HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-07-20COA\1999-07-20
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 20, 1999
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. W. Dahms and A. Galloway.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner, Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst and
Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of June 15, 1999, as mailed to
the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
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, Registered 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 Chair was advised that a request had been received from Ms. D. Biuk, Ivan Biuk
Construction Limited, to defer these applications to the September 14th meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of these applications would be deferred to
the meeting of September 14, 1999.
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 that a request had been received from Ms. R. Levato, Villemaire, Levato, to
defer this application to the August 17th meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of the application would be deferred to the
meeting of August 17, 1999.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 199 JULY 20, 1999
2. Submission No.:
B 24/99(Cont'd)
The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 9:35 a.m. in order to consider
applications for Minor Variance to the City of Kitchener's Sign By-law and Fence By-law. This
meeting reconvened at 10:35 a.m.
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 67/99
Terry & Elizabeth Sosnoski
1767 Glasgow Street
Part Lot 38, German Company Tract, being designated as Part 1,
Plan 58R-6238
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. T. Sosnoski
1767 Glasgow Street
Kitchener ON N2G 3W7
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 9.75 m x
9.14 m (32 ft. x 30 ft.) detached storage garage as an expansion of use to the legal non-
conforming single detached dwelling.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the applicant is requesting approval from the Committee to expand a legal non-
conforming use to permit the construction of a detached garage. The property is currently
developed with a single detached dwelling for which a building permit was issued on May 26,
1988. At the time the building permit was issued for the dwelling, the lands were zoned M-2
according to Zoning By-law 85-1, which allowed single detached dwellings as the sole use on the
property. In 1995, the M-2 zone was amended to allow dwellings only as accessory uses to
permitted industrial uses. This renders the dwelling legal non-conforming and the owner wishes to
add a garage.
The proposed use of the property will be unchanged and therefore will not have an adverse
impact on the abutting properties. The addition of the garage would not perpetuate the non-
conformity. In fact, the location of the proposed garage meets the yard regulations in the Zoning
By-law for industrial uses, which would accommodate a future conversion of the garage to allow a
permitted industrial use, which could have the effect of bringing the property into conformity with
the Zoning By-law. In view of the forgoing, the Department of Business and Planning Services
supports the expansion of the legal non-conforming use.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance
Application A 67/99 to expand a legal non-conforming use by adding a garage, as illustrated on
the plan attached to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division requires a building permit for the construction of a new garage.
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 application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 200 JULY 20, 1999
Submission No.:
A 67/99(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in
which they advised that they have no concerns; however, 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 prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired if Mr. Sosnoski had anything further to add to his
application. Mr. Sosnoski stated that he had nothing further to add.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Terry and Elizabeth Sosnoski requesting permission to expand a legal
non-conforming use to permit the construction of a detached garage, 9.75 m x 9.14 m (32 ft. x 30
ft.), on Part Lot 38, German Company Tract, designated as Part 1, on Plan 58R-6238, 1767
Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the variance as approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the
plan as submitted with the application for Submission No. A 67/99.
2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the new garage.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 68/99
Sally Clark
100 Queenston Drive
Lot 49, Re.qistered Plan 1178
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. & Mrs. T. Clark
100 Queenston Drive
Kitchener ON N2B 2Vl
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a two storey
addition, consisting of an attached garage on the first floor and a hobby room on the second floor,
with a rearyard setback of 1.52 m (5 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (2.46 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 rear yard setback from 7.5 metres
to 1.5 metres to permit the construction of an attached garage and hobby-shop. The subject land
is located on the corner of Queenston Drive and Queenston Crescent.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 201 JULY 20, 1999
2. Submission No.:
A 68/99(Cont'd)
The general intent of the 7.5 metre rear yard setback for residential dwellings is to provide private
outdoor living area for each dwelling on a corner property. Privacy fences must be set back a
minimum of 4.5 metres from any street line, leaving the majority of outdoor privacy area for the
property in the area where the addition is proposed. The existing dwelling already has an
attached garage and additions for a hobby shop could be accommodated elsewhere on the site in
compliance with the Zoning By-law.
In view of this, the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law would not be maintained and
as such the Department of Business and Planning Services is not in support of this application.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of Minor Variance
Application A 68/99.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division requires a building permit for the new addition.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the
Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and had no concerns with the proposed
reduction in the rearyard setback as a result of the two-storey addition. However, they would
point out that the old driveway would be required to be removed.
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 application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in
which they advised that they have no concerns; however, 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 prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Chair reviewed the comments, noting that the Department of Business & Planning Services
is recommending refusal of the application. He inquired of Mr. & Mrs. Clark if they had anything
further to add to their application.
Mr. T. Clark responded that he had spoken to staff of the Department of Business & Planning
Services and pointed out that legally he could build a detached garage in his rearyard but
because they wish to attach the garage to the existing dwelling a variance was required. He
stated that staff are objecting on the basis that construction of the garage would take up the
majority of the outdoor privacy area to the rear of the property; however, he viewed the area more
as a sideyard than rearyard and wished to construct the garage attached to the home for
aesthetic purposes.
Ms. S. Campbell referred to Planning staff's report in which it is noted that there is an existing
attached garage already located on the property and questioned if it was intended to have two
attached garages. Mr. Clark responded that the original garage would be converted to a family
room once the proposed garage was constructed.
The Chair asked for clarification as to the location of the existing garage and driveway as these
were not shown on the plan submitted with the application. Mr. Clark indicated that the existing
garage and driveway were located to the right side of the dwelling, with the driveway extending
out to Queenston Drive. Mr. Clark demonstrated the location of the existing garage and driveway
on the plans, submitted with the application, for the Committee's benefit. He further pointed out
that the existing driveway would be relocated when the new garage was constructed.
Mr. A. Galloway inquired if relocation of the driveway would result in any traffic visibility
impairment and whether there were any existing fences or hedges in the area where the driveway
was to be relocated.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 202 JULY 20, 1999
Mr. R. Parent, Traffic & Parking Analyst, responded that he had visited the site but did not recall
any existing fences or hedges that might obstruct traffic visibility. He further pointed out that
Submission No.: A 68/99(Cont'd)
regulations with respect to the daylight triangle and traffic visibility would have to be met if the
driveway were to be relocated.
Mr. T. Clark pointed out that there were no existing fences or hedges, with the exception of a
chain link fence along the back of the property.
Mr. A. Galloway inquired if the neighbouring property were to build a fence if they would come
under the same regulations and Mr. Parent responded that was correct.
The Chair questioned, if approval were given for the application, what would happen to the old
driveway. Mr. T. Clark responded that it was intended to remove the old driveway once
construction of the new garage was completed.
The Chair inquired of staff if the applicant could legally construct a free-standing garage on the
property. Ms. J. Given responded that legally a free-standing garage could be constructed;
however, it would still have to meet rearyard and sideyard requirements. In this regard, she
pointed out that this application does not meet the rearyard requirements.
The
see
that
that
Chair stated that he would not object to approving the application; however, he would like to
approval conditional upon removal of the old driveway. In this regard, Ms. J. Given advised
such a condition of approval would require a deadline date to be assigned and suggested
one or two months following the appeal period would be appropriate.
The Chair questioned the timing of the construction of the new garage and Mr. Clark responded
that, following approval, plans would have to be drawn up and a building permit applied for and
issued, which would result in construction being delayed until the fall of this year.
Ms. S. Campbell stated that she would prefer to have the old driveway removed within two
months of construction of the new garage. In this regard, Mr. Clark responded that construction
may not start until late fall which would result in such a condition requiring removal of the old
driveway during the winter months. He stated that he would have concern with such a condition.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was not in favour of imposing a condition that would result in
undue hardship for the applicant. Ms. J. Given responded that the standard wording for such a
condition allows for the applicant to apply in writing to the Principal Planner for an extension of the
deadline and assured that an extension would be granted if winter conditions prohibited the
applicant from meeting the original deadline.
Following further discussion, it was agreed that the application would be approved subject to the
condition that the old driveway be removed by December 31, 1999.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Sally Clark requesting permission to construct a two storey addition,
consisting of an attached garage on the first floor and a hobby room on the second floor, with a
rearyard setback of 1.52 m (5 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Lot 49, Registered
Plan 1178, 100 Queenston Drive, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the new addition.
That the owner shall remove the existing driveway prior to December 31, 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 this Committee that:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 203 JULY 20, 1999
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
Submission No.:
A 68/99(Cont'd)
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 69/99
Guy's Interiors Ltd.
127 Weber Street West
Part of Lot 155 & 156, Grange' s Survey, North of King St. and North
of the C. N.R., Registered Plan 376 and Part of Weber Street Closed
(known as Part of Lot 45 of Streets and Lanes)
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. D. Yanke
Yanke & Associates Insurance Agencies Inc.
127 Weber Street West
Kitchener ON N2H 4A1
Mr. L. Clemens
231 Queenston Rd.
Cambridge ON
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to reduce the number of
required parking spaces to a maximum of 7 parking spaces rather than the total number required
for any permitted use.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the subject property contains a commercial building located at the northwest
intersection of Weber Street and Breithaupt Street. The property is zoned General Industrial
(M-2) and was occupied for approximately 20 years by a decorating establishment. The
building is 2 storey, and has approximately 5700 square feet (529 square metres) of gross
floor area including the basement. An education establishment (modeling agency) presently
occupies the second floor and a financial establishment/office is proposed for the main floor.
The property can accommodate only 7 functional parking spaces. The applicant is requesting
relief from the parking requirement.
The requirement for the existing and proposed use is 6 spaces for the education establishment
and 12.6 spaces for the financial establishment (attributing the floor area in the basement as
part of their gross floor area); the total requirement is 19 spaces. It was suggested to the
applicant that they may wish to request Committee's approval of 7 spaces for any permitted
use so that in the future, Committee approval is not required each time the tenancy changes.
On the merits of the reduction, the City's Municipal Plan recognizes the need for flexibility in
dealing with the reuse of existing buildings. The building was first constructed as a residential
building and has been consistently used for a commercial use since. Many of the General
Industrial (M-2) uses are not suited to the building so it is likely to continue to be more suited to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 204 JULY 20, 1999
the commercial type uses in the zone. The majority of suitable uses in the zone require parking
at a rate of 1 space per 28 square metre or less; the same requirement as the intended uses.
3. Submission No.:
A 69/99(Cont'd)
To accommodate the required parking for the building would require the purchase of the
adjacent residential property, the demolition of its buildings and construction of a parking lot.
The City's standard parking requirement is based on the industry standard that approximately
80% of gross floor area in a building is devoted to occupant area (gross leasable commercial
floor space) and the remaining is devoted to such uses as storage, washrooms and hallways.
In this case, staff understand that only the first and second floors will be actual occupant floor
area. The floor area exclusively devoted to office use which will create the demand for parking
is 176 square metres based on ground floor area only, requiring 6 spaces. The nature of the
intended occupancy therefore warrants a reduction based on a larger proportion of non-
leasable space than is assumed in the parking requirements. Staff suggest limiting the
approval to a total occupant gross floor area of 353 square metres. On this basis, the total
requirement for the proposed uses would be 12 spaces.
Staff see merit in supporting 7 spaces rather than any combination of permitted uses that
would require 19 or fewer spaces. One exception to this would be health office or health clinic,
which has a very high turnover rate and would not be supported as an optional future use
having benefit from this permission. This would allow reuse of the building in the future for a
variety of uses but preclude any combination of uses, which would result in a higher parking
demand than 19 spaces.
Staff find the minor variance as limited above, desirable for the appropriate development of the
property as it would otherwise be unusable without demolition and consolidation with the
abutting property. A reduction in parking would allow the retention of an attractive building for
compatible uses. The intent of the by-law and Municipal Plan are met as the constraints posed
by reusing the existing building are acknowledged and new occupancy would be allowed,
continuing its viability as a useful property. The impact of the variance could be the increased
demand on on-street parking, which is available on the north side of Breithaupt Street. The
variance is, therefore, deemed to be minor.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Application A 69/99 be
approved, permitting the use of the building at 127 Weber Street West having a maximum
occupant gross floor area of 353 square metres with 7 spaces for any use(s) whose parking
requirement is 19 spaces or less, except health office or health clinic, subject to the following
condition:
That the owner submit a revised site plan showing the 7 parking spaces, to the satisfaction
of the City's Principal Planner and demarcate such spaces prior to September 1, 1999. No
extension to this deadline shall be granted except as approved in writing by the City's
Principal Planner.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the
Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and the proposed uses require 19 parking
spaces to meet their demand. Since there are only 7 spaces available on this site, they are
concerned that the proposed use cannot accommodate the expected parking demand. While
limited on-street parking exists, it has a 3 hour time limit and is intended for the short term parking
use of area residents and the neighbouring business, and cannot be expected to offset the
shortfall in parking on this property. In conclusion, given the significant shortfall in the required
number of parking spaces, the Traffic & Parking Division cannot support this application.
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 application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 205 JULY 20, 1999
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in
which they advised that they have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands
is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by
3. Submission No.:
A 69/99(Cont'd)
By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional
Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Chair reviewed the comments and questioned if Mr. Yanke had anything further to add. Mr.
D. Yanke responded that he had reviewed staff comments and was in agreement with those of
the Planning Department. With respect to comments of the Traffic Division, he believed that
these were prepared on the assumption that the basement of the existing building would be used
for office space. Mr. Yanke advised that the basement is not suitable for anything other than
storage and, accordingly, would not be used for office space. He pointed out that this would
reduce the requirement for parking spaces from 19 to 12.
Mr. D. Yanke advised the Committee that he would be the primary owner of the subject property
and occupy the main floor of the existing building. His business would consist of 3 to 4 staff, with
operating hours between 7:30 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m. He noted that he also has a
business in Toronto and would only be in the Kitchener office 3 days out of 5. In addition, he
advised that there would be a tenant occupying a portion of the building who would be operating
a modelling school between the hours of 4:00 p.m. to approximately 8:00 p.m. He stated that the
tenant's business is complementary, in that, operating hours are opposite and, even during the
tenants busy season over the course of the summer, students are simply dropped off and picked
up. In this regard, he did not forsee a problem with the number of parking spaces being
requested. Further, he stated that renovations are planned for the existing building and it was his
intent to maintain the excellent condition of the property.
Ms. S. Campbell referred to the 7 spaces on the plan and questioned if it was still possible for
vehicles to enter and exist parking spaces 4, 5, 6 and 7 given the proposed location of parking
spaces 1 and 2. In this regard, Ms. J. Given pointed out that staff are not in agreement with the
current configurement of the parking spaces and are recommending approval of the application
subject to a revised site plan.
In view of the discussions thus far, the Chair questioned if the position of the Traffic Division
would change. Mr. R. Parent responded that the Traffic Division's position would not change as
there was no guarantee that the ownership and/or tenants would remain the same in future.
The Chair stated that the request has resulted from a change in use and pointed out that the
previous use could have been required to have as much or more parking.
Ms. S. Campbell stated that reducing the parking will allow continued use of an older building and
would be in support of approving the application.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Guy's Interiors Ltd. requesting permission to allow the use of the building
at 127 Weber Street West, having a maximum occupant gross floor area of 353 m2 (3,799.78 sq.
ft.), with 7 spaces for any use(s) whose parking requirement is 19 spaces or less, except health
office of health clinic, on Part of Lot 155 and 156, Grange's Survey, North of King St. and North of
the C.N.R., Registered Plan 376 and Part of Weber Street Closed (known as Part of Lot 45 of
Streets and Lanes), 127 Weber Street West, Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED, subject to the
following condition:
That the owner shall submit a revised site plan showing the 7 parking spaces, to the
satisfaction of the City's Principal Planner and demarcate such spaces prior to September
1, 1999. No extension to this deadline shall be granted unless approved in writing by the
City's Principal Planner.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 206 JULY 20, 1999
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
Submission No.: A 69/99(Cont'd)
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:
Legal Description:
Carried
A 70/99
Emmanuel Village Homes (Kitchener) Inc.
1250 Weber Street East
Lots 51 to 54 and 76 to 81, Part Lots 35 to 43 and 82 to 85, Part Lots
141 and 142, Streets and Lanes
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. D. Biuk
Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants Ltd.
5-745 Bridge Street West
Waterloo ON N2V 2G6
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands as a
Seniors Retirement Community and is requesting permission to reduce the parking requirements
within Phase 3 of the development to 1.3 spaces per unit, rather than 1.5 spaces per unit. The
applicant is also requesting permission for a sideyard setback of 3.7 m (12.14 ft.) for Unit 29
within Phase 2 of the development, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject lands received site plan approval for 46 multiple dwellings.
The 46 townhouse dwellings are the first phase of development which will include an apartment
complex fronting Weber Street. The apartment phase of the development has not been approved
although concept plans have been received. The subject lands were severed from the adjacent
Bible College lands to build a unique complex oriented to seniors' occupancy.
The applicant has requested two minor variances as follows: one to reduce the parking
requirement from 1.5 spaces per unit to 1.3 spaces per unit and another to reduce the side yard
setback from 6.0 metres to 3.7 metres relative to unit 29.
Subsequent to the submission and circulation of the application, the applicant submitted a
request in writing to defer consideration of the minor variance to reduce the parking requirement.
The minor variance to reduce the parking requirement is relative to the proposed apartment
building for which a site plan application has not yet been approved. A concept plan has been
discussed which proposed a three-storey apartment. The applicant is considering the addition of
a fourth storey which would require a Municipal Plan amendment and a zone change for the
additional height. The Department of Business and Planning Services supports the request to
defer consideration of the minor variance to reduce the parking requirement to give the applicant
the opportunity to consider the submission of the appropriate applications and for further
discussions on the additional height and requested parking variance.
The applicant has advised that the reduction in the side yard setback is to accommodate larger
side and front "yards" relative to units 29 and 30. The larger front "yard" will allow enough space
in front of the units to allow vehicles to park in the driveway. The reduced side yard setback is
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 207 JULY 20, 1999
desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands to allow for the provision of
driveways which can accommodate vehicles. The reduction in the side yard setback is minor as it
affects only a portion of the side yard as a result of the configuration of the property boundary to
accommodate an existing building on the abutting Bible College lands.
Submission No.: A 70/99(Cont'd)
The general intent and purpose of the 6.0 metre side yard is to provide an adequate distance
separation of buildings on adjacent sites and sufficient rear amenity space. Unit 29 is separated
from an existing building located on the Bible College property by a sanitary sewer easement
which cannot be built upon, ensuring an adequate building separation between properties.
Additionally, only a small portion of the building will have a 3.7 metre setback as a result of the
varying property boundary allows for sufficient rear amenity area. In view of this, the reduction in
the side yard setback from 6.0 metres to 3.7 metres meets the general intent and purpose of the
Zoning By-law.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance
Application A 70/99 to reduce the side yard setback from 6.0 metres to 3.7 metres relative to unit
29 and to defer the request for a minor variance relative to the parking reduction to the
September 14, 1999 meeting.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in
which they advised that they have no concerns; however, 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 prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired of the applicant if she had anything further to
add. Ms. D. Biuk stated that she had nothing further to add but pointed out that the application
involves two variance requests; one involving a reduction in the parking requirements for Phase 3
of the development and the second variance involving a sideyard setback within Phase 2 of the
development. In this regard, she advised that it was intended to proceed only with the sideyard
setback at this time and asked that the Committee defer the variance with respect to the parking
requirements to the September 14th meeting of the Committee.
Moved by Ms. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Emmanuel Village Homes (Kitchener) Inc. requesting permission for a
sideyard setback of 3.7 m (12.14 ft.) for Unit 29 within Phase 2 of the Seniors Retirement
Community development, on Lots 51 to 54 and Lots 76 to 81, Part Lots 35 to 43 and Part Lots 82
to 85, Part Lots 141 and 142, Streets and Lanes, 1250 Weber Street East, Kitchener, Ontario BE
APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 208 JULY 20, 1999
That the request to reduce the parking requirements within Phase 3 of the Seniors Retirement
Development to 1.3 spaces per unit, rather than the required 1.5 spaces per unit, as set out in
Submission No. A 70/99 (Emmanuel Village Homes (Kitchener) Inc. - 1250 Weber Street East),
BE DEFERRED to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on September 14, 1999.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 71/99
John & Michelle Kristof
197 Lydia Street
Lot 19, Re.qistered Plan 284
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. & Mrs. J. Kristof
197 Lydia Street
Kitchener ON N2H 1W2
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission construct a split level
deck, with the upper level to be 1.5 m x 2.4 m (4.92 ft. x 7.87 ft.) and the lower level to be 2.1
m x 3.2 m (6.89 ft x 10.49 ft.), having a 0 m sideyard setback from Cameron Street, rather than
the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised the applicant is requesting permission to construct a fence along the side yard
adjacent to Cameron Street, with a height of 1.8 metres (6 ft) rather than the required 0.91 metre
(3 ft). The By-law requires a minimum setback of 4.5 metres for fences along property lines
abutting a street to ensure clear sight lines for both vehicles and pedestrians.
Traffic and Parking staff indicated that they have no concern with the location of the proposed
fence, as they will be located well away from the driveway and intersection of Cameron and Lydia
Streets.
The applicant is also requesting permission to construct a split level deck, with the upper level to
be 1.5 metres by 2.4 metres (4.92 ft by 7.87 ft) and the lower level to be 2.1 metres by 3.2 metres
(6.89 ft by 10.49 ft), having a 0 metre sideyard setback from Cameron Street, rather than 4.5
metres (14.76 ft). It appears as though the upper most section of the proposed deck would be
less than 0.6 metres from finished grade level, which would only require a 3.0 metre setback.
The reduced requirement of 3.0 metres should be noted. The deck will be located 1.37 metres
(4.49 ft) from the sidewalk along Cameron Street. The location will not hinder pedestrian or
vehicular movements, as it would be separated by the fence.
The proposed deck and fence will not impede visibility for either pedestrians or vehicles nor will it
have any impact on the neighbouring property along Cameron Street. Both the deck and fence
will enhance the subject property while maintaining clear sight lines.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of applications F 5/99
and A 71/99.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division requires a building permit for the new decks, if they are more than 2 ft. above
grade or covered/enclosed.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the
Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed the application and has no concerns with the proposed
height or location of the fence, nor the proposed sideyard setback.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 209 JULY 20, 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 application.
Submission No.:
A 71/99(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in
which they advised that they have no concerns; however, 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 prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired of Mr. Kristof if he had anything further to add.
Mr. J. Kristof responded that he had nothing further to add.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of John and Michelle Kristof requesting permission to construct a split level
deck, with the upper level to be 1.5 m x 2.4 m (4.92 ft. x 7.87 ft.) and the lower level to be 2.1 m x
3.2 m (6.89 ft. x 10.49 ft.), having a 0 m sideyard setback from Cameron Street, rather than the
required 3 m (9.84 ft.), on Lot 19, Registered Plan 284, 197 Lydia Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the new decks if the
decks are to be more than 2 ft. above grade or covered/enclosed.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 72/99
Judith Desmond
72 Spadina Road West
Lot 447, Registered Plan 230
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. J. Desmond
72 Spadina Road West
Kitchener ON N2M 1E9
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a detached
two car garage, (18 ft. x 21 ft.), with a driveway to be located 3.65 m (12 ft.) from Patricia
Avenue, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 210 JULY 20, 1999
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Department in
which they advised that the subject lands are located at the corner of Spadina Road West and
Patricia Avenue. The lands contain an existing single family dwelling which fronts onto Spadina
Road West and is surrounded by residential uses in all directions.
6. Submission No.:
A 72/99(Cont'd)
The owner is requesting permission to construct a two car garage 3.65 metres from Patricia
Street rather than the required 6.0 metres. The application incorrectly requests relief from 4.5
metres. The garage will have access onto Patricia Avenue. The proposed setback of 3.65
metres is slightly greater than the distance of the existing dwelling from Patricia Avenue (3
metres). The location of the proposed garage therefore approximately matches the established
building line on the property from Patricia Avenue. Finally, the garage replaces a carport which
was in fact located slightly closer to the street line with Patricia Avenue. The visual impact on the
streetscape is relatively constant and the lot is large enough to maintain adequate outdoor
amenity area.
The proposed garage measures 35 square metres, will be large enough to accommodate two
vehicles and represents 13.1% of the total lot coverage (15% is the maximum permitted lot
coverage for an accessory building). As the owner is proposing a double car garage, the parking
space which would normally be provided in the required setback is compensated by the second
parking space in the garage. The minimum parking space requirement for a single family
dwelling is one space.
Staff consider that the proposed variance is relatively minor in nature, meets the general intent of
the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan, and represents an appropriate development of the subject
lands. The Department of Business and Planning Services therefore recommends that
application A 72/99 be approved.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
72/99.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the
Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and while we have no concerns with the
proposed deficiency in the garage setback, we would like to point out that the remaining space
between the garage and the sidewalk, 3.66 m (12 feet), will not legally or practically
accommodate any vehicles. Additionally, we would like to suggest to the property owner, given
the time in which it will take to have the garage completed, that they contact our office to obtain a
parking exemption to park on Patricia Avenue. This will ensure that they do not receive a parking
ticket (for parking on the sidewalk or other violations) in the interim.
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 application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in
which they advised that they have no concerns; however, 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 prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired of the applicant if she had any further to add.
Ms. J. Desmond responded that she had nothing further to add other than to inquire from staff
what was meant by their comment that the application had incorrectly requested relief from 4.5 m.
The Chair requested staff to clarify their comments. Ms. J. Given responded that the written
application differed from what was indicated on the plan. In this regard, she advised that staff
determined the information on the plan to be the intent of the application and prepared their
comments accordingly.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 211 JULY 20, 1999
Ms. J. Desmond stated that the builder had not been present when the plan was drawn up and
the intent was to go back further than the distance of the existing carport from Patricia Street.
She further advised that the builder had previously applied for a permit based on mistaken
6. Submission No.:
A 72/99(Cont'd)
measurements that were taken from the streetline rather than the lot line and, accordingly, the
variance was needed to meet the setback.
The Chair inquired if the application was then for a 12 ft. setback from the Iotline. Ms. J. Given
pointed out that the garage is proposed to be 18 ft. in depth which, if the easterly sideyard is
setback 7 ft. as indicated on the plan, the building would be setback 15 ft. rather than 12 ft. She
stated that, as shown on the plan with a 12 ft. setback, the figures do not add up to the total width
of the property.
The Chair inquired what the minimum sideyard and rearyard setbacks were and Ms. Given
responded that the rearyard requirement would be 4 ft., which is as shown on the plan, and the
sideyard could be 2 ft. Ms. Given further clarified that the required setback from Patricia Street
would be 18 ft. and, accordingly, whether the Committee approves 12 ft. or 15 ft. a variance is
required.
The Chair inquired if the applicant would be satisfied with a 12 ft. setback and Ms. Desmond
responded that she wished to go back further to 15 ft.
Ms. S. Campbell referred to the comments of the Traffic and Parking Division in which they
indicate their concerns with respect to the inability to accommodate vehicles between the garage
and the sidewalk and inquired if these comments had been based on a 12 ft. setback rather than
15ft.
The Chair also inquired if a vehicle would have to be parked on the property between the garage
and sidewalk or if it would be allowed to hang over the sidewalk. In this regard, Ms. J. Given
advised that the standard setback required by the Traffic Division is 18 ft.; however, the applicant
is able to accommodate the parking space that would normally be provided in the required
setback within the second parking space in the garage. She pointed out that the comments of the
Traffic Division refer to visitor parking that could not be accommodated within the space of the
setback.
The Chair inquired as to the maximum variance that staff would support and Ms. Given
responded that staff would support a 12 ft. setback.
Moved by Ms. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Judith Desmond requesting permission to construct a detached two car
garage, 5.48 m x 6.4 m (18 ft. x 21 ft.), with a sideyard setback of 3.65 m (12 ft.) from the lot line
adjacent to Patricia Avenue, rather than the required 5.48 m (18 ft.), on Lot 447, Registered Plan
230, 72 Spadina Road West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following
condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new garage.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 212 JULY 20, 1999
Ms. S. Campbell referred Ms. Desmond to the Traffic comments in which they suggest that she
apply for a parking exemption to park on Patricia Avenue and Ms. Desmond responded that she
had already done so.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 73/99
Gary & Linda Schott
1764 Victoria Street North
Part Lot 123, German Company Tract
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.
CONSENT
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 45/99
Hallman Rosedale Limited
Old Chicopee Drive
Lot 72, Registered Plan 1576 and Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-6826
The Chair advised that a request had been received from Mr. P. Dietrich, Wright-Dietrich,
requesting that this application be deferred to allow a revised application to be submitted.
By general consent, it was agreed to defer consideration of Submission No. B 45/99 to the
Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for August 17, 1999.
Submission No:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 46/99
Rosen Estates Limited
329 Stirling Avenue
Part of Lot 4, Registered Plan 366; Lot 13 and Part Lots 5, 10, 16 &
19, M.C.P. of Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract.
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
Written Submissions:
In Support:
Contra:
Mr. B. Lackenbauer
Madorin, Snyder
235 King Street East
P.O. Box 1234
Kitchener ON N2E 4N5
None
None
None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 213 JULY 20, 1999
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create two new lots by
severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land, having an area of 1.53 hectares (3.78
acres). The lands to be severed will have a frontage on Mill Street of 7.05 m (23.13 ft.) with an
area of 3.334 ha (8.23 acres), by a depth of 216.5 m (710.3 ft.). The applicant is also
requesting permission for the following easements and/or rights-of-way:
Submission No.:
B 46/99(Cont'd)
An easement over Parts 1 and 2 in favour of the City of Kitchener for watermain
purposes.
Easements and right-of-ways over Parts 2, 4 and 5 in favour of the lands to be severed
(gas, water, sanitary and storm).
Easements over Parts 7, 9, 11 and 12 in favour of the lands to be retained (sanitary and
storm).
A rail siding right-of-way over Part 7 in favour of the lands to be retained.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised this application is identical to Consent Application B-19/96 which was approved on
March 19, 1996 and revised by PC1/97 approved on March 25, 1997. The purpose of this
application is identical to that which was requested through the earlier application, for which the
time limit to endorse the deeds has lapsed.
The intent of the application is to sever an industrial property located to the rear of properties
fronting onto Mill Street adjacent to the Canadian National Railway property into two properties so
that the main building may be conveyed.
The land to be retained would be 1.53 hectares in size, containing a two storey industrial
warehouse. The lands to be severed are 3.33 hectares in size and developed with an industrial
building. The site functions with its main access from Starling Avenue, which is intended to
continue for both properties. A gravel access to the severed lands is available from Mill Street,
having been relocated when land was conveyed to the City with the Shoemaker Creek
improvements. The application includes rights-of-way over Parts 2 and 4 of the retained lands in
favour of the severed lands to permit the Starling Avenue access to be used as the primary
access.
The application also entails rights-of-way for access to the rail siding, as well as for several
municipal utilities. Schedule "A" to the application sets out a series of easements which are
identical to the original application; staff support all easement requests.
Minor Variance Application A 14/96 was approved on March 19, 1996, permitting the severed
lands to have a lot width of 8.2 metres.
The original conditions of approval have been satisfied, which related primarily to servicing and
the need to revise the site plan. As the application was previously fully considered and supported,
staff recommend approval of this application.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of B 46/99 subject to
the following conditions:
That the party granting the rights-of-way and/or easements obtain approval from the City
Solicitor for those documents creating the right-of-way and/or easement.
That an agreement regarding maintenance be approved by the City Solicitor to ensure
rights-of-way for access to both properties are maintained in perpetuity.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
The Committee further noted additional comments of the Department of Business and
Planning Services in which they advised that the recommendation in their original report was
revised as follows:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 214 JULY 20, 1999
The Department of Business & Planning Services recommends approval of B 46/99 subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the party granting the rights-f-way and/or easements obtain approval from the City
Solicitor for those documents creating the right-of-way and/or easement.
Submission No.: B 46/99(Cont'd)
2. That the owner shall fulfill one of the following:
a)
to undertake a site assessment for both the severed and retained lands in
accordance with the Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. A
copy of the Record of Site Condition, ackowledged by the Ministry of
Environment and Energy shall be provided to the City's Principal Planner; or
b)
to provide a written acknowledgement from the Ministry of Environment and
Energy that a Record of Site Condition is not required.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
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 no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
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 proposal in
conjunction with our comments for previous applications on this site. We have no objection to
the proposed severance; however, the following must be considered prior to any new
development of the parcel.
Information currently available at this office indicates that the easterly portion of the proposed
severed parcel is below the Regulatory Floodline Elevation of Shoemaker Creek.
Consequently, the proposed severed parcel is regulated by the Grand River Conservation
Authority under Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98. The Grand
River Conservation Authority's Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation
(Ontario Regulation 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:
1)
construction of buildings or structures in or on a pond or swamp or in any area
susceptible to flooding during a "Regional Storm";
2) dumping or placing of fill in the Authority's scheduled areas;
3) alterations to any watercourse.
This reach of Shoemaker Creek is located within a Two-Zone Floodplain Policy Area in
accordance with Provincial Policy for floodplain planning. This means that the floodplain is
divided into two components: a floodway and a flood fringe (please see attached map).
No new development is permitted in the floodway.
New development is permitted in areas above the Regulatory Floodline Elevation
within the flood fringe provided that the development meets certain criteria.
and
Two portions of the proposed severed parcel are located within the flood fringe (area shaded
pink on the attached map). The extreme eastern portion including the frontage on Mill Street of
the proposed severed parcel is located within the floodway portion of the floodplain, which
does not permit new development (area shaded yellow on the attached map). However,
floodplain policies make provision for the construction of roadways of approved hydraulic
design within the floodplain.
Please be advised that any future construction or other alteration (including construction of a
driveway) within the floodplain will require the prior approval of a Fill, Construction and
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 215 JULY 20, 1999
Alteration to Waterways permit from this office and must be in conformance with the policies
for the Two-Zone Policy Area.
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.
Submission No.: B 46/99(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning and Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo, in which they advised that in accordance with the Region's delegated responsibilities to
comment on development applications on behalf of the Province (including the Ministry of
Environment), please be advised that the Region's Contaminant Sources Inventory identifies the
lands as having a high potential for contamination based on an historic use on the property.
Regional staff do not know if the contamination suspected on the lands would pose a health or
safety risk to the proposed use of the property. As the subject lands are not located within a
Regional wellfield, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo does not have a direct corporate interest
which would result in the Region requesting a Record of Site Condition be imposed on its behalf.
Regional staff have no objection to the approval of B 46/99.
The Committee noted the comments of CN in which they advised that they have reviewed a letter
dated July 2, 1999, regarding the above noted application and offer no objections, however any
future development would be expected to comply with our noise, vibration and safety standards.
Mr. B. Lackenbauer advised the Committee that he had met with Ms. J. Given with respect to the
Planning staff comments and, in particular, with respect to Condition No. 2. He advised that the
original Condition No. 2 required that a maintenance agreement be entered into to ensure rights-
of-way for access to both the retained and severed parcels and, in this regard, he stated that both
parcels have their own access. Accordingly, he advised there is no need for an agreement. He
also advised that Ms. Given had agreed and removed this condition. He further pointed out that
the revised recommendation from Planning staff now contains a new Condition No. 2 which
resulted from comments received from the Region of Waterloo with respect to undertaking a site
assessment in accordance with the Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites. He pointed out
that the Region indicated in their comments that, as the subject lands are not located within a
Regional wellfield, the Region has no direct interest in requesting a Record of Site Condition.
Mr. Lackenbauer further pointed out that the application before the Committee this date is
identical to a previous application which had been granted approval with certain conditions;
however, the conditions imposed had not been satisfied prior to the one year deadline and,
accordingly, approval of the previous application was no longer in effect. He stated that, while he
did not question this Committee's authority to impose conditions, he did ask the Committee to
consider the wording under Section 51 (25) of the Planning Act which refers to the imposition of
conditions based on their reasonableness and having regard to the nature of the development
proposed. Mr. Lackenbauer stated that the application does not involve a development proposal.
He pointed out that the property in question has two older buildings, which have been on the
property and occupied by tenants for many years. He stated that the purpose of the application
was to facilitate the sale of a portion of the rear of the property, which would have access onto
Mill Street. He stated that he believed a site assessment was not required as no development
would occur on the subject lands. Mr. Lackenbauer pointed out that negotiations for the sale of
the rear portion were contingent upon the consent to sever the subject parcel which is to close
August 17, 1999. He suggested to the Committee that they could find the condition unreasonable
based on the fact that no development is intended to occur on the subject lands.
The Chair stated that it was this Committee's general practise to carry out due diligence in
imposing conditions and requested confirmation from Mr. Lackenbauer that approval of the
consent application was, in fact, a condition of the Offer to Purchase. Mr. Lackenbauer confirmed
that it was. In addition, Mr. Lackenbauer pointed out that an assessment has been carried out by
the purchaser and shared with the vendor.
Mr. A. Galloway inquired of staff if their comments had been revised because of the comments
received by the Region. Ms. J. Given responded that the Region's comments had been received
after the Planning staff report had been completed and she had revised the report to include the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 216 JULY 20, 1999
recommendation as it is the responsibility of this Committee to determine whether or not it should
be imposed. She advised that the Region maintains all records with respect to contaminated
sites and it is the Region's responsibility to point out lands that have a high potential for
contamination based on their historic use. Ms. Given referred to a previous application in which it
was agreed that approval would be granted subject to the applicant entering into an agreement
that would require a site assessment to be undertaken, which was then registered on title of both
Submission No.: B 46/99(Cont'd)
the retained and severed parcels. She advised that the Committee could impose a similar
condition that would require the applicant to enter into an agreement to undertake a site
assessment, which would then be registered on title.
The Chair inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to this suggestion and Mr. Lackenbauer
responded that such a condition would still place a potential encumbrance on the subject lands
and could potentially affect the Offer to Purchase. Accordingly, he stated that he could not
support this suggestion and, again, requested that the Committee consider the reasonableness of
imposing such conditions as there was no development to take place on the site.
The Chair inquired if this was the last opportunity for environmental issues to be addressed and
Mr. B. Lackenbauer stated that further opportunity may present itself if the use of the site was
changed in future. The Chair also referred to an earlier statement that an environmental
assessment had already been undertaken and Mr. Lackenbauer confirmed that the process had
been started and wording has been negotiated; however, the environmental audit is not final at
this time.
The Chair referred to delegated authority from the Ministry of Environment and Energy to the
Region with respect to contaminated sites, and suggested that the Region should consider the
wording of its comments to make it clear whether or not they are requesting that this condition be
imposed.
Ms. S. Campbell stated that the Region's response indicates that they are not requesting a
Record of Site Condition to be imposed. In this regard, Ms. J. Given clarified the protocol with
respect to contaminated sites. She stated that firstly, the Region must consider whether or not it
has a direct corporate interest and if so impose conditions respecting Regional concerns.
Secondly, she stated that under delegated authority by the Ministry, the Region must identify the
potential need for a study with respect to contaminated sites and make this known to the
Committee. Thirdly, she stated that it is the local Committee's decision to then determine whether
or not to impose such a condition.
Mr. A. Galloway inquired who was really asking for the condition and under whose authority
would such condition be imposed. Ms. Given responded that it is this Committee's responsibility
to determine whether or not to impose the condition and staff are recommending that the
condition be applied.
The Chair inquired as to the zoning of the subject lands and Mr. B. Lackenbauer responded that
he believed it to be industrial.
Ms. S. Campbell questioned if a rezoning application were undertaken on the subject lands that
would change the zoning from industrial to residential, if this would provide another opportunity for
an environmental assessment. Ms. Given responded that this would be the case as it would be a
change in land use. In this regard, Ms. Campbell stated that she agreed with the applicant that it
was not reasonable to impose such a condition as there was no proposed development on the
site and she was not in favour of imposing the condition.
The remaining members of the Committee stated their agreement that the condition not be
imposed.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Rosen Estates Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having a frontage on Mill Street of 7.05 m (23.13 ft.) and having an area of 3.334 hectares (8.23
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 217 JULY 20, 1999
acres); together with a right-of-way and easement over part of the retained lands (shown as Part
2 on the plan submitted with this application), together with a right-of-way and easement for gas,
water and storm sewer over the part of the retained lands (shown as Part 4 on the plan) and
together with an easement for storm and sanitary sewers over part of the retained lands (shown
as Part 5 on the plan) and reserving an easement for storm and sanitary sewer and rail siding
right-of-way over part of the severed land (shown as Part 7 on the plan), reserving an easement
Submission No.: B 46/99(Cont'd)
over part of the severed land for sanitary sewer (shown as Part 9 on the plan) and reserving
further easements over parts of the severed land for sanitary sewer (shown as Part 11 and 12 on
the plan) on Part Lot 4, Registered Plan 366 and Lot 13 and Part Lots 5, 10, 16 and 19, Municipal
Compiled Plan of Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract, 329 Stirling Avenue South,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the party granting the rights-of-way and/or easements shall obtain approval from the
City Solicitor for those documents creating the right-of-way and/or easement.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being July 20, 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.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 47~99
Murray Bretz Estate
561 Stirling Avenue South
Part Lots 32 & 33, Registered Plan 25
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. C. Meilleur
c/o Richard Haalboom
7 Duke Street West, Suite 304
Kitchener ON N2H 6N7
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide the subject
lands into two lots, each to have an area of 557.4 m2 (6,000 sq. ft.), by a depth of 36.57 m (120
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 218 JULY 20, 1999
ft.). Both the retained lands and the lands to be severed will contain existing single family
dwellings.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised the owner of 561 and 565 Stirling Avenue South is requesting permission
to sever the property that was apparently two separate lots having merged. The proposed
Submission No.: B 47/99(Cont'd)
severed and retained lots are each intended to have a frontage of 15.24 metres (50.0 feet)
along Stirling Avenue with a lot area of 557.4 square metres (6,000 square feet). Each of the
proposed lot is developed with single detached dwellings.
There is no survey or sketch available for the property at 565 Stirling Avenue for staff to
confirm whether the main building on the property complies with zoning regulations. In
addition, the survey for 561 Stirling Avenue notes an insufficient side yard of 1.11 metres (3.64
feet) rather than the required 1.2 metres (4 feet). At the time of construction of the garage
addition in 1950, the addition was not erected in compliance with By-law 1823 and does not
enjoy legal, non-conforming status. As the properties merged about 15 years ago and a
severance application has been filed to create a new lot, the property must be in conformity
with zoning regulations since the City's vacuum by-law would not apply to new lots.
Accordingly, the Department recommends that the consent application be deferred to the next
meeting to provide the owner the opportunity to provide the required submission information
and to file a minor variance application to address the side yard deficiencies.
The Department recommends that application B 47/99 be deferred to August 17, 1999 to allow
for a minor variance application to be filed by the owner.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning and Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the comments and have no
concerns with this application.
The Chair reviewed the comments, noting that staff are recommending deferral of the application
to allow the applicant to file a minor variance application with respect to zoning violations on the
property and to provide a survey of the abutting property. The Chair inquired if Ms. Meilleur had
reviewed staff's comments and had anything further to add. Ms. C. Meilleur advised that she was
in attendance on behalf of Mr. R. Haalboom, who was unable to attend the meeting this date, to
determine whether or not the application would be deferred and had nothing further to add.
The Chair referred to staff's request that a survey or sketch be provided for the property at 565
Stirling Avenue and Ms. Given advised that staff require information that will show the sideyards
at 565 Stirling Avenue in order to determine whether or not the main building on the property
complies with zoning regulations. The Chair inquired if a surveyor's plan is necessary or if a
sketch could be provided. Ms. Given responded that it could be a sketch; however, a survey is
better. She stated that what was needed were the dimensions with respect to the sideyards on
the property.
Ms. C. Meilleur inquired if the Committee had received the new information with respect to the
property on 561 Stirling Avenue being a plan showing a revised lot line and a Zoning Compliance
Certificate. The Chair advised Ms. Meilleur that the Committee had received this information.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was in agreement with the request to defer this application to allow
time for additional information to be submitted.
The Chair referred to the plan showing the new lot line for the property at 561 Stirling Avenue and
Ms. Given advised that she had suggested to the applicant that either a minor variance
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 219 JULY 20, 1999
application with respect to the sideyard be applied for or the lot line be adjusted to bring the
property into compliance with the Zoning By-law regulations. In this regard, she advised that the
applicant had agreed to adjust the lot line.
By general consent, it was agreed to defer consideration of Submission No. B 47/99 to the
Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for August 17, 1999.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 48~99
Zevest Development Corporation
1373 Victoria Street North
Lot 1, Registered Plan 939, and Part Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12,
Registered Plan 947, designated as Part 10, Reference Plan 58R-
4689
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. V. Labreche
Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd.
379 Queen Street South
Kitchener ON N2G 1W6
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot
by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of 19,465.3 m2
(209,529.6 sq. ft.). The land to be severed will have frontage on Victoria Street North of 65.9
m (216.20 ft.) and an area of 6,023.6 m2 (64,839.61 sq. ft.), by a depth of 75.5 m (247.7 ft.). In
addition, the applicant is requesting an easement over the lands to be severed in favour of the
lands to be retained for storm sewer purposes.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the owner of 1373 Victoria Street North is requesting permission to
sever the property and create a new lot having a frontage of 65.9 metres (216.2 ft.) on Victoria
Street and an area of 6,023.6 square metres (64,839.61 sq. ft.). The proposed retained lot will
have a frontage of 248.7 metres (815.94 ft.) along Victoria Street with a lot area of 19,465.3
square metres (209,529.6 sq. ft.). The applicant is also requesting a 4.3 metre wide easement
over the lands to be severed in favour of the lands to be retained for storm sewer purposes.
The retained parcel is occupied with two service commercial buildings along with 228 parking
spaces. There are no changes proposed for the retained lands.
The proposed severed parcel is vacant. Any conditions of development for the severed parcel
will be addressed via the site plan application process.
The Department supports the severance of the lands and the request for a storm sewer
easement over the severed lands in favour of the retained lands.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that application B 48/99 be
approved subject to the following condition:
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 revised comments of the Department of Business & Planning
Services in which they advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services
recommends approval of B 48/99 subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 220 JULY 20, 1999
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owner shall fulfil one of the following:
4. Submission No.:
B 48/99(Cont'd)
(a)
to undertake a site assessment for both the severed and retained lands 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 provided to the City's Principal Planner; or
(b)
to provide a written acknowledgement from the Ministry of Environment and
Energy that a Record of Site Condition is not required.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that the extreme rear portion of both the severed and retained parcel lie below the
Regulatory Floodline Elevation of Kolb Creek. However, as no new development is proposed
on the retained parcel, and there is no developable area on the severed parcel above the
Regulatory Floodline Elevation, we have no objection to the above noted severance.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that in accordance with the Region's delegated responsibilities to
comment on development applications on behalf of the Province (including the Ministry of
Environment), please be advised that the Region's Contaminant Sources Inventory identifies
the lands as having a high potential for contamination based on an historic use on the property
and adjacent properties. Regional staff do not know if the contamination suspected on the
lands would pose a health or safety risk to the proposed use of the property. As the subject
lands are not located within a Regional wellfield, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo does
not have a direct corporate interest which would result in the Region requesting a Record of
Site Condition be imposed on its behalf.
No additional access to Victoria Street will be considered for this severance. A mutual access
must be created over the existing Victoria Street access.
Regional staff have no objections to the approval of this application.
The Chair reviewed the comments and questioned if Mr. Labreche was in receipt of a copy of the
revised recommendation by Planning staff. Mr. Labreche responded that he had just received
the revised recommendation and had briefly reviewed it.
Mr. V. Labreche advised that the subject lands consist of an existing plaza that is approximately
two-thirds developed and the portion subject to this application is currently undeveloped. He
advised that a recent survey had been completed by Metz and Lorentz and the dimensions of the
severed parcel have now been increased by approximately 1½ feet at the front. In this regard,
Mr. Labreche provided the Committee with revised dimensions for both the severed and retained
lands, together with a revised sketch. The revised lot dimensions for the severed land will now
consist of a frontage of 66.4 m (217.8 ft.) with an area of 6,039 m2 (65,005.3 sq. ft.) and the
retained lands will have lot dimensions consisting of a frontage of 248.2 m (814.5 ft.) with an area
of 19,465.3 m2 (209,529.6 sq. ft.).
Mr. V. Labreche advised the Committee that he had contacted the Region to clarify their
comments with respect to the need for a mutual access to be created over the existing Victoria
Street access. In this regard, Mr. Labreche stated that no mutual access is proposed as the
severed land will have its own access from Smetana Drive. In addition, he noted the Region's
comments with respect to the potential for contamination on the site and the fact that the Region
had no concern as the property was not within a Regional wellfield. Mr. Labreche stated that
there was concern that the development would be jeopardized by imposing a condition to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 221 JULY 20, 1999
undertake a site assessment and provide a Record of Site Condition, and pointed out that the site
would be subject to site plan approval.
4. Submission No.:
B 48/99(Cont'd)
The Chair asked for clarification as to which plaza was the subject of the application and Mr.
Labreche advised that this was the plaza that contained a Teak Furniture Store, with the
Alexanian Carpet business being located adjacent to the parcel to be severed.
Ms. S. Campbell inquired as to the zoning of the property and Mr. Labreche responded that he
believed it was zoned Commercial (C-6).
Mr. V. Labreche stated that he understood the Committee's right to impose conditions; however,
he referred the Committee to the application previously dealt with at this meeting with respect to a
condition relating to site assessment and asked that the Committee give similar consideration to
this application.
The Chair stated that he was very cognizant of the previous decision and suggested that the
Region should state their position clearly as to whether or not the condition should be imposed.
In this regard, Ms. Given clarified that, under its delegated authority from the Ministry of
Environment and Energy, the Region is only responsible to point out that the site has the potential
to contain contaminants and provide this information to this Committee. She advised that the
responsibility to impose the condition rests with this Committee.
The Chair questioned if regulations within the Municipal Plan or Zoning By-law dealt with
environmental issues and Ms. Given responded that the Municipal Plan does have a number of
policies that deal with environmental issues.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned if there were any short term proposals that may be jeopardized by
imposing this condition. Mr. Labreche responded that there was a closing expected to take place
on August 31, 1999 and that discussions had also taken place with respect to a proposed service
commercial use but he was unaware of the timing of that project.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that the suggestion had been made during discussions of the previous
application that an agreement to undertake a site assessment could be entered into and
questioned if the applicant would be agreeable to entering into such an agreement. Mr. Labreche
stated that a condition to enter into an agreement is essentially the same condition, just worded
differently, and would still be considered an encumbrance on the site.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that this application was different from the previous application in that
development was proposed for this site and stated that he would have concern with ignoring the
comments of the Region in this respect.
Mr. V. Labreche stated that, if the Committee would not agree to omit the condition of a site
assessment, he would ask that the application be deferred so that further discussions could take
place with the Region.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he did not wish to put undue hardship on the applicant or put the
proposal in jeopardy; however, he stated that the issue of the site assessment must be
addressed in some manner.
Ms. S. Campbell stated that she would be in favour of imposing the condition as development is
proposed for the site. She further noted that, as the site was vacant, there was more potential for
contaminants to be found once development was underway.
By general consent, it was agreed to defer consideration of Submission No. B 48/99 to the
Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for August 17, 1999.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 222 JULY 20, 1999
The Committee then recessed the meeting temporarily, at 11:50 a.m., in order to consider an
application for minor variance to the City of Kitchener's Sign By-law. This meeting re-convened at
12:00 p.m.
CONSENT AND MINOR VARIANCE
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 40/99 to B 44/99, inclusive and A 62/99 to A 66/99, inclusive
Broward Landev Corp.
81, 83, 85, 87 & 89 Cameron Street North
Part Lots 9 to 15, inclusive, Registered Plan 233, and Part Lot 53
Municipal Compiled Plan of Subdivision of Lot 2, German Company
Tract and Part Lots 15 & 26, 16, 17, 18 & 19, Reference Plan 58R-
11058
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. H. Rotberg
c/o Broward Landev Corp.
61 Roy Street
P.O. Box 2814
Kitchener ON N2H 6N3
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create 5 new lots to be
developed as townhouses by severing 5 parcels of land and retaining a parcel of land, having
an area of 742.7 m2 (7,994.61 sq. ft.), by a depth of 34.001 m (111.55 ft.), subject to and
together with an easement over Part of Lots 10, 11, 14 & 15, Registered Plan 233 and Part of
Lot 53, Municipal Compiled Plan of Subdivision of Lot 2, German Company Tract, in favour of
Part of Lots 12 to 15 inclusive; Part of Lots 11, 14 & 15; and, Part of Lots 10 & 11; all on
Registered Plan 233, to provide rear yard access from Weber Street.
The 1st parcel of land will be located at the intersection of Cameron Street North and Weber
Street, having frontage on Cameron Street North of 23.584 m (77.37 ft.) and having an area of
537.3 m2 (5,783.63 sq. ft.), by a depth of 27.432 m (90 ft.).
The 2nd, 3rd and 4th parcels will each have frontage on Cameron Street North of 6.096 m (20
ft.), with an area of 167.2 m2 (1,799.78 sq. ft.), by a depth of 27.432 m (90 ft.).
The 5th parcel will have frontage on Cameron Street North of 7.62 m (25 ft.), with an area of
209 m2 (2, 249.73 sq. ft.), by a depth of 27.432 m (90 ft.).
The applicant is also requesting permission for the following variances:
a) a reduction in rear yard setbacks on all 5 new lots, from the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) to:
1st parcel - 4.572 m (15 ft.)
2nd, 3rd & 4th parcels 6.096 m (20 ft.)
5th parcel - 4.267 m (14 ft.)
b)
a side yard setback on the 1st parcel of 6.096m (20 ft.), rather than the required 12 m
(39.37 ft.)
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 223 JULY 20, 1999
c)
a side yard setback on the 5th parcel of 1.27 m (4.16 ft.), rather than the required 2.5 m
(8.2 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the above applications were deferred from the Committee meeting of June 15,
1999, pending resolution of lot design issues and the submission of additional applications for
severance and minor variance. The applications considered on June 15, 1999, included
Submission Nos.: B 40/99 to B 44/99, inclusive and A 62/99 to A 66/99, inclusive -
cont'd
applications B-40/99 through to B-43/99 and A-62/99 through to A-65/99. Applications B-44/99
and A-66/99 represent new applications submitted since the last committee meeting.
The above severance applications represent Phase 4 of the development of the Townhomes of
Eastward, a street fronting townhouse development located on a parcel bordered by Weber
Street, Cameron Street and Troy Street. The lands being the subject of these applications are
located at the corner of Cameron Street North and Weber Street East and are municipally
addressed as 81 to 89 Cameron Street North.
Three previous phases of this development are in various stages of completion as follows: four
units addressed as 65 to 71 Troy Street have been constructed and are now occupied; four units
fronting Cameron Street which are addressed as 101 to 109 Cameron Street North are under
construction; and five more units fronting Cameron Street North which are addressed as 91 to 99
Cameron Street North received approval from the Committee of Adjustment on January 26, 1999.
Lands to the rear of the development were conveyed to the City on December 23, 1999, for
parkland purposes. A current "draft" site plan which now indicates a total of 18 townhouses is
attached (date last revised July 13, 1999).
In addition to the severance applications to create five lots and establish an easement over the
retained lands, five applications for minor variance have also been submitted and relate to
requests for reduced rear yards for all lots as well as a reduced side yard for one lot and a
reduced setback from Weber Street for one lot.
Submissions B-40/99 to B-44/99
The applicant now proposes five lots which will have frontage on Cameron Street North. The
original proposal under applications B-40 to B-43/99 included four lots which were located at an
angle to Cameron Street and parallel to Weber Street. Staff expressed concern to the owner
about these applications in respect of the resulting "streetscape" due to the angular lot
arrangement, in addition to access to the corner lot and the amount of rear yard for specific lots.
The applications have been revised to address these concerns and a fifth lot is now proposed.
The proposed lot arrangement represents a similar configuration to that previously approved
under applications B101/97 to B105/97, with the exception that the lot at the corner of Cameron
and Weber Street occupies the full width of the corner whereas previously part of this land was
proposed to be part of a park.
The proposed lots are compatible to those existing and approved lots along the remainder of
Cameron Street. Existing lots along Cameron Street have widths of either 6 metres (mid-block
townhouse units) of 7.6 metres (end townhouse units). The proposed lots, with the exception of
the corner lot at Weber Street, have identical widths. Similarly, the depths of the proposed lots
are identical to existing lots along Cameron Street i.e. 27.4 metres. The proposed lots are
therefore considered to properly "complete" the last row of lots for this development fronting
Cameron Street.
It should be noted that services have already been installed in the Cameron Street road
allowance for the proposed five lots. The Public Works Department has confirmed that the
location of these services properly match the location of the proposed lots.
Finally, an easement for rear yard access purposes will be required across part of the retained
lands for those lots to be severed under applications B-41/99 through to B-43/99. A similar
easement was created for the benefit of 67 and 69 Troy Street and located on 107 Cameron
Street. This easement is required by the Zoning By-law and is included as a condition of
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 224 JULY 20, 1999
approval below. The applicant should be aware that free and clear access over the easement
must be maintained over the easement including the requirement to install gates for each lot in
any fencing that may be a future site plan requirement of the retained lands.
Submissions A-62 to A-66/99
The applications request the following minor variances:
Submission Nos.: B 40/99 to B 44/99, inclusive and A 62/99 to A 66/99,
cont'd
inclusive -
A-62/99
A rear yard of 4.572 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres and a setback
from Weber Street East of 6.096 metres rather than the required 12 metres.
A-63/99 A rear yard of 6.096 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres.
A-64/99 A rear yard of 6.096 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres.
A-65/99 A rear yard of 6.096 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres.
A-66/99
A rear yard of 4.267 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres and side yard of
1.27 metres rather than the required 2.5 metres.
Applications A-63/99 to A-65/99 request rear yards (6.096 metres) which are identical to other
approvals granted for existing or approved "mid-block" townhouse units along Cameron Street.
The requested rear yards, including the requested setback of 6.096 from Weber Street under
applications A-62/99, are considered minor in nature and meet the general intent of the Zoning
By-law as they provide sufficient amenity areas.
The requested rear yards under applications A-62/99 and A-66/99 are not considered
appropriate. These yards are far less than the required 7.5 metres and provide little in the way of
private, rear amenity area. In addition, the requested side yard under application A-66/99 is not
sufficient given the need to provide a 1.5 metre easement for storm water purposes over the lot to
be severed under application B-44/99. It is recommended that these applications be amended to
increase these rear yards to at least 4.93 metres, which is the minimum rear yard previously
supported by staff for this development. In addition, it is proposed that the side yard requested
under A-66/99 be increased to 1.5 metres in order to accommodate the required easement. This
side yard, as well as the requested setback of 6.096 metres from Weber Street East under
application A-66/99, are considered appropriate given the type of development proposed and the
intent by the developer to achieve a compact site layout.
In addition to the above variances, additional variances will be required for lot coverage for those
lots being part of A-63/99 through to A-66/99 (B-41/99 through to B-44/99). Instead of the
maximum permitted lot coverage of 55%, the proposed lot coverages would be as follows:
A-63/99 58.43%
A-64/99 58.43%
A-65/99 58.43%
A-66/99 56.03%
Staff consider that the additional variances for applications A-63/99 through to A-65/99 are
acceptable. The proposed units, including accompanying rear yards and front yards, will be
similar to those approved or existing in this development along the remainder of Cameron Street.
However, the additional variance for application A-66/99 is not acceptable given the concerns
over the proposed rear yard expressed earlier. If the rear yard on this lot was increased to 4.93
metres as recommended, the lot coverage would be reduced to 54%, and the proposed
townhouse would therefore comply with the Zoning By-law for lot coverage.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of minor variance
applications A-62/99 through to A-66/99, as amended to include a lot coverage of 58.43% for
minor variance applications A-63/99 through to A-65/99, a rear yard of 4.93 metres for minor
variance applications A-62/99 and A-66/99, and a side yard of 1.5 metres for minor variance
application A-66/99.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 225 JULY 20, 1999
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of consent
applications B-40/99 through to B-44/99 subject to the following conditions:
1. Final approval of minor variance applications A-62/99 through to A-66/99.
Submission Nos.:
B 40/99 to B 44/99, inclusive and A 62/99 to A 66/99, inclusive -
cont'd
That the owner make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Department of
Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping, including
street trees and a paved driveway ramp on each of the lots to be severed.
That the owner apply for a revision to the approved site plan dated September 8, 1997, to
reflect revised lot arrangements and building locations including rear yards and side yards
for phase 4 of the development.
That an easement in favour of those lots being created under applications B-41/99 through
to B-43/99 be registered against the title of the retained lands to the satisfaction of the City
Solicitor to ensure that access is maintained in perpetuity.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division
in which he advised that the Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the
proposed variances.
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 application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, in
which they advised that they have no concerns; however, 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 prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning and Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the above noted applications
and advise that an access permit and lot grading plan will be required for the lot proposed
adjacent to Weber Street. If the retained lands are developed in the future an access permit and
lot grading plan will be required at that time.
Regional staff have no objection to consent applications B 40/99 to B 44/99 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That prior to the approval of B 40/99, the owner obtain a Regional Road Access Permit.
That prior to the approval of B 40~99, the owner submit a Lot Grading Plan for Regional
approval.
The Committee noted the comments of the Kitchener-Waterloo Hydro Commission in which they
advised that prior to approval of Applications B 40/99 to B 44/99 the following conditions be met:
That the Applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for
relocating the existing electrical servicing to these lands before the severances are
granted.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 226 JULY 20, 1999
That the Applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severances are granted.
Mr. H. Rotberg advised that he had reviewed the comments of the Department of Business
and Planning Services with staff of the Department and was in agreement with their
recommendation to amend the minor variance applications as referred to on Page 3 of the
report. In addition he noted that the conditions with respect to the consent applications were
Submission Nos.: B 40/99 to B 44/99, inclusive and A 62/99 to A 66/99, inclusive -
cont'd
acceptable. He stated that this development is the 4th and final phase to take place along
Cameron Street and that the units were substantially similar to those previously approved
within this development. He stated that the recommended changes in the rear yards would be
acceptable as they are in keeping with the present development.
The Chair referred to the conditions outlined in the comments from the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro
and the Region of Waterloo and questioned if the applicant was in agreement with these
conditions. Mr. Rotberg advised that he had spoken to staff at the Region and was of the
opinion that both conditions requested by the Region were inapplicable. He advised that the
applications were identical to those that had been approved a year ago. At that time, he stated
that he had experienced delays in conveying parkland to the City, which resulted in the
applications lapsing. He advised that the Region had been of the understanding that an
access point onto Weber Street was being requested and pointed out that this was not the
case. In addition, he advised that a grading plan has already been approved. Mr. Rotberg
indicated that he would not object to these conditions as the Region has consented to provide
him with a clearance letter in due course following granting of the applications. In addition, he
noted that he believed the conditions imposed by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro have been
completed; however, he was willing to accept these as conditions of approval.
Ms. J. Given advised that the additional variances recommended in the Planning staff report
with respect to lot coverage had not previously been circulated and the Committee should
address the issue of whether or not any further notification is required. She stated that, if in
agreement that no further notice is required, the Committee should acknowledge this fact. In
this regard, Mr. Rotberg stated that he believed this to be a technical matter and that he had
not received any objections from the neighbours throughout the various stages of this
development.
By general consent, it was agreed that no further notice was required with respect to additional
variances for lot coverage for Submission Nos. A 63/99 through A 66/99, inclusive, (B 41/99
through B 44/99).
Mr. A Galloway stated that he was prepared to move approval of Submission Nos. A 62~99
through A 66/99. In this regard, Ms. J. Given pointed out that staff are not recommending all
rear yard setbacks as requested and have recommended they be increased to 4.93 m for
Submission Nos. A 62/99 and A 66/99.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was prepared to move approval of Submission Nos. A 62~99
through A 66/99, as amended, subject to the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro conditions. In this
regard, Mr. Rotberg pointed out that the conditions from Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro relate only to
the consent applications.
Submission No. A 62~99
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Broward Landev Corp. requesting permission to construct a townhouse
unit with a sideyard setback from Weber Street East of 6.096 m (20 ft.), rather than the
required 12 m (39.37 ft.), and a rear yard setback of 4.93 m (16.17 ft.), rather than the required
7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Part Lots 12, 13, 14 & 15, Registered Plan 233, 81 Cameron Street North,
Kitchener, Ontario BE APPROVED.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 227 JULY 20, 1999
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
Submission Nos.:
B 40/99 to B 44/99, inclusive and A 62/99 to A 66/99, inclusive -
cont'd
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. A 63~99
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Broward Landev Corp. requesting permission to construct a townhouse
unit with a rear yard setback of 6.096 m (20 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), and a
lot coverage of 58.43%, rather than the permitted 55%, on Part Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15,
Registered Plan 233, 83 Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. A 64~99
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Broward Landev Corp. requesting permission to construct a townhouse
unit with a rear yard setback of 6.096 m (20 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), and a
lot coverage of 58.43%, rather than the permitted 55%, on Part Lots 11, 14 and 15, Registered
Plan 233, 85 Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. A 65~99
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 228 JULY 20, 1999
That the application of Broward Landev Corp. requesting permission to construct a townhouse
unit with a rear yard setback of 6.096 m (20 ft.), rather than the 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), and a lot
coverage of 58.43%, rather than the permitted 55%, on Part Lots 10 and 11, Registered Plan
233, 87 Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
Submission Nos.:
B 40/99 to B 44/99, inclusive and A 62/99 to A 66/99, inclusive -
cont'd
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. A 66/99
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Broward Landev Corp. requesting permission to construct a townhouse
unit with a westerly sideyard setback of 1.5 m (4.92 ft.), rather than the 2.5 m (8.2 ft.), and a
rear yard setback of 4.93 m (16.17 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Part Lot 10,
Registered Plan 233 and Part of Lot 53, Municipal Compiled Plan of Subdivision of Lot 2,
German Company Tract, 89 Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. B 40/99
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Broward Landev Corp. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having a frontage on Cameron Street North of 23.584 m (77.37 ft.), by a depth of 27.432 m (90
ft.), and an area of 537.3 m2 (5,783.63 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 10, 11, 14 and 15, Registered
Plan 233 and Part of Lot 53, Municipal Compiled Plan of Subdivision of Lot 2, German
Company Tract, Cameron Street North, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That minor variance applications A-62/99 through to A-66/99 receive final approval.
That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Department
of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping, including
street trees and a paved driveway ramp on each of the lots to be severed.
That the owner shall apply for a revision to the approved site plan dated September 8,
1997, to reflect revised lot arrangements and building locations including rear yards and
side yards for phase 4 of the development.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 229 JULY 20, 1999
That an easement in favour of those lots being created under applications B-41/99 through
to B-43/99 shall be registered against the title of the retained lands to the satisfaction of
the City Solicitor to ensure that access is maintained in perpetuity.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Submission Nos.:
B 40/99 to B 44/99, inclusive and A 62/99 to A 66/99, inclusive -
cont'd
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot for relocating
the existing electrical servicing to these lands 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.
That prior to approval of Application B 40/99, the owner shall obtain a Regional Road
Access Permit.
That, prior to final approval of Application B 40~99, the owner shall submit a Lot Grading
Plan for Regional approval.
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 July 20, 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. B 41/99
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Broward Landev Corp. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having a frontage on Cameron Street North of 6.096 m (20 ft.), by a depth of 27.432 m (90 ft.),
and an area of 167.2 m2 (1,799.78 sq. ft.), subject to and together with an easement over Part
of Lots 10, 11, 14 and 15, Registered Plan 233 and Part of Lot 53, Municipal Compiled Plan of
Subdivision of Lot 2, German Company Tract, in favour of Part of Lots 12 to 15, inclusive,
Registered Plan 233, to provide rear yard access; on Part of Lots 10, 11, 14 and 15,
Registered Plan 233 and Part of Lot 53, Municipal Compiled Plan of Subdivision of Lot 2,
German Company Tract, Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to
the following conditions:
1. That minor variance applications A-62/99 through to A-66/99 receive final approval.
That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Department
of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping, including
street trees and a paved driveway ramp on each of the lots to be severed.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 230 JULY 20, 1999
That the owner shall apply for a revision to the approved site plan dated September 8,
1997, to reflect revised lot arrangements and building locations including rear yards and
side yards for phase 4 of the development.
4. That an easement in favour of those lots being created under applications B-41/99 through
to B-43/99 shall be registered against the title of the retained lands to the satisfaction of
the City Solicitor to ensure that access is maintained in perpetuity.
Submission Nos.: B 40/99 to B 44/99, inclusive and A 62/99 to A 66/99, inclusive -
cont'd
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 for relocating
the existing electrical servicing to these lands 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.
That prior to approval of Application B 40/99, the owner shall obtain a Regional Road
Access Permit.
That, prior to final approval of Application B 40/99, the owner shall submit a Lot Grading
Plan for Regional approval.
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 July 20, 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. B 42~99
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Broward Landev Corp. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having a frontage on Cameron Street North of 6.096 m (20 ft.), by a depth of 27.432 m (90 ft.),
and an area of 167.2 m2 (1,799.78 sq. ft.), subject to and together with an easement over Part
of Lots 10, 11, 14 and 15, Registered Plan 233 and Part of Lot 53, Municipal Compiled Plan of
Subdivision of Lot 2, German Company Tract, in favour of Part of Lots 11, 14 and 15,
Registered Plan 233, to provide rear yard access; on Part of Lots 10, 11, 14 and 15,
Registered Plan 233 and Part of Lot 53, Municipal Compiled Plan of Subdivision of Lot 2,
German Company Tract, Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to
the following conditions:
1. That minor variance applications A-62/99 through to A-66/99 receive final approval.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 231 JULY 20, 1999
That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Department
of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping, including
street trees and a paved driveway ramp on each of the lots to be severed.
That the owner shall apply for a revision to the approved site plan dated September 8,
1997, to reflect revised lot arrangements and building locations including rear yards and
side yards for phase 4 of the development.
Submission Nos.:
B 40/99 to B 44/99, inclusive and A 62/99 to A 66/99, inclusive -
cont'd
That an easement in favour of those lots being created under applications B-41/99 through
to B-43/99 shall be registered against the title of the retained lands to the satisfaction of
the City Solicitor to ensure that access is maintained in perpetuity.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot for relocating
the existing electrical servicing to these lands 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.
That prior to approval of Application B 40/99, the owner shall obtain a Regional Road
Access Permit.
That, prior to final approval of Application B 40/99, the owner shall submit a Lot Grading
Plan for Regional approval.
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 July 20, 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. B 43~99
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Broward Landev Corp. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having a frontage on Cameron Street North of 6.096 m (20 ft.), by a depth of 27.432 m (90 ft.),
and an area of 167.2 m2 (1,799.78 sq. ft.), subject to and together with an easement over Part
of Lots 10, 11, 14 and 15, Registered Plan 233 and Part of Lot 53, Municipal Compiled Plan of
Subdivision of Lot 2, German Company Tract, in favour of Part of Lots 10 and 11, Registered
Plan 233, to provide rear yard access; on Part of Lots 10, 11, 14 of 15, Registered Plan 233
and Part of Lot 53, Municipal Compiled Plan of Subdivision of Lot 2, German Company Tract,
Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 232 JULY 20, 1999
That minor variance applications A-62/99 through to A-66/99 receive final approval.
That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Department
of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping, including
street trees and a paved driveway ramp on each of the lots to be severed.
Submission Nos.:
B 40/99 to B 44/99, inclusive and A 62/99 to A 66/99, inclusive -
cont'd
That the owner shall apply for a revision to the approved site plan dated September 8,
1997, to reflect revised lot arrangements and building locations including rear yards and
side yards for phase 4 of the development.
That an easement in favour of those lots being created under applications B-41/99 through
to B-43/99 shall be registered against the title of the retained lands to the satisfaction of
the City Solicitor to ensure that access is maintained in perpetuity.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot for relocating
the existing electrical servicing to these lands 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.
That prior to approval of Application B 40~99, the owner shall obtain a Regional Road
Access Permit.
That, prior to final approval of Application B 40~99, the owner shall submit a Lot Grading
Plan for Regional approval.
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 July 20, 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. B 44~99
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Broward Landev Corp. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having a frontage on Cameron Street North of 7.62 m (25 ft.), by a depth of 27.432 m (90 ft.), and
an area of 167.2 m2 (1,799.78 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 10, 11, 14 and 15, Registered Plan 233 and
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 233 JULY 20, 1999
Part of Lot 53, Municipal Compiled Plan of Subdivision of Lot 2, German Company Tract,
Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That minor variance applications A-62/99 through to A-66/99 receive final approval.
That the owner shall make satisfactory financial arrangements with the City's Department
of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping, including
street trees and a paved driveway ramp on each of the lots to be severed.
Submission Nos.:
B 40/99 to B 44/99, inclusive and A 62/99 to A 66/99, inclusive -
cont'd
That the owner shall apply for a revision to the approved site plan dated September 8,
1997, to reflect revised lot arrangements and building locations including rear yards and
side yards for phase 4 of the development.
That an easement in favour of those lots being created under applications B-41/99 through
to B-43/99 shall be registered against the title of the retained lands to the satisfaction of
the City Solicitor to ensure that access is maintained in perpetuity.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot for relocating
the existing electrical servicing to these lands 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.
That prior to approval of Application B 40/99, the owner shall obtain a Regional Road
Access Permit.
That, prior to final approval of Application B 40/99, the owner shall submit a Lot Grading
Plan for Regional approval.
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 July 20, 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 Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 49/99 and A 74/99
Sarah Corfield
68 Schweitzer Street
Part Lots 12 & 13, Registered Plan 675
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. R. Lawson
Kruse, Lawson & Hailer
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 234 JULY 20, 1999
370 Frederick Street
P.O. Box 2215
Kitchener ON N2H 6M1
Submission Nos.:
Mr. S. Grant
Madorin, Snyder
235 King Street East
P. O. Box 1234
Kitchener ON N2G 4G9
B 49/99 and A 74/99(Cont'd)
Contra:
None
Other:
Mr. S. Vogel
178 Bloomingdale Rd.
Kitchener ON N2H 6M1
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide the subject
lands into two lots by retaining a parcel of land having an area of 680 m2 (7,319.69 sq. ft.), by a
depth of 49.78 m (163.32 ft.), containing an existing single family dwelling. The lands to be
severed will also contain an existing single family dwelling and will have an area of 430 m2
(4,628.63 sq. ft.), by a depth of 38.801 m (127.3 ft.). In addition, the lands to be severed will
have a frontage of 9.006 m (29.54 ft.), which does not meet the by-law requirements of 13.7 m
(44.94 ft.) and the applicant is requesting approval of this variance.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the applicant proposes to sever a lot containing two existing dwellings
fronting Schweitzer Street.
The property was the subject of a previous application for consent. Submission B41/98 was
approved, allowing for the conveyance of the north portion of the lands fronting Schweitzer Street
as one lot, with the south portion of the lands included within Subdivision Draft Plan 30T-92010
fronting Tagge Street. The consent has lapsed however, as the conditions were not fulfilled
within one year of the consent approval. A copy of the B41/98 recommendation and decision is
attached.
At the time of the current application the applicant was unaware that the previous consent had
lapsed. The current application therefore does not show the south portion of the lands. Staff
are willing to recommend in favour of the application to sever a 9m wide lot containing an
existing dwelling fronting Schweitzer Street; the retained lands would be a 13.7m wide lot
containing an existing dwelling fronting Schweitzer Street, and would include the vacant south
portion of the lands.
The zoning of the north portion of the lands fronting Schweitzer Street is R-3. The zoning of the
vacant south portion of the lands is R-4. While the line of severance does not coincide with the
zoning boundary, this is of no concern. The area of the lands included within Plan 30T-92010
remains unchanged.
At the time of the previous application, the second dwelling was referred to as a proposed coach
house dwelling unit. It is now unclear as to how long this second dwelling has been in existence.
The zoning by-law allows for a coach house dwelling unit as a second dwelling on one lot,
provided the building existed as of January 1994 -- the time the Zoning By-law was amended to
allow coach house dwelling units. While it was not the intent of the by-law to allow the
severance of a coach house as a separate lot, in this case the severance is justified by the area
and width of the property, not by the existence of the second dwelling. In fact, as the lot to be
severed also contains an existing garage, the conversion of the garage to a coach house
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 235 JULY 20, 1999
dwelling unit would be made possible by the severance, provided the garage predates January
1994.
In conjunction with the severance proposal, variance submission A74/99 requests reduction of
the lot width from the minimum 13.7m required by the R-3 Zone, to 9.006m. The retained lot is
proposed to meet the minimum 13.7m. In addition, a rear yard variance will be required, as the
existing dwelling on the lot to be severed has a minimum rear yard of 6.25m rather than the
minimum 7.5m. The impact of the variance is minor as there are two dwellings on a total lot
2. Submission Nos.:
B 49/99 and A 74/99(Cont'd)
width of 22.7m whether or not the land is severed. The variance is desirable for the appropriate
use of the land as the lot area is sufficient for two primary dwellings. In this regard the variances
also maintain the general intent and purpose of the by-law and municipal plan.
The applicants have advised that they wish to amend the application to create two new lots,
each having an existing dwelling, with the vacant land being a third lot. Aside from procedural
issues, Planning staff have no concern with such a division of the land, subject to the same
conditions as previously approved for Submission B41/98.
The location of existing service connections has yet to be confirmed. It is suspected that
undergound services for the dwelling on the lot to be retained are located on the lot to be
severed. An easement is recommended to recognize this situation, as relocation of such
services onto the retained lot may result in the loss of existing trees. The lot to be severed will
require its own separate service connections from Schweitzer Street.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
74/99, as revised to include the rear yard variance.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Consent
Submission B 49/99, to convey a new lot subject to an easement, subject to the following
conditions:
That the lands to be severed shall be subject to an easement in favour of the lands to be
retained, for the sole purpose of recognizing existing service connections.
That the owner granting the easement shall obtain approval, from the City Solicitor, of
those documents creating the easement in perpetuity.
That a draft reference plan be approved by the City's Principal Planner, showing the
proposed easement, a minimum west side yard of 1.2m for the existing dwelling on the
retained lot, and a minimum 0.6m east side yard for the existing accessory building on
the severed lot.
That the owner enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be registered on title,
agreeing to pay a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of
the lands to be severed prior to the issuance of any building permit to convert the existing
accessory building to a coach house dwelling unit.
5. That Minor Variance Application A 74~99 receive final approval.
That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping
including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands and retained
lands, and the closure of the redundant driveway on the severed lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 236 JULY 20, 1999
That the existing breezeway between the dwelling on the retained lands and the
accessory building on the severed lands be removed, to the satisfaction of the Chief
Building Official.
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 no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
Submission Nos.:
B 49/99 and A 74/99(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic Parking Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division
in which he advised that the Division has reviewed this application and while we have no
concerns with the proposed variances and the severance application, we noted that there is no
mention in the application of where the new driveway would be located for the remaining
property. This driveway should be located on the north side of the house, behind the building
line. Additionally, one of the two existing driveway accesses into the severed property will be
required to be closed.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no concerns with respect to these applications.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo in
which they advised that they have no concerns; however, but 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 prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
The Committee noted the comments
Waterloo in which they advised that
concerns.
of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of
they have reviewed the applications and have no
The Committee noted the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that
they require the following conditions to be met prior to final approval of Application B 49/99:
That the Applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for
relocating the existing electrical servicing to this land 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.
Mr. S. Grant appeared before the Committee and advised that he is the Solicitor for the current
owners of the subject lands, who had previously applied for a severance on the subject property,
which was granted approval subject to certain conditions. He advised that the conditions were
not met within the one year time limit and, as a result, the approval was no longer in effect. In this
regard, he asked the Committee to consider re-granting approval of the previous severance
application.
The Chair referred to comments of the Legal Department and the Secretary advised that she had
informed staff of both the Planning Department and the Legal Department that she would not
support Mr. Grant's request for re-granting approval of Consent Application B 41/98, as Section
53 (41) of the Planning Act renders an application refused if conditions are not fulfilled within the
one year deadline. She stated that she had advised Mr. Grant that re-application must be made
and proper notice given in order to have the application re-considered. In this regard, she
advised that Ms. L. MacDonald, Assistant City Solicitor, supports the Secretary's position on this
matter.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 237 JULY 20, 1999
Mr. A. Galloway requested confirmation that Mr. Grant was requesting a re-granting of approval
of an application that had lapsed. Mr. Grant stated that was correct.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned what had been severed in the original application and Mr. Grant
responded that Part 4 had been severed from Part 2.
The Chair questioned if it was intended to have the Committee grant severance of Part 4 again.
Mr. Grant responded that was the intent; however, he stated that, if the Committee felt it had no
jurisdiction, a new application would be submitted to allow reinstatement of the previous
severance. However, he asked that, if that were to be the case, the Committee proceed with the
applications before them today, which his client supported.
2. Submission Nos.:
B 49/99 and A 74/99(Cont'd)
Mr. R. Lawson advised the Committee that if re-granting of the previous severance was not
allowed, then he would request that the current application be amended with respect to the lands
to be retained so as to be consistent with the previous application.
The Committee unanimously agreed that they would not support the request of Mr. S. Grant to re-
grant approval of the previous severance application.
In response to questioning, Mr. Grant advised that both Parts 2 and 4 are under one ownership.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned if Part 2 would have road access and Mr. Grant responded that it
would have road access onto Tagge Crescent.
Ms. S. Campbell questioned if the current applications were now asking to subdivide part of Part
4 and Mr. Lawson responded that was correct. Ms. S. Campbell questioned if Part 4 was still
attached to Part 2 due to lapsing of the previous condition and Mr. Lawson responded that also
was correct.
Mr. A. Galloway referred to a gravel drive on the proposed severed parcel and Mr. Lawson
advised that the garage would be retained; however, the gravel drive would be eliminated. Mr.
Lawson further advised that an easement will be required as existing services on the lands to be
retained may cross over the lands to be severed. He stated that the severed parcel will have
separate services installed; however, several large trees are located on the lands to be retained,
which would be affected by relocating services on the retained parcel. He stated that the owner
wishes to maintain these trees and, accordingly, an easement is required over the severed lands.
The Chair inquired as to the location of the easement and Mr. Lawson responded that it is not
known exactly where it will be located at this time but noted that it is a condition of approval.
Ms. J. Given advised that the sanitary connections come in very close to the lot lines and the
exact position is unknown. She also advised that the retained lands already have existing water
connections.
The Chair inquired if any other agreements would be required with respect to the easement and
Ms. Given responded that all requirements with respect to the easement would be contained
within the easement document.
Mr. R. Lawson referred to Condition 4 with respect to the consent application which requests a
cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed
prior to issuance of any building permit to convert the existing accessory building to a coach
house dwelling unit. He advised that this building is already a dwelling unit occupied by a tenant
and will not require a building permit. In response to further questions, Mr. Lawson advised that
there is no intention of converting the existing garage.
The Chair asked staff to comment and Ms. J. Given responded that, that being the case,
Condition 4 would not be applicable.
Submission No. A 74~99
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 238 JULY 20, 1999
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Sarah Corfield requesting permission to create a new lot having frontage
on Schweitzer Street of 9.006 m (29.54 ft.), rather than the required 13.7 m (44.94 ft.), and a rear
yard setback of 6.25 m (21.32 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Part Lots 12 and
13, Registered Plan 675, 68 Schweitzer Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. Submission Nos.:
B 49~99 and A 74/99(Cont'd)
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. B 49~99
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Sarah Corfield requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having
frontage on Schweitzer Street of 9.006 m (29.54 ft.), by a depth of 38.801 m (127.3 ft.) and an
area of 430 m2 (4,628.63 sq. ft.), on Part Lots 12 and 13, Registered Plan 675, 68 Schweitzer
Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the lands to be severed shall be subject to an easement in favour of the lands to
be retained, for the sole purpose of recognizing existing service connections.
That the owner granting the easement shall obtain approval, from the City Solicitor, of
those documents creating the easement in perpetuity.
That a draft reference plan shall be approved by the City's Principal Planner, showing
the proposed easement, a minimum west side yard of 1.2m for the existing dwelling on
the retained lot, and a minimum 0.6m east side yard for the existing accessory building
on the severed lot.
That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be registered on
title, agreeing to pay a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the
value of the lands to be severed prior to the issuance of any building permit to convert the
existing accessory building to a coach house dwelling unit.
5. That Minor Variance Application A 74~99 receive final approval.
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 the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping
including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands and retained
lands, and the closure of the redundant driveway on the severed lands.
That the existing breezeway between the dwelling on the retained lands and the
accessory building on the severed lands shall be removed, to the satisfaction of the
Chief Building Official.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 239 JULY 20, 1999
10.
11.
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
relocating the existing electrical servicing to this land 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.
2. Submission Nos.:
B 49/99 and A 74/99(Cont'd)
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being July 20, 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.
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Carried
A 73/99
Gary & Linda Schott
1764 Victoria Street North
Part Lot 123, German Company Tract
As no one was in attendance to support the application, the Committee agreed
consideration of this application to the meeting of August 17, 1999.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 p.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 20th day of July, 1999.
to
defer
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 240 JULY 20, 1999
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment