Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-09-14COA\1999-09-14 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. S. Kay and P. Kruse. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. S. Kay, Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of August 17, 1999, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 70/99 Emmanuel Village Homes (Kitchener) Inc. 1250 Weber Street East Lots 51 to 54 and 76 to 81, Part Lots 35 to 43 and 82 to 85, Part Lots 141 and 142, Streets and Lanes The Chair advised that correspondence has been received from Ms. D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, on behalf of Emmanuel Village Homes, to advise that the applicant is now withdrawing their request for a variance with respect to reduction in the parking requirement from 1.5 to 1.3 spaces per unit. 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 The above noted application has been before the Committee on 2 previous occasions, being July 20, 1999, and August 17, 1999, with no one appearing in support of the application. At the Committee's meeting of August 17th, members agreed to defer consideration of the application to the September 14th, meeting and direction was given to the Secretary to forward a letter advising the applicant that if no one appeared in support of the application on that date, the Committee COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 287 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 would either dismiss or refuse the application. of a letter dated August 23, 1999. Submission No.: A73/99(Cont'd) Notification was provided to the applicant by way The Chair noted that no one was present in support of this application and, as it has been before the Committee on a number of occasions, enquired how the members wished to deal with the application. Mr. P. Kruse stated that he was prepared to move dismissal of the application. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That, the owner having been given notice of this meeting and, as no one appeared in support of this application, Submission No. A 73/99 is considered abandoned and is thereby dismissed. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 81/99 Freure Developments Limited Chandos Drive Block 85, Re.qistered Plan 1692 The Chair advised that a request had been received from Ms. D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, to defer this application to the October 5th meeting. Ms. J. Given pointed out that staff is in the process of conducting meetings with the applicant and concerned residents and feel that deferral to the October 5th meeting is premature. In this regard, she requested the Committee to consider deferring the application to the October 26th meeting to allow staff more time to deal with the concerns of the neighbourhood. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 81/99, for Freure Developments Limited, Chandos Drive, be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on October 26, 1999. Carried CONSENT 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 October 26th meeting. 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 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. D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, to defer this application to the October 5th meeting. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the meeting of October 5, 1999. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 288 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 88~98 & A 106~98 The General Church of Canada 262 Dodge Drive Part Lot 3, Beasley's New Survey Appearances: In Support: Mr. E. Sanderson 30 Water Street North Kitchener ON N2H 5A8 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having an area of 1.73 hectares (4.5 acres) containing the house, barn & outbuildings. Permission for the lot area of 1.73 hectares is required as the by-law only permits a lot area of 1.2 hectares. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant originally requested consent to sever a 1.73 hectare lot, consisting of a single detached dwelling, barn and several outbuildings, from the existing 154 hectare land holding in Doon South. A minor variance application was submitted in conjunction with the consent application to allow for the creation of a 1.73-hectare parcel for a single detached dwelling rather than the 1.2 hectare maximum as required by A-1 Zone. The applications were considered by the Committee of Adjustment at its meeting of December 8, 1998 and deferred pending the completion and acceptance of an Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) in conformity with City and Regional Official Plan Policy. The applicant has now completed an appropriate ElS and has revised the applications according to the recommendations therein. Originally, the lot to be severed was proposed to have frontage on Dodge Drive and would have extended into the provincially significant wetland complex associated with Blair Creek. In keeping with the recommendations of the ElS, the lot to be severed is now proposed to have frontage on Groh Drive and remain completely outside the provincially significant wetland complex and regulatory flood plain, as shown on the attached plan. However, while the proposed lot would have frontage on Groh Drive, the applicant is proposing to retain the existing driveway access to Dodge Drive until such time as an alternate access is available, either to Groh Drive or to a new internal street network once the surrounding lands may eventually be developed. This would require a right-of-way for access to be established on the retained lands in favour of the severed lands. Accordingly, the Consent Application should be revised as shown on the attached plan to create a parcel of land completely outside the provincially significant wetland complex, approximately 1.8 hectares in size, and with a frontage of approximately 91 metres on Groh Drive. In addition, the application should be revised to request a right-of-way for access over the retained lands. The right-of-way should not exceed the width of the existing driveway access. As a result of the above revisions to the proposed lot boundaries, the Minor Variance Application must also be revised to request a maximum lot area of up to, but no greater than, 1.8 hectares for a single detached dwelling. This will allow the final lot to be accurately established by way of survey, provided it does not exceed 1.8 hectares in size. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 289 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 1. Submission Nos.: B 88/98 & A 106/98(Cont'd) The proposed severance complies with all relevant policies of the Municipal Plan and the location of the property is not seen to jeopardize the orderly development of the remaining lands in the future. However, it should be noted that because the lands to be retained would still be recognized as an adequately sized farming lot after the approval of the consent application, additional farm related development would be permitted under the A-1 Zone. However such development, if it were to occur, would not likely jeopardize the future development of the retained lands. Because the existing buildings on the lands to be severed have some heritage significance that may be worthy of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act, the proposed severance increases the options for the preservation of the heritage resources in the future. As well, an increase in the maximum lot size is necessary to keep all of the existing buildings together, remain outside the provincially significant wetland complex, and still provide frontage on a public street. For these reasons, the Minor Variance Application is seen to be minor in nature, appropriate for the subject lands, and in keeping with the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A106/98 as revised to permit a single detached dwelling on a lot having an area up to, but no greater than, 1.8 hectares in size, be approved. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B88/98 as revised be approved, subject to the following: 1. That Minor Variance Application A106/98 receive final approval. That the existing barn be removed, altered or relocated so as to comply with the minimum side yard setback of 7.5 metres. That a draft reference plan showing the proposed right-of-way be approved by the City's Principal Planner. That the owners of the retained lands and the severed lands enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, which will ensure that rights-of-way for access and a joint maintenance agreement for both properties are maintained in perpetuity, and provide confirmation that said agreement has been registered against the title of both properties. 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 they will require the applicant to submit a detailed archaeological assessment of the subject lands as a condition of approval of this application. Our requirement for an archaeological assessment is based on the site's high archaeological potential. This requirement must be addressed by the applicant to conform to Policy 6.2.10 of the Regional Official Policies Plan. This policy requires an archaeological assessment as a condition of approval of any development application that exhibits a moderate to high potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. Further, Regional staff have reviewed the scoped Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Howes-Jones and Associates in support of this application. Based on the results of the study, and discussions with City of Kitchener staff, we have no objection to the approval of this application subject to the following conditions (conditions 1 and 2 to the satisfaction of the City of Kitchener): That Green space Area 'B', as illustrated on Map 5, of the Environmental Impact Statement, be rezoned as Conservation Open Space in the City of Kitchener Zoning By- law. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 290 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 2. That the applicant enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered against Areas 'A' and 'B', in which the applicant agrees to: Submission Nos.: B 88/98 & A 106/98(Cont'd) (a) that a fence be erected between Areas 'A' and 'B', as illustrated on Map 5, in order to protect the regenerating vegetation; (b) remove the existing laneway across the wetland once it is feasible and appropriate to construct a new access into a future plan of subdivision; and (c) erect and maintain erosion and sedimentation controls to the satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority and the City of Kitchener along the northern boundary of Area 'B', prior to obtaining a building permit for the construction of a new barn to replace the existing structure. That prior to final approval of B-88/98, the owner submit an archaeological assessment to the Ministry for approval. The Region further advised that any future 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. Applicants are also advised that there may be a Regional fee assessed for development agreements if required. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that further to our comments of November 23, 1998 and May 6, 1999, we can now offer the following comments. We have now had the opportunity to review the Scoped ElS prepared by Howes-Jones & Associates, dated August, 1999. The report is generally satisfactory, however we have recommended the following revisions: a) Upon completion of surveying the boundary for Area B, we would appreciate the opportunity to conduct a site visit to confirm its location. The confirmed boundary should be illustrated in an addendum to the Scoped ElS. b) The statement 'the foundation of the new barn be placed at least 5 m outside the proposed boundary or in such a location so that minimal disturbance will take place to Area B' should be revised to 'the foundation of the new barn be placed at least 5 m outside the proposed boundary'. The Chair requested Mr. Sanderson to identify who he represented in this matter and Mr. Sanderson responded that he was a representative of the General Church in Canada. The Chair questioned if Mr. Sanderson had reviewed staff comments and, in particular, those of the Grand River Conservation Authority and whether or not he had anything further to add. Mr. Sanderson responded that he had reviewed the comments and had nothing further to add. The Chair noted that these applications were submitted some time ago and that it would appear that the application has evolved since originally submitted. He referred to the staff comments which recommend that the consent be granted based on a new plan. The Chair questioned if the Committee could proceed to consider the applications without further recirculation as it appeared that an entirely different parcel was now being severed. Mr. E. Sanderson advised that meetings had been undertaken with City staff who had recommended changing the configuration of the parcel to be severed and that the changes were minor in nature. He stated that the parcel being severed was the same with the perimeter and size being changed. Ms. J. Given confirmed that the parcel being severed was the same; however, the configuration of the parcel had been changed so that the frontage to the severed parcel would be on Groh Drive rather than on Dodge Drive. She advised that the retained lands would remain the same. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 291 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 Submission Nos.: B 88/98 & A 106/98(Cont'd) The Chair referred to the Environmental Impact Statement Study and Mr. Sanderson advised that, as a result of the study it was determined that the frontage should be reconfigured on to Groh Drive; however, the applicant wishes to retain the existing driveway access to Dodge Drive until such time as an alternate access is available either to Groh Drive or to a new internal street network, which may require a right-of-way for access to be established on the retained lands. Ms. S. Campbell questioned how the concerns of the Region were being addressed, noting that they are requiring an archaeological assessment. Mr. Sanderson responded that the applicant is prepared to do the archaeological assessment. Ms. S. Campbell then referred to the Region's condition that Green Space Area "B", as illustrated on Map 5 of the Environmental Impact Statement, be rezoned as Conservation Open Space in the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law. In this regard, she questioned if that was within the applicant's ability to do. Ms. J. Given responded that this condition was beyond the applicants ability and that the City will be undertaking a comprehensive rezoning in future, which the Region has been made aware of. Ms. S. Campbell then referred to Condition 2 of the Region's comments requiring the applicant to enter into an agreement with the City, which appeared to be in contradiction with staffs' recommendation that the applicant enter into an agreement to ensure rights-of-way for access purposes; however, Mr. Sanderson indicated that the Church had no concerns with the Regional conditions and was prepared to work with the Region in this regard. Ms. S. Campbell then referred to the Region's Condition No. 3 which requires an archaeological assessment to be submitted to the Ministry for approval prior to final approval of Consent Application B 88/98. In this regard, Ms. Campbell stated that she felt the condition should be only that the archaeological assessment be submitted to the Ministry and not be required to be approved prior to final approval of the Consent Application. Ms. S. Campbell stated that she was prepared to move approval of the Consent Application, as revised, and subject to the conditions recommended by the Department of Business & Planning Services, Regional Condition Nos. 2 (a) & (b) and Condition 3 with respect to the archaeological assessment to be submitted to the Ministry, and the two conditions of the Grand River Conservation Authority. She further advised that she was prepared to move approval of Minor Variance Application A 106/98 as revised and without condition. Submission No. A 106/98 Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of the General Church of Canada requesting permission to permit a single detached dwelling on a lot having an area up to, but no greater than, 1.8 hectares (4.44 acres) in size, on Part Lot 3, Beasley's New Survey, 362 Dodge Drive, 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 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 292 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 Submission Nos.: B 88/98 & A 106/98(Cont'd) Submission No. B 88/98 Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of the General Church of Canada requesting permission to convey a parcel of land, completely outside the provincially significant wetland complex, containing a single detached dwelling, having an area of no greater than 1.8 hectares (4.44 acres) and having frontage on Groh Drive of 91 m (298.55 ft.), on Part Lot 3, Beasley's New Survey, 262 Dodge Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Minor Variance Application A106/98 shall receive final approval. That the existing barn shall be removed, altered or relocated so as to comply with the minimum side yard setback of 7.5 metres. That a draft reference plan showing the proposed right-of-way shall be approved by the City's Principal Planner. That the owners of the retained lands and the severed lands shall enter into an agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, which will ensure that rights-of-way for access and a joint maintenance agreement for both properties are maintained in perpetuity, and provide confirmation that said agreement has been registered against the title of both properties. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered against areas "A" and "B", as illustrated on Map 5 of the Environmental Impact Statement, in which the owner shall agree to: (a) erect a fence between areas "A" and "B", as illustrated on Map 5 of the Environmental Impact Statement, in order to protect the regenerating vegetation; and, (b) remove the existing laneway across the wetland once it is feasible and appropriate to construct a new access into a future plan of subdivision. That the owner shall submit an archaeological assessment to the Ministry of Citizen, Culture & Recreation. That the owner shall permit the Grand River Conservation Authority to conduct a site visit upon completion of surveying the boundary for Area "B", as illustrated on Map 5 of the Environmental Impact Statement, to confirm its location; the confirmed boundary shall be illustrated in an addendum to the scoped ElS. That the statement "the foundation of the new barn be placed at least 5 m outside the proposed boundary or in such a location so that minimal disturbance will take place to Area "B", within the Environmental Impact Statement, shall be revised to "the foundation of the new barn be placed at least 5 m outside the proposed boundary", as requested by the Grand River Conservation Authority. 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 September 14, 2001. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 293 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 It is the opinion of this Committee that: Submission Nos.: B 88/98 & A 106/98(Cont'd) Submission No. B 88/98 A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: 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 Mr. R. Haalboom, on behalf of his client Mrs. M. Beckman, to defer consideration of this application to the October 5th meeting. Ms. J. Given advised that deferral is being requested to allow review of the Environmental Impact Statement by the Region of Waterloo EEAC Committee which will take place on September 28, 1999. In this regard, Ms. Given advised that there would not be sufficient time for staff to prepare an appropriate report for the Committee's consideration prior to the October 5th meeting. Accordingly, she requested that the Committee consider deferring these applications to the October 26th meeting. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That Consent Application, Submission No. B 3/99, and Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 12/99, for Mary Beckman, 390 Pinnacle Drive, be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on October 26, 1999. Carried a) Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 13/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99 Ivan Biuk Construction Limited 1843 Old Mill Road and Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road Part of Lots 100, 101 and 102, Registered Plan 578, and Part of Drummond Drive (Closed), Part 1, Plan 58R-1149 b) c) Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 14/99 Diana Biuk Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road Lot 97, Registered Plan 578 Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 15/99 Josip Babic Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road Lot 96, Re,qistered Plan 578 The Chair advised that a request had been received from Ms. D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, to defer these applications to the November 16th meeting. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of these applications would be deferred to the meeting of November 16, 1999. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 294 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:05 a.m. in order to consider applications for minor variances to the City of Kitchener's Fence By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:30 a.m. APPLICATIONS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 94/99 Robert & Jennifer Maxwell 28 Donley Street Lot 13, Plan 886 and the Westerly 5 feet of Even Perpendicular Width Throughout From Front to Rear of Lot 14, Plan 886 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Maxwell 28 Donley Street Kitchener ON N2M 3P1 Contra: Mr. H. Dessler 12 Kelvin Avenue Kitchener ON N2M 3N8 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate a required parking space 4.44 m (14.58 ft.) setback from the streetline, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.) The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate the legal parking space for the dwelling 4.4 meters from the front property line rather than the required 6.0 meters. The application should be amended to show that the applicant is also requesting permission to legalize a driveway located closer than 12.0 meters to an intersection. Staff note the applicant has applied for a variance to the Fence By-law to allow a 1.8 meter fence to be located up to a side property line abutting a street (F7/99). The proposed location of the fence has resulted in the need for this variance to locate the parking space ahead of the building line as well as the driveway being located closer than 12.0 meters to the intersection. The Zoning By-law requires the legal parking space for a dwelling to be located 6.0 meters from the front property line. This is to alleviate congestion close to the street and provide safety for pedestrians while maintaining a pleasant streetscape. As well, the Zoning By-law requires a 12.0 meter driveway setback from an intersection to also provide clear unobstructed visibility for both pedestrians and vehicles. The location of the proposed fence will block off the required parking space for the dwelling such that the parking space will now be located 4.4 meters from the front property line. Staff from Traffic and Parking has no concern with the parking space being located 1.6 meters closer to the front property line. The 4.4 meter setback will allow adequate room for the parking space while not hindering pedestrian movement on the sidewalk, nor will the reduced setback impact the streetscape. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 295 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 A recent driveway widening, caused the driveway to now be located approximately 0.6 meters from the side property line abutting the street. Staff from Traffic and Parking has advised the Submission No.: A94/99(Cont'd) applicant that the portion of this driveway widening in the daylight corner will need to be removed. Once this has been accomplished, Traffic has no concern with the driveway widening provided the corner visibility triangle is not used for driveway or parking. The variance for a parking space setback 4.4 meters from the front property line and the widened portion of the driveway can be considered minor in nature as it will have no impact on the streetscape or neighbouring properties. It will maintain the general intent and purpose of the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law. This variance provides an appropriate use of the property. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of application A94/99 as amended with the following condition: The applicant remove the portion of the driveway that is within the daylight corner to the satisfaction of Traffic and Parking prior to November 15, 1999. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Director of Planning prior to the completion date set out in this decision. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division, in which he advised that this Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed variance of having the parking space located 4.44 meters setback from the streetline rather than the required 6 m. It is recommended that the widened portion of the driveway that falls within the 7.6 meter corner visibility triangle be removed. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture 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 Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to this application. The Chair referred to the staff comments and enquired if Mr. Maxwell had anything further to add. Mr. R. Maxwell responded that he had nothing further to add and that he was in agreement with staff's recommendation. The Chair enquired of Mr. Dessler if he was aware of what had transpired since the Committee met to discuss Mr. Maxwell's fence application at the August 17, 1999 meeting. Mr. Dessler indicated that he was not aware of what had happened in the interim. The Chair advised Mr. Dessler that Mr. Maxwell had made application to the Committee for a Minor Variance to locate a parking space 4.4 meters from the property line and staff were recommending approval of this variance subject to removal of the widened portion of the driveway that is located in the daylight triangle corner. The Chair referred to the portion of the driveway located within the daylight triangle and questioned if it was intended to reduce the size of the driveway. Ms. Given responded that the existing driveway was already located in the daylight triangle and enjoyed a legal non-conforming status; however, she advised that the driveway had recently been widened and that only the newly widened portion would be required to be removed. The Chair questioned how many cars Mr. Maxwell would be able to park in his driveway and Mr. Maxwell responded that there was room to park two cars. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 296 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 Ms. S. Campbell stated that she was prepared to move approval of the minor variance, as amended, subject to the newly widened portion of the driveway being removed as recommended by Traffic staff. Submission No.: A94/99(Cont'd) Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Robert & Jennifer Maxwell requesting permission to locate the parking space 4.44 m (14.58 ft.) setback from the front property line rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), and to legalize an existing driveway located closer than the required 12 m (39.37 ft) from the intersection of Donley Street and Kelvin Avenue, on Lot 13, Plan 886 and the westerly 5 ft. of even perpendicular width throughout from front to rear of Lot 14, Plan 886, 28 Donley Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the owner shall remove the portion of the driveway that is within the daylight corner to the satisfaction of the Traffic & Parking Division prior to November 15, 1999. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Director of Planning prior to the completion date set out in this decision. 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 The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:45 a.m. in order to consider an application for Minor Variance to the City of Kitchener's Fence By-law. This meeting reconvened at 11:00 a.m. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 95/99 1045838 Ontario Inc. 185 Kehl Street Part Lots 51 and 52, Plan 791, being Parts 1 and 2, Reference Plan 58R-5721 Appearances: In Support: Ms. J. Norris cio J. Timothy Jansen 900-22 Frederick Street Kitchener ON N2H 6M6 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize the existing 68 units on a lot having an area of 6,601 m2 (71,054.89 sq. ft.), rather than the permitted 66 units. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalise the number of residential dwelling units existing on the property. The subject property was developed in 1973 with a 68-unit COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 297 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 apartment building whereas the current Zoning By-law would allow a maximum of 66 units, as a result of special regulation 132R. Special regulation 132R allows a maximum density of 100 units per hectare. The property has a lot area of 0.6601 hectares, which would permit a maximum of 2. Submission No.: A95/99(Cont'd) 66 units. A review of the history of the subject property identifies that the subject property does not enjoy legal non-conforming status and therefore a variance is required. The special regulation was imposed on properties that were zoned R-7 prior to the Medium Rise Residential designation in the City's Municipal Plan coming into effect on the lands. The special regulation was intended to ensure that developed properties would comply with both the existing and proposed designations. The Medium Rise Residential designation replaced the Medium Density Residential designation in the City's Official Plan, which permitted a maximum residential density of 100 units per hectare; the Medium Rise Residential designation does not have the same restriction. In view of the forgoing, the general intent and purpose of the City's Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law are maintained. The variance is minor since the subject property is developed and the variance will have no impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. The variance is desirable, as the density is appropriate for the Medium Rise Residential designation. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of a Minor Variance Application A95/99 without conditions. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to create new residential units. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture 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 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. Ms. S. Campbell enquired why this property did not enjoy legal non-conforming status. Ms. J. Given stated that she had not done the detailed report and was unsure why the property had not been deemed legal non-conforming. The Chair referred to the fact that when the property was developed in 1973 it did comply with the Zoning By-law; subsequently, he noted that the By-law had changed and suggested the report was incorrect in stating that the property did not enjoy legal non-conforming status. Mr. P. Kruse agreed that the property should be considered as legal non-conforming; however, he stated that it would be beneficial to remove it from its legal non-conforming status and bring it into conformity with the current Zoning By-law. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of 1045838 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to legalize an existing apartment building containing 68 units on a lot having an area of 6,601 m2 (71,054.89 sq. ft.), rather than the permitted 66 units, on Part Lots 51 & 52, Plan 791, being Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-5721, 185 Kehl Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 96/99 Stephen B. Csiszar 270 Mausser Avenue Part of Lots 48 & 49, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: Mr. K. Davis 102 Esther Avenue Cambridge ON N1S 4L6 Ms. Stephen Csiszar 270 Mausser Avenue Kitchener ON N2M 3L1 Contra: Mr. J. Bartoszewski 266 Mausser Avenue Kitchener ON N2M 3L1 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached garage, 3.04 m x 6.09 m (10 ft. x 20 ft.), having an easterly sideyard of 0.3 m (0.98 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.9 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property contains an existing one storey single-detached dwelling, and a detached utility shed. The property is located on the north side of Mausser Avenue, being the sixth lot west of the intersection of Mausser Avenue and Stirling Avenue South. The applicant proposes to construct an attached garage addition on to the side of the single detached dwelling with a side yard setback of 0.3 metres, rather than the required 1.2 metres. The proposed garage addition will have an area of 18.58 square metres. The Building Code requires that garages be a minimum of 3.048 metres x 5.4864 metres in size. To meet this requirement, the applicant must apply for a variance to the required side yard setback. The existing residential dwelling has a side yard setback of 3.35 metres from the abutting property line. However, the existing utility shed straddles the property line that divides the subject property from the lot to the east. Portions of the utility shed, rear yard, and the subject property's asphalt driveway are encroaching on the abutting property. It appears that the two properties are not functionally divided along the lot line, rather along a concrete retaining wall that separates the two driveways, marked with a chain link fence. There is approximately a one-foot difference in grade between the two driveways. This retaining wall extends along the driveways to the existing utility shed on the subject property where it ends, and a chain link fence extends from there to the rear property line. The applicant has noted that this encroachment has been occurring since prior to 1973. The addition will be located completely on the applicant's lot. In order for the proposed garage to be constructed, the existing utility shed will have to be removed. The garage addition will be located adjacent to the driveway of the abutting property. The impact of the addition will be relatively minor in nature given that the existing utility shed encroaches on to the abutting property, and the proposed garage will not. The "functional" yard will therefore increase. The addition will abut the driveway of the abutting property, and will have no adverse impact on the use or function of the abutting lands. The side of the single detached dwelling on the abutting property that faces the proposed garage does not have any windows on it. Furthermore, the garage addition is relatively similar in size and scale to the existing utility shed, and will be located in the same general location. In conclusion, the addition is considered an appropriate development of the lands. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 299 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 3. Submission No.: A96/99(Cont'd) 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 A99/99, subject to the following conditions: That the existing utility shed be removed from the subject property prior to obtaining a building permit for the garage addition. 2. That all drainage from the garage be directed only onto the applicant's property. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the wall of a garage located less than 1.2 metres from the property line shall have a 45 minute fire rating and no openings. The wall shall be clad with non-combustible cladding. 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 or 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 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 staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the minor variance subject to removal of the utility shed and all drainage must be on the owner's property. The Chair enquired of Mr. Davis if he had reviewed the comments and Mr. Davis indicated that he had just received them. The Chair enquired of Mr. Bartoszewski if he was the neighbour located to the east of the subject property and Mr. Bartoszewski confirmed that he was. Mr. J. Bartoszewski stated that the proposed garage would be too close to his property and the eavestrough would overhang onto his property. Mr. K. Davis advised the Committee that the garage would be constructed with a flat roof and that there would be no eavestrough on the side abutting Mr. Bartoszewski's property. He enquired if the Committee had received the revised layout, noting that staff had requested that the original plan be revised. The Chair enquired of staff if they were familiar with the revised plans and Ms. Given indicated that she had received them. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Stephen B. Csiszar requesting permission to construct an attached garage, having an area of 18.58 m2 and having an easterly sideyard of 0.54 m (1.8 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.9 ft.), on Part of Lots 48 & 49, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract, 270 Mausser Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall remove the existing utility shed from the subject property prior to obtaining a building permit for the garage addition. 2. That all drainage from the garage shall be directed only onto the applicant's property. 3. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new garage. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 300 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 Submission No.: A96/99(Cont'd) That the garage wall located less than 1.2 m from the property line shall have a 45 minute fire rating, no openings and be clad with non-combustible cladding. 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 97/99 Ryan Wright 11 Shanley Street Part of Lots 401 & 402, Gran,qes Survey, Re,qistered Plan 376 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Wright 11 Shanley Street Kitchener ON N2H 5N7 Contra: Ms. S. Keul 15 Shanley Street Kitchener ON N2H 5N7 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: Ms. S. Keul 15 Shanley Street Kitchener ON N2H 5N7 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a porch 1.01 m (3.33 ft.) in height, having a sideyard setback of 1.13 m (3.73 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 a porch 1.01 metres (3.33 ft) in height, having a setback from the left side lot line of 0.18 metres (0.6 ft) rather than the required 1.2 metres. It is noted that the agenda mistakenly noted a requested setback of 1.13 metres, as it appears on the plan submitted. Staff has visited the site and note that an addition has already been built, however, the deck and stairs have not yet been built. A building permit was issued for the construction of the addition and deck, indicating that the deck height could not exceed 0.6 metres (2 ft). A deck not exceeding a height of 0.6 metres does not require any setback from the side lot line. The intent of the 1.2 metre setback for decks above 0.6 metres in height is for the protection of the abutting neighbour's enjoyment of the privacy on their own property. The deck is to be built to provide access to the door but because of its length and overall size, could be considered large enough to accommodate outdoor seating that may disrupt a neighbour's privacy and enjoyment of their property, only 0.18 metres away. Consequently, staff is of the opinion that the requested variance does not maintain the intent of the by-law nor would be considered desirable development of the property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 301 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 Submission No.: A97/99(Cont'd) However, should the applicant wish to construct steps and a small landing area only in front of the door then staff may consider the impact of the development minor in nature and that may be more in keeping with the general intent of the by-law. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of minor variance application A97/99. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct a new addition and deck. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture 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 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 considered the written comments of Mrs. Keul in which she advised that we the Keul's who live at 15 Shanley Street, request that the permission for the minor variance be denied for the following reasons: 1. There is no room to build - existing law requires 31/2' - 4' from the neighbours property. 2. Respect for the neighbours rights, wishes and peace and quiet. 3. It will obstruct our pathway between the houses. 4. It will be an eye sore for everyone who sees it. 5. Porches are to be built at the front or the back of the houses. The Chair reviewed staff comments, noting that staff are recommending refusal of the application. The Chair questioned if Mrs. Keul was the next door neighbour and Mrs. Keul indicated that she was. Mrs. Keul stated that she felt there was insufficient room between the two properties to build the deck and porch and that it would interfere with the privacy and enjoyment of her property. The Chair enquired if Mr. Wright had anything further to add and Mr. Wright noted that legally he could construct the deck if it was less than 2 ft. in height. In this regard, he questioned if he built a small landing and steps as suggested by staff if he could then continue to construct the deck level with the bottom of the steps. The Chair stated that the concern is with the proposed height of the deck which, because of the closeness of the two properties, would disturb the privacy of the neighbouring property. Ms. J. Given advised that staff would not object to a small landing and steps being constructed to allow access to the door exiting and entering from the addition. Mr. R. Wright questioned if the deck could still be built and Ms. Given stated that it could provided it was no higher than 2 ft. Ms. S. Keul stated that the addition had been built as close to the property as was legally allowed and if the deck was permitted to be constructed as proposed would extend beyond the legal limit. In her opinion, this would not be appropriate as it would interfere with the privacy of her property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 302 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 4. Submission No.: A97/99(Cont'd) The Chair questioned the grading of the area and Ms. Given advised that the grading in this area was fairly level. Mr. Wright further added that his property is graded both ways with water running between both properties; however, he is intending to install stone material to improve the grade. Mr. P. Kruse questioned if the addition was existing and Mr. Wright responded that it was. The Chair clarified that only the deck is proposed and that the building permit only allows for the deck to be built at no greater height than 2 ft. He pointed out that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct the deck higher than 2 ft. and that the deck is proposed to wrap-around the addition. He stated that staff are recommending that, rather than the deck, a landing with stairs be constructed to allow access to the door. He pointed out that the balance of the deck could then be built provided it was less than 2 ft in height. Mr. P. Kruse questioned what the addition would be used for and Mr. Wright responded that it was a main floor bathroom and laundry room and would be used as the main entry to the house. Ms. S. Campbell questioned why this doorway would be used as the main entrance when the driveway was located on the opposite side where the front porch and front entrance was located. The Chair questioned if the intent was to use the addition as a mud room and Mr. Wright responded that was correct. The Chair stated that it appeared that staff was making a concession in allowing a landing and stairs and suggested to Mr. Wright that an alternative to construct the deck on the back of the house where it would not create a disturbance to the neighbours be considered. Ms. S. Campbell stated that the minor variance as requested was not minor in nature in terms of the impact on the neighbouring property. Ms. S. Keul questioned how far from her property line the deck was required to be and the Chair advised that the legal requirement was 4 ft. Ms. J. Given further stated that the 4 ft requirement would apply only if the deck was constructed higher than 2 ft. If it was constructed at less than 2 ft. it could be constructed up to the sideyard property line. Ms. Given further pointed out that the deck can only be constructed up to 7.5 m from the rear property line and construction of landing and steps would encroach into this setback. Ms. S. Campbell stated that the addition would not be accessible without steps. In this regard, the Chair questioned if the 7.5 m rear setback could be maintained if no landing was constructed and the steps were built straight down. Ms. J. Given responded that the steps would be too steep in this instance. The Chair questioned how access to the door to the addition was anticipated when the building permit was applied for. Mr. Wright responded that he was unsure as he did not prepare the plans. Mr. P. Kruse stated that there appeared to be consensus among the Committee that this minor variance would have a negative impact on the neighbouring property and suggested that this matter be deferred to allow time for additional alternatives to be considered and presented to the Committee. The Chair agreed with the suggestion to defer and suggested that Mr. Wright have another look at the situation in terms of the impact on the neighbouring property, what if any buffering could be implemented, and provide the Committee with further documentation and/or pictures. Mr. P. Kruse also suggested that Mr. Wright consider alternative ways of constructing the deck that would have less of an impact on the neighbouring property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 303 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 Submission No.: A97/99(Cont'd) Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 97/99, for Ryan Wright, 11 Shanley Street, be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on October 5, 1999. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 98/99 Bob Kniess 10 Westheights Drive Block H, Registered Plan 1384, Comprising Part Lot 35, Germany Company Tract Appearances: In Support: Mr. B. Dyce SZE Straka Engineers Ltd. 105 Baffin Place, Unit 1 Waterloo ON N2V2C1 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is proposing to develop the subject lands for health office use and is requesting permission to waive provision of a visual barrier required to be constructed between the proposed parking lot and the abutting residential zones. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands are located at the corner of Westheights Drive and Highland Road. The site is occupied by a two storey office building under construction and intended for use as a health office. A site plan was recently approved for this development. Surrounding land uses include a parking garage which is part of an apartment building development immediately east of the subject lands and a retirement residence on the other side of two driveways to the south. The owner is requesting relief from Section 6.1.2a) which requires a visual barrier to be provided to screen the approved parking along the lot lines abutting lands zoned for residential purposes, in this case lands zoned R-8. The visual barrier is required to be 1.8 metres in height. There is currently a chain-link fence along the east and south lot lines, which is located on the apartment building property and which is not considered a sufficient visual barrier to meet the requirements of the by-law. Those parts of the apartment building property which would be screened include the driveway used to access the apartment building as well as the parking structure. The parking structure is located partly above ground and partly below ground, and the most immediate part of the garage adjacent to the lot line along which relief is requested, is an above ground concrete wall. The use immediately south is a driveway serving the apartment building. In a practical sense, there would be little benefit to screen the parking lot proposed for the health office from these facilities. It is considered that no adverse impact on tenants of the apartment building would likely occur as a result of not having a screen in the required location. Given this situation, staff do not consider that it is necessary to screen the abutting residential use from the parking lot for the health office and that all Planning Act tests are met. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A98/99. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 304 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 Submission No.: A98/99(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 Planning & Culture 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 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 and questioned if Mr. Dyce had anything further to add. Mr. B. Dyce responded that he had nothing further to add. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Bob Kniess requesting permission to waive provision of a visual barrier required to be constructed between the proposed parking lot of a health office use and the abutting residential zones, on Block H, Registered Plan 1384, comprising Part Lot 35, German Company Tract, 10 Westheights Drive, 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 99/99 Donald Stalkie and Susan Peister 177 Simeon Steet Lot 2, Plan 351 Appearances: In Support: Mr. D. Stalkie 177 Simeon Street Kitchener ON N2H lS7 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a second storey addition, having an easterly sideyard of 0.85 m (2.8 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.9 ft.). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 305 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 6. Submission No.: A99/99(Cont'd) The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property contains an existing two storey single-detached dwelling. The property is located on the west side of Simeon Street, being the third lot north of the intersection of Simeon and Cameron Streets. The applicant proposes to construct a second storey addition on to the existing single storey at the rear of the dwelling with a side yard setback of 0.64 metres, rather than the required 1.2 metres. The addition is intended to be used for residential purposes and will have an area of 390 square feet. The existing residential dwelling has a side yard setback of 0.64 metres from the abutting property line even though a side yard setback of 1.2 metres is required in a R-4 zone. The dwelling was constructed in 1939, before the 1.2 metre setback was required. The proposed addition maintains the existing side yard setback of 0.64 metres. The addition will be located adjacent to a garage on the abutting property, which also contains a two storey single detached dwelling. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan, and is designated Low Rise Conservation 'A'. The intent of this designation is to preserve the scale, use, and intensity of existing development. The impact of the addition will be relatively minor in nature given that the existing residential dwelling on that property also has a side yard setback of 0.64 metres, as opposed to the required 1.2 metres. The addition will immediately abut a garage, and will have no adverse impact on the use or function of the abutting lands. Furthermore, the addition maintains the intent of the Central Frederick Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. Most single detached dwellings in the surrounding neighbourhood are two storeys in height, and similar in scale and intensity to the proposed development. 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 A99/99. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the wall located less than 1.2 metres to the property line shall have a 45 minute rating and any openings must be protected with a 45 minute closure (wired glass and glass block not permitted) and a building permit is required to construct a new addition. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture 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 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 staff comments noting that the Building Division is recommending that wired glass and glass block not be permitted in any openings in the wall to be located less than 1.2 m to the property line. Mr. D. Stalkie stated that he was in agreement with this condition. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Donald Stalkie and Susan Peister requesting permission to construct a second storey addition having a sideyard setback of 0.64 m (2.1 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.9 ft.), on Lot 2, Plan 351, 177 Simeon Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 306 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 Submission No.: A99/99(Cont'd) 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to constructing the new addition. That the garage wall located less than 1.2 m to the property line shall have a 45 minute rating and any openings must be protected with a 45 minute closure (wired glass and glass block not permitted). 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 100/99 Diane E. Dick 254B Woolwich Street Part Lot 125, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: Mr. & Mrs. M. Dick 254B Woolwich Street Kitchener ON N2K 1S7 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a sunroom, 3.04 m x 3.29 m (10 ft. x 10.8 ft.), having a rearyard setback of 8 m (26.25 ft.), rather than the required 9.14 m (30 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands are located at the end of a private right-of-way which has access onto Woolwich Street, and is municipally addressed as 254-B Woolwich Street. The lands are occupied by a single detached dwelling. Surrounding land uses include other single detached dwellings immediately to the north and south, Grand River to the east and agricultural lands to the west. The owner has requested permission to construct a single storey rear addition (sun room) with a rear yard of 8 metres rather than the required 10 metres. The addition will occupy the full width of the rear portion of the dwelling. It should be noted that the application must also request permission to extend a legal non-conforming use as the property does not have frontage on a public street, but rather onto a private right-of-way, as the dwelling was constructed in approximately 1930. Consideration must be given as to whether the proposed extension would perpetuate a legal-non- conforming use. Given the limited size and sun room use of the addition, its approval will not perpetuate the use. In addition, a plan of subdivision application on lands immediately west, although now under appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, makes provision for a new street to access the subject lands, which may provide street frontage in the future. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 307 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 7. Submission No.: A 100/99(Cont'd) Staff considers that the addition is relatively minor in nature. There is no anticipated adverse impact on neighbouring land owners and the amount of remaining outdoor amenity area is acceptable. The rear yard of the property backs onto the Grand River so does not affect any land owners in this direction. It should be noted that approval from the Grand River Conservation Authority will be necessary prior to the issuance of any building permits as the rear portion of the property is zoned with special regulation 1 R and therefore located in a regulated area. The requested variance is considered appropriate development for the lands, and generally conforms with the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. Staff recommend the application be approved, as amended, to permit an extension to a legal non-conforming use. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A100/99 as amended to include a request to extend a legal non-conforming use in order to construct a single storey rear addition generally as shown on the site plan attached to the application. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new addition. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture 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 Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have now had the opportunity to review the above noted minor variance to permit the construction of a sunroom having a rearyard setback of 8 metres rather than the required 9.14 metres. We recommend that the minor variance application be deferred until a geotechnical investigation is completed as discussed below. Information currently available at this office indicates the rear portion of the property lies below the Regulatory Floodline elevation of the Grand River. In addition, a large portion of the property is within the Grand River Scheduled Fill Area. We note the rear portion of the property contains steep slopes. Consequently, the subject property is regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority under Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98. The Grand River Conservation Authority's Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation (Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98) prohibits the following activities prior to receiving written consent of the Grand River Conservation Authority: 1) 2) 3) Construction of buildings or structures in or on a pond or swamp or in any area susceptible to flooding during a "Regional Storm"; dumping or placing of fill in the Authority's scheduled areas; alterations to any watercourse. While we have not received a site plan indicating the location of the proposed sunroom, we assume the sunroom will be an addition to the rear of the existing dwelling. Therefore, the proposed sunroom will be located within the Grand River Scheduled Area, and any grading or placement of fill associated with the proposed construction will require the prior issuance of a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98 from the Grand River Conservation Authority. Due to the proximity of steep slopes, we are also concerned that the proposed sunroom may impact the stability of the adjacent slope. The Grand River Conservation Authority's Bank Erosion Policy emphasizes a non-structural approach for maintaining slope stability. In areas of proposed development along steep, eroding or unstable banks, a geotechnical study is required in order to define the parameters that determine a safe setback from the top of bank where development can take place. This setback is made of three components; the erosion setback, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 308 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 7. Submission No.: A 100/99(Cont'd) the stability setback, and the structural setback. The erosion setback is used where a stream acts at or near the toe of the slope and is equal to the amount of erosion that it is estimated would occur in 100 years. The stability setback is equal to the setback required for the slope to reach a stable slope inclination. The Grand River Conservation Authority usually applies a 15 metre structural setback from the top of the bank to avoid bank overloading and drainage problems. In summary, we require the following information in order to provide further comment on the rearyard setback of 8 metres rather than the required 9.14 metres: Submission of a geotechnical investigation to determine if the proposed sunroom will have an adverse impact on the stability of the adjacent steep slope. Submission of a site plan in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical study. The site plan should indicate the location of the proposed sunroom in relation to existing structures on the property and the property boundary. Upon review of the site plan and geotechnical investigation, we will be able to determine if a permit application is required and if the minor variance is appropriate. Mr. P. Kruse questioned if Mr. Dick had reviewed staff comments and, in particular, those of the Grand River Conservation Authority. Mr. Dick responded that he had reviewed the Grand River Conservation Authority comments and was aware of the requirement for a geotechnical investigation on the property and was willing to work with the Grand River Conservation Authority in this respect. Ms. S. Campbell pointed out that the Grand River Conservation Authority is asking for deferral of the application until the geotechnical investigation is completed. In this regard, Mr. Dick responded that approving the application would not preclude the fact that he would have to satisfy the Grand River Conservation Authority's concerns prior to obtaining a building permit. Ms. J. Given advised that the report of the Department of Business & Planning Services had been prepared prior to receiving the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority. In this regard, she stated that staff would have also recommended deferral if they had been aware of the Grand River Conservation Authority's concerns prior to the writing of staff's report. Mr. P. Kruse suggested that approval of the application could be granted subject to the applicant obtaining a geotechnical investigation to the satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority and, in that way, the concerns of the Grand River Conservation Authority would have to be met prior to a building permit being issued. The Chair requested staff to comment on the basis for recommending deferral with respect to the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority. Ms. J. Given responded that deferral would allow the technical questions to be addressed and the feasibility of the minor variance to be determined prior to approval of the application. The Chair questioned what the Grand River Conservation Authority was attempting to determine through submission of a geotechnical investigation. Mr. Dick responded that the property in question is flat to the riverbank and the technical concerns to be addressed are two fold. He stated that, firstly, a determination was required to be made with respect to the ability of the riverbank to remain stable following construction and, secondly, that assurance be given that any fill removed during construction not be top loaded into the river. Mr. Dick further pointed out that the variance was only required as the subject property is zoned Agricultural and that he intended to make application for a rezoning. Ms. S. Campbell referred to the fact that the use of the property is legal non-conforming and staff have indicated that the proposed addition will not perpetuate this use. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 309 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 7. Submission No.: A 100/99(Cont'd) The Chair stated that he was inclined to agree with deferral of the application and questioned if the topography of the subject lands had caused the need for a right-of-way. Mr. Dick responded that the right-of-way was not part of the concerns of the Grand River Conservation Authority and is only required to provide access to Woolwich Street as the subject lands do not front onto a street. He further pointed out that under a Zone Change Application this would change; however, he would have to wait until the Zone Change process was completed and would still have to deal with the Grand River Conservation Authority's concerns. The Chair stated that he would rather see the geotechnical survey completed first. Mr. Dick responded that this would require proceeding with the expense of a survey with no assurance that he would be able to proceed when it was completed. Mr. P. Kruse stated that he fully respected that the concerns of the Grand River Conservation Authority must be dealt with but pointed out that staff have already indicated that they have no problem with this application. He again suggested that approval be given to the application subject to the condition that the applicant provide a geotechnical survey prior to obtaining a building permit. Ms. S. Campbell questioned if the zoning of lands around the subject property were for single dwellings and Mr. Dick responded that the zoning was for multiple dwellings. Ms. J. Given further advised that rezoning of the subject property will bring frontage onto a street; however, the rearyard setback would still be required. Ms. S. Campbell stated that she was in agreement with approving the application subject to the conditions with respect to the geotechnical survey as the applicant would not be able to go forward with a building permit until this concern was met. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Diane E. Dick requesting permission to extend a legal non-conforming use in order to construct a single storey rear addition (sunroom), having a rearyard setback of 8 m (26.25 ft.), rather than the required 9.14 m (30 ft.), on Part Lot 125, German Company Tract, 254B Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the site plan submitted with the application for Submission No. A 100/99. 2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to the construction of the new addition. That the owner shall prepare a geotechnical survey to the satisfaction of the Grand River Conservation Authority, with the Grand River Conservation Authority to provide a letter of release when they are satisfied this condition has been met. 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 8. Submission No.: A 101/99 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 310 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: Gojko Milic, Barka Milic and Joe Grguric New Dundee Road Part Lot 2, Beasley's New Survey, Part 1of WDR, Plan 142 The Chair advised that correspondence had been received from Ms. C. Findley, on behalf of the applicants, to advise that this application has been withdrawn. CONSENT Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 55/99 Clifford Trussler 1588 Trussler Road Part of Lots 146 & 147, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: Mr. M. Trussler 1965 Huron Road Kitchener ON N2G 3W5 Contra: None Other: Ms. S. Carlyle Carlyle, Peterson 216-700 Richmond Street London ON N6A 5C7 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land to be conveyed to the abutting property and having an area of 0.43 hectares (1.071 acres). The lands to be severed will have frontage on Trussler Road of 60.3 m (197.88 ft.), by a depth of 70.79 m (232.28 ft.), and an area of 0.37 hectares (0.921 acres). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant proposes to sever a lot containing a non-farm residential building from the larger land holding and add the retained lands as an addition to the adjoining 49 ha (121 acre) farm. The lands to be severed are 0.37 hectares (0.921 acres) and contain a single detached dwelling. The retained lands which surround the severed lands are 0.41 hectares (1.017 acres). The application is similar to B 58/98 except that the severed and retained lands were reversed. The proposal is recommended as it increases the size of the farm parcel, and decreases the size of the non-farm residential lot and maintain the intent of the Agricultural policies in the Municipal Plan. In all other respects, the retained lot complies with the A-1 Zone regulations for single detached dwellings, as Minor Variance A 86/98 was approved legalizing the location of the accessory shed. It is noted that the minimum lot width of 60.0 metres measured 10.0 metres from the front lot line. The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission B 55/99 subject to the following conditions: 1. Submission No.: B 55/99 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 311 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 That the lands to be retained be added to the abutting lands and title 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 severed lands have a minimum lot width of 60.0 metres at the 10.0 metre setback line. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the city of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that the subject lands are located within the Prime Agricultural Area designation in the Regional Official Policies Plan. The primary land use activity within this designation is intended to be for farming. Policy 5.1.1.7 e) of the Regional Official Policies Plan permits lot boundary adjustments between an abutting farm and a non-farm lot provided the adjustment results in a substantial increase in the long term agricultural viability of the farm operation. The lot boundary adjustment must also not result in the creation of any additional lot held, or capable of being held, in distinct and separate ownership pursuant to the Planning Act. Given that the retained lands are to merged in title with the adjoining farm operation, Regional staff are satisfied that this application meets the criteria set out under Policy 5.1.1.7 e). As such, the proposal conforms to Regional Official Plan policies. As of January 1, 1999, Trussler Road came under the jurisdiction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. At this location, Trussler Road has an existing road allowance width of 66 feet and a designated road allowance width of 100 feet. Therefore a 17 foot road widening is required from both the severed and retained parcels across the Trussler Road frontage of the subject property. The road allowance is required to accommodate future utility and asphalt requirements on Trussler Road. Regional staff have no objections to the approval of B 55/99 subject to the following condition: 1) That prior to the approval of B 55/99, the owner convey a 17 foot road widening across the severed and retained portions of the subject property. The Region further advised that any future development on the subject lands will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. In addition, the applicant is advised that there may be a Regional fee assessed for development agreements if required. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised they have no objection or concern with respect to this application. The Chair questioned if it was proposed to convey the retained land as a lot addition to the neighbouring property. Mr. Trussler responded that he proposed to sever Part 2 of the subject lands with the balance, being Part 1, to be returned to the adjoining property. The Chair referred to Condition 1 in the Planning staff report and noted that the wording refers in one instance to the retained land and in another instance to the severed lands. Ms. J. Given advised that the wording referencing the severed lands was incorrect and should be revised to refer to the retained lands in both instances. 1. Submission No.: B 55/99(Cont'd) COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 312 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 The Chair then questioned why Part 2 had been referenced as the severed parcel, noting that Part 1 is intended to be added to the neighbouring property as a lot addition. Mr. Trussler responded that a previous application had been made in 1998 which he understood to have been filed in the reverse of what he intended to do. The Chair questioned if Part 2 was self contained and Mr. Trussler advised that it was. The Chair further questioned the condition relating to the 60 m setback of the proposed severance and Ms. Given advised that the frontage for the severed parcel is to be measured 10 m from the front lot line. Mr. Trussler further added that a survey has been completed and the property does comply with this condition. The Chair questioned if the abutting property was under separate title and Mr. Trussler responded that it was and is known as the Trussler farm. The Chair questioned why Part 1 could not be considered as the severance and added as a lot addition to the neighbouring farm, with Part 2 being the retained land. Mr. P. Kruse stated that the purpose of the application was to create two lots and suggested that the Committee did not want to give the appearance of creating 3 lots. Mr. Trussler advised that he was of the understanding that the original consent application was incorrect and pointed out that he did not wish to sever Part 1, as it was not developable. The Chair pointed out; however, that the purpose of severing Part 1 as a lot addition would be to add it back into the farm property rather than create a new lot. The Chair questioned how the application as proposed would accomplish conveyance of Part 1 back to the farm. The Secretary advised that when the request for endorsement of the deed for Part 2 was received, the applicant would be required to provide a deed to convey Part 1 back to the farm. The Chair further questioned which deed would be endorsed and the Secretary responded that the deed for Part 2 would be endorsed. The Chair indicated that he was not in favour of this approach as it would be simpler to sever Part 1 as a lot addition which would require only one deed to convey Part 1 back to the farm. Ms. S. Carlyle addressed the Committee and suggested that by severing Part 1 it would give the appearance on title of having created 3 lots. She stated that as proposed, Part 2 would be severed and at the time of deed endorsement the Secretary would request an undertaking with respect to conveyance of Part 1. The Chair questioned if the severance was completed as proposed how title could be taken if Part 1 were sold first. Mr. Trussler advised that Part 1 was not for sale and that he did not want to make Part 1 a separate lot as it was not developable. Mr. P. Kruse indicated that he was not in disagreement with the Chair's position; however, if the severance was granted for Part 2, conditional upon conveyance of Part 1 to the neighbouring property, this would accomplish what was intended. The Chair questioned the reasonability of granting severance in this manner and stated that he would like to refer to the previous application and wording of Section 50 (3) of the Planning Act. The Chair further stated that he felt that the original application had been done correctly and that the Committee should revert to the previous decision and refund the application fee for the present application. Ms. J. Given pointed out that the original application had lapsed and the Secretary confirmed that the conditions applying to the original application were not fulfilled within the one year period mandated under the Planning Act. Accordingly, she advised that the original application is now COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 313 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 Submission No.: B 55/99(Cont'd) deemed to be refused and regardless of how accomplished, a granting of severance is still required. The Chair requested confirmation from Mr. Trussler that he did not fulfill conditions relating to the original application and Mr. Trussler acknowledged that this was the case. He stated that initially there was no immediacy to do so as there was no potential buyer; however, this has now changed and at the time endorsement of the deed was requested it was discovered that the deadline to fulfill conditions had lapsed several days prior. Following further discussion, the Chair stated that the Committee was in favour of granting a severance; however, the mechanics of how the severance should be granted was the basis of contention. Ms. J. Given suggested that she obtain a copy of the previous application and wording of Section 50(3) of the Planning Act for the Committee to review and, accordingly, this matter was put aside temporarily to allow Ms. Given to retrieve the documentation. In the interim the Committee proceeded with the remainder of its agenda for this meeting. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 56/99 L'aimhini D'oir Investment Corporation 85 Grand Crest Place Lot 1, Registered Plan 1420, designated as Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-11933 Appearances: In Support: Mr. S. Carlyle Carlyle Peterson 216-700 Richmond Street London ON N6A 5C7 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey an easement for sewer purposes over Part Lot 1, Plan 1420, designated as Part 1, Plan 58R- 11933 in favour of Part of Lot 1 and Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Plan 1420. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the owner is requesting permission to grant a blanket easement for sanitary sewer purposes to the abutting property located at 85 Grand Crest Place owned by Rogers Cablesystems Limited. Under Submission B39/99, Rogers Cablesystems severed a portion of land at the rear of its property at 85 Grand Crest Place and conveyed it to L'aimhini D'oir Investment Corporation as a lot addition to 599 Wabanaki Drive. Consent approval was granted subject to the approval of a site plan revision for the Rogers Cablesystems lands. This has been completed and the severed parcel has been transferred to L'aimhini D'oir Investment. Subsequent to the consent approval, it was discovered that the Rogers Cablesystems has a sanitary sewer connection over the L'aimhini D'oir Investments' land to City lands to the west. Consent Application B39/99 should have retained an easement over the severed lands in favour of Rogers Cablesystems. 2. Submission No.: B 56/99(Cont'd) COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 314 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 The parcel that has been conveyed is currently undeveloped. The land is intended to be used for additional parking for the existing trucking repair use at 599 Wabanaki Drive. The Department of Business and Application B56/99 to provide for a Cablesystems. Planning Services recommends approval of Consent blanket sanitary sewer easement in favour of Rogers The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Application B56/99 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain approval of the easement document from the City Solicitor. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments 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 the application and have no concerns; however, they advised that any future 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. Applicants are also advised that there may be a Regional fee assessed for development agreements if required. 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. Ms. S. Carlyle advised the Committee that a severance had been granted to Rogers Cable- systems Limited on June 15, 1999, to allow conveyance of a parcel of land to L'aimhini D'oir Investment. Following the granting of the severance, and just prior to conveyance of the parcel of land, she advised that an underground sewer had been located on the severed parcel. She advised that the City owns property to the west of the severed parcel and that the City was to have taken over the sewer; however, this was never done. As a result, she advised that the sewer did not show up on the plans at the time the severance was applied for. Accordingly, an easement is required over the severed parcel in favour of the lands retained by Rogers Cable- systems. Ms. S. Carlyle further advised that the Solicitor for Rogers Cablesystems has asked that the current application be amended to include an easement for telecommunication purposes. In this regard, she provided suggested wording being "telecommunications and cable lines and all related utilities and equipment appurtenant thereto". Mr. P. Kruse indicated that he was prepared to move approval of the application as amended to include an easement for sewer and telecommunications purposes. The Chair questioned if it was necessary to be specific about the type of easement being granted and suggested a blanket approval. Ms. S. Carlyle pointed out that the application has specifically requested an easement for sewer purposes. Mr. P. Kruse stated that it may not be appropriate to give blanket approval particularly as this easement involves underground utilities. He suggested that an open-ended easement could result in later problems, as the possibility for abuse would exist. Ms. S. Campbell pointed out that one of the conditions of approval provide that the owner shall obtain approval of the easement document from the City Solicitor and questioned who actually drafts the easement document. In this regard, Ms. Carlyle stated that the details of the easement 2. Submission No.: B 56/99(Cont'd) COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 315 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 document would be negotiated between L'aimhini D'oir Investments Corporation and Rogers Cablesystems Limited. Mr. P. Kruse pointed out that the application specifically refers to an easement for sewer purposes and, if the application was not amended to include the telecommunications, the City Solicitors may take the position that they are not at liberty to approve an easement document that contains details with respect to telecommunications. Ms. S. Campbell stated that she was in agreement that the application should be amended and asked Ms. Carlyle to confirm that she wished to do so. Ms. Carlyle responded that she did wish to amend the application. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of L'aimhini D'oir Investment Corporation requesting permission to convey an easement for the purpose of sewer, and telecommunications and cable lines and all related utilities and equipment appurtenant thereto, over Part Lot 1, Plan 1420, designated as Part 1, Plan 58R-11933, in favour of Part of Lot 1 and Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5, Plan 1420, 85 Grand Crest Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain approval of the easement document from the City Solicitor. 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 September 14, 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 The Committee then resumed consideration of Consent Application B 55/99 for Clifford Trussler, 1588 Trussler Road. 1. Submission No.: B 55/99(Cont'd) Ms. J. Given provided the Committee with a copy of Section 50(3) of the Planning Act, together with a copy of the original application. Following a review of this documentation, the Chair stated that the original application appeared to be correct and questioned how it had come about to be deemed incorrect. Mr. Trussler stated that he had been told that it was incorrect during a meeting with the Secretary to discuss the lapsing of the original application. The Secretary confirmed that was correct and noted that during the meeting it was apparent that Mr. Trussler was of the opinion that the severed parcel was Part 2; however, she had advised that was not correct as the Committee's Submission No.: B 55/99(Cont'd) COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 316 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 original decision was for Part 1 and this is what appears to have caused confusion as to the correctness of the application. The missing ingredient would seem to be the realization that, in the original application, Part 1 was not being severed to create a new lot but rather was being severed as a lot addition. The Chair stated that he was prepared to approve the severance as amended to allow that Part 1 be severed as a lot addition to the adjoining farm lands, subject to the retained lands, being Part 2, having a minimum lot width of 60 m at the 10 m setback line and that the taxes be paid. Mr. M. Trussler questioned how he would obtain deed endorsement for Part 2 if Part 1 was severed and the Chair responded that deed endorsement of Part 2 would not be required as Part 1 would be added back into the farm, leaving Part 2 as a separate lot which could be sold without consent of the Committee. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Clifford Trussler requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to the abutting property, having an area of 0.43 hectares (1.071 acres), on Part of Lots 146 & 147, German Company Tract, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-11860, 1588 Trussler Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the lands to be severed shall be added to the 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. 2. That the retained lands shall have a minimum lot width of 60 m at the 10 m setback line. 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 convey to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo a 5.18 m (17 ft.) road widening across the severed and retained portions of the subject property. 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 September 14, 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 ADJOURNMENT COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 317 SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:50 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 14th day of September, 1999. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment