Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-08-16 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 16, 2016 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. A. Head and B. McColl and Ms. P. Kohli. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking Analyst; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer; and, Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk. Mr. A. Head, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:37 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held July 19, 2016, as mailed to the members, and amended, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission Nos.: 1. A 2016-059 to A 2016-064 Applicant: Activa Holdings Inc. Property Location: 190, 194, 198, 202, 206 and 218 Eaglecrest Street Legal Description: Lots 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 and 146, Registered Plan 58M-512 Appearances: In Support: J. Whyte Contra: None Written Submissions: None Regarding applications A 2016-059 to A 2016-063, the Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct single detached dwellings for the properties municipally addressed as 190, 194, 198, 202 and 206 Eaglecrest Street to have a garage width of 56% of the total lot width, whereas the By-law permits a garage width of 50% of the total lot width; and, a driveway width of 53% of the total lot width rather than the permitted maximum width of 50%. Regarding application A 2016-064, the Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling, municipally addressed as 218 Eaglecrest Street to have a garage width of 57% of the total lot width, whereas the By-law permits a garage width of 50% of the total lot width; and, a driveway width of 54% of the total lot width rather than the permitted maximum width of 50%. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 29, 2016, advising the properties located at 190, 194, 198, 202, 206, & 218 Eaglecrest Street are designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP) and zoned Residential Six (R-6) in Zoning By-law 85-1 with Special Regulation 306R & 307R. The properties are to be developed with single detached dwellings. The owner is requesting relief for two variances. For the first variance, the owner is requesting relief from Special Regulation 307R b) (i) which requires the maximum width of the garage, measured from the outside walls, to be 50% of the lot COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 162 - Submission Nos.: 1.A 2016-059 to A 2016-064 (Cont’d) width. At 190, 194, 198, 202 & 202 Eaglecrest Street, the garage width (measured from the outside walls) is proposed to be 56% of the lot width (variance of 6%) and at 218 Eaglecrest Street, the garage width, measured from the outside walls, is proposed to be 57% of the lot width (variance of 7%). For the second variance, the owner is requesting relief from Special Regulation 307R b) (ii) which requires that the width of a driveway does not exceed 50% of the lot width. At 190, 194, 198, 202 & 202 Eaglecrest Street, the driveway width is proposed to be 53% of the lot width (variance of 3%) and at 218 Eaglecrest Street, the driveway width is proposed to be 54% of the lot width (variance of 4%). 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. 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 garage width, measured from the outside walls, at 56% of the lot width (190, 194, 198, 202 and 206 Eaglecrest Street) and 57% of the lot width (218 Eaglecrest Street), whereas 50% is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of requiring the maximum width of the garage to be 50% of the lot width is to ensure that the garage does not dominate the façade of a dwelling. The subject properties have lot widths of 10.876 metres (190, 194, 198, 202 and 206 Eaglecrest Street) and 10.970 metres (218 Eaglecrest). This would result in proposed garage widths of 6.143 metres and 6.199 metres, which varies 0.658 metres and 0.761 metres from the required width. Staff is satisfied that the increases of 0.658 metres and 0.761 metres in garage width will not result in the garage dominating the façade of the dwellings and that a balance between the visual appearance of the garage and the rest of the dwelling unit will be maintained. As such, staff is satisfied the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The requested variance to legalize the driveway width at 53% of the lot width (190, 194, 198, 202 and 206 Eaglecrest Street) and 54% of the lot width (218 Eaglecrest Street), whereas 50% is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of requiring the maximum width of the driveway to not exceed 50% of the lot width is to ensure that the driveway does not occupy an unreasonable proportion of the ground coverage in the front of a lot, and to ensure the width of the driveway is not larger than the width of the garage. The subject properties have lot widths of 10.876 metres (190, 194, 198, 202 and 206 Eaglecrest Street) and 10.970 metres (218 Eaglecrest). This would result in proposed driveway widths of 5.814 metres and 5.873 metres, which varies 0.329 metres and 0.435 metres from the required width. It is staff’s opinion that with this variance, the driveway will occupy a reasonable proportion of ground coverage on the front of the lot. Furthermore, for all of the subject properties, the driveway width will be less than that of the garage, and adequate vehicle access to the garage is provided. As such, staff is satisfied the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances can be considered minor as the increased maximum width of the garage as a proportion of lot width and the increased maximum width of the driveway as a proportion of lot width 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. Furthermore, the six subject properties are in close proximity to each other, and as they are requesting the same variances, this will maintain consistency among some of the dwellings in the neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with these applications. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 163 - Submission Nos.: 1.A 2016-059 to A 2016-064 (Cont’d) Mr. J. Whyte was in attendance in support of the subject applications and the staff recommendation. Submission No.: A 2016-059 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a garage width of 56% of the total lot width, whereas the By-law permits a garage width of 50% of the total lot width; and, a driveway width of 53% of the total lot width rather than the permitted maximum width of 50%, on Lot 139, Registered Plan 58M- BE APPROVED 512, 190 Eaglecrest Street, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: A 2016-060 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a garage width of 56% of the total lot width, whereas the By-law permits a garage width of 50% of the total lot width; and, a driveway width of 53% of the total lot width rather than the permitted maximum width of 50%, on Lot 140, Registered Plan 58M- BE APPROVED 512, 194 Eaglecrest Street, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 164 - Submission Nos.: 1.A 2016-059 to A 2016-064 (Cont’d) Submission No.: A 2016-061 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a garage width of 56% of the total lot width, whereas the By-law permits a garage width of 50% of the total lot width; and, a driveway width of 53% of the total lot width rather than the permitted maximum width of 50%, on Lot 141, Registered Plan 58M- BE APPROVED 512, 198 Eaglecrest Street, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: A 2016-062 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a garage width of 56% of the total lot width, whereas the By-law permits a garage width of 50% of the total lot width; and, a driveway width of 53% of the total lot width rather than the permitted maximum width of 50%, on Lot 142, Registered Plan 58M- BE APPROVED 512, 202 Eaglecrest Street, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 165 - Submission Nos.: 1.A 2016-059 to A 2016-064 (Cont’d) Submission No.: A 2016-063 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a garage width of 56% of the total lot width, whereas the By-law permits a garage width of 50% of the total lot width; and, a driveway width of 53% of the total lot width rather than the permitted maximum width of 50%, on Lot 143, Registered Plan 58M- BE APPROVED 512, 206 Eaglecrest Street, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: A 2016-064 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a garage width of 57% of the total lot width, whereas the By-law permits a garage width of 50% of the total lot width; and, a driveway width of 54% of the total lot width rather than the permitted maximum width of 50%, on Lot 146, Registered Plan 58M- BE APPROVED 512, 218 Eaglecrest Street, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 166 - Submission Nos.: 2. A 2016-069 to A 2016-084 Applicant: Activa Holdings Inc. Property Location: 19, 35, & 39 Fenside Street, 211, 215, 218, 274, 455, 459, & 463 Moorlands Crescent, 104, 108, 128, 132, 136, & 140 South Creek Drive Legal Description: Lots 120, 116, 115, 60, 59, 5, 19, 69, 68, 67, 126, 127, 132, 133, 134 and 135, Registered Plan 58M-541 Appearances: In Support: D. Freure J. Young C. Wiebe Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct single detached dwellings for the properties municipally addressed 211, 215, 218, 274 455, 459, & 463 Moorlands Crescent, 19, 35, & 39 Fenside Street and 104, 108, 128, 132, 136, & 140 South Creek Drive to have various side yard setbacks of 0.6m (1.968’) without maintenance easements on the adjacent properties, whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 8, 2016, advising the subject properties are zoned Residential Four (R-4) with Special Regulation 405R in the Zoning By-law, and are designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan (OP). The lots are currently vacant and are planned to contain single detached residential dwellings. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 5.5A.2 of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law in order to permit a side yard setback of 0.6 metres for a garage attached to a single detached dwelling on a lot having a width of less than 10.4 metres without an easement on the abutting lands for 211, 215, 218, 274 455, 459, & 463 Moorlands Crescent, 19, 35, & 39 Fenside Street, 104, 108, 128, 132,136, & 140 South Creek Drive. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments regarding the requested minor variance: The requested variance meets the intent of the OP. The Low Rise Residential designation allows for the development of single detached dwellings which maintain the overall low rise character of the neighbourhood. The requested reduction to the setbacks allows for construction in keeping with the intent of the OP. The requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the side yard setback is to allow for adequate separation from adjacent properties as well as access to the rear of the property. The purpose for requiring an easement on the abutting lands is to ensure that the property owner has access for maintenance of the garage walls, eaves, and property. Staff notes that detached garages are permitted to have a side yard of 0.6 metres without an easement on the abutting lands. Rear yard access will be provided through the 1.2 metre side yard on the opposite side of the house, which meets the Zoning By-law requirement. Staff also notes that access to the roof and eaves of the property is also possible from the front and back of the structure. Furthermore, the 0.6 metre setback without a maintenance easement meets the Building Code separation requirements. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained. The variance is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will still provide an adequate side yard to allow for access to maintain the walls, roof, and eaves of the property, and will not negatively affect adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance is appropriate for use of the land for the following reasons. The single detached dwelling use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law, and the proposed variance will allow the owner to construct the single detached dwellings along Moorlands Crescent, Fenside COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 167 - Submission Nos.: 2. A 2016-069 to A 2016-084 (Cont’d) Street and South Creek Drive. The scale, massing, and height of the single detached dwellings are appropriate and consistent with the character of the neighbourhood. The reduced side yard requirement will support greater density and the better use of land. Furthermore, the variance will allow for the double-car garage to accommodate off-street parking and alleviate the demand for on-street parking. Staff also notes that the properties are still able to achieve other Zoning By-law requirements such as maximum driveway width and maximum percentage of garage width compared to the building façade. The proposed variances will not impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with these applications. Submission No.: A 2016-069 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a southerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 120, Registered Plan BE APPROVED, 58M-541, 19 Fenside Street, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: A 2016-070 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a southerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 116, Registered Plan BE APPROVED, 58M-541, 35 Fenside Street, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 168 - Submission Nos.: 2. A 2016-069 to A 2016-084 (Cont’d) Submission No.: A 2016-070 (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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: A 2016-071 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 115, Registered Plan 58M-541, 39 BE APPROVED, Fenside Street, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: A 2016-072 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having an easterly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 60, Registered Plan BE APPROVED, 58M-541, 211 Moorlands Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 169 - Submission Nos.: 2. A 2016-069 to A 2016-084 (Cont’d) Submission No.: A 2016-072 (Cont’d) 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: A 2016-073 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a westerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 59, Registered Plan 58M-541, 215 BE APPROVED, Moorlands Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: A 2016-074 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 170 - Submission Nos.: 2. A 2016-069 to A 2016-084 (Cont’d) Submission No.: A 2016-074 (Cont’d) That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a westerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 5, Registered Plan 58M-541, 218 BE APPROVED, Moorlands Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: A 2016-075 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc.requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having an easterly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 19, Registered Plan BE APPROVED, 58M-541, 274 Moorlands Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 171 - Submission Nos.: 2. A 2016-069 to A 2016-084 (Cont’d) Submission No.: A 2016-076 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a westerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 69, Registered Plan 58M-541, 455 BE APPROVED, Moorlands Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: A 2016-077 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having an easterly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 68, Registered Plan BE APPROVED, 58M-541, 459 Moorlands Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 172 - Submission Nos.: 2. A 2016-069 to A 2016-084 (Cont’d) Submission No.: A 2016-078 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a westerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 67, Registered Plan 58M-541, 463 BE APPROVED, Moorlands Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: A 2016-079 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 126, Registered Plan 58M-541, 104 BE APPROVED, South Creek Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 173 - Submission Nos.: 2. A 2016-069 to A 2016-084 (Cont’d) Submission No.: A 2016-080 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a southerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 127, Registered Plan BE APPROVED, 58M-541, 108 South Creek Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: A 2016-081 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a southerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 132, Registered Plan BE APPROVED, 58M-541, 128 South Creek Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 174 - Submission Nos.: 2. A 2016-069 to A 2016-084 (Cont’d) Submission No.: A 2016-082 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 133, Registered Plan 58M-541, 132 BE APPROVED, South Creek Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: A 2016-083 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a southerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 134, Registered Plan BE APPROVED, 58M-541, 136 South Creek Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 175 - Submission Nos.: 2. A 2016-069 to A 2016-084 (Cont’d) Submission No.: A 2016-084 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a northerly side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968’) without a maintenance easement on the adjacent property whereas the By-law requires properties having a width of less than 10.4m (34.12') to have a maintenance easement on the adjacent property if they have a side yard setback of 0.6m (1.968') or less, on Lot 135, Registered Plan 58M-541, 140 BE APPROVED, South Creek Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction to the satisfaction of the Building Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: 3. A 2016-085 Applicant: Kenmore Homes (Waterloo Region) Inc. Property Location: 171 Templewood Drive Legal Description: Lot 39, Registered Plan 58M-572 Appearances: In Support: D. Aston Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a staircase located inside the attached garage reducing the size of the required off-street parking space to 5.19m (17.027’) by 2.6m (8.530’) rather than the required 5.5m (18.044‘) by 2.6m (8.530’). The Chair noted comments circulated by staff requesting the subject application be recommended for a deferral to the November 15, 2016 Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow time for staff to be provided with a revised plan ensuring that the garage and stairs will be constructed in compliance with the Building Code. Mr. D. Aston acknowledged the comments from the Chair, noting he was in support of deferring the application to the November 15, 2016 Committee of Adjustment meeting or sooner depending on when the applicant is able to solve the Building Code issues. Submission No.: 4. A 2016-086 Applicants: 2325069 Ontario Inc. Property Location: 680 Victoria Street North Legal Description: Lot 46, Plan 763, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-15974 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 176 - Submission No.: 4. A 2016-086 (Cont’d) Appearances: In Support: D. Aston Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing commercial building having a side yard setback of 0m rather than the required 3m (9.842’); and, to have 62 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 94 off-street parking spaces to accommodate a road widening. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 8, 2016, advising the Ministry of Transportation is progressing with plans to rebuild the Victoria Street bridge as part of the Highway 7 construction works. As a result, the access to the new Factory Shoe location must be moved to the most westerly portion of the property fronting Victoria Street North. To accommodate the new access, the loading dock must be relocated to the opposite side of the building. An addition is proposed which will include a new loading dock along the western edge of the building. The parking lot will have to be reconfigured to accommodate all vehicle movements. The owner has filed a site plan application which is under review. To accommodate the proposed loading dock, the owner is requesting a minor variance from Section 12.2 of the Zoning By-law to reduce the side yard setback from the required 3.0 metres on the western side, to 0.0 metres. Additionally, a parking reduction is being sought to reduce the parking requirement from Section 6 of the Zoning By-law from 94 off-street spaces to 62. The parking was previously calculated using the plaza rate, which can no longer be applied as there will no longer be three separate commercial units in the building. The properties are designated as Arterial Commercial in the Official Plan (OP) and zoned as Arterial Commercial Zone (C-6) with Special Use Provision 3U. 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 variances meet the intent of the OP. Arterial Commercial Corridors provide a broad range of commercial business uses and are predominantly automobile oriented and are generally located along primary arterial roads. The OP also requires that in order to reduce traffic impacts on abutting streets, vehicular access points shall be controlled to minimize disruption to traffic flow and new development may be required to share common driveways and provide for maneuverability between sites. In this case, the setback and parking reduction will allow for the reconfiguration of the existing access and the closure of the existing access. The parking lot will be reconfigured to accommodate a minimum of 62 parking spaces. The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The side yard back requirement in commercial zones is to ensure that buildings are adequately set back from the side lot line to allow for building openings, such as windows and for a landscape buffer area. In this case, there are no windows proposed as the proposed building located adjacent to the property line is for a loading dock. Adequate landscaping is currently provided along Victoria Street frontage adjacent to the public realm. The requested minor variances are minor. As the existing building is setback adjacent to the rear lot line shared with the rail right-of-way, there is no need to have access to the rear yard. The owner has completed a Parking Utilization Study over a seventeen day period and revealed a maximum occupancy of 32 parking spaces (52% occupancy). Therefore, based on the Study, Transportation Services supports the requested variance of 32 parking spaces. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The side yard reduction and parking reduction will allow for the proposed loading dock on the western side of the property, thereby allowing for the relocation of the access to the property. The relocated access to COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 177 - Submission No.: 4. A 2016-086 (Cont’d) Victoria Street North will allow for better sight lines for vehicles exiting the property as the new Victoria Street bridge will be higher in elevation than the existing bridge deck The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. D. Aston was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. In response to questions, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that the condition for the Occupancy Certificate is intended for the City to maintain current records on the use of the property. She noted the condition not intended to be onerous. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of 2325069 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to legalize an existing commercial building having a westerly side yard setback of 0m rather than the required 3m (9.842’); and, to have 62 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 94 off-street parking, on Lot 46, Plan 763, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-15974, 680 Victoria Street BE APPROVED North, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain an updated Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the Planning Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: 5. A 2016-087 Applicant: Joshua and Melanie Hobson Property Location: 175 Sixth Avenue Legal Description: Part Block E, Plan 254 Appearances: In Support: J. Hobson Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to convert the existing single detached dwelling into a duplex with the required off-street parking space located 2.6m (8.530’) from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.685’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 9, 2016, advising The current owner is proposing to convert the existing single detached dwelling to a duplex dwelling. In order to provide the required two off-street parking spaces, relief is being sought from Section 6.1.1.1.b.i to permit both required parking spaces to be setback 2.6 metres from the streetline whereas one parking space must be located 6.0 metres from the streetline. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 178 - Submission No.: 5. A 2016-087 (Cont’d) The properties are designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan (OP) and zoned as Residential Four (R-4). 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 variances meet the intent of the OP which encourages a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The proposed variance would permit the conversion of the existing single detached dwelling to a duplex. The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The requested variance to legalize the off street parking space 2.6 metres from street lot line meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 6.0 metre required setback is to allow for a second vehicle to be safely parked on the driveway without affecting the City right-of-way and surrounding properties. In this case, two parking spaces can be arranged side-by-side rather than in tandem. The requested minor variance is minor. Two parking spaces, one for each of the proposed units, can be provided side-by-side on the subject property. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variance should not impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. The requested minor variance will allow for the creation of a second legal off-street parking space. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. J. Hobson was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. In response to questions, he advised he has already submitted a Building Permit application for the proposed conversion. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Joshua and Melanie Hobson requesting permission to convert the existing single detached dwelling into a duplex with the required off-street parking space located 2.6m (8.530’) from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.685’), on Part Block BE APPROVED E, Plan 254, 175 Sixth Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Parking Plan, approved by the City’s Director of Transportation and the City’s Director of Planning. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: 6. A 2016-088 Applicants: Stephanie Lyn Brown Property Location: 184 Strange Street Legal Description: Part Lots 7 & 8, Plan 387 and Part Lot 18, Plan 184 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 179 - Submission No.: 6. A 2016-088 (Cont’d) Appearances: In Support: S. Brown Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to legalize an existing single detached dwelling having 1 required off-street parking space located 0.64m (2.099’) from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.685’); a front yard setback of 3.1m (10.17’) rather than the required 4m (13.123’); and, a northerly side yard setback of 0.73m (2.395’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.937’) to accommodate a new off-street parking space. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 8, 2016, advising the subject property is located on the east side of Strange Street, across from the AirBoss Rubber Compounding industrial building, in the KW Hospital Planning Community. The property contains a single detached dwelling constructed in approximately 1915. The property does not have any parking. The property is designated Low Rise Conservation in the KW Secondary Plan and is zoned Residential Five (R-5) with Special Use Provision 129U (which prohibits triplexes). The owners are requesting the following variances from the Zoning By-law: 1. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1b)i) to allow the one required off-street parking space to be located 0.64 metres – 2.16 metres from the street line, rather than the required 6.0 metres; 2. Relief from Section 39.2.1 to allow a front yard of 3.10 metres, whereas a minimum front yard of 4.5 metres is required; and, 3. Relief from Section 39.2.1 to allow a side yard of 0.73 metres, whereas a minimum side yard of 1.2 metres is required. It should be noted that Variances 2 and 3 are not necessary because both the existing front yard and side yard are compliant under Section 5.15 (Existing Uses) of 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 variances meet the intent of the Official Plan (OP) and Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The official plan states: Part 2, Section 8.5.1.: Parking areas or facilities shall be provided for all types of development except for those areas referred to in Part 2, Policy 8.5.2. The requested variance would provide the one parking space required by the zoning by-law, in an appropriate manner. Also, the City’s Transportation Services Division has stated that it has no concerns with the requested parking space setback reduction to 0.64 metres (minimum). However, in order to recommend approval, staff must also recommend that the tree in the front yard be removed in order to ensure that the 4.57 metre Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) for the proposed driveway is maintained. The variance is minor because the variance would create no unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties. Through the DVT condition, driveway visibility would be maintained and the parking space depth would meet the minimum size regulations. The variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land for the following reason. The variance would allow the subject property to accommodate the one required legal parking space, thereby transforming the property from a legal non-conforming single detached dwelling into a conforming single detached dwelling. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 180 - Submission No.: 6. A 2016-088 (Cont’d) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Ms. S. Brown was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Stephanie Lyn Brown requesting permission to legalize an existing single detached dwelling having 1 required off-street parking space located 0.64m (2.099’) to 2.16m (7.086’) from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.685’), on Part Lots 7 & 8, BE APPROVED Plan 387 and Part Lot 18, Plan 184, 184 Strange Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall construct the proposed driveway in accordance with the plan provided with the application and attached to the staff report dated August 8, 2016. 2. That the owner shall comply with the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) regulations of the Zoning By-law for the proposed driveway by removing the tree within the DVT of the proposed driveway, to the satisfaction of the City’s Transportation Services Division. 3. That Conditions 1 and 2, above, shall be completed prior to August 16, 2017. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or designate), prior to the completion date set out in this decision. Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: 7. A 2016-089 Applicant: 2366086 Ontario Limited Property Location: 185-189 and 191-193 Highland Road East Legal Description: Part Block A, Plan 670 Appearances: In Support: S. Code Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission for the existing commercial/residential building to have residential units located on the ground floor whereas the By-law does not permit residential units on the ground floor in buildings with combined commercial and residential uses; to permit a northerly side yard setback of 0.34m (1.115’) rather than the required 3m (9.842’); a front yard setback for 185-189 Highland Road East of 2.22m COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 181 - Submission No.: 7. A 2016-089 (Cont’d) (7.283’) rather than the required 3m (9.842’); a front yard setback for 191-193 Highland Road East of 2.53m (8.3’) rather than the required 3m (9.842’); and, to permit 10 off-street parking spaces (1.4 per unit) rather than the required 11 off-street parking spaces (1.5 per unit). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 8, 2016, advising the subject property is located at 185-189, 191-193 Highland Road East, as shown on the Location Map above. The site contains two buildings: 185-189 Highland Road East is a 1-storey building containing three multiple residential units, and 191-193 Highland Road East is a 2- storey building containing two residential units and a vacant ground floor commercial unit. Parking is provided behind the buildings with access from Highland Road East and from Delaware Ave via a municipally owned laneway. The applicant is proposing to convert the commercial unit to two residential units resulting in a total of seven dwelling units located on the site. To permit the site to be redeveloped with exclusively residential uses the applicant has requested the following variances: 1. To permit exclusively residential units and for the units to be located on the ground floor of the existing buildings municipally know as 185-189, 191-193 Highland Road East whereas Section 8.2 of Zoning By-law 85-1 requires the location of dwelling units to be located in the same building as commercial use and not on the ground floor; 2. To permit 1.4 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit whereas Section 6.1.2 a) of Zoning By-law 85-1 requires 1.5 off-street parking spaces per unit; 3. To permit a minimum front yard setback of 2.22 metres for the building municipally known as 185-189 Highland Road East and 2.53 metres for the building municipally known as 191-193 Highland Road East whereas section 8.2 of Zoning By-law 85-1 required a minimum front yard setback of 3.0 metres; and, 4. To permit a side yard setback of 0.34 metres for the building municipally known as 185- 189 Highland Road East, whereas Section 8.2 of Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum side yard setback of 3.0 metres. With respect to requested Variance 2, Planning staff is of the opinion that the required parking ratio of 1.5 off-street parking spaces per unit listed by the applicant is not required. The subject lands are located in the central city and, subject to approval of the requested variances, will have a total of 7 dwelling units. Based on the proposed number of units, the actual required parking ratio is 1.25 off-street parking spaces per unit, thus requiring 9 parking spaces for the proposed 7 dwelling units. As shown on the sketch submitted in support of the application, 10 off-street parking spaces can be accommodated in the parking area, which is in excess of the minimum requirement. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the requested parking variance is not required and should not be given further consideration by the Committee. 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 lands are designated Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre. The intent of this designation is to provide locations for the mixing of appropriately scaled multiple residential, commercial and institutional uses and policies promote the conversion of existing retail space to multiple residential uses. The proposed variances provide for the conversion of commercial space to multiple residential uses. Official Plan (OP) policy also states that multiple residential uses are permitted to a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 1.0. The proposed conversion to residential results in a residential FSR of 0.4. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the intent of the OP is maintained. The lands are zoned Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone (C-2) with Special Regulation Provision 17R. To permit the conversion of vacant commercial space to residential units, the owner requires relief from the Zoning By-law to permit the site to be developed exclusively with dwelling units, for these units to be located on the ground floor, and to legalize the existing front and side yard setbacks for the existing buildings, as specified above. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 182 - Submission No.: 7. A 2016-089 (Cont’d) The Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone only permits dwelling units to be located in the same building as commercial uses and, except for access, not to be located on the ground floor. The intent of this regulation is to support a mix of uses within the neighbourhood, and to locate active uses at the street in order to provide interest and animation along the street edge. This Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre contains a mix of residential, retail and service commercial uses which serve the neighbourhood and is focused around a plaza complex at the intersection of Highland Road East and Glen Road/Spadina Road East. Staff is of the opinion that a mix of uses is preserved in the area and that the subject buildings could convert back to commercial space should a future owner wish, or could be comprehensively redeveloped at some time in the future. The design of the existing buildings provides for doorways and windows facing the street with walkways leading to the street, providing interest and animation along the street edge. The applicant has indicated that the building façade will be improved as a result of the conversion. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the intent of the By-law is maintained. The proposed conversion of the commercial space to dwelling units is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, which currently contains a mix commercial space and residential unit types including ownership and rental. The site contains sufficient parking spaces for the additional residential units and is located in close proximity to public transit and within walking distance to commercial and other community amenities. In addition, the applicant has indicated that they have struggled to attract and retain commercial tenants in the last number of years. Staff concurs that the subject building is of an older commercial style, which may make it difficult to find an appropriate commercial tenant, and it appears to be suited to residential use. In this instance, staff is of the opinion that it would be preferable to support a conversion than have a vacant commercial space for an extended period of time. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance to permit exclusively residential units and, for those units to be located on the ground floor, is minor and appropriate for the development and use of the lands. Conversion of the site to exclusively dwelling units can be found to meet the four tests of minor variances. However, in staff’s opinion, this results in the use on the site as being a ‘multiple dwelling’, rather than a mixed-use site containing one or more ‘dwelling units’ together with other uses. OP policy specifically permits and promotes multiple dwelling uses for lands designated Neighbourhood Mixed Use Centre (as applies to the subject lands). However, the list of permitted uses in the Neighbourhood Shopping Centre Zone does not include multiple dwelling (but does include dwelling unit). As such, staff recommend that the Committee give consideration to adding a variance to permit a ‘multiple dwelling’ as a new use, thus clarifying that the result of the proposed variance is to create a ‘multiple dwelling’. Staff supports the suggested additional variance and find that it meets the tests of a minor variance, based on the same justification as provided for the requested variance. Should the Committee support multiple dwelling being added as a permitted use, Planning and Clerk staff are of the opinion that deferral for further advertisement is not required. The variance as advertised seeks exactly the same ends as the addition of ‘multiple dwelling’ as a permitted use, but the additional variance clarifies the use for Zoning By-law purposes. Staff also recommends that a condition be added so that the maximum number of units permitted in a multiple dwelling be limited to 7 and that they only be permitted to be located within the existing buildings. The Zoning By-law requires aminimum front and side yard setback of 3.0 metres. The owner is requesting relief to legalize the existing building setbacks. The purpose of front and side yard setbacks are to ensure appropriate separation between uses on public and private lands, visibility around driveways is preserved, that there is adequate space for landscaping between buildings and the street and that there is consistency in setbacks along a street. The subject buildings and neighbouring buildings were originally constructed in the late 1940’s. Building setbacks along this block vary; however, other buildings have similar setbacks to the street, thereby maintaining consistency along the street edge. In addition, staff is not aware of any concerns raised with respect to the existing setbacks with respect to building separations, and no changes to the setbacks are proposed as a result of this application. Staff has requested a condition be added requiring Site Plan Approval or approval to deem the change ‘not development’, which requires submission of a plan and may include conditions requiring site works such as landscaping, lighting, driveway and parking design, etc. This will allow staff to review landscaping between the building and the street and to ensure appropriate visibility is maintained should driveways to COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 183 - Submission No.: 7. A 2016-089 (Cont’d) Highland Road East remain in use. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the intent of the By-law is maintained and that the proposed variances are minor and appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of 2366086 Ontario Limited requesting permission for the existing commercial/residential building to have residential units located on the ground floor whereas the By-law does not permit residential units on the ground floor in buildings with combined commercial and residential uses; to permit a northerly side yard setback for 185-189 Highland Road East of 0.34m (1.115’) rather than the required 3m (9.842’); a front yard setback for 185- 189 Highland Road East of 2.22m (7.283’) rather than the required 3m (9.842’); a front yard setback for 191-193 Highland Road East of 2.53m (8.3’) rather than the required 3m (9.842’); and, to add ‘Multiple Dwelling’ as a permitted Use, for the existing buildings containing a maximum of 7 dwelling units, on Part Block A, Plan 670, 185-189 and 191-193 Highland Road BE APPROVED East, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain Site Plan Approval or approval of a request to deem the works ‘not development’ to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager of Site Development and Customer Service. Any required site development works associated with a request to deem the works ‘not development’ (including but not limited to parking lot improvements, landscaping and lighting) shall be completed prior to issuance of a building permit for the additional units and to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review in consultation with the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service prior to the completion date set out in this decision. Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void. 2. That the owner shall obtain Building Permits from the City’s Building Division for the additional dwelling units. 3. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the Planning Division. 4. That Conditions 1 to 3 shall be completed prior to October 31, 2017, unless otherwise indicated. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or designate), prior to the completion date set out in this decision. Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 184 - Submission No.: 8. A 2016-090 Applicants: Tim MacKay Property Location: 538 Victoria Street South Legal Description: Part Lot 34, Registered Plan 675 Appearances: In Support: T. MacKay Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached garage with a second-storey addition in the rear of an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 5.029m (16.499’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 5, 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 with Special Use 263U, which permits the use of the subject lands as a Health Office. In 1999, the existing building was converted to a chiropractic office from what was previously a single detached dwelling. The owner is now proposing to re-convert the building back into a single detached dwelling and to construct an attached garage, which will extend into the required rear yard setback. As such, the owner is requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 5.029 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required. Planning staff notes that due to the previous use as a health office, a portion of the subject lands is currently paved and used for parking. As indicated on the Site Plan submitted with the application, the applicant intends to return much of this asphalted area to landscaping, with the exception of the driveway leading to the proposed garage. Planning staff recommends that a condition be added to this effect in order to ensure the residential appearance of the property is fully restored. 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 change will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate. The requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 5.029 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 7.5 metre setback is to provide amenity area in the rear yard and adequate separation between the structure and adjacent properties. The reduction of 2.48 metres from the required 7.5 metres is minor, as the proposed 5.029 metre rear yard setback will continue to provide sufficient amenity space in the rear yard and separation from neighbouring properties. The variance is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will continue to provide amenity space in the rear yard and maintain adequate separation between the attached garage and adjacent properties. The requested variance will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood, and as such, staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor. The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the existing residential use is permitted in the Zoning By-law. The scale, massing and height of the attached garage 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 July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 185 - Submission No.: 8. A 2016-090 (Cont’d) Mr. T. MacKay was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. In response to questions, he advised the deadline of December 1, 2016 as outlined in Conditions 1 and 2 would be sufficient to complete all the necessary work of the approval. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Tim MacKay requesting permission to construct an attached garage with a second-storey addition in the rear of an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 5.029m (16.499’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Part Lot 34, BE APPROVED Registered Plan 675, 538 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed attached garage by December 1, 2016. 2. That the owner shall replace all asphalted areas with landscaping, with the exception of the proposed 8.0 metre driveway and existing walkways, in accordance with the Site Plan submitted with this application and to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, by December 1, 2016. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: 9. A 2016-091 Applicants: Geoff Schwarz and Ivy Holt Property Location: 4 Crescent Street Legal Description: Part Lots 1 & 2, Plan 218 and Part Lot 19, Plan 332 Appearances: In Support: G. Schwarz Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to construct a new driveway in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having the required off-street parking space located 0m from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.685’); a side yard setback abutting Dane Street of 2.7m (8.858’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); the required off-street parking space to be 5.2m (17.06’) by 5.2m (17.06’) rather than the required 5.5m (18.044‘) by 2.6m (8.530’); and, having a lot width of 12.19m (39.993’) rather than the required 15m (49.212’) to accommodate the new driveway due to removal of the sidewalk. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 8, 2016, advising the subject property is located at the corner of Crescent Street and Dane Street in the King Street East Planning Community. The property contains a single detached dwelling constructed in approximately 1940. The property has a rear yard parking area off Dane Street, with no garage. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 186 - Submission No.: 9. A 2016-091 (Cont’d) The property is surrounded by other low density residential land uses constructed during the same era. The property is designated Low Rise Conservation in the King Street East Secondary Plan and is zoned Residential Five (R-5) in the Zoning By-law. The owners are requesting the following relief from the Zoning By-law via a minor variance application: 1. Relief from Section 6.1.1.2d) of the Zoning By-law to allow angle parking spaces to have a length of 5.2 metres, whereas a minimum of 5.5 metres is required; 2. Relief from Section 6.1.1.1b)i) of the Zoning By-law to allow the required parking for a single detached dwelling to be located zero metres from the street line, whereas a minimum of 6.0 metres is required; 3. Relief from Section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to legalize the existing side yard abutting a street (Dane Street) of 2.6 metres (note that the application form reads 2.7 metres, which is not correct), whereas a minimum of 4.5 metres is required; and, 4. Relief from Section 39.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to legalize the existing corner lot width of 12.19 metres, whereas a minimum of 15.0 metres is required. It should be noted that Variances 3 and 4 are not necessary because both the existing side yard abutting Dane Street and the lot width are compliant under Section 5.15 (Existing Uses) of 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 variances meet the intent of the OP and Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The OP states: Part 2, Section 1.4.3.: The City favours community design and site development which make housing accessible to all residents regardless of their physical developmental and sensory abilities. In this case, the City’s Transportation Services Division has stated that it has no concerns with the requested parking space length reduction of 0.3 metres (1 foot), nor the requested parking space setback reduction to zero metres. The owners have stated that they are willing to ensure that the 4.57m Driveway Visibility Triangles (DVT) are maintained, requiring an existing hedge and fence within these areas to be reduced to a maximum of 0.91 metres in height. Staff is recommending that the DVTs be maintained as an approval condition. The requested variances would allow the property to be redesigned to locate the driveway as close as possible to the entrance of the house, so that residents no longer must walk through the length of the rear yard to reach the house. The variances would have the positive effect of improving accessibility for a resident of the house who has mobility issues and needs easy access to the house. The variances are minor because they would not create unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties. As aforementioned, driveway visibility would be maintained and the parking space depth is sufficient to accommodate vehicles without them overhanging the sidewalk or encroaching onto public property. The variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the land because they would allow accessible parking for a resident of the home with mobility issues. Planning staff noted during a site inspection to the subject property that the existing fence and hedge located adjacent to Dane Street do not comply with the Fence By-law (Chapter 630, Municipal Code), as the fence is located much too close to the Dane Street right-of-way. In order to avoid possible enforcement action, Planning staff requests that the applicant remedy the fence non-compliance issue through either: compliance with the Fence By-law; or, submission and approval of a separate fence variance; COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 187 - Submission No.: 9. A 2016-091 (Cont’d) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. G. Schwarz was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. The Chair noted the comments in the staff report regarding the fence not being in compliance with the Fence By-law. Mr. Schwarz acknowledged the comments, indicating he anticipates addressing the fence in the summer of 2017. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Geoff Schwarz and Ivy Holt requesting permission to redesign and construct a new driveway abutting Dane street for an existing single-detached dwelling having the required off-street parking space located 0m from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.685’); and, to have an angled off-street parking space with a length of 5.2m (17.06’) rather than the required 5.5m (18.044’), on Part Lots 1 & 2, Plan 218 and Part Lot 19, Plan BE APPROVED 332, 4 Crescent Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall construct the proposed driveway in accordance with the plan provided with the application and attached to the staff report dated August 8, 2016. 2. That the owner shall close and remove the existing driveway, including reinstating curbing, and reinstate this area with landscaping to match the surrounding landscaping, to the satisfaction of the City’s Transportation Services Division. 3. That the owner shall comply with the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) regulations of the Zoning By-law for the proposed driveway by removing that portion of the existing fence and hedge within the DVT, to the satisfaction of the City’s Transportation Services Division. 4. That Conditions 1 to 3, above, shall be completed prior to August 16, 2017. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or designate), prior to the completion date set out in this decision. Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: 10. A 2016-092 Applicants: Melbourne Frank McGuigan Property Location: 232 Beaumont Crescent Legal Description: Lot 10, Registered Plan 58M-454 Appearances: In Support: W. Hearn COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 188 - Submission No.: 10. A 2016-092 (Cont’d) Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to legalize a deck in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 3.6m (11.811’) rather than the required 4.0m (13.123’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 4, 2016, advising the current owner is proposing to legalize a recently constructed deck in the rear yard. Relief is being sought from Section 5.6.A.4.C to locate an attached deck that is greater than 0.6 metres in height to be located 3.6 metres from the rear lot line whereas 4.0 metres is required. The properties are designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan (OP) and zoned as Residential Four (R-4). 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 variances meet the intent of the OP. The Low Rise Residential designation recognizes the existing scale of residential development and allows for modest alterations. The proposed variance will not impact the low density character of the property and will not impact the surrounding neighbourhood. The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.0 metres rear yard setback is to provide outdoor amenity space as well as adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed deck with a rear yard setback of 3.6 metres will continue to provide outdoor amenity space for the owner that is adequately setback from the neighbouring properties. The requested variance is minor. It is staff’s opinion that the reduced rear yard setback for a proposed deck is minimal and will not impact the adjacent properties. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed deck is appropriately designed for the property and will provide outdoor amenity space for the owner and adequate separation from abutting residential properties. As such, the reduced rear yard setback will have no impact to adjacent lands. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Ms. W. Hearn was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. She noted the property is pending sale and the applicant was required to amend the closing date to address the concerns with the deck. The Chair noted that the Committee’s decision this date is subject to an appeal period legislated by the Planning Act before the decision is final. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Melbourne Frank McGuigan requesting permission to legalize a deck having a height greater than 0.6m (1.968’) in the rear of an existing single detached dwelling to have a rear yard setback of 3.6m (11.811’) rather than the required 4.0m (13.123’), on Lot 10, BE APPROVED Registered Plan 58M-454, 232 Beaumont Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, . It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 189 - Submission No.: 10. A 2016-092 (Cont’d) Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: 11. A 2016-093 Applicants: Estate of Margaret Stacey Property Location: 189 Queen Street North Legal Description: Lots 5, 6, 8 & Part Lot 7, Plan 106, and Part Lot 27, Plan 379 Appearances: In Support: J. Stacey L. McCarthy S. King Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to have 3 home businesses accessory to a single detached dwelling whereas the By-law only permits 1 home business accessory to a single detached dwelling, the home businesses consisting of a tourist home (4 bedrooms), a private club/function space, and artisan’s establishment. Permission is also being requested to permit a home business consisting of a private club whereas the By-law does not permit a private club/function space as a home business; to have 4 bedrooms devoted to a tourist home rather than the permitted maximum of 2 bedrooms; to allow more than 3 clients on the premise at any one time; to have a home business-artisan’s establishment (music studio) with a gross floor area of 56.4 sq.m. (607.085 sq.ft.) rather than the permitted maximum of 50 sq.m. (538.196 sq.ft.); a home business (private club/function space) having a gross floor area of 127 sq.m. (1367.017 sq.ft.) rather than the permitted maximum 50 sq.m. (538.196 sq.ft.); and, to have a maximum of two off-site employees to the property at one time rather than the permitted maximum of one employee. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 2, 2016, advising the property is zoned Residential Five (R-5) with special provision 126U in By-law 85-1 and has an Official Plan (OP) designation of Low Rise Residential Preservation in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District in both the pre-existing and the new Official Plans (under appeal). The applicant is requesting minor variances to: 1. have three home businesses accessory to a single detached dwelling whereas the By-law only permits one home business accessory to a single detached dwelling; the home businesses consist of a tourist home (4 bedrooms), a private club/function space and an artisan’s establishment (music studio); 2. request permission to permit a home business consisting of a private club/function space whereas the By-law does not permit a private club/function space as a home business; 3. have four bedrooms devoted to a tourist home rather than the permitted maximum of two bedrooms; 4. allow for more than three clients on the premises at any one time; 5. have a home business/artisan’s establishment (music studio) with a gross floor area of 56.4 sq.m. (507.085 sq.ft) rather than the permitted maximum of 50 sq.m. (538.196 sq.ft); 6. have a home business (private club/function space) having a gross floor area of 127 sq.m. (1367.017 sq.ft) rather than the permitted maximum of 50 sq.m. (538.196 sq.ft); and, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 190 - Submission No.: 11. A 2016-093 (Cont’d) 7. have a maximum of two off-site employees to the property at any one time rather than the permitted maximum of one employee. The single detached dwelling was built in approximately 1907. Prior to 1982, the building had been used as a 20-bed nursing home. In 1982, Margaret Stacey bought the building and converted it to a 4-bedroom tourist home with 1 dwelling unit. In 1989, Committee of Adjustment approval granted permission to change the use to a 6-bedroom tourist home and dwelling unit. In 1994, special provision 126U, was implemented to permit a “tourist home” (independent of being a home business) on the property. For this application, as the tourist home is not the only Use in the building, it is considered as a Home Business in order that all uses on the site may be considered in how they function together and how they may impact the neighbourhood. In addition to the tourist home, Mrs Stacey had operated a home-based business consisting of private club/function space for over 20 years. This use did not have Planning/Zoning acknowledgement or approval, though staff has been advised that the Health and Fire Departments have reviewed their regulations and given approval for the use in the past. Mrs. Stacey died last year and her daughter and son-in-law wish to continue the tourist home, legalize the private club/function space and obtain permission to operate a home business - music studio in the detached garage. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments. The variances meet the intent of the current and new Official Plans. The intent of the Plan is to “retain the existing single detached residential character of the neighbourhood. Existing houses and streetscapes are to be preserved wherever possible.” In addition, it is noted that minor alterations and additions are permitted provided such alterations are not within the front or side yards. The proposed variances meet the above noted intentions. The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered minor for the following reasons. The intent of the regulations for home businesses is to ensure that the building continues to be used residentially and that the businesses do not negatively impact the surrounding neighbourhood. It is noted that two of the home businesses have been in operation since the 1990’s and that the tourist home is being reduced from 6 bedrooms to 4 bedrooms. The private club/function space, though not having received previous Planning approval, has been operating for over 20 years with no complaints received to date. It is noted that the private club/function space is complimentary to the tourist home and they function well together. The third home business, Artisan’s Establishment (music studio), is a new use as the new owners are music teachers. They wish to use the upper storey of the detached garage to operate their music studio and they plan to renovate the building. Heritage approval will be required for the changes and a Heritage application is currently being processed. In regards to parking, Planning and Transportation staff have met the owner on site and the parking requirement of 11 spaces for the dwelling unit and the three home businesses can be met. As well, the owners advise that they will ensure that the private club/function space and the music studio do not operate at the same time, this ensuring the uses off-set each other in regards to parking. The variances are appropriate for the development of the property and the surrounding streetscape. The property has an area of approximately 2,293 sq.m. (24,682 sq.ft) and is surrounded by mature vegetation. The size of the property accommodates an existing 11-space parking area that is sufficient for the proposed uses and there have been no complaints received to date in regards to parking. As noted, the owners will not operate the private function space and the music studio at the same time to ensure that parking can continue to be accommodated. Transportation Planning has no concerns with this application. Together, the three home businesses will permit the owners to continue to use this heritage property as a tourist home and will legalize the private club/function space for the benefit of the community. As well, it is staff’s opinion that the variances meet the character of the neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 191 - Submission No.: 11. A 2016-093 (Cont’d) The Committee considered written submissions from various individuals in support of the subject application. Messrs. S. King, L. McCarthy and Ms. J. Stacey and were in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. Mr. King noted the property has already been considered by Heritage Kitchener where they received approval for their Heritage Permit as well. Questions were raised regarding the music space and whether there would be adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties related to noise. Ms. Stacey provided a small demonstration using a glockenspiel, of the types of instruments that will be played in the space. The Chair questioned whether the deadline of January 1, 2017 outlined in Condition 4 of the staff recommendation was sufficient time to complete the conditions. Mr. King stated in his opinion the deadline was likely sufficient, but it may be more appropriate to extend the deadline a few months to ensure the decision does not lapse. The Chair noted the staff recommendation should be amended to reflect a deadline of April 30, 2017 in Condition 4 rather than the proposed January 1, 2017 deadline. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Estate of Margaret Stacey requesting permission to have 3 home businesses accessory to a single detached dwelling whereas the By-law only permits 1 home business accessory to a single detached dwelling, the home businesses consisting of a tourist home (4 bedrooms), a private club/function space, and artisan’s establishment. Permission is also being requested to permit a home business consisting of a private club whereas the By- law does not permit a private club/function space as a home business; to have 4 bedrooms devoted to a tourist home rather than the permitted maximum of 2 bedrooms; to allow more than 3 clients on the premise at any one time; to have a home business-artisan’s establishment (music studio) with a gross floor area of 56.4 sq.m. (607.085 sq.ft.) rather than the permitted maximum of 50 sq.m. (538.196 sq.ft.); a home business (private club/function space) having a gross floor area of 127 sq.m. (1367.017 sq.ft.) rather than the permitted maximum 50 sq.m. (538.196 sq.ft.); and, to have a maximum of two off-site employees to the property at one time rather than the permitted maximum of one employee, on Lots 5, 6, 8 & Part Lot 7, Plan 106, and Part Lot 27, Plan 379, 189 Queen Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the Planning Division. 2. That the owner shall obtain a Parking Plan or Site Plan approval from the Planning Division, as determined by the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service. 3. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the Building Division for changes to the detached garage. 4. That the owner shall obtain Heritage approval from the Planning Division for the changes to the detached garage. 5. That Conditions 1 to 4 are completed by April 30, 2017. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or designate) prior to completion date as set out in this decision. Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 192 - Submission No.: 11.A 2016-093 (Cont’d) Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: 12. A 2016-094 Applicants: Zbignew and Brenda Blazewiez Property Location: 58 Roehampton Court Legal Description: Lot 11, Plan 1576 Appearances: In Support: S. Adams Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to construct a deck in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a westerly side yard setback of 0.87m (2.854’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.93’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 4, 2016, advising the property is zoned Residential Three (R-3) in By-law 85-1 and has an Official Plan (OP) designation of Low Rise Residential in the current OP and also in the new OP (under appeal). The applicant is requesting permission to reconstruct a deck in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling to be located 0.87 metres (2.9 ft) from the westerly side lot line rather than the required 1.2 metres (3.9 ft). In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments. The variance meets the intent of the current and new OPs. The intent of the plans 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 and the existing single detached dwelling use on the property is being maintained and is in keeping with the intent of the OPs. The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered minor for the following reasons. The intent of the 1.2 metres (3.9 ft) side yard setback for decks that are greater than 0.6 metre (1.97 ft) above grade is to ensure that use of the deck does not negatively impact the enjoyment of the abutting properties. As well, the regulation ensures that any maintenance of the structure can be completed within the subject property lines. The proposed 0.87 metre (2.9 ft) setback is to accommodate an expansion and reconstruction of the existing deck and it would not appear to have a negative impact on the enjoyment of the neighbouring property. No complaints have been received to date for the existing deck. The renovated structure will continue to be maintained completely within the subject lot lines. The variance is appropriate for the development of the property and the surrounding streetscape. The proposed renovation/expansion of an existing deck with increase the usability of the second- storey deck for the occupants and it would not appear to negatively impact the neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) , dated August 10, 2016, advising although they have no concerns with this application, they noted the subject property is located within the allowance adjacent to the floodplain and a wetland. Consequently, the property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 193 - Submission No.: 12. A 2016-094 (Cont’d) Mr. S. Adams was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. In response to questions, he advised the deadline of December 1, 2016 should be sufficient to complete the Conditions as outlined in the staff report. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Zbigniew and Brenda Blazewicz requesting permission to construct a deck in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a westerly side yard setback of 0.87m (2.854’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.93’), on Lot 11, Plan 1576, 58 BE APPROVED Roehampton Court, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the Building Division. 2. That Condition 1 is completed by December 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 as 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: 13. A 2016-095 Applicants: Hallman Construction Ltd. Property Location: 349 Watervale Crescent Legal Description: Part Block 11, Registered Plan 58M-370 Appearances: In Support: D. Aston Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a driveway located 8.21m (26.935’) from the intersection of Watervale Crescent and Watervale Drive rather than the required 9m (29.53'). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 29, 2016, advising the subject property located at 349 Watervale 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 327R. The property is to be developed with proposed a single detached dwelling. The owner is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b) iv) to locate the access driveway at a distance of 8.21 metres from the intersection of the street lines abutting the corner lot, whereas 9.0 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: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 194 - Submission No.: 13. A 2016-095 (Cont’d) 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 the legalize the 8.21 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 0.79 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 variance 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 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 July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Hallman Construction Ltd. requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling having a driveway located 8.21m (26.935’) from the intersection of Watervale Crescent and Watervale Drive rather than the required 9m (29.53'), on Part Block BE APPROVED 11, Registered Plan 58M-370, 349 Watervale Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca. Carried Submission No.: 14. A 2016-096 Applicants: Doug and Amanda Stoeken Property Location: 520 Woodfield Court Legal Description: Lot 48, Registered Plan 58M-262 Appearances: In Support: D. Stoeken Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 195 - Submission No.: 14. A 2016-096 (Cont’d) Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to construct a roof over an existing deck in the rear yard of a single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 4.35m (14.271’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 29, 2016, advising the subject property located at 520 Woodfield Court is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP) and zoned Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (I-1) in Zoning By-law 85-1. There is an existing single detached dwelling on the subject property. The owner is requesting relief from Section 31.3.3 to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 4.35 metres to accommodate the proposed construction of a permanent roof over an existing deck in the rear yard, whereas 7.5 metres is required. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments: The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s 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 change will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate. The requested variance to legalize the location of the proposed covered deck at 4.35 metres from the rear lot line, whereas 7.5 metres is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of a rear yard setback of 7.5 metres is to provide an outdoor amenity space as well as adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed covered deck with a rear yard setback of 4.35 metres will still allow for an amenity space and will not impact adjacent properties as the subject property backs onto a wooded area. The variance can be considered minor as the reduced rear yard setback will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. The covered deck would encroach 3.15 metres into the required rear yard setback, maintaining a sufficient outdoor amenity space. Furthermore, the proposed covered deck would also provide amenity space. The variance is appropriate development for the property and surrounding area. The scale, massing and height of the proposed covered deck are appropriate and consistent with the existing single detached dwelling. The proposed variance will not impact the character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. D. Stoeken was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. Ms. J. von Westerholt requested an amendment to the recommendation as outlined in the staff report, noting she would like an additional condition added requiring the application to remove any structures, fencing etc. that are encroaching onto City property. Mr. Stoeken advised that his property backs onto a woodlot and the patio area currently containing a trampoline was there when he purchased the property. He indicated the patio used to have a play structure on it that he recently removed and replaced with a trampoline. Ms. von Westerholt indicated that Committee have imposed a similar condition in the past. Ms. P. Kohli requested clarification on the other properties adjacent to the subject property that also appear to have encroachments. Ms. von Westerholt advised that staff will be actively pursuing any encroachments that have been identified. She further advised in this situation the applicant is requesting permission for a variance and staff are requesting that as part of the Committee’s approval that any encroachment onto City property to the rear of the subject property gets removed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 196 - Submission No.: 14. A 2016-096 (Cont’d) In response to questions, Ms. von Westerholt advised that Legal Services staff manage the enforcement of encroachments and she cannot advise what options or processes they may have with regards to them. Mr. Stoeken stated the patio was in place when he purchased the property and it would be costly for it to be removed. In response to questions, he indicated that he did not receive a survey when he purchased the property. The Chair noted although the subject property backs onto a woodlot, it does not change the fact structures are located on City property. A motion was brought forward by Mr. B. McColl to approve the recommendation as outlined in the staff report, with an additional condition that the owners remove any encroachment onto City property to the rear of the subject property by August 16, 2017. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Doug and Amanda Stoeken requesting permission to construct a roof over an existing deck in the rear yard of a single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 4.35m (14.271’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Lot 48, Registered Plan 58M- BE APPROVED 262, 520 Woodfield Court, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed construction. 2. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements to remove any structures, fencing etc. that are encroaching onto City property by August 16, 2017, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: 15. A 2016-097 Applicants: Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Transfiguration Property Location: 131 Victoria Street South Legal Description: Part Lot 552, Plan 378 Appearances: In Support: A. Hamulak Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition in the easterly side yard abutting Michael Street on an existing church having a side yard setback of 2.74m (8.989’) rather than the required 6m (19.685’); and, a rear yard setback of 5.38m (17.65’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 197 - Submission No.: 15. A 2016-097 (Cont’d) The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 8, 2016, advising the subject lands are located at 131 Victoria Street South. The lands contain a religious institution and neighbouring parcels contain a residence, cultural hall, and parking associated with the religious institution. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to accommodate an accessibility lift. Given the size of the parcel and the internal layout of the religious institution, the applicant has indicated that the proposed location is the most suitable for the proposed addition. The owner is requesting relief from Section 31.3.4 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to permit a setback of 2.74 metres for a side yard abutting a street, whereas 6.0 metres in required, and a setback of 5.38 metres for a rear yard, whereas 7.5 metres is required. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The subject lands are designated Neighbourhood Institutional in the Victoria Park Secondary Plan. The proposed variances meet the intent of the Secondary Plan Policies which recognize the existence of neighbourhood oriented institutions such as religious institutions. The proposed variance will support the ongoing operation of the existing religious institution. The lands are zoned Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (I-1) with Special Regulation Provision 1R and Special Use Provision 83U. The applicant is seeking relief from Section 31.3.4 to permit a setback of 2.74 metres for a side yard abutting a street rather than the required 6 metres, and a setback of 5.78 metres for a rear yard rather than the required 7.5 metres. With respect to the proposed reduction to the side yard abutting a street, it is staff’s opinion that the intent of this setback regulation is to ensure consistent setbacks between the public realm and private buildings, to allow the installation of appropriate landscaping and to ensure visibility around corners and at driveway entrances. Many of the buildings along Victoria Street South in this location have reduced setbacks to neighbouring streets. This is typical of buildings constructed in the central city and the proposed variance provides for a consistent streetscape. Staff confirm that the required 4.57 metre Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) is provided, and as shown on the sketch provided with the application, the addition will not impact visibility at the intersection of Michael Street and Victoria Street South. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the variance to reduce the side yard abutting a street meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. With respect to the proposed reduction to the rear yard setback, the intent of this regulation is to provide separation between privately-owned structures and to preserve privacy of outdoor amenity space. The neighbouring parcel is also owned by the religious institution (under separate title) and used by the religious institution as a dwelling. The proposed location of the addition allows sufficient space for the continued operation of the driveway and does not pose concerns with respect to building separation or overlook into private amenity space. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance to reduce the rear yard setback meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. Staff notes that setbacks to the existing structure are considered legal under the existing use regulations contained in section 5 of By-law 85-1, or have been legalized through previous variances. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances are minor and are appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The proposed addition will improve the usability of the building for congregants. Staff requires that prior to issuance of a building permit that the owner receive approval of a Site Plan and elevation drawings to ensure that the proposed addition is compatible with the existing structure and that appropriate landscaping is provided. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) , dated August 10, 2016, advising although they have no concerns with this application, they noted the entire subject property is located within the flood fringe of the Schneider Creek Two-zone Floodplain. Consequently, the property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 198 - Submission No.: 15. A 2016-097 (Cont’d) Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Ukrainian Catholic Church of the Transfiguration requesting permission to construct an addition in the easterly side yard abutting Michael Street on an existing church having a side yard setback of 2.74m (8.989’) rather than the required 6m (19.685’); and, a rear yard setback of 5.38m (17.65’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Part of Park Lot 552, Grange’s Amended Survey, Registered Plan 378, 131 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, BE APPROVED Ontario,, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain Site Plan Approval, or approval to deem the addition ‘not development’, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager of Site Development and Customer Service. 2. That Condition 1 above shall be completed prior to August 31, 2017. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or designate), prior to the completion date set out in this decision. Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void. 3. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit prior to construction of the proposed addition. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried CONSENT APPLICATIONS: Submission No.: 1. B 2016-027 Applicants: 2088212 Ontario Inc./Redko Equities Inc. Property Location: 4300 King Street East Legal Description: Part Lot 9, Beasley’s Broken Front Consession Appearances: In Support: N. DeRuyter Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to sever a parcel of land municipally addressed as 4300 King Street East having a width on King Street East of 77.8m (255.249’), a northerly depth of 119.3m (119.3’) and an area of 0.81 hectares. The retained parcel is municipally addressed as 25, 50, 70 Sportsworld Crossing Road, 20 Heldman Road and 4318- 4326, 4336, 4370 King Street East. Both parcels are intended to be commercial/mixed use. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 5, 2016, advising the subject parcel is addressed as 50, 70 Sportsworld Crossing Rd; 20 Heldmann Road; and, 278, 4300, 4318-4336 and 4370 King Street East. The property contains multiple commercial COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 199 - Submission No.: 1. B 2016-027 (Cont’d) buildings, which for various technical and legal reasons have been deemed to have merged on title. The owner is proposing to sever the parcel of land known as 4300 King Street East to recreate the individual owned parcel. While there are no physical changes proposed to the subject lands, because the new lots must conform to current zoning regulations, access and servicing easements are required. Consent application B 2016-027 proposes to recreate 4300 King Street East. The lands to be severed have a frontage of 77.8 metres, a depth of 119.3 and an area of 8100 m2 (0.81ha). The lands currently contain a commercial building which is home to the business La-Z-Boy furniture. No variances are required with respect to this lot. The lands to be retained 50, 70 Sportsworld Crossing Road; 20 Heldmann Road; and, 4278, 4318-4336 and 4370 King Street East have an area of 10.5 ha. The lands currently contain numerous commercial buildings and two private roads (Heldman Road and Sportworld Crossing Road) which provided access to various buildings. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed and retained lots is desirable and appropriate. The subject property has mixed zoning and is zoned C-6 (4300 King Street East) and C-8, with special regulation 449R (25, 50, 70 Sportsworld Crossing Road; 20 Heldmann Road; 4278, 4318-4336, 4370 King Street East). The dimensions and shape of the severed and retained lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing dwellings and any future development of the lands. All regulations pertaining to the lots conform. The proposed consent conforms to the OP. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated August 8, 2016, advising they have no objections to this application subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to final approval, the applicant dedicate the required road widening of 1.5 meters along 4300 King Street East to the Region of Waterloo. The applicant must engage an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) to prepare a draft Reference Plan for the road widening, to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. 2. That prior to final approval, the applicant provide a Phase I ESA (and Phase II if required) report to determine if the road widening dedication should be taken as is, or if further environmental work is necessary. 3. That prior to final approval, the applicant enter into an Encroachment Agreement with the Region of Waterloo for any features that encroach into the Regional right of way after the road widening has been taken. The property features should be identified by the Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) and shown on the Reference Plan. Mr. N. DeRuyter addressed the Committee in support of the subject application and the recommendation as outlined in the staff report. He referenced the Conditions requested by the Region of Waterloo, noting the Consent application is intended to correct the Title on the property and re-establish it as a separate lot. He indicated no development is being proposed at this time and requested the Conditions from the Region of Waterloo not be imposed as part of the Committee’s decision. He noted the applicant was before the Committee earlier in 2016 with a similar application and the Region requested similar Conditions. He indicated the Committee opted not to impose the Region’s conditions has part of that decision. In response to questions, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that she could not speak to the Region of Waterloo’s requested conditions. She noted the Planning Act legislates that when a development application is applied for, the Region has the authority to request a road widening at that time. She noted if the Committee does not impose the Region’s requested conditions, the Region may choose to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. Mr. DeRuyter advised that he respected the Region’s intent; however, the severance is technical in nature to correct the title, and taking a road widening at this point would be onerous. He further advised that if the parcel was being redeveloped it would be subject to Site Plan approval and the road widening could be obtained at that time. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 200 - Submission No.: 1. B 2016-027 (Cont’d) Questions were raised regarding parkland dedication; Ms. von Westerholt advised that parkland dedication would be a subject of Site Plan approval if/when development is proposed. In regards to the Conditions proposed by the Region, she indicated that the Committee must also consider public interest when rendering a decision and opting to not impose the Region’s conditions could have a number of consequences. Mr. B. McColl expressed support with staff position regarding parkland dedication being deferred to Site Plan approval. He further advised that although he sympathized with the applicant’s rationale regarding the road widening, the Region has identified reconstruction of the road in their Capital forecast for 2022 and if they do not take the road widening through this application it is likely they will be seeking through other means. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of 2088212 Ontario Inc./Redko Equities requesting permission to sever a parcel of land municipally addressed as 4300 King Street East having a width on King Street East of 77.8m (255.249’), a northerly depth of 119.3m (119.3’) and an area of 0.81 hectares, on Part Lot 9, Beasley’s Broken Front Concession, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R- 10027, 50, 70 Sportsworld Crossing Rd; 20 Heldmann Road; and, 278, 4300, 4318-4336 and BE GRANTED 4370 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping Technologist. 3. That the owner shall provide a Servicing Plan and make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Division for the installation of any new services that may be required to service this property, all prior to severance approval. 4. That the owner shall submit a draft copy of the proposed Transfer for the severed parcel for review and approval, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, prior to severance approval. 5. That the owner shall dedicate the required road widening of 1.5 meters along 4300 King Street East to the Region of Waterloo. The owner must engage an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) to prepare a draft Reference Plan for the road widening, to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. 6. That the owner shall provide a Phase I ESA (and Phase II if required) report to determine if the road widening dedication should be taken as is, or if further environmental work is necessary, to the satisfaction of the Region of Waterloo. 7. That the owner shall enter into an Encroachment Agreement with the Region of Waterloo for any features that encroach into the Regional right of way after the road widening has been taken. The property features should be identified by the Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS) and shown on the Reference Plan. 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 AUGUST 16, 2016 - 201 - Submission No.: 1. B 2016-027 (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 Section 53 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 16, 2018. Carried Submission No.: 2. B 2016-028 Applicant: 1648321 Ontario Limited Property Location: 244 and 280 Shoemaker Street Legal Description: Part Lot 2, Plan 1478, being Part 7 on Reference Plan 58R-5349, Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-5598 and Parts 2 & 3 on Reference Plan 58R-9662 Appearances: In Support: K. Barisdale Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land municipally addressed as 244 Shoemaker Street having a width on Shoemaker Street of 43.84m (143.832’), a depth of 136.127m (446.61’) and an area of 7909 sq.m. (85131.767 sq.ft.). The retained parcel municipally addressed as 280 Shoemaker Street will have a width on Shoemaker Street of 25.232m (82.782’), a depth of 299.675m (983.185’) and an area of 30,109 sq.m. (324,090.579 sq.ft.). Both parcels will continue to be business industrial use. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 8, 2016, advising the subject lands are located on Shoemaker Street in the Huron Business Park. The lands have been developed with industrial uses and there is a building on each former parcel. The original lots have merged on title and the current owner wishes to separate the subject lands. The proposed severance line varies from the previous lot line and the applicant has indicated that the proposed size and shape of the severed lands will better suit the needs of the purchaser of the lands to be severed (244 Shoemaker Street). The subject lands are designated Business Park in the Official Plan (OP) and is zoned Business Park Zone (B-1). The owner is advised that Site Plans are registered on title of both the lands to be severed and lands to be retained and pertain to the former lots. As a condition of consent, the owner is required to update the existing site plans so that they reflect the new lot lines and the planned operation of the sites. 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 OP, the size of the parcels, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and suitable for the existing uses and any other permitted uses of the lands. The lands front on an established public street, and both parcels of land are currently serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated August 8, 2016, advising they have no objection to this application, subject to the following condition: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 202 - Submission No.: 2. B 2016-028 (Cont’d) 1. That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. Ms. K. Barisdale was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff recommendation. In response to questions, Ms. Barisdale advised that the property would be subject to Parkland Dedication through the Site Plan approval process, which has been addressed through Conditions 3 and 4 of the staff recommendation. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of 1648321 Ontario Limited requesting permission to sever a parcel of land municipally addressed as 244 Shoemaker Street having a width on Shoemaker Street of 43.84m (143.832’), a depth of 136.127m (446.61’) and an area of 7909 sq.m. (85131.767 sq.ft.), on Part Lot 2, Plan 1478, being Part 7 on Reference Plan 58R-5349, Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-5598 and Parts 2 & 3 on Reference Plan 58R-9662, 244 and 280 BE GRANTED Shoemaker Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Mapping Technologist. 3. That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 4. 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 which shall include the following condition: a. That prior to initiation of any site development works, grading or issuance of a building permit the owner agrees to submit and receive approval of a Site Plan to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager of Site Development and Customer Service, which reflects, at minimum, the proposed changes to the lot size and any associated changes to site operation. Should a Site Plan be approved to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager of Site Development and Customer Service in accordance with the condition above prior to endorsement of the deed, the above noted condition shall not be required to be registered on title. 5. 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 retained lands which shall include the following condition: a. That prior to initiation of any site development works, grading or issuance of a building permit the Owner agrees to submit and receive approval of a Site Plan to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager of Site Development and Customer Service, which reflects, at minimum, the proposed changes to the lot size and any associated changes to site operation. Should a Site Plan be approved to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager of Site Development and Customer Service in accordance with the condition above prior to endorsement of the deed, the above noted condition shall not be required to be registered on title. It is the opinion of this Committee that: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 203 - Submission No.: 2. B 2016-028 (Cont’d) 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 Section 53 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 16, 2018. Carried COMBINED APPLICATIONS: Submission Nos.: 1. B 2016-026 and A 2016-067 Applicants: Grand River Developments Limited Property Location: 151 Siebert Avenue Legal Description: Part Block H, Plan 812 - and - Submission No.: A 2016-068 Applicants: Negoslav and Snezana Radulovic Property Location: 253 Clark Avenue Legal Description: Part Block H, Plan 812, Being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-5768 Appearances: In Support: B. Beatty Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to sever a parcel of land so each half of a semi-detached residential dwelling can be dealt with separately. The severed land will have a width of 9.143m (29.996’), a depth of 44.789m (146.945’), and an area of 410.65 sq.m. (4420.2 sq.ft.). The retained land will have a width of 9.142m (29.993’), a depth of 44.789m (146.945’), and an area of 394.54 sq.m. (4246.793 sq.ft.). The severed land municipally addressed as 327 Prospect Avenue will also require minor variances for a side yard setback of 2.58m (8.464’) where the driveway leads to parking rather than the required 3m (9.84’); and, for a parking space to be 5.5m (18.044‘) by 2.58m (8.464’) rather than the required 5.5m (18.044‘) by 2.6m (8.530’). The retained land municipally addressed as 329 Prospect Avenue will require minor variances for a side yard setback of 2.54m (8.33’) where the driveway leads to parking rather than the required 3m (9.84’); and, for a parking space to be 5.5m (18.044’) by 2.56m (8.398’) rather than the required 5.5m (18.044’) by 2.6m (8.530’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 5, 2016, advising the subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP) and zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The lands are currently developed with an COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 204 - Submission Nos.: 1. B 2016-026, A 2016-067 and A 2016-068 (Cont’d) existing four-storey multiple dwelling. The owner is requesting permission to sever a triangular- portion of the subject lands to add as a lot addition to the neighbouring property municipally addressed as 253 Clark Avenue (B 2016-026). The purpose of the lot addition is to create more regularly-shaped lots in order to facilitate the future redevelopment of 253 Clark Avenue. Staff notes that the type of redevelopment planned for 253 Clark Avenue has not been determined at this time. The severed portion will have an irregular shape and a lot width of approximately 24 metres, a depth of 21.9 metres, and an area of 269 square metres, while the retained lot would have a lot width of 30.48 metres, depth of 35.28 metres, and an area of 1,022 square metres. In addition, the owner has submitted Minor Variance application for A 2016-067, 151 Siebert Avenue, requesting permission under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act to increase the FSR of the existing building to 1.14, whereas Section 40.2.6 of the Zoning By-law permits a maximum FSR of 0.6; and to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 5.07 metres, whereas Section 40.2.6 of the Zoning By-law requires a rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. The building currently has an existing FSR of 0.9 and an existing rear yard setback of 5.15 metres. The purpose of this application is to extend the legal non-complying use by allowing the increased FSR and reduced rear yard setback in order to facilitate a lot addition to the neighbouring property at 253 Clark Avenue. No changes are proposed to the existing building. Staff notes an additional minor variance has been applied for by the owners of 253 Clark Avenue (A 2016-068), requesting relief to legalize the existing rear yard setback as a result of the lot addition Consent Application – B 2016-026: 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 OP and meet the intent of Zoning By-law 85-1. Permission to extend the existing legal non- complying FSR and rear yard setback as a result of the lot addition has been requested through Minor Variance application A 2016-067. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal conforms with the regulations of the Residential Six Zone (R-6), subject to approval of the concurrent minor variance application. 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 purpose of the proposed lot addition is to create more regularly-shaped lots, which will improve future redevelopment potential for 253 Clark Avenue. Minor Variance Application – A 2016-067: Case law sets out the tests to be applied by the Committee of Adjustment in considering applications under Section 45(2)(a)(ii). It should be noted that the test to be applied is not the four-part test for minor variances under Section 45(1), but rather whether the request is similar in purpose to the one previous or is more compatible in purpose [OMB decision: Tanafara v. Niagara Falls (2000)]. Staff has reviewed the proposal and offers the following comments in light of the above noted tests. The existing four-storey multiple dwelling and requested increased FSR and reduced rear yard setback are similar to the existing multiple dwelling and existing non-compliances. No changes are proposed to the scale, massing, or size of the existing building. The change in existing FSR and rear yard setback will only occur as a result of the proposed lot addition to 253 Clark Avenue. The building currently exists with an FSR of 0.9, whereas a maximum FSR of 0.6 is permitted, and a rear yard setback of 5.15 metres, whereas a minimum of 7.5 metres is required. Staff is satisfied that the requested increase in FSR to 1.14 and reduced rear yard setback of 5.07 metres is similar in purpose to the existing non-complying building. Further, staff is of the opinion that the proposal does not create unacceptably adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Staff notes that this property is unique in its physical characteristics and current use. Staff advises the Committee in dealing with such applications in the future, that each proposal should be COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 205 - Submission Nos.: 1. B 2016-026, A 2016-067 and A 2016-068 (Cont’d) reviewed on its individual merits and that care be taken when considering application of precedent to subsequent cases. Minor Variance Application – A 2016-068: The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s OP and zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is currently developed with an existing legal non-conforming four-unit multiple dwelling and is proposed to be comprehensively redeveloped in the future. Planning staff notes that the type of redevelopment proposed has not been determined at this time. In order to improve redevelopment potential at 253 Clark Avenue, the owners of the subject property and the owner of 151 Siebert Avenue are proposing to sever a triangular portion of 151 Siebert Avenue to be added as a lot addition to 253 Clark Avenue. On a corner lot, the shortest lot line abutting a street is deemed to be the front lot line and the other deemed a side lot line abutting a street. As a result of the proposed lot addition, the front lot line will become that abutting Clark Avenue, thereby making the opposite lot line the rear lot line. As such, the Owner is requesting relief of Section 39.2.4 to permit a reduced rear yard setback of 4.48 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s 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 change will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate. The requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 4.48 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 7.5 metre setback is to provide amenity area in the rear yard and adequate separation between the structure and adjacent properties. The reduction of 3.02 metres from the required 7.5 metres is minor, as there is sufficient amenity space on site and the proposed 4.48 metre rear yard setback will continue to provide adequate separation from neighbouring properties. The variance is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will continue to provide amenity space on site and will maintain adequate separation between the attached garage and adjacent properties. The requested variance will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. As such, staff is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor. The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the existing residential use is permitted in the Zoning By-law. The scale, massing and height of the attached garage will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated August 8, 2016, advising they have no objection to application B 2016-026. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 27, 2016, advising they have no concerns with applications A 2016-067 and A 2016-068. Mr. B. Beatty was in attendance in support of the subject applications and the staff recommendations. Ms. J. von Westerholt requested an amendment to the staff recommendation related to Consent Application B 2016-026, to include a Condition requiring the owner to ensure that the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. Mr. Beatty advised that he had no objection to the proposed amendment. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 206 - Submission Nos.: 1. B 2016-026, A 2016-067 and A 2016-068 (Cont’d) Submission No.: B 2016-026 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Grand River Developments Limited requesting permission to sever a triangular-shaped parcel land from the rear of 151 Siebert Avenue having a width on Siebert Avenue of 24m (78.74’), a northerly depth of 31.730m (78.74’), a easterly depth of 21.913m (71.893’) and an area of 269 sq.m. (2895.492 sq.ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to 253 BE Clark Avenue, on Part Block H, Plan 812, 151 Siebert Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, GRANTED , 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 the owner shall provide confirmation that the existing services to 151 Siebert Avenue do not cross over the portion of land being severed to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Division. 4. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended. 5. That Minor Variance Application A 2016-067 shall receive full and final approval. 6. That Minor Variance Application A 2016-068 shall receive full and final approval. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 16, 2018. Carried Submission No.: A 2016-067 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 207 - Submission Nos.: 1. B 2016-026, A 2016-067 and A 2016-068 (Cont’d) Submission No.: A 2016-067 (Cont’d) That the application of Grand River Developments Limited requesting permission for the existing 4-storey multi-residential dwelling to have a rear yard setback of 5.07m (16.663’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’); and, to permit a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for the existing building of 1.14 rather than the permitted maximum 0.6, on Part Block H, Plan 812, BE APPROVED 151 Siebert Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That Consent application B 2016-026 shall receive full and final approval. 2. That this approval applies only to the existing multiple dwelling as depicted on the survey sketch prepared by Black, Shoemaker, Robinson, and Donaldson Ltd., dated June 23, 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried Submission No.: A 2016-068 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Negoslav and Snezana Radulovic requesting permission for the existing multi-residential dwelling to have a rear yard setback of 4.48m (14.698’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’), on Part Block H, Plan 812, Being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-5768, BE APPROVED 253 Clark Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That Consent application B 2016-026 shall receive full and final approval. 2. That this approval applies only to the existing multiple dwelling as depicted on the survey sketch prepared by Black, Shoemaker, Robinson, and Donaldson Ltd., dated June 20, 2016. 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. Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 16, 2016 - 208 - ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:41 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 16th day of August, 2016. Dianna Saunderson Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment