Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlng & Econ Dev - 2000-02-07PED\2000-02-07 PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2000 CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Economic Development Committee met this date commencing at 3:35 p.m. under Councillor C. Weylie, Chair with the following members present: Councillors J. Ziegler, K. Taylor- Harrison, G. Lorentz, B. Vrbanovic, T. Galloway, J. Haalboom and John Smola. Councillors M. Yantzi and Jake Smola entered the meeting after its commencement. Officials present: Ms. C. Ladd and Messrs. J. Gazzola, B. Stanley, G. Melanson, D. Mansell, Z. Janecki and L.W. Neil. 1. BPS 99/194 362 EDWIN STREET ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 991151EIPB FRANC AND ROSANDA GOLE BRIDGEPORT-NORTH WARD The Committee was advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services was in receipt of an application from Franc and Rosanda Gole to change the zoning of lands known municipally as 362 Edwin Street. The purpose of the application is to rezone the subject property from Residential Four Zone (R-4), which is developed with a duplex, to Residential Five Zone (R- 5) to facilitate the construction of an addition to accommodate a third unit, which the owners intend to occupy. In this regard, the Committee considered staff report BPS 99/194 dated January 4, 2000 and a proposed by-law dated October 21, 1999 attached to the report. The proposed addition would be two storeys in height and includes three double car garages on the ground floor and a 1200 sq. ft. apartment above on the second floor. Comments of the department indicate that the addition of a third unit was in keeping with the intent of Municipal Plan Policies to support the provision of additional housing. It was pointed out that notice that the Committee would hold a public meeting this date to consider this matter had previously been given. Ms. C. Ladd provided a brief explanation of the purpose of the report and advised that staff had nothing further to add. In response to Councillor John Smola, Ms. C. Ladd advised that the existing double car garage would be removed to accommodate the proposed two storey addition. Mr. Peter Cowie and Mrs. Bette Cowie who live next door to the subject property appeared as a delegation to object to the proposed zone change. They indicated that they did not want the view of their backyard dominated by a large two storey structure extending 60 feet from the rear of the existing two storey house and located only four feet from their property line. Mr. Cowie also objected to the applicant having already removed various trees where the addition would be constructed. In response to Councillor T. Galloway, the delegation indicated that their property was 190 feet in depth with approximately 100 feet of that distance being rear yard. Mr. Ryszard Gancewski, Architect, appeared as a delegation on behalf of the applicant to speak in support of the staff recommendation. He indicated that he had designed the proposed addition, which the lot is large enough to accommodate and noted that the proposal was well under lot coverage requirements. He commented that the amount of back yard setback should not be an issue since there would still be approximately 60 feet of depth remaining in the applicant's rear yard. Further, he acknowledged that the applicant had removed one dead tree from the site of the proposed development and he considered the proposal as having merit and meeting the requirements of the by-law. No other delegations were registered with respect to this matter. Councillor John Smola commented that he was prepared to recommend approval since the applicant has the legal right to erect a building of the size proposed under the current zoning. PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2000 -12- CITY OF KITCHENER 1. BPS 99/194 362 EDWIN STREET ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 991151EIPB FRANC AND ROSANDA GOLE BRIDGEPORT-NORTH WARD (CONT'D) On motion by Councillor John Smola - It was resolved: "That Zone Change Application ZC99/15/E/PB (362 Edwin Street - Franc and Rosanda Gole), requesting a change in zoning from Residential Four Zone (R-4) to Residential Five Zone (R-5) on lands legally described as Lot 52, Registered Plan 660, be approved in the form shown in the attached "Proposed By-law", dated October 21, 1999, without conditions. It is the opinion of this Committee that approval of this application is proper planning for the City and is in conformity with the City's Municipal Plan." Councillor C. Weylie advised those in attendance that this recommendation would be considered by City Council at its meeting to be held on February 14, 2000. 2. BPS 00/17 REFERRAL OF MOTION FROM COUNCIL RE BLOCK PLAN 65 At the January 31, 2000 Council meeting a motion by Councillor J. Haalboom to recommend to the Committee of Adjustment that it defer consideration of the land severance applications of Ivan Biuk respecting property fronting Drummond Drive until the Department of Business and Planning Services could review planning issues in the area in respect to Block Plan 65 was deferred and referred on motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic for consideration at the meeting this date. In this regard, the Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services Staff Report BPS 00/17 dated February 3, 2000 prepared as information in regards to the referral motion. The staff report briefly summarizes background planning history in regards to the area encompassed by Block Plan 65. It also suggested that information listed in the report be considered in respect to determining the appropriateness of undertaking a review of Block Plan 65 at this point in time. It was staff's position in the report that a full review of the Block Plan would not appear to be warranted given that any change to the Block Plan could not override the existing zoning and would be contrary to the requirement natural justice. It was suggested that should a change to the lot sizes be considered appropriate, a zone change should be initiated. Mr. B. Stanley provided an overview of the staff report which attempts to answer the question posed by Councillor T. Galloway at the January 24th Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting as to whether a review of Block Plan 65 should take place. Mr. Stanley pointed out that the Block Plan has no legal status under the Planning Act. He noted that one of the key matters of concern appears to be the lot size issue in which the legal document governing this matter was the zoning by-law and that any concerns should be dealt with through the zoning process. Other key matters dealing with grading, landscaping and drainage should be dealt with by other documents outside of the Block Plan. Accordingly, the issue of concern boils down to a matter of number of lots and lot sizes as well as the issue regarding a request to the Committee of Adjustment to defer its consideration of land severance applications of Ivan Biuk. Mr. G. Melanson commented on the Committee of Adjustment's authority which it derives from the Planning Act and noted that Council has delegated its powers to the Committee of Adjustment. He pointed out that under the Planning Act, Council has the authority to undelegate, by by-law, the powers it granted to the Committee of Adjustment. However, he emphasized that there are appeal mechanisms in place with respect to the Committee of Adjustment's consideration of the issues relating to land severance applications and that such process was available to the applicant, the residents or City Council. In response to Councillor T. Galloway, Ms. C. Ladd pointed out that Block Plan 65 contains an approved plan for land use comprised of three lots 47 feet in width and one lot 60 feet in width. She noted that the lot sizes were not stated in the text but are shown on the mapping for Block Plan 65. She further commented that staff would reference the Committee of Adjustment to the BPS 00/17 REFERRAL OF MOTION FROM COUNCIL RE BLOCK PLAN 65 (CONT'D) PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2000 -13- CITY OF KITCHENER content of Block Plan 65 and advise that the Block Plan constitutes a policy of Council. Councillor T. Galloway questioned the outcome if the Committee of Adjustment decision was appealed in respect to Block Plan 65 or the zoning and Ms. C. Ladd advised that traditionally, the zoning has prevailed at the Ontario Municipal Board. Councillor M. Yantzi entered the meeting at this point. Mr. M. Makarchuk was registered to speak as a delegation but did not appear. Mr. Paul Acquilina appeared as a delegation and commented on the large frontage of his property and that the standard 66 foot minimum lot size was established 140 years ago. He noted that they had purchased their property based on the large lot sizes characteristic of the area. He referred to his earlier concern regarding the Drummond Drive access issue and concerns that development may force him to hook-up to City water supply. In summary, he asked that the character of this area of Doon be maintained. In response to Councillor J. Haalboom, Mr. Acquilina described the underground water flow routes to his well from the area of the Drummond Drive opening to Amherst Drive and from the lands of M. Ferraz and I. Biuk. Councillor Jake Smola entered the meeting at this point. Mr. Steve Cameron appeared as a delegation representing Ivan Biuk Construction Ltd., and noted that Mr. Biuk was also in attendance. He acknowledged the sensitivity of this planning issue as contained in minutes from 1977 and 2000 that deal with concerns that have been raised. He noted that in 1977, Block Plan 65 proposed the creation of four lots on the west side of Drummond Drive consisting of one 60 foot lot and three 47 foot lots and pointed out that if the lotting was proper he could immediately obtain a building permit. Mr. Cameron emphasized that applying to the Committee of Adjustment for severance approval allows for the mini-subdivision proposal to be considered by the City. He stated that in 1977 there was full support for implementation of Block Plan 65 and commented that all the planning issues could be addressed through the Committee of Adjustment process. He suggested that implementation of the R-3 zoning confirmed the planning that took place under Block Plan 65. Finally, Mr. Cameron exhibited pictures of various land severances that have taken place in the area near to Drummond Drive. In response to Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Mr. Cameron advised that Mr. Biuk had owned the subject properties since 1969 and had participated in the planning process with respect to Block Plan 65 which contemplated four lots on the west side of Drummond Drive and two lots on the east side of Drummond Drive. In response to Councillor J. Haalboom, Mr. Cameron indicated that there had been negotiations in the past to configure the lots shown out of irregularly shaped parcels owned by I. Biuk and M. Ferraz. Councillor J. Haalboom questioned Registered Plan 578 and Mr. Cameron pointed out that the Plan was registered in accordance with the Planning Act. Further, he again stated that the Committee of Adjustment process in effect dealt with a mini- subdivision and that the existing zoning regulated the minimum size of lots with the proposed land severance being in compliance with the zoning. Mr. Steve Grant appeared as a delegation on behalf of Doon South neighbours in regards to the motion that was deferred at City Council and referred to the meeting this date pertaining to a request that the Committee of Adjustment defer its consideration of the land severance applications of Ivan Biuk Construction. He suggested that it was appropriate for Block Plan 65 to be reviewed as to the matter of lot sizes and that such review would ensure that issues were addressed pertaining to preservation, overall compatibility and development on the west side of Drummond Drive being compatible with future development on the east side as well as with remaining lands to be developed on Sydenham Street. He distributed an exhibit containing three maps representing Registered Plan 575, current lotting on Drummond Drive and proposed lotting on Drummond Drive as represented by Block Plan 65. Mr. Grant noted that map 2 representing current lotting in the area illustrated that all of the lots have a minimum 62 foot frontage with only a few exceptions. He suggested that Block Plan 65 was just a statement of policies and commented on the staff position that any change to the Block Plan could not over- ride the zoning. He suggested that any change to the Block Plan would not deny natural justice BPS 00/17 REFERRAL OF MOTION FROM COUNCIL RE BLOCK PLAN 65 (CONT'D) and that the minimum lot size was only one factor to be considered by the Committee of PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2000 -14- CITY OF KITCHENER Adjustment which he suggested would be considering a number of other factors in respect to the severance applications. He noted that if the Committee of Adjustment made a wrong decision in anyone's opinion such decision could be appealed. Mr. Grant further commented that if the City was to change its policy with regard to Block Plan 65 there was no need to change the zoning given that the zoning speaks to the matter of minimum lot size. In summary, he stated that it was appropriate to review Block Plan 65 document in order to ensure the character of the area was preserved and that it conformed to adjacent properties. He suggested that following such review the City would have the authority to change its policy with regard to Block Plan 65 which subsequently the Committee of Adjustment would have regard to in its consideration of the land severance applications submitted by Ivan Biuk on Drummond Drive. Councillor B. Vrbanovic commented that he observed that a range of lot sizes existed in the neighbourhood and that the community was well aware of Block Plan 65 and has relied on it as to future development. Further discussion took place during which Ms. C. Ladd pointed out that map 2 contained an error with respect to a lot at the intersection of Old Mill Road and the pedestrian access to Drummond Drive in that a previous severance was approved but that deed endorsement failed to take place. Councillor B. Vrbanovic questioned if it would be a precedent if the Committee was to recommend to the Committee of Adjustment that it defer consideration of the land severance applications. Mr. B. Stanley advised that such action would be an exception and noted that he could not recollect such action taking place in recent years. At the request of Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Ms. C. Ladd outlined the possible courses of action should a deferral recommendation be made to the Committee of Adjustment. Councillor T. Galloway questioned if granting of the land severances would set a precedent for future severance requests on other undeveloped lands fronting Drummond Drive and Sydenham Street. Ms. C. Ladd replied that the severances would not set a precedence given the intent for development as outlined in the Block Plan. In response to Councillor T. Galloway, Ms. Ladd advised that it was staff's view that the only issues to be addressed within Block Plan 65 was land ownership relating to lot rationalization and that other issues as raised by the neighbourhood were not normally dealt with within this planning process. She emphasized that the major issue of concern to the neighbourhood was lot size. Ms. Val Zietsma, a resident of Old Mill Road, appeared as a delegation to state that Block Plan 65 should not be changed as diversity involving different lot size was not a negative for any community. For the record, the Committee was in receipt of a copy of a letter dated February 1, 2000 from Fred Louwe and Janice Corrall requesting that the lotting pattern on Drummond Drive maintain the original 66 foot frontages in order to preserve the open space character of this section of Doon. In response to Councillor Jake Smola, Ms. C. Ladd confirmed that City Departments had supplied their comments to the Committee of Adjustment and no technical concerns have been raised. Councillor B. Vrbanovic posed a hypothetical question as to the deferral request going forward to the Committee of Adjustment and if the City would be liable for fees should an appeal be made to the Ontario Municipal Board. A motion by Councillor B. Vrbanovic to recess the meeting in order to meet In-camera to receive legal advice on his question was put to a vote and lost. Mr. G. Melanson then undertook to provide a general response to Councillor Vrbanovic's question and pointed out that anytime a party does something that was ultimately deemed to obstruct a process, the Ontario Municipal Board would consider awarding costs in that regard. Councillor J. Haalboom commented that it was her view that the integrity of the Doon area has been negatively impacted by ongoing development and that it was appropriate various issues be reviewed to address this situation. Councillor J. Haalboom indicated that she was prepared to put forward a motion requesting that zoning in the area of Block Plan 65 be reviewed relative to BPS 00/17 REFERRAL OF MOTION FROM COUNCIL RE BLOCK PLAN 65 (CONT'D) the issue of lot size and that the Committee of Adjustment be informed of this review. Ms. C. Ladd advised that in order to review the zoning, staff would need specific instruction from the Committee as to: what lot sizes are proposed, the extent of the review and the relationship of PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2000 -15- CITY OF KITCHENER the review with respect to other Block Plans in the immediate area. Councillor J. Haalboom stated that her request was to review Block Plan 65 immediately based on direction in accordance with Registered Plan 578. Councillor B. Vrbanovic stated that he was opposed to Councillor Haalboom's motion. He noted that the Committee dealt with the Drummond Drive access issue at its previous meeting and supported the intent of Block Plan 65 that Drummond Drive access Amherst Drive and not Old Mill Road. Accordingly, in respect to the access issue, the neighbourhood was guided by Block Plan 65 and he pointed out that Block Plan 65 proposes four lots on the west side of Drummond Drive. He suggested that it was unacceptable to request the Committee of Adjustment to defer its consideration of the land severance applications. Councillor M. Yantzi commented on compatibility and diversity issues. Councillor T. Galloway acknowledged that the issue was a dilemma given the reliance on Block Plan 65 as a planning document whereas Registered Plan 578 was still in effect and it is that document that should be relied on. Councillor Jake Smola requested a recorded vote on Councillor J. Haalboom's motion. Moved by Councillor J. Haalboom - "That zoning in the area of Block Plan 65 be reviewed in respect to the issue of lot size and that the Committee of Adjustment be informed of this review relative to its consideration of Drummond Drive land severance applications of Ivan Biuk Construction." In favour: Councillors J. Haalboom, T. Galloway, J. Ziegler, C. Weylie and K. Taylor-Harrison Contra: Councillors B. Vrbanovic, M. Yantzi, G. Lorentz, John Smola and Jake Smola Motion Lost on a tie vote 3. BPS 00/14 1999 ANNUAL REPORT - DELEGATED APPROVAL ACTIVITY The Committee was in receipt of Business and Planning Services staff report BPS 00/14 dated January 28, 2000 dealing with a 1999 summary of delegated approval activity. The purpose of the report was explained within Department comments quoted from the report as follows: 'In accordance with Regional By-law 97-061, the City of Kitchener is required to "provide the Regional Commissioner of Planning and Culture with an annual statistical report on the number and status of plans of subdivision, plans of condominium and part-lot control exemption by-laws and the number and type of units permitted by the approvals for the preceding year." Part 1 of this report has been completed in fulfilment of those requirements. In addition, in accordance with Kitchener's Delegation By-law 97-185, the General Manager is required to provide summary reports quarterly to inform Council of all applications approved by the General Manager. Given the generally Iow level of activity under this delegated approval, a summary of the entire years' activity was deemed to be more appropriate. Part 2 of this report contains the relevant information.' 3. BPS 00/14 1999 ANNUAL REPORT - DELEGATED APPROVAL ACTIVITY (CONT'D) On motion by Councillor J. Ziegler - It was resolved: "That Council receive staff report BPS 00/14 (1999 Annual Report - Delegated Approval PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES FEBRUARY 7, 2000 - 16 - CITY OF KITCHENER Activity) for information; and further, That BPS 00/14 be submitted to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in fulfillment of Clause 22.1 of the Administrative Agreement regarding Delegated Authority." STATUS UPDATE ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZC 97161SIZJ 845081 ONTARIO INC. REMOVAL FROM THE COMMITTEE'S UNFINISHED BUSINESS LIST Mr. Z. Janecki provided a verbal update on the status of Zone Change Application ZC 97/6/S/ZJ submitted by 845081 Ontario Inc. He noted that the subject lands were situate at the intersection of Bleams and Strasburg Roads and that the applicant has now formally withdrawn this rezoning application. Accordingly, he advised that this matter which originated on August 11, 1997 had now been removed from the Committee's list of unfinished business. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. L.W. Neil, AMCT Assistant City Clerk