HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1997-05-06COA\1997-05-06
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 6, 1997
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. J. Gothard, W. Dahms, D. McKnight, S. Kay and A. Galloway.
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, Mr. R. Morgan, Co-ordinator, Zoning
Administration and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. J. Gothard, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight
That the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of April 15, 1997, as mailed to
the members, be accepted.
MINOR VARIANCE
APPLICATIONS
Carried
1. Submission No. A 45/97 - Marie Peever, 550 King Street East, Kitchener,
Ontario
Re:
Part Lots 1 & 2, Registered Plan 100 and Part Lots 9, 10 and 11, Registered Plan 323, 530 - 550
King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA:
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Mr. H. Karrenbrock
9 Cameron Street North
Kitchener, ON
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. P. Britton
171 Victoria Street North
Kitchener, ONtario
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee recognized Mr. Karrenbrock, who advised that he understood that consideration of this
application would be deferred to the Committee's next meeting. He advised that he wished to go on
record as being opposed to this application and he would appear again on May 27, 1997.
The Chairman advised Mr. Karrenbrock that the Committee was in receipt of a request from Mr. Britton,
requesting that this matter be deferred to May 27th. the Chairman advised that the committee would
grant the request; however, they hoped that it would be the last time.
2. Submission No. A 58/97 - Kinwalt Investments Limited, 741 King Street West,
Kitchener Ontario
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 137 MAY 6, 1997
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. R. J. Hare
741 King Street West
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
2. Submission No. A 58/97 - Kinwalt Investments Limited - cont'd
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. R. J. Hare
741 King Street West
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission for a change of legal non-conforming
use from that of health offices and offices to health offices, offices and personal services.
The Committee considered the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they
advised that the applicant is requesting permission to change the use of one unit within the existing
building from Office and Health Office to Personal Service.
In the past the existing multi-unit, 735 square metre building had been used as a Health Clinic for 9
practitioners. This use had legal non-conforming status because of a shortage of parking; 27 parking
spaces were required and only 12 provided. Submission A 112/86 was approved, granting permission to
change the use of 7 units from a legal non-conforming use (health clinic) to a similar or more compatible
use (general office). The approval specified that not more than 2 units be occupied by medical
practitioner and the balance used for general offices only.
It is now proposed that one unit be occupied by a personal service use. The owner has applied for
permission under Section 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act to change from a use previously permitted by
the Committee to a use which is similar to the legal non-conforming use, or more compatible with the uses
permitted by the by-law. The specific personal service use proposed is a reflexology and ear candling
clinic.
The four tests set out in Section 45 (1) are not applicable as this is an application for permission rather
than a Minor Variance Application. The key consideration is whether the proposed use is more
compatible with the uses permitted by the by-law, compared to the existing use.
There is no doubt that the proposed use is compatible with permitted uses, as Personal Service is in fact
permitted in the CR-2 Zone. In this case the proposal would not be in full compliance with the zoning
regulations because of the parking shortage, and the fact that personal services are permitted only in an
office building having a minimum 4700 square metres of gross floor area, or a mixed use building or
multiple dwelling having a minimum of 20 dwelling units. The secondary plan permits "a limited amount of
personal services" which "must be internal to a large residential, office or mixed use building."
The proposed use is found to be more compatible than the previous use based on parking requirements.
Health Office has a high parking requirement of 1 space per 15 square metres; Office has a more
moderate requirement of 1 space per 28 square metres; and Personal Service has a relatively Iow
requirement of 1 space per 40 square metres. On this basis, Planning and Development staff support the
request, as the shortage of on-site parking is a significant factor on the subject property and the proposed
use should reduce demand for parking.
The applicant is hereby advised that any approval of Personal Service use, by the Committee of
Adjustment, does not grant relief from Chapter 560 of the City's Municipal Code, as amended by By-laws
97-40 and 97-47 to restrict the operation of body-rub parlours and massagists.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission A 58/97, subject to
the following terms:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 138 MAY 6, 1997
That Personal Service occupy not more than 20 per cent of the existing gross floor area of the
building;
That Health Office occupy not more than 2 units, totalling not more than 25% of the existing gross
floor area of the building.
2. Submission No. A 58/97 - Kinwalt Investments Limited - cont'd
The Committee considered the comments of Mr. J. Witmer, Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections,
dated April 3, 1997, advising that a building permit is required for any construction undertaken as a result
of the new use.
The Committee considered the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division, dated April 15, 1997, advising
that the parking layout illustrated on the plan of survey does not meet City design standards. Several of
these parking stalls are not functional as shown, which reduces the overall onsite parking complement.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Engineering, Region of Waterloo, dated April 2,
1997, advising 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 13ft. road widening is required from this property.
They advised that it may not be appropriate to acquire the road widening under this application.
The Committee was in receipt of a letter from Mr. R. Hare, dated April 27, 1997, in which Mr. Hare
advises that, as a matter of clarification, he would like to point out some matters that arise because the
City has adopted a Health Professional classification. As this building has continuously had doctors as
tenants, the Health Professional classification is a permitted legal non-
conforming use throughout the existing building. In 1986, because office uses have become part of the
building, a variance was applied for. This was a concern, as the existing requirement for parking was not
being met. The Committee approved the request for office use as long as no more than two medical
practitioners were occupants. I believe approval was granted as it was recognized that office use would
not require as much parking as nine doctors. The restriction does not extend as far as what is now the
class of health professionals. There are many health professionals that do not require as much parking
as doctors. In summary, if office use is in the building, there can be no more than two medical
practitioners. There are some health care uses that, because they are not regulated by the Province,
must fall within the personal services class. This kind of use has been in the building, but not
continuously to be legal non-conforming. It is believed these uses are not parking intensive and as such,
a suitable use for this building. This is the reason for the application. With respect to the comments of
the Region of Waterloo, as this is an application for permission, we do not believe road widening
conveyance or development charges apply. Concerning the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning
& Inspections, no constuction is intended. Finally, with respect to the comments of the Traffic & Parking
Division, although the parking scheme may not meet City Design Standards, the parking layout is an
effective layout that maximizes spaces available.
The Chairman questioned Mr. Hare with respect to the two conditions requested by the Department of
Planning & Development and Mr. Hare responded that he believed that staff is going to amend condition
no. 2. Ms. J. Given advised that staff wished to change condition no. 2 as follows: That a health office for
any one of: a physician, dentist, chiropractor or pharmacist, not occuping more than two units totalling not
more than 25% of the existing gross floor area of the building.
Mr. S. Kay questioned the traffic comments relative to parking spots and whether or not planning staff had
taken these concerns into consideration. Ms. Given responded that she did not have a copy of the traffic
comments. Mr. Kay advised that in their opinion, the parking layout does not meeting City design
standards and that some are not functional. Mr. R. Hare responded that the purpose of this application is
to introduce uses into the building with less demand on parking. He advised that last year, two parking
spaces along the back of the building were removed and these were replaced with four angled parking
spaces to create more parking. He advised that these parking spaces are found to be functional. Mr. S.
Kay questioned whether the Committee should be approving this use when 27 parking spaces are
required and only 10 can be
provided. The Chairman commented that the parking on this site is legal non-conforming and that this is
only a modest change of use. It was his opinion that the change is more compatible with the site and he
did not think that it would have an adverse impact on the neighbourhood.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 139 MAY 6, 1997
2. Submission No. A 58/97 - Kinwalt Investments Limited - cont'd
Moved by Mr. W. Dahms
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Kinwalt Investments Limited requesting permission for a change a use previously
permitted, pursuant to Section 45 (2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act, from that of health offices and offices to
health offices, offices and personal services on Part Lot 21, Plan 413, 742 King Street West, Kitchener,
Ontario BE APPROVED; subject to the following conditions:
That the personal service use shall not occupy more than 20% of the existing gross floor area of
the building.
That a Health office, for any one of: a physician, dentist, chiropractor or pharmasist, shall not
occupy more than 2 units, totalling not more than 25% of the existing gross floor area of the
building.
It is the opinion of this Committee that the personal service use is more compatible with the uses
permitted by the zoning by-law.
Carried
Submission No. A 59/97 - 839743 Ontario Limited, 81 Cedar Street South,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re: Part Lot 17, Plan 31,225-227 Weber Street West, Kitchener, Ontario.
The Committee was in receipt of a request from the applicant's agent to defer consideration of this
application to the meeting of May 27, 1997 and the Committee agreed to this request.
APPLICATIONS
1. Submission No. A 61/97 - Mary Weismiller, 65 Penelope Drive, Kitchener,
Ontario
Re:
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Lot 79, Registered Plan 1712, 65 Penelope Drive, Kitchener, Ontario.
Ms. M. Weismiller
65 Penelope Drive
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTENSUBMISSIONS:
INSUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert a single family dwelling
to a duplex on a lot having a width of 10 m (32.81 ft.) rather than the required 10.5 m (34.45 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the applicant is requesting Minor Variance approval to establish a duplex at 65 Penelope Drive with a
lot width of 10.0 metres, whereas the by-law requires 10.5 metres. The property was zoned R-4 in the
Stage 7 comprehensive zoning exercise, which permitted duplexes having a lot width of 7.5 metres.
On October 15, 1996, Council adopted By-law 96-153, which dealt with the duplexing issue City-wide.
This by-law continues to permit duplexes in R-4 zones, however, the minimum lot width was increased to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 140 MAY 6, 1997
10.5 metres. This by-law has been appealed to the OMB and is not in final effect, however, until it is
finally approved, the most stringent regulations of the two by-laws apply.
1. Submission No. A 61/97 - Mary Weismiller - cont'd
The property conforms in all other respects to the provisions of By-law 96-153. The purpose of increasing
the lot width requirement for duplexes in R-4 was to ensure that the lots were sufficiently wide to provide
the opportunity for parking to be situated side by side without exceeding 50% of the lot width. While
tandem parking is permitted in the by-law, there is a tendency to want the vehicles equally accessible,
and for owners to widen the driveway. The 10.5 metre (34.4 foot) lot width permits a double driveway
without exceeding the 50% driveway widening provisions.
In this case, the dwelling is existing with a double garage and double driveway, already exceeding 50% of
the lot width, accommodating the parking of four vehicles. Since the by-law did not intent to prevent the
use of existing driveways exceeding 50% of the lot width, but only governs the action of widening a
driveway after the dwelling is constructed, the existing situation at 65 Penelope Drive maintains the intent
of the by-law and Official Plan . More than sufficient parking is provided without the need for any
alterations. The variance is minor and appropriate for the use of the property as a duplex, as it conforms
in all other respects to the new regulations for duplex dwellings. They recommended approval of this
application.
The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he
advised that a building permit will be required to create an apartment within the existing single family
dwelling.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have
no concerns with this application provided that the on-site parking can be adequately accomodated.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, which they
advised that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms
That the application of Mary Weismiller requesting permission to convert a single family dwelling to a
duplex on a lot having a width of 10 m (32.81 ft.) rather than the required 10.5 m (34.45 ft.) on Lot 79,
Registered Plan 1712, 65 Penelope 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 62/97 - Herman Eykens, 159 Madison Avenue South,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re: Part Lot 12, Registered Plan 390, 159 Madison Avenue South, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. D. Smith
57 -2185 Fairchild Blvd.
Burlington, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 141 MAY 6, 1997
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
Submission No. A 62/97 - Herman Eykens - cont'd
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of a second storey addition on a
house having a setback from Madison Avenue of 2.62 m (8.6 ft.) rather than the required 4.5 m (14.77 ft.)
and a left sideyard of 0.36 m (1.2 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the applicant is requesting legalization of a second storey addition on a house having a setback from
Madison Avenue of 2.62 metres (8.6 ft) rather than the required 4.5 metres (14.77 ft) and a left side yard
of 0.36 metres (1.2 ft) rather than the required 1.2 metres (4 ft).
Research shows that the main structure of the house was originally built prior to 1924. Consequently,
although the original structure does not meet the regulations contained in the current by-law, it is
considered to comply relative to the vacuum by-law contained in By-law 85-1.
The subject variance is in regards to a new dormer that was constructed without benefit of a building
permit. From examination of the building permit drawings that were recently submitted, staff note that the
addition is constructed flush with the pre-existing first storey of the house. The dormer is approximately
1.98 metres (6.5 ft) in height and extends across the entire front portion of the one and a half storey
house.
The addition maintains the front yard and side yard setbacks of the original first storey of the house and it
is no more onerous than what has existed previously. It is noted that the exterior maintenance of the
structure can be maintained. Additionally, it would not appear to adversely affect the enjoyment of the
adjoining property.
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 and Municipal Plan is being met.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the variance applying to the
structure as shown on the partial survey submitted with the application (no date).
The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he
advised that a building permit will be required for the new dormer.
Concerning the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections, Mr. Smith advised that a
building permit had been applied for but he didn't realize that it hadn't been processed.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Engineering, Region of Waterloo, in which they
advised that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of Herman Eykens requesting legalization of a second storey addition on a house
having a setback from Madison Avenue of 2.62 m (8.6 ft.) rather than the required 4.5 m (14.77 ft.) and a
left sideyard of 0.36 m (1.2 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Part Lot 12, Registered Plan 390,
159 Madison Avenue South, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the existing development 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 142 MAY 6, 1997
2. Submission No. A 62/97 - Herman Eykens - cont'd
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 63/97 - Frank & Gabriella Nyul, 90 Autumn Hill Crescent,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re: Lot 41, Registered Plan 1196, 17 Cecile Drive, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. & Mrs. F. Nyul
90 Autumn Hill Crescent
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting legalization of their existing carport which is
attached to the carport on the abutting property. The by-law requires a sideyard of 1.2 m (4 ft.) for
carports.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that application B 21/97 was made to the Committee of Adjustment which proposed the severance of a
parcel of land which is currently developed with one semi-detached dwelling. The severance would allow
the sale of each half of the dwelling. The lands were originally developed in 1967 with carports added at
a later date, built to the property line and attached to the carports on the abutting lands, creating a linear
townhouse effect along the street.
The carport for 17 Cecile Drive was built in 1968 for which we have no records that a minor variance was
ever received for the zero yard set back. In this regard, the consent application was approved conditional
upon the approval of a minor variance to legalize the zero side yard for 17 Cecile Drive. The variance
requested is considered desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands, as this unique
development has been in existence since the mid 1960's and the variance will legalize an important
component to this development. The requested variance is minor in nature as there will be no change in
impact on the adjacent properties, since the variance requested is to recognize an existing situation.
The general intent and purpose of side yard set backs in the Zoning By-law is to maintain an adequate
separation of units for fire separation and building maintenance. The Building Division reviews each
minor variance application with regard to building and fire concerns and have no objection to the
proposed variance without side yards, maintenance is not an issue.
In view of the forgoing, the Department of Planning and Development is of the opinion that the tests of a
minor variance are met and has no objections to the minor variance. They recommended that the
application be approved without conditions.
The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which they
advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect to this this submission.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they
advised that they have no concerns with this application.
3. Submission No. A 63~97 - Frank & Gabriella Nyul - cont'd
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 143 MAY 6, 1997
The Committee noted the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that a site
visitation has been made and that going through the existing carport is their only entry to the rearyard to
read the meter. The policy of the Commission requires existing outside electrical meters to remain
outside and readily accessible to staff. In order to maintain this policy the existing carport must remain a
carport and not be enclosed to form a garage and enclose the existing meter. If the garage is created in
the future, the meter must be relocated to an outside wall.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms
That the application of Frank & Gabriella Nyul requesting legalization of an existing carport with a
sideyard of 0 m rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Lot 41, Registered Plan 1196, 17 Cecile 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
4. Submission No. A 64/97 - Petar Bijelic, 206 Weber Street East, Kitchener,
Ontario
Re: Part Lot 71, Registered Plan 77, 206 Weber Street East, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. P. Bijelic
206 Weber Street East
Kitchener, Ontario
Mr. B. Vujic
6A Jackson Avenue
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 3.75 ft. by 12.5 ft.
addition to the front of the existing garage (directly behind the house) and a carport addition to the rear of
the existing garage, both to have a sideyard of 0.29 m (0.95 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 subject lands are municipally addressed 206 Weber Street East and are presently developed
with a single detached dwelling with attached garage. The lands are designated Low Rise Multiple
Residential in the King Street East Secondary Plan and are Zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) according
to Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is also currently used to operate a home business for the repair of
small appliances.
4. Submission No. A 64/97 - Petar Biielic - cont'd
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 144 MAY 6, 1997
The attached garage is constructed 0.29 metres from the left side property line. The applicant is
proposing to enlarge the garage area in two places by extending the existing wall adjacent to the side
property line. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting a minor variance to enable the proposed garage
additions to be constructed with a side yard of 0.29 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres.
The detached garage on the abutting property is located 0.40 metres from the property line and will block
any view of the proposed northernmost addition from the neighbouring dwelling. In addition, the
neighbouring dwelling is set back approximately 3.1 metres from the property line, allowing sufficient
separation with the proposed southernmost addition. Given the location of the proposed additions in
relation to the dwelling and the detached garage on the abutting property, the requested variance can be
considered to be both minor in nature and appropriate for the development of the subject lands. Further,
since the proposed additions would have little impact on abutting properties and would still allow for
maintenance access, the proposed variance maintains the general intent of both the Secondary Plan and
Zoning By-law.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends that Minor Variance Application A 64/97 be
approved to the extent shown on the plan submitted with the application, without conditions.
The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he
advised that a building permit is required to add on to the existing garage and to add a carport in a wall
located less than 1.2 m
from the property line. The wall shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating and shall be clad with
noncombustible cladding. Column supports for the carport shall be clad with noncombustible material
and ensure that the roof drainage is not directed onto adjacent property.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that the
existing hedge, adjacent to the driveway, causes a sight obstruction. It is recommended that the hedge
be trimmed in conformance with the by-law regulating hedges.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they
advised that, at this location, Weber Street has an existing road allowance width of 66 ft. and a
designated road allowance of 86 ft.; therefore, a 10 ft. road widening is required from this property. A 25
ft. daylight triangle is also required at the intersection of Weber Street and Fairview Avenue. It may not
be appropriate to acquire the daylighting triangle or the road allowance widening under this application.
The Chairman questioned the applicant as to whether he understood that he must build exactly as shown
on the plan and Bijelic responded that he understood that.
Mr. D. McKnight questioned the hedge as referred to in the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division
and questioned whether the hedge belonged to the applicant.
Mr. Vujic responded that he did not hear very well and the applicant did not speak English or understand
English very well.
A discussion then took place over the use of the carport, whether the driveway would be widened and
whether the hedge would be removed. Staff advised that the maximum width for the driveway is half the
lot width and in this case, as Weber Street is the frontage of the lot and the lot width along Weber Street
is 38 ft., the driveway width could be a maximum of 19 ft.; however, Ms. J. Given advised that if the
driveway is already 25 ft. wide then it can stay that way.
Mr. Vujic advised the Committee that the applicant wishes to use the carport addition as a tool shed.
Mr. S. Kay put forward a motion to approve the application on the condition that the hedge is trimmed in
accordance with by-law requirements and that the existing driveway and the addition, if any, to the
driveway not exceed the by-law requirements.
4. Submission No. A 64~97 - Petar Biielic - cont'd
Mr. W. Dahms advised that he did not agree with the condition concerning the driveway. Ms. J. Given
responded that the driveway width requirement is a fairly recent requirement of the by-law and it does not
affect any existing driveways. Mr. Dahms suggested an amendment to the condition that the driveway no
be any wider than the existing driveway.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 145 MAY 6, 1997
Mr. S. Kay stated that he would prefer the condition be: that the driveway not be extended or, if
realigned, must be done in accordance with the existing by-law requirement and Mr. W. Dahms then
suggested changing the wording of the approval, not for a carport but an addition. Mr. S. Kay questioned
whether this was an addition to house a vehicle or not. Mr. Vujic responded that it is just for storage.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms
That the application of Petar Bijelic requesting permission to construct a 3.75 ft. by 12.5 ft. addition to the
front of the existing garage and an addition to the rear of the existing garage, both to have a sideyard of
0.29 m (0.95 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Part Lot 71, Registered Plan 77, 206 Weber
Street East, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That the existing hedge shall be trimmed to comply with the requirements of By-law 97-23, within
two months of the date of this decision.
2. That the driveway shall remain in its current location.
That the applicant shall obtain a building permit to construct the additions and that the wall shall
have a 45 minute fire resistance rating and shall be clad with non-combustible cladding; and
further, the column supports for the rear addition shall be clad with non-combustible material and
all roof drainage shall be directed onto the applicant's own property.
That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the additions 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 65~97 - Franbar Holdings Limited, 891 Guelph Street,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re: Lots 48, 49, 50 & 51, Registered Plan 786, 272-274 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. D. Olson
Heimbecker, Richardson & Petker
295 Weber Street North
Waterloo, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
5. Submission No. A 65~97 - Franbar Holdinqs Limited - cont'd
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing commercial building
with a rearyard of 3.419 m (11.22 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) and an addition with a
rearyard of 3.017 m (9.9 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 146 MAY 6, 1997
that the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing commercial building with a rearyard of 3.419 m
(11.22 ft) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft) and an addition with a rearyard of 3.017 m (9.9 ft) rather
than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft). These variances were previously approved by the Committee of
Adjustment; however, a new survey has been prepared which shows these rearyards to be smaller than
those previously approved by the Committee.
Building permits were issued for the two parts of the building requiring the variance in 1969 and 1976.
The non-compliance was identified in 1983 for which the applicant successfully obtained approval from
the Committee of Adjustment through Submission A 329/83. A recent survey dated October 16, 1996
prepared by Martinus Vorsteveld Inc. identified the setback discrepancies.
The intent of the By-law and Municipal Plan are being met as the existing setback can accommodate the
appropriate maintenance of the building if necessary. Additionally, the applicant believed they had
approval from the Committee of Adjustment in 1983 based on a survey which was inaccurate.
Furthermore, the structures have existed for many years without complaint.
As the variance recognizes an existing situation which is minor in nature we recommend approval subject
to the variance applying to the existing development as shown on the surveyor's report prepared by
Martinus Vorsteveld Inc. dated October 16, 1996.
The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he
advised that the Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this submission.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they
advised that, at this location, Highland Road has an existing and designated road allowance width of 86
ft.; therefore, no further road widening allowance is required. They advised that a 25 ft. daylight triangle
was required at the intersection of Highland Road and Belmont Avenue; however, it may not be
appropriate to acquire the daylight triangle under this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that
they have no objection to the proposed minor variance to legalize an existing commercial building.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight
That the application of Franbar Holdings Limited requesting legalization of an existing commercial
building with a rearyard of 3.419 m (11.22 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) and an addition
with a rearyard of 3.017 m (9.9 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) on Lots 48, 49, 50 & 51,
Registered Plan 786, 272-274 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the
following condition:
That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the existing development only as
shown on the Surveyor's Real Property Report prepared by Martinus Vorsteveld Inc., dated
October 22, 1996.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
5. Submission No. A 65~97 - Franbar Holdinqs Limited - cont'd
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
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 147 MAY 6, 1997
Submission No. A 66~97 - Donna & Matthew Monteyne, 248 Woolwich Street
North, Kitchener, Ontario
Re:
Part Lot 124, German Company Tract designated as Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-10553,
248 Woolwich Street North, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. & Mrs. M. Monteyne
248 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 construct a detached
garage to be located 1.2 m (4 ft.) from the southerly side Iotline rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.).
This property is zoned Agricultural which requires a larger sideyard than a Residential Zone.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the applicants are requesting permission to construct a detached garage located 1.52 metres (5 feet)
from the southerly lot line rather a required 7.5 metres (24.61 feet). The property is zoned Agricultural
and requires a larger side yard than in a Residential zone.
As the property is very large, about two acres in size, and the single detached dwelling is set back about
25 metres from the street line, the applicants are intending to erect or construct a garage much closer to
the side lot line than permitted in the by-law. Although, in looking at the survey, there appears to be
adequate room to locate the building in compliance with the by-law, due to the presence of existing
mature trees and a significant slope downhill from the front of the property to the rear, the location of the
garage is best suited as proposed by the owners. The garage would be adjacent to a tall hedge and
driveway located on the neighbouring property. It is the opinion of the staff that the proposed location
would have little impact and support with the proposed location.
This request can be considered minor in nature and the general intent of the by-law is being met as the
structure is accessory to a residential building, not an agricultural use. Given the topography and
scattered mature trees, it would appear that the proposed location of the garage would not adversely
affect the enjoyment of the abutting property. In consideration of the foregoing, the variance is desirable
for the appropriate development and use of the land. In the opinion of staff, the proposal meets the four
tests set out in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act. They recommended approval of the application.
The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he
advised that a building permit is required for the new garage.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that
they have no objection to this application, provided the proposed garage is located outside the Grand
River Scheduled Area. They advised that a Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Permit will be
required for any work within the regulated area.
6. Submission No. A 66/97 - Donna & Matthew Monteyne - cont'd
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Donna & Matthew Monteyne requesting permission to construct a detached
garage to be located 1.2 m (4 ft.) from the southerly side Iotline rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.)
on Part Lot 124, German Company Tract, designated as Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-10553, 248
Woolwich Street North, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. That the applicants shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the garage.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 148 MAY 6, 1997
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 67/97 - Logel's Autoparts, 116 Bridge Street East,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re:
Part of Peter Horning's Tract designated as Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-2110, 116 Bridge Street
East, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. D. Beach
D-K Construction Limited
200 Webster Road
Kitchener, Ontario
Mr. J. Logel
116 Bridge Street East
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to re-establish a legal non-conforming
use. The zoning of the property does not currently allow the use of the property for automotive recycling.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the owners, Logel's Autoparts, are requesting an expansion of a legal non-conforming use to rebuild
a building destroyed by fire located at 116 Bridge Street East. Although the main building on the property
was recently destroyed by fire the use of the land for the storage of automobiles and the sale of parts
continues to exist. The owners are proposing to reconstruct a building 25% larger than the original
building in a different location on the site. The proposed building site is to the east of the site closer to
Bridge Street. The lands fronting Bridge Street are zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) and the lands to
the rear are zoned Existing Use Zone (E-l) according to By-law 85-1. Part of the proposed building will
be located in the R-3 zone and part of it will be located in the E-1 zone.
7. Submission No. A 67/97 - Loqel's Autoparts - cont'd
The building destroyed by fire was located below the elevation of the regulatory floodline, within the E-1
zone. The proposed building location will be above the elevation of the regulatory flood plain. The Grand
River
onservation Authority has advised that they issued a Fill Construction and Alteration to Waterways Permit
on March 27, 1997, for the construction of a building in the proposed location illustrated on the attached
site plan. Application for Site Plan Approval has been received and all technical concerns will be
addressed through the registration of a Section 41 Development Agreement.
The use of the property was legal non-conforming prior to being rezoned E-l, at which time the use was
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 149 MAY 6, 1997
legalized. However, a portion of the property is zoned R-3 and part of the new construction will be
located in this zone. The expansion of the building in the R-3 zone is appropriate as the E-1 would
already allow the construction of the building on the subject lands within the E-1 zone with the 25%
expansion in the gross floor area. In addition, the proposed structure will be located above the elevation
of the regulatory flood line in its proposed location, which is more desirable.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission
A 67/97 subject to the following condition:
That the variance shall apply to the development only in accordance with the finally approved site
plan under Site Plan Application SP97/5/B/PB, with further minor changes being permitted to the
approved site plan provided they do not alter the variances to the by-law.
The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he
advised that a building permit is required for the new building.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that
they have no objection to this application, based on the Authority's approval of a Fill, Construction and
Alteration to Waterways Permit No. 26/97.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Engineering, Region of Waterloo, in which they
advised that Reference Plan 58R-7634, deposited on May 10, 1991 indicates that Bridge Street, at this
property, as been widened on the North side; however, no widenings appeared to have been taken from
this property. The designated road allowance width is 86 ft.; therefore, we require a road widening equal
to 43 ft. from the centre line of the existing asphalt on Bridge Street. This resolves any road widening
from this property of 19 ft., which coincides with a widening taken from the property to the west for a utility
easement. Under a future development application such as site plan, the developer will be required to
dedicate 18 ft. to the Region of Waterloo, free and clear of encumbrances. The Region will negotiate with
developer for the remaining one foot. The road allowance widening is required to accomodate the future
widening of Bridge Street and future utility requirements; although it may not be appropriate to acquire the
road widening under this application.
The developer is proposing a single access to Bridge Street. The access is shown as 6 m wide; however,
the minimum standard for this type of access is 7.6 m wide with a 6 m radii. Under a future development
application a Regional Road Entrance Permit will be required. They went on to give details of other
requirements for a site plan application.
The Chairman questioned what the term "Automotive Recycling" means and Mr. Logel responded that it
is the dismantling and storing of parts from old vehicles and that the property has been used that way for
over 30 years. The Chairman then referred to the Region's comments and stated that if the application
was to be approved these conditions would probably be included and they would have to be looked after;
as they can not just do this on their own at some other time or in some other way.
Mr. W. Dahms noted the Region's requirements and questioned whether it was something that the City
can request or if it would be requested separately. Ms. J. given responded that the Region has seen the
site plan and they will comment through that method.
7. Submission No. A 67/97 - Loqel's Autoparts - cont'd
Mr. Dahms then questioned the concrete pad shown on the plan and questioned the proposed use and
Mr. Logel responded that it would be used for storage and probably racking but there would be no
building on the concrete pad.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned the status of the site plan, as the Region says they have not seen the site
plan. Ms. J. Given responded that the Region saw the site plan approximately two weeks ago. She
advised that City staff will follow up with the Regional staff and will include these comments in a site plan
approval.
Mr. A. Galloway put forward a motion to approve the application and to include the conditions of City staff
including the building permit.
Mr. S. Kay questioned the comments in the Region's letter and whether these will get dealt with a the site
plan stage and staff responded that that was the case.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 150 MAY 6, 1997
Mr. Beach responded that they have had preliminary site plan discussions and the water will be contained
on the site.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms
That the application of Logel's Autoparts requesting permission to expand the legal non-conforming use
of automotive recycling on Part of Peter Horning's Tract designated as Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-2110,
116 Bridge Street East, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED; subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the new building, prior to construction.
That the approval granted in this application shall apply to the development only in accordance
with the finally approved site plan under Site Plan Application SP 97/5/B/PB, with further minor
changes being permitted to the approved site plan provided they do not alter the variances to the
by-law.
It is the opinion of this Committee that this application is desirable for the appropriate development of the
property.
Carried
Submission No. A 68/97 - Zoltan & Aranka Komaromi, 206 Laurentian
Kitchener, Ontario
Lot 152, Registered Plan 1368, 206 Laurentian Drive, Kitchener, Ontario.
Drive,
Mr. S. Kay declared a conflict of interest in this application as his law firm acts for the applicant's family
and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. Z. Komaromi
206 Laurentian Drive
Kitchener, ON
CONTRA:
Mr. C. T. Cobean
335 Blackhorn Drive
Kitchener, ON
Mr. M. Grebinski
331 Blackhorn Drive
Kitchener, ON
8. Submission No. A 68~97 - Zoltan & Aranka Komaromi - cont'd
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:
CONTRA:
NONE
Mr. C. T. Cobean
335 Blackhorn Drive
Kitchener, ON
Mr. V. Varga
107 Roseneath Crescent
Kitchener, ON
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 151 MAY 6, 1997
Mr. & Mrs. K. Borch
101 Roseneath Crescent
Kitchener ON
Mr. M. Grebinski
331 Blackhorn Drive
Kitchener ON
Mr. & Mrs. J. Hudson
195 Laurentian Drive
Kitchener ON
Ms. R. Antill
338 Blackhorn Drive
Kitchener ON
Mr. & Mrs. B. Griffiths
332 Blackhorn Drive
Kitchener ON
Ms. P. Watts
207 Laurentian Drive
Kitchener ON
Mr. & Mrs. A. Vassell
325 Blackhorn Drive
Kitchener ON
Mr. & Mrs. W. Neufuld
& Mr. P. Neufld
50 Greenock Drive
Kitchener ON
Mr. & Mrs. W. Gallant
42 Greenock Drive
Kitchener ON
Mr. & Mrs. S. Sihota
34 Greenock Drive
Kitchener ON
Mr. & Mrs. E. Aucoin
103 Calmcrest Drive
Kitchener ON
Mr. & Mrs. V. Lagonia
140 Briar Knoll Drive
Kitchener ON
Mr. & Mrs. D. McDermitt
146 Briar Knoll Drive
Kitchener ON
Mr. & Mrs. H. Gronau
203 Laurentian Drive
Kitchener ON
8. Submission No. A 68~97 - Zoltan & Aranka Komaromi - cont'd
Mr. & Mrs. A Johnston
221 Laurentian Drive
Kitchener, ON
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 152 MAY 6, 1997
Mr. & Mr. G. Bradley
46 Greenock Drive
Kitchener, ON
Mr. & Mrs. K. Salmon
225 Laurentian Drive
Kitchener, ON
Mr. & Mrs. M. Ribeiro
188 Laurentian Drive
Kitchener, ON
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to provide two parking spaces in the
existing driveway, for a home and home business, to be located up to the Iotline rather than 6 m (19.69 ft.)
back from the Iotline.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the owner of 206 Laurentian Drive operates a home business from the residence, which business
has been established in the garage, eliminating the legal parking space for the single detached dwelling.
The home business also requires one parking space to be located 6.0 metres from the front lot line. The
owner intends to provide both parking spaces side by side in the existing driveway, requiring minor
variance approval to provide two
parking spaces located 2.71 metres (7.21 feet) from the lot line rather than 6.0 metres (19.68 feet).
According to the building location plan submitted with the application, and confirmed by a site inspection,
the existing driveway is only 4.6 metres (15 feet) in width, insufficient to provide the two legal parking
spaces side by side, each 2.58 metres (8.5 feet) wide, totalling 5.16 metres (17 feet). Should the
Committee choose to support the variance, the driveway would have to be widened or the Committee
would have to approve an additional variance, to the size of parking spaces.
The property has been the subject of neighbourhood concerns about the use of the property since
February, 1996, as registered with the City's by-law enforcement section, after the owner converted the
garage space for use as the home business. The owner describes the business as one in which he
records and edits videotapes, such as promotional or wedding videos, as well as repairs small equipment
such as VCR's, stereos, microwaves. An artisan's establishment, which is defined as the workplace of an
artisan such as a photographer, which can include a videographer. An instant print business is also being
conducted from the premises, in which the owner designs and prints such material as invitations, wine
labels and business cards.
As a result of the garage conversion, the legal parking space for the dwelling was removed and the home
business generated the need for a second parking space. In October, 1996, the owner was charged with
failing to provide the legal parking required for the dwelling and advised to reinstate the legal parking
space or obtain Committee of Adjustment approval for a minor variance. A large sign was posted on the
building, which has subsequently been removed. Further, a violation under the lot maintenance by-law
has been outstanding, since June, 1996, when goods from the garage were removed and stored in the
yard.
The City's Municipal Plan allows residents to operate businesses as a secondary use to the primary
residential use provided:
i) they do not generate nuisance such as noise and traffic and parking problems in the immediate
area; and,
ii) do not visually detract from the residential character of the neighbourhood.
The specific uses and detailed regulations are set out in the zoning by-law.
8. Submission No. A 68~97 - Zoltan & Aranka Komaromi - cont'd
In response to the circulation of this application, staff have received calls and a letter from neighbours
against the use of the property for a home business, outlining concerns with property values, traffic
problems and congestion. Staff have inspected the property and discussed the business with the owner.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 153 MAY 6, 1997
In terms of traffic congestion and parking problems, evidence of these problems was not witnessed during
any inspections of the site.
With respect to the use of the property for a home business, it should be clear that the zoning by-law
permits home businesses in all residential zones subject to compliance with the regulations for such
businesses. These regulations are intended to implement the objectives of the Municipal Plan, to ensure
compatibility with the neighbourhood. It is with the issue of compatibility and appropriateness that staff
take issue with this application.
Staff do not believe the proposal maintains the intent of the zoning by-law or Municipal Plan or is
desirable and appropriate for the use of the property. The business has not operated to date without
apparent nuisance to the neighbourhood. Because the garage space was eliminated, a suitable location
for the storage of materials was eliminated, which has in the recent past caused the owner to store
materials outside, creating a concern by the neighbours and instigating a property standards violation. It
appears that the elimination of the garage space to accommodate the home business has had a negative
impact on the neighbourhood.
Further, with respect to impact on the neighbourhood, the garage door was removed and an entrance
door to the business installed. The owner had installed a large sign on the front wall, which was removed
as a result of enforcement
action. The entrance door to the business continues to have posted upon it a small paper sign indicating
the business name, phone numbers and business hours. This is not permitted according to the City's sign
by-law, the intent being that there should be few, if any, indications visible from the street that a home
business is operating.
Staff have other concerns that suggest the business, as operating is not appropriate as a home business.
The advertising distributed by the owner indicates that three distinct businesses are operating from the
premises, Zoli Video Productions and Multimedia, Anatro Printing and Zoli Online (International Internet
service). Considering the repair business also includes the repair of TV's, stereos and microwaves,
unrelated to video services, a fourth type of business could be identified. The zoning by-law specifically
permits only one home business for each dwelling unit, except in the case of a business not attracting any
customers to the premises, in which case a maximum of two home businesses shall be allowed. Finally, it
has been suggested by the neighbours that videos may be rented from the premises, which is not
permitted in the by-law. During the site visit, staff discussed this issue with the owner since a wall
containing a large display of numbered videos is located within the area visible to the public. The owner
indicated that they were simply stored there and not available for the public.
It is staff's opinion that while it may be possible for the owner to modify the business by limiting it to two
businesses, removing the video rental component, removing all signs, and providing two parking spaces
in a widened driveway, it is questionable whether this would actually occur and be maintained in
accordance with all provisions of the by-law. The owner was sent a copy of all of the home business
regulations some time ago, and it seems apparent that the business is not suited to a home business
operation but more suited to a commercial zone in which it could be operated more fully with advertising
and more liberties than is allowed as a home business.
On the basis of the above comments, staff are of the opinion that this application does not meet the intent
of the zoning by-law, does not meet the intent of the Official Plan, and is not desirable for the appropriate
use of the property and therefore recommends refusal of the minor variance application.
The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he
advised that a building permit is required in order to convert the garage to living space.
8. Submission No. A 68~97 - Zoltan & Aranka Komaromi - cont'd
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that, as the
existing driveway is 15 ft. in width, the proposed two parking spaces in the driveway would not meet the
minimum required width of 8.5 ft. each. Also, there is not sufficient driveway depth to provide two parking
spaces in tandem. Any long term on-street parking generated by this use would be subject to
enforcement and excessive/improper on-street parking may require the implementation of parking
restrictions in this vicinity.
The Committee noted all the written submissions of the neighbourhood residents in opposition to this
application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 154 MAY 6, 1997
The Chairman pointed out to Mr. Komaromi that there is significant neighbourhood objection to his
application. The Chairman then questioned how many businesses were operating from this address. Mr.
Komaromi responded that there are two businesses a video production business and a small computer
printing company. The Chairman questioned the hours of operation and Mr. Komaromi responded that
the businesses operate from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. He also advised that, on average there are two cars per
day visiting his businesses. The Chairman then questioned the third and fourth businesses noted in the
Planning Department comments. Mr. Komaromi advised that he has some videos which he brought from
Yugoslavia but they are in the Europen format and it is not possible to rent them to the general public.
Concerning the internet business, Mr. Komaromi advised that he would be relocating that business to the
Frederick Mall.
The Chairman commented about his concern with respect to these businesses operating in the
residential neighbourhood. He stated that, although certain business can be run there, they are governed
by stringent regulations.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned staff on the nature of the application. He questioned whether the Committee
is being asked to legalize the business or just parking in the driveway. Ms. J. Given responded that an
artisan studio is a permited business in a single family dwelling; however, there are a long list of
regulations. Mr. W. Dahms questioned whether a sign is permitted and Ms. Given responded that no
signage is permitted whatsoever. In response to Mr. Galloway's question, Ms. Given responded that the
Committee must consider whether approval of the parking request would perpetuate an inappropriate
business.
The Chairman questioned Mr. Komaromi whether this was a one or two car garage and was advised that
it was a one car garage. When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Komaromi advised that his family has
two cars.
Mr. T. Cobean addressed the Committee advising that he found it difficult to formally object because Mr.
Komaromi is his neighbour. He stated that he is not opposed to home businesses but they should not
disturb the neighbourhood or cause traffic problems. Further, Mr. Komaromi's garage has all the
characteristics of a store. Mr. Cobean stated that, if approval is given, this will be a permanent change to
the property itself. When it is sold, it could attract another commercial business. In addition, he advised
that he had obtained an opinion from an appraiser that the presence of a business devalues
neighbourhood properties. Mr. Cobean pointed out that the driveway is not wide enough for two cars and
many times two cars are parked side by side and there are more behind, which park over the sidewalk.
Mr. Komaromi advised that he came to Canada three years ago. Presently his business is not generating
enough money to be able to afford a commercial property. He stated that there is no video rental at this
property. He advised that he would widen the driveway. As soon as he has enough customers, Mr.
Komaromi advised that he will be moving away. He also stated that the current situation does not create
a parking problem and that the neighbours have more visitors than he has customers.
Mr. D. McKnight advised that he admired Mr. Komaromi's efforts but questioned whether this was truly a
home business or a commercial enterpise. He put forward a motion to refuse the application, as he
believed the business had reached a point where it should be in a commercial zone. Mr. W. Dahms
seconded the motion.
8. Submission No. A 68~97 - Zoltan & Aranka Komaromi - cont'd
The Chairman stated that the Committee must address the requirements of the Planning Act. He pointed
out that if anyone of the four tests can not be met, then the application must fail. He stated that he did not
think that this was appropriate development for the property. He stated that he is interested in the
planning perspective and interested in appropriate development of the property. He also stated that he is
concerned that the applicant converted the garage without a building permit. He stated that he could not
support that application.
Moved by Mr. D. McKnight
Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms
That the application of Zoltan & Aranka Komaromi requesting permission to provide two parking spaces
in the existing driveway, for a home and home business, to be located up to the Iotline rather than 6 m
(19.69 ft.) back from the Iotline on Lot 152, Registered Plan 1368, 206 Laurentian Drive, Kitchener,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 155 MAY 6, 1997
Ontario BE REFUSED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that this application is not desirable for the appropriate development of
the property,
Carried
CONSENT
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Submission No. B 9~97 - CAA Mid-Western Ontario, 148 Manitou Drive,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re:
Part Lot 11, Registered Plan 791 being Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-866, 836 Courtland Avenue
East, Kitchener, Ontario.
The Committee was in receipt of a letter from the applicant's agent advising that this application has been
withdrawn.
Submission No. B 26~97 - Central Baptist Church, 419 Mill Street,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re: Part Lot 15, Registered Plan 384, 415 Mill Street, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. A. Lichtenheldt
97 Frederick Street
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever the triplex at 415 Mill from
the rest of the land owned by the Church. The severed lands will have a width of 15.24 m (50 ft.) by a
depth of 33.528 m (110 ft.) and will have an area of 510.95 m2 (55,000 sq. ft.). The use is intended to
remain a triplex.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the applicant, Central Baptist Church, is requesting consent to sever an existing developed property
from the current church land holdings at the intersection of Mill Street and Ottawa Street. The subject
lands are municipally addressed 415 Mill Street and are presently developed with a legal non-conforming
triplex.
2. Submission No. B 26~97 - Central Baptist Church - cont'd
Since the property is presently developed with a legal non-conforming triplex, there are no specific
regulations which apply to the property with respect to such zoning matters as minimum yard and lot area
requirements. However, having a width of 15.24 metres and an area of 511 square metres, the proposed
lot is sufficiently sized to enable it to be developed for any of the permitted I-1 uses. The lands to be
severed were originally a separate lot but merged with the adjacent Central Baptist Church lands on
which a dwelling is located. The severance of this lot will in no way affect the viability of the larger church
landholding.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends that Consent Application A 26/97 be
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 156 MAY 6, 1997
approved subject to the following conditions:
That any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvements be paid to the City of
Kitchener.
The Committee noted the revised comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of
Waterloo, dated May 1, 1997, in which they advised that following a survey of the site, they wished to
confirm that, at this location, Ottawa Street has an existing road allowance width of 66 ft. and a
designated road allowance width of 86 ft. The Region will require a 10 ft. road widening from Part 1 of
this property as a condition of consent. They also wished to advise the owner that an encroachment
agreement between the owner and the Region will be required for any permanent signs located within the
road widening.
In their previous comments, Regional staff had requested a twenty4ive daylighting triangle at the
intersection of Pattandon Avenue and Ottawa Street. In light of the proximity of the church to the
intersection and after reviewing this issue with staff, they determined that a 10 ft. daylighting triangle at
this intersection would be sufficient. In summary, Regional staff have no objection to this application for
consent, provided that the owner conveys to the Region a 10 ft. road widening along the entire frontage of
Part 1 on the Reference Plan and a 10 ft. daylighting triangle at the intersection of Pattandon Avenue and
Ottawa Street as conditions of approval.
When questioned by the Committee, Mr. Lichtenheldt advised that the Regional requirements were not
going to cause the owner a problem.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms
That the application of Central Baptist Church requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having
width of 15.24 m (50 ft.) by a depth of 33.528 m (110 ft.) and having an area of 510.95 m2 (55,000 sq. ft.)
on Part Lot 15, Registered Plan 384, 415 Mill Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED; subject to the
following conditions:
That the owner shall make arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owner shall convey to the Region of Waterloo, without cost and free of encumbrance, a
10 ft. road widening across the Ottawa Street frontage of Part 1, as shown on the Draft Reference
Plan and a 10 ft. daylighting triangle at the intersection of Pattandon Avenue and Ottawa Street.
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 May 6, 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.
2. Submission No. B 26~97 - Central Baptist Church - cont'd
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 27/97 - B 29/97 & A 60/97 - Habitat for Humanity Waterloo Reqion, 159
Herbert Street, Waterloo, Ontario
Part of Lot 38, Registered Plan 775 and Part of River Road Closed, 250 Fairway Road North,
Kitchener, Ontario.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 157 MAY 6, 1997
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. P. Dietrich
150 Water Street South
Cambridge, Ontario
Ms. P. McLean
159 Herbert Street
Waterloo, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTENSUBMISSIONS:
INSUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The applicant is proposing to sever this land into three pieces, to be developed with three street fronting
townhouses. The lots will have the following dimensions:
Part 1 - Submission No. B 27/97
Lot Width:
Lot Depth:
Lot Area:
17.28 m (56.7 ft.)
26.1 m (85.63 ft.)
381.4 m2 (4,105.49 sq. ft.)
Part 2 - Submission No. B 28~97
Lot Width:
Lot Depth:
Lot Area:
6.56 m (21.53 ft.)
26.1 m (85.63 ft.)
183.7 m2 (1977.4 sq. ft.)
Part 3 - Submission No. B 29~97
Lot Width:
Lot Depth:
Lot Area:
13.6 m (44.62 ft.)
22.4 m (73.49 ft.)
296.4 m~ (3,190.53 sq. ft.)
The applicant has also applied for approval of minor variances (Submission No. A 60~97) as the house on
Part 1 will have a setback from Fairway Road of 6.15 m (20.18 ft.) rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.)
and the houses on Parts 2 & 3 will have rearyards of 5.7 m (18.7 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61
ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that Habitat for Humanity is proposing to construct three street townhouse dwellings on the property
located at the north-west corner of Grulke Street and Fairway Road. This site was previously developed
as a Hydro sub-station. Minor variance application A60/97 requests a rear yard of 5.7
Submission No. B 27/97 - B 29/97 & A 60/97 - Habitat for
cont'd
Humanity Waterloo Reqion -
metres for the dwellings located on Part 2 and Part 3 as shown on the plan attached submitted with the
application, whereas the zoning by-law requires a rear yard of 7.5 metres, and, a minor variance to
reduce the required yard abutting Fairway Road from 12 metres to 6.15 metres. Applications for consent
have also been submitted which propose the severance of the lands into three parcels, with each parcel
accommodating one of the three proposed street townhouse dwellings. Application B27/97 proposed a
lot having an area of approximately 381.4 square metres and a lot width of 17.28 square metres; B28/97
proposed a lot having an area of approximately 183.7 square metres and a lot width of 6.56 metres and
B29/97 proposed a lot having an area of approximately 296.4 square metres and a lot width of
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 158 MAY 6, 1997
approximately 13.6 metres.
This application was previously deferred from the Committee of Adjustment meeting of April 15, 1997 to
provide sufficient time to review the site plan application and receive comments from circulated
departments. The Department has now had adequate time to review the site plan application and
comments received from the circulated departments and agencies. An issue has arisen with regard to
comments received from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in which they require the dedication of a
4.87 metre (16 foot) wide road widening along Fairway Road South and a 3.048 metre (10 foot) daylight
triangle dedication at the intersection of Fairway Road and Grulke Street.
As a result of these requested widenings, the proximity of the building to the future lot line, and the extent
of the variance has been an issue for consideration with respect to the original site plan submission. As a
result of these discussions with staff, the applicant has redesigned the site plan to shift the building further
to the west on the subject lands, although this
creates an additional variance and modifies others. In addition, the most westerly unit has been reduced
in its width, which also maximizes the setback from Fairway Road. The revised plan dated May 1, 1997, is
attached to these comments. The applicant and the Planning Department staff have had several
discussions and meetings with regard to the proposed redesign of the site plan, in order to achieve the
objectives of the zoning by-law.
As a result of the required widenings and subsequent redesign of the proposed site plan, proposed lot
areas and lot widths of the proposed severed lands are as follows:
B27/97 proposes a lot area of 297.1 square metres and a lot width of 14.1 metres
B28/97 proposes a lot area of 174.7 square metres and a lot width of 6.5 metres
B29/97 proposes a lot area of 237.7 square metres and a lot width of 10.9 metres
As a result of the revisions, application A60/97 must be amended to request a rear yard setback of 5.1
metres for the dwelling on Part 2 and Part 3. The applicants had originally requested a variance to the
required setback along Fairway Road from 12 metres to 6.15 metres. As a result of the required
widenings, the requested setback variance must apply relative to the future lot line. In this regard, the
applicants have increased the proposed setback from the existing lot line at Fairway Road to 8.5 metres,
attempting to maximize the setbacks along Fairway Road. After the road widening, the setback from
Fairway Road for the closest part of the building would be 4 metres. The minor variance application
should be amended to request a setback along Fairway Road of 4 metres rather than the required 12
metres. Further, as a result of the required road widening, the resulting lot width of Part 1 would be 14.1
metres, whereas the zoning by-law requires a lot width of 15 metres. Finally, as a result of maximizing
setbacks along Fairway Road, a side yard setback along the interior side lot line of 1.2 metres is
proposed, whereas the zoning by-law requires 2.5 metres for street townhouse dwellings.
Several site characteristics have been considered as constraints to full compliance with the by-law,
including the increased setbacks of a corner lot, the configuration of the lands, increased setback
requirements adjacent to a Regional Road, and the required road widenings.
3. Submission No. B 27/97 - B 29/97 & A 60/97 - Habitat for
Humanity Waterloo Reqion - cont'd
With respect to the rear yard variances, the the proposal shows an increased front yard setback from the
standard by-law requirement for street townhouse dwellings of 4.5 metres, to 5.3 metres, to adequately
locate a parked car in front of the proposed garage areas without overhanging onto the city sidewalk,
therefore further reducing proposed rear yards. The Department of Planning and Development is of the
opinion that the proposed rear yards are sufficient to provide outdoor amenity area and privacy area to
maintain the intent of the by-law as the lots are wider at the rear of the lots and the requested variance
relates to a minimum setback along the rear yard; only the corner of the buildings on two parcels
encroach and the rear yards are, on average, 7 metres in depth.
With respect to the setback requirements from Fairway Road, staff are of the opinion that proposal meets
the intent of the Regional setback requirements as the proposal attempts to maximum setbacks from the
Regional road and the applicants are required to satisfy the Region with respect to noise attenuation, as
requested as a condition by the Region. The requested 4.0 metre setback along Fairway Road is close to
the setback requirement from a local road, being 4.5 metres. The City's zoning by-law legalizes
variances created by road widenings in cases other than when taken as a condition of consent, which is
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 159 MAY 6, 1997
why a minor variance is required in this case. This development represents an 'infill development'; other
buildings in the area were not required to be setback 12 metres. This increased setback regulation was
introduced to the general provisions of the by-law in 1994 primarily to govern setbacks from Arterial
Roads in new subdivision development. Accordingly, with the main intent of the increased setback, being
noise attenuation, to be satisfied by the construction of a noise attenuation wall, the variance may be
considered relative to the 4.5 metre setback from a road, with which this proposal closely complies. As
the setback varies from 4.0 metres to 7.24 metres, providing sufficient landscapined area and a suitable
streetscape, the Department is of the opinion that this requested variance is minor and appropriate.
The reduced corner lot width, from 15 metres to 14.1 metres, is minor and appropriate given the extent
and impact of the road widening dedication.
Finally, regarding the proposed interior side yard of 1.2 metres, staff are of the opinion that the minor
variance is appropriate, as the abutting lands are developed as parking lot area for the three storey
apartment building located to the north of the subject lands. This side yard still provides adequate area
for rear yard access and does not frustrate any building code requirements. Staff encouraged the shifting
of the building so as to create this variance, providing a greater setback from Fairway Road.
The Department of Planning and Development has no concern with the variances, as amended, and find
the proposal desirable and appropriate for the development of the lands, as an affordable infilling housing
project. The applicant has made every attempt to maximize setbacks along Fairway Road and will still be
required to satisfy the Region of Waterloo noise attenuation requirements. Further the proposal meets
minimum lot areas and, with the exception of a minor reduction of lot width for one lot, will satisfy lot width
requirements.
The proposed severances are appropriate as they allow the future conveyance of the units to the
purchasers, and with the approval of the variances, comply with the zoning by-law.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Minor Variance Application
A60/97, as amended, only in accordance with the Site plan finally approved under Application 97161FNL,
without conditions, and recommends approval of Consent Applications B27/97, B28/97 and B29/97, as
amended, conditional upon the following:
3. Submission No. B 27/97 - B 29/97 & A 60/97 - Habitat for
Humanity Waterloo Reqion - cont'd
That the owner enter into a subdivision/servicing agreement with the City of Kitchener to be
prepared by the City Solicitor in consultation with the General Manager of Public Works, and
registered on title of both the severed and retained lands; said agreement shall include
arrangements for performance securities and municipal engineering services and which agreement
shall also include the following special conditions which shall generally state as follows:
(b)
The owner shall install municipal engineering services within Grulke Street and reconstruct
and replace such street in accordance with plans approved by the General Manager of
Public Works.
(c)
To make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's General Manager of Public
Works for the installation to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees,
and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed and retained lands.
2. That Minor Variance Application A-60/97 receive final approval.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution for parkland
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the severed lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 160 MAY 6, 1997
That the owner obtain clear title to Part 3 of Plan 58R-10070 and said part shall be merged with
Parts 1 and 2 of Plan 58R-10070.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Regional Municipality of
Waterloo, dated May 1, 1997, in which they advised
that, at this location, Fairway Road has an existing road allowance width of 86 ft. and a designated width
of 100 ft. In our previous comments we indicated that a road widening measured 50 ft. from the centre
line of the existing ashphalt of Fairway Road would be required from this property. Following an
inspections of the site by an Ontario Land Surveyor, the amount of the road widening as been determined
to be 16 ft. In our previous comments we also requested a 25 ft. daylighting triangle at the intersection of
Fairway Road and Grulke Street as a condition of the Consent. After reviewing the impact of this
requirement on the proposed development, Regional staff have agreed to reduce the size of the
daylighting triangle to 10 ft. In addition, Regional staff have been advised that the owner is proposing to
close the existing Fairway Road access and provide a new access from Grukle Street. A Regional Road
Entrance Permit will therefore be provided for the closure of the Fairway Road access. In summary,
Regional staff have no objection to the applications provided the owner can convey to the Region a 16 ft.
road widening along the entire Fairway Road frontage and a 10 ft. daylighting triangle at the intersection
of Fairway Road and Grukle Street. Please note that all other Regional requirements pertaining to noise,
fencing, stormwater management and the potential for site contamination, as outlined in the comments
dated April 10, 1997, continue to apply to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division, dated April 11, 1997, in which they
advised that in reviewing that plan it appears that the sidewalk on Grukle Street encroaches onto the
subject property which reduces the depth of the driveways. This could result in vehicles blocking the
sidewalk which is prohibited in the City of Kitchener traffic by-law. The Division is prepared to support a
minimum driveway depth of 5.3 m for the proposed development.
3. Submission No. B 27/97 - B 29/97 & A 60/97 - Habitat for
Humanity Waterloo Reqion - cont'd
Mr. P. Dietrich requested amendments to the applications in accordance with the Planning Departments
comments. He also explained the need for the amendments, being the Regions request for road
widenings and a daylighting triangle. He asked that the Consent decisions reflect that the measurements
are approximate, as the exact measurements will not be known until the foundations are poured; although
the final measurements will not be substantially different than the measurements provided today.
Concerning the Regions request for an environmentally assessment, Mr. Dietrich advised that one was
done by the Hydro when Habitat purchased the land and they have a clean bill of health.
Ms. J. Given advised that the development is the subject of a site plan application and the Regions
requests for a fence and stormwater management have been looked after through that process.
Submission No. B 27~97
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight
That the application of Habitat for Humanity Waterloo Region Inc. requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land having a width of approximately 14.1 m (46.26 ft.) by a depth of approximately 26.1 m
(85.63 ft.) and having an area of approximately 297.1 m2 (3,198.07 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 38, Registered Plan
775 and Part of River Road Closed, 250 Fairway Road North, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject
to the following conditions:
That the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, to be
registered on title of all of the lands, to submit a noise study for the Regions review, prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 161 MAY 6, 1997
That the applicant shall undertake a site assessment in accordance with the guidelines for use at
contaminated sites in Ontario and shall submit a record of site conditions for acknowledgement of
the Ministry of Environment and Energy; with copies of the record of site condition and relevant
reports being forwarded to the Regional Commission of Engineering.
That the applicant shall convey to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, without cost and free of
encumbrance a 4.88 m (16 ft.) road widening across the Fairway Road frontage of the subject
property and a 3.05 m (10 ft.) daylighting triangle at the corner of Fairway Road and Grukle Street.
That the owner shall enter into a subdivision\servicing agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be
prepared by the City Solicitor in consultation with the General Manager of Public Works and
registered on title of all the lands; said agreement shall include arrangements for performance
securities and municipal engineering services and which agreement shall also include the following
special conditions which shall generally state as follows:
a)
That the owner shall install municipal engineering services within Grukle Street and
reconstruct and replace such street in accordance with plans approved by the General
Manager of Public Works.
b)
That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Citys General
Manager of Public Works for the installation, of boulevard landscaping including street
trees and a paved driveway ramp on all the lands.
That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 60~97.
That the owner shall make satsifactory financial arrangements with the City of Kitchener 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.
3. Submission No. B 27/97 - B 29/97 & A 60/97 - Habitat for
Humanity Waterloo Reqion - cont'd
Submission No. B 27/97 - cont'd
8. That the owner shall obtain clear title to Part 3 of Reference Plan 58R-170 with said Part to be
merged with Parts 1 & 2 of Reference Plan 58R-170.
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 May 6, 1999.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
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.
Submission No. B 28/97
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 162 MAY 6, 1997
That the application of Habitat for Humanity Waterloo Region Inc. requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land having a width of approximately 6.5 m (21.33 ft.) by a depth of approximately 26.1 m (85.63
ft.) and having an area of approximately 174.7 m2 (1,880.52 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 38, Registered Plan 775
and Part of River Road Closed, 250 Fairway Road North, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the
following conditions:
That the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, to be
registered on title of all of the lands, to submit a noise study for the Regions review, prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
That the applicant shall undertake a site assessment in accordance with the guidelines for use at
contaminated sites in Ontario and shall submit a record of site conditions for acknowledgement of
the Ministry of Environment and Energy; with copies of the record of site condition and relevant
reports being forwarded to the Regional Commission of Engineering.
That the applicant shall convey to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, without cost and free of
encumbrance a 4.88 m (16 ft.) road widening across the Fairway Road frontage of the subject
property and a 3.05 m (10 ft.) daylighting triangle at the corner of Fairway Road and Grukle Street.
That the owner shall enter into a subdivision\servicing agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be
prepared by the City Solicitor in consultation with the General Manager of Public Works and
registered on title of all the lands; said agreement shall include arrangements for performance
securities and municipal engineering services and which agreement shall also include the following
special conditions which shall generally state as follows:
a)
That the owner shall install municipal engineering services within Grukle Street and
reconstruct and replace such street in accordance with plans approved by the General
Manager of Public Works.
3. Submission No. B 27/97 - B 29/97 & A 60/97 - Habitat for
Humanity Waterloo Reqion - cont'd
Submission No. B 28/97 - cont'd
b) That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Citys General
Manager of Public Works for the installation, of boulevard landscaping including street
trees and a paved driveway ramp on all the lands.
5. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 60/97.
6. That the owner shall make satsifactory financial arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
7. 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.
8. That the owner shall obtain clear title to Part 3 of Reference Plan 58R-170 with said Part to be
merged with Parts 1 & 2 of Reference Plan 58R-170.
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 May 6, 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.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 163 MAY 6, 1997
lands.
The use of the land in this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the
Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
3. Submission No. B 27/97 - B 29/97 & A 60/97 - Habitat for
Humanity Waterloo Reqion - cont'd
Submission No. B 29/97
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight
That the application of Habitat for Humanity Waterloo Region Inc. requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land having a width of approximately 10.9 m (35.77 ft.) by a depth of approximately 22.4 m
(73.49 ft.) and having an area of approximately 237.7 m2 (2,558.67 sq. ft.) on Part of Lot 38, Registered
Plan 775 and Part of River Road Closed, 250 Fairway Road North, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED
subject to the following conditions:
That the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, to be
registered on title of all of the lands, to submit a noise study for the Regions review, prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
That the applicant shall undertake a site assessment in accordance with the guidelines for use at
contaminated sites in Ontario and shall submit a record of site conditions for acknowledgement of
the Ministry of Environment and Energy; with copies of the record of site condition and relevant
reports being forwarded to the Regional Commission of Engineering.
3. Submission No. B 27/97 - B 29/97 & A 60/97 - Habitat for
Humanity Waterloo Reqion - cont'd
Submission No. B 29~97
That the applicant shall convey to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, without cost and free of
encumbrance a 4.88 m (16 ft.) road widening across the Fairway Road frontage of the subject
property and a 3.05 m (10 ft.) daylighting triangle at the corner of Fairway Road and Grukle Street.
That the owner shall enter into a subdivision\servicing agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be
prepared by the City Solicitor in consultation with the General Manager of Public Works and
registered on title of all the lands; said agreement shall include arrangements for performance
securities and municipal engineering services and which agreement shall also include the following
special conditions which shall generally state as follows:
a)
That the owner shall install municipal engineering services within Grukle Street and
reconstruct and replace such street in accordance with plans approved by the General
Manager of Public Works.
b)
That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the Citys General
Manager of Public Works for the installation, of boulevard landscaping including street
trees and a paved driveway ramp on all the lands.
5. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 60~97.
That the owner shall make satsifactory financial arrangements with the City of Kitchener 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 164 MAY 6, 1997
8. That the owner shall obtain clear title to Part 3 of Reference Plan 58R-170 with said Part to be
merged with Parts 1 & 2 of Reference Plan 58R-170.
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 May 6, 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.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained
lands.
3. The use of the land in this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the
Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Submission No. B 27/97 - B 29/97 & A 60/97 - Habitat for
cont'd
Humanity Waterloo Reqion Inc. -
Submission No. A 60/97
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight
That the application of Habitat for Humanity Waterloo Region Inc. requesting permission to construct
three townhouse units with the following variances: the corner unit (Part 1) to have a setback from
Fairway Road of 4 m (13.13 ft.) rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.) with the Lot to have a width of
approximately 14.1 m (46.26 ft.) rather than the required 15 m (49.22 ft.); the unit to be constructed on
Part 2 to have a rearyard of 5.1 m (16.74 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) and the units to be
constructed on Part 3 to have a rearyard of 5.1 m (16.74 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) and
a westerly sideyard of 1.2 m (4 ft.) rather than the required 2.5 m (8.21 ft.) on on Part of Lot 38,
Registered Plan 775 and Part of River Road Closed, 250 Fairway Road North, 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
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 165 MAY 6, 1997
APPLICATIONS
1. Submission No. B 30/97 - Hallman Brierdale Ltd., 230 Gage Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario.
Re: Part Block 5, Registered Plan 1806, 24 Gregg Court, Kitchener, Ontario.
Mr. W. Dahms declared a conflict of interest with this application, as his law firm acts for the applicant and
did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application.
As no one appeared in support of this application the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this
application to the meeting of May 27, 1997.
Submission No. B 31/97 & B 32~97 & A 69~97 - Mary Ann Sullivan, 20
David Street, Kitchener,
Ontario
Re: Part Lots 34, 45 & 56, Registered Plan 393 and Part Lot 17, Registered Plan 80, 12-14 & 20 David
Street and 69 Joseph Street, Kitchener, Ontario.
Mr. S. Kay declared a conflict of interest with these applications, a his law firm represents the applicant
and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to these applications.
2. Submission No. B 31/97 & B 32/97 & A 69/97 - Mary Ann Sullivan - cont'd
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. T. Blackwell
177 Victoria Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:
CONTRA:
Submission No. B 31/97 & B 32/97 & A 69/97 - Mary Ann Sullivan - cont'd
NONE
NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever this land into 3 parts as
follows:
Submission No. B 31/97
12-14 David Street
Lot Width: 16.15 m (52.97 ft.)
Lot Depth: 65.38 m (214.5 ft.)
Lot Area: 1,055.53 m2 (11,362 sq. ft.)
Submission No. B 32~97
20 David Street
Lot Width: 16.15 m (52.97 ft.)
Lot Depth: 65.38 m (214.5 ft.)
Lot Area: 1,055.53 m2 (11,362 sq. ft.)
Retained Lands
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 166 MAY 6, 1997
69 Joseph Street
Lot Width:
Lot Depth:
Lot Area:
36.66 m (120.26 ft.)
31.91 m (104.67 ft.) & 47.69 m (156.44 ft.)
approx. 1,304.48 m2 (approx. 14,041.73 sq. ft.)
The applicant has also made Application for Minor Variance A 69~97 for the retained lands at 69 Joseph
Street. The lot width and rearyard do not comply with the current zoning requirements. Also, the by-law
currently requires a visual barrier at the rear of this property and one does not exist and the rearyard is
not large enough to provide one.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the applicant is requesting consent to sever the subject lands into three separate lots. The lands are
a consolidation of three lots previously held in separate title. There are currently four buildings on the
property, including a fourplex, duplex and single detached dwelling at 12, 14 and 20 David Street,
respectively, and an auto repair business at 69 Joseph Street.
Three variances are requested for the proposed lot fronting Joseph Street; relief is sought from by-law
requirements for lot width, rear yard and visual barrier.
The lands are designated Medium Density Multiple Residential in the Victoria Park Neighbourhood
Secondary Plan. The Plan states that the intent of the designation is "to encourage new development at
densities which provide an appropriate transition between Iow densities found in the heart of residential
neighbourhoods and higher density redevelopment sites at the periphery of the neighbourhood.
The R-8 zoning permits multiple dwellings of up to 24m (8 storeys) in height. The Floor Space Ratio for
new development may be between 0.6 and 2.0.
Special policy #4 recognizes the existing service station and auto repair business at 55 and 69 Joseph
Street. Holding Policy #13 restricts use to service station/auto repair and residential uses within existing
buildings, until such time as the two properties are consolidated for redevelopment and
a site plan is approved. The holding policies were developed during 1993 Secondary Plan review, with
the participation and agreement of the owners. These policies are implemented in the zoning by-law by
special use provision 169U and holding provision 25H.
2. Submission No. B 31/97 & B 32/97 & A 69/97 - Mary Ann Sullivan - cont'd
Clearly, the intent of the holding provision is to encourage residential redevelopment of the two
automotive sites. The intent of the secondary plan designation applying to the entire property is to
encourage redevelopment for
medium density residential purposes. The City's Municipal Plan encourages residential development in
and adjacent to the downtown in order to establish a vibrant and safe atmosphere in the downtown and
provide a larger market for downtown businesses. In particular, a site so close to the transit terminal is an
ideal location for multiple residential development.
Staff do not support the proposed severances as they are contrary to the intent of the Municipal Plan and
Secondary Plan. The severances would isolate the existing uses on separate lots, encouraging the
perpetuation of these uses. As a consolidation, the lands have greater potential for residential
redevelopment. The subject lands total 3,484 square metres (37,500 square feet) in area. The abutting
service station lot, which is also subject to Holding Provision 25H, is 960 square metres (10,330 square
feet) in area. The total developable area is 4,444 square metres (47,830 square feet). This would allow
up to 90 residential units.
Staff could support the severance of the lands in such a way that all lands fronting David Street are
retained as one redevelopment lot with an area of 2,100 square metres, with the 55 and 69 Joseph Street
properties consolidated to form creating a second redevelopment lot of 2,333 square metres.
If such a severance were to be favoured, consideration should be given to severing the land along the
projection of the east lot line of 55 Joseph Street, avoiding irregular lot configuration. In this way the rear
yard and lot width variances would not be required. A 2.904m widening of David Street would be required
as set out in the Municipal Plan. They recommend refusal of Submissions A69/97, B29/97 and B30/97 as
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 167 MAY 6, 1997
submitted.
The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building, Zoning & Inspections in which he
advised that the Division has no concerns or comments with respect to these submissions.
The Chairman questioned whether Ms. Blackwell had read the Planning Department report and she
advised that she had.
The Chairman questioned how long title had been in one ownerhsip. Ms. Blackwell responded that 69
Joseph Street and 20 David Street were owned separately from 1957 to 1969 and then, because of a
death, these properties merged. The merger was accidental because of a death and not because they
were purposely merged. The Chairman commented that he could not see a problem with these
severances. These are technical severances and not creating a Lot that did not exist before.
Mr. W. Dahms questioned staff regarding the buildings on 12-14 David Street and whether two structures
cause a by-law problem. Ms. J. Given advised that there was no problem as these buildings are not
semis or singles.
When questioned by Mr. A. Galloway, Ms. Blackwell confirmed that these applications re-establish
previously existing Lots, except for 20 David Street which will now be separate from 69 Joseph. Mr. A.
Galloway questioned staff as to whether they would request any conditions if the applications were
approved. Ms. Given responded that the City would want a 2.904 m road widening along David Street.
Ms. Given also advised that the Zoning requirements for 69 Joseph Street are those of these service
station zone. A discussion then took place over the need for the visual barrier.
Submission No. B 31/97
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight
That the application of Mary Ann Sullivan requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width
on David Street of 16.15 m (52.97 ft.) by a depth of 65.38 m (214.5 ft.) and having an area of 1,055.53 m2
(11,362 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 34, Registered Plan 393, 20 David Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED
subject to the following condition:
2. Submission No. B 31/97 & B 32/97 & A 69/97 - Mary Ann Sullivan - cont'd
Submission No. B 31/97 - cont'd
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight
That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener without cost and free of encumbrance, a 2.904
m road widening across the David Street frontage of 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 May 6, 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
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 168 MAY 6, 1997
Submission No. B 32/97
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight
That the application of Mary Ann Sullivan requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width
of 16.15 m (52.97 ft.) by a depth of 65.38 m (214.5 ft.) and having an area of 1,055.53 m2 (11,362 sq. ft.)
on Part Lots 34 Registered Plan 393 20 David Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the
following condition:
That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener without cost and free of encumbrance, a 2.904
m road widening across the David Street frontage of 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 May 6, 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
2. Submission No. B 31/97 & B 32/97 & A 69/97 - Mary Ann Sullivan - cont'd
Submission No. A 69~97
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight
That the application of Mary Ann Sullivan requesting legalization of the existing building on a Lot having a
frontage of 17.38 m 57.01 ft. rather than the required 38 m (124.68 ft.) a rearyard of 0.77m (2.51 ft.) rather
than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) and permission not to provide a visual barrier between the rear of this
property and the residential properties on David Street on Lots 34 and 56, Registered Plan 393, 69
Joseph 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.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Mr. W. Dahms voted in opposition to these decisions.
ADJOURNED
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 169 MAY 6, 1997
On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 6th, day of May 1997.
D. H. Gilchrist
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment