HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-08-17COA\1999-08-17
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 17, 1999
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. A. Galloway and S. Kay.
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. S. Kay, Vice-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 July 20, 1999, as mailed to
the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
Appearances:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
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 delayed consideration of
the matter until the end of the unfinished business portion of this meeting.
CONSENT
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 73/98
M.S. Custom Contractors Limited
180 Zeller Drive
Part Lot 119, German Company Tract
The Chair advised that a request had been received from Mr. D. Bennett, MacNaughton Hermsen
Britton Clarkson Planning Limited, to defer this application to the September 14th meeting.
The Secretary pointed out that staff of the Department of Business and Planning Services are
recommending deferral of the application to the meeting of October 26th. In this regard, Ms. J.
Given advised that an application for a Plan of Subdivision has now been submitted which is
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 241 AUGUST 17, 1999
tentatively scheduled to be considered by the Planning and Economic Development Committee
on September 13, 1999. She advised that the severance proposed in this application is affected
Submission No.: B 73/98 (Cont'd)
by the proposed Plan of Subdivision and, in addition, the original consent application is now
outdated and new application must be made prior to proceeding with consideration of this
severance. Accordingly, she stated that staff are recommending deferral of this application to the
meeting of October 26th to allow sufficient time for the Plan of Subdivision to receive draft
approval.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the
meeting of October 26, 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 September 14th meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the
meeting of September 14, 1999.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 47~99
Murray Bretz Estate
1 Stirling Avenue South
Part Lots 32 & 33, Re.qistered Plan No. 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
property into two lots, each to have an area of 557.4 m2 (6,000 sq. ft.), by a depth of 36.57 m (120
ft.) and both the retained lands and the lands to be severed will contain existing single family
dwellings.
The Committee noted revised comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the owner of 561 and 565 Stirling Avenue South is requesting
permission to sever the property that was once two separate lots and have merged. The
proposed 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 lots is developed with single detached dwellings.
The property at 565 Stirling Avenue has a detached garage that encroaches onto the original
lot at 561 Stirling Avenue by 0.21 metres (0.69 feet). Staff discussed the options with the
vendor's solicitor who advised that the owner wishes to neither remove the garage nor file a
Minor Variance Application but wishes to amend the application to shift the proposed
severance line to the east in order that the garage will comply with the zoning regulations of
By-law 85-1. Parts 1 and 2 will form one lot and Part 3 the second.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 242 AUGUST 17, 1999
3. Submission No.:
B 47/99 (Cont'd)
The revised severance line will commence at the same point along the frontage of the property
as originally intended so that the frontages of each of the two parcels will remain 15.24 metres
(50 feet) along the Stirling Avenue property line. However, the lot area for 561 Stirling Avenue
will be slightly reduced to 529.97 square metres (5,704.79 square feet) while the lot area of
565 Stirling Avenue will increase to 577.95 square metres (6,221.21 square feet). Both lots
will comply in all respects with the Zoning By-law and as such, are appropriate.
The Department recommends that application B47/99, as amended, 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 comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional comments are the same as those identified in their July 14th
letter for the July 20th Committee hearing. Regional staff have reviewed this application and
have no concerns.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building, previously submitted for the July
20th Committee of Adjustment meeting, 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, previously
submitted for the July 20th Committee of Adjustment meeting, in which they advised that they
have no objection or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair requested clarification from Ms. C. Meilleur that this was one property on which two
residential dwellings were situated side by side and which had been historically used as two lots.
Ms. C. Meilleur stated that was correct.
The Chair reviewed the comments, noting that the applicant is proposing to amend the
application with respect to the lot line which has been adjusted in order to bring an existing
garage located at 565 Stirling Avenue into compliance with zoning regulations.
The Chair inquired of Ms. Meilleur if she had anything further to add and she responded that she
had nothing further to add.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Murray Bretz Estate requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having a frontage on Stirling Avenue South of 15.24 m (50 ft.) and having an area of 529.97 m2
(5,704.79 sq. ft.), on Part Lots 32 and 33, Registered Plan 25, 561 Stirling Avenue South,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following condition:
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 17, 2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 243 AUGUST 17, 1999
Submission No.:
B 47/99 (Cont'd)
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in 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 48~99
Zevest Development Corporation
1373 Victoria Street North
Lot 1, Registered Plan 939, and Parts Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12,
Registered 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
At the July 20, 1999, meeting of the Committee, 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 66.4 m (217.8 ft.) and an area of 6,039 m2 (65,005.3 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 one 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 244 AUGUST 17, 1999
Submission No.:
B 48/99 (Cont'd)
The Committee noted revised comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in
which they advised that the Department recommends approval of B 48/99 subject to the following
conditions:
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2. That the owner shall fulfil 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, 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 previously submitted at the July
20th meeting in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with
respect to this submission.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional comments are the same as those identified in their July 14th
letter for the July 20th Committee hearing, which stated 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 Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority, previously
submitted at the July 20th meeting, 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.
Mr. V. Labreche advised that deferral of the application had been requested at the July 20th
meeting to allow opportunity for discussion to take place between City staff, the Region, the
applicant's solicitor and himself with respect to proposed condition #2 dealing with a site
assessment for contaminated sites. Mr. Labreche advised that a meeting had taken place and
the applicant is now satisfied and will undertake the site assessment. Accordingly, he advised
that the applicant wishes to proceed with the consent application at this time.
The Chair requested clarification of the request for a storm sewer easement as outlined in staff's
report. Mr. Labreche advised that the applicant was requesting permission to severe a part of an
existing commercial development and by creating a second parcel an easement is required to
provide storm sewer for the retained lands.
The Chair inquired if a separate application was required in order to grant the easement and the
Secretary advised that a separate application was not necessary as approval of the severance
could be granted subject to and together with the easement.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 245 AUGUST 17, 1999
4. Submission No.:
B 48/99 (Cont'd)
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Zevest Development Corporation requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land having frontage on Victoria Street North of 65.9 m (216.2 ft.) and an area of 6,023.6
m2 (64,839.61 sq. ft.), by a depth of 75.5 m (247.7 ft.), subject to and together with a 4.3 m (14.1
ft.) wide easement for storm sewer purposes over the lands to be severed in favour of the lands
to be retained, on Lot 1, Registered Plan 939, and Part Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12,
Registered Plan 947, designated as Part 10, Reference Plan 58R-4689, 1373 Victoria Street
North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2. That the owner shall fulfil 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, 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.
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 August 17, 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
CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 3/99 & A 12/99
Mary Arlene Beckman
390 Pinnacle Drive
Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract
The Chair advised that a request had been received from Mrs. M. Beckman to defer this
application to the September 14th meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of the application would be deferred to the
meeting of September 14, 1999.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 246 AUGUST 17, 1999
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal 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 agreed to defer
consideration of this application to the meeting of September 14, 1999. The Chair advised the
Secretary to inform the applicant that if no one appeared in support of the application at the
September 14th meeting the application would either be refused or dismissed.
The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:00 am in order to consider
applications for minor variances to the City of Kitchener's Sign By-law and Fence By-law. This
meeting reconvened at 10:50 am.
APPLICATIONS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 75/99
Meistro Investments Ltd.
1324 King St. East
Part of Lot 25, Plan 404
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. R. Meister
Meistro Investments Ltd.
1324 King Street East
Kitchener ON N2G 2N7
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 six for any permitted use and for 3 of the 6 spaces to have a width of
2.39 m (7.85 ft.), rather than the required 2.58 m (8.46 ft.) and for one of the 6 spaces to have a
length of 4.1 m (13.5 ft.), rather than the required 5.49 m (18 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the property owner is requesting permission to reduce the number of parking
spaces from 7 to 6 and for 3 of the spaces to have a width of 2.39 metres (7.85 feet) and for
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 247 AUGUST 17, 1999
one space to have a length of 4.1 metres (13.5 feet) rather than the required 5.49 metres (18
feet).
Submission No.: A 75/99 (Cont'd)
Staff has met with the owner on site and reviewed the layout of the current six parking spaces
at the rear of the property. The owner has been operating a lodging house at this address for
a number of years as well as occupied a portion of the building as his own residence. Under
the current uses, he only requires 5 parking spaces. Since the owner is moving he wishes to
convert his former residence to 3 additional lodging units so that the total number of lodging
units would be 12, which increases the number of required parking spaces to 7. He has
occupied the larger parking spaces with his vehicles and had any of his lodgers, who had
smaller vehicles, park in the smaller spaces. The owner also shares a mutual access to his
parking at the rear with the abutting owner to the east at 1342 King Street East.
As a result of the site meeting with the owner and in discussing the parking layout with traffic
staff, it is clear that parking space #3 is undersized and non-functional and parking spaces #1
and #2 are too narrow to accommodate the opening of vehicular doors. Although the owner
was able to show that the spaces have functioned for smaller sized vehicles, Planning and
Traffic staff cannot support the undersized spaces as future tenants may have larger cars that
would exacerbate the situation.
Staff is recommending providing 5 functional parking spaces as there is limited room to
accommodate more. The owner should demarcate on site 3 of the parking spaces at the rear
property line as shown on the attached plan to the application into 2 conforming parking
spaces.
Staff notes that the reduction from 7 parking spaces to 5 to be minor in nature. The general
intent of the by-law is met as the lodging house use is located on the City's main street and the
lodgers who would use these facilities have excellent transit service available thereby
providing less of a need for on site parking facilities. Given that the lodging house use is
located on the main street with excellent transit service, the variance in parking reduction is
desirable for the lodging house use. In the opinion of staff, the proposed variance meets the
four tests set out in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act.
Accordingly, the applicant has indicated to amend his application as recommended by staff.
The Department recommends that Application A75/99 be approved, as amended, permitting 5
parking spaces for a lodging house use having a maximum of 12 lodging units subject to the
following condition:
That the owner demarcates the 5 parking spaces on site in accordance with a detailed
plan to be approved by the City's Principal Planner prior to October 15, 1999. No
extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the
Principal Planner prior to the completion date set out in this decision.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Co-ordinator of Traffic Planning, Traffic & Parking
Division in which he advised that this Division is prepared to support a reduction in the number of
on-site parking spaces given the location on a major transit corridor, the nature of the proposed
use (rooming house), and the proximity to the downtown. However, we do not support a
reduction in the size of parking stalls as it is our opinion that they would not allow proper access,
nor sufficient room for ingress/egress from a vehicle. As such, it is our view that only 5 functional
parking spaces could be developed in the rear. This Division would support a reduction in the
number of on-site spaces to 5.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo in which
they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and have no concerns; however,
they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the
Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 248 AUGUST 17, 1999
thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this
development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
1. Submission No.:
A 75/99 (Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the comments, noting that staff are recommending the application be
amended to provide for 5 parking spaces rather than 6. The Chair inquired of Mr. Meister if he
was in agreement with staff's recommendation.
Mr. R. Meister responded that he would agree with staff's recommendations; however, he still
would like to have 6 spaces. He stated that he is operating a lodging house where the majority of
tenants use bicycles or buses for transportation. He further pointed out that he has lived at this
location since 1975 and has never experienced parking problems.
The Chair requested clarification from Mr. Meister as to whether or not he was in agreement with
staff's recommendation as, on one hand he has said yes, but on the other has stated that he still
wants 6. Mr. Meister responded that he would like to have 6 spaces as that is what has been in
use since 1975; however, he would settle for 5 spaces.
Ms. S. Campbell referred to staff's report in which it was noted that parking space #3 was
undersized and non-functional and parking spaces #1 and 2 were too narrow to accommodate
the opening of vehicular doors. She inquired if Mr. Meister disagreed with staff's comments. Mr.
Meister responded that he did disagree as he had never had a problem with parking on this site.
He stated that it was his opinion that the Parking By-law did not reflect mid-sized cars which are
now more predominantly used.
Ms. S. Campbell requested staff to comment on the functionality of parking space #3 and Ms.
Given responded that because of the depth of the space, which is 13 ½ ft., vehicles entering and
exiting this space interfere with parking space #4. She further advised that the by-law requires
the space to be 18 ft.
The Chair again inquired of Mr. Meister if he would agree to amend his application as
recommended by staff and Mr. Meister responded that he would agree to amend the application.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Meistro Investments Limited requesting permission to reduce the number
of required parking spaces to 5 for a lodging house use having a maximum of 12 lodging units, on
Part of Lot 25, Plan 404, 1324 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to
the following condition:
That the owner shall demarcate the 5 parking spaces on site in accordance with a detailed
plan to be approved by the City's Principal Planner prior to October 15, 1999. No
extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the
Principal Planner prior to the completion date set out in this decision.
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 249 AUGUST 17, 1999
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 76/99
Randy Ransome
590 Greenbrook Drive
Lot 164, Registered Plan 1052
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. R. Ransome
590 Greenbrook Drive
Kitchener ON N2M 4K6
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached
garage having a 0 m sideyard abutting a public walkway, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.),
and to construct a sunroom having a westerly sideyard of 0.6 m (2 ft.), rather than the required
1.2 m (3.93 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached garage having
a 0 metre sideyard abutting a public walkway, rather than the required 6.0 metre setback, and
to construct a sunroom having a westerly sideyard of 0.6 metres rather than the required 1.2
metres.
Staff note that the proposed sunroom addition complies with the requirements under the City's
Zoning By-law, which are a 0.6 metre setback from the side property line and a 1.2 metre set
back from the rear property line. Accordingly, these comments will refer only to the proposed
attached garage.
While the agenda indicates that the required setback is 6.0 metres as a sideyard, the requirement
is 1.2 metres. The intent of the 1.2 metre setback is to allow adequate separation distance
between dwellings as well as provide room for exterior maintenance of the structure. Upon site
inspection, staff note that this property is located adjacent to a public walkway approximately 3.6
metres wide. There is 1.2 metres of sidewalk with another 1.2 metres of grass on each side of
the walkway. The neighbouring dwelling is set back approximately 3.0 metres from the edge of
the walkway.
The rear yard of the property is enclosed with a 1.8 metre fence that is located up to the side
property line abutting the walkway. The proposed garage location will not adversely affect the
neighbouring properties nor affect the use and enjoyment of the 3.6 metre wide public walkway.
The key issue is access for the exterior maintenance of the structure, which would be acceptable
if the exterior of the structure were constructed of maintenance free material.
The addition of the garage would be an appropriate use of the land, and will maintain the general
intent and purpose of both the City's Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan. As there will be no
impact on the neighbouring property, the variance can be considered minor in nature.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance
Application A76/99 relative only to the garage addition, provided it is constructed of maintenance
free materials, without any encroachment of eaves, and all drainage to be directed onto the
applicants' property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 250 AUGUST 17, 1999
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required for the garage and sunroom. The garage wall on the property line shall have a
45 minute fire rating, no openings, and be clad with non-combustible cladding. Drainage of roof
water shall not be directed onto the adjacent property. The wall of the sunroom located 2 ft. from
Submission No.: A 76/99 (Cont'd)
the property line shall have a 45 minute fire rating and no openings. Roof drainage shall not be
directed onto the adjacent property.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo in which
they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however,
they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the
Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor
thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this
development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired of Mr. Ransome if he had anything further to add
to his application. Mr. R. Ransome responded that he had nothing further to add.
Ms. S. Campbell stated that she was prepared to move approval of the application as amended
and subject to the Building Division's conditions. In this regard, Mr. Ransome inquired if the walls
were built to a 45 minute fire rating if he would be allowed to put in a window. Ms. J. Given
responded that the condition states that the walls shall have no openings.
The Chair suggested that Mr. Ransome may wish to approach the Building Division to further
discuss this matter.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Randy Ransome requesting permission to construct an attached garage
having a 0 m sideyard abutting a public walkway, rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93 ft.), on Lot
164, Registered Plan 1052, 590 Greenbrook Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject
to the following conditions:
That the owner shall construct the garage addition with maintenance free materials,
without any encroachment of eaves and all drainage to be directed on to the applicant's
property.
2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the garage and sunroom.
The garage wall along the property line shall have a 45 minute fire rating, no openings and
be clad with non combustible cladding.
The wall of the sunroom to be located 2 ft. from the property line shall have a 45 minute
fire rating and no openings.
5. All roof drainage shall not be directed on to the adjacent property.
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 251 AUGUST 17, 1999
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le,qal Description:
A 77/99
Sharon Mosher
4 McGarry Drive
Block A, Plan 1243
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. H. Hicks
430 Dansbury Drive
Waterloo ON N2K3X9
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
single family dwelling having a sideyard setback from Fischer-Hallman Road of 7.6 m (24.94 ft.),
rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.); and for permission to construct an attached garage
having a sideyard setback of 5.79 m (19 ft.), rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), and having
a rear yard setback of 4.26 m (14 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the subject lands contain an existing one-storey structure that was formerly
used as a hydro station by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro. The structure is presently vacant. The lands
are located at the intersection of Fischer-Hallman Road and McGarry Drive, on the north-west
corner.
The applicant proposes to convert the structure into a single-detached residential dwelling. To
accomplish this conversion, the applicant proposes to construct a second storey addition onto the
existing structure, and a single car garage addition to the rear of the existing structure. The
applicant is proposing to legalize the setback of 7.60 metres from an Arterial Road relative to the
existing building, and 5.79 metres for the garage addition. The requirement is 12.0 metres for
residential buildings. Also, the applicant proposes to reduce the minimum 6.0 metre setback
requirement from the line abutting a street to a building used to accommodate off-street parking,
to 5.79 metres. The approval should include each of these requests, as the application is not
specific. The additions will increase the floor area from 131.08 square metres to 294.67 square
metres.
In addition to the request to legalize the yard setbacks, the proposal requires relief from an
additional zoning requirement. The proposal creates a rear yard setback of 4.27 metres, rather
than the required 7.5 metres.
The proposed garage addition will create a side yard setback of 5.79 metres from Fischer-
Hallman Road. A 6.0 metre setback is required from a building used to accommodate off-street
parking to the streetline. The proposed garage is necessary to keep the proposed conversion
similar to other residential dwellings in the area. The existing structure has a side yard setback of
7.60 metres from Fischer-Hallman Road even though a setback of 12.0 metres is required from
an arterial road such as Fischer-Hallman Road. The structure was constructed in 1968 for utility
purposes, not requiring an increased setback.
The proposed garage will create a rear yard setback of 4.27 metres from the property line even
though a setback of 7.5 metres is required. By moving the garage closer to the street, sufficient
rear yard amenity area is provided. The addition of the second floor and garage will be located
adjacent to an existing single detached dwelling, and a church.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 252 AUGUST 17, 1999
The impact of the variances will be relatively minor in nature given that the structure exists on the
property and approval will allow its re-use for residential. The impact of the garage addition,
which will reduce the rear yard setback to 4.27 metres, is minor in nature as well. The garage
Submission No.: A 77/99 (Cont'd)
addition abuts a church parking lot and will not adversely affect the use of the abutting property.
The reduction in the setback requirement of 12.0 metres to 5.79 and 7.6 metres is also relatively
minor in nature and maintains the intent of the regulation, which is to ensure new construction
does not experience adverse noise impacts.
The proposed conversion to a residential dwelling, and associated additions, will abut a property
that contains a single detached dwelling, and a property that contains a church. The proposed
additions will have no adverse impact on the use or function of the abutting lands. Furthermore,
the conversion and additions will alter the existing structure making it more compatible in size and
function with the surrounding land uses. In conclusion, the addition is considered an appropriate
infill development for the lands.
Staff consider that the application maintains the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning
By-law and recommend the application be approved.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission
A77/99, as amended.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required for the new garage.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo in which
they advised that the applicant is proposing to renovate the existing hydro substation to a
residence and continue to use the existing access to Fischer-Hallman Road. Staff strongly
recommend that the applicant construct a turn-around adjacent to the proposed garage and on
private property so that vehicles do not have to reverse out of the driveway onto Fischer-Hallman
Road. There is a severe visibility restriction due to the grade at the intersection of Fischer-
Hallman and McGarry which will make reversing out of this driveway extremely hazardous. In
addition, they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of
the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any
successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for
this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired if Mr. Hicks had anything further to add. Mr. H.
Hicks responded that he had nothing further to add.
Ms. S. Campbell referred to the comments of the Region in which they recommend that the
applicant construct a turn-around adjacent to the proposed garage and on private property so that
vehicles do not have to reverse out of the driveway onto Fischer-Hallman Road. She inquired if
Mr. Hicks was in agreement with this suggestion and Mr. Hicks responded that he was in
agreement and had already planned to do so.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Sharon Mosher requesting permission to legalize an existing single family
dwelling having a sideyard setback from Fischer-Hallman Road of 7.6 m (24.94 ft.), rather than
the required 12 m (39.37 ft.); and to construct an attached garage having a sideyard setback from
Fischer-Hallman Road of 5.79 m (19 ft.), rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), and having a
sideyard setback from Fischer-Hallman Road to a building used to accommodate off-street
parking of 5.79 m (19 ft.), rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), and having a rearyard setback
of 4.26 m (14 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Block A, Plan 1243, 4 McGarry
Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 253 AUGUST 17, 1999
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new garage.
Submission No.:
A 77/99 (Cont'd)
That the owner shall construct a turn-around adjacent to the proposed garage and on
private property so that vehicles do not have to reverse out of the driveway onto Fischer-
Hallman Road.
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 78/99
Sharon Mosher
204 Westmount Road East
Lot 117, Re.qistered Plan 883
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. H. Hicks
430 Dansbury Drive
Waterloo ON N2K3X9
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
single family dwelling having a rear yard setback of 4.04 m (13.26 ft.), rather than the required 7.5
m (24.6 ft.)
The Committee noted the comments of the Business & Planning Services in which they advised
that the subject lands contain an existing one-storey structure that was formerly used as a hydro
station by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro. The structure is presently vacant. The lands are located at
the intersection of Westmount Road East and Greenbrook Drive, on the north-east corner.
The applicant proposes to convert the structure into a single detached residential dwelling. To
accomplish this conversion, the applicant proposes to construct a second storey addition onto the
rear half of the existing structure, and a single car garage addition to the front of the existing
structure. The applicant is proposing to legalize the rear yard setback of 4.04 metres, rather than
the required 7.5 metres. The additions will increase the floor area from 102.84 square metres to
237.64 square metres.
In addition to the request to legalize the rear yard setback, the proposal requires relief from two
additional zoning requirements. The applicant is proposing a front yard setback for the garage of
5.79 metres, rather than the required 6.0 metres. Also, the applicant is proposing to legalize the
existing setback from an Arterial Road of 7.52 metres, rather than the required 12.0 metres for a
residential building. The applicant has requested that these matters be considered in this
application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 254 AUGUST 17, 1999
The existing structure has a rear yard setback of 4.04 metres from the property line even though
a setback of 7.5 metres is required, and a side yard setback of 7.52 metres from Westmount
Road East even though a setback of 12.0 metres is required from an arterial road such as
Submission No.: A 78/99 (Cont'd)
Westmount Road East. The structure was constructed in 1959, in accordance with the
requirements for a public use.
The applicant has submitted the attached revised drawings relating to this application. The
revised drawings address department concerns regarding the turning radius from the driveway to
the proposed garage by moving the garage 0.91 metres closer to Westmount Road East, thereby
increasing the turning radius provided. The proposed garage addition will create a front yard
setback of 5.79 metres from Greenbrook Drive. The proposed garage is necessary to keep the
proposed conversion similar to other residential dwellings in the area. The addition of the second
floor and garage will be located adjacent to existing single detached dwellings.
The impact of the additions will be relatively minor in nature given that the existing structure on
the property also has a side yard setback of 7.52 to 9.14 metres, as opposed to the required 12.0
metres. The second storey and garage additions will legalize the current setback already in
place, allowing for the conversion of the building to residential. The current rear yard setback of
4.04 metres, instead of the 7.5 metres required, will also be legalized by this application. The
impact of the garage addition on the front yard setback requirement of 6.0 metres is also relatively
minor in nature. The proposed 5.79 metre front yard setback maintains the intent of the 6.0 metre
requirement by providing a reasonable distance between the building and the street. Due to the
orientation of the garage, adequate additional parking is available on site, not requiring a 6.0
metre setback.
The proposed conversion to a residential dwelling, and associated additions, will abut properties
that contain single detached dwellings, and will have no adverse impact on the use or function of
the abutting lands. Furthermore, the conversion and additions will alter the existing structure
making it more compatible in size and function with the surrounding land uses. In conclusion, the
addition is considered an appropriate development of the lands.
Staff consider that the application maintains the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning
By-law and recommend the application be approved.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission
A78/99, as amended in accordance with the attached plans.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required for the new garage.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo in which
they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however,
they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the
Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor
thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this
development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Chair reviewed the comments, noting that staff are recommending that the application be
approved as amended. In this regard, he inquired of Mr. Hicks if he had reviewed the comments
and was in agreement with staff's recommendations.
Mr. H. Hicks stated that he had reviewed the comments and was in agreement with the
recommendations of staff.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 255 AUGUST 17, 1999
That the application of Sharon Mosher requesting permission to convert an existing one-storey
structure into a single detached residential dwelling and to construct a second storey addition to
the rear half of the existing structure, having a rearyard setback of 4.04 m (13.26 ft.), rather than
Submission No.: A 78/99 (Cont'd)
the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), and having a sideyard setback from Westmount Road East of 7.52
m (24.6 ft.), rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.); and, to construct an attached single car
garage to the front of the existing structure, having a frontyard setback of 5.79 m (19 ft.), rather
than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), on Lot 117, Registered Plan 883, 204 Westmount Road East,
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
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 79/99
1347642 Ontario Inc.
178 Bloomingdale Road
Part of Lots 43 & 44, Small Lots North of Peter Horning's Tract,
desiqnated as Parts 1 to 5 on Reference Plan 58R-10556
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. R. Pawelowski
c/o 1347642 Ontario Inc.
44-52 Bluesprings Drive
Waterloo ON N2J 4M4
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
family dwelling having a frontyard setback of 6 m (19.68 ft.), rather than the required 12 m (39.37
ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the proposed single detached dwelling is intended to be constructed
on a lot at 178 Bloomingdale Road. The application requests approval of a setback of 6.0
metres from Bloomingdale Road rather than the required 12.0 metres.
The purpose of the increased setback requirement from Arterial roads is to ensure a
separation of new residential dwellings from the noise generated by the road. The provision is
most applicable to new subdivision development, whereas in this case, the subject dwelling is
situated between two residential structures located within the 12 metre setback, constructed
prior to the City adding the general provision to the by-law, in 1994.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 256 AUGUST 17, 1999
Approval of the variance will allow a consistent streetscape relative to the setback, and permit
an infill development, which is appropriate for the use of the property.
As the variance meets all tests of the Planning Act, staff recommend its approval.
Submission No.:
A 79/99 (Cont'd)
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Application A
79/99.
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 Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo in which
they advised that staff have no objection to the reduced setback from 12 metres to 6 metres as
any further widening required on Bloomingdale Road could still be accommodated with the 6
metre setback. In addition, they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to
the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-
050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development
Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired of Mr. Pawelowski if he had anything further to
add. Mr. R. Pawelowski responded that he had nothing further to add.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of 1347642 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct a single family
dwelling having a frontyard setback from Bloomingdale Road of 6 m (19.68 ft.), rather than the
required 12 m (39.37 ft.), on Part of Lots 43 and 44, Small Lots North of Peter Horning's Tract,
designated as Parts 1 to 5, Reference Plan 58R-10556, 178 Bloomingdale Road, 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.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 80/99
353 Bridge Holdings
353 Bridge Street East
Part of Lot 12, Re.qistered Plan 58R-3388
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. J. Clinckett
John Clinckett Architect
304-195 King West
Kitchener ON N2G 1B1
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 257 AUGUST 17, 1999
In Support: None
Contra: None
6. Submission No.:
A 80/99 (Cont'd)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a one-storey
addition to the existing structure having a rear yard of 1.2 m (3.93 ft.), rather than the required 7.5
m (24.6 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject lands contain an existing one storey engineering business
and associated laboratory, an asphalt parking lot, and a gravel-surfaced parking lot. The lands
are located on the northwest corner of where Bridge Street East and Hollinger Crescent meet.
The applicant proposes to construct a single storey addition on the rear of the existing structure
with a rear yard setback of 1.2 metres, rather than the required 7.5 metres. The addition is
intended to be used for office purposes and will have an area of 182.05 square metres.
The existing building has a rear-yard setback of 12.0 metres from the property line. The addition
will be located adjacent to an asphalt parking lot, garbage enclosure, and open storage on the
abutting properties. The impact of the addition will be relatively minor in nature given the
immediate surroundings of the proposed addition. The addition will have no adverse impact on
the use or function of the abutting lands. Furthermore, the addition is limited to one storey in
height so it will not dominate the appearance of the structure on the subject lands, or the
structures immediately surrounding the property. In conclusion, the addition is considered an
appropriate development of the lands, as access to the other side of the property is available by a
second driveway from Hollinger Crescent.
Staff consider that the application maintains the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning
By-law and recommend the application be approved.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission No.
A80/99.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required for the new addition and a wall located 1.2 m to the property line shall be of
non-combustible construction within a 1 hour rating and a maximum of 7% openings.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo in which
they advised that a 25 foot daylight triangle is required from this property at the intersection of
Bridge Street and Hollinger Crescent. It may not be appropriate to acquire the daylight triangle
under this application however, the applicant should be made aware that it will be requested as a
condition of a site plan application. In addition, they advised that any development on the subject
lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as
amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of
Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. J. Clinckett advised that he had additional pictures of the site, which he presented to the
Committee.
Ms. S. Campbell referred to the Region's comments in which it is noted that a 25 ft. daylight
triangle is required from this property at the intersection of Bridge Street and Hollinger
Crescent and inquired if Mr. Clinckett had any concerns with respect to this comment. Mr.
Clinckett advised that the proposed addition will be constructed on the opposite side of the
building and, accordingly, the daylight triangle at the corner of Bridge Street and Hollinger
Crescent will not be affected by the addition.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 258 AUGUST 17, 1999
Ms. S. Campbell pointed out that the Region's comments are intended to make the applicant
aware that a 25 ft. daylight triangle will be required as a condition of a site plan application. In
this regard, Mr. Clinckett inquired if that would mean loss of trees on the site within the corner
at Hollinger Crescent and Bridge Street. The Chair responded that the issue of the daylight
Submission No.:
A 80/99 (Cont'd)
triangle would be part of the site plan process and the matter of the trees could be discussed
at that time.
Mr. J. Clinckett referred to comments of staff which note the addition as having an area of
182.05 m2 and inquired if further variance would be required if the addition, as constructed,
was slightly more than 182.05 m2. Ms. J. Given responded that the comments with respect to
the area of the proposed addition were included for information purposes and the applicant
would not have to come back to the Committee if they were within a reasonable figure close to
the 182.05 m~.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of 353 Bridge Holdings requesting permission to construct a one storey
addition to the existing structure having an area of 182.05 m~ (1,959.63 sq. ft.) and having a
rearyard of 1.2 m (3.93 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Part of Lot 12, Registered
Plan 58R-3388, 353 Bridge Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition.
That the wall located 1.2 m to the property line shall be of non-combustible construction
within a 1 hour rating and have a maximum of 7% openings.
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 81/99
Freure Developments Limited
Chandos Drive
Block 85, Re.qistered Plan 1692
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. D. Biuk
Green Scheels Pidgeon
5-745 Bridge Street West
Waterloo ON N2V2G6
Contra:
Mr. D. Thomas
13 Tinatawa Court
Kitchener ON N2A 3K4
Mr. Wm. Hoy
9 Tinatawa Court
Kitchener ON N2A 3K4
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 259 AUGUST 17, 1999
Mr. E. Bagdasarian
33 Tinatawa Court
Kitchener ON N2A 3G9
Submission No.:
A 81/99 (Cont'd)
Written Submissions:
In Support:
Ms. D. Biuk
Green Scheels Pidgeon
5-745 Bridge Street West
Waterloo ON N2V 2G6
Contra:
Mr. P. Elkerbout, President
Waterloo Condominium Corporation No. 211
16A-165 Chandos Drive
Kitchener ON N2A4A2
Mr. G. Jolicoeur
Member of the Board of Directors
Waterloo Condominium Corporation No. 211
9C-165 Chandos Drive
Kitchener ON N2A4A2
The Chair advised that the Department of Business and Planning Services and the Grand River
Conservation Authority are recommending deferral of this application. He inquired if the applicant
and the delegations present were in agreement with the request to defer the application to the
September 14th meeting. All parties present with respect to this application stated they were in
agreement with deferring the application to the September 14th meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of the application would be deferred to the
meeting of September 14, 1999.
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 82/99 to A 88/99
Freure Developments Limited
Windflower Drive at Foxglove Crescent
Blocks 9 and 10, Registered Plan 58M-55
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. D. Biuk
Green Scheels Pidgeon
5-745 Bridge Street West
Waterloo ON N2V2G6
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
In Support:
Ms. D. Biuk
Green Scheels Pidgeon
5-745 Bridge Street West
Waterloo ON N2V 2G6
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is proposing to construct 25 on-street townhouse
dwellings having a frontage on Windflower Drive and Foxglove Crescent, and is requesting
permission for the following variances:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 260 AUGUST 17, 1999
a)
a sideyard setback of 1.75 m (5.74 ft.) for Units 6, 7, 14 and 15 (fronting onto Windflower
Drive) and Unit 21 (fronting onto Foxglove Crescent), rather than the required 2.5 m (8.2
ft.);
b) a rear yard setback of 5.0 m (16.4 ft.) for Unit 1 (fronting onto Windflower Drive), rather
than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.); and,
Submission Nos.: A 82/99 to A 88/99 (Cont'd)
c)
a rear yard setback of 6.5 m (21.32 ft.) for Unit 2 (fronting onto Windflower Drive), rather
than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the owner of the above noted property is requesting permission to construct
25 linear town house units having a frontage on Windflower Drive and Foxglove Crescent and
is requesting permission for the following variances:
(a)
(b)
(c)
a side yard of 1.75 metres (5.74 feet) for Units 6, 7, 14, and 15 (fronting onto
Windflower Drive) and Unit 21 (fronting onto Foxglove Crescent) rather than the
required 2.5 metres (8.2 feet);
a rear yard of 5.0 metres (16.4 feet) for Unit 1 (fronting onto Windflower Drive rather
than the required 7.5 metres (24.6 feet); and
a rear yard of 6.5 metres (21.32 feet) for Unit 2 (fronting onto Windflower Drive) rather
than the required 7.5 metres (24.6 feet).
It should be noted that the site still consists of two blocks and the future lots have not yet been
created.
The proposed side yards for Units 6, 7, 14, and 21 should be amended to 0.6 metres (2 feet)
as the setback is calculated from the proposed attached covered porch rather than the main
building and further, that the setback for Unit 15 should be amended to 0.3 metres (1 foot).
The builder has added wrap-around covered porches to the end units as part of the house
design. Although the main portion of the building is setback 1.75 metres (5.74 feet) the
calculation of the setback is determined from the covered porch. The Department supports
this architectural feature as an added dimension to the streetscape design.
The proposed setback of 10.2 metres (33.4 feet) from Ottawa Street for Unit 1 is not in
compliance with the zoning requirement of 12.0 metres (39.37 feet). As the applicant has not
applied for this minor variance, the applicant has requested that the application be amended.
Staff finds that the proposed reduced side yards for the porch are deemed to be minor in
nature and that the general intent of the by-law is met as the main portion of the building
complies with the regulations. Further, the addition of the wrap-around porches to the end
units adds a complimentary architectural dimension to the streetscape. In addition, the
reduction of the rear yard setback for Units 1 and 2, as well as the additional setback from
Ottawa Street for Unit 1, are also deemed to be minor in nature due to the shape of the block
of land of this portion of the block. Given that the lands surrounding this development are
vacant except for some dwellings to the east, the variances to 25 unit linear town house
proposal are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the lands. In the opinion of
staff, the proposed variances meet the four tests set out in Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Application A82-88/99,
as amended, be approved.
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 Co-ordinator of Traffic Planning, Traffic & Parking
Division, in which he advised that it is noted that an additional variance may be required for this
application, which relates to the setback of the proposed driveway at Unit 20. The driveway
location is approximately 9 m from the intersection of Windflower Drive and Foxglove Crescent
which is less than the by-law requirement. This Division does not support the reduced setback as
this condition can create potential traffic operating problems, particularly on a collector road
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 261 AUGUST 17, 1999
where traffic activity is typically higher. It is recommended that the driveway location be revised
to meet the setback requirements.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections to this application.
8. Submission Nos.:
A 82/99 to A 88/99 (Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo in which
they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the
Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor
thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this
development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Chair reviewed the comments and inquired if Ms. Biuk had anything further to add. Ms. D.
Biuk advised that she wished to address the concerns of the Traffic Division with respect to Unit
20 and, in this regard, Ms. Biuk provided a sketch of the proposed site.
Ms. D. Biuk pointed out that, at the intersection of Windflower Drive and Foxglove Crescent,
motorists have reduced visibility. She stated that because of the irregular shape of the property it
was not possible to achieve the normal 90 degree angle for vehicles exiting the proposed
driveway for Unit 20. She stated that cars parked in the driveway will still be able to see on-
coming traffic and cars backing out of the driveway will not intrude into the intersection.
Ms. J. Given advised that the concerns raised by the Traffic and Parking Division are not included
as part of the variance application and relate to the fact that the proposed driveway for Unit 20 is
too close to the intersection. She advised that Traffic staff are concerned with the potential for
rear-end collisions as motorists may assume the vehicle ahead is stopping at the intersection
when, in fact, they are slowing down to enter the driveway to this unit. Ms. Given advised that
this has been a consistent traffic safety concern and Traffic staff are opposed to having a
driveway in this location that does not meet the setback requirements.
Mr. A. Galloway inquired if any of the other variances would be affected by relocation of the
driveway. Ms. Biuk responded that it may affect some of the variances but that the majority of the
variances are based on the current design.
Ms. S. Campbell inquired if the applicant would want to defer these applications to allow time to
reconfigure the proposed design if the variance respecting the driveway for Unit 20 was not
approved. Ms. Biuk responded that the design would have to be reconfigured to comply with the
required setback; however, this would be very difficult to do.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that, in some cases, it is not possible to get as many units on a parcel of
land as originally thought and this site did not appear to lend itself to the number of units
proposed. In this regard, he suggested that it may be in the best interest of the applicant to
review the design in conjunction with traffic concerns and either submit revised applications or
reconfigure the design of the end unit.
Ms. D. Biuk stated that if all the other required variances, except that affecting Unit 20, could be
approved at this time she would prefer to proceed and the driveway for the end unit would then
be reconfigured to front onto Foxglove Crescent.
The Chair inquired if approval was granted, save and except the variance for Unit 20, if the
applicant would then have to submit another application for the reconfiguration of the driveway.
Ms. Biuk responded that the driveway for Unit 20 can be legally reconfigured onto Foxglove
Crescent without requiring the need for an additional minor variance.
Ms. S. Campbell questioned if the variance for the driveway of Unit 20 could be approved as it
was not part of the original applications. Ms. Given advised that it could be considered on the
basis of an amendment to the original applications.
Ms. Campbell suggested that, if the Committee was not in favour of approving the driveway
variance, the applications be approved without amendment. In this regard, Ms. Biuk stated that
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 262 AUGUST 17, 1999
additional amendments are proposed over and above the variance to Unit 20 and that she wished
to proceed with these. She pointed out that staff have recommended amending the sideyard
requirements for Units 6, 7, 14 and 21 to account for proper calculation of the setback from the
proposed attached covered porches rather than from the main building. She further advised that
an amendment is required for Unit 15 to have a setback of 0.3 m rather than the requested 1.75
m, again because of the need to calculate the setback from the covered porch.
Submission Nos.: A 82/99 to A 88/99 (Cont'd)
Mr. A. Galloway questioned the viability of a 2 ft. separation distance between porches and Ms.
Biuk responded that it is still possible to move through the buildings to the backyard with such
items as lawnmowers and anything larger could be taken through the garage, into the house and
then out through the rear entrance to the townhouse into the backyard.
Submission No. A 82/99
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Freure Developments Limited requesting permission to construct a
linear townhouse dwelling fronting onto Windflower Drive and having a sideyard setback of 0.6
m (1.96 ft.), rather than the required 2.5 m (8.2 ft.), on Blocks 9 and 10, Registered Plan 58M-
55, Windflower Drive at Foxglove Crescent, (Unit 6), at 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 83/99
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Freure Developments Limited requesting permission to construct a
linear townhouse dwelling fronting onto Windflower Drive and having a sideyard setback of 0.6
m (1.96 ft.), rather than the required 2.5 m (8.2 ft.), on Blocks 9 and 10, Registered Plan 58M-
55, Windflower Drive at Foxglove Crescent, (Unit 7), at 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 84/99
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Freure Developments Limited requesting permission to construct a
linear townhouse dwelling fronting onto Windflower Drive and having a sideyard setback of 0.6
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 263 AUGUST 17, 1999
m (1.96 ft.), rather than the required 2.5 m (8.2 ft.), on Blocks 9 and 10, Registered Plan 58M-
55, Windflower Drive at Foxglove Crescent, (Unit 14), at Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
Submission Nos.: A 82/99 to A 88/99 (Cont'd)
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 85~99
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Freure Developments Limited requesting permission to construct a
linear townhouse dwelling fronting onto Windflower Drive and having a sideyard setback of 0.3
m (1.0 ft.), rather than the required 2.5 m (8.2 ft.), on Blocks 9 and 10, Registered Plan 58M-
55, Windflower Drive at Foxglove Crescent, (Unit 15), at 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 86~99
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Freure Developments Limited requesting permission to construct a
linear townhouse dwelling fronting onto Foxglove Crescent and having a sideyard setback of
0.6 m (1.96 ft.), rather than the required 2.5 m (8.2 ft.), on Blocks 9 and 10, Registered Plan
58M-55, Windflower Drive at Foxglove Crescent, (Unit 21), at 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 87/99
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 264 AUGUST 17, 1999
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Freure Developments Limited requesting permission to construct a
linear townhouse dwelling fronting onto Windflower Drive and having a sideyard setback from
Ottawa Street of 10.2 m (33.4 ft.), rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), and a rearyard
setback of 5 m (16.4 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Blocks 9 and 10,
Submission Nos.:
A 82/99 to A 88/99 (Cont'd)
Registered Plan 58M-55, Windflower Drive at Foxglove Crescent, (Unit 1), 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 88~99
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Freure Developments Limited requesting permission to construct a
linear townhouse fronting onto Windflower Drive and having a rearyard setback of 6.5 m (21.32
ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Blocks 9 and 10, Registered Plan 58M-55,
Windflower Drive at Foxglove Crescent, (Unit 2), 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
Ms. D. Biuk then requested the Committee to consider reducing the fee with respect to these
applications. She stated that within the parcel of land, which consists of two Iotless blocks, 7 of
the 25 proposed lots require minor variances. An application fee of $286.00 was applied to each
of the 7 lots for a total cost of $2,002.00. She suggested that the Committee consider basing the
fee on the two blocks for a total cost of $572.00 as she believed this would more accurately
reflect the work required to process the applications. She noted that only one circulation list,
encompassing the two blocks, was required for notification purpose.
The Chair requested staff to comment and Ms. Given responded that, from the perspective of
writing a staff report for the Committee's consideration, she did not feel that this type of
application generated a significant amount of more time to process.
The Secretary advised that notice is undertaken primarily through advertising in the local
newspaper, in addition to a public mailing. She noted that each of the 7 lots required variances,
some of which were identical and others which were not. She advised that all variances must be
explained in the notice and the longer the explanation the higher the cost of the advertisement.
She further suggested that the Committee consider comparison between this proposal which
consists of a parcel of land on which opportunity exists to develop multiple lots for later individual
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 265 AUGUST 17, 1999
resale to that of other applications consisting of a parcel of land on which the opportunity exists to
only place one structure for later resale. She questioned if it was fair in this instance to allow a
reduced fee.
Ms. D. Biuk provided further comparison, in that, a proposal for condominium development could
be brought forward which would require only one fee to be paid but, as this application involved
townhouse development, it was required to pay on a per lot basis.
Submission Nos.: A 82/99 to A 88/99 (Cont'd)
The Chair enquired if the applicant intended to make application to the Committee for severance
of the proposed lots. In this regard, Ms. Biuk responded that severance of the lots would not take
place until the development had received site plan approval, at which time the lots would be
created through the part lot control process.
The Chair enquired as to how fees are applied to the part lot control process and Ms. Given
responded that the fee was based on an initial application fee for the first lot/block, with an
additional fee applying to each new lot or block created.
Ms. S. Campbell questioned if the Committee had authority to deal with fees and the Secretary
advised that the Planning Act provides authority to the Committee to use discretion in the
imposition of fees. Ms. Biuk further stated that the Act allows the Committee to also waive fees.
Ms. S. Campbell questioned if Ms. Biuk could provide precedent for fees being reduced and Ms.
Biuk cited an instance pertaining to an application in the Pioneer Tower area where the total fee
had been calculated at $16,000.00 based on 68 lots. In this case, she noted that the variances
had all been identical and that a reduction in fees had been approved.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he recalled the application in the Pioneer Tower area, wherein the
only variance required for each of the lots affected was a height restriction. He pointed out,
however, that the applications under discussion this date involved multiple variances from which
the 7 lots will benefit and, as the fee is also applied on a per lot basis for part lot control, he felt it
was not appropriate to approve a reduction in fees.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the request of Freure Developments Limited for a reduction of the application fees applied to
Committee of Adjustment Minor Variance Applications, Submission Nos. A 82/99 to A 88/99
inclusive, BE REFUSED.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 89/99
Centrefund (Kitchener) Corp.
1005 Ottawa Street North
Part of Blocks E and F, Registered Plan 1170, Being Parts 1 and 2
on Plan 58R-3606, save and except Parts 9 to 13, inclusive on Plan
58R-3941
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
Written Submissions:
Mr. R. Richards
1727 Sunningdale Bend
Mississauga ON L5J 1G1
None
In Support: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 266 AUGUST 17, 1999
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the lands involved in this application consist of an existing
commercial plaza development. The applicant is requesting permission to construct an additional
building for retail purposes having a sideyard setback from River Road of 1 m (3.28 ft.), rather
than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.)
9. Submission No.:
A 89/99 (Cont'd)
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 side yard setback abutting River
Road from 7.5 metres to 1.0 metre for a proposed Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) retail
outlet approximately 930 square metres in area. However, the property is subject to an easement
which runs the length of River Road and is approximately 3.0 metres in width. In view of this, the
variance should be revised to require a minimum side yard setback of 3.0 metres rather than the
required 7.5 metres.
The subject site is currently developed with a 20,304.00 square metre plaza that was constructed
in the 1970's with a number of subsequent additions. The owners of the property are proposing
changes to the plaza which include a partial demolition as well as the addition of the LCBO retail
outlet. The changes have been approved under Site Plan Application SP99/28/O/PB. The LCBO
building is set back 7.5 metres on the approved site plan. Subsequent to the approval of the site
plan, the owners decided to apply to reduce the side yard setback to bring the LCBO building
closer to the street frontage.
The Community Shopping Centre Zone requires a 7.5 metre side yard setback adjacent to street
frontages because these sites are typically developed with one large building and the scale and
mass of the building was thought to warrant a minimum setback of 7.5 metres. Since the creation
of the C-3 zone, the thinking regarding setbacks is changing. The subject lands are located within
a secondary node within which the effective and efficient use of transit and walking and cycling
are encouraged. One of the implementing design techniques often utilized to achieve a
pedestrian oriented development is to locate buildings close to the street. In view of this and since
the scale and mass of the proposed building is minor in comparison with the existing mall, a
reduction in the side yard setback to locate the building closer to the street meets the general
intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The proposal to locate the building closer to the street is
desirable for the appropriate use of the subject lands since it will achieve a more pedestrian
oriented development.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance
Application A89/99, as amended, to reduce the side yard setback from 7.5 metres to 3.0 metres
relative to the proposed L.C.B.O. building.
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 objections to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo in which
they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the
Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor
thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this
development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that they
request approval of this application be subject to the following conditions:
That the Applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 267 AUGUST 17, 1999
That the Applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severances are granted.
The Chair reviewed the comments, noting that staff are recommending that the application be
amended and enquired if Mr. Richards had any further to add. Mr. Richards stated that he had
reviewed the comments and had nothing further to add.
10.
Submission No.:
A 89/99 (Cont'd)
Ms. S. Campbell enquired if Mr. Richards had reviewed the comments of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro
and Mr. Richards responded that he had. In addition, he stated that engineers were currently
working with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro on these issues.
The Chair enquired if there was a severance involved with this application and Mr. Richards
responded that there was not. The Chair noted that Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro comments referred
to servicing prior to severance being granted and that there appeared to be some confusion.
The Chair further enquired as to the reason for placing the proposed building closer to the street.
Mr. Richards advised that there is a growing trend in retail marketing to place buildings closer to
the street so as to block the view of asphalt and parking lots and create landscaping that would
be more aesthetically pleasing on the street side.
The Chair enquired if a site plan was required and Ms. Given responded that a site plan was
required and had already been undertaken. Mr. Richards further advised that some changes to
the site plan had been proposed. In this regard, he advised that a site plan agreement has been
drafted but has yet to be signed.
The Chair enquired what was proposed for landscaping and Mr. Richards advised that at this
time he was not certain; however, a landscaping plan was being undertaken.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Centrefund (Kitchener) Corp. requesting permission to construct an
additional building for a proposed Liquor Control Board of Ontario retail outlet having an area of
930 m2 (4,198.06 sq. ft.), and having a sideyard setback from River Road of 3 m (9.84 ft.), rather
than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Part of Blocks E and F, Registered Plan 1170, being Parts 1
and 2 on Plan 58R-3606, save and except Parts 9 to 13 inclusive on Plan 58R-3941, 1005
Ottawa Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the proposed LCBO building.
That the applicants shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required
by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro.
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:
A 92/99
Steve Vogel & Sara Corfield
164 Bloomingdale Road
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 268 AUGUST 17, 1999
Legal Description:
Part of Lots 43 & 44, Small Lots North of Peter Horning's Tract also
known as Parts 1 to 4, 58R-11326
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. S. Rice
c/o Department of Business and Planning Services
200 King Street West
Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
10. Submission No.:
A 92/99 (Cont'd)
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
single family dwelling having a frontyard setback of 7.693 m (25.24 ft.), rather than the required
12 m (39.37 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject property is located at 164 Bloomingdale Road, and
contains a single detached dwelling constructed in 1997 with a setback from the Arterial Road
of 7.693 metres rather than the required 12.0 metres. A building permit was inadvertently
issued contrary to the by-law provision.
The purpose of the setback requirement from Arterial roads is to ensure a separation of new
residential dwellings from the noise generated by the road. The provision is most applicable
to new subdivision development, whereas in this case, the subject dwelling is situated between
two residential structures located within the 12 metre setback, as they were constructed prior
to the City adding the general provision to the by-law, in 1994.
Approval of the variance will allow a consistent streetscape relative to the setback, and legalize
the infill development, which is appropriate for the use of the property.
As this variance meets all tests of the Planning Act, staff recommend its approval.
That the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of application
A 92/99.
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 Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo in which
they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the
Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor
thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this
development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Chair reviewed the comments and enquired if Ms. Rice had anything further to add. Ms.
Rice responded that she had nothing further to add.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr A. Galloway
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 269 AUGUST 17, 1999
That the application of Steve Vogel and Sara Corfield requesting permission to legalize an
existing single family dwelling having a frontyard setback from Bloomingdale Road of 7.693 m
(25.24 ft.), rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), on Part of Lots 43 and 44, Small Lots North of
Peter Horning's Tract, also known as Parts 1 to 4, 58R-11326, 164 Bloomingdale Road,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
10.
Submission No.: A 92~99 (Cont'd)
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
11.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 93~99
Joe Groh
117 Eastforest Trail
Part Lot 35, German Company Tract, Part 6, Registered Plan 58R-
10060, Part 10 & 11, Registered Plan 58R-11439
Mr. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his law firm has acted for Mr. J.
Groh and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Ms. S.
Campbell chaired the meeting during consideration of this application and, pursuant to the
Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this application was considered by the remaining two members.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. & Mrs. J. Groh
117 Eastforest Trail
Kitchener ON N2N 3M3
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a deck, 2.65
m (8.69 ft) in height, with a sideyard setback of 0 m, rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the owners intend to have a builder construct a deck attached to the
dwelling in the sideyard, 2.65 m from the ground and 0 m from the lot line rather than the
required 1.2 m.
While decks 0.6 m or lower are permitted up to the lot line, higher decks require a 1.2 m
setback, intended to protect the privacy in the yard of adjacent property owners. In this case,
the house is on a lot adjacent to a stormwater management area owned by the City, so impact
on privacy is not an issue. The variance is minor and the intent of the by-law is therefore met,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 270 AUGUST 17, 1999
given that there would be no detrimental impact on adjoining properties. The construction of a
deck in this location is appropriate given the design of the dwelling.
The builder/owner is required to ensure all construction is located within the confines of the
subject property.
11. Submission No.:
A 93/99 (Cont'd)
That the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that application A93/99
be approved, for construction of a deck 0 m from the sideyard, as shown on the submitted
plans.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required to construct the new deck.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo in which
they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the
Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor
thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this
development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned how close the nearest neighbour was to this property and Mr. Groh
responded that the closest neighbours were at least 150 - 200 feet across a waterway.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Joe Groh requesting permission to construct a deck, 2.65 m (8.69 ft.) in
height and having a sideyard setback of 0 m, rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93 ft.), on Part Lot
35, German Company Tract, designated as Part 6, on Registered Plan 58R-10060 and Part 10
and 11 on Registered Plan 58R-11439, 117 Eastforest Trail, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED,
subject to the following conditions:
That the variance as approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the
drawings submitted with the application for Submission No. A 93/99.
2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new deck.
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
CONSENT
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
B 45/99
Hallman Aberdeen Limited
Old Chicopee Drive
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 271 AUGUST 17, 1999
Legal Description:
Lot 72, Registered Plan 1576, designated as Part 2, Reference Plan
58R-6826
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. P. Dietrich
Wright-Dietrich
697 Coronation Blvd.
Cambridge ON N1R 3G5
Contra: None
1. Submission No.: B 45/99 (Cont'd)
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide the subject
lands by conveying a parcel of land, as a lot addition to the easterly abutting property, having
an area of 601.8 m2 (6,477.93 sq. ft.), by a depth of 46 m (150.91 ft.), and retaining a parcel of
land, having an area of 582.1 m2 (6,265.87 sq. ft.), by a depth of 46 m (150.91 ft.). The lands
to be retained are intended to be added to the westerly abutting property.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide the subject property by
conveying a parcel of land having a frontage of 12.25 metres (40.19 feet) and an area of 601.8
square metres (6,477.93 square feet) shown as Part 2 on the draft reference plan as a lot
addition to the abutting property to the south, Lot 73, and municipally addressed as 230 Old
Chicopee Drive. Further, the proposed retained parcel having a frontage of 12.25 metres
(40.19 feet) and an area of 582.1 square metres (6,265.88 square feet) shown as Part 3 on the
draft reference plan is to be added as a lot addition to the vacant abutting property to the north,
Lot 71.
Lot 72, R.P. 1576 is currently vacant and is heavily wooded. The property immediately to the
south, 230 Old Chicopee Drive is occupied with a large single detached dwelling with a wide
driveway on the north side of the property line. The owner wishes to acquire approximately
half of the southerly part of Lot 72 as a lot addition as this portion is still heavily treed and he
wishes to protect this treed area by purchasing it. The northerly part of Lot 72 is to be added
as a lot addition to the vacant parcel to the north on Lot 71, also owned by Hallman Rosedale
Ltd.
Parts 1 and 4 of the draft reference plan are portions of the former alignment of Old Chicopee
Road right-of-way. This portion of the road has been physically realigned in front of Lot 72 and
the balance of the road will be extended to the Southwest in the near future to connect with
River Road. However, Parts 1 and 4 have not been formerly closed by by-law and are still
under City jurisdiction.
Further, as service connections were installed to Lot 72 during the construction of Registered
Plan 1576, the existing service connections to this lot now become redundant. Accordingly,
the owner will need to remove these connections to the satisfaction of the Department of
Public Works.
The Department of Business and Planning Services has no objection to the severance.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that application B45/99 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
That both the land to be severed and the land to be retained be added to their
respective abutting lands and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 272 AUGUST 17, 1999
Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections
50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995.
That the owner submit revised drawings amending the Lot Grading and Drainage
Control Plans to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owner make satisfactory arrangement with the City's General Manager of
Public Works for the removal of any redundant service connections to Lot 72.
1. Submission No.:
B 45/99 (Cont'd)
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 with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that they have reviewed this application and have no concerns. In addition,
they advised any future development on the lands subject to the above-noted consent
applications will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91,
as amended By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof. Applicants are also advised that there
may be a Regional fee assessed for development agreements if required.
The Committee noted the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they request
approval of this application be subject to the following condition:
That the Applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
removal of electrical servicing to the land to be severed before the severance is granted.
The Chair reviewed the comments and enquired if Mr. Dietrich had anything further to add and
Mr. Dietrich responded that he had nothing further to add.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned if the applicant had any concerns with the conditions and Mr. Dietrich
responded that he had no concerns with the conditions; however, he was surprised to read in the
staff report that Parts 1 and 4 of the former alignment of Old Chicopee Road right-of-way had not
been conveyed as he understood this part of the road had already been closed. He pointed out
that this would not affect the severance as the City could undertake the process to close the road
by by-law.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was prepared to move approval of the application subject to the
conditions of the Department of Business and Planning Services and Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro.
Mr. P. Dietrich referred to the original application for this property submitted for consideration at
the July 20th meeting which had been deferred to allow a revised application to be submitted. He
questioned what the status of the original application would now be. In this regard, the Secretary
advised that the new application had been assigned the same number as the original application
and, accordingly, the original application was technically amended.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Hallman Aberdeen Limited requesting permission to divide a parcel of land
by conveying a parcel of land having a frontage of 12.25 m (40.19 ft.) and having an area of
601.8 m2 (6,477.93 sq. ft.), as a lot addition to the abutting property described as Lot 73,
Registered Plan 1576 and known municipally as 230 Old Chicopee Drive; and by retaining a
parcel of land having a frontage of 12.25 m (40.19 ft.) and having an area of 582.1 m2 (6,265.88
sq. ft.), to be added as a lot addition to the vacant abutting property to the north described as Lot
71, Registered Plan 1576, Old Chicopee Drive; on Lot 72, Registered Plan 1576, designated as
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 273 AUGUST 17, 1999
Part 2 on Reference Plan 58R-6826, Old Chicopee Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED,
subject to the following conditions:
That both the land to be severed and the land to be retained shall be added to their
respective abutting lands and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting
lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections
50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995.
That the owner shall submit revised drawings amending the Lot Grading and Drainage
Control Plans to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works.
Submission No.:
B 45/99 (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 arrangement with the City's General Manager of
Public Works for the removal of any redundant service connections to Lot 72, Registered
Plan 1576.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
removal of electrical servicing to the land to be severed before the severance is granted.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 17, 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:
Le.qal Description:
B 50/99
Electrohome Limited
809 Wellington Street
Part of 32, 33 and 34, Re.qistered Plan 763
The Chair advised that a request had been received from Ms. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon
Planning Consultants Ltd., to defer this application to the September 14th meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of the application would be deferred to the
meeting of September 14, 1999.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 51/99
1184951 Ontario Inc.
537 Frederick Street
Lot 39, Part Lot 13, 14, 15, 16 and 45, Re.qistered Plan 42
Appearances:
In Support: Mr. M. Sandal
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 274 AUGUST 17, 1999
537 Frederick Street
Kitchener ON N2B 2A7
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Submission No.:
B 51/99 (Cont'd)
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 frontage on Ann Street of
32.83 m (107.71 ft.) with an area of 1,500.33 m2(16,149.94 sq. ft.). The lands to be severed
will have frontage on Frederick Street of 34.67 m (113.74 ft.) with an area of 2,391.03 m2
(25,737.67 sq. ft.), by a depth of 69.63 m (228.44 ft.), and is proposed to be developed with
townhouse dwellings.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject lands have frontage on both Frederick Street and Ann
Street and are presently developed with a one-storey commercial type building fronting Ann
Street. A portion of the existing building is currently being used as a single dwelling unit.
The applicant is requesting consent to sever a 0.24 hectare portion of the site fronting
Frederick Street to facilitate the sale of the lands and future development for approximately 10
townhouse units. The proposed lands to be severed meet the minimum lot width requirement
for a multiple dwelling and compliance with all other zoning regulations will be addressed
through a future Site Plan Approval process.
The existing building is located on the proposed lands to be retained. The R-8 Zone does not
recognize a single dwelling unit within an existing building unless the building is a single
detached dwelling. As a result, there are no regulations that would apply to the retained
parcel.
As it is the applicant's intent to convert the existing building to a multiple dwelling in the future,
the Department of Business and Planning Services supports the proposed severance. In this
instance, the sale and development of the proposed lands to be severed would potentially help
facilitate the conversion of the existing building to a multiple dwelling and would bring more of
the property into compliance with the Municipal Plan. Further, the lot width and area of the
retained lands are sufficient to accommodate a multiple residential redevelopment in the
future.
However should the applicant proceed to convert the existing building to a multiple dwelling, as
is currently intended, a minor variance application will be required. In this respect, a reduction
in the rear yard requirement will be necessary and additional variances, such as reduction in
floor space ratio or private amenity areas, may be required depending on the specifics of the
proposal.
In addition to the dwelling unit, it appears that the existing building may also be illegally used
for a car sales and leasing business. The sale and leasing of automobiles is not permitted
under the R-8 zoning. This matter is currently being investigated by the City's Enforcement
Section. Accordingly, consent approval should be conditional upon the cessation of any illegal
business activity on the severed and retained parcels.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Consent
Application B51/99, subject to the following conditions:
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 275 AUGUST 17, 1999
The cessation of any illegal automobile sales or leasing activities being carried out on
either the lands to be severed or the lands to be retained, to the satisfaction of the City's
Principal Planner.
3. That the owner shall fulfil 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, acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment and
Energy shall be provided to the City's Principal Planner; or
3. Submission No.:
B 51/99 (Cont'd)
(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 they have no objections to this application.
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 Site Condition be imposed on its
behalf.
At this location, Frederick Street has a designated road width of 86 feet. The road allowance is
presently 60 feet, so a 13 foot road widening is required. Some widening has been conveyed on
the property previously. Prior to the approval of this application, a road widening of 8.75 feet at
the easterly limit of the property and 10.59 feet at the westerly limit are required to obtain the 13
feet across the entire property.
A noise study is also required to assess the impact of noise from Frederick Street and any
mitigation that may be required. The applicant is advised that an access permit and lot-grading
plan will be required at the site plan approval stage.
Regional staff have no objection to the approval of B 51/99 subject to the following conditions:
That the owner convey to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo a road widening across
the Frederick Street frontage of the property, consisting of 8.75 feet at the easterly limit of
the property and 10.59 feet at the westerly limit of the property to obtain the required 13
foot widening across the entire property.
That the owner submit a noise study to assess the impact of noise from Frederick Street
and enter into an agreement with the Region to provide for any mitigation measures that
may be identified.
In addition, they advised that any future development on the lands subject to the above-noted
consent applications will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law
91-91, as amended By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof. Applicants are also advised that
there may be a Regional fee assessed for development agreements if required.
The Chair reviewed the comments, noting that the Region is requesting a road widening across
the Frederick Street frontage of the property as well as a noise study and enquired if Mr. Sandal
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 276 AUGUST 17, 1999
had reviewed the comments and was in agreement. Mr. M. Sandal stated that he had reviewed
the comments and questioned why so much frontage was required for road widening purposes as
he believed Frederick Street had already been widened.
The Chair requested staff to comment and Ms. Given responded that she was not able to provide
an answer at this time as she had no details from the Region with respect to the road widening.
Ms. S. Campbell referred to the condition requiring the applicant to undertake a site assessment
with respect to contamination and enquired if Mr. Sandal was in agreement with this condition.
Mr. Sandal advised that he was in agreement and that a site assessment had already been
undertaken.
3. Submission No.:
B 51/99 (Cont'd)
Ms. S. Campbell referred to staff comments with regard to an illegal operation for car sales and
leasing on the subject property and Mr. Sandal stated that he had been in the car business for a
number of years and was using a corner of the property to park a maximum of eight to ten cars.
Ms. S. Campbell questioned if Mr. Sandal understood that, if approval of the application was
granted, any illegal operation would have to cease and Mr. Sandal responded that he
understood.
Following further discussion, Ms. J. Given advised that the issue of the illegal operation of a car
sales and leasing business would be an enforcement issue.
Mr. A. Galloway enquired of Mr. Sandal if he had any concerns with the conditions to be imposed
and Mr. Sandal stated that he had no concerns.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was prepared to move approval of the application subject to the
conditions noted in the report of the Department of Business and Planning Services as well as the
Regional conditions.
The Chair referred to staff comments with regard to the creation of additional variances and
questioned if Mr. Sandal had any concerns. Mr. Sandal responded that he did not believe there
would be any additional variances required as the site already had undergone site plan approval
for a previous development proposal.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned if granting approval of the severance could create the need for
additional variances and Ms. Given responded that this was possible as no site plan has yet been
approved for this proposal. However, she stated that this does not affect the consent application.
The Chair questioned if staff had any concerns with granting approval of the severance in respect
to the illegal business activities and Ms. Given responded that staff do have concerns and that is
why a condition of approval was added that any illegal activities shall cease.
The Chair questioned if Mr. Sandal understood that all illegal activities would have to cease if
approval was granted and Mr. Sandal responded that he did understand; however, he stated that
the situation was caused by a change in zoning which he was not aware of at the time the
change in the zoning took place.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of 1184951 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having a frontage on Frederick Street of 34.67 m (113.74 ft.), by a depth of 69.63 m (228.44 ft.),
and having an area of 2,391.03 m2 (25,737.67 sq. ft.), on Lot 39 and Part Lots 13 to 16 inclusive
and Part Lot 45, Registered Plan 42, 537 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED,
subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal taxes and/or local improvement charges.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 277 AUGUST 17, 1999
The cessation of any illegal automobile sales or leasing activities being carried out on
either the lands to be severed or the lands to be retained, to the satisfaction of the City's
Principal Planner.
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, acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment and
Energy shall be provided to the City's Principal Planner; or,
Submission No.:
B 51/99 (Cont'd)
(b)
to provide a written acknowledgement from the Ministry of Environment and Energy
that a Record of Site Condition is not required.
That the owner shall convey to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo a road widening
across the Frederick Street frontage of the property, consisting of 8.75 ft. at the easterly
limit of the property and 10.59 ft. at the westerly limit of the property to obtain the required
13 ft. widening across the entire property.
That the owner shall submit to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo a noise study to
assess the impact of noise from Frederick Street and enter into an agreement with the
Region to provide for any mitigation measures that may be identified.
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 August 17, 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 54/99
Edwin & Berthal Brissett
68 Schweitzer Street
Part of Lots 12 and 13, Registered Plan 675, Part of Part 2 and Part
4, Reference Plan 58R-9572
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. M. Fletcher
Madorin, Snyder
235 King Street East
Box 1234
Kitchener ON N2G 4G9
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 278 AUGUST 17, 1999
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of
land having frontage on Schweitzer Street of 13.7 m (44.94 ft.), by an average depth of 55 m
(180.44 ft.), and having an area of 750 m2 (8,073.19 sq. ft.). The existing and proposed use of
the property is residential.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject property is a 0.39-hectare parcel of land which fronts
Submission No.: B 54/99 (Cont'd)
Schweitzer Street. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the front portion of the property,
containing a single detached dwelling fronting Schweitzer Street, from the rear portion of the
property which is subject to a draft plan of subdivision application.
The applicants received approval of a similar Consent Application (B41/99) in 1998, however the
conditions of the severance were not fulfilled within one year and the approval lapsed. More
recently, the lands were subject to Consent Application B49/99 and Minor Variance Application
A74/99, approved by the Committee of Adjustment on July 20, 1999. The purpose of these
applications was to sever a coach house dwelling from the subject lands, creating a new lot
fronting Schweitzer Street.
The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan and Residential Low
Density in the Bridgeport East Secondary Plan, both of which provide for the proposed
severance. The lands are split zoned, with the front portion of the property zoned R-3 to a depth
of approximately 39 metres and the remainder of the property zoned R-4, both according to
Zoning By-law 85-1.
The rear portion of the property, together with two other neighbouring properties, is within Draft
Plan of Subdivision 30T-92010 which was draft approved by the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo on May 26, 1994. This Draft Plan of Subdivision would create 14 residential lots and
would extend Tagge Crescent from its present terminus through to Tagge Street. Upon
registration of the Plan of Subdivision, the remainder of the subject lands which front Schweitzer
Street would become a separate lot.
Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-92010 has not proceeded to registration for a number of reasons.
As a result, the applicants now wish to sever the front portion of the property so that it may be
conveyed as a separate lot. The proposed lands to be retained will continue to comprise part of
Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-92010 and will be subject to a future Residential Subdivision
Agreement to be entered into with the City.
The boundary between the R-3 Zone and the R-4 Zone is located near the rear of the lands
which are proposed to be severed. The existing single detached dwelling is located within the R-
3 Zone and complies with all applicable regulations.
Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of
Consent Application B54/99, subject to conditions.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application
B54/99, be approved subject to the following conditions:
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
If not completed as a result of satisfying conditions for Consent Application B49/99, that
the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager
of Public Works, for the installation of any new service connections required for the
severed lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 279 AUGUST 17, 1999
If not completed as a result of satisfying conditions for Consent Application B49/99, 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.
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 Co-ordinator of Traffic Planning, Traffic & Parking
Division, in which he advised that this Division has no concerns regarding this application
provided that driveway access to the parcels can be provided.
4. Submission No.:
B 54/99 (Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no concerns with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and have no concerns;
however, any future development on the lands subject to the above-noted consent applications
will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended
by By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof. Applicants are also advised that there may be a
Regional fee assessed for development agreements if required.
The Chair reviewed the comments and enquired if Ms. Fletcher was in agreement with the
conditions proposed. Ms. Fletcher advised that she had reviewed the comments and was in
agreement.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Edwin & Berthal Brissett requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having frontage on Schweitzer Street of 13.7 m (44.94 ft.), by an average depth of 55 m (180.44
ft.), and having an area of 750 m2 (8,073.19 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 12 and 13, Registered Plan
675, designated as Part of Part 2 and Part 4, Reference Plan 58R-9572, 68 Schweitzer Street,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That, if not completed as a result of satisfying conditions for Consent Application B 49/99,
the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works, for the installation of any new service connections required for
the severed lands.
That, if not completed as a result of satisfying conditions for Consent Application B 49/99,
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.
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 August 17, 2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 280 AUGUST 17, 1999
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 52/99, B 53/99, A 90/99 & A 91/99
Moling Inc.
549-565 King Street East
Part Lots 64 & 86, Part Lots 64 & 87, and Part Lots 64, 87 & 88,
Reqistered Plan 303
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. H. Rotberg
P.O. Box 2814
61 Roy Street
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 three new lots
by severing two parcels of land and retaining a parcel of land, having an area of 905.82 m2
(9,750.48 sq. ft.). The two parcels to be severed will be developed as two-storey buildings
consisting of a commercial use on the main floor and a residential use on the second floor.
The first parcel to be severed will have an area of 484.38 m2 (5,213.99 sq. ft.), by a depth of
40.2 m (131.89 ft.), and the second parcel to be severed will have an area of 441.46 m~
(4,751.99 sq. ft.), by a depth of 40.2 m (131.89 ft.).
The applicant is also requesting variances to the requirements of the Zoning By-law. Both of
the parcels to be severed will have frontage on King Street East with the first parcel having a
frontage of 11.58 m (37.99 ft.) and the second parcel having a frontage of 10.97 m (35.99 ft.),
whereas the by-law requires 16 m (52.49 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the subject lands contain a temporary park. Surrounding land uses include a
mixture of commercial and residential uses along this part of King Street East.
The owner has made the following applications:
B-52/99 To sever a lot fronting King Street East with an area of 484.38 square metres
B-53/99
To sever a lot fronting King Street East with an area of 441.46 square metres
A-52/99
To request a minimum lot width of 11.58 metres rather than the required 16
metres for that lot proposed under B-52/99
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 281 AUGUST 17, 1999
A-53/99
To request a minimum lot width of 10.97 metres rather than the required 16 metres
for that lot proposed under B-53/99
The subject lands are located in special policy area one in the King Street East Secondary Plan.
The long term objective of the Secondary Plan is to encourage development of a high profile
nature consisting of office, high density residential and institutional uses in mixed use buildings
with ground floor commercial uses.
B-52/99 and B-53/99
It is understood that the owner is proposing to create two lots, and retain one lot at the corner of
King Street East and Betzner Avenue, for the purpose of accommodating ground floor
Submission Nos.: B 52/99, B 53/99, A 90/99 & A 91/99 (Cont'd)
commercial uses and upper floor residential units to serve the business operators of the
commercial use. These arrangements are typically referred to as "live-work units". The sketch
attached to the application has not received any review relative to site plan matters.
Staff have a concern with the size of the proposed parcels. The intent of the King Street East
Secondary Plan in this location is to encourage high density residential uses. Staff consider that
the size of these parcels would not permit residential development of a high density nature,
particularly given the limited amount of parking and amenity area available on the severed lots.
While ground floor commercial uses would be possible as part of a small building which could be
accommodated on the lot, no more than one or two residential units would appear possible within
the building and it is questionable as to whether the minimum floor space ratio is achieved by the
proposed plans.
It is recommended that applications B-53/99 and B-52/99 be deferred to enable the owner to
explore a revised site plan with staff, which should include greater lot sizes to enable higher
density development in compliance with the requirements of the Secondary Plan policies and
Zoning By-law.
A 90/99 to A 91/99
Given the concerns expressed over the small size of the lots being proposed under B-52/99 and
B-53/99, staff consider that the proposed variances are not appropriate. Staff do not support the
proposed lot widths, as they do not maintain the intent of the Secondary Plan or Zoning By-law.
While it might be appropriate for the severance applications to remain "active" to allow further
discussion on site planning matters, the proposed lot widths of 11.58 metres and 10.97 metres
cannot be supported.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends deferral of consent applications
B-52/99 and B-53/99 to a Committee of Adjustment meeting of October 5, 1999.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of minor variance
applications A-90/99 and A-91/99.
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 Submissions B 52/99 and B
53/99. In addition, they advised that Submission Nos. A 90/99 and A 91/99 require building
permits and the walls located 1.2 metres from the property line shall have a maximum 7%
openings.
The Committee noted the comments of the Co-ordinator of Traffic Planning, Traffic & Parking
Division, in which he advised that this Division would provide review and comments for
development on the subject lands at the time of site plan application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection with respect to the above applications.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 282 AUGUST 17, 1999
The Committee noted the comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, with
respect to Submission Nos. A 90/99 and A91/99, in which they advised that Regional staff have
reviewed these applications and 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 & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
respecting Submission Nos. B52/99 and B53/99 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
Submission Nos.: B 52/99, B 53/99, A 90/99 & A 91/99 (Cont'd)
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.
A noise study will be required to assess the noise impact from King Street, on the upper storey
residential units.
Regional staff have no objection to the approval of B 52/99 and B 53/99 subject to the following
condition:
1)
That the owner submit a noise study to assess the impact of noise from King Street and
enter into an agreement with the Region to provide for any mitigation measures that may
be identified.
The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. H. Rotberg, dated August 12, 1999, in which
he advised that in view of concerns of the Department of Business and Planning Services he was
withdrawing both variance applications and amending the severance application so that there will
be only one severed lot and one retained lot. The severed lot would have a frontage of 22.55 m
and a depth of 40.2 m and a lot area of 925.8 m2. The retained lot would remain the same,
having a frontage of 21.03 m, a depth of 40.2 m and a lot area of 905.82 m2. The effect of this is
that what was previously shown as parcel 3 becomes parcel 2, and what was previously two
smaller lots (parcel 1 and 2) becomes one larger lot (parcel 1).
The Chair reviewed the comments, noting that the Department of Business and Planning
Services is recommending deferral of Consent Applications B 52/99 and B 53/99 and refusal of
Minor Variance Applications A 90/99 and A 91/99. In this regard, he enquired of Mr. Rotberg if he
had anything further to add.
Mr. H. Rotberg provided the Committee with a brief history of what had led up to the filing of the
applications. He advised that the original proposal was to divide the property into 3 parcels to be
developed as a mixture of combined commercial and residential uses. Mr. Rotberg stated that
the concern of staff relates to the fact that the proposal results in a lower density development
than what is intended within the King Street East Secondary Plan. He noted that his proposal is
higher in density than what presently exists but does not meet the intent of the Secondary Plan
which is to encourage development of a high profile nature.
Following discussions with staff, Mr. Rotberg advised that he had agreed to withdraw the minor
variance applications and amend the severance applications to consist of the creation of two lots
by severing only one parcel instead of two and retaining a parcel. In this regard, he pointed out
that he had been advised by the Secretary that the amendments proposed totally change what
was previously circulated and advertised. Accordingly, he had been advised that a new
application would be required for processing. As a result, he advised that he now wishes to
proceed with the original applications.
The Chair referred to Mr. Rotberg having agreed with severing only one lot instead of two and Mr.
Rotberg responded that he had been in agreement; however, he was in the process of
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 283 AUGUST 17, 1999
purchasing the property with a conditional offer on the table and, accordingly, timing for
reprocessing of an amended application would not permit the proposed purchase to go through.
Accordingly, he stated that he now wished to return to, and proceed with the original applications.
The Chair questioned that if the original severances were proceeded with, if the minor variances
would also be required and Mr. Rotberg responded that was correct.
The Chair referred to a similar situation on Benton Street where the City wanted higher density;
however, the Committee had determined that the owner should have the right to decide how to
develop internally provided any variances were reasonable. In this particular area, he stated that
he could not foresee any demand for huge development and any new development proposals
should be welcomed, as it will enhance the area.
1. Submission Nos.:
B 52/99, B 53/99, A 90/99 & A 91/99 (Cont'd)
Ms. J. Given advised that staff question the ability of the lots proposed under the original
applications to meet the by-law requirements with respect to floor space ratio and pointed out that
they do not reflect the intent of the Secondary Plan. In addition, she noted that initial review of
the proposal indicates that the lot is not large enough to accommodate three new lots and still
meet the four tests under the Planning Act. She advised that staff are of the opinion that the
original applications do not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan.
The Chair questioned if parking requirements would be achieved if the buildings were constructed
as proposed. Ms. Given responded that the proposal has not undergone site plan approval and
staff question the ability to meet parking requirements for the smaller lots as proposed. She
stated that staff are more in favour of amending the applications to reduce the number of lots to
two and suggested that the Committee consider whether doing so would require recirculation.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he understood staff's concerns and felt there was room for
compromise by severing one lot instead of two.
Mr. Rotberg stated that the issue was one of compliance and pointed out that the floor space ratio
could be met by constructing a three storey building as opposed to two storeys. He further
advised that he believed the parking requirements could be met for any use other than a health
use; however, this would all be subject to site plan approval.
The Chair stated that without site plan approval, it was too speculative at this time as to whether
the site could comply based on the original applications. He stated that he would be more in
favour of approving one severance. In addition, he stated that he did not feel recirculation would
be necessary.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he would be prepared to support approval on the basis of one lot
being severed and was also in agreement that further circulation was not necessary.
Mr. Rotberg stated that he appreciated the comments of the Committee and would likely
ultimately agree to severing only one lot; however, he wished to point out that the development
would then change from two buildings, each with one shop on the main floor and a residence on
the top floor, to one building with several shops on the main floor and two or three apartments on
the top floor.
The Chair advised Mr. Rotberg that if he felt the original proposal was more appropriate he had
the option of deferring the matter to allow time for further review of the issues.
Ms. S. Campbell noted that it appeared support would not be given to the original applications
and suggested that deferral may be an appropriate option at this time.
Mr. H. Rotberg stated that, with the impending conditional offer, he did not consider deferral to be
an option. Accordingly, he stated that he was in agreement to go forward on the basis of
severing only one lot.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 284 AUGUST 17, 1999
Accordingly, the Committee proceeded on the basis of the proposed amendment to sever only
one lot and, effectively, Consent Application B 53/99 and Minor Variance Applications A 90/99
and A 91/99 are considered to have been withdrawn.
The Chair enquired if there were any conditions of approval to be applied and Ms. Given
responded certain conditions would apply. She briefly outlined the conditions and advised that
she would provide exact wording to the Secretary for inclusion in the Committee's decision. She
further pointed out that comments from the Public Works Department referred to easements that
may be required; however, she did not have details at this time.
Mr. H. Rotberg stated that two easements presently exist on the site and could not agree with
such a vague condition being imposed. In this regard, the Committee agreed with Mr. Rotberg.
Ms. J. Given further pointed out that the Region was also requesting that a noise study be
undertaken. In this regard, Mr. Rotberg stated that the City has the ability to control noise levels
Submission Nos.: B 52/99, B 53/99, A 90/99 & A 91/99 (Cont'd)
by by-law and, given the central location of the property, noise was to be expected. He stated
that he would not be proceeding with the proposal if he did not believe in the salability of the
development and, accordingly, he felt the need for a noise study was unnecessary. Again, the
Committee concurred with Mr. Rotberg.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Moling Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having
frontage on King Street East of 22.55 m (73.98 ft.), by a depth of 40.2 m (131.89 ft.), and having
an area of 925.8 m2 (9,965.55 sq. ft.) on Part Lot 64 and 86, Part Lots 64 and 87, Parts Lots 64,
87 and 88, all on Registered Plan 303, and Part of Betzner Avenue (closed), 549-565 King Street
East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 2% of the value of the lands to be severed.
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 required to the
severed and retained 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.
4. That the owner shall fulfil 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, 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.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 17, 2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 285 AUGUST 17, 1999
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
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:50 p.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 17th day of August, 1999.
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment