Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2004-06-08 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JUNE 8, 2004 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. D. Angel and Messrs. P. Britton and B. Isaac. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Mr. B. Sloan, Planner, and Ms. D. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. P. Britton, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of May 11, 2004, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried PECUNIARY INTEREST Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in Submission No.'s B 2004-020 to B 2004-025, for the property municipally known as 527 Pioneer Tower Road, considered by the Committee on April 20, 2004, when he was not sitting as the Chair or member of the Committee. Mr. Britton's planning firm represented the application, and he did not participate in any discussion or voting on these applicants as a member of the Committee at the April 20, 2004 meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 2004-034 Bibi Murzeena Ally, Balram Jaggernauth & Esau Imram Ally 221 Ahrens Street West Part of Lot 70 & 71, Plan 34, being Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R- 10977 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: Mr. K. Lippert Ms. B. Posendorf Mr. E. Dopp Written Submissions: Mr. S. Kay Neighbourhood Petition The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to expand a legal non- conforming 4 unit residential building to a 5 unit residential building. In response to the Committee's direction at its May 11, 2004 meeting, the Committee was in receipt of correspondence from Mr. S. Kay, solicitor for the owner of 221 Ahrens Street West. In his correspondence, Mr. Kay advised that he agrees with the position of City staff, as outlined in their report dated May 13, 2004, that this application is not required, and the owner is entitled to expand the use of this property with one more unit, which is within the range established by the legal non-conformity for the property. He advises that the application is being withdrawn, and he requested a refund of the application fee. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 98 JUNE 8, 2004 1. Submission No.: A2004-034 (Cont'd) The Chair explained to those present that the application is withdrawn, so there is no decision to be made by this Committee. He noted that this Committee neither agrees nor disagrees with staff's position on this application. Further, as there is no application on which to decide, there are no conditions which can be imposed. He recommended the neighbours continue to work with the Ward Councillor, and By-law Enforcement staff. Planning staff were requested to return the original petition and photographs to the neighbours. With respect to the requested refund, the Committee considered the cost in staff time and the cost of advertising to bring the application to this point in the process. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. D. Angel That $100.00 of the application fee for Submission No. A 2004-034 be refunded. Carried This meeting recessed at 10:00 a.m. to allow the Committee to consider Applications for Minor Variance to the City's Fence and Sign By-laws. This meeting reconvened at 10:30 a.m. with the following members present: Ms. D. Angel and Messrs P. Britton and B. Isaac. NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 2004-035 Mirko Knezevic 103 Vicmount Drive Lot 27, Registered Plan 1319 Appearances: In Support: Mr. S. Head Mr. M. Knezevic Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct a 3 unit addition to a triplex with a rearyard of 1.7 m (5.57 ft.) rather than 7.5 m (24.61 ft.), to provide 7 off-street parking spaces rather than 8, and to locate the parking 1 m (3.28 ft.) from the Victoria Street lot line rather than 3 m (9.84 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 17, 2004, recommending the application be deferred pending submission and consideration of a site plan application. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 1,2004, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Head advised that he attended a site plan review preconsultation meeting with staff, in respect of the proposed development. He believed he had the general support of City staff for the proposed development. Following the preconsultation meeting he submitted this Application for Minor Variance. The Committee generally agreed to defer consideration of this application to July 13th, 2004, to allow the applicant an opportunity to work with staff on the required site plan application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 99 JUNE 8, 2004 Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 2004-036 RBJ Schlegel Land Development Limited Red Clover Court Part of Part 3, Re.qistered Plan 58R-12574 Mr. P. Britton declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his planning firm represents the applicant, and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Appearances: In Support: Ms. N. Horne Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to construct a townhouse unit with a setback from Bleams Road of 13.3 m (43.63 ft.) rather than 25 m (82.02 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 25, 2004, in which they advise there is a special regulation in the zoning by-law, requiring a minimum setback of 25 m from Bleams Road, for a residential dwelling unit on this property. The setback of 25 m results from the necessity to meet the intent of the Municipal Plan with respect to noise. The owner has retained a qualified acoustical engineer to undertake an analysis in support of the requested setback reduction, which has been approved by the Region of Waterloo, subject to mitigation measures. Consequently, staff recommend conditional approval of the application. Ms. Horne addressed the Committee advising that a noise study has been approved by the Region; further, the house will be fitted to accommodate central airconditioning, and there will be a noise warning clause on title. She also noted that the 13 m setback is greater than that usually required from an arterial road. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 1,2004, advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of RBJ Schlegel Land Development Limited requesting permission to construct a townhouse unit with a setback from Bleams Road of 13.3 m (43.63 ft.) rather than the required 25 m (82.02 ft.), on Part of Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-12574, Red Clover Court, Kitchener, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That Stage 2 of Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-00203 shall be registered. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 100 JUNE 8, 2004 Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 2004-037 Richard & Katrina Kosch 12 Lucerne Drive Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 1290 Appearances: In Support: Mr. & Mrs. R. Kosch Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant requests legalization of an existing shed with a rear yard of 0.5 m (1.66 ft.) rather than 0.6 m (2 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 28, 2004, in which they recommend approval of the application. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 1,2004, advising they have no concerns with this application. Ms. D. Angel noted the plan submitted with this application shows the shed is located on an easement, and suggested any approval by this Committee be conditional on receipt of clearances from Bell Canada and the Public Utility Commission for the location of the shed on the easement. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Richard & Katrina Kosch requesting legalization of the existing shed having a rear yard of 0.5 m (1.66 ft.) rather than the required 0.6 m (2 ft.), on Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 1290, 12 Lucerne Drive, Kitchener, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the owners shall obtain clearances from Bell Canada and Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc. with respect to the location of the shed on their easement. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Leqal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 2004-038 LarwWarzecha 124 Ottawa Street South Lots 101-106 & Part Lot105, Plan 262 Mr. L. Warzecha None Carried Written Submissions: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 101 JUNE 8, 2004 4. Submission No.: A2004-038 (Cont'd) The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for a roofed loading dock with a setback form Nyberg Street of 3.8 m (12.46 ft.) rather than 4.5 m (14.76 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 28, 2004, in which they recommend approval of the application. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 1,2004, advising they have no concerns with this application. The Committee considered the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority (G.R.C.A.), dated June 2, 2004, advising they have no objection to this application, as the construction meets the policy for minor additions in the floodplain. A permit from the G.R.CA. is required to legalize the construction of the new dock and roof. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Larry Warzecha requesting permission for a roofed loading dock with a setback form Nyberg Street of 3.8 m (12.46 ft.) rather than 4.5 m (14.76 ft.), on Lots 101 to 106 and Part Lot 105, Plan 262, 124 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 2004-039 Rasvan-Teodor & Mona-Ana Negoita 619 Forest Hill Drive Lot 1, Re.qistered Plan 1167 Appearances: In Support: Mr. T. Negoita Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached garage with a sideyard of 0.3 m (0.98 ft) rather than 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 28, 2004, noting that in addition to the proposed garage, which would have a sideyard of 0.3 m, there is an existing carport on the property with a sideyard of 0.3 m rather than the required 1.2 m. The report recommends this application be amended to include the inadequate side yard for the carport. In this report, staff recommend the application be refused; as the sideyard setback for the proposed garage, which will be an addition to the rear of the carport, does not provide sufficient space to maintain the building. Staff would be willing to support the variance of a 0.6 m (2 ft.) sideyard if the applicant would be willing to enter into a maintenance agreement with the neighbouring property owner, subject to other conditions. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 102 JUNE 8, 2004 5. Submission No.: A2004-039 (Cont'd) Mr. Negoita advised that after discussing this matter with staff, he approached St. George's Church regarding a maintenance agreement. In this regard, Mr. Negoita provided the Committee with a letter from St. George's of Forest Hill, dated June 6, 2004, acknowledging Mr. Negoita's application to enlarge his existing carport/garage with a sideyard setback of 0.3 m. The letter states the church has no objections to this proposal subject to the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) during construction of your carport you will not damage or obstruct the church driveway; during maintenance of your carport you will not damage or obstruct the church driveway; there will be no fence or other attachment to the carport; all drainage will be directed to your property at 619 Forest Hill Dr., Kitchener; there will be no encroachment of eavestroughs or any other attachment onto the church property. Mr. Negoita assured the Committee he will be able to obtain a maintenance agreement from the Church. He also requested permission to amend his application to legalize the existing carport. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 1,2004, advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Rasvan-Teodor & Mona-Ana Negoita requesting legalization of an existing carport with a sideyard of 0.3 m (0.98 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m ( 4 ft.), and permission to construct an attached garage addition with a sideyard of 0.3 m (0.98 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.), on Lot 1, Registered Plan 1167, 619 Forest Hill Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with St. George's of Forest Hill for maintenance of his garage addition; with the said agreement to be in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, and executed by both parties prior to the issuance of a building permit for the garage addition. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Leqal Description: A 2004-040 Kim Knowles 204 Waterloo Street Part Lot D, Plan 386, being Parts 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-13316 Appearances: In Support: Mr. & Mrs. S. Knowles Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an accessory building in the rear yard with a height of 8 m (26.24 ft.) rather than 5.5 m (18.04 ft.). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 103 JUNE 8, 2004 6. Submission No.: A2004-040 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 31,2004, recommending approval of this application, as amended. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 1,2004, advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Kim Knowles requesting permission to construct an accessory building in the rear yard with a height of 8 m (26.24 ft.) rather than the permitted 5.5 m (18.04 ft.), having a distance of 4.8 m (15.74 ft.) to the underside of the fascia rather than the permitted 3 m (9.8 ft.), on Part Lot D, Plan 386 being Parts 2 & 3, Registered Plan 58R-13316, 204, Waterloo Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 2004-043 Claysam Homes Ltd. 66 Sandwell Court Lot 17, Registered Plan 58M-275 Appearances: In Support: Mr. S. Secluna Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling and garage with a rearyard at the southwest corner of 4.69 m (15.38 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 18, 2004, recommending approval of this application. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 1,2004, advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Claysam Homes Ltd. requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling and garage with a rearyard at the southwest corner of 4.69 m (15.38 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Lot 17, Registered Plan 58M-275, 66 Sandwell Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 104 JUNE 8, 2004 7. Submission No.: A2004-043 (Cont'd) It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Leqal Description: A 2004-044 Estate of Jan Pines 209 Breithaupt Street Part Lots 229 & 230, Registered Plan 376 Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. Holland Mrs. J. Pines Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize a lot in the M2 - General Industrial Zone having a width of 12.19 m (40 ft.) rather than 15 m (49.21 ft.) so it may be occupied by any use permitted in the zone. The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 25, 2004, recommending approval of the application subject to a restriction on some M2-General Industrial Zone uses. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 1,2004, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Holland object to the exclusion of storage of motor vehicles and major recreational equipment as the property was previously used for motor vehicle repair, which often necessitates keeping vehicles on the property until they are repaired. Mr. Slean responded that storage which is normally accessory to a permitted use would be allowed; however, storage of motor vehicles or major recreational equipment would not be allowed as the primary use. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Estate of Jan Pinos requesting permission to legalize a lot in the M2 - General Industrial Zone having a width of 12.19 m (40 ft.) rather than 15 m (49.21 ft.) so it may be occupied by uses permitted in the M2 - General Industrial Zone, on Part Lots 229 & 230, Registered Plan 376, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That all M-2 General Industrial Zone uses are permitted except: carwash; commercial weighing; sale, rental, and storage of motor vehicles or major recreational equipment; transportation depot and truck transportation terminal. That storage accessory to permitted M2 - General Industrial uses, except those excluded in Condition 1, are permitted. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 105 JUNE 8, 2004 8. Submission No.: A2004-044 (Cont'd) It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. 2. 3. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Leqal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: Written Submissions: A 2004-045 Michael C. Hausser & Valma K. Howald 26 Belton Drive Block D, Lot 2, Plan 1110 Carried Mr. M. Hausser None None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached garage with a right side yard of 0.3 m (0.98 ft.) rather than 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 28, 2004, recommending approval of the construction of a carport. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 1,2004, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Hausser advised it is their intension to ultimately convert the carport to a garage, so they are seeking approval for a garage. Noting that staff are recommending approval of a carport but not a garage, the Committee deferred consideration of this application to July 13, 2004, to allow Mr. Hausser an opportunity to discuss his proposal with staff. 10. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Leqal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: Written Submissions: A 2004-046 David Adlys 112 Glasgow Street Part Lots 1 & 2, Plan 212 Mr. D. Adlys None None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting 2Permission to permit a triplex on a lot having an area of 406 m2 (4,370.29 sq. ft.) rather than 495 m (5328.31 sq. ft.). The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 18, 2004, recommending the application be approved. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 106 JUNE 8, 2004 10. Submission No.: A2004-046 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Transportation Planner, dated June 1,2004, advising they have no concerns with this application. Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of David Adlys requesting legalization of a triplex on a lot having an area of 406 m2 (4,370.29 sq. ft.) rather than the required 495 m2 (5328.31 sq. ft.), on Part Lots 1 & 2, Plan 212, 112 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Leqal Description: B 2004-032 Lutheran Homes Kitchener-Waterloo 2727 Kingsway Drive Part of Lot 6, Municipal Compiled Plan 958 Appearances: In Support: None Contra: Mr. M. Attienza Written Submissions: G.S.P. Group The Chair advised that the Committee is in receipt of correspondence from G.S.P. Group, agents for the applicant, dated June 2, 2004, advising this application is withdrawn. He advised Mr. Attienza that no decision will be made on this application, as it has been withdrawn. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Leqal Description: B 2004-033 Anneliese Scherl 1198 Fischer-Hallman Road Part Lot 2, Re.qistrar's Compiled Plan 1483 Appearances: In Support: Ms. K. Barisdale Ms. A. Scherl Ms. K. Scherl Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Rockwood Road of 48 m (157.48 ft.), a depth of 35.048 m (114.98 ft.), and an area of 1,682.268 m2 (18,108.37 sq. ft.), to be used for a single family dwelling. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 107 JUNE 8, 2004 2. Submission No.: B 2004-033 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 25, 2004, in which they advise that the subject property is located at 1198 Fischer- Hallman Road. The property is bound by Fischer-Hallman Road, Rockwood Road and Bleams Road. The subject lands have a house, barn, garage and outbuildings on them. The property is zoned R-6 and designated Low Rise Residential. The applicant is requesting permission to sever lands fronting onto Rockwood Road in order to create a lot for a single detached dwelling. The lands proposed to be severed are vacant. Engineering staff have confirmed that the sanitary sewer on Rockwood Road was not designed to accommodate these lands. The subject lands drain to the Middle Strasburg Trunk Sanitary Sewer which has not yet been constructed to service these and surrounding lands. Until the Middle Strasburg Trunk Sanitary Sewer is completed to provide servicing to the subject lands, any development, including the proposed severance, is premature. At this time, it is unknown how the retained lands will develop. Without a development concept for the retained lands, which could also include the adjacent parcel to the east, it is premature to consider severance of lands onto Rockwood Road because appropriate access locations have not been studied and approved. The severance of the lands as proposed would limit the options for access to develop the retained lands or leave access options that are not ideal with respect to safety and traffic movements on Rockwood Road to the Fischer-Hallman Road intersection. The Region would also have to be involved in any development concept as both Fischer Hallman Road and Bleams Road are Regional Roads. City staff are of the opinion that the proposed severance of the lands is premature until servicing is available and there has been a concept plan prepared, with appropriate studies, for the retained lands to ensure proper and orderly development of the entire property should a severance in this location be considered in the future. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Planning, Housing & Community Services, dated June 2, 2004, suggesting the application is premature, and the applicant should give consideration to overall development plans prior to proceeding with the application. Should the application be approved, they recommended the imposition of certain conditions. The Committee considered the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated May 31,2004, advising they have no objection to this application as the severed parcel is greater than 30 m from the wetland on the property, and the retained land is already developed. The Committee considered correspondence from Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, dated June 1, 2004, advising that arrangements must be made for proper electrical servicing of the severed land. Mr. Sloan advised that with respect to sanitary servicing, the severance is premature. As well, future developability of the entire parcel needs to be considered, and the developability should not be prejudiced. There are also concerns with respect to traffic and access to these lands and adjacent lands, as well as eventual access to Fischer-Hallman Road; consequently intersection improvements and signalization need to be considered. When questioned by the Committee, Ms. Barisdale advised that the application has been submitted to sever a lot for a single family dwelling, which, when sold, will allow the applicant to finance upgrades to her own home. The applicant will not develop the severed lands. She also advised that a year ago, the owner discussed the possibility of creating 6 new lots with City staff. Engineering staff conducted a flow study at that time which indicated there is enough capacity for 6 lots, so there should be sufficient capacity for the one new lot proposed in this application. In this regard, Ms. Barisdale provided the Committee with a copy of a letter from Steven Allen, Design & Construction Engineer, dated November 28, 2003. Ms. Barisdale further advised that she has had discussions with Planning staff, and their main concern appears to be access. She advised that concept plans have been developed. The Committee requested a copy of these plans, and a copy of the letter from Mr. Allen. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 108 JUNE 8, 2004 2. Submission No.: B 2004-033 (Cont'd) The Chair stated the severance proposed is premature as there is no servicing for the severed lot. He questioned whether the concept plans have been shown to the neighbouring property owners. He questioned the ability to use these concept plans without neighbourhood input, and in the future having to explain to neighbouring property owners that their development options have been predetermined. He suggested the Committee defer consideration of this application to allow an opportunity to determine if this lot has potential for full servicing, and to allow the applicant, staff and the neighbouring property owners to develop a concept for future development. Ms. K. Scherl, solicitor for the applicant, noted that no neighbours are in attendance, even though, they were afforded the opportunity to do so. The Chair noted that the concept design may affect future development of other lands, and the neighbours have not had the opportunity to participate in the design concept. Ms. Scherl noted that should this application be approved for 1 severed parcel, the City and the Region still have opportunities in the future to obtain those things they need, as these lands will have to go through other planning processes. The Chair questioned the need for a lot width of 48 m for the severed land, suggesting this is quite large for a lot in an urban setting. The Committee generally agreed they were not willing to approve this application at this time. Mr. Sloan advised that staff wish to review comprehensive concept plans for this property and neighbouring properties, which should include, among other things, servicing and emergency access. He suggested that development could possibly be staged; however, the application is premature at this time. He noted servicing this area could take 3 to 4 years. The Committee generally agreed to defer consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for Tuesday July 13, 2004, at which time staff should report on servicing, or whether they can support private services for this one lot. If this lot can not be publicly or privately serviced, it may be better for the applicant to withdraw this application. If servicing can be made available, the applicant, should work with staff and the neighbours on a concept plan for this area. CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 2004-031 & A 2004-024 Harold & Patti Morgan 864 Guelph Street Part Lots 1 & 2. Subdivision of Lot 58, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: Mr. & Mrs. H. Morgan Contra: Ms. C. Leder Written Submissions: Mr. G. Bender The Committee was advised that in Submission No. B 2004-031, the applicant requests permission to convey a parcel of land having a width of 10.32 m (33.858 ft.), a depth of 36.84 m (120.86 ft.), and an area of 412.72 m2 (4,442.62 sq. ft.). Both the severed and retained lands will be used for single family dwellings. The Committee was also advised that this application is to be considered in conjunction with A 2004-024, for the same property, previously advertised, requesting permission for an easterly side yard at the front corner of the existing house of 0.204 m (0.67 ft.) rather than 1.2 m (4 ft.). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 109 JUNE 8, 2004 1. Submission Nos.: B 2004-031 & A 2004-024 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated June 1, 2004, in which they advise that the subject property is located on the north side of Guelph Street near Maple Avenue in the North Ward neighbourhood. The applicants recently received approval in January of this year to sever the subject property to create a new lot for a new dwelling (Application No. B2004-002). Planning staff had concerns with the configuration of the new lot and there was significant discussion of the lot shape at the January Committee of Adjustment meeting. The severance also involved the demolition of a garage, shed, front porch and side portion of the existing dwelling. The applicants have now indicated that there was an error on the original severance drawing and the front of the existing dwelling is an enclosed porch that they do not wish to demolish. Given the angle of the severance line near the frontage of the property, the new lot line is within 0.2 metres of the existing dwelling. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a minor variance to allow a 0.2 metre side yard setback whereas Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum 1.2 metre setback. In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, Planning staff offer the following comments. The variance meets the intent of the Municipal Plan for the following reason. The variance would allow the existing severance approval to remain, which accommodates infill and intensification in an existing serviced area. Approval of the variance would allow the existing front addition to remain as part of the rest of the house that is being preserved within the Low Rise Conservation - A area of the North Ward Secondary Plan. The variance does not fully meet the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The side yard setback is to allow for separation of the house from the adjacent lot line and any buildings on the adjacent property, in addition to providing adequate space around the dwelling for maintenance purposes and side yard encroachments such as stairs, eavestroughs, air conditioners, etc. Although there may not be a dwelling built at the front of the adjacent property, the reduction in setback to 0.2 metres does not allow sufficient separation from the lot line nor does it leave enough space for the resident of the subject property to go between the front and side yard without going over the neighbour's property. Planning staff typically do not support side yard variances to this degree. The impact of the variance may be minor. Through the approval of the severance of this property, the applicant's indicated that a dwelling is intended to be constructed at the rear of the new lot and not immediately adjacent to the house on the subject property. If that occurs, or even if a house is built at the front of the adjacent lot, there should be sufficient distance between the two dwellings and therefore, in that respect, there should be little impact. Also, the reduced setback is only for a portion of the front of the dwelling and not the entire side yard. The resident of the property could access the side yard for maintenance purposes by going around the back of the dwelling. On the other hand, there would be some impact with having a very limited setback between the front of the dwelling and the lot line. The resident may have to go over the adjacent property when going around that portion of the building or if a fence is built along the angled property line (to a point near the front corner of the house) it would have a visual and practical impact. The variance may not be appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reason. It is not practical to have a 0.2 metre distance between the front of the dwelling and the side lot line. To move around that portion of the dwelling, the resident of the subject property would have to go over the adjacent property. Furthermore, given the new lot configuration the owner of the new lot could build a fence along the angled lot line virtually up to the front corner of the dwelling on the subject property, thus further hindering the ability to have clear access around the dwelling. On the other hand, approval of the variance would allow the enclosed front porch to remain. In conclusion, the most appropriate for the use of these lands and the new lot would be a straight common property line. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 110 JUNE 8, 2004 1. Submission Nos.: B 2004-031 & A 2004-024 (Cont'd) Planning staff suggest that one option to consider is changing the minor variance application so that it is a lot width variance on the new lot. This would require revising the portion of the severance line at the front of the lot so that it is straight instead of irregular, which would provide for a regular lot configuration and sufficient setback for the existing dwelling from the new lot line. Another option may be to consider the merits of a small maintenance/encroachment agreement over the new lot in favour of the subject lands. This would allow the resident to have access all the way around the dwelling for maintenance and other purposes and would mean that a fence would probably not be built in that location. The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Planning, Housing and Community Services, dated May 4, 2004, with respect to Submission No. B 2004-030, advising they have no concerns with the approval of this application. The Committee considered the comments of the Region's Transportation Planner, dated June 1, 2004, with respect to Submission No. A 2004-024, advising they have no concerns with respect to this application. The Committee considered the written submission of Mr. G. Bender, 844 Guelph Street, advising of his concerns that the proposed lot width is smaller than the other lots on the street, and a new house at the rear of the property will adversely affect the privacy of abutting property owners and their enjoyment of their rear yards. There is also a concern that, due to the area of the severed land, something other than a single detached dwelling will be built on the property. Mr. Sloan briefly reviewed the planning process to date concerning the subject property. He noted that when the previous Application for Consent was approved, there was an error on the survey, which indicated that the front porch would be removed. The applicants submitted Application for Minor Variance A 2004-024, to request a reduced side yard for the existing house, as a result of the owners desire to keep the front porch, as that space has been incorporated as part of the living space of the house. At the time the Application for Minor Variance was first considered by this Committee, consideration of the application was deferred to allow the owners to make this current Application for Consent, which shifts the severance line to meet the sideyard requirement for the existing house. However, the current Application for Consent creates a lot width variance for the land to be severed. Consideration should be given to revising the Application for Minor Variance to reduce the required lot width to 8 m at the 6 m setback requirement. Ms. Leder advised the Committee that there are 15 properties whose rearyards back onto this property, and their main concern is what will be built on the severed land. When questioned Ms. Leder advised she did not appear at the Committee of Adjustment meeting when the last severance was considered, as she was on vacation. Mr. Morgan addressed the Committee, advising that he and his wife intend to construct a bungalow for their own use, on the severed land. Further, their son intends to purchase the existing house on the retained land. He advised that they are in the process of fulfilling the conditions of the first Application for Consent, and have hired a tree management consultant to address the condition with respect to a tree preservation plan. The Committee then reviewed the conditions imposed in the previous Application for Consent, agreed to impose all the same conditions for this application save for the demolition of the front porch. They also agreed that the applicants should withdraw the previous Application for Consent, and to consider an amendment to Submission No. A 2004-024 to consider a reduced lot width rather than a reduced sideyard. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 111 JUNE 8, 2004 1. Submission Nos.: B 2004-031 & A 2004-024 (Cont'd) Submission No. B 2004-031 Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Harold & Patti Morgan requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width of 10.32 m (33.858 ft.), a depth of 36.84 m (120.86 ft.), and an area of 412.72 m2 (4,442.62 sq. ft.), on Part Lots 1 & 2, Subdivision of Lot 58, German Company Tract, 864 Guelph Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the owners shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Engineering Services for the following: a) the installation of all new service connections to the retained land; b) the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees and a paved driveway ramp on the retained land; and, c) the relocation of the driveway on the severed lands. That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared by the City Solicitor and registered on title of the retained land, which shall include the following: a) That the owners shall prepare a tree preservation plan for the severed land in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning, and where necessary implemented prior to any grading, tree removal or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved. b) The owners shall further agree to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. That the owners shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be retained. That the owners shall remove the existing metal shed, and frame garage from the subject property. 6. That the owners shall withdraw Submission No. B 2004-002. It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 112 JUNE 8, 2004 Submission Nos.: B 2004-031 & A 2004-024 (Cont'd) Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being June 8, 2006. Carried Submission No. A 2004-024 Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Ms. D. Angel That the application of Harold & Patti Morgan requesting permission for a lot width for the retained land of 8 m (26.24 ft.) at the 6 m (19.68 ft.) setback from Guelph Street rather than the required 9 m (29.52 ft.) width, on Part Lots 1 & 2, Subdivision of Lot 58, German Company Tract, 864 Guelph Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 2004-034 & A 2004-042 1369593 Ontario Inc. 555 & 561 Park Street Part Lots 13 & 14, Registered Plan 408, being Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-12120 Appearances: In Support: Ms. D. Kelly Ms. D. Stewart Mr. U. Roetsch Contra: None Written Submissions: None The Committee was advised that in Submission No. B 2004-034, the applicant requests permission to sever 555 Park Street from 561 Park Street so each property can be dealt with separately. Severed land will have a width of 19.7 m (64.65 ft.), a depth of 23.16 m (76 ft.), and an area of 402m2 (4,327.23 sq. ft.). Each property is to be used for a single family dwelling. The Committee was also advised that this application is to be considered in conjunction with A 2004- 042, to legalize the location of the house at 555 Park Street having a front yard of 3.69 m (12.1 ft.) rather than 4.5 m (14.76 ft.), a right side yard of 0.13 m (0.426 ft.) rather than 1.2 m (4 ft.), and a rear yard of 2.42 m (7.93 ft.) rather than 7.5 m (24.61 ft.). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 113 JUNE 8, 2004 2. Submission Nos.: B 2004-034 & A 2004-042 (Cont'd) The Committee considered the report of the Development & Technical Services Department, dated May 6, 2004, in which they advise that the subject property is located at the southwest corner of Union Blvd and Park Street. The property contains two dwellings, assigned with municipal address 561 Park Street and 555 Park Street. The houses were originally constructed on separate lots, however, they merged on titled (merger took place in the early 1970s) when a previous owner of 561 Park Street purchased the adjacent property at 555 Park Street. Both properties are currently being used as a single detached dwellings. The applicant wishes to sever the property, and consolidate Part 2 with 561 Park Street (corner lot identified as Part 1 on the applicant's plan). The houses were built in 1924 and 1954. The proposed lot severance would create several variances related to minimum front yard requirements, side year requirements and rear yard requirements. The proposed lot dimensions for the proposed lots are identified below: Both properties are zoned Community Institutional (I-2) with a Special Temporary use provision (5T) to allow a commercial parking facility as a Temporary Use until August 26, 2005. The applicant is proposing the following variances to allow the proposed lot severance: 555 Park Street To reduce front yard requirement from 4.5 metres to 3.69 metres; To reduce right side yard requirement from 1.2 metre to 0.13 metres; and To reduce rear yard requirement from 7.5 metres to 2.42 metres. This setback is considered an interior lot line, and meets the existing zoning requirements. Therefore, the application should be amended to remove this variance. 561 Park Street (corner lot) To reduce the front yard requirement from 4.5 metres to 2.63 metres; To reduce the side yard abutting the street requirement from 4.5 metres to 1.16 metres; To reduce rear yard requirement from 7.5 metres to 4.75 metres; and To reduce lot width requirement from 15 metres to 10.97 metres. With respect to the criteria for the subdivision of land listed in Section 51 (24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, the uses of both the severed and retained parcels are in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan the lot size and orientation are suitable for the existing uses and any proposed use of the lands, the lands front on an established public street, and both parcels of land are currently serviced with independent and adequate service connections to municipal services. The proposed dimension and shapes of the proposed lots are considered appropriate subject to an amendment to the proposed rear yard for 555 Park Street (Part 3). This yard is considered an interior lot line, which has a minimum setback of 1.2 metres. Planning staff recommend that the proposed interior yard setback be increased from 2.42 metres to 3.98 metres to provide an appropriate setback between the house and abutting yard. The applicant has reviewed this recommendation, and has agreed to provide a greater yard separation along this mutual property line (an additional 1.5 metres to the satisfaction of the Manager of Design and Development). This adjustment, as shown on the attached appendix, provides a greater setback in the rear yard for 555 Park Street, and maintains a larger lot size and parking area for the abutting lot (561 Park Street). The variances meet the intent of the Municipal Plan for the following reasons. The subject property is designated Community Institutional in the K-W Hospital Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (Map 18), with two Special Policy Area policies (11 and 12). The Community Institutional land use designation permits a variety of institutional uses such as community services, a limited range of commercial uses (health offices and clinics) and a range of residential uses including single detached dwellings, duplex dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and multiple dwellings. Special Area Policy 11 relates to access to York Street, and Special Area Policy 12 does not COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 114 JUNE 8, 2004 2. Submission Nos.: B 2004-034 & A 2004-042 (Cont'd) apply to the subject property. The proposed minor variance applications would continue to conform with the Secondary Plan policies. The variance meets the intent of the Zoning By-law for the following reasons. The proposed variances are required to create two separate lots for each building, and are generally minor in nature. The buildings were built in 1924, and 1954, and provide a sense of enclosure at the street intersection. The applicant has requested to reduce the right side yard from 1.2 metres to 0.13 metres for the interior lot (555 Park Street). This reduction reflects the location of the original lot line, which widens moving towards the public street. The building was originally constructed on an angle on the site, and has sufficient access along the majority of the side property line for maintenance purposes. Since the buildings previously functioned on separate lots, it is reasonable to consider the impact minor for the existing buildings only. Any new buildings should respect the current zoning regulations. The variances are appropriate for the development and use of the land for the following reasons. The proposed variances would reflect a similar lot pattern that originally existing prior to the lots merging. The applicant would like to create two separate lots for the existing dwellings, and provide some additional yard space for the corner lot (555 Park Street). Planning Staff recommend that the interior side yard for 555 Park Street should be increased to provide an appropriate setback between the existing building and abutting property line (561 Park Street). The Committee considered the comments of the Region of Waterloo Planning, Housing and Community Services, dated June 2, 2004, with respect to Submission No. B 2004-030, recommending approval of the application subject to certain conditions. The Committee was also in receipt of correspondence from the Region of Waterloo Planning, Housing and Community Services, dated June 7, 2004, stating they are no longer requesting a Record of Site Condition, as a condition of granting the requested severance in Submission No. B 2004-034. The Committee considered the comments of the Region's Transportation Planner, dated June 1, 2004, with respect to Submission No. A 2004-042, advising they have no concerns with this application. Mr. Roetsch addressed the Committee advising this is a technical severance, as these properties were originally separate. With respect to the comments of the Development & Technical Services Department, Mr. Roetsch requested permission to amend the applications accordingly. With respect to the Region's request for a noise warning clause, it was Mr. Roetsch's position that there are many properties in the older areas of the City, on busy streets, without a noise warning clauses on title. He did not agree that such a clause is justified in this instance. Submission No. B 2004-034 Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of 1369593 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width of 19.7 m (64.65 ft.), a depth of 23.16 m (76 ft.), and an area of approximately 417.5 m2 (4,494 sq. ft.), on Part of Lot 14, Registered Plan 408, 555 Park Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 2004-042. That the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 115 JUNE 8, 2004 2. Submission Nos.: B 2004-034 & A 2004-042 (Cont'd) It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being June 8, 2006. Carried Submission No. A 2004-042 Moved by Ms. D. Angel Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of 1369593 Ontario Inc. requesting legalization of a single detached house at 555 Park Street having a frontyard or 3.69 m (12.1 ft.) rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.); a right sideyard of 0.13 m (0.4 ft.) rather than 1.2 m (4 ft.); and a single detached house at 561 Park Street having a front yard of 2.63 m (8.62 ft.) rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.); a side yard butting a street of 1.16 m (3.8 ft.) rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.); a rear yard of 4.75 m (15.58 ft.) rather than the required, and a lot width of 10.97 m (36 ft.) rather than the required 15 m (49.2 ft.), on Part Lots 13 & 14, Registered Plan 408, 555 & 561 Park Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the existing buildings only as shown on the draft reference plan prepared by Guenther Rueb Surveying Limited, dated March 22, 2004. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 8th day of June, 2004. Dianne H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment