HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-21
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 21, 2017
MEMBERS PRESENT:Messrs. D. Cybalskiand B. McColland Ms. P. Kohli.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:Ms. J. von Westerholt, Senior Planner;Mr. G. Stevenson, Planner, Mr. D.
Seller, Traffic & Parking Analyst; Ms. M. Drake, Senior Heritage & Policy
Planner,Ms. D. Saunderson, Secretary-Treasurer; and, Ms. H. Dyson,
Administrative Clerk.
Mr.D. Cybalski,Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:35a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Mr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms.P. Kohli
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held October 17, 2017,as
circulatedto the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE:
1.Submission No.:A 2017-100
Applicant:Margaret-Victoria Holdings Inc.
Property Location:64 Margaret Avenue & 217, 225 and 229 Victoria Street North
Legal Description:Part Lots 55, 85 to 88, 192 & 199, Plan 374, being Parts 1 & 3 on
Reference Plan 58R-2542
Appearances:
In Support:P. Chauvin
S. Litt
D. McIntosh
Contra:G. Kennery
A. Bender
A. Khan
H. Jaeger
L. New
R. Coleman
J. Ryrie
D. Kuehl
A. Wittich
S.Marsh
Written Submissions:V. Boyle
D. Papastergiou
H.Jaeger
L.New
R.Regier
L.Langwieder
A.& J.Wittich
D. Waltner-Toews
D. Kuehl
Neighbourhood Petition
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-280-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:A 2017-100(Cont’d)
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 17-unit 2.5-
story apartment building and a 94-unit 6-storey apartment building having a rear yard setback of
3m rather than the required 7.5m; to permit a maximum building height of 21.6m rather than the
permitted maximum building height of 16.5m; a setback of 10.5m abutting Margaret Avenue
rather than the required 15m; a southerly side yard setback of 10.7m rather than the required
15m; a northerly side yard setback of 2.4m rather than the required 3m; and, to provide 73 off-
street parking spaces (0.97 per/unit) rather than the required 75 off-street parking spaces (1
per/unit).
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated November 10, 2017,
advising Application A2017-100 is seeking minor variances for the future redevelopment of this
property with two multiple dwelling buildings, one 3-storey building with 17 units frontingonto
Margaret Avenue and one 6-storey building with 94 units fronting onto Victoria Street North.
Specifically, the following relief is being sought as part of this application:
•relief from Section 53.2.1 to permit a rear yard of 3.0 metres whereas a minimum of 7.5
metres is required;
•relief from Section 561 of Appendix D to permit a setback of 10.505m from Margaret
Avenue whereas a minimum of 15.0 metres is required, and a side yard setback of 2.44m
whereas 3.0m is required, and to permit a setback from 54 Margaret Ave of 10.7m
whereas 15.0m is required;
•relief from Section 561 and 562 of Appendix D to permit a building height of 21.6 metres
whereas 16.5 metres is permitted;and,
•relief from Section 6.1.2.a to permit 73 off-street parking spaces where as 75 spaces are
required.
Consideration of Application A2017-100 was deferred by the Committee of Adjustment on
October 17, 2017 to give Planning staff time to hold a public meeting to provide interested
residents with additional information on the minor variance application. Similarly, consideration of
the related Heritage Permit application was deferred on October 16, 2017 by Kitchener City
Council.
Planning staff held an informal information meeting regarding the proposed minor variance
application on October 26, 2017 which was attended by approximately 30 residents. Interested
residents have provided their input in writing and some have signed a petition.
Kitchener City Council ultimately approved the Kitchener Heritage Permit Application on
November 6, 2017. Council’s resolution on the Heritage Permit application was for approval with
conditions, but included language that noted approval of the subject Heritage Permit application
was not a comment on the proposed variance for building height.
Following the informal public information meeting and the Council meeting, the Developer has
prepared a revised development concept featuring the following notable changes:
•the building has been redesigned to sit lower in the ground, resulting in a lower building
height of 18.5 metres from highest finished grade;
•themain floor ceiling height has been reduced from 4.5 metres to 4.2 metres, resulting in a
lower exterior building height;
•as a result of the building being lower in the ground, a portion of the front terrace is now at
or near grade and the pedestrian ramp in the exterior side yard has been eliminated, the
number of stairs required along Victoria Street will be reduced and may be eliminated
altogether, which will be confirmed through the final grading plans;
•thelocation of the in-ground garage and recycling collection bins have been moved to the
interior of the site and out of the exterior landscape buffer;
•internal changes have been made to convert four of the smaller units to larger units, and
while the netamount of units has not changed, the larger units require a higher parking
requirement, resulting in the need for 3 additional parking spaces on-site, resulting in a
smaller landscape buffer in the southeast corner of the property;and,
•five additional parking spaces are provided within the surface parking lot and the
underground parking garage, resulting in one barrier-free space being located closer to
Margaret Avenue than the previous concept.
As a result, the applicant has revised their application as follows:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-281-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:A 2017-100(Cont’d)
•the request for relief from Section 6.1.2.a to permit a parking reduction has been
withdrawn; and,
•the request for relief from Section 561 and 562 of Appendix D to permit an increased
building height has been revised to 18.5 metres from 21.6 metres.
The subject properties are designated as Mixed Use Corridor and as Medium Density Multiple
Residential in the City’s Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (Official Plan).
The property is zoned Low Intensity Mixed Use Corridor Zone (MU-1) with Special Use Provision
167U, Special Regulation Provision 561R (64 Margaret Avenue only) and 562R (217, 225, & 229
Victoria Street North only). The MU-1 zone permits a variety of residential and non-residential
land uses, including multiple dwellings. Special Use Provision 167U provides additional
regulations for retail and personal services. Special Regulation 561R requires a minimum setback
from the property line shared with the properties municipally addressedas 54 and 30 Margaret
Avenue to be 15.0 metres, permits a maximum building height of 16.5 metres, requires a
minimum setback from the Margaret Avenue street line of 15.0 metres, and requires a minimum
side yard setback of 3.0 metres. Special Regulation 562R permits a maximum building height of
16.5 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 offers the following comments:
The requested variances meet the general intent of the Civic Centre Secondary Plan and the
City’s Official Plan.
Portions of the new Official Plan for the City of Kitchener are under appeal. The Civic Centre
Secondary Plan is in effect and was not reviewed as part of the new Official Plan. The City will be
commencing a secondary plan review in 2018. Policy 13.1.1.3 of the Civic Centre Secondary
Plan references Parts 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the old Official Plan. These sections were updated or
replaced by sections of the new Official Plan, which were considered as part of the analysis of the
application.
Mixed Use Corridors are linear in form and recognize the evolution of uses along major corridors
in the inner City. These corridors are primarily intended to serve the adjacent residential
neighbourhoods and employment areas and allow for intensive, transit-supportive development.
Mixed Use Corridors provide residential redevelopment opportunities together with appropriate
commercial and institutional uses that primarily serveadjacent residential neighbourhoods. Over
time it is intended that the Mixed Use Corridors shall intensify and provide a balanced distribution
of commercial, multiple residential and institutional uses. New development may be required to
orient a portion of the building mass to the street, provide for integration of cycling facilities,
provide on-site pedestrian facilities, and provide pedestrian connections to abutting developments
or offsite transit facilities. To achieve this objective, the City of Kitchener may also impose
maximum front yard setbacks, limit vehicular parking between the building façade and the street,
and will require specific façade treatments such as window or door openings and minimization of
blank walls. New development shall be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods
and will be of an appropriate height and density in relation to adjacent low rise residential
development. In locations that immediately abut low rise residential land uses, new development
shall be permitted having a minimum Floor Space Ratio of 0.6 and a maximum Floor Space Ratio
of 2.0.
The planned function of lands designated as Medium Density Multiple Residential is to permit
some integrated, medium density redevelopment on Margaret Avenue and QueenStreet North
while maintaining the overall residential character of the neighbourhood. Opportunities for
redevelopment are provided up to a maximum density of 200 units per hectare. Permitted uses
include multiple dwellings. The maximum Floor Space Ratio shall be 2.0. Multiple dwellings may
be permitted to exceed 200 units per hectare on an individual lot provided the floor space ratio of
2.0 is not exceeded. The provision of underground parking will be encouraged in any
redevelopment, and will be a requirement of apartment redevelopment. Redevelopment close to,
or at, the upper permitted maximum density shall provide the majority, if not all of the required
parking underground except for required visitor surface parking. With respect to the Medium
DensityMultiple Residential designation applied to the north side of Margaret Avenue,
redevelopment should be of a height, siting and design which will prevent it from encroaching on
lower density dwellings located on Ellen and Ahrens Streets.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-282-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:A 2017-100(Cont’d)
Where minor variancesare requested to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of
lands, Housing Policies in the new Official Plan require:the overall impact of the minor variances
be reviewed to ensure that any new buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are
compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood;
new buildings are sensitive tothe exterior areas of adjacent properties;appropriate screening
and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy;
the lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent
properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate
landscaped/amenity area on the site;and,the impact of each special zoning regulation or
variance will be reviewed prior to formulating a recommendation to ensure that a deficiency in the
one zoning requirement does not compromise the site in achieving objectives of compatible and
appropriate site and neighbourhood design and does not create further zoning deficiencies. The
Official Plan also requires that residential intensification within existing neighbourhoods will be
designed to respect existing character. A high degree of sensitivity to surrounding context is
important in considering compatibility.
The massing of the larger building has been shifted away from the adjacent low density lands and
towards Victoria Street North within the Victoria Street Mixed Use Corridor, which is a planned
intensification corridor as part of the Urban Structure of the Official Plan, and outside of the Civic
Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (HCD). As shown on the plan provided in
the staff report, the red portion (striped) of the property is within the HCD and the yellow portion
(hatched) is outside of the HCD.
The building along Victoria Street will feature:large window and door openings resulting in a
more pleasant building appearance at the pedestrian level;a main floor with interior ceiling
heights of 4.2 metres which would allow for future non-residential uses fronting Victoria Street;a
shared terrace patio space which will be buffered from Victoria Street with a landscape planting
strip;and,a main pedestrian entry to Victoria Street.
The City’s Site Plan Review Committee directed the Developer to locate the majority of the
massing on the site towards Victoria Street, resulting in a shorter and smaller compatible building
on the portion of the land within the HCD. This reorientation of massing results in a total built form
with a FSR of 1.97, which is less than the permitted maximum of 2.0.
Screening and buffering will be provided on all sides of the building with landscaping, in
accordance with the City’s Urban Design Manual.
The design of the building has been supported with a Heritage Impact Assessment, which was
supported by the Heritage Kitchener advisory committee, and ultimately Kitchener City Council
with the approval of the Heritage Kitchener Permit Application. As a condition of approval,
Planning staff will review samples of the proposed building materials to ensure quality and
compatibility.
The City is undertaking planning processes and studies in areas that are within walking distance
to ION/LRT station stops, known as the Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS) project.
This work includes looking at appropriate land uses, streetscapes and infrastructure requirements
to ensure the areas where stations are placed are well prepared and properly equipped. The
lands are within the plan boundary of the PARTS Central Plan which was approved on May 16,
2016 by Kitchener City Council. The lands are shown with a recommended new land use
designation of Medium Density Mixed Use, which would allow for development with a maximum
Floor Space Ratio of 2.0 and a maximum building height of 24.0 metres. This direction will be
refined and implemented through future updates to the City’s Official Plan, Secondary Plans, as
well as the Zoning By-law.
The proposed development provides amix of residential housing types and styles to the existing
community. The City encourages different housing options to be dispersed both across the City
as a whole and within neighbourhoods. This development provides an opportunity for residential
intensification in an appropriate location which is along a Regional Road (Victoria Street) and
underutilizes a vacant parcel of land which is located along the edge of an existing community. It
is Planning staff’s opinion that the general intent of the OfficialPlan is maintained.
The requested variances meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-283-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:A 2017-100(Cont’d)
The requested rear yard setback of 3.0 metres, whereas a minimum of 7.5 metres is required, is
due to the orientation of the consolidated parcel. Where a lot has multiple street frontages, the
shortest lot line abutting a street is identified as the front yard, and the opposite is the rear yard.
In this case, the rear yard functions as a side yard, and the side yard (adjacent to 54 and 30
Margaret Avenue) functions as the rear yard. If the properties were not consolidated, the current
MU-1 zoning would not require any side yard setback between the larger building and 55 Ellen
Street West & 57-61 Ellen Street West/231 Victoria Street North.
Relief is also requested to permit:a setback of 10.50 m from Margaret Avenue whereas a
minimum of 15.0 metres is required;a side yard setback of 2.44 m whereas 3.0m is required;
and,to permit a setback from 54 Margaret Ave of 10.7m whereas 15.0m is required, all for the
smaller building. A 13.0 metre setback from Margaret Avenue is proposed, with only the corner of
the proposed building within 10.505 metres of Margaret Avenue. This setback will still achieve the
objective of having an increased setback so that new development is in line with existing and
proposed residential uses along this side of Margaret Avenue. A side yard setback of 2.44 metres
from 70 Margaret Avenue is sufficient for the three storey building and is comparable to the
existing side yard setbacks of 70 and 74 Margaret Avenue. A reduced setback from 54 Margaret
Avenue is also requested for only the corner of the smaller building, where the closest point is
10.74 metres. Due to the lot configuration, the majority of the proposed building is setback
beyond the 15.0 metres requirement.
Relief for is also requested to permit a building height of 18.5 metres whereas 16.5 metres is
permitted. At the time that the MU-1 zone was applied to the properties along Victoria Street,
Planning Staff recommended the 15.0 metre “build-to” line along the edge of the Civic Centre
Heritage Conservation District and from existing laneways, coupled with the proposed building
height of 16.5 metres, to maintain approximately a 45° angular plane from abutting low rise
residential properties, meaning that the height of any portion of the new building shouldn’t be
greater than its distance from the property line. While not specific to this application or the subject
properties, Section 6.9 of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (HCD)
Plan does provides direction on site design where a proposed new six storey building within the
HCD is adjacent to existing low rise residential building. The Plan directs new development to
have an angular plane of 45° from the shared property line. Planning staff applied this same
principle to the taller building, relative to the closest residential dwelling which is designated as
Low Rise Residential Preservation in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Plan for Land Use. With a
proposed building height of 19.73 metres (at lowest finished grade), which is 24.53 metres from
the shared property line, the resulting angular plane is approximately 39°. The taller building is
also approximately 23 metres from the existing building at 54 Margaret Avenue.
For multiple dwellings, the maximum building height is measured from the highest finished grade.
The Zoning By-law permits an increase in building height from the lowest finished grade, which is
a maximum of 110% of the maximum building height of the applicable zone. In this case, the
maximum permitted building height is 16.5 metres from the highest finished grade and 18.15
metres (110%) from the lowest finished grade. The proposed building hasa building height of
18.5 metres at the highest grade and 19.73 metres measured at the lowest grade. The total
requested increase in building height is 2.0 metres from highest finished grade and 1.58 metres
from lowest finished grade.
Off-street parking is provided in accordance with the Zoning By-law. However, the site is identified
as a Major Transit Station Area on the City’s Urban Structure Map and Mixed-use Corridors are
planned to be transit supportive and pedestrian orientated. Victoria Street is an existing transit
corridor and is within walking distance to planned rapid transit stations. The proposed visitor
parking is being provided at a rate of 20%, which meets the Zoning By-law requirement. Bicycle
parking will be provided in accordance with the Zoning By-law.
It is Planning staff’s opinion that the general intent of the Zoning By-law is met with these
requested variances.
The requested variances are minor.
The zoning deficiencies can be adequately addressed through the placement and orientation of
the buildings, good building design and materials, site layout, and enhanced landscaping and
buffering. There is separation between the proposed building and the surrounding properties and
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-284-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:A 2017-100(Cont’d)
the design features adequate on-site amenity and landscape buffers. The mass of the buildings
has been arranged to meet the intent of the design objectives for this property. Therefore,the
variances are considered as minor.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land.
The requested variances will allow for the development of the property with a new residential use
that is complementary to the surrounding community. The Developer has revised the proposal
following the informal public meeting and the Council meeting and has incorporated many of the
suggestions. While there are five remaining variances requested, Planning staff consider the
overall nature and the impact of the variances, and not the number of variances, when making
recommendations to the Committee of Adjustment. It is the opinion of Planning staff that the
variances are appropriate.
Heritage Comments:
Heritage Planning staff have no concerns with the proposed minor variances.
A portion of the subject property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage
Conservation District (CCNHCD) with the remainder of the lands being located adjacent to the
CCNHCD. The portion located within the CCNHCD is designated under Part V of the Ontario
Heritage Act and subject to the policies and guidelines of the CCNHCD Plan.
A final Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was prepared by MHBC dated August 2017 and
submitted in relation to Site Plan application SP17/022/M/GS. The HIA concluded that the 6-
storey building will not adversely impact the character of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood
Heritage Conservation District and that the 2.5 storey building conforms to the policies for new
construction within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan. Specific
to the front yard setback, the HIA indicates that the proposed new building with a 13 metre
setback from Margaret Avenue:
•is appropriately setback from the street at a distance which will not result in the obstruction
of views;
•will not be out of character, and is consistent with the immediate neighbourhood and
meets the guidelines of the CCNHCD Plan;
•is complementary to the maximum setback of 10 metres on vacant lands to the east along
Margaret Avenue; and,
•the setback is within 2.0 metres of the front yard setback of the former Breithaupt
residence (now demolished), which conforms to the CCNHCD Plan.
The HIA was presented for comment at the April 4, 2017 Heritage Kitchener Committee meeting.
Members raised concerns with the minimum setback to parking and the total amount of parking
provided. The site plan has been revised to further setback the surface parking (behind the
footprint of where the original historic building once stood) and provides landscaping to screen the
parking from the sidewalk and street.
Recommendations of the HIA will be implemented through Site Plan Approval in Principle
conditions along with Heritage Permit conditions. The HIA was approved by the Director of
Planning on September 19, 2017.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
October 3, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
The Committee considered the written submissions on behalf of the neighbouring property
owners, as well as a petition in opposition to the subject application.
The Chair requested clarification on the Heritage comments outlined in the staff report and any
applicable conditions that may be imposed as part of the Site Plan approval process. Ms. M.
Drake advised the two conditions that were imposed as part of the Heritage Permit Approval
process were to ensure the development is consistent with the drawings submitted with the
application, and that Heritage Planning staff would have the opportunity to review the selected
building materials prior to issuance of a building permit.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-285-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:A 2017-100(Cont’d)
The Chair noted, as outlined in the staff report, the applicant has amended the subject application
to decrease the height of the proposed development and has eliminated the need for a variance
related to parking. He stated the Committee may only consider the variances as requested in the
subject application and any concerns outside of what is outlined in the application could not be
considered by the Committee.
Messrs. P. Chauvin, S. Litt and D. McIntosh were in attendance in support of the subject
application and staff recommendation. Mr. Chauvin provided a brief overview of the subject
application, noting since the October 17, 2017 Committee of Adjustment meeting, the proposed
development was considered at Council and received approval of a Heritage Permit Application
(HPA). He indicated at that meeting, as well as at an additional meeting held with the
neighbouring property owners, there was considerable feedback in opposition to the proposed
height of 21.3m. He stated the applicant has taken those comments into consideration and has
amended the application to decrease the height. Mr. Chauvin circulated elevation drawings of the
revised developmentproposal, noting the proposal is consistent and conforms with the Official
Plan and the Zoning By-law. He further advised the Planning Around Rapid Transit Study
(PARTS) –Central plan for the area has been received and approved by Council and although
the Zoning outlinedwithin the Plan has not yet been implemented, the property was identified to
have a building height of 24m within that Plan. Mr. Chauvin noted the proposed development will
still require Site Plan Approval to discuss further items, including but not limited to, landscaping,
building materials, etc. In addition, he stated the applicant is also agreeable to installing a 1.65m
fence between the subject property and the properties fronting onto Ellen Street West.Finally, he
noted one other concern raised by the residents was related to garbage receptacles, adding they
were relocated to address those concerns. Mr. Chauvin indicated the applicant has made some
significant changes to the design,as well as providingdialogue with the neighbouring property
owners,to address concerns where possible. He advised he is in support of the staff
recommendation and the rationale outlined in the staff report.
Mr. J. Ryrie addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application. He indicated he
lives on Pequegnat Avenue, located in the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation
District. He stated in his opinion, if the proposed development is approved for the subject property
it will set a precedence for development within the District due to its proximity. He indicated he
has three major concerns with the staff report and the Planning department rationale when
recommending approval of the subject application. He indicated his concerns are related to the
actual size and massing of the proposed development. He commented that the proposed 6-
storey building is adjacent to single detached dwellings and will have a large impact on those
properties due to the proposed heights and setbacks. He indicated the Civic Centre
Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District and Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan
does not support the proposed setbacks or building height. He expressed concerns with the
comment in the staff report, noting the application is in general keeping within the intent of the
Zoning By-law, statingregulations exist withinother laws that must be adhered to. He questioned
how an application of this nature could be generally within the intent of the By-law. Mr. Ryrie
stated his final concern was regarding the over-intensification of the lot. He indicated the parcel
itself isquite large and could accommodate a substantial building that could be constructed within
compliance of all regulations, mentioning the Civic Centre Neighbourhood HeritageConservation
District and the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan, as well asthe Residential
Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS). He encouraged the Committee to
refuse the subject application and requested the applicant to construct a development within the
By-laws currently in force and effect.
In response to questions, Mr. P. Chauvin advised that in consultation with City staff, the height of
the building was increased to accommodate potential future retail uses on the main floor of the 6-
storey building fronting onto Victoria Street North. Mr. G. Stevenson advised staff has identified a
possible commercial transition over time. He noted having a commercial use on the first floor of
the proposed structure may not be immediately viable; however, as the mixed-use corridor
continues to evolve there may be a future opportunity to convert the main floor residential units to
retail. He further advised any change of that nature would be subject to Site Plan approval and
matters such as adequate parking and landscaping would be reviewed for compliance at that
time.
Mr. H. Jaeger addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application and the staff
recommendation. He circulated an excerpt from the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage District
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-286-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:A 2017-100(Cont’d)
Plan demonstrating architectural design guidelines with respects to height of proposed structures
within the District, as well as a map speaking to property consolidations in relation to access. He
indicated in his opinion, the subject application contravenes the Civic Centre Neighbourhood
Secondary Plan in a number of areas, including but not limited to,the building height and the
proposed access on Margaret Avenue. He stated approval of the subject application will be an
expropriationof the property owner’s rights who areadjacent to the proposed development, as
the height of the proposed development would decrease enjoyment of their properties. He
indicated in his opinion, the proposed height of the structure does not meet the intent of the
Zoning By-law. He noted he is in support of intensification but only within the limits of the By-laws.
He requested the Committee to refuse the subject application as it would have adverse impacts
on the neighbouring property owners and does not conform within the existing regulations.
Mr. Chauvin noted a number of comments have been raised regarding the Civic Centre
Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. He indicated those policies do not apply to this
property as it is adjacent to the District. He noted the only portion of the property located within
the District is the 2-storey building fronting onto Margaret Avenue. He further advised staff have
applied all of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District principles to the
entire site, and the applicant retained their own Heritage Planner who completed a Heritage
Impact Assessment (HIA), which is in support of the proposed development. He indicated the
concerns raised regarding the reduction in the rear yard setback from 7.5m to 3m is technical in
nature. He stated the setback for the purpose of the Zoning By-law is identified as a rear yard, but
in actuality it is a side yard setback for the building fronting onto Victoria Street North. He further
advised the Victoria Street North Corridor is Zoned Mixed-Use with a direction to increase
massing and intensification along that corridor. He indicated in his opinion, the application is an
attempt to achieve the guidelines of the Mixed-Use Zone.
Ms. A. Wittich addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application. She noted a
portion of the property is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation
District and in her opinion, the applicant is attempting to capitalize on a property with an address
fronting on to Margaret Avenue rather than a municipal address fronting onto Victoria Street North
due to the exclusivity of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District. She
indicated the development is pushing the boundaries of the By-law and in her opinion, could set a
precedence for future development within the Heritage District.
The Chair stated he has been a member of this Committee for a number of years and assured
those in opposition this date that each application before the Committee is considered on its on
merit, adding that it would not set a precedence for future approvals.
Ms. D. Kuehl requested clarification on the main floor residential conversion to commercial use.
She noted in her opinion, the success of a commercial space on the first floor of the proposed
development would struggle to succeed as it would be dependent on foot traffic due to being
located on a busy street. In addition, she stated she is in opposition to the height of the proposed
development, noting in her opinion it would adversely impact theneighbouring property owner’s
enjoyment of their amenity space.
Mr. Chauvin noted for clarification, the residential units on the first floor of the proposed
development would each have access to their own units from the exterior of the building to allow
a commercial conversion in the future if desired.
Mr. A. Khan addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application. He noted he owns
the properties municipally addressed as 57-61 Ellen Street West and 231 Victoria Street North,
directly adjacent to the proposed development. He stated he is opposed to the proposed height of
the 6-storey building.
The Chair noted he had one concern specifically related to the setback proposed for the rear yard
of the subject property adjacent to the propertiesfronting onto Ellen Street West. He questioned if
a Shadow Study had been completed to address the impacts from the proposed building on
those properties. Mr. Stevenson advised a Shadow Study was completed as part of the HIA,
which was calculated on the basis that the building was 21.3m in height. He indicated the
properties were reviewed as lots intended for comprehensive redevelopment, and in that case the
Shadow Study identified the impacts to be acceptable.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-287-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:A 2017-100(Cont’d)
Mr. Stevenson stated although the subject property is located within the RIENS study area, it is
not subject to the findings of that Study. He indicated the Study focused on properties that are
currently zonedlow-rise residential and the subject property has already been identified for higher
intensification. He indicated the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Secondary Plan notes that Margaret
Avenue is a major arterial road so access to the subject property from that street is acceptable.
He further advised the property address was assigned by the City’s Addressing Analyst and is in
compliance with the City’s Emergency Services Policy. Finally, the building setback is fair in
comparison to the height of the structure.
Ms. J. von Westerholt advised that a number of Planning documents were referenced this date.
She indicated the PARTS Central Plan has gone to Council and been endorsed. She noted that
Plan identified changes will be required for a number of Secondary Plans within the Central
neighbourhoods to implement the Parts Central Plan recommendations. In addition, changes to
Zoning will be required to assist with guiding future development within the Central
neighbourhoods including the Civic Centre Neighbourhood; however, that has not yet occurred.
Mr. B. McColl stated he had some concerns with the subject application, noting it appeared from
the presentation this date that minor variances were always intended when considering a
proposed design for this development. He indicated one item that needs to be taken into
consideration when submitting a Committee of Adjustment application is compatibility with the
surrounding area, and with the number of people who have expressed opposition, he is of the
opinion that the scale and massing of the proposed developmentare not compatible. He further
advised he was unable to support the recommendation, adding in his opinion the building height
is too significant.
Ms. P. Kohli noted the subject property is Zoned MU and is intended for higher density. She
indicated she was inclined to support the application, noting the requested height variance was
only 3m.
The Chair noted he was also in support of the majority of the application. He stated his only
objection to the application was the rear yard setback from 7.5m to 3m adjacent to the single
detached dwellings on Ellen Street West. He stated in his opinion, those properties would likely
be most affected by shadows more often than not. He indicated he would have been more
inclined to support a greater building height in the centre of the proposed building facing Victoria
Street North, if it kept the easterly height of the building lower to eliminate the shadow effect on
the properties fronting ontoEllen Street West.
Mr. S. Litt stated in his opinion, the proposed development has been designed with a long-term
vision of the City in mind, noting a decrease in height would eliminate the future possibility of
converting the residential units on the first floor to a commercial use. He indicated he could
reduce the height of thebuilding but all future commercial opportunities would be lost.
In response to the comments raised by the Chair regarding the Shadow Study, Mr. Chauvin
advised the properties fronting ontoEllen Street West would be in the sun for three identified
periods of the day. Mr. Stevenson circulated a copy of the Shadow Study to the Committee,
noting the winter months were also considered when reviewing the shadow impacts on the
adjacent properties.
Ms. P. Kohli brought forward a motion to approve the application as outlined in the staff
recommendation, save and except for the rear yard setback from 7.5m to 3m, which was
seconded by Mr. B. McColl.
Ms. Kohli’s motion was then voted and Carried, with Mr. D. Cybalski and Ms. P. Kohli voting in
favour; and, Mr. B. McColl voting in opposition.
Moved byMs. P. Kohli
Seconded byMr. B. McColl
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-288-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:A 2017-100(Cont’d)
That the application of Margaret-Victoria Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct two
multiple dwellings, one 3-storey building with 17 units fronting onto Margaret Avenue and one
6-storey building with 94 units fronting onto Victoria Street Northhaving a rear yard setback of
3m rather than the required 7.5m, on Part Lots 55, 85 to 88, 192 & 199, Plan 374, being Parts
1 & 3 on Reference Plan 58R-2542, 64 Margaret Avenue & 217, 225 and 229 Victoria Street
North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED.
Itis the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is not minor and there may be adverse
impacts on the neighbouring properties fronting onto Ellen Street West from shadowing.
2.This application is not desirable for theappropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is not being maintained on the subject property.
-and-
That the application of Margaret-Victoria Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct two
multiple dwellings, one 3-storey building with 17 units fronting onto Margaret Avenue and one
6-storey building with 94 units fronting onto Victoria Street North having a setback of 10.5m
from Margaret Avenue rather than therequired 15m; a northerly side yard setback of 2.44m
whereas 3.0m is required; a southerly side yard setback for 54 Margaret Avenue of 10.7m
rather than the required 15m is required; and, to permit a building height of 18.5m rather than
the permitted maximum height of 16.5m, on Part Lots 55, 85 to 88, 192 & 199, Plan 374, being
Parts 1 & 3 on Reference Plan 58R-2542, 64 Margaret Avenue & 217, 225 and 229 Victoria
Street North, 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 thesubject 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
This meeting recessed at 10:40a.m. and reconvened at 10:44a.m. with all members present, Chaired
by Mr. D. Cybalski.
NEW BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE:
1.Submission No.:A2017-104
Applicant:Monica and Christian Racz
Property Location:317 Greenbrook Drive
Legal Description:Lot 2, Registered Plan 1137
Appearances:
In Support:M. Racz
Contra:None
Written Submissions:None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-289-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:A 2017-104(Cont’d)
The Committee was advised the applicants arerequesting permission to convert an existing
carport into a garage located in the northerly side yard of a single detached dwelling having a
sideyard setback of 0.6m rather than the required 1.2m.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated November 14, 2017,
advising the subject property is zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3), and designated Low Rise
Residential in the Official Plan.
The applicant is requesting permission to enclose an existing carport to convert it to a garage.
The applicant is requesting relief from Section 37.2.1 of the Zoning By-law to allow for a side yard
setback of 0.6 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres.
The requested variance meets the intent of the Official Plan. The Official Plan favours the mixing
and integration of different forms of housing to achieve a low overall intensity of use. The
proposed garage conversion maintains this intent.
The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 1.2 metre side
yard setback is to ensure that there is a sufficient distance from adjacent properties so that they
do not negatively impact neighbours, and to provide adequate access to the rear yard. The
proposed side yard of 0.6 metres represents an existing condition-the applicants are not
intending to move the existing structure any closer to the side lot line. The proposed garage
conversion will not compromise access to the rear yard. The proposed variance therefore meets
the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The proposed variance is considered appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The
location of the carport/proposed garage is remaining the same as it was when the dwelling was
constructed, and many properties in the surrounding neighbourhood possess similar conditions.
The variance is considered minor as the requested proposal represents a setback that is an
existing condition and is a minor reduction in side yardsetback.
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
November 10, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Ms.M. Raczwas in attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation.
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded byMs. P. Kohli
That the application of Christian & Monica Racz requesting permission to convert an existing
carport into a garage located in the northerly side yard of a single detached dwelling having a
side yardsetback of 0.6m rather than the required 1.2m, on Lot 2, Registered Plan 1137, 317
Greenbrook Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1.That the owner shall obtain a building permit for the garage conversion by June 30th,
2018.
Itis 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-Lawand Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-290-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:A 2017-104(Cont’d)
Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
2.Submission No.:A 2017-105
Applicant:2259907 Ontario Inc.
Property Location:2399 Kingsway Drive
Legal Description:Part Lots 141, 142, 153 & 154, Registered Plan 254, being
Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-5217
Appearances:
In Support:E. Reiber
Contra:None
Written Submissions:None
The Committee was advised the applicants arerequesting permission to establish a Retail Use in
a C-6 Zone whereas the By-law does not permit a Retail Use within this Zone.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated November 14, 2017,
advising the subject property is zoned Arterial Commercial Zone (C-6), designated Commercial in
the 2014 Official Plan, and Arterial Commercial Corridor in the 1994 Official Plan.
The applicant is requesting permission to add Retailas a permitted use in order to open an adult
retail store. The applicant is requesting relief from Section 12.1 of the Zoning By-law in order to
allow this use.
The subject property is designated Commercial in the current Official Plan (2014), and Arterial
Commercial Corridor in the previous Official Plan (1994). The policies for Commercial land use
designations in the 2014 Official Plan are under appeal. As a result, staff will be relying on the
Arterial Commercial Corridor policies in the 1994 OfficialPlan to determine conformity. The 1994
Official Plan describes permitted uses within the Arterial Commercial Corridor land designation as
“providing a specialized product or service to persons coming specifically to the premises to do
business”. The applicant is proposing to open an adult retail store, which would align with this
policy in the 1994 Official Plan. The 2014 Official Plan contains policies in the implementation
section which are in effect that allow the Committee of Adjustment to grant changeof use minor
variances when the use is considered to be similar, more compatible, and ensuring that the use
does not cause an increase of nuisance factors such as noise and odors. Staff is of the opinion
that the proposed use is similar, compatible, and will not cause an increase in the aforementioned
nuisance factors. Therefore, the proposed variance meets the intent of the Official Plan.
The proposed variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of omitting general retail
as a permitted use from the C-6 zone is to reserve land for specific retail uses such as the sale of
furniture, sporting goods or pet supplies. Although it is not specifically listed under permitted uses,
staff believes that an adult store represents a specific type of retail that is appropriate for the C-6
Zone. The auto-centric nature of the C-6 zone is designed to support retail stores in which
customers typically make specific trips to visit. In the opinion of staff the proposed store aligns
with the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The proposed variance is considered appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The
subject property is operating as acommercial plaza and possesses a large parking lot. Staff does
not believe it will have an adverse effect on the surrounding neighbourhood.
The variance is considered minor as staff is of the opinion of staff that the addition of retail as a
permitted use will not disrupt the way in which the commercial plaza is currently operating. The
potential impacts of the proposed retail business operating in in the plaza are also considered to
be minor.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-291-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
2.Submission No.:A 2017-105(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
November 10, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. E. Reiberwasin attendance in support of the subject application and staff recommendation.
In response to questions, Ms. J. von Westerholt advised staff have no objections to giving a
blanket approval to permit a retail use for the subject property. She indicated this site is currently
Zoned more for automotive uses; however,through the Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By-
law (CRoZBY),retail uses are being considered.
Moved byMs. P. Kohli
Seconded byMr. B. McColl
That the application of 2259907 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to establish a Retail Use in
a C-6 Zone whereas the By-law does not permit a Retail Use within this Zone, on Part Lots
141, 142, 153 & 154, Registered Plan 254, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-5217, 2399
Kingsway Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1.That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the Planning
Division.
2.That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the Building Division for the proposed
interior renovations and change of use.
3.That the owner shall ensure Conditions 1 and 2 are completed prior to June 30th, 2018.
Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of
DevelopmentReview (or designate), prior to the completion date set out in this decision.
Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The 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 2017-106
Applicant:Omawattie & Roopnarine Angad
Property Location:31 Cherry Street
Legal Description:Part Lot 408, Registered Plan 375
Appearances:
In Support:A. Galloway
Contra:D. Schuiling
M. Partridge
L. Klaehn
F. Bleskie
P. Dahl
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-292-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:A 2017-106(Cont’d)
Written Submissions:Neighbourhood Petition
The Committee was advised the applicants arerequesting permission to legalize an existing 4-
plex in anR-5 Zone, whereas the By-law does not permit a 4-plex within an R-5 Zone.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated November 14, 2017,
advising the subject property is located on the east side of Cherry Street between Walnut Street
and Strange Street. It is zoned Residential Five (R-5) in Zoning By-law 85-1 and designated Low
Rise Residential in the Official Plan. The applicant is proposing to legalize an existing four-plex.
In 2002, the previous owner obtained minor variance approval to construct a new triplex building
on a lot with reduced frontage of 10 metres rather than the required 15 metres. The variance
decision was approved but appealed and subsequently was approved with conditions by the
Ontario Municipal Board(OMB). The OMB decision (File No. V020354) was conditional on items
such as: provision of privacy fencing;planting of coniferous trees as part of a Landscape Plan;
implementation of a Tree Management Plan;installation of raised concrete curbing along the
driveway;and,preparation of a Lot Grading Plan. At this time staff cannot confirm if all the
conditions have been met as the Site Plan application SP 02/16/C/BS has become inactive. The
proposed change of use to the site will require a complete review of the OMB conditions and Site
Plan approval to ensure compliance.
The current owners have owned the property since approximately 2003. It appears that the fourth
unit would have been added sometime after the building permit completion date for the triplex
use,which was November 2004. The current owners are seeking to legalize the fourth unit.
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 1994 Official Plan and
2014 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 and Part 2, Section
1.6 from the 1994 Official Plan is being reviewed for compliance. The proposed variance meets
the intent of the designation, which encourages a full range of housing types to achieve a low
density neighbourhood. The requested variance to permit four units rather than three units is
appropriate for the area and continues to maintain the low density character of the property and
surrounding neighbourhood.
As well, the proposed variance meets Part 2, Section 1.6 ‘Planning Approval Review’ section of
the Official Plan as a site plan is required to demonstrate that the overall development will have
appropriate landscaping, screening and/or buffering to address the privacy of adjacent residential
development. It is noted that the proposed variance can provide an appropriate number of
parking spaces, landscaping and amenity area which all meet the intent of Section 1.6.
Therefore, as the proposed variance conforms to both the Low Rise Residential designation and
Part 2, Section 1.6 of the 1994 Official Plan, it is the opinion of staff that the variance meets the
general intent of the Official Plan.
The requested variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law and can be considered
minor for the following reasons. The existing building was originally constructed in 2003 as a
triplex and accessory storage room. At some time in the past the storage room was converted to
the fourth dwelling unit. This year, through consultation between staff from different divisions
regarding addressing, it was discovered that a fourth unit existed that was not legally created.
The discovery of the fourth unit was as a result of staff review. No previous complaints regarding
this additional unit had been received to date.
Since this discovery, staff has reviewed the proposed rearrangement of the parking spaces and
four legal parking spaces can be accommodated. The spaces have been reviewed by the City’s
Transportation Planning staff and they have no concerns. The rearrangement of the parking area
will require the installation of approximately 3.6 sq.m. of additional pavement. It is noted that City
requirements regarding grading and drainage will be reviewed for compliance through Site Plan
approval as well as appropriate conditions of the variance.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-293-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:A 2017-106(Cont’d)
An outdoor amenity area in the rear yard will continue to be provided for the residents of the
building. Any concerns that were raised in the past regarding privacy to neighbours and lot
grading will be addressed by the implementation and/or maintenance of conditions required by
the OMB decision which will be incorporated into a current Site Plan application. These
requirements will form part of a Section 41 agreement and will be enforced if not implemented.
The variance is appropriate for the development and useof the land. These lands are not
affected by the recent triplex study which would have placed a restriction of the number of
multiples. The site currently contains a 4-plex and based on the comments in this report and as a
result of any outstanding conditions from 2002 being implemented,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
November 10, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. A. Gallowaywas in attendance in support of the subject application and staff
recommendation.In response to questions he advised the fourth unit was previously a storage
unit that was converted. He indicated the applicant is now applyingto legalize its existing
condition. He further advised there are no additional variances required as remainder of the
property is in full compliance.
Ms. J. von Westerholtprovided some background on the subject property, noting a Committee of
Adjustment application was submitted in 2002 for the subject property. She indicated it was
appealed and approved at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) with a number of conditions being
imposed. She noted since that time the property was sold and at some time between that
application and this date a fourth unit was added within the dwelling. She indicated staff have
made a recommendation to approve the application with a number of conditions, some of which
were imposed by the OMB that were never implemented. She further advised the subject
property is also be subject to Site Plan approval due to the number of units in the dwelling.In
response to questions, she noted she cannot confirm whether Development Charges would be
required through thebuilding permitprocess.
Ms. L.Klaehnaddressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application.She noted she
spoke in opposition at the Committee of Adjustment meeting in 2002 regarding the number of
single detached dwellings being convertedto higher density residential dwellings. She indicated
her biggest concern this date is approving an application where the property owner has already
converted the property without the City’s permission prior to the conversion,statingin her opinion
it is rewarding bad behaviour.
Mr. Murray, Ms. F. BleskieandMs. D.Schuilingaddressed the Committee in opposition to the
subject application. They expressed concerns with items such as: increased density on the
subject property;increased rental units within the area; parking congestion on Cherry Street;
stable residents within the community; and, increasedpolice enforcement required within the
neighbourhood.
Mr. B. McColl noted although he sympathized with the neighbours that the dwelling has already
been converted from a triplex to a 4-plex, he is unable to see any valid reason why the application
should be refused. He noted unfortunately the Committee does not have the authority to regulate
who/where people live. He further advised he supports that the property will also be subject to
Site Plan review.
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded byMs. P. Kohli
That the application of Roopnarine & Omawattie Angadrequesting permission to legalize an
existing 4-plex in a R-5 Zone, whereas the By-law does not permit a 4-plex within an R-5 Zone,
on Part Lot 408, Registered Plan 375, 31 Cherry Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED,
subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-294-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:A 2017-106(Cont’d)
1.That the owner shall obtain Site Plan approval from the Planning Division, to the
satisfaction of the Manager of Site Development and Customer Service, which shall
include but not be limited to, implementation of Conditions that were required by Ontario
Municipal Board (OMB) File No. V020354 (changes to the parking area and the addition
of a rear yard deck and stairs).
2.That the owner shall obtain a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate from the Planning
Division.
3.That the owner shall obtain a building permit from the Building Division for a change of
use; and, if required, for the rear yard deck and stairs.
4.That the owner shall ensure Conditions 1, 2 and 3 are fulfilled by April 1, 2018. Any
request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of
Development Review (or designate), prior to complete date set out in this decision.
Failure to fulfill these conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
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 2017-107
Applicant:Dejan and Olga Brakus
Property Location:386 Southill Drive
Legal Description:Lot 43, Registered Plan 1115
Appearances:
In Support:D. Brakus
Contra:None
Written Submissions:None
The Committee was advised the applicants arerequesting permission to legalize an existing
singledetached dwelling with an attached garage having a side yard setback for the garage of
0.68m rather than the required 1.2m; a garage width of 72% of the total lot width rather than the
maximum permitted of 70%; and, for the driveway to have a width of 85%of the total lot width
rather than the permitted maximum of 50%.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated November 10, 2017,
advising the subject application is located at 386 Southill Drive. The original single detached
dwelling was constructed in approximately1988 and includes a single car attached garage. The
owner received a building permit in the summer of 2017 to construct an additional attached
garage. The owner has indicated to staff that this garage will be used for long-term seasonal
storage of a second vehicle (i.e. the vehicle will remain parked in the garage for the duration of
winter months, and will be parked on the existing driveway when in use other times of the year).
The new garage is currently under construction, and during a recent inspection by Building
Division staff it was observed that the garage does not meet the required side yard setback. Upon
further review, Planning staff has identified the combination of the existing single detached
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-295-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
4.Submission No.:A 2017-107(Cont’d)
garage and new double-car garage extend for 72% of the façade width rather than 70% and an
irregular driveway is proposed which exceeds the permitted driveway width of 50%. As such, and
to allow completion of the garage,the following minor variances are required:
1.to permit a side yard setback of 0.6 metres, whereas section 38.2 requires 1.2 metres;
2.to permit the attached garages to have a maximum cumulative width of 72% of the front
façade of the dwelling, whereas section 5.5A.1 permits a maximum width of 70%; and,
3.to permit a driveway having a width of 85% of the lot width, whereas section 6.1.1.1.b) e)
permits a maximum width of 50%.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of thePlanning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments.
The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential. The intent of this designation is to permit
low density housing types, and policies require that new development is compatible with existing
neighbourhoods. The use as a single detached dwelling complies and staff is of the opinion the
proposed variances will allow a garage and driveway design that is compatible with the existing
neighbourhood, in accordance with the discussion and recommendations outlined in the staff
report.
The lands are zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) which requires a 1.2 metre side yard setback.
The purpose of this setback is to ensure sufficient separation between existing homes, to align
with typical building code requirements, to provide space for access to rear yards and to allow
space for maintenance of eaves, walls, etc. Building Division staff has indicated that with minor
changes Building Code requirements will be met andrequest that new drawings be submitted.
There is anapproximately1.7 metre side yard on the opposite side with an existing pedestrian
walkway which provides direct access the rear yard. Further, regulations of the Zoning By-law
permit detached accessorystructures, which may include a detached garage, to be located 0.6
metres from the side lot line. Detached accessory structures require a lessor setback in part,
because they are only permitted to be one storey, which requires less space for maintenance
than a two or three storey building. The subject attached garage is proposed to have a height of
2.4 metres near the side property line, sloping up to a maximum height of 4.27 metres where it
meets the house. The height is consistent with the heights permitted for a detached accessory
structure. Based on the foregoing, Planning staff is of the opinion that the intent of the side yard
setback is maintained.
The purpose of limiting the maximum width of garages and driveways is to provide for an
attractive streetscape which is not dominated by garages, and to protect space for front yard
landscaping, street trees, and on-street parking between driveways. The proposed garage is
unusual in that it is not an extension of the existing garage, but is separated from the existing
garage by the front porch. The new garage does not project in front of the façade of the existing
house which minimizes its visual impact on the street. There are also three large coniferous trees
in the front yard which help screen the new garage and are being retained. In addition, the
existing driveway access at the street is not proposed to be expanded. This ensures there is no
additional impact to availability of on-street parking. Further discussion with respect to the
driveway width andconfiguration is provided below. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the opinion
that the proposal to increase the width of the garages from 70% to 72% of the façade maintains
the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The applicant also requires a variance for the driveway width. The By-law permits a maximum
driveway width of 50% of the lot width. However in this instance, because the two garages are
separate, in order to access the new garage the driveway must be significantly wider at its widest
point. The intent of the garage width regulation is to ensure that a street is not dominated by
driveways, and so that there is space for on-street parking, street trees and front yard
landscaping. The new garage is proposed to be used for long-term winter storage of a personal
vehicle (not driven in winter). Because the new garage will only be accessed infrequently, the
owner proposed a two-track, single car width driveway extending from the existing driveway to
the new garage. Transportation Planning staff suggests thatbecause of the curve in the
driveway,a two-track driveway may be difficult to manoeuver and suggest a single car width
driveway paved with grass pavers. This will create a single solid surface which will blend in with
the lawn. Further, this design willnot require the driveway apron to be widened and there is no
impact to on-street parking.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-296-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
4.Submission No.:A 2017-107(Cont’d)
While the proposed driveway configuration is unusual, staff is satisfied it will function
appropriately for the purpose of the garage. Staff recommends that any portion of the driveway
which is permitted to exceed 50% of the lot width must be located a minimum of 3 metres from
the front lot line. This is consistent with the Zoning By-law requirement that a drive-aisle be
located at least 3 metres from the property line to allow for a landscape buffer, and that the owner
be required to construct the drivewayin accordance with the Driveway Location Sketch included
in the staff report. Staff also recommends conditions be included in the Committee’s decision: that
storage of vehicles in the garage be limited to long-term seasonal storageto ensure the new
driveway is for access purposes only;that the owner agrees not to park on the driveway
extension; that the owner acknowledges the Zoning By-law does not allow for the construction of
a second driveway; and,that the owner agrees not to expand the existing width of the driveway
apron beyond 50% of the lot width.
Based on the foregoing and subject to the recommended conditions, staff is of the opinion that
the intent of the By-law is maintained, that the proposed variances are minor, and that they are
appropriate for the development and use of the lands.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
November 10, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr. D. Brakuswas in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff
recommendation.
Moved byB. McColl
Seconded byP. Kohli
That the application of Dejan & Olga Brakusrequesting permission to legalize an existing
single detached dwelling with an attached garage having a side yard setback for the garage of
0.68m rather than the required 1.2m; a garage width of 72% of the total lot width rather than
the maximum permittedof 70%; and, for the driveway to have a width of 85% of the total lot
width rather than the permitted maximum of 50%, on Lot 43, Registered Plan 1115, 386
Southill Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1.That the owner shall ensure any portion of the driveway which exceeds 50% of the lot
width must be setback 3.0 metres from the front lot line.
2.That the owner shall ensure the driveway extension is constructed by June 30, 2018 to
the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning and Director of Transportation
Services, and in accordance with the Driveway Location Sketch contained in Report A
2017-107.
3.That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Corporation of the City of
Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title, agreeing to the
following:
a.That the owner shall construct an extension to the existing driveway on the lands,
which extension shall connect the existing driveway to the new attached garage
through the front yard of the lands.
b.That the said driveway extension shall be constructed with grass pavers and
maintained as a single car-width driveway extension only. For greater certainty,
the agreement will indicate that construction and maintenance of the driveway
extension will be in exact accordance with the foregoing, neither more nor less, it
being the intention that the foregoing shall represent the sole standard of
construction and maintenance of the said driveway extension and shall not be
regarded as either a minimum or maximum standard.
c.That the owner shall acknowledge that the said driveway extension shall be used
for access purposes only, and that the owner shall agree not to park on the said
driveway extension.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-297-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
4.Submission No.:A 2017-107(Cont’d)
d.That the owner shall ensure, with respect to vehicular storage, the new garage
shall only be used for the long-term seasonal storage of motor vehicles or major
recreational equipment.
e.That the owner shall acknowledge that the said drivewayextension shall be
construed to be an extension of the original driveway on the property and not a
new driveway, and that the Zoning By-law does not allow for the construction of a
second driveway between the street and the new garage on the lands or the
expansion of the driveway apron beyond 50% of the lot width.
4.That the owner shall submit revised Building Permit drawings to the satisfaction of the
City’s Building Division.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variances requested in this application are minor.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
5.Submission No.:A 2017-108
Applicant:Kurt and Karin Schuemann
Property Location:42 Marlis Crescent
Legal Description:Lot 44, Plan 1730
Appearances:
In Support:R. Sajkunovic
Contra:None
Written Submissions:None
The Committee was advised the applicants arerequesting permission to construct a sunroom
addition in the easterly side yard at the rear of an existing single detached dwelling having a side
yard setback of 1.119m rather than the required 1.2m.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated November 8, 2017, advising
the subject property is located at 42 Marlis Crescent and is designated Low Rise Residential in
both the 1994 and 2014 Official Plans, and zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in Zoning By-law
85-1. The lands currently contain a single detached dwelling, and recently constructed sunroom
addition and as such, the owner is requesting relief from Section 37.2.1 to legalize the existing
side yard setback of 1.1 metres (3.6 ft) for the addition, whereas 1.2 metres (3.9 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 following comments:
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 general intent of
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-298-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
5.Submission No.:A 2017-108(Cont’d)
the Official Plan, which encourages a range of housing forms that achieve an overall low density
neighbourhood. Legalizing the existing condition will maintain the low density character of the
property and surrounding neighbourhood.
The requested variance to reduce the side yard setback from 1.2 metres to 1.1 metres meets the
general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the 1.2 metre side yard setback is to ensure
there is adequate separation between neighbouring properties, and to provide access to the rear
yard. Given that the reduced side yard setback of the addition already exists, staff is satisfied the
reduction of 0.1 metres will continue to provide adequate separation and access to the rear yard.
The variance can be considered minor. Given that the purpose of the variance is to legalize the
existing side yard setback for the addition, staff is satisfied that the requested variance will not
present any significant impacts on adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood that do not
already exist.
The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed
residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The application is to legalize an existing
setback; therefore, the proposed variance will not negatively impact the existing character of the
subject property or surrounding neighbourhood.
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 thelot and
surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
November 10, 2017, advising they have no concerns with this application.
Mr.R. Sajkunovic wasin attendance in support of the subject application and the staff
recommendation.
Moved byB. McColl
Seconded byP. Kohli
That the application of Kurt & Karin Schuemannrequesting permission to construct a sunroom
addition in the easterly rear yard of an existing single detached dwelling having a side yard
setback of 1.119m rather than the required 1.2m, on Lot 44, Plan 1730, 42 Marlis Crescent,
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 tothe
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
CONSENTAPPLICATIONS:
1.Submission No.:B 2017-032
Applicant:JEC Properties Inc.
Property Location:101 Mount Hope Street
Legal Description:Lot 10 and Part Lot 11, Registered Plan 287
Appearances:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-299-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:B 2017-032(Cont’d)
In Support:S. Cechovsky
Contra:None
Written Submissions:None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission tosever a parcel of land
having a width of 3.08m, a depth of 27.432m and an area of 84.49 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot
addition to 105 Mount Hope Street. The retained land will have awidth of 15.2m, a depth of
27.432m and an area of 416.966 sq.m. Both parcels are intended for residential development.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated November 8, 2017, advising
the subject properties are located on thesouth side of MountHope Street between York Street
and Eden Avenue. The properties are designated as Low Rise Conservation in the KW Hospital
Secondary Plan. The subject properties are zoned Residential Five (R-5) and Residential Five (R-
5) with Special Regulation Provision 129U (which prohibits a 3 unit multiple dwelling) in the City’s
Zoning By-law. The subject properties each contain a detached dwelling in very poor condition
and both lots contain a number of trees and vegetation. Because of the poor condition of the
dwellings, demolition is being proposed. Demolition Control will be required in addition to a
demolition permit as the proposed development of semi-detached dwellings requires the
demolition of the existing housing stock. Surrounding land use consists primarily of low rise single
and semi-detached dwellings and an apartment building is located on the opposite side of Mount
Hope Street.
The owner is proposing to sever a portion of 101 MountHope Street measuring 3.08 metres
wide, 27.4 metreslong, with a lot area of approximately 84.5 square metres, and add it as a lot
addition to 105 MountHope Street. This will result in both properties having an excess of 15
metres of frontage.
The application is proposed so that each property can be redeveloped with semi-detached
dwellings as permitted by the R-5 zoning. To that end, staff has been working with the applicant
to ensure that a compatible and complimentary form of semi-detached dwelling is constructed,
while conserving as many of the on-site trees as practically possible. There will be conditions of
approval imposed that speak to these requirements and staff is recommending that these be
fulfilled prior to finalizing the lot addition. It is further expected the owner will be applying for a
future severance application in order to divide the properties into two separate parcels of land in
order to legally convey each half of a semi-detached dwelling. Minor variances may also be
required at that time in order to implement a preferred building location and severance plans.
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 proposed lot addition will result in lot sizes that are appropriate and
suitable for the proposed use and are consistent with the surrounding lotting fabric, the lands front
on an established public street, and adequate utilities and municipal services are available.
The properties designated as Low Rise Conservation in the KW Hospital Secondary Plan, are
proposed to be redeveloped with semi-detached dwellings which are compatible with the low rise
and low density residential character of the neighbourhood. Semi-detached dwellings are a
permitted use within the Residential Five Zone (R-5). The proposed lot addition will result in a
more uniform lot configuration, and building location and elevation plans will be required prior to
final approval to ensure compatibility in height and scale. This requirement is consistent with the
Official Plan. Section 4C1.7 of the Official Plan authorizes the City to request plans and building
drawings that demonstrate a proposal is compatible in regards to built form, architectural design,
landscaping or buffering.
Heritage Comments:
Heritage Planning staff has noconcerns with the application.
The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared
by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS serves to
establish an inventory. The CHLS was the first step of a phased cultural heritage landscape
(CHL) conservation process. The owner of the properties municipally addressed as 101 and 105
Mount Hope Street is advised that the properties are located within the Gildner Neighbourhood
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-300-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:B 2017-032(Cont’d)
CHL. The owner(s) will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage
Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan and preparing action plans for each CHL with
specific conservation options.
Staff notes that the subject properties are located within the KW Hospital Secondary Plan. The
City will be commencing a secondary plan review in 2018. The land use and zoning of the
properties are subject to change.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated November 15,2017, advisingthey have no objection to this
application, subject to the following condition:
1.That prior to final approval, the owner submit payment to the Region of Waterloo, the
Consent Application Review Fee of $350.00.
Mr. S. Cechovsky was in attendance in support of the subject application and staff
recommendation.
The Chair noted the Comments from the Region of Waterloo and requested their condition be
included as part of the Committee’s decision.
Moved byMs. P.Kohli
Seconded byMr. B.McColl
That the application ofJEC Properties Inc.requesting permission tosever a parcel of land having
a width of 3.08m, a depth of 27.432m and an area of 84.49sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition
to 105 Mount Hope Street, on Lot10 and Part Lot 11, Registered Plan 287,101 Mount Hope
Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1.That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into identical
ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that any
subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3)
and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
2.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an Application
Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and
prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application
Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration.
3.That the owner shall receive full and final approval of a Demolition Control application for
the demolition of 101 and 105 Mt. Hope Street to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning.
4.That the owner shall obtain a demolition permit from the Building Department to the
satisfaction of the Chief Building Official.
5.That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by
the City Solicitor and registered on title for 101 and 105 Mt. Hope Street which shall
include the following:
a. That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed and retained
lands in accordance with the City’s Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the
City’s Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading,
tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among
other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone,
landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved.
b. The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said
plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City’s Director of
Planning.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-301-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:B 2017-032(Cont’d)
c. That prior to any grading or the application or issuance of a building permit, the
owner shall submit the following to the satisfaction and approval of the City’s
Director of Planning, showing:
(i)the proposed location of all buildings (including accessory buildings and
structures), decks and driveways;
(ii)the location of any existing buildings or structures to be removed or
relocated;
(iii)the proposed grades and drainage;
(iv)the location of all trees to be preserved, removed or potentially impacted on
or adjacent to the subject lands, including notations of their size, species and
condition;
(v)outline tree protection measures for trees to be preserved; and,
(vi)building elevation drawings.
d. That the owner shall ensure any boulevard trees identified by the City for retention
are protected during construction to the satisfaction of the City’s Operations and
Planning. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner shall make
satisfactory arrangements financial or otherwise for any relocation/removal of any
existing boulevard trees adjacent to the subject property to the satisfaction of the
City’s OperationsDepartment.
e.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the Director of
Engineering in consultation with the Chief Building Official for the removal of and
installation of new service connections.
f.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements, financial or otherwise, for
any relocation/removal of any existing City-owned street furniture, transit shelters,
signs, hydrants, utility poles, wires or lines, as required, to the satisfaction of the
appropriate City department.
6.Thatthe owner shallsubmit payment to the Regionof Waterloothe Consent Application
Review Fee of $350.00.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
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 53of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were consideredand
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 areavailable on the
City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
2.Submission No.:B 2017-033
Applicant:Polocorp Inc.
Property Location:379-389 Queen Street South, 399 Queen Street South and
168 Benton Street
Legal Description:Lots 5 and 6, Registered Plan 397
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-302-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
2.Submission No.:B 2017-033(Cont’d)
Appearances:
In Support:A. Stellings
M.Puopolo
Contra:None
Written Submissions:None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission tosever a parcel of land
municipally addressed as 399 Queen Street South and 168 Benton Street, one having a width on
Queen Street South of 31.992m and one having a width on Benton Street of 16.764m, an overall
depth of 123.388m and an area of 3214 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to the properties
municipally addressed as 170-172, 176 and 180 Benton Street. The retained land municipally
addressed as 379-389 Queen Street South has a width on Queen Street South of 41.2m, a depth
of 84.03m and an area of 3612 sq.m.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated November 10, 2017,
advising the application is proposing to sever lands addressed as 399 Queen Street South (which
has merged with 168 Benton Street) from lands addressed as 379-389 Queen Street South, and
to add the severed lands with 170-172, 176, and 180 Benton Street.
In September 2016, Kitchener City Council approved Zone Change Application ZC13/10/Q/GS to
apply Special Regulation 517R (as revised) to the proposed severed lands and the lot addition
properties to allow for the comprehensive redevelopment with a multiple dwelling development.
The proposed development has been site plan approved in principle. The existing four residential
buildings along Benton Street are proposed to be demolished. A temporary condominium sales
trailer is currently on site at 399 Queen Street South.
The proposed severed lands are approximately 31.992 metres wide at Queen Street and 16.764
metres wide at Benton Street, a total depth of 123.176 metres, and a total area of 3214 square
metres.
The subject lands are within the Mill Courtland-Woodside Park Secondary Plan and are
designated as Mixed Use Corridor, Open Space, and Medium Density Commercial Residential.
Multiple dwellings are a permitted use with a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 2.0.
The lands are within the plan boundary of the Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS)
Central Plan which was approved on May 16, 2016 by Kitchener City Council. The portion of the
property along Queen Street South is shown as Low Density Mixed Use and the portion along
Benton Street is Low Rise Residential.
While the properties have split zoning, both the proposed severed lands and lot addition lands are
all subject to Special Regulation Provision 517R which provides site specific zoning regulations
for the redevelopment proposal. The base zoning of the portion along Queen Street South is Low
Intensity Mixed-Use Corridor (MU-1) and the portion along Benton Street is Commercial
Residential Two Zone (CR-2). The Benton Street properties are also subject to a special use
provision to permit semi-detached and street-fronting townhouses.
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 proposed severance and lot additions are desirable
and appropriate. The uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the
City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The size, dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots is
suitable for the use of the lands. The lands front onto two established public streets, and both the
severed and retained lands can be adequately serviced with connections to municipal services.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement
and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated November 15,2017, advising they have no objection to this
application,subject to the following condition:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-303-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
2.Submission No.:B 2017-033(Cont’d)
1.That, prior to final approval, the applicant provides clarification to Region staff to satisfy the
noise study requirements, and, if necessary, enter into a Registered Development
Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the findings of the study.
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated
November 16, 2017, advising a portion of 393-411 Queen Street South is regulated due to the
flood fringe of Schneider Creek, and the associated allowanceto this feature. Consequently, a
portion of the subject lands is regulated by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06.
Ms. A. Stellingsand Mr. M.Puopolowerein attendance in support of the subject application and
staff recommendation.
The Chair noted the Comments from the Region of Waterloo and requested theconditions be
included as part of the Committee’s decision. In response to questions, Ms. J. von Westerholt
noted Parkland Dedication would be imposed through the Site Plan Approval process.
Moved byMs. P. Kohli
Seconded byMr. B. McColl
That the application of PolocorpInc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land municipally
addressed as 399 Queen Street South and 168 Benton Street, one having a width on Queen
Street South of 31.992m and one having a width on Benton Street of 16.764m, an overall depth
of 123.388m and an area of 3214 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to the properties
municipally addressed as 170-172, 176 and 180 Benton Street, on Lots 5 and 6, Registered Plan
397, 379-389 Queen Street South, 399 Queen Street South and 168 Benton Street, 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 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 ensure the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and
title be taken into identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement
shall include that any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply
with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
4.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an Application
Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the Severance Deed and
prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of the registered Application
Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable time following registration.
5.That the owner shall provide clarification to the Region of Waterloo staff to satisfy the
noise study requirements, and, if necessary, enter into a RegisteredDevelopment
Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to implement the findings of the study.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-304-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
2.Submission No.:B 2017-033(Cont’d)
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 themeeting minutes, which are available on the
City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
This meeting recessed at 11:05a.m. and reconvened at 11:10 a.m. with all members present, Chaired
by Mr. D. Cybalski.
3.Submission Nos.:B 2017-034 to B 2017-037
Applicant:Viridis Development Group Inc.
Property Location:Courtland Avenue East and Blockline Road
Legal Description:Part Block F, Plan 1206 & Part Block F, Plan 1221, Being Part 1 on
Reference Plan 58R-12301
Appearances:
In Support:O. Gomes
K. Greene
S. Schwartzentruber
Contra:None
Written Submissions:None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission tosever 3 lots for
commercial/residential development and retain 1 lot. All lots will have frontage on Courtland
Avenue East and will have the following dimensions:
B 2017-034(Severance 1 -Corner of Courtland Avenue East and Blockline Road)having width
(on Courtland Avenue East) of88.60m, a depth (on Blockline Road) of66.86mand an area of
5750 sq. m.; and, subject to an ‘L’ shaped easement having a width of 9m across the entire front
of the property to the benefit of the lots to be created through B 2017-035, B 2017-036 and the
retained lands for storm water services.
B 2017-035 (Severance 2)having a width (on Courtland Avenue East) of90.60m, a depth of
66.70m and an area of 6151 sq. m.; and, subject to two easements totaling 6m wide across the
front of the property, one easement being 3m wide intended for sanitary services, the second
being 3m wideintended for storm water services,to the benefit of the lots to be created through B
2017-034, B 2017-036 and the retained lands.
B 2017-036(Severance 3), having a width (on Courtland Avenue East) of73.15m, an easterly
depth of71.05mand an area of5397 sq. m.; and, subject to two easements totaling 16.3m wide
across the front of the property, one easement being 3m wide intended for sanitary services, the
second being 13.3m wide for storm water services to the benefit of the lots to be created through
B 2017-034, B 2017-035 and the retained lands.
B 2017-037 (Retained Lands)having a width (on Courtland Avenue East) of94.46m, an easterly
depth of77.02mand an area -8305 sq. m.; and, subject to an easement having a width of 8m
and an approximate depth of 68.9m near the front of the property to the benefit of the lots to be
created through B 2017-034 to B 2017-036 for storm water services.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated November 10, 2017,
advising the severance applications are proposing to sever the large property into four separate
lots for future development. The purpose of the severances is to divide the large property into four
separate lots to allow for construction phasing and financing. To permit the future comprehensive
redevelopment, easements for sanitary and storm water services are also requested as part of
these applications. Blanket easements for parking, vehicle access, and public access will be
required.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-305-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-034to B 2017-037 (Cont’d)
The property is currently subject to Official Plan Amendment Application OP17/001/C/GS and
Zone Change Application ZC17/005/C/GS to permit a large mixed-use development that could
include up to 20,000 square metres (215,000 sq. feet) of mixed commercial space (office and
retail) as well as four residential towers that could be up to 38 storeys in height with a total of up
to 1300 dwelling units, along with 1500 parking spaces within a parking deck. No
recommendations or decisions have been made on these applications, and Planning staff are
consulting with the public on the proposal.
The property is currently designated as General Industrial Employment and is currently vacant.
The existing Official Plan policies for this property permit a broad range of industrial and
employment uses. The property is within the Built Up Area of the City and identified as part of a
Major Transit Station Area and on the future Light Rail Transit Corridor. The property is adjacent
to the Block Line ION/LRT station stop, which is currently under construction.
The property is currently zoned as General Industrial Zone (M-2). Permitted uses include light-to-
medium industrial and employment uses.
Specifically, these applications request the following:
B2017-034-To sever a lot with a frontage of 88.60 metres, depth of 66.86 metres, and an area
of 5750 m2; and to create a “L” shaped storm water easement with a width of 9.0 metres and a
length of 88.60 metres in favour of the retained lands and proposed lots 2 and 3.
B2017-035-To sever a lot with a frontage of 90.60 metres, depth of 66.70 metres, and an area
of 6151 m2; and to create a storm water easement with an irregular width of at least 3.0 metres
and a length of 90.60 metres in favour of the retained lands and proposed lots 1 and 3; and to
create a sanitary sewer easement with a width of 3.0 metres and a length of 90.60 metres in
favour of the retained lands and proposed lots 1 and 3.
B2017-036-To sever a lot with a frontage of 73.15 metres, depth of 71.05 metres, and an area
of 5397m2; and to create a storm water easement with an irregular width of no more than 13.30
metres and a length of 73.15 metres in favour of the retained lands and proposed lots 1 and 2;
and to create a sanitary sewer easement with a width of 3.0 metres and a length of 73.15 metres
in favour of the retained lands and proposed lots 1 and 2.
B2017-037 -To create a storm water easement with a width of 8.0 metres and a length of no
more than 94.46 metres in favour of proposed lots 1, 2 and 3.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the three severed lots are desirable and
appropriate. The three severed lots and one retained lot are in conformity with the City’s Official
Plan and Zoning By-law. While the future permitted land uses may or may not change with the
ongoing Official Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications, it is appropriate to divide the
large parcel at this time. The proposed severances do not interfere with the ability for the lands to
be developed under the current Official Plan land use designation policies and permitted uses in
the Zoning By-law. Due to the location of the parcel, situated between a heavy rail yard and the
ION/LRT right-of-way, it is appropriate to provide access and servicing through easements to
facilitate a future consolidated ION crossing for vehicles access and servicing. The size,
dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots is suitable for the use of the lands. Planning staff is
of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to
the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated November 15,2017, advising they have no objections to these
applications, subject to the following conditions:
1.That, prior to final approval, the applicant submits payment to the Region the Consent
Application Review Fee of $350.00 for each new lot created, for a total fee of $1,050.00.
2.That, prior to final approval, the applicant enters into a Registered Development
Agreement with the Region of Waterloo to provide for reciprocal access easements
between the proposed retained lands and the severances to accommodate vehicular, bus
and construction traffic.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-306-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-034 to B 2017-037 (Cont’d)
3.That, prior to final approval, the applicant enters into a Registered Development
Agreement with the City of Kitchener and/or the Region of Waterloo, or rail authorities, as
necessary, to implement the findings of the following studies, and any addendums, or
emerging reports:
a.“Virerra Village, Kitchener Ontario, Acoustical Report” (IBI Group, March 31, 2017);
b.“Courtland and Blockline Development, Rail Vibration Impact Study, Kitchener,
Ontario” (Aercoustics, April 7, 2015).
The Committee considered the report of the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), dated
November 16, 2017, advising portions of the subject lands are identified as being regulated by
the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06. The area identified as regulated on the mapping is
the result of two features, a steep slope and floodplain, as well as the associated allowances to
these features. However, as noted in our June 20, 2017 comments on OP17/001/C/GS and
ZC17/005/C/GS, we had previously issued a permit (#361/08) for grading of the property. As a
result of that grading work, we no longer have slope concerns.
With respect to the floodplain, GRCA has had the opportunity to review the Topographic Survey
prepared by Van Harten Surveying Inc. (dated July 14, 2017), showing the existing grades of the
property. The survey shows that the majority of the existing grades are at or above the regulatory
flood elevation (RFE) of 314.0 metres, with the exception of a small area at the southeast corner
(313.96 metres) which remains floodplain. Please also note thatthere is a 5 metre allowance
from the floodplain that is also regulated by the GRCA.
Based on the Overall Proposed Severance Plan (181 Group, October 12, 2017) and the
Topographic Survey (Van Harten Surveying Inc., July 14, 2017); there is sufficient area on both
the retained and severed lots for future development outside the floodplain. Therefore, we have
no objection to the proposed severances.
New development should be directed outside the floodplain. Please note that any future
development within the regulated area (if applicable) would require the prior issuance of a permit
from the GRCA pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/06. The regulation limit, based on the
floodline elevation of 314.0 metres and a 5 metre allowance from the floodplain, should be
reflected on future plans and applications submitted for GRCA review.
Ms. O. Gomes and Messrs K.Greeneand S. Schwartzentruber were in attendance in support of
the subject application and the staff recommendation.
Ms. J. von Westerholt noted Parkland Dedication would be imposed through the Site Plan
Approval process.
Submission No.: B2017-034
Moved byMr. B.McColl
Seconded by Ms. P.Kohli
That the application of ViridisDevelopment Group Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel
of land identified as Severance 1 on the sketch submitted with the application having a width of
88.60 metres, a depth of 66.86 metres, and an area of 5750 sq.m.; and to create an “L”
shaped storm water easement having a width of 9.0 metres and a length of 88.60 metres in
favour of the retained land and proposed lots 2 and 3, on Part Block F, Plan 1206 & Part Block
F, Plan 1221, Being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-12301, Courtland Avenue East and
Blockline Road, 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 to the satisfaction of the City’s
Revenue Division.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-307-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-034 to B 2017-037 (Cont’d)
2.That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .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 ensure the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the
Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following and shall be approved by
the City Solicitor:
a.a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the
rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or
conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions
related thereto).
b.a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall
be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity.
Required easements shall include the following:
i.a storm water easement over a portion of proposed lot 1 in favour of the
retained lands and proposed lots 2 and 3;
ii.a storm water easement over a portionof proposed lot 2 in favour of the
retained lands and proposed lots 1 and 3;
iii.a sanitary sewer easement over a portion of proposed lot 2 in favour of the
retained lands and proposed lots 1 and 3;
iv.a storm water easement over a portion of lot 3 inin favour of the retained
lands and proposed lots 1 and 2;
v.a sanitary sewer easement over a portion of lot 3 in in favour of the
retained lands and proposed lots 1 and 2, and,
vi.a storm water easement over a portion of the retained lands in favour of
proposed lots 1, 2 and 3.
4.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register
the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies
thereof to the City Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor.
5.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City’s Director of
Planning to provide future blanket easements across the retained lands and proposed
lots 1, 2, and 3, for the following;
a.shared storage of any storm or grey water;
b.all utility servicing, including natural gas and hydro;
c.telecommunications servicing;
d.all shared energy production or distribution system(s);
e.any shared building systems (if known), including fire detection and/or
suppression systems; and,
f.private vehicle owner, tenant, visitor, and commercial parking and access,
pedestrian access, cyclist access and shared bicycle parking, public
transportation access, truck, commercial, and service vehicle access and
loading, and construction access.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-308-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-034 to B 2017-037 (Cont’d)
6.That the owner shall submit payment to the Region of Waterloo the Consent Application
Review Fee of $350.00.
7.That the owner shall enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the Region
of Waterloo to provide for reciprocal access easements between the proposed retained
lands and the severances to accommodate vehicular, bus and construction traffic.
8.That the owner shall enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the City of
Kitchener and/or the Region of Waterloo, or rail authorities, as necessary, to implement
the findings of the following studies, and any addendums, or emerging reports:
a.“Virerra Village, Kitchener Ontario, Acoustical Report” (IBI Group, March 31,
2017);
b.“Courtland and Blockline Development, Rail Vibration Impact Study, Kitchener,
Ontario” (Aercoustics, April 7, 2015).
9.That the owner shall obtain any necessary permits from the Grand River Conservation
Authority (GRCA).
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 landsand the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
Submission No.: B2017-035
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of ViridisDevelopment Group Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of
land identified as Severance 2 on the sketch submitted with the application having a width of
90.60 metres, a depth of 66.70 metres, and an area of 6151 sq.m.; and to create a storm water
easement with an irregular width of at least 3.0 metres and a length of 90.60 metres in favour of
the retained lands and proposed lots 1 and 3; and to create a sanitary sewer easement with a
width of 3.0 metres and a length of 90.60 metres in favour of the retained lands and proposed lots
1 and 3, on Part Block F, Plan 1206 & Part Block F, Plan 1221, Being Part 1 on Reference Plan
58R-12301, Courtland Avenue East and Blockline Road, 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 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-309-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-034 to B 2017-037 (Cont’d)
3.That the owner shall ensure the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the
Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following and shall be approved by
the City Solicitor:
a.a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights
and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of
any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto).
b.a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be
maintained and registered on title in perpetuity.
Required easements shall include the following:
i.a storm water easement over a portion of proposed lot 1 in favour of the
retained lands and proposed lots 2 and 3;
ii.a storm water easement over a portion of proposed lot 2 in favour of the
retained lands and proposed lots 1 and 3;
iii.a sanitary sewer easement over a portion of proposed lot 2 in favour of the
retained lands and proposed lots 1 and 3;
iv.a storm water easement over a portion of lot 3 in in favour of the retained
lands and proposed lots 1 and 2;
v.a sanitary sewer easement over a portion of lot 3 in in favour of the retained
lands and proposed lots 1 and 2, and,
vi.a storm water easement over a portion of the retained lands in favour of
proposed lots 1, 2 and 3.
4.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to
register the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide
copies thereof to the City Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor.
5.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City’s Director of
Planning to provide future blanket easements across the retained lands and
proposed lots 1, 2, and 3, for the following;
a.shared storage of any storm or grey water;
b.all utility servicing, including natural gas and hydro;
c.telecommunications servicing;
d.all shared energy production or distribution system(s);
e.any shared building systems (if known), including fire detection and/or
suppression systems; and,
f.private vehicle owner, tenant, visitor, and commercial parking and access,
pedestrian access, cyclist access and shared bicycle parking, public
transportation access, truck, commercial, and service vehicle access and
loading, and construction access.
6.That the owner shall submit payment to the Region of Waterloo the Consent
Application Review Fee of $350.00.
7.That the owner shall enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the
Region of Waterloo to provide for reciprocal access easements between the
proposed retained lands and the severances to accommodate vehicular, bus and
construction traffic.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-310-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-034 to B 2017-037 (Cont’d)
8.That the owner shall enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the City
of Kitchener and/or the Region of Waterloo, or rail authorities, as necessary, to
implement the findings of the following studies, and any addendums, or emerging
reports:
a.“Virerra Village, Kitchener Ontario, Acoustical Report” (IBI Group, March 31,
2017);
b.“Courtland and Blockline Development, Rail Vibration Impact Study,
Kitchener, Ontario” (Aercoustics, April 7, 2015).
9.That the owner shall obtain any necessary permits from the Grand River
Conservation Authority (GRCA).
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and
taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject
application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the
City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
Submission No.: B2017-036
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Viridis Development Group Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel
of land identified as Severance 3 on the sketch submitted with the application having a width of
of 73.15 metres, a depth of 71.05 metres, and an area of 5397 sq.m.; and to create a storm
water easement with an irregular width of no more than 13.30 metres and a length of 73.15
metres in favour of the retained lands and proposed lots 1 and 2; and to create a sanitary
sewer easement with a width of 3.0 metres and a length of 73.15 metres in favour of the
retained lands and proposed lots 1 and 2, on Part Block F, Plan 1206 & Part Block F, Plan
1221, Being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-12301, Courtland Avenue East and Blockline
Road, 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 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 ensure the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the
Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following and shall be approved by
the City Solicitor:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-311-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-034 to B 2017-037 (Cont’d)
a.a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the
rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed termsand/or
conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions
related thereto).
b.a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall
be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity.
Required easements shall include the following:
i.a storm water easement over a portion of proposed lot 1 in favour of the retained
lands and proposed lots 2 and 3;
ii.a storm water easement over a portion of proposed lot 2 in favour of the retained
lands and proposed lots 1 and 3;
iii.a sanitary sewer easement over a portion of proposed lot 2 in favour of the
retained lands and proposed lots 1 and 3;
iv.a storm water easement over a portion of lot 3 in in favour of the retained lands
and proposed lots 1 and 2;
v.a sanitary sewer easement over a portion of lot 3 in in favour of the retained
lands and proposed lots 1 and 2, and,
vi.a storm water easement over a portion of the retained lands in favour of
proposed lots 1, 2 and 3.
4.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register
the approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies
thereof to the City Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor.
5.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City’s Director of Planning
to provide future blanket easements across the retained lands and proposed lots 1, 2,
and 3, for the following;
a.shared storage of any storm or grey water;
b.all utility servicing, including natural gas and hydro;
c.telecommunications servicing;
d.all shared energy production or distribution system(s);
e.any shared building systems (if known), including fire detection and/or
suppression systems; and,
f.private vehicle owner, tenant, visitor, and commercial parking and access,
pedestrian access, cyclist access and shared bicycle parking, public
transportation access, truck, commercial, and service vehicle access and
loading, and construction access.
6.That the owner shall submit payment to the Region of Waterloo the Consent Application
Review Fee of $350.00.
7.That the owner shall enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the Region
of Waterloo to provide for reciprocal access easements between the proposed retained
lands and the severances to accommodate vehicular, bus and construction traffic.
8.That the owner shall enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the City of
Kitchener and/or the Region of Waterloo, or rail authorities, as necessary, to implement
the findings of the following studies, and any addendums, or emerging reports:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-312-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-034 to B 2017-037 (Cont’d)
a.“Virerra Village, Kitchener Ontario, Acoustical Report” (IBI Group, March 31,
2017);
b.“Courtland and Blockline Development, Rail Vibration Impact Study, Kitchener,
Ontario” (Aercoustics, April 7, 2015).
9.That the owner shall obtain any necessary permits from the Grand River Conservation
Authority (GRCA).
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and
the retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan
and the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
Submission No.: B2017-037
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Viridis Development Group Inc. requesting permission to grant a storm
water easement over the retained land identified on the sketch submitted with the application
having a width of8.0 metres and a depth of 94.46 metres in favour of proposed lots 1, 2 and 3, on
Part Block F, Plan 1206 & Part Block F, Plan 1221, Being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-12301,
Courtland Avenue East and Blockline Road, 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 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 ensure the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the
Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following and shall be approved by
the City Solicitor:
a.a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights
and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of
any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto).
b.a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be
maintained and registered on title in perpetuity.
Required easements shall include the following:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-313-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B2017-034 to B 2017-037 (Cont’d)
i.a storm water easement over a portion of proposed lot 1 in favour of the retained
lands and proposed lots 2 and 3;
ii.a storm water easement over a portion of proposed lot 2 in favour of the retained
lands and proposed lots 1 and 3;
iii.a sanitary sewer easement over a portion of proposed lot 2 in favour of the retained
lands and proposed lots 1 and 3;
iv.a storm water easement over a portion of lot 3 in in favour of the retained lands and
proposed lots 1 and 2;
v.a sanitary sewer easement over a portion of lot 3 in in favour of the retained lands
and proposed lots 1 and 2, and,
vi.a storm water easement over a portion of the retained lands in favour of proposed
lots 1, 2 and 3.
4.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the
approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to
the City Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor.
5.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City’s Director of Planning to
provide future blanket easements across the retained lands and proposed lots 1, 2, and 3,
for the following;
a.shared storage of any storm or grey water;
b.all utility servicing, including natural gas and hydro;
c.telecommunications servicing;
d.all shared energy production or distribution system(s);
e.any shared building systems (if known), including fire detection and/or suppression
systems; and,
f.private vehicle owner, tenant, visitor, and commercial parking and access,
pedestrian access, cyclist access and shared bicycle parking, public transportation
access, truck, commercial, and service vehicle access and loading, and
construction access.
6.That the owner shall enter into a RegisteredDevelopment Agreement with the Region of
Waterloo to provide for reciprocal access easements between the proposed retained lands
and the severances to accommodate vehicular, bus and construction traffic.
7.That the owner shall enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the City of
Kitchener and/or the Region of Waterloo, or rail authorities, as necessary, to implement
the findings of the following studies, and any addendums, or emerging reports:
a.“Virerra Village, Kitchener Ontario, AcousticalReport” (IBI Group, March 31, 2017);
b.“Courtland and Blockline Development, Rail Vibration Impact Study, Kitchener,
Ontario” (Aercoustics, April 7, 2015).
8.That the owner shall obtain any necessary permits from the Grand River Conservation
Authority (GRCA).
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-314-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-034 to B 2017-037 (Cont’d)
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered and
taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the subject
application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are available on the
City’s websiteat www.kitchener.ca
Carried
COMBINEDAPPLICATIONS:
1.Submission Nos.:B 2017-038, B 2017-039 and A 2017-109
Applicant:2361693 Ontario Inc.
Property Location:125 Margaret Avenue
Legal Description:Part Lots 34 & 35, Registered Plan 34
Appearances:
In Support:A. Drung
Contra:L. MacArthur
K. Lewis
Written Submissions:L. & S. MacArthur
The Committee was advised the applicants arerequesting permission to sever a parcel of land
having a width of 12.047m, a depth of 26.518m and an area of 319 sq.m. Permission is also
being requested to grant easements on the severed and retained lands having a width on each
property of 3m, a depth of 26.518m and an area of 79.554 sq.m. for driveway access. The
retained land will have a width of 13.427m, a northerly depth of 39.091m and an area of 519
sq.m. A minor variance will also be required for the retained land to permit a lot width of 13.427m
rather than the required 15m. The retained land will contain an existing triplex and the severed
land is proposed for a duplex.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated November 10, 2017,
advising the application is proposing to sever the existing property into two separate lots. The
retained lands will contain the existing multiple dwelling (triplex) and the severed will contain a
new duplex dwelling. The existing detached garage is proposed to be demolished.
The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan.
Permitted low density residential uses include single detached, semi-detached, duplex, and
multiple dwellings. The property is currently zoned as Residential Five (R-5) which permits single
detached, semi-detached, duplex, and multiple dwellings (maximum 3 unit multiple dwellings).
The property is also within the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study
(RIENS) Area.
The owner is proposing to sever the lands into two lots. The retained lands are proposed to
accommodate the existing multiple dwelling (triplex) and the served lands are proposed to be
redeveloped with a new duplex dwelling. The existing detached garage is proposed to be
demolished. A shared mutual access easement is proposed over the severed and retained lands
for a shared driveway. A minor variance is requested to reduce the lot width for the retained
lands.
Specifically, these applications request the following:
B2017-038-To sever a lot with a frontage of 12.04m, depth of 26.51m, and an area of 319m2,
as wellas to create an easement with a width of 3.0m, a length of 26.51m, and an area of
79.55m2, for a mutual access in favour of the retained lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-315-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:B 2017-038, B 2017-039 and A 2017-109 (Cont’d)
B2017-039 -To create an easement with a width of 3.0m, a length of 26.51m, and an area of
79.55m2, for a mutual access in favour of the severed lands.
A2017-109 -To request a lot width of 13.42m whereas 15.0m is required for a multiple dwelling,
for the retained lands.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lots are desirable and
appropriate. The uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City’s
Official Plan and Zoning By-law. While the retained lands require a minor variance for a reduced
lot width, Planning staff is of the opinion that the size, dimensions and shapes of the proposed
lots is suitable for the use of the lands and compatible with the surrounding community. The lands
front onto an established public street, and can be independently and adequately serviced with
connections to municipal services. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent
with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe.
In considering the fourtests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments:
The requested variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan. The Official Plan provides
specific policy direction for infill residential development in established neighbourhoods. In the
City’s Central Neighbourhoods, the primary focus is to ensure that new infill development is
compatible with the existing neighbourhood. Policy 4.C.1.8.e requires that where a minor
variance is requested to facilitate residential intensification the impact of the variance must be
reviewed to ensure that the lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse
impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and
an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site. The requested lot width variance does not
impact the possibility of providing rear yard parking as a shared mutual driveway is proposed and
will be implemented through conditions of approval of the severance application. Adequate
landscaping and amenity area can be provided on site and the overall lot area exceeds the
zoning requirement.
The requested variances meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the increase
lot width for multiple dwelling is to ensure that parking and amenity space can be provided. Three
parking spaces will be provided in a new parking area at the rear of the property. The proposed
new parking area only occupies a portion of the rear yard, leaving ample space for private
amenity and landscaping. Planning staff will require, as a condition of this approval, as per Policy
4.C.1.7 of the Official Plan, the owner submit to the Director of Planning, Building Elevation
drawings, a Tree Management Plan, and a building Site drawing showing the design and location
of the proposed new building. Planning staff will review these plans to ensure that the proposed
new dwellings are compatible in terms of siting, massing, and architectural style.
The requested variances are minor. Kitchener City Council recently approved the Residential
Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods (RIENS) Study. That study identified that character
and compatibility are important when considering any new development. Some of the
recommendations from the study are currently at various stages of the implementation process.
Planning staff note that the development concept implements may of the preliminary RIENS
recommendations, including a shared driveway and rear yard parking. The variances are required
because not all of the recommendations of the study have been fully implemented in the Zoning
By-law.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The proposed
development will be compatible with the built form, massing, and building siting found throughout
the neighbourhood. Further attention will be paid to the building height, roof line, porch design,
driveway width and location, style and materials, and landscaping, as part of the approval of the
Building Elevation and Site drawings. The development proposal accommodates a slight increase
in density in an established community in a compatible form that provides increased housing
options.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated November 15,2017, advising they have no objections to applications
B 2017-038 and B 2017-039, subject to the following condition:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-316-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:B 2017-038, B 2017-039 and A 2017-109 (Cont’d)
1.That, prior to final approval, the applicant enter into a Registered Development Agreement
with the City of Kitchener to provide for the following:
That all units on the severed lot be constructed with a forced air-ducted heating system
suitably sized and designed with the provision for the installation of air conditioning in the
future at the occupant’s discretion.
That the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, or rental agreements
for all residential units on the severed lot:
“The purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on
Margaret Avenue and Wellington Street North, and rail noise from Goderich Exeter
Railway and Canadian National Railway may interfere with some activities of the dwelling
occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and
the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). This dwelling has been
fitted with a forced air-ducted heating system and has been designed with the provision of
adding central air conditioning at the occupant’s discretion. Installation of central air
conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows
and exterior doors toremain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are
within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Environment and Climate
Change (MOECC).”
That the following noise warning clause will be included on all offers to purchase and sale
or rental agreements for all units on both the severed and retained lots:
“Canadian National Railways/Goderich Exeter Railways or its assigns or it assigns or
successors in interest has or have a rights-of-way within 300 metres from the land the
subject thereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the railway facilities on such
rights-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or
successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living
environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and
vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s).
CNR/GExR will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such
facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid rights-of-way”
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
November 10, 2017, advising they have no concerns with applicationA 2017-109.
The Committee considered a written submission prepared by Mr. L. MacArthurexpressing
opposition to the subject application, noting concerns with soil conditions and drainage from the
subject property.
Mr.A. Drungwas in attendance in support of the subject application and the staff
recommendation.
Messrs. K.Lewisand L.MacArthuraddressed the Committee in opposition to the subject
application.Mr.MacArthuradvised he was not opposed to the severance itself;rather, he had
concerns with water run-offand soil conditions of the subject property. He further advised there is
also an existing retaining wall between his property at 248Wellington StreetNorthand the
subject property that is now in disrepair. He indicated in addition to that retaining wall,there is
also a privacy fence at the rear of the subject property that is also deteriorating.
The Chair noted the subject property would undergoa Site Plan and Grading Planprocess,as
outlined in the staff recommendation. Heindicated the concerns related to run-off would likely be
improved due to those conditions. He stated the applicant will be required to make satisfactory
arrangements on both matters prior to staff issuing clearance on the conditions. In response to
the concerns raised regarding the fence and retaining wall, the Chair questioned whether the
applicant was opposed to including an additional condition requiring the installation of a fenceat
the rear of the subject propertyas part of the Committee’s decision. Mr. Drungadvised he was
not in opposition to an additional condition requiring a fence along the rear property line.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-317-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:B 2017-038, B 2017-039 and A 2017-109 (Cont’d)
Mr.MacArthurfurther advised his only other concern relates to the soil conditions of the subject
property as well as the surrounding properties, specificallyhis property and Mr. Lewis’property.
He indicated theyhave both made substantial investments in their dwellings to manage the
settling that the structures have been experiencing. He noted they have concerns regarding the
impact the construction may have on their homes.
The Chair questioned whether the applicant would be willing,as part of the Committee’sdecision,
to obtain a building condition report. He indicated it mayprovideassurancesrelated to the
condition of the neighbouring properties both pre-construction and post-construction to determine
if any adverse results were due to construction on the subject property.Mr. Drung acknowledged
the suggestion, noting he had no objections to including a condition to require a building condition
report for 248 Wellington Street North and 121 Margaret Avenue.
Submission No.: B 2017-038
Moved byMs.P. Kohli
Seconded byMr.B. McColl
That the application of 2361693 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land
having a width of 12.047m, a depth of 26.518m and an area of 319 sq.m.; and, to grant an
easement over the severed land having a width of 3m, a depth of 26.518m and an area of
79.554 sq.m. for mutual driveway access, on Part Lots 34 & 35, Registered Plan 34, 125
Margaret Avenue, 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 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 ensure the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the
Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following and shall be approved by
the City Solicitor:
a.a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the
rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or
conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions
related thereto);
b.a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall
be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity.
4.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the
approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to
the City Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor.
5.That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared
by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the
following:
a. That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed lands in
accordance with the City’s Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City’s
Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any grading,
tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among
other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone,
landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-318-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:B 2017-038, B 2017-039 and A 2017-109 (Cont’d)
b. The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the
said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City’s Director of
Planning.
6.That the owner shall submit a site drawing and building elevation drawings for both the
severed and retained lots, to confirm the appropriateness of the proposed development,
to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Planning.
7.That the owner shallsubmit and receive approval of a building code assessment,
prepared by a Qualified Designer, Architect or Engineer, for the proposed new property
line, to the satisfaction of the City’s Chief Building Official.
8.That the owner shall construct a fence in the rear yard of the subject property to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
9.That the owner shall obtain a building condition report for 248 Wellington Street North
and 121 Margaret Street to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.
10.That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed.
11.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands and/or retained lands.
12.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping
including street trees, and a paved shared driveway ramp.
13.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services for the removal of any redundant service connections to the
(severed lands and/or retained) lands.
14.That as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and
Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted
along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading,
Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
15.That the owner shall provide a servicing plan and grading plan showing outlets to the
municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services.
16.That the owner shall provide Engineering staff with confirmation that the basement
elevation of the house can be drained by gravity to the street sewers, to the satisfaction
of the Director of Engineering Services. Where this cannot be achieved, the owner is
required to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a
gravity sewer to move the sewage from the property line to the street.
17.That the owner shall enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the City of
Kitchener to provide for the following:
a.That all units on the severed lot be constructed with a forced air-ducted heating
system suitably sized and designed with the provision for the installation of air
conditioning in the future at the occupant’s discretion.
b.That the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, or rental
agreements for all residential units on the severed lot:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-319-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:B 2017-038, B 2017-039 and A 2017-109 (Cont’d)
“The purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road
traffic on Margaret Avenue and Wellington Street North, and rail noise from
Goderich Exeter Railway and Canadian National Railway may interfere with
some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels exceed the sound
level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Change (MOECC). This dwelling has been fitted with a forced air-ducted
heating system and has been designed with the provision of adding central air
conditioning at the occupant’s discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by
the occupant in low and medium density developments will allow windows and
exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are
within the sound level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Environment and
Climate Change (MOECC).”
c.That the following noise warning clause will be included on all offers to purchase
and sale or rental agreements for all units on both the severed and retained lots:
“Canadian National Railways/Goderich Exeter Railways or its assigns or it
assigns or successors in interest has or have a rights-of-way within 300 metres
from the land the subject thereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of
the railway facilities on such rights-of-way in the future including the possibility
that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its
operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in
the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating
measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s).
CNR/GExR will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use
of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid rights-of-way.”
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
Submission No.: B 2017-039
Moved byMs. P. Kohli
Seconded byMr. B. McColl
That the application of 2361693 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to grant an easement over
the retained land as outlined in Consent Application B 2017-038 in favour of the severed land
having a width of 3m, a depth of 26.518m and an area of 79.554 sq.m. for mutual driveway
access, on Part Lots 34 & 35, Registered Plan 34, 125 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1.That the owner shall ensure the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the
Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following and shall be approved by
the City Solicitor:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-320-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:B 2017-038, B 2017-039 and A 2017-109 (Cont’d)
a.a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the
rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or
conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions
related thereto);
b.a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall
be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity.
2.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the
approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to
the City Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor.
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 landsand the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
andtaken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
Submission No.: A 2017-109
Moved byMs. P. Kohli
Seconded byMr. B. McColl
That the application of 2361693 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct a duplex on
the severed lands resulting from Consent Application B 2017-038, on a lot having a width of
13.427m rather than the required 15m, on Part Lots 34 & 35, Registered Plan 34, 125
Margaret Avenue, 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
2.Submission No.:B 2017-040, A 2017-110 &A 2017-111
Applicant:Emmanuel Bible College
Property Location:100-110 Fergus Avenue
Legal Description:Lots 55 to 75, Plan 322, Part Lot 2, Plan 963, Part ‘L’ Farm, Plan 589,
Being Parts 1 & 5 on Reference Plan 58R-1677
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-321-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
2.Submission No.:B 2017-040, A 2017-110 & A 2017-111(Cont’d)
Appearances:
In Support:S. Roy
R. Martin
Contra:M. Blewitt
Written Submissions:None
The Committee was advised the applicants arerequesting permission to sever an irregular-
shaped parcel of land having a width on Fergus Avenue of 87.578m, an easterly depth of
115.550m and an area of 14,278.1 sq.m. The retained land will be irregular in shape having a
width on Fergus Avenue of 81.715m, a northerly depth of 157.364m and an area of 12,727.9
sq.m. Permission is also being requested for minor variances on the severed land to have a rear
yard setback of 7.25m rather than the required 7.5m; a westerly side yard setback of 5.63m
rather than the required 6m; a 0m setback between lots containing lodging houses rather than the
required 400m; and, to have 64 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 94 off-street
parking spaces. Permission is also being requested for minor variances on the retained land to
have a side yard abutting Weber Street of 3.97m rather than the required 6m; a rear yard setback
of 6m rather than the required 7.5m; and, a 0m setback between lots containing lodging houses
rather than the required 400m.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated November 10, 2017,
advising the subject property is municipally addressed as 70, 100 and 110 Fergus Avenue. The
property is currently developed with post-secondary school campus that consists of a single
detached dwelling, a religious institution (chapel), an education establishment (classrooms), an
administrative office building, a campus centre (restaurant/cafeteria for students) and residential
lodging houses (dorms) for the students. The property is zoned I-2 (Community InstitutionalZone)
with special use provision 103U in the Zoning By-law and designated Institutional in the Official
Plan.
The applicant is requesting consent to sever the subject property into two lots to allow for future
development on the severed lands. The severed lot would have a frontage of 87.578 metres, a
depth of 115.55 metres and an area of 14278.1 square metres, while the retained lot would have
a frontage of 81.715 metres, depth of 157.364 metres and an area of 12727.9 square metres.
Minor variances for the retained and severed lands are also requested.
B2016-040:
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990. c.P. 13, both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City’s
Official Plan and Zoning By-law 85-1.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal conforms with the regulations of the Community
Institutional Zone (I-2). The proposed severance conforms to the City’s Official Plan and that the
configuration of the proposed lots can be considered appropriate for the use of the lands. The
proposed severance is required to create separate lots to allow future redevelopment on the
severed lands. Minor variances are required to bring the proposed severance into conformity with
the Zoning By-law prior to the consent application being approved.
A2017-110 -70-100 Fergus Avenue:
The applicant is seeking relief from Section 32.3.5 of the Zoning By-law to legalize a side yard
setback abutting a street 3.97 metres whereas a minimum of 6.0 metres is required in the By-law
and seeking relief to legalize the rear yard setback of 6.0 metres whereas the By-law requires 7.5
metres. Furthermore, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 5.17A of the Zoning By-law to
allow lodging houses to be located on abutting lots (0 metres) whereas the by-law requires a 400
metres separation between a Lodging Houses on another lot.
A2017-111 -110 Fergus Avenue:
The applicant is seeking relief from Section 32.3.5 of the Zoning By-law to legalize a side yard
setback of 5.63 metres whereas a minimum of 6.0 metres is required in the By-law and seeking
relief to legalize the rear yard setback of 7.25 metres whereas the By-law requires 7.5 metres.
The applicant has requested relief from Section 6.12 a) of the Zoning By-law to legalize the 64
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-322-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
2.Submission No.:B 2017-040, A 2017-110 & A 2017-111(Cont’d)
existing parking spaces on site whereas the By-law requires 94. Furthermore, the applicant is
requesting relief from Section 5.17A of the Zoning By-law to allow lodging houses to be located
on abutting lots (0 metres) whereas the by-law requires a 400 metres separation between a
Lodging Houses on another lot.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments for the
retained lands.
The subject property is designated Institutional in the City’s Official Plan. The Institutional
designation provides for a full range of institutional uses that are primarily of a community or
regional scale including cemeteries, community facilities (e.g. auditoriums, community centres,
libraries, sports and/or recreation facilities), cultural facilities, day care facilities, educational
establishments, funeral homes, hospitals, heath offices and clinics, medical laboratories, religious
institutions, residential care facilities, social services establishments and studio/artisan-related
uses (policy 15.D.7.6). Please note that despite the ‘Institutional’ land use designation of these
properties, the implementing policies are under appeal (section 15.D.7). As such the ‘Major
Institutional District’ policies (Section 7) of the 1994 Official Plan, as amended, may be used as
guidance until such time as the appeals/repeals have been resolved. These policies contemplate
a similar range of uses as the new Official Plan and the proposed variances conform with the
designation and it is therefore the opinion of staff that the requested variances meet the general
intent of the land use designation.
The requested variances to permit reduced side yard setbacks, reduced rear yard setbacks and
legalize the 0 metre setback between the existing lodging houses on the severed and retained
lands meet the intent of the Zoning By-law. The requested variance to legalize the existing
parking requirement of 64 spaceson the severed lands also meets the intent of Zoning By-law.
All of the proposed variances are existing conditions of the overall site and no new development
is proposed at this time. Minor variances are only required to bring the proposed severance into
conformity with the Zoning By-law prior to the consent application being approved. As such, staff
is satisfied the variances meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law.
The variance can be considered minor as the reduced setbacks and reduced parking spaces are
existing will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall character of
the neighbourhood. The variances are therefore considered good planning.
The proposed variances are appropriate. The reduced setbacks and parking spaces are existing
and legalizing them will not negatively impact the existing character of the subject property or
surrounding neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated November 15, 2017, advising they have no objections to application B
2017-040, subject to the following conditions:
1.That, prior to final approval, the applicant submits payment to the Region the Consent
Application Review Fee of $350.00.
2.That, prior to final approval, the applicant is required to convey the road widening (equal to
26.213 meters) and the 7.62 daylight triangle to the Region.
3.That, prior to final approval, the applicant enters into a Registered Development
Agreement to provide for the following:
That the following noise warning clause will be included on all offers to purchase and sale
or rental agreements for all units on both the severed and retained lots:
“The purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on
Weber Street, Highway 8 and Fergus Avenue may occasionally interfere with some
activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed the sound level limits
of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
(MOECC).”
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-323-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
2.Submission No.:B 2017-040, A 2017-110 & A 2017-111(Cont’d)
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
November 10, 2017, advising they have no concerns with applications A 2017-110 and A 2017-
111.
The Chair noted the comments from the Region of Waterloo and requested they be included as
part of the Committee’s decision.
In response to questions, Ms. von Westerholtadvised the request this date is technical in nature.
The applicants are intending tosever the lot into twoparcels. She noted the requested minor
variances are to facilitate that severance. She further advised the minor variance related to the
lodging houseis an acknowledgement of the student residents already in existence this date and
the owners intendto continue to use the residences in their current form following the severance.
Mr. S. Roy and Ms. R. Martin were in attendance in support of the subject application and staff
recommendation.
Mr. M. Blewitt addressed the Committee in opposition to the subject application. He expressed
concerns with the proposed lodging house use and potential future tenants that may occupy
those residences. Ms. von Westerholt clarified that there are noadditionallodging houses being
proposed this date. She noted there are existing student residences on site, which the applicant
would like to maintain on-site along with the continued operation of the College. She further
advised the applications this date are intended only to facilitate the creation of a lot. In response,
Mr. Blewitt withdrew his opposition to the subject applications.
It was noted any future development of the parcels would be subject to Site Plan approval.
Submission No.: B2017-040
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Emmanuel Bible College requesting permission to sever an irregular-
shaped parcel of land having a width on Fergus Avenue of 87.578m, an easterly depth of
115.550m and an area of 14,278.1 sq.m., on Lots 55 to 75, Plan 322, Part Lot 2, Plan 963,
Part ‘L’ Farm, Plan 589, Being Parts 1 & 5 on Reference Plan 58R-1677, 100-110 Fergus
Avenue, 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 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.ThatMinor Variance Applications A 2017-110 and A 2017-111 shall receive final
approval.
4.That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared
by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the severed lands which shall include the
following:
a.That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed lands and
retained lands in accordance with the City’s Tree Management Policy, to be
approved by the City’s Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented
prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans
shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building
envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-324-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
2.Submission No.:B2017-040, A 2017-110 & A 2017-111(Cont’d)
b.The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the
said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City’s Director of
Planning.
5.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands and/or retained lands.
6.That the owner submit a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing
system will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance
approval.
7.That the owner prepare and receive approval of the Development and Reconstruction
As-Recorded Tracking Form, along with a digital submission of all AutoCad drawings
required for the site (Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer
names and numbering system to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division, as per the
Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S.3150.
8.That the owner shall submit payment to the Region of Waterloo the Consent Application
Review Fee of $350.00.
9.That the owner shall convey the road widening (equal to 26.213 meters) and the 7.62
daylight triangle to the Region of Waterloo.
10.That the owner shall enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the Region
of Waterloo to provide for the following:
That the following noise warning clause will be included on all offers to purchase and
sale or rental agreements for all units on both the severed and retained lots:
“The purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic on
Weber Street, Highway 8 and Fergus Avenue may occasionally interfere with some
activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels may exceed the sound level
limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate
Change (MOECC).”
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.Therequirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
Submission No.: A2017-110
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-325-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
2.Submission No.:B 2017-040, A 2017-110 & A 2017-111(Cont’d)
That the application of Emmanuel Bible College requesting permission for the retained lands
resulting from Consent Application B 2017-041 to have a side yard abutting Weber Street of
3.97m rather than the required 6m; a rear yard setback of 6m rather than the required 7.5m;
and, a 0m setback between lots containing lodging houses rather than the required 400m, on
Lots 55 to 75, Plan 322, Part Lot 2, Plan 963, Part ‘L’ Farm, Plan 589, Being Parts 1 & 5 on
Reference Plan 58R-1677, 100 Fergus 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
Submission No.: A2017-111
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Emmanuel Bible College requesting permission for the severed lands
resulting from Consent Application B 2017-041 to have a rear yard setback of 7.25m rather
than the required 7.5m; a westerly side yard setback of 5.63m rather than the required 6m; a
0m setback between lots containing lodging houses rather than the required 400m; and, to
have 64 off-street parking spaces rather than the required 94 off-street parking spaces, on Part
‘L’ Farm, Plan 589, 110 Fergus 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
3.Submission No.:B 2017-041, B 2017-042, A 2017-112 & A 2017-113
Applicant:2536306 Ontario Inc./Gardenbrook Homes
Property Location:27 Bismark Avenue
Legal Description:Part Lot B, Plan 386
Appearances:
In Support:M. Malott
S. Murawsky
Contra:A. Stephen
Written Submissions:None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-326-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-041, B 2017-042, A 2017-112 & A 2017-113 (Cont’d)
The Committee was advised the applicants arerequesting permission to sever a parcel of land
having a width of 10.401m, a depth of 53.046m and an area of536.3 sq.m.; and, to grant an
easement over the severed land having a width of 1.524m, a depth of 28m and an area of 42.672
sq.m. in favour of the retained land for mutual driveway access. The severed land will also require
minor variances to permit a front yard setback of 1.7m rather than the required 4.5m; and, to
permit a Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) of 3.2m rather than the required 4.57m DVT. The
retained land will have a width of 10.401m, a depth of 52.845m and an area of 535.3 sq.m.; and,
will require permission to grant an easement having a width of 1.524m, a depth of 28m and an
area of 42.672 sq.m. in favour of the severed land for mutual driveway access. The retained land
will also require minor variances to permit a front yard setback of 2.7m rather than the required
4.5m; and, to permit a Driveway Visibility Triangle (DVT) of 2.7m rather than the required 4.57m
DVT.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated November 10, 2017,
advising the application is proposing tosever the existing property into two separate lots, each to
be developed in future with a single detached or duplex dwelling. The existing dwelling is
proposed to be demolished.
The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City of Kitchener Official Plan.
Permitted low density residential uses include single detached, semi-detached, duplex, and
multiple dwellings. The property is currently zoned as Residential Five (R-5) which permits single
detached, semi-detached, duplex, and multiple dwellings (maximum 3 unit multiple dwellings).
The property is also within the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study
(RIENS) Area.
The owner is proposing to sever the lands into two lots, and redeveloping each lot with a single
detached or duplex dwelling. A shared driveway is proposed along the shared property line in
order to access the required parking in the rear yard. Minor variances for a reduced front yard
setback and reduced Driveway Visibility Triangles (DVT) are being sought in order to match the
existing established setbacks along the street edge.
Specifically, these applications request the following:
B2017-041 -To sever a lot with a frontage of 10.40m, depth of 52.84m, and an area of 536.3m2,
as well as to create aneasement with a width of 1.524m, a length of 28.0m, and an area of 42.67
m2, for a mutual access in favour of the retained lands.
B2017-042 -To create an easement with a width of 1.52m, a length of 28.0m, and an area of
42.67m2, for a mutual access in favour of the severed lands.
A2017-112 -To request a front yard setback of 1.7m whereas 4.5m is required, as well as a DVT
of 3.2m whereas 4.57m is required, for the severed lands.
A2017-113 -To request a front yard setback of 2.7m whereas 4.5m is required, as well as a DVT
of 2.7m whereas 4.57m is required, for the retained lands.
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the severed lots are desirable and
appropriate. The uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City’s
Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The size, dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots is suitable
for the use of the lands and compatible with the surrounding community. The lands front onto an
established public street, and can be independently and adequately serviced with connections to
municipal services. Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the
Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments:
The requested variances meet the general intent of the Official Plan. The Official Plan provides
specific policy direction for infill residential development in established neighbourhoods. In the
City’s Central Neighbourhoods, the primary focus is to ensure that new infill development is
compatible with the existingneighbourhood. Policy 4.C.1.8.b requires that where front yard
setback reductions are proposed for new buildings in established neighbourhoods, the requested
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-327-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-041, B 2017-042, A 2017-112 & A 2017-113 (Cont’d)
front yard setback should be similar to adjacent properties and supports and maintain the
character of the streetscape and the neighbourhood. The requested front yard setback and DVT
reductions will permit new residential buildings which feature front porches that are in linewith
other porches along the street. The buildings are proposed to be located a similar setback as
other dwellings on the street.
The requested variances meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the front yard
setback is to establishbuilt form that is consistent along a street. The reduced front yard setbacks
match the existing established street edge resulting in a uniform and compatible street edge.
Planning staff will require, as a condition of this approval, as per Policy 4.C.1.7 of the Official
Plan, the owner submit to the Director of Planning, Building Elevation drawings, a Tree
Management Plan, and a building Site drawing showing the design and location of the proposed
buildings. Planning staff will review these plans to ensure that the proposed new dwellings are
compatible in terms of siting, massing, and architectural style.
The requested variances are minor. Kitchener City Council recently approved the Residential
Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods (RIENS) Study. That study identified that character
and compatibility are important when considering any new development. Some of the
recommendations from the study are currently at various stages of the implementation process.
Planning staff notes that the development concept implements many of the preliminary RIENS
recommendations, including a reduced front yard, large front porch, shared driveway, and rear
yard parking. The variances are required because not all of the recommendations of the study
have been fully implemented in the Zoning By-law.
The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land. The proposed
development will be compatible with the built form, massing, and building siting found throughout
the neighbourhood. Further attention will be paid to the building height, roof line, porch design,
driveway width and location, style and materials, and landscaping, as part of the approval of the
Building Elevation and Site drawings. The development proposal accommodates a slight increase
in density in an established community in a compatible form that provides increased housing
options.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated November 15, 2017, advising they haveno objections to applications
B 2017-041 and B 2017-042, subject to the following conditions:
1.That, prior to final approval, the applicant submits payment to the Region the Consent
Application Review Fee of $350.00.
2.That, prior to final approval, the applicant enter into a Registered Development Agreement
with the City of Kitchener to provide for the following:
That all units on the severed lot be constructed with a forced air-ducted heating system
suitably sized and designed with the provision for the installation of air conditioning in the
future at the occupant’s discretion.
That the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, or rental agreements
for all residential units on the severed lot:
“The purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing rail noise and
vibration from Region of Waterloo railway may occasionally interfere with some activities of
the dwelling occupants as the sound and vibration levels may exceed the sound and
vibration level limits of the Region of Waterloo and the Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Change (MOECC). This dwelling has been fitted with a forced air-ducted heating
system and has been designed with the provision of adding central air conditioning at the
occupant’s discretion. Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and
medium density developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed,
thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the
Region ofWaterloo and the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC)”.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-328-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-041, B 2017-042, A 2017-112 & A 2017-113 (Cont’d)
That the following noise warning clause will be included on all offers to purchase and sale
or rental agreements forall units on both the severed and retained lots:
“Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest
has or have a rights-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject thereof. There
may be alterations to or expansions of the railway facilities on such rights-of-way in the
future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid
may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the
residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration
attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNR
will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities
and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid rights-of-way.”
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
November 10, 2017, advising they have no concerns with applications A 2017-112and A 2017-
113.
The Chair requested an amendment to the recommendations for Minor Variance ApplicationsA
2017-112 and A 2017-113 to include a condition that the owner shall ensure any railings that are
installed shall be transparent to ensure they do not impede the visibility withinthe DVT.
Messrs. M. Malottand S. Murawskywere in attendance in support of the subject application.
They noted they were in support of the staff recommendation and the additional condition as
suggested by the Chair.
Ms. A. Stephen advised she is in opposition to the subjectapplication. She expressed concerns
with the reduction of the DVT, which was already addressed by the Chair. She noted further
concerns with increased traffic on the street and safety of the children with the increased number
of residential units and vehicles associated with those units. Ms. Stephenindicated she also had
concerns with the single family dwellings in the neighbourhood being converted to rental units,
which may impact the desirability of the neighbourhood and her property value. She expressed
further concerns with snow removal and adequate parking, and advised since she moved into the
neighbourhood the character of the neighbourhood has already dramatically changed.
The Chair provided the neighbourwith a rendering of the proposed dwellings, which were
included with the subject application. Ms. Stephen stated in her opinion the proposal was not
what she had anticipated and does appear to fit in with the neighbourhood.Mr. G. Stevenson
advised as per the findings within the Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods
Study (RIENS) it was at staffs request that the applicant attend Committee of Adjustment for a
minor variance related to the front yard setback, to ensure it was compatiblewith the existing
streetscape. In addition, he stated the applicant is also requesting a mutual easement between
the proposed dwellings to manage parking and snow removal.
Mr. B. McColl suggested,and it was agreed,that the Committee’s approval shouldbe amended
to include that the approval is generally as perthe plans submitted with the application.
Submission No.: B2017-041
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of 2536306 Ontario Inc./GardenbrookHomes requesting permission to
sever a parcel of land having a width of 10.401m, a depth of 53.046m and an area of 536.3
sq.m.; and, to grant an easement in favour of the severed land having a width of 1.524m, a
depth of 28m and an area of 42.672 sq.m., on Part Lot B, Plan 386, 27 Bismark Avenue,
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 to the satisfaction of the City’s
Revenue Division.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-329-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-041, B 2017-042, A 2017-112 & A 2017-113 (Cont’d)
2.That the owner shall provide a digital file of the deposited reference plan(s) prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .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 ensure the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the
Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following and shall be approved by
the City Solicitor:
a.a clear and specific description of the purposeof the Easement(s) and of the
rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or
conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions
related thereto);
b.a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall
be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity.
4.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the
approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereofto
the City Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor.
5.That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared
by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the retained and severed lands which shall
include the following:
a. That the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed and
retained lands in accordance with the City’s Tree Management Policy, to be
approved by the City’s Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented
prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans
shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building
envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved.
b. The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the
said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City’s Director of
Planning.
6.That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed.
7.That the owner shall submit a site drawing and building elevation drawings for both the
severed and retained lots, to confirm the appropriateness of the proposed development,
to the satisfaction of the City’s Director ofPlanning.
8.That the owner shall receive full and final approval of a Demolition Control Application
for the demolition of 27 Bismark Avenue.
9.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands and/or retained lands.
10.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping
including street trees, and a paved shared driveway ramp.
11.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services for the removal of any redundant service connections to the
(severed landsand/or retained) lands.
12.That the owner shall provide a servicing plan and grading plan showing outlets to the
municipal servicing system to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-330-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-041, B 2017-042, A2017-112 & A 2017-113 (Cont’d)
13.That the owner shall provide Engineering staff with confirmation that the basement
elevation of the house can be drained by gravity to the street sewers, to the satisfaction
of the Director of Engineering Services. Where this cannot be achieved, the owner is
required to pump the sewage via a pump and forcemain to the property line and have a
gravity sewer to pump sewage from the property line to the street.
14.That as per the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150 the Development and
ReconstructionAs-Recorded Tracking Form is required to be filled out and submitted
along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site (Grading,
Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering system to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to severance approval.
15.That the owner shall submit payment to the Region of Waterloo the Consent Application
Review Fee of $350.00.
16.That the owner shall enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the City of
Kitchener to provide for the following:
a.That all units on the severed lot be constructed with a forced air-ducted heating
system suitably sized and designed with the provision for the installation of air
conditioning in the future at the occupant’s discretion.
b.That the following noise warning clause in all offers of purchase/sale, or rental
agreements for all residential units on the severed lot:
“The purchasers/tenants are advised that sound levels due to increasing rail
noise and vibration from Region of Waterloo railway may occasionally interfere
with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound and vibration levels
may exceed the sound and vibration level limits of the Region of Waterloo and
the Ministry of the Environment andClimate Change (MOECC). This dwelling
has been fitted with a forced air-ducted heating system and has been designed
with the provision of adding central air conditioning at the occupant’s discretion.
Installation of central air conditioning by the occupant in low and medium density
developments will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby
ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the sound level limits of the
Region of Waterloo and the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC)”.
c.That the following noise warning clause will be included on all offers to purchase
and sale or rental agreements for all units on both the severed and retained lots:
“Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in
interest has or have a rights-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject
thereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the railway facilities on
such rights-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its
assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion
may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding
the inclusion of any noise andvibration attenuating measures in the design of the
development and individual dwelling(s). CNR will not be responsible for any
complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over
or under the aforesaid rights-of-way.”
Itis the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-331-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-041, B 2017-042, A 2017-112 & A 2017-113 (Cont’d)
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
Carried
Submission No.: B2017-042
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of2536306 Ontario Inc./GardenbrookHomes requesting permission for the
severed land as outlined in Consent Application B 2017-041 togrant an easement in favour of the
retained land having a width of 1.524m, a depth of 28m and an area of 42.672 sq.m. for mutual
driveway access,onPart LotB, Plan 386,27 Bismark Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1.That the owner shall ensure the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the
Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following and shall be approved by
the City Solicitor:
a.a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the rights
and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions of
any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related thereto);
b.a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall be
maintained and registered on title in perpetuity.
2.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved
Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to the City
Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
theRegional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Section 53of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were consideredand
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 areavailable on the
City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
Submission No.: A2017-112
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of 2536306 Ontario Inc./Gardenbrook Homes requesting permission to
permit a front yard setback of 1.7m rather than the required 4.5m; and, to permit a Driveway
Visibility Triangle (DVT) of 3.2m rather than the required 4.57m DVT, on Part Lot B,Plan 386,
27 Bismark Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1.That the owner shall ensure any railings constructed within the Driveway Visibility
Triangle (DVT) will be transparent to ensure they do not impede visibility.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-332-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
3.Submission No.:B 2017-041, B 2017-042, A 2017-112 & A 2017-113 (Cont’d)
2.That approval of Minor Variance Application A 2017-112 is generally as per the plans
submitted with the application.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.Thevariances requested in this application are minor.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
Submission No.: A2017-113
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of 2536306 Ontario Inc./Gardenbrook Homes requesting permission to a
front yard setback of 2.7m rather than the required 4.5m; and, to permit a Driveway Visibility
Triangle (DVT) of 2.7m rather than the required 4.57m DVT, on Part Lot B, Plan 386, 27
Bismark Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1.That the owner shall ensure any railings constructed within the Driveway Visibility
Triangle (DVT) will be transparent to ensure they do not impede visibility.
2.That approval of Minor Variance Application A 2017-113 is generally as per the plans
submitted with the application.
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
4.Submission No.:B 2017-043, to B 2017-047 and A 2017-114 to A 2017-119
Applicant:Primeland Developments (2003) Limited
Property Location:3, 7, 11, 15 & 19 Rockcliffe Drive (Plan of Subdivision 58M-569 of
Part of Lot 13, Biehn’s Tract \[Rockliffe Drive\])
Legal Description:Lots 1, 2, 3, 4and5, Registered Plan 58M-569
Appearances:
In Support:D. Freure
N. Bogaert
Contra:None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-333-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
4.Submission No.:B 2017-043, to B 2017-047 and A2017-114 to A 2017-119 (Cont’d)
Written Submissions:None
The Committee was advised the applicants arerequesting permission to convey various lot
additions and one severance to create 6 lots from what is currently identified as 5 lots in a Plan of
Subdivision. Permission is also being requested for minor variance applications to legalize the
lots once created.
B 2017-047 and A 2017-118 -19 Rockcliffe Drive:
Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 1.321m, a depth of 35m and an area of
46.235 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to 15 Rockcliffe Drive. Permission is also being
requested for the future lot to be municipally addressed as 19 Rockcliffe Drive (Part 1) to have a
lot width of 10.973m rather than the required 11.5m.
B 2017-046 and A 2017-117 -15 Rockcliffe Drive:
Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 3.861m, a depth of35m and an area of
135.135 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to 11 Rockcliffe Drive, and to grant a maintenance
easement in the easterly side yard having a width of 0.61m in favour of 11 Rockcliffe Drive.
Permission is also being requested for the future lot to be municipally addressed as 15 Rockcliffe
Drive (Parts 2, 3 and 11) to have a lot width of 9.754m rather than the required 11.5m.
B 2017-045 and A 2017-116 -11 Rockcliffe Drive:
Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 6.401m, a depth of 35m and an area of
224.035 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to 7 Rockcliffe Drive, and to grant a maintenance
easement in the westerly side yard having a width of 0.61m in favour of 15 Rockcliffe Drive.
Permission is also being requested for the future lot to be municipally addressed as 11 Rockcliffe
Drive (Parts 4, 5 & 12) to have a lot width of 9.754m rather than the required 11.5m.
B 2017-044 and A 2017-115 -7 Rockcliffe Drive:
Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 7.722m, a depth of 35m and an area of
270.27sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot addition to 3 Rockcliffe Drive. Permission is also being
requested for the future lot to be municipally addressed as 7 Rockcliffe Drive (Parts 6 & 7) to have
a lot width of 10.973m rather than the required 11.5m.
B 2017-043, A 2017-119 and A 2017-114 -5 and 3 Rockcliffe Drive:
Permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 16.143m, a depth of 35m and an area of
575.894sq.m. and will be municipally addressed as 3 Rockcliffe Drive. The retained lands will
have an overall width of 9.144m after receiving a lot addition through Consent Application B
2017-044, a depth of 35m and an area of 320.04 sq.m. and will be municipally addressed as 5
Rockcliffe Drive. Permission is also being requested for a minor variance for 5 Rockcliffe Drive to
permit a lot width of 9.144m rather than the required 11.5m; and, a minor variance for 3 Rockcliffe
Drive to permit a side yard abutting an arterial road of 6m rather than the required 12m.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated November 10, 2017,
advising the subject lands are located on Rockcliffe Drive in the Huron Woods Subdivision. There
is an existing model home at 27 Rockcliffe Drive, and anothermodelhome under construction at
23 Rockcliffe Drive. The owner intendsto use these lots for future model homes, and wishes to
build homes which accurately represent the variety of lot widths and housing styles which will be
available to purchase in other parts of the subdivision.
The applicant is seeking consent for 4 lot additions and the creation of a new lot, ultimately
resulting in creating 6 lots from the current 5. Maintenance easements have been requested over
future lots municipally addressed as 11 and 15 Rockcliffe Drive. A variance is also requested for
each of the 6 resultant lots. The consent and variance requests are depicted on the sketch below
and summarized in the tableincluded with the staff report.
In considering the four tests for minor variances asoutlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments. Please
note, the proposed variances to lot width relate to the future lots, as described in the table above,
and are required in order for the proposed lots to comply with zoning by-law regulations.
Proposed Variance to Special Regulation Provision 341R to permit lot widths less than 11.5
metre (A2017-115 -A2017-119):
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-334-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
4.Submission No.:B 2017-043, to B 2017-047 and A 2017-114 to A 2017-119 (Cont’d)
The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan which permits
the development of single detached dwellings. Urban design policies support providing variety in
a subdivision which includes incorporating a variety of housing styles and lot widths. The creation
of a mix of lot widths will help provide for an interesting streetscape. Based on the foregoing staff
are of the opinion that the intent of the Official Plan is maintained.
The lands are zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) with Special Regulation Provision 341R.
Special Regulation Provision 341R requires a minimum lot width of 11.5 metres. The R-4 zone
allows a minimum lot width of 9.0 metres, and the intent of special regulation was to increase
variety of lot sizes throughout the subdivision. The developer is proposing to adjust the lots so
that there is further variation in lot sizes and none of the proposed lots are smaller than the
minimum 9.0 metre lot size of the R-4 zone. Further, there are a number of lots in close vicinity to
these lots which meet or exceed a lot width of 11.5 metres. Based on the foregoing, staff is of the
opinion that the intent of the zoning by-law is maintained, that the variance is minor, and that it is
appropriate for the development and use of the lands.
Proposed Variance to permit a side yard setback to an arterial road of 6.0 metres rather than 12.0
metres (A2017-114):
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City’s Official Plan which permits
the proposed single detached dwelling. The Official Plan also includes a policy objective to
minimize and mitigate land use conflicts between sensitive land uses and noise sources. The
intent of a 12.0 metre setback between residential uses and arterial roads is to help provide
physical separation between arterial roads and residential uses. Further, from an urban design
perspective, consistent application of this regulation along an arterial road helps to ensurea
consistent streetscape treatment.
The subject property is located adjacent to the future Strasburg Road which is classified as an
arterial road. This is the only lot along the new section of Strasburg Road where a single
detached dwelling will have its side yard adjacent to the road. There is also a grade difference
between the lot and the road, requiring a berm, and retaining wall/noise wall combination.
Therefore the home will be visually screened and vertically separated from Strasburg Road,
protecting future resident’s enjoyment of the outdoor amenity space by separating it from the
right-of-way. Further, a Noise Study was completed in support of the approved plan of subdivision
(prepared by Stantec Consulting and dated February 2014). The Noise Study was prepared and
approved based on the house being setback 6.0 metres from Strasburg Road. The Study
recommended that a noise warning clause be registered on title of the subject lot, that the
building be designed with forced air-ducted heating system,and that noise attenuation barrier be
constructed along the side lot line. The Noise Study has been approved as part of the subdivision
process, and the requirements are captured in the existing subdivision agreement registered on
title.
Given the existing noise mitigation measures ensure noise impacts are appropriately mitigated,
and the grade, berm and noise wall configurations provide separation from Strasburg Road, staff
are of the opinion that the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are maintained, and that
the proposed variance is minor and appropriate for the development and use of the lands.
Proposed Consent Applications:
With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, staff is satisfied that the creation of the lots is desirable and appropriate.
The uses of lands are in conformity with the City’s Official Plan and the proposed lots will comply
with the Zoning By-law, subject to approval of the requested variances to the lot widths. The size,
dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are suitable for the use of the lands and future
development will be compatible with the neighbourhood. The lands front on a public street, and
can be serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services.
Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement
and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated November 15, 2017, advising while they have no objections to
applicationsB 2017-043 to B 2017-047,they noted the subject lands had beenpreviously
addressed through the subdivision application 30T-98201 Stage 5a, registered as 58M-569
December 12, 2013.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-335-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
4.Submission No.:B 2017-043, to B 2017-047 and A 2017-114 to A 2017-119 (Cont’d)
Region of Waterloo staff notes the intent of the above applications is to create 6 lots from
previous 5 lots and adjust the lot lines accordingly. For clarification,it must be noted that new
Municipal Nos. 11, 7, 5 would be subject to conditions as previously applicable to Lots 3 & 4 in
the original subdivision agreement; and,new Municipal No. 3 (corner lot) would be subject
conditions as previously applicable to Lot 5 in the original subdivision agreement with the City
(WR791465 November 26, 2013). It is anticipated that based on the final lots configuration the
Municipal No. 11 being partially on lands of the original lot 3 in the approved subdivision; for
purpose of the noise study, a revision to the original subdivision agreement may not be required.
Due to minor adjustments of the lot lines as shown on the Figure 6-Ultimate Lotting, an
update/addendum to the final noise study dated February 2014 as accepted by the Region’s
letter dated April 08, 2014 will not be required for the above applications.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Transportation Planner, dated
November 10, 2017, advising they have no concerns with applications A 2017-114 to A 2017-
119.
Messrs. D. Freure and N. Bogaert were in attendance in support of thesubject application and
staff recommendation.
Submission No.: B2017-043
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of PrimelandDevelopments (2003) Limited requesting permission to sever
a parcel of land (shown as Part 10 on the severance sketch submitted with the application)
having a width of 16.143m, a depth of 35m and an area of 575.894sq.m., on Lot 5, Registered
Plan 58M-569,3 Rockcliffe Drive, 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 Minor Variance Applications A 2017-114, A 2017-115, A 2017-116, A 2017-117, A
2017-118 and A 2017-119 shall receive final approval.
4.That the owner shall submit a draft copy of the proposed Transfer for the severance for
review and approval, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, prior to severance approval.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use ofthe 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
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-336-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
4.Submission No.:B 2017-043, to B 2017-047 and A 2017-114 to A 2017-119 (Cont’d)
Submission No.: B2017-044
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of PrimelandDevelopments (2003) Limited requesting permission to sever
a parcel of land (shown as Part 8 on the severance sketch submitted with the application)
having a width of 7.722m, a depth of 35m and an area of 270.27sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot
addition to 3 Rockcliffe Drive, on Lot 4, Registered Plan 58M-569, 7 Rockcliffe Drive,
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 Minor Variance Applications A 2017-114, A 2017-115, A 2017-116, A 2017-117, A
2017-118 and A 2017-119 shall receive final approval
4.That the owner shall submit a draft copy of the proposed Transfer for the severance for
review and approval, to the satisfaction of the CitySolicitor, prior to severance approval.
5.That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into
identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that
any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections
50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
6.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an
Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the
Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of
the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable
time following registration.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
Submission No.: A2017-045
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-337-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
4.Submission No.:B 2017-043, to B 2017-047 and A 2017-114 to A 2017-119 (Cont’d)
That the application of PrimelandDevelopments (2003) Limited requesting permission to sever
a parcel of land (shown as Part 6 on the severance sketch submitted with the application)
having a width of 6.401m, a depth of 35m and an area of 224.035 sq.m. to be conveyed as a
lot addition to 7 Rockcliffe Drive, on Lot 3, Registered Plan 58M-569, 11 Rockcliffe Drive,
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 Minor Variance Applications A 2017-114, A 2017-115, A 2017-116, A 2017-117, A
2017-118 and A 2017-119 shall receive final approval.
4.That the owner shall submit a draft copy of the proposed Transfer for the severance for
review and approval, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, prior to severance approval.
5.That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into
identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that
any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections
50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
6.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an
Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the
Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of
the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable
time following registration.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
Submission No.: B2017-046
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-338-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
4.Submission No.:B 2017-043, to B 2017-047 and A 2017-114 to A 2017-119 (Cont’d)
That the application of Primeland Developments (2003) Limited requesting permission to sever
a parcel of land (shown as Part 2 on the severance sketch submitted with the application)
having awidth of 3.861m, a depth of 35m and an area of 135.135 sq.m. to be conveyed as a
lot addition to 11 Rockcliffe Drive, and to grant a maintenance easement in the easterly side
yard having a width of 0.61m over the retained lands (shown as Part 11 on the severance
sketch) in favour of the future lot municipally addressed as 11 Rockcliffe Drive (being Parts 4
and 5 on the severance sketch); and, a maintenance easement having a width of 0.61m over
the severed lands (shown as Part 12 on the severance sketch) infavour of the future lot
municipally addressed as 15 Rockcliffe Drive (being Parts 2 and 3 on the severance sketch),
on Lot 2, Registered Plan 58M-569, 15 Rockcliffe Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED,
subject to the following conditions:
1.That theowner 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 depositedreference plan(s) prepared by
an Ontario Land Surveyor in .dwg (AutoCad) or .dgn (Microstation) format, as well as
two full sized paper copies of the plan(s). The digital file needs to be submitted
according to the City of Kitchener's Digital Submission Standards to the satisfaction of
the City’s Mapping Technologist.
3.That Minor Variance Applications A 2017-114, A 2017-115, A 2017-116, A 2017-117, A
2017-118 and A 2017-119 receive final approval.
4.That the owner shall submit a draft copy of the proposed Transfer for the severance and
easements for review and approval, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, prior to
severance approval.
5.That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into
identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that
any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections
50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
6.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an
Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the
Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of
the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable
time following registration.
7.That the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the Easement(s) being
approved herein shall include the following and shall be approved by the City Solicitor:
a.a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easement(s) and of the
rights and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or
conditions of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions
related thereto); and,
b.a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easement(s) being granted shall
be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity.
8.That a satisfactory Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the approved Transfer
Easement(s) and to immediately thereafterprovide copies thereof to the City Solicitor
be provided to the City Solicitor.
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-339-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
4.Submission No.:B 2017-043, to B 2017-047 and A 2017-114 to A 2017-119 (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
Carried
Submission No.: B2017-047
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Primeland Developments (2003) Limited requesting permission to sever
a parcel of land (shown as Part 2 on the severance sketch submitted with the application)
having a width of 1.321m, a depth of 35m and an area of 46.235 sq.m. to be conveyed as a lot
addition to 15 Rockcliffe Drive, on Lot 1, Registered Plan 58M-569, 19 Rockcliffe Drive,
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 Minor Variance Applications A 2017-114, A 2017-115, A 2017-116, A 2017-117, A
2017-118 and A 2017-119 shall receive final approval.
4.That the owner shall submit a draft copy of the proposed Transfer for the severance for
review and approval, tothe satisfaction of the City Solicitor, prior to severance approval.
5.That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken into
identical ownership as the abutting lands. The deed for endorsement shall include that
any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections
50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.
6.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register an
Application Consolidation Parcels immediately following the registration of the
Severance Deed and prior to any new applicable mortgages, and to provide a copy of
the registered Application Consolidation Parcels to the City Solicitor within a reasonable
time following registration.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-340-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
4.Submission No.:B 2017-043, to B 2017-047 and A 2017-114 to A 2017-119 (Cont’d)
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
Carried
Submission No.: A2017-114
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of PrimelandDevelopments (2003) Limited requesting permission to
construct a single detached dwelling on a lot resulting from Consent Applications B 2017-043
to B 2017-047 having a side yard abutting an arterial road of 6m rather than the required 12m,
on Lot 5, Registered Plan 58M-569, 3 Rockcliffe 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
Submission No.: A2017-115
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of PrimelandDevelopments (2003) Limited requesting permission to
construct a single detached dwelling on a lot resulting from Consent Applications B 2017-043
to B 2017-047 having a lot width of 10.97m rather than the required 11.5m, on Lot 4,
Registered Plan 58M-569,7 Rockcliffe 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 generalintent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
Submission No.: A2017-116
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-341-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
4.Submission No.:B 2017-043, to B 2017-047 and A 2017-114 to A 2017-119 (Cont’d)
That the application of PrimelandDevelopments (2003) Limited requesting permission to
construct a single detached dwelling on a lot resulting from Consent Applications B 2017-043
to B 2017-047 having a lot width of 9.75m rather than the required 11.5m, on Lot 3, Registered
Plan 58M-569, 11 Rockcliffe 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 generalintent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
Submission No.: A2017-117
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of Primeland Developments (2003) Limited requesting permission to
construct a single detached dwelling on a lot resulting from Consent Applications B 2017-043
to B 2017-047 having a lot width of 9.75m rather than the required 11.5m, on Lot 2, Registered
Plan 58M-569, 15 Rockcliffe Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this applicationis minor.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-Law and Official Plan
is being maintained on the subject property.
Pursuant to Section 45 of the Planning Act, all oral and written submissions were considered
and taken into account as part of the Committee’s decision-making process with respect to the
subject application. For more information please review the meeting minutes, which are
available on the City’s website at www.kitchener.ca
Carried
Submission No.: A2017-118
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of PrimelandDevelopments (2003) Limited requesting permission to
construct a single detached dwelling on a lot resulting from Consent Applications B 2017-043
to B 2017-047 having a lot width of 10.97m rather than the required 11.5m, on Lot 1,
Registered Plan 58M-569,19 Rockcliffe 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-342-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
4.Submission No.:B 2017-043, to B 2017-047 and A 2017-114 to A 2017-119 (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
Submission No.: A2017-119
Moved byMr. B. McColl
Seconded by Ms. P. Kohli
That the application of PrimelandDevelopments (2003) Limited requesting permission to
construct a single detached dwelling on a lot resulting from Consent Applications B 2017-043
to B 2017-047 having a lot width of 9.14m rather than the required 11.5m, on Lot 5, Registered
Plan 58M-569, 5 Rockcliffe 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
CHANGE OF CONDITIONSAPPLICATION:
1.SubmissionNo.:CC 2017-001
Applicant:peopleCare Inc.
Property Location:369 & 375 Frederick Street
Legal Description:Part Lot 9, Subdivision of Lots 2 & 3, German Company Tract,
being Part of Park Lot X, Registered Plan 414
Appearances:
In Support:P. Puopolo
A. Stellings
Contra:None
Written Submissions:None
The Committee was advised the applicants arerequesting permission to change the conditions of
Provisional Consent application B 2017-019, granted by the Committee of Adjustment on July 18,
2017, to include an additional condition granting a servicing easement identified as Part 4 on the
plan submitted with the application over the severed parcel (Parcel B) in favour of the retained
parcel (Parcel A) for servicing.
The Committee considered the report of the Planning Division dated November 15, 2017,
advising the applicant submitted Consent Application B2017-019 and on July 18, 2017 the
Committee of Adjustment approved the easement subject to 11 conditions.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-343-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:CC 2017-001(Cont’d)
A servicing easement known as part 4 was identified during the review of the original consent
application (B2017-019), the configuration of which has been modified, and as a result a change
of condition is requested by the owner to add a condition requiring the revised easement, as
shown on the attached draft reference plan dated September 22, 2017.
Staff is also recommending that the Committee add the following conditions to the original
consent decisions to require the owner to establish a servicing easement. In addition the wording
of two previous conditions 9 and 10 will be revised in order to facilitate the land transfer at the
land registry office.
Based on the foregoing, Planning staff recommends that the subject Change of Conditions
Application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this
report.
The Committee considered the report of the Region of Waterloo, Planning, Development and
Legislative Services, dated November 15, 2017, advising theyhave no objections tothis
application, subject to the following condition:
1.That, prior to final approval, the applicant, if necessary, based on the review of the
submitted noise study, enter into a Registered Development Agreement with the Region of
Waterloo to implement the findings of the study.
Mr. P. Puopolo and Ms. A. Stellings were in attendance in support of the subject application and
staff recommendation.
Moved byMs. P.Kohli
Seconded byMs. B.McColl
That the application of peopleCare Inc. requesting permission to change the conditions of
Provisional Consent application B 2017-019, granted by the Committee of Adjustment on July
18, 2017, to amend the decision by replacing Conditions 9, 10 and 11 with conditions 9, 10
and 11 as outlined in the Planning Department report CC 2017-001, dated November 15,
2017, on Part Lot 9, Subdivision of Lots 2 & 3, German Company Tract, being Part of Park Lot
X, Registered Plan 414, 369 and 375 Frederick Street, 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 Minor Variance Application A 2017-071 shall receive final approval.
4.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction ofthe City's
Engineering Services, for the installation of all new service connections to both the
severed and retained lands, if deemed necessary by the City’s Engineering Services.
5.That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
Engineering Services for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping
including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
6.That the owner shall prepare a servicing plan showing outlets to the municipal servicing
system for the severed and retained parcels to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Division.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT-344-NOVEMBER 21, 2017
1.Submission No.:CC 2017-001(Cont’d)
7.That the owner shall submit a Development and Reconstruction As-Recorded Tracking
Form along with a digital submission of all AutoCAD drawings required for the site
(Grading, Servicing etc.) with the corresponding correct layer names and numbering
system, in accordance with the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) S. 3150, to the
satisfaction of the City’s to the Engineering Division.
8.That the owner shall make arrangements, financial or otherwise, for the relocation of
any existing City-owned street furniture, transit shelters, signs, hydrants, utility poles,
wires or lines, as required, to the satisfaction of the appropriate City department and
agency.
9.That the owner shall ensure the Transfer Easement document(s) required to create the
Easement(s) being approved herein shall include the following and shall be approved by
the City Solicitor:
a.a clear and specific description of the purpose of the Easements and of the rights
and privileges being granted therein (including detailed terms and/or conditions
of any required maintenance, liability and/or cost sharing provisions related
thereto);
b.a clause/statement/wording confirming that the Easements being granted shall
be maintained and registered on title in perpetuity.
10.That the owner’s Solicitor shall provide a Solicitor’s Undertaking to register the
approved Transfer Easement(s) and to immediately thereafter provide copies thereof to
the City Solicitor be provided to the City Solicitor.
11.That the owner shall obtain a servicing easement described as Part 4 on the draft
reference plan prepared by McKechnie Surveying Ltd., dated September 22, 2017,
attached to the subject report \[the easement is over the Severed Parcel (i.e., Parcel B)
for servicing in favour of the Retained Parcel (i.e., Parcel A), as described in Consent
Application B 2017-019.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2.The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3.The use of theland 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
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at11:51a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 21stday of November, 2017.
Dianna Saunderson
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment