HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-05-11COA\1999-05-11
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 11, 1999
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. S. Kay, A. Galloway and P. Kruse.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner, Ms. P. Bacon, Planner, Ms. D. Gilchrist,
Committee Administrator and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. S. Kay, Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A Galloway
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of April 20, 1999, be
amended as follows:
Page 99 to remove from the third line of the Decision, respecting Minor Variance Application A
33/99, the words "Reference Plan 58R-6622" and substitute therefore the words "Draft Plan of
Subdivision 30%98203";
Page 100 to remove from the third line of the Decision, respecting Minor Variance Application
A 34/99, the words "Lot 11, on Reference Plan 58R-6622" and substitute therefore the words
"Lot 12, on Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-98203";
Page 100 to remove from the third line of the Decision, respecting Minor Variance Application A
35/99, the words "Reference Plan 58R-6622" and substitute therefore the words "Draft Plan of
Subdivision 30%98203".
Carried
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A Galloway
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of April 20, 1999, as mailed
to the members, and amended this date, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 23/99
Rodulph & Ernestine Polack
116 Cameron Street North
Part Lot 16, Plan 124
Mr. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his law firm is acting on behalf of
the applicants 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.
Appearances:
In Support: NONE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 117 MAY 11, 1999
Submission No.:
A 23/99(Cont'd)
Contra:
Mr. William Waechter
49 Troy Street
Kitchener, Ontario
Mr. Tom O'Neill
26 Troy Street
Kitchener, Ontario
Mr. Stewart Baptist
28 Troy Street
Kitchener, Ontario
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Mr. P. Kruse questioned if the applicant had been notified that the submission would be heard
this date and the Secretary to the Committee advised that a notification letter had been sent,
dated January 29, 1999.
As no one appeared in support of this application, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of
this application to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 15,1999. The Committee further
directed that the letter include the proviso that if no one appeared in support of the application on
June 15, 1999, the Committee would either dismiss or refuse the application.
The Chair advised those in attendance that they would receive further notification of the June
15th meeting, at which time they would be given an opportunity to address the Committee with
respect to their concerns.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 40/99
Shiraz Ramji
92 Pattandon Avenue
Part of Lot 14 and 15, Plan 384
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. Shiraz Ramji
92 Pattandon Avenue
Kitchener ON N2M 3S5
Contra:
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert the existing
duplex dwelling to a triplex dwelling by adding a third dwelling unit in the basement with a lot area
of 418 m2 (4,500 sq. ft.), rather than the required 495 m2 (5,328 sq. 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 lot area from 495 square metres to
418 square metres to allow the conversion of a duplex to a triplex. The lot area requirement for a
triplex is greater than that required for a duplex in order that adequate outdoor amenity area and
adequate parking for all units are both provided. Outdoor amenity is a function of each site that
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 118 MAY 11, 1999
must not be overlooked and in the case of a multiple dwelling the amenity area is shared between
units. In this regard, in order to provide both an acceptable outdoor amenity area as well as
Submission No.: A 40/99(Cont'd)
three parking spaces which can exit the property without moving another vehicle, a larger lot area
is required.
Parking for the existing duplex is currently provided by two spaces in tandem and the entire rear
yard is outdoor amenity area. The plan submitted with the application illustrates three parking
spaces to the rear of the dwelling with a large portion of the rear yard remaining as outdoor
amenity area. The third or most westerly space proposed, however, is not functional. To
successfully manoeuvre in and out of three parking spaces from the rear yard the parking would
have to be rearranged so that a significant amount of the rear yard would have to be paved,
eliminating much of the outdoor amenity area in the rear yard and impacting abutting properties.
This option is not desirable.
In conclusion, the site cannot adequately provide three legal parking spaces while maintaining an
acceptable outdoor amenity area as a result of the reduced lot area. In this regard, the minor
variance to reduce the lot area is not desirable for the appropriate development of the subject
lands and does not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application
A 40/99 be refused.
The Committee noted additional comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that this minor variance application requesting a reduction in the lot area from
495 square metres to 418 square metres to allow the conversion of a duplex to a triplex was
deferred to the May 11, 1999, meeting to allow reconsideration of the proposed parking design.
New information was received just prior to the meeting regarding the existing conditions of the
property. A large portion of the rear yard is currently paved which can accommodate three
parking spaces. The rear yard is separated from the driveway by a six-foot solid wood fence. The
fence, however, is designed as a gate and opens up the width of the driveway giving access to
three parking spaces. A portion of the rear yard is landscaped and there is a large main level
deck and a second storey deck as well. Since the parking area in the rear yard is existing and
can accommodated three spaces and since an acceptable outdoor amenity area is provided, the
reduction in the lot area meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and is
desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands.
Directly north of the subject lands there are two apartments, one five storey and one three-storey
apartment. The subject property backs onto the parking area for the apartments. The properties
on either side of the dwelling are single detached dwellings. The subject land is separated from
the adjacent property to the west by a garage and from the adjacent property to the east by a six-
foot wood fence. There will be no impact on the streetscape as a result of the minor variance and
since the parking area is existing and adequately buffered from the adjacent properties, the
impact of the variance is minor.
In view of the foregoing, the Department of Business and Planning Services has no objection to
the minor variance to the lot area to allow the conversion of a duplex to a triplex.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application
A 40/99 be approved.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required to construct the new dwelling unit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division,
in which he recommended that the proposed layout of the parking be modified to improve
accessibility.
The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department,
Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and
have no concerns.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 119 MAY 11, 1999
2. Submission No.:
A 40/99(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections or concerns.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that this application was originally considered at the April 20, 1999,
meeting of the Committee, at which time, the applicant had been given the opportunity to revisit
the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services with staff. As a result, Mr.
Galloway pointed out that the comments were revised to indicate that staff no longer have an
objection to the minor variance as requested and are recommending approval of the application.
The Chair pointed out to staff that both documents relating to the comments of the Department of
Business and Planning Services were dated April 9, 1999 and asked for clarification. Ms. J.
Given responded that the latest comments received should have been redated and these are the
most recent comments of the Department.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Shiraz Ramji requesting permission to convert the existing duplex dwelling
to a triplex dwelling by adding a third dwelling unit in the basement with a lot area of 418 m2
(4,500 sq. ft.), rather than the required 495 m2 (5,328 sq. ft.), on Part of Lot 14 and 15, Plan 384,
92 Pattandon Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to adding the new dwelling unit.
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
CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE
a) Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 13/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99
Ivan Biuk Construction Limited
1843 Old Mill Road and Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road
Part of Lots 100, 101 and 102, Registered Plan 578, and Part of
Drummond Drive (Closed), Part 1, Plan 58R-1149
b)
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 14/99
Diana Biuk
Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road
Lot 97, Re.qistered Plan 578
c)
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 15/99
Josip Babic
Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road
Lot 96, Re.qistered Plan 578
The Committee was advised that staff are recommending further deferral of the above noted
applications to accommodate the process of amending Block Plan 65, to change the proposed
access of Drummond Drive from its intersection of Amherst Drive to access with Old Mill Road.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 120 MAY 11, 1999
The Committee was advised that the date for reconsideration of these applications had been
proposed for June 15, 1999; however, Ms. J. Given advised that staff are now recommending
1. Submission Nos.:
B 13/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99; B 14/99; B 15/99(Cont'd)
deferral to the July 20, 1999, meeting of the Committee. She advised that a public meeting had
been held to discuss issues of concern with residents of the area and considerable opposition
was expressed at that time. She advised that, subsequent to the public meeting, the applicant
met with the Director of Planning and suggested that the applications be deferred to allow time to
consider further options. Ms. Given pointed out that no formal direction as a result of the
applicants meeting with the Director was given with respect to a deferral date; however, the
earliest date for consideration of the amendment to the Block Plan by the Planning & Economic
Development Committee would be June 14, 1999, and would require subsequent approval by
Council at its meeting to be held on June 21, 1999. Accordingly, she advised that deferral to the
June 15, 1999, meeting of the Committee would be premature and it was recommended that the
applications be deferred to July 20, 1999.
By general consent, it was agreed to defer consideration of Submission No.'s A 26/99 and B
13/99 to B 16/99 to the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for July 20, 1999.
The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:00 a.m. in order to consider an
application for Minor Variance to the City of Kitchener's Fence By-law. This meeting reconvened
at 10:10 a.m.
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 45/99
Monarch Construction Limited
427 Westforest Trail
Lot 32, Plan 58M-52
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
As no one was in attendance to support the application, the Committee delayed consideration of
the matter until the end of the meeting.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 46~99
Susan & Paul Thorpe
239 Lydia Street
Lot 31, Re.qistered Plan 284
Mr. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his law firm is acting on behalf of
the applicants 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.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. Paul Thorpe
239 Lydia Street
Kitchener ON N2H 1W4
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 121 MAY 11, 1999
Contra: None
2. Submission No.:
A 46/99(Cont'd)
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 single family dwelling with a northerly sideyard 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 and Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject lands contain an existing two-storey single-family dwelling.
The lands are located on the west side of Lydia Street between Pandora Avenue and Stirling
Avenue. This area of Lydia Street is comprised mainly of single detached dwellings.
The applicant proposes to construct a single storey addition at the rear of the dwelling with a right
side yard of 0.6 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres. The addition is intended to be used
as a family room and will have an area of 37.6 square metres.
The subject lands have a depth of 40 metres. Even with the proposed addition there will remain a
relatively generous amount of yard area on the lot. The addition will be located adjacent a single
car garage on the abutting property at 235 Lydia Street. The impact of the addition on the
occupants of 235 Lydia Street will be relatively minor in nature given that the existing garage on
that property will for the most part obscure views of the side wall of the new addition.
Furthermore, the addition is limited to one storey in height so will not dominate the appearance of
the dwelling on the subject lands or cause overlooking of neighbouring properties. Finally, the
proposed 0.6 metre side yard permits an adequate amount of side yard for maintenance
purposes and is consistent with the existing side yard of the front part of the dwelling along this lot
line. In conclusion, the addition is considered an appropriate development of the lands.
Staff consider that the application maintains the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning
By-law and recommend the application be approved.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
46/99.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required prior to construction of the new addition; there shall be no openings in a wall
located less than 4 feet to the property line; and, the wall shall have a 45 minute fire resistance
rating.
The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department,
Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and
have no concerns with respect to this submission.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this submission.
The Chair requested Mr. Thorpe to provide an outline of his application. Mr. P. Thorpe advised
that he is proposing to add a family room and dinette area to the existing dwelling that will be
setback 2 ft. from the property line, rather than the required 4 ft. Mr. Thorpe then referred to the
comments of the Building Division which indicated that the wall shall have a 45 minute fire
resistance rating. In this regard, he advised the Committee that staff of the Fire Department have
suggested that the wall be constructed with 5/8 inch drywall to protect against fire. The Chair
stated that whatever means of construction satisfied the requirements of the Fire Department
would be acceptable.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 122 MAY 11, 1999
Submission No.:
A 46/99(Cont'd)
Mr. P. Kruse stated that, as there were no concerns raised with respect to the application, he was
prepared to recommend approval of the application subject to a building permit being acquired
prior to construction of the new addition, that there be no openings in a wall located less than 1.2
m (4 ft.) to the property line, and the wall shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Susan and Paul Thorpe requesting permission to construct an addition to
the rear of the single family dwelling with a northerly sideyard of 0.6 m (2 ft.), rather than the
required 1.2 m (4 ft.), on Lot 31, Registered Plan 284, 239 Lydia Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition.
2. That there shall be no openings in a wall located less than 1.2 m (4 ft.) to the property line.
That the wall to be located less than 0.6 m (2 ft.) to the property line 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.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 47/99
Erwin & Marlene Preiditsch
96 Kimberly Crescent
Lot 128, Re.qistered Plan 1240
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. Klaus Sprenger
131 Ahrens Street West
Kitchener ON N2H 4C4
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert an existing
carport to a closed in garage with a sideyard setback of 0.89 m (2.92 ft.), rather than the required
1.2 m (4 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject lands are located at 96 Kimberly Crescent. The property is
approximately 5,500 square feet in size and zoned Low Rise Residential (R-4) according to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 123 MAY 11, 1999
Zoning By-Law 85-1. A single family dwelling currently exists on the property.
3. Submission No.:
A 47/99(Cont'd)
The applicant is requesting permission to convert an existing carport to a closed in garage. The
proposed addition will be constructed in the right yard. The applicant advises that the enclosure
will need to encroach into the sideyard so that the carport can be enclosed. As a result, the
proposed enclosure will leave a reduced sideyard setback of 0.89 metres (2.92 ft.) rather than the
required 1.2 metres (4 ft.).
As the proposed enclosure on the property will only encroach into the sideyard by 0.31 metres
(1.0 ft), it can be considered minor in nature, and will not adversely affect neighbouring property.
The remaining setback area will provide sufficient space for maintenance of both the garage
enclosure and use of the yard. The enclosure would be an appropriate and desirable use of the
property and will maintain the general intent and purpose of the City's Zoning By-law and
Municipal Plan. As well, the garage enclosure would not appear to impede the enjoyment of the
neighbouring properties.
Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommend approval of Minor
Variance Application A 47/99, without conditions.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required to convert the carport into a garage. A wall located less than 4 ft. to the
property line shall have no openings and shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating.
The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department,
Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and
have no concerns with respect to this submission.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this submission.
Mr. K. Sprenger advised the Committee that a building permit had already been applied for to
convert to the existing carport into a garage. He advised that, at the time the building permit was
applied for, it was discovered that an encroachment would be required into the sideyard which
would result in a sideyard setback of 2.92 ft., rather than the required 4 ft.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that, as there were no concerns raised with respect to the application, he
was prepared to recommend approval.
Mr. P. Kruse noted that the Building Division requires a building permit to be acquired prior to the
conversion and acknowledged this has already been undertaken by the applicant. In addition, he
noted that the Building Division requires that the wall located less than 4 ft. to the property line
shall have no openings and shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating and, accordingly, the
application should be approved subject to these conditions.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Erwin & Marlene Preiditsch requesting permission to convert an existing
carport to a closed in garage with a sideyard setback of 0.89 m (2.92 ft.), rather than the required
1.2 m (4 ft.), on Lot 128, Registered Plan 1240, 96 Kimberly Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to converting the existing carport to a
closed in garage.
2. That there shall be no openings in a wall located less than 1.2 m (4 ft.) to the property line.
That the wall to be located less than 1.2 m (4 ft.) to the property line shall have a 45
minute fire resistance rating.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 124 MAY 11, 1999
Submission No.: A 47/99(Cont'd)
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 Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
Written Submissions:
In Support:
Contra:
A 48/99
Garden Heights Development Ltd.
Mooregate Crescent
Lot 13, Re.qistered Plan 1268
Carried
None
None
None
None
As no one was in attendance to support the application, the Committee delayed consideration of
the matter until the end of the meeting.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
A 50~99
172965 Canada Limited/Imperial Oil Limited
2788-2794 King Street East
Part 1, Plan 58R-8119
As no one was in attendance to support the application, the Committee delayed consideration of
the matter until the end of the meeting.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 125 MAY 11, 1999
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 51/99
Daros Investments Limited
700 Westmount Road East
Block B, Re.qistered Plan 1240
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
As no one was in attendance to support the application, the Committee delayed consideration of
the matter until the end of the meeting.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 52/99
Society of St. Vincent De Paul - Kitchener Particular Council
109 Young Street
Part of Lot 5, North of Weber Street, East of Young Street,
Weber's Survey, Registered Plan 401
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
Others:
Written Submissions:
In Support:
Contra:
Ms. Marion Bickers
809-315 Margaret Avenue
Kitchener ON N2H 6S5
Ms. Donna Kuehl
58 Ahrens Street
Kitchener ON N2H 4B7
Ms. Barbara Buchanan
132 Young Street
Kitchener ON N2H 4Z4
Ms. Lee Buckton
65 Roy Street
Kitchener ON N2H 4B4
Mr. Frank Pongratz
56 Weber Street West
Kitchener ON N2H 3Z2
Mr. A. R. Davis
B-G Management
553978 Ontario Limited
106 Young Street
Kitchener ON N2H 4Z4
None
Mr. Frank Pongratz
56 Weber Street West
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 126 MAY 11, 1999
Kitchener ON N2H 3Z2
Submission No.:
A 52/99(Cont'd)
Mr. A. R. Davis
B-G Management
553978 Ontario Limited
106 Young Street
Kitchener ON N2H 4Z4
Mr. Glen P. MacDonald
127 Young Street
Kitchener ON N2H 4Z3
Neighbourhood Petition
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 3 storey
addition to the northeast corner of the existing residential care facility which will increase the floor
area to 464.5 m2 (5,000 sq. ft.), rather than the permitted 366.96 m2 (3,950 sq. ft.); and to
increase the number of lodgers to 11, rather than the maximum of 9 permitted by by-law.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject property at 109 Young Street is a 2 ½ storey residential
building which has been vacant since approximately the middle of 1998. The St. Vincent DePaul
Society proposes to establish a residential care facility providing pre and post natal care for 10-11
residents.
This property is among a number of others zoned CR-3 and fronting College and Young Street
which are subject to Holding Provision 16 which permits all uses within the existing building only
unless such properties are consolidated with properties having access to Weber Street and a site
plan is approved which would include appropriate buffering measures. The large residential care
facility is clearly permitted within the building existing on January 24, 1994, the date on which the
CR-3 zone was applied. However, the owners contemplate constructing a minor addition to the
building so that a minor variance to the Holding Provision is required to allow the use in a building
which will have a portion of its floor area which did not exist on the effective date.
The owners wish to add some new floor area to the rear of each floor, totalling approximately 500
square feet, to be used for an expanded kitchen area and three additional bedrooms.
Special Policy 2 in the Civic Centre Secondary Plan sets out the intent of the Holding Provision,
which is to ensure that redevelopment of those identified properties can occur only when the
properties are consolidated or assembled with those fronting Weber Street. The Holding
Provision in the Zoning By-law implements this intent by permitting the reuse of buildings existing
when the new provision was applied and prohibiting new buildings unless the terms of the
Holding Provision are met. In the case of this proposal, the addition does not represent a
redevelopment of the property but only expands the usability of the existing building. Such
expansion is not significant enough to be concerned that additional traffic would be generated on
Young Street. Further, as the addition is minor, a site plan is not required. Accordingly, the intent
of the Municipal Plan and zoning by-law is maintained.
The application indicates that the floor area of the building existing on January 24, 1994 was and
still is approximately 5,000 square feet, including the basement. The addition of another 500
square feet is considered minor given that the structure will still largely be the original building
which existed on that date.
The use of the building for the proposed residential care facility is appropriate given that the
building can be used for such purpose now and the addition allows better accommodation of their
resident needs.
Accordingly, the proposed minor variance meets all tests of the Planning Act and is therefore
recommended by staff.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 127 MAY 11, 1999
It is recommended that the minor variance approval apply not only to a residential care facility but
to all uses permitted under Section 46.1 of the Zoning By-law so that at such time as the
Submission No.: A 52/99(Cont'd)
residential care facility moves, all existing and new floor area of the building may be legally
reused for all CR-3 uses.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
52/99 for permission to allow any use permitted in Section 46.1 of the Zoning By-law to legally
use all portions of the building at 109 Young Street, including within the proposed addition of
approximately 500 square feet.
The Committee noted additional comments of the Principal Planner in which she advised that
with respect to her comments regarding traffic, her comments on the increase in traffic relate to
what additional impact would be generated by the addition above and beyond the existing
building, within which they are permitted to operate. You should be aware that the CR-3 zone is
a high density zone with a minimum floor space ratio (building floor area divided by lot area) of
1.0 and a maximum of 4.0, which allows redevelopment substantially more massive than the
existing built form along Young Street. With these densities, it is easy to see why access to
Weber Street is desirable for new development.
With this in mind, the most important purpose of my letter is to clarify the floor area figures which
were circulated on the meeting agenda. Because the information on the application was
ambiguous, I had several detailed discussions with the applicants, during which time they outlined
the location and nature of the proposed addition, being approximately 500 square feet. Because
of the various letters from neighbours questioning the data on the agenda, I again called the
applicants and they advised that the current floor area is approximately 3,225 square feet,
including the basement. The second paragraph on page two of my staff report dated May 4,
1999, should be amended to reflect this. The proposed addition is approximately 564 square
feet, bringing the resulting floor area to 3,789 square feet. All of my comments are based on this
increase in floor area and remain relevant and applicable.
With respect to your third question, the responsibility to determine if this variance is minor is that
of the Committee of Adjustment.
In terms of the desire for future uses to expand, they would have the same opportunity to expand
the building if the Committee considered that such additional expansion continued to meet the
four tests under the Planning Act, as set out in my report.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, in which he advised that a
building permit is required.
The Committee noted
Region of Waterloo, in
have no concerns with
the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department,
which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and
respect to this submission.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this submission.
The Committee noted the comments in the written submission of Mr. A. R. Davis in which he
requests that the Committee of Adjustment withhold permission for the requested proposed
construction at 109 Young Street.
As of May 3, 1999, he has not had access to a building site plan for evaluation purposes and the
application states that it is an "existing residential care facility" when in fact it is a building shell
that was at one time a rooming house that had the interior severely damaged by fire and is under
a City of Kitchener "Do Not Occupy" Order. There is an increase in size by 26% which is not a
"Minor" Variance and the northeast corner of the building would be at the front of the building on
Young Street. No other building in the area has additions to their frontage. He also requests to
be notified of the decision of the Committee.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 128 MAY 11, 1999
The Committee noted the comments in the written submissions of Mr. Frank Pongratz and Mr.
Glenn P. McDonald in which they advised that they understand that the proposal includes an
Submission No.:
A 52/99(Cont'd)
addition to the existing building, increasing the floor space from the permitted 3,950 sq. ft. to
5,000 sq. ft. Further, the applicant would increase the number of lodgers from the permitted 9 to
11. They wish to be on record as opposing the application and their reasons for this are as
follows:
Any addition to the building would result in further on-site density. This will contrast the heritage
appearance of the house and neighbourhood environment. The current neighbourhood
maintains a preserved historic flavour that would be compromised by this addition.
Similarly, the neighbourhood enjoys a peaceful residential base with virtually no land-use
conflicts. Introduction of this high-density residential care facility will alter the current ambience. I
believe this will have a deleterious effect on our neighbourhood.
The City has no real control over what type of residence this may become. Approval of this
proposal will succeed the current owners. This will open the door for any high-density residence
at this location. This invariably introduces an element that will contrast with homeowners who
have worked hard to maintain high property and community standards.
The higher density proposed for this site will result in a higher demand for vehicle parking.
Spaces are already at a premium on Young and Roy Streets. The increased traffic will not
contribute favourably to the neighbourhood tranquillity.
The City will have no real control over management of the proposed facility. As this may be a
home for unwed mothers, we may expect to be host to callers at all hours and the possibility of
interaction that may further affect the neighbourhood peace.
As a neighbourhood, we have made our concerns clear in the past, regarding community
standards for this same property while under previous ownership. These standards have not
changed.
It is unfair that the enjoyment and value of our property should be compromised by the above
proposal. As residents and taxpayers, we depend on you to consider our view on this matter. To
put it into perspective, we would ask you to consider how you might react to the same proposal
for your neighbourhood.
The Committee considered the comments in a written submission signed by a number of
neighbouring residents in which they advised that the Civic Centre Neighbourhood is a Heritage
District. It is important that its integrity be protected and maintained. While they do not
necessarily object to the proposed use of the property, their concern is primarily the faCade of the
building and the supervision/management of the property. In this regard, they have the following
concerns:
In the past number of years there have been numerous complaints about noise and parties held
outside and on the fire escape at the above mentioned property.
What will prevent this type of activity from happening again? What will the exterior architectural
design be like? Will it fit into the neighbourhood and not continue be an eye sore? How are the
owners going to improve the faCade, especially the front of the building? The current fire escape
was illegal when installed, how will this be corrected? Will it be removed and rebuilt on the back of
the house where the by-law states it should be? If not moved, will the residents be allowed to use
the fire escape to access the second and third floor and will they be allowed to sit on it and use it
as a veranda?
The existing Neighbourhood Association did not receive any notices regarding this change other
than via the newspaper. Not everyone gets The Record. Why was the Association not notified?
Who was notified in this regard?
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 129 MAY 11, 1999
We understand that this particular property may be zoned commercial. The major portion of the
Civic Centre Neighbourhood is protected by a special by-law which is meant to help preserve the
present homes and streetscapes.
Submission No.: A 52/99(Cont'd)
Will the changes being applied for comply with this by-law? Has this been checked out? Does
this qualify the property to be a Care Facility? What protection do the neighbours have against
this property being resold and being purchased by another absentee landlord? Will the new
regulations still apply (i.e. increased lodgers from 9 to 11)? If the application is granted, can a
clause be inserted to insure the property reverts to the original by-law of only 9 lodgers?
Property Management: How many people will actually be living there? How will staff be
classified.., are they considered lodgers?.., what if they stay overnight? Can we be assured that
there will never be more than 11 people there at one time? How will the facility be supervised?
Will there be a responsible overnight supervisor? If no overnight supervision...What happens
after 5 p.m. when supervisors leave? And who then is responsible for the residents and the
residence? Who will be visiting this facility and how will these visitors be monitored? Who
regulates these types of premises? And where do we register any complaints/concerns?
They worry about their little neighbourhood park, known as Hibner Park. Many children attend
the park on a regular basis. Now children using the park are supervised by their parents or
responsible adults. Can we be assured that children belonging to residents or guests of the
residents at 109 Young Street, will not go to the park unaccompanied or without a responsible
adult?
The Chair requested clarification of the use of the existing building and Ms. M. Bickers responded
that, following a fire in mid-1998, the Society of St. Vincent De Paul had purchased the property in
December of 1998. She advised that, following renovations, it is proposed to use the building for
a pre/post natal residential care facility and the purpose of the addition is to add two bedrooms to
the top floor to make the building more useful for the proposed facility. Further, she noted that the
building was empty at the time of purchase.
Ms. D. Kuehl pointed out that she was aware of a number of residents in the area who had
expressed concern and opposition to this application. She stated that those who had signed a
neighbourhood petition, which she submitted to the Committee, primarily objected to the current
state of the exterior of the existing building which was felt not to be in keeping with the rest of the
neighbourhood. She pointed out that a fire escape was installed at the front of the building and
suggested that it should be removed and replaced in back of the building. She questioned what
safeguards would be in place to protect occupants in the event of a fire if the number of
occupants was allowed to be increased.
Mr. B. Buchanan provided the Committee with pictures of the subject property and surrounding
neighbourhood. In addition, she pointed out her dissatisfaction with the method of notification to
neighbours and stated that she had only become aware of the application through the
newspaper.
The Chair questioned if the effect of the application was to extend a legal non-conforming use
and Ms. J. Given responded that this was somewhat of a different situation, in that, the proposed
use is already permitted under the current CR-3 Zoning, which was applied to the property on
January 24, 1994; however, technically, the proposed use did not exist at that time. She advised
that, while the uses permitted in the building as it exists now, the property is subject to a Holding
Provision that requires any new development to result in consolidation with properties having
access onto Weber Street. Accordingly, in order to accommodate the proposed addition and
maintain access onto Young Street a minor variance to the holding provision is required. In
addition, she pointed out that the proposed variance meets all tests of the Planning Act and is,
therefore, being recommended for approval.
Ms. J. Given also pointed out that the application, as submitted, referred to an increase in the
number of occupants from 9 to 11 and stated that she wished to clarify that under the current
zoning there is no limitation on the number of residents. However, she noted that the owners
would have to be able to provide sufficient parking based on the number of residents.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 130 MAY 11, 1999
7. Submission No.:
A 52/99(Cont'd)
The Chair stated that he felt the concerns raised with respect to the fire escape and the facade of
the building were outside of the jurisdiction of this Committee and questioned how these
concerns could be dealt with. Ms. J. Given agreed that the Committee did not have jurisdiction
over these matters; however, she pointed out that a building permit would be required which
would involve filing preliminary drawings and all requirements of the building code would be
enforced. Further, she advised that the proposed addition is not considered to be a
redevelopment of the property but rather an expansion of the usability of the existing building and,
accordingly, a site plan was not deemed to be required.
Ms. M. Bickers further clarified that the facility will be fully supervised and all residents must
commit to training programs that will further their education and provide them with marketable
skills. She also noted that parking is provided primarily for use by staff of the facility as it is very
rare that the residents own a vehicle.
Mr. P. Kruse questioned how many parking spaces in ratio to the number of residents were
required. In this regard, Ms. Given responded that a minimum of three parking spaces were
required for the facility, plus an additional 3 spaces for every member of staff. At this time, she
advised the total number of parking spaces being provided was 4.
Mr. P. Kruse pointed out that, in fact, the parking is tied to the number of staff rather than the
number of residents and Ms. Given stated that this was correct.
Ms. D. Kuehl questioned what would happen if residents had a car and Ms. Bickers responded
that it was a rare occasion that a resident would own a vehicle; however, she pointed out that the
driveway could accommodate additional vehicles.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned if it was known what the building was used for prior to the fire. Ms.
Bickers responded that she believed that it had been used as a type of lodging house; however,
at the time of purchase the building had been empty.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that, as the proposed use was permitted under the Zoning By-law, the
owner could proceed with the care facility even if the minor variance was not approved and,
accordingly, it was his view that this Committee should only concern itself with consideration of
the requested variance to the floor area of the proposed addition and the need for a building
permit.
Mr. P. Kruse inquired if the care facility would be Provincially funded and whether or not a
Provincial licence was required. Ms. Bickers responded that no Provincial licence was required
and funding was providing through donations, rents and bingo profits.
Ms. D. Kuehl inquired if the fire escape at the front of the building would be removed and Ms.
Bicker responded that the owners of the building were not happy with the appearance of the
existing fire escape and may possibly consider removal and restoration of the porch area. In
addition, she noted that plans for the addition have incorporated a fire escape at the back of the
building from the ground up to, and including, the third floor.
Ms. J. Given advised the Committee that she wished to clarify the figures related to the floor area
of the proposed addition. She pointed out that the figures submitted with the application were
incorrect and advised that the current floor area is approximately 3,225 sq. ft., including the
basement. The proposed addition is approximately 564 ft., bringing the resulting floor area to
3,789 sq. ft. In this regard, she advised that the report of the Department of Business and
Planning Services should be revised to reflect a floor area of approximately 564 sq. ft. for the
proposed addition.
Mr. P. Kruse inquired if the Society would still proceed with the proposed use if the variance was
not approved. Ms. Bickers responded that without approval there would be a smaller number of
beds available which would impact on the viability of the facility. She stated that she could not
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 131 MAY 11, 1999
comment at this time on what would occur if approval was not granted as this would be a matter
for the organization to decide.
Submission No.:
A 52/99(Cont'd)
Ms. B. Buchanan questioned if it was possible to control the number of residents going into the
facility and the Chair responded that under the regulations of the Zoning By-law there was no limit
on the number of residents. Ms. Buchanan further inquired if bathrooms were required to be
provided for each resident and what, if any, health restrictions were required. Ms. Given
responded that this type of facility does not require bathrooms for every resident. It was further
pointed out that any health related issues would be dealt with by the Regional Health Unit.
The Chair, again, advised that the concerns being raised were not relevant to the variance
requested and were beyond this Committee's jurisdiction. However, he stated that given the
empathy expressed by the applicant this date it was his opinion that the neighbouring property
owners would have an easier time approaching the current owners with respect to their concerns.
Ms. L. Buckton entered the meeting at this time and joined the delegation of Ms. Kuehl and Ms.
Buchanan. Ms. Buckton pointed out that there was an additional building at the back of the
property known as a carriage house and inquired if it was intended to convert the carriage house
to living space. Ms. Given responded that the variance applies only to the existing house and it
was her belief that the carriage house was intended to be used as a training facility. In this
regard, Ms. Bickers confirmed that this was correct.
Ms. L. Buckton questioned if there was a requirement with respect to density and how parking
requirements would be affected if there was a change in use that resulted in additional vehicles
accessing the property.
The Chair pointed out to Ms. Buckton that the Committee had already considered these matters,
however, he restated for her benefit that the proposed use is currently legal under the Zoning By-
law with a required minimum of 3 parking spaces and, if a change in use occurred, it would be
considered under the by-law on its own merits. The Chair, again, stressed that the owners could
still proceed as the proposed use is permitted and only required the variance in order to extend
the structure. He stated that, in his opinion, the proposed addition will enhance the use of the
facility and, as the owner has demonstrated a sympathetic nature, neighbouring property owners
will be further ahead than they were with the previous owner.
Following further discussion, Mr. P. Kruse stated that he was prepared to approve the application
as amended to indicate that the proposed addition is approximately 564 sq. ft. and with the
condition that a building permit be required.
Ms. J. Given directed the Committee's attention to the recommendation contained in the staff
report with respect to any use allowed in Section 46.1 being permitted to legally use all portions of
the building including within the proposed addition and asked that this be included in the
recommendation to approve the application.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of the Society of St. Vincent De Paul Kitchener Particular Council
requesting permission to construct a 3 storey addition to the rear of the existing structure with a
floor area of 52.4 m2 (564 sq. ft.), to increase the existing floor area from 299.6 m2 (3,225 sq. ft.)
to 351.9 m~ (3,789 sq. ft.), on Part of Lot 5, north of Weber Street, east of Young Street, D.
Weber's Survey, Registered Plan 401, 109 Young Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition.
That any use permitted in Section 46.1 of the Zoning By-law be permitted to legally use all
portions of the building at 109 Young Street, including within the proposed addition of
approximately 52.4 m~ (564 sq. ft.).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 132 MAY 11, 1999
7. Submission No.'
A 52/99(Cont'd)
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
CONSENTS & MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 24/99
571830 Ontario Limited
209 Kent Avenue
Part of Lot 10, Re.qistered Plan 404
The Chair advised the Committee that a request had been received from Ms. R. Levato,
Villemaire, Levato, to defer the application to the June 15th meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of the application would be deferred to the
meeting of June 15, 1999.
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 25/99, B 26/99, B 27/99 & A 49/99
Patricia M. Barnhart
30 Sunbridge Crescent
Part Lots 124 & 125, German Company Tract; Parts 1, 2, 3, &_4 of
Plan 58R-2370, save and except Parts 1, 2 and 3 of Plan 58R-6233
Mr. A. Galloway declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his law firm has acted on
behalf of the applicant's husband and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect
to this application. Mr. S. Kay chaired the meeting during consideration of this application and,
pursuant to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this application was considered by the
remaining two members.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. B. Barnhart
30 Sunbridge Crescent
Kitchener ON N2K 1T3
Mr. Craig Robson
McCarter Grespan Robson Beynon
675 Riverbend Drive
Kitchener, ON N2K3S3
Contra:
none
Other:
Ms. Luella Kains
254 Woolowich Street North
Kitchener ON N2K 1S7
Written Submissions:
In Support:
none
Contra: none
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 133 MAY 11, 1999
Submission Nos.:
B 25/99, B 26/99, B 27/99 & A 49/99(Cont'd)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create 1 new lot and 2
lot additions by severing 3 parcels of land and retaining a parcel of land, having an area of 7.13
ha, containing the existing house. The 1st parcel to be severed will be developed with a new
single family dwelling. This parcel is on the south side of the property, at the end of Sunbridge
Crescent. The parcel will have an area of 3.71 ha and have a frontage on Sunbridge Crescent of
20.12 m (66.01 ft.).
The second parcel to be severed is at the northeast corner of the property, having an area of
540.3 m2 (5,815.94 sq. ft.) and will be conveyed, as a lot addition, to the abutting property owner.
The third parcel of land to be severed is at the southwest corner of the property, having an area of
1,905.4 m2 (20,510.23 sq. ft.) and will be conveyed, as a lot addition, to the abutting property
owner.
The applicant is also requesting variances to the requirements of the Zoning By-law. The
retained lands, containing the existing house, will have an area of 7.13 ha (2.89 acres) and the
parcel of land to be developed with the new single family dwelling, will have an area of 3.71 ha
(1.51 acres). The Agricultural Zone permits a maximum lot area of 1.2 ha (0.49 acres). The new
lot will have a width, at the 6 m (19.69 ft.) setback, of 32. 2 m (105.65 ft.) whereas the by-law
required 60 m (196.85 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in
which they advised that the applicant proposes three land severances to convey two lot additions
and one new lot. A portion of the property is within the flood plain of the Grand River and Melitzer
Creek; this portion is designated Open Space in the Municipal Plan and is zoned P-3 Hazard
Land. The remainder of the property is designated Low Rise Residential and is zoned A-1
Agricultural. Special regulation 1R indicates that a portion of the property is within the scheduled
fill area regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority. The lot to be retained contains an
existing dwelling.
Submission No. B 26/99 proposes to sever land as an addition to the developed residential lot
owned by F. Kains. The lot addition is within the flood plain and therefore does not increase the
development potential of the lot, much of which is also in the flood plain. The Kains property has
no frontage on a public street, but has legal non-conforming status in this regard. The lot addition
does not have the effect of perpetuating the legal non-conforming situation. Staff have no
objection to the approval of B 26/99.
Submission B 25/99 proposes to create one new residential building lot with access from the end
of Sunbridge Crescent. The lot would be serviced by municipal water and a private septic
system, in accordance with Municipal Plan (Part 2) Policy 4.1.6 i). Sunbridge Crescent
terminates with a temporary turning circle, allowing for the possibility of extending the street to
provide access to future potential development on lands to the south. Staff have considered the
proposal in the context of Municipal Plan Amendment 20, which contains special policies for the
Bridgeport North community, and was adopted by City Council on May 3, 1999. The amendment
states, "That in the area south of Melitzer Creek, land severances which prejudice the potential
for orderly infilling development will not be supported .... until a block plan is approved by
Council." Staff find that this proposed severance does not prejudice the potential for orderly
infilling development of other developable lands in the vicinity, provided that land is conveyed
from the subject property as a lot addition to the lands of 1205457 Ontario Inc. in order to provide
access from Sunbridge Crescent to future development lands owned by 1205457 Ontario Inc.
and others, which is the intent of Submission B 27/99.
Submission B 27/99 proposes to sever land as an addition to the vacant lot owned by 1205457
Ontario Inc., as discussed above. The purpose of this severance is to consolidate the future
development lands with the future access to Sunbridge Crescent. The lot addition is
approximately 40m in width, which provides flexibility for the location of the future extension of
Sunbridge Crescent, which would likely be 16-18m wide. Staff have no objection to the approval
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 134 MAY 11, 1999
Submission Nos.:
B 25/99, B 26/99, B 27/99 & A 49/99(Cont'd)
of B27/99, provided that a 0.3m reserve is conveyed to the City. The reserve would leave the
lands of 1205457 Ontario Inc. without adequate public street frontage, and ensure that no
dwelling is constructed on the lands in advance of a comprehensive block plan for the area. The
driveway to the proposed dwelling, shown conceptually on the sketch submitted, must be
relocated onto the lot to be severed by B25/99.
The lands are zoned A-1 (Agricultural) as a 'holding zone' in advance of comprehensive
development. It is anticipated that A-1 lands in the vicinity would be rezoned to Residential after
approval of a block plan. The A-1 zone does, however, permit and regulate single detached
dwellings; therefore the proposed development can be considered in advance of Residential
zoning. The regulations of the Agricultural zone for single detached dwellings establish a
minimum lot width of 60m, a minimum lot area of 0.4ha, and a maximum lot area of 1.2ha. Both
the lot to be retained and the new building lot to be severed exceed the maximum lot area; the lot
to be severed does not provide the required minimum lot width. Variances are requested for this
purpose.
The intent of the maximum lot area regulation is to ensure that viable agricultural land is not
depleted by the creation of oversized residential lots. The proposal maintains the general intent
of the by-law as the subject lands are not commercially viable agricultural lands. Furthermore,
less than one half of the area of both the severed and retained lots is zoned A-1 as the majority of
the land is below the flood line. The impact of the variances is minor as the land over and above
the maximum 1.2ha is undevelopable land. The general intent of the Municipal Plan plan is
maintained as the proposal does not prejudice the potential for orderly infilling development of
other developable lands in the vicinity.
The minimum lot width regulation anticipates that a lot with a minimum area of 4000 square
metres would likely be not less than 60m in width, assuming a regular configuration. In this case
the lot to be severed does not have a regular configuration; it has an average width of 100m, but
has only 32.2m given its limited frontage. The variance is desirable for the appropriate
development and use of the land as the additional frontage is more appropriately conveyed to
1205457 Ontario Inc. than kept as part of the severed lot.
As a condition of approval of severance application B22/88, the owner entered into a
development agreement (Inst. No. 952056) with the City. The agreement remains registered on
title of both the severed and retained lands, and provides for the approval of tree saving, grading
and tree protection plans prior to the issuance of a building permit.
As required by the agreement, a parcel of land approximately 30.5m wide was conveyed to the
City for future trail link purposes adjacent to the Grand River. Furthermore, Clause 44 of the
agreement states, "The Subdivider agrees to convey to the City, without cost and free of
encumbrance, the area of land required by the City with respect to the Melitzer Creek
Watercourse located on the subject lands. It is understood that such conveyance shall only be
required in the event the approved Bridgeport North Secondary Plan requires the dedication of
said watercourse for drainage and/or open space link purposes .... ".
Council has adopted a policy to establish a network of community trails within the Bridgeport
North Community, as shown conceptually on the Bridgeport North Community Trail/Bike Route
Plan dated 1999 02 09. The Melitzer Creek lands will not be utilized for open space link
purposes, although the City may in the future require the dedication of the watercourse for
drainage purposes. The Community Trail Plan proposes a link from the 30.5m wide parcel of City-
owned land to both the lane for 254A-254K Woolwich Street and to the open space lands within
the Southstaton/Activa subdivision (Draft Plan 30T-97005, Blocks 31 and 32). In order to provide
for this link, it is recommended that a right-of-way be granted to the City, being approximately 4 m
wide and extending approximately 220m to the west. This right-of-way would provide for
temporary public access in advance of future subdivision of the Barnhart lands west of Melitzer
Creek. A similar approach was adopted for temporary public access to community trails within
Southstaton's future development lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 135 MAY 11, 1999
2. Submission Nos.:
B 25/99, B 26/99, B 27/99 & A 49/99(Cont'd)
The City agrees to amend clause 44 of the agreement, after conveyance of the right-of-way, to
delete reference to conveyance of the Melitzer Creek watercourse for open space link purposes.
A number of other clauses may also be released as they were intended to apply to the
construction of the existing dwelling only. The owner should consider requesting release of such
conditions.
Lands in the vicinity of the subject property are designated as Primary Aggregate Resource Area
in the Municipal Plan. Owing to the relatively small lot areas and the fragmented pattern of land
ownership in the area south of Melitzer Creek, and the proximity of existing dwellings, licensed
aggregate extraction is not seen as a feasible land use in the area. The proposed severances
are deemed to comply with the Aggregate Resources policies of the Municipal Plan (Part 2, policy
7.9).
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission
A49/99.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission
B26/99, subject to the following conditions:
That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in identical
ownership as the abutting lands to the north. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to
be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995.
That satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission
B27/99, subject to the following conditions:
That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in identical
ownership as the abutting lands to the south. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to
be severed shall comply with Sections 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 a 0.3m reserve along the Sunbridge Crescent frontage of the land to be severed be
conveyed to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission
B25/99, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication
equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed.
2. That Minor Variance Application A49/99 receive final approval.
That the deed be endorsed and registered to complete the conveyance of land as
proposed in Submission B27/99.
That the owner shall submit, for the review of the City's Chief Building Official, a
geotechnical investigation completed by a professional engineer confirming the suitability
of the severed lands for a private in-ground sewage disposal system.
That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 136 MAY 11, 1999
Submission Nos.:
B 25/99, B 26/99, B 27/99 & A 49/99(Cont'd)
That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping
including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands.
That the Owner grant to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, a
right-of-way for community trail purposes along the north limit of the retained lands, in
accordance with a draft reference plan showing the proposed right-of-way, to be approved
by the Principal Planner. Said right-of-way shall be subject to such terms and conditions
as are established to the mutual satisfaction of the Owner and the City Solicitor.
That satisfactory arrangements be 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 Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed variance,
pending the approval of a site plan.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the
Traffic and Parking Division has reviewed the applications and has no concerns with the
proposed severances and variance, providing that any development does not interfere with the
future extension of Sunbridge Crescent.
The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department,
Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have reviewed the applications and have no
concerns.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have now had the opportunity to review the above noted severance and minor
variance applications. They do not object to the lot additions, B 26/99 and B 27/99. They note
that the plans submitted show a possible future road to the southwest of the lot addition B 27/99.
Please be aware that their approval of B 27/99, the lot addition to 1205457 Ontario Inc., does not
imply that any approvals for future development would be forthcoming. For your information, the
1205457 Ontario Inc. property contains a Provincially Significant Wetland. Provincial Wetland
Policy states that no development or site alteration may occur within a Provincially Significant
Wetland. Development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands if it has been
demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the wetland or its ecological functions.
The severance application (B 25~99) and the minor variance application (A 49199) raise several
concerns:
The Regulatory Floodline illustrated on the plan does not include the floodline for Melitzer
Creek. This information should be shown on the plan.
The plan shows the Regulatory Floodline for the Grand River, however, the elevation used
to determine the elevation of the Floodline is not shown. What elevation was used to map
the floodline? This elevation should be surveyed for both the Grand River and Melitzer
Creek and then placed on a detailed site plan.
The subject lands contain the Grand River Scheduled Area. This means a large portion of
both the severed and retained are within a regulated fill area. The regulated fill area
outlines areas which are environmentally sensitive (susceptible to flooding, poor drainage
or steep slopes). The fill line should be shown on the plan. If the proposed dwelling,
septic system, accessory structures, etc. are within the Scheduled Fill Area, the approval
of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98
would be required prior to the construction of the dwelling. The Grand River Conservation
Authority's Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation (Ontario Regulation
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 137 MAY 11, 1999
149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98) prohibits the following activities prior to
receiving written consent of the Grand River Conservation Authority:
2. Submission Nos.:
B 25/99, B 26/99, B 27/99 & A 49/99(Cont'd)
1)
2)
3)
construction of buildings or structures in or on a pond or swamp or in any area
susceptible to flooding during a "Regional Storm";
dumping or placing of fill in the Authority's scheduled areas;
alterations to any watercourse.
The permit process involves the submission of a Permit Application to this office, the
review of the application by Authority staff and the subsequent approval/refusal of the
Permit Application by the Grand River Conservation Authority.
It is my understanding the proposed dwelling will require a private septic system. The
location of the septic system is not shown on the plan. Please submit a site plan showing
the location of the septic bed and reserve area. Please be aware septic systems are not
permitted within the floodplain.
In light of the above concerns, we are unable to determine if there is a suitable building
envelope on the severed parcel. Therefore, at this time we recommend deferral of the
application until the following information is submitted for our review.
a)
Submission of a revised detailed site plan showing the Regulatory Floodline for the
Grand River and Melitzer Creek, the Scheduled Area Fill Line, the location of the
septic system and any other structures that may be proposed (ie. pool, shed, deck,
etc.)
The Committee noted the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that
approval of Submission Nos. B 25/99 - B 27/99 be subject to the following conditions:
That the Applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
That the Applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severances are granted.
The Chair inquired if Mr. Robson & Mr. Barnhart had had an opportunity to review the staff
comments and, in particular, the concerns raised by the Grand River Conservation Authority. Mr.
Robson responded that they had reviewed the comments, including those of the Grand River
Conservation Authority, and requested that the Committee consider granting approval conditional
upon the Grand River Conservation Authority's concerns rather than deferring the applications.
He stated that his client felt that all the concerns could be resolved and pointed out that they
relate to a building permit. He stated that Building Code regulations would require all concerns to
be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Chair referred to the concerns of the GRCA relating to a suitable building envelope on the
severed parcel and inquired how the applicant intended to satisfy this concern. Mr. B. Barnhart
referred the Committee to a sketch of the subject property showing the location of the Regional
floodline in relationship to the proposed dwelling. He stated that the distance exceeds what is
required and, accordingly, there would be more than sufficient space in terms of building
envelope.
The Chair requested clarification of the lot additions and Mr. B. Barnhart, again, referred the
Committee to the sketch of the subject property noting that two parcels of land would be added to
two adjoining properties.
The Chair also questioned which parcel of land the variance affects and Mr. Robson responded
that it pertains to the severed land that will create the new lot.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 138 MAY 11, 1999
Mr. P. Kruse pointed out that the Grand River Conservation Authority has stated in their
comments that their approval of Submission No. B 27/99 does not imply any approvals for future
development would be forthcoming. Mr. Robson stated that his client fully
2. Submission Nos.: B 25/99, B 26/99, B 27/99 & A 49/99(Cont'd)
understood this comment and noted that there were no plans at this time for development on that
parcel of land.
The Chair referred to the comments of Planning staff and requested staff to clarify if the Minor
Variance requested applied only to the lands severed. Ms. J. Given responded that this was
correct and that the variances pertain to the lot width and lot area of the new lot.
In this regard, Ms. D. Gilchrist pointed out that, based on the application submitted it was
understood that the variances with respect to lot area pertain to both the existing house and the
proposed dwelling. Mr. Robson agreed that the variance with respect to lot area should be dealt
with on both parcels.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that he was prepared to move approval of the applications subject to the
concerns of the Grand River Conservation Authority being met with respect to Submission No. B
25/99 and A 49/99. It was agreed the condition of approval would read "that the owner shall
satisfy all concerns of the Grand River Conservation Authority as stated in their letter dated May
10, 1999".
Ms. J. Given pointed out to the Committee that the condition, as imposed on the Minor Variance
application, would require a deadline date by which time the condition must be satisfied. In this
regard, it was agreed to establish a deadline date consistent with the one year requirement
respecting consent applications and, accordingly, the conditions relating to the minor variance
application will be required to be fulfilled by May 11,2000.
Mr. C. Robson referred the Committee to Condition 1 of the Planning staff comments respecting
Submission No. B 25/99 which would require the owner to pay the City a cash-in-lieu contribution
for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. He stated that his client
was of the opinion that when the original parcel was created in 1998 the park dedication fee had
been paid. He stated that, at this time, his client does not have proof of this payment and
suggested that approval be granted conditional upon payment of the park dedication only if
satisfactory proof cannot be given that payment has already been made.
Ms. P. Bacon advised that staff had researched records and had found nothing to indicate that a
park dedication fee had been paid; however, she agreed with Mr. Robson's approach that, if proof
was provided that the fee had been paid, staff would not require it to be paid again. Accordingly,
it was agreed to amend condition 1 respecting Submission No. B 25/99 with regard to the park
dedication fee to be required only if proof could not be given that the fee had already been paid.
Ms. J. Given advised the Committee that the Region of Waterloo has also requested that
approval for Submission No. B 25/99 be conditional upon completion of an archeological survey
of the severed lands.
Mr. Robson pointed out to the Committee that he was not aware of this request and stated that he
felt it was not relevant to the severance and should not be required.
The Chair advised Mr. Robson that an archeological survey of the lands to be severed is a
standard condition of the Region and it was agreed to add this as a condition of approval with
respect to Submission No. B 25/99.
Submission No. B 25/99
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Patricia M. Barnhart requesting permission to create a new lot having a
frontage on Sunbridge Crescent of 20.12 m (66.01 ft.) and having an area of 3.71 hectares (1.5
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 139 MAY 11, 1999
acres), on Part Lots 124 & 125, German Company Tract, being designated as Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4
of Reference Plan 58R-2370, save and except Parts 1, 2 and 3 of Reference Plan 58R-6233, 30
Sunbridge Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
2. Submission Nos.: B 25/99, B 26/99, B 27/99 & A 49/99(Cont'd)
Submission No. B 25~99
That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener and cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed, subject to the owner
providing evidence to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning that park dedication fees
have already been paid.
2. That Minor Variance Application A 49~99 shall receive final approval.
That the deed shall be endorsed and registered to complete the conveyance of land as
proposed in Submission No. B 27/99.
That the owner shall submit, for the review of the City's Chief Building Official, a
geotechnical investigation completed by a professional engineer confirming the suitability
of the severed lands for a private inground sewage disposal system.
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works for installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping
including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands.
That the owner shall grant to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance,
a right-of-way for community trail purposes along the north limit of the retained lands, in
accordance with a draft reference plan showing the proposed right-of-way, to be approved
by the Principal Planner. Said right-of-way shall be subject to such terms and conditions
as are established to the mutual satisfaction of the owner and the City Solicitor.
That satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding municipal property taxes and or local improvement charges.
That the owner shall satisfy all concerns of the Grand River Conservation Authority as
outlined in the Authority's letter dated May 10, 1999.
10.
That the owner shall complete an archeological survey on the severed lands to the
satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
11.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
12.
That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severances are 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 two years from the date of approval, being May 11,2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 140 MAY 11, 1999
2. Submission Nos.: B 25/99, B 26/99, B 27/99 & A 49/99(Cont'd)
Submission No. B 25~99
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 the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Submission No. B 26/99
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Patricia M. Barnhart requesting permission to convey a parcel of land at
the northeast corner of 30 Sunbridge Crescent, having an area of 540.3 m2 (5,815.94 sq. ft.), on
Part Lots 124 and 125, German Company Tract, being designated as Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
Reference Plan 58R-2370, save and except Parts 1, 2, and 3 of Reference Plan 58R-6233, 30
Sunbridge Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in
identical ownership as the abutting lands to the north. Any subsequent conveyance of the
parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severances are 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 two years from the date of approval, being May 11,2001.
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 the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 141 MAY 11, 1999
2. Submission Nos.: B 25/99, B 26/99, B 27/99 & A 49/99(Cont'd)
Submission No. B 27~99
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Patricia M. Barnhart requesting permission to convey a parcel of land at
the southwest corner of 30 Sunbridge Crescent, having an area of 1,905.4 m2 (20,510.23 sq. ft.),
on Part Lots 124 and 125, German Company Tract, being designated as Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
Reference Plan 58R-2370, save and except Parts 1, 2, and 3 of Reference Plan 58R-6233, 30
Sunbridge Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in
identical ownership as the abutting lands to the south. Any subsequent conveyance of the
parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995.
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 a 0.3 m reserve along the Sunbridge Crescent frontage of the land to be severed be
conveyed to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severances are 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 two years from the date of approval, being May 11,2001.
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 the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Submission No. A 49/99
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Patricia M. Barnhart requesting permssion to construct a single family
dwelling on lands to be severed on the south side of Sunbridge Crescent, having a lot area of
3.71 hectares (1.51) acres, rather than the required 1.2 hectares (0.49 acres), and a lot width, at
the 6 m (19.69 ft.) setback, of 32.2 m (105.65 ft.), rather than the required 60 m (196.85 ft.); and,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 142 MAY 11, 1999
to allow on the lands to be retained, containing an existing single family dwelling, a lot area of
7.13 hectares (2.89 acres) rather than the required 1.2 hectares (0.94 acres), on Part Lot 124 and
125, German Company Tract, being designated as Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Reference Plan 58R-
2. Submission Nos.: B 25/99, B 26/99, B 27/99 & A 49/99(Cont'd)
Submission No. A 49~99
2370, save and except Parts 1, 2, and 3 of Reference Plan 58R-6233, 30 Sunbridge Crescent,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the owner shall satisfy all concerns of the Grand River Conservation Authority as
outlined in the Authority's letter dated May 10, 1999, within one year from the date of
approval of Submission No. A 49/99, being May 11,2000.
It is the opinion of the 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
Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 45/99
Monarch Construction Limited
427 Westforest Trail
Lot 32, Plan 58M-52
Mr. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in this application as Grandview Homes, for whom his
law firm has acted, has in interest in this application 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.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. G. Bostajian
23 Woodmans Court
Kitchener ON N2P 2B2
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing single
family dwelling with a rearyard of 7.27 m (23.9 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in
which they advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing single family
dwelling with a rear yard setback of 7.27 metres (23.9 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 metres
(24.6 ft.).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 143 MAY 11, 1999
The applicant advises that the house was extended by 0.3 metres (1 ft.) and not adjusted on the
lot accordingly. The purpose of the 7.5 metres (24.6 ft.) rear yard setback is to provide sufficient
outdoor amenity area for the dwelling. The remaining rear yard setback of 7.27 metres (23.9 ft.)
still provides adequate amenity area for the dwelling and maintains the general intent and
purpose of both the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan.
Submission No.: A45/99(Cont'd)
The abutting property to the rear of 427 Westforest Trail will not be affected by the minimally
reduced rear yard setback, and as such, the impact of the variance is minor in nature. The
reduced rear yard setback of 7.27 metres (23.9 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 metres (24.6 ft.) is
a desirable and appropriate use of the land.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
45/99.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed variance.
The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department,
Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have reviewed the application and have no
concerns.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections or concerns.
Mr. G. Bostajian advised the Committee that during construction of a single family dwelling on the
subject lands, the length of the dwelling was extended by 1 ft. to resolve difficulties encountered
with respect to access to the garage. He stated that the extension was applied incorrectly to the
rear of the dwelling rather than the front and, as a result, he advised that a variance was now
required to allow a rear yard setback of 7.27 m.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Monarch Construction Limited requesting legalization of an existing single
family dwelling with a rear yard of 7.27 m (23.9 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Lot
32, Plan 58M-52,427 Westforest Trail, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of the 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.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 48/99
Garden Heights Development Ltd.
Mooregate Crescent
Lot 13, Registered Plan 1268
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. N. Sampogna
4141 Yonge Street, Suite 101
Toronto ON M2P 2A8
Ms. J. Stewart
Thomas E. Brown Architect
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 144 MAY 11, 1999
394 King Street East
Toronto ON M5A 1K9
Contra: None
Submission No.:
A 48/99(Cont'd)
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to develop condominium
townhouses on Mooregate Crescent with the following variances:
a) a reduction in Floor Space Ratio from 1.0 to 0.917;
b)
a rear yard setback (westerly lot line) of 6 m (19.69 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m
(24.61 ft.);
c)
tandem parking to accommodate 10 required parking spaces for units fronting Mooregate
Crescent (east side) rather than providing these spaces side by side; and which will be
located up to the lot line rather than being setback 3.0 m (9.85 ft.);
d) to allow required parking on the south side between the faCade and the front lot line.
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services in which they
advised that the applicant has requested a number of minor variances to facilitate the
development of a 40 unit multiple residential development. The minor variances requested are as
follows:
A reduction in the floor space ratio from 1.0 to 0.917,
A reduction in the rear yard setback (westerly lot line) from 7.5 metres to 6.0 metres (Block
D),
Permission to allow required parking on the south side of the property between the faCade
and the front lot line and;
Permission to allow tandem parking for 10 required parking spaces for those units fronting
Mooregate Crescent (Blocks A and B).
After reviewing the drawing attached to the application the following additional variances should
also be included as part of this application:
Permission to allow 10 required parking spaces for those units fronting Mooregate
Crescent (Blocks A and B) to be located between the fa¢ade and the front lot line.
To allow the parking to be located zero metres from the side property line for Blocks A and
B.
A reduction in the westerly side yard setback from 6.0 metres to 4.5 metres for Block E.
Staff have been working with the applicant since 1997 toward the approval of an acceptable site
plan, under submission number SP97/8/M/PB, to develop a vacant parcel of land which has
historically been used as a community garden. The original site plan proposed 19 street fronting
townhouses and included an apartment with 102 units, for a total of 121 units. Plans for
development moved toward a preference by the applicant to construct townshouses. The
applicant has been attempting to develop a plan that would comply with the Zoning By-law but
which contained only townhouses.
The property is located in a High Rise Residential district within one of the densest residential
districts in the City. This site is the last R-9 site left to develop in the district. High Rise
Residential permits the highest residential density the Municipal Plan allows and is intended to be
developed primarily with apartments. The R-9 zone implements the High Rise Residential
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 145 MAY 11, 1999
designation and requires a minimum floor space ratio of 1.0. The reduction in the floor space
ratio from 1.0 to 0.917 in this instance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Municipal
Plan and the Zoning By-law since the High Rise Residential district in this area has already
achieved the density desired. The reduction in the floor space ratio is desirable for the
appropriate development of the subject lands and minor since the proposed housing form will
Submission No.: A 48/99(Cont'd)
provide a scale of development sensitive to the surrounding community and since the
surrounding district has already established a density desired by the Municipal Plan.
The reduction in the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 6.0 metres and the side yard setback
from 6.0 metres to 4.5 metres meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law since
the housing form is townhouses which are Iow in height, and adequate rear yard amenity areas
are provided. The reductions are desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands.
The Zoning By-law stiplulates that no required parking may be located between the facade and a
front or side lot line abutting a street, with the exception of visitors parking, and not within 3.0
metres of the street line. The proposed development requires 11 visitors parking spaces to be
provided on site, six of which are proposed to be located between units 19 and 26 and the lot line
abutting Mooregate Crescent, which is permitted.
Of the 10 spaces provided between the facade and the front lot line approval is required only for
four spaces since it is preferable to disperse the visitors parking throughout the site rather than
locate the parking all at one end of the site. In view of this, the variance is minor and the location
of the parking between the facade and the front property line is desirable for the appropriate
development of the subject lands. The proposed parking area will be well screened from the
street since there is substantial landscaped area in front and on either side of the parking area. In
view of this and since the percent of the frontage devoted to parking represents only 18% of this
frontage, maintaining an aesthetically pleasing streetscape, the general intent and purpose of the
Zoning By-law is maintained. The approval should be specific to only four parking spaces.
The development proposes 40 townhouse units for which a parking requirement of 1.75 spaces
per unit is required by the Zoning By-law, totalling 70 parking spaces. The required parking is
supplied as follows: 40 units each provide a garage. Two on site parking lots supply in total 20
parking spaces (11 of which are visitors parking) and 10 parking spaces are arranged in tandem.
The tandem parking is proposed to be located in the driveways leading to the garage of the units
fronting Mooregate Crescent. As a result of locating the 10 spaces in tandem, three minor
variances are required as follows: permission to locate 10 parking spaces in tandem and
permission to allow the ten spaces to be located between the facade and the side property line
and within zero metres from the property line. These regulations were developed to encourage
apartments to orient toward the street and supply parking to the rear of the building.
Fourteen units are proposed to front Mooregate Crescent rather than back onto Mooregate
Crescent and they are to be serviced from one service. Since the units fronting Mooregate
Crescent will not be serviced individually they do not meet the definition of street townhouse
dwellings, although the housing form will appear to be identical. The parking requirement for
street townhouses is one space per unit as opposed to 1.75 spaces per unit for multiple
dwellings. Staff prefers the site design that orients units fronting Mooregate Crescent rather than
backing onto Mooregate Crescent for aesthetics and safety reasons. In view of this, the
variances requested are desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands.
Additionally, since the housing form proposed functions as street townhouses, the variances
requested meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and are minor and the
multiple dwelling parking requirements can be met by providing the spaces in tandem.
The plan submitted with this minor variance application was circulated to departments and
agencies, reviewed by the Department of Business and Planning Services and discussed at Site
Plan Review Committee May 5, 1999. The plan was found to be generally acceptable, subject to
Committee of Adjustment approval. All technical issues will be addressed through the site plan
approval process. In view of the forgoing, and since the particular circumstances surrounding
the development of the subject lands represents a unique situation in the City since the High Rise
Residential district has already achieved a desired density, the Department of Business and
Planning Services has no objection to this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 146 MAY 11, 1999
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance
application A 48/99, as amended and only in accordance with the plan as finally approved under
site plan application SPR97/8/M/PB.
2. Submission No.:
A 48/99(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the
Traffic Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed 10 tandem
parking spaces. He pointed out, however, that the proposed fence at both driveway
intersections, as well as unit #40, impedes into the driveway daylight triangle.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required for the new townhouse development.
The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department,
Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and
have no comments or concerns with respect to this submission.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this submission.
The Chair inquired of Mr. Sampogna if he had an opportunity to review staff's comments and Mr.
Sampogna responded that he had. Mr. Sampogna further stated that this proposal had come
about as a result of two years of deliberation with City staff and it was felt to be a reasonable
compromise that resulted in a much lower density development than what is permitted on the
subject property.
The Chair inquired if the tandem parking referred to in the application would result in a garage
with a car behind and Ms. J. Given concurred that this was correct.
The Chair inquired of Mr. Sampogna if he was in agreement to amend the application to include
additional variances as outlined in the report of the Department of Business and Planning
Services and Mr. Sampogna stated that he was in agreement with these amendments.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Garden Heights Development Limited requesting permission to construct
condominium townhouses with a reduction in floor space ratio from 1.0 to 0.917; a rear yard
setback (westerly Iotline) 6 m (19.69 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.61 ft.); tandem parking
to accommodate 10 required parking spaces for units fronting Mooregate Crescent (east side),
rather than providing these spaces side by side and which will be located up to the lot line rather
than being setback 3.0 m (9.85 ft.); required parking on the south side between the faCade and
the front Iotline; 10 required parking spaces for those units fronting Mooregate Crescent, (Blocks
A & B), permitted to be located between the faCade and the front lot line; parking permitted to be
located 0 m from the side property line for Blocks A & B; and a reduction in the westerly side yard
setback from 6.0 m (19.68 ft.) to 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) for Block E; on Lot 13, Registered Plan 1268,
Mooregate Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the development only in
accordance with the plan as finally approved under Site Plan Application SPR97/8/M/PB.
That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the new condominium
townhouse development.
It is the opinion of the Committee:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 147 MAY 11, 1999
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.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 50~99
172965 Canada Limited/Imperial Oil Limited
2788-2794 King Street East
Part 1, Plan 58R-8119
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. V. Labreche
Planning Engineering Initiatives Limited
379 Queen Street South
Kitchener ON N2G 1W6
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant proposes to develop a convenience commercial
establishment, including a specialty food store, restaurant and wholesale warehouse. The
applicant is requesting permission to construct the specialty food store with an area of 418 m2
(4,499.47 sq. ft.), rather than the required 225 m2 (2,421.96 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject property is a vacant commercial site located on King Street
East near the proposed extension of Kinzie Avenue. The property is designated Service
Commercial in the City's Municipal Plan and is zoned Service Commercial Zone (C-6)
according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The property was formerly used by Imperial Oil Limited as a
petroleum bulk plant and is therefore recognized as being "potentially" contaminated.
The applicant, Italo Foods, is proposing to develop the subject lands as a convenience
commercial establishment (specialty food store), restaurant and warehouse/wholesale
operation. In order to accommodate the proposed specialty foodstore component, the
applicant is requesting a minor variance to the Zoning By-law in order to increase the
maximum permitted floor area for a convenience commercial use from 225 square metres to
418 square metres.
Italo Foods is currently operating at 2196 King Street East with a gross floor area of
approximately 256 square metres. As a result of the Highway #8 widening project that is
currently underway, the section of King Street East between Ross Avenue and approximately
250 metres east of Fergus Avenue will be consumed by the newly widened highway. This will
cause the displacement of the majority of commercial establishments along this section of King
Street East. The existing Italo Foods site, being one of the impacted properties, has been
purchased by the Ministry of Transportation and is slated for demolition later this year. The
applicant wishes to use this as an opportunity to re-establish the business as a larger use
within the general area.
The proposed convenience commercial, restaurant and warehouse/wholesale uses are all
permitted within the C-6 Zone, although the convenience commercial component is limited to a
maximum of 225 square metres. A portion of the "specialty foodstore" operation will be used
to sell other specifically permitted goods, such as beverage making equipment, small electric
appliances, etc. In addition, up to 25 percent (approximately 70 square metres) of the area
devoted to warehouse/wholesale may be used for the accessory retail of other products not
specifically permitted. Based on the current and proposed product mix, the applicant could
likely comply with the Zoning By-law. However, given the nature of the operation, the applicant
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 148 MAY 11, 1999
does not wish to be tied to a specific layout where certain amounts of floor space can only be
used to retail specific products. With approval of the requested variance, the applicant would
have the flexibility to continuously re-arrange the display of products as necessary.
Submission No.:
A 50/99(Cont'd)
Since the 70 square metres of floor area that may be used for accessory retail may be located
anywhere in the building, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that
the application be revised to reduce the requested convenience commercial floor area by a
corresponding 70 square metres. This would still enable a specialty foodstore with an overall
floor area of 418 square metres but would substantially reduce the amount of the required
variance. With this revision to the application, the requested variance could be considered to
be minor in nature and appropriate for the development of the subject lands.
Further, as part of the early planning for the Highway #8 widening, the City of Kitchener and
the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) worked closely with existing businesses to resolve
business issues and assist with relocation plans. As part of this work, MTO commissioned a
Business Impact Study, which was completed by Larry Smith & Associates Limited. The
Business Impact Study confirmed that Italo Foods, in addition with other existing businesses in
the area, is a "destination" oriented establishment, meaning consumers make a special or
single purpose trip to shop at the establishment. In addition, the specialty nature of the
foodstore is such that it draws from a significantly larger market area than a typical
convenience commercial establishment. Given the "destination" orientation of the
establishment, the large market area and the considerable wholesale component, the
proposed use should not necessarily be required to locate within a typical pedestrian oriented
commercial location.
Therefore, based on the findings of the Business Impact Study and in consideration of the
expected operation of the proposed establishment, an expanded specialty foodstore operation
can be considered to be consistent with the intent of, and well suited to a location in, a Service
Commercial District. Accordingly, the requested variance can be considered to be in
conformity with the general intent of both the Municipal Plan and the Zoning By-law.
With respect to the potential contamination on the subject lands due to the former use as a
petroleum bulk facility, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that
approval of Minor Variance application A50/99 be conditional upon the furnishing of a Record
of Site Condition in accordance with the Provincial Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in
Ontario.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance
Application A 50/99, as revised, to permit a convenience commercial use (specialty food store)
with a maximum floor area of 348 square metres, subject to the following condition:
To undertake a Site Assessment in accordance with the Guideline for Use at
Contaminated Sites in Ontario. A copy of the Record of Site Condition, acknowledged
by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, shall be received by the Department of
Business and Planning Services prior to November 11, 1999. No extension to this
completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the City's Principal
Planner prior to the completion date set out in this decision.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he noted that a
building permit is required for new construction.
The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department,
Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that this property was a former service station and
should be considered a potentially contaminated site.
Please be 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 149 MAY 11, 1999
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to this submission.
Submission No.:
A 50/99(Cont'd)
Mr. V. Labreche provided the Committee with a sketch of the subject property and pointed out
that, as a result of the Highway 8 widening project, the specialty food store known as Italo
Foods will be displaced from its current operation at 2196 King Street East; and, accordingly,
Italo Foods wishes to re-establish the business as a larger use on the subject property. Mr.
Labreche advised the Committee that he had reviewed staff's comments and was in support of
the amendment to reduce the maximum floor area to 348 m2, with the condition that an
Environmental Site Assessment be undertaken. Mr. Labreche further pointed out that the
environmental assessment of the site has already been undertaken by Agra.
The Chair inquired if the subject property would have access at some future date along Kinzie
Avenue, in addition to King Street. Mr. Labreche responded that, as part of the Ministry of
Transportation's corridor design, Kinzie Avenue is to be extended along the northeast side of
the subject property, which will allow access onto Kinzie Avenue.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of 172965 Canada Limited (Imperial Oil Limited) requesting permission to
develop a convenience commercial establishment with a specialty food store having an area of
348 m2 (3,745.96 sq. ft.), rather than the required 225 m~ (2,421.96 sq. ft.), and with a restaurant
and wholesale warehouse, on Part 1, Plan 58R-8119, 2788-2794 King Street East, Kitchener,
Ontario, BE APPROVED, as amended, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the new commercial
convenience establishment.
That the owner shall undertake a Site Assessment in accordance with the Guidelines For
Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. A copy of the Record of Site Condition,
acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, shall be received by the
Department of Business and Planning Services prior to November 11, 1999. No extension
to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the City's Principal
Planner prior to the completion date set out in this decision.
It is the opinion of the 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.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 51/99
Daros Investments Limited
700 Westmount Road East
Block B, Re.qistered Plan 1240
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. V. Labreche
Planning Engineering Initiatives Limited
379 Queen Street South
Kitchener ON N2G 1W6
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 150 MAY 11, 1999
Contra:
None
Submission No.:
A 51/99(Cont'd)
Other:
Ms. M. McLellan
111 Kimberly Crescent
Kitchener ON N2E 1C8
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an additional
building for retail purposes on an existing commercial plaza development, with a southerly
sideyard setback of 1.5 m (4.93 ft.), rather than the required 3 m (9.85 ft.); and, with a maximum
building height of 5.33 m (17.5 ft.), rather than the permitted 4.27 m (14.01 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in
which they advised that the applicant is requesting two minor variances to facilitate the
development of a commercial building. One minor variance is a request to reduce the side yard
setback from 3.0 metres to 1.5 metres. Another requests an increase in the building height to
allow a building height of 5.3 metres with a roof elevation of 344.69 metres rather than the
permitted maximum building height of 4.27 metres with a roof elevation of 343.66 metres. A
concurrent site plan application was submitted and is being processed under submission number
SPR 99/17AN/PB.
Through the processing of the site plan application, staff requested some changes to the site plan
that has resulted in the relocation of the building such that the southerly side yard is increased
from 1.5 metres to 3.0 metres. In view of this, a variance to the southerly side yard is no longer
required. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan to reflect this change.
The subject lands were rezoned in 1984 which established special regulations that were imposed
at the request of the abutting residents and included a maximum building height of 4.27 metres
with a maximum roof elevation of 343.66 metres. The subject site is partially developed with a
Tim Horton's restaurant that has a building height of 5.035 metres and a roof elevation of 343.66
metres. The abutting property to the west is developed with a plaza. The plaza varies in height.
Part of the plaza is two storeys high, however, the portion of the building closest to 700
Westmount Road has a building height of 7.27 metres with a roof elevation of 346.66 metres. In
relation to the surrounding building heights, the proposed 5.3 metre building height is desirable for
the appropriate development of the subject lands and is minor.
The proposed building will be located between the Tim Horton's building and the existing plaza.
The property backs onto single detached dwellings, however the site plan illustrates that there is
a substantial setback, 32.0 metres, between the proposed building and the residential rear lot
lines. In addition, plan indicates a 10.5 metre landscaped buffer between the residential rear
yards and the parking area for the proposed development. In view of the separation distance
between the commercial building and the residential properties and the 10.5 metre landscaped
buffer between uses, the increase in height of the proposed building maintains a development
that is sensitive to the existing residential development to the rear and thus the general intent and
purpose of the Zoning By-law is maintained.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance
application A 51/99 to allow a building height of 5.3 metres having a roof elevation of 344.69
metres only in accordance with the plan as finally approved under site plan application
SPR99/17AN/PB.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 151 MAY 11, 1999
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he noted that a building
permit is required for any new construction.
The Committee noted the comments of the Transportation Division, Engineering Department,
Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have no concerns or comments with respect
to this submission.
Submission No.: A 51/99(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Anyalst in which he noted that the
Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed variance, pending
the approval of a site plan.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to this submission.
Mr. V. Labreche provided the Committee with a sketch of the subject property and pointed out
that the application originally requested two minor variances to facilitate the development of a
commercial building. However, he stated that, through the processing of a site plan application it
has been agreed to relocate the building such that the southerly sideyard is increased from 1.5 m
to 3.0 m. Accordingly, he advised that a variance to the southerly sideyard is no longer required.
Mr. Labreche also advised the Committee that the second variance with respect to the building
height is still required. He stated that the building will be a free standing retail store intended to
accommodate three units. Mr. Labreche pointed out that, in reviewing by-law requirements, it
was difficult to fit the smaller two units within the total floor area and it had been determined that it
would require at least 12 ft. in the store area to accommodate these units. He stated that it was
necessary to increase the maximum building height in order to accommodate such things as
electrical wiring and signage. In comparison, he pointed out that the neighbouring Price Chopper
Plaza has a building height that is higher by 3 ft. than what is proposed by this application. In
addition, he commented that it is proposed to have a 27 m setback.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Daros Investments Limited requesting permission to construct an
additional builidng for retail purposes, on an existing commercial plaza development, with a
maximum building height of 5.3 m (17.5 ft.) with a roof elevation of 344.69 m, rather than the
permitted 4.27 m (14.01 ft.), on Block B, Registered Plan 1240, 700 Westmount Road East,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, as amended, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the new retail store.
That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the development only in
accordance with the plan as finally approved under Site Plan Application SPR99/17AN/PB.
It is the opinion of the 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
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 11th day of May, 1999.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 152 MAY 11, 1999
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment