Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-19-166 - A 2019-062 - 920 Keewatin Place1 Staff Report i�TTCH� N� R Community Services Department www kitchener cn REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 2019 SUBMITTED BY: Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner - 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Sheryl Rice Menezes, Planning Technician — 519-741-2200 ext. 7844 Juliane von Westerholt, Senior Planner -519-741-2200 ext. 7157 WARD: 1 DATE OF REPORT: July 9, 2019 REPORT #: DSD -19-166 SUBJECT: A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place Owner — Margaret Lander Applicant — Marcel Bradbury Approve as Amended with Conditions for Variances # 1-3 Refuse for Variance #4 REPORT Planning Comments: The property is zoned Residential Three (R-3) with Special Provision 129U in By-law 85-1 and is designated as Low Rise Residential in the 2014 Official Plan. Staff visited the site on July 4, 2019. The owner is requesting permission to operate a home business in an existing single detached dwelling to: 1) permit two employees (paid / volunteer), rather than the permitted maximum of one employee (Section 5.13.2 a); 2) permit the required off-street parking spaces to be located in tandem, whereas the By-law does not permit tandem parking spaces when there is an employee(s) (Section 5.13.2 j); 3) have a driveway located 0 metres from a side lot line, rather then the required 3 metres (see below) (Section 6.1.1.1 b) ii) e); 4) and to have a side yard of 2.37 metres, rather than the required 3 metres when a driveway is located leading to a required parking space (Section 37.2.1). During Staff's review of the application, it was noted that item #3, referred to above, incorrectly references a measurement. Section 6.1.1.1 b) ii) e) requires that a driveway shall not be located closer than 0_6 metres to the side lot line. Staff recommends that item #3 be amended to read as follows: 3) have a driveway located 0 metres from a side lot line rather then the required 0.6 metres. Background In 2008, a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate was issued for a home business for an administration office for the tradesman or contractor's establishment, which also permitted indoor storage only and did not permit any employees. Staff acknowledges that a residential zone is not an appropriate location for a tradesman or contractor's establishment, therefore, the Zoning Occupancy permit as noted above, only permitted the "office" for the contractor's business, as well as only permitting some indoor storage. Since 2011, there has been a history of complaints over the outdoor storage of contractor/ building materials being stored on the site. City By-law Enforcement Staff has been out to the site on a number of occasions to address the complaints received. More recently, concerns by the neighbourhood were received by the City over employees coming and going to the site and parking in the area, as well as the parking or storage of construction vehicles/trailers on the site. The applicant has advised the City that the contractor's vehicles, as well as the building materials that have been observed on the property were for construction and landscaping work on his (the subject) property. Staff also notes that the building permits for the rear yard addition, which includes the home office portion of the house, and permits for the front yard porch remain outstanding. As a condition of the approval of the variances Staff will be requesting that the permits be closed and all work related thereto be completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. The subject lands are located on a cul-de-sac, which due to the geometry of the road results in reduced on street parking opportunities. In response to the complaints received from the neighbourhood regarding the parking of contractor's vehicles on the street and driveway, which is compounded by the already limited parking along this street, the City's Transportation Staff installed "no parking signs" along the landscaped circle inside the cul-de-sac in order to address this concern. Since early this year, City Staff has been working with the owner to confirm the uses occurring at his property and to reaffirm the inappropriateness of a tradesman/contractor's establishment in a residential zone particularly on a cul-de sac. As a result of the conversations with Staff, the original 2008 Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate was voided and in April 2019 the applicant submitted an updated Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate for a home business for office use only with no employees. As a condition of the approval of the requested variances, a new Zoning Occupancy Certificate will be required to clearly demonstrate that the home business is permitted to have a maximum of two employees at any one time. The owner has submitted a variance application to permit his home business for office use only to permit a maximum of two employees at any one time, including paid employees or volunteers for the premises. 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. Variances 1 & 2 (related to permit two employees and to permit parking spaces in tandem) General Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's 2014 Official Plan. The proposed use as a single detached dwelling with a home business meets the intent of the designation, which encourages a full range of housing types to achieve a low-density neighbourhood. The primary land use is residential, but it is intended that complementary non-residential uses, such as a proposed home office business may be permitted provided appropriate zoning and regulations are in place. The location of a home office as a home business is intended to be located completely within the existing home with two parking spaces for the two employees located in tandem on the existing driveway. The intent of the Official Plan will be maintained as the proposed office will not be visible from the public realm and only two parking space will be permitted in the driveway, with two spaces in the garage, so as to minimize the number of parked vehicles in front of the home. Having two vehicles in the driveway would be consistent with most residential properties and therefore does not compromise the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the regulation limiting the number of employees for a home business to one is to ensure that the property has sufficient parking and that the property maintains a residential character and the business is small in scale and does not dominate the use of the subject lands. The applicant has advised that he has one paid office employee and on occasion, he has additional workers, who do not reside in the dwelling and are not paid, such as volunteers or students. Regardless of remuneration, whether the employee is being paid or not, any worker/student who does not live at the residence is considered an employee of the home business. The applicant is seeking permission to allow two employees at any one time to the property for the home office business. The parking requirement is one space for the dwelling, one space for the business and one space for an employee. The proposed two employees require two spaces for a total parking requirement at the site of four spaces. The regulation that the parking not be in tandem is to ensure that all parking spaces are accessible. However, it is noted that in a home business, the business owner is generally on-site at the same time and the movement of vehicles to access the garage should not impact the parking area. The applicant has also advised that the students who visit the site generally walk from public transit, as they do not have their own vehicles. The request to have two employees at any one time is considered to meet the general intent of Zoning By-law as sufficient parking can be provided and the increase of one additional employee at any one time continues to maintain the small scale of the home office use. In addition to the parking regulations discussed above, the By-law permits a maximum of three clients or customers to the property at any one time. Staff has consulted with the applicant, who advises that due to the nature of his business, clients do not have to attend the site. This would reduce the number of vehicles that may be on the property, which would be more in keeping with the residential nature of the neighbourhood and would minimize any congestion of on street parking on the cul-de-sac, which already has limited parking available. In order to ensure that the nature of this business does not encourage customers to come and go to the site, Staff recommends that a condition be implemented that no clients or customers are permitted directly to the site. Consequently, there will be no need for signage for a home business and Staff also recommends a condition that prohibits signage or any other type of advertising on the property. This too well help maintain the residential nature of this property within this low-density residential neighbourhood. Based on the foregoing, the general intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained as staff is satisfied that the home office business is at an appropriate scale. Several conditions have been tied to the variance approval to ensure that the home office business remains at an appropriate scale and impacts if any are minimal. Variances are Appropriate The proposed variances are appropriate for the development of the property and streetscape. The applicant currently has approval for a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate for a home business (office) with no employees. This variance request for two employees at any one time is considered appropriate provided they are office employees only and therefore Staff recommends a condition that no construction -related employees be permitted to the site. Based on the above, Staff considers the application appropriate for the property and surrounding streetscape. Minor The request for one additional employee at any one time continues to maintain the small scale of the home business and parking is available on-site to accommodate the employees as well as the homeowner. No additional impacts to the neighbourhood are anticipated and therefore the proposed variance is considered minor. Variance 3 (Existing Driveway Setback) General Intent of the Official Plan As indicated above the property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan (OP) which prioritizes residential uses and the variance for a reduction in the driveway setback is recognizing an existing situation and does not compromise the general intent of the OP as the predominant use of the lands remains residential. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the regulation to have a 0.6 metres setback for a driveway from a side lot line is to ensure sufficient area for property drainage between properties from the side yard to the street. There have been no concerns received in regards to drainage on this site, nor have complaints been received regarding drainage. It is noted that only a small portion of the driveway within the subject property line abuts the side lot line that is the subject of this variance. The majority of the 0 m setback for the driveway is within the City owned boulevard. The remainder of the hard surface abutting the side lot line was originally constructed for a walkway leading to the shed in the rear yard. A hard surface walkway is permitted, provided it does not impact drainage from the site. As no complaints over drainage issues related to the walkway have been received and as the requested variance is recognizing a situation that already exists, Staff is therefore of the opinion that the general intent of the by-law is being maintained. Appropriate The existing driveway has been constructed with aesthetically pleasing materials and as noted above, only a small portion of the driveway abuts the side lot line within the subject property. The variance requested will bring the property into conformity, and little or no impacts are anticipated as a result of this variance. Therefore, the variance to allow the reduced driveway setback for a small portion of the driveway, which is a result of the irregular geometry of the site, is considered appropriate. Minor The proposed variance to reduce the driveway setback to 0.0 metres from 0.6 metres is recognizing an existing situation for which no complaints regarding drainage or other impacts have been received by the City. As such, the nature of this request is considered minor, as it does not detract from the residential use of the subject lands Variance 4 (Side Yard for a Pr000sed Drivewa General Intent of the Official Plan To reiterate, the property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan (OP) which prioritizes residential uses and the variance for a reduction in the side yard setback leading to the shed. The general intent of the OP as the predominant use of the lands remains residential, despite the request to reduce the side yard. The merits of the request will be more closely discussed in the section analysing the general intent of the Zoning By-law below. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of this regulation in the Zoning By-law is to ensure that an adequate and appropriate hard surface area exists for the parking of vehicles. The proposed variance to allow a reduced side yard setback for the existing dwelling is to permit an extension to the existing driveway along the side of the house. Transportation Staff has advised that a side yard of 2.37 metres is insufficient to provide appropriate access to the side yard for vehicles. It is noted that a portion of the 2.37 metres is currently occupied with a garden along the side of the house and should any future owner of this property or the neighbouring property construct a fence along the side lot line, then it would further impede access to the side yard. Based on the above, Staff is of the opinion that the general intent of the Zoning By-law regarding this variance is not met. Appropriate The addition of more parking area to a relatively large parking area at the front of the house creates an increased parking area of a size larger than average for this type and size of dwelling. It is noted that the detached structure shown in the photo above was issued a building permit in 2007 as a "24 x 10 foot shed". It was not possible to obtain the permit for a detached garage because the zoning regulations for the driveway could not be met. Therefore, as the hard surface along the side of the house is a walkway and demarcated as such, it shall not be permitted to be parked on. In addition, it is noted that the parking of utility trailers is not prohibited within a side yard if they are less than 6 metres in length (Section 6.5). However, in this case, parking or storing of any size of trailer at the side of the house would create the appearance of the walkway being a part of the existing driveway and Staff is of the opinion that it is not appropriate for this property and should therefore be prohibited. Staff recommends that these terms be a condition of the approval of the variance, as noted in the Recommendations section below. It is Staff's opinion that the location of vehicles and utility trailers within a reduced side yard is not appropriate. Minor While the reduction of the required side yard from 3.0 metres to 2.37 metres appears minor when only referring to numbers, however, the potential impacts to the streetscape and overall residential nature of the neighbourhood are not minor. This final variance would result in the front of the house resembling a parking lot rather than a residential driveway through the increased storage of parked cars in the front and side yards of the home. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the impact of this variance is not minor and should not be supported. Consequently, based on comments above, Staff consulted with owner and advised that the four required parking spaces in tandem should be relocated in the garage and in front of garage only. No parking is to be permitted within the side yard. This will implement the requested variance number 2 for the permission to allow tandem parking for the two employees at any one time. As a condition of approval of the second variance, Staff will also require an updated parking plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning in consultation with Transportation Services. The applicant is further advised that the City will require that a new building permit for the Home Office Business be obtained and that all outstanding building permits be closed as a condition of these variances. Failure to do so will result in the variances being null and void. Based on the foregoing, Planning Staff recommends that variances #1 to #3 of this application be approved, as amended, with the conditions noted in the Recommendations section below. Planning Staff recommends that variance #4 be refused. Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided a building permit for the home business is obtained. Please contact the Building Division @ 519-741-2433 with any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Variance # 4 - Transportation Services cannot support the proposed tandem parking spaces along the side of the house as there insufficient width for vehicles to access the proposed spaces. Variances #1 and 2 - However, Transportation Services can support the amendment for tandem parking for up to four (4) vehicles with two (2) vehicles located within the garage, and the other two (2) vehicles located in front of the garage. Variance # 3 - As the driveway is currently an existing condition; Transportation Services has no concerns regarding the reduced driveway setback of 0 metre as opposed to 0.6 metres. Engineering Comments: No comments. Heritage Planning Comments: No concerns. Environmental Planning Comments: No concerns. RECOMMENDATION: That application A 2019-061 requesting permission to operate a home office business in an existing single detached dwelling: 1) To have two employees at any one time (paid and/or volunteer), rather than the permitted maximum of one employee (Section 5.13.2 a); 2) To have the required off-street parking spaces located in tandem, whereas the By-law does not permit tandem parking spaces when there are employees (Section 5.13.2 j); and, 3) To have a driveway located 0 metres from a side lot line rather then the required 0.6 metres (Section 6.1.1.1 b) ii) e); be approved, as amended, subject to the following conditions: 1) No clients/patrons are to be entering the premises; 2) No employees associated with the construction portion of the business are to be on the property; 3) No outdoor storage associated with the contractor's business is to be located anywhere on the property; 4) No parking of vehicles or utility trailers are to be located in any walkway; either at the side of the house or in front of the porch; 5) No parking of vehicles or utility trailers for the construction business are to be located in the driveway as that is required for the use of employee parking for the home office business; 6) No signage is to be permitted; 7) That an updated application for a Zoning (Occupancy) Certificate to acknowledge the two office employees at any one time is to be submitted to the Planning Division for approval; 8) That an updated to scale drawing showing the amended tandem parking spaces is to be submitted to both the Planning Division and the Transportation Services Division; 9) That a building permit is to be obtained from the Building Division for the home business and that outstanding/open permits currently on file are closed; 10) That an updated Business License is to be obtained from the Licensing Division; if required, and, 11)That conditions #7 to 10 be completed by December 1, 2019. Any request for a time extension must be approved in writing by the Manager of Development Review (or designate) prior to completion date set out in this decision. Failure to complete the conditions will result in this approval becoming null and void; and, That application A 2019-061 requesting permission for the dwelling to have a side yard of 2.37 metres rather than the required 3 metres when a driveway is located leading to a required parking space be refused (Section 37.2.1) Sheryl Rice Menezes, CPT Planning Technician (Zoning) Juliane von Westerholt, BES, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Region of Waterloo July 05, 2019 Holly Dyson City of Kitchener 200 King Street West P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Dyson: PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, Sth Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4449 www. reg i o n ofwate r l o o. ca File No.: D20-20/VAR KIT GEN (7) /08 KING KIT, SPORTSWORLD CROSSING AND CHRISTIAN HORIZONS (10, 11) /12, Charlie Ormston Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting on July 16, 2019, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1. SG 2019-014 — 150 Pioneer Drive — No Concerns. 2. SG 2019-015 — 2960 Kingsway Drive— No Concerns. 3. A 2019-059 — 364 Heritage Drive — No Concerns. 4. A 2019-060 — 72 Archer Place — No Concerns. 5. A 2019-061 — 15 Peter Street — No Concerns. 6. A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place — No Concerns. 7. A 2019-063 — 4278 King Street East — No Concerns. 8. A 2019-064 — 452 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 9. A 2019-065 — 456 Prospect Avenue — No Concerns. 10.A 2019-066 to 073 — 74 to 122 Monarch Woods Drive — No Concerns. 11.A 2019-074 to 081 — 110 to 140 Ian Ormston Drive — No Concerns. 12.A 2019-082 — 83 Elmsdale Drive — No Concerns. Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof and may require payment of Regional Development Charges for these developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decisions on the above mentioned Application numbers to the undersigned. Document Number: 3050713 Page 1 of 2 Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner (519) 575-4500 Ext 3867 Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Resource Management Division Cambridge, Ontario N 1 R 5W6 Trisha Hughes, Resource Planner Phone: (519) 621-2761 ext. 2319 E-mail: thughes(u-)grandriver.ca PLAN REVIEW REPORT: City of Kitchener Holly Dyson DATE: July 5, 2019 RE: Applications for Minor Variance: YOUR FILE: See below SG 2019-015 2960 Kingsway Drive A 2019-059 364 Heritage Drive A 2019-060 72 Archer Place A 2019-061 15 Peter Street A 2019-062 920 Keenwatin Place A 2019-063 A 2019-064 A 2019-065 A 2019-066 to 073 A 2019-074 to 081 A 2019-082 4278 King Street East 452 Prospect Avenue 456 Prospect Avenue 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 83 Elmsdale Drive Applications for Consent: 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-025 4283 King Street East B 2019-026 4285 King Street East B 2019-029 4278 King Street East B 2019-030 452 Prospect Avenue B 2019-031 456 Prospect Avenue B 2019-032 to 042 78, 84, 86, 94, 104, 112, 114, 122 Monarch Woods Drive B 2019-043 to 050 110, 116, 118, 124, 126, 132, 134, 140 Ian Ormston Drive B 2019-051 to 054 83 Elmsdale Drive GRCA COMMENT: The above noted applications are located outside the Grand River Conservation Authority areas of interest. As such, we will not undertake a review of the applications and plan review fees will not be required. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Trisha Hughes Resource Planner Grand River Conservation Authority xThese comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of the Page 1 of 1 Grand River Conservation Authority Holly Dyson From: Sent: 04 July, 2019 9:44 AM To: Holl D son Cc: Subject: Application for Zoning Variance at 920 Keewatin PI Greetings, Holly. I understand that Margaret Lander and Marcel Bradbury of 920 Keewatin PI have applied for a zoning variance at the address indicated above. I want to register my concern about this application and encourage, in the strongest possible terms, that this application be rejected. There is a lot of history related to this situation and a many details that I will not go into; you will see that I have copied Eon this message. They have done a lot of good work on reviewing and researching the context around this application and have submitted, or will be submitting, a comprehensive outline of the dynamics and legalities of the application and its lack of suitability and lawfulness in our small court. They have my complete confidence in presenting the case for rejection of the 920 Keewatin PI application. Thank you for taking the concerns of the residents of Keewatin PI seriously. We want to live in a friendly, quiet residential environment that, no doubt, city planners envisaged when designing this neighbourhood. Holly Dyson From: Sent: 06 July, 2019 9:49 PM To: Holly Dyson Subject: Concern Regarding the Application for Zoning Variance at 920 Keewatin PI Dear Holly, I want to register my deep concern about the variance request put forward by Margaret Lander and Marcel Bradbury of 920 Keewatin Place. My understanding when I moved here just over years ago was that this lovely small residential court was a model of what city planners had envisioned for this area of Kitchener. However, what we found was the disruptive and invasive home-based construction business of Lander and Bradbury. This business has brought: • many construction vehicles (large and small) to the court -- often blocking the court roadway and therefore blocking my movement • heavy traffic at all times of day and night including the bright lights from evening vehicles shining in our windows • pedestrian danger (my ability to walk in the court) because of the excessive speed of some of the drivers • reason for pause regarding my over-all safety This court is small with only 12 houses; the additional traffic stress and the constant unknown vehicles in the court related to the Lander and Bradbury business has disrupted the quality of life we thought we were getting by moving to Kitchener. Thank you for registering my concerns; please also register my plea to not accept the Lander and Bradbury variance request. I'm happy to speak with you further on this if you wish. Warm Regards, Holly Dyson From: Sent: 08 July, 2019 10:40 PM To: Holly Dyson Subject: Variance letter Dear Holly, This message is to register my concern about the variance requested by Margaret Lander and Marcel Bradbury of 920 Keewatin Place. Over the years I have watched the Lander and Bradbury construction company take over vehicle and pedestrian movement in the court. It has been disturbing to watch how one household can hold a small court like ourshostage with their business; it affects our quality of life as well as our feeling of safety and well- being. The thought of Lander and Bradbury adding more to their home-based business is disturbing and not what we had anticipated when we moved here. Thank you for registering my concerns. I urge you reject the Lander and Bradbury variance request as well as work towards bringing them into compliance with the rules and laws of Kitchener regarding home-based businesses. Regards, Holly Dyson From: Sent: 10 July, 2019 3:07 PM To: Holly Dyson Subject: A 2019-062 920 Keewatin Place To: The Committee of Adjustment, City of Kitchener July 10, 2019 Attention: Holly Dyson We are the owners of in Kitchener. We are writing to express our strong opposition to the Application for Variance (A 2019-062). We purchased this house after investigating a number of suitable properties in Kitchener. But the fact this home was on a quiet court, in a lovely residential area, was a strong deciding factor for us. We paid a premium for that, in both purchase price and in ongoing property tax. We felt the quality of life this location would afford us was worth the cost. However, shortly after moving in, we noticed the "symphony" of vehicular traffic the Applicant would orchestrate each morning, and evening, to accommodate the number of vehicles, and people (employees, tradespeople) coming and going from his residence. We were extremely disappointed to discover the Applicant runs his construction company from his home. Had we known we were moving a couple of doors down from a busy commercial operation, we doubt we would have proceeded with this particular home purchase. We are aware of at least one other submission in opposition to the Application for Variance from fellow Keewatin Place residents,■_ We are supportive of their efforts to provide a thorough and detailed submission. We would also like to bring to your attention that on April 10, 2019, we were in attendance at a meeting held at the City of Kitchener offices with Charles Zeidler, Alain Pinard, Janine Oosterveld, and three other Keewatin Place residents. The purpose of that meeting was to express our shared opposition to a request the City had received in the Spring from the Applicant for Modification of his Occupancy Certificate and a Zoning Variance. At that meeting, we were advised that among other things, the Applicant had applied for a Business Licence. We were told by these three City of Kitchener representatives that the Applicant had been operating his construction business from his residence on Keewatin Place for many years, apparently WITHOUT holding a valid business licence. We were further advised in that meeting that the Applicant had indicated on his business licence application that his intention was to act solely as a construction estimator, with NO employees and NO business activity conducted at his residence. We were told meetings with potential and existing clients, and tradespeople, would be held offsite, not at his residence. This was certainly a departure from the business activity he had been conducting from his residence for the past several years (again, we refer you to— submission to the City in this regard for details of the full extent of the business dealings the Applicant had been engaging in on this residential court). And quite frankly, if this WAS the intention of the Applicant —to run a home-based business under those new parameters — we would have been satisfied with that change in practice, with the expectation that it would most likely return this small court to the quiet, peaceful nature it was originally intended to provide. At the April 10/19, we asked IF a business licence was to be issued, under the premise of running a construction estimating practice ONLY (with no employees and no business conducted at his residence), would there be anything within the City's business licencing rules that would preclude the Applicant from quickly abandoning the estimating -only business model, and ramping his construction business back up, overtime? And would the issuance of the business licence in the Spring of 2019 protect him from further intervention, or revocation of his business licence, by the City of Kitchener, should he do so? Mr. Pinard, Mr. Zeidler and Ms. Oosterveld would not answer that question, but Ms. Oosterveld very kindly referred it to Julie Kalbfleisch, Licencing Inspector, City of Kitchener, and we had a very helpful phone conversation with Ms. Kalbfleisch on April 11, 2019. She told us that the Applicant's business licence application had been approved, and his licence was to be issued April 12, 2019. Our understanding, and our interpretation, of the information she provided to us, in response to our further questioning, was that going forward, the Applicant would have the right to CHANGE the nature of his business without notifying the City, as long as the changed business model fell within the broad -ranging definitions of the category under which this licence was issued. Our understanding and interpretation is that if the nature of the business changed in such a fashion that the business activities undertaken were in contravention of City by-laws, etc., the City would investigate and "correct" the situation, if need be. We were told this sort of investigation is typically prompted by neighbourhood complaints received by the City. Our understanding is that even if the City determined the business practices were NOT appropriate under the Applicant's current licencing, he would have the right to apply for ADDITIONAL business licences, perhaps under different categories, that COULD permit the nature of the business he decided to run from his home. So based on his recent Application for Variance, we are making the assumption that the Applicant has now decided to change the nature of his home-based business —from an estimating -only, one -man -show —to the return to a full-blown construction operation, whereby he needs more parking, more employees, and more concessions from the City, and his fellow residents. In our opinion, if this Application for Variance is approved, and the Applicant is permitted to change his business practice from one that is currently — again, according to the information provided to us — "estimating only", to revert back to the construction operation he had been conducting for several years, it will be at the expense of the peace, comfort, safety, and property values of the Applicant's neighbours. In closing, we object to, and ask the City of Kitchener to reject, the Application for Variance at 920 Keewatin Place. Due to a prior commitment, we are unable to attend the meeting to be held on July 16. We thank you for the opportunity to submit our concerns and objections in writing, and further thank you for your thoughtful consideration before rendering your decision on the Application in question. Sincerely, ler Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Dear Committee of Adjustment: My family and I have lived on Keewatin Place for many years. We have seen and experienced disruption, noise, dust, and traffic as a result of the activities of the construction company that is located at 920 Keewatin Place. We are very concerned that the variances requested at 920 Keewatin Place will make a bad situation even worse. We are concerned that 920 Keewatin Place will be turned into a commercial or industrial property by an increase in the number of vehicles and people that go there every day and turning the front yard into a parking lot. Because of the history of this construction company and its owner, it is impossible to have faith that any business being operated at 920 Keewatin Place will follow municipal laws and act in a respectful manner toward its neighbours. This is not a commercial or industrial zone, but the construction business has turned it into one. Home-based businesses are welcome in this community. But Master Trades Group is not a business meant to be operated out of a home in this neighbourhood. I have read the submission that are making to the Committee of Adjustment. I agree with it entirely and cannot add anything more to the truthful and valid points that are made. I support it completely and respectfully ask that the variances not be granted. Holly Dyson From: Sent: 10 July, 2019 4:14 PM To: Holly Dyson Subject: Fw:: A2019-062 920 Keewatin Place Attachments: A 2019-062 - 920 Keewatin Place.pdf We would like to express our opinion. We are against a variance at 920 Keewatin Place as illustrated in the attachment below. These individuals have ran a construction business out of this home without a permit for years and still do as per their website. Past behaviour is always a predictor of future contact and as you can see through the many pictures and through the descriptions that this is a full-scale construction company. When we purchased our home 20 years ago we raised our three children who are now adults I never thought I would be metres away from a construction company. This is a residential street not zoned for a construction company. The city of Kitchener needs to hear the voice of the residents that live on the street and not grant this variance. Master trades group needs to find an area to operate where it is zoned for a construction company and that is not on Keewatin Place. I am hoping when this decision is rendered that all departments of the city including bylaw and zoning along with the police department have issued their reports on the many times that they have had frequent our street and 920 Keewatin Place. At anytime if you have any questions feel free to contact us directly. Yours res ectfull July 11, 2019 Attention: Committee of Adjustment, City of Kitchener RE: A 2019-062 — 920 Keewatin Place My wife , and I oppose the Application for Variance in the strongest terms. As— neighbours to the Applicants, we stand to be adversely impacted by the variances, if granted. We further believe that the quality of life of the community in general would be eroded. We oppose the variances on the following grounds: A. The construction business operated by the Applicants is inconsistent with the character and nature of the neighbourhood. By facilitating the operations of this construction company, the variances stand to aggravate the existing situation and render the property and the business more consistent with a commercial or industrial zone than a residential one. Moreover, a construction business is not an approved business -type for a home business according to the Zoning By -Law. B. By their past behaviour, we believe that the Applicants will not abide by the parameters of the zoning by-law and any variances thereof. Rather, we believe that the variances would afford the Applicants cover or concealment to exceed the parameters of the Zoning By -Law, making it more difficult for authorities to detect infractions and conduct enforcement. C. We believe that the Applicants have not fulfilled their responsibilities under the terms of the Application for Variance by not having placed the notification sign, for a period of six days, in an area that is plainly visible. We further assert that the Application is deficient in terms of compelling rationale in support of the variances. D. In their totality, these four variances are hardly minor in nature, but rather are significantly impactful and risk altering irretrievably the character and nature of the neighbourhood. An individual and incremental consideration of the variances would provide prudent risk management in a manner consistent with stewardship role of the Committee of Adjustment. E. We believe that the Applicants may acquire the required driveway space by making minor alterations to their own property without having to incur upon the minimum setback distance on the south side of the lot. F. The variances stand to significantly degrade the appearance and normal functionality of the property to the detriment of the community. G. The variances permit the Applicants a disproportionate share of the community's resources in terms of on -street parking. 2 A. Construction Business is Inconsistent with Neighbourhood We retired to Keewatin Place in March 2018 with the reasonable expectation of living in a quiet residential neighbourhood. As depicted by the photograph below, Keewatin Place is a picturesque neighbourhood at the centre of which is a lovely landscaped and treed boulevard that offers a meeting place for neighbours and a safe zone for small children to play. There are aged persons living on the street and in the vicinity who enjoy the surroundings as well. For us, it is the "dream" home in a perfect neighbourhood. Staging of trucks, bins, trailers, equipment r - 'Xam"73 However, as the winter turned into spring, we would become devastated to discover that we had moved beside a construction company — Master Trades Group (MTG) owned and operated by the Applicants. Though the Applicants possessed neither a business license nor an Occupancy Certificate permitting the attendance of employees, the Applicants had utilized the quiet "court" and their driveway as staging and parking grounds for various bins, trailers, trucks and equipment related to the construction business. The Applicants' residence, furthermore, contained the offices of MTG where I witnessed up to seven employees in attendance at one time and where I have seen three or four work stations and related items such as photocopier, filing cabinets, stationary, etc. The photograph below depicts the placement of the offices, which are located on the ground floor of the addition to the back of the residence. 3 Please refer to Appendix "A"—Master Trades Group Operations 2018 for photographs illustrating various construction -related operations occurring at 920 Keewatin Place and on the street itself. There are two instances of construction operations that are particularly noteworthy and are illustrated in the photographs below. They show vehicles and trailers belonging to MTG driving over the boulevard in an attempt to maneuver into places that were not designed for such purposes. These examples are reflective of the Applicants' treatment of the neighbourhood generally and their apparent disregard for the safety of pedestrian and vehicular traffic from within the neighbourhood and outside. Above: The Applicant's truck backs a trailer onto the boulevard that is often visited by children and senior citizens. Below: To the amazement of landscapers working on my property, the Applicant drives his truck and construction bin over the boulevard. 7 j It is, moreover, a contravention of the City of Kitchener Traffic and Parking By -Law to drive on the boulevard: Driving On a Boulevard, Sidewalk or Multi -Use Trail N No person shall drive a motor vehicle or a motor - assisted vehicle on any boulevard, sidewalk or multi -use trail except at a driveway. 4 In another instance, the Applicant received a parking infraction ticket from By -Law Enforcement for having parked unattended a large construction bin such that it impeded vehicular traffic. The bin in question is the one depicted in the photograph below (although the incident itself occurred at another time). 4 As a result of the disruptive activities of MTG, all residents of Keewatin Place saw fit to sign a petition requesting that the City of Kitchener install no parking signs along the boulevard. The goal was to limit the space available for the Applicants to park their bins, trailers, trucks and equipment. To the credit of the City's Transportation Services, no parking signs were installed in a timely fashion with the intended effect. Moreover, I had made a complaint to the City's By -Law Enforcement, which took prompt action by initiating awareness and education with the Applicants. There are many additional occasions when the Applicants or vehicles associated to MTG had committed parking infractions. The photographs below are just two of these: The Applicant stops, exits the vehicle and leaves the vehicle and construction bin in the middle of the road blocking driveway egress and access. The Applicants vehicles are stopped in the middle of the roadway, the drivers apparently having a conversation. Note that the driveway's access and egress are blocked. Further note the newly installed no -parking sign. Subsection V.2.a. of the Traffic and Parking By -Law states: Unless otherwise prohibited or permitted in this by-law, no person shall park or stop a vehicle on any roadway except on the right side of the roadway, having regard to the direction in which the vehicle has been proceeding with the right front and right rear wheels or runners not more than 0.15 meters from the curb line. The operations of MTG abated during the late fall and winter 2018 as might be expected with the construction industry. I was also hopeful that the intervention of municipal officials had been impactful for the long-term. However, by January 2019, it became apparent that MTG was reviving. The screen shots below are promotional online posts of enhanced services offered by MTG. The house depicted in the advertisement is one on which Master Trades Group had worked on during 2018. Master Trades Group Jan 27, 2019 • • r • • • uu ��R S TRADESUt MAr Stay tuned. Were coming back aMaster Trades Group Jan 22, 2019 ` 5vu 5 iADA&q=master+trades+group+kitchener&btnK=Google+Search&oq=master+trades+gl rom another browser. Import favorites Stay tuned. Were coming back Master Trades Group Jan 22, 2019 FREE DESIGN IDEAS YOU CAN START WITH. MTG can lake all of your Ideas and put It on a drawing, cost R, design it, organize it and build you a great finish product. MTG has all the licensed mechanical trades and red seal carpenters to finisrt the job on time, on bugel and the ... More Call now According to the City of Guelph website Bids and Tenders, MTG had been a bid taker for a bathroom renovation at Riverside Park in January -February 2019. It appears that Master Trades Group had registered to make a bid but did not do so. Furthermore, we saw the reappearance of some construction -related equipment and illegal parking accompanied by the attendance of employees at the residence. For photographs please refer to Appendix "B"— Master Trades Group Operations 2019. M Alarmed by the resurgence of activity, I and other neighbours made complaints to By -Law Enforcement. Furthermore, in conjunction with other neighbours, written submissions were made to the City of Kitchener Planning Division, followed by a meeting with the Director of Planning and other employees. The subsequent intervention of municipal officials seemed to have had some effect as evidenced by the decline in operations at 920 Keewatin Place during March and April 2019. 1 reiterate: the Applicants had neithera business licence nor the requisite Occupancy Certificate to conduct business and have non-resident employees. Despite a lull in operations for about a few weeks, it appeared that operations had restarted at about the end of April. On April 29, 2019, 1 observed the below -noted job ad on Indeed for a Renovator -Carpenter. Renovator Carpenter Master Trades MTG - Kitchener. ON Q Kitchener, ON In Contract Master Trades Group is seeking an experienced full timelpart time, Renovator. Candidate must have at least 3 to 5 min years experience, own tools, valid drivers license, and vehicie. Reno repair experience a must. Minimal travel required. If you are interested in this position, please indicate your expected hourly rate and when you are available to start. Some cases, project pricing may be required. Estimating experience an asset. Reviews or letters of reference would be an asset Incentive bonuses are available. Remuneration is based on your experience and equipment you have. Email or Text only at: 5197164741 Joh Type: Contract Experience: Drafting: 1 year (Preferred) Windows & Doors: 1 year (Preferred) Painting: 1 year (Preferred) Construction Management: 1 year (Preferred) Commercial & Industrial: 1 year (Preferred) Home Renovations: 3 years (Preferred) Demolition: 3 years (Preferred) • Egress Windows. 1 year (Preferred) Plumbing: 1 year (Preferred) • Siding: 1 year (Preferred) Drywall: 1 year (Preferred) Faming: 1 year (Required) • Construction Sales: 1 year (Preferred) Landscaping 1 year (Preferred) Carpentry: 3 years (Required) Electrical:1 year (Preferred) Taping: 1 year (Preferred) Ventilation:1 year (Preferred) This was a surprising development since I had been informed that, as a result of intervention of the Municipality, the Applicants had apparently changed business models whereby MTG would focus on "soft" construction -related services such as estimating and project management. Indeed, the description of permitted activities as of April 12, 2019, as provided to me by Business Licensing, reads as follows: Provides soft back up services for many categories of construction industries. These services are administrative only. Services include: Bid jobs, not do physical installs, do CAD drawings, estimating job, 7 consulting, construction sale for contractors (quotes on jobs), project manage, GANTT charts, bid spec, no construction equipment. Note that the description of business activities related to the licence specifically excludes physical installs as would be performed by a Renovator -Carpenter indicated on the Indeed job post. Thereafter, we witnessed the gradual increase in attendance of the two women whom we recognized as employees previously. The identity of the woman who drives the Silver 4 -door KIA sedan is known by virtue of social media posts and information received from a former employer and client of MTG. From this information we believe that she is the office manager/bookkeeper. The identity of the woman who drives the white Nissan Rogue is unknown though we have seen her attend the residence on a daily basis during February and March 2019 with other employees. She began attending the residence at about the time that the previous construction estimator had ceased attending the residence. Since May 6, we have seen the woman from the Nissan Rogue approximately 10 times and the office manager/bookkeeper of the Silver KIA 15 times. Usually, they stayed at the residence for several hours at a time, but rarely the entire day or at the same time. This is what we just happened to see. They may have been at the residence more often and for longer times. Since June 25, furthermore, we have seen these two individuals occasionally parking in the Applicants' closed -door garage which is a practice not previously seen and may be related to the pending Application for Variance. Finally, on July 9, 1 saw the posting below on Indeed in which MTG is seeking a Construction Carpenter— Installer — Labourer. Construction Carpenter- Installer - Labourer Master Trades MTG - Mchener, ON C7 Save this job V Kitchener, ON Construction labour and carpenters needed for home renovation. Duties are varied and range from demo]ition to new installation of all aspects of renovation projects. Applicantmust have a valid drivers license with a clean abstract. Applicant must have a cell phone that can send and receive texts. Working hours are 7:30 -5:00 Monday to Friday. Wages negotiable based on experience. If you like the idea of working with a small group of knowledgeable dedicated people, in a positive and run work environment send us a message. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Job Type: Full-time Experience_ • carpentry :1 year (Preferred) - Windows & Door Install: 1 year (Preferred) Painting 1 year (Preferred) • Concrete Work 1 year (Preferred) 13—ilicn_ 1 year (Preferred) • Trade School. 1 year (Preferred) • Plumbing: 1 year (Preferred) - Siding: 1 year (Preferred) - Drywall: 1 year (Preferred) • Eaves Trough& Gutters'. 1 year(Preferred) - Equipment Operator 1 year (Preferred) • Roofing: 1 year(Preferred) • Flooring: l year (Preferred) • Landscaping: 1 year (Preferred) • Electrical: l year (Preferred) - Taping: 1 year (Preferred) Masonry & Brick Work'. 1 year (Preferred) Education - Secondary School (Preferred) Language English (Required) 22 hours ago - reponjob Geljob updA.sfmm Master Trabes WG By %electing Fnllo,v you agree to get updated infiormanm aM new jobs fm IM1is company by email. You can cancel alerts. auyr . Master Trades MTG Master Trades Group provides the onelruction trades front end eaEee and marketing while at his same time Providing back end soft busirtes_. M It is unclear from the advertisement whether it is one or several positions that are sought by MTG. Either way, the contradictions with the stated purpose of the business licence cannot be squared. That MTG is currently seeking to employ one or more Carpenter -Installer -Labourers is not at all consistent with the claim of "not do physical installs." In effect, according to the job advertisements in April and July 2019, it appears that MTG is positioning itself as a construction company and not strictly a provider of "soft back up services" as provided by the business licence. The Zoning By -Law, however, is clear that a construction company is not an approved home business type. Subsection 5.13.1 of The City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law specifies the permitted business types: 5.13 HOME BUSINESS (By-law 94-183, S.9) No person or persons shall conduct a home business except as permitted herein and in accordance with the regulations hereinafter set out: .1 Home Businesses permitted in Single Detached Dwellings and Semi -Detached Houses containing only one dwelling unit: • Academic Instruction • Artisan's Establishment (not including retail) • Canine and Feline Grooming • Health Office (not including physician, surgeon or dentist) • Office Personal Service (not including the cleaning of apparel) • Repair Service • Tourist Home (to a maximum of two bedrooms) (Amended: By-law 2012-033, S.1) (Amended: By-law 2013-124, S.15) We had every reason to believe, when we bought our home in February 2018, that the neighbourhood we chose to move into was as it appeared — a quiet residential "court". The neighbourhood reflected a character inconsistent with the operation of a construction -type business. After all, there were no business licences, signs, or zoning variances among the neighbourhood residences that would have suggested the existence of a construction company. We are not opposed to home-based businesses. There are many home-based businesses that would fit in nicely because of their unobtrusive nature and the valuable services that would be afforded to residents. In fact, just about any other business -type would be acceptable. But, a construction company in the manner operated, and likely continue to be operated, by the Applicants cannot be reasonably called a home-based business. Though the Applicants obtained a business licence for "soft backup services", the job ads of April and July 2019 suggest otherwise and, in particular, indicate an intention to run a full-fledged, operational, construction company as in the past. It must be reiterated, construction companies are not permitted home businesses according to the Zoning By -Law. B. Past Behaviour is a Predictor of Future Conduct Based on their past behaviour, I reasonably believe that the Applicants will continue to operate a business in contravention of the zoning by-law and beyond the parameters of the variances. It will not be, in my estimation, a non -obtrusive, home-based business consistent with the character of the neighbourhood. It is unlikely to bring prosperity or a valuable service to families living in the vicinity or serve a common good. I fear that it will continue to be a construction business as it has persisted since my arrival in the neighbourhood and many years previously. It will rather bring the Applicants a financial gain at the expense of the balance of 17 residents. This belief is founded on what I have perceived to be frequent and egregious contraventions of municipal by-laws related to parking, zoning, business licences, and building permits. 1. As illustrated above, the Applicants have operated a construction business without the requite business licence and occupancy certificate. The City's Zoning By -Law Subsection 5.13.2.a. is clear: only one non-resident employee is allowed in the absence of the appropriate variance (assuming appropriate parking is available): The home business shall be conducted by the person or persons resident in the dwelling unit, may include one non-resident employee and shall not attract any additional employees directly to the lot containing the home business. 2. The Applicants obtained a business licence on April 12, 2019 but only when compelled to do so. The City of Kitchener Neighbourhood By -Law Guide (2016) states the following: • All business owners are required to obtain a business license, as well as an occupancy certificate for the home based business. • Licenses and approvals must be obtained prior to operating your business. 3. The Applicants, employees, and persons associated to Master Trades Group have parked illegally on Keewatin Place and Keewatin Avenue, resulting in the issuance of parking violations and the installation of no parking signs to the detriment of all residents. 4. The activities of MTG have contravened numerous additional provisions of the zoning by-law related to home-based business as depicted in the photographs below. Construction materials stored on as trailer in front of the Applicants' staircase. Subsection 5.13.2.f. No storage or display of goods shall be visible from the street. Labourers preparing the Applicant's vehicle at the beginning of the workday. Subsection 5.13.2.a. The home business shall be conducted wholly within an enclosed building. 10 Vehicles along with a trailer and construction bin are staging around the boulevard. The Pontiac Firebird between the truck and construction bin belongs to a labourer. It remains parked in that location for the entire day. Subsection 5.13.2.m. The home business shall not create noise, vibration, fumes, odour, dust, glare or radiation which is evident outside of the building. A large backhoe is stored in the Applicants' backyard. 5.13.2.e. No outdoor storage shall be permitted. 5. The Applicants have had an open building permit for the construction of their addition since 2011, even though the addition has been lived and worked in for several years. Based on discussions with the building inspector, we believe that there may have been contraventions of the building code and related municipal regulations. It behooves the Committee of Adjustment to make enquiries with the building department to verify the fitness of the structure since it is being used as the offices for Master Trades Group. We believe that the Applicants may have recently (April 2019, approximately) been compelled to obtain a "retroactive" building permit for a cast -in-place staircase at the front entrance that has been in existence since before our arrival in the neighbourhood. The steps also lacked railings as required by the building code despite being used regularly. More will be said about this in the following sections. After having been warned by By -Law Enforcement about running a construction business in violation of zoning By -Laws, vehicles associated to Master Trades Group were seen parked on Keewatin Avenue suggesting, in my view, an intention to conceal continued operations and presence of employees. 11 8. Almost on a daily basis, I see the Applicants park vehicles on the stone "walk -way" that goes along the south -side of the lot, adjacent to the neighbour's property. They use the "walk -way" not only for parking but also to move vehicles in a westerly direction toward the storage garage at the back of the lot. In effect, the walk -way serves as a non -legal driveway even though there is currently no variance to permit a driveway to encroach upon the minimum sideyard set -back. The photographs depict two such instances. Upon intervention of municipal officials, the Applicants temporarily ceased or slowed down operations. However, gradually they resumed activities, especially in relation to the attendance of employees despite the 12 absence of a proper occupancy certificate or, until recently, business licence. Until July 4, 2019, we believe that there are two employees who attended the residence regularly, sometimes parking in the closed -door garage. In the Application for Variance, itself, the Applicants concede the presence of employees at the residence in the past. They state in the appendix of the Application, We have additionally have had in the past and would like to continue and improve our involvement more with students..... It is my belief that the Applicants had built the large addition in 2011 to serve as the headquarters of a construction business apparently without regard to zoning constraints. They persisted in this intention without a business license or a proper occupancy certificate. They have had multiple employees and used the neighbourhood as their staging and parking grounds. The Applicants have received at least one parking violation and caused no parking signs to be placed on the boulevard to the disadvantage of residents. The Applicants have driven over the boulevard, creating a public safety risk to children, seniors and visitors to the neighbourhood. Up until about July 4, 2019, 1 believe that the Applicants have continued to have employees on their premises without an Occupancy Certificate authorizing it or appropriate parking for them. Based on our personal experiences and observations, I find it hard to believe that the Applicants will limit themselves to two non-resident employees when the offices were built to accommodate several more and when in the past more than two had been on the premises at the same time. I find it hard to believe that the Applicants will not persist in discharging full-fledged construction operations as they have done until late winter or early spring 2019. The job ad for a renovator -carpenter of April 29 and the subsequent one of July 9, 2019 offer proof of this intention. The current lull in operations in my estimation is a calculated one to try to impress upon the City of Kitchener that their ways have changed. However, the pattern of behaviour that I have witnessed is one of contravention, followed by detection and intervention of municipal officials, followed by brief period of compliance, followed by resumption of contravening activity. I fear reasonably that the pattern will reoccur whether or not the variances are issued. However, the variances stand to make the situation worse and have the unintended effect of giving cover to contravening activity. If, for example, two non-resident employees and vehicles are permitted, it would be difficult to track who belongs there and who does not. The Applicants can easily assert that they have municipal authority to have two employees, irrespective the number that actually attends. It would be a cat - and -mouse game to try to prove otherwise. C. Terms of Application for Variance are Unfulfilled In my estimation, the Applicants have not properly fulfilled their responsibilities under the terms and conditions of the Application for Variance. On page 5 - the Acknowledgement and signing section - the Application states, 1 further acknowledge that a City -issued notification sign must be posted at the front of the subject property in a location that is visible from the street. As shown by the photographs below, the notification sign is not posted in a place that is visible from the south -side of the street. Rather, it is concealed behind the staircase up against which it is placed. Furthermore, the sign is not visible from some angles from the front of the lot because it is placed directly behind a large bush and in the shadows of bushes and vegetation behind it. The good -faith placement of the 13 sign would be directly in front of the obscuring bush and staircase. Why would the Applicants have not made the sign more conspicuous by placing it in a prominent, visible, location on the front of the lot? During the morning of July 4, 1 saw a municipal employee attend the residence and take photographs of the sign's placement. I presume that the Applicants were subsequently advised because at about 7:30 pm the Applicants had repositioned the sign to in front of the large bush as it should have been. As such, between June 28 (when the sign was to be posted) to July 4, there were 6 days in which the public was deprived of the opportunity to view the sign and learn of the Application for Variance. The spirit and intent of the notification sign is to give residents and anyone passing near the Applicants' residence reasonable opportunity to learn of the Application for Variance. If desired, opposition or support could be given and people could decide about whether to attend the public meeting to learn more about the Application and its implications. The concealment of the sign from unobstructed street view for a significant time period has effectively deprived residents and any interested party a major avenue for learning about the Application for Variance as required under municipal regulations. The Committee of Adjustment is thereby prevented from gaining salient input either in support or opposition of the Application. Accordingly, the Applicants have intentionally violated the terms of the application by concealing the sign from reasonable viewing. I believe that the Application is defective in yet one more respect. That is, the Applicants have not adequately given rationale for the request for variance. The Application asks, In your opinion, what are the reasons you are not able to comply with the Zoning By-law? In the appendix provided by the Applicants I cannot discern a direct and coherent response to this question. I view with skepticism the Applicants' claim that they are motivated by the altruistic intent of employing students, refugees and people from worn -torn countries as indicated in the appendix. Even if that were the case, several important pieces of information are missing: • The nature of the business • The availability of public transportation ( which there is plenty of) • The duties and roles of employees • The availability of on -street parking (which there is plenty of for three hour periods) • The reason for converting the walkway to a driveway on the south side of the lot 14 • The hours of operations and when employees will be present • The presence of trucks, trailers, bins, and equipment. In fact, the Applicants appear to make a case against having non-resident employees. They state in the Appendix: 1 am also focusing on using our abilities to work with these people from their homes on computer without them having to visit me for help. This is really our main focus to work from their homes not here. If the "main focus" is to have employees work from home, as clearly stated in the application, would it not suffice to have parking for just one employee instead of two? It would appear from the application that the presence of non-resident employees would be an exception rather than the rule. It might be reasonable to need the occasional attendance of one employee at a time, but not two given the information available. In all, the application is excessively vague and fails to respond adequately to a central question and requirement. D. Application is Excessively Broad The Application contains four individual requests for variance. In my view, each of these requests is problematic in the case of 920 Keewatin Place and this Application. Two employees instead of the maximum of one — the zoning bylaw allows for one employee provided that there is appropriate parking for the employee. To authorize a second employee is extraordinary and, accordingly, demands compelling justification. The application, however, does not put forth any rationale in this regard. Furthermore, it would be an exercise in due diligence to consider the request for an extra employee in the context of past conduct of the Applicants in respect of having one employee let alone two. In this case, there is no track record of the Applicant's business practices in respect of lawfully having one employee. Rather, in my estimation, the Applicant's record tells an opposite story, which does not bode favourably for having any employees at all. In -tandem parking — it is presumed that in -tandem parking is meant to provide employee parking when side-by-side parking space unavailable. If a variance is sought for that purpose, then what is the rationale to widen the driveway to the point of 0 set -back to the adjoining lot? Moreover, what is the purpose of a variance to restrict the side -lot setback to 2.37m from 3m? There is no compelling reason to do so when in -tandem parking creates sufficient parking for one or two employees. Alternatively, there is no reason for in -tandem parking when a variance is sought to widen the driveway and restrict the sideyard setback. III. To legalize the existing driveway— I do not believe that it is accurate to call the surface adjacent to the neighbour's lot on the south side a "driveway". It appears to have been intended as a walkway due to the colour, shape and orientation of the rectangular stones that divide the surface leading to the garage and the surface along the neighbour's lot. Moreover, the two surfaces are of different colour, size, and possibly different kinds of stone. 15 Walkway stones are different in size, shape and colour Bricks separating driveway from walkway This surface may have been installed in the fashion of other home owners who, to avoid obtaining a zoning variance, create a surface suitable for driving a vehicle but is a walkway in appearance. In this case, there is nothing to "legalize" as represented in the Application. To render the surface "legal", it would suffice for the Applicants to stop using it as a driveway. IV. To reduce the side-lotset back to 2.37m — Once again, the Application contains no rationale for this request. It remains unnecessary to reduce the setback for any reason related to employee parking if in -tandem parking is permitted. It would appear, as evidenced by the trailer parked on the sideyard, that the variance is to permit the sideyard to be used as driveway to store equipment and vehicles as in the past. In the event that the Applicants prefer widening of the driveway over in -tandem parking, it is possible to achieve the purpose without encroaching on the setback on the south -side. Instead, it may be possible to widen the driveway to the north with some modifications to the staircase of the front entrance and walkway. More will be said about this reasonable option below. The severance of requests into individual applications would permit their merits to be considered individually, and incrementally, in the context of the Applicants' conduct over time and their intentions as inferred by conduct. The severance of the Application would furthermore allow more fulsome rationale to be put forth that is related specifically to the variance under consideration. E. Set -Back Variances May Be Unnecessary The Applicants may be able to achieve the required parking space by re -orienting the staircase to the way that it had existed until recently. The below -noted photograph (Google Street View) depicts the pre-existing staircase, which appears to have a smaller footprint and, most importantly, may be accessed without a separate, space -intensive, walkway. It is possible, furthermore, that the new staircase may have been installed without benefit of a building permit. I believe this to be the case because in approximately April 2019 a building permit was issued by the City of Kitchener for a cast -in-place staircase (19-107222 AL) even though it had been in existence before our arrival in March 2018. Please refer to the screen shot below of the City's online permit system. 16 It further appeared that the Applicants were required to install railings as a result of the newly issued permit. My interpretation of this development is that the municipal building inspector compelled the Applicants to obtain a building permit "retroactively" after having discovered that one was built in absence of a building permit. This may be conjecture on my part because I do not have all of the details and, accordingly, I recommend that the Committee of Adjustment conduct appropriate enquiries with the Building department. Only permits applied for after January 1, 1999 will be shown Public Search -' Print Permit Num6er(e.g_ 00-0000000) Building Number Street N— OR 920 1!.,.h__]Resel Permit Number ; Project Address Q Folder Type q Sub Type q Work Type 1 Status 19-1D722\ 920 KEEWATIN PL Residential Single Detached Exterior Alteration Open Alteration Dwelling 21107 RD 920 KEEWATIN PL Residential Single Detached Addition - Res Open Building (House) Dwelling 09454 RA 920 KEEWATIN PL Residential Shed Allerationsfimprov Closed Accessory (1 or 2 ements units) Description Permit is for new cast in place concrete steps on a front porch of a single detached dwelling PERMIT IS FOR A HEATED SINGLE STOREY ADDITION WITH DECK ON TOP FORASINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. PERMIT IS FOR 24 X 10 FOOT SHED. 17 If the Applicants did not possess a building permit, they may have deprived themselves of some valuable insight from the building inspector about the implications of the modifications to the orientation of the staircase. I believe that the long walkway required for egress and ingress to the new staircase and front entrance is posing an issue for the Applicants in respect of parking space. That is, they cannot encroach on the walkway to widen the driveway because it would obstruct emergency access to the front entrance. Walkway that could be repurposed That the applicants changed the staircase, possibly without a building permit, to their determent should not be made a cost to be paid by the neighbour to the south or the neighbourhood in general. The Applicants would simply have to reorient the staircase as it existed previously. By re -orienting the staircase, it would be possible to replace the walkway with a widened driveway to the north, rather than to the south. F. Variances Would Degrade Appearance and Functionality of the Property There is barely a small sliver of grass remaining on the front yard because most space has been consumed by a large staircase and walkway leading to the staircase, on the north side, and another walkway which is currently being used as a driveway, on the south. To turn the walkways either on the south or north into an expanded driveway would render the front of the house into a veritable parking lot. There would, then, be at least two non-resident vehicles in addition to the Applicants' two vehicles on a rather small lot. The front of the property would in effect become overwhelmed by vehicles, vehicular traffic, and driveway. It is my fear that that any variances to widen the driveway would transform the Applicants' property into a commercial space in appearance and function. It would be highly inconsistent with character and design of the neighbourhood. On a more practical note, a widened driveway would leave no place for the Applicants to store snow. The current situation is testament to this expectation. Because the walkway along the side -yard on the south is being used as a driveway, space that would otherwise be used for snow storage is used for other purposes. There is little space available on the north due to presence of the new staircase and walkway. As a result, the Applicants have had to blow snow across the street and onto the boulevard. It is a predictable occurrence after every snow fall as depicted in the photograph below. These actions have stalled the passage of traffic as vehicles await the Applicants to return to the lot pushing a snow blower. Congestion on the street is IV worsened by the Applicants' practice of moving their own and employees' vehicles onto the street pending clearing of the driveway. I have also seen the Applicants shovel snow on the neighbour's side yard, too, due to having nowhere else to put it. By allowing the variances in respect of driveway expansion, the Applicants would effectively be given tacit permission to continue storing snow inappropriately and potentially in contravention of municipal by-laws and the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. The Applicant blows snow across the roadway creating a visibility hazard for pedestrians and vehicles A vehicular or pedestrian accident may be an unintentional consequence of snow blowing onto the street for the mere purposes of accommodating more vehicles than the lot can now property handle. The City of Kitchener risks assuming vicarious or indirect responsibility for allowing the Applicants to have a widened driveway when to do so they must move snow inappropriately off their lot. G. Variances Excessively Onerous on the Neighbourhood There is yet one more way that the variances, if granted, could result in hardship for residents: constrained availability of on -street parking for routine residential purposes. When the Applicants' driveway is entirely full of vehicles belonging to the Applicants and non-resident employees, it may be presumed that customers and clients of the Applicants will need to park on Keewatin Place. There are, however, only 5 parking spaces that could reasonably accommodate most full-sized and/or service vehicles. There is less, when vehicles are parked inefficiently, taking up more than one spot. Hardly a day goes by when multiple parking spaces on Keewatin Place are not used by visitors, service providers, family and friends of residents. Where are they going to park when there could be up to 3 vehicles associated to the Applicants' customers and clients already taking -up parking space? There would be no choice for guests to park farther away on Keewatin Avenue or Dineen Court. This would be highly inconvenient for service providers such as plumbers, electricians, and carpenters who may need continuous access to their vehicles for tools and equipment. Moreover, the parking situation becomes more aggravated in the event that another home-based business opens on Keewatin Place. As demonstrated by the photograph below, the activities of MTG are already known to monopolize on -street parking. Three of 5 possible parking spots are taken by vehicles associated to Master Trades Group. Top: Applicant's truck and trailer Middle: Honda civic belonging to paralegal employee W.G. Side: Dodge Journey belonging to purchaser D.S. 19 It is simply unfair that the Applicants, by virtue of the variances, would be permitted a disproportionate share of the community's resources. The variances, if permitted, will allow them greater road utilization for employees and clients. The variances, moreover, would compel them to use the street and boulevard for snow storage. Finally, the Applicants stand to monopolize the street in term of parking. By not allowing any non-resident employees, the Applicants would retain sufficient space on their property for at least two customers. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, I do not believe that the Application for Variance meets the four "test" threshold. 1) Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan Master Trades Group is a construction company that has operated on Keewatin Place for many years. As recently as April 29 and July 9 2019 there have appeared advertisements on Indeed for a Renovator, Carpenter, Installer, and Labourer, although the business licence issued on April 12 is for "soft" construction services, only — "no physical installs". A construction company that is operated in the fashion that the Applicants have demonstrably done, and likely intend to continue, is inconsistent with the design and character of the residential neighbourhood. The variances, if accorded, would serve to facilitate the operation of Master Trades Group to the degradation of the community and quality of life of residents (Part "A"). 2) Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By -Law a. By my view, the job ads of April 29 and July 9, 2019 suggest the intention of running a construction company. However, the City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law does not recognize a construction company as a permitted home business (Part "A"). b. The Applicants have not fulfilled their obligations under the terms of the Application because they have failed to display the notification sign in a manner that is completely visible from the street (Part "C"). c. The Applicants may have made a material misstatement on the Application by referring to the surface next to neighbour on the south as a "driveway" when it has the appearance and form of a walkway. As such, there is nothing to legalize through a variance (Part "D"). zo d. Before a variance is accorded, it would be a reasonable requirement to possess faith in the Applicants' willingness and ability to abide by the parameters of the zoning by-law and variances thereof. By their past actions, I believe that the Applicants have neither the willingness nor the ability in this regard (Part "B"). e. I believe that the variances will have the unintended consequence of promoting continued contravention of the zoning by-law. The variances stand the risk of providing cover and concealment for unauthorized activity, rendering it difficult if not impossible for enforcement officials to respond adequately to complaints (Part "B"). f. I do not believe the Applicants have provided sufficient rationale in support of their requests. Rather, it appears that they indicated that their intentions are to have employees work from home, which would render moot the need for non-resident employees and parking spaces for them (Part "C"). 3) Be Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building, or Structure a. A widened driveway, along with more dense vehicular presence and traffic, would render the residential lot more commercial in appearance and function and, accordingly, be inconsistent with the character and intent of the neighbourhood (Part "F"). A widened driveway would result in the Applicants having insufficient space to store snow, thereby compelling them to blow it onto the street and boulevard in contravention of municipal and provincial laws and to the peril of civil liability for the City (Part "F"). The Applicants may have ill-advisedly changed the orientation and size of their staircase to their own detriment and possibly without a building permit. By restoring the staircase to its original size and orientation, they may be able to repurpose the walkway on the north as a driveway without adversely affecting the appearance of the lot and space available for snow storage (Parts "E" and "F"). 4) Be Minor In Nature a. The Application for Variance is quite broad because it requests 4 variances of the zoning by- law. In my estimation, the totality of variances sought is significant rather than minor. The community would be better served by severing the Application into 4 individual applications with clearly delineated rationale for each of the requested variances (Part "D"). The variances would provide the Applicants a disproportionate share of the community's resources in terms of parking space availability on Keewatin Place (Section "G"). There is yet another test that I believe has merit. It is the "would I grant the variances if the Applicants were my neighbours" test. Given their past and current conduct, I do not think that anyone in our position would want to afford the Applicants an opportunity that might aggravate the current situation. I reiterate that there must be some confidence in the Applicants' willingness and ability to abide by municipal by-laws as a prerequisite for granting the variances. As evidenced by the concealed placement of the notification sign, I cannot see how they can be given the benefit of the doubt. There is, moreover, the continued attendance, between May 6 and July 4, of persons whom we believe are employees and who have occasionally parked their vehicles behind closed doors in the garage. The cessation of employees' attendance after July 4, furthermore, appears to coincide with the warning given by the City on that date about the concealment of the notification sign. In this case, compliance to zoning variances cannot simply be left to By -Law Enforcement. Given the Applicants' conduct, I fear that the variances themselves risk obscuring the coming and going of people and vehicles that are not authorized by the occupancy certificate and the zoning variances. How would by-law 21 officers begin to sort out "who -is -who"? There must be sufficient confidence that the Applicants will make a good faith effort in abiding by the variances and zoning by-law. While it is impossible to predict the future, it is not unreasonable to consider the past as a predictor of future behaviour. We thank the City of Kitchener and the Committee of Adjustment for having taken the time to consider this submission. We believe that our opposition to the Application for Variance has merit and we respectfully urge you to deny the Application. We may be reached anytime at Sincerely, 22 Appendix "A"— Master Trades Group Operations 2018 These photographs are representative of construction -related activities and are not meant to be an exhaustive portrayal of the situation. We took photographs when we were available, but there are many times when we were either away from home or when we felt too frustrated and tired to continue taking photographs. —rA The Applicant's truck is hitched to a construction bin and trailer while parked on the inner boulevard. A trailer with construction materials is parked in front of the Appliconts'staircose blocking egress & access. The Applicant's truck is hitched to a different construction bin and trailer while parked on the inner boulevard such that it blocks driveway access. A cement mixer is parked in the Applicants' driveway. r 4' OF A labourer is loading the Applicant's truck at the start of the work day. Labourers are preparing another of the Applicant's trucks for the workday ahead. 23 The Applicant's truck is parked unattended in the middle of the street due to insufficient parking on the driveway. The white Dodge Journey belongs to employee, purchaser D.S. Note the presence of construction materials stored on the driveway along with another truck. The Applicant loads his truck in the middle of the street, blocking driveway access. Notwithstanding the no -parking sign, the Applicant is having a conversation with someone in the vehicle that is parked in the middle of the street. 24 A pickup truck extends past the edge of the driveway while the Applicant's truck is parked unattended in the middle of the street blocking driveway access. Note the no -parking sign. The Applicant leaves his vehicle parked unattended in the middle of the street blocking driveway access. Note the no parking sign. The Applicant leaves his truck parked in a manner that partially blocks a neighbour's driveway. 25 Most parking spots are taken by vehicles associated to Master Trades Group. Top: Applicant's truck and trailer Middle: Honda civic belonging to paralegal employee W.G. Side: Dodge Journey belonging to purchaser D.S. A van is parked unattended in front of the fire extinguisher and Applicants' driveway. Applicant's truck is parked in the middle of the street blocking driveway access. 26 27 The Applicant's truck is parked in the middle of the roadway obstructing traffic. Note the Applicant's other truck is on the walkway blocking access to the front entrance. A vehicle associated to Master Trades Group is parked in the middle of the roadway, in front the fire hydrant and no -parking sign. Note that a vehicle's passage is being obstructed as a result. The Applicant's truck is hitched to a trailer. It is on the walkway on the south -side of the lot. W The Applicant leaves his truck and trailer parked in the middle of the road blocking access to two driveways. The Applicant leaves his truck parked unattended in the middle of the road as he goes back to his residence, blocking driveway access. The Applicant's truck overhangs the edge of the driveway. 29 The Applicant's two vehicles are parked in the middle of the roadway apparently having a conversation while blocking driveway access. Note the no parking sign. The Applicant's truck is parked on the walkway, blocking emergency access to the staircase and entrance to the residence. Note as well the presence of the red construction bin on the driveway. A large tractor is stored in the Applicants' backyard. Employees' Vehicles Parked on Keewatin Avenue on Wednesday August 8 @ 1:30 PM 77 Black Toyota Corolla — Project Manager F.C. M NJ ;N Pontiac Firebird — Main Labourer Red Chev—Assistan t to Project Manager 30 Brown Mini Cooper — Construction Estimator V. W. Blue Honda Civic — Paralegal W.G. The Purchaser (White Dodge Journey) D.S. was parked in the Applicants' Driveway. In total, there were 6 non-resident employees at the residence on that day. Appendix "B"— Master Trades Group Operations 2019 Similarly, these photographs are not an exhaustive portrayal of the situation. 31 The Applicant leaves his vehicle parked in the middle of the street to have a conversation with the driver of the Nissan Rogue, also parked in the middle of the street. The Nissan Rogue is there to pickup one of the Applicant's employees. Two driveways are blocked. A white pickup truck used by the Applicant is parked unattended despite the presence of no parking signs. The Applicant stops in the middle of the road to transfer materials between his vehicle and the Honda SUV. A utility trailer is moved to the road (on the wrong side) and left unattended while blocking access to a driveway. The Red construction bin overhangs the edge of the driveway. The Applicant has a long conversation in the middle of the street with the driver of the Nissan Rogue who is there to pick-up one of the employees at MTG. 32 r ■ Office Manager & Book Keeper C.R. Unknown employee Various employees of Master Trades Group in attendance at the residence where there is no business licence or Occupancy Certificate authorizing employees. Construction Estimator V. W. An individual J.H. known as the Applicant's "network guy" arrives at the residence as the passenger of the vehicle. 33 I f l b -. 34 An employee is picked up by a Nissan Rogue that idles in front of a nieghbour's driveway for approximately 10 minutes. The Applicant leaves a vehicle that he is using parked unattended in the middle of the street while he goes back to his residence for several minutes. It is parked in front of a no -parking sign (not visible). The utility trailer returns after an absence. The silver vehicle beside it belongs to the office manager/bookkeeper C.R. Holly Dyson From: Sent: 11 July, 2019 9:54 AM To: Sheryl Rice Menezes Cc: Holly Dyson; Alain Pinard Subject: RE: 920 Keewatin Place Attachments: Construction Carpenter -Installer - Labourer July 10, 2019.png; Renovator -Carpenter April 29, 2019.png Good morning, I'm sure you're tired of hearing from us, but there has been a development since yesterday that may be relevant to the City's consideration of the Application. Yesterday, July 10, 1 saw the attached job ad in which Master Trades Group is seeking a Construction Carpenter — Installer — Labourer. This is in addition to a previous job ad of April 29, 2019 in which MTG was seeking a Renovator - Carpenter. Please see the attached screen shot of the job ad. However, according to Business Licensing, the licence for MTG is for the following activities: PROVIDES SOFT BACK UP SERVICES FOR MANY CATEGORIES OF CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES. THESE SERVICES ARE ADMINISTRATIVE ONLY. SERVICES INCLUDE: BID JOBS, NOT DO PHYSICAL INSTALLS, DO CAD DRAWINGS, ESTIMATING JOB, CONSULTING, CONSTRUCTION SALE FOR CONTRACTORS (QUOTES ON JOBS), PROJECT MANAGE, GANTT CHARTS, BID SPEC, NO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. How does one square the stated purpose of the business licence - to do "administrative" services and "not do physical installs" — with the attempt to hire two positions that are hardly administrative in nature and who would be doing "physical installs"? The contradictions in intentions cannot be ignored. They suggest to me that the Applicant intends on running a full - services construction company. However, as you know, the zoning by-law does not recognize a construction business as a an approved home business. In effect, the variances would be facilitating the further contravention of the Zoning By -Law. For your information and consideration in this matter. Regards, :.J 0 u 'a C� M _ d va p E m y Q `n v rs m o na o c a� a ., v a es q s N m N a d o 3 w — tp N V- 7 Y o 0 a T @ CA e a n n @ C > a is w a a� C O E 0 6� @ E N k. C 17 E U O 03 C O J= N 'C u4i n c aN s L? m m� v p t as w yr r- @ ` R E w @ CL a 5u N p3 N w C y N 11. d n" o' a 3 rs ami r a��s ami v V N w w 7 a` w.. 47CL 2 .a C" w W a @ a V7 N 41 d iV CL fes] p L3 N` m O 3 x x c �^ a� �r CL �r n N = m N w wp r C1 U" %y 7 a c G D d 4�.1 8 rts �. d © a w r G7 r❑ ?. d r r N N a y, C W G7 0) Ec EL c _ Vj `n C ¢mss c s� a v v p ria Q v 13 o as 2w '[7 N Q O1 ai C U 0. U ❑ H Cl G} ❑ W W CCZ. lL J W m q� g W y m ,R] ip ci C C } C E 41 O a t9 GE a � U c p � $ v d °' ; D N m = Q :.J 0 u 'a C� M _ d va p E m y Q `n v rs m o na o c a� a ., v a es q s N m N a d o 3 w — tp N V- 7 Y o 0 a T @ CA e a n n @ C > a is w a a� C O E 0 6� @ E N k. C 17 E U O 03 C O J= N 'C u4i n c aN s L? m m� v p t as w yr r- @ ` R E w @ CL a 5u N p3 N w C y N 11. d n" o' a 3 rs ami r a��s ami v V N w w 7 a` w.. 47CL 2 .a C" w W a @ a V7 N 41 d iV CL fes] p L3 N` m O 3 x x c �^ a� �r CL �r n N = m N w wp r C1 U" %y 7 a c G D d 4�.1 8 rts �. d © a w r G7 r❑ ?. d r r N N a y, C W G7 0) Ec EL c _ Vj `n C ¢mss c s� a v v p ria Q v 13 o as 2w '[7 N Q O1 ai C U 0. U ❑ H Cl G} ❑ W W CCZ. lL J W ,R] U c p IX 0 a � � m v_s C Qj 67 Pi o �r E c m rn f9 R7 � W v {[/ 02 m k §■] £ ��2 2\\m E §�E! %fg7E i/k C & \ 2 G § m & 2 k A § i 8 . > = u a c 0 J a p\ 2 E CL 7 \ _ u $ �a20■ \_ § ) 2 $ f OL) � 2 » 2 § { k - 2 / \ k 2j { )m a) k /\s A R aaA= G-��22 tsf� @ ® 7 } # )# m 7 t&} E m a 2 »� � } m E � � � ¥ � § a � . �� � ® � e ■ _ ■ 2 2 2 y,,\ u E■ E �� R)«22� CL 0E2 � U, Mn a 3 E Q o e k m m a . 2 u 2= e m 8# - a §_ %% e-\ 2 t c o g / u` m- V 0? c, n�� a c o r— tm �R - _ \ m k 02°-_-m o . \m C) § g 6 \X10 d £B§S§b�--gam%-S £ § ca ` § E y / o _ = t E 5 # K E u 3 ®w 6_ F-] 2 5 E 2 ! a § @ \ \ / » d § 2 § \ k § § k ) § ƒ § k 2 ( t E RM