Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-19 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 19, 2016 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. Cybalski 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; Mr. C. Goodeve, Manager, Council & Committee Services; and, Ms. H. Dyson, Administrative Clerk. Mr. D. Cybalski, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:07 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held June 21, 2016, as mailed to the members, and amended, be accepted. Carried NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: 1. A 2016-051 Applicant: Gelareh Zarkari Property Location: 89 Gage Avenue Legal Description: Part Lot 13, Plan 402 Appearances: In Support: M. Zarkari J. Fryett R. Turner Contra: S. Patterson Written Submissions: Lebreche Patterson & Associates on behalf of Air Boss of America Corp (Air Boss) The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 3-storey 20-unit multi-residential dwelling having a front yard setback of 4.026m (13.208’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); an easterly side yard setback of 1.332m (4.37’) rather than the required 2.5m (8.202’); and, a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.753 rather than the permitted FSR of 0.6. The single detached dwelling will be demolished. The property is also subject to Consent application B 2016-001. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 8, 2016, advising the subject property is zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP). The owner is proposing to develop a 20-unit multiple dwelling on the subject property located at 89 Gage Avenue. The owner is proposing to increase the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) from 0.6 to 0.75 FSR. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 40.2.6 of the Zoning By-law to allow an FSR of 0.75, rather than the required 0.6. Furthermore, the owner is requesting relief from Section 40.2.6 to allow a side yard setback of 1.33m, rather than the required 2.5m and is requesting to reduce the required front yard setback from 4.5m to 4.02m. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 138 - Submission No.: 1.A 2016-051 (Cont’d) 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: Housing policies Section 1.1 in the OP favour a land use pattern which mixes and disperses a full range of housing types within neighbourhoods. The site design of these different housing types shall emphasize compatibility of built form, with respect to massing, scale, design and the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas. The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential (LLR) in the City’s OP. The general intent of Floor Space Ratio (FSR) requirements in the LLR designation is to regulate the massing and scale of a development to ensure compatibility with surrounding areas. To further ensure compatibility, the LLR designation does not allow residential buildings to exceed three storeys in height. The policies in this designation further refine the intent of the housing policies as previously mentioned. The applicant is proposing a multiple residential development with a total of 20 residential units. The proposed building will share a driveway access with the existing multiple dwelling located at 85 Gage Avenue. The proposed multiple dwelling building at 89 Gage Avenue will mirror the existing multiple dwelling building located at 85 Gage Avenue in terms of built form with respect to massing, scale and design. The building will utilize a design technique such as step-backs along the front façade for a compatible built form in relation to the street line. It is staff’s opinion that design considerations have been addressed to ensure the development is compatible with adjacent low rise residential exterior area and primary street and as such meets the general intent of the OP. The requested variance to permit a side yard setback of 1.33 metres from the side lot line and a front yard setback of 4.02 and a FSR of 0.75 meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the FSR regulation in the Zoning By-law is to ensure the new development is of a scale and massing that is compatible with the surrounding low rise residential neighbourhood. It is staff’s opinion that the design and location of buildings on site will have minimal impacts on the surrounding low rise residential development. Accordingly, it is staff’s opinion that the requested variance for increased FSR is appropriate. Furthermore, a reduction in side yard setback and front yard setback is appropriate and meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The owner intends to convert the proposed multiple dwelling into a condominium and merge with the existing condominium located at 85 Gage Avenue which will allow the site to function as one. The proposed variance can be considered minor and appropriate for the development and use of the land which is compatible with adjacent land uses and is appropriately scaled for the neighbourhood. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed minor variance will have minimal impact of the surrounding low rise residential development due to the location and orientation of buildings proposed on site. It is staff’s opinion that this development is considered good planning. 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. The scale, massing and height of proposed building 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 6, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the report of Goderich-Exeter Railway Inc. (GEXR), dated June 30, 2016, advising although they have no concerns with this application, the proposed development would be in close proximity to the railway right-of-way. This implies there could be possible noise, vibration, potential trespassing and safety issues that may arise as a result of this development. Mr. S. Patterson addressed the Committee on behalf of a neighbouring property owner, AirBoss of America Corp. (AirBoss), located at 101 Glasgow Street. He advised that while AirBoss does not necessarily have any objections to the proposed variance application, noise level concerns may be expressed by future residents of the proposed development. He requested a condition be added to require the inclusion of a noise warning clause referencing AirBoss in all offers of purchase, sale or rental agreements. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 139 - Submission No.: 1.A 2016-051 (Cont’d) Mr. J. Fryett was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation, stating he was amenable to the inclusion of the proposed noise warning condition. He added this is the second phase of the multiple residential development, noting a similar condition was included as part of phase one at 85 Gage Avenue. Following further discussion, the Committee agreed that the adjacent railway should also be referenced in the noise warning condition. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Gelareh Zarhari requesting permission to construct a 3-storey 20-unit multi-residential dwelling having a front yard setback of 4.026m (13.208’) rather than the required 4.5m (14.763’); an easterly side yard setback of 1.332m (4.37’) rather than the required 2.5m (8.202’); and, a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.753 rather than the permitted FSR of 0.6. The single detached dwelling will be demolished. The property is also subject to Consent application B 2016-001, on Part Lot 13, Plan 402, 89 Gage Avenue, Kitchener, BE APPROVED Ontario,, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner will execute a registerable instrument containing a noise warning clause referencing the railway and AirBoss of America Corp. (AirBoss) located at 101 Glasgow Street, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. 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.: 2. A 2016-052 Applicant: Kingswood Drive Kitchener GP Inc. Property Location: 262 and 282 Kingswood Drive Legal Description: Part Blocks C & H, Plan 1335, being Parts 1 & 4 on Reference Plan 58R-3754 Appearances: In Support: D. White V. Labreche Contra: C. and J. Fleischmann M. Hazelton Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to construct a 5-storey 80- unit multi-residential dwelling on the subject property having 426 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 534 off-street parking spaces. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 8, 2016, advising the subject property located at 262 & 282 Kingswood Drive is designated Medium Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP) and zoned Residential Eight (R-8) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 140 - Submission No.: 2.A 2016-052 (Cont’d) property is currently developed with six 3-storey multiple dwellings. The owner is proposing to add a 5-storey, 80-unit multiple dwelling on the south-east portion of the subject lands, and is seeking to permit a reduced parking rate to facilitate this development. The owner is requesting relief from Section 6.1.2 of the Zoning By-law to permit a reduced parking rate of 1.19 spaces per unit, whereas 1.5 spaces is required, which would result in 426 spaces rather than 534 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 offers the followingcomments: The subject property is designated Medium Rise Residential in the City’s OP. The proposed variance meets the intent of the OP, which encourages a range of housing types that achieve a medium overall intensity of use. Multiple residential is intended to be the predominant form of development and the change to the parking rate will maintain the 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 parking rate to 1.19 spaces per unit, whereas 1.5 spaces is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of the 1.5 parking spaces per unit regulation is to ensure there are adequate parking spaces provided for residents of multiple dwellings. 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, and to continue providing unbundled parking spaces to residents on-site. Per the Checklist, the inclusion of these two TDM measures allow for a reduction in parking spaces on the subject site of 73 spaces. Furthermore, the applicant submitted a parking utilization study for the subject site, which suggests that approximately 30% of the existing spaces on site are not being utilized. Accordingly, staff are satisfied that a reduction of the parking rate to 1.19 spaces per unit would provide adequate parking spaces to the residents of the existing and proposed multiple dwellings. This would result in 426 spaces rather than 534 required spaces on the subject site if the proposed development is constructed. The variance can be considered minor as the reduced parking rate 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. No major changes are proposed to the scale, massing and height of structures on the site; therefore, the proposed variance would 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 6, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. V. Labreche was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation, confirming the provision of barrier-free parking spaces would be in compliance with the ratio set out in the City’s Zoning By-law. Ms. C. Fleischmann addressed the Committee in opposition of the subject application. She expressed concerns that currently only one driveway provides access to the property and traffic has increased since the installation of the roundabout. She stated this has created difficulties for area residents when attempting to enter or exit their driveways. She noted additional concerns regarding pedestrian and children’s safety due to a possible further increase in traffic as a result of the proposed a 5-storey building. She proposed the enactment of a parking prohibition on both sides of Kingswood Drive to make it easier for residents to get in and out of their driveways. Mr. D. Seller clarified that the requested parking prohibition is not within this Committee’s purview, adding that matter would need to be examined by Transportation Services staff to determine if it is warranted. He agreed to meet with area residents if they wished to discuss possible measures to help alleviate the identified traffic concerns. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 141 - Submission No.: 2.A 2016-052 (Cont’d) Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Kingswood Drive Kitchener GP Inc. requesting permission to construct a 5-storey 80-unit multi-residential dwelling on the subject property having 426 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 534 off-street parking spaces (1.5 per unit), on Part Blocks C & H, Plan 1335, being Parts 1 & 4 on Reference Plan 58R-3754, 262-282 Kingswood BE APPROVED Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, . It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance 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.: 3. A 2016-053 Applicant: Courtside Services Inc. Property Location: 536 Frederick Street Legal Description: Part Lot 59, Plan 764 Appearances: In Support: S. McMurray Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to add ‘Office Use’ as a permitted use in an existing building which is currently Zoned I-1, 97U; having a lot width of 14.63m (47.998’) rather than the required 15m (49.212’); and, an easterly side yard setback of 0.91m (2.985’) rather than the required 6m (19.685’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 8, 2016, advising the subject property is municipally addressed as 536 Frederick Street, zoned Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (I-1) with Special Use Provision 97U in the Zoning By-law, and designated Mixed Use Node in the Official Plan (OP). The site contains one building currently vacant with a five parking spaces located in the rear of the building along Ann Street. The applicant is proposing to include ‘Office Use’ as a permitted use to Neighbourhood Institutional Zone (I-1) on the subject property located at 536 Frederick Street subject to the regulations in Section 31.3.4. 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 following comments regarding the requested minor variance: The requested variance to add ‘Office Use’ to the subject property meets the intent of the OP. Section 4.2 of the OP states, “individual properties within Mixed Use Nodes shall be zoned to achieve this balanced distribution of uses.” The full range of commercial uses shall be permitted, including retail, neighbourhood level entertainment, and freestanding office. Staff is of the opinion that ‘Office Use’ proposed at the subject property will conform to the surrounding neighbourhood and the policies within the OP. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 142 - Submission No.: 3.A 2016-053 (Cont’d) The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. I-1 Zones and the Special Use Provision 97U in the Zoning By-law already permit a wide range of uses such as Religious Institution, Educational Establishments and Health Clinics. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed ‘Office Use’ is similar and compatible with the range or permitted uses and is appropriate to be added as a permitted use to the subject property. Historically this site has been used for other office uses including a health office. This use as general office would be appropriate for the subject lands. The variance is considered minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will allow the re-establishment of a use on a vacant property, and will not negatively affect adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance is appropriate for use of the land as the property already contains the existing building with appropriate parking. The scale, massing, and height of the building is appropriate and consistent with the character of the existing neighbourhood. The proposed variance 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 6, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Courtside Services Inc. requesting permission to add ‘Office Use’ as a permitted use in an existing building which is currently Zoned I-1, 97U; having a lot width of 14.63m (47.998’) rather than the required 15m (49.212’); and, an easterly side yard setback of 0.91m (2.985’) rather than the required 6m (19.685’), on Part Lot 59, Plan 764, 536 Frederick BE APPROVED Street, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the Planning Division by December 31, 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.: 4. A 2016-054 Applicants: 189 Joseph Street Inc. & Victoria Street (101) Inc. Property Location: 195 Joseph Street Legal Description: Lots 1, 3, 5, & 7 to 10 and Part Lots 2, 4, 6, 11 & 12, Plan 418, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-6449 Appearances: In Support: E. Costello Contra: None Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 143 - Submission No.: 4.A 2016-054 (Cont’d) The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to convert the existing warehouse building into office space having a 8.5m (27.887’) setback from Joseph Street rather than the maximum permitted setback of 2m (6.56’); a setback of 56.5m (185.367’) from Victoria Street South rather than the maximum permitted setback of 2m (6.56’); and, a setback of 62.9m (206.634’) from Linden Avenue rather than the maximum permitted setback of 2m (6.56’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 11, 2016, advising the owner of the subject properties is currently in the process of rehabilitating the existing building to create new office space. The site is currently developed with an older building as well as a smokestack from the original Lang Tannery complex. The owner is requesting a minor variance to legalize the existing setbacks from the street lines of Victoria Street South, Joseph Avenue, and Linden Avenue. Section 17.3 of the Zoning By-law requires a maximum building setback of 2.0 metres from any street line. The existing setback from Joseph Street is 8.5 metres, 56.5 metres from Victoria Street South, and 62.9 metres from Linden Avenue. The properties are designated as Warehouse District in the Official Plan (OP) and zoned as Warehouse District (D-6) with Special Regulation Provision 1R. 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 Warehouse District is characterized by many large, old industrial buildings, which have the potential for conversion to other viable uses. The reuse and conversion of the industrial buildings for commercial spaces and as incubators for new industry are essential for the area’s long-term growth. New development must be designed so as to complement the design and siting of the existing large, old buildings. The OP permits office uses as a mechanism to encourage the retention of the large, often historically significant buildings which contribute to the character of the area. In this location, because of the proximity of the existing residential development interfacing with this area on Oak Street and Linden Avenue, development must be of a compatible scale and new residential uses as well as industrial or commercial uses compatible with the existing residential uses are permitted. The legalization of the building in the existing location will allow for the existing building to be repurposed for a compatible use without having to establish a new building between the existing building and the street. Maintaining visibility to the existing building form the public realm will help in contributing to the character of the Warehouse District. The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose for the maximum setback along the street line in the D-6 zone is to establish a built form that encourages and supports a pedestrian environment. In this case, landscape walls and planting material will be used to soften the edge between the public sidewalk and the proposed parking areas. New pedestrian pathways will be established on site to help facilitate pedestrian movements across and to the site. New built form along all four sides of this site would limit visibility to the existing building and smokestack on site. The requested minor variances are minor. The repurposing of the existing building will allow for a proper and orderly redevelopment of the property with an office use that will contribute to the overall function of the Warehouse District. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The site has existed in the current form for several years. The repurposing of the existing building coupled with the landscape and parking lot improvements on site will result in a more compatible and pleasing property compared to the temporary parking lot state which the site is currently in. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 6, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Ms. E. Costello was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. She indicated the applicants are currently undertaking the Site Plan approval process and completing a Landscape Plan. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 144 - Submission No.: 4.A 2016-054 (Cont’d) Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of 189 Joseph Street Inc. & Victoria Street (101) Inc. requesting permission to convert the existing warehouse building into office space having a 8.5m (27.887’) setback from Joseph Street rather than the maximum permitted setback of 2m (6.56’); a setback of 56.5m (185.367’) from Victoria Street South rather than the maximum permitted setback of 2m (6.56’); and, a setback of 62.9m (206.634’) from Linden Avenue rather than the maximum permitted setback of 2m (6.56’), on Lots 1, 3, 5, & 7 to 10 and Part Lots 2, 4, 6, 11 & 12, Plan 418, being Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-6449, 195 Joseph Street, BE APPROVED Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the Planning Division. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. 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 2016-055 Applicant: Philip Catinean Property Location: 294 Tagge Crescent Legal Description: Lot 9, Registered Plan 58M-486 Appearances: In Support: P. and D. Catinean Contra: J. Adlys Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting legalization of a single detached dwelling under construction to have an easterly side yard setback of 1.044m (3.425’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.937’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 11, 2016, advising the subject property at 294 Tagge Crescent is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP) and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is proposed to be developed with a single detached dwelling, which is currently under construction. During construction, the foundation of the single detached dwelling was inadvertently poured closer to the side lot line than permitted in the Zoning By-law. As such, the owner is requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 a) of the Zoning By-law to legalize the easterly side yard setback of 1.044 metres, whereas 1.2 metres is required. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments: The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan (OP). The proposed variance meets the intent of the OP which encourages a range of housing forms that COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 145 - Submission No.: 5.A 2016-055 (Cont’d) achieve an overall low density neighbourhood. The proposed variance will permit a reduced minimum side yard for the single detached dwelling currently under construction. 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 permit a side yard setback of 1.044 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 1.2 metre side yard setback requirement is to provide access to the rear yard and to ensure there is adequate separation between the dwelling and adjacent properties. The reduction of 0.156 metres is minor, as the 1.044 metre setback will continue to provide access to the rear yard and adequate separation between the dwelling and neighbouring property. Accordingly, staff is satisfied the requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By- law. The variance can be considered minor as the reduced setback of 1.044 metres 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. The scale, massing, and height of the single detached dwelling 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 6, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. and Mrs. Catinean were in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Mr. J. Adlys addressed the Committee, indicating he was not necessarily in opposition to the subject application, but wanted to speak to the inspection process that took place when the foundation was installed. He expressed disappointment with the lack of communication by the City, noting his wife made several attempts to contact the building inspector regarding the proximity of the foundation to their property; however, she never received a response. He commented as a result, his neighbour’s home will be constructed approximately six inches from their property line. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Philip Catinean requesting permission to legalize a single detached dwelling under construction to have an easterly side yard setback of 1.044m (3.425’) rather than the required 1.2m (3.937’), on Lot 9, Registered Plan 58M-486, 294 Tagge Crescent, BE APPROVED Kitchener, Ontario, . It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance 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.: 6. A 2016-056 Applicants: Frank and Julie Mardian Property Location: 347 Old Chicopee Trail Legal Description: Lot 10, Plan 58M-134 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 146 - Submission No.: 6.A 2016-056 (Cont’d) Appearances: In Support: F. Mardian Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to legalize a single-detached dwelling with home business with a driveway having a width of 9m (29.527’) rather than the permitted maximum width of 8m (26.246’); and, a driveway having a southerly side yard setback of 0m rather than the required 0.6m (1.968’). The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 11, 2016, advising the subject property is zoned Residential Three (R-3) with special provisions 268U and 238U in By- law 85-1 and has an Official Plan (OP) designation of Low Rise Residential in both the current and new OP. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to legalize a single detached dwelling with a home business with a driveway having a width of 9 metres (29.527 ft) rather than the required maximum width of 8 metres (26.246 ft); and a driveway having a southerly side yard setback of 0 m rather than the required 0.6 metres (1.968 ft). The house was built in 2004. The original driveway for the house was widened to the total 9- metre width in asphalt by a previous owner. In 2012, the current owner undertook major renovations to the landscaping of the entire site including the installation of a pool in the backyard. At this time, the asphalt was replaced with interlocking brick and the current owner was under the impression that the driveway width complied with all applicable regulations. It was brought to staff’s attention that the 8-metre maximum width was exceeded during staff’s review as part of our due diligence prior to issuance of a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate request for a home business. 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 for the existing driveway for a single dwelling with a home business meet the intent of the current and new Official Plans. The intent of the Plan is to ensure a mixture and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The predominant land use is to be residential but non-residential uses at appropriate scale and in appropriate locations may be accommodated. The proposed driveway variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered minor for the following reasons. The intent of a maximum driveway width is to ensure that driveways and also the parking of vehicles do not dominate the front yard or streetscape. As there is sufficient green space/landscaping in the remainder of the front yard, as well as on the abutting properties, the intent of this regulation is met. The intent of the 0.6 metre sideyard setback is to ensure sufficient area for proper drainage between properties from the side yard to the street. There are no concerns with drainage on this site from any department, nor have any complaints been received from neighbours regarding drainage in the area. The variance is appropriate for the development of the property and the surrounding streetscape. The 9-metre width of the driveway has existed for approximately 10 years and no complaints have been received. The driveway and the landscaping are well maintained and are considered appropriate for the development of the subject property, as well as the surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 6, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 147 - Submission No.: 6.A 2016-056 (Cont’d) That the application of Frank and Julie Mardian requesting permission to legalize a single- detached dwelling with home business with a driveway having a width of 9m (29.527’) rather than the permitted maximum width of 8m (26.246’); and, a driveway having a southerly side yard setback of 0m rather than the required 0.6m (1.968’), on Lot 10, Plan 58M-134, 347 Old BE APPROVED Chicopee Trail, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate and a Sign Permit 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.: 7. A 2016-057 Applicant: Activa Holdings Inc. Property Location: 145 South Creek Drive Legal Description: Block 191, Registered Plan 58M-541 Appearances: In Support: M. Miranda P. Chauvin Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a multi-residential townhouse development having a rear yard setback of 6m (19.685’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’); a building height of 11.56m (37.926’) rather than the permitted maximum height of 10.5m (34.448’); and, a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.75 rather than the permitted maximum FSR of 0.6. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 11, 2016, advising the subject property located at 145 South Creek Drive 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 vacant and are proposed to be developed with 39 cluster townhouse (multiple dwelling) units. As such, the owner is requesting relief of Section 40.2.6 to allow a reduced rear yard setback of 6.0 metres, whereas 7.5 metres is required; Section 40.2.6 to allow an increase in maximum building height of 11.56 metres, whereas 10.5 metres is permitted; and Section 40.2.6 to allow an increase in maximum FSR to 0.75, whereas 0.6 is permitted. Site Plan Approval in principle was granted on May 25, 2016, subject to Committee of Adjustment approval. 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 148 - Submission No.: 7.A 2016-057 (Cont’d) overall low density neighbourhood. Policy 3.1.2.2 restricts density to a maximum FSR of 0.6 and height to three stories at street elevation. The intent of this policy is to ensure the low density character of these areas is maintained. The townhouse units are proposed to be two stories in height, with the exception of two three-storey buildings fronting on Thomas Slee Drive across from the planned elementary school site. The requested height increase will facilitate an enhanced roof design for the three-storey townhomes. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s new OP, which while currently under appeal, contains a number of policies related to height and density in low rise residential areas. The Low Rise Residential land use designation will accommodate a full range of low density housing types including single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, semi- detached dwellings, street townhouse dwellings, townhouse dwellings in a cluster development, low-rise multiple dwellings and special needs housing. Policy 15.D.3.11 applies a maximum FSR of 0.6, however site specific increases up to a maximum FSR of 0.75 may be considered where it can be demonstrated that the increase in the FSR is compatible and meets the general intent of the policies in this Plan. Further, Policy 15.D.3.12 in the new OP states that relief from the maximum building height of three stories or 11 metres may be considered for properties with unusual grade conditions and for buildings and/or structures with increased floor to ceiling heights and architectural features provided the increased building height is compatible with the built form and physical character of the neighbourhood. Staff is satisfied the requested variances will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. Staff is further satisfied that urban design considerations have been addressed to ensure the development is compatible by designing the site such that the three-storey townhouses are located across from an institutional use. Accordingly, the proposed variances conform to both the current and new OP designations and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variances are appropriate. The requested variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 6.0 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The subject property is a through lot, which by definition makes the lot line abutting Meadowridge Street the front lot line and the lot line abutting South Creek Drive the rear lot line. As a result, the buildings fronting on South Creek Drive are required to meet the rear yard setback requirement of 7.5 metres. The intent of the 7.5 metre rear yard setback is to provide separation between the structure and adjacent properties, as well as to provide rear yard amenity space. As this yard functions as a front yard due to the orientation of the lot, staff is satisfied the variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. Further, the site has been designed to have an interior side yard, which for this site functions more as a rear yard, of 7.5 metres and landscaped areas to ensure adequate amenity space is provided. The requested variance to increase the maximum height to 11.56 metres, whereas 10.5 metres is permitted, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The purpose of the 10.5 metre height allowance is to permit a range of housing types at a scale which is compatible with the existing adjacent low rise residential neighbourhood. The purpose of the requested height increase is to accommodate an enhanced roof design for the three-storey rear-entry townhouses fronting on Thomas Slee Drive. Staff is satisfied the requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law, as the townhouse units will remain two to three stories at street elevation and maintain compatibility with the low rise residential neighbourhood. The requested variance to increase the maximum FSR from 0.6 to 0.75 meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The R-6 zone permits a range of housing types, and the intent of 0.6 FSR allowance is to ensure development occurs at a scale which is compatible with other low-rise housing forms in adjacent neighbourhoods. The proposed townhouse units will provide a mix of housing types while maintaining compatibility with the low rise residential neighbourhood. Further, the site has been designed such that the buildings with the greatest height and massing are located along the Thomas Slee Drive frontage across from a planned school site. Therefore, staff is satisfied the requested variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The variances can be considered minor as the reduced rear yard setback, increased building height, and increased FSR will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 149 - Submission No.: 7.A 2016-057 (Cont’d) The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed cluster townhouse (multiple dwelling) use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The scale, massing and height of the proposed cluster townhouse units will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 6, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct a multi- residential townhouse development having a rear yard setback of 6m (19.685’) rather than the required 7.5m (24.606’); a building height of 11.56m (37.926’) rather than the permitted maximum height of 10.5m (34.448’); and, a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.75 rather than the permitted maximum FSR of 0.6, on Block 191, Registered Plan 58M-541, 145 South Creek BE APPROVED Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain Building Permits for the proposed cluster townhouse (multiple dwelling) units. 2. That the owner shall obtain Full Site Plan Approval to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. 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.: 8. A 2016-058 Applicants: Milorad and Staza Cvijic Property Location: 6 Secord Avenue Legal Description: Lot 259, Plan 1055 Ms. P. Kohli declared a pecuniary interest with respect to Application A 2016-058, as she is employed by Dryden Smith & Head Planning Consultants, who were retained to act as the owner’s authorized agent for the subject application; accordingly, she did not take part in any discussion or voting regarding this matter. Appearances: In Support: M. Cvijic A. Galloway Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing 4-unit multi-residential dwelling as legal non-conforming, rather than the most recent assertion that the dwelling was a legal non-conforming triplex. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 150 - Submission No.: 8.A 2016-058 (Cont’d) The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 7, 2016, advising the subject property is located at the corner of Crosby Drive and Secord Avenue in the Heritage Park Planning Community. The property contains a two-storey multiple dwelling built in the mid- to late- 1960s. The surrounding area contains a mix of low density residential land uses, predominantly single detached dwellings and low rise multiple dwellings. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Three (R-3). City-issued Zoning Compliance Certificates identify the most recent legal use of the property as a 3-unit multiple dwelling with legal non-conforming status. The property is considered a legal non- conforming 3-unit multiple dwelling because this use existed legally prior to application of the R-3 zoning which does not permit multiple dwellings. The property is also considered legal non- conforming with respect to parking (e.g., absence of a barrier-free parking space). In January 2016, the Fire Department responded to a medical emergency at the subject property and discovered that the multiple dwelling did not comply with the Fire Code. This led to the discovery that the multiple dwelling contains 4 dwelling units, not 3 dwelling units. Accordingly, the owners are now requesting permission under Section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act to legalize the existing 4-unit multiple dwelling on a legal non-conforming basis, on the assertion that the most recent legal use of the property was a legal non-conforming 3-unit multiple dwelling. 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). The Ontario Municipal Board in Harris v. Ottawa (City) Committee of Adjustment, (2002) O.M.B.D. No. 767 determined the tests to apply to an application under section 45(a)(ii) to be: 1. Whether the approval of the application is in the public interest; 2. Whether the approval represents good planning; 3. Whether the proposed application creates unacceptable adverse impacts upon the abutting properties; and, 4. Is the proposed use similar as required in Section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act. In considering the above noted case law tests, Planning staff offers the following comments: The approval of the subject application is in the public interest and represents good planning. The approval would allow a fourth dwelling unit to be legalized entirely within a building that was constructed approximately 50 years ago. The use would fit well into the neighbourhood since there are numerous low rise multiple residential buildings located directly across the street. Also, Planning staff consulted By-law Enforcement staff and confirmed there are no neighbourhood complaints in relation to the property. Through the subject application, the owner has submitted a Site Plan application that would improve the property by reducing the driveway access width on Secord Avenue and reinstating a portion of the driveway with landscaping. The Plan also proposes 4 parking spaces (1 space per unit) that would meet the minimum Zoning By-law requirements and be functional. The proposed Site Plan would improve the streetscape and ensure a more orderly on-site parking layout. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed application does not create unacceptable adverse impacts upon the abutting properties. The proposed Site Plan would ensure an orderly parking and access situation. In addition, no building additions are proposed. The proposed 4-unit multiple dwelling is similar to the 3-unit multiple dwelling that is recorded as being the most recent legal use of the property. The proposed use is within the same type of use as the most recent legal use (multiple dwelling). As aforementioned, the additional fourth unit is able to be accommodated within the existing building and all necessary on-site facilities to support the use (e.g., parking, garbage/recycling storage, landscaped area, etc.) are provided on site. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 151 - Submission No.: 8.A 2016-058 (Cont’d) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 6, 2016, advising they have no concerns with this application. Messrs. A. Galloway and M. Cvijic were in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. Mr. Galloway estimated the structure was built circa 1960; thereby pre- dating the enactment of the City’s Zoning By-law. He noted the fourth unit was added sometime thereafter, which should not negate the legal non-conforming status, particularly as no changes are being proposed to the exterior of the building. Mr. Cvijic commented when he purchased the subject property in 2009, it contained four units, and was unaware that this differed from what the City had on file for the building. Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Milorad and Staza Cvijic requesting permission to legalize an existing 4- unit multi-residential dwelling as legal non-conforming, rather than the most recent assertion that the dwelling was a legal non-conforming triplex, on Lot 259, Plan 1055, 6 Secord Avenue, BE APPROVED Kitchener, Ontario, , subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain all necessary Building Permits from the City’s Building Division for a 4-unit multiple dwelling. 2. That the owner shall obtain final approval of Site Plan Application SP16/055/S/AP. 3. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the City’s Planning Division. 4. That the owner shall complete Conditions 1 to 3, above, prior to July 19, 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 the request for permission to change a legal non- conforming triplex to a 4-unit multiple dwelling within the existing building under Section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. The approval of the application is in the public interest. 2. The approval of the application represents good planning. 3. The approval of the application will not create unacceptable adverse impacts upon the abutting properties. 4. The proposed use is similar to the purpose for which it was used on the day the by-law was passed. 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 2016-021 Applicants: Tracy and Gregory Sheppard Property Location: 33 Hamel Avenue Legal Description: Lot 75, Plan 674 Appearances: In Support: G. and T. Sheppard COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 152 - Submission No.: 1.B 2016-021 (Cont’d) Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land from the rear of the subject property having a width of 23.659m (77.621’), a depth of 20.375m (66.847’), and an area of 621.1 sq.m. (6685.465 sq.ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to the abutting property municipally addressed as 262 Mackie Place. Both parcels are residential in use. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 14, 2016, advising the owner has requested permission to sever a portion of 33 Hamel Avenue and add the severed parcel as a lot addition to a property addressed municipally as 262 Mackie Place. The subject property is addressed as 33 Hamel Avenue. It is a pie-shaped lot containing a single detached dwelling measuring 15.5m wide by approximately 54m long (averaged) for an area of 1219 square metres. The subject lands are located in the Bridgeport West Planning Community, back onto the Conestoga Expressway and are surrounded by low rise residential land uses. The owner is proposing to sever a 621 square metre portion of land and add it as a lot addition to 262 Mackie Place. The retained parcel of land will maintain its current frontage onto Hamel Avenue and will have a new lot area of 596.9 square metres. The proposed rear lot line boundary is at the top of the slope identified in the photograph below. The subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in both the current and new City’s Official Plan (OP). This designation recognizes and supports the continuation of low rise residential nature and uses of the City’s existing residential neighbourhoods. Correspondingly, the subject lands are zoned as Residential Three (R-3). The R-3 zone permits single detached dwellings, residential care facilities, private home day care, and home businesses. The regulations for a single detached dwelling permit a lot size with a minimum lot frontage of 13.7m and a minimum lot area of 411 square metres. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed severance for a lot addition conforms to the City’s OP and the configuration of the lot can be considered appropriate for the use of the lands. Staff is further of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 and conforms to the Growth Plan tor the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 11, 2016, advising they have no objections to this application. The Committee considered the report of the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), dated July 7, 2016, advising although they have no objections to this application, MTO permits are required before any grading/construction can commence. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of Tracy and Gregory Sheppard requesting permission to sever a parcel of land from the rear of the subject property having a width of 23.659m (77.621’), a depth of 20.375m (66.847’), and an area of 621.1 sq.m. (6685.465 sq.ft.) to be conveyed as a lot addition to the abutting property municipally addressed as 262 Mackie Place, on Lot 75, Plan BE GRANTED 674, 33 Hamel Avenue, 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 153 - Submission No.: 1.B 2016-021 (Cont’d) 3. 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. 4. That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to 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 July 19, 2018. Carried Submission No.: 2. B 2016-022 Applicant: M N Bales Investments Limited Property Location: 188 and 196 Queen Street South Legal Description: Part Lots 1 and 2, Plan 393 Appearances: In Support: A. Roth M. Cockburn Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land municipally addressed as 188 Queen Street South having a width of 15.24m (50’), a depth of 28.569m (93.73’), and an area of 431.1 sq.m. (4640.322 sq.ft.). The retained land municipally addressed as 196 Queen Street South has a width of 8.961m (29.399’), a depth of 37.996m (124.658’), and an area of 333.9 sq.m. (3594.07 sq.ft.). Both properties are residential in use. The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 8, 2016, advising the subject lands are located at 188 and 196 Queen Street South and each parcel currently contain a multiple dwelling (triplex) which is permitted by the current MU-2 zoning. In July 2014, the Committee approved applications B 2014-021 and B 2014-022 for a severance to create a lot that merged on title and partial disposition of a mortgage, respectively, along with minor variance applications to legalize existing regulation deficiencies. The applicant has re-applied for approval of consent (B 2014-021) as the decision has lapsed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 154 - Submission No.: 2.B 2016-022 (Cont’d) The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 11, 2016, advising they have no objections to this application, advising they have no objection to this application, subject to the following condition: 1. That prior to final approval, the Developer submit payment to the Region the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. The Committee considered the report of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated July 8, 2016, requesting approval of this application, be subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are granted. 2. That the applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the severances are granted. 3. Driveways will be located so as to clear and provide a minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles, anchors and streetlight standards. Mr. A. Roth was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation, confirming the proposed severance was previously considered; however, not all conditions were completed within the required time and the Committee’s decision lapsed. He indicated that he has no concerns with the conditions being proposed by the Region of Waterloo and Kitchener- Wilmot Hydro. Moved by Ms. P. Kohli Seconded by Mr. B. McColl That the application of M N Bales Investments Limited requesting permission to sever a parcel of land municipally addressed as 188 Queen Street South having a width of 15.24m (50’), a depth of 28.569m (93.73’), and an area of 431.1 sq.m. (4640.322 sq.ft.). The retained land municipally addressed as 196 Queen Street South has a width of 8.961m (29.399’), a depth of 37.996m (124.658’), and an area of 333.9 sq.m. (3594.07 sq.ft.), on Part Lots 1 and 2, west of Queen Street South and south of Joseph Street, Registered Plan 393, being Parts 1 and 2 on BE Reference Plan 58R-18374, 188 and 196 Queen Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, GRANTED , 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 submit payment to the Region of Waterloo the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 4. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are granted. 5. That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the severances are granted. 6. That the owner shall ensure driveways will be located so as to clear and provide a minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles, anchors and streetlight standards. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 155 - Submission No.: 2.B 2016-022 (Cont’d) 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 July 19, 2018. Carried Submission Nos.: 3. B 2016-023 and B 2016-024 Applicants: Raymond and Sharon Bonnell Property Location: 50 Roos Street Legal Description: Part of Biehn’s Unnumbered Tract, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-3555 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division, dated July 11, 2016, recommending deferral of the subject applications at the request of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) to allow time for the applicant to complete a survey site plan. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and Legislative Services, dated July 11, 2016, proposing that the subject applications be deferred until such time that the applicant has addressed issues related to individual water and wastewater services, water services, environmental planning, and fees. The Committee considered the report of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc., dated July 8, 2016, requesting approval of this application, be subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. for the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are granted. 2. That the applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. before the severances are granted. 3. Driveways will be located so as to clear and provide a minimum of 1.0m clearance to all poles, anchors and streetlight standards. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 156 - Submission Nos.: 3.B 2016-023 and B 2016-024 (Cont’d) Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli BE DEFERRED That consideration of applications B 2016-023 and B 2016-024, to the October 18, 2016 Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow the owners additional time to provide information in support of the applications. Carried COMBINED APPLICATIONS: Submission Nos.: 1. B 2016-025, A 2016-065 and A 2016-066 Applicants: Lochan and Bhagmatic Singh Property Location: 327 and 329 Prospect Avenue Legal Description: Lot 4, Plan 943 Appearances: In Support: L. Singh H. Mangat Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land so each half of a semi-detached residential 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 July 6, 2016, advising the subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan (OP) and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) in the Zoning By-law and will contain a semi-detached residential dwelling. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots to allow separate ownership of each semi-detached unit. The severed lot would have a frontage of 9.143 metres, a depth of 44.789 metres and an area of 410.65 square metres, while the retained lot would have a frontage of 9.142 metres, depth of 44.789 metres and an area of 394.54 square metres. Minor variances for the retained and severed lands are also requested. B 2016-025 - 327-329 Prospect Avenue: 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, both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City’s OP and Zoning By-law 85-1. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal conforms with the regulations of the Residential Four Zone (R-4). The proposed severance conforms to the OP and that the configuration of the proposed lots can be considered appropriate for the use of the lands. The proposed severance is required to create separate semi-detached dwelling units and allow separate ownership of each. Minor variances are required to bring the proposed severance into conformity with the Zoning By- law prior to the consent application being approved. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 157 - Submission Nos.: 3.B 2016-025, A 2016-065 and A 2016-066 (Cont’d) A 2016-065 - 327 Prospect Avenue: The applicant is seeking relief from Section 38.2.2 of the Zoning By-law to legalize a side yard setback of 2.58 metres where the driveway leads to a parking area where a minimum of 3.0 metres is required in the By-law. Furthermore, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.12 (d) of the Zoning By-law to legalize and existing parking space with dimensions of 5.5 metres by 2.58 metres whereas the By-law requires the dimensions of a minimum space to be 5.5 metres by 2.60 metres. A 2016-066 – 329 Prospect Avenue: The applicant is seeking relief from Section 38.2.2 of the Zoning By-law to legalize a side yard setback of 2.54 metres on the side where the driveway leads to parking area whereas a minimum of 3.0 metres is required by the by-law. Furthermore, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.12 (d) of the Zoning By-law to legalize and existing parking space with dimensions of 5.5 metres x 2.54 metres whereas the by-law requires a minimum spaces to be 5.5 metres x 2.60 metres. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments for the retained lands: The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the 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 proposed variance will permit a reduced minimum side yard setback and reduced parking space size. The minor change will maintain the low density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms with the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the requested variances are appropriate. The requested variances to permit a reduced side yard setback where the driveway leads to a parking space meet the intent of the Zoning Bylaw. The reduction of 0.46 metres (329 Prospect Avenue and 0.42 metres (327 Prospect Ave) from the required 3.0 metre setback is minor. Furthermore, legalizing the existing parking spaces with dimensions of 5.5m x 2.58 (327 Prospect Avenue and 5.5m x 2.54 metres (329 Prospect Ave) is also considered minor. The variance can be considered minor as the reduced setbacks and reduced parking spaces are existing will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall character of the neighbourhood and are considered good planning. The proposed variances are appropriate. The reduced setbacks and parking spaces are existing and legalizing them 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 July 11, 2016, advising they have no objections to application B 2016- 025 subject to the following condition: 1. That prior to final approval, the applicant submit payment to the Region the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated July 6, 2016, advising they have no concerns with applications A 2016-065 and A 2016-066. Mr. M. Mangat was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation and indicated that he has no concerns with the fee being requested by the Region of Waterloo. Submission No.: B 2016-025 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 158 - Submission Nos.: 3.B 2016-025, A 2016-065 and A 2016-066 (Cont’d) That the application of Lochan and Bhagmatic Singh 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.), on Lot 4, Plan BE GRANTED 943, 327 and 329 Prospect Avenue, 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 pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park land dedication in the amount of $4,205.78 which is required on the severed parcel as a new developable lot will be created by the severance. The park land dedication is calculated at the residential rate of 5% of the per metre lineal frontage land value for the severed portion. 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 and/or retained lands. 5. That the owner shall submit a Servicing Plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval. 6. That the owner shall prepare and receive approval of the Development and Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form, along with a digital submission of all AutoCad drawings required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division, as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S.3150. 7. That the owner shall submit payment to the Region of Waterloo the Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00. 8. That Minor Variance Applications A 2016-065 and A 2016-066 receive final approval. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 159 - Submission Nos.: 3.B 2016-025, A 2016-065 and A 2016-066 (Cont’d) 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 July 19, 2018. Carried Submission No.: A 2016-065 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Lochan and Bhagmatic Singh requesting permission 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’), on Lot 4, Plan 943, 327 Prospect Avenue, Kitchener, BE APPROVED Ontario,. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan is being maintained on the subject property. 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 2016-066 Moved by Mr. B. McColl Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli That the application of Lochan and Bhagmatic Singh requesting permission 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 2.54m (8.33’) rather than the required 5.5m (18.044’) by 2.6m (8.530’), on Lot 4, Plan 943, 329 Prospect Avenue, 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 19, 2016 - 160 - ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:47 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 19th day of July, 2016. Colin Goodeve Acting Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment