Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1996-01-30COA\1996-01-30 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 30, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. J. Gothard, D. McKnight, W. Dahms and A. Galloway. Mr. R. Morgan, Zoning Administration Co-ordinator, Ms. J. Planner, and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Given, Senior Mr. J. Gothard, 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 December 12, 1995, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried MINOR VARIANCE UNFINISHED BUSINESS Submission No. A 114/95 - Krishnall Tajmattie Surujnarain, 2 Northforest Trail, Kitchener, Ontario Lot 1, Registered Plan 1625, 2 Northforest Trail, Kitchener, Ontario It was noted that, at the November 21, 1995 meeting, the Committee directed that an engineer or other grading expert be obtained who could determine whether the approved grading plan has been affected by the stairs. Staff have been advised that the engineer cannot inspect the property until spring; consequently, the applicant is requesting a deferral until the May 7, 1996 meeting. The Committee agreed to this request. Submission No. A 122/95 - Kenmore Homes (1987) Inc., 79 Rankin Street Unit #2, Waterloo, Ontario Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 1805, Being Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-9536, Michelle Court, Kitchener, Ontario. The Committee was advised that the applicant has withdrawn this application. APPLICATIONS Submission No. A 1/96 - Beaver Fuels Management Inc., 151 Superior Blvd., Suite 20, Mississau,qa, Ontario Re: Lot 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 and Part Lots 11 & 12, Registered Plan 418, Victoria Street South, Oak Street and Joseph Street, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. L. Buordolone COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 2 JANUARY 30, 1996 The TDL Group Ltd. 874 Sinclair Rd. Oakville, ON CONTRA: NONE 1. Submission No. A 1/96 - Beaver Fuels Manaqement Inc. - cont'd WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to erect a drive-through coffee shop with a setback from Joseph Street of 15.29 m (50.17 ft.) rather than the permitted 2 m (6.57 ft.) and a setback from Victoria Street of 31.68 m (103.94 ft.) rather than the permitted 2 m (6.57 ft.) and permission for the building facade to have a height of 5.4 m (17.72 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.). The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting variances to the regulations of the by-law in order to reduce the minimum facade height and increase the maximum yard abutting a street. The proposed development is a double drive-through coffee/doughnut shop. The development is subject to Site Plan Approval and staff have reviewed the proposed site plan with the applicant. Normally, variance applications are considered premature until such time as the application has been received, circulated for comment, and considered by the City's Project Review Committee. In this case however, there is very little likelihood of the building location being revised as a result of site plan modifications, as the site is largely vacant, the proposed building would occupy just over 1% of the site, and any site plan modifications should be accommodated without the need to move the proposed building. This application is similar to the previous application (A 107/95) for the gas bar kiosk now developed on the same site. The Warehouse District is characterized by multi-storey industrial buildings typically built close to the street. The general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law and official plan is to encourage new development that is complementary to this design and siting. The proposed drive-through facility, which is a permitted use in the by-law, does not require or readily lend itself to a multi-storey construction or to having the facility built close to the street, particulary as this lot has frontage on three streets. The general intent and purpose does not readily apply to the type of facility proposed. The variance is minor and desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land as it leaves the Victoria Street portion of the site available for future street-oriented development. In the opinion of staff, the proposal meets the four tests set out in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission A 1/96, subject to the following condition: That the variances shall apply to a Site Plan finally approved by the Department of Planning and Development, which site plan shall be generally in accordance with the site plan attached to this application and for which site plan approval is received by July 1, 1996. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Manager of Community Planning and Development Review prior to the completion date set out in this decision. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct new buildings. Upon questioning, Mr. Bourdolone advised the Committee that he is in agreement with the report of the Department of Planning & Development. Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, advised that there is an additional variance required and that is the distance of the kiosk from Oak Street, which is 57.4 m rather than the permitted 2 m. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 3 JANUARY 30, 1996 At the request of Mr. Bourdolone, the Committee agreed to amend this application for the setback of the kiosk from Oak Street. 1. Submission No. A 1/96 - Beaver Fuels Manaqement Inc. - cont'd Mr. Bourdolone again addressed the Committee advising that he has discussed this proposal with Planning staff and has recently submitted the required Site Plan application. Further, the location of the kiosk shown on the plan submitted with this application is the final building location. Mr. W. Dahms advised that should this application be approved with the requested condition, the date of the Site Plan attached to this application should be included in the condition. Moved by Mr. D. McKnight Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Beaver Fuels Management Inc. requesting permission to erect a drive-through coffee shop with a setback from Joseph Street of 15.29 m (50.17 ft.) rather than the permitted 2 m (6.57 ft.) and a setback from Victoria Street of 31.68 m (103.94 ft.) rather than the permitted 2 m (6.57 ft.), a setback from Oak Street of 57.4 m (188.32 ft.) rather than the permitted 2 m (6.57 ft.) and permission for the building facade to have a height of 5.4 m (17.72 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.) on Lot 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19 and Part Lots 11 & 12, Registered Plan 418, Victoria Street South, Oak Street and Joseph Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the variances as approved in this application, shall apply to a Site Plan finally approved by the Department of Planning and Development, which site plan shall be generally in accordance with the site plan attached to this application, dated December 18, 1995 and for which site plan approval is to be received by July 1, 1996. That no extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Manager of Community Planning and Development Review prior to the completion date set out in this decision. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 2/96 - Mr. & Mrs. Dankwardt, 689 Rockway Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lot 31, Registered Plan 347, 689 Rockway Drive, Kitchener, Ontario APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. G. Riopelle Carport Structural Systems Inc. R.R. #1 Hwy. #81 Mount Brydges, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 4 JANUARY 30, 1996 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached carport which will have an easterly sideyard of 0.16 m (0.5 ft.). The By-law currently requires a sideyard of 1.2 m (3.94 ft.). 2. Submission No. A 2/96 - Mr. & Mrs. Dankwardt - cont'd The Committee reviewed 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 0.152 m (0.5 ft) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.9 ft). The roof of the carport will project 1.2 m (4 ft) beyond the supporting posts at both the front and the back of the structure. 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 carport consists of four posts supporting a roof which would appear to require little maintenance. 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 property. The proposed carport will have no eaves. The roof slopes towards the front and the rear of the structure and any runoff 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 runoff resulting from precipitation and what runoff there was did not pose a drainage problem for the neighbouring property. 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. It is noted that there is no survey for the subject property and that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that he is aware of the exact location of the lot lines. 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. 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. Structural elements shall be clad with noncombustible material. Roof drainage shall not be directed onto adjacent property. Mr. Riopelle addressed the Committee in response to the staff comments advising that there will be an eavestrough at the rear of the carport and the drainage will be directed away from the Iotline. Mr. J. Gothard commented about the lack of a survey and cautioned that there may be a problem if the measurements on the sketch are not accurate. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Mr. & Mrs. Dankwardt requesting permission to construct an attached carport with an easterly sideyard of 0.16 m (0.5 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.) on Part Lot 31, Registered Plan 347, 689 Rockway Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed carport only as shown on the plan submitted with this application. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 5 JANUARY 30, 1996 2. Submission No. A 2/96 - Mr. & Mrs. Dankwardt - cont'd 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 3/96 - Eniko & Robert Huber, 495 Bankside Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Part of Block 12, Registered Plan 1790, 495 Bankside Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mrs. E. Huber 495 Bankside Drive Kitchener, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of the existing house in its existing location. The house was constructed with an easterly sideyard of 1.03 m (3.38 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.). The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicants are requesting legalization of an existing single family dwelling. The house was constructed with an easterly sideyard of 1.03 m (3.38 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.). The requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the by-law as the remaining easterly sideyard is still sufficient to allow for exterior maintenance of the subject dwelling. In addition the 1.03 m remaining would not appear to be adversely affecting the neighbouring property owners enjoyment of their land. As the variance requested recognizes an existing situation and is minor in nature we recommend approval subject to the variance applying only to the existing development as shown on the surveyors report prepared by Black, Shoemaker, Robinson & Donaldson dated October 16, 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 1.2 m from property line. There are 4 windows shown on the building drawings and the disposition of these windows will need to be addressed to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. The Committee drew to the attention of Mrs. Huber the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections concerning the windows. Mrs. Huber advised that one window is a kitchen window, one is a bathroom window, one is in the laundry room and one is in the stairway. Mr. W. Dahms questioned staff concerning the Building and Inspection Division comments. Mr. R. Morgan, Zoning Administration Co-ordinator, advised that he was not familiar with the exact requirements but thought that there may be certain sizes of windows which are acceptable. The applicants should really discuss the matter with the Chief Building Official. Mr. A. Galloway pointed out to Mrs. Huber that should this Committee approve this Application for Minor Variance, she may have to do some renovations to the windows on that side of her house. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 6 JANUARY 30, 1996 3. Submission No. A 3/96 - Eniko & Robert Huber - cont'd That the application of Eniko & Robert Huber requesting legalization of an existing single family dwelling with an easterly sideyard of 1.03 m (3.38 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.) on Part of Block 12, Registered Plan 1790, 495 Bankside Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is 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 4/96 - Ray Kraishnik, 47 Hearth Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario Part of Lot 20, Registered Plan 917, 47 Hearth Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. R. Kraishnik c/o 47 Hearth Crescent Kitchener, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing garage which is setback 4.84 m (15.86 ft.) from Hearth Crescent rather than the required 6 m (20 ft.). The Committee of Adjustment previously granted permission for the garage to be setback 5.03 m (16.5 ft.). The information previously provided by the applicant was based on an old survey and the new survey revealed that the setback does not comply. The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing garage which is setback 4.84 m. (15.86 ft.) from Hearth Crescent rather than the required 6.0 m. (20 ft.). Committee of Adjustment submission A 32/95 previously granted permission in August of 1995 for a garage to be built having a setback 5.03 m. (16.5 ft.). The garage was constructed and a new survey was prepared on November 6, 1995 which identified a setback for the garage of 4.83 m. (15.86 ft.). The intent of the 6 m. (20 ft.) setback for garages is to provide sufficient space between the garage and the front lot line to park another vehicle. Due to the angle of the garage on the lot, a vehicle can still be accommodated between the garage and lot line and as such, the intent of the by-law is maintained and the variance is appropriate. Upon further analysis it was noted that the left sideyard setback of the garage of 1.17 m. (3.84 ft.) does not comply with the requirement of 1.2 m. (4 ft.) but is within the 2" tolerance accepted by Council. In discussion with the applicant he has requested that this variance be added to the application as well so all non- complying setbacks have been addressed. It is the opinion of staff that both variances are minor in nature and the intent of the by-law is being met. 4. Submission No. A 4/96 - Ray Kraishnik - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 7 JANUARY 30, 1996 The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of a frontyard setback of 4.83 m. (15.86 ft.) and a left sideyard setback of 1.17 m.(3.84 ft.) for the garage as shown on the survey prepared by Metz and Lorentz Ltd. and dated November 6, 1995. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this Submission. At the request of Mr. Kraishnik, the Committee agreed to consider an amendment to the application in accordance with the Planning Department report. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Ray Kraishnik requesting legalization of an existing attached garage having a setback from Hearth Crescent of 4.84 m (15.86 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.) and a left sideyard of 1.17 m (3.84 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.) on Part of Lot 20, Registered Plan 917, 47 Hearth Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried 5. Submission No. A 5/96 - James & Edith Walker, 241 Vanier Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 6, Registered Plan 942, 241 Vanier Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. J. Walker 241 Vanier Drive Kitchener, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a one storey addition with an easterly sideyard of 0.6 m (2 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.). The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a 3.58 m (11.77 ft.) by 4.5 m (15 ft.) addition to the side of the existing house. The addition would be setback 0.6 m (2 ft.) from the side lot line rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). The proposed one storey addition is intended to be used for additional living space. The applicants are seeking relief from the 1.2 m (4 ft.) sideyard setback requirement because they believe that by complying with today's setback requirement the addition's room size would be too narrow to accommodate the size of room they require. The applicants also believe that visually, when looking at the front of the structure the addition would provide the dwelling with a more balanced look. 5. Submission No. A 5/96 - James & Edith Walker - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 8 JANUARY 30, 1996 The variance requested can be considered minor in nature as a 0.6 m (2 ft.) setback will be maintained which is sufficient for providing outside maintenance to the structure. The addition would appear to meet the general intent of the bylaw as it would not appear to adversely affect the neighbouring property. On the applicants' property there is a 1.21 m (4 ft.) high chain link fence which extends along a portion of the subject sideyard and provides a barrier between the applicants' property and the neighbouring property. The fencing would also extend along the portion of the sideyard where the proposed addition would be located. The original building permit for the dwelling on the neighbouring property located at 245 Vanier Drive indicates that the distance between the side lot line and the dwelling is 4.26 m (14 ft.). Therefore, there would be approximately 4.87 m (16 ft.) between the proposed addition and the dwelling on the neighbouring property. In regards to the above, it is the opinion of this department that the variance requested is minor in nature and the general intent of the by-law is being maintained. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission No. A 5/96 as requested and shown on the submitted sketch. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that there shall be no window in a wall located less than 1.2 m from property line, and the wall shall have a 45 min. fire resistance rating. A wall located less than 0.6 m from property line shall be clad with noncombustible material. The Chairman drew to the attention of Mr. Walker the comments of the Director of Building and Inspections. Mr. Walker advised that he had read those comments and is in agreement with them. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the application of Edith & James Walker requesting permission to construct a one storey addition with an easterly sideyard of 0.6 m (2 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.) on Lot 6, Registered Plan 942, 241 Vanier Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is 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 6/96 - Lloyd Shimens Limited, 64 William Street West, Waterloo, Ontario Parts of Lot 1, Registered Plan 364, 108 & 112 Duke Street East, Kitchener, Ontario. This application was considered in conjunction with Submission No. B 9~96 as described in the Minutes for Consent. CONSENT 1. Submission No. B 1/96 - 925277 Ontario Limited, 1120 Victoria Street, Unit #7, Kitchener, Ontario COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 9 JANUARY 30, 1996 Re: Part Lot 35, German Company Tract, Being Part 14, Reference Plan 58R-9995 Bankside Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. - and - Re: Submission No. B 2/96 - Activa Development Corporation, 735 Bridge Street, Waterloo, Ontario Part Lot 35, German Company Tract, Being Part 16, Reference Plan 58R-9995 Bankside Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. J. Griesbaum 735 Bridge Street Waterloo, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE In Submission No. B 1/96 the Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to convey a parcel of land having a triangular shape and having an area of 110.3 m2 (1,187.3 sq. ft.) as a lot addition to the abutting property. The Committee was further advised that in Submission No. B 2/96 the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a triangular shape and having an area of 113.4 m2 (1,220.67 sq. ft.) as a lot addition to the abutting property. This application will be considered in conjunction with Submission No. B 1/96. In Submissions No.'s B 1/96 & B 2/96, two property owners are exchanging land. The proposed use of the land in both applications is residential. The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applications for Consent B 1/96 and B 2/96 each propose a severance of a small parcel of land for lot additions which result in land exchanges relative to lands which are located on the south side of Bankside Drive. The parcel subject to application B 1/96 is described as Part 14 on Plan 58R-9995 and zoned R-6. It is proposed to be added to a larger parcel of land known as Part 15 of Plan 58R-9995 as a lot addition and to be incorporated into a future residential development. The lands which are subject to consent application B 2/96, are known as Part 16 of Plan 58R-9995. This parcel of land is zoned R-9 under By-law 85-1 and is to be added to a larger parcel of land being approximately 2 acres to accommodate future residential development. Essentially, the two application propose a land exchange which would better divide the subject parcels into a more appropriate configuration to coincide with the zone boundaries and accommodate future residential development. As both the consent applications result in a more appropriate land development configuration and the lands will comply with their respective zoning, the Department of Planning and Development has no concern with consent applications B 1/96 and B 2/96 as submitted. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of both B 1/96 and B 2/96 as submitted, each conditional upon the following: Submission No. B 1/96 - 925277 Ontario Limited - cont'd - and - Submission No. B 2/96 - Activa Development Corporation - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 10 JANUARY 30, 1996 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 be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or 5 of the Planning Act, 1990. 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 noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this Submission. The Committee noted the report of Ms. E. Caston, Senior Resource Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority in which she advised that there are no objections to the proposed land exchange; however, there are some concerns with the retained lands. Any future construction or alterations on the southern portions of these lands should be reviewed by the Grand River Conservation Authority prior to issuance of any building permits. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Griesbaum advised that he was in agreement with all of the staff comments. For the benefit of the Committee and with the aid of a plan, Mr. Griesbaum explained which land Part 16, Reference Plan 58R-9995 would be added to. Submission No. B 1/96 Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the application of 925277 Ontario Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a triangular shape and having an area of 110.3 m2 (1,187.3 sq. ft.) as a lot addition on Part Lot 35, German Company Tract, Being Part 14, Reference Plan 58R-9995, Bankside 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 be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands; with any subsequent conveyance or transaction complying with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1990. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements 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 January 30, 1998. 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 1. Submission No. B 1/96 - 925277 Ontario Limited - cont'd - and - Submission No. B 2/96 - Activa Development Corporation - cont'd Submission No. B 2~96 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 11 JANUARY 30, 1996 Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the applicant of Activa Development Corporation requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a triangular shape and having an area of 113.4 m2 (1,220.67 sq. ft.) as a lot addition on Part Lot 35, German Company Tract, Being Part 16, Reference Plan 58R-9995, Bankside 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 be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands; with any subsequent conveyance or transaction complying with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1990. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements 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 January 30, 1998. 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 2. Submission No. B 3/96 - Merlin R. Jutzi, 31 Stonegate Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lots 79 & 80, Registered Plan 262, 92 Sydney Street South, Kitchener, Ontario. - and - Re: Submission No. B 4/96 - 465754 Ontario Limited, 450 Woolwich Street, South, Breslau, Ontario Part Lot 77, 78 & Part of Ida Avenue, Registered Plan 262, Sydney Street, South, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. C. Jutzi 92 Sydney Street South Kitchener, ON CONTRA: NONE 2. Submission No. B 3/96 - Merlin R. Jutzi - cont'd - and Submission No. B 4/96 - 465754 Ontario Limited WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 12 JANUARY 30, 1996 CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that, in Submission No. B 3/96, the applicant requests permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Sydney Street of 1.106 m (3.63 ft.) by a depth of 24.38 m (80 ft.) and having an area of 27.63 m2 (297.44 sq. ft.) as a lot addition to the abutting property. The Committee was further advised that in Submission No. B 4/96 the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having an irregular shape and having an area of 428.45 m2 (4,611.97 sq. ft.) as a lot addition to the abutting property. In Submission No.'s B 3/96 & B 4/96 the owners are exchanging land. 92 Sydney Street South is used as Residential and the abutting land is vacant. The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the two applications together pertain to a property developed with a 1 1/2 storey single detached dwelling, addressed as 92 Sydney Street South, and a vacant property owned by 465754 Ontario Ltd. Application B-3/96 proposes to sever a narrow strip of land from the southeasterly side of the existing lot, as a lot addition to the vacant property. Application B-4/96 proposes to sever that part of the vacant lands which extend to the rear of 92 Sydney Street as an addition to such lot. Together, the applications would create two lots extending 160 feet deep with the lot containing the dwelling at 92 Sydney Street having an irregularly shaped north westerly side yard and the new vacant lot being approximately 50 X 160 feet in size. According to the assessment information, the existing property boundaries are the same as that which is contemplated in B-4/9, with the dwelling located on Part of Lots 77-80, Registered Plan 262, owned by Merlin Jutzi, and the vacant property comprised of Part of Ida Street Closed, owned by 465754 Ontario Ltd. According to the information available to the City, such a severance is therefore not required. However, the legal title of Part of Lots 77-88 should be verified by a solicitor for the owners prior to formal consideration of the application, so as to prevent legal problems in the future. Should it be confirmed prior to the Committee's consideration that a consent as set out in B-4/94 is required, staff have no concerns with supporting the application. With respect to B-3/96, the minimum lot width for many of the CR-2 uses is 15 metres (49.2 feet) and as such, it would be more appropriate that each of the lots created have such a lot width, which will enable the future development of both lots without the need for a minor variance application in the future. Accordingly, the applicants have requested that the application be amended such that the width of the severed parcel be 3.21 feet rather than 3.63 feet. This should result in each lot having a width of 49.29 metres exactly, which meets the lot width requirement of 49.2 metres. The length of the severed parcel must also be amended to 160 feet, rather than 80 feet, given the existing lotting configuration. The attached sketch revised by staff indicates the new dimensions. The properties are designated and zoned to permit a range of residential and non-retail commercial uses. The consent creates two properties which will comply with the CR-2 zoning and therefore allow for their future development/redevelopment. Accordingly, approval of B-3/96 is recommended, as revised. That application B-3/96, as amended to a width of 3.21 feet and a length of 160 feet be approved subject to the following conditions: 2. Submission No. B 3/96 - Merlin R. Jutzi - cont'd - and Submission No. B 4/96 - 465754 Ontario Limited 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 be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1990. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 13 JANUARY 30, 1996 The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this Submission. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no objection to these applications. Ms. C. Jutzi addressed the Committee advising that the ownership of the property, as noted in the comments of the Department of Planning & Development, is correct. She requested permission to amend Submission No. B 3/96 as described in those comments. The Committee agreed to consider amendments to Submission No. B 3/96, as recommend by staff and requested by Ms. Jutzi and dismiss Submission No. B 4/96 as it was determined no longer to be required, based on the ownership information provided by staff and agreed to by Ms. Jutzi. Submission No. B 3/96 Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Merlin R. Jutzi requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Sydney Street of 0.98 m (3.21 ft.) by a depth of 48.77 m (160 ft.) as a lot addition on Part Lot 77 - 80, Registered Plan 262, 92 Sydney Street South, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: That the land to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands with Subsections 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1990 applying to all subsequent conveyances or transactions. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements 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 January 30, 1998. 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. 2. Submission No. B 3/96 - Merlin R. Jutzi - cont'd - and Submission No. B 4/96 - 465754 Ontario Limited Submission No. B 3~96 - cont'd 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 4/96 Withdrawn. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 14 JANUARY 30, 1996 Submission No. B 5/96 - 879025 Ontario Limited, 40 Dumart Place, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lot 112, German Company Tract, Being Parts 7 & 8, Reference Plan 58R-4589, 40 Dumart Place, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. A. Clos Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants 5-745 Bridge Street West Waterloo, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Dumart Place of 26.1 m (85.63 ft.) and an area of 9,215 m2 (99,192.68 sq. ft.). The proposed use of the property is Business Park. The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Dumart Place of 26.1 metres (85.63 feet) and an area of 9215 square metres (99192.68 square feet). The proposed severed parcel is currently vacant and is intended to be used for business park purposes. The proposed retained parcel will have a width of 47 metres (154 feet) and an area of 4762.7 square metres (51,267 square feet). The subject property currently contains an industrial use. A planting strip is required in accordance with the Section 40 Development Agreement registered on title for the proposed retained lands. The visual barrier requirement was approved as part of the Landscaping Plan at the time of approval of the Site Plan application. A site inspection has revealed that the visual barrier was installed but not maintained although it was required to be maintained for the life of the subject development. There is also a restrictive covenant on title of the property prohibiting the owners of the property from selling all or part of their land on the open market without Council's approval. This 15 year covenant expires in 2001. Planning and Economic Development Department staff are prepared to support the release or waiving of the covenant in a recommendation to Council. Accordingly, the Department recommends that the application be approved subject to the following conditions: 5. Submission No. B 5/96 - 879025 Ontario Limited - cont'd The owner agrees to re-instate the required landscaping along the rear of the proposed retained parcel as shown on the approved Landscaping Plan or submit a Letter of Credit to the Department of Planning and Development guaranteeing that said works will be completed. That satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That Council approve the release or waiving of the restrictive covenant on title pertaining to the 15 year restriction on sale of land registered under Instrument Number 864767 on August 29, 1986. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this Submission. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 15 JANUARY 30, 1996 The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no objection to this application. When questioned by the Committee, Ms. Clos advised that the applicant is in agreement with the staff comments. Moved by Mr. D. McKnight Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of 879025 Ontario Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Dumart Place of 26.1 m (85.63 ft.) and an area of 9,215 m2 (99,192.68 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 112, German Company Tract, Being Parts 7 & 8, Reference Plan 58R-4589, 40 Dumart Place, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall re-instate the required landscaping along the rear of the proposed retained parcel as shown on the approved Landscaping Plan or submit a Letter of Credit to the Department of Planning and Development guaranteeing that said works will be completed. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City's Department of Fiance for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the owner shall obtain the release or waiving of the restrictive covenant on title pertaining to the 15 year restriction on sale of land registered under Instrument Number 864767 on August 29, 1986 from City Council. 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 January 30, 1998. 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 6~96 - Konrad & Karin Lehman, 86 Fourth Ave., Kitchener, Ontario Part Lot 72, Registered Plan 254, 86 Fourth Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. R. Pawelowski 44-52 Bluesprings Dr. Waterloo, ON CONTRA: Ms. M. Richards 81 Fourth Avenue Kitchener, Ontario Mr. D. Johnson 80 Fourth Avenue Kitchener, Ontario Mr. W. Davis COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 16 JANUARY 30, 1996 76 Fourth Avenue Kitchener, Ontario WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Fourth Avenue of 7.65 m (25.1 ft.) by a depth of approximately 40.255 m (132.07 ft.) and having an area of 340.878 m2 (3,669.3 sq. ft.). The land is to be used for residential purposes. The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting consent to sever a new parcel from the property located at 86 Fourth Avenue. The existing property is a large lot with 20.175 metres of frontage and is presently developed with a single detached dwelling. The property is presently zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) which permits new building lots to be created with a minimum width of 7.5 metres and a minimum area of 235 square metres. While both the retained and the severed parcels would conform to the regulations of the R-4 Zone, the proposed new property is irregular in shape and would necessitate that the existing deck on the lot to be retained be relocated or lowered in order to comply with the zoning regulations. In addition, the proposed new lot line could potentially trigger lot line disputes in the future due to its irregularity. After discussing redevelopment of the proposed lot with the agent, staff recommend that the proposed consent be revised by the Committee and approved with a straight property line from the streetline to the rear of the property. This modification would still result in a new property with a frontage of 7.65 metres and a slightly reduced lot area (308 square metres), both of which fully comply with the regulations of the R-4 Zone. The proposed modification would allow for the redevelopment of the property but would avoid the need to relocate or lower the deck on the retained parcel. In addition, the new property line would be very clear and would reduce any potential for future lot line disputes. Since the creation of the new lot would allow for a residential infill opportunity and all regulations of the Zoning By-law are satisfied, the Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of application B 6/96 subject to the modification proposed above. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Consent Application B 6/96 subject to the following conditions: That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to five percent (5%) of the value of the lands to be severed. 6. Submission No. B 6~96 - Konrad & Karin Lehman - cont'd 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. To make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Department of Public Works for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. To install, at the Owner's cost and to the City's standards, boulevard landscaping including street tree, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands. Said works are to be guaranteed through the posting of a Letter of Credit or other suitable financial securities to the City's Department of Public Works and to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this Submission. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no objection to this application. The Chairman commented on the proposed revision to the size and configuration of the proposed severed parcel, as outlined in the Department of Planning & Development comments. Mr. Pawelowski advised that COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 17 JANUARY 30, 1996 the jog in the severance line was made on the advice of his surveyor; however, he requested permission to amend the application in accordance with the Planning Department comments and the Committee agreed to consider this request. Mr. A. Galloway questioned staff as to what the required sideyards would be for a lot with a 7.65 m width. Ms. J. Given responded that the sideyard requirement is 1.2 m. Mr. A. Galloway then questioned where the parking for the existing house would be located. Mr. Pawelowski advised that the parking for the existing house will be moved to the other side of the house and the new house will have a garage. The Committee then invited those appearing in opposition to address the Committee. Ms. M. Richards addressed the Committee advising that she lives across the street from the subject property, at 81 Fourth Avenue. She stated that she is concerned about the resale value of her property. She stated that the applicants are proposing to put a house in their existing driveway and it won't be an appealing view. Mr. D. Johnson, 80 Fourth Avenue, addressed the Committee stating that he is concerned about the narrow lot and the fact that the house which could be built there could only have a width of 17 ft.. He was also concerned that the house would block the view of the neighbours. Further, he was concerned about the driveway location. The Chairman questioned staff with respect to the required building setback for this lot. Ms. J. Given advised that the house must be setback a minimum of 4.58 m but the garage or an outdoor parking space must be setback a minimum of 6 m. Mr. W. Davis advised that he was concerned with where parking would occur and the setback of the building from the street. The Chairman read extracts from the Department of Planning & Development report concerning compliance with Zoning requirements to the objectors, indicating that the lot complies in all respects with the zoning by- law. Mr. Johnson stated that every other property on the street has the house centred on the lot. He advised that he lives next door to the severed parcel and would be the neighbour most directly affected by the application. 6. Submission No. B 6/96 - Konrad & Karin Lehman - cont'd Ms. Richards questioned whether this was a done deal and what the process would be after this Committee's approval. The Chairman explained the building permit process and also explained that the Committee of Adjustment is not approving the zoning for this property, which has already been approved by City Council. Mr. W. Dahms questioned whether Mr. Pawelowski will be obtaining the services of a land surveyor to site the house; as the Committee would not like to have to deal with a variance to the zoning by-law in the future. Mr. Pawelowski explained the type of house proposed for the lot and that he will try to construct a house which fits in with the neighbourhood and that he will have to supply a surveyor's plan to apply for a building permit. The Chairman spoke to the objectors stating that they are talking about the development of the land and how it will be used, which he agreed was a legitimate concern for them; however, the Committee's consideration in this application is the dividing of the land and whether both parcels comply with the zoning by-law and official plan. If the applicant was applying for a variance to the zoning by-law, their concerns would be taken into consideration by the Committee. Although the development of the lot is a concern for the neighbours it is not an issue for this Committee at this time. Moved by Mr. D. McKnight Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Konrad & Karin Lehman requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Fourth Avenue of 7.65 m (25.1 ft.) by a depth of approximately 40.255 m (132.07 ft.) and having an COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 18 JANUARY 30, 1996 area of 340.878 m2 (3,669.3 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 72, Registered Plan 254, 86 Fourth Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the owners shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to five percent (5%) of the value of the lands to be severed. That the owner 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 owners shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Department of Public Works for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. That the owners shall install, at their cost and to the City's standards, boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands; with the said works to be guaranteed through the posting of a Letter of Credit or other suitable financial securities to the City's Department of Public Works and to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. 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 January 30, 1998. 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 7/96 - Hureng Developments Limited, 85 Mclntyre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Part Lot 14, Registered Plan 1471, Being Part 11, Reference Plan 58R-5668, 85 Mclntyre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. S. Jefferson K. Smart Associates Limited 85 Mclntyre Drive Kitchener, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Mclntyre Drive of 52.99 m (173.86 ft.) by a depth of 79.45 m (260.67 ft.) and having area of 0.3495 hectares (37,621.1 sq. ft.). The use of the property will be a Business Park use. The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land with a frontage of 52.99 metres, a lot depth of 79.45 metres and a lot area of 0.3495 hectares from of a parcel of land with a frontage of 27.45 metres, a lot depth of 69.17 metres and a lot area 0.2889 hectares. The lands to be retained are developed and function independently of the lands to be severed and are subject to Section 41 development COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 19 JANUARY 30, 1996 agreement which is registered on title; the lands to be severed are vacant. Both the severed and retained lands comply with the Zoning By-law and allow for appropriate development of the lands. The lands to be retained will require a supplementary agreement to replace the existing Schedule "B" registered on title with the revised site plan so that the agreement will pertain to the lands to be retained only. The lands to be severed will be subject to Site Plan Approval and a Section 41 Development Agreement at the time of development. The Department of Planning and Development recommend approval of Consent Application B 6/96 subject to the following condition: 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 noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this Submission. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no objection to this application. The Committee noted the report of Ms. E. Caston, Senior Resource Planner, Grand River conservation Authority, in which she advised that there are no objections to the proposed severance; however, there are concerns with a small portion of the retained lands. Future alteration or construction on the retained lands will require prior approval from the Grand River Conservation Authority. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Jefferson advised that he has reviewed all of the staff comments and he is in agreement with them. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway 7. Submission No. B 7/96 - Hurenq Developments Limited - cont'd That the application of Hureng Developments Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Mclntyre Drive of 52.99 m (173.86 ft.) by a depth of 79.45 m (260.67 ft.) and having area of 0.3495 hectares (37,621.1 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 14, Registered Plan 1471, Being Part 11, Reference Plan 58R-5668, 85 Mclntyre Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following condition: That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements 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 January 30, 1998. 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 8/96 - Pieter Vos Limited, 389 Pinnacle Drive, Kitchener, Ontario COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 20 JANUARY 30, 1996 Re: Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, Being Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-7954, 39 Daan Valley Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. W. Dahms declared a conflict of interest with this application as his law firm represents an abutting property owner and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. P. Vas 389 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener, ON Mr. J. Redmond 131 Union Street East Waterloo, Ontario CONTRA: NONE WRITTENSUBMISSIONS: INSUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Doon Valley Drive of 7.2 m (23.63 ft.) by a depth of 25 m (82.02 ft.) and having an area of 994 m2 (10,699.68 sq. ft.); reserving a right-of-way for municipal services and public utilities on Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-7954. The use of the property is residential. 8. Submission No. B 8/96 - Pieter Vas Limited - cant'd The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land which houses an existing single detached dwelling and is 28.2 metres by 35 metres and has an area of 994 square metres from a larger holding which is irregular in shape and has a lot area of 1.4 hectares. The applicant is also requesting permission to retain a right-of-way over Part 2, 58R-7954 in favour of the lands to be retained. The subject lands, including the lands to be severed and the lands to be retained are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The land to be retained is currently vacant but has the potential to be developed. The heritage designation is intended to protect the existing heritage dwelling and its surroundings. The proposed severance will ensure that the heritage building is retained when the vacant lands are developed. However, a Heritage Impact Assessment may still be required at the development approval stage for the retained lands. The Owners should make a request to Council to repeal the existing designating By-law which covers both lands to be retained and the lands to be severed and request that a new By-law be passed to designated only the lands to be severed. The lands to be retained will gain access to a public road via Parts 3 and 4 of Plan 58R-7422, together with a right-of-way over Parts 2 and 5 of 58R-7422, which access and right of way are being created through Consent Application B 79/95. The applicant is requesting an additional right-of-way over Part 2, 58R-7954, which extends in front of the existing heritage dwelling over part of the closed Pinnacle Drive. The requested right-of-way will not be appropriate as a main access to the subject lands since it is not wide enough to meet City standards for two way traffic and since it runs in front of the existing heritage dwelling. However, the proposed right-of-way may be appropriate as an emergency access to the retained lands. The actual use of and need for the right-of-way will be reviewed at the development approval stage. Further, while parkland dedication would typically be taken as a condition of the severance, it is being deferred to the time of development and will be taken as a condition of Section 41 approval. As the severance of the dwelling permits its continuation as a single dwelling while allowing for the future development of the retained lands, the severance is appropriate. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 21 JANUARY 30, 1996 The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Severance Application B 8/96, subject to the following condition: 1. That the deeds be finally endorsed for Consent Application B 79/95. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this Submission. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no objection to this application. Mr. J. Redmond addressed the Committee advising that he has read all of the staff comments and is in agreement with them. When questioned by the Committee on the need for the right-of-way Mr. Redmond stated that he would like to leave open the possibility for an emergency access for potential future development. Moved by A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the application of Pieter Vos Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Doon Valley Drive of 7.2 m (23.63 ft.) by a depth of 25 m (82.02 ft.) and having an area of 994 m2 (10,699.68 sq. ft.); reserving a right-of-way for municipal services and public utilities on Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, Being Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-7954, 39 Doon Valley Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED, subject to the following condition: 8. Submission No. B 8/96 - Pieter Vos Limited - cont'd 1. That the deeds for Consent Application B 79/95 shall be finally endorsed. 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 January 30, 1998. 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 9/96 - Lloyd Shimens Limited, 64 William Street West, Waterloo, Ontario Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 364, 112 Duke Street East, Kitchener, Ontario. - and - Re: Submission No. A 6/96 - Lloyd Shimens Limited, 64 William Street West, Waterloo, Ontario Parts of Lot 1, Registered Plan 364, 108 & 112 Duke Street East, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. D. Lishman Metz & Lorentz 71 Weber Street East COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 22 JANUARY 30, 1996 Kitchener, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that in Submission No. B 9/96 the applicant is requesting permission to convey and mortgage a parcel of land having a width on Duke Street East of 11.887 m (39 ft.) by a depth of 30.36 m (99.6 ft.) and having an area of 333.1 m2 (3,585 sq. ft.). This land will be conveyed together with a right-of- way over the whole of Wilton Place which is a private right-of-way. The owner will also retain a right-of-way over the whole of Wilton Place to the benefit of the retained lands at 108 Duke Street East. These rights-of- way already exist. The Committee was further advised that, in Submission No. A 6/96 the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing fourplex at 112 Duke Street East, which, when severed, will have a westerly sideyard of 0.9 m (2.94 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.). The applicant is also requesting legalization of an existing duplex and detached garage at 108 Duke Street East. The duplex will, when severed, have an easterly sideyard of 1.1 m (3.64 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.). The detached garage will have a 9. Submission No. B 9/96 - Lloyd Shimens Limited - cont'd - and - Submission No. A 6/96 - Lloyd Shimens Limited - cont'd southerly sideyard of 0.09 m (0.3 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.). The applicant is also requesting permission to provide two parking spaces in tandem, for the duplex, one space in the garage and one space in front of the garage. The Committee was further advised that, in Submission No. A 6/96 the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing fourplex at 112 Duke Street East, which, when severed, will have a westerly sideyard of 0.9 m (2.94 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.). The applicant is also requesting legalization of an existing duplex and detached garage at 108 Duke Street East. The duplex will, when severed, have an easterly sideyard of 1.1 m (3.64 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.). The detached garage will have a southerly sideyard of 0.09 m (0.3 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.). The applicant is also requesting permission to provide two parking spaces in tandem, for the duplex, one space in the garage and one space in front of the garage. The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land with two existing dwellings. The subject lands were previously held in separate title, but are now merged in title. Variances are requested in conjunction with the severance. Both the retained and severed lands are subject to and together with easements and rights-of-way. The proposed severance would re-establish the original lot boundaries so that no new easements or rights-of- way are necessary. Access to both lots is from Wilton Place, a private right-of-way. The lands to be severed (Parts 1 and 2) are used as a fourplex and comply with all zoning regulations except the west side yard of 0.89 metres, where a 1.2 metre side yard is required. The lands to be retained (Parts 3, 4 and 5) are used as a duplex. Variances have been requested for tandem parking, for an east side yard of 1.10 metres for the existing dwelling, and for a south side yard of 0.09 metres for the existing detached garage. The first variance is not required as the by-law permits tandem parking for duplexes. Both side yard variances for the existing dwellings maintain the general intent and purpose of the by-law and official plan by providing a reasonable separation between the dwellings and the lot line. The impact of these variances is minor as the dwellings are existing. The variances are desirable for the appropriate COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 23 JANUARY 30, 1996 development and use of the land as the separation between the buildings is an existing situation, whether or not they are on separate lots. Planning and Development staff do not support the side yard variance for the detached garage. The garage is in poor condition, which does not justify the need for the variance. Furthermore, based on the condition of the garage and the limited width of the garage door it is questionable as to whether it could even be used for the parking of a vehicle. If the garage were to remain, it is close enough to both the rear lot line and the proposed lot line that the occupants of the retained lands would likely cross the severed lands to get from the parking spaces to the dwelling. For this reason, and for maintenance purposes, a right-of-way or easement would be necessary over the severed lands. Staff do not find that the variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land. Rather than a variance to permit the line of severance 0.09 metres from the garage, with a resulting right-of-way, maintenance easement and eave encroachment, staff recommend demolition of the garage. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Application A 6/96 only for a west side yard of 0.89 metres on the severed lands, and an east side yard of 1.10 metres on the retained lands. 9. Submission No. B 9/96 - Lloyd Shimens Limited - cont'd - and - Submission No. A 6/96 - Lloyd Shimens Limited - cont'd The Department recommends approval of Application B 9~96 subject to the following conditions: That Minor Variance Application A 6~96, for a west side yard of 0.89 metres on the severed lands, and an east side yard of 1.10 metres on the retained lands, receive final approval. 2. That the existing detached garage be removed from the retained lands. That a Rental Housing Protection Act application be approved to permit the severance of the subject 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 noted the comments of the Director of Building & Inspections in which he advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this Submission. The Committee noted the comments of Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division, in which he questioned wither the existing garage is usable as a legal parking space. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no objection to this application, subject to certain conditions. Mr. Lishman addressed the Committee advising that he has read all the staff comments and has concerns with some of the requested conditions. With respect to the requested conditions of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, Mr. Lishman advised that the applicant has agreed to the road widening requested; however, they are not in agreement with the request to close-off the driveway ramp. Mr. Lishman advised that the driveway ramp is only located on municipally owned property and not on the applicant's property as there is no driveway in this location. Both property gain access from Wilton Place. The access ramp is set between the two properties and rights-of-way would be needed to be established for both properties to use this access. It was his position that, to fulfil this condition, would cause undue hardship on the owners. Concerning the City's requested condition to remove the existing garage, Mr. Lishman advised that the owner is willing to take down the garage but there is a timing problem, as the property is to be sold at the end of March. There would be a problem trying to demolish the garage now due to the weather. Mr. Lishman advised the Committee that, due to illness, the applicant's daughter is looking after this matter and due to the fact that there is not much value to the property, she is trying to keep costs down. Further, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 24 JANUARY 30, 1996 the limits of the land are not being changed as these lots were originally created in the early 1900's. Mr. D. McKnight stated that the Planning Act gives the Committee the right to impose conditions which it feels are reasonable, having regard to the nature of the development. It was his opinion that, if the road widening requested by the Region is to be required in the decision, it would not be reasonable to require anything further. Mr. J. Gothard advised that he was in agreement with Mr. McKnight and that the owners would not be able to make use of the curb cut without approval of rights-of-way. Mr. Dahms questioned whether Duke Street is included in the Regions Official Plan as a road to be widened. Ms. J. Given stated that she assumed that it is and felt that the Region would appeal the decision if the road widening was not included as a condition of approval. 9. Submission No. B 9/96 - Lloyd Shimens Limited - cont'd - and - Submission No. A 6/96 - Lloyd Shimens Limited - cont'd Mr. A. Galloway questioned whether the road widening is required across the severed and retained lands and whether Mr. Lishman is in agreement with amending the application for Minor Variance as outlined in the Planning Department comments. A discussion then took place over possible alternatives for removing the garage. In the end, Mr. Lishman agreed to the condition as requested by the Department of Planning & Development. Mr. Lishman requested that the Application for Minor Variance be amended in accordance with the Department of Planning & Development comment. Mr. Lishman also agreed to a road widening across the severed and retained parcels if required by the Region. Mr. D. McKnight questioned whether there would be a problem with the building setback once the 13 ft. road widening is taken by the Region. Ms. Given advised that the by-law requires a maximum setback and not a minimum setback, so there should not be a problem. Submission No. B 9/96 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Lloyd Shimens Limited requesting permission to convey and mortgage a parcel of land having a width on Duke Street East of 11.887 m (39 ft.) by a depth of 30.36 m (99.6 ft.) and having an area of 333.1 m2 (3,585 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 364, 112 Duke Street East, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 6~96. 2. That the owners shall remove the existing detached garage from the retained lands. That a Rental Housing Protection Act application be approved to permit the severance of the subject lands. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with 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 Regional Municipality of Waterloo, without cost or encumbrance, a 13 ft. road widening across the property. 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 January 30, 1998. It is the opinion of this Committee that: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 25 JANUARY 30, 1996 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. A 6/96 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Lloyd Shimens Limited requesting legalization of westerly sideyard at 112 Duke Street East of 0.89 m (2.94 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.) and an easterly sideyard at 108 Duke Street East of 1.1 m (3.64 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.94 ft.) on Parts of Lot 1, Registered Plan 364, 108 & 112 Duke Street East, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNED On Motion, the meeting adjourned. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 30th, day of January 1996. D. H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment