HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1998-07-28COA\1998-07-28
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 28, 1998
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. W. Dahms, S. Kay and P. Kruse.
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
MINUTES
Moved by Mr. W. Dahms
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of June 30, 1998, as mailed to
the members, be accepted.
MINOR VARIANCE
APPLICATIONS
Carried
CONTRA:
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:
CONTRA:
Re:
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
3. Submission No. A 60/98 - J. Stephen Johnston, 349 Luella Street, Kitchener,
Ontario
These applications were considered in conjunction with Submission No. B 60/98 -B 65/98 as described in
the Minutes of Consent.
Submission No.'s A 57/98, A 58/98 & A 59/98 - Katherine Wilhelm c/o Warren
Wilhelm, 205 Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario
These applications were considered in conjunction with Submission No. B 66/98 & B 67/98 as described
in the Minutes for Consent.
Part of Lots 25 & 26, Plan 79, 349 Luella Street, Kitchener, Ontario.
Mr. J. S. Johnston
349 Luella Street
Kitchener, Ontario
NONE
NONE
NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing parking space
located up to the lot line along Luella Street rather than being setback 6 m (19.69 ft.) from the lot line
Submission No.'s A 55/98 & A 56/98 - 1058788 Inc., 21 Second Avenue,
Kitchener, Ontario
COk~ITTEE OF ADJUST1MEbIT 255 JULY 28. 1998
along Luella Street.
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services Department in which they
advised that the applicant requests a variance to allow the required parking space to be located zero
metres from the street line, whereas the by-law requires a setback of 6.0 metres.
The subject property is occupied by a single detached dwelling built prior to 1925. It is not possible to
comply with the 6.0 m setback requirement as the
3. Submission No. A 60/98 - J. Stephen Johnston, cont'd
building is only 4.63 m from the street line, and has side yards of only 0.88 m and 0.24 m. The owner has
established a parking space in the front yard, at a 45 degree angle from the street.
As the building predates any zoning by-law requiring on-site parking, it is legally not required to provide
on-site parking. However, the variance is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land
as it is reasonable to allow the occupant to have an on-site parking space, provided such space does not
significantly impact the streetscape.
The provision of on-site parking at a 45 degree angle is an undesirable condition, firstly for safety reasons
and secondly for aesthetic reasons, as most of the width of the front yard area is taken up by the parking
space. This is contrary to the provisions of the by-law limiting the width of the driveway to a maximum of
50% of the width of the lot.
In staff's opinion, the proposal would maintain the general intent and purpose of the by-law and official
plan only if the parking space is provided at a 90 degree angle to the street. This necessitates a second
variance, to reduce the length of the parking space from 5.49 m (18') to 4.63 m (15.2'). The application
should be amended accordingly. The reduced parking space length is reasonable because the distance
between the dwelling and the sidewalk is 6.0 m (20'), allowing for a vehicle to be parked without
overhanging the sidewalk.
The impact of the variance is minor provided that the parking space is clearly demarcated, either by
asphalt, concrete or interlocking stone, or by other stable surface with permanently defined edges (eg.
crushed stone or gravel defined by permanent edging).
The variance is recommended as in the opinion of staff, it satisfies the four tests set out in S. 45 of the
Planning Act.
The Business and Planning Services Department recommends approval of Submission A 60/98, as
amended to include a variance for parking space length of 4.62 m, subject to the following condition:
That the driveway and parking space be developed at a 90 degree angle to the street, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning, in accordance with a site plan to be approved by the said
Director, including paving, or other stable surface with permanently defined edges. Such works
are to be completed by November 1, 1998. No extension to this completion date shall be granted
unless approved in writing by the Director of Planning prior to the completion date set out in this
decision.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have
reviewed the application and can not support the driveway as proposed. While the physical attributes of
this lot do not permit parking beside the dwelling, thus leaving only the front lawn for a driveway, they felt
that the present angled parking could be hazardous. They recommended parking 90 degrees to the
roadway, entering and exiting the driveway can be done in a safe manner when the vehicle does so 90
degrees to the road. While parking in this manner would require a curb cut, there is sufficient room
between the dwelling and the sidewalk (6.2 m). In summary, they advised that they would support the
proposal for the parking setback if the driveway was located 90 degrees to the roadway.
At the request of Mr. Johnston the Committee agreed to consider an amendment to the application in
accordance with the staff comments.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 256 JULY 28. 1998
That the application of J. Stephen Johnston requesting permission to provide a parking space located up
to the lot line along Luella Street rather than being setback 6 m (19.69 ft.) from the lot line along Luella
Street to have a length of 4.63 m (15.2 ft.) rather than the required 5.49 m (18 ft.) on
Part of Lots 25 & 26, Plan 79, 349 Luella Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the
following condition:
3. Submission No. A 60/98 - J. Stephen Johnston, cont'd
That the driveway and parking space shall be developed at a 90 degree angle to the street, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Planning, in accordance with a site plan to be approved by the said
Director, including paving, or other stable surface with permanently defined edges. Such works
are to be completed by November 1, 1998. No extension to this completion date shall be granted
unless approved in writing by the Director of Planning prior to November 1, 1998.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. A 61/98 - Richard & Elizabeth Rogers, 42 Golfview Place,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re: Part Lots 31 & 32, Registered Plan 230, 16 Spadina Road East, Kitchener, Ontario.
At the request of the applicants, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to the
meeting scheduled for Tuesday August 18, 1998.
Submission No.'s A 62/98 & A 63/98 - Thomasfield Homes Ltd., 295 Southgate
Drive, Unit 1, Guelph, Ontario
Parts 39 & 52, Reference Plan 58R-9356, Windward Place & Westforest Trail, Kitchener, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. P. Van Harten
Van Harten Surveying Inc.
423 Woolwich Street
Guelph, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate the driveways 6.2 m
(20.35 ft.) from the intersection rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services Department in which they
advised that the applicant is requesting relief from Section 6.1.1 9 b) iv) of By-law 85-1 which requires
access driveways to be located a minimum of 12.0 metres from the street intersection. The proposed
driveways are located 6.2 metres from the street intersection.
Both lots are located at the corner of Windward Place and Westforest Trail. The applicant has submitted
a plan which orients the garages with access to Windward Place. There is an opportunity to locate the
COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 257 JULY 28. 1998
garages facing Westforest Trail, in compliance with the Zoning By-law, however this option has its
problems. Westforest Trail is designated as a major arterial road and in this regard it is preferred that
driveway access be oriented to Windward Place. In view of this, the location of the driveways are
desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land.
5. Submission No.'s A 62/98 & A 63/98 - Thomasfield Homes Ltd., cont'd
The set back from the street intersection is required for safe traffic circulation. Since Windward place is a
cul-de-sac with only nine lots the traffic generated in this regard will be very minor. In view of this, the
general intent and purpose of the by-law and official plan are maintained. Also the impact of the variance
is minor as all of the nine lots will be oriented to Windward Place creating a consistent streetscape.
The Business and Planning Services Department recommends approval of Submissions A 62/98 and A
63/98.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have
reviewed the applications and have no concerns with the reduction of the setback from the 12 m to 6.2 m.
This drastic reduction will have little impact on the Iow volumes of traffic on this cul-de-sac.
Submission No. A 62/98
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Thomasfield Homes Ltd. requesting permission to locate the driveway 6.2 m
(20.35 ft.) from the intersection rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.) on Part 39, Reference Plan 58R-
9356, Windward Place & Westforest Trail, 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 63~98
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Thomasfield Homes Ltd. requesting permission to locate the driveway 6.2 m
(20.35 ft.) from the intersection rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.) on Part 52, Reference Plan 58R-
9356, Windward Place & Westforest Trail, 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 64/98 - Edith Carrasco, 333 Westwood Drive, Kitchener,
Ontario
COk~ITTEE OF ADJUST1MEbIT 258 JULY 28. 1998
Re: Part Lot 104, Registered Plan 1273, 333 Westwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario.
6. Submission No. A 64/98 - Edith Carrasco, cont'd
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Ms. E. Carrasco
333 Westwood Drive
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide 2 parking spaces in
tandem, in the existing driveway, for a home and home business rather than providing 2 parking spaces
side by side.
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services Department in which they
advised that the applicant is requesting permission to park two vehicles in tandem. The applicant is
proposing to open a hairdressing business in a semi-detached dwelling, with no employees. The By-law
requires two parking spaces, one parking space for the residence and one for the proposed home
business. Both parking spaces are required to be set back 6.0 metres from the property line and cannot
be located in tandem.
The legal parking space for the dwelling is located adjacent to the dwelling. The driveway is long enough
to accommodate a total of four parking space in tandem, all meeting the 6.0 metre set back. The dwelling
has a 9.1 metre lot width, making it impossible to provide two parking spaces side by side in compliance
with the By-law. The By-law requires the side by side parking for the convenience of entering and exiting
the driveway without the requirement of moving another vehicle to exit the site.
The proposed home business use is not a high traffic generator. Customers will utilize the available
space in the driveway the same way in which visitors to the dwelling would, which is legal. In view of this,
the general intent and purpose of the by-law is maintained. The impact of the variance is minor since the
proposed business is not a high traffic generator. In view of this, and since the Department generally
supports home businesses throughout the City, the variance is desirable for the appropriate development
and use of the land.
The Business and Planning Services Department recommends approval of Submission A 64/98 relative
only to the parking required for a hair dressing home business, subject to the owner complying with all
other home business regulations and subject to the owner obtaining an occupancy permit for the home
business.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have
reviewed this application and have no concerns with the proposed two tandem parking spaces.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit
is required for any construction required to be carried out to create the home business.
Mr. Kay questioned whether there would be any employees and Ms. Carrasco advised that there would
be no employees. Mr. Kay then put forward a motion to approve the application subject to the staff
conditions and subject to there being no employees. Mr. Kruse suggested that the applicant may want an
employee in the future who may use public transit and not require a parking space. Ms. J. Given pointed
out that the by-law requires a 3rd parking space if there is an employee.
COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 259 JULY 28. 1998
6. Submission No. A 64/98 - Edith Carrasco, cont'd
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Edith Carrasco requesting permission to provide 2 parking spaces in tandem, in
the existing driveway, for a home and a hairdressing home business rather than providing 2 parking
spaces side by side on Part Lot 104, Registered Plan 1273, 333 Westwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall comply with all other home business regulations.
2. That the owner shall obtain an occupancy permit for the home business.
3. That there shall be no employees in the home business.
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.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
7. Submission No. A 65/98 - Pauline Brickman, 79 Gay Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario
Re:
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Lot 71, Registered Plan 1197, 79 Gay Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
Ms. P. Brickman
79 Gay Crescent
Kitchener, Ontario
Mr. W. Gibbons
21 Meinzinger Avenue
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTENSUBMISSIONS:
INSUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of a shed, in the rearyard, having
a side yard of 0.66 m (2.15 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4
ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services Department in which they
advised that the applicant requests legalization of a shed in the rearyard having a side yard of .66 metres
(2.15 feet) rather than the required 1.2 metres (4 feet).
COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 260 JULY 28. 1998
The applicant received a building permit from the City's Building Division for a shed on August 29, 1998
to erect a small storage shed in the rearyard with notations that it be located a minimum 1.2 metres (4
feet) from the side and rear property lines. The applicant erected the shed immediately beside the fence
in the side yard which is located approximately .6 metres (2 feet) into her property from the side property
line.
7. Submission No. A 65~98 - Pauline Brickman, cont'd
The Department has recently reviewed the regulation for side and rear yards setbacks relative to
accessory buildings, and on August 10, a recommendation will be made to Planning Committee to reduce
the sideyard and rearyard setbacks from 1.2 metres (4 feet) to .6 metres (2 feet) for small garages and
sheds in residential zones. These reduced setbacks existed for many years under the previous Zoning
By-law, 4830.
In this regard, the impact of variance is minor as the existing shed will comply with the proposed setback
requirements. The existing shed will have little impact on the abutting property as it is located several
feet away from the abutting dwelling. The intent of the zoning by-law and Municipal Plan is maintained as
the proposed reduced sideyard would still allow maintenance of the building. The Business & Planning
Service Department recommends approval of Submission A 65/98.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Pauline Brickman requesting legalization of a shed, in the rearyard, having a side
yard of 0.66 m (2.15 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Lot 71, Registered Plan 1197, 79 Gay
Crescent, 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 66/98 - Krizsanderson Developments Ltd., 295 Southgate
Drive, Guelph, Ontario
Re:
Part Lots 9 & 10, Beasley's Broken Front Concession proposed Candle Crescent, Kitchener,
Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Ms. D. Biuk
Green, Scheels, Pidgeon
5-745 Bridge Street West
Waterloo, Ontario
CONTRA:
NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:
NONE
CONTRA: NONE
COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 261 JULY 28. 1998
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to develop 68 townhouse units
with a height of 8.6 m (28.22 ft.) rather than the permitted 7 m (22.97 ft).
Mr. Dahms noted that the applicant had previously appeared before the Committee with respect to fees
for these applications and now the Committee would consider the actual variances.
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services Department in which they
advised that the owners propose to develop 68, 2-storey street fronting townhouse dwelling units over
several Iotless blocks fronting Candle Crescent. When the comprehensive planning process for Pioneer
Tower West was undertaken, in consultation with community representatives, the
8. Submission No. A 66/98 - Krizsanderson Developments Ltd., cont'd
by-law rezoning the lands to R-6 included a special regulation affecting these properties which was
intended to limit the height of the dwellings to 2 storeys, rather than allow 3 storeys, as permitted in the
official plan. Rather than allowing the standard 10.5 metre maximum height regulation to apply, a
maximum height of 7.0 metres was included in the by-law, intended to accommodate a 2 storey
development.
Given that the definition of height requires that it be measured to the highest point on the building, the
ability to develop a 2 storey townhouse development in strict compliance with this regulation is
questionable. The application seeks approval to allow the development to have a maximum height of 8.7
metres, rather than 7.0 metres.
Site Plan approval has been granted for the 68 unit townhouse development, subject to final approval of
minor variances relative to driveway location (previously approved) and final approval of this application.
The intent of the zoning by-law and official plan is maintained by this application, as the street townhouse
dwellings are permitted, provided they are limited to 2 storeys. The additional height of the building is
attributed to the roof lines, and not to a third storey on the buildings. The impact of the variance is minor
as the look of the dwellings will be that of a two storey dwelling. Approval of the minor variances is
desirable as it would allow the construction of row dwellings which have attractive elevations and will
facilitate the development of the lots as contemplated by the community in compliance with the zoning by-
law in all other respects. The Business and Planning Services Department recommends approval of
Submission A 66/98.
It was noted that the application is intended to accommodate the roof pitch and the purpose of the by-law
was to prohibit a 3 storey structure.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Krizsanderson Developments Ltd. requesting permission to develop 68 townhouse
units with a height of 8.6 m (28.22 ft.) rather than the permitted 7 m (22.97 ft) on Part Lots 9 & 10,
Beasley's Broken Front Concession proposed Candle Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
9. Submission No. A 67/98 - Hans Sitt, 306 Guelph Street, Kitchener, Ontario
Re: Part Lot 8, Registered Plan 373, 306 Guelph Street, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 262 JULY 28. 1998
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. H. Sitt
306 Guelph Street
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTENSUBMISSIONS:
INSUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
9. Submission No. A 67/98 - Hans Sitt, cont'd
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a new second storey
balcony, at the rear of the building, with a setback from Weber Street of 8.39 m (27.5 ft.) rather than the
required 12 m (40 ft.) and a rearyard of 3.97 m (13 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.), and
permission to construct a new porch at the Weber Street side of the property to have a setback from
Weber Street of 8.39 m (27.5 ft.) rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services Department in which they
advised that the applicant requests approval of minor variances to construct a new two storey balcony at
the rear of the building, with a setback from Weber Street of 8.39 metres (27.5 feet) rather than the
required 12 metres (40 feet) and a rear yard of 3.97 metres (13.02 feet) rather than the required 7.5
metres (24.61 feet), and a minor variance to construct a new porch at the Weber Street side of the
property to have a setback from Weber Street of 8.39 metres (27.5 feet) rather than the required 12
metres (40 feet). The application should be amended to request relief from the rear yard requirement of
4.0 metres (rather than 7.5 metres) for a raised deck.
The subject property is used as a triplex and the owner intends to expand and provide an outdoor
amenity area for two of the units. The current setback of the existing main building is 9.17 metres (30.07
feet) from Weber Street and approximately 7.6 metres (25 feet) from the rear property line.
The existing one storey porch along the Weber Street side will be removed and replaced with a new one
storey porch with a setback of 8.39 metres (27.5 feet). The intent of the 12 metre setback is that new
residential construction be separated from noise generating arterial roads. In this case, the new
construction is not of habitable space, and is an addition to an existing dwelling. Therefore, the intent of
the by-law is maintained and approval of the application is desirable for the appropriate development of
the lands.
In addition, a new two storey balcony will be erected at the rear with a setback of 3.97 metres (13.02 feet)
rather than 4.0 metres and a having a yard abutting a street of 8.39 metres rather than 12.0 metres. The
proposed balcony will have little impact on the property to the rear as the proposed addition is an
unenclosed balcony. Further, within the rear yard, between the proposed balcony and the abutting single
detached dwelling are two large mature deciduous trees which would provide adequate screening from
the abutting neighbours. The application is minor and maintains the intent of the by-law.
The variance to the yard abutting a street maintains the intent of the by-law in a similar manner as set out
above for the Weber Street porch and therefor also meets the Planning Act tests.
The Business and Planning Services Department recommends approval of Submission A 67/98, as
amended.
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 50 ft. and a
designated road allowance width of 86 ft. Therefore, an 18 ft. road widening is required from this
property. A 25 ft. daylighting triangle is also required at the intersection of Weber Street and Guelph
Street. It may not be appropriate to acquire the road widening and daylighting triangle from this property
under this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit
COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 263 JULY 28. 1998
is required to construct the new balcony and porch.
Mr. Sitt provided the Committee with photographs of the existing situation and explained his application.
He advised that he had spoken with the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro and they will relocate the lines coming
into the property. He requested permission to amend the application in accordance with the staff
comments.
9. Submission No. A 67/98 - Hans Sitt, cont'd
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of Hans Sitt requesting permission to construct a new second storey balcony, at the
rear of the building, with a setback from Weber Street of 8.39 m (27.5 ft.) rather than the required 12 m
(40 ft.) and a rearyard of 3.97 m (13 ft.) rather than the required 4 m (13.13 ft.), and permission to
construct a new porch at the Weber Street side of the property to have a setback from Weber Street of
8.39 m (27.5 ft.) rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.) on Part Lot 8, Registered Plan 373, 306 Guelph
Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the balcony and deck.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
10.
Submission No. A 68/98 - Lydia Fitzgerald, 63 Windrush Trail, Kitchener,
Ontario
Lot 37, Registered Plan 1710, 63 Windrush Trail, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. B. Fitzgerald
63 Windrush Trail
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to widen the garage by 0.46 m
(1.5 ft.) leaving a sideyard of 0.92 m (3 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services Department in which they
advised that the applicant requests permission to reduce the side yard to .92 metres (3 feet) rather than
the required 1.2 metres (4 feet).
The applicant received a building permit from the City's Building Division for a single detached dwelling
on December 30, 1996. A dwelling along with an attached two car garage was erected in compliance
COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 264 JULY 28. 1998
with the by-law, having a sideyard of 1.419 metres (4.656 feet). Since the garage can barely
accommodate two vehicles, the owner wishes to remove the outside garage wall and widen the structure
so that the garage wall would be to .92 metres (3 feet) from the side lot line.
The impact of the variance is minor as the proposed garage portion abuts a blank wall on the dwelling of
the abutting lot, except for a small dining room window. Further, the sideyard of the abutting property is
3.56 metre (11.6 foot). The impact of the reduced sideyard on the abutting property is
10. Submission No. A 68/98 - Lydia Fitzqerald, cont'd
negligible. The intent of the zoning by-law and Municipal Plan is maintained as the sideyard continues to
provide sufficient room for maintenance of the wall. The Business and Planning Service Department
recommends approval of Submission A 68/98.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a wall located
less than 4 ft. from the property line shall have a least a forty-five minute fire resistance rating and there
shall be no openings.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Lydia Fitzgerald requesting permission to widen the garage by 0.46 m (1.5 ft.)
leaving a sideyard of 0.92 m (3 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Lot 37, Registered Plan 1710,
63 Windrush Trail, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the wall located less than 4 ft. from the property line shall have at least a 45 minute fire
resistance rating and shall have no openings.
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
11.
Submission No. A 69/98 - Gurjeet Singh, 103 Ahrens Street West, Kitchener,
Ontario
Re: Part Lot 9, Plan 401,103 Ahrens Street West, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. R. Hardie
260 A Huron Road
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA:
Mrs. M. Coleman & Mr. J.D. Coleman
32 Maynard Avenue
Kitchener, Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:
NONE
CONTRA:
Mrs. M. Coleman & Mr. J. D. Coleman
32 Maynard Avenue
Kitchener, Ontario
COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 265 JULY 28. 1998
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to expand a legal non-conforming
automobile repair business by adding automobile sales. The applicant is also requesting permission to
locate parking 0.75 m (2.46 ft.) from Victoria Street rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) and permission
for the parking spaces to have a width of 2.56 m (8.4 ft) rather than the required 2.58 m (8.47 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services Department in which they
advised that the applicant requests permission to change the use of land to a use which is similar to the
existing legal non-conforming use or is more compatible with the uses permitted by the by-law. The
existing legal non-conforming use is a two-bay automobile service station. The proposal is to permit auto
sales in addition to continuing the service station use.
11. Submission No. A 69/98 - Gurieet Sin.qh, cont'd
This application is similar to submission A42/98 (131 Victoria Street North) which was supported by staff
and approved by the Committee at its June 9 1998 meeting. This application differs from A42/98,
however, in that the subject property and surrounding lands have definite redevelopment potential,
whereas the property at 131 Victoria has little likelihood of consolidation and redevelopment.
Furthermore, the Civic Centre Secondary Plan places considerable emphasis on protecting the
residential interior of the neighbourhood from incompatible uses. It permits certain commercial uses
along Victoria and Water Streets, but does not permit automotive-related uses, as these are permitted on
the opposite side of Victoria Street, where they are more compatible with the adjacent railway lands and
industrial properties.
The subject property is an L-shaped lot, with frontage on and access to Ahrens Street and Victoria Street.
The adjacent property to the west, at the corner of Victoria and Water Streets, is now for sale. It contains
a vacant commercial building (formerly Victoria Cigar Store) which occupies much of the lot; there is no
on-site parking provided.
The adjacent property to the southeast (95 Ahrens Street) is a rooming house. The Civic Centre
Secondary Plan designates that property as High Density Commercial Residential, the same as the
subject property and the former cigar store. A holding policy encourages redevelopment of the three
properties, and requires consolidation of the Ahrens Street property with the other two properties, thereby
assembling a reasonable redevelopment site with access from Water Street.
While the proposed use may be considered to be similar to the existing legal non-conforming use, this
does not make its approval automatic. Planning principles must be considered in determining whether a
change of use should be permitted. The proposal is not supported by staff for the following reasons.
The configuration of the property and the location of the existing building present considerable difficulties
for its continued use, as demonstrated in the following comments.
Commercial access to Ahrens Street, a local residential street, is undesirable; access should be provided
from Water Street or Victoria Street only. However, given the location of the existing building, closing the
Ahrens Street access would make it impossible to provide vehicle access to the service bay doors.
Similarly, there is not enough room between the building and Ahrens Street to allow for provision of a
3.0m landscaped setback, as required by the by-law, as this would prevent proper traffic circulation on
site.
The rear yard is accessible by a driveway on the southeast side of the lot; however, the limited distance
between the rear of the building and the south lot line appears to make the proposed parking area non-
functional.
If the property were consolidated with the former cigar store, access could be provided from Water Street,
the Ahrens Street access could be closed, the 3.0m landscaped setback could be provided, and the L-
shaped lot would become a more usable rectangular lot.
Addition of the proposed use would have the effect of perpetuating the existing use, rather than
encouraging it to cease. Given the Secondary Plan policies applying to the neighbouring rooming house
property, and the current vacancy of the former cigar store, approval of the requested use would frustrate
the redevelopment potential of all three lots.
COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 266 JULY 28. 1998
Staff therefore recommend refusal of the permission requested, as it is not desirable for the appropriate
development and use of the property.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of Submission A69/98.
11. Submission No. A 69/98 - Gurieet Sin.qh, cont'd
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they
advised that, at this location, Victoria 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. It may
not be appropriate to acquire the road widening under this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have
reviewed the application and cannot support it as submitted. They noted that the submitted plan does not
detail any access points; however, a site inspection revealed that parking space no. 8 would prevent any
vehicles from accessing the rear parking behind the garage. The require capsule width for the rear
parking behind the garage is 12.2 m. The deficiency of 1.5 m in the capsule width would make
manoeuvring vehicles difficult or impossible. Not considering the required setback of 3 m from Victoria
Street, parking spaces no. 1 and 2 would block access from Victoria Street. In summary, while we can
support the reduction in the stall width and could perhaps negotiate a reduction in the required 3 m
setback from Victoria Street, there are too many concerns with the proposed parking layout and it cannot
be supported.
The Committee noted the written submission of Muriel Coleman and J. Douglas Coleman advising that
they are vehemently opposed to all the requests under this application and that they will appear at the
hearing.
Mr. Hardie provided the Committee members with copies of his own planning report on this application.
He stated that he believed that the application is minor in that adding automobile sales to an existing
automobile repair business is minor in nature. Mr. Hardie then advised that two similar applications have
recently been before this Committee, one of which is dealt with by the Ontario Municipal Board and in
both cases the addition of automobile sales to an existing automobile repair business was considered
minor. Mr. Hardie then referred to the staff comments and noted that the current automobile repair
business is viable and will not cease in the near future. Mr. Hardie then provided the Committee
members with photographs of the adjacent variety store property.
Mr. S. Kay requested that Mr. Hardie address the parking issue. He noted that there was a problem
getting to the parking in the rear. Mr. Hardie advised that there are 15 spaces shown on the site plan and
only 8 spaces are required, so they can afford to loose some spaces and still comply. With respect to the
3 m setback, only space no. 1 encroaches into the setback.
Mr. S. Kay then questioned staff concerning the parking requirement and Ms. J. Given advised that four
spaces per bay are required along with one per 20 m2 of office floor area. Mr. Kay then questioned Mr.
Hardie as to why he would show 15 parking spaces when only 9 are required. He questioned why Mr.
Hardie wouldn't show 9 spaces and work on compliance to get some support. Mr. Hardie stated that he
attempted to do so but couldn't get a hold of staff. He stated that there is a lot of latitude to make
adjustments. A discussion then took place with respect to access to the property, particularly access via
Ahrens Street. Mr. Hardie advised that the applicant would want to maintain access to both Ahrens Street
and Victoria Street.
Mr. Dahms then questioned whether it would be appropriate to adjourn this application to allow the
applicant an opportunity to talk to the Colemans and staff to work out the situation. Mr. Kay agreed with
this suggestion.
Ms. J. Given noted that the planning matters in the secondary plan are more germane to the application
than the parking layout and staff would still recommend against the application. She noted that approval
of the application would frustrate the long term development of the site. Perpetuating this use on this site
does not comply with the secondary plan. She noted that these are not improvements but are
detrimental.
COHHITTEE OF ADJUST1MENT 267 JULY 28. 1998
Mr. P. Kruse advised that he was not necessarily convinced and questioned whether there was an area of
approachment. He questioned whether the Colemans would, under any circumstances, consider this
use.
11. Submission No. A 69/98 - Gurieet Sin.qh, cont'd
Mr. S. Kay moved the motion for deferral, stating that he would be inclined towards the application if there
was unimpeded access to Victoria Street, 9 legal parking spaces and he wished to see these things
shown on a site plan.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That consideration of Submission No. A 69/98 be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting
scheduled for Tuesday August 18, 1998, pending discussions between the applicants, staff and Mr. &
Mrs. Coleman; further
That the applicants shall provide the Committee with a revised site plan showing nine legal parking
spaces and unimpeded access to Victoria Street.
Carried
Ms. Coleman addressed the Committee attempting to advise of her concern about this application. The
Chairman advised that the matter has been deferred and invited her to attend the meeting on August 18,
1998. Mrs. Coleman advised that she had a right to state her concerns. Mr. Kay advised that he would
be happy to hear her concerns but the matter has been deferred and even if given today, her concerns
would have to be addressed by the Committee on August 18, 1998, when a decision will be made.
12.
Submission No.'s A 70/98, A 71/98 & A 72/98 - Broward Landev Corp., 6 Roy
Street, Kitchener, Ontario
Re:
Parts 6, 7 & 8, Reference Plan 58R-11058, Cameron Street, Troy Street & Weber Street,
Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. H. Rotberg
61 Roy Street
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA:
Mr. A. Chivers
100 Cameron Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
Mr. A. Pfeiffer
104 Cameron Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to reduce the rearyard for 3
proposed townhouses units to 6.096 m (20 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services Department in which they
advised that the subject property is proposed to accommodate a development comprising 23 freehold
townhouse units at the southeast intersection of Cameron Street and Weber Street. A park is also
COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 268 JULY 28. 1998
planned at the southerly end of the site. Four of the proposed townhouses have already been
constructed at the easterly end of the site fronting onto Troy Street. The remaining 19 units have not yet
been constructed. Applications A 70/98 to A 72/98 relate to three townhouse lots which front onto
Cameron Street. There is an approved site plan for this development.
These three applications deal with requests to reduce the required rear yards for Lots 6, 7 and 8 as
described in Reference Plan 58R-11058. Zoning By-law 85-1 requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres
for Street Townhouse Dwellings located in the R-6 Zone. The applicant now proposes a 6.096 metre rear
yard for each of the three lots in order to increase the internal depth of the
12. Submission No.'s A 70/98, A 71/98 & A 72/98 - Broward Landev Corp., cont'd
dwellings and to create a consistent rear yard for each of these lots. It should be noted that Committee
previously dealt with minor variance applications to address rear yard deficiencies for two of these three
lots (Lots 7 and 8). These previous approvals (file no.'s A 106/97 and 107/97) granted approval for a
reduction in rear yards for Lots 7 and 8 at 7.418 metres and 6.758 metres respectively. The applicant
now wishes to further increase these already approved rear yard reductions as well as include a
reduction in rear yard for Lot 6 from the already planned 8.739 metres.
Staff consider these requests to be relatively minor in nature. Given that street townhouse units are to be
constructed on these lots, a 6.096 (20 feet) rear yard is considered adequate. In addition, given that a
public park is planned to the rear of the units to which access will be available from the rear yard area of
these dwellings, adequate amenity area overall is provided (for both public and private residential use).
As referenced earlier in this report, there is an existing approved site plan for this development (dated
September 18, 1997). The existing proposed rear yards as approved under applications A 106/98 and A
107/98 are included in this approved site plan. If the current three variance applications receive
Committee's approval, it will be necessary to revise the approved site plan to reflect the new rear yards
for all three lots. This is included as a condition of approval to these applications.
Staff consider that the applications maintain the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-85-1 and the
Municipal Plan and are considered to be desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance applications A
70/98-A 72/98 be approved with a single condition as listed below.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 70/98
through to A 72/98 subject to the following condition:
That the applicant apply for revisions to the approved site plan dated September 18, 1998, to
reflect revised rear yards for Lots 6, 7 and 8, Reference Plan 58R-11058.
Mr. Rotberg addressed the Committee advising that this is the second phase of the townhouse project on
the former Smiles and Chuckles property. He stated that he is marketing the first phase now and has
determined that it would be more appropriate for the 3 interior units to be brought back to the rear walls of
the end units. These units back onto a proposed park so the rearyards don't need to be as large. The
main reason for the variance is that the style of construction has the garages set back into the house.
From a streetscape point-of-view it is better not to have a row of garages sticking out the front.
The Planning Department is recommending approval with a condition which he agreed to and he advised
that he wished to proceed soon with the second phase.
Messrs. Chivers & Pfeiffer advised that they were in attendance to raise their concerns about the state of
the site and also to see what the street view would look like. Mr. Rotberg agreed to meet with these
gentlemen after this meeting and discuss their concerns and the streetview of the proposed units.
Submission No. A 70/98
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Broward Landev Corp. requesting permission to reduce the rearyard for the
proposed townhouse unit to 6.096 m (20 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) on Part 6,
Reference Plan 58R-11058, Cameron Street, Troy Street & Weber Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE
COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 269 JULY 28. 1998
APPROVED subject to the following condition:
1. That the applicant shall apply for revisions to the approved site plan dated September 18, 1998, to
reflect revised rear yards for Lots 6, 7 and 8, Reference Plan 58R-11058.
12. Submission No.'s A 70/98, A 71/98 & A 72/98 - Broward Landev Corp., cont'd
Submission No. A 70/98, cont'd
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.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. A 71/98
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Broward Landev Corp. requesting permission to reduce the rearyard for the
proposed townhouse unit to 6.096 m (20 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) on Part 7,
Reference Plan 58R-11058, Cameron Street, Troy Street & Weber Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE
APPROVED subject to the following condition:
1. That the applicant shall apply for revisions to the approved site plan dated September 18, 1998, to
reflect revised rear yards for Lots 6, 7 and 8, Reference Plan 58R-11058.
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.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. A 72/98
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Broward Landev Corp. requesting permission to reduce the rearyard for the
proposed townhouse unit to 6.096 m (20 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) on Part 8,
Reference Plan 58R-11058, Cameron Street, Troy Street & Weber Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE
APPROVED subject to the following condition:
1. That the applicant shall apply for revisions to the approved site plan dated September 18, 1998, to
reflect revised rear yards for Lots 6, 7 and 8, Reference Plan 58R-11058.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 270 JULY 28. 1998
This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
CONSENT
APPLICATIONS
Submission No.'s B 60/97 - B 65/98 & A 55/98 & A 56/98 - 1058788 Inc., 21
Second Avenue,
Kitchener,
Ontario
Re: Block H, Registered Plan 1246, 170 Kingswood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. W. O'Neill
21 Second Avenue
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA:
Ms. J. Szczepanowski
150C Kingswood Drive
Kitchener, Ontario
Mr. P. Hawrylenko
14-192 Alpine Road
Kitchener, Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide this land into seven lots
to construct seven freehold townhouse units. The lot at the corner of Kingswood Drive and Alpine Road
will have a width along Kingswood Drive of 14 m (45.94 ft.) the lot farthest from Alpine Road will have a
width of 7.94 m (26.05 ft.) and the five middle lots will have widths of 5.94 m (19.49 ft.).
The applicant is also requesting approval for two variances. The lot at the intersection of Alpine Road
and Kingswood requires a variance for the location of the driveway at 11 m (36.09 ft.) from the
intersection rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.). The driveway will be on the Kingswood Drive frontage.
The second variance is for the lot farthest from Alpine Road, which would have a sideyard of 2 m (6.57
ft.) rather than the required 2.5 m (8.21 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services Department in which they
advised that the subject applications affect a vacant property at the intersection of Kingswood Drive and
Alpine Road. On January 6, 1998, the Committee of Adjustment approved Consent applications B-130
and 131/97 to create two new lots, each to contain three street townhouse dwellings and to retain one lot
for the construction of a duplex. Minor Variance applications A-162 & 163/97 were required to legalize the
future lot width of the interior townhouse dwelling units, and to legalize the sideyards of the row dwellings.
The current applications seek consent and minor variance approval for a similar proposal for the
development of 7 street townhouse dwelling units, all attached, and each intended to be located on a
separate lot. This proposal is a suitable infill development for this site, suitably oriented and designed to
fit in with the streetscape.
C0}~]MITTEE OF ADJUST1MENT 271 JULY 28. 1998
The Minor Variance applications are required to grant relief to the sideyard adjacent to the existing
townhouse development, from 2.5 metres, to 2.0 metres, and to grant approval for a driveway to be
located 11 metres from the Alpine Road intersection rather than 12.0 metres.
The reduced sideyard is considered minor, appropriate and maintains the intent of the by-law as it allows
room for exterior building and ground maintenance and continues to provide a sufficient separation
between this development and the adjacent townhouse development, whose rear yard amenity areas
abut this sideyard.
1. Submission No.'s B 60/97 - B 65/98 & A 55/98 & A 56/98 - 1058788 Inc., cont'd
The reduced driveway setback provides a sufficient setback from the intersection to allow proper turning
movements without conflicts and therefore, maintains the intent of the by-law. No noticeable impact would
be experienced relative to traffic functioning at the intersection, indicating that the impact is minor and the
reduction is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The dwelling location complies with the zoning by-law in all other respects; the minor variance
applications are recommended by staff.
Staff have been advised that the applicant wishes to have the Consent Applications, B-60-65/98 deferred
to a future meeting, as they propose to begin construction of the street townhouse dwelling following site
plan approval, creating the individual lots at a future date.
They recommended that Minor Variance Applications A-55/98 and A-56/98 be approved without
conditions.
The Committee considered the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in
which they advised that they have no concerns with these applications.
The Committee considered the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they
have reviewed the applications and have no concerns for the reduction in setback from the intersection to
11m.
The Committee noted the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they requested that, as a
condition of approval of the Consent Applications, the applicant makes satisfactory arrangements with the
Hydro for the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed.
Mr. O'Neill requested permission to defer Submission No.'s B 60/98 - B 65/98, inclusive until the
Committee's meeting of October 27, 1998 and the Committee agreed to this request.
Ms. Szczepanowski advised the Committee that she is opposed to these applications. She advised that
her bedroom and livingroom windows look directly at his property and this development will be in her way
of the view of the skyline. She then identified the location of her property for the benefit of the Committee.
Mr. S. Kay noted the previous Committee approval for this property and Mr. O'Neill explained the
difference in the two proposals. Mr. Kay then questioned Ms. Szczepanowski as to why she objected to
this proposal and not the previous proposal and questioned whether she realized that something would
be built on this property eventually. Ms. Szczepanowski stated that she should have objected to the
previous application. She stated that she realized that something would eventually be built here but she
hoped that it would be single family homes. When Mr. Kay pointed out that the variances would only be
0.5 m Ms. Szczepanowski stated that every centimetre counts.
Mr. Hawrylenko advised that his concerns related to traffic safety. As this is currently an empty field,
when coming along Alpine Road, you can see oncoming traffic from Kingwood Drive. However, when the
grass is really high, you can not see the traffic. He felt that, when the houses are built, the traffic on
Alpine Road will have to come to a stop in order to see the traffic on Kingswood Drive. He noted that
there is no stop sign or yield sign at this intersection.
Mr. Dahms noted that it is typical, when the applicant applies for site plan approval, for City staff to take
these matter into consideration. He advised Mr. Hawrylenko that his concerns will be taken into
consideration at that time.
COHHITTEE OF ADJUST1MENT 272 JULY 28. 1998
Ms. Szczepanowski noted that the last time the applicant agreed to plant cedar hedging. It was noted
that that was a condition of the previous consent application. Mr. O'Neill agreed to do that with this
project. The Chairman asked that Planning staff include that as a condition in their report when the
consent applications are considered in October.
1. Submission No.'s B 60/97 - B 65/98 & A 55/98 & A 56/98 - 1058788 Inc., cont'd
Mr. Hawrylenko questioned his safety concerns and Ms. Given advised that they will be dealt with through
the site plan approval process. The Chairman recommended that Mr. Hawrylenko put his concerns in
writing and submit them to staff.
Submission No. A 55/98
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of 1058788 Inc. requesting permission to locate townhousing with a westerly
sideyard of 2 m (6.57 ft.) rather than the required 2.5 m (8.21 ft.) on Block H, Registered Plan 1246, 170
Kingswood 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 56~98
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of 1058788 Inc. requesting permission to locate the driveway 11 m (36.09 ft.)from
the intersection of Kingswood Drive and Alpine Road rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.) on Block H,
Registered Plan 1246, 170 Kingswood 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.'s B 66/98 & B 67/98 & A 57/98, A 58/98 & A 59/98 - Katherine Wilhelm c/o
Warren Wilhelm, 205 Villa,qe Road, Kitchener, Ontario
Re: Lot 130, Plan 230, 94 South Drive, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. H. Rotberg
51 Roy Street
Kitchener ON
C0}~]MITTEE OF ADJUST1MENT 273 JULY 28. 1998
Ms. H. Brook
5 Birchcliffe Avenue
Kitchener, Ontario
Mr. L. Wilhelm
205 Village Road
Kitchener, Ontario
Submission No.'s B 66/98 & B 67/98 & A 57/98, A 58/98 & A 59/98 - Katherine Wilhelm c/o
Warren Wilhelm, cont'd
CONTRA:
Mr. & Mrs. G. Boettcher
102 South Drive
Kitchener, Ontario
Ms. K. Pike
86 South Drive
Kitchener, Ontario
Mr. & Mrs. A. Gostel
R.R.#1
Waterloo, Ontario
Mr. F. Melcher
95 South Drive
Kitchener, Ontario
Ms. M. Lugt
91 South Drive
Kitchener, Ontario
OTHER:
Councillor M. Yantzi
Rockway-Victoria Ward
City of Kitchener
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:
NONE
CONTRA:
Mr. G. Boettcher
102 South Drive
Kitchener ON
Neighbourhood Petitions
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide this property into three
lots, two fronting on South Drive and one fronting on Perth Road. The lot containing the existing house
would have a frontage on South Drive of 8.317 m (27.29 ft.) and a depth on Perth Road of 32.803 m
(107.63 ft.). The second lot fronting on South Drive would have a frontage of 3.926 m (12.88 ft.) and a
depth of 35.202 m (115.5 ft.). The lot fronting Perth Road would have a frontage of 12.716 m (41.72 ft.)
and a depth of 18.395 m (60.36 ft.).
The applicant is requesting permission for a minor variances to the zone by-law as follows:
The lot containing the existing house has a sideyard abutting Perth Road of 0.16 m (0.53 ft.) rather than
the required 4.5 m (15 ft.). This lot would have a width at the building line, of 8.08 m (26.51 ft.) rather than
the required 15 m (49.22 ft.).
The second lot on South Drive would have a width, at the building line, of 5.22 m (17.13 ft.) rather than
the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.).
C0}~]MITTEE OF ADJUST1MENT 274 JULY 28. 1998
The house proposed for the lot fronting on Perth Road would have a rearyard of 6.1 m (20 ft.) rather than
the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.).
The two lots fronting South Drive are intended to be developed as semi-detached dwellings using the
existing dwelling as one side of the semi-detached. The lot fronting Perth Road is intended for a single
family dwelling.
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services Department in which they
advised that the subject lands are approximately 791 square metres in area and are located at the
southeast corner of South Drive and Perth Road. The property is presently developed with a single
detached dwelling located on the north side of the lot with the eaves encroaching slightly onto the Perth
Road right-of-way. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan and are
zoned R-5 according to Zoning By-law 85-1.
Submission No.'s B 66/98 & B 67/98 & A 57/98, A 58/98 & A 59/98 - Katherine Wilhelm c/o
Warren Wilhelm, cont'd
The applicant is requesting consent to sever two additional lots from the existing parcel, together with
several minor variances and an easement for maintenance and eaves encroachment in favour of one of
the severed lots. The applications are as follows:
Consent Application B 66~98 and Minor Variance Application A 58~98
Consent Application B 66~98 and Minor Variance Application A 58~98 relate to the proposed Lot 3
identified on the attached severance sketch in which the applicant is proposing to sever a lot fronting
South Drive with a lot width of 5.22 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres. As shown on the attached
sketch, the applicant's intent is to add an off-set attached garage to the dwelling on the retained lands
and construct an attached garage and dwelling on the lands to be severed, resulting in a hybrid semi-
detached/zero lot line dwelling which is attached by a common garage wall. A 1.22 metre easement
along the zero lot line portion of the proposed new dwelling is intended for maintenance and eaves
encroachment. This easement would be established on proposed Lot 1 in favour of Lot 3.
In reviewing the application, it has been determined that a number of additional minor variances would be
required to facilitate the severance as proposed. In addition to the requested variance to reduce the lot
width on the lands to be severed, minor variances would also be necessary to reduce the required
distance between a driveway and an intersection on both the severed and retained parcels as well as a
minor variance to reduce the minimum width of the maintenance easement. In this respect, the Zoning
By-law requires a minimum distance of 9 metres between a driveway and an intersection, and a minimum
width of 1.5 metres for any easement in conjunction with zero lot line housing and intended for
maintenance and eaves encroachment. The proposed severance would result in a distance of 4.75
metres between the driveway and the intersection on the retained lands and a distance of 8.25 metres
between the driveway and the intersection on the severed lands. Further, as indicated above, the
minimum width of a maintenance easement is 1.5 metres whereas an easement of only 1.22 metres can
be accommodated.
Given the number and nature of variances required to facilitate the proposed severance and the nature of
the proposed development in relation to the surrounding properties, the creation of an additional lot
fronting South Drive is considered to be "over-development", inappropriate for the subject lands, and not
in keeping with the general intent of the Municipal Plan or Zoning By-law. Accordingly, the Department of
Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of Consent Application B 66/98 and Minor Variance
Application A 58/98.
Consent Application B 67~98 and Minor Variance Application A 59~98
Consent Application B 67~98 and Minor Variance Application A 59~98 relate to the proposed Lot 4
identified on the attached severance sketch in which the applicant is proposing to sever a lot fronting
Perth Road with a lot width of approximately 15 metres at the 6 metre setback and a lot area of 277
square metres. As shown on the attached sketch, the applicant's intent is to construct a new single
detached dwelling with attached garage. In order to accommodate the size of the proposed structure, the
applicant is also requesting approval of a minor variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from
7.5 metres to 6.1 metres.
The attached garage and driveway are proposed to be provided on the east side of the severed lot,
approximately 6.25 metres west of an existing public lane which runs south from Perth Road. Due to the
COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 275 JULY 28. 1998
proximity of the proposed driveway to the public lane and the potential conflict with vehicles entering and
exiting the lane, the Department of Business and Planning Services and the City's Traffic and Parking
Division recommend that the driveway only be permitted on the west side of the severed lot. Further,
given that the proposed lot to be severed is sufficient in both width and area, it is felt that any proposed
structure should be designed so as to comply with all regulations of the Zoning By-law.
Submission No.'s B 66/98 & B 67/98 & A 57/98, A 58/98 & A 59/98 - Katherine Wilhelm c/o
Warren Wilhelm, cont'd
As shown on the attached severance sketch, the underground water connection for the dwelling located
at 96 South Drive is located partially on the lands to be retained. Therefore a private easement will be
required across the retained lands in favour of the property at 96 South Drive to ensure that these
services can be accessed for any necessary future maintenance. The subject application should be
revised to include the creation of this easement.
Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Consent
Application B 67/98, as revised to include the granting of an easement for underground water connection
over the retained lands, and refusal of Minor Variance Application A 59/98.
Minor Variance Application A 57~98
Minor Variance Application A 57~98 relates to the proposed lands to be retained, identified as Lot 1 on the
attached severance sketch. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the minimum corner lot width from
15 metres to 8.08 metres and a reduction in the minimum side yard abutting a street from 4.5 metres to
0.16 metres. Given that the Department of Business and Planning Services is recommending refusal of
Consent Application B 66/98, the Department cannot support the minor variances requested for the lands
to be retained. In this regard, the Department recommends that Minor Variance Application A 57/98 be
revised to reflect only those minor variances arising out of approval of Consent Application B 67/98.
The corner property as it presently exists has a width of 13.3 metres at the 6 metre setback. While the
Zoning By-law requires a minimum corner lot width of 15 metres, the existing property is considered legal
by virtue of the vacuum clause contained with Section 5.15 of the Zoning By-law. With approval of
Consent Application B 67/98, the vacuum clause would no longer apply to the retained lands, thereby
necessitating a minor variance to reduce the corner lot with to 13.3 metres rather than the required 15
metres. The application should be revised to request a reduction in the corner lot width from 15 metres to
13.3 metres.
At present, the location of the existing dwelling is also considered legal by virtue of the vacuum clause.
However, with approval of Consent Application B 67/98, the vacuum clause would no longer apply. The
applicants have requested a reduction in the side yard abutting a street from the required 4.5 metres to
0.16 metres, however the survey sketch shows that the existing dwelling is located 0.05 metres from the
property line. The application should be revised to request a reduction in the side yard abutting a street
from 4.5 metres to 0.05 metres.
Since the width of the corner lot at 13.3 metres and the location of the existing dwelling at 0.05 metres
from the street line are existing situations and would continue regardless of whether or not a severance is
approved, the approval of a minor variance to legalize the location of the existing dwelling only on the
retained lands is considered to be minor in nature, appropriate for the subject lands and in keeping with
the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. Accordingly, the Department of Business and
Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 57/98, as revised, and relative
only to the existing dwelling.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance
Application A 57/98, as revised, to reduce the corner lot width to 13.3 metres and the side yard
abutting a street to 0.05 metres for the existing dwelling only, without conditions.
The Department of Planning and Business Services recommends refusal of Minor Variance
Application A 58/98.
C0}~]MITTEE OF ADJUST1MENT 276 JULY 28. 1998
The Department of Planning and Business Services recommends refusal of Minor Variance
Application A 59/98.
Submission No.'s B 66/98 & B 67/98 & A 57/98, A 58/98 & A 59/98 - Katherine Wilhelm c/o
Warren Wilhelm, cont'd
The Department of Planning and Business Services recommends refusal of Consent Application B
66/98.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Consent Application B
67/98, as revised to include the granting of an easement for underground water connection over
the retained lands in favour of 96 South Drive, subject to the following conditions:
1. That Minor Variance Application A 57~98, as revised, receive final approval.
That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication
equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed.
That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of 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 lands.
That the owner enter into an agreement, to be prepared to the satisfaction of the City
Solicitor, and registered on title of the severed lands, agreeing that driveway access shall
only be constructed on the westerly side of the severed lands.
That a draft reference plan, showing the location and width of the easement for
underground water services on the retained lands, be approved by the City's General
Manager of Public Works.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, in which
they advised that they have no concerns or objections to these applications.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have
the following concerns with these applications:
The proposed driveway for Lot 1 is only 4.75 m from South Drive, a deficiency of 7.25 m from the required
12 from an intersection. Lot 3 has a proposed driveway which would only be a 8.25 m from South Drive,
a deficiency of 3.75 m from the required 12 m. The proposed Lot 4 would have a driveway 6.2 m from the
laneway being a deficiency of 5.75 m from the required 12 m. Staff could support this proposal if the
driveway was located on the opposite side of the property, increasing the distance from the lane way.
In summary, staff could not support the application for Lots 1 & 3 as proposed but would support the
application for Lot 4 pending the relocation of the driveway.
The Committee considered the written submissions of the neighbourhood residents in opposition to these
applications.
Mr. Rotberg addressed the Committee advising that his original proposal was to develop a semi-detached
dwelling at the front of the lot on South Drive; however, based on the concerns of the neighbours, he is
withdrawing this proposal. It has been noted by the neighbours that traffic flow is a problem and he
agreed that this proposal is inappropriate. Mr. Rotberg advised that he will maintain the existing one and
half storey house which has a driveway
C0}~]MITTEE OF ADJUST1MENT 277 JULY 28. 1998
Submission No.'s B 66~98 & B 67~98 & A 57~98, A 58~98 & A 59~98 - Katherine Wilhelm c/o
Warren Wilhelm, cont'd
behind it. This requires two variances. The existing house is too close too the road. He noted that this
may be legal non-conforming but he would like to clean it up. He noted that the house has been in the
same location since 1938. Further, a variances is required for the corner lot width, which is existing. Mr.
Rotberg noted that it was through expropriation of the street which caused the problem. Mr. Rotberg
noted that the retained lot would now consists of Parts 1, 2 & 3 on the Plan. He requested permission to
amend Submission No. A 57/98 in accordance with staff report.
Mr. Rotberg then referred to the severed lands shown as Part 4 on the Plan and to staff recommendation
(c) dealing with Submission No. A 59/98, recommending refusal of that application. Mr. Rotberg noted
that this lot has trees all around the back of the lot. He also noted a possessory title issue. He noted that
the actual Iotline with the neighbour is 7.5 m. Mr. Rotberg stated that this is a very nice neighbourhood
and he is concerned about inappropriate development. He felt that a 6.1 m rearyard at the narrowest
point, was not an inappropriate rearyard. He felt this was a very minor variance.
Mr. Rotberg then referred to staff recommendation E. He advised that he would be prepared to have an
additional condition imposed to limit the size of the proposed house to a maximum of 1400 sq. ft.
exclusive of the garage. Mr. Rotberg then referred to the condition regarding the easement being
condition No. 7 and requested that he be permitted to chose to deed the land to the owner of 96 South
Drive to recognize the adverse possession. Ms. J. Given requested that if the Committee agreed to this,
that it be subject to the approval of the General Manager of Public Works and the Director of Planning.
Mr. Kay stated that he did not think it was necessary to have it approved by the Director of Planning.
Mr. Rotberg then referred to Condition No. 6 advising that it was not satisfactory to him. The public lane
would be 6.25 m from the proposed driveway and staff want the garage further from the lane. He noted
that the lane only serves three to four homes. It was Mr. Rotberg's opinion that it shouldn't be moved
closer to the intersection of South Drive and Perth Road. Because of the traffic problems at that
intersection and the existing grading of this lot, it decreases the visibility. He stated that he could not
agree to recommendation no. 6.
Mr. Rotberg then advised that, after discussing this proposal with the neighbours and in consideration of
the traffic problems at the intersection, he would agree to two additional conditions being imposed. The
first condition would deal with the maximum size of the dwelling at 1400 sq. ft. exclusive of the garage.
The second condition would be the conveyance of a daylighting triangle at the corner of whatever size the
City would require.
Mr. Boettcher addressed the Committee advising that the neighbours want a sidewalk there. He noted
that it is impossible to walk there.
Councillor M. Yantzi advised that he had just spoken with Public Works and Planning staff who indicated
that the City should have looked after the sidewalk years ago. He noted that there may be problems
putting in a sidewalk. He advised that he would bring this to the attention of the Public Works and
Transportation Committee.
Mr. Goestel advised that he owns property on Burnside and that he was concerned that his property
would become isolated. He was concerned about the development of his land. Ms. J. Given advised that
this does not affect development on Burnside. These applications do not change the ability to develop
Mr. Goestel's land.
Mr. S. Kay then questioned Ms. Given as to whether an additional variance would be required if the
garage was to be constructed as shown, instead of 9 m from the laneway. Ms. Given pointed out the
traffic comments in which they advised that they could only support this application unless the driveway
was located on the other side. She advised that the by-law requires the driveway to be 9 m from the
laneway and it would only be 6.2 m if developed as shown on the plan. Mr. Kay put forward a motion to
approve the minor variances for the retained
Submission No.'s B 66/98 & B 67/98 & A 57/98, A 58/98 & A 59/98 - Katherine Wilhelm c/o
Warren Wilhelm, cont'd
COHHITTEE OF ADJUST1MENT 278 JULY 28. 1998
lands, the minor variances for the severed lands, including the driveway location and the consent to sever
the lot fronting Perth Road, subject to conditions.
Submission No. B 66/98
Withdrawn
Submission No. B 67~98
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Katherine Wilhelm requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a
frontage on Perth Road of 12.716 m (41.72 ft.) by a depth of 18.395 m (60.36 ft.) and having an area of
277 m2 (2,981.7 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 130, Registered Plan 230, 94 South Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE
GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall convey an easement, to the benefit of the property at 96 South Drive, for
underground water connections over the retained lands; with the draft reference plan showing the
location and width of the easement for underground water to be first approved by the City's
General Manager of Public Works.
- or -
The owner shall convey to the owner of 96 South Drive a parcel of land to recognize the adverse
possession along the Southwest corner of 94 South Drive; the draft reference plan showing the
location and width of the area of the lot addition shall first be approved by the City's General
Manager of Public Works; and further
That the lot addition shall be conveyed to the owner of 96 South Drive and title shall be taken in
identical ownership, with subsection 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act applying to all
subsequent conveyances and/or transactions.
2. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 57/98.
That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's General Manager of
Public Works for the installation of all new service connections to the severed land.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owner shall 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 lands.
That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication equal to 5%
of the value of the lands to be severed.
That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be registered on title of
the severed and retained lands, to contain the following:
a)
That the house to be constructed on the severed lands shall not exceed 1400 sq. ft. in area,
exclusive of the garage.
Submission No.'s B 66/98 & B 67/98 & A 57/98, A 58/98 & A 59/98 - Katherine Wilhelm c/o
Warren Wilhelm, cont'd
COHIMITTEE OF ADJUST1MENT 279 JULY 28. 1998
Submission No. B 67/98, cont'd
b)
That an option be granted to the City of Kitchener, for $2.00 plus expenses, to have a
daylighting triangle at the corner of South Drive and Perth Road, the extent of which is to be
agreeable to the owner; the option to be opened for acceptance for 120 days; provided
that, should an acceptable agreement to both parties not be signed and registered prior to
the expiry of the appeal period for Submission No. B 67/98, the entire condition shall be
considered null and void. It shall also be a term of this agreement that partial releases shall
be granted as appropriate.
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 July 28, 2000.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. A plan of Subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the
Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Submission No. A 57/98
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Katherine Wilhelm requesting legalization of a corner lot having a width of 13.3 m
(43.64 ft.) rather than the required 15 m (49.22 ft.) and legalization of a sideyard abutting a street of 0.05
m (0.17 ft.) rather than the required 4.5 m (14.77 ft.) for the existing dwelling only on Part Lot 130,
Registered Plan 230, 94 South Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. A 58/98
Withdrawn
Submission No.'s B 66/98 & B 67/98 & A 57/98, A 58/98 & A 59/98 - Katherine Wilhelm c/o
Warren Wilhelm, cont'd
COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 280 JULY 28. 1998
Submission No. A 59/98
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Katherine Wilhelm requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling and
garage, on the lands to be severed in Submission No. B 67/98, with a rearyard of 6.1 m (20 ft.) rather
than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.) and permission to locate the driveway 6.25 m (20.51 ft.) from the
intersection of Perth Road and the Public Lane, rather than the required 9 m (29.53 ft.) on Part Lot 130,
Registered Plan 230, 94 South Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
VALIDATION OF TITLE
APPLICATIONS
Submission No. VT 2/98 - Reitzel Rentals Ltd., 36 Centennial Road,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re: Part Lot 123, German Company Tract, 36 Centennial Road, Kitchener, Ontario.
Mr. W. Dahms declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his law firm represents the applicant
and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. S. Kay chaired the
meeting during consideration of this application and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict Interest
Act, the application was considered by the remaining 2 members.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
CONTRA:
Mr. B. Beutenmiller
Sims, Clement, Eastman
22 Frederick Street
Kitchener, Ontario
NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting validation of title for a conveyance which
took place on April 9, 1994, of the above referenced land.
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services Department in which they
advised that this application for Validation of Title pertains to 36 Centennial Road which contains three
existing metal-clad industrial buildings. The purpose of the application is to validate a transfer of title from
Lackie Bros. Ltd. to Reitzel Rentals Ltd. pursuant to a Deed registered on April 9, 1974 as Instrument No.
517268. The subject lands are 1.2 Hectares (3 acres) in size.
1. Submission No. VT 2/98 - Reitzel Rentals Ltd., cont'd
COk~ITTEE OF ADJUST1MEbIT 281 JULY 28. 1998
The reason for the submission of this application is based on the following factors. An Agreement of
Purchase and Sale between Lackie Brothers and Reitzel Bros. Ltd. for the subject lands was registered
on October 8, 1968 (Instrument No. 382215). The consent of the local Committee of Adjustment, dated
June 19, 1968, is endorsed on the Agreement. Almost 6 years after that time, a deed was given and
registered pursuant to that Agreement on April 9, 1974 (Instrument No. 517268). There was apparently
never any consent endorsed on this deed.
Concern has been expressed by the Solicitor for the owners as to the validity of the conveyance made in
1974. The concern is based on the fact that Lackie Bros. Ltd. owned abutting lands at the time that the
deed was given to Reitzel Bros. Ltd. in 1974. Based on the fact that this deed was never endorsed by the
consent of the local Committee of Adjustment, there is concern that the subject lands may never have
been properly severed from the original lands owned by Lackie Bros. Ltd. This application seeks to
eliminate this concern.
No certificate for a Validation of Title may be issued under Section 57 of the Planning Act unless the
Certificate conforms with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Reitzel Rentals Ltd. is in the business of
renting construction equipment, a use permitted by the M-2 zone and by the General Industrial
designation in the Municipal Plan. It appears that all regulations pertaining to the General Industrial Zone
(M-2) are also satisfied. Special Regulation Provision 31R attached to the lands requires that no building
or structure exceed a height greater than geodetic elevation of 359.66 metres above sea level. It is
understood that the three buildings on the subject lands are between 7.6 metres and 9.1 metres (25 to 30
feet) in height. Based on the elevation of the nearest geodetic point located at the corner of Victoria
Street and Forwell Road being 315.7 metres above sea level, and the relatively flat topography in this
location, it would appear that the maximum elevation of the building complies with this regulation.
Finally, the circumstances which lead to the violation of the Planning Act as outlined above appear to be
a technical contravention only of the Act, a situation unintended by any of the parties involved. Given this
factor, and the fact that the use and buildings conform with the requirements of the Municipal Plan and
Zoning By-law, staff recommend that the application for Validation of Title to 36 Centennial Road be
approved without conditions.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission VT2/98 without
conditions.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo in
which they advised that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of the Reitzel Rentals Ltd. requesting validation of title for a conveyance which took
place on April 9, 1994 in Instrument No. 517268 on Part Lot 123, German Company Tract, 36 Centennial
Road, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
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. VT 3/98 - The Estate of John G. Meyer & Paul & Arlene
COMIMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 282 JULY 28. 1998
Re:
Meyer, 229 Heiman Street, Kitchener, Ontario
Part Lot 70, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract, 229 Heiman Street,
Ontario.
Kitchener,
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:
Mr. D. Travers
Paquette & Travers
101 Frederick Street
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA: NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT: NONE
CONTRA: NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting validation of the conveyance of a parcel of
land, known municipally as 229 Heiman Street. Prior to the conveyance, the owners were to have
conveyed a 13 ft. road widening to the City of Kitchener, which the City dedicated as part of a public
highway; however, the transfer of the road widening never took place. Consequently, when 229 Heiman
Street was conveyed, less the road widening, the conveyance included less than all of the land.
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services Department in which they
advised that this application for Validation of Title pertains to 229 Heiman Street which contains a single
family dwelling, detached garage and shed. The purpose of the application is to validate a transfer of title
from John G. Meyer to Paul Wayne Meyer and Arlene Ruth Meyer pursuant to a Deed registered on May
31, 1985 as Instrument No. 812251. The subject lands are approximately 0.2 Hectares (0.5 acres in
size).
The reason for the submission of this application is based on the following circumstances, the City of
Kitchener widened the part of Heiman Street immediately in front of 229 Heiman Street by 4 metres (13
feet) by way of By-law 7150 (Instrument No. 442372, registered February 22, 1971). However, the City
never formally received a deed for this road widening. When the transfer of title from John g. Meyer to
Paul Wayne Meyer and Arlene Ruth Meyer was completed in 1985, the transfer did not include the
portion of road intended to have been widened. The assumption had been made that since By-law 7150
had been registered, the conveyance to the City must have taken place, the result is that John G. Meyer
did not convey all his interest in the land which resulted in violation of the Planning Act.
No certificate for a Validation of Title may be issued under Section 57 of the Planning Act unless the
Certificate conforms with the Official Plan and zoning By-law. The residential use of the lands does
conform with the Low Rise residential designation in the Municipal Plan. It appears that all regulations
pertaining to the residential Seven Zone (r-7) are also satisfied. While a detached garage on the lands is
located less than that distance required to the side yard (1.2 metres), the location of the garage is legal as
it is considered to conform to the provisions of the vacuum clause in the Zoning By-law i.e. it existed prior
to October 11, 1994.
It is understood that the solicitor for the land owner is preparing a Deed to transfer title of the road
widening to the City. The description of the land should in accordance with that as registered in By-law
No. 7150 in 1971. Prior to the registration of the Validation certificate, the Deed transferring title of the
road widening should be registered so as to clearly ensure the two parcels are described in separate
Deeds.
Staff consider that the circumstances which lead to the need for this application to represent only a
technical violation of the Planning Act. As such it seems reasonable and appropriate to grant approval to
this application subject to the condition listed below.
Submission No. VT 3/98 - The Estate of John G. Meyer & Paul & Arlene
Meyer, cont'd
COMHITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 283 JULY 28. 1998
The Committee considered the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, in
which they advised that they have no concerns with this application.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of The Estate of John G. Meyer & Paul & Arlene Meyer requesting validation of the
conveyance in Instrument No. 812251 on Part Lot 70, Subdivision of Lot 18, German company Tract, 229
Heiman Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, the
land for road widening purposes as approved in By-law 7150 and described in Instrument No.
442372, registered February 22, 1971.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
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
ADJOURNMENT
On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 28th day of July, 1998.
D. H. Gilchrist
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment