Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2004-05-11 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 11,2004 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. P. Britton, D. Cybalski and Z. Janecki. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mr. B. Sloan, Planner, Ms. R. Brent, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer and Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. P. Britton, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES Mr. Janecki requested a correction to the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held April 20, 2004, Submission No.'s B 2004-020 to B 2004-025, to show that his firm's clients own property to the east of the subject property and not to the west of the subject property. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of April 20, 2004, as mailed to the members, be accepted as corrected. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE & CONSENT Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 2004-029 Riennie Holdings Limited 452 Connaught Street Part of Lot 177, Registered Plan 254 Appearances: In Support: Mr. L. Laatsch Contra: None Public Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicants request permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Connaught Street of 9.21 m (30.22 ft.), a depth of 94.07 m (308.63 ft.), and an area of 1,518.8 m2 (16,348.76 sq. ft.) to continue to be used as residential. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated April 13, 2004, advising that the purpose of the application is to sever a lot to construct one new single family dwelling, and to maintain the existing house on the retained land, as well as to construct a new garage and driveway on the retained land. The creation of a "P-shaped" lot in this location, being between a school yard and a 6 storey apartment site, should have minimal impact on the privacy or useability of adjacent properties. Staff suggest the owner consider paving the driveways for both lots so they are adjacent to each other along the common property line, so it appears from the street as though there is one driveway. Staff recommend approval of this application subject to conditions. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 87 MAY 11, 2004 1. Submission No.: B 2004-029 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the comments of the Region's Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated April 14, 2004, advising they have no objections to this application. Mr. B. Sloan briefly reviewed the planning history with respect to this property, as the Committee raised concerns with respect to the under utilization of this site. Mr. Laatsch advised that his wife is disabled, and he wants to build a bungalow on this site which will accommodate her needs better than the 2 storey home they currently live in. He also advised he is in agreement with the City's requested conditions. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. Z. Janecki That the application of Rennie Holdings Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Connaught Street of 9.213 m (30.22 ft.), a depth of 94.07 m (308.628 sq. ft.) on the westerly side, and 56.547 m (185.52 ft.) on the easterly side, and an area of 1518.8 m2 (16,348.76 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 177, Registered Plan 254, 452 Connaught Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication equal to 5% of the value of the land to be severed. That the owner shall remove or relocate the existing shed from the severed land, to the satisfaction of the City's Manager of Design and Development. That the owner shall make financial arrangements satisfactory to the City's Engineering Services for the following: a) installation of boulevard landscaping including street trees and a paved driveway ramp on the severed lands, and a new paved driveway ramp on the retained land; and, b) installation of new service connections to the severed land. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being May 11,2006. Carried This meeting recessed at 10:00 a.m. to allow the Committee to consider an Application for Minor Variance to the City's Sign By-law, and reconvened at 10:10 a.m. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 88 MAY 11, 2004 NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Leqal Description: Appearances: A 2004-032 April Couzens-Brown 155 Glen Park Crescent Lot 461, Plan 1291 In Support: Mr. I. Couzens-Brown Contra: None Public Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct an addition with a setback from Glen Park Crescent of 5.4 m (17.72 ft.) rather than 6 m (19.68 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated April 30, 2004, recommending the application be approved. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated May 3, 2004, advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of April Couzens-Brown requesting permission to construct an addition with a setback from Glen Park Crescent of 5.4 m (17.72 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), on Lot 461, Registered Plan 1291, 155 Glen Park Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 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 Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Leqal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: Public Submissions: A 2004-033 Monarch Construction Ltd. Corner of Doon Mills Drive & Doon South Drive Block 98, Registered Plan 58M-226 Carried Ms. K. Dietrich None None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct a townhouse complex with a rearyard of 2.6 m (8.53 ft.) rather than 7.5 m (24.61 ft.), and to locate 13 off-street parking spaces in the frontyard (Doon South Drive frontage) rather than 8. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 89 MAY 11, 2004 2. Submission No.: A2004-033 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 3, 2004, advising the City has received a site plan application to develop this property with cluster townhouses. The staff are of the opinion that the application meets the four tests set out in the Planning Act, and recommends that the application be approved. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated May 3, 2004, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee questioned whether the front parking lot will be screened with landscaping, and Ms. Dietrich advised that the parking lot will be buffered with extensive landscaping, and a landscape plan has been submitted to the City. Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Monarch Construction Ltd. requesting permission for a rear yard of 2.6 m (8.53 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) for a proposed townhouse complex, and permission to locate 13 off-street parking spaces in the front yard rather than the permitted 8, on Block 98, Registered Plan 58M-226, corner of Doon Mills Drive and Doon South Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 2004-034 Bibi Murzeena Ally, Balram Jaggernauth & Esau Imram Ally 221 Ahrens Street West Part of Lot 70 & 71, Plan 34, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R- 10977 Appearances: In Support: Contra: Public Submissions: None Mr. K. Lippert Ms. B. Posendorf Mr. B. Evens Mr. E. Dopp Mr. S. Kay The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to expand a legal non- conforming 4 unit residential building to a 5 unit residential building. The Committee was in receipt of correspondence from Mr. S. Kay, Kay Professional Corporation, requesting consideration of this application be deferred to the Committee's next scheduled meeting. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 90 MAY 11, 2004 3. Submission No.: A2004-034 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 13, 2004, in which they advise that the subject property is located within the Mount Hope Huron Park community, and is zoned Residential Five Zone (R-5), which permits multiple dwellings up to 3 units. Originally, this building contained a legal non-conforming multiple dwelling (consisting of 4-units) with a commercial unit. When the commercial unit ceased operation, the multiple dwelling was expanded to the entirety of the building, adding a 5th residential unit. As multiple dwellings in excess of 3 units are not permitted, the owner was ordered to remove the 5th unit and directed to submit an application to the Committee of Adjustment, under section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act, requesting permission to convert the 4-unit multiple dwelling to a 5-unit multiple dwelling. Upon review of relevant case law, planning staff offer the following comments: In Central Jewish Institute v. Toronto, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that where a legal non-conforming use only occupies part of a building, that use may be expanded to the entirety of the building without the need for any Planning Act approvals. Approval would be required to expand the legal non-conforming use beyond the existing exterior walls of the building. In 382671 Ontario Ltd. V. London, the Ontario Court of Justice determined that the legal non- conforming status applies to the use only - being a "multiple dwelling". The number of units contained within the dwelling is only a reflection of the intensity of that use. In this case, a 16-unit multiple dwelling was determined to be the same land use as a 17-unit multiple dwelling. As such, the intensity of a legal non-conforming use may be increased within the existing floor space without the need for Planning Act approvals. However, the Courts did note that this does not give permission for a legal non-conforming use to be multiplied and sub-divided without restraint. Such intensification must be done reasonably, with restraint and consistently with fair generic range of the established non-conformity. Based on the above noted case law, the current legal non-conforming use may be expanded to the entirety of the building, without the need for planning approvals. Similarly, based on the technical definitions of the City's Zoning Bylaw, a 4-unit multiple dwelling is the same legal non-conforming land use as a 5-unit multiple dwelling. Both are considered a "multiple dwelling in excess of 3 units". As there would be no change to the legal non-conforming use of land, Section 45(2)(a)(ii) does not apply to this site. Rather, the decision lies with the Director of Planning and the Chief Building Official to determine if the addition of 1 unit can be done reasonably, with restraint and consistently with the established non-conformity. Planning staff conclude that the addition of 1 residential unit does not fall under the jurisdiction and powers of the Committee of Adjustment prescribed in the Planning Act. As such, staff recommend that the application be withdrawn. As the application was made based on staff direction prior to the investigation of applicable case law, staff recommend that the applicant be reimbursed for application fees paid. The Committee considered the comments of the Region's Transportation Planner, dated May 3, 2004, advising they have no concerns with this application. Those attending this meeting in opposition to the application offered the following information: · a photograph of the parking area at the front of the property, an extract from the Committee of Adjustment minutes of October 29, 1996 with respect to Submission No. B 67/96, which application requested the severance of 91 Blucher Street from 221 Ahrens Street, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 91 MAY 11, 2004 3. Submission No.: A2004-034 (Cont'd) · the police attend at this property on a regular basis, · there is an absentee landlord, · cars are regularly parked over the sidewalk forcing pedestrians onto the street, · there isn't sufficient parking for 5 cars, · the building now has 6 mailboxes, does this mean there will be 6 apartments, · problems are only addressed by the owner for temporary periods, then the situation returns to the way it was, · an additional unit will compound an existing poor situation. Mr. Sloan advised there have been a number of meetings with the neighbours, police, by-law officers and the Ward Councillor, and perhaps another meeting would be appropriate. There should also be some consultation with Legal Services staff. He advised that according to case law, if the building is not being enlarged, the property owner should be able to increase the number of units. The neighbours' main problem seems to be with the absentee landlord. Ms. Posendorf advised that the Neighbourhood Mobilization Alliance will hold its next meeting on May 19, 2004, from 7-9 p.m. in the Conestoga Room, City Hall, and they will discuss this application at the meeting. The Chair directed that Legal Services staff be provided with the extract of October 29, 1996 Committee of Adjustment Minutes relating to Submission No. B 67/96. Staff are requested to ascertain whether Mr. Kay agrees with the opinion in the Development & Technical Services report. Also, staff were requested to determine whether a variance to the parking requirements exists, and needs to be considered. The Committee generally agreed that subject to the direction given above, consideration of this application be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting of Tuesday June 8th, 2004. CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 2004-030 & A 2004-031 6058213 Canada Inc. 94 North Hill Place Part Lot 54, German Company Tract, being Parts 5 & 6, Reference Plan 58R-4686 Appearances: In Support: Mr. D. Freure Mr. J. Finlayson Contra: Mr. & Mrs. G. Leeman Public Submissions: None The Committee was advised that in Submission No. B 2004-030, the applicant requests permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 31.92 m (104.73 ft.), by a depth of 76.2 m (250 ft.), and an area of 2,432.35 m2 (26,182.5 sq. ft.), to be developed with a new single family dwelling. The Committee was also advised that in Submission No. A 2004-031, the applicant requests permission to repair and add to the existing legal non-conforming single family dwelling on the retained land, which does not have frontage on a public street. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 92 MAY 11, 2004 1. Submission Nos.: B 2004-030 & A 2004-031 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 6, 2004, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the northeasterly side of North Hill Place, south of Fairway Road and west of the Chicopee Ski Hill. The property is zoned Residential Three (R-3), contains a single detached dwelling that was constructed in approximately 1953 but is in considerable disrepair. The applicant submitted Applications for Consent in 2003 to sever two new building lots from the subject property. City staff had discussed with the applicant several significant concerns about proceeding with the creation of new lots at this time. These issues were discussed at the September 30th Committee of Adjustment meeting and the Committee deferred the applications until the October 21 st meeting. At the October meeting, the applicant, staff and the Committee discussed the merits of creating only one new lot on North Hill Place. Engineering, Traffic, Fire and Planning staff had similar concerns with the creation of one new lot as with two new lots. The Committee of Adjustment refused those Applications for Consent. The applicant has now applied for the following: 1. Consent to create one new lot on North Hill Place. 2. Permission to expand a dwelling on a lot that does not have frontage on a public street. 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 application to create one new lot is premature. Planning staff provided detailed comments and rationale on the suitability of the severance of one or more lots within the staff reports for the September and October 2003 Committee of Adjustment meetings. The main issues are generally as follows: 1. The new lot would not have frontage on a public street. The Zoning By-law does not permit development on lots without appropriate frontage on a street and the majority of North Hill Place is not wide enough to be considered a public street. 2. Difficulties in upgrading North Hill Place to municipal standards/public street. 3. The existing sanitary services do not have the capacity for any additional lot creation. 4. Compliance with Council's Emergency Access Policy is questionable. The retained lot would be beyond the maximum 150-metre length for a cul-de-sac. The distance of the proposed severed lot from a public street would have to be confirmed. 5. Noise and light issues from the adjacent Chicopee Ski Hill. 6. Consideration of the two other existing properties at the end of North Hill Place as it relates to the above noted issues and with respect to considering the future development potential and planning for the area. There are a number of outstanding issues that need to be considered in order to ensure the proper and orderly development of this and the surrounding properties. The adequacy of public highways and municipal services, the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots, and the restrictions on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected, are all criteria for the subdivision of land in the Planning Act that have not been adequately addressed. Therefore, staff recommends that the consent application be refused, as it is premature. The existing dwelling on the subject property is in disrepair and needs significant work in order to make the dwelling more viable or habitable. The problem is that a building permit for new development can not be issued, as it would not comply with the Zoning By-law which states that no lot shall have built upon it a building without frontage on a public street. Acquisition or use of the property is not practical unless a replacement dwelling can be built or the existing dwelling repaired to a reasonable level. Other property owners in this situation have considered the feasibility of repairing or replacing portions of the structure in order to upgrade the house. In the past, there have been several similar examples of the repair/replacement of dwellings on lots that did not front a public street, such as 254 Woolwich Street (now Old Cottage Place). The owner should be aware that repair or renovation of the house on the existing lot is permitted as of right. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 93 MAY 11, 2004 1. Submission Nos.: B 2004-030 & A 2004-031 (Cont'd) Construction of a new replacement dwelling is restricted under the current zoning and the City usually does not support any consideration of a zone change to permit development on a lot with no frontage on a public street. In this case, the applicant is requesting to expand the existing legal non-conforming residential use in order to allow the construction of an addition which otherwise would not be permitted. The repair of the dwelling along with an addition would make the dwelling more habitable. Generally, staff do not support proposals that have the effect of allowing for the replacement of an existing building that has very limited value, and an apparently limited lifespan, with a new permanent dwelling. This would perpetuate the use of a lot that does not comply with the Zoning By-law. Although approval of the application to allow an addition would perpetuate the use, the impact of this must be considered. It is acknowledged that the lot has historically existed without frontage on a public street and the dwelling has existed adjacent to the ski hill and on existing services. The expansion should not significantly add to any of these issues. In this specific instance, an expansion/addition of to the dwelling could be considered to be similar to the existing use as a single detached dwelling and may not have any significant negative impacts on the surrounding area. It seems practical to consider allowing the existing house to be repaired and added to in order to make it viable for the property owner. The impact of allowing the lot to be used for a larger single detached dwelling should also be considered in terms of future development potential for this area. In this regard, the impact is questionable since there are no immediate or determined plans for future comprehensive development of this property along with the two adjacent parcels. The house is located on the most easterly portion of the property at the end of the lane and a future redevelopment scheme or Block Plan may not be totally compromised because of the location of the house. Provided the house is still, or can be, hooked up to existing utilities and services, no new additional services should be required. The applicant would have to confirm the adequacy of municipal services prior to constructing any addition. Considering that the use is similar, that there should not be any additional negative impact and that future development could still be considered for the area even with the addition, approval of an expansion to the existing dwelling to a certain size could potentially be considered appropriate. However, an important factor in considering how appropriate an expansion to a legal non- conforming dwelling is the size of the expansion and the resultant size of the dwelling. The owner has indicated on the application that they are intending on increasing the building floor area by approximately 163 m2 or 166%. Considering that staff have a difficult time arriving at supporting any expansion at all, staff would be unable to support an expansion that is more than the size of the existing dwelling (in this case the resultant dwelling would be more than 2.5 times the size of the existing building). The rationale outlined above could be difficult to uphold for such a major expansion. Previous examples for expanding dwellings on lots without frontage in Kitchener (ie. 254 Woolwich Street), were for up to a 45% increase, but in certain cases the entire dwelling ended up being replaced. Staff suggest that the applicant could consider revising the size of the addition and consideration should be given to the proposed location of the addition in order to attempt to not impact, as much as possible, the potential future development of this area. Based on the foregoing, staff cannot fully support the addition as proposed. Staff would be amenable to considering whether a smaller addition that is appropriately located would represent good planning. However, the combination of repairing portions of the existing dwelling and constructing a 163 m2 (1750 square foot) addition would have the effect of allowing a new residential dwelling on a lot that otherwise would not be permitted. Engineering staff previously confirmed that the existing sanitary sever pipe is not sufficient and will need to be upgraded. They also have indicated that the North Hill Place road allowance should be upgraded to municipal standards with any development. Engineering staff provided additional comments under separate cover to the Committee with respect to watermain connection, sanitary, paved driveways and lot grading. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 94 MAY 11, 2004 1. Submission Nos.: B 2004-030 & A 2004-031 (Cont'd) Transportation Planning has reviewed this application and cannot recommend approval as the existing road width is insufficient to accommodate two way traffic, and exceeds the 150 metre maximum cul-de-sac length. Also, Traffic and Fire staff previously indicated that there is no turn around or cul-de-sac bulb for any vehicles, including emergency vehicles. The report recommends Submission No's B2004-030 and A2004-031 be refused. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Planning, Housing and Community Services, dated May 4, 2004, with respect to Submission No. B 2004-030, advising there are no Regional issues affecting this application, but questioning the appropriateness of creating a new lot without frontage on a public street. The Committee considered the comments of the Region's Transportation Planner, dated May 3, 2004, with respect to Submission No. A 2004-031, advising they have no concerns with respect to this application. The Committee considered correspondence from the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated May 5, 2004, advising these applications are outside the Grand River Conservation Authority's areas of interest. The Committee considered a memorandum from the City's Director of Engineering, dated April 22, 2004, providing the following comments with respect to these applications: The severed and retained lots must be connected to the existing watermain on North Hill Place prior to issuance of a Building Permit. The retained lot has an existing 100 mm dia. sanitary connection, however we are unable to determine if it has been connected to the house, regardless it should be. The sanitary connection for the retained lot is only a 100mm dia. connection. As such, the owner must make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Engineering Services Division to upsize the pipe to accommodate both the retained and severed lots, all prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 3. Both lots should have paved driveways to the lane. The owner should submit a lot grading plan for approval by the Chief Building Official, that shows that the lots are compatible with each other, the adjacent lands owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority, and the laneway. Mr. & Mrs. Leeman advised the Committee they are in support of the Development & Technical Services Department report, and are opposed to these applications. They stated the width of North Hill Place has always been a problem, being half the standard width for a City street. Also, the services are well out of date and can not support further development. The house proposed in Submission No. A 2004-031 is three times the size of the existing house, which will have a substantial impact on the existing sewer and stormdrains. There are also problems associated with snowplowing and garbage collection due to the narrowness of the road. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Sloan stated that a building permit could not be issued to expand the legal non-conforming single family dwelling because the property has no frontage on a public street. Also, to expand the house to three times its current size goes against the intent of the by-law, is not good planning, and may impact the neighbours. Mr. Sloan stated that the opposition to B 2004-030 is based on principle. The opposition to A 2004-031, is less so, and depends on the adequacy of services, the scale of the expansion, and assurances that it will not prejudice the future development of the land. The Chair advised that the Committee will consider each of B 2004-030 & A 2004-031 separately, and the first application to be considered will be A 2004-031. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 95 MAY 11, 2004 1. Submission Nos.: B 2004-030 & A 2004-031 (Cont'd) Mr. Freure provided the Committee with an elevation drawing of and a site plan showing the location of the renovated house. The site plan shows an outline of the existing house on the lot as well as the footprint of the house once renovated. He advised the Committee that the ground floor area for the house will be 20% larger than the existing house, plus an attached garage. He noted the site plan shows the location of the house, once renovated, will not interfere with any future development, and will provide a sufficient setback to allow for the widening of North Hill Place. The proposed house will be two storeys and will have a total floor area of 2500 sq. ft. With respect to the memorandum from Mr. R. Shamess, Director of Engineering, Mr. Freure advised as follows: 1. The property will be connected to the watermain on North Hill Place. The house will be connected to the sanitary sewer. With respect to the retained land, Mr. Freure referred to the report from Collins Engineering Group Incorporated, dated May 10, 2004, which he submitted to the Committee. The report from Collins Engineering advised that the 4" diameter sanitary line is adequate for 4 dwelling units. Condition No. 3 in Mr. Shamess' memorandum requiring a paved driveway can be met. 4. The requirement for a lot grading plan can be met. With respect to the Committee's question as to duplexing the renovated house, Mr. Freure advised he has never contemplated duplexing the house, and is willing to accept any controls the Committee feels are necessary so as not to allow a duplex. The Committee questioned whether Mr. Freure had ever explored the potential of developing this property along with abutting lands. Mr. Freure explained the efforts undertaken to develop these lands with the Grand River Conservation Authority, who owns abutting land, and the potential for condominium development. He stated that the development potential for this land is decades away. Submission No. A 2004-031 Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of 6058213 Canada Inc. requesting permission to renovate and enlarge an existing legal non-conforming single family dwelling on a lot having no frontage on a public street, on Part Lot 54, German Company Tract, 94 North Hill Place, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the renovated and enlarged single family dwelling shall be used only as a single family dwelling, and the enlarged house shall be substantially as shown on the site plan prepared by William A. Johnston "Drafting", dated April 27, 2004. That the house shall be connected to the existing watermain on North Hill Place, and to the existing sanitary sewer, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. That the property shall have a paved driveway to the lane. That the owner shall submit a lot grading plan for approval by the Chief Building Official that shows the lot is compatible with adjacent lands owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority, and the laneway, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The prior to the issuance of any building permit the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener without cost and free of encumbrance, any lands required for the widening of North Hill Place, and the house shall be setback from North Hill Place the distance required by the zoning by-law. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 96 MAY 11, 2004 1. Submission Nos.: B 2004-030 & A 2004-031 (Cont'd) It is the opinion of this Committee that the use of this property as a single family dwelling has continued from the date the by-law was passed preventing its enlargement, until the date of this application. Carried The Committee continued its consideration of Submission No. B 2004-030, noting a similar application had been considered and refused by the Committee of Adjustment in the fall of 2003. The Chair stated that planning for this property must be done comprehensively, and a block plan for this area is required. He stated preparation of a block plan is not complicated and is required to, among other things, determine the adequacy of the sanitary sewer. He suggested consideration of this application be deferred for six months, or less, to allow for the preparation of a block plan. Mr. Freure agreed that comprehensive planning for this area is required; however, he requested the application be approved, subject to a holding provision. He stated there is potential to undertake a block plan; however, without Grand River Conservation Authority land, there will never be a potential for widening North Hill Place. Moved by Mr. Z. Janecki Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That consideration of Submission No. B 2004-030 - 94 North Hill Place, be deferred until Tuesday November 16, 2004, to allow an opportunity for the owner, staff and the neighbours to prepare a block plan for this area; and, Should the owner come to this Committee without a block plan, they must at least provide a shared engineering opinion, between the City's Engineering Services, and the owner's consulting engineer, that this property can be properly serviced; and further, That should the owner wish to have this application considered by the Committee of Adjustment sooner than November 16, 2004, they may do so by providing the Secretary-Treasurer with written notice 4 weeks prior to the meeting of choice. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 11th day of May, 2004. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment