HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-03-09COA\1999-03-09
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MARCH 9, 1999
MEMBERS PRESENT:
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Messrs. W. Dahms, A. Galloway and Ms. S. Campbell.
Mr. L. Masseo, Intermediate Planner, Ms. J. Billett, Committee
Administrator and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary.
Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.
APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARY AND ACTING SECRETARIES
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That Ms. J. Billett, Committee Administrator, be appointed Secretary to the Committee of
Adjustment.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
Carried
That Ms. D. Gilcrhist, Committee Administrator, Mr. L. Neil, Assistant City Clerk and Mr. G.
Sosnoski, Deputy City Clerk, be appointed Acting Secretaries to the Committee of
Adjustment.
Carried
MINUTES
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment, of February 16,
1999, be amended on Page 39, Paragraph 6, fourth line to remove the words "not be
applicable" and substitute therefore the words "be reviewed or changed".
Carried
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of February 16,
1999, as mailed to the members, and amended this date, be accepted.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 59 MARCH 9, 1999
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
1. Submission No. A 85~98 - Mary Sellner & Mary Margaret Sellner - 357 Weber
Street West, Kitchener, Ontario
Re: Lot 8, Registered Plan 373, 357 Weber Street West, Kitchener, Ontario.
The Secretary advised the Committee that she had received a telephone call from Ms.
Sellner advising that the property has sold and they will no longer be pursuing this
application.
Submission No. A 107/98 - Cydev Holdings Inc., 1120 Victoria Street North #202,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re:
Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, being Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-8513,
Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. J. Laurin
Cydev Holdings Inc.
202-1120 Victoria Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
In Support:
None
Contra:
Mr. R. A. Varin
74 Woolwich Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
The Committee was advised the applicant is proposing to develop 11 townhouse units, in
three blocks, and is requesting sideyards of 1.2 m (4 ft.) on each side of each block rather
than the required 2.5 m (8.21 ft.) and a floor space ratio of 0.45 rather than the required
0.6.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services
in which they advised that the applicant is proposing to develop 11 townhouse units, in
three blocks, and is requesting a sideyard of 1.2 m (4.0 ft.) on each side of each block
rather than the required 2.5 m (8.21 ft.) and a minimum floor space ratio of 0.45 rather
than 0.6. These minor variances are in anticipation of future severances to create freehold
units.
The applicant has been reviewed under Site Plan Application SPR 98/51NV/ZC and the
plan complies in all other respects to the zoning by-law. This application has been
deferred pending the submission of detailed floor space ratio data from the applicant as
well as final determination of stormwater management requirements for the site.
With respect to the sideyard variances requested, staff note that the proposed southerly
sideyard is 2.44 m rather than 2.5 m, whereas the application only requests a reduction to
1.2 m for the future sideyards between buildings. The application should be amended to
address this minor variance as well. The reduction to this outside yard is very minor and
maintains the intent of the regulation, for adequate building separation and access
between lots. The 1.2 m sideyards that would exist if/when the individual lots are created
is appropriate as they allow access to the rearyard and maintenance of the building wall,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 60 MARCH 9, 1999
and are consistent with the yard requirement for a single detached dwelling. As this site is
comprehensively developed, the 2.5 m sideyard is excessive. Staff find the reduction to
2. Submission No. A 107/98 - Cydev Holdinqs Inc., cont'd
the future internal sideyards to 1.2 m to be minor and consistent with the intent of the
Zoning By-law and Official Plan.
In a FAX dated Feb 9~99 to staff, the applicant provided lot area and floor space
information which would calculate to a floor space ratio of 0.47 for the dwelling when it is
constructed, before the individual lots are created, with the following breakdown by future
lot:
Part 1: 0.40
Parts 2, 3 and 7: 0.55
Parts 4,5, 6, 8 and 9: 0.46
Part 10: 0.57
Part 11: 0.37
Staff are supportive of the reduction in minimum floor space ratio as the intent of the zone
is to allow street town house or multiple dwelling developments at a higher intensity than
lower forms of residential. By constructing larger townhouse units on each lot, the owner
could achieve the minimum floor space ration; the end product would still be the same
number of units in the same form. The intent of the zoning by-law and official plan are
met. The majority of variances are close to meeting the 0.6 minimum with the exception of
the end unit, at 0.37, which is lower due to the larger end lot. The application should be
amended to permit the development of the dwelling at a floor space ratio of 0.47 as well as
the individual floor space ratios for each future lot.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Submission A
107/98, as amended be approved, only as it applies to the site plan finally approved under
site plan application SPR 98/51NV/ZJ.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic Analyst in which he advised that the
application has been reviewed and they have no immediate concerns with the reduced
sideyards.
The Chair questioned Mr. Laurin as to whether he reviewed the staff comments. Mr.
Laurin advised that he had and is in agreement with them. The Chair then reviewed the
recommended amendments to the application, being the southerly sideyard and the floor
space ratio for each unit. After a brief discussion on the amendments and exactly what the
floor space ratios are, Mr. Laurin asked to amend his application in accordance with the
staff comments and the Committee agreed to consider this request.
The Chair then noted the written submission from Mr. R. A. Varin stating that he is strongly
opposed to any new townhouse project. The Chair noted that townhouses are a permitted
use in the R-8 Zone of By-law 85-1.
Moved by Mr. A Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Cydev Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct 11
townhouse units, in three blocks, such that proposed Block 1 will have a southerly
sideyard of 2.44 m (8 ft.) rather than the required 2.5 m (8.21 ft.) and a northerly sideyard
of 1.2 m (4 ft.) rather than the required 2.5 m (8.21 ft.); proposed Block 2 will have a
southerly sideyard of 1.2 m (4 ft.) and a northerly sideyard of 1.2 m (4 ft.) rather than the
required 2.5 m (8.21 ft.); proposed Block 3 will have a southerly sideyard of 1.2 m (4 ft.)
rather than the required 2.5 m (8.21 ft.); the unit on Part 1 will have a floor space ratio of
0.4, the unit on Part 2 will have a floor space ratio of 0.55, the unit on Part 3 will have a
floor space ratio of 0.55, the unit on Part 4 will have a floor space ratio of 0.46, the unit on
Part 5 will have a floor space ratio of 0.46, the unit on Part 6 will have a floor space ratio of
0.46, the unit on Part 7 will have a floor space ratio of 0.55, the unit on Part 8 will have a
floor space ratio of 0.46, the unit on Part 9 will have a floor space ratio of 0.46, the unit on
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 61 MARCH 9, 1999
Part 10 will have a floor space ratio of 0.57 and the unit on Part 11 will have a floor space
ratio of 0.37, rather than the required floor space ratio of 0.6, on Part Lot 59, German
2. Submission No. A 107/98 - Cydev Holdinqs Inc., cont'd
Company Tract, Designated as Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-8513, Woolwich Street,
Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED subject to the following condition:
1. That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the townhouse
development only to the extent as shown on the site plan finally approved under
Site Plan Application SPR 98/51/VV/ZJ.
It is the opinion of this Committee:
1. The variances requested in this application are 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
At 10:10 a.m. the Committee briefly adjourned this meeting to consider a variance to the
City of Kitchener Sign By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:15 a.m.
3. Submission No. A 3/99 - Kenneth & Michelle Elliott, 1603 Highland Road West,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re: Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-1114, 1603 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. U. Roetsch
284 Frederick Street
Kitchener, Ontario
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing carport
with an easterly sideyard of 0.38 m (1.23 ft.) rather than the required 3.05 m (10 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services
in which they advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing closed in
carport with an easterly sideyard of 0.38 m (1.23 ft.).
The property contains a single detached dwelling, which is not permitted in C-6 zoning.
The previous zoning on the property was TWP A under Zoning By-law 878A which
required a 10 ft. sideyard. At that time, a single detached dwelling was permitted. In
1994, the zoning changed to C-6, Service Commercial, and the use of the property for a
single detached dwelling became legal non-conforming However, as there is no record
of building permits in the file to determine when the "closed in carport" was added to the
dwelling, the left sideyard cannot be considered legal non-conforming, although it may be
SO.
As the present use of the property for a single detached dwelling is not permitted there are
no regulations governing sideyard requirements for a single detached dwelling in the C-6
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 62 MARCH 9, 1999
zoning. Accordingly, there are no provisions in Section 45 of the
legalizing such a situation.
3. Submission No. A 3/99 - Kenneth & Michelle Elliott, cont'd
Planning Act for
Mr. U. Roetsch provided the Committee with the Statutory Declaration of Marjorie Jean
Agnew, the original owner of the house, stating that the house was constructed in 1964
and the closed in carport was added within two years after the house was built on or
before 1966. Mr. Roetsch submitted that the house and carport was a permitted use
under the Township of Waterloo Zoning By-law. The only problem is the sideyard on the
carport, which should have been 10 ft. He noted that a building permit was not required at
the time. Mr. Roetsch advised that the use has continued for 35 years without any
complaint.
Mr. Roetsch then referred to Section 45 of the Planning Act, suggesting that it should be
given a liberal and broad interpretation. Referring specifically to Sub-section 45(2)(a)(i),
Mr. Roetsch suggested that the Committee can give permission retroactively, as the Act
doesn't say when the expansion is to take place. Referring to Sub-section 45(2)(a)(ii) of
the Planning Act Mr. Roetsch stated that the carport has been enclosed and has a garage
door; which is a similar purpose for which the property was originally used. He asked that
the Committee permit the use of the house and the carport as it exists on the survey
submitted by the application. Mr. Roetsch stated that this property is really legal non-
conforming. Mr. Masseo pointed out that there are no building permits on file for this
property and staff can not determine whether the property is legal non-conforming, so they
are not in a position to make a recommendation.
The Chair reviewed the evidence and the statutory declaration submitted by Mr. Roetsch,
indicating that the carport was built in 1966. He questioned whether staff would consider it
legal non-conforming. Mr. Masseo stated that it would depend on when the township by-
law came into effect. Mr. Masseo noted that the carport would have to have been legal at
sometime to be considered legal non-conforming now.
Mr. Roetsch stated that this Committee has the jurisdiction to approve things retroactively.
The Chair then read from the Planning Act, stating that this Committee can approve the
enlargement of the building if its use was lawful the date the by-law was passed. Mr.
Roetsch stated that the residence was a lawful use on the day the by-law was passed; so
this Committee can approve the expansion in the form of the enclosed carport.
Ms. S. Campbell noted the existing sideyard on the carport; then, referring to Section 45
(2) of the Planning Act, which states that, where a building is legal non-conforming you can
get approval to expand, extend or enlarge a building that was legal at the time of the
application. Mr. Roetsch referred to the same section noting that it also says within the
limits of the land owned. He interpreted that to mean that the building can go upto the
Iotline as long as it remains within the limits of the land owned.
The Chair advised that he was having difficulty in accepting that someone could apply for
an addition and build upto the Iotline. He questioned staff as to the current sideyard
setback and the C-6. Mr. Masseo advised that there isn't one in this case, as the use is
not permitted.
The Chair advised that he was still having difficulty with this matter and questioned
whether Mr. Roetsch had a deadline, which he advised that he did not. The Chair
suggested a deferral to the next meeting and requested that staff further review this
application and get imput from the City's Legal Department.
Mr. Roetsch noted that when the zoning changes on a property, the property owner can no
longer apply for a minor variance to the regulations, so the property can't be legalized. He
stated that there must be something in the Act that looks after this situation.
It was agreed that consideration of this application be deferred to the meeting of March 30,
1999 and staff was directed to talk to the City's Legal Department about this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 63 MARCH 9, 1999
APPLICATIONS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No. A 28/99 - Tall Pines Health Care Centre Inc., 10 Pioneer Drive,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re:
Part Block 101, Plan 1318, being Parts 1 to 14, both inclusive on Reference Plan
58R-10909, 10 Pioneer Drive, Kitchener, Ontario.
Mr. W. Dahms declared a pecuniary interest in this application, as his law firm acted on the
sale of this property and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this
application. Mr. A. Galloway chaired the meeting during consideration of this application
and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this application was
considered by the remaining two members.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. R. Zboril
708 Duke Street
Cambridge, Ontario
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing canopy
having a sideyard of 2 m (6.56 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services
in which they advised that the owner requests a variance to legalize the existing canopy
over the entrance to the multi-unit commercial building. At the time the canopy was
constructed, the building was on the same lot as the adjacent townhouse development,
and was in compliance with the zoning by-law. The building was subsequently severed
from the townhouse site, creating a 2.0 m sideyard rather than the required 6.0 m. The
non-complying sideyard was not identified at that time, as the plans did not show the
canopy.
The impact of the variance is minor as it recognizes an existing situation. The variance
maintains the general intent and purpose of the by-law and official plan by providing an
appropriate separation between the canopy and adjacent residential property, while the
enclosed building itself meets the sideyard requirement. The variance is desirable for the
appropriate development and use of the land as it would serve little purpose to require the
demolition of the canopy.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission
A 28/99.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic Analyst in which he advised that they
have no concerns with the proposed legalization of the existing canopy.
Mr. A. Galloway noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services
in which they advised that the severance caused the problem with the canopy sideyard.
Mr. Zboril confirmed that that was correct.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 64 MARCH 9, 1999
1. Submission No. A 28/99 - Tall Pines Health Care Centre Inc., cont'd
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Tall Pines Health Care Centre Inc. requesting legalization of an
existing canopy having a sideyard of 2 m (6.56 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.)
on Part Block 101, Plan 1318, being Parts 1 to 14, both inclusive on Reference Plan 58R-
10909, 10 Pioneer Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee:
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
2. Submission No. A 29/99 - 1005411 Ontario Inc., 345 Arnold Street, Kitchener,
Ontario
Re: Part Lot A, Registered Plan 40, 345 Arnold Street, Kitchener, Ontario.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. G. Ludwig
97 Frederick Street
Kitchener, Ontario
Mr. D. Currie
345 Arnold Street
Kitchener, Ontario
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a rear
addition with a setback from Serada Road of 1.5 m (5 ft.) rather than the required 6 m
(19.69 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services
in which they advised that the subject lands are located at 345 Arnold Street, on the corner
of Arnold Street and Sereda Road. The property is approximately 12, 000 m2 and zoned
General Industrial (M-2) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. An industrial plant and
accessory office currently exists on the property.
The applicant proposes to extend the rail structure supporting the overhead crane used in
the operation of the industry a distance of 27.43 m (90 ft.). The proposed addition will run
parallel to Sereda Road and have a setback 1.5 m (5 ft) from the side lot line rather than
the required 6 m (19.69 ft.).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 65 MARCH 9, 1999
The original building was built in 1978 and is considered illegal as the road on the east
side of the property (Sereda Road) was put in after its construction. As a result, the plan
2. Submission No. A 29/99 - 1005411 Ontario Inc., cont'd
submitted reveals that this 1978 structure is set back 1.83 m (6 ft.) from the property line
abutting Sereda Road. It should be noted that there has never been a variance requesting
the legalization of the 1978 structure. As this is an existing situation, staff recommends
amending the application to also request the legalization of the original building.
In 1986, the Committee of Adjustment granted approval of Minor Variance Application A
361/86 which permitted the first extension of the crane line and associated support
columns to the south by 27.43 m (90 ft.) and to have a setback of 1.83 m (6 ft.) from
Sereda Road rather than the required 10.2 m (33.5 ft.). Consequently, there have been no
complaints regarding the existing buildings on site. The applicant wishes to further expand
the plan, which consists of closing in the existing covered runway and extending the plan
another 27.43 m (90 ft.).
The crane ways run from the front of the building to the back and must be extended in an
exact straight line. Presuming the location of the crane is related to the needs of the
industries operations within the building, this department is prepared to support approval of
the requested variance. Minor Variance A 361/86 and the current variance (A 29/99) are
the result of the street having been extended after the 1978 structure was in place.
Accordingly, the new addition is appropriate for the development of the lot as it will be built
in a straight line with the existing structure and will not encroach into required side yard
much more than the remainder of the existing building. The proposed addition will
maintain an uniform streetscape along Sereda Road.
In conclusion, the proposed building addition can be considered minor in nature and the
general intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained as the
proposed addition will have no additional affect on the surrounding properties.
Additionally, the remaining 1.5 m would be sufficient to allow for the exterior maintenance
of the structure.
The Committee considered the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he
advised that the Division has reviewed the application and has no concerns with the
location of the proposed building. They pointed out that the proposed building could affect
site line from any future adjacent driveway.
The Committee noted the comments from the Ministry of Transportation in which they
advised that the Ministry has completed its review of this application and they do not
anticipate a problem with the highway system provided that: no additional access is
required to the highway for this development; a minimum commercial setback of 14 m
behind the highway property line is maintained; and Commercial Building/Land Use and
Sign Permits are required prior to any future development of the lands, from the Ministry.
The Chair reviewed the comments with Mr. Ludwig and noted the amendments outlined in
the comments of the Department of Building and Planning Services. Mr. Ludwig advised
that he read the comments and has no objections to them and requested an amendment
to the application in accordance with those comments.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of 1005411 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct a rear
addition with a setback from Serada Road of 1.5 m (5 ft.) rather than the required 6 m
(19.69 ft.) and legalization of an existing industrial building with a setback from Sereda
Road of 1.8 m (5.9 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.) on Part Lot A, Registered
Plan 40, 345 Arnold Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 66 MARCH 9, 1999
This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
Submission No. A 29/99 - 1005411 Ontario Inc., cont'd
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official
Plan are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. A 30/99 - Greg Funston, 85 King Street East, Linwood, Ontario
Re: Part of Lot 49 & 50, Registered Plan 79, 110 Mansion Street, Kitchener, Ontario.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. L. Gzako
Trademark Construction
157 Waterloo Street
Kitchener, Ontario
Contra:
None
Other:
Mr. H. Karrenbrock
9 Cameron Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to install a
driveway in the frontyard to provide a parking space. The parking space will be located
upto the Iotline along Mansion Street rather than being setback 6 m (19.69 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services
in which they advised that the subject property is designated Low Rise Conservation "A"
by the Central Frederick Secondary Plan and is zoned R-5 according to Zoning By-law 85-
1. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the required setback of the off
street parking space from 6.0 m to 0 m to allow for the creation of a parking space in front
of the dwelling.
The lands are developed with a single detached dwelling built prior to 1925. It is not
possible to comply with the 6.0 m setback requirement as the building is only 4.95 m from
the street line and has side yards of only 0.94 m and 1.91 m, neither of which is wide
enough to accommodate an off street parking space.
As the building predates any zoning by-law requiring the provision of off-street parking, it is
legally not required to provide such 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 off-street parking space, provided such space does not significantly impact the
streetscape.
In this instance, the owner is proposing to reconstruct the front verandah so as to enable
the creation of a 5.5 m parking space between the front of the dwelling and the street line.
This will provide sufficient room for vehicular parking without overhanging the sidewalk.
While the front yard presently slopes up from the sidewalk to the front of the dwelling, the
proposed parking space would be excavated and secured with retaining walls. The height
of the proposed retaining walls are less than 0.86 m at their greatest height and would
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 67 MARCH 9, 1999
taper to existing grade approximately 1.7 m from the streetline. This should enable
sufficient visibility to enter and exit in a safe manner. Further, the proposed width of the
3. Submission No. A 30/99 - Gre.q Funston, cont'd
parking space at 3.05 m allows for the retention of much of the existing front yard
landscaping, thereby reducing the visual impact on the streetscape.
The intent of the parking regulation is to ensure that off-street parking is provided for each
dwelling in an appropriate manner. Since the current proposal would provide an off-street
parking space where none presently exists, the general intent of the Municipal Plan and
Zoning By-law is maintained. Further, for all of the reasons set out above, the requested
variance can be considered as being minor in nature and appropriate for the development
of the subject lands. Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services
recommends approval of the requested variance.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor
Variance Applications A 30/99, to the extent shown on the attached plans.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a
building permit is required for any new construction.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they
advised that the Division has reviewed this application and while we have concerns with
the location of the proposed driveway, we would point out that the total height of the
retaining wall must not exceed 1.05 m. This would ensure safe sight lines while exiting the
driveway.
The Chair explained the procedures that he would follow in hearing each of their verbal
submissions. He questioned Mr. Gzako as to whether he had an comments to add and he
advised that he had no additional comments to make. Mr. A. Galloway pointed out the
comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that the retaining wall
could not be any higher in height than 1.05 m and Mr. Gzako advised that he could comply
with their requirements and in fact the retaining wall will have a lesser height than 1.05 m.
Mr. Karrenbrock addressed the Committee advising that he could support this application
with one condition, being that the use of the property remain as a single residence and that
it not be converted to a duplex. He stated that he realized that it was not fault of the
present owner that there is no driveway on the property.
The Chair asked Mr. Gzako as to whether the property is currently used as a single family
dwelling and Mr. Gzako advised that it is.
The Chair questioned staff as to whether this property could be converted to increase the
number of units. Mr. Masseo advised that the current zoning R-5, is intended to retain the
existing buildings on the property; however, they can be converted to a maximum of three
dwelling units. Mr. Masseo also advised that if the Committee approves this application
the potential is there to expand the driveway to allow two parking spaces, provided that the
width of the driveway does not exceed 50% of the width of the lot.
The Chair advised Mr. Karrenbrock that the Committee's jurisdiction would not include
limiting the use of this property to a single family dwelling and Ms. S. Campbell agreed
with the Chair that the Committee has no jurisdiction to do that.
Mr. A. Galloway advised that he was supportive of this application and he didn't believe
that the driveway could be widened enough to permit three cars. The Chair noted that if
this Committee approves the application today, the applicant would have to come back to
this Committee for further approval to increase the parking.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 68 MARCH 9, 1999
That the application Greg Funston requesting permission to install a driveway in the
frontyard with the parking space to be located upto the Iotline along Mansion Street rather
than being setback the required 6 m (19.69 ft.) on Part of Lot 49 & 50, Registered Plan 79,
3. Submission No. A 30/99 - Gre.q Funston, cont'd
110 Mansion Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED,
conditions:
2.
subject to the following
That the applicant shall obtain a building permit for any new construction.
That the proposed retaining wall shall not exceed 1.05 m in height.
It is the opinion of this Committee:
1.
2.
3.
The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
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 31/99 Jovan Service Corporation, 127 Frederick Street,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re: Part Lot 160 and Part Lot B, Plan 374, 150 Duke Street West, Kitchener, Ontario.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. J. Clinckett, Architect
304-195 King Street West
Kitchener, Ontario
Mr. R. Deutschman
Jovan Service Corporation
127 Frederick Street
Kitchener, Ontario
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is proposing to redevelop this site and is
requesting permission for the following variances:
A second floor expansion, at the southeast corner of the building, with a setback of 3 m
(9.85 ft.) rather than the required 4.5 m (14.77 ft.);
A floor space ration of 1.15 rather than the permitted 1.0;
Permission for 3 parking spaces upto the Iotline along Duke Street rather than being
setback 3 m (9.85 ft.) and permission for a drive-thru located upto the Iotline along College
Street rather than being setback 3 m (9.85 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services
in which they advised that the applicant is requesting a number of minor variances to
facilitate the conversion and small second story addition to an existing two-storey building.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 69 MARCH 9, 1999
The proposed use of the building will occur in two steps. Newtex Cleaners currently
occupy the building. The space will be converted to law offices, which are proposed to
occupy part of the first floor and the entire second story; Newtex will retain space for a two-
4. Submission No. A 31/99 - Jovan Service Corporation, cont'd
year period for customers to drop-off and pick-up items. The cleaning service will occur off
site. When Newtex vacates the site the building will be occupied entirely with a law office.
The variances requested to facilitate this development are as follows:
A reduction in the Duke Street setback from 4.5 m to 3.0 m.
An increase in the floor space ratio from 1.0 to 1.15;
To allow three parking spaces to be located adjacent to Duke Street, two set back 0
m and one set back 2.7 m and;
To allow for the drop-off and pick-up of items from the cleaners adjacent to College
Street.
The reduction in the Duke Street setback is to facilitate a second storey addition, which will
be used as a boardroom for the law office. The setback along Duke and Charles Streets
was established a 4.5 m due to the past function of Duke Street as a one-way "ring road".
A greater setback was imposed to allow a larger landscaped "boulevard". Both Duke and
Charles Streets have been converted to two-way streets, which eliminates the desire for a
greater landscaped setback. As part of the Department's housekeeping changes to the
zoning by-law the setback along both Duke and Charles Streets is proposed to be
changed from 4.5 m to 3 m to reflect the setback requirement of similar functioning roads.
In view of this, the reduction in the setback from 4.5 m meets the general intent of the
zoning by-law and is minor in nature. The conversion and addition will result in a
substantial improvement to the building and in this regard the variance is desirable.
The Municipal Plan and zoning by-law imposes a maximum floor space ration (FSR) of 0.5
for offices in the Commercial Residential Zone (D-5) and an FSR of 1.0 for all other uses.
Since the proposed use is an office, the application should be amended to reflect the need
to permit an increase in the FSR from 0.5 to 1.15. The intent of the regulation is to direct
redevelopment of new large office uses to locate in the Office District Zone (D-4) or the
Retail Core Zone (D-l) or the East Market Zone (D-2). The proposal represents an
excellent opportunity for an adaptive re-use of a building and does not represent a large,
new office use. The building is small, 562 m2, and is being designed to be occupied by
one firm. The proposed addition of 24 m2 is minor. Since the office use will predominantly
occupy an existing building and since the size of the office is relatively small, the intent of
the Municipal Plan and zoning by-law are maintained. Also, the conversion of the building
for use as an office is desirable for the appropriate use of the building.
The third minor variance relates to the location of parking spaces adjacent to Duke Street.
The by-law requires parking spaces and aisles leading to parking spaces to be set back
3.0 m from property lines abutting a street. Two of the spaces adjacent to Duke Street
have a zero m setback and one has a 2.7 m setback. The purpose of the three m setback
is for aesthetics, to provide a landscaped area between the parking area and the sidewalk.
Although there is no opportunity to provide a landscaped area between Duke Street and
the three parking spaces for the first phase of the development there will be an opportunity
to provide a 3.0 m landscaped area adjacent to College Street as well as landscaping
along Duke Street for the second phase. Since the proposed development will improve
the aesthetics by increasing the landscaped area along both Duke and College Street the
general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law is maintained. The variance is desirable
for the appropriate development of the site since it will improve the site. The variance is
minor since there is no impact on the adjacent properties.
The fourth minor variance relates to the drop-off area adjacent to College Street. The
applicant has requested a 0 m setback from the property line whereas the by-law requires
3.0 m. The drop-off area for Newtex Cleaners currently enjoys legal non-conforming
status. Newtex in this location is temporary and the parking area will eventually be
landscaped when Newtex vacates the property. In view of this, a variance is not
supported for the drop-off location adjacent to College Street since it is already legal non-
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 70 MARCH 9, 1999
conforming for the cleaners and since the approval would perpetuate the location for other
uses.
4. Submission No. A 31/99 - Jovan Service Corporation, cont'd
An additional minor variance is required, which relates to the number of parking spaces.
The number of parking spaces required by the zoning by-law on-site is the number of
spaces which existed on-site when zoning by-law 92-232 was passed. There is no record
of a building permit or a site plan on file which indicates the number of on-site parking
spaces that existed when By-law 92-232 was passed. However, as a result of the loss of
land to the road widening along College Street, the number of parking spaces that can fit
on the site will decrease and a minor variance is therefore required. In view of this, the
application should be amended to include a minor variance to lower the parking
requirement to three spaces, as shown on the attached revised plan dated, March 4, 1999.
Although there will be a decrease in the number of on-site parking spaces which can be
supplied on-site the actual reduction is minor since the number of functional parking
spaces remains similar; the site often accommodated more vehicles in an unacceptable
arrangement. In view of this, the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law is
maintained. The reduction in required parking is desirable for the appropriate
development of the site since an acceptable parking layout will be established.
A site plan application has been submitted under application SPR98/53/D/PB, which will
address any technical issues.
A summary of the minor variances recommended for approval are listed below as follows:
A reduction in the Duke Street setback from 4.5 m to 3.0 m.
An increase in the floor space ratio for an office from 0.5 to 1.15;
To allow three parking spaces to be located adjacent to Duke Street, two set back 0
m and one set back 2.7 m and;
A reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces to three.
That Variance Application A 31/99 be approved, as amended, only in relation to the Site
Plan finally approved under Site Plan Application SPR98/53/D/PB.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic Division in which they advised that the
Division has reviewed this application, and have no concerns with the proposed 3 parking
spaces located up to the Duke Street lot line. Concerning the proposed drive-thru, they
advised that the existing and proposed geometrics would not allow vehicles to drive
through one access and exit the other at College Street. Consequently, this parking area
is not considered to be a drive-thru.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a
building permit is required for any new construction.
The Chair asked Mr. Clinckett as to whether he had noted the recommendations in the
comments of the Department of Building & Planning Services and the one amendment
that they are recommending. Mr. Clinckett advised that he reviewed the comments and is
in agreement with them and asked that the application be amended as outlined in the
comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services. The Chair then noted that
the only variance not supported by the Department is the drive-thru. Mr. R. Deutschmann
advised that he could agree with the comments of Business & Planning Services to
eliminate this requested variance. Mr. Clinckett then referred to the photographs
submitted with the application stating that it is not necessary to designate this portion of
the property as a drive-thru. He then explained what they had envisioned at the time they
made the application.
Ms. S. Campbell questioned whether there are curb cuts in these locations now and Mr.
Deutschmann advised that there are curb cuts all around the property except where the
fire hydrant is located.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 71 MARCH 9, 1999
Mr. L. Masseo clarified the staff comments for the benefits of the Committee with respect
to the 0 m setback requested. He noted that this portion of the property is used for parking
now and it is legal non-conforming When Newtex cleaners leaves this property, the staff
want the drive-thru to cease. He also noted that there is no problem with people driving
4. Submission No. A 31/99 - Jovan Service Corporation, cont'd
into that section of the property, parking, dropping off their laundry and then leaving the
property. He again advised that this will disappear when Newtex cleaners leaves the
property.
The Chair then reviewed the amendments to the application noting the floor space ratio
requirement for offices is 0.5 and not 1.0 as noted in the application. They are lowering
the parking to 3 spaces and withdrawing their request for the drive-thru.
A discussion then took place with respect to the number of parking spaces on the site and
the setback for the parking. The Chair questioned how many parking spaces existed on
the site. When the By-law 92-232 was passed. Mr. Deutschmann advised that he thought
there were four or five parking spaces on the site at the time. Mr. L. Masseo noted that the
Department is not sure what the requirement is because of the lack of information on this
property. A discussion then took place about the need for the reduction in parking spaces
and the specific number that existed the day the by-law was passed. Mr. J. Clinckett
noted that the arrangement with Newtex that they will stay at the property for two years,
when they leave additional parking could be provided in that space. Mr. L. Masseo noted
that in the interim, while Newtex Cleaners is still located there, they will continue to use
that portion along College Street for parking. Once Newtex Cleaner's leaves the property
parking won't be located there any more, as that area will be landscaped.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned the status of the site plan approval and Mr. Masseo advised
that it is approved, save and accept for these variances. After further discussion it was
agreed that there were four parking spaces on the site on the day that By-law 92-232 was
passed; therefore, the reduction in parking is from four spaces down to three.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Jovan Service Corporation requesting permission for a second floor
expansion, at the southeast corner of the building, with a setback of 3 m (9.85 ft.) from
Duke Street rather than the required 4.5 m (14.77 ft.); a floor space ratio of 1.15 rather
than the permitted 0.5; and permission for 2 parking spaces upto the Iotline along Duke
Street rather than being setback 3 m (9.85 ft.) and 1 parking space with a setback of 2.7 m
(8.85 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) and permission to provide 3 off-street
parking spaces rather than the required 4 on Part Lot 160 and Part Lot B, Plan 374, 150
Duke Street West, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit for any new construction to take place
on this property.
That the variances as approved in this application shall apply only to the extent as
shown on the site plan finally approved under Site Plan Application SPR
98/53/DPB.
It is the opinion of this Committee:
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
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 72 MARCH 9, 1999
5. Submission No. A 32/99 - Kathleen Revoy, 392 Pioneer Drive, Kitchener, Ontario
Re:
Part Lot 5, Plan 1407, Part 26, Reference Plan 58R-1611, 392 Pioneer Drive,
Kitchener, Ontario.
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. K. Revoy
392 Pioneer Drive
Kitchener, Ontario
Contra:
Ms. R. Pleau
390 Pioneer Drive
Kitchener, Ontario
Written Submissions:
In Support:
None
Contra:
Ms. R. Pleau
390 Pioneer Drive
Kitchener, Ontario
The Committee was advised the applicant is proposing to convert the garage to living
space and is requesting permission to locate the required parking space in the driveway
closer than 6 m (19.69 ft.) to the Iotline along Pioneer Drive.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services
in which they advised that the applicant is proposing to convert the garage of this semi-
detached dwelling to living space and is requesting permission to locate the required off-
street parking space in the driveway which is within the 6 m (19.69 ft.) setback required
from the front Iotline along Pioneer Drive.
The applicant wishes to convert the garage to living space for her developmentally
challenged son that would enable her to care for her son at home.
The required off-street parking space is currently provided in the garage. By converting
the garage to living space the required off-street parking space would be located in front of
the garage in the existing driveway which is approximately 4.9 m (16 ft.) wide and 8 m
(26.4 ft.) in length. Staff notes that the zoning by-law requires that a parking space is a
minimum size of 2.58 m wide and by 5.49 m deep. Consequently, the required off-street
parking space would be set back approximately 2.44 m from the front Iotline rather than
the required 6 m.
Although the by-law states that a required parking space must be accommodated behind
the 6 m setback, there is nothing to prevent the owner from parking a vehicle in the
driveway. Aesthetically, the requested variance would not affect the look of the property
as there is no increase in building area nor driveway area. Therefore, it appears that the
requested variance would not affect the enjoyment of the abutting properties.
Traffic Division staff has no concerns with the driveway being uses to accommodate the
required off-street parking space. Consequently there are no visibility concerns with the
requested variance.
The applicant states on the application that future owners would be able to convert the
space back into a garage if they so wish.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 73 MARCH 9, 1999
Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the impact of the variance
would be minor and the request maintains the general intent of the by-law and municipal
plan.
5. Submission No. A 32/99 - Kathleen Revoy, cont'd
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission
A 32/99 to permit the legal parking space for the dwelling to be set back 2.44 m from the
property line.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a
building permit is required for any new construction.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic Division is which they advised that the
Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed parking
space, which is less than the required 6.0 m behind the property line.
The Committee considered the written submission of Ms. R. Pleau in opposition to this
application.
The Chair reviewed the comments received from staff and the neighbour's written
submission and asked Ms. Revoy to comment. Ms. Revoy spoke of the problems outlined
in the neighbour's written submission and how she was rectifying those problems. She
noted that the purpose of this application is to convert the garage to living quarters so that
her son, who is blind and in a wheelchair, can be properly cared for at home. She referred
to the bus, noted in the neighbour's written submission advising that it is her employment
and Shantz Coachlines allows her to bring the bus home so that she can also use it for her
son.
The Chair explained the criteria for the Committee to make a decision, explaining that
parking a bus in the driveway was looked after by another by-law and, if in fact it is a
violation, the Committee would not have the jurisdiction to deal with that matter but there
were other avenues through the municipal law enforcement and Ms. Pleau could have that
investigated.
Ms. Pleau then addressed the Committee and reviewed the concerns she had outlined in
her written submission noting that she has a problem with the bus parked in the driveway,
that she had concerns about safety and visibility as she would not be able to see the road
while exiting her driveway and she also had problems with salt from this driveway being
put on her front lawn.
The Chair read the Traffic & Parking Division comments and the comments of the Building
& Planning Services Department in which they discussed that there would not be visibility
problem. With respect to Ms. Pleau's concern about drainage, the Chair advised that no
new driveway is proposed but what is proposed is permission to park in the existing
driveway, which he felt would not change the drainage problem.
Mr. A. Galloway advised that he reviewed the staff comments and they are all in support of
the application and they indicate that there would be no traffic problems should this
application be approved. He moved that the application be approved as submitted.
Mr. L. Masseo explained the by-law requirements to allow a legal parking space to be
located in front of the garage. He explained to Ms. Pleau that the application is to move
the legal parking space from the garage to the driveway in front of the garage.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Kathleen Revoy requesting permission to locate the required
parking space in the driveway, 2.4 m (8 ft.) from the Iotline rather than the required 6 m
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 74 MARCH 9, 1999
(19.69 ft.) to the Iotline along Pioneer Drive on Part Lot 5, Plan 1407, Part 26, Reference
Plan 58R-1611,392 Pioneer Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED.
5. Submission No. A 32/99 - Kathleen Revoy, cont'd
It is the opinion of this Committee:
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
CONSENT
1. Submission No. B 18/99 - Minor Nevin Smaill and Cindy Mary Jane Prokop, 58
Franklin Street South, Kitchener, Ontario
Re: Part Lot 138, Registered Plan 254, 58 Franklin Street South, Kitchener, Ontario.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. I. Mohammed
280 Frederick Street
Kitchener, Ontario
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land having a width of 0.67 m (2.2 ft.), a length of 19.82 m (65 ft.) and an area of 13.29 m2
(143 sq. ft.) as a lot addition to the neighbouring property.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services
in which they advised that an application has been received in order sever a portion of
land at 58 Franklin Street South and add said land to adjacent property located at 62
Franklin Street South, presently in the ownership of Joan Diggon and Douglas Sydney
Diggon. The subject lands presently form part of the driveway at 62 Franklin Street South.
Part of a small frame shed also exists at the westerly end of the lands to be severed. The
parcel of land in question has a frontage of 0.67 m and a depth of 19.8 m.
The subject lands are defined by a row of curb stones, now located on 58 Franklin Street
South. The frame shed is almost entirely located on the property at 62 Franklin Street
South, save and except the small portion on 58 Franklin Street South.
The severance of the subject lands should not have an adverse impact on the amenity of
occupants at 58 Franklin Street South. The driveway for the retained lands is located at
the opposite side of the lot so there is no land being lost for parking or vehicular access. In
addition, the lands to be severed are already being used as part of a driveway for the
occupants of 62 Franklin Street South. Finally, the lands do not represent a significant
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 75 MARCH 9, 1999
amount of land, being only 13.3 m2 in area. Therefore, no existing, functional yard area is
being removed from the property at 58 Franklin Street South.
In conclusion, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that
application B 18/99 be approved.
1. Submission No. B 18/99 - Minor Nevin Smaill and Cindy Man/Jane Prokop, cont'd
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission
B 18/99 subject to the following conditions:
That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands immediately south and
title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands, described as Part Lot
138, Registered Plan 134. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be
severed shall comply with Sections 59(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1996.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment
of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or improvements charges.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of
Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and
have no concerns.
Upon questioning by the Committee, Mr. Mohammed advised that he had reviewed the
staff comments and he has no concerns with the two recommended conditions.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Minor Smaill and Cindy Prokop requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land having a width of 0.67 m (2.2 ft.), a length of 19.82 m (65 ft.) and an area of
13.29 m2 (143 sq. ft.), as a lot addition, on Part Lot 138, Registered Plan 254, 58 Franklin
Street South, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
That the lands to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting lands,
immediately south, and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting
lands, described as Part Lot 138, Registered Plan 134. Sub-sections 50(3) and/or
(5) of the Planning Act apply to any subsequent conveyance of or transaction
involving the parcel of land that is the subject of this consent.
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.
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 March 9, 2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of Subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of
the municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands
and the retained lands.
The use of the land in this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan
and the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 76 MARCH 9, 1999
Submission No. B 19199 - Canadian National Railway Company, 277 Front Street
West, 8th Floor, Toronto, Ontario
Re:
Lot No. 58 & 122 German Company Tract, Parts No. 1, 2, 3 and 4, Draft Reference
Plan, 200 Shirley Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. N. Skinner
2300-4950 Yonge Street
North York, Ontario
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land having a width on Shirley Avenue of 37.31 m (122.41 ft.), having an irregular shape
and having an area of 3.51 hectares. The existing and proposed use of the property is a
trucking terminal.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services
in which they advised that CN Rail proposes to sever a lot fronting Shirley Avenue. The
retained lands are the CN main line. The proposed lot is already developed as a truck
transport terminal (Clarke Transport). Much of the land is occupied by railway spur lines
which serve Clarke Transport.
A previous severance (B 36/97) proposed the conveyance of surplus railway lands as a lot
addition to the lands of Eagle Bridge (250 Shirley Av.) immediately east of the Clarke site.
B 36/97 was approved by the Committee and the decision was appealed by the owners of
the three properties fronting Shirley Avenue East of Eagle Bridge. One of the main
concerns of the appellants was that their lands would be cut off from future access to the
railway. The Ontario Municipal Board approved a modified proposal, conveying lot
additions to each of the appellants as well as to Eagle Bridge.
The lands proposed to be conveyed to Clarke Transport lie between the CN main line and
the four industrial lots noted above. The intent of the current application is that the
severed lot would be subject to a right-of-way in favour of CN Rail, over Parts 2 and 3 of
the draft reference plan submitted. This would continue to allow for rail access to the four
industrial lots. Planning staff therefore has no concerns with the proposal.
There is already a site plan agreement registered on title of the lands to be severed.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of consent
Application B 19/99, to convey a new lot subject to a right-of-way, subject to the following
conditions:
That the lands to be severed shall be subject to a right-of-way in favour of the
Canadian National Railway Company, over Parts 2 and 3 as shown on the draft
plan submitted with the application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 77 MARCH 9, 1999
That the owner granting the right-of-way shall obtain approval, from the City
Solicitor, of those documents creating the right-of-way in perpetuity.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment
of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2. Submission No. B 19/99 - Canadian National Railway Company, cont'd
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of
Waterloo, in which they advised that in accordance with the Region's delegated
responsibilities to comment on development applications on behalf of the Province
(including Ministry of Environment), please be advised that the subject lands are located
adjacent to lands which have been identified as having a high risk of contamination in the
Region's Contaminant Sources Inventory. Regional staff does not know if the
contamination suspected on the adjacent lands would pose a health or safety risk to the
proposed use of the property. As the subject lands are not located within a Regional well
field, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo does not have a direct corporate interest which
would result in the Region requesting a Record of Site Condition be imposed on its behalf.
The Committee considered a letter from Ms. S. Chan, CN Rail, dated March 8, 1999.
Mr. Skinner addressed the Committee advising that the existing use of the property is
Clarke Transport and the use will continue after this severance. Mr. Skinner then
explained the previous applications and that the properties involved in those previous
applications want to maintain access to the spur line; therefore, a right-of-way is being
requested. Mr. Skinner also noted the letter of Ms. S. Chan advising that the railway
usually addresses these concerns through its agreements of Purchase and Sale.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of the Canadian National Railway requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land having a width on Shirley Avenue of 37.31 m (122.41 ft.), having an irregular
shape and having an area of 3.51 hectares, reserving a right-of-way over Parts 2 & 3 on
the plan submitted with the application on Lot 58 and 122, German Company Tract,
designated as Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4 on the Draft Reference Plan, 200 Shirley Avenue,
Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
That the lands to be severed in this application shall be subject to a right-of-way in
favour of the Canadian National Railway Company over Parts 2 & 3 as shown on
Draft Plan submitted with this application.
That the owner granting the right-of-way shall obtain approval from the City Solicitor
of those documents creating the right-of-way in perpetuity.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for
the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
charges.
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 March 9, 2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of Subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of
the municipality.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 78 MARCH 9, 1999
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
3. Submission No. B 20/99 - Southstaton Holdings Limited, 1224 Speers Road,
Oakville, Ontario
Re:
Part Lots 124 and 125 German Company being Parts 9, 10, 12 and 13 on Draft
Reference Plan, Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. M. Schumacher
300 Victoria Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to give a right-of-way
to an abutting property. This property is also the subject of a Zone Change Application
and Draft Plan of Subdivision.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services
in which they advised that an application has been received in order to create a right-of-
way for access to an existing single family dwelling from a lane which intersects Woolwich
Street north of Sunbridge Crescent. The lands over which the right-of-way is to be
established form part of a parcel intended to be subdivided by Southstaton Holdings
Limited.
The right-of-way is proposed to access lands in the ownership of Joseph Peter. Mr. Peter
presently enjoys a right-of-way by virtue of use over the past 30 years. The new right-of-
way is intended to replace the right-of-way established by use.
It is intended that the right-of-way will be quitclaimed by Mr. Peter once a street has been
dedicated to access the Peter property in the Plan of Subdivision.
While staff have no specific concerns with the proposed right-of-way, the owner should be
put on notice that as a condition of draft approval for the future subdivision, the City will
require a quite claim deed immediately subsequent to the registration of the Plan of
Subdivision. Without this condition, the lands being part of the right-of-way would be
located across the rear yards of several lots to be created at a later date.
The Department of Business and Planning Services therefore recommends that
application B 20/99 be approved.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission
B 20/99 subject to the following condition:
That the owners of Parts 1 to 13, Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract
(Southstaton Holdings Limited) and Part of Lots 124 and 125, German Company
Tract (Joseph Peter) enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor
and registered against title of both properties, which will ensure that the right-of-way
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 79 MARCH 9, 1999
for access and a joint maintenance agreement for both properties are maintained in
perpetuity or until such time as access to a public street is provided.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment
of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
3. Submission No. B 20/99 - Southstaton Holdinqs Limited, cont'd
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of
Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and
have no concerns.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which
they advised that they do not object to this application.
The Chair questioned whether Mr. Schumacher had received the staff comments and Mr.
Schumacher advised that he has and he has no concerns with the recommended
conditions. The Chair then questioned whether the new right-of-way would be in the same
place as the possessory right-or-way and Mr. Schumacher advised that it was more or
less the same with a little bit extra.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Southstaton Holdings Limited requesting permission to give a right-
of-way to Joseph Peter over Part of Lots 124 & 125, German Company Tract, designated
as Parts 9, 10, 12 & 13 on the Draft Reference Plan, Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario
BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owners of Parts 1 - 13, Lot 66, Part Lots 124 & 125, German Company
Tract, (Southstaton Holdings Limited) and Part of Lots 124 & 125, German
Company Tract (Joseph Peter) shall enter into an agreement, to be approved by
the City Solicitor and registered against title of both properties, which will ensure
that the right-of-way for access and a joint maintenance agreement for both
properties are maintained in perpetuity or until such time as access to a public
street is provided.
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.
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 March 9, 2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of Subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of
the municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands
and the retained lands.
The use of the land in this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan
and the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 80 MARCH 9, 1999
Submission No. B 21/99 - Waterloo Catholic District School Board, 91 Moore
Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario
Re:
Part of Block A, Registered Plan 876, Parts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8, Reference Plan 58R-
11654, 154 Gatewood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario.
- and -
Submission No.'s B 22/99 & A 27/99 - Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the
Diocese of Hamilton, 700 King Street West,
Hamilton, Ontario
Re:
Part of Block A, Registered Plan 876, Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-11654, 49
Blueridge Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. S. Lubczuk
645 Westmount Road East
Kitchener, Ontario
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that these applications affect St. Francis Elementary School
and St. Francis Church. The school proposes to sever some land to be conveyed to the
church property and also convey rights-of-way for access and parking. The school
property will retain rights-of-way for access and parking over the lands to be conveyed to
the church. The church is proposing to give a right-of-way to the school. The church is
also requesting permission for a 5.44 m (17.85 ft.) sideyard for the existing church
structure and a second storey addition rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services
in which they advised that St. Francis Elementary School is located on a lot at the corner
of Queen's Boulevard and Blueridge Avenue which extends through to Gatewood Road.
St. Francis church is adjacent to the school, fronting on Blueridge Avenue. These
associated uses have mutually used and maintained the driveways between the buildings
since 1960, without their formal establishment by consent. The purpose of these two
consent applications is to convey lands to the church and to establish rights-of-way for
driveways and parking over both lots. The minor variance application is requested to
legalize the existing sideyard of 4.55 m rather than 6.0 m and permit the second storey
addition to the church, having the same sideyard.
Consent application B 21/99 proposes to convey parts 3, 4, 5 and 6 from the school to the
church, which will change the configuration of the church lot such that it would have
frontage on Gateway Road. Along with the conveyance, the school board would retain
rights-of-way over parts 4 and 6 for vehicular access and over Part 3 for parking, and grant
rights-of-way to the church for vehicular access over Part 7 and for parking over the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 81 MARCH 9, 1999
largest part, Part 8. Part 3 is used by the church during the week for school parking and
Part 8 is used by the church during its weekend peak times.
Application B 22/99 addresses the remaining part of the existing driveway, by which the
church would grant a right-of-way for vehicular access over Part 2 in favour of the school.
Staff supports the conveyance as it remedies an existing encroachment of the church over
the school property and would increase the land area of the church property, allowing the
required parking for the church to be provided on the same lot. However, since the
4. Submission No. B 21/99 - Waterloo Catholic District School Board, cont'd
- and -
Submission No.'s B 22/99 & A 27/99 - Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the
Diocese of Hamilton, cont'd
required parking for the school (17 spaces) will no longer be provided on the same lot, in
order to satisfy the zoning by-law, an "off-site" parking agreement between both owners
and the City of Kitchener must be entered into and registered on the title of both lands.
The school board confirmed that while they could physically provide the parking if required,
the intent is to maintain all of Part 8 as playground and neither the school board nor the
church have any concerns with entering into the parking agreement, as it is consistent with
their consent application to establish the right-of-way over Part 3.
The establishment of the rights-of-way for vehicular access legalizes the joint use of the
driveway which has existed since 1960 and allows the continuation of suitable vehicular
access to and from each site.
Staff note that at present, the through movement of vehicles between streets if prevented
by a chain barricade extending between the church and the school buildings, which would
not be permitted once the rights-of-way are established.
Minor variance application A 27~99 seeks approval of a sideyard of 5.44 m rather than 6.0
m to legalize the location of the existing structure and allow a second storey addition to the
church. It is minor as the 5.44 m sideyard is existing on the first storey and the building
diverges from the lot line so that the variance only affects a small portion of the building.
The intent of the zoning by-law and official plan area maintained since this yard does not
function as a typical sideyard due to the comprehensive development of both lots.
Approval of the minor variance will allow the property to be appropriately developed, with a
second storey addition to the church.
1. That Minor Variance Application A 27~99 be approved without conditions.
2. That Consent Application B 21/99 be approved subject to the following conditions:
a)
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local
improvements charges.
b)
That the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the diocese of Hamilton
and the Waterloo Catholic District School Board enter into an agreement to
be approved by the City Solicitor which will ensure that rights-of- way for
access and parking and a joint maintenance agreement for both properties
are maintained in perpetuity and that such agreement be registered on title
of both lots.
c)
That the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Hamilton
and the Waterloo Catholic District School Board enter into an agreement
with the City of Kitchener, to be registered against the title of both lots, to
guarantee the provision of 17 parking spaces for school parking on Part 3,
Reference Plan 58R-11654, pursuant to Section 6.1.1 a) iii) of the Zoning
By-law.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 82 MARCH 9, 1999
That Consent Application B 22/99 be approved subject to the following condition:
a) That the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Hamilton
and the Waterloo Catholic District School Board enter into an agreement, to
be approved by the City Solicitor, which will ensure that rights-of-way for
access and parking and a joint maintenance agreement for both properties
are maintained in perpetuity, and provide confirmation that said agreement
has been registered on title of both lots.
Submission No. B 21/99 - Waterloo Catholic District School Board, cont'd
- and -
Submission No.'s B 22/99 & A 27/99 - Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the
Diocese of Hamilton, cont'd
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a
building permit is required for the new addition to the church.
The Committee noted the comment so the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of
Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed these applications and
have no concerns.
Mr. Lubczuk explained the application. He advised that the Church wants to build an
addition at the back and, following negotiations with the school board, agreed to these
conveyances. Mr. Lubczuk then reviewed the reference plan with the Committee
identifying those pieces being conveyed and those for rights-of-way and parking. He
advised that the intent of the applications is to cure the encroachments and allow for the
addition plus the mutual right-of-way. He noted that the teachers park on Part 3 of the
Reference Plan and the condition being requested by staff will allow this parking to
continue. Mr. Lubcyzk advised that his clients do not object to the comments of the
Department of Business & Planning Services.
The Chair noted that the staff comments do not include a request that Sub-Sections 50(3)
and/or (5) should apply to these applications and Mr. Masseo advised that staff would
want that condition for Submission No. B 21/99.
Mr. Lubczuk then advised the Committee that the name of the School Board, on the
application form was incorrect and that the name is the Waterloo Catholic District School
Board.
SUBMISSION NO. B 21/99
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of the Waterloo Catholic District School Board requesting permission
to convey parcels of land, designated as Parts 3, 4, 5 & 6, Reference Plan 58R-11654, as
lot additions to the abutting property, reserving a right-of-way for a driveway over Parts 4 &
6, Reference Plan 58R-11654; reserving a right-of-way for parking over Part 3, Reference
Plan 58R-11654; and permission to give a right-of-way over Parts 7, Reference Plan 58R-
11654 for a driveway, and a right-of-way over Part 8, Reference Plan 58R-11654 for
parking on Part of Block A, Registered Plan 876, designated as Parts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8,
Reference Plan 58R-11654, 154 Gatewood Road, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED
subject to the following conditions:
That the lands to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting lands
and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Subsection
50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act applies to any subsequent conveyance or
transaction involving the parcel of land which are the subject of this consent.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 83 MARCH 9, 1999
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 Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Hamilton and the
Waterloo Catholic District School Board shall enter into an agreement, to be
approved by the City Solicitor, which shall ensure that rights-of-way for access and
parking and a joint maintenance agreement for both properties are maintained in
perpetuity and that such agreements shall be registered on title of both properties.
4. Submission No. B 21/99 - Waterloo Catholic District School Board, cont'd
- and -
Submission No.'s B 22/99 & A 27/99 - Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the
Diocese of Hamilton, cont'd
Submission No. B 21/99, cont'd
That the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Hamilton and the
Waterloo Catholic District School Board shall enter into an agreement with the City
of Kitchener, to be registered against the title of both properties, to guarantee the
provision of 17 parking spaces for school parking on Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-
11654, pursuant to Section 6.1.1 a (iii) of the Zoning By-law.
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 March 9, 2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of Subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of
the municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands
and the retained lands.
The use of the land in this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan
and the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
SUBMISSION NO. B 22~99
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of
Hamilton requesting permission to give a right-of-way to the abutting lands, on Part Block
A, Registered Plan 876, designated as Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-11654, 49 Blueridge
Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following condition:
That the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Hamilton and the
Waterloo Catholic District School Board shall enter into an agreement, to be
approved by the City Solicitor, which will ensure that right-of-way for access and
parking and a joint maintenance agreement for both properties are maintained in
perpetuity and provide confirmation that the said agreement has been registered on
title of both properties.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 84 MARCH 9, 1999
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
Committee shall lapse 2 years from the date of approval, being March 9, 2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.
of this
A plan of Subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of
the municipality.
Submission No. B 21/99 - Waterloo Catholic District School Board, cont'd
- and -
Submission No.'s B 22/99 & A 27/99 - Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the
Diocese of Hamilton, cont'd
Submission No. B 22~99, cont'd
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands
and the retained lands.
The use of the land in this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan
and the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
SUBMISSION NO. A 27/99
That the application of the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of
Hamilton requesting legalizaton of the existing church having a westerly sideyard of 5.44
m (17.85 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.) and permission for a second storey
addition with a westerly sideyard of 5.44 m (17.85 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.69
ft.) on Part Block A, Registered Plan 876, designated as Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, Reference
Plan 58R-11654, 49 Blueridge Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee:
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
ADJOURNMENT
On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 9th day of March 1999.
D. H. Gilchrist
Secretary
Committee of Adjustment
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 85 MARCH 9, 1999