Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1995-11-21COA\1995-11-21 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 21, 1995 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. D. McKnight, J. Gothard, W. Dahms, A. Galloway and S. Kay. Mr. R. Morgan, Zoning Administration Co-ordinator, Ms. J. Given, Planner, and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. D. McKnight, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.. Senior MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of October 24, 1995, as mailed to the members, be accepted. MINOR VARIANCE UNFINISHED BUSINESS Re: Carried Submission No. A 94/95 - Brian Pattison & Darlene Witmer, 35 Norfolk Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario Lot 24, Registered Plan 670, 35 Norfolk Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. R. Deutschmann 105-127 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting 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 was in receipt of a copy of a letter of Ms. L. MacDonald, Assistant City Solicitor, dated November 16, 1995, to Mr. R. Deutschmann, advising that City Council, at its meeting of November 14, 1995, had agreed to an encroachment of the wooden shed onto Pleasant Walk. Council also agreed to permit the use of 5 ft. of the walkway for parking, provided that the owners installed a 4 ft. high chainlink fence along the northerly limit of the encroachment from the board fence to a point 10 ft. back from the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 317 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 sidewalk, by May 31, 1996. The Committee then reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning & Development, dated September 26, 1995, 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. 1. Submission No. A 94/95 - Brian Pattison & Darlene Witmer - cont'd 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 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. 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 also reviewed the comments of Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division, dated September 27, 1995, in which he advised that the concerns of the Traffic Division will be dealt with in the encroachment agreement. At the request of Mr. Deutschmann, the Committee agreed to consider an amendment to the application, in accordance with the Planning Department comments. Mr. Deutschmann provided the Committee with photographs of the subject property. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. J. Gothard That the application of Brian Pattison & Darlene Witmer requesting legalization of an existing single family dwelling having a northerly sideyard of 0 m rather than a required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Lot 24, Registered Plan 670, 35 Norfolk Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: That the applicants shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City of Kitchener as approved by City Council on November 14, 1995. That the variance as approved in this application shall apply only as long as there is a valid encroachment agreement between the property owner and the City of Kitchener, as noted in condition no. 1 above. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 318 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the existing development only to the extent as shown on the survey prepared by Wayne D. Brubacher, O.L.S., dated June 29, 1995. 1. Submission No. A 94/95 - Brian Pattison & Darlene Witmer - cont'd 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 APPLICATIONS APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Submission No. A 114/95 - Krishnall Tajmattie Surujnarain, 2 Trail, Kitchener, Ontario Lot 1, Registered Plan 1625, 2 Northforest Trail, Kitchener, Ontario CONTRA: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: Northforest Ms. T. Surujnarain 2 Northforest Trail Kitchener, Ontario Mr. & Mrs. A. D'Costa 6 Northforest Trail Kitchener, Ontario NONE Ms. K. Caskenette 46 Northforest Trail Kitchener, Ontario The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of some steps leading to a door at the easterly side of the home with a 0 m sideyard rather than the required 0.77 m (2.5 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of uncovered existing steps which are setback approximately 0 m from the side lot line rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.) setback. Under Zoning Bylaw 85-1 steps are permitted within any yard provided that the minimum setback from a side lot line is 0.75 m (2.46 ft.). The steps are located in the easterly side yard of the subject property and were constructed by the applicant in 1992 without benefit of the required building permit. These steps extend from grade level to below grade level and provide a means of access to the basement by way of a side door located at the bottom of the stairway. There is also a railing which is 1.21 m (4 ft.) high which surrounds a portion of the steps. The intent of the 0.75 m (2.46 ft.) setback requirement for steps is to allow for an unobstructed area which would allow access to the rear yard as well as maintenance of the structure. The steps subject to this variance along with the railing that surround the steps do not allow for an area large enough for access to COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 319 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 the applicants' rear yard as there is only approximately 0.07 m (0.25 ft.) between the railings to the abutting property's fence. There is, however, sufficient area on the side yard abutting Glasgow Street for access to the rear yard. With respect to maintenance, it would appear that the steps subject to this application would not require regular maintenance and therefore the reduced setback between the steps and fence would appear to be minor in nature while meeting the intent of the bylaw. 1. Submission No. A 114/95 - Krishnall Taimattie Suruinarain - cont'd These steps would not appear to interfere with the neighbouring property owners's privacy as the height of the existing fencing provides an adequate means of screening between the two properties. As the variance requested is minor in nature, recognizes an existing situation and meets the general intent of the Bylaw, the Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the variance as requested in this report. The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that the owner is required to provide confirmation that the existing stairwell does not adversely impede the natural flow of water to the sideyard swale to the detriment of the adjoining property and owner. The Committee considered the written submission of Ms. K. Caskenette objecting to the application as the steps lead to an apartment. She objected to the tenants behaviour and spoke of her concern with respect to waterflow and drainage. Ms. Surujnarain addressed the Committee advising that the steps were installed in 1993 by a contractor. The Committee questioned whether there is an apartment in the basement and she advised that there is. The Committee then questioned staff as to whether the apartment is legal and Mr. R. Morgan, Senior Zoning Officer, advised that the apartment is a legal use. Mr. A. D'Costa then addressed the Committee advising that he has resided at 6 Northforest Trail since 1987. In the spring of 1994 he experienced major flooding in the basement, which he had never experienced before. He advised that his sump pump is constantly overflowing. He stated that the foundation for the steps is almost on the property line and has a depth of between 8 and 10 ft.. He never had a water/drainage problem before this foundation was installed. Mr. D'Costa further advised that the applicants tried to winterize the steps by installing a makeshift roof of metal posts and corrugated plastic which continually rattles and causes excessive noise. Ms. Surujnarain advised the Committee that there is a drain at the bottom of the steps and there are no water problems in the apartment. She advised that the City approved the steps when they were installed. Mr. J. Gothard questioned whether the drain at the bottom of steps was connected to the City sewer. Ms. Surujnarain advised that she thought is was; however, after further questioning, it appeared that a connection with the sewer was never installed. Mr. Gothard then questioned staff with respect to the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections concerning the sideyard swale. Mr. R. Morgan suggested that the swale may have been part of the grading control plan. Mr. A. Galloway questioned whether the doorway existed before and Ms. Surujnarain advised that the doorway was cut when the steps were installed. Mr. W. Dahms questioned staff with respect to zoning regulations for the roof over the steps. Mr. R. Morgan advised that zoning regulations are only enforced if the roof is a permanent structure. If a permanent roof is to be erected, then an additional variance would be required along with a building permit. Ms. Surujnarain advised that a temporary roof is erected only during the winter, but is removable. Further, when the neighbours asked that it be removed, she removed it. Mr. R. Morgan stated that he has been advised by the Chief Building Official that he wants the water/grading situation looked after by December 31, 1995. Mr. W. Dahms suggested that the application may be premature because of the drainage problem. He was of the opinion that the drainage problem should be looked at by a grading expert prior to this Committee dealing with the application. He was also concerned about the need for a building permit for the roof. The Committee generally agreed to defer consideration of this application to the meeting scheduled for COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 320 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 Tuesday, January 30, 1996. They directed the applicant to get a report from a professional engineer or other grading expert 1. Submission No. A 114/95 - Krishnall Taimattie Suruinarain - cont'd as to the situation with water run-off, as requested in the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections. They wanted to now whether the stairwell has affected the approved grading plan. The Committee also requested information from the applicants as to what they are going to do about the roof. 2. Submission No. A 115/95 - Bill Nippel, 41 Howland Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 27, Registered Plan 1242, 41 Howland Drive, Kitchener, Ontario APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: Mr. B. Nippel 41 Howland Drive Kitchener, Ontario Mr. & Mrs. J. Jefferies 36 Howland Drive Kitchener, Ontario WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: Mr. & Mrs. J. Jefferies 36 Howland Drive Kitchener, Ontario Mr. & Mrs. J. Barnes 42 Howland Drive Kitchener, Ontario Ms. M. Leitch 14 Cartier Drive Kitchener, Ontario The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 6.71 m (22 ft.) by 7.32 m (24 ft.) addition on to the rear of the existing home (side of the house opposite from Cartier Drive). The proposed addition would maintain a rearyard of 5.03 m (16.5 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that the owner/applicant intends to construct a 528 square foot addition to an existing single detached dwelling which would result in a variance to the rear yard, such that a minimum yard of 16.5 feet is provided and the by-law requires 25 feet. The addition is for a hair salon operated as a home business. The proposed home business complies with all other provisions of the zoning By-law, including size, parking, and driveway expansion and location. The resulting rear yard would range from a minimum of 16.5 feet to 18 feet due to the angle of the rear lot line. Relative to neighbouring properties, the additional extension into the rear yard would not appear to have an adverse impact on the enjoyment of property, since the closest neighbouring structure is a garage accessory to the Cartier Drive neighbour, and to the rear of the subject property, the dwelling is located 32 feet from the common property line. Another consideration of a variance to a rear yard is its impact on outdoor amenity space. In this case, since the dwelling is set back a considerable distance from both abutting streets, more undeveloped/landscaped area is available than for most lots. A rear yard approximately 16 feet by 66 feet is still available as well. For these reasons, the variance is minor and appropriate and the intent of the By-law and Municipal Plan is met. Relative to home businesses, the by-law does not prevent the expansion of a dwelling for such purposes. Any such expansions creating variances, such as this one, are considered in the same context as if the addition were used for living space for the dwelling. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Application A-115/95 only to the extent of the variance shown on the drawing attached with the application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 321 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 2. Submission No. A 115/95 - Bill Nippel, 41 Howland Drive - cont'd 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. The Committee considered the written submission of Mr. & Mrs. J. Jefferies and Mr. & Mrs. J. Barnes in opposition to the application stating that appearance and property values in the neighbourhood will be affected and that the proposed home business will cause traffic problems. The Committee considered the written submission of Ms. M. Leitch, 14 Cartier Drive, Kitchener, in which she advised that she wished to object to the application if there was any trouble in the applicant providing ample parking for customers in his own driveway. If the applicant has sufficient parking on the premises and will not interfere with parking on Cartier Drive and parking is not an issue she advised that she would offer support to the application. Mr. Jefferies addressed the Committee advising that he lives immediately across the street from the subject property. Howland Drive is a short, busy street and there are alot of children in the neighbourhood attending school in the area. He is concerned about an increase in traffic in the area due to the proposed home business. Further, the neighbours like the spacing of the neighbourhood and they don't want to loose it by having such an addition. Mr. Nippel addressed the Committee advising that it is important to him to maintain the goodwill of the neighbours. He has given careful consideration to the neighbours comments as provided in the written submissions. He stated that he will be constructing an addition which will blend in with the existing house and that he can provide three parking spaces in the driveway which exceeds the city's requirements. With the respect to the neighbours' concerns about increased traffic, Mr. Nippel advised that he would see only approximately six clients per day and there wouldn't be an excess of vehicles because there wouldn't be anyone attending at his business in the mornings when children are going to school and there would be only one client there in the afternoon when the children are coming home from school. The Committee questioned Ms. J. Given as to how much floor space could be occupied by a home business and Ms. Given advised that the By-law permits 25% of the gross floor area to a maximum of 50 m2. The Committee also questioned signage and Ms. Given advised that absolutely no signage is permitted for a home business. Ms. Jefferies advised that her concern is about the spaciousness of the neighbourhood and property values. Mr. J. Gothard advised that the Committee could not distinguish the purpose for which the addition is being built. It is necessary for the Committee to look at this application from a planning point of view and it was his opinion that the variance being requested is minor in nature and in keeping with the general intent of the zoning by-law. It was his opinion that, under the Planning Act, the Committee had no choice but to approve the application. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. J. Gothard That the application of Bill Nippel requesting permission to construct a rear addition with a rearyard of 5.03 m (16.5 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (25 ft.) on Lot 27, Registered Plan 1242, 41 Howland Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed addition only to the extent as shown on the plan submitted with this application. 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 develo3ment of the property. 2. Submission No. A 115/95 - Bill Nippel, 41 Howland Drive - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 322 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 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 116/95 - Mr. Elmer Marshall, 108 Chelsea Road, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 841 and Part Lot 30, Registered Plan 771, 108 Chelsea Road, Kitchener, Ontario APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. G. Riopelle R.R.#1 Mount Brydges, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a carport onto the southerly side of the existing home. The proposed carport will have a sideyard of 0.25 m (0.8 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that the applicant requests permission to construct an attached carport with a side yard of 0.25 m (0.8 ft) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft). The proposed carport is to measure 2.7 m by 5.5 m (9 ft by 18 ft). As per the applicant, the posts of the carport will be situated 3 m (10 ft) apart and the roof will project 1.2 m (4 ft) beyond the posts at both the front and back of the carport. The roof will not project beyond the supporting posts towards the side lot line, therefore the carport will not encroach onto the neighbouring property. The construction of the carport consists of four posts supporting a roof which would appear to require little maintenance (drawing enclosed). The open design of the carport allows for maintenance at ground level for the property. Also, any maintenance required for the roof can be reached from the front or rear of the carport. The applicant has indicated that no eaves will be installed on the structure. The roof slopes towards the front and the rear of the structure and any run-off would therefore remain on the subject property. The applicant has advised that from past experience with these carports it was found that there was little run-off resulting from precipitation and what run-off there was did not pose a drainage problem for the neighbouring property. As shown on a survey of the adjoining property, the neighbouring dwelling is 1.2 m (4 ft) from the side property line. The proposed carport would not appear to adversely affect the enjoyment of the adjoining property as the structure is not enclosed and it would appear not to have a great visual impact. Based on the above, it is the opinion of staff that the variance is minor in nature and the general intent of the by-law is being met. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the variance applying to the sketch as submitted by the applicant. 3. Submission No. A 116/95 - Mr. Elmer Marshall - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 323 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 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 carport. He also advised that the support posts and gable end of the carport shall have non-combustible cladding and that the roof drainage shall remain on the subject property. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Elmer Marshall requesting permission to construct a carport with a sideyard of 0.25 m (0.8 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 841 and Part Lot 30, Registered Plan 771,108 Chelsea Road, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed carport only as shown on the plan submitted with this application. That the applicant shall obtain a building permit from the City of Kitchener prior to constructing the carport and that the support posts and gable end of the carport shall be constructed of non- combustible cladding and that the roof drainage off the carport shall remain on the applicant's own property. 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 117/95 - Colloquium Investments, 214 Merton Street, Suite 300, Toronto, Ontario Part Lot 49, Registered Plan 763, Being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-4210, 842 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. J. Carter 159 Norman Street Waterloo, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to sell fitness equipment from the above-noted location. Currently the Zoning By-law permits the sale of furniture, electric and electronic appliances and/or equipment. The Committee of Adjustment is being asked to determine whether the sale of fitness equipment is the same or similar to the uses permitted in this zone. The Committee considered the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the application seeks approval to permit the sale of fitness equipment as a use similar to the "sale of furniture and electric or electronic equipment." An identical variance under the provisions 4. Submission No. A 117/95 - Colloquium Investments - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 324 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 of Section 45 (2) (b) of the Planning Act was approved by the Committee on December 13, 1994 for 663 Victoria Street North for this business, but the business did not establish at that location and is now requesting the same consideration for this property. While the M-3 zone permits the sale of similar products, none of those specifically listed is the sale of fitness equipment. The Municipal Plan recognizes this as an area which is comprised of both industrial and service commercial uses. The service commercial category permits the sale of merchandise oriented to the travelling public, requiring large floor areas and not suited to shopping malls. The use complies with the intent of the Municipal Plan. The City is undertaking a comprehensive change to the C-6 and M-3 zones to add the retailing of sporting goods. The Department recommends approval of the application as it maintains the intent of the zoning by-law and Municipal Plan. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. J. Gothard That the application of Colloquium Investments requesting that the sale of fitness equipment be considered a similar use to that of the sale of furniture and electric or electronic equipment on Lot 49, Registered Plan 763, being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-4210, 842 Victoria Street North, 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 118/95 - Andrew Atila Puskas, 558 Belmont Avenue West, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lots 12, 14 & 15, Registered Plan 402, 558 Belmont Avenue West, Kitchener, Ontario APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. F. Heimbecker 354 King Street North Waterloo, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of the location of the existing building on the property. The building is setback 3.58 m (11.72 ft.) from Belmont Avenue rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.) and a southerly sideyard adjacent the concrete brine tank, of 0.31 m (1 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of the location of an existing building. The building is setback 3.58 m (11.72 ft) from Belmont Avenue rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft) and has a southerly sideyard of .31 m (1 ft) instead of the required 1.2 m (4 ft). The requested variance should be amended as the required sideyard is actually 3.0 m. 5. Submission No. A 118/95 - Andrew Atila Puskas - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 325 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 The building was constructed in November of 1964 and was zoned Commercial Manufacturing (C5) in accordance to By-law 4830. The required setback from Belmont Avenue was 25 feet (7.62 m) and the requirement for the southerly sideyard was 4 feet (1.2 m). In this regard the structure has never been in compliance. Although the only portion of the sideyard which does not comply is the concrete brine tank, the remainder of this yard can be considered legal non-conforming The requested variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the By-law as both the front yard and the southerly sideyard are setback sufficiently so as not to affect either the Belmont Avenue streetscape or the abutting property owners enjoyment of their land. Additionally, the property has existed in this state since 1965 without any complaints relating to the requested variances. It is the opinion of this department that the variances requested are minor in nature and as such, approval is recommended for Submission A 118/95. Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Andrew Puskas requesting legalization of an existing building have a setback from Belmont Avenue of 3.58 m (11.72 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.) and a southerly sideyard of 0.31 m (1 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) on Part Lots 12, 14 and 15, Registered Plan 402, 558 Belmont Avenue West, 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 6. Submission No. A 119/95 - Muntaz Ally, 27 Peter Street, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 48 Registered Plan 393, 27 Peter Street, Kitchener, Ontario. As no one appeared in support of this application, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to the meeting scheduled for December 12, 1995. CONSENT UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission No. B 79/95 - Freure Daan Settlement, 501 Krug Street, P.O. Box 640, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, Being Parts 3 & 4, Reference Plan 58R-7422 Pinnacle Drive at Daan Valley Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Mr. W. Dahms declared a conflict of interest with this application as his law firm acts for the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. J. Redmond 149 Union Street Waterloo, Ontario Mr. J. Vos Pieter Vos Limited 389 Pinnacle Drive COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 326 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 Kitchener, Ontario 1. Submission No. B 79/95 - Freure Doon Settlement - cont'd CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The applicants have requested permission to sever a narrow strip of land to be conveyed to the abutting land owner. Since that Notice was sent, the applicant has submitted a request to amend the application. Now, in addition to severing a parcel of land, the owner wishes to reserve a right-of-way over the same piece of land. The owner also wishes to give a right-of-way to the adjacent property, over a parcel of land which runs parallel to and is of a similar size to the land to be severed. Both of these strips of land were formerly part of Daan Valley Drive. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that the applicant originally requested permission to sever a parcel of land 8.0 metres by 205 metres from an irregularly shaped parcel of land municipally addressed as 105 Pinnacle Drive which has a 32.0 metre frontage and is 2.8 hectares in area. The application was deferred from the October 24, 1995 meeting pending the submission of a revised application to include a request for right-of-way. The Department of Planning and Development has since received a revised sketch from the Secretary Treasurer of the Committee which illustrates the location of the proposed rights-of-way. The lands subject to this application are located on Pinnacle Drive north of Homer Watson Boulevard. The land being conveyed through this application was formerly part of the road allowance for old Daan Valley Drive which was closed and subsequently conveyed in its entirety to Freure Daan Settlement Ltd. This application proposes to sever half of the former road allowance and consolidate it with the abutting lands to the south (owned by Peter Vas Limited) municipally addressed as 39 Daan Valley Drive while maintaining a right-of-way over the severed lands in favour of Freure Daan Settlement Ltd.. In addition, the applicant is requesting a right-of-way over Parts 2 and 5, Plan 58R-7422 (owned by Freure Daan Settlement Ltd.) in favour of Peter Vas Limited. Both properties are zoned R-6 according to By-law 85-1 and have the potential to be developed since they are currently vacant. The severance application will provide greater frontage on a public road for the Vos lands and the rights-of- way will provide greater development options for both the lands owned by Freure Daan Settlement Ltd. and Peter Vas Limited. In view of the forgoing, the Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Severance Application 79/95, as amended, subject to the following conditions: That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to the severed shall comply with Section 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995; 2. That all outstanding municipal taxes and local improvement charges be paid to the City of Kitchener. The Committee noted 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 this application. Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Freure Doon Settlement Ltd. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width of 8 m (26.25 ft.) by a depth of 205 m (672.58 ft.) and having an area of 0.2 hectares; to reserve a right-of-way over the severed lands and to give a right-of-way over a parcel of land having a 1. Submission No. B 79/95 - Freure Doon Settlement - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 327 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 width of approximately 8 m (26.25 ft.) by a depth of approximately 205 m (672.58 ft.) on Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, Being Parts 2, 3, 4 and 5, Reference Plan 58R-7422, 105 Pinnacle Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: That the lands to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken and identical ownership as the abutting lands with any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed complying with Subsections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act. That the applicant shall make satisfactory financial arrangement with the City's Department of Finance for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 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 November 21, 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 Submission No. B 81/95 - Deer Ridge Golf Club, 300 Pioneer Tower Road, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 12, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, Being Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-9320, 300 Pioneer Tower Road, Kitchener, Ontario APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. P. Flemming 300-255 King St. North Waterloo, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to convey a parcel of land having an irregular shape and having an area of 552 m2 (5,941.88 sq. ft.) as a lot addition to the abutting property. The Committee considered the comments of the Department of Planning and Development in which they advised that the application seeks approval to convey a 552 square metre parcel of land presently owned by Deer Ridge Golf Club as a lot addition to JHS Properties. The small parcel was partially the subject of a previous application (B-12/94) which conveyed the parcel from JHS to Deer Ridge Golf Club, however, the Deer Ridge Golf course already owned the part and the conveyance should have been to JHS. This application seeks to reconvey the parcel so as to form part of the JHS land which is the subject of an application for a Plan of Subdivision. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 328 NOVEMBER 21, 1995 2. Submission No. B 81/95 - Deer Ridqe Golf Club - cont'd Staff have no concerns with this reconveyance provided it is as a lot addition only. That application B-81/95 to convey Part 3 of Reference Plan 58R-9320 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the severed lands be added to the abutting lands and taken in identical ownership as the adjacent lands owned by JHS Properties. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, as amended. 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 this application. The Committee considered the comments of the Ms. E. Caston, Senior Resource Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority, in which she advised that there are no objections to the approval of this application; however, any future construction or other alteration on the retained parcel should be reviewed by the Grand River Conservation Authority prior to the issuance of any building permits. Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of the Deer Ridge Golf Club requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having an area of 552 m2 (5,941.88 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 12, Beasley's Broken Front Concession being Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-9320, 300 Pioneer Tower Road, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following condition: That the lands to be severed in this application shall be conveyed to the abutting lands and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands with an subsequent conveyance or transaction complying with subsections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act. 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 November 21, 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 21st, day of November 1995. D. H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment