Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-02-16COA\1999-02-16 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 16, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. W. Dahms, A. Galloway and P. Kruse. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, Ms. J. Billett, Administrator and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Administrator. Committee Committee Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. MINUTES Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of January 26, 1999, as mailed to the members, be accepted. UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No. A 85/98 - Mary Sellner & Margaret Mary Sellner, 357 Weber Street West, Kitchener Re: Appearances: In Support: Contra: Written Submissions: In Support: Contra: As no one appeared Lot 8, Registered Plan 373, 357 Weber Street West, Kitchener, Ontario. None None None None in support of this application, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to the meeting to be held on March 9, 1999. 2. 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: Contra: None None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 36 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 Submission No. A 107/98 - Cydev Holdinqs Inc., cont'd Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None As no one appeared in support of this application, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to the meeting to be held on March 9, 1999. Submission No. A 13/99- 129535 Ontario Inc., c/o Sonwray Property Management, 3-48 Queen Street East, Cambridge, Ontario Re: Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-7001, 70 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. B. Nimer 3-48 Queen Street East Cambridge, Ontario Mr. R. Dyck 1101-30 Duke Street West Kitchener, Ontario Ms. S. Frenette Director of Housing City of Kitchener Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised the applicant is proposing to develop this property with a convenience plaza and is requesting permission for a setback from Victoria Street, after widening, of 25.7 m (84.32 ft.) rather than the required 2 m (6.57 ft.); a setback from Victoria Street for parking, after widening, of 2.4 m (7.88 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) and permission for a minimum faCade height, for a portion of the plaza, of 5.5 m (18.05 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services, dated February 9, 1999, in which they advised that this Application for Minor Variance was deferred from the Committee meeting of January 26, 1999, pending the review of a Site Plan Application for the development of a commercial plaza on the subject property. The proposed site plan was discussed at a meeting of the City's Project Review Committee on February 3, 1999. While a decision on the site plan was deferred by Committee, there were no major technical concerns with the site plan that is currently proposed. The property in question contains a vacant industrial building. The owner proposed to demolish the building and construct a multiple unit commercial plaza with provision for 50 parking spaces. The subject lands are located at the corner of Duke Street West and Victoria Street North. The application includes the following requests: a maximum yard abutting Victoria Street North for the ground floor faCade of 25.7 m rather than the required 2 m maximum; a COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 37 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 minimum fagade height of 5.5 metres rather than the required 6 m; and a setback for parking spaces from Victoria Street North of 2.4 m rather than the required 3 m. Submission No. A 13/99 - 129535 Ontario Inc., c/o Sonwray Property Management cont'd The subject lands are designated "Warehouse District" in the Municipal Plan. The policies of the Warehouse District state that development must reflect its relative location and historical development. While the Municipal Plan generally encourages the reuse and conversion of old warehouse buildings, it does not restrict new development, provided it is in keeping with the design and siting of existing development. Section 8.6.2 of the Municipal Plan states that "new development shall be designed so as to complement the design and siting of the existing large, old buildings". Generally speaking, the existing large, old buildings referred to in section 8.6.2 are located at, or near to, the street line, hence the maximum setback of 2 m incorporated into the Zoning By-law. The siting of these buildings helps create a definable streetscape in the district. The proposed setback from Victoria Street North of 25. 7 m represents a significant departure from the setback that currently exists on this property, ie. less than one m. In addition, it represents a significant departure from the existing setbacks of all other existing buildings located on the corner of the intersection of Victoria Street North and Duke Street, as well as a departure from the setbacks of other large buildings located in the warehouse district. The owner has explained to staff that the building is shown in the proposed location for two reasons. The commercial units will be more marketable with parking at the front of the building, and there is a high cost associated with constructing a required retaining wall along the rear property line if parking were to be located to the rear of the site. While staff do not dispute the logic behind this reasoning, the requested variance to increase the maximum yard to 25.7 m still does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Municipal Plan or Zoning By-law 85-1. The variance is also not considered to be minor in nature. The proposed yard would be detrimental to the character of the warehouse district, and to this street corner in particular. The variance requested for a minimum faCade height of 5.5 m is considered relatively minor in nature. While most older buildings in the warehouse district are of a greater height than the commercial plaza proposed for the subject lands, the proposed faCade height is not greatly out of keeping with the faCade heights found in the district, or at this intersection in particular. The requested parking space setback of 2.4 m is not considered to conform to the intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. While the requested variance is not a major departure from the required 3.0 m in numerical terms, the effect of the proposed variance is to allow parking in front of the building, thereby siting the building to the rear of the site. For reasons cited earlier, this would be contrary to the intent of the both the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. It should be noted that the owner originally proposed a "L" shaped building on this site when City Planning staff were first approached about the development of the site. The"L" shaped designed would have permitted part of the building to be sited at the street line with both Victoria Street North and Duke Street. This design was predicated on the owner acquiring a small parcel of land to the south-east corner of the site. However, the lands could not be acquired and the "L" shaped design was abandoned in favour of the current design. For the Committee's information, the site plan application was discussed at the Heritage Kitchener meeting of February 5, 1999. The Committee expressed concern regarding the orientation of the building to the rear of the property and the parking to the front. The Committee also suggested that the development should show respect for the historical form of development characterizing the intersection of Duke Street and Victoria Street North. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 38 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 Having outlined the above concerns relative to the applicable Planning Act tests, staff are still supportive of the redevelopment of this property. The site is located at a prominent street intersection and could be considered part of an entrance way to the downtown. The Submission No. A 13/99 - 129535 Ontario Inc., cio Sonwray Property Management cont'd existing building, as it now appears, is not considered to enhance the appearance of the intersection or this entrance way to the downtown. As such, the redevelopment of this property is considered appropriate. The site is also on the "Adaptive Re-use" list, which is a list of properties the City is promoting for re-use. In conclusion, the application is not considered to meet the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law and is not considered minor in nature. The Department of Business and Planning Services therefore cannot recommend approval of Submission No. A 13/99. If the Committee is supportive of the application, an additional variances is required. The proposed site plan indicates that 50 spaces will be provided; however, 51 spaces are required in accordance with the parking requirements of the Zoning By-law. An additional variances would need to be included to permit a total of 50 parking spaces rather than the required 51 spaces. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of Submission No. A 13/99. The Committee considered the comments of the Director of Building, dated January 15, 1999, in which he advised that a building permit is required for any construction intended to be carried out. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division, dated January 21, 1999, in which they advised that they have reviewed the application and are recommending that it be deferred pending the submission of a detailed site plan. The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, dated January 21, 1999, in which they advised that, at this location, Victoria Street has an existing road allowance width of 66 ft. and a designated road allowance width of 86 ft.; therefore, a 10 ft. road allowance widening is required from this property. The site plan indicates a 5 m daylight triangle at the intersection of Victoria Street and Duke Street, where our standard is 7.6 m. We are prepared to accept a 5 m daylight triangle for this property. It may not be appropriate to the acquire the road widening and daylighting triangle under this application. The applicant is proposing to close the existing accesses to this property and construct a single access at the easterly limit of the property. Upon submission of the Site Plan Application a Regional Road Entrance Permit will be required for this access. They advised that they have no objection to this application. Mr. R. Dyck displayed a site plan of the property and concept plan of the proposed plaza for the Committee's benefit. He explained the location of the property at the corner of Duke Street West and Victoria Street North. He advised the Committee that the existing building is in poor condition and he suggested to the owners that they not consider redeveloping it. He advised that they have reviewed alternatives for the site and came up with this concept. Mr. Dyck then advised the Committee of the different elevations of the site and because of these changes in elevation, parking is proposed for the front of the property. Walk-in trade is not expected at this site and there are problems associated with putting parking at the rear of this site. Mr. Dyck advised that they have spoken with staff at the Region who advised that a 3 m road widening along Victoria Street is required. The Region has agreed that 1 m of the road widening can be landscaped, which will allow a 3.4 landscape buffer along Victoria Street. Mr. Dyck then referred to the concept plan of the building, noting the soft historic colour and feel. Mr. Dyck summarized that the issues at hand are the setback from COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 39 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 Victoria Street, the parking and the height problem. He stated that there was no other way of developing the site. Submission No. A 13/99 - 129535 Ontario Inc., c/o Sonwray Property Management cont'd Mr. B. Nimer addressed the Committee giving a brief history of the property. He noted that the existing building has been exposed to the elements. He advised that they have investigated restorations to see if redevelopment was possible. He stated that the building has very little architectural significance and there is very little chance of restoration. He noted that the owners have chosen this site because it is an adaptive re-use site and there are incentives to development. He advised that he had met with staff and the City is enthusiastic about doing something with this site. Mr. Nimer noted that they have determined several challenges to development; homeless people are occupying the building; there is a rail line behind the property with its associated noise and the grade differential. They first considered developing an office building on the site but determined it couldn't be leased. Mr. Nimer advised that they had considered parking at the rear; however, a retaining wall would be required. The costs of the retaining wall, new construction and demolition would be too expensive. With the current proposal, the building will be the retaining wall. Mr. Nimer advised the Committee that upto this point, no staff member had indicated that the setback would be a problem. Mr. Nimer then summarized that considerations in developing the site are: the Duke Street elevation, economic viability, maintaining the streetscape and the Region's future proposal for a left turn lane at Duke Street. He advised that there may be specific policies that give some leeway because this is an adaptive re-use site. The Chair read aloud the staff comments concerning the required parking and Mr. Nimer requested an amendment for 50 parking spaces rather than the required 51. Mr. P. Kruse stated that he was surprised that no one had advised Mr. Nimer about the setback concerns. Mr. Nimer advised that he has been working with staff since the fall and this is the first it has been discussed. Mr. J. Given addressed the Committee advising that staff is extremely sympathetic and understand the rational behind the proposal; however, they find it hard to argue the four tests in the Planning Act. Staff may be reviewing the downtown zoning and some policies may not be applicable. She advised that she thought the setback from the street had been discussed with the developer. Ms. S. Frenette, Director of Housing, addressed the Committee to explain that the Downtown Team is in support of this application. She advised that the official plan is out of sync with the way things are heading. Staff will be updating the plan, as things have changed. She advised that she considered Victoria Street to be a highway which is traffic oriented and not pedestrian oriented. It is a better design to set the building back in this location. She stated that the Official Plan is somewhat out of date and will be revised this year. She again advised that the Downtown Team is in support of this application. Mr. A. Galloway questioned whether a site plan application is being processed for this site. Ms. J. Given advised that it is and there are no technical concerns. Mr. Galloway advised that he was prepared to move approval of the application and questioned staff if they wanted any conditions imposed. Ms. Given requested that it be conditional on final approval of the site plan which is to be approved through the Site Plan Application. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of 1295355 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct a commercial plaza with a maximum yard abutting Victoria Street North, for the ground floor facade, of 25.7 m (84.32 ft.) after widening rather than the permitted 2 m (6.57 ft.); a COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 40 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 minimum facade height of 5.5 m (18.05 ft.) rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.); a setback for parking spaces from Victoria Street North, after widening, of 2.4 m (7.88 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.); and permission to provide 50 off-street parking Submission No. A 13/99 - 129535 Ontario Inc., c/o Sonwray Property Management cont'd spaces rather than the required 51 off-street parking spaces, on Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-7001, 70 Victoria Street North, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED; subject to the following condition: 1. 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 SP99/2N/GR. 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., this meeting briefly adjourned to consider an Application for Minor Variance to the Sign By-law. APPLICATIONS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No. A 24~99 - Chris & Angela Durrer, 104 Birchcliffe Ave., Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lot 76, Plan 1161,104 Birchliffe Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. & Mrs. C. Durrer 104 Birchcliffe Avenue Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: Ms. N. Balaban 452 Greenbrook Drive Kitchener, Ontario Mr. & Mrs. S. Klatecki 98 Birchcliffe Avenue Kitchener, Ontario Mr. & Mrs. W. Rothenberg 103 Birchcliffe Avenue Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 41 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide two parking spaces in the driveway, for the home and home business, to be setback 2.6 m (8.53 ft.) from the Iotline along Birchcliffe Avenue rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.). Submission No. A 24/99 - Chris & Anqela Durrer, cont'd The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicants are requesting permission to provide two parking spaces in the driveway, for the home and home business, to be setback 2.6 m (8.53 ft.) from the Iotline along Birchcliffe Avenue rather than the 6.0 m (19.69 ft.). The application should be revised to reflect that the applicants are requesting permission to locate only one parking space ahead of the building line with a setback of 2.6 m (8.53 ft.) rather than the required 6.0 m (19.69 ft.) since the single car garage is the legal parking space for the dwelling. There currently exists a 6.09 m (20 ft.) wide driveway located 7.9 m (26 ft.) from the intersection, which contravenes the 12.0 m (39.3 ft.) minimum setback for driveways on corner lots. Accordingly, if the application is to be approved as submitted, an additional minor variance would have to be approved. If the driveway location variance is not approved, the driveway would have to be modified to comply and the second parking space for the home business would be located ahead of the building line on the driveway in front of the garage, in tandem fashion. The tandem arrangement requires minor variance approval as well. The proposed 2.6 m (8.5 ft.) setback will not interfere with vehicular traffic or pedestrian visibility. Nothing prevents the non-required parking from being parked in this location; therefore, the variance can be considered minor in nature and maintains the general intent and purpose of the City's Zoning By-law and Official Plan. Tandem parking can be considered appropriate as the owner does not need to exit the site while a customer is parked in the driveway. Since the by-law encourages home businesses as an appropriate and desirable use of the property; the reduced setback and tandem parking are appropriate as they would facilitate the operation of the home business. The Department of Business & Planning Services recommends approval of Submission No. A 24/99 to reduce the setback for parking for a personal service home business from 6.0 m to 2.6 m, and to be arranged in tandem, subject to the following condition. That the driveway be reduced in width to comply with the 12 m setback from the intersection, prior to being issued an occupancy permit for the home business and prior to May 16, 1999. 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 do not have any concerns with the proposed reduction in the distance from the property line to accommodate two additional parking spaces. They pointed out that the existing driveway does not meet the 12 m setback requirement from Greenbrook Drive. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required for any construction carried out to create the home business. The Committee noted the written submissions of the neighbourhood residents in support of this application. When questioned by the Committee, Ms. J. Given advised that there are a couple of options. She also advised that she talked to the staff of the Traffic & Parking Division who are prepared to support the reduced setback of the driveway from the intersection. Mr. Durrer directed the Committee's attention to the three letters of support from neighbouring property owners. He requested that the Committee amend the application to include the reduced setback of the existing driveway from the intersection. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 42 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 Submission No. A 24~99 - Chris & Anqela Durrer, cont'd Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Chris and Angela Duffer requesting permission to provide one off- street parking space with a setback of 2.6 m (8.53 ft.) from the Iotline along Birchcliffe Avenue rather than the required 6.0 m (19.69 ft.) and legalization of the existing driveway located 7.9 m (26 ft.) from the intersection of Birchcliffe Avenue and Greenbrook Drive rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.) on Lot 76, Registered Plan 1161, 104 Birchcliffe 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 .APPLICATIONS CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.'s B 9~99 & A 25~99 - 1243838 Ontario Ltd., 15 Martinglen Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario Re. Lot 408, Plan 375, 29 Cherry Street, Kitchener, Ontario. APPEARANCES: In Support: Mr. E. O'Neill 15 Martinglen Crescent Kitchener, Ontario Contra: Mr. J. Sonser 35 Cherry Street Kitchener, Ontario Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a width on Cherry Street of 9.6 m (31.5 ft.) and an area of 242.86 m2 (2,614.21 sq. ft.) which will contain the existing house. The remaining lands will be developed with either a single family dwelling or duplex. The applicant is also requesting legalization of the frontyard of the existing house of 4.422 m (14.51 ft.), to the roofed porch, rather than the required 4.5 m (14.77 ft.), a northerly sideyard, for the house of 2.54 m (8.34 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) and a sideyard for the detached garage of 0.07 m (0.23 ft.) rather than the required 0.6 m (2 ft.). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 43 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant proposes to sever the subject property. The lot to be severed contains the existing single detached dwelling and detached garage. The lot to be retained is vacant and is proposed to be developed with a single detached dwelling. Submission No.'s B 9/99 & A 25/99 - 1243838 Ontario Ltd., cont'd The proposed lot widths are 9.6 m (31.5 ft.) for the severed lot and 10.6 m (34.8 ft.) for the retained lot. These lots are compatible with neighbouring lots on Cherry Street, which are typically 9.7 m (32 ft.) to 12.2 m (40 ft.) in width. There are a small number of lots which are 9.1 m (30 ft.) or less in width. The existing lot is 50 m (165 ft.) deep. The lot to be severed would not extend to the full depth of the lot, but would be 25.3 m (83 ft.) deep. This would comply with by-law requirements for minimum rearyard and lot area, and provides outdoor amenity area for the occupants. The full width of the rearyard is proposed to remain with the retained lot. Three variances have been requested. Each has to do with the location of existing buildings relative to existing Iotlines. No new variances would be created by the proposed severance. The buildings had legal non-conforming status, but were brought into conformity by the Vacuum Clause of By-law 94-1. Now that the lot is to be severed, the Vacuum Clause would no longer apply. The front yard of the existing roofed porch is 4.422 m whereas the by-law requires 4.5 m. The driveway is in the 2.54 m east side yard of the dwelling, whereas the by-law requires 3.0 m. The east side yard of the detached garage is 0.07 m, whereas the by-law requires 0.6m. The variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the by-law and official plan as they recognize the location of existing buildings and as the degree of the variance is not increased by the severance. The impact of each variance is minor as the buildings have been in existence for over 50 years. The variances are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land as the situation is typical of residential development within the neighbourhood. Planning staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests set out in Section 45 of the Planning Act. The Department of Business & Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 25/99. The Department also recommends approval of Submission No. B 9/99, subject to the following conditions: That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for parkland dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be retained. 2. That Minor Variance Application A 25~99 receive final approval. 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 retained lands. 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 retained lands. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that due to the proximity of the proposed lot to the CN Rail line, Regional staff will require the submission of a noise study, to determine the impact of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 44 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 rail noise on the site, prior to final approval of the Consent Application. If attenuation measures are required the owner will be required to enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to address these measures. Submission No.'s B 9/99 & A 25/99 - 1243838 Ontario Ltd., cont'd Regional staff have no objection to the approval of Submission No. B 9~99 subject to the following condition: That prior to final approval of the application, the owner submit a noise study to address noise from the CN Rail Line located in close proximity to the proposed lot, and if necessary, that the owner enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to address any attenuation requirements. The Chair reviewed the staff comments with Mr. O'Neill and questioned whether he had any concerns with them. Mr. O'Neill responded that he disagreed with the Region's request for a noise study. He didn't see any need for the study, as there is another property between this one and the railway line. Mr. Sonser addressed the Committee advising that he has a slight objection to the driveway. He advised that he didn't intend to allow a thoroughfare through this property to the one at the back. He advised that if there was to be no driveway, he would not object. Mr. O'Neill advised the Committee that he had previously proposed a road through this property to the property he owns on Walnut Street. Since meeting with City staff, he advised that he has changed his plans, resulting in these applications. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he had no concerns with the minor variances, as they recognize an existing situation. He questioned the Region's request for the noise study and the agreement with the City. Ms. J. Given explained the shifting of responsibilities in this regard. Mr. P. Kruse stated that he thought the applicant made a valid point about the distances and noted that the new dwelling would be no more exposed than the existing dwellings. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was concerned that, if the decision didn't include the Regional condition, the Committee may be causing the applicant a problem. He suggested adding the words "if required" to the noise study condition. Mr. Kruse noted that there was nothing preventing the applicant from discussing this with Regional staff. Submission No. B 9~99 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of 1243838 Ontario Ltd. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width on Cherry Street of 9.6 m (31.5 ft.) by a depth of 25.3 m (83 ft.) and having an area of 242.86 m2 (2,614.21 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 408, Registered Plan 375, 29 Cherry Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 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 retained. 2. That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 25/99. That the owner shall 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 45 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's General Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connectons to the retained lands. 5. 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. Submission No.'s B 9/99 & A 25/99 - 1243838 Ontario Ltd., cont'd Submission No. B 9~99 That, if required by the Region of Waterloo, the owner shall submit a noise study to address noise from the CN Rail Line located in close proximity to the proposed lot and, if necessary, the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to address any attenuation requirements. 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 February 16, 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. A 25~99 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of 1243838 Ontario Ltd. requesting legalization of the frontyard setback for the existing house of 4.422 m (14.51 ft.) to the roofed porch, rather than the required 4.5 m (14.77 ft.); a northeasterly sideyard on the existing house of 2.54 m (8.34 ft.) rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.) and a sideyard for the detached garage of 0.07 m (0.23 ft.) rather than the required 0.6 m (2 ft.) on Part Lot 408, Registered Plan 375, 29 Cherry Street, 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 46 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 Submission No.'s B 13/99, B 14/99, B 15/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99 - Ivan Biuk Construction Limited, Diana Biuk, & Josip Babic, 1989 Old Mill Road, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Lots 96, 97 and Part Lots 100, 101 & 102, and Part of Lot Drummond Drive Closed, Registered Plan 578. Appearances: In Support: Ms. D. Biuk 53 Doon Valley Drive Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: Neighbourhood Petition Mr. & Mrs. J. Moore 1834 Old Mill Road Kitchener, Ontario The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they recommended deferral of these applications until May 11, 1999, to provide the opportunity for Council to consider the necessary changes to Block Plan 65. Ms. Biuk addressed the Committee and advised that she was in agreement with the deferral, as it would allow an opportunity to work the Department of Business & Planning Services and also to meet with the neighbours who have concerns about these applications. The Committee agreed to defer consideration of these applications to the meeting to be held on Tuesday May 11, 1999. APPLICATIONS CONSENT 1. Submission No. B 10/99 - Canuck Properties Ltd. and Fineway Properties Limited, 48 St. Clair Avenue, West, Toronto, Ontario Re: Parts of Lot 167, Registered Plan 988, 340 & 500 Fairway Road South, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Ms. L. Edwards Kelly & Co. 74 Queen Street North COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 47 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Submission No. B 10/99 - Canuck Properties Ltd. and Fineway Properties Limited, cont'd Contra: None The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to sever 340 Fairway Road South from 500 Fairway Road South. The severed parcel will have a frontage on Fairway Road of approximately 33 m (108.27 ft.) and an area of 2,162 m2 (23,272.34 sq. ft.). The proposed use of the property is a parking lot. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant has requested consent to sever a parcel of land, which contains a vacant fire hall, from a larger parcel of land, which contains a plaza municipally addressed as 500 Fairway Road South. The fire hall, after being declared redundant was sold by the City to the current owners. A demolition permit has been submitted to demolish the building. The application indicates that the owners propose to use the severed lands as a parking facility. The agent for the owner advised that the two properties were inadvertently put into identical ownership causing them to merge in title. The agent also advised that there is no development proposed at the present time for the lands to be severed and that it will remain vacant, rather than being used as a parking facility, until the site is redeveloped in the future. Various development options are being pursued. A road widening was taken from the lands to be severed at the time of purchase from the City. Upon approval of the demolition permit, the owners will be required to enter into a demolition agreement. The agreement will require the submission of grading plans before and after demolition; arrangements for the disconnection of services; removal of all asphalt, sidewalks, construction debris, etc., and that the site be covered with topsoil and seed or sod. There are no other technical issues. The proposed lot width is 33.528 m, which is greater than the minimum by-law requirement of 16 m. The lot size is comparable with many lots developed along Victoria Street, also zoned C-6 and is therefore a viable lot size to accommodate new development in accordance with the by-law. The Department of Business & Planning Services has no objections to the severance, since the lands have always functioned as two separate properties and since the lot is large enough to accommodate a viable development in accordance with the by-law requirements. The Department of Business & Planning Services recommends approval of the application subject to satisfactory arrangements being made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have determined that the parcel proposed to be severed is adjacent to a known contaminated site (Kitchener Beverages) and is in the Parkway Wellfield. The Region's Protocol For The Review of Development Applications on or adjacent to lands which are known, suspected or potentially contaminated as approved by Regional Council May 28, 1997 requires that "where a consent is proposed on or adjacent to lands which are identified as known.., the granting of provisional consent by the Committee of Adjustment will be subject to the completion of a Record of Site Condition..." COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 48 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 The protocol, in this instance, provides some ability for discretion as the extent of the lands to which the requirements will apply. In this instance, since the retained lands are developed and for the most part not adjacent to the contaminated site, Regional staff require the Record of Site Condition on the severed parcel only. A 10 ft. road widening is required on Fairway Road, on the parcel to be severed. The widening is required to accommodate sidewalk and future utility locations. Submission No. B 10/99 - Canuck Properties Ltd. and Fineway Properties Limited, cont'd The existing access to the former fire station (severed parcel) is wider than the Regional standard of 7.6 to 9.0 m. The applicant will be required to revise the access design to the proposed parking area to meeting Regional standards. A Regional Road Access Permit will be required for this proposal. As well, a lot grading plan and storm water management report will be required. If City of Kitchener staff can confirm that a site plan will be required for the future parking lot development, the requirements for an Access Permit and Lot Grading Plan and Storm water Management Report can be deferred until the site plan stage. Regional staff have no objection to the approval of B 10/99 subject to the following conditions: That prior to final approval of the consent, the owner submit a Record of Site Condition for the severed lands. That prior to final approval of the consent, the owner convey a 10 foot road widening to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo across the Fairway Road frontage of the severed parcel. That prior to final approval of the consent, the owner obtain a Regional Road Access Permit for the severed parcel, unless it is confirmed by City of Kitchener staff that a Site Plan Application will be required for this site. That prior to final approval of the consent, the owner submit a Lot Grading Plan and Storm Water Management Report for the severed lands, for approval by the Regional Commissioner of Engineering, unless it is confirmed by City of Kitchener staff that a site plan application will be required for this site. The Chair questioned Ms. Edwards as to whether she had anything to add and she advised that she did not. The Chair questioned Ms. J. Given as to whether a site plan application was required and she advised that an application is required. She noted that conditions 3 & 4 in the Regional Report are not required. Mr. P. Kruse stated that he thought the road widening was already conveyed. Ms. Given advised that the City did convey a road widening to the Region but the Region couldn't confirm that it was registered. Mr. Kruse questioned the Record of Site Condition and whether it would be required without this severance. He noted that the City sold this property to the applicant and questioned whether a Record of Site Condition was required at that time. Ms. Given responded that the Region is the keeper of the Record of Known Contaminated Sites and they were not involved in the transaction at that time. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Canuck Properties Ltd. and Fineway Properties Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a frontage on Fairway Road of 33.528 m (110 ft.) and an area of 2,162 m2 (23,272.34 sq. ft.) on Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R- COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 49 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 11277, 340 Fairway Road South, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 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. 2. That the owner shall submit, to the Region of Waterloo, a Record of Site Condition for the severed lands. Submission No. B 10/99 - Canuck Properties Ltd. and Fineway Properties Limited, cont'd That the owner shall convey, to the Region of Waterloo, without cost and free of encumbrance, a 10 ft. road widening across the Fairway Road frontage of the severed lands, if required. 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 February 16, 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 2. Submission No. B 11/99- Daniel & Daniela Westhoff, c/o Eiwo Canadian Management Company Limited, 82 Weber Street East, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part Lots 4 & 5, Registered Plan 1237, Being Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-664, 8 Birkshire Court, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. B. Wolf 82 Weber Street East Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to give a right-of- way/easement to the property at 10 Birkshire Court so that they can gain access to and from the property. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the owner of 8 Birkshire Court is requesting permission to grant a right-of-way over their property to the owners of 10 Birkshire Court to allow them access to the street. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 50 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 The property at 8 Birkshire Court was built in 1972 and the property at 10 Birkshire Court was built in 1973. The owner of both properties at the time was Eiwo Canadian Building Company Limited who built both buildings. The property at 8 Birkshire Court is currently owned by Daniel and Daniela Westhoff and 10 Birkshire Court is owned by Gredee Investments Limited. Both properties are maintained by Eiwo Canadian Management Co. Ltd. on behalf of the owners. Submission No. B 11/99 - Daniel & Daniela Westhoff, cont'd When the City approved the site plan for the building at 10 Birkshire Court, two alternatives for access to the site were noted on the site plan, one providing direct access to Birkshire Court and the second, access by way of a mutual driveway thought the lands at 8 Birkshire Court, subject to the owners receiving Region of Waterloo Land Division Committee approval. The owners of the property developed the access based on the second option and received Committee's approval on March 19, 1996; however, conditions of approval were not fulfilled and the approval lapsed. This access appears to function well and the Department of Business & Planning Services has no concerns. The Department recommends approval of a right-of-way of part of 8 Birkshire Court in favour of 10 Birkshire Court for ingress or egress to 10 Birkshire Court, subject to the following conditions: 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 owners of 8 Birkshire Court and 10 Birkshire Court enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, which will ensure that rights-of-way for access and a joint maintenance agreement are maintained in perpetuity, and provide confirmation that said agreement has been registered against the title of both properties. 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. Mr. B. Wolf addressed the Committee advising that he has reviewed the staff comments and has no disagreements with them. He clarified that this property and application are the same as that previously before the Committee. The application lapsed as there was no agreement between the owners. The situation between the owners has now been resolved. Granting this severance will formally recognize the driveway which has existed for sometime. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Daniel & Daniela Westhoff requesting permission to give a right-of- way to the owners of 10 Birkshire Court to allow access to and from Birkshire Court on Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-664, 8 Birkshire Court, Kitchener Ontario BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 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 owners of 8 Birkshire Court & 10 Birkshire Court shall enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, which will ensure that rights-of- way for access and a joint maintenance agreement are maintained in perpetuity, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 51 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 and provide confirmation that the said agreement has been registered against the title of both properties. 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 February 16, 2001. It is the opinion of this Committee that: Submission No. B 11/99 - Daniel & Daniela Westhoff, cont'd 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 3. Submission No. B 12/99 -Walter Arndt, 442 Old Chicopee Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part of Lot 118, German Company Tract, 442 Old Chicopee Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. B. Toderian 171 Victoria Street North Kitchener, Ontario Mr. W. Arndt 442 Old Chicopee Drive Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land, at the rear of the house, having an area of 0.378 hectares, to be added to the abutting lands to the north. The severed lands will then be added to the plan of subdivision for the abutting lands. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that this application seeks approval to sever the rear portion of a lot fronting Old Chicopee Drive to be added to the adjacent lands for incorporation into a Plan of Subdivision. The retained lands contain a single dwelling which would be left on a lot maintaining a frontage of 40.235 m and having a resulting lot area of 0.231 hectares. The retained lands have the ability to be further subdivided at a future date, providing the resulting lot size is in compliance with the zoning requirements of the R-3 Zone and respecting the larger lot widths being promoted along this section of road to minimize interruption to the existing streetscape vegetation. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 52 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 The retained lands provide a larger rearyard than would be necessary to accommodate the single dwelling; however, it is the wish of the current resident/owner to retain a deeper lot to accommodate some existing property features including a small shed. The septic tank for the dwelling is located on the lands to be severed which would be required to be moved or filled to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. Further, the owner of Plan of Subdivision 30T-89017 is obligated by a condition of Draft Plan Approval to extend full municipal services across the subject property's frontage, as the plan extends to each side of the subject property. Before the deed to this severance can be Submission No. B 12/99- Walter Arndt, cont'd endorsed, municipal services must be hooked up to the dwelling, which will enable the removal of the septic bed and capping of the well. The lands to be severed are required to merge with the abutting lands, under Plan of Subdivision 30T-89017. When this plan was draft approved in 1992, the subdivision street was designed and located so as to provide road frontage to the rear of these lands. It is worth noting that the lotting pattern shown on the Severance Application does not coincide with the draft approval of Plan 30T-89017; however, an application to modify the Plan of Subdivision to reduce the lot widths and include the severed lands within the boundaries of the Plan of Subdivision is being received by the Planning Division for processing. Staff have considered whether the severance line is appropriate, whether or not the revisions to the Plan of Subdivision are approved and find that if the Plan of Subdivision revisions are not approved a small irregularity will be created on one lot. However, the irregularity is minor and would be acceptable. It is staffs opinion that the approval of the severance does not necessitate the approval of the modifications to the Plan of Subdivision. Staff support the severance if it facilitates the ultimate development of the rear of the property in conjunction with the abutting subdivision lands, as contemplated, subject to the conditions set out in the recommendations, to ensure the proper servicing and future orderly development of each of the severed and retained lands. Submission No. B 12/99 is recommended for approval, subject to the following conditions: That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands on each side and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands, described as Part Lot 118, German Company Tract. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Section 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. 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 enter into a modified Subdivision Agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works, and registered on title of all of the subject lands; said agreement shall include arrangements for performance securities and municipal engineering services and which agreement shall also include the following special conditions which shall generally state as follows: a) That the owner convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance a 3 m road widening along the property's entire Old Chicopee Drive frontage prior to the endorsement of the deed. b) That Old Chicopee Drive be upgraded to the first course of asphalt and municipal underground utilities be installed within Old Chicopee Drive across the entire frontage of 442 Old Chicopee Drive including the installation of connections to the property of 442 Old Chicopee Drive. Finally, that the dwelling be fully hooked up to municipal water and sanitary sewers. All works are to be undertaken to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works, at no cost to the City, with completion prior to the endorsement of the deed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 53 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 c) d) That the owner make financial arrangements to the City's General Manager of Public Works to install, to City standards, a paved driveway ramp on the retained lands prior to the endorsement of the deed. That the owner remove or fill the septic bed to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official prior to deed endorsement. Submission No. B 12/99- Walter Arndt, cont'd e) That the owner agrees to pay to the City its fair share of the actual cost of the Ottawa Trunk Sanitary Sewer, as determined by the City's General Manager of Public Works, prior to the endorsement of the deed. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no concerns with the application subject to the lands being conveyed as a lot addition to the adjacent lands in Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-89017. The Committee was in receipt of a written submission from Mr. B. Toderian, dated February 15, 1999 in which he advised staff at the City of Kitchener that he has received and reviewed the staff report. He appreciated the support of the applications; however, would like to request an alternative approach to addressing the issue staff raised in recommendation 3 (b). You propose wording stating that all municipal servicing works be completed prior to the endorsement of the deed. He understood that the matter has been discussed at length with Mr. Mansell of the City's Public Works Department. In order to maintain flexibility while ensuring the City's concerns are addressed, he asked that the wording of the final sentence in 3 (b) be changed as follows: "All works are to be undertaken to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works, at no cost of the City. Deed endorsement will not occur until appropriate arrangements have been made regarding this work, to the full satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works." In his submission, Mr. Toderian noted that the rewording would allow for flexibility for situations if creative approaches could be agreed upon between the developer and the City's Public Works General Manager. Should not such opportunities present themselves, staff would still have full assurance that their concerns have been addressed as the General Manager would still have discretion to prevent deed endorsement until the works have been undertaken, if he so chooses. However, if an alternative approach does present itself, the modified Subdivision Agreement would allow the flexibility for its consideration. Mr. B. Toderian addressed the Committee advising that he has read the staff conditions and wish to make a couple of comments. Concerning condition 3 (b) he stated that the nature of the condition regarding the servicing issue is important. He stated that he is asking for flexibility. He stated that it may seem like there are no other alternatives but he is looking for flexibility. He noted that, with his proposed wording, the discretion will still rest with the General Manager of Public Works. He noted that the owner would like to have the condition removed altogether. Mr. W. Dahms suggested that someone must know what those arrangements may be. Mr. Toderian responded that they did not know and that they have tried various approaches. Mr. Dahms questioned whether there is a provision in the subdivision agreement and Mr. Toderian advised that they are trying to come up with a solution that satisfies everyone's concern. Mr. P. Kruse questioned staff about the proposed wording. Ms. Given advised that there really are no alternative solutions other than hooking the house up to municipal services. Ms. Given asked that the condition be amended to require the approval of the Chief Building Official, as well. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 54 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 Mr. Arndt addressed the Committee advising that he didn't want the proposed purchasers on his property until the services are there. A discussion then took place concerning the applicability of condition 3(d) if 3 (b) were to be revised. Mr. Toderian then referred to condition 3 (e) concerning the Ottawa Trunk Sewer relating to the lands to be retained. He noted that the area for the lands to be retained is larger than those properties around it, resulting in an inflated figure. He asked the Committee not Submission No. B 12/99- Walter Arndt, cont'd to impose condition 3 (e). The Chair questioned staff as to how this figure is arrived at. Ms. Given requested that the condition be amended to apply to the retained land. She then advised that the amount is calculated on a per acre basis and for this property, the cost would be $275.00. Mr. Arndt questioned paying for services and the Chair explained his fair share for the Ottawa Trunk Sanitary Sewer. Mr. Kruse advised that he was prepared to put forward a motion to approve the application. Mr. A. Galloway questioned Mr. Arndt's position, as he seemed to be confused. Mr. Arndt stated that he wants the services hooked up to his house before he sells his land. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Walter Arndt requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having an area of 0.378 hectares as a lot addition on Part Lot 118, German Company Tract, 442 Old Chicopee Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: That the lands to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands, described as Part Lot 118, German Company Tract. Subsection 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act applies 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. That the owner shall enter into a modified Subdivision Agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works, and registered on title of all of the subject lands; said agreement shall include arrangements for performance securities and municipal engineering services and which agreement shall also include the following special conditions which shall generally state as follows: a) That the owner convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance a 3 m road widening along the property's entire Old Chicopee Drive frontage prior to the endorsement of the deed. b) That Old Chicpee Drive be upgraded to the first course of asphalt and municipal underground utilities be installed within Old Chicopee Drive across the entire frontage of 442 Old Chicopee Drive including the installation of connections to the property of 442 Old Chicopee Drive. Finally, that the dwelling be fully hooked up to municipal water and sanitary sewers. All works are to be undertaken to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works and Chief Building Official, at no cost to the City, with completion prior to the endorsement of the deed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 55 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 c) That the owner make financial arrangements to the City's General Manager of Public Works to install, to City standards, a paved driveway ramp on the retained lands prior to the endorsement of the deed. d) That the owner remove or fill the septic bed to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official prior to deed endorsement. e) That the owner agrees to pay to the City his fair share of the actual cost of the Ottawa Trunk Sanitary Sewer for the retained lands, as determined by the City's General Manager of Public Works, prior to the endorsement of the deed. Submission No. B 12/99- Walter Arndt, cont'd Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse 2 years from the date of approval, being February 16, 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 17/99 - Grandview Homes, P.O. Box 20039, Pioneer Park, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Part Lot 70, Registered Plan 1780, Being Part 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-11623 Mr. G. Bostajian Grandview Homes P.O. Box 20030 Pioneer Park Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to give a maintenance easement, having a width of 1.5 m (4.93 ft.), to the abutting property to the east, so that that property can be developed with a 0 m sideyard house. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the property is an undeveloped lot located within the Glasgow Heights Community. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential by the City Municipal COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 56 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 Plan and are Zoned R-4 according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting consent to establish a 1.5 m wide easement and a 0.3 m wide eaves encroachment on the abutting property in order to allow for construction of a single detached dwelling using the 0 m sideyard option. Zoning By-law 85-1 allows for the provision of "0" Iotline housing within the R-4 Zone provided that a maximum encroachment of 0.3 m into abutting lands is provided for the projection of eaves and a 1.5 m wide easement is granted by the owner of the abutting lands for the maintenance of walls, eaves and real property. The City's more recent residential subdivision agreements contain a provision which allows for the establishment of the required eaves encroachment and maintenance easement without the requirement Submission No. B 17/99 - Grandview Homes, cont'd for Committee of Adjustment approval. In this particular plan of subdivision, a condition addressing "0" lot line housing was not included in the subdivision agreement. Accordingly, since the applicant wishes to construct a "0" lot line dwelling, consent is requested from the Committee to establish the necessary eaves encroachment and maintenance easement. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission No. B 17/99, establishing a 0.3 m wide encroachment for eaves and 1.5 m wide maintenance easement on the property described as Parts 11, 16, and 20, Plan 58R- 10275, as shown as Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 58R-11623. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have reviewed the application and have no concerns. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Grandview Homes requesting permission for an eaves encroachment 0.3 m (1 ft.) wide and a maintenance easement 1.5 m (4.93 ft.) wide on Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-11623 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED. 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 February 16, 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 VALIDATION OF TITLE 1. Submission No. VTl/99 - The Trustees of the Royal Canadian Legion, Polish Veterans Branch 412, 601 Wellington Street North, Kitchener, Ontario COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 57 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 Re: Part Lot 32, Registered Plan 763, Being Parts 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-2984, 809 & 601 Wellington Street North, Kitchener. Mr. W. Dahms declared a pecuniary interest with this application as his law firm represents the applicant 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, pursuant to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this application was considered by the remaining two members. Submission No. VTl/99 - The Trustees of the Royal Canadian Legion, Polish Veterans Branch 412, cont'd Appearances: In Support: Ms. J. Lyons Sims Clement Eastman 701-22 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is seeking to validate the title of the property owned by the Polish Legion at 601 Wellington Street North. Parts 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-2984 were conveyed to them in 1977. Consent had been obtained from the Land Division Committee in 1976 but the deeds were not endorsed. A correcting deed was registered in 1996, but it was flawed. Ms. Lyon advised that they were now applying to regularize conveyances back to 1977. Ms. J. Given advised that staff have reviewed compliance with the Zoning By-law and Official Plan and they are in order. The Committee was in receipt of a report from the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, advising that they have no concerns with the application. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of the Trustees of the Royal Canadian Legion, Polish Veterans Branch 412, requesting Validation of Title on Parts 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-2984, 601 and 809 Wellington Street North, Kitchener, Ontario BE GRANTED. It is the opinion of this Committee that the requirements of the Zoning By-law, the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNMENT On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 16th day of February 1998. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 58 FEBRUARY 16, 1999 D. H. Gilchrist Secretary Committee of Adjustment