HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-20COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 20,201
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. D. Cybalski, Ms. J. Meader and Ms. P. Kohli.
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking
Analyst; Mr. A. Pinnell, Planner; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary- Treasurer;
and, Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk.
Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:10 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held August 16, 2016, as
mailed to the members, and amended, be accepted.
ki I47A-.11bylki l *Itw
khIIki 101:AT/MVle1 ki IN2
1. Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
A 2016 -098
Tarachand Jeranie
155 Gravel Ridge Trail
Lot 27, Registered Plan 58M -544
I. Jeranie
None
Carried
Written Submissions: J. Roy
D. Palmer
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a covered deck
in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a setback of 3.9m (12.795') rather
than the required 7.5m (24.606').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 9, 2016,
advising the subject property located at 155 Gravel Ridge Trail is designated Low Rise
Residential in the City's Official Plan (OP) and zoned Residential Three Zone (R -3) with Special
Regulation 403R in Zoning By -law 85 -1. There is an existing single detached dwelling on the
subject property. The owner is requesting relief from Section 37.2.1 to permit a reduced rear yard
setback of 3.9 metres to accommodate the proposed construction of a covered 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 following comments:
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 to the rear yard setback will maintain the low
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -210- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
1. Submission No.: A 2016 -098 (Cont'd)
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 3.9 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 3.9 metres will still allow for an amenity space and will
not impact adjacent properties.
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 3.6 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
August 31, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered written submissions from neighbouring property owners in opposition
to the subject application.
Ms. J. Meader noted she had reviewed submissions from neighbouring property owners
specifically regarding their concerns about drainage and permeable space. She indicated she
had similar concerns with the subject application, noting the photo in the staff report shows a
large cement pad having a shed placed on it that covers a significant portion of the backyard, as
well as the proposed deck. She questioned whether the softscaping on the property was
adequate and whether the applicant would require a minor variance for the deck if they were not
proposing to cover it.
Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that the request for the roof structure over the deck is what has
dictated the requirement for the minor variance. In response to questions about the permeable
space, Ms. von Westerholt advised that site permeability would have been reviewed through the
creation of the subdivision.
Ms. Meader noted she could not support the application, as in her opinion the proposed roof
structure would contribute to the over development of the subject property.
A motion was brought forward by Ms. P. Kohli, seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski to approve the
recommendation as outlined in the staff report. The motion then voted and was Carried, with Ms.
J. Meader voting in opposition.
Moved by Ms. P. Kohli
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
That the application of Tarachand Jeranie requesting permission to construct a covered deck
in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a setback of 3.9m (12.795')
rather than the required 7.5m (24.606'), on Lot 27, Registered Plan 58M -544, 155 Gravel
Ridge Trail, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
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 - 211 -
Submission No.: A 2016 -098 (Cont'd)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
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 -099
Applicant:
Marion Kelterborn
Property Location:
134 Lakeside Drive
Legal Description:
Lot 194, Plan 876
Appearances:
In Support: M. Kelterborn
G. Kobayashi
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to enclose an existing carport
on a single detached dwelling having an easterly side yard of 0.2m (0.656') rather than the
required 1.2m (3.93'); and, to permit a side yard setback of 0.2m (0.656') without a maintenance
easement over the abutting property, whereas the By -law requires properties having a side yard
setback under 0.2m (0.656') to have a maintenance easement on the abutting property.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 12, 2016,
advising the subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan (OP)
and zoned Residential Three Zone (R -3) in Zoning By -law 85 -1. The property is currently
developed with an existing single detached dwelling with an attached carport and is located
immediately adjacent to Lakeside Park, a City -owned park. The owner is proposing to convert the
existing flat- roofed carport to an attached garage with a gable roof, and as such is requesting
relief from Section 37.2.1 to permit a reduced side yard setback of 0.2 metres, whereas 1.2
metres is required; and, Section 5.20 to permit a side yard setback of 0.2 metres without a 1.5
metre maintenance easement over the abutting lands, whereas an easement over the abutting
lands 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 following comments.
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 variances to reduce the side yard setback from 1.2 metres to 0.2 metres without a
maintenance easement meets the intent of the Zoning By -law. The intent of the 1.2 metre
setback is to provide adequate separation between properties as well as access to the rear yard.
The purpose of the required easement for lots with side yard setbacks of 0.2 metres or less is to
ensure that the property owner has access for maintenance of the garage walls, eaves, and
property. 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 dwelling. Given that the
property and dwelling abut City -owned parkland (Lakeside Park), Staff is satisfied there is
adequate separation between the dwelling and the adjacent property. Staff notes that should the
owners require access over Lakeside Park for maintenance of the garage, they may apply to the
City's Operations Division for temporary permission. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the
opinion that the intent of the Zoning By -law is maintained.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -212- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
2. Submission No.: A 2016 -099 (Cont'd)
The variances are considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variances will still
provide an adequate side yard to allow for access to maintain the walls, roof, and eaves of the
property. Given that the setback is existing and no further encroachments are proposed, staff is
satisfied the requested variances will not negatively affect adjacent properties or the surrounding
neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the existing
residential use is permitted in the Zoning By -law. The scale, massing and height of the 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
August 31, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Ms. M. Kelterborn and Mr. G. Kobayashi were in attendance in support of the subject application
and the staff recommendation.
In response to questions regarding Condition 4, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that in mature
neighbourhoods when development is proposed, staff would like to ensure that trees are not
adversely impacted by the construction. Mr. Kobayashi acknowledged the requirement, advising
that he would follow up with Operations staff further on the clearance of that condition.
Moved by Ms. P. Kohli
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Marion Kelterborn requesting permission to enclose an existing carport
on a single detached dwelling having an easterly side yard of 0.2m (0.656') rather than the
required 1.2m (3.93'); and, to permit a side yard setback of 0.2m (0.656') without a
maintenance easement over the abutting property, whereas the By -law requires properties
having a side yard setback under 0.2m (0.656') to have a maintenance easement on the
abutting property, on Lot 194, Plan 876, 134 Lakeside Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this approval applies only to the proposed attached garage as depicted on the
plans prepared by designWORKS, dated August 5, 2016, submitted in support of this
application.
2. That the owner shall ensure that eaves of the proposed attached garage shall not
project beyond the property line.
3. That the owner shall obtain the appropriate permit(s) from the City's Operations Division
to enter City parkland during construction.
4. That the owner shall ensure any City -owned trees adjacent to the property are protected
during construction to the satisfaction of the City's Operations and Planning Divisions.
5. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit for the proposed attached garage by June
1, 2017.
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 -213- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
2. Submission No.: A 2016 -099 (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.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
A 2016 -100
Robert and Pamela Holenski
58 Samuel Street
Part Lot 2, Plan 115
P. Holenski
None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to reconstruct the porch on
an existing single detached dwelling having a front yard setback of 4.14m (13.582') rather than
the required 4.5m (14.763'); an existing southerly side yard setback of 0.72m (2.362') rather than
the required 1.2m (3.93'); and, to locate the required off - street parking space 2.03m (6.66') from
the street line rather than the required 6m (19.685').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 9, 2016,
advising the subject property located at 58 Samuel Street is zoned Residential Five (R -5) with
Special Use Provision 129U in the Zoning By -law 85 -1 and designated Low Rise Conservation A
in the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. The applicant is requesting relief from
Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By -law to allow the off street parking space for a single
detached dwelling to be located in the driveway setback 2.03 metres from the street line rather
than the required 6.0 metres. The applicant is also requesting relief from Section 39.2.1 of the
Zoning By -law to construct living area over an existing porch with a front yard setback for 4.14
metres whereas the by -law requires 4.5 metres. Furthermore, the applicant is seeking additional
relief from Section 39.2.1 to legalize the existing right side yard setback of 0.72 metres whereas
the by -law requires 1.2 metres.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments.
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan (OP). This
designation permits low density forms of housing such as single detached dwellings. The
proposed variance meets the intent of the OP which encourages a range of different forms of
housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to the
designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance to legalize the location of the
one required parking space is permitted.
The requested variance to reduce the off - street parking space from 6.0 metres to 2.02 metres
from street lot line meets the intent of the Zoning Bylaw. The reduction of 3.97 metres from the
required 6 metres is minor. The intent of the 6.0 metre required setback is to allow for a vehicle to
be safely parked on the driveway without affecting the City right -of -way and surrounding
properties. Transportation Services staff supports a 3.97 metre reduction from the required 6
metre parking setback.
The requested variances to reduce the front yard setback from 4.5metres to 4.14 metres and the
requested variance to legalize the existing side yard setback of 0.72 metres rather than the
required 1.2 metres meet the intent of the Zoning By -law. The right side yard setback of 0.72
metres is historical and is not changing as a result of the proposed addition. The intent of the
front yard setback is to ensure an appropriate distance separation between dwellings and the
street line. A reduction of 0.36 metres is minor and will allow appropriate separation distance
between the dwelling and street line. The proposed variances should not have any impact on the
adjacent residential properties.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -214-
Submission No.: A 2016 -100 (Cont'd)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
The variances can be considered minor as it is staff's opinion that the required parking space can
still be accommodated on site in a safe manner. The reduced parking space setback of 3.97
metres, the reduced front yard setback of 0.36 metres and legalizing a side yard setback of 0.72
metres will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall
neighbourhood.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variances
should not negatively impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 31, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Ms. P. Holenski was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff
recommendation. She noted she has already applied for the Building Permit as outlined in
Condition 1 of the recommendation.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Robert and Pamela Holenski requesting permission to reconstruct the
porch on an existing single detached dwelling having a front yard setback of 4.14m (13.582')
rather than the required 4.5m (14.763'); an existing southerly side yard setback of 0.72m (2.362')
rather than the required 1.2m (3.93'); and, to locate the required off - street parking space 2.02m
(6.66') from the street line rather than the required 6m (19.685'), on Part Lot 2, Plan 115, 58
Samuel Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall submit a parking plan to the satisfaction of Transportation Services.
2. That the owner shall obtain a Building Permit from the City's Building Division by June 1,
2017.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
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 wwvv.kitchener.ca
Carried
Submission No.: A 2016 -101
Applicant: Vesterra 4210 King Inc.
Property Location: 4210 King Street East
Legal Description: Part Lot 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, subject to
right -of -way, on Part 1, Reference Plan 58R -14276
Appearances:
In Support: S. Patterson
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -215- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
��1•" rT1CTi1�C 1�G��iZ[.'1Si[�S�(K�7itir
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 3- storey
addition on an existing office /commercial building having a maximum Gross Floor Area for an
office of 5,110 sq.m. rather than the permitted maximum 3,750 sq.m.; and, to provide 165 off -
street parking spaces rather than the required 183 off - street spaces.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 9, 2016,
advising the subject property located at 4210 King Street is zoned Arterial Commercial (C -6) in
the Zoning By -law 85 -1 and is designated Planned Commercial Campus in the City's Official Plan
(OP). The applicant is requesting relief from Section 12.2.1 of the Zoning By -law to permit Office
use with a maximum gross floor area of 5,110m2 with a floor space ratio of 0.36 whereas the
Zoning By -law permits a maximum gross floor area for office of 3750m2 and a maximum floor
space ratio of 0.5. Furthermore the applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.2 a) of the
Zoning By -law to permit a reduced parking rate of 1 space per 31 m2, whereas 1 space per 28m2
is required, which would result in 165 spaces rather than 183 required spaces on the subject site
if the proposed development is constructed.
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 property is designated Planned Commercial Campus in the City's Official Plan (OP).
Planned Commercial Campuses permit a broad range of commercial uses, including retail,
freestanding office to a maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.5. The applicant is proposing a
freestanding office with a Floor Space Ratio of 0.36 and would therefore meet the maximum floor
space ratio set out in the OP. As such, staff is satisfied the proposed variance meets the intent of
the OP.
The requested variance seeking relief from Section 12.2.1 of the Zoning By -law to permit Office
use with a maximum gross for area of 5,110m2 with a floor space ratio of 0.36 whereas the
Zoning By -law permits a maximum gross floor area for office of 3750m2 and a maximum floor
space ratio of 0.5 meets the intent the of the Zoning By -law. The site is currently occupied by a
large single tenant office user which is relocating from the building and the proposed addition will
allow the future tenant adequate office space. The proposed addition to increase the office
building to 5,110m2 with a Floor Space Ratio of 0.36 is minor. As such, staff is satisfied that the
increase of 1360 m2 gross floor area of office with a Floor Space Ratio of 0.36 continues to meets
the intent of the Zoning By -law.
The requested variance seeking relief from Section 6.1.2 a) of the Zoning By -law to permit a
reduced parking rate of 1 space per 31 m2, whereas 1 space per 28m2 is required, meets the
intent of the Zoning By -law. The purpose of the 1 space per 28 m2 of gross floor area for office use
is to ensure there are adequate parking spaces provided for all office employees.
To support the proposed parking rate reduction, the owner completed the City of Kitchener
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Checklist. The Checklist provides the option to
include TDM measures with a development which would allow for a reduction in the required
parking spaces. On the subject site, the owner proposes to provide additional bicycle parking
spaces above what is required in the Zoning By -law, shower and change room facilities and ride
share parking spaces at a priority location on the site. The inclusion of these three TDM
measures allow for a reduction in parking spaces on the subject site of 176 spaces. Furthermore,
the applicant submitted a Parking Utilization Study for the 13 office sites within the City. The
Study concluded the average maximum observed parking demand on office sites was 67% of the
provided parking. The average parking ratio for these sites was 1 space per 38m2 of gross floor
area.
In summary, the owner has proposed several TDM measures on -site, and the Parking Utilization
Study indicated the current parking ratio for office results in an oversupply of parking which will be
underutilized. As such, staff is satisfied that a reduction of the parking rate to 1 space per 31 m2 of
gross floor area for office use is adequate to meet the needs of this site.
The variances can be considered minor as it is staffs opinion that increase of 1360 m2 gross floor
area of office and reduced parking requirement will not present any significant impacts to
adjacent properties and the overall area.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -216- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
4. Submission No.: A 2016 -101 (Cont'd)
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as they adequately meet
the needs for this site. The requested variance should not negatively impact any of the adjacent
properties or the surrounding community.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 31, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application.
The Chair noted the comments as outlined in the staff report regarding the Tree Preservation and
Enhancement Plan. In response, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised any requirements for a Tree
Preservation Plan would be dealt with at the Site Plan approval process.
Ms. J. Meader noted where a Parking Study has been obtained to justify an off - street parking
reduction it would be her preference that a condition be imposed as part of the Committee's
decision to ensure the implementation of the suggested Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) measures are implemented. In response, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that any
conditions related to the implementation of TDM measures would be implemented through the
Site Plan approval process.
In response to questions, Mr. S. Patterson advised that the lease for the current tenant of the
building is due to expire. The property owner is seeking the possibility of expanding the existing
building in anticipation of new tenants. He noted he doesn't anticipate beginning the Site Plan
approval process until 2018.
Ms. J. Meader brought forward a motion to approve the subject application with a condition to
implement the TDM measures including bicycle parking, showers and change facilities and ride
share parking through the Site Plan approval process to the satisfaction of the Director of
Transportation Services.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Vesterra 4210 King Inc. requesting permission to construct an addition on
an existing office /commercial building having a maximum Gross Floor Area for office of 5,110
sq.m. with a Floor Space Ratio of 0.36 rather than the permitted maximum 3,750 sq.m. and
maximum Floor Space Ratio of 0.5; and, to provide 165 off - street parking spaces rather than the
required 183 off - street spaces, on Part Lot 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, subject to
right -of -way, on Part 1, Reference Plan 58R- 14276, 4210 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures
including but not limited to bicycle parking, shower and change room facilities and ride
share parking spaces, as outlined in TDM Report, dated August 15, 2016, prepared by
Labreche Patterson & Associates Inc., as part of the Site Plan approval process to the
satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Services.
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 wwvv.kitchener.ca
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -217- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
5. Submission No.: A 2016 -102
Applicant: Region of Waterloo
Property Location: 904 King Street West
Legal Description: Part Lots 300 and 301, Plan 385
Ms. J. Meader declared a pecuniary interest with respect to Application A 2016 -102, as her firm has
been retained by the Region of Waterloo on another matter relating to land acquisition; accordingly, she
did not take part in any discussion or voting regarding this matter.
Appearances:
In Support: R. Parent
D. Stubbs
G. Proctor
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a Traction Power
Substation for Light Rail Transit (LRT) having a setback of 10m (32.808') whereas the By -law
permits a maximum setback of 7.5m (24.606'); a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0 rather than the
required 1; having no fapade openings whereas the By -law requires 40% of the fapade to have
openings every 4m (13.123'); having no fapade height whereas the By -law requires a height of
6m (19.685'); a primary floor fapade of 0 whereas the By -law requires 50% abutting a street line;
and, to permit a Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) of 2.5m (8.202') rather than the required 4.57m
(14.993').
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 9, 2016,
advising the Region of Waterloo and GrandLinq have partnered to build Stage 1 of ION. ION is
part of a Region -wide transit system that will connect rapid transit with a network of Grand River
Transit (GRT) iXpress and local bus routes. Set to begin service in 2017, ION includes 19
kilometres of LRT from the Conestoga Mall transit terminal in Waterloo to the Fairview Park Mall
transit terminal in Kitchener.
The LRT vehicles will be powered by electricity, which will be distributed with a Traction
Electrification System (TES) by the means of Traction Power System (TPS) and the Overhead
Contact System (OCS). The TPS consists of the Traction Power Substations (TPSS) and the
Traction Power Feeder System (TPFS).
The applicant has requested several minor variance applications to permit the placement of
Traction Power Substations (TPSS) along the LRT route on properties which are owned by the
Region of Waterloo. Each TPSS is assembled offsite and transported to the final location. The
buildings are roughly the size of a transport truck trailer. These TPSS buildings are considered a
building under the Ontario Building Code, and require site plan approval where located outside of
the public highway.
On January 19, 2016, the Committee of Adjustment approved similar variances for TPSS sites
located at 230 Charles St E, 495 Charles St E, and 1605 Block Line Rd. At that time, the Region
of Waterloo was not the land owner and was not in a position to file a minor variance application
for the subject property. The Region of Waterloo is now the land owner and is seeking similar
zoning relief as previously granted for the other sites mentioned.
Section 5.8 of Zoning By -law 85 -1 permits the TPSS buildings to be located in any zone subject
to: the use or building being in compliance with the most restrictive regulations contained in such
zone, the parking requirements of Section 6.1 for such use, and subject to there being no outdoor
storage of goods, materials or equipment in any yard abutting a Residential Zone.
GrandLinq, on behalf of the Region of Waterloo, has filed a minor variance application to resolve
non - complying zoning regulations. Application A 2016 -102 is requesting relief from Section 54.2.1
of the Zoning By -law to permit a TPSS building 10.0 metres from the streetline whereas a
maximum front yard of 7.5 metres is permitted, to have a TPSS building with no openings
whereas 40% of the fapade is required to have openings not more than 4.0 metres apart, to
permit a TPSS building with a FSR of 0 whereas a minimum FSR of 1 is required, to permit a
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -218- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
:�1 ••"T i11C•77 �71i1•_t►�iZ[.'1Si [�3�1(K.TiTir
TPSS building with a fapade height of 0 metres whereas 6.0 metres minimum is required, and to
permit a TPSS building with a primary floor fapade of 0 whereas 50% of the fapade abutting a
streetline is required. Relief is also being sought from Section 4 to permit a Driveway Visibility
Triangle (DVT) of 2.5 metres along the rear alley whereas 4.57 metres is required.
The property is designated as Mixed Use Corridor in the KW Hospital Secondary Plan and zoned
as Medium Intensity Mixed Use Corridor (MU -2) with Special Regulation Provisions 497R and
501 R.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments:
The requested variances meet the intent of the Official Plan (OP). The City's OP supports the
development of public transit as an option for all residents. An efficient and effective public transit
system is essential for residents who through choice or necessity do not have access to an
automobile. In addition, an efficient public transit system can reduce the reliance on the
automobile which can reduce the need for road capacity expansion, OP supports public transit by
organizing intensification areas through a new Urban Structure that focuses growth along existing
and planned transit corridors. ION will be a new convenient and efficient way to travel throughout
the City and the Region. Kitchener is planned to have a population of 313,000 people with
130,000 jobs by 2031. ION will reduce traffic congestion, limit costly road expansions, limit sprawl
and attract new employers. It will protect environmentally sensitive areas of our region, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions for better air quality, protect ground water supply, and safeguard
surrounding farmland. The requested variances are required to facilitate the TPSS buildings,
which are required as a functional part of the LRT system. This critical infrastructure is required to
have LRT operational, which overall, meets the goals and objections of the current and new
Official Plan.
The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By -law. While considered a building under
the Ontario Building Code, the TPSSs are only a piece of critical infrastructure that is part of the
larger LRT project. The zoning regulations are meant to apply to buildings that will have useable
floor area that accommodate residential, commercial, and employment uses. Due to design
considerations, safety regulations, and functional constraints, the design of the prefabricated
TPSSs cannot be altered. There are also logistical considerations for the placements of the
TPSSs on each site that have been predetermined by a variety of factors. Through the individual
site planning processes for each TPSS site, design and place- making considerations are being
addressed through landscaping, fencing, grading, public amenity areas, and other site - specific
elements to achieve an aesthetically pleasing TPSS site where possible.
The requested minor variances are minor. City Planning staff have encouraged locating the
TPSSs on smaller parcels of publically -owned land where possible, and when located on larger
parcels, to locate the TPSSs in such a way that the remaining property can accommodate
comprehensive redevelopment. TPSSs are required to be equally spaced along the entire LRT
route, and where possible, have been located away from public view. In areas where they will be
more visible, additional landscape or design elements will be required to blend the TPSSs into the
public realm.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The implementation and
operation of ION rapid transit will influence the development and redevelopment of the central
transit corridor. The variances will allow for the necessary infrastructure to be developed to power
the ION system.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 31, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Messrs. R. Parent, G. Proctor and D. Stubbs were in attendance in support of the subject
application and the staff recommendation.
Moved by Ms. P. Kohli
Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -219-
Submission No.: A 2016 -102 (Cont'd)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
That the application of Region of Waterloo requesting permission to construct a Traction
Power Substation for Light Rail Transit (LRT) having a setback of 10m (32.808') whereas the
By -law permits a maximum setback of 7.5m (24.606'); a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0 rather
than the required 1; having no fapade openings whereas the By -law requires 40% of the
fapade to have openings every 4m (13.123'); having no fapade height whereas the By -law
requires a height of 6m (19.685'); a primary floor fapade of 0 whereas the By -law requires 50%
abutting a street line; and, to permit a Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) of 2.5m (8.202') along
the rear alley rather than the required 4.57m (14.993'), on Part Lots 300 and 301, Plan 385,
904 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
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 -103
Applicant: Rockway Holdings Limited
Property Location: 239 Eden Oak Trail
Legal Description: Block 214, Plan 58M -597
Appearances:
In Support: C. Pidgeon
L. Kotseff
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a multi - residential
townhome development having a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.88 rather than the permitted
maximum FSR 0.6; having balconies being supported by columns on the ground rather than
cantilevered; a setback from Fairway Road North of 4.5m (14.763') rather than the required 7.5m
(24.606); to provide 188 off - street parking spaces rather than the required 259 off - street parking
spaces; and, to provide 40 off - street visitor parking spaces rather than the required 52 off - street
visitor parking spaces.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 14, 2016,
advising the subject property is located at the northeast corner of Eden Oak Trail and Fairway
Road North, in the Grand River South Planning Community. The property also has two narrow
frontages on Rivertrail Avenue. At the time of application submission, the property did not yet
have a municipal address, and so the application states the address is " Rivertrail Ave ". Since that
time, the property has been municipally addressed as 239 Eden Oak Trail. The subdivision
containing the subject property and surrounding lands was registered only a few weeks prior to
the writing of this report. The subject property is presently vacant. The subject property is
designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan (OP) and is zoned Residential Six (R-
6), with Special Regulation Provisions 1 R, 596R, 597R, and Special Use Provision 419U.
The applicant has submitted a Minor Variance Application requesting certain relief from the
Zoning By -law:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -220- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
6. Submission No.: A 2016 -103 (Cont'd)
1. Relief from Section 40.2.6 to allow a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.88, whereas a
maximum of 0.6 FSR is permitted.
2. Relief from Section 5.6A.1a) to allow the proposed balconies of the buildings to be
supported by columns rather than be cantilevered.
3. Relief from Special Regulation Provision 596R to permit a setback of 4.5 metres to
Fairway Road North, whereas a minimum setback of 7.5 metres is required.
4. Relief from Section 6.1.2a) to permit 188 parking spaces for 148 cluster townhouse
dwelling units, whereas 259 parking spaces are required.
5. Relief from Section 6.1.2b)vi) to permit 40 visitor parking spaces for the proposed cluster
townhouse development, whereas 52 (20% of the required 259 spaces) are required.
Upon further review of the application, it has been determined that with respect to:
• Variance 4, only 222 parking spaces are required by the Zoning By -law, rather than 259 as
stated on the application form (1.5 spaces /unit x 148 units = 222 spaces). Staff's
recommendation has been revised, accordingly.
• Variance 5, only 44 visitor spaces are required by the Zoning By -law, rather than 52 as
stated on the application form (222 required spaces x 20% = 44 visitor spaces). Staff's
recommendation has been revised, accordingly.
The applicant is requesting the above noted variances in order to allow the development of 148
cluster townhouse dwelling (a type of multiple dwelling) units within 16 buildings. A concept plan
submitted with the application form (attached) shows what the development might look like if
constructed. Upon initial review, Planning staff notes that a significant portion of the site massing
appears to be located in close proximity to the residential development to the north.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the minor variance application is premature. The formal review
and approval of a Site Plan application should precede the minor variance application, as it is not
possible to determine whether the application is minor (i.e., the impact cannot be determined) in
advance of a Site Plan application.
It is vital that staff receive, review, and approve in principle a Site Plan application before
providing a Minor Variance recommendation. The Site Plan process will determine the
appropriateness of and policy compliance with the site layout and design, including: buildings
heights, forms and locations; site access and parking; amenity and landscaped areas;
garbage /recycling facilities; grading and servicing; and other on -site facilities. Once the site layout
and design has been vetted through the various City departments and agencies, staff will be
sufficiently informed to consider a minor variance request related to massing, etc.
Without an approved Site Plan, there is no plan to which the Minor Variance may be "tied"
through an approval condition. As an example, this could result in the building massing (FSR)
being allocated in ways that cause unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent properties.
Moreover, if the Minor Variance approval is "tied" to the attached concept plan, it could be
determined through the future Site Plan review by City departments and agencies that the plan is
not feasible since it conflicts with certain policies or regulations that are implemented through the
Site Plan process.
Ideally, a Site Plan application would receive Approval in Principle status before a decision is
made on a minor variance application. In this case, no such Site Plan application has been
received by the Planning division.
It should be noted that prior to application submission, Planning staff did advise the applicant that:
Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance application is premature: we are not able to
support the application in the absence of a site plan application that establishes and solidifies the
site layout and other important site details. Ideally, a site plan application would proceed to
approval in principle stage with a condition that requires a minor variance before approval can be
granted. This Division will recommend refusal to the variance application if it is submitted at this
stage.
In the case of a recent minor variance application for 70 Willowrun Drive (directly opposite the
subject site; Application A 2014 -025), which requested a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) increase from
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -221- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
1��1• r1 [Ti1�C1�G��iZ[c1Si[�Xi(K.7itir
0.6 to 0.93 to allow multiple residential development, Site Plan Approval in Principle had already
been issued when the Committee approved the variance with the condition the approval "shall
only apply to the Site Plan associated with [the applicable Site Plan Application]."
It should also be noted that precedent is not a consideration in deciding Minor Variance
applications; applications are reviewed on their own planning merits and within their own context.
The subject variances should be reviewed in further detail once a Site Plan application has been
submitted and reviewed.
Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the application be deferred for a
maximum of 6 months to allow the applicant the opportunity to submit and obtain approval in
principle of a Site Plan application.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
August 31, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated
September 12, 2016, advising although they have no concerns with this application, they noted a
small portion of floodplain and its five metre regulatory allowance extends onto the subject
property. Consequently, the property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06.
The Committee was in receipt this date of an email from the City's Transportation Services, dated
September 15, 2016 advising that justification would need to be provided to their department in
support of the parking reduction for their review.
Messrs. C. Pidgeon and L. Kotseff were in attendance in support of the subject application;
however, they were in opposition to the staff recommendation to defer the application.
The Chair questioned staff on the rationale for requesting a deferral on the subject application.
Mr. A. Pinnell advised the main reason for requesting a deferral at this time is that the applicant
has not yet begun the Site Plan approval process and staff are not currently able to support the
proposed concept design of the site, including layout of on -site facilities, buildings, landscaping
etc. until that process has been vetted further. He indicated staffs approach regarding an
increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR) would be to link Committee of Adjustment approval to an
approved Site Plan.
The Committee was in receipt this date of a presentation entitled 239 Eden Oak Trail, Minor
Variance Application A 2016 -103, dated September 20, 2016, prepared by GSP Group in support
of the subject application. Mr. Pidgeon provided an overview of the application, noting in his
opinion the land use is not new; the property is adjacent to a project completed by the same
builder located at the property municipally addressed as 70 Willowrun Drive. He indicated the
development proposed for the subject property is similar to what was constructed on that site. He
indicated they have been speaking with staff in regards to the subject property and when they
received staffs opinions regarding Site Plan approval they immediately filed a Site Plan approval
application and have already had a pre- submission meeting.
Mr. Pidgeon presented the requested variances, noting when the subdivision was approved the
block was anticipated to accommodate 162 units; the applicant is proposing 148 units. He
provided a comparison between the subject application and the variances that were approved for
the neighbouring property (70 Willowrun Drive), noting for that property a greater number of
variances were required than what was being requested of the Committee this date. He provided
justification why the variances were minor, noting the Committee of Adjustment application was
originally submitted in June 2016 and City staff indicated they would not process it until the
subdivision was registered. He stated the Plan was registered in August 2016 and the minor
variance application was subsequently submitted. He further advised that Planning staff are now
advising that the application is premature, pending Site Plan approval. He further advised that in
his opinion, variance approval would set the parameters for the Site Plan process.
Mr. Pinnell expressed concerns with approving the variance application for the subject property
without Site Plan Approval in Principle. He noted there were several positives to the proposed
design, noting the proposal is similar to the adjacent property at Willowrun Drive. He indicated
with every design there are always lessons learned and there are some aspects of the design at
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -222- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
6. Submission No.: A 2016 -103 (Cont'd)
Willowrun Drive that do not function as well in built form as they did through the planning process.
He stated some of the design aspects staff would like to improve upon through the design at
Eden Oak trail include: internal street layout; community amenity space; and, distance between
the actual structures and the use of those spaces. He indicated staff are willing to work with the
applicant on the proposed design through the Site Plan approval process. Mr. Pinnell advised that
if the Committee approves the variances requested this date, staff have very little flexibility to
manage the proposed FSR on the property. He further advised that the requested FSR is one -
third higher than what is permitted by the Zoning By -law and there is no Planning rationale to
approve the increase.
The Chair questioned whether the Committee's approval could be based on the concept plan
submitted with the application. Mr. Pinnell advised that tying the Committee's decision to the
concept plan would not satisfy staffs concern related to the increase in FSR. He indicated an
increase in FSR from 0.6 to 0.88 is significant and staff would have very little room negotiating a
more suitable design with Committee of Adjustment approval in place.
Questions were raised on whether the Committee could approve the variance this date with a
condition that approval of the Committee's decision would be subject to the application receiving
Site Plan approval; failure to receive that approval would make the variance null and void. In
response, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that if it was the Committee's wish they could approve
the minor variance application this date which would be null and void if Site Plan approval was
not achieved. She cautioned the applicant that pending the Site Plan approval process, additional
variances may be required and the applicant may need to re -apply to the Committee for further
approvals. Ms. von Westerholt expressed concerns with the proposed approach, noting it may
frustrate the process for staff and the applicant to reach a compromise on a final design.
Ms. J. Meader acknowledged the concerns raised by staff regarding the approval process. She
stated in her opinion the concerns raised by staff do not directly relate to the variances requested.
She indicated the risks associated to receiving minor variance approval prior to receiving Site
Plan approval are greater for the applicant. She further advised that if the Committee approved
the application this date the applicant would have some foundation to base their design upon.
Mr. D. Seller indicated Transportation Planning staff have not had an opportunity to review the
Parking Study provided to the Committee this date, and expressed concerns that staff could not
support a parking reduction without reviewing the applicants' justification. The Chair proposed an
additional condition for the applicant to submit justification in support of the requested parking
reduction to the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Services, which could be
implemented through the Site Plan approval process.
The Chair questioned whether any additional conditions should be imposed through the
Committee's approval for 70 Willowrun Drive that should be considered for the subject
application, questioning whether any noise conditions applied due to the proximity to the airport.
Mr. Pidgeon advised a noise analysis was imposed by the Region of Waterloo as a condition of
the subdivision agreement. Mr. Pinnell advised he has not yet received comments from the
Region of Waterloo related to the Site Plan, as the first pre- submission meeting was held the
week prior to this date. He stated as part of the initial meeting on the subject property, the Region
expressed noise concerns with the proximity to Fairway Road which would need to be mitigated,
likely through building materials.
The Chair proposed a further condition that the applicant completes the necessary Noise
study /mitigation requirements to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning and Region of
Waterloo through the Site Plan approval process.
Mr. Pinnell expressed further concerns with approving a Variance for FSR, stating that staff will
have very little ability to refuse a design /layout with an approved 0.88 FSR.
In response to questions, Mr. Pinnell advised there is an area - specific regulation in the By -law
which prescribes an increased distance between the dwellings and Fairway Road. He indicated
the subdivision approval and maximum number of 162 units on the subject property is based on
the servicing capacity for the site.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -223-
Submission No.: A 2016 -103 (Cont'd)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
Ms. Meader advised in her opinion, the applicant has the right to have their application heard
before the Committee and following the presentation she indicated the FSR request is justified.
Ms. Meader brought forward a motion to approve Minor Variance Application A 2016 -103 with
three conditions, including: the approval being subject to the applicant receiving Site Plan
approval; the submission of a Parking Justification report which will be implemented through the
Site Plan approval process; and, the completion of the necessary noise study /mitigation
requirements for approval /implementation through the Site Plan approval process.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Rockway Holdings Limited requesting permission to construct a multi -
residential townhome development having a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.88 rather than the
permitted maximum FSR 0.6; having balconies being supported by columns on the ground
rather than cantilevered; a setback from Fairway Road North of 4.5m (14.763') rather than the
required 7.5m (24.606'); to provide 188 off - street parking spaces rather than the required 222
off - street parking spaces; and, to provide 40 off - street visitor parking spaces rather than the
required 44 off - street visitor parking spaces, on Block 214, Plan 58M -597, 239 Eden Oak Trail,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That approval of Minor Variance application A 2016 -103 is subject to the applicant
receiving Site Plan approval from the City's Director of Planning. Failure to complete
one or all of these conditions will result in the variance becoming null and void.
2. That the owner shall submit justification in support of the requested parking reduction to
the satisfaction of the Director of Transportation Services which will be implemented
through the Site Plan approval process.
3. That the owner shall complete the necessary Noise study / mitigation requirements
through the Site Plan approval process to the satisfaction of the City's Director of
Planning and Region of Waterloo.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
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.: B 2016 -029
Applicants: James and Laura Jolkowski
Property Location: 31 Natchez Road
Legal Description: Lot 20, Plan 769
Appearances:
In Support: J. Jolkowski
P. Haramis
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -224- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
1. Submission No.: B 2016 -029 (Cont'd)
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
having a width on Natchez Road of 15.429m (50.62'), a depth of 40.234m (132.0'), and an area
of 613 sq.m. (6598.277 sq.ft.). The retained land will have a width on Natchez Road of 30.855m
(101.23'), a depth of 40.234m (132.0'), and an area of 1227 sq.m. (13207.318 sq.ft.). Both
parcels will continue to be used for residential use.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated August 5, 2016, advising
that the subject property is located at the northwest corner of Carson Drive and Natchez Road in
the Heritage Park Planning Community. The property contains a one - and -a -half storey single
detached dwelling constructed in approximately 1953, and possesses a large, undeveloped
northerly side yard. The subject property has approximately 46.3 metres of frontage on Natchez
Road and approximately 40.2 metres of frontage on Carson Drive, with a total lot area of
approximately 1,840 square metres.
The neighbourhood contains predominantly single detached dwellings in a variety of architectural
forms. The subject property and surrounding lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the
City's Official Plan and are zoned Residential Three (R -3) in the Zoning By -law.
The applicant is requesting consent to create a new lot with approximately 15.4 metres of
frontage on Natchez Road, a depth of 40.2 metres, and a lot area of 613 square metres. The
retained lot would contain the existing single detached dwelling and would possess approximately
30.9 metres of frontage on Natchez Road, 40.2 metres of frontage on Carson Drive, and a lot
area of 1,227 square metres. Both the severed and retained lots would comply with the Zoning
By -law. The purpose of the application is to create a new building lot.
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 offers the following comments. The severed and retained lots are
suitable for the proposed and existing uses. Both lots would possess frontage on established
public streets that provide adequate municipal water, sewage, and storm water services. Both
severed and retained lots would comply with the Zoning By -law in every respect. In addition, the
dimensions and shapes of the parcels are appropriate.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated September 12, 2016, advising they have no objections to this
application subject to the following condition:
1. That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region the Consent
Application Review Fee of $350.00.
Messrs. J. Jolkowski and P. Haramis were in attendance in support of the subject application and
the staff recommendation.
The Chair noted the comments from the Region of Waterloo and requested that their condition be
included as part of the Committee's decision.
Moved by Ms. P. Kohli
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of James and Laura Jolkowski requesting permission to sever a parcel of
land having a width on Natchez Road of 15.429m (50.62'), a depth of 40.234m (132.0'), and an
area of 613 sq.m. (6598.277 sq.ft.), on Lot 20, Registered Plan 769, 31 Natchez Road,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -225- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
1. Submission No.: B 2016 -029 (Cont'd)
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 Agn (Microstation) format, as well as
two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted
according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of
the City's Mapping Technologist.
3. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash -in -lieu contribution for park
dedication in the amount of $7,097.34, which is equal to 5% of the value of the lands to
be severed.
4. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
5. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping
including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands and retained
lands, or otherwise receive relief from Engineering Services from this requirement.
6. That the owner shall prepare a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing
system to the satisfaction of Engineering Services, prior to endorsement of the deed for
the severed lands.
7. That the owner shall complete and submit the Development and Reconstruction As-
Recorded Tracking Form along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings
required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer
names and numbering system, in accordance with the Public Sector Accounting Board
(PSAB) S. 3150, to the satisfaction of the City's to Engineering Services, prior to
endorsement of the deed for the severed lands.
8. That the owner shall make arrangements, financial or otherwise, for the relocation of
any existing City -owned street furniture, transit shelters, signs, hydrants, utility poles,
wires or lines, as required, to the satisfaction of the appropriate City department and
Kitchener - Wilmot Hydro.
9. That the owner shall submit payment to the Region the Consent Application Review Fee
of $350.00.
10. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared
by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed and retained lands, which
shall include the following:
a. That prior to any grading or the application or issuance of a building permit, the owner
shall submit a plan, prepared by a qualified consultant, to the satisfaction and approval
of the City's Director of Planning showing:
(i) the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings and
structures), decks and driveways;
(ii) the location of any existing buildings or structures to be removed or relocated;
(iii) the proposed grades and drainage;
(iv) the location of all trees to be preserved, removed or potentially impacted on or
adjacent to the subject lands, including notations of their size, species and
condition;
(v) justification for any trees to be removed; and further,
(vi) outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -226- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
1. Submission No.: B 2016 -029 (Cont'd)
b. Any alteration or improvement to the lands including grading, tree removal and the
application or issuance of any building permits shall be in compliance with the approved
plan. Any changes or revisions to the plan require the approval of the City's Director of
Planning.
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 September 20, 2018.
The Committee recessed e
all members present.
2. Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Carried
t 11:27 a.m. and reconvened at 11:33 a.m., Chaired by Mr. D. Cybalski with
B 2016 -030
Canadian National Railway Company
Portion of Canadian National Railway Company Lands Located
Behind 34 Lancaster Street West
Part of Lot 550, Plan 376, All of Lots 25, 26, 27, 28 and 40, Part Lots
23 and 24, Plan 244 and Part of Lot 60, Streets and Lanes
E. Saulesleja
A. Tsarfati
Contra: R. Smith
J. Grominsky
H. Lenz
T. Ferguson
T. Wolanowski
H.LeJeune
A. Lang
Written Submissions: A. and S. Lang
T. Wolanowski
M. Laderoute
S. Taylor
B. McDonnell - Schultz
A. Schultz
J. Ringwald
Neighbourhood Petition
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -227- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
2. Submission No.: B 2016 -030 (Cont'd)
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever an irregular shaped
parcel having a width on Wellington Street North of 25.968m (85.196'), an approximate depth of
164m (538.057'), and an area of 1.45 hectares. The retained land is the CN Railway Corridor that
runs parallel to Wellington Street North and Victoria Street North. The use of the severed lands is
to be determined.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated September 12, 2016,
advising the subject lands are owned by Canadian National Railway Company (CN) and have
been declared surplus to CN's operations. The site contains unused tracks, weigh scales and an
associated small building. CN is proposing to sever the subject lands from the main rail -line which
runs parallel to Victoria Street North, and which is retained and will continue to operate.
This site has frontage on Breithaupt Street, Wellington Street North and Patrick Street. Staff
anticipate that future access and servicing of the lands would likely and most easily be achieved
from Patrick Street; however, could also be considered from Breithaupt Street or Wellington
Street North if the site were comprehensively redeveloped and grades adjusted. This could
include removal of the rail bridge over Wellington Street North.
The lands are located in an older residential /industrial area which contains a mix of housing types
and range of industrial uses. The lands are located within the North Ward Secondary Plan;
however, they are not given a land use designation in this plan. Therefore, staff refer to the
preceding 1979 Official Plan (OP) which designates the lands Industrial. The north portion of the
lands are zoned General Industrial Zone (M -1) and the south portion are zoned Industrial
Residential Zone (M -2). The existing designation and zoning permit a range of industrial uses
including manufacturing, printing establishment, warehousing, tradesmen's or contractor's
establishment, among other uses which would be considered appropriate uses for the
redevelopment of the lands.
Engineering Services staff have identified that there are existing deep municipal services located
near the property line in proximity to Patrick Street and Breithaupt Street. It is unclear whether
easements are in place for these services. Engineering Services requires the owner to confirm
whether appropriate easements are in place. If they are not in place, easements must be
dedicated to the City prior to endorsement of the deed. A condition has been included in this
regard.
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 shape of the severed lands are appropriate
and suitable for a range of permitted uses of the lands. The land to be severed has frontage on
established public streets, and can be serviced with independent and adequate service
connections to municipal services. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent
with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated September 12, 2016, advising they have no objections to this
application subject to the following conditions:
1. That, prior to final approval, the applicant submit, to the satisfaction of the Regional
Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services, a Stationary Noise
Study, and;
2. That, prior to final approval, if necessary, the applicant will enter in to an agreement with
the City of Kitchener to implement the recommendations of the noise study.
The Chair advised the Committee has reviewed the written submissions received from
neighbouring property owners in opposition to the subject application. He indicated a majority of
the concerns were related to the future use of the lands to be severed. He stated the Committee
must consider each application on its own merit, adding that the Committee is being requested
this date is to create a new lot.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -228- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
• ,T it [Ti1 �7i1•:�►�iZ[:�iXiil(K.riTIre
Mr. E. Saulesleja addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant in support of the subject
application and the staff recommendation. He noted the Committee is being requested this date
to create a saleable parcel that is in compliance with the Zoning By -law. He stated he has
reviewed the submissions provided by neighbouring property owners, noting the majority of the
concerns relate to the possible future use of the property, which is yet to be determined. He
further advised if the purchaser of the property was proposing to change the use of the property,
a further planning public planning process would be required and the neighbourhood would be
invited to participate.
In response to questions, Mr. Saulesleja indicated the potential purchaser of the severed parcel is
Joseph & Company Inc. He noted they have yet to determine the use of the subject property; the
severance is strictly intended to create a saleable lot and this application would facilitate that
transaction.
Questions were raised regarding whether the lot would merge on title with the adjacent property
currently owned by Joseph & Company Inc. Mr. Saulesleja advised that it is not their intention to
have the parcels merge on title.
Mr. R. Smith addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application. He stated the staff
report references the possibility for access off Breithaupt Street, Wellington Street North or
Patrick Street. He indicated he owns a property on Patrick Street and expressed concerns with
that being the primary access for the new lot.
In response to questions, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that if /when the severed parcel was
planned for redevelopment by the proposed purchaser or a subsequent purchaser, the
redevelopment of the site would be subject to Site Plan approval. She noted consideration would
be given to site access at that time. She indicated if the applicant proposed to change the use of
the property to something other than M1 and M2, a public planning process would be required.
Questions were raised regarding the requirements of a Tree Preservation Plan and whether it
was a public process. Ms. von Westerholt indicated that condition is normally completed by a
qualified arborist who would complete a health assessment on the trees to determine which trees
should be preserved etc.
Mr. J. Grominsky addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application, noting
concerns with the future use of the site are still yet to be determined. He stated the potential
purchaser is already using the site as a storage facility which is in contravention of the By -law. He
indicated there are already concerns with their existing site, which is operated as a salvage yard
and whether it is in compliance with all of the By -laws.
In response to questions, Mr. Saulesleja stated that he believes CN Rail currently has lease
agreement with Joseph & Company Inc. to use the proposed severed lands. He noted it is
currently being used for the Company's weigh scales and outdoor storage, uses that are
permitted under the current Zoning.
Messrs. T. Ferguson, T. Wolanowski, A. Lang and Ms. H. LeJeune addressed the Committee in
opposition to the subject application and the staff recommendation to approve the severance
request. They expressed concerns with enforcement of existing By -laws on the subject property,
as well as the current site owned /operated by Joseph & Company Inc., including concerns with
the environment, fencing, access to the proposed severed lands, community safety and
decreasing property values.
Ms. von Westerholt indicated she sympathized with the neighbours' concerns. She noted a
salvage yard is not a permitted use in the M1 & M2 Zone and if the severed land was proposed to
change it would require a Zone Change application. She noted the subject of the application this
date was the creation of the lot. She noted the future use beyond its current Zoning is not the
subject of the application.
The Chair noted for reference the Region of Waterloo has requested two conditions if the
application is approved. He noted he would be his preference if the application is approved that a
condition be included in the Committee's decision to remove the existing rail bridge over
Wellington Street North.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -229- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
2. Submission No.: B 2016 -030 (Cont'd)
Mr. Saulesleja and Ms. von Westerholt expressed concerns with including a condition to remove
the bridge, noting the applicant must complete the conditions within one -year to receive final
consent approval.
Ms. J. Meader expressed concerns with the subject application, noting concerns that the potential
purchaser may already be using the property illegally. She further advised the Committee must
consider criteria outlined in the Planning Act when approving the creation of a new lot, and one of
the criteria includes the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is being subdivided,
which is yet to be determined. She indicated once the applicant determines the future use of the
property it may be more appropriate to request the severance at that time.
Mr. Saulesleja indicated the application is a request to sever a lot that is already in compliance
with the Zoning By -law. He noted the permitted uses are already known to the Committee as well
as the individuals in attendance in opposition. He stated the property is Zoned M1 and M2 and
the potential purchaser would be permitted to use the site for uses permitted under that Zone. He
noted any development on the subject site would be subject to further a planning process.
Ms. Meader indicated there is a two -year time limit imposed on the completion of a Consent
application, adding that the use of the property should be known at the time of application
submission. Mr. Saulesleja indicated there is already an existing legal use on the subject property
which is dictated by the Zoning By -law.
Mr. A. Tsarfati addressed the Committee in support of the subject application, noting he was a
principle owner of Joseph & Company Inc. and the potential purchaser of the severed land. He
indicated that his company currently uses the subject property for weigh scales and outdoor
storage, adding the use of the site is in compliance with the current Zoning on the subject
property. He noted his company has always operated within its licensing rules and is in
compliance with all the By -laws regulating salvage companies. He advised the Region of
Waterloo has strict operating rules with regards to salvage businesses, which they complete
random audits to ensure their operation is in complete compliance. He addressed the
environmental concerns noted by the neighbouring property owners, advising that his existing
property is regularly tested by the Ministry of the Environment. Mr. Tsarfati advised at this
moment it is not clear what the future use of the severed property will be but its current use is
compliant with the City's By -laws. He further advised he is willing to work with the neighbourhood
to alleviate some of the concerns that were addressed this date as they do not want to adversely
impact the neighbourhood.
The Chair noted he was inclined to support the application, with the inclusion of the Regional
Conditions as well as a condition that the applicant removes the rail bridge located over
Wellington Street North.
In response to questions, Ms. von Westerholt advised that Parks Operations staff have indicated
it would be appropriate to defer Parkland dedication to the Site Plan approval process. Ms.
Meader noted that if the potential purchaser is not proposing development on the subject property
or a change in use, the City may not have the ability to collect on Parkland dedication for some
time.
Ms. Meader advised in her opinion, the criteria in the Planning Act for approving the creation of a
lot has not been satisfied this date with the future of the property yet to be determined. Mr.
Saulesleja advised he could provide the Committee precedence that CN Rail has already
undertaken for other applications similar in nature that received Committee approval. He noted
the approved Zoning on the subject lands indicates permitted uses on the property and any future
development would require additional planning processes.
A motion was brought forward by Ms. J. Meader, seconded by Ms. P. Kohli to refuse the subject
application, which was voted on and was Carried. Mr. D. Cybalski voted in opposition.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT -230- SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
Submission No.: B 2016 -030 (Cont'd
That the application of Canadian National Railway Company requesting permission to sever an
irregular shaped parcel having a width on Wellington Street North of 25.968m (85.196'), an
approximate depth of 164m (538.057'), and an area of 1.45 hectares, on Part of Lot 550, Plan
376, All of Lots 25, 26, 27, 28 and 40, Part Lots 23 and 24, Plan 244 and Part of Lot 60,
Streets and Lanes, portion of Canadian National Railway Company (CNR) lands located
behind 34 Lancaster Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that the criteria outlined in Section 50 Subsection 24 of the
Planning act was not satisfied and deemed premature as the suitability of the land for the
purposes for which it is being subdivided has not yet been determined.
Pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, the oral and written submissions of the
neighbouring property owners related to the current and future use of the property were
considered and taken into account, which resulted in the refusal of 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 September 20, 2018.
Carried
I!e1B111901NkiIkhl:Iki 111
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:26 p.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 20th day of September, 2016.
Dianna Saunderson
Secretary- Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment