HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-15
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 2017
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. A. Head and B. McColl and Ms. J. Meader.
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner; Mr. D. Seller, Traffic & Parking
Analyst; Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer; and, Ms. H. Dyson,
Administrative Clerk.
Mr. A. Head, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:13 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held July 18, 2017, as
circulated to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
CONSENT APPLICATION:
1. Submission No.: B 2017-017
Applicant: 2469440 Ontario Inc.
Property Location: 1792 Glasgow Street
Legal Description: Part Lot 38 German Company Tract, being Part 5 on Reference
Plan 58R-6375
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant has withdrawn the subject application.
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE:
1. Submission No.: A 2017-081
Applicant: Randy Harms and Ashlee McNeilly
Property Location: 108 Queen Street North
Legal Description: Part Lot 191, Grange’s Survey North of King Street and South of the
Canadian National Railway, Registered Plan 374 and Part Lot 9,
West of Queen Street, D. Weber’s Survey, Registered Plan 401,
being Parts 3 and 4 on Reference Plan 58R-14995
Mr. A. Head declared a pecuniary interest with respect to the subject application, stating the applicant is
a client with his firm; and, accordingly did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this
application. Mr. B. McColl assumed the Chair at this time.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 186 -
1. Submission No.: A 2017-081 (Cont’d)
Appearances:
In Support: S. Head
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission for a personal service use
(salon) to be located in a single detached dwelling rather than in a multiple dwelling or mixed
commercial-residential building, containing a minimum of 20 dwelling units; having a Gross Floor
Area (GFA) of 30% rather than a permitted GFA of 20%; and, for the dwelling unit of a mixed
commercial-residential building to be located on the ground floor whereas the By-law only permits
dwellings within multiple dwelling buildings to be located on the ground floor.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated August 2, 2017, advising the
subject property located at 108 Queen Street North is zoned Commercial Residential Two Zone
(CR-2) in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Medium Density Commercial Residential in the
Civic Centre Secondary Plan. The owners are proposing to convert the existing single detached
dwelling into a mixed commercial residential building with 30% of the Gross Floor Area (GFA)
devoted for a personal service use (hair salon) and 70 % of the building as a residential dwelling.
To allow the conversion, the owners have requested relief from Section 45.10 of the Zoning By-
law to allow a personal service use (salon) to be located in a mixed commercial-residential
building with one dwelling unit rather than in a multiple dwelling or mixed commercial-residential
building, containing a minimum of 20 dwelling units and has requested to allow a GFA of 30%
rather than a permitted GFA of 20% for the personal service use. Furthermore, the applicants
have requested relief from section 45.12 of the Zoning By-law to allow the dwelling unit of a
mixed commercial residential building to be located on the ground floor whereas the By-law only
permits dwellings within multiple dwelling buildings to be located on the ground floor.
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 Medium Density Commercial Residential in the Civic Centre
Secondary Plan. The Medium Density Commercial Residential designation provides a buffer
between the Low-Rise Residential-Preservation designation which applies to the interior of the
neighbourhood and Queen Street North and MacKenzie King Square, and to provide commercial
and residential development. The Medium Density Commercial Residential designation
encourages existing single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, semi-detached dwellings,
multiple dwellings to be converted into office or commercial uses or redevelopment with access
from Queen Street North. The requested variances are appropriate and continue to maintain
character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variances conform to
the designation and it is the further opinion of staff that the requested variances are appropriate.
The requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of restricting a personal
service use to 20% of the total GFA of a building and in no case exceeding 550.0 square metres
of gross leasable commercial space is to encourage mixed residential commercial buildings are
developed with an appropriate balance of residential GFA and personal service GFA. The
increase of 10% meets the intent of the By-law as the proposed hair salon will not exceed 550
square metres of gross leasable space. Furthermore, the requested variances to allow a personal
service use in a mixed commercial residential building with less than 20 dwelling units with part of
the dwelling located on the ground floor is appropriate as the building is currently a single
detached dwelling and no new development is proposed. The conversion of the existing single
detached dwelling to a mixed commercial residential building meets the intent of the Zone and will
provide a mix of residential and commercial uses. As such, staff is satisfied the requested
variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The variances can be considered minor as the increase in the size of a permitted personal
service is minimal and appropriate. The proposed development is compatible with the Civic
Centre Neighbourhood. Staff has no concerns with the proposed conversion of single detached
dwelling to a mixed commercial residential building.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 187 -
1. Submission No.: A 2017-081 (Cont’d)
The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed
commercial residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The conversion of the single
detached dwelling to a commercial residential use will not negatively impact the existing character
of the subject property or the surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 29, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. S. Head was in attendance in support of the subject application. He provided a brief summary
of the application, noting he was in support of the staff recommendation. In response to
questions, Mr. Head stated he had no objections to the proposed timelines as outlined in the staff
recommendation.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Randy Harms and Ashlee McNeilly requesting permission for a
personal service use (salon) to be located in a single detached dwelling rather than in a
multiple dwelling or mixed commercial-residential building, containing a minimum of 20
dwelling units; having a Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 30% rather than a permitted GFA of 20%;
and, for the dwelling unit of a mixed commercial-residential building to be located on the
ground floor whereas the By-law only permits dwellings within multiple dwelling buildings to be
located on the ground floor, on Part Lot 191, Grange’s Survey North of King Street and South
of the Canadian National Railway, Registered Plan 374 and Part Lot 9, West of Queen Street,
D. Weber’s Survey, Registered Plan 401, being Parts 3 and 4 on Reference Plan 58R-14995,
108 Queen Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owners shall receive site plan approval to acknowledge the existing parking
and site conditions by August 1, 2018.
2. That the owners shall obtain a building permit for the proposed conversion by August 1,
2018.
3. That the owners shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate for the personal service
use by August 1, 2018.
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
Mr. A. Head resumed the Chair at this time.
2. Submission No.: A 2017-072
Applicant: Losani Homes (1998) Ltd.
Property Location: 60 Prince Albert Boulevard
Legal Description: Part Block 3, Registered Plan 58M-561, being Parts 25 & 125 on
Reference Plan 58R-18967
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 188 -
2. Submission No.: A 2017-072 (Cont’d)
Ms. J. Meader declared a pecuniary interest with respect to the subject application, stating the applicant
is a client with her firm, and accordingly did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this
application.
Appearances:
In Support: M. Pirzada
M. Steeleworthy
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing deck
located at the rear of an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback of 3.37m
rather than the required 4m.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated August 1, 2017, advising the
subject property is located at 60 Prince Albert Boulevard and is designated Medium Rise
Residential in the 2014 Official Plan. The property is zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) in Zoning
By-law 85-1, with Special Regulation Provision 630R and Special Use Provision 198U, and is
currently developed as a 3-storey multiple residential dwelling (cluster townhouse) development.
The applicant is proposing to legalize a recently constructed second storey deck in the rear yard.
As such, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.6.A.4.C of Zoning By-law 85-1 to locate
an attached deck that is greater than 0.6 metres in height to be located 3.37 metres (11.06 ft)
from the rear lot line whereas 4.0 metres (13.12 ft) 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 Medium Rise Residential in the City’s 2014 Official Plan.
Although a number of Medium Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Plan are under
appeal, it should be noted that certain policies do apply. In this case, Medium Rise Residential
policies in both Plans are being relied upon to determine whether the subject variance meets the
intent of the Official Plan. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the requested variance meets the
intent of the Official Plan. The Medium Rise Residential designation accommodates a range of
housing types that encourages and supports the mixing and integration of innovative and different
forms of housing to achieve and maintain a medium-rise built form. The proposed variance will
maintain the medium density character of the property and will not impact the 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 meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.0 metre (13.12
ft) rear yard setback for a deck that exceeds 0.6 metres in height is to provide outdoor amenity
space as well as adequate separation from neighbouring properties. It is staff’s opinion that the
existing deck with a rear yard setback of 3.37 metres (11.06 ft) will continue to provide outdoor
amenity space for the owner that is adequately setback from the neighbouring properties.
The requested variance is minor. Staff is of the opinion that the requested variance will continue
to provide amenity space in the rear yard and maintain adequate separation between the deck
and adjacent properties. The reduced rear yard setback for the existing deck is minimal and will
not impact the adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the existing residential
use is permitted in the Zoning By-law. It is staff’s opinion that the existing deck is appropriately
designed for the property and will provide outdoor amenity space for the owner and adequate
separation from abutting residential properties. As such, the deck with a reduced rear yard
setback will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or surrounding
neighbourhood.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 189 -
2. Submission No.: A 2017-072 (Cont’d)
Based on the above comments, staff is of the opinion that the variance requested is minor, meets
the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan, and is appropriate for the lot and
surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 29, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Messrs. M. Pirzada and M. Steeleworthy were in attendance in support of the subject application
and the staff recommendation.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. requesting permission to legalize an existing
deck exceeding 0.6m in height located at the rear of a townhouse dwelling having a rear yard
setback of 3.37m rather than the required 4m, on Part Block 3, Registered Plan 58M-561,
being Parts 25 & 125 on Reference Plan 58R-18967, 60 Prince Albert Boulevard, 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.
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
3. Submission No.: A 2017-073
Applicant: Susana and Fernando Correia
Property Location: 95 Frey Crescent
Legal Description: Lot 9, Registered Plan 58M-417
Appearances:
In Support: S. Correia
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to construct a roof over an
existing patio in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard setback
of 4m rather than the required 7.5m.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated August 4, 2017, advising the
subject property located at 95 Frey Crescent is zoned Residential Four (R-4) in the Zoning By-law
85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The applicants are
proposing to build an attached structure over an existing patio onto the single detached dwelling.
The proposed building addition on the subject property can no longer meet the requirements of
Section 38.2.1 of the Zoning By-law. The applicants are requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 of
the Zoning By-law to allow an addition to have a rear yard setback of 4.0 metres rather than the
required 7.5 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 190 -
3. Submission No.: A 2017-073 (Cont’d)
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the City’s 2014 Official Plan and
1994 Official Plan. The 2014 Official Plan Designation is in effect; however, a significant number
of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal and therefore are
not being relied upon for this report. Instead, Low Rise Residential Policy 3.1.2.1 from the 1994
Official Plan which allows for low density forms of housing such as single detached dwellings is
being relied upon to determine whether the proposed variances meet the general intent of the
Official Plan. The proposed variance meets the intent of the designation, which encourages a
range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The requested
variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback is appropriate and continues to 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 rear yard setback of 4.0 metres meets the intent of the Zoning
By-law. The intent of the 7.5 metre rear yard setback requirement is to provide amenity space in
the rear yard. The reduction of 3.5 metres is minor as the 4.0 metre setback will continue to
provide sufficient amenity space and adequate separation between the dwelling and
neighbouring properties.
The variances can be considered minor as the reduced rear yard setback of 4.0 metres will not
present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variance
should not impact the existing character of the surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 29, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Ms. S. Correia was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation.
In response to questions, she stated the deck will not be enclosed, adding the proposed structure
would resemble a carport.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Susana and Fernando Correia requesting permission to construct a roof
structure over an existing patio in the rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having
a rear yard setback of 4m rather than the required 7.5m, on Lot 9, Registered Plan 58M-417,
95 Frey Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owners shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division for the
proposed addition prior to February 1, 2018.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
4. Submission No.: A 2017-074
Applicant: Kyle O’Brien
Property Location: 274 Southwood Drive
Legal Description: Lot 441, Plan 1375
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 191 -
4. Submission No.: A 2017-074 (Cont’d)
Appearances:
In Support: K. O’Brien
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition in the
rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling, which is currently functioning as a side yard, to
have a rear yard setback of 1.67m rather than the required 7.5m.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated August 4, 2017, advising the
subject property located at 274 Southwood Drive is zoned Residential Four (R-3) in the Zoning
By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan. The applicant is
proposing to build an addition onto the single detached dwelling. The proposed building addition
on the subject property can no longer meet the requirements of Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-
law. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow an
addition to have a rear yard setback of 1.67 metres rather than the required 7.5 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 both the City’s 2014 Official Plan and
1994 Official Plan. The 2014 Official Plan Designation is in effect; however, a significant number
of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal and therefore are
not being relied upon for this report. Instead, Low Rise Residential Policy 3.1.2.1 from the 1994
Official Plan which allows for low density forms of housing such as single detached dwellings is
being relied upon to determine whether the proposed variances meet the general intent of the
Official Plan. The proposed variance meets the intent of the designation, which encourages a
range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density neighbourhood. The requested
variance to permit a reduced rear yard setback is appropriate and continues to 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 rear yard setback of 1.67 metres meets the intent of the
Zoning By-law. The intent of the 7.5 metre rear yard setback requirement is to provide amenity
space in the rear yard. It is staff’s opinion that the rear yard setback requirement of the Zoning
By-law was developed primarily to ensure that interior lots maintain adequate privacy space for
neighbours and amenity space for property owners. As the property maintains a large front yard
and side yard abutting a street, staff is of the opinion that adequate amenity space exists in these
areas to meet the intent of the By-law. In addition, if this were an interior lot, the required setback
between the subject building and the neighbouring property line would be 1.2 metres. It is the
opinion of staff, that the intent of the By-law with respect to privacy is maintained.
The variance is minor for the following reasons. The proposed addition would not impact the
property to the west any more than the existing building since the addition would be in line with
the side yard setback of the existing dwelling. The property to the south would be most impacted
since the dwelling would be extended toward the rear lot line; however, as aforementioned, if this
property were an interior lot, the required setback would be 1.2 metres. It is the opinion of staff,
that a 1.2 metre setback could be appropriately applied to the dwelling without compromising the
intent of the By-law and without causing a greater than minor impact on the adjacent property to
the south.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variance
should not impact the existing character of the surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 29, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. K. O’Brien was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation.
In response to questions, he circulated elevation drawings of the proposed addition, noting it will
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 192 -
4. Submission No.: A 2017-074 (Cont’d)
function as an in-law suite. He stated a through-way is planned between the subject addition and
the existing house, with a separate entrance to the addition. Mr. O’Brien indicated he currently
uses an existing deck in the rear of the dwelling as his outdoor amenity space. He further advised
he has further intention to improve the front yard of the subject property as additional outdoor
amenity space.
Mr. A. Head advised he had some concerns with the reduction in outdoor amenity space. In
response, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised staff had no concerns with the rear yard variance, noting
the subject property is a corner lot and functions differently from other lots in the vicinity. She
further advised when reviewing variances, consideration must be given to the impact on the
neighbouring properties, and in this case staff believe it is negligible.
Ms. J. Meader noted the proximity to Country Hill Park, indicating she had no concerns with the
reduction in amenity space and variance as requested.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Kyle O'Brien requesting permission to construct an addition in the rear
yard of an existing single detached dwelling, which is currently functioning as a side yard, to
have a rear yard setback of 1.67m rather than the required 7.5m, on Lot 441, Plan 1375, 274
Southwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division for the
proposed addition prior to February 1, 2018.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
5. Submission No.: A 2017-075
Applicant: Columbia Holdings (KW) Inc.
Property Location: 2085 Shirley Drive
Legal Description: Part Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-424, being Part 20 on Reference
Plan 58R-16128
Appearances:
In Support: A. Way
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to allow for the required 2m
high berm at the rear of the property to be measured from the lowest point of the abutting railway
bed, rather than at the property line.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated August 3, 2017, advising the
applicant is requesting relief from Section 316U of By-law 85-1, to allow for the required 2.0
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 193 -
5. Submission No.: A 2017-075 (Cont’d)
metre-high berm at the rear of the property to be measured from the lowest point of the abutting
railway bed rather than at the property line. Section 316U requires a 15 metre rear yard setback
incorporating a 2.0 metre high berm where the rear lot line forms a boundary between the B-1
zone and railway.
The subject property is located on Shirley Drive, just east of Bingemans Centre Drive and is
presently vacant. Staff has recently granted Site Plan Approval in Principle for a new industrial
building to be constructed on the site subject to approval of this minor variance. The Official Plan
Designation of the property is Business Park Employment and the Zoning is B-1 with Special Use
Provision 316U.
Special Use Regulation 316U requires a 15 metre rear yard setback with a 2.0 metre-high berm
to provide a safety zone between the building and railway in the event of a derailment. In this
particular location, the grade of the subject property is approximately 2.0 metres higher than the
grade of the railway which in effect creates the required safety berm.
The applicant has been in contact with Metrolix who have no concern with measuring the berm
height from the railway bed rather than the property line. City staff is also in agreement with
measuring the berm height from the railway bed.
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 variance meets the intent of the Official Plan as the subject property is designated Business
Park Employment and the proposed Contractors Establishment is deemed an appropriate use
within this designation.
The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The required 15
metre rear yard setback and 2.0 metre high berm are required specifically for safety reasons. The
proposed building will be setback 36 metres from the rear lot line and the grade of the property
above the railway bed naturally creates the required safety berm.
The variance is minor for the following reasons. Measuring the height of the berm from the
railway bed to the rear property line meets the requirement for a 2.0 metre high berm and will
provide the necessary safety measures.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons.
The new development on the property provides over 36 metres of rear yard setback, along with a
grade differential between the rear lot line and the lowest grade of the railway bed, creating the
appropriate safety berm.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 29, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. A. Way was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation. He
noted Metrolinx was consulted and they had no objections to the subject application. He stated
email correspondence with Metrolinx was included as part of the application submission.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Columbia Holdings (KW) Inc. requesting permission to allow for the
required 2m high berm at the rear of the property to be measured from the lowest point of the
abutting railway bed, rather than at the property line, on Part Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-
424, being Part 20 on Reference Plan 58R-16128, 2085 Shirley Drive, 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 194 -
5. Submission No.: A 2017-075 (Cont’d)
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
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
6. Submission No.: A 2017-076
Applicant: Milestone Developments Inc.
Property Location: 170 Eden Oak Trail
Legal Description: Lot 77, Registered Plan 58M-575
Appearances:
In Support: P. Haramis
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling having a northerly side yard flankage of 3.25m rather than the required 4.5m.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated August 1, 2017, advising the
subject property is located at 170 Eden Oak Trail and is designated Low Rise Residential in both
the 1994 and 2014 Official Plans, and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1,
with Special Regulation Provision 597R. The lands are currently vacant and proposed to be
developed with a single detached dwelling and attached garage and as such, the owner is
requesting relief from Section 38.2.1 to permit a reduced side yard abutting the street setback of
3.25 metres (10.66 ft), whereas 4.5 metres (14.76 ft) 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 both the City’s 2014 Official Plan and
1994 Official Plan. Although a significant number of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014
Official Plan are under appeal, it should be noted that certain policies do apply. In this case, both
Plans are being relied upon to determine whether the subject variance meets the intent of the
Official Plan. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed variance meets the intent of the
Official Plan, which encourages a range of housing forms that achieve an overall low density
neighbourhood. The minor changes will maintain the low density character of the property and
surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed variance conforms to the designation and it is the
opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate.
The requested variance to reduce the side yard abutting the street setback from 4.5 metres to
3.25 metres meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.5 metre side yard abutting
the street setback is to provide separation between the structure and the street. Staff is satisfied
that the reduction of 1.25 metres from the required 4.5 metres maintains adequate separation,
and therefore continues to meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The variance can be considered minor as the reduced side yard abutting the street setback will
not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood.
The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed
residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. No major changes are proposed to the
scale, massing, and height; therefore, the proposed variance will not negatively impact the
existing character of the subject property or surrounding neighbourhood.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 195 -
6. Submission No.: A 2017-076 (Cont’d)
Based on the above comments, staff is of the opinion that the variance requested is minor, meets
the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan, and is appropriate for the lot and
surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 29, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. P. Haramis was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff
recommendation.
Ms. J. Meader advised she has no objections to the subject application. She indicated she was in
opposition to Condition 2 as outlined in the staff recommendation and was at the will of the other
Committee members regarding the final Committee decision and whether the Condition should
be imposed. She expressed concerns about the Committee’s authority to impose conditions that
would normally be imposed through the Site Plan approval process, specifically related to the
building massing, scale and design. In response, Ms. J. von Westerholt acknowledged the
concerns, noting the condition would not require the applicant to complete a Section 21 Site Plan
approval process. She indicated it is not onerous on the applicant to receive clearance on the
proposed condition, the intention is to ensure that the proposed single detached dwelling is
compatible with the surrounding properties. She questioned whether the Committee would feel it
is more appropriate to remove the reference to massing, scale and design.
Ms. Meader noted she is not in opposition to the subject application. She noted she would not be
able to support Condition 2 in its entirety. She stated if the application had elevation drawings she
would be more supportive referencing the Committee approval is generally as per the elevations
provided with the application.
Mr. B. McColl advised in his opinion, he has no concerns with Condition 2 as outlined. He stated
the Committee has imposed a similar condition in the past, indicating it assists with ensuring the
proposed dwelling is compatible with the neighbouring properties. He further advised he has no
objections to the staff recommendation as proposed.
A motion was brought forward by Mr. B. McColl, seconded by Mr. A. Head to approve the
recommendation as outlined in the staff report, which was voted on and Carried. Ms. J. Meader
voted in opposition.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Mr. A. Head
That the application of Milestone Developments Inc. requesting permission to construct a
single detached dwelling having a northerly side yard flankage of 3.25m rather than the
required 4.5m, on Lot 77, Registered Plan 58M-575, 170 Eden Oak Trail, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit for the proposed single detached dwelling
by August 15th, 2018.
2. That the owner shall submit a site plan showing the location of the proposed single
detached dwelling on the lot and elevation drawings be submitted to the satisfaction of
the Director of Planning, illustrating that the proposed dwelling will be compatible with
the neighbourhood in terms of massing, scale and design, and that the drawings be
approved prior to the issuance of any building permit.
3. That the owner shall ensure the reduced side yard abutting the street setback applies
only to the proposed single detached dwelling, as depicted on the survey sketch
submitted with the application from ACI Survey Consultants Inc., dated July 10th, 2017.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 196 -
6. Submission No.: A 2017-076 (Cont’d)
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
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
7. Submission No.: A 2017-077
Applicant: 1420878 Ontario Inc.
Property Location: 200 Gage Avenue
Legal Description: Part Lots 1, 2 & 17, Plan 402
Appearances:
In Support: S. Patterson
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 4-storey
storage facility with ground-floor ancillary use to have a rear yard setback of 1.5m rather than the
required 7.5m; and, to have a reduced loading space width of 4m whereas the By-law requires
loading spaces in an Industrial Zone to have a minimum width of 4.3m.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated August 3, 2017, advising the
subject property is designated General Industrial Employment and is zoned M-2 in Zoning By-law
85-1. The property is located at the corner of Gage Avenue and Belmont Avenue West.
The property is presently developed with an auto body repair business on site. Staff has recently
granted Approval in Principle for a site plan application to add a new 4-storey building on the site
to house a self-storage/warehouse facility with ground floor commercial units fronting Belmont
Avenue West.
To facilitate development of the self-storage facility, the applicant is requesting two minor
variances from By-law 85-1: relief from Section 20.3.1 to allow a rear yard setback of 1.5 metres,
rather than the required 7.5 metres; and, relief from Section 6.2.1 to allow an industrial loading
space to have a width of 4.0 metres, rather than the required 4.3 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 followingcomments.
The variances meet the intent of the Official Plan as General Industrial Employment designation
allows for the existing auto body repair business as well as the proposed self-storage facility.
The variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The Zoning By-law
has minimum setback requirements to ensure there is adequate separation between uses on
abutting properties. The technical rear yard on the property requires a minor variance; however,
the actual yard will appear and function as a side yard, which would only require a 1.2m setback.
Because this is a corner lot, the shorter lot line abutting the street is considered the front lot line,
which for this site is Gage Avenue. As the yard will function as a side yard and is adjacent to a
parking lot on the abutting property staff has no concerns with the requestedvariance.
The By-law requires industrial properties to provide loading spaces of a size to accommodate a
transport truck. In this case, the type of business does not have full-size transport trucks to the
site and a 4.0m wide loading space will be sufficient.
The variances are minor for the following reasons. The rear yard reduction (which will function as
a side yard), will have no impact on the adjacent property and will still allow adequate room on
site for landscaping.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 197 -
7. Submission No.: A 2017-077 (Cont’d)
The 0.3 metre reduction in width of the loading space is negligible and will still allow trucks to
access the site and loading areas.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons.
The existing and proposed uses on the site are permitted and the new self-storage building with
ground floor commercial uses will create a user-friendly pedestrian realm with enhancements to
the streetscape on Belmont Avenue West, and trucks will still be able to utilize the loading areas
on site.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 29, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. S. Patterson advised he was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff
recommendation. In response to the written submission from the neighbouring property owner in
opposition to the subject application, he stated he believes there is a lack of clarity on their part,
as their property municipally addressed as 230 Gage Avenue is not in proximity to the proposed
developments.
Mr. B. McColl noted in his opinion, the application is in keeping with the character of the
neighbourhood and he is in support of the subject application.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of 1420878 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct a 4-storey
storage facility with ground-floor ancillary use to have a rear yard setback of 1.5m rather than
the required 7.5m; and, to have a reduced loading space width of 4m whereas the By-law
requires loading spaces in an Industrial Zone to have a minimum width of 4.3m, on Part Lots 1,
2 & 17, Plan 402, 200 Gage 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
8. Submission No.: A 2017-078
Applicant: Gatehouse Properties Inc.
Property Location: 26 Sydenham Street
Legal Description: Lot 8, Registered Plan 1488
Appearances:
In Support: K. Solazzo
J. Grant
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to locate the required off-
street parking 3.5m from the street line rather than the required 6m, so the garage can be
converted to living space.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 198 -
8. Submission No.: A 2017-078 (Cont’d)
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated July 28, 2017, advising the
subject property located at 26 Sydenham Street is zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) with
Special Regulation 319U in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the
City’s Official Plan. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing garage (legal parking space)
into livable space. By converting the garage into livable space the subject property can no longer
meet the requirements of Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By-law. The applicant is requesting
relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b i) of the Zoning By-law to allow the one required parking space for
the single detached dwelling to be located in the driveway setback 3.5 metres from the street line
rather than the required 6.0 metres.
In considering the four tests for minor variance 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 both the City’s 2014 Official Plan and
1994 Official Plan. The 2014 Official Plan Designation is in effect; however, a significant number
of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal and therefore are
not being relied upon for this report. Instead, Low Rise Residential Policy 3.1.2.1 from the 1994
Official Plan which allows for low density forms of housing such as single detached dwellings is
being relied upon to determine whether the proposed variance meets the general intent of the
Official Plan. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed variance meets the intent of the
Official Plan which encourages a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density
neighbourhood. The requested variance is appropriate and will continue to maintain the low
density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood, which is characterized by a
variety of lot sizes and built form options. 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 meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The requested variance to legalize the off-street parking space 3.5 metres from the street lot line
meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The reduction of 2.5 metres from the required 6 metre
setback 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 2.5 metre reduction from the required 6 metre parking
setback. It is not anticipated that any negative impacts on the adjacent residential properties will
result from the variance required therefore the intent of the Zoning By-law continues to be
maintained.
The variance 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 setback of 3.5 metres will not
present any significant impacts to adjacent properties and the overall neighbourhood.
The variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The requested variance
should not impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. The
requested minor variance is necessary as it will legalize the location of the required parking space
on the driveway.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 29, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee was in receipt of a written submission in opposition to the subject application.
Ms. K. Solazzo and Mr. J. Grant were in attendance in support of the subject application and the
staff recommendation. Mr. Grant indicated the intention of the application is to expand the existing
living space for the existing tenants.
In response to questions, Mr. D. Seller advised he is not aware of any on-street parking issues on
the street. He stated there would be approximately 3m between the proposed legal parking space
and the streetline.
In response to concerns outlined in the written submission from a neighbouring property owner,
Ms. J. von Westerholt advised the Planning Act and Building Code Act do not prohibit garage
conversions. She noted there is no direction from Council this date to study the Lower Doon area.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 199 -
8. Submission No.: A 2017-078 (Cont’d)
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Gatehouse Properties Inc. requesting permission to convert the garage
into habitable living space on an existing single detached dwelling having the required off-
street parking space located 3.5m from the street line rather than the required 6m, on Lot 8,
Registered Plan 1488, 26 Sydenham Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the City’s Building Division for the
conversion of the garage to living space.
2. That the owner shall submit a parking plan to the satisfaction of Transportation Services.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
9. Submission No.: A 2017-079
Applicant: 1936026 Ontario Inc.
Property Location: 130 Victoria Street South
Legal Description: Lot 10 & Part Lot 11, Plan 143
Appearances:
In Support: D. Freeman
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to redevelop an existing
commercial building into a health and wellness centre having a side yard setback abutting a
street of 0.26m rather than the required 4.5m; a rear yard setback of 0m rather than the required
7.5m; a landscaped area of 3.4% whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 10%; to locate the
off-street parking 0m from the front lot line rather than the required 4.5m; and, to allow 1 off-street
parking space whereas the By-law requires 20 off-street parking spaces.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated August 4, 2017, advising the
subject property located at 130 Victoria Street South is designated Mixed Use - Urban Growth
Centre (Downtown) in the 2014 Official Plan and zoned Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone
(MU-1) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is developed with an existing 1-storey commercial
building, which was previously used as a dry cleaning business but is currently vacant.
The owner is proposing to convert the existing building into wellness centre consisting of small
scale personal service, health office, and retail uses. As such, the Owner is requesting relief from
Section 53.2.1 to legalize the existing side yard abutting a street setback of 0.26 metres, whereas
4.5 metres is required; Section 53.2.1 to legalize the existing rear yard setback of 0 metres,
whereas 7.5 metres is required; Section 53.2.1 to permit a minimum landscaped area of 3.4%,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 200 -
9. Submission No.: A 2017-079 (Cont’d)
whereas 10% is required; Section 6.1.2 a) to permit 1 parking space, whereas 20 spaces are
required; and Section 6.1.1.1 a) v) to permit an off-street parking setback of 0 metres, whereas
4.5 metres is required.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the followingcomments:
The subject property is designated Mixed Use - Urban Growth Centre (Downtown) in the City’s
2014 Official Plan. The 2014 Official Plan Designation is in effect, however the Mixed Use policies
are entirely under appeal and therefore are not being relied upon for this report. Instead, the
Mixed Use Corridor policies from the 1994 Official Plan are being relied upon to determine if the
requested variances meet the intent of the Official Plan. Policy 4.3 states that these corridors are
primarily intended to serve the adjacent residential neighbourhoods and employment areas and
allow for intensive, transit supportive development. A broad range of commercial uses shall be
permitted, including freestanding office and small retail.
It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The
reduced parking rate and variances to recognize existing setbacks will facilitate the conversion of
an existing vacant building to a transit supportive use downtown. As such, staff is of the opinion
that the proposed variances conform to the designation and it is the opinion of staff that the
requested variance are appropriate.
The requested variance to legalize the existing side yard abutting the street setback of 0.26
metres, whereas 4.5 metres is required, and the existing rear yard setback of 0 metres, whereas
7.5 metres is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. As the setbacks are existing and no
changes are proposed to the building that will further reduce these setbacks, staff is of the opinion
that the requested variances meet the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The requested variance to permit a reduced minimum landscaped area of 3.4%, whereas a
minimum 10% is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 10%
landscaped area is to ensure there is adequate landscaped amenity area on-site and to ensure
appropriate buffering and an enhanced streetscape is provided. The applicant is proposing a
patio in the front yard of the property which will consist of a mix of plantings and hardscape
amenity area. Given the urban context and existing built-up condition of the site, staff is satisfied
the proposed 3.4% landscaped area meets the intent of the Zoning By-law and will provide visual
interest from the public realm.
The requested variance to reduce the required parking to 1 space, whereas 20 spaces are
required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the minimum 20 parking space
requirement is to ensure there is adequate parking to support the proposed personal service,
health office, and retail uses. Given that the existing building occupies the majority of the site, is
impossible to comply with the minimum parking requirements for the proposed uses. Working
within this constraint, the owner has designed the site such that 1 parking space is provided,
which is proposed to be a barrier-free accessible space.
The subject property is located downtown near the existing Charles Street Terminal, along
existing GRT bus routes, along the future LRT line, and near the future Multi-Modal Transit Hub.
Further, located behind the subject property is a City-owned parking lot (Bramm Street Lot) which
is currently underutilized. In consultation with Transportation Services staff, it has been
determined the Bramm Street Lot has the capacity to support parking needs for customers of the
proposed use on a ‘pay and display’ basis. However, staff acknowledge and advise this parking
lot will not necessarily be available for use in perpetuity.
To support the proposed parking reduction, the owner has 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 by alleviating parking demands. The owner proposes to provide additional bicycle
parking spaces above what is required in the Urban Design Manual for the subject site, as well as
shower facilities and active uses at grade along the Victoria Street frontage through the
installation of an outdoor patio area.
The requested variance to permit an off-street parking space to be setback 0 metres from the
street line, whereas 4.5 metres is required, meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 201 -
9. Submission No.: A 2017-079 (Cont’d)
the 4.5 metre setback in Mixed Use zones is to encourage an active streetscape and provide
buffering between parking and the street. The only available space on site for the proposed
barrier-free parking space is in front of the building, with access off Bramm Street. Due to the
built-up nature of the site and challenges designing around the existing canopy, it is impossible to
comply with the 4.5 metre setback requirement. Staff have worked with the owner to determine
an appropriate design around these constraints, including the provision of landscaping and a
patio area in front of the building, and is satisfied the reduced setback meets the intent of the
Zoning By-law.
The variances can be considered minor as the reduced building setbacks, minimum landscaped
area, parking rate, and off-street parking setback will not present any significant impacts to
adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood. The requested variances will facilitate the
conversion of an existing vacant commercial building to a new and desirable use, while working
through the constraints caused by the existing building itself.
The proposed variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land as it is staff’s
opinion that the requested variances will not impact the subject property, adjacent lands or the
abutting intersection.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 29, 2017, advising while they have no objection to this application, they noted that a 3.05m
road allowance widening along Victoria Street and a daylight triangle at the Victoria/Bramm
intersection will be required through the site plan process.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) dated
August 2, 2017, advising although they have no objection to the subject application, they noted a
portion of the subject property is within the floodplain associated with Victoria Park
Lake/Schneider Creek and the 5-metre regulatory allowance adjacent to the floodplain. As such,
a portion of the property is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06.
Ms. D. Freeman was in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff
recommendation.
The Chair noted concerns with the proposed change in use and the implementation of the
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. He questioned where the clients of the
proposed business would park and who the proposed on-site showers would be used by.
In response to questions, Ms. Freeman advised the on-site showers are intended for use by the
staff of the proposed business. Mr. Seller advised the City acknowledges that regardless of the
use there are going to be challenges with on-site parking on the subject property. He noted
currently there is a City Parking lot adjacent to the subject property that will assist in managing
overflow parking, and the lack of on-site parking will gradually address itself over time. He further
advised in discussion with the Planning Department staff they are of the opinion that the use of
the subject property is acceptable and Transportation Services have acknowledged their opinion.
Ms. J. von Westerholt advised the subject property has been maxed out in built form. She
indicated the building has been vacant since approximately 2012 and staff acknowledge that
although they may not have sufficient parking, it is more beneficial to seek reuse of these sites
rather than them remaining vacant. She further advised the property is within a 10 minute walk
from the future multi-modal hub.
Ms. J. Meader noted she had no objections to the requested variances, noting the subject
property is located in an area of the City identified with the highest permitted densities for growth
and intensification.
In response to questions, Ms. Freeman advised she had no objections to the proposed deadline
dates as outlined in the staff recommendation.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 202 -
9. Submission No.: A 2017-079 (Cont’d)
That the application of 1936026 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to redevelop an existing
commercial building into a health and wellness centre having a side yard setback abutting a
street of 0.26m rather than the required 4.5m; a rear yard setback of 0m rather than the
required 7.5m; a landscaped area of 3.4% whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 10%; to
locate the off-street parking 0m from the front lot line rather than the required 4.5m; and, to
allow 1 off-street parking space whereas the By-law requires 20 off-street parking spaces, on
Lot 10 & Part Lot 11, Plan 143, 130 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall agree to finalize details on how each Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Measure will be implemented and maintained to the satisfaction of
the Director of Transportation Services and the City Solicitor.
2. That the owner shall obtain site plan approval to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site
Development and Customer Service.
3. That the owner shall obtain a building permit by August 15, 2018.
4. That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the City’s Planning
Division by August 15, 2018.
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
10. Submission No.: A 2017-080
Applicant: Dave and Laurie Sloan
Property Location: 54 Inwood Drive
Legal Description: Part Lot 23, Plan 793, being Part 4 on Reference Plan
58R-17164 and Part 4 on Reference Plan 58R-17405
Appearances:
In Support: D. Sloan
D. Entz
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting permission to construct a single
detached dwelling including a rear yard deck that exceeds 0.6m in height having a rear yard
setback of 2.67m rather than the required 4m.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated July 26, 2017, advising the
subject property located at 54 Inwood Drive is zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) with Special
Regulation Provision 567R in the Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low Rise Residential in the
Official Plan. The owners are requesting relief from Section 5.6A.4 c) of the City of Kitchener
Zoning By-law to allow a deck greater than 0.6 metres in height to be located 2.67 metres from
the rear lot line rather than the permitted 4.0 metres.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 203 -
10. Submission No.: A 2017-080 (Cont’d)
In considering the four tests for minor variance 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 both the City’s 2014 Official Plan and
1994 Official Plan. The 2014 Official Plan Designation is in effect; however, a significant number
of Low Rise Residential policies from the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal and therefore are
not being relied upon for this report. Instead, Low Rise Residential Policy 3.1.2.1 from the 1994
Official Plan which allows for low density forms of housing such as single detached dwellings is
being relied upon to determine whether the proposed variance meets the general intent of the
Official Plan. It is Planning staff’s opinion that the proposed variance meets the intent of the
Official Plan which encourages a range of different forms of housing to achieve a low density
neighbourhood. The requested variance is appropriate and will continue to maintain the low
density character of the property and surrounding neighbourhood, which is characterized by a
variety of lot sizes and built form options. The proposed variance conforms to the designation and
it is the further opinion of staff that the requested variance is appropriate.
The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 4.0 metres rear
yard setback is to ensure that a deck over 0.6 metres above grade does not negatively impact the
neighbouring properties. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed deck will not negatively impact
the enjoyment of the neighbouring property to the rear as sufficient screening is provided by an
approximate 1.8m high solid wood fence. Furthermore the deck is not proposed to extend the
entire width of the property, meets the side yard setback requirement and will not negatively
impact neighboring properties on either side.
The variance can be considered minor as it is staff’s opinion that the deck will not present any
significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood.
The variance is appropriate for the use of the land as it is staff’s opinion that the requested
variance will not negatively impact the subject property, adjacent lands or surrounding
neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 29, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Messrs. D. Sloan and D. Entz were in attendance in support of subject application and staff
recommendation. In response to questions, Mr. Sloan advised a privacy fence currently exists at
the rear of the subject property.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Dave and Laurie Sloan requesting permission to construct a deck
exceeding 0.6m in height in the rear of an existing single detached dwelling having a rear yard
setback of 2.67m rather than the required 4m, on Part Lot 23, Plan 793, being Part 4 on
Reference Plan 58R-17164 and Part 4 on Reference Plan 58R-17405, 54 Inwood Drive,
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.
Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 204 -
11. Submission No: A 2017-082
Applicant: Finnco Developments Inc.
Property Location: 119 Joseph Street/69 Water Street South
Legal Description: Part Lot 1, Plan 47
Appearances:
In Support: S. Patterson
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to renovate an existing
convenience-commercial building having 2 off-street parking spaces whereas the By-law requires
22 off-street parking spaces; to permit parking spaces to be located 0m from the street line rather
than the required 3m; 0 loading spaces whereas the By-law requires 1 loading space; a patio to
have a setback of 17m whereas the By-law requires a 30m setback from a Residentially or
Institutionally Zoned property; the northeast corner of the existing building to encroach 0.23m into
the Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into
the DVT; the westerly corner of the existing building to encroach 0.26m into the Corner Visibility
Triangle (CVT) whereas the By-law does not permit encroachments into the CVT; to legalize the
front yard setback of .06m rather than the required 3m; to legalize the interior side yard setback of
1.1m rather than the required 1.2m; a rear yard setback of 0m rather than the required 7.5m; a
side yard setback abutting Joseph Street of 2.6m rather than the required 3m; an existing canopy
to project 3m into the front yard setback rather than the maximum permitted projection of 0.6m;
and, having steps exceeding a height of 0.6m above finished grade level to be located within
1.5m of a street line rather than the required 3m.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated August 4, 2017, advising the
subject property is located at 119 Joseph Street. The site contains a house (built in approximately
1910) with an attached garage (added about 1950) and a corner store (added in the mid-1950’s).
The building has been vacant for some time, and the current owner is proposing to renovate the
existing building so that it may be repurposed for a range of permitted commercial uses.
There are no changes proposed to the existing building footprint; however, minor variances are
requested to legalize the existing setback deficiencies to allow the renovations which include
enclosing the front porch, reducing the parking to what can be accommodated on the existing lot,
formalizing and legalizing the functional parking spaces, and legalizing a patio for a possible
future restaurant use.
To permit the site to be redeveloped the applicant has requested the following variances:
1. to permit a building with a gross floor area of 344 m2 to have 2 parking spaces for any
future complement of uses, whereas the most intensive yield is 22 spaces;
2. to permit parking to be located 0 metres from a street line, whereas a setback of 3.0
metres is required;
3. to permit 0 loading spaces, whereas 1 space is required;
4. to permit a patio to have a setback of 17 metres from a residentially or institutionally zoned
property, whereas setback of 30 metres is required;
5. to permit the northeast corner of the existing building to encroach 0.23 metres into the
driveway visibility triangle;
6. to permit the west corner of the existing building to encroach 0.26 metres into the corner
visibility triangle;
7. to permit a front yard setback of 0.06 metres for the existing building, whereas 3.0 metres
is required;
8. to permit an interior side yard setback of 1.1 metres for the existing building, whereas 1.2
metres is required;
9. to permit a rear yard setback of 0.0 metres for the existing building, whereas 7.5 metres is
required;
10. to permit a setback of 2.6 metres for a side yard abutting a street for the existing building,
whereas 3.0 metres is required;
11. to permit an architectural feature, in the form of an existing canopy/overhang to project 3.0
metres into the front yard setback whereas a maximum projection of 0.6 metres is
permitted; and,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 205 -
11. Submission No.: A 2017-082 (Cont’d)
12. to permit steps within a required yard, provided that the maximum height above finished
grade is 0.6 metres within 1.5 metres of a street line, whereas a maximum height of 0.6
metres within 3.0 metres of a street line is permitted.
Upon further review, staff have determined:
• that requested Variance 4 should be adjusted to request: that a patio be setback 10.7
metres from a residentially zoned property rather than 30 metres (a 17.0 metres setback is
cited in the application); and,
• that the patio Variance 4 should also seek relief from section 5.6Bb) to permit a patio to be
located 0 metres from a lot line abutting a street, rather than 3.0 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. (staff have
grouped the requested variances into three categories and provided comments on that basis.)
Proposed variances which legalize existing building/site features (Variances 5-12):
The subject lands are designated Convenience Commercial in the Victoria Park Secondary Plan
(secondary plan policies of the 1994 Official Plan remain in effect). The intent of this designation
is to provide locations for commercial outlets serving the needs of the nearby neighbourhood.
Permitted uses include convenience retail, financial establishment, health office, personal service,
restaurant and dwelling units. Policies also require that redevelopment or conversion should be of
a design compatible with existing development particularly detached dwellings in the interior of
the neighbourhood. The owner is proposing to renovate the existing house and corner store to
attract future tenants and a range of uses that are permitted by the designation. The proposed
variances legalize the existing heritage building and site constraints to allow the renovations to
occur and to permit floor space to be occupied by new tenants. Based on the foregoing, staff is of
the opinion that the intent of the Official Plan is maintained.
The lands are zoned Convenience Commercial Zone (C-1) and various general regulations
(projection of stairs and architectural features) and parking design regulations (encroachment of
building into visibility triangles) also apply. The intent of the C-1 Zone is to permit a range of uses
which serve the day to day needs of residents. The intent of the setback regulations for buildings,
stairs and architectural features is to provide sufficient separation between buildings and between
buildings and the public realm (streets/sidewalks). The intent of visibility triangles is to ensure
visibility is maintained for drivers both at intersections and exiting driveways.
The existing building setbacks and encroachments are all existing situations. In the context of the
previous uses, the setbacks would be considered legal non-conforming, or would be deemed to
comply under the existing lot policy. These deficiencies are proposed to be legalized in order to
allow for the uses of the building to change and to add floor space by closing-in the front porch.
While the variance will permit the redevelopment of the site with new uses, the building footprint is
not proposed to be altered and the building has existed with the site deficiencies for many years
without concern or complaint.
Staff acknowledge the existing canopy extends into the public right-of-way and encroachment
agreement is required. This situation has existed for 60+ years and staff is supportive of granting
this encroachment. A condition has been included in this regard.
Staff is of the opinion that requested Variances 5-12 maintain the intent of the Official Plan and
Zoning By-law, and that they are minor and are appropriate for the development and use of the
lands.
Proposed Reductions to Parking and Loading (Variances 1-3):
To permit 2 parking spaces rather than 22; to allow the spaces to be setback 0.0 metres from the
property line; and, to eliminate the requirement for a loading space.
The intent of the parking and transportation provisions of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law is to
ensure that there is sufficient parking available and that the transportation needs of tenants and
visitors can be met. Official Plan policies indicate that the City may consider adjustments to
parking requirements for properties within an area where sufficient transit exists or is to be
provided.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 206 -
11. Submission No.: A 2017-082 (Cont’d)
Planning and Transportation Services staff have considered with the Parking Justification letter
submitted in support of the application. Staff agree the site is well located to take advantage of a
variety of transportation options. The property is located along existing Grand River Transit (GRT)
Routes, within 200 metres of the current Charles Street Transit Terminal, within 250 metres of a
future RT station and within 600 metres of the multi-modal hub. There are 42 on-street parking
spaces are available within a 2 - 5 minute walk and there are several City-operated parking
facilities within a short distance, including one approximately 100 metres away at the corner of
Joseph Street and Gaukel Street. The subject site highly walkable area and has a wide variety of
services, employment, shopping, etc. within close proximity. Through site plan approval, the
owner will be required to provide on-site bicycle parking facilities, and they have indicated they
would be willing to join TravelWise. TravelWise is a Transportation Management Association that
works to encourage employees to take transit, cycle, walk, and carpool to work. TravelWise
members gain access to online trip planning and carpool matching software, discounted transit
passes, and an emergency ride home reimbursement service, which help to reduce private
automobile use. Staff recommends a condition requiring that the owner join TravelWise for a
minimum 4-year term.
The subject property is also located immediately adjacent to the downtown core - the boundary of
the downtown is the centreline of Joseph Street. This site shares many characteristics with
properties in the downtown and for most practical purposes has a downtown location. Zoning
within the downtown provides significant relief from parking requirements and in many cases no
parking is required for existing buildings. Downtown parking regulations acknowledge that in
order to allow continued usability or adaptive reuse of buildings, it may not be reasonable or
possible to require on-site parking. The downtown has ample access to existing (and planned)
public transit, is pedestrian and cyclist-friendly, and has a variety of off-site parking options
available including on-street parking and parking in public and private paid lots (available hourly
or monthly).
Transportation Services staff is concerned that despite the justification, 2 parking spaces may not
be appropriate for the full complement of uses. There is specific concern with the Health Office
use. A typical health office can be a high traffic generating use and staff’s experience is that
patients/clients tend to require that parking be available on-site, whereas patrons of other
permitted uses such as convenience retail, restaurant and personal services visiting a downtown
location, often expect to walk a short distance. Health offices may also be more likely to draw
clients from farther distances than other uses which can reasonably be expected to service
residents living nearby or employees of nearby businesses. Based on this reasoning,
Transportation staff is of the opinion that the proposed variance should not apply generally to a
Health Office use for the purposes of the parking variance. The recommended variance has been
adjusted to reflect this concern. Staff suggest that if health office users wish to occupy space in
the building, a separate variance should be considered. This request would then be supported by
a more detailed parking and traffic generation study detailing and justifying the reduction for that
user.
Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion the proposed variance to reduce parking
requirements from 22 to 2 spaces for the full complement of uses, save and except for health
office, meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, that the variance is minor and that
it is appropriate for the development and use of the lands.
The applicant is requesting the parking spaces be setback 0.0 metres from the property line
rather than 3.0 metres. The City’s Official Plan encourages functional site design which is
implemented through Zoning By-law regulations. The purpose of the 3.0 metre setback in the
Zoning By-law is to provide for a landscape buffer between parking and the street. The By-law
also states that the 3.0 metre setback excludes driveways extending directly from the street. In
this case the parking is located in the driveway, and as there are only two spaces the parking
area is not defined as a parking lot (4 or more parking spaces), and which requires that vehicles
enter and exit the site in a forward motion. As such, vehicles are permitted to back into or out of
parking spaces directly via the driveway. The proposed parking spaces fit between the building
and the property line and represent the only opportunity for on-site parking. Parking has existed in
this configuration and in this location for many years without concern or complaint. Based on the
foregoing, staff is of the opinion that the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law is
maintained and the variance is minor and appropriate for the development and use of the lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 207 -
11. Submission No.: A 2017-082 (Cont’d)
The applicant has also requested a reduction from 1 to 0 loading spaces. The City’s Official Plan
encourages functional site design and the Zoning By-law only requires a loading space for
commercial sites which regularly receive deliveries. Dedicated loading spaces are generally not
required for small commercial uses in the downtown, and staff is of the opinion that given the
permitted complement of uses it is unlikely that a full-size dedicated loading space will be
required for the site to function properly. Small delivery vehicles will be able to use the on-site
parking spaces, and it is also acceptable for larger delivery vehicles that cannot enter a site to
stop temporarily on local roads (e.g. courier van). Staff is of the opinion the site will function
appropriately without a loading space and that the type of uses permitted in the C-1 zone do not
necessarily require a dedicated loading zone. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion that
the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law is maintained and the variance is minor and
appropriate for the development and use of the lands.
Proposed Variance to restaurant patio setback (Variance 4):
The applicant is proposing to make improvements to the property at the intersection of Joseph
Street and Water Street. Today, this corner consists of a large paved area with no animation,
landscaping or separation between the public and private space. Through the future Site Plan
approval staff will work with the owner to introduce planter boxes, seating areas and a low fence
to define and improve the space. The Joseph Street boulevard is very wide and the City is open
to considering an encroachment for such works. This would be further considered as part of the
Site Plan approval process, once the final boundaries and features are approved. Depending on
future tenants, the owner would like to have the option of using this space as a patio for a
possible future restaurant tenant. Zoning By-law regulations require that patios associated with
restaurants must be located 30 metres from a residentially zoned property, and be setback 3.0
metres from the property line. The applicant is requesting variances to permit the patio to be
located 10.7 metres from a residentially-zoned property and 0.0 metres from a lot line.
The Convenience Commercial designation permits restaurants, and patios are commonly
associated with restaurants. In addition, policies support fostering lively street activity while also
maintaining a compatible interface between intensification areas and established residential
neighbourhoods. The intent of these policies is to allow restaurants with patios in order to improve
the streetscape and creating lively pedestrian-friendly streets, while also protecting established
residential neighbourhoods from any associated noise and nuisance. Zoning By-law regulations
have established 30 metres as a minimum setback.
In this location, and due to the existing placement of the building on the lot, there is no opportunity
for a patio to be located 30 metres from a residentially zoned property. Staff is of the opinion the
existing paved area would be suitable for a small patio associated with a café, delicatessen,
bakery or similar small scale restaurant. This area is the farthest removed from adjacent
residential uses and because it is located between the building and Joseph Street, the building
will act as a barrier and buffer to noise and light. A patio and associated landscaping will also help
to improve and animate the streetscape. However, staff is concerned with a patio associated with
some types of restaurant operations, such as those having a bar, which may cause noise and
nuisance that may not be appropriate in close proximity to residential homes. Therefore, staff is
only comfortable with a patio which is associated with a restaurant that does not have a liquor
licence. Staff is of the opinion that this measure is necessary to ensure that the reduced patio
setback will result in a situation that is both minor and suitable for the development and use of the
lands. Staff has recommended a condition implementing this requirement, and based on the
inclusion of such a condition are of the opinion that the variance to permit a reduced patio setback
meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is minor and is appropriate for the
development and use of the land.
Staff is also supportive of the proposed reduction from 3.0 metres to 0.0 metres between the
patio and the property line. The purpose of the 3.0 metre setback is to provide for a separation
between public and private spaces and to allow for a landscape buffer. In the downtown, patios
have no minimum setback requirement and they are encouraged to be located adjacent to the
sidewalk and in many cases encroachments are granted to permit them to be located on the
public right-of-way. Given that the patio will help to improve the streetscape, that this is similar to
a downtown location and that the City is in principle supportive of an encroachment into the
Joseph Street right-of-way, staff is of the opinion that the requested variance meets the intent of
the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and is appropriate for the development and use of the lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 208 -
11. Submission No.: A 2017-082 (Cont’d)
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
July 29, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. S. Patterson noted he was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff
recommendation. He indicated the applicants have consulted with staff, noting 8 of the requested
are intended to legalize the existing building.
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. J. Meader
That the application of Finnco Developments Inc. requesting permission to renovate an
existing convenience-commercial building including the following variances to permit:
2
a building with a gross floor area of 344 m to have 2 parking spaces for any future
complement of uses, except for a Health Clinic use, whereas, as per section 6.1 of the
Zoning By-law, the most intensive yield is 22 spaces;
parking to be located 0 metres from a street line, whereas section 6.1.1.1 a) iv) of the
Zoning By-law requires a setback of 3.0 metres;
0 loading spaces, whereas section 6.2 of the Zoning By-law requires a 1 loading space;
a patio accessory to a restaurant not licensed under The Liquor Licence Act to have a
setback of 10.7 metres from a residentially or institutionally zoned property, whereas
section 5.6B.a of the Zoning By-law requires a setback of 30 metres;
a patio accessory to a restaurant not licensed under The Liquor Licence Act to have a
setback of 0.0 metres from any lot line abutting a street, whereas section 5.6B.b of the
Zoning By-law requires a setback of 3.0 metres;
the northeast corner of the existing building to encroach 0.23 metres into the Driveway
Visibility Triangle (DVT), whereas section 5.3 of the Zoning By-law permits no
obstruction;
the west corner of the existing building to encroach 0.26 metres into the Corner Visibility
Triangle (CVT), whereas section 5.3 of the Zoning By-law permits no obstruction;
a front yard setback of 0.06 metres for the existing building, whereas section 7.2 of the
Zoning By-law requires 3.0 metres;
an interior side yard setback of 1.1 metres for the existing building, whereas section 7.2
of the Zoning By-law requires 1.2 metres;
a rear yard setback of 0.0 metres for the existing building, whereas section 7.2 of the
Zoning By-law requires 7.5 metres;
a setback of 2.6 metres for a side yard abutting a street for the existing building,
whereas section 7.2 of the Zoning By-law requires 3.0 metres;
an architectural feature, in the form of an existing canopy/overhang to project 3.0
metres into the front yard setback, whereas section 5.6.3 of the Zoning By-law permits a
maximum projection of 0.6 metres; and,
steps within a required yard, provided that the maximum height above finished grade is
0.6 metres within 1.5 metres of a street line, whereas section 5.6.1 of the Zoning By-law
permits a maximum height of 0.6 metres within 3.0 metres of a street line;
on Part Lot 1, Plan 47, 119 Joseph Street/69 Water Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain Site Plan Approval to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager
of Site Development and Customer Service. Any required site development works shall
be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development and Customer
Service, by August 31, 2018. Any request for a time extension must be approved in
writing by the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service prior to the
completion date set out in this decision. Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this
approval becoming null and void.
2. That the owner shall obtain applicable building permits from the City’s Building Division.
3. That the owner shall obtain Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate(s) from the Planning
Division for each new use.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 209 -
11. Submission No.: A 2017-082 (Cont’d)
4. That the owner shall agree participate in the Region of Waterloo’s TravelWise program
for a minimum term of 4 years and shall provide confirmation of membership to the
satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning prior to making application for, or issuance
of, the first Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate.
5. That the owner shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the
projection of the architectural feature (overhang) into the Water Street right-of-way, to
the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, by February 28, 2018. All costs associated with the
encroachment agreement shall be the responsibility of the owner.
6. That the owner shall obtain a Heritage Permit prior to the application for, or issuance of,
a building permit.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
CONSENT APPLICATIONS:
1. Submission Nos.: B 2017-020 & B 2017-021
Applicant: Brian and Cheryl Pollock
Property Location: 11 Chicopee Park Court
Legal Description: Part Lot 49 and Lot 50, Registered Plan 959
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: A. Vassell
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever two parcels of land
and retain one parcel for residential development. Severed Lot 1 identified on the plan submitted
with the application will have a width of 9.666m, a depth of 35.956m and an area of 347.069
sq.m. Severed Lot 2 identified on the plan submitted with the application will have a width of
9.683m, a depth of 35.841 and an area of 345.841 sq.m. The retained land will have a width of
9.674m, a depth of 35.481m and an area of 344.158 sq.m.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated July 28, 2017, advising the
subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in both the City’s 2014 and 1994 Official
Plans and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) in Zoning By-law 85-1. The lands are currently
developed with an existing residential dwelling. The subject property measures 29.1 metres (95
feet) wide by 35.9 metres (118 feet) deep for an area of 1046.6 square metres (11,265.7 square
feet). The surrounding development of the neighbourhood consists of a mix of single and duplex
detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and low rise multiple dwellings. Lot sizes vary in
width and area as evidenced by the location map included with the application.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residential structure and requesting
permission to sever the subject lands with the intent to create two new residential lots and retain
one residential lot. The two severed lots would each have lot widths of 9.6 metres (31.5 feet), a
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 210 -
1. Submission Nos.: B 2017-020 & B 2017-021 (Cont’d)
depth of 35.9 metres (118 feet) and an area of 344.6 square metres (3709.6 square feet). The
retained lot would have a lot width of 9.6 metres (31.5 feet), depth of 35.9 metres (118 feet) and
an area of 344.6 square metres (3709.6 square feet).
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
Provincial Policy Statement and City’s Official Plan, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed
lots are appropriate and suitable for the proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an
established public street, serviced with municipal services and each parcel of land can be
serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. Also, the
resultant lots will be compatible in size with the lots in the surrounding area and also comply with
the minimum lot width and lot area regulations of the Residential Four (R-4) zone of the City’s
Zoning By-law 85-1.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated July 4, 2017, advising they have no objection to these applications.
The Chair acknowledge the applicant was not in attendance in support of the subject application,
noting the application should be deferred to the September 19, 2017 Committee of Adjustment
meeting. He indicated there someone in attendance this date in opposition to the subject
application, noting the Committee would be willing to hear the neighbour’s concerns this date
related to the subject application.
Mr. A. Vassell was in attendance in opposition to the subject application. He expressed concerns
with the following: the number of lots being proposed through the subject application and the
potential for future severances; the street width and vehicle maneuverability; increased driveway
accesses; challenges with on-street parking; and, the further ownership of the proposed
properties.
The Committee agreed to defer consideration of the subject application to its meeting scheduled
for September 19, 2017 to allow someone to be in attendance in support of the subject
application.
2. Submission No.: B 2017-022
Applicant: Zevest Development Corporation
Property Location: 1373-1381 Victoria Street North
Legal Description: Lot 1, Plan 939 and Part Lots 5-12, Registered Plan 947 8
Appearances:
In Support: H. Holbrook
D. Selimovic
Contra: None
Written Submissions: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
municipally addressed as 1381 Victoria Street North having a width on Victoria Street North of
77.7m, a depth of 72.8m and an area of 5,832.54 sq.m. The retained land, municipally addressed
as 1373 Victoria Street North will have a width on Victoria Street North of 248.4m, a depth of
75.7m and an area of 19,466.1 sq.m. Both properties will continue to be used as commercial.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated August 1, 2017, advising the
subject lands located at 1373 and 1381 Victoria Street North are designated Commercial in the
2014 Official Plan, and Arterial Commercial Corridor in the 1994 Official Plan, and are zoned
Arterial Commercial Zone (C-6) in Zoning By-law 85-1. Although the Commercial designation
policies in the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal, the Commercial designation includes similar
provisions as the Arterial Commercial Corridor designation in the 1994 Official Plan. Therefore,
both plans are being relied upon to determine whether the subject consent application conforms
to the Official Plan. The proposed severed lands currently contain a commercial plaza building,
and the proposed retained lands currently contain two commercial plaza buildings, with no new
development on either lot proposed at this time.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 211 -
2. Submission No.: B 2017-022 (Cont’d)
The lands were subject to two previous consent applications, one in 2001 to sever the two
parcels, and another in 2006 to establish an easement over 1373 in favour of 1381 Victoria Street
North for access and shared parking. However, the parcels have inadvertently merged in title as a
result of being under the same ownership. The owner is therefore proposing to sever the lands to
re-establish the previous lot line between 1373 and 1381 Victoria Street North in order to convey
the severed lot to separate ownership for mortgage purposes. The City’s Solicitor, in reviewing
the application, advised that the easement would likely have dissolved at the time of merging.
The severed parcel would have a lot width of 77.72 metres, a depth of 72.78 metres, and an area
of 0.58 hectares. The retained parcel would have a lot width of 248.42 metres, a depth of 75.70
metres, and an area of 1.95 hectares. Both parcels are intended for commercial use.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, staff is satisfied that the re-creation of the severed and retained lots is
desirable and appropriate. The dimensions and shape of the severed and retained lots are
appropriate and suitable for the existing buildings. The proposed consent conforms to the Official
Plan, and the lots conform to all applicable zoning regulations.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated July 7, 2017, advising they have no objection to this application.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) dated
August 2, 2017, advising although they have no objection to the subject application, they noted a
portion of the retained and severed lands contains the floodplain for Kolb Creek and the 15-metre
regulatory allowance adjacent to this feature. Consequently, a portion of the subject lands are
regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06.
Ms. H. Holbrook and Mr. D. Selimovic were in attendance in support of the subject application
Ms. Holbrook stated the applicant initially had questions regarding Condition 3 and the
requirement to implement a mutual access easement between the subject properties. She noted
following further discussions with staff, the applicant is in agreement with the staff
recommendation.
Moved by Ms. J. Meader
Seconded by Mr. B. McColl
That the application of Zevest Development Corporation requesting permission to sever a
parcel of land municipally addressed as 1381 Victoria Street North having a width on Victoria
Street North of 77.7m, a depth of 72.8m and an area of 5,832.54 sq.m., on Lot 1, Plan 939 and
Part Lots 5-12, Registered Plan 947, 1373-1381 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a tax certificate from the City of Kitchener to verify that there
are no outstanding taxes on the subject property(ies) to the satisfaction of the City’s
Revenue Division
2. That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as
two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted
according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of
the City’s Mapping Technologist.
3. That the owner shall sign an Undertaking, to the satisfaction of the City’s Solicitor, to
provide a mutual access easement between 1373 and 1381 Victoria Street North for
access and parking within 90 days of registering the Severance Deed.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 15, 2017 - 212 -
2. Submission No.: B 2017-022 (Cont’d)
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 15, 2019.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:19 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th day of August, 2017.
Dianna Saunderson
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment