Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-03-30COA\1999-03-30 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MARCH 30, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. W. Dahms, S. Kay and Ms. S. Campbell. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principle Planner, Ms. D. Gilchrist, Committee Administrator and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary. Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. Moved by Mr. W. Dahms Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of March 9, 1999, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried O.A.C.A. AND MUNICIPAL WORLD Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. W. Dahms, S. Kay, A. Galloway and P. Kruse be permitted memberships in the Ontario Association of Committee of Adjustment and Consent Authorities for 1999, at a total cost of $330.00. Carried Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. W. Dahms, S. Kay, A. Galloway and P. Kruse be permitted to attend the Annual Conference of the Ontario Association of Committee of Adjustment and Consent Authorities in Richmond Hill, Ontario, from June 6 to 9, 1999, with the City to pay the normal expenses incurred. Carried Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. W. Dahms, S. Kay, A. Galloway and P. Kruse be permitted 1999 subscriptions to Municipal World, at a total cost of $247.15. Carried COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 86 MARCH 30, 1999 UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No. A 3/99 - Kenneth Elliott and Michelle Christine Elliott, Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario 1603 Re: Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-11114, 1603 Highland Road West, Kitchener. Appearances: In Support: Mr. U. Roetsch 284 Frederick Street Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee advised that 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 zoning. Accordingly, there are no provisions in Section 45 of the Planning Act for legalizing such a situation. The Committee noted further comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the application seeks to approve a 1.23 ft. sideyard for a carport attached to a single detached dwelling at 1603 Highland Road West. The following is a brief overview of the history of the development and zoning of this property to assist the Committee in its understanding and deliberations on this application. The single detached dwelling was built in 1964 under the Agriculture Zone (A) of the Township of Waterloo Zoning By-law 878-A. According to a statutory declaration given to the Committee of Adjustment at its last meeting, an enclosed garage was added 2 years later in 1966, having an easterly sideyard of 1.23 ft. At that time, the sideyard requirement for residential buildings in the Agricultural Zone was 10 ft. The sideyard became illegal. No building permits are in the City's records for the property, although a building permit should have been required. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 87 MARCH 30, 1999 The City of Kitchener rezoned the property to Service Commercial (C-6) in 1994. Accordingly, since the sideyard was not legal on the date the zoning was changed, the use of the property did not become le.qal, non-conforming. As the Committee is aware, to be a 1. Submission No. A 3/99 - Kenneth Elliott and Michelle Christine Elliott, cont'd lawful use on a property, the use must be permitted and the location of all buildings and structures must comply with the zoning regulations for such use. Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act allows the Committee of Adjustment to authorize Minor Variances from the provisions of the by-law. Since the use of the property for a single detached dwelling is not permitted in the C-6 zone, there are no specific provisions governing the location of buildings on the property for such use. The Committee has considered its powers under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act to deal with this application, which gives the Committee the ability to permit an enlargement or extension of the building "where any land, building or structure, on the day the by-law was passed was lawfully used for a purpose prohibited by the by-law" on the date the by-law was passed; ie when the City rezoned the lands C-6 in 1994, the lands were not lawfully used. Staff reviewed the "Thorman et al and the City of Cambridge" case, to which reference was made during the March 9 meeting. This case does not deal with the same issue, but rather, it deals with the rights of a legal, non-conforming use to expand within the boundaries of an existing building. Prior to writing the January 20, 1999 report to Committee of Adjustment, Planning staff consulted with Legal staff, and have done so again at the direction of the Committee. The comments set out in the staff report under that date remain relevant and Planning & Legal staff are of the same opinion that there is no jurisdiction under the Planning Act to legalize the illegal sideyard for a single detached dwelling at 1603 Highland Road West. The Chair referred to the additional comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services, noting that as a result of consultation between Planning & Legal staff, staff's position respecting this application has not changed. The Chair enquired if Mr. Roetsch had reviewed these comments and Mr. Roetsch replied that he had. The Chair then questioned if Mr. Roetsch had been able to research and find any case law that might support the application. In this regard, Mr. Roetsch responded that he had not been able to find any case law. The Chair advised that he had researched the matter as well and had found many examples of expansions of legal non-conforming uses that relate to a use that was legal prior to the time the governing by-law regulations were changed; however, he was not able to find any case law regarding uses which were not legal in accordance with the governing by-laws of the day. Mr. U. Roetsch responded that the house, itself, was legal according to Township By-law 878A when it was built and has existed for many years without objections from neighbouring properties. He stated that only the use of the carport could be considered illegal because of its encroachment into the sideyard. Under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act, he suggested that the Committee does have jurisdiction to permit enlargement of an existing legal non-conforming use, the house, and, in this case, the enlargement would be the carport. He stated that, in his opinion, an approval could be given for existing enlargements, not just future enlargements. Mr. Roetsch pointed out; however, that if this Committee felt that it did not have jurisdiction to approve the application he would consider withdrawing it. The Chair stated that he was sympathetic to the circumstances respecting this application, however, he was having difficulty with the question of jurisdiction and asked if staff had any further comments with respect to this matter. Ms. J. Given drew the Committee's attention to comments outlined in the additional staff report respecting Section 45(2) which states that the Planning Act requires existing uses to be lawful, according to the governing by-laws of the day, at the time a rezoning of the lands takes place. She pointed out that, in this particular case, the carport was not a legal COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 88 MARCH 30, 1999 use under existing Township Zoning By-law 878A when it was constructed and, accordingly, could not be considered as legal non-conforming. 1. Submission No. A 3/99 - Kenneth Elliott and Michelle Christine Elliott, cont'd The Chair pointed out that what sets this application apart is the unlawful use of the carport wherein Section 45(2) deals with the ability to enlarge or extend existing legal non- conforming uses. He stated that, while he would like to have some evidence on which to base approval, he did not believe the Committee had jurisdiction in this matter. Ms. S. Campbell stated that, while she was also sympathetic, she was in agreement with the Chair's point of view, in that, she did not feel the Committee had jurisdiction over this application. Mr. Roetsch stated that he found it hard to understand that the Committee, having jurisdiction prior to the rezoning of the land, does not have jurisdiction now and, in his view, the purpose of Section 45(2) of the Act was to deal with this type of situation. The Chair pointed out that if the carport did not exist then a request to enlarge the existing single family dwelling use could be considered under Section 45(2) of the Act. Further, he noted that the carport encroaches to the edge of the Iotline and questioned if this should be considered within the bounds of a reasonable request for enlargement. Mr. Roetsch responded that it would be up to the Committee to decide how close to the Iotline the enlargement would be allowed; however, his understanding was that such an enlargement could be of any size provided it did not go beyond the Iotline. Ms. J. Given pointed out to the Committee that in circumstances where a legal use is rendered illegal as the result of a change in zoning, staff do consider the reasonableness of a request for enlargement of the existing use provided such use has legal non- conforming status to start with. In this particular application, she noted that the carport was not a lawful use. Mr. S. Kay stated that the real issue was a matter of timing, in that, the carport was constructed as an unlawful use prior to the City changing the zoning of the subject property and, in his view, it was not within the power of this Committee to change the law in order to accommodate a favourable outcome. A discussion respecting the issuance of building permits was undertaken and it was pointed out that the City did not have any records of a building permit having been issued for the house or carport; as the property in question would have been under the jurisdiction of the Township at the time these buildings were constructed. Ms. S. Campbell advised that if a building permit could be found, this could be relevant to the Committee, as it would show that the Township acknowledged the use to be legal; however, she pointed out that the onus to provide such evidence would be on the applicant. The Chair noted that, based on the legal advice obtained by Planning staff, he could not in good conscience recommend approval of the application. He advised Mr. Roetsch that the Committee could defer the application to allow time to search for a building permit or, in the alternative, would allow Mr. Roetsch to withdraw the application. Mr. Roetsch advised that his preference would be to withdraw the application. By general consent, the Committee agreed to Mr. Roetsch's request to withdraw this application. Submission No.'s B 3/99 & A 12/99 - Mary Arlene Beckman, 390 Pinnacle Drive, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, 390 Pinnacle Drive, Kitchener, Ontario. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 89 MARCH 30, 1999 The Chair advised the Committee that a request had been received from Mr. T. Muskiluke to defer the applications pending preparation of an Environmental Impact Study, as requested by the Region. Mr. Muskiluke advised that the work cannot be completed until May or early June and, in this regard is requesting a deferral to the June 15 meeting. 2. Submission No.'s B 3/99 & A 12/99 - Mary Arlene Beckman, cont'd By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of these applications would be deferred to the meeting of June 15, 1999. APPLICATIONS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.'s A 33/99, A 34/99 & A 35/99 - Hallman Rosedale Limited, 230 Gage Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Block 64, Registered Plan 1829,. Keewatin Avenue & Lackner Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario. The Chair advised the Committee that a request had been received from Mr. Paul Dietrich to defer these applications to the April 20th meeting. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of these applications would be deferred to the meeting of April 20, 1999. Submission No. A 36/99 - Heinz Hubbuch, 415 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part of Lots 25, 26, 27 & 28, Registered Plan 266, 415 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. H. Hubbuch 415 Victoria Street S. Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition to the rear of the existing single family dwelling with a setback from Belmont Avenue of 1.83 m (6 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (15 ft.); and, to attach the existing garage to the addition with a sideyard of 0.10 m (0.3 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting a reduction in the southerly side yard setback from 4.5 metres to 1.8 metres to facilitate the construction of a two-storey addition to a single detached dwelling and a reduction in the northerly side yard from 1.2 metres to 0.09 metres for an existing garage. The property is located on the southeast corner of Victoria Street South and Belmont Avenue West. The dwelling was constructed in 1920; a subsequent addition occurred in 1947 to enclose a porch and a detached garage was constructed in 1948. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 90 MARCH 30, 1999 The southerly side yard setback currently varies from 4.08 metres (at the front of the dwelling) to 2.56 metres (at the rear of the dwelling) adjacent to Belmont Avenue. The house does not run parallel with the property line abutting Belmont Avenue. The applicant wishes to extend the existing dwelling straight back to follow the existing southerly limit of Submission No. A 36/99 - Heinz Hubbuch, cont'd the dwelling. As a result of the angled yard adjacent to Belmont Avenue the setback at the farthest point of the proposed addition will be 1.82 metres. The general intent and purpose of the 4.5 metre setback from property lines adjacent to public rights-of-way is to provide a safe separation between vehicles and dwellings and to provide a consistent streetscape, both are maintained in this instance. The result is that the impact on the streetscape will be minimal. The location of the proposed dwelling is replacing a raised deck, which represents a safer situation, and the rear yard is fully fenced with a 5 foot solid wood decorative fence that is proposed to remain. The variance is minor since there will be minimal impact on the adjacent properties as the addition faces Belmont Avenue, the wood fence is proposed to remain and the owner has advised that an existing large tree in the rear yard will also remain. The location of the addition as proposed is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands to provide a reasonable addition in line with the existing limits of the dwelling. The reduction in the northerly side yard setback from 1.2 metres to 0.09 metres was requested since the addition will physically attach the existing detached garage to the dwelling requiring a greater setback. While the Vacuum By-law may apply, the applicant wishes to legalize the setback so there is no question in the future relative to the setback complying with the by-law. The variance requested is minor since there is no change proposed to the side yard and, therefore, no impact on the adjacent property owner. The location of the garage in its current location meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law since the garage was constructed with maintenance free materials. The location of the garage is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands since the garage has existed in this location since 1947 without concern and since it would not be appropriate at this time to require demolition to achieve the yard required. The applicant is advised that, although the existing 5 foot fence adjacent to Belmont Avenue in its current location may be desirable, it does not comply with the Fence By-law and a variance to the Fence By-law should be sought. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A36/99 be approved, without conditions. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new addition. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst of the Traffic & Parking Division, in which he advised the Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed addition. The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Region of Waterloo's Engineering Department, in which they advised that at this location, Victoria Street has an existing road allowance width of 66 feet and a designated road allowance width of 86 feet. Therefore a (86-66=20/2=10) 10 foot road widening is required from this property. A 25 foot daylight triangle is also required at the intersection of Victoria Street and Belmont Avenue. It may not be appropriate to acquire the road widening and daylight triangle under this application. Any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development(s) prior to the issuance of a building permit. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 91 MARCH 30, 1999 The Chair reviewed the comments received from staff noting that the Building Division is requesting that a building permit be required for any new construction. The Chair also referred to Planning staff comments which indicate that the 5 ft. fence adjacent to Belmont Avenue in its current location does not comply with the City's Fence By-law and enquired of staff if this was intended to be a condition of approval. Ms. J. Given advised the Submission No. A 36/99 - Heinz Hubbuch, cont'd Committee that staff were simply pointing this out to the applicant and suggesting that a variance to the Fence By-law be applied for. Mr. H. Hubbuch advised the Committee that he was unaware that the fence was not in compliance with current by-laws and enquired what he should do in this regard. The Chair advised Mr. Hubbuch that he should apply for a variance to the Fence By-law which would then be considered on its own merits by this Committee. However, he clarified that the application currently being considered regarding the proposed addition does comply with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and is being recommended for approval. Ms. S. Campbell referred to the comments of Planning staff in which a Vacuum By-law is referenced and enquired as to the intent of the by-law. Ms. J. Given advised that the purpose of the by-law is to legalize existing non-conforming uses without the need to make application to this Committee. Mr. Hubbuch requested further clarification respecting the situation with his fence and the Chair advised Mr. Hubbuch that he should speak further with Ms. Given at the conclusion of this meeting. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Heinz Hubbuch requesting permission to construct an addition to the rear of the existing single family dwelling with a setback from Belmont Avenue of 1.83 m (6 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (15 ft.); and, to attach the existing garage to the addition with a sideyard of 0.10 m (0.3 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Part of Lots 25, 26, 27 & 28, Registered Plan 266, Reference Plan 58R-4194, 415 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the new addition. 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 Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried 3. Submission No. A 37/99 - Jose Silva, 153 Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario. Re: Part Lots 5 & 6, Registered Plan 232, 153 Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. Silva 153 Cameron Street Kitchener, Ontario COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 92 MARCH 30, 1999 Contra: None 3. Submission No. A 37/99 - Jose Silva, cont'd Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached garage to the back of the existing single detached dwelling with a rearyard setback of 1.5 m (5 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.); and, a sideyard setback of 0.6 m (2 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 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 Residential in the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and is zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to the rear and side yard requirements in order to construct a new garage attached to the existing single detached dwelling. The subject property is a relatively shallow lot, having a depth of only 24.4 m. The shallow depth of the lot together with the location of the existing dwelling does not allow for the construction of a detached garage in the rear. As a result, the applicant is proposing to construct an attached garage with a reduced side yard of 0.6 m rather than the required 1.2 m. In addition, since the proposed garage would be attached and would form part of the main dwelling, a rear yard of 7.5 m is required. The applicant is, therefore, requesting a reduced rear yard of 1.5 m rather than the required 7.5 m. The location of the proposed garage with a 0.6 m side yard and a 1.5 m rear yard would be permitted without a need for minor variance approvals if it were to be fully detached and considered an accessory building. The need for minor variance approvals only arises because the attached garage would form part of the main dwelling and would not be considered an accessory building. The impact of the proposed variances is deemed minor since the proposed attached garage would not have any greater impact than a fully detached garage, which would be permitted. Further, the proposed side and rear yard setbacks are sufficient to allow for the maintenance of the structure. Accordingly, the requested variances are considered to be appropriate for the development of the subject lands and uphold the general intent of both the Municipal Plan and the Zoning By-law. Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the requested variances. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A37/99, to the extent shown on the attached plan. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required for a new garage. There shall be no openings in a wall located less than 4 ft. to the property line and the wall shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst of the Traffic & Parking Division, in which he advised that the Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed attached garage. The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Region of Waterloo's, Engineering Department, in which they advised that any development on COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 93 MARCH 30, 1999 the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By- law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development(s) prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Submission No. A 37/99 - Jose Silva, cont'd The Chair reviewed the comments of staff, noting that a building permit is required for construction of the garage and in addition, the Building Division is also requesting that there be no opening in a wall located less than 4 ft. to the property line and the wall is to have a 45 minute fire resistance rating. He enquired of Mr. Silva if he had reviewed the comments and if he wished to add anything further to his application. Mr. J. Silva advised that he had reviewed the comments and had nothing further to add. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Jose Silva requesting permission to construct an attached garage to the back of the existing single detached dwelling with a rearyard setback of 1.5 m (5 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.); and, a sideyard setback of 0.6 m (2 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) on Part Lots 5 & 6, Registered Plan 232, 153 Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the garage. That there shall be no openings in a wall located less than 4 ft. to the property line and the wall shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating. 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 Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. A 38/99 - The Corporation of the City of Kitchener, 200 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario Re: Part of Lot 117, Registered Plan 666, designated as Part 1, Plan 58R-6503, 1197 Union Street East, Kitchener, Ontario. Appearances: In Support: Mr. G. Andersen Land Purchasing Officer City of Kitchener 200 King St. West Kitchener, Ontario Contra: None Other: NONE Written Submissions: In Support: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 94 MARCH 30, 1999 Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of the existing buildings on this property. The salt dome has a setback from Union Street of 3.8 m (12.5 ft.) rather than the required 6.1 m (20 ft.) and the concrete block building has a setback 4. Submission No. A 38/99 - The Corporation of the City of Kitchener, cont'd from Union Street of 5.7 m (18.73 ft.) rather than the required 6.1 m (20 ft.) and a rearyard of 1.3 m (4.36 ft.) rather than the required 7.6 m (25 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the City of Kitchener, as the owner of 1197 Union Street East, is requesting legalization of the existing buildings on this property. The salt dome has a setback from Union Street of 3.8 m (12.5 ft.) rather than the required 6.1 m (20 ft.) and the concrete block building has a setback from Union Street of 5.7 m (18.73 ft.) rather than the required 6.1 m (20 ft.) and a rearyard of 1.3 m (4.36 ft.) rather than the required 7.6 m (25 ft.). The buildings at 1197 Union Street were constructed prior to 1975. The lands were previously owned by Waterloo County and used for yard operations. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo acquired the lands in 1973 at the time of the formation of Regional government. The proposed expansion of their Regional vehicular and yard operation received site plan approval by City Council on July 14, 1975. In addition, the proposed salt dome structure was proposed to be located near the Union Street frontage of the property and no setback from the street was provided on the drawings. Building permits were issued shortly thereafter for both buildings. The request for a minor variance can be considered minor in nature and the general intent of the by-law is being met as the buildings have existed for almost 25 years and as there is no documentation of any complaints of these reduced setbacks. The main building has a blank rear wall that abuts a blank side wall of another industrial building immediately to the south. The variances are desirable for the appropriate use of the land as there is a purchaser interested in using the buildings. The Department recommends approval of all minor variances. The Department of Business & Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 38/99. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst of the Traffic & Parking Division, in which he advised that the Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed legalization of the variances. The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Region of Waterloo's Engineering Department in which they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development(s) prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Chair requested clarification as to the location of this property and Mr. Andersen responded that this property is located at the corner of Union Street and Maple Avenue. The Chair noted that the comments of staff are in favour of approving this application and enquired if Mr. Andersen had anything further to add. Mr. Andersen responded that he did not. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. S. Kay COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 95 MARCH 30, 1999 That the application of The Corporation of the City of Kitchener requesting legalization of the salt dome which has a setback from Union Street of 3.8 m (12.5 ft.) rather than the required 6.1 m (20 ft.) and the concrete block building which has a setback from Union Street of 5.7 m (18.73 ft.) rather than the required 6.1 m (20 ft.) and a rearyard of 1.3 m (4.36 ft.) rather than the required 7.6 m (25 ft.), on Part of Lot 117, Registered Plan 666, 4. Submission No. A 38~99 - The Corporation of the City of Kitchener, cont'd designated as Part 1, Plan 58R-6503, 1197 Union Street East, 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 Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried REPORT FORMATS Mr. S. Kay pointed out that the last page of the Planning staff report prepared for Submission No. A 38/99 contained only signatures. He suggested that the signing page of any report should contain some written comment in addition to the signatures to avoid fraudulent use. The Chair asked staff to take this under advisement. ADJOURNMENT On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 30th day of March 1999. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment