.5m (24.606’) for mutual driveway access; the second easement is irregular in shape
having an approximate width of 5m (16.404’) for storm drainage; the third easement is irregular
in shape having varying widths from 5m (16.404’) to 8.1m (26.574’) for surface drainage, on
Part Lot 457, Plan 385, Lot 5, Plan 413 and Part Lot 431, Plan 376, 81 and 91 Moore Avenue,
BE GRANTED
Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a Tax Certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that
there are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the
City’s Revenue Division.
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 Minor Variance applications A 2016-049 and A 2016-050 shall receive final
approval.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 134 -
2.Submission No.: B 2016-020, A 2016-049 & A 2016-050 (Cont’d)
4. That the owner shall provide a Building Code Assessment related to exposing building
faces between school and office building, related specifically to spatial separation
calculations, prepared by an architect or engineer, for the building wall faces as they
relate to the proposed severance line, to the satisfaction of the City’s Chief Building
Official.
5. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit to complete any remedial work/upgrade
exterior walls and/or close openings recommended by the Building Code Assessment
and complete said remedial work/upgrades, pending results of the spatial separation
calculation results, to the satisfaction of the City’s Chief Building Official.
6. That the owners of the proposed dominant lands and servient lands, shall enter into a
joint maintenance agreement to be approved by the City Solicitor, to ensure that the
easements are maintained in perpetuity, which agreement shall be registered on title
immediately following the Transfer Easements.
7. That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer Easements
and immediately thereafter, the approved joint maintenance agreement, shall be
provided to the City Solicitor.
8. That the owner shall provide the City Solicitor with copies of the registered Transfer
Easements and joint maintenance agreement immediately following registration.
9. That the owner shall prepare a Servicing Plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing
system to the satisfaction of Engineering Services.
10. That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with Engineering
Services for the removal of redundant services and the installation of new services that
may be required to service this property for the severed and retained lands.
11. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands immediately to the
south, addressed as 79 Moore Avenue/54-68 Shanley Street, 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.
12. 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.
13. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared
by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands no later than November
1, 2016. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager
of Development Review (or designate), prior to November 1, 2016. Failure to fulfill this
condition will result in the consent approval becoming null and void. The purpose of
said agreement is to prevent further deterioration of the former Sacred Heart School
building located at 81 Moore Avenue. Specifically, the agreement shall include
following:
1. That the owner shall repair and reinstate any/all rain water leaders which are
allowing water to enter the building and ensure they are clear and operating
correctly by November 1, 2016, to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of
Planning and Chief Building Official, and thereafter ensure they are clear and
operating correctly.
2. That the owner shall seal openings in the roof to prevent water and animals from
entering the building by November 1, 2016, to the satisfaction of the City’s
Director of Planning and Chief Building Official.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 21, 2016
- 135 -
2.Submission No.: B 2016-020, A 2016-049 & A 2016-050 (Cont’d)
3. That the owner shall install a baseline source of heat, such as electrical heaters,
and ventilation, such as electrical fans, by November 1, 2016, to the satisfaction
of the City’s Director of Planning and Chief Building Official. The owner shall
further keep the internal building temperature above freezing as long as this
agreement remains in effect.
4. That the owner shall institute a regularly scheduled building walk through (at
least monthly) by November 1, 2016, to ensure the measures being undertaken
to prevent further deterioration are functioning and that no new issues of concern
develop, to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning and Chief Building
Official.
5. That the owner shall install de-humidifiers in the basement by May 1, 2017 to the
satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning and Chief Building Official. The
owner shall operate said de-humidifiers between May 1st and September 30th of
each year for as long as this agreement remains in effect to ensure that humidity
levels during warmer months are kept within acceptable range.
The agreement shall remain in effect and the above referenced maintenance measures
shall continue until such time as the former Sacred Heart School building is subject to
adaptive re-use or redevelopment.
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 June 21, 2018.
Carried
Submission No.: A 2016-049
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board requesting permission to
permit a front yard setback of 3.2m (10.498’) for the existing commercial dwelling rather than
the required 6m (19.685’); and, a westerly side yard setback of 3.6m (11.811) rather than the
BE
required 6.0m (19.685’), on Part Lot 457, Plan 385, 91 Moore Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario,
APPROVED
.
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 JUNE 21, 2016
- 136 -
2.Submission No.: B 2016-020, A 2016-049 & A 2016-050 (Cont’d)
Submission No.: A 2016-050
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board requesting permission to
permit a northerly side yard setback of 2.5m (8.202’) rather than the required 6m (19.685’);
and, a rear yard setback abutting Braun Street of 6.1m (20.013’) rather than the required 7.5m
(24.606’), on Part Lot 457, Plan 385, Part Lot 5, Plan 413 and Part Lot 43, Plan 376, 81 Moore
BE APPROVED
Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, .
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:56 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 21st day of June, 2016.
Dianna Saunderson
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment