Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1997-01-14COA\1997-01-14 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 14, 1997 MEMBERS PRESENT: OFFICIALS PRESENT: Messrs. W Dahms, D. McKnight, S. Kay and A. Galloway. Mr. J. Gothard was in attendance for part of the meeting. Mr. J. Willmer, Intermediate Planner, Rob Morgan, Zoning Administration Co- ordinator, and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. W. Dahms, Vice-Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.. O.A.C.A. AND MUNICIPAL WORLD Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That Messrs. J. Gothard, W. Dahms, A. Galloway, S. Kay and D. McKnight be permitted memberships in the Ontario Association of Committees of Adjustment and Consent Authorities for 1997, at a total cost of $310.00. Carried Moved by Mr. D. McKnight Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That Messrs J. Gothard, W. Dahms, A. Galloway, S. Kay and D. McKnight be permitted to attend the annual conference of the Ontario Association of Committees of Adjustment and Consent Authorities in Thunder Bay, Ontario, from June 1 - 4, 1997, with the City to pay the normal expenses incurred. Carried Moved by Mr. D. McKnight Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That Messrs J. Gothard, W. Dahms, A. Galloway, S. Kay and D. McKnight be permitted 1997 subscriptions to Municipal World at a total cost of $220.00. Carried MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of December 10, 1996, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried MINOR VARIANCE UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission No. A 64/96 - Mike Schumacher and Barbara Schumacher, 38 Silver COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 2 JANUARY 14, 1997 Re: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Aspen Cres., Kitchener, Ontario Lot 209, Registered Plan 1334, 38 Silver Aspen Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. M. Schumacher 38 Silver Aspen Crescent Kitchener, ON 1. Submission No. A 64/96 - Mike Schumacher and Barbara Schumacher - cont'd CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: Mr. R. Courchene 42 Silver Aspen Cres. Kitchener ON CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants have construct a deck at the southwest corner of the existing house and as a result the following variances have been created, which required approval: a sideyard on the deck of 0 m rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) and off-street parking located closer than 6 m (19.69 ft.) to Silver Aspen Crescent. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development of November 1, 1996, in which they advised that the subject lands are located at 38 Silver Aspen Crescent and are presently developed with a single detached dwelling. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential within the City's Municipal Plan and zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicants have illegally constructed a deck at the front and left sides of the dwelling which occupies the area required for the off-street parking space. The Zoning By-law requires the off-street parking space to be located a minimum of 6.0 metres from the street line. In this instance the deck is constructed within 5.5 metres of the streetline. In addition, the deck is elevated approximately 1.14 metres on the left side and has a side yard setback of 0.13 metres. Where a deck is elevated more than 0.60 metres above ground, a minimum setback of 1.2 metres is required. Further, as no building permit was obtained, the deck was constructed contrary to the Ontario Building Code. In response to municipal by-law enforcement efforts, the applicants are requesting the Committee of Adjustment to legalize the existing side yard setback and permit the required off-street parking space to be provided within 0 metres of the streetline. However, the Planning Act requires before an application for variance may be approved, it must be demonstrated that the proposal meets the general intent of both the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan, is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the property, and that the effect of the variance is deemed minor in nature. In this regard, the existing deck clearly does not meet the general intent of the Zoning By-law and it is questionable whether the location of the deck at 0.13 metres from the left property line is desirable given the impact on the abutting dwelling. Were this application being submitted prior to construction of the deck, staff would not be supportive of the proposed variances. Accordingly, the Department of Planning and Development recommends refusal of the application. The Committee noted the comments of Mr. K. Mayer, Traffic Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division, dated November 13, 1996, in which they advised that the Division has reviewed the application and has no concerns provided that a legal-size parking stall (18 ft. in length) can be accommodated between the front lot line and the existing deck. In this regard, they pointed out that the Engineering drawings indicate that the front lot line is approximately 13 ft. behind the curve. Mr. Schumacher submitted photographs of the subject property to the Committee. Mr. Schumacher advised the Committee that this is an unusual place to build a deck, but this is a small lot. To build a deck in the back would have taken up a large portion of the rearyard. Further, there is an air conditioning unit at the back which would have made a rear deck very noisy. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 3 JANUARY 14, 1997 Mr. Schumacher then explained that his driveway was cracked and sinking and the retaining wall along the driveway was falling down. The deck improved this situation. Before constructing the deck, Mr. Schumacher advised that his wife had called the City; however, there appears to have been a communication problem. Mr. Schumacher stated that the deck meets the requirements of the building code. No mention of the off-street parking space was made until the 1. Submission No. A 64~96 - Mike Schumacher and Barbara Schumacher - cont'd City became aware of the construction of the deck. Mr. Schumacher then stated that he contacted Ms. L. Dunn as soon as he received a letter from the City. He stated that he felt there was some confusion in how the by-law is worded; as he has a parking space which is 18 ft. long but not 6 m from the streetline. Mr. Schumacher then submitted a letter from the neighbour abutting the deck, advising that there are no objections to the application. Mr. Schumacher also pointed out that the photographs show that the deck is not a contributing factor to the number of cars parked on the street. Mr. S. Kay questioned Mr. Schumacher as to how many cars he owned and Mr. Schumacher stated that he owns one car. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. J. Willmer, Intermediate Planner, advised that the most significant issue for staff is that the deck takes up the parking space. There is also the issue of the inadequate sideyard on the deck and the fact that the applicant built the deck without the proper approvals. Mr. Willmer explained that the by-law requires an 18 ft. length for a parking stall which shall not be any closer than 20 ft. to the street line. This minimizes the number of cars which may be parked between the building and the street. The deck requires a 4 ft. sideyard. The impact of this deck is great because of the minimal sideyard provided. Further, by approving such an application, once an illegal situation exists, we are sending out a message to the community that they can build illegally and then get approval. Mr. Schumacher responded that there was an attempt to get the information from the City; however, there was a communication problem. If the deck is allowed then he will replace the retaining wall which was falling down. He stated that the rearyard doesn't provide for much privacy as the lot is small and there are 2 storey homes on the lots abutting at the rear. Mr. J. Willmer explained to the Committee that a ground level deck would not impact the neighbour as much; however; in this situation, this lot is at a higher elevation than the neighbour and the deck is an elevated deck. Mr. S. Kay questioned staff concerning the ambiguity over the parking issue. Mr. J. Willmer responded that it is difficult when discussing these matters with people over the phone. You do not have the same picture as the applicant has. Mr. W. Dahms questioned whether a plan is required when applying for a building permit for a deck. Mr. J. Willmer advised that a plan is required and if the applicant had applied for a building permit the problem would have been caught at that time. Mr. S. Kay questioned whether Mr. Schumacher had built the deck himself and Mr. Schumacher advised that he had. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he agreed with the comments made by staff. This application does not meet the intent of the zoning by-law. It was also constructed without a building permit which was the applicant's fault. He moved refusal of the application. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the application of Mike and Barbara Schumacher requesting legalization of an existing deck, at the front of the dwelling, having a sideyard of 0 m rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) and an off-street parking space located closer than 6 m (19.69 ft.) to Silver Aspen Crescent on Lot 209, Registered Plan 1334, 38 Silver Aspen Crescent, Kitchener Ontario BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is not minor in nature. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 4 JANUARY 14, 1997 2. This application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 1. Submission No. A 64/96 - Mike Schumacher and Barbara Schumacher - cont'd The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are not being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 71/96 - Julie Glass, 214 Woolwich Street, North, Ontario. Kitchener, Re: Lot 10, Registered Plan 349, 243 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. J. Glass & Mr. A. Ashley 214 Woolwich Street, North Kitchener, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to legalize parking in their driveway, closer than 6 m (19.69 ft.) to the property line along Glasgow Street. The Zoning by-law requires that a legal parking space be located no closer than 6 m (19.69 ft.) to the front property line. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development of November 1, 1996, in which they advised that the applicant requests permission to reduce the parking space setback from 6.0 metres to 2.77 metres, for the one parking space required for a single detached dwelling. The variance is requested because the attached garage was converted to living space over two years ago. The dwelling was constructed as a single detached dwelling, and was illegally converted to a four unit dwelling. Its most recent use was as a duplex. The property is now for sale as a single detached dwelling. The fact that the garage space has already been converted to living space should not be used to justify approval, as this would encourage residents to undertake illegal construction first and seek approvals later. Staff concede that the impact of the variance would be minor, as there is no exterior evidence that the garage space has been converted. However, given the property's history of use, approval of the variance would increase the likelihood of the dwelling becoming illegally converted to a duplex in the future. (Duplex is a permitted use in the R-4 Zone, but both of the required parking spaces would be in front of the building.) Furthermore, it would be difficult to provide visitor or additional vehicle parking as on-street parking is prohibited on Glasgow Street. On this basis, the variance is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the building. The zoning by-law does not prohibit parking in the driveway leading to the garage, nor does it require that the parking space in the garage be used; however, the general intent and purpose of the by-law is that a parking space should be available in a garage, carport or sideyard in order to minimize the number of vehicles parked in front of the building. The proposal does not maintain this intent as all parking provided for the dwelling would have to be in front of the dwelling. This is evident now as two vehicles have been parking side by side in a single width driveway, with the result that one is parked partially on the lawn. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 5 JANUARY 14, 1997 In the opinion of staff, the proposal fails to meet at least two of the four tests set out in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act. The Department of Planning and Development recommends refusal of Submission A 71/96. 2. Submission No. A 71/96 - Julie Glass - cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division, dated December 5, 1996, in which they advised that the Division has reviewed this application and have no concerns regarding the location of the legal parking space. Ms. Glass addressed the Committee stating that she is asking for one parking space. She advised that the property is currently being marketed as a single family dwelling and the second unit will be vacated by March 1, 1997. Ms. Glass stated that she is willing to remove anything which makes this property look like a duplex. Ms. Glass stated that she felt it was unreasonable, at this time, to tear out the garage renovations and return it to a garage, as the renovations cost $20,000 and the garage was not used as a garage when she purchased the property. Mr. J. Willmer addressed the Committee stating that this is another situation where this Committee is being asked to approve variances after the fact. The parking should be setback from the street, however, in its favour, this building appears, on the street, like the rest of the street. Also, Ms. Glass has come a long way towards compliance with the by-law, as this building was once used as a fourplex. Mr. D. McKnight stated that what is being presented to the Committee is a single family dwelling. He questioned staff as to the problem. Mr. J. Willmer stated that the parking should be located 6 m from the streetline. If the Committee approves this application, what would prevent approval of similar applications throughout the City. Mr. McKnight stated that he agreed with the required distance of parking from the street, as you should be able to see sidewalks and the street clearly when backing out. Mr. S. Kay questioned what evidence Ms. Glass could produce to prove that this property has been converted to a single family dwelling. Ms. Glass advised that the property is listed on the MLS as a single family dwelling but she had no evidence with her. Mr. S. Kay then questioned the current use of the property and was advised by Ms. Glass that a woman is currently living in the unit in the garage and another in the house. Both tenants have been given notice. Mr. Kay then questioned what physical evidence there was that the garage is a separate unit. Ms. Glass responded that there is a separate kitchen facility with cupboards and stove. When questioned further by the Committee, Ms. Glass explained those things, such as cupboards which still exist in the building and a history of the use of the property since she purchased it. With respect to visitor parking, Ms. Glass advised that on-street parking is permitted on Marina Street and Earl Street. Mr. D. McKnight stated that he did not wish a sanction to apply to this house for use other than a single family dwelling. He put forward a motion to refuse the application. Mr. S. Kay stated that he had some difficulty with the application. He had some concerns about the physical structure as it is today. He would have some concerns about approving parking for a single family dwelling if a subsequent owner could easily change the building back to a duplex. He stated that he would have been more inclined toward the application if Ms. Glass could have proved that this is a single family dwelling. He stated that he was inclined to agree with the motion on the floor unless the applicant would agree to a deferral to provide evidence of the physical conversion of this property to a single family dwelling. Mr. A. Ashely addressed the Committee stating that a lot of time and money has been spent in an attempt to convert this property to a single family dwelling. Mr. Ashley stated that he had photographs of houses on Glasgow Street where the garages have been converted to family rooms and they park in the driveway. He stated that what the Committee is asking will cost a lot of time and money. Mr. J. Willmer stated that with the counters and cupboards remaining in the basement and garage, the property could easily be converted. If they are removed, it would look after one of staff's concerns. Mr. Willmer stated that there are many single family dwellings which have garages that are not used for parking; however, when the owner gets a second car, they can clear out the garage and use it for parking. When the garage has been converted to living space, this is not a possibility. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 6 JANUARY 14, 1997 2. Submission No. A 71/96 - Julie Glass - cont'd Ms. Glass advised that she agreed to the deferral to allow her an opportunity to physically convert the property to a single family dwelling. Mr. McKnight withdrew his motion and it was agreed by all parties that consideration of this application be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Tuesday March 25, 1997. Submission No. A 73/96 - Woodhouse Contracting Ltd., 207 Madison Avenue South, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 368, 207 Madison Avenue South, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. K. Woodhouse 207 Madison Avenue, South Kitchener, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a new rear addition with a rearyard setback of 1.2 m (4 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) and permission to locate parking spaces up to the Iotline along Hopp Street rather than providing the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) setback. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting a reduction in the rear yard set back from 7.5 metres to 1.2 metres to allow the construction of a new addition which is proposed to replace an older wood frame existing structure. The existing structure has a rear yard set back of 1.0 metre. In addition, the applicant is asking for relief from the 3.0 metre set back required for parking spaces or aisles adjacent to streets. The intent is to legalize the existing parking which has a zero set back from Hopp Street. Consideration of this application was deferred from the December 9, 1996 Committee of Adjustment meeting so that a Site Plan Application could be submitted and a full technical review could be completed. Site Plan Application SP96/36/M/PB has been submitted and considered by the Project Review Committee (P.R.C). Project Review Committee did not support the request to allow parking adjacent to Hopp Street as the parking would have to reverse onto Hopp Street. The Committee recommended that the plan be approved subject to parking being developed to the north of the building as shown on the attached plan dated January 7, 1997. The Owner agrees to amend the application to eliminate the request to allow parking adjacent to Hopp Street. The subject property fronts onto Madison Avenue and is bounded to the south by Hopp Street. The northern boundary of the property is adjacent to the Schneider Creek and the former Grand River Railway lands which are now owned by the City and have been converted to a trail. The rear yard of the subject lands back onto a commercial plaza. Due to the odd shape parcel of land the rear yard is considered the lot line farthest from and opposite the front lot line and it is as a result of the odd shape lot that the rear yard variance is being requested. The Zoning By-law allows triangular shaped lots to calculate the rear yard from where the two side lot lines intersect. The intersecting lot lines to the rear of this odd shape lot form a similar problem when compared to a triangular lot. The proposed addition is set back 7.5 metres from the intersecting lot lines to the rear of the property and in this respect the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law are being maintained. The proposed addition follows the same general set backs as the existing structure 2. Submission No. A 73/96 - Woodhouse Contractinq Ltd. - cont'd COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 7 JANUARY 14, 1997 which is to be demolished and in view of this the effect of the variance will be minor. The addition is proposed to replace the existing wood structure which will be more structurally sound than the existing structure and in this regard is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Application A 73/96 only to reduce the rear from 7.5 metres to 1.2 metres, subject to the following condition: That the variance shall apply to the development as shown on the attached site plan, dated January 7, 1997, with minor changes being permitted by the Manager of Design Heritage and Environment provided they do not alter the variances to the by-law. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division, dated December 5, 1996, in which they advised that the Division has reviewed this application and note that the first two parking stalls adjacent to Hopp Street are not functional due to the extent of the existing concrete curbing along the roadway. Also, these parking stalls do not meet the minimum required depth of 5.5 m. They also questioned the need to locate parking here in view of the large area available on the north side of the building. The Committee noted the comments of Mrs. E. Caston, Senior Resource Planner, Grand River Conservation Authority, dated December 5, 1996, in which she advised that the property is located entirely within the Flood Plain of Schneider Creek. The site is within a two zone policy area in accordance with Provincial Flood Plain Policies and is designated in the Municipal Plan for the City of Kitchener. The property straddles both the flood way and flood fringe portions of the flood plain. Site plans showing the location of the proposed addition and parking spaces have not been received by the G.R.C.A.; therefore, they were unable to determine whether the works are located within the floodway or flood fringe. A Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Permit is required from the G.R.C.A. for the construction of the proposed addition. To date they have not processed or received a permit application for the proposed works. At the request of Mr. Woodhouse the Committee agreed to consider an amendment to the application in accordance with the Planning Department comments. Moved by S. Kay Seconded by A. Galloway That the application of Woodhouse Contracting Ltd. requesting permission to construct a new rear addition with a rearyard setback of 1.2 m (4 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) on Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 368, 207 Madison Avenue, South, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the development as shown on the site plan dated January 7, 1997, with minor changes being permitted by the Manager of Design, Heritage and Environment, provided they do not alter the variances to the by-law. That the applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Grand River Conservation Authority prior to constructing the addition. 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 APPLICATIONS 1. Submission No. A 2/97 - Golden Triangle Oils Limited, 2600 King Street Kitchener, Ontario East, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 8 JANUARY 14, 1997 Re: APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Block E, Registered Plan 1365, 340 Kingswood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. B. Wilson 54 Maywood Road Kitchener, ON Mr. S. McQuarry 2600 King Street East Kitchener ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a kiosk, which would be setback 4 m (13.13 ft.) from the required corner visibility triangle, rather than the required 6 m (19.85 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant has requested a reduction in a side yard set back adjacent to a street from 6.0 metres to 4.0 metres. The subject site is located on the corner of Kingswood Drive and Block Line Road. The side yard was created as a result of widening for a daylight triangle. The applicant is proposing to construct a kiosk approximately 1.8 metres by 1.8 metres to accommodate the full service attendants of the gas bar. A concurrent Site Plan Application has been submitted and Site Plan Approval was issued January 2, 1997 for Application SPR96/84/K/PB subject to this variance application receiving final approval. The yard adjacent to the proposed kiosk was created as a result of a road widening for a daylight triangle. The Region's intent in acquiring land for daylight triangles is to prevent the construction of buildings or other obstructions to visibility within the triangle itself, not to impose an increased setback from the widened road allowance. In this regard, the location of the kiosk meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The kiosk is set back 6.0 metres from Kingswood Drive and Block Line Road and 10 metres from where the two streets intersect. In view of this, the impact of the variance is also considered minor. The development of the kiosk in this location is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands, as the proposed kiosk will improve the operation of the site, in that it will function more efficiently. In considering the above, the Department of Planning and Development has no objections to the proposed variance as it is technical in nature. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Application A 2/97, subject to the following condition: That the variance shall apply to the development as shown on the approved site plan, dated January 2, 1997, with minor changes being permitted to the approved site plan provided they do not alter the variances to the by-law. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that given the intended use of the proposed kiosk for attendance of the "full service" portion of the gas bar, they have no concerns with the location of this facility as proposed. 1. Submission No. A 2/97 - Golden Trianqle Oils Limited - cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required for the new kiosk. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 9 JANUARY 14, 1997 Mr. Wilson questioned why a building permit is required, as the kiosk will only be 36 sq. ft. Mr. Willmer responded that perhaps the building division did not realize the size of the kiosk. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the application of Golden Triangle Oils Ltd. requesting permission to construct a kiosk with a setback of 4 m (13.13 ft.) from the required corner visibility triangle rather than the required 6 m (19.85 ft.) on Block E, Registered Plan 1365, 340 Kingswood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the development only as shown on the approved site plan, dated January 2, 1997, with minor changes being permitted to the approved site plan provided that they do not alter the variances to the by-law. 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 3~97 - Nghia Nguyen, 340 Courtland Avenue East, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 25, Registered Plan 239, 340 Courtland Avenue East, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. & Mrs. Nghia Nguyen 340 Courtland Avenue East Kitchener, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised the applicant is proposing to have a home business and requires two off- street parking spaces. The request in this application is to provide the two parking spaces in tandem, one in the garage and one in the driveway, rather than two parking spaces side by side. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to operate a personal service home business which requires variance approval to legalize a parking deficiency. The applicant is requesting permission to provide two off-street parking spaces in tandem. One of the parking spaces would be provided in a detached garage whereas the other parking space would be located in the driveway. 2. Submission No. A 3/97 - Nqhia N,quyen - cont'd The by-law requires two legal off-street parking spaces, one space for the dwelling and one space for the home business. According to the applicant there will be no non-resident employees. There is a single COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 10 JANUARY 14, 1997 detached garage in the rear yard which would accommodate one legal off-street parking space. The applicant has confirmed that their vehicle would be parked in the garage at all times. The applicant also indicated that because she will only be having one client at the premises at any one time, there would only be one customer parking at the property at a time. The format for her daily appointments would not cause there to be two clients at the property at any one time. This procedure would eliminate the possibility of one client waiting to enter the property while the other client was still parked in the driveway. It should be noted that the parking space located in the driveway complies with the minimum setback of 6.0 m (20 ft.) from the property line abutting Courtland Avenue East. This request can be considered minor in nature and the general intent of the by-law is being met as this small, one person operation would appear to function suitably with a tandem parking arrangement and it would not appear to adversely affect the enjoyment of the abutting properties. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the application as shown on the survey plan submitted with the application. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Engineering, Regional Municipality of Waterloo, in which they advised that, at this location, Courtland Avenue has an existing road allowance width of 60 ft. and a designated road allowance width of 86 ft.; therefore a 13 ft. road widening is required from this property, although it may not be appropriate to acquire the road widening under this application. The applicant should be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charges by-law as amended and payment may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Moved by Mr. D. McKnight Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Nghia Nguyen requesting permission to provide two off-street parking spaces in tandem, one in the existing garage and one in the existing driveway, rather than two parking spaces side- by-side, for a residence and a home business on Lot 25, Registered Plan 239, 340 Courtland Avenue East, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the parking arrangement only as shown on the plan submitted with this application. 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 5/97 - David John Armstrong, 140 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 8 and Part Lots 7 & 9, Registered Plan 222, 140 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. D. Armstrong 140 Highland Road West Kitchener, Ontario 3. Submission No. A 5/97 - David John Armstronq - cont'd CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 11 JANUARY 14, 1997 IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: Chris Jastrebski 130 Highland Road West Kitchener, Ontario The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide a second driveway and parking area on the east side of the property for a home business. The by-law requires a lot width of 30 m (98.4 ft.) for a second driveway and this lot has a width of 28.4 m (93.15 ft.). The Committee reviewed the comments of the Department of Planning and Development, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to add a second driveway on a lot containing a single detached dwelling for the purposes of providing parking for a home business to be operated as an office. The by-law allows for a second driveway for single detached dwellings in cases where the lot width is a minimum of 30.0 m (98.4 ft.). The subject lot has a width of 28.4 m (93.15 ft.). A home business operated as an office which would attract clients to the premises is required to have two parking spaces if there is no additional employee and three spaces if there is an employee. The second driveway as proposed on the plan submitted with this application is considered desirable as it would allow the applicant's clients to exit in a forward motion onto Highland Road. The general intent of the By-law is to minimize the number of access points to Municipal roads. However, the By-law does recognize that on larger lots a second driveway may be desirable. As this lot has 95% of the required width it is staff's opinion that the requested variance is minor in nature and the general intent of the By-law and Municipal Plan are being net. The Department of Planning & Development recommends approval subject to the variance applying to the development as shown on the sketch submitted with the application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that this Division has no concerns regarding the proposed parking design. It is noted that a Regional Road entrance permit will be required and it is recommended that the proposed parking area be surfaced with asphalt. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Engineering Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and, at this location, Highland Road has an existing road allowance width of 60 ft. and a designated road allowance width of 86 ft.; therefore 13 ft. road widening is required from the property, although it may not be appropriate to acquire the road widening under this application. A Regional Road Entrance Permit, dated November 28, 1996, has been issued for this property. The Committee noted the written submission of Chris Jastrebski in which he advised that he resides adjacent to 140 Highland Road West and based on the fact that the property was dug up and a driveway and parking lot built on the property early in December the hearing is after the fact and unacceptable. Ms. B. Simpson advised that this is a request for a second driveway and 2 parking spaces for a home business. The City's Planning Department drew up the plans with a 13 ft. setback so that if and when a road widening is taken this property would comply. Ms. Simpson advised that the driveway is on the east side of the property and there is plenty of room. The objecting neighbour abuts the east side of the property. Mr. S. Kay questioned what stage the driveway is at and Ms. Simpson advised that it has been excavated and gravelled and a permit has been received from the Region. 3. Submission No. A 5/97 - David John Armstronq - cont'd Mr. A. Galloway questioned the nature of the home business and Ms. Simpson advised that it was to be a real estate office. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 12 JANUARY 14, 1997 That the application of David Armstrong requesting permission for a second driveway on a lot having a width of 28.4 m (93.15 ft.) rather than the required 30 m (98.4 ft.) on Lot 8 and Part Lots 7 & 9, Registered Plan 222, 140 Highland Road West, 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 6/97 - Rene & Rosalba Wolf, 62 Brentwood Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 117, Registered Plan 393, 96 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. R. Wolf 62 Brentwood Avenue Kitchener, ON CONTRA: Mr. J. Einstein 58 Brentwood Avenue Kitchener, ON WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached garage with a westerly sideyard of 0.36 m (1.167 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 applicants are proposing to construct a garage attached to the existing dwelling located at 62 Brentwood Avenue. The application as circulated proposes a side yard of 0.36 metres (1.167 feet) whereas the by-law requires a minimum of 1.2 metres (4 feet). The applicants have clarified the application as per their original design which proposes a side yard of 0.457 metres (1.5 feet). As a result, an additional variance is required as the by-law requires the minimum width for a parking space within a building to be 3.04 metres; the proposal provides a minimum width of 2.55 metres (8.375 feet). The interior width of the garage is typically 2.95 metres (9.7 feet), however the minimum width is measured at the narrowest portion of the garage, which is from the existing chimney located on the outside wall of the house. The applicants have considered the possibility of a detached garage to the rear of the existing house, however they feel that this would greatly reduce the useability of the rear yard of the lot. The applicants have also considered locating the attached garage to the opposite side of the existing house, the cost of a new driveway, curb cut and loss of landscaping and trees, as this 4. Submission No. A 6/97 - Rene & Rosalba Wolf - cont'd side yard is approximately 1.5 feet wider than the west side yard and the abutting dwelling is located approximately 9.5 feet away from the lot line therefore, allowing for a better distance between the two buildings, however they are concerned that the existing air conditioning utility equipment located on this side of the house impedes the development of a garage. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 13 JANUARY 14, 1997 The Department has concerns with the proposed application as typically the Department does not support a reduction of the side yard requirement for attached garages to less than 2 feet in order to allow some room for maintenance and access. This concern directly relates to issues of separation between the proposed garage addition and the neighbouring dwelling located at 58 Brentwood Avenue, which is approximately 4.5 feet from the common property line. The abutting dwelling has habitable room windows directly adjacent to the proposed garage and the construction of the proposed garage would be undesirable for the abutting lands and the proposed garage addition may increase the impact of shadowing on the abutting dwelling. The Department is also concerned with a further restriction of the width of the garage as a result of the existing chimney located on the inside of the proposed garage. The chimney further restricts the passage of persons once a car is located within the garage, as the internal width of the garage is only 8.375 feet, which is significantly less than the required minimum of 10 feet. The Department is also of the opinion that the requested variance is not desirable for the appropriate development of the lands considering the impact that it would have on the neighbour's use and enjoyment of their property. The Department strongly urges the Applicants to consider locating the proposed garage as a detached structure or an attached garage on the opposite side of the existing dwelling, where a greater side yard is available and provides a greater separation to abutting dwellings. The Department of Planning and Development is of the opinion that the impact of the requested variance, is not minor, does not meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and is not appropriate for the development of the subject lands given its negative impact on the abutting lands. The Department of Planning and Development recommends refusal of Application A 6/97. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct a new garage. There shall be no openings in a wall located less than 4 ft. from the property line and the wall shall be a minimum of 45 minute fire resistance rating and shall be clad with non-combustible cladding. Mr. J. Einstein addressed the Committee advising that he is the next door neighbour at 58 Brentwood Avenue and the proposed garage would abut his property. Mr. Dahms questioned the staff comments with respect to the need for an additional variance. Mr. J. Willmer advised that he had spoken with Mr. MacDonald, the applicant's agent who clarified the application and agreed that an additional variance is required. Mr. Einstein and Mr. Wolf both submitted photographs. A discussion took place as to whether Mr. Wolf wished to proceed with the application or to build the garage in another location on the property. It was agreed by all parties that consideration of this application be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Tuesday February 4, 1997, at which time Mr. Wolf is to advise the Committee whether he wishes to proceed with the application or not. 5. Submission No. A 7/97 - Tele-Connect Limited, 96 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lot 18, Registered Plan 393, 96 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario. As no one appeared is support of this application, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to its meeting scheduled for February 4, 1997. 6. Submission No. A 8/97 - Kubassek Homes (K-W) Ltd., R. R. #3, Bright, Ontario. Re: Lot 11, Registered Plan 1268, 90 Mooregate Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. R. Morgan Department of Planning & Development City of Kitchener COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 14 JANUARY 14, 1997 CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of decks with sideyard of 2.3 m (7.55 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.85 ft.). The Committee considered the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of decks with a sideyard of 2.3 m (7.55 ft) rather than the required 6 m (19.85 ft). A previous variance application (A 25~95) was submitted for the subject property in 1995. It approved a reduction in the south side yard, a reduction in the number of parking spaces and a reduction in the minimum floor space ratio. The subject variance concerns existing decks accessory to the multiple dwelling units located adjacent to the north side yard. When the decks were originally built, it was not recognized through city approvals that the decks, which are one-storey in height, would require a 6 metre setback. The intent of the required 6 metre setback, which includes decks that are elevated greater than 0.6 metre from grade, is to allow for privacy for the abutting properties. The decks in question abut a school site. In this regard the general intent of the zoning by-law and the municipal plan are being met as the decks would not adversely affect the enjoyment of the abutting property. Therefore the requested variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law. The impact of the variance is therefore minor and desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the variance applying to the structures as shown on the site plan prepared by Robert J. Dyck, Project No. 93-451, undated. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Kubassek Homes (K-W) Ltd. requesting legalization of existing decks with sideyards of 2.3 m (7.55 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.85 ft.) on Lot II, Registered Plan 12.68, 90 Mooregate Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition: That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the existing decks only as shown on the site plan prepared by Robert J. Dyck, Project No. 93.451, undated. 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. 6. Submission No. A 8/97 - Kubassek Homes (K-W) Ltd. - 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 CONSENT UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Submission No. B 69/96 - Lawrence Cluthe, 50 Old Mill Road, Kitchener, Ontario COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 15 JANUARY 14, 1997 Re: Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract being of Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-3555, 50 Old Mill Road, Kitchener, Ontario. The Committee was in receipt of a letter from Mr. J. Lennox, Solicitor for Mr. & Mrs. L. Cluthe, dated January 13, 1997, advising that this application has been withdrawn. Mr. J. Gothard entered the meeting at this time. APPLICATIONS Submission No.'s B 1/97 & B 2/97 - Maple Manor Ltd. R. R. #3, Waterloo, Ontario Re: Parts of Lot 9, Beasley's Broken Front Concession, Edgehill Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Mr. B. Green 5-745 Bridge Street West Waterloo ON CONTRA: NONE OTHERS: Mr. D. Gloin 258 Edgehill Drive Kitchener ON Mr. J. Lubcynski Department of Planning & Culture Region of Waterloo WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE OTHER: Chris & Richard Barristers & Solicitors 194 Weber Street East Kitchener ON Mr. & Mrs. D. Gloin 258 Edgehill Drive Kitchener ON Ms. J. Finlay 248 Edgehill Drive Kitchener ON The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever two parcels of land for residential development. Both parcels will have the same dimensions: Lot width 35 m (114.83 ft.), lot depth 60 m (196.85 ft.) and lot area 2050 m2 (22,066.74 sq. ft.). The applicant has not applied for any other Planning Act approval at this time. 2. Submission No.'s B 1/97 & B 2/97 - Maple Manor Ltd. - cont'd Mr. Green addressed the Committee advised that, as per the Planning & Developments comments, he is requesting deferral of these applications to Committee's meeting of February 25, 1997. The deferral is requested primarily because of the noise studies. He pointed out that the Region is also requesting deferral. Mr. Green advised that the O.M.B. will hear the noise issue this month and it will be resolved by COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 16 JANUARY 14, 1997 the February 25 meeting. Mr. Gloin addressed the Committee advising that he has submitted a letter and asked that it be considered at the February 25 meeting. The Chairman advised that if Mr. Gloin was unable to attend the February 25 meeting, the Committee will consider his letter. It was generally agreed that consideration of these submissions be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Tuesday February 25, 1997. Submission No.'s B 3/97 & B 4/97 and A 1/97 - James Terrill Dickson, R. R. #1, Waterloo, Ontario. Re: Part Lots 26 & 27, Registered Plan 577, 31 Bridge Street, Kitchener, Ontario. Mr. S. Kay declared a conflict of interest with these applications as his law firm represents the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to these applications. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. C. Miller 177 Victoria Street North Kitchener ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant requests permission to sever two parcel of land for residential development. The parcels will have the following dimensions: Submission No. B 3/97 Lot Width: Lot Depth: Lot Area: 11.29 m (37.03 ft.) 32 m (104.96 ft.) 360.79 m2 Submission No. B 4/97 Lot Width: Lot Depth: Lot Area: 13.5 m (44.29 ft.) 25.63 m (84.06 ft.) 345.86 m2 (3,722.9 sq. ft.) In Submission No. A 1/97 the applicant is requesting legalization of the location of the existing house, the applicant, if he receives approval of Submission No.'s B 3/97 and B 4/97, will be required to give a road widening and daylighting triangle to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and as a consequence, the existing house will be located too close to Bridge Street and Woolwich Street. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant is requesting consent to sever two new parcels from an existing large corner property located at 31 Bridge Street West (at the corner of Woolwich Street). The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential within the Municipal Plan and are zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is presently developed with a 2. Submission No.'s B 3/97 & B 4/97 and A 1/97 - James Terrill Dickson - cont'd duplex dwelling. The severance of the lot into two or three smaller lots has been contemplated for many years. In 1981, the Regional Land Division Committee gave its consent to the severance of one lot which COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 17 JANUARY 14, 1997 was never completed. The new owner has now submitted a new consent application for two additional lots. The severance of the subject property is permitted by the Municipal Plan and both of the proposed lots would conform to all applicable regulations of the R-6 Zone. However as a road widening would be required along both the Woolwich Street and Bridge Street frontages, the retained lot would become deficient with respect to the required side yards abutting a street and the required front yard. According to the Zoning By-law, the front lot line of a corner lot would be the shorter lot line abutting a street. Given the configuration of the property once the required road widening are granted, the frontage abutting the required daylighting triangle would be considered the front lot line, with the other frontages becoming side lot lines. To facilitate the severance of the property, the applicant has submitted a concurrent application for minor variance to request reductions in both the required front yard and side yards abutting a street. In this respect, the applicant requests the following variances: · a reduction in the front yard requirement from 4.5 metres to 0.3 metres; · a reduction in the left side yard abutting a street from the required 4.5 metres to 3.6 metres; and, · a reduction in the right side yard requirement from 4.5 metres to 3.2 metres. The requested variances are caused by the taking of road widening blocks adjacent to the existing dwelling and are relative only to the retained lands. While the road widening are required at this time as a result of the severance application, they are not necessitated by the severance. The road widening would still have to be obtained by the applicable road authority at some time in the future, thereby reducing the side and front yard setbacks at such other time. Due to the circumstances, the requested variances can be considered to meet the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. Further, since the variances would not affect the use of the retained or severed lands, the variances can be considered to be minor and desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. Accordingly, the Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the minor variance and consent applications. The Department of Planning and Development recommends that Minor Variance Application A 1/97 be approved without conditions and that Consent Applications B 3/97 and B 4/97 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That Minor Variance Application A 1/97 receive final approval. To install, at the Owner's cost and to the City's standards, boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands and retained lands. 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. 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. That any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvements be paid to the City of Kitchener. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in lieu contribution for park dedication equal to five percent of the value of the lands to be severed. 2. Submission No.'s B 3/97 & B 4/97 and A 1/97 - James Terrill Dickson - cont'd That the owner convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, a 3.962 metre road widening along the property's entire Woolwich Street frontage. 7. That the existing shed structure be removed and/or relocated to the retained lands. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture for the Regional COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 18 JANUARY 14, 1997 Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that the purpose of these applications is to create two lots from an existing residential lot at the intersection of Bridge Street and Woolwich Street. The proposed lots are outside the boundary of the limited development approval area established by Regional Council with respect to the Bridge Street area transportation study. As such, Regional staff have no objections to the proposed lots in terms of traffic capacity along Bridge Street. Regional staff have no concerns or comments with respect to application B 3/97. However, the following comments should be noted by the Committee with respect to application B 4/97. At this location, Bridge Street has an existing road allowance width of 60 ft. and a designated width of 86 ft. As such, a 13 ft. road widening will be required across the Bridge Street frontage of this property. A 25 ft. daylighting triangle is also required at the intersection of Bridge Street and Woolwich Street on the retained parcel. The plan attached to the consent application appears to correctly illustrate the required road widening and daylight triangle. In addition, a Regional Road Entrance Permit will be required for the proposed access to Bridge Street. The proposed access must be located at the easterly limit at the property and should be designed with a 3.7 m - 6 m throat width and a 1.5 m radii. As a condition of approval of this application, the applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the Region to submit a detailed lot grading and drainage control plan for the proposed lot, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The drainage control plan must show the drainage details for the subject property, abutting properties and the road allowance to ensure compatible drainage. Based on existing and projected traffic volumes along Bridge Street, Regional staff have completed a preliminary noise assessment for this application. This assessment indicates that predicted noise levels for this lot will exceed the Region's noise level objective by approximately 1 - 5 decibels. To address this concern, the owner will be required to enter into an agreement to include a noise warning clause in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for the proposed lot. When questioned by the Committee, Ms. Miller advised that the applicant could comply all those requested conditions of staff. Submission No. B 3/97 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. J. Gothard That the application of James Terrill Dickson requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Woolwich Street of 11.29 m (37.03 ft.) by a depth of 32 m (104.96 ft.) and having an area of 360.79 m2 (3,883.6 sq. ft.) on Part Lots 26 & 27, Registered Plan 577, 31 Bridge Street West, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 1/97. That the owner shall install, at his cost and to City standards, boulevard landscaping, including street trees and a paved driveway ramp on the severed lands and retained 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. That the owner 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. 2. Submission No.'s B 3/97 & B 4/97 and A 1/97 - James Terrill Dickson - cont'd Submission No. B 3~97 - cont'd 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 pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, a 3.962 m road widening along the property's entire Woolwich Street frontage. 7. That the owner shall remove or relocate the existing shed structure to the retained lands. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 19 JANUARY 14, 1997 Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse 2 years from the date of approval, being January 14, 1999. 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 4/97 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. J. Gothard That the application of James Terrill Dickson requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Bridge Street of 13.5 m (44.29 ft.) by a depth of 25.63 m (84.06 ft.) and having an area of 345.86 m2 (3,722.9 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 27, Registered Plan 577, 31 Bridge Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 1/97. That the owner shall install, at his cost and to City standards, boulevard landscaping, including street trees and a paved driveway ramp on the severed lands and retained 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. That the owner 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 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 pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 2. Submission No.'s B 3/97 & B 4/97 and A 1/97 - James Terrill Dickson - cont'd Submission No. B 4/97 - cont'd 6. That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, a 3.962 m road widening along the property's entire Woolwich Street frontage. 7. That the owner shall remove or relocate the existing shed structure to the retained lands. 8. That the owner shall convey, without cost and free of encumbrance, to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, a 25 ft. daylighting triangle at the intersection of Bridge Street and Woolwich Street and a 13 ft. road widening across the Bridge Street frontage of both the severed and retained lands. 9. That the owner shall obtain a Regional Road entrance permit for the severed lands. 10. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to submit a COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 20 JANUARY 14, 1997 detailed lot grading and drainage control plan for the severed lands, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11 That the owner shall enter into an agreement with Regional Municipality of Waterloo to include a noise warning clause in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements for the severed lands. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse 2 years from the date of approval, being January 14, 1999. 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. A 1/97 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. J. Gothard That the application of James Terrill Dickson requesting permission for the existing dwelling to have a setback from Woolwich Street, after widening, of 3.2 m (10.5 ft.) and 1 m (3.3 ft.) from the daylighting triangle rather than the required 4.5 m (15 ft.) and a setback of 3.6 m (11.8 ft.) from Bridge Street, after widening, and 0.3 m (1 ft.) from the daylighting triangle, rather than the required 4.5 m (15 ft.) on Part Lots 26 & 27, Registered Plan 577, 31 Bridge Street, 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. 2. Submission No.'s B 3/97 & B 4/97 and A 1/97 - James Terrill Dickson - cont'd Submission No. A 1/97 - 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 B 5~97 - Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 149, 101 Holiday Inn Drive, Suite 202, Cambrid.qe, Ontario Re: Parts 21-26, Reference Plan 58R-6445, 10 Pioneer Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. The Committee was in receipt of a request from the applicant's agent to defer consideration of this application to the meeting scheduled for March 25, 1997, as recommended by the Department of Planning & Development and the Committee agreed to this request. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 21 JANUARY 14, 1997 Submission No.'s B 6/97 & A 4/97 - Trustees of Olivet United Church, 47 Onward Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lots 30 & 34 - 40, Registered Plan 309 and Lot 188 and Part Lot 104, Streets and Lanes, 47 and 49 Onward Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: Ms. C. Wettlaufer c/o 47 Onward Avenue Kitchener ON Mr. R. Raddadz 133 Cornell Avenue Kitchener, ON CONTRA: NONE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: NONE CONTRA: NONE The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever the house at 49 Onward Avenue from the Church at 47 Onward Avenue. the house would be situated on a lot having a width on Onward Avenue of 13.588 m (44.58 ft.) by a depth of 26.685 m (87.55 ft.) and having an area of 362.6 m2 (3,903.13 sq. ft.). The house will continue to be used for residential purposes. In Submission No. A 4/97, the applicant is requesting permission for a sideyard on the church of 5.51 m (18.09 ft.) rather than the required 6.86 m (22.5 ft.). This is a direct result of separating the house from the church. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the subject property contains both the church building and the manse. The applicant has applied to sever the lot in order to establish a separate lot for the manse. A concurrent application for variance has been made in order to reduce the side yard requirement for the church building on the retained lot from 6.86 metres (one half the building height) to 5.51 metres. The subject property includes the full width of the closed portion of Crescent Street, although the full extent of the lot is not shown on the sketch submitted. The two buildings have separate tax assessment roll numbers, and the boundary between residential and institutional zones coincides with the assessment roll number boundaries. However, the zoning boundary differs from the proposed line of severance. The majority of the lot to be severed, which contains the manse, is zoned R-5 with the remainder zoned I-1. Despite this, the severance is 4. Submission No.'s B 6/97 & A 4/97 - Trustees of Olivet United Church - cont'd recommended for approval as the dwelling is a permitted use in both zones and fully complies with zoning regulations. The detached garage is proposed to be removed as it would otherwise encroach on the retained lands. The majority of the retained lot, containing the church building, is zoned I-1. A small portion of the building itself has been zoned residential since 1962. A portion of the closed road allowance, used for parking, has been zoned C-2 since 1985. The split zoning of the retained lot is an existing legal non- conforming situation and is not affected by the severance. The zoning boundaries should be brought into conformity with the property boundaries by a City-initiated 'housekeeping' by-law. Given the distance between the two existing buildings, it is not possible to comply with zoning requirements for both side yards. The variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law and official plan by providing an adequate separation between the church building and the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 22 JANUARY 14, 1997 dwelling. The impact of the variance is considered to be minor as the buildings are existing. The variance is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land as it facilitates the severance of the dwelling from the church property. 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 Application A 4/97 without conditions, and recommends approval of Application B 6/97 subject to the following conditions: 1. That Minor Variance Application A 4~97 receive final approval. 2. That the existing garage be removed from the lot to be severed. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. The Committee considered the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that they have no objection to the approval of these applications. When questioned by the Committee, Ms. Wettlaufer advised that they have no concerns with staff's recommended conditions. Submission No. B 6/97 Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the application of the Trustees of the Olivet United Church requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Onward Avenue of 13.588 m (44.58 ft.) by a depth of 26.685 m (87.55 ft.) and having an area of 362.6 m2 (3,903.13 ft.) on Part Lot 30, 36, 37 and 38, Registered Plan 309, 47 Onward Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 4~97. 2. That the owner shall remove the existing garage from the severed land. 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 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse 2 years from the date of approval, being January 14, 1999. 4. Submission No.'s B 6/97 & A 4/97 - Trustees of Olivet United Church - cont'd Submission No. B 6~97 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 23 JANUARY 14, 1997 Submission No A 4/97 Moved by Mr. J. Gothard Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight That the application of the Trustees of the Olivet United Church requesting permission for the church to have an easterly sideyard of 5.51 m (18.09 ft.) rather than the required 6.86 m (22.5 ft.) on Part Lots 30, 37, 38 and Lots 39 & 40, Registered Plan 309 and Lot 188 and Part Lot 104, Streets & Lanes, 49 Onward Avenue, 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 5. Submission No. B 7~97 - Dr. Claire Tjan, 549 Paradise Crescent, Waterloo, Ontario. Re: Part Lots 36 and 37, Registered Plan 377, 683 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: OTHERS: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: IN SUPPORT: CONTRA: Mr. W. Cline 17 Weber Street West Kitchener, Ontario NONE Mr. B. Erb Engineering Department Regional Municipality of Waterloo NONE NONE The Committee was advised that applicant is requesting permission to convey the property municipally known as 683 King Street West which is currently one property with 679 King Street West. The land to be severed will have a width on King Street 14.9352 m (49 ft.) by a depth of 47.8536 m (157 ft.) and having an area of 714.4 m2 (7.,690 sq. ft.). The use of the property is to remain a dentist office. 5. Submission No. B 7/97 - Dr. Claire Tian - cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised that the applicant has applied to sever the lot in order to re-establish two previously separate lots which have merged in title. Each of the proposed lots contains an existing building constructed as a single dwelling and converted for use as an office or health office. The two proposed lots share a common driveway; therefore the application includes a request for mutual rights-of-way. The sketch submitted with the application shows 16 parking spaces in total; the spaces numbered 8 and 9 on the sketch are not considered functional as they restrict access to other parking spaces. The 14 functional spaces provided satisfy parking requirements for the amount of office and health office proposed. If the layout of the existing paved parking area is redesigned so that there is a row of parking spaces across the rear of the property, and a row at the rear of each building, a total of 18 spaces can be provided if needed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 24 JANUARY 14, 1997 Both the lot to be retained and the lot to be severed comply with all zoning regulations. The proposal provides for the proper and orderly development of the lands. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Application B 7/97 subject to the following conditions: That a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, be registered against title of both the severed and retained lands, to ensure that rights-of-way for access to both properties are maintained in perpetuity. 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 Department of Planning & Culture, Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they advised that at this location King Street has an existing road allowance width of 60 ft. and a designated road allowance width of 86 ft.; therefore, a 13 ft. road widening will be required across the frontage of these properties. The road allowance widening is required for future utility installations and future road requirements. They noted that the concrete steps presently located at both 683 and 679 King Street will encroach into the road allowance when it is widened. To address this, the owner will be required to enter into an encroachment agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to address liability and maintenance issues regarding the concrete steps. Access to the two lots is presently gained from a rear lane. The applicants are proposing to construct a mutual driveway to King Street to serve both properties. The right-of-way as shown on the plans submitted with the severance application is approximately 13 ft. wide. The Regions standard for this type of driveway requires a minimum of 7.6 m (25 ft.) wide access at the Regional Road. The driveway designed will therefore need to be revised such that it is 25 ft. wide at the regional road and gradually tapers off to 13 ft. in the vicinity of the two dwellings. The driveway must also be designed with a 6 m radii at King Street. The applicant will need to obtain a Regional Road Entrance permit to ensure that their access requirements have been satisfactorily addressed. Mr. Cline addressed the Committee advising that he was in agreement with the conditions recommended by City staff; however, he had some concerns with the Region's comments. Mr. Cline stated that the property was acquired in 1994. The applicant's spouse operated a dental office on the main floor of 683, the upstairs was empty and the next door property was empty. They now have a purchaser for 683 within the existing boundaries. Mr. Cline advised that a mutual drive has been in existence for sometime and contrary to the Region's comments, the entrance is at the front of the property and not from the rear lane. This is an existing situation; further, the entire rearyard of these properties is paved. Concerning the Region's request for a road widening, Mr. Cline advised that he had spoken to Mr. Erb and determined that the Region has no plans to actually widen the street. He stated that he is concerned that if the road widening is 5. Submission No. B 7/97 - Dr. Claire Tian - cont'd required it would jeopardize the sale. Mr. Cline stated that he would consider widening the mouth of the driveway to 23 ft. but would not agree to the road widening. Mr. Erb addressed the Committee advising that the driveways need to be widened, physically, between the street and the front of the buildings. Mr. D. McKnight questioned where this requirement comes from. Mr. Erb advised that it is Regional policy which goes together with the requirements of the Region's Official Policies Plan. The policy requires a 25 ft. throat width for access onto a Regional Road. Further, Mr. Erb advised that his only concern is the area between the road and the buildings. Mr. Cline agreed to a widening of the driveway to 23 feet. Mr. S. Kay advised that, in his opinion, the throat width change must become part of the right-of-way in order to require a maintenance agreement, as requested by the Department of Planning & Development. Mr. Erb advised that he would be prepared to accept a widening on the easterly side of the existing driveway, entirely on the property at 679 King Street East. Messrs J. Gothard & A. Galloway disagreed that the right-of-way should be the size of the physical COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 25 JANUARY 14, 1997 driveway. Mr. Cline stated that he appreciated Mr. Kay's comments and the right-of-way could be the same size of the widened driveway. It was noted that a right-of-way was not requested in the application although one was shown on the plan. The Committee agreed to accept an amendment to the application for a right-of-way and recessed briefly to allow Messrs. Cline & Erb an opportunity to sketch on the plan the actual location for the right-of-way. When the meeting reconvened, Messrs. Cline & Erb advised that they had agreed on a configuration for the widened driveway and provided the Committee with a sketch. Mr. W. Dahms questioned Mr. Cline as to what the applicant's position with respect to the road widening. Mr. Cline advised that the applicant is opposed to the road widening, which he stated is expropriation without compensation. He stated that, at this property, there are four lanes on King Street and a sidewalk. Further, he stated that the Region is not intending to widening the road at this time. Mr. B. Erb stated that he would be willing to talk to senior staff about the request for the road widening. Mr. A. Galloway stated that the Planning Act allows the Region to obtain road widenings if they are contained within the official plan and, in this case, it is. He questioned Mr. Erb as to why he would discuss this matter with senior staff. Mr. Cline stated that the road widening would cause his clients a problem, as it may cause the sale to fall through. Mr. Erb responded to Mr. A. Galloway, that the Region looks at each application individually. They will always ask for the road widening but are willing to look at hardships. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. J. Gothard That the application of Claire Tjan requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on King Street of 14.9352 m (49 ft.) by a depth of 47.8536 m (157 ft.) and having an area of 714.4 m2 (7,690 sq. ft.), subject to and together with a right-of-way on Part Lots 36 & 37, Registered Plan 377, 683 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a Regional Road Entrance Permit. That the owner shall enter into a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor and registered on title of both the severed and retained lands, to ensure that rights-of-way for access to both properties are maintained in perpetuity. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 5. Submission No. B 7/97 - Dr. Claire Tian - cont'd Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse 2 years from the date of approval, being January 14, 1999. 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 at 12:00 noon. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 14th, day of January 1996. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 26 JANUARY 14, 1997 D. H. Gilchrist Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment