Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1995-10-03COA\1995-10-03 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 3, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. D. McKnight, J. Gothard, W. Dahms, A. Galloway and S. Kay. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. S. Rice, Acting Senior Zoning Officer, Mr. J. Given, Senior Planner, and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. D. McKnight, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of September 12, 1995, as mailed to the members, be accepted. MINOR VARIANCE UNFINISHED BUSINESS Carried Submission No. A 94/95 - Brian Pattison & Darlene Witmer, 35 Norfolk Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 24, Registered Plan 670, 35 Norfolk Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. R. Deutschmann 105-127 Frederick street Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is legalization of an existing addition on the northerly side of the dwelling. The addition has a sideyard of 0.98 m (3.2 ft.) whereas the By-law requires a sideyard of 1.21 m (4 ft.) The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that this application was considered by the Committee of Adjustment at their meeting of September 12, 1995 and deferred pending resolution of various encroachments identified by staff through the review of this application. The application requests legalization of an existing addition to the dwelling having a side yard of 0.98 metres whereas 1.21 metres is required. The shed is actually encroaching into the City walkway, as is their parking and fence. Staff from Parks and Recreation, Public Works, Traffic, Legal and Planning Departments reviewed the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 280 OCTOBER 3, 1995 encroachments of the hedge, board fence, frame shed and parking, all located within the walkway. Public access between Norfolk Crescent and Pleasant Avenue via the walkway is very limited due to the encroachments and is unacceptable to various City departments. Because of the safety issues, the difficulty for snow removal, and interference with the use of the walkway by pedestrians because of parking, these matters needed to be addressed. 1. Submission No. A 94/95 - Brian Pattison & Darlene Witmer - cont'd The encroachments of the board fence and the frame shed of approximately 4 feet into the walkway will require an encroachment agreement between the owners of the property and the City of Kitchener, to be approved by the City Council. The owners of the property have requested through the Legal Department an encroachment agreement, which will be considered by Council at their next meeting. In this regard, the request for a side yard variance of 0.9 metres (3.2 feet), rather than the required 1.21 metres (4 feet) should be amended to request a 0 metre side yard requirement as the frame shed extends outside the property line. The Department is prepared to support the variance, as amended, to 0 metres. With respect to parking in the public walkway, the applicant must enter into an encroachment agreement with the City at which time it will be recommended that a 0.9 metre (3 foot) high chain link fence erected in line with the existing fence from the frame shed to approximately 3 metres from the street property line in order to provide a minimum 3.05 metre (10 foot) wide walkway for pedestrians and snow removal and to allow parking to be clearly separated by the fence. This would also allow the owner to provide and use the existing driveway and enter directly into their parking space without interfering or encroaching on pedestrians using the walkway. The Department recommends approval of the application, as revised, to provide for a 0 metre side yard setback for the existing frame shed, as shown on the survey prepared by Wayne Brubacher, O.L.S., dated June 29, 1995. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that there shall be no openings in a wall located less than 4 ft. from the property line. The Committee questioned how this situation had come about. Mr. Deutschmann advised that the owners had agreed to the buy the property before the final survey was prepared. He advised that the addition, excluding the frame shed, was constructed with the benefit of a building permit sometime in July of 1991. He advised the Committee that the applicants are not requesting a minor variance with respect to the shed or fence. He informed the Committee that he has had discussions with Planning staff and Legal staff concerning the encroachments and that the City's Legal Department has informed him that they would be prepared to enter into an encroachment agreement. Mr. S. Kay questioned what would happen if the City does not enter into the encroachment agreement and Mr. Deutschmann advised that the shed would be removed. Mr. Kay then suggested that he could support the application on the conditions that an encroachment agreement, on terms satisfactory to the City Solicitor, be entered into and that the requirement for the fence, as stated in the Planning comments, be fulfilled. Mr. Deutschmann advised that he had made inquiries of the City, at the time of the purchase, as to whether an encroachment agreement would be possible and no concerns were expressed. It was on that basis that the deal was closed. Mr. Gothard advised that this Committee would have the authority to require an encroachment agreement or to require that the encroachment be removed. He questioned the staff comments as to how the existing encroachment can be a problem and then have staff request that the encroaching fence be extended. Ms. J. Given advised that the condition will actually improve the situation as the proposed fence will limit the parking encroachment. The Chairman questioned whether the application needed to be amended for a 0 m sideyard. Ms. J. Given suggested that the Committee consider a 3.2 ft. sideyard for the addition and a 0 m sideyard for the shed. The Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to the meeting of November 21, 1995, pending the submission of an encroachment agreement or draft encroachment agreement and photographs of the frame shed. The Committee then pointed out the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections to Mr. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 281 OCTOBER 3, 1995 Deutschmann, with respect to windows in the side wall. Submission No. A 96~95 - Mr. Johnston, 221 Laurentian Drive Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 217, Registered Plan 1368, 221 Laurentian Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. J. Scarfone Provincial Window & Glass Systems 50 Lancaster Street West Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is proposing to put a 3.04 m (10 ft.) by 5.8 m (19 ft.) addition and deck on the rear of the existing dwelling and is requesting permission for a rear yard of 4.88 m (16 ft.) from the addition rather than the required 7.62 m (25 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a sunroom addition onto the rear of an existing single family dwelling, which will have a rear yard of 4.87 m (16 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.). The proposed addition maintains the general intent of By-law 85-1 and the Municipal Plan as it still provides a reasonable separation between the building and the rear lot line as well as still allowing for a sufficient amenity area. The proposal is appropriate as it would not appear to adversely affect the enjoyment of the abutting properties while still allowing the applicant to provide additional living space. Accordingly, the Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission A- 96/95, for the addition of the sunroom. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new sunroom. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. J. Gothard That the application of Mr. Johnston requesting permission to construct a rear addition and deck with a rearyard of 5.8 m (19 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) on Lot 217, Registered Plan 1368, 221 Laurentian Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved 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 Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 282 OCTOBER 3, 1995 Submission No. A 98/95 - 729722 Ontario Ltd., 105 Lennox Cr., Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 12, Registered Plan 786, 54 Westmount Road East, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. M. Gillanni 105 Lennox Crescent Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: Ms. H. Baulk 170 Gatewood Road Kitchener, Ontario Ms. A. Niewicki 176 Gatewood Road Kitchener, Ontario WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: Neighbourhood Petition Mr. E. Bridle 175 Gatewood Road Kitchener, Ontario Mrs. J. Sinnik 169 Gatewood Road Kitchener, Ontario The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to add 4 units within the existing building without providing the required private patio area for each of these units. The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant requests permission to create 4 units on the ground floor level within an existing apartment building, without providing the required private patio area for each of these units. The necessity of this minor variance was recognized as a result of the applicant's submission of an application for Site Plan Approval. The applicant is proposing to create 4 additional units out of existing storage areas. In this regard, all other regulations of the by-law have been met. The requested variance can be considered appropriate as, of the 4 proposed units, three are abutting the parking area and the fourth is partially below grade. In this respect it would be impractical and unsafe to create the private patio areas for the new units. The intent of the by-law is that new buildings be designed so as to provide an outdoor amenity area for each ground unit. Because of the difficulty in providing the space for these newly created units, the regulation is not practical, and hence, the intent of the by-law is maintained. Additionally, the impact of the requested variance is minor as there are presently no private patio areas located on the ground floor, thereby not providing them for the new units would not adversely affect the aesthetics of the existing building. Accordingly, the Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission A- 98/95, for the deletion of the required private patio areas. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that the construction of the new units will require a building permit. 1. Submission No. A 98/95 - 729722 Ontario Ltd. - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 283 OCTOBER 3, 1995 The Committee considered the written submissions of Mr. E. Bridle and Mrs. J. Sinnik in opposition to the application. The Committee also considered the neighbourhood petition, signed by 10 neighbourhood residents, in opposition to the application. Ms. H. Baulk addressed the Committee advising that she lives 170 Gatewood Road, down from the parking lot. It was her opinion that there are enough people living in this area now. She was concerned that there would not be enough parking. She advised the Committee that on three occasions there had been incidents where a car slid down the bank from this property and hit her house. Ms. J. Given advised that the site plan complies with the zoning by-law in all other respects. Ms. A. Niewicki addressed the Committee advising that she lives at the other side of the parking lot from Ms. Baulk. She stated that she has experienced damage to her fence caused by children playing in the parking lot. Mr. Gallanni addressed the Committee advising that this property has a large backyard which has been fenced and on the other side of the property there is the school fence. Mr. Gallanni explained that there is no proposal to extend the building, these units will be created within the existing building. Mr. W. Dahms suggested that the problems expressed by the neighbours maybe property standards problems. Broken fences are not a consideration of Committee, although they are a real problem for the neighbours. Mr. Gothard inquired as to whether these four units could have been built when the building was originally constructed. Ms. Given advised that she believed that the additional four units exceeded the previous zoning but they meet the existing zoning. Further she advised that she wasn't familiar with the specifics of the site plan approval, only that it is conditional on obtaining this Committee's approval for this variance. The Chairman questioned what the tenants would do for storage and Mr. Gallanni advised that the tenants don't need this storage space. Mr. Dahms questioned the staff comments where they state that, in this case, it is not practical to comply with the zoning by-law. Ms. J. Given responded that the existing units were never required to provide privacy areas. The by-law now requires privacy areas but they are difficult to provide because the site was never designed for outdoor privacy areas. Ms. Given stated that this is a new provision of the by-law. Previously, the need and/or extent of the outdoor area was decided at the site plan approval stage. Mr. Gothard was of the opinion that the application does not meet three of the four tests. The Chairman questioned why the applicant could not provide another outdoor space in place of the four exclusive patios. Ms. J. Given responded that there is no intent to not provide a group outdoor area and that the existing outdoor space may be adequate. Mr. Gothard believed that the neighbours have a legitimate complaint. He also felt that he need more information. He put forward a motion to refuse the application. Mr. Gallanni advised that he could provide the Committee with more information. He advised the Committee that all other zoning requirements can be met. Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of 729722 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to add four units within the existing apartment building without providing the required private patio areas on Part Lot 12, Registered Plan 786, 54 Westmount Road East, Kitchener, Ontario BE REFUSED. 1. Submission No. A 98/95 - 729722 Ontario Ltd. - cont'd It is the opinion of this Committee that: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 284 OCTOBER 3, 1995 The variances requested in this application are not minor in nature. This application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law is not being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 99/95 - Cletus & Jane Lorentz, 1275 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lot 3, Registered Plan 734, Being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-2401, 1275 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. C. Lorentz 1275 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 6.79 m by 2.59 m (22.25 ft. by 8.5 ft.) addition and deck on the rear of the existing house. The addition will be set back 6.04 m (19.81 ft.) from Nine Pines Road rather than the required 7.62 m (25 ft.) and will have a rearyard of 6.01 m (19.7 ft.) rather than the required 7.62 m (25 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a 6.79 m by 2.59 m (22.25 ft. by 8.5 ft.) addition and deck on the rear of the existing house. The addition will be setback 6.04 m (19.81 ft.) from Nine Pines Road rather than the required 7.62 m (25 ft.) and will have a rearyard of 6.01 m (19.7 ft.) rather than the required 7.62 m (25 ft.). The subject property is located at the corner of Ottawa Street South and Nine Pines Road. It should be noted that this property was previously zoned under By-law 4830 which required a 7.62 m (25 ft.) setback from the property line along Nine Pines Road; however, this property is presently zoned under By-law 85- 1 which only requires a 4.5 m (15 ft.) setback from the lot line along Nine Pines Road. In view of this, the variance requested for a reduced sideyard from Nine Pines Road for the construction of the rear addition is deemed not necessary. The proposed setback of 6.03 m (19.78 ft.) from the lot line along Nine Pines Road complies with today's sideyard setback requirement. The variance requested for the rearyard can be considered minor in nature because the applicants will still be maintaining a setback of 6.01 m (19.7 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.). This proposal would not appear to adversely affect the neighbouring property because the addition and deck will face onto the neighbouring property's garage located at 100 Nine Pines Road. Additionally, there is an existing 3.73 m (12.24 ft.) by 3.43 m (11.25 ft.) shed on this property which is attached to the side of the dwelling abutting Nine Pines Road. This shed was built without the benefit of a building permit and when erected, did not comply with the sideyard setback requirement of 7.62 m (25 ft.) from the side lot line abutting Nine Pines Road. The exact date which this shed was built is unknown. However, a staff member has confirmed this shed was built before October 11, 1994 and therefore the shed complies with setback requirements under the vacuum clause of the zoning bylaw. This 2. Submission No. A 99/95 - Cletus & Jane Lorentz - cont'd shed also encroaches onto City property by approximately 1.05 m (3.44 ft.) and therefore the applicants will need to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City of Kitchener for that portion of the shed COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 285 OCTOBER 3, 1995 which encroaches onto City property. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the variance as amended in this report. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new addition and deck. Mr. Lorentz addressed the Committee advising that there use to be a pool in this location which has been removed. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Lorentz explained that the shed in question is sitting on a bed of stones and could be moved if needed. He requested permission to amend the application in accordance with the Planning Department comments. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. J. Gothard That the application of Cletus and Jane Lorentz requesting permission to construct an addition and deck on to the rear of an existing single family dwelling with a rearyard of 6.01 m (19.7 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) on Part Lot 3, Registered Plan 734, Being Part 2 Reference Plan 58R-2401, 1275 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: That the existing shed shall either be relocated to comply with the zoning by-law or the applicants shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City of Kitchener for the encroachment of the shed on the City's right-of-way. That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed addition and deck only as shown on the plan submitted with this application. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved 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 Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 100/95 - Sam J. Hood, 625 Wabanki Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Parts 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-9299, 1404 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario. This application was considered in conjunction with Submission No.'s B 75~95 -B 77~95 as described in the minutes for Consent. Submission No. A 101/95 -John E. Badham, 331 Morrison Road, Kitchener, Ontario Lot 316, Registered Plan 1447, 331 Morrison Road, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. & Mrs. J. Badham 331 Morrison Road Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE 4. Submission No. A 101/95 - John E. Badham - cont'd WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 286 OCTOBER 3, 1995 IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are proposing to convert an existing garage into living space and are requesting permission to provide the required parking in the existing driveway. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the subject lands are located at 331 Morrison Road and are presently zoned Residential Three (R-3) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant has converted the garage area of the home to living area to be used as an in-law suite. The garage formerly fulfilled the requirement for a legal off-street parking space. Based on the definition of a duplex dwelling contained in the zoning by-law and on the Planning Department's knowledge of the dwelling in question, it is not entirely clear whether the subject property would be classified as a duplex or a single detached dwelling. If the dwelling is considered a single detached dwelling, one off-street parking space would be required. If the dwelling is considered a duplex, two off-street parking spaces would be required. The zoning by-law specifies that in the case of a single detached dwelling, the required off-street parking space be located a minimum of 6.0 metres from the streetline. In the case of a duplex dwelling, at least one parking space must be located a minimum of 6.0 metres from the streetline, with the other required parking space being permitted within 6.0 metres of the streetline. The existing driveway cannot be used as a legal parking space for a single detached or a duplex dwelling as such space would be located within 1.8 metres of the streetline. On June 12, 1995, the applicant received a building permit for the conversion of the garage to living area based on a plan showing relocation of up to two required off-street parking spaces to the opposite side of the property in full compliance with the zoning by-law. This relocation however was not carried out. Upon receiving the building permit, the applicant is now requesting a variance to Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow the existing driveway to be used as the legal off-street parking space so as to permit the location of the required parking space 1.8 metres from the streetline. Since the applicant has clearly demonstrated that it is possible to satisfy the requirements of the zoning by-law, and the building permit was issued solely on the basis that the applicant would carry out the proposed construction in conformity with the zoning by-law, the Department of Planning and Development cannot support a variance to the zoning by-law to permit the location of the required off-street parking space 1.8 metres from the streetline. That Minor Variance Application A 101/95 requesting permission for a to provide the required off-street parking space within the 1.8 metres of the streetline be refused by the Committee of Adjustment. Mr. A. Galloway questioned Mr. Badham with respect to the Planning Department comment which advised that he had received his building permit on the understanding that he would locate the required parking on the other side of the garage. Mr. Badham responded that Building staff had advised him that there would be no problem in using the existing driveway. Further he advised that a new driveway would be costly and upset the existing landscaping. Mr. Galloway advised that the indication from staff is that a building permit was only issued because he agreed to put in the new driveway. Mrs. Badham stated that staff advised that they could apply to this Committee and they believed that the existing driveway could adequately accommodate the required parking. Mr. Dahms questioned as to whether, upon the issuance of the building permit, Mr. Badham knew he would have to put in a new driveway. Mr. Badham advised that he knew, but he also knew that he would have the opportunity to come before this Committee. 4. Submission No. A 101/95 - John E. Badham - cont'd Mr. Gothard put forward a motion to approve the application stating that it is inordinately expensive to move the driveway. The driveway and the parking are not detracting from the neighbourhood and this is appropriate development for the property and not an unusual intrusion. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 287 OCTOBER 3, 1995 Mr. Badham clarified that the additional living space is not a self contained apartment but accommodation for his mother. Ms. J. Given advised the Committee that since this is still classified as a single family dwelling it requires only one parking space. Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of John E. Badham requesting permission to provide the one required parking space for the single family dwelling in the existing driveway closer than 6 m (19.69 ft.) to the street line on Lot 316, Registered Plan 1447, 331 Morrison Road, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved 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 Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 102/95 - Ken Poole, 27 Littlefield Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario Lot 565, Registered Plan 1569, 27 Littlefield Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. K. Poole 27 Littlefield Crescent Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: Ms. R. Moreau Manager of Customer Services Kitchener Wilmot Hydro CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a carport right up to the lot line on the northerly side of the existing house. The by-law requires either a 1.2 m (4 ft.) sideyard for the carport or the applicant would have to obtain a 1.2 m (4 ft.) maintenance easement on the abutting property. The applicant does not wish to obtain a maintenance easement on his neighbours property. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that application has been made to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variance in regards to the required side yard for a proposed carport addition to the existing single detached dwelling located at 27 Littlefield Crescent. Specifically, the applicant requests a side yard of 0 metres whereas the by-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.2 metres. The proposed carport addition is approximately 3.29 metres (10.7 feet) in width and 6.34 metres (20.8 feet) in depth. It is to be developed in the existing driveway and parking area which accommodates the one required parking space for the existing single detached dwelling. 5. Submission No. A 102/95 - Ken Poole - cont'd The Department of Planning and Development notes that the proposed side yard of 0 metres does not provide any setback to allow for maintenance. The Department realizes that the existing side yard of 3.14 metres (10.3 feet) would not permit the development of a carport and provide the required or a reduced COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 288 OCTOBER 3, 1995 setback. The Department suggests that if the carport is constructed with maintenance free material along the northerly lot line, concerns for the necessity for a sideyard for maintenance purposes, would be addressed. In regard to the application as submitted, it is noted in the plans attached to the application, the carport is to be 10 feet 8 inches in width which is greater than the existing side yard which is shown as 10.3 feet on the survey. Therefore, the plans for the proposed carport must be revised to either less or equal to the existing sideyard to ensure no encroachment occurs on the abutting parcel. In a situation like this, if the neighbours have no concerns, the Department can support the variance. The Department of Planning and Development is of the opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature given the nature of the proposed addition, with the side abutting the adjoining property being open and provided that the construction of the carport is of a maintenance free material. The variance is appropriate for the development of the subject lands provided it is entirely located on the subject lands and all drainage from the carport is directed to the subject parcel. The variance complies with the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law given the design of the carport, having an open side wall and provided the construction of the carport is of a maintenance free material. Therefore, the Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of application A-102/95, conditional upon the following: That the proposed carport is constructed of a maintenance free material along the northerly lot line, and all drainage from the carport is directed on to the subject lands. The Committee considered the written submission of Ms. R. Moreau, Manager of Customer Services, Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which she advised that Hydro has no objection to this application provided that the carport is not converted to a garage at a later date as the Commission's existing policy require existing outside electrical meters to remain outside and readily accessible to their staff. The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new carport. The posts of the carport shall be a minimum of 6 inches by 6 inches and clad with non-combustible material. The end of the gable roof shall be clad with non-combustible material also and shall not extend over the property line. The roof shall not drain on to the adjacent property. Mr. J. Gothard questioned Mr. Poole as the whether he had read the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections. Mr. Poole advised that he had and that he had planned to cover the whole of his house with maintenance free material. He asked to be permitted to delay covering the carport until he could afford to cover the whole of the house in maintenance free material. Mr. W. Dahms suggested that should this Committee choose to approve this application it should be perfectly clear to the applicant that the sides of the carport must remain open. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Ken Poole requesting permission to construct a carport with a northerly sideyard of 0 m rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Lot 565, Registered Plan 1569, 27 Littlefield Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the carport shall remain open on three sides. 2. That the carport shall be constructed of maintenance free, non-combustible material. 5. Submission No. A 102/95 - Ken Poole - cont'd 3. That all drainage from the carport shall be directed onto the applicant's own lands. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances approved in this application are minor in nature. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 289 OCTOBER 3, 1995 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 Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission No. B 75/95 - J. Mark Hood, 1420 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part 6, Reference Plan 58R-9299, 1398 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario. - and - Submission No. B 76/95 - Samuel J. Hood, 162 Concession Street, Cambridge, Ontario Re: Parts 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-9299, 1404 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario. - and - Submission No. B 77/95 - Paul Hood, 1410 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Parts 4 & 5, Reference Plan 58R-9299, 1410 Doon village Road, Kitchener, Ontario. - and - Submission No. A 100/95 - Sam J. Hood, 625 Wabanki Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Parts 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-9299, 1404 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. W. Dahms declared a conflict of interest with these applications, as his law firm represents the applicants business and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to these applications. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. S. Hood 625 Wabanaki Drive Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE Submission No. B 75/95 - J. Mark Hood - cont'd and Submission No. B 76/95 - Samuel J. Hood - cont'd and COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 290 OCTOBER 3, 1995 Submission No. B 77/95 - Paul Hood - cont'd and Submission No. A 100/95 - Sam J. Hood - cont'd The Committee was advised that, in Submission No. B 75/95, the applicant is requesting permission to give a right-of-way over a triangular parcel of land at the front of the property, having a width of 7.856 m (25.78 ft.), bounded by the concrete retaining wall on the left and the side lot line on the right, to the benefit of the abutting property at 1404 Doon Village Road, for use as a driveway. The Committee was advised that, in Submission No. B 76/95, the applicant is requesting permission to give a sanitary sewer easement over a portion of the lot, having an area of 90 m2 (968.79 sq. ft.) to the benefit of the property at 1398 Doon Village Road. The Committee was advised that, in Submission No. B 77/95, the applicant is requesting permission to give a sewer easement over a portion of the lot, having an area of 34 m2 (366 sq. ft.), to the benefit of the properties at 1398 and 1404 Doon Village Road. The Committee was advised that, in Submission No. A 100/95, the applicant is requesting legalization of a lot having a width of 30 m (98.43 ft.) rather than the required 30.48 m (100 ft.). Mr. Hood addressed the Committee requesting that consideration of Submission No.'s B 75/95 and B 76/95 be deferred until the Committee's December meeting and the Committee agreed to this request. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the subject lands contain two existing dwellings addressed as 1398 and 1410 Doon Village Road. A dwelling is proposed for the vacant lot addressed as 1404 Doon Village Road. The rear portion of the lands is below the flood line of Schneider Creek. The lands are in the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District. The consent applications were deferred at the meeting of August 22, 1995, at which time the Committee asked for additional information. Staff provide the following information: Existing development was not connected to the City's sanitary sewer on the recently reconstructed Homer Watson Boulevard on the basis of the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan, which "...intends that the present level of servicing prevail." It is a stated objective of the Plan "to continue the use of private individual inground sewage systems." To extend individual connections now is highly undesirable as it would require digging up the new road and retaining walls. 2. Applicant to comment on maintenance agreement. At its meeting of September 15 LACAC considered the applications in relation to the objectives of the Heritage District Plan. The Committee has no objection to the two applications for sewer easements "provided that the property owners agree not to develop the properties to a higher density than single family dwellings." The Committee is opposed to the application for a driveway right-of-way "as it is contrary to the intent of the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District Plan." The City has no plans for providing sanitary sewers for this area, based again on the Heritage District Plan objectives. There is the possibility of extending the sewer main on Doon Village Road at the expense of the property owners. It now terminates at the elementary school site. 1. Submission No. B 75/95 - J. Mark Hood - cont'd and Submission No. B 76/95 - Samuel J. Hood - cont'd and COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 291 OCTOBER 3, 1995 Submission No. B 77/95 - Paul Hood - cont'd and Submission No. A 100/95 - Sam J. Hood - cont'd The applicant requests a variance to reduce the lot width from 30.48 metres to 30.00 metres for the vacant lot. The lot was created by Consent Applications B 58-60/93, together with Minor Variance Application A 109/93 which reduced the minimum lot width from 40.23 metres (as required under By-law 878A which was in effect at that time) to 29.56 metres. As the property has since been rezoned into By- law 85-1, the previous variance is no longer valid. The minimum lot width requirement is now 30.48 metres, in accordance with the Heritage Conservation District Plan. The variance is desirable as it allows for the development of the lot which was created for the purpose now intended. The impact of the variance is minor as the difference between the required and existing lot widths is minimal. There is no doubt that the variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the by-law and official plan. In the opinion of staff, the proposal meets the four tests set out in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act. The proposed dwelling is to be connected to the sanitary sewer main on Homer Watson Boulevard. Application B 77 requests an easement for this purpose as the pump tank and a section of the sanitary sewer line are situate on the abutting lot at 1410 Doon Village Road. Planning and Development staff have no concern with this easement as the Municipal Plan policy for Upper Doon states that "new development may be serviced by individual septic systems and shall be serviced by municipal water supply. Application B 76 requests an easement to allow the existing dwelling at 1398 Doon Village Road to be connected to the sanitary sewer system by a sanitary line across the adjoining lot and connecting with the line coming from the proposed dwelling at 1404 Doon Village Road. Staff recommend against this easement on the basis of Kitchener's Municipal Code, Chapter 660.2.5, (Property Maintenance) which states that "...the entire plumbing system of every building or premises shall be separate from and independent of that of every other building or premises and shall have an independent connection with a public sewer." The Ontario Municipal Board has upheld this provision in a 1994 decision (Re: Anton and B 11/92). LACAC's support for the easement is based on heritage considerations, whereas the Planning staff recommendation is based on engineering principles. LACAC's requirement for the owner's agreement not to develop to a higher density than single detached appears to be contrary to Bill 120. The R-2 Zone permits both single detached and duplex dwellings for properties connected to the municipal sewer system. Application B 75 proposes a right-of-way to allow the driveway for the proposed dwelling to be widened onto the adjoining lot. The additional width is requested as the garage doors are to be located at the side of the dwelling, rather than at the front. The driveway would give the appearance that the lot containing the new dwelling is 38 metres (125 feet) in width and the adjoining lot addressed as 1398 Doon Village Road would appear to be approximately 22 metres (72 feet) in width. Staff recommend against this application as it is contrary to the intent of the zoning by-law and the Heritage District Plan, both of which establish a minimum lot width of 30.48 metres (100 feet). LACAC is in opposition for similar reasons. The applicant's position is that the retaining wall is already in place; however, staff caution strongly against using this as justification for the right-of-way, as it would encourage property owners to construct first and seek approvals later. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission A 100/95. 1. Submission No. B 75/95 - J. Mark Hood - cont'd and Submission No. B 76/95 - Samuel J. Hood - cont'd and Submission No. B 77/95 - Paul Hood - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 292 OCTOBER 3, 1995 and Submission No. A 100/95 - Sam J. Hood - cont'd The Department of Planning and Development further recommends that consent application B 77~95 be approved subject to the following: That satisfactory financial arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. The Department of Planning and Development further recommends that consent applications B 75~95 and B 76/95 be refused. The Committee considered the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that they have no objection to the approval of Submission No. B 77/95. The Committee considered the comments of the Mrs. E. Caston, Senior Resource Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority in which she advised that the Authority has had an opportunity to review this proposal. Information currently available indicates that the proposed sanitary sewer easement is located below the elevation of the regulatory floodline of Schneider Creek and consequently is regulated under their Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation. She advised that the Authority's regulation prohibits construction of structures in a pond or swamp or in any area susceptible to flooding during a "Regional Storm"; dumping or placing of fill in the Authority's Schedule Areas and alteration to any water course prior to receiving written consent of the Grand River Conservation Authority. She advised that to date, the Authority has not processed any applications for the construction of the proposed sanitary sewer line. She recommended that any approval for the proposed sanity sewer easement be subject to the issuance of a Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority for the construction of the proposed sanitary line. Mr. Hood addressed the Committee advising that at the time that the tank was installed, that was all the authorities looked at. However, because of the angle of the Iotline, the tank ended up on two properties. A general discussion took place on the tank and whether or not a maintenance agreement would be necessary. It was also pointed out to Mr. Hood that the approval, should it be given, would deal strictly with providing a sewer easement for the benefit of 1404 Doon Village Road. Submission No. B 77/95 Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Paul Hood requesting permission to give a sewer easement over a portion of land having an area of 34 m2 (366 sq. ft.) to the benefit of 1404 Doon Village Road on Parts 4 & 5, Reference Plan 58R-9299, 1410 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: That the applicant shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Department of Finance for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the applicant shall obtain approval of a Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority for the construction of the proposed sanitary line. 1. Submission No. B 75~95 - J. Mark Hood - cont'd and Submission No. B 76~95 - Samuel J. Hood - cont'd and Submission No. B 77~95 - Paul Hood - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 293 and Submission No. A 100/95 - Sam J. Hood - cont'd OCTOBER 3, 1995 Submission No. B 77~95 - cont'd Pursuant to Subsection 20 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 22 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse 2 years from the date of approval, being October 3, 1997. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of Subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried Submission No. A 100/95 Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Sam J. Hood requesting legalization of a lot having a width of 30 m (98.43 ft.) rather than the required 30.48 m (100 ft.) on Parts 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-9299, 1404 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance approved in this application is 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 Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT Re: 1. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Submission No. B 78/95 - Maple Manor Ltd. cio Mr. Eric Dirksen, R.R.#3, Waterloo, Ontario Part Lot 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, Edgehill Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. Submission No. B 78/95 - Maple Manor Ltd. cio Mr. Eric Dirksen - cont'd CONTRA: Mr. W. Green 5-745 Bridge Street West Waterloo, Ontario Ms. S. Davies 59 Pioneer Tower Road Kitchener, Ontario COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 294 OCTOBER 3, 1995 Mr. D. Gloin 258 Edgehill Drive Kitchener, Ontario WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: Mr. D. Gloin 258 Edgehill Drive Kitchener, Ontario Mr. & Mrs. R. Findlay 248 Edgehill Drive Kitchener, Ontario The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create a parcel of land having a frontage on Edgehill Drive of 41 m (134.52 ft.) by a depth of 60 m (196.85 ft.) and having an area of 2,460 m2 (26,480.09 sq. ft.). The proposed use of the property is residential. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development for the City of Kitchener in which they advised that the application seeks approval to sever a lot on the south side of Edgehill Drive, as an extension to thirteen other lots previously created by severance, along the west side of Marquette Drive and the south side of Edgehill Drive. The adjacent lot was created through application B-109/86. The proposed severed lot would have 41 metres (134 feet) of frontage along Edgehill Drive and a lot area of 2,460 square metres (26,480 square feet or 0.6 acres), in compliance with the Residential zoning of the Township of Waterloo Zoning By-law. The retained lands will have a frontage of 62.8 metres (203 feet) along Edgehill Drive, which area is designated Low Rise Residential. The larger portion of the retained lands is designated Major Open Space extending to the Grand River and having a total area of 36.8 hectares (90.9 acres). The majority of the retained lands is located below the Scheduled Area regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority. Due to the location of this property and its topography, the City's new Municipal Plan and its predecessor, the Official Plan (1979) both contain a special policy relative to the submission of slope stability studies. While the applicable policy of the Municipal Plan has been deferred, the Official Plan still has effect. The policy reads as follows: IV. Il 47 d) "Notwithstanding the designation of Low Density Residential and Major Open Space, the severance of the land and/or development of steep slopes along the southwest side of Edgehill Drive may be permitted subject to an appropriate engineering study of the entire slope. A previous application to create an additional lot in this area (B-157/87) was refused by the Committee in December, 1987 pending the completion of a slope study for the entire slope "and a study to determine the location of the road allowance." The reference to a road allowance relates to the possibility that a municipal road be constructed from Edgehill Drive down the slope to provide access for development above the floodline. This possibility of a municipal road is no longer being pursued since the slope of the land is too great for a municipal road to be engineered. Since the lands are located below the Scheduled Area, they are intended to be designated Major Open Space in an upcoming Municipal Plan amendment. 1. Submission No. B 78/95 - Maple Manor Ltd. c/o Mr. Eric Dirksen - cont'd A Slope Stability Assessment was prepared by England Naylor Engineering Ltd. dated March 1995 which was reviewed by the Grand River Conservation Authority, and the City of Kitchener's Engineering Department and Chief Building Official. Its purpose was to establish the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions within the slope and to carry out a slope stability analysis in order to address the policies of the Grand River Conservation Authority, and to provide soils data to address the feasibility of septic system designs on the new lots. Three bore holes were dug and the study concluded that the slope is stable, located well above the floodline and therefore not subject to erosion, and it exceeds the GRCA slope stability factor for safety. The report indicates that "the client wishes to create 2 or 3 building lots fronting Edgehill Drive" and was prepared in advance of the subject application being filed. Accordingly, the study does not satisfactorily COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 295 OCTOBER 3, 1995 provide information on the stability of the proposed severed lands, as the cross section is taken through the retained lands. Both the City and the Grand River Conservation Authority will require written documentation that the conclusions of the slope stability study are equally applicable to the severed lands. Since the applicant has verbally advised that this is the case, consideration of the application can be given subject to the imposition of a condition to be satisfied prior to the endorsement of the deeds. The Grand River Conservation Authority has also indicated that the rear portion of the severed lands fall within the Grand River Scheduled Area and is regulated due to the presence of the Grand River Flood Plain and the associated steep valley slope. The Authority also requests the imposition of a condition requiring their approval of a building location plan and tile bed envelope as well as of the preliminary grading plans. The following matters are brought to the attention of the owner by the Chief Building Official. A recognized geotechnical engineer will be required to be retained to inspect the founding soils at the time of excavation prior to concrete being poured, to confirm the adequacy of those soils for the intended loads, to be submitted to the Chief Building Official upon inspection. The soils engineer is to consult with and verify the structural engineer's design information for the foundation to ensure that all issues have been addressed by the engineer in the design of the foundation. This is to be confirmed in writing upon review of the design drawings at application for building permit. The grading and drainage control plan must be coordinated with the design requirements of the structural engineer and soils engineers reports and approved prior to permit issuance. In the absence of municipal services on Edgehill Drive, the Regional Medical Officer of Health approval will be required. In accordance with the City's Municipal Plan policies, land below the Regulatory Floodline will be dedicated to the City. The remainder of the retained lands below the Scheduled Area are intended to be zoned open space. Since the area is abutting the private recreational use to the west, some consideration has been given to the land's potential to be used recreationally by the existing neighbouring use, which has the ability to access this area. The owners have not determined their intent to use that portion of the retained lands above the Scheduled Area, having 62.8 metres of frontage on Edgehill Drive. They have indicated that they may seek support for an additional severance in the future, or they may keep this area associated with the remainder of the retained lands. Accordingly, it is the opinion of staff that the severance will not prejudice the future use or disposition of the retained lands located below the Scheduled Area since access to these lands is not affected by this severance. Nor will this severance prejudice the alternatives for the future disposition of that portion of the retained lands fronting Edgehill Drive, since there is no lot width requirement for open space. The severed lands comply in all respects to the existing zoning, are in keeping with the character of neighbouring lots, 1. Submission No. B 78/95 - Maple Manor Ltd. c/o Mr. Eric Dirksen - cont'd and are in keeping with the new zoning contemplated for this area. The Municipal Plan policies for severances in this area have been met with the submission and approval of the slope stability study, subject to a condition requiring further confirmation. The creation of the lot is therefore appropriate and is recommended subject to the conditions outlined below. That consent application B-78/95 be approved subject to the following conditions: That the owner provide documentation to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official that the conclusions of the Slope Stability Study prepared by England Naylor Engineering Limited applies to the severed parcel, and it is therefore acceptable for building. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 296 OCTOBER 3, 1995 To make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Department of Public Works for the installation to City standards, of boulevard landscaping and a paved driveway ramp and driveway culvert on the severed lands. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. The Committee considered the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have no objection to the approval of this application subject to two conditions. The Committee considered the comments of Mrs. E. Caston, Senior Development Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority in which she advised that information currently available indicates that the rear portion of the proposed severed parcel as well as a large portion of the retained parcel fall within the Grand River Scheduled Area and consequently are regulated under their Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation. This is due to the presences of the Grand River Flood Plain and associated Steep Valley Slope. In March 1995, a slope stability assessment prepared by England Naylor. Engineering Limited was submitted to this office for review. This study concluded that the present slope is stable and is in excess of the factor of safety recommended by the Grand River Conservation Authority. However, it was noted that the bore holes used to determine the factor of safety are located on the retained lands and not the severed parcel. She requested confirmation that the conclusions of the slope stability assessment also apply to the proposed severed parcel. Should the conclusions apply to the severed parcel, it would therefore follow that development could safely occur along Edgehill Drive both on the proposed severed and the retained parcels. She requested that any approval of this Committee be subject to the condition that the Grand River Conservation Authority receives confirmation that the conclusions of the slope stability assessment apply to the proposed severed parcel. Also that the applicant submit a site plan for the proposed severed parcel showing the location of the proposed building envelope and tile bed envelope as well as preliminary grading of the subject property. Any development extending within the Scheduled Area will require a Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways permit. The Committee considered the written submissions of Mr. & Mrs. R. Findley, 248 Edgehill Drive and Mr. & Mrs. D. Gloin, 258 Edgehill Drive in opposition to this application. The Committee questioned Mr. Green concerning the request of the Regional Health Unit. Mr. Green spoke of the Slope Stability Study which was prepared, which shows that the slope is stable. Mr. Green expanded on the contents of the study. He advised that the retained land is one parcel although the City staff report treats it as two parcels. Ms. J. Given advised that the City maybe asking of for a dedication of the land below the Regional Floodline. 1. Submission No. B 78/95 - Maple Manor Ltd. c/o Mr. Eric Dirksen - cont'd Mr. Green advised that there are no immediate plans for that portion of the retained lands above the Regional Floodline. He stated that he has some concern about the dedication of the lands below the Regional Floodline as the line on the plan submitted has not been surveyed. Further, should the Grand River Conservation Authority approve a Fill permit the floodline may change. In response the written submissions of the two neighbours, Mr. Green stated that there is a comprehensive planning process taking place in the Pioneer Tower community at this time. It is intended that all the land be rezoned to By-law 85-1. The proposal in this application is in full compliance with the current Township Zoning. This is the type of development that the community has been fighting for through the comprehensive process. Mr. Green continued to explain that when the lots on Edgehill Drive were created, the lots on the north side and south side were staggered. Further, the Township Residential Zoning has a substantial sideyard requirement which results in a large separation between homes. Therefore, the view from the road would not be compromised. With respect to the heritage features, it is intended that a heritage district plan go forward to protect the area, primarily centred around COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 297 OCTOBER 3, 1995 the Pioneer Tower. This site was never included in that planned area. Mr. Gloin addressed the Committee advising that he lives across the street from the proposed severed parcel. He stated that although heritage has not been identified, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. He suggested that this application should wait until Stage 8 is finalized. The Chairman questioned Ms. J. Given as to the lot width requirement for open space and Ms. Given responded that there is no specific measurement in the zoning by-law. She also advised that the retained lands provide a large open area where the view can be enjoyed. The land has been zoned Residential since approximately 1985, except the lands below the floodline. Further, severances are permitted. Ms. J. Given requested that a fifth condition be added to those contained in the staff report, that the lands below the regulatory floodline be conveyed to the City of Kitchener without cost and free of encumbrance. Mr. Gothard stated that the Committee is in conflict between preserving a delightful vista and a property owners right to develop his land under the existing zoning. Mr. Gloin referred to the adjacent lot stating that the fill is quite unstable. He stated that the owner regularly has to stabilize the fill. When questioned by the Committee, Ms. S. Davies advised that she was in attendance in support of Mr. Gloin. Mr. Gothard stated that pragmatically the land owner has the right to the benefit and protection of the law. Right now the proposal complies with the zoning by-law, a plan of subdivision is not required and it complies with whatever zoning by-law is in place. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A Galloway That the application of Maple Manor Ltd. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a frontage of 41 m (134.52 ft.) on Edgehill Drive by a depth of 60 m (196.85 ft.) and having an area of 2,460 m2 (26,480.09 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, Edgehill Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall provide documentation, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official, that the conclusions of the Slope Stability Study prepared by England Naylor Engineering Limited applies to the severed parcel and it is therefore acceptable for building. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 1. Submission No. B 78/95 - Maple Manor Ltd. cio Mr. Eric Dirksen - cont'd That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Department of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping, a paved driveway ramp and driveway culvert on the severed lands. That the owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to the City's Department of Finance, for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, that portion of the lands located below the regulatory floodline. That the owner shall provide the Grand River Conservation Authority with satisfactory confirmation that the conclusions of the Slope Stability Assessment prepared by England Naylor Engineering Limited apply to the proposed severed parcel. 7. That the owner shall submit a site plan to the Grand River Conservation Authority for the proposed COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 298 OCTOBER 3, 1995 severed parcel showing the location of the proposed building envelope and tile bed envelope as well as preliminary grading of the subject property; any development extending within the Scheduled Area will require a Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 149, as amended, from the Grand River Conservation Authority. That a complete professional engineer's geotechnical study shall be undertaken for the proposed severed lot, to the satisfaction of the Waterloo Regional Health Unit. Pursuant to Subsection 20 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 22 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse 2 years from the date of approval, being October 3, 1997. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of Subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried ADJOURNED On Motion, the meeting adjourned. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 3rd, day of October 1995. D. H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment