HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-10-26COA\1999-10-26
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 26, 1999
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. W. Dahms, A. Galloway and P. Kruse.
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner, Mr. L. Masseo, Intermediate Planner and
Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:40 a.m.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of October 5, 1999, as mailed to
the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
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 December 7th meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the
meeting of December 7, 1999.
CONSENT
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 73/98
M. S. Custom Contractors Limited
180 Zeller Drive
Part Lot 119, German Company Tract
The Chair advised that a letter dated September 3, 1999, was received from Mr. D. Bennett,
MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited, agent for M.S. Custom Contractors
Limited, in which he advised that the applicant has withdrawn this application.
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 letter dated October 12, 1999, was received from Ms. R. Levato,
Villemaire Levato, agent for 571830 Ontario Limited, in which she advised that the applicant has
withdrawn this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 341 OCTOBER 26, 1999
Submission No:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 50/99
Electrohome Limited
809 Wellington Street
Part of Lots 32, 33 and 34, Re.qistered Plan 763
The Chair advised that a request has been received from Ms. D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, to
defer this application to the November 16th meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the
meeting of November 16, 1999.
CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 3/99 & A 12/99
Mary Arlene Beckman
390 Pinnacle Drive
Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract
The Chair advised that a request has been received from Mr. R. Haalboom, Solicitor for Ms. M.
Beckman, to defer this application to the November 16th meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the
meeting of November 16, 1999.
The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily at 9:50 a.m., in order to consider applications for
Minor Variances to the City of Kitchener's Fence By-law and Sign By-law. This meeting reconvened at
10:10 a.m.
APPLICATIONS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 107/99
Drewlo Holdings Inc.
209 Victoria Street South
Part of the Lands of Dundas and First Centre Limited, Being part of
the lands shown as Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 58R-8043 and lying
between Victoria Street and Schneider Creek
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. V. Labreche
Planning & Engineering Initiatives Limited
379 Queen Street South
Kitchener ON N2G 1W6
Mr. S. Patterson
Planning & Engineering Initiatives Limited
379 Queen Street South
Kitchener ON N2G 1W6
Mr. J. Sennema
R.R.#3
Komoka ON N0L 1R0
Mr. R. Tome
Tome & Associates
51 Wimbleton Court
London ON N6C 5C9
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 342 OCTOBER 26, 1999
Submission No.: A 107/99(Cont'd)
Contra:
Mr. R. Dyck
30 Duke Street West
Suite 1101
Kitchener ON N2H 3W5
Other:
Ms. R. Kloepfer
27 Henry Street
Kitchener ON N2G 1P4
Ms. M. Slater
7 Henry Street
Kitchener ON
N2G 1 P4
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission
apartment buildings on the subject lands, which are zoned CR-1 and R-7.
maximum building heights are proposed:
to construct 2
The following
a)
b)
Building 1 - 20 m (65.61 ft. - 7 storeys)
Building 2 - 27 m (88.58 ft. - 9 storeys);
whereas the CR 1 zone permits a maximum building height of 18 m (59.05 ft. - 6 storeys) and
the R-7 Zone permits a maximum building height of 24 m (78.74 ft.) - 8 storeys). In addition,
the applicant is requesting permission to have a floor space ratio of 1.35, rather than the
permitted 1.0.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject lands are a large undeveloped lot located on the east side
of Victoria Street South, between the Knell Hardware building and the CN Rail line. The
property abuts Victoria Street at the front, Victoria Park at the rear and the CN Rail line on the
southwest side. The applicant is proposing to construct one 7 storey apartment building and
one 9 storey apartment building on the lands.
The lands have three separate designations in the Victoria Park Secondary Plan and the
Zoning By-law. The front portion of the lands, to a depth of approximately 100 metres, is
designated Low Density Commercial Residential and is zoned CR-1. The mid portion of the
property is designated Low Density Multiple Residential and is zoned R-7. The rear portion,
or "tail" of the property, is designated Open Space and zoned P-3 and P-2 due to its location
within the flood plain of Schneider Creek. Both the CR-1 Zone and the R-7 Zone permit
development with a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.0. The P-2 and P-3 Zones do not
permit any new development and therefore do not have a floor space ratio.
The applicant has requested three variances to facilitate the development of the proposed
apartment buildings. The first variance is to increase the permitted floor space ratio (FSR) on
the site from 1.0 to 1.35. The second variance is to increase the maximum height on a portion
of "building 1" located within the CR-1 zone from 18 metres (6 storeys) to 21 metres (7
storeys). The third variance is to increase the maximum height on a portion of "building 2"
located within the CR-1 zone from 18 metres (6 storeys) to 27 metres (9 storeys).
The first variance, seeking an increase in the maximum FSR, was applied for by the applicant
due to the wording used in the definition of "floor space ratio" in the Zoning By-law. The
definition of floor space ratio requires that where a property has more than one zone, having
different FSR regulations, the FSR must be calculated based on the portion of building within
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 343 OCTOBER 26, 1999
each zone. Since the rear portion of the property is zoned P-2 and P-3, which do not permit
new development, the applicant assumed that this portion of the property cannot be used for
Submission No.: A 107/99(Cont'd)
the calculation of FSR. After careful consideration of the definition of floor space ratio, the
Department of Business and Planning Services feels that a minor variance is not necessary in
this instance since there is no FSR requirement in the P-2 or P-3 Zone. The current wording of
the floor space ratio definition leaves flexibility for interpretation and when considered in
context of the intent, and the Department is of the opinion that the P-2 and P-3 area of the site
can be considered in the calculation of the FSR. Accordingly, the applicant should withdraw
the requested variance to increase the FSR to 1.35.
It should be noted however that even if a minor variance to the FSR was deemed to be
necessary, such variance would be supported by the Department of Business and Planning
Services in this instance. Staff are of the opinion that the matter is a technical issue, caused
solely by the wording used in the definition of "floor space ratio". The requested variance to
FSR in this instance, if it was deemed necessary, would have been be considered by the
Department to uphold the general intent of both the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law, be
minor in nature, and appropriate for the development of the subject lands.
The requested variances with respect to the height of the buildings are primarily a result of the
location of the proposed buildings on the site. The R-7 zone, which affects the middle portion
of the property, permits new development up to a maximum height of 24 metres (8 storeys).
The CR-1 zone which affects the front portion of the property, to a depth of approximately 100
metres from Victoria Street South, permits new development up to a maximum height of 18
metres (6 storeys). This configuration of zoning boundaries is intended to allow for mixed use
development adjacent to Victoria Street South which is at a height more in keeping with
abutting properties, while permitting increased height towards the rear, where it will not
adversely impact abutting properties and the streetscape of Victoria Street South.
The applicant has located the buildings almost entirely within the R-7 portion of the property so
as to ensure an appropriate setback from Victoria Street South and abutting lower density
properties. However, due primarily to the location of a sanitary sewer easement adjacent to
the Schneider Creek, the entire R-7 portion of the site cannot be used and the buildings
encroach a small distance into the CR-1 portion of the property. Specifically, proposed
building 1 would encroach 4 metres into the CR-1 portion of the property and Building 2 would
encroach 8.5 metres. In each case, over 90 percent of the building is proposed to be located
within the R-7 portion of the site. In addition, both buildings would continue to be set back a
minimum of 98 metres from Victoria Street South.
Subject to the above, the requested variances are considered to be minor in nature,
appropriate for the development of the subject lands and in keeping with the general intent of
both the Municipal Plan (Victoria Park Secondary Plan) and the Zoning By-law. Accordingly,
the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the minor
variance application, as revised.
It should be noted that since the subject lands are affected by the Victoria Park Heritage
Conservation District Plan, approval under the Ontario Heritage Act is required. Heritage
Kitchener has expressed concerns with respect to the height of the proposed development and
therefore its conformity with the Heritage Conservation District Plan. However, these concerns
are not shared by the Department.
The Heritage Conservation District Plan contains a list of policy considerations pertaining to
new development within the neighbourhood. The applicants have met or made significant
attempts to address most of those policy requirements. While the proposed development does
not conform in every respect to every policy of the Heritage Conservation District Plan, the
Department feels that overall, a good and appropriate balance has been achieved.
The applicant has submitted Site Plan Application SP 99144N/LM. A preliminary site plan was
considered at the City's Site Plan Review Committee on September 15, 1999 and has received
conceptual approval. Upon final approval of the minor variance application from the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 344 OCTOBER 26, 1999
Committee of Adjustment and approval of the heritage issues by City Council, the Site Plan
application will return to the Site Plan Review Committee for final approval.
1. Submission No.: A 107/99(Cont'd)
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance
Application A107/99, as revised, to permit and increase in the maximum height on the portion
of "building 1" located within the CR-1 zone boundary from 18 metres (6 storeys) to 21 metres
(7 storeys) and the portion of "building 2" located within the CR-1 zone boundary from 18
metres (6 storeys) to 27 metres (9 storeys), only relative to the site plan finally approved under
Site Plan Application SP 99144NILM.
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 this site is the subject
of a current Site Plan application. Regional concerns with respect to drainage, access and road
allowance widening have been addressed through the Site Plan application; 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 to the approval of the minor variance application. A portion
of the property lies below the Regulatory Floodline Elevation of Schneider Creek. We are
currently reviewing a preliminary site plan for the proposed development of the apartment
buildings. It appears there is sufficient area above the Regulatory Floodplain for development.
Floodplain and storm water management issues will be addressed through the site plan approval
process and GRCA permit process (if necessary) prior to commencement of construction. On
this basis, we have no objection to the minor variance application to permit a maximum building
height of 20 metres and 27 metres, and a floor space ratio of 1.35.
The Committee noted the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that
concerning Submission A 107/99, we request that approval of this application be subject to the
following conditions:
That the Applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the lands.
We have identified the need for easements over the subject property. We request that the
applicant be required to make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, and to show the extent of said easements on the site plan.
Mr. V. Labreche introduced members of the Building Design Team and advised that they have
reviewed staff comments and are in agreement with the recommendations contained therein. Mr.
Labreche then provided an overview of the plans for development using illustrations of the site
plan and building structures.
Mr. Labreche advised that the original proposal had included construction of 2 apartment
buildings each to have eight storeys in height. Following consultation with neighbouring residents
and the City's Heritage Kitchener Committee, he advised that the proposal was amended to
include 2 apartment buildings with the easterly building have a total of 7 storeys and the westerly
building having a total of 9 storeys; the total number of units would be 250. Mr. Labreche stated
that the development will include one level of underground parking, as well as surface parking for
visitors, and an indoor recreational facility. Mr. Labeche pointed out that the site is bounded by
Schneider Creek and Victoria Park to the south, Victoria Street to the north, CN Rail to the west
and a single family residential development to the east. On the site, he indicated that a portion of
the applicant's lands are currently used as City park which may be dedicated to the City through
the site plan approval process.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 345 OCTOBER 26, 1999
1. Submission No.: A 107/99(Cont'd)
Mr. Labreche advised that three applications have been submitted to the City to facilitate this
development being a site plan application, the minor variance application before the Committee
this date and an application to Heritage Kitchener as the site falls within the Victoria Park Heritage
Conservation District.
Mr. Labreche referred to the public meeting that had been held in September with area residents
and advised that concerns had been raised with respect to traffic congestion, water and sewer
supply, design of the buildings, landscaping in relation to integration with Victoria Park and the
height of the buildings. The revised proposal for one 7 storey and one 9 storey building resulting
from this consultation was supported by the residents who had participated.
Mr. Labreche then reviewed the Municipal Plan and zoning designations of the site, pointing out
that the front portion of the site was zoned CR-1, the middle portion representing approximately
90% of the site was zoned R-7 and the rear of the property was zoned P-3. Under the R-7 zone,
he advised that a maximum of 8 storeys is permitted and under the CR-1 Zone a maximum
height of 6 storeys was permitted. In this regard, he pointed out that the development
encroaches slightly into the CR-1 Zone by 4 m for Building "1" and by 8.5 m for Building "2";
however, the majority of the development (approximately 90%) will fall within the R-7 Zone.
Mr. Labreche then referred to the requested variance for a floor space ratio (FAR) of 1.35 rather
than the permitted FSR of 1.0 and pointed out that the Design Team had misunderstood that all
of the lands could be included in the calculation. He noted that in the original calculation the P-3
(hazard lands) had been excluded from the calculation. He advised that staff have indicated
these may be included and, accordingly, with the P-3 lands included in the calculation the
variance requested for FSR is no longer required.
Mr. Labreche also pointed out that the development has been affected by the current zoning and
easements which have been identified all of which have placed constraints on the site. He
stated that the R-7 zone, by special regulation, requires a 30 m setback from the rear of the lots
fronting on to Henry Street and within that setback a maximum building height of 10.5 m is
permitted; beyond the required setback building heights are permitted to be higher. In addition,
the development is required to be setback 15 m from the CN Rail, which also involves a 10 m
earth berm and his client is prepared to meet these requirements. Further, he pointed out that
the City has identified a sanitary sewer located at the rear of the property, which will require an
easement agreement with the City.
In conclusion, he noted that this site has been vacant for a number of years and is now proposed
for infill redevelopment. He cited Sections 3.2 (1) and (6), 1.1 and 1.2 of the City's Municipal Plan
which he indicated provides encouragement for this type of use. He suggested that the variances
requested are minor in nature, appropriate for the design and development of the site and in
keeping with the City's Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law.
The Chair referred to staff comments which advise that the applicant should withdraw the
requested variance to increase the FSR to 1.35 and enquired if the applicant was prepared to do
so. Mr. Labreche responded that his client is withdrawing the request to increase the FSR.
Mr. R. Dyck advised that he has been a resident of the Victoria Park Neighbourhood for a number
of years and that, while he does not object to the overall residential development of the site, he is
in disagreement with the proposed FSR. He stated that the intent of the FSR was to control the
mass of buildings and parking and suggested that this proposal was over development for the
area. He stated that the hazard lands cannot be developed and do not affect the appearance of
the proposed development. Accordingly, he stated that they should not be included in the
calculation of the FSR.
The Chair requested clarification of staff as to how they interpreted the calculation for FaR. Mr. L.
Masseo responded that the FSR was calculated based on the entire land holdings of the site. He
noted that wording developed within Stage 6 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law allows that
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 346 OCTOBER 26, 1999
when two differing FSR's are proposed on a site each building must be in conformity; however, if
a portion of the site is undevelopable it still may have the capability of supporting a higher density.
He pointed out that the latter did not come across in the wording; however, he suggested that this
Submission No.: A 107/99(Cont'd)
is no different than a plan of subdivision that includes open space areas or whose land holdings
lie partially within a floodplain. He noted that not all floodplains have been zoned P-3 and the
current zoning on such a site applies to all of the land which allows the inclusion of the floodplain
lands within the calculation for FSR. He advised that the calculation for FSR, with the P-3 lands
included for this development, works out to 1 for 1 and, accordingly, the variance requested to
increase the FSR to 1.35 is not required.
The Chair enquired how this would be affected by the dedication of the P-3 lands to the City for
parkland use. Mr. Masseo responded that it was not certain at this time that this would happen
even though the applicant has given some indication that they would do so and pointed out that it
would not be a condition of site plan approval. He advised that the City cannot accept hazard
land as parkland use and most likely the applicant will be required to pay a cash-in-lieu of
parkland dedication as a condition of site plan approval.
Mr. P. Kruse questioned if the P-3 lands were currently used for recreational purposes and Mr.
Masseo advised that the boundary between the site and Victoria Park was unclear and,
accordingly, some use is being made as an access to the park. Mr. V. Labreche also pointed out
that the area is currently being used to accommodate overflow parking, for those accessing the
park.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that the area in question was a green area owned by the developer that could
not be redeveloped and would provide a frame around the site that would separate it from view of
the park. In this regard, he questioned if Mr. Dyck could not view these lands as part of the
overall development and suggested that it may be harsh to penalize the owner who cannot
benefit from redevelopment of this portion of the site. Mr. Dyck responded that the owner knew
this portion of the site was undevelopable at the time of purchase and did not agree that they
should be included in the calculation of the FSR. He reiterated that the intent of FSR was to
control the mass of building and including the P-3 lands does not change the mass of the
buildings proposed.
The Chair enquired if there had been any previous proposals for this site and Mr. V. Labreche
stated that he believed a proposal for street fronting townhouses had been submitted
approximately 5 years ago but had not gone beyond proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision. Mr. L.
Masseo concurred that such a proposal had been entertained; however, there was no market for
this development at that time and the lands were sold to the current owner.
The Chair referred to another development being undertaken by the applicant on Queen Street
and enquired if this proposal was similar. Mr. Labreche responded that the Queen Street
development was quite different, having an FSR of 4 and a higher density of approximately 3
times more than this proposal.
Mr. L. Masseo pointed out that a change to the staff report was required as it incorrectly referred
to Building "2" as having 7 storeys rather than 9. In this regard, the Chair advised that the
members were aware of the change as copies of the staff report received by the Committee had
been revised by hand.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that he was not in agreement with Mr. Dyck's views with respect to calculation
of the FSR. He stated that he felt the development to be a good use of housing enhanced by its
close proximity to Victoria Park and, while the P-3 lands are undevelopable, it should be
considered a part of the whole site. He pointed out that this green space will provide a buffer
between the site and Victoria Park. He further stated that if the P-3 lands had potential to be
developed and would eventually disappear, then he would agree with Mr. Dyck; however, this
was not the case on this particular site. Accordingly, he advised that he was prepared to move
approval of the application, as amended, subject to site plan approval and conditions requested
by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 347 OCTOBER 26, 1999
The Chair referred to the required easement for sanitary sewer and questioned if staff have the
ability to require this agreement as a condition of site plan approval and Ms. J. Given responded
that they do.
Submission No.: A 107/99(Cont'd)
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he agreed that the proposal was the best use for this site and was
prepared to second the motion for approval.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Drewlo Holdings Inc. requesting permission to construct 2 apartment
buildings with Building "1" to have a maximum height on the portion of the building that is located
within the CR-1 zone of 21 m (68.89 ft. - 7 storeys), rather than the permitted 18 m (59.05 ft. - 6
storeys) and Building "2" to have a maximum building height on the portion of the building that is
located within the CR-1 zone of 27 m (88.58 ft. - 9 storeys), rather than the permitted 18 m (59.05
ft. - 6 storeys) and within that portion of the building located in the R-7 zone of 27 m (88.58 ft. - 9
storeys), rather than the permitted 24 m (78.74 ft. - 8 storeys), on Part of the Lands of Dundas
and First Centre Limited, being part of the lands shown as Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 58R-8043 and
lying between Victoria Street and Schneider Creek, 209 Victoria Street South, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That the variances as approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the
site plan finally approved under Site Plan Application SP99/44N/LM.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the lands.
That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro and shall show the extent of said easements on the site plan.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 108/99
Gary Seibel
Chandos Court
Block 89, Registered Plan 58R-6657, Part 9,
Company Tract
Part Lot 53, German
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. G. Seibel
99 Gage Avenue
Kitchener ON N2G 2E3
Mr. G. Szrejber
83 Morrison Road
Kitchener ON N2A2W6
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 348 OCTOBER 26, 1999
In Support: None
Contra: None
2. Submission No.: A 108/99(Cont'd)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single
family dwelling having a rearyard setback of 5.55 m (18.2 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6
ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the subject lands are located on Chandos Court. The site is surrounded by
residential land use and institutional and open space further to the south. The applicant is
requesting a reduction in rear yard setback from the required 7.5 metres to 5.55 metres for the
construction of a house.
Only a small corner of the house encroaches on the required rear yard setback. It is not possible
to move the house on the lot to accommodate the required rear yard setback because the lot is
an irregular shape. If the house were to be moved on the lot, a Minor Variance would then be
required to allow the house to meet the required minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres. The
proposed variance is minor in nature as it is only required for a small portion of the proposed
house which encroaches on the required rear yard setback. Furthermore, the minor variance will
have no adverse impacts on the surrounding land uses and is desirable for the appropriate
development of the property.
Staff consider that the application is minor in nature, maintains the general intent of the Municipal
Plan and Zoning By-law, is desirable for the appropriate development of the property, and
recommend that the application be approved.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
108/99.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the 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 staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and enquired if Mr. Seibel had anything further to add. Mr. G. Seibel responded that
he had reviewed staff comments and had nothing further to add.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Gary Seibel requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling
having a rearyard setback of 5.55 m (18.2 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Block
89, Registered Plan 58R-6657, Part 9, and Part Lot 53, German Company Tract, Chandos Court,
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 349 OCTOBER 26, 1999
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
A 109/99
Denise Allen
78 Brock Street
Lot 3, Plan 313
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le,qal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. D. Allen
78 Brock Street
Kitchener ON N2M 1X3
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached
open carport, 11.3 m (37.2 ft.) x 3.5 m (11.6 ft.), having an easterly sideyard setback of 0.91 m (3
ft.), rather than the required 1.22 m (4 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the subject lands are located at 78 Brock Street, on the north side of the street
and is located in a predominantly residential area. The applicant is requesting a reduction in
minimum side yard setback from the required 1.2 (4 feet) to 0.9 metres (3 feet). The purpose of
the proposed variance is to allow construction of a carport adjacent to the existing house.
The proposed carport will consist of posts but no walls. The carport is intended to cover the entire
width of the existing driveway. By doing so, the minimum side yard set back is reduced from 1.2
metres to 0.9 metres. The purpose of the side yard setback is to allow for an appropriate
separation distance between adjacent properties and allow maintenance of the side of the
building. The proposed reduction does maintain an adequate separation distance. The
construction of the carport is desirable for the appropriate development of the property and will
have no adverse impacts on the abutting residential property as the adjacent side yard appears to
be greater than most. Therefore, it can be considered minor in nature.
Staff consider that the application is minor in nature, maintains the general intent of the Municipal
Plan and Zoning By-law, is desirable for the appropriate development of the property, and
recommend that the application be approved.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
109/99 provided all drainage is directed onto the subject property.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required to construct the new carport and that the owner must ensure that the carport
roof drainage is not directed on to the adjacent property.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 350 OCTOBER 26, 1999
The Chair reviewed staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to a building permit being obtained and that roof drainage shall not be directed
onto the adjacent property.
Submission No.: A 109/99(Cont'd)
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Denise Allen requesting permission to construct an attached open carport,
11.3 m (37.2 ft.) x 3.5 m (11.6 ft.), having an easterly sideyard setback of 0.91 m (3 ft.), rather
than the required 1.22 m (4 ft.), on Lot 3, Plan 313, 78 Brock Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the carport.
2. That all drainage from the roof of the carport shall be directed on to the subject property.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 110~99
Darren Murrin & Joanne Hinks
119 Jansen Avenue
Part Guerin Avenue, Part Lot
Registered Plan 58R-6635
1, Plan 589, W Range, Part 2,
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. R. Hill
Wolle Realty Better Homes & Gardens
385 Frederick Street
Kitchener ON N2H 2P2
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
deck having an average height of 0.91 m (3 ft.), with an easterly sideyard setback of 0 m, rather
than the required 1.22 m (4 ft.) and a rearyard setback of 2.13 m ( 7 ft.), rather than the required 4
m (13.12 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing deck having an
average height of 0.91 meters (3 feet) with an easterly side yard setback of 0 meters, rather
than the required 1.2 meters (4 feet) and a rear yard setback of 2.13 meters (7 feet) rather
than the required 4 meters (13 feet).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 351 OCTOBER 26, 1999
Staff note that the application should be amended to address only the reduced rear yard setback,
as the existing side yard setback for the deck of 0 meters complies with the requirements in the
By-law along the common lot line of a semi-detached dwelling.
4. Submission No.: A 110/99(Cont'd)
Both the swimming pool and deck were constructed without the benefit of building permits, and
therefore, the reduced rear yard setback was undetected. The By-law requires a minimum 4
meter (13 foot) rear yard setback for decks to provide an adequate buffer between the subject
property and the abutting property to the rear, particularly with respect to maintaining the privacy
of the abutting yard.
With the existing pool and decking, the applicant is still providing a 2.13 meter (7 foot) setback
from the rear property line which will provide sufficient room for any maintenance the structure
may require and provides some buffer between the adjoining property to the rear and the raised
deck.
The existing deck should have minimal impact on the neighbouring properties and as such, the
variance can be considered minor in nature. Both the pool and deck are appropriate uses of the
property and the minor variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the City's Zoning By-
law and Municipal Plan.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance
application A110/99, as amended.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
pool shall be surrounded by a 5 ft. high non-climbable fence with a Iockable gate.
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 staff are recommending approval of the
application, as amended to address only the reduced rearyard setback as the existing sideyard
setback for the deck of 0 m complies with the requirements in the by-law along the common
Iotline of a semi-detached dwelling. The Chair also noted the comments of the Building Division
which require a 5 ft. high non-climbable fence with Iockable gate to be constructed to surround
the pool. The Chair enquired of Mr. Hill if he was prepared to amend his application accordingly.
Mr. R. Hill responded that he was not aware of the requested amendment until he had read the
staff report this date; however, he stated that he was willing to amend the application accordingly.
The Chair enquired if it was appropriate to require that a building permit be applied for even
though the deck has already been constructed and Ms. J. Given responded that staff would not
entertain application for a building permit after construction has already taken place.
The Chair enquired how long the deck had been in existence and Mr. Hill responded that it had
been in place for approximately 1 year.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that he was prepared to move approval of the application and questioned if it
was appropriate to include the condition with respect to construction of the fence. The Chair
further enquired if a 5 ft. fence was already in place and Mr. Hill responded that a fence has been
constructed.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 352 OCTOBER 26, 1999
The Committee agreed that it would still be appropriate to include construction of a fence as
requested by staff as a condition of approval and if such a fence has already been constructed
the applicant would have no difficulty in satisfying this condition.
Submission No.: A 110/99(Cont'd)
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Darren Murrin and Joanne Hinks requesting permission to legalize an
existing deck having an average height of 0.91 m (3 ft.) with a rearyard setback of 2.13 m (7 ft.),
rather than the required 4 m (13.12 ft.), on Part of Guerin Avenue, Part Lot 1, Plan 589, W Range,
Part 2, Registered Plan 58R-6635, 119 Jansen Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APRPOVED,
subject to the following condition:
1. That the pool shall be surrounded by a
Iockable gate.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.
2.
3.
1.52 m (5 ft.) high non-climbable fence with
The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
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.
CONSENT
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Carried
B 59/99
Schwegel Contractors Inc.
78 Woolwich Street
Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, Designated as Parts 1 and 2,
Registered Plan 58R-6508
Mr. P. Kruse declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his law firm represents the
applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application.
Mr. Kruse left the meeting during consideration of this application and, pursuant to the Municipal
Conflict of Interest Act, the application was considered by the remaining two members.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. K. Schwegel
Schwegel Contractors Inc.
35 Nine Pines Road
Kitchener ON N2E 1L3
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
In Support:
None
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 353 OCTOBER 26, 1999
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create a new lot by
severing a parcel of land containing a single family dwelling and retaining a parcel of land to be
developed with 9 townhouse dwellings, having an area of 2,418.4 m2 (26,032.3 sq. ft.). The
lands to be severed will have frontage on Woolwich Street of 30.48 m (100 ft.) and an area of
749.98 m2 (8,073.sq. ft.).
1. Submission No.: B 59/99(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject property is a 0.3 hectare parcel of land which fronts
Woolwich Street. The applicant is requesting consent to sever the front portion of the property,
containing a single detached dwelling fronting Woolwich Street, from the rear portion of a property
which is vacant.
The applicants received approval of a similar Consent Application (B75/94) in 1994, however the
conditions of the severance were not fulfilled within one year and the approval lapsed. The
applicants also received approval of a Minor Variance Application (A1546/94) in 1994 to reduce
the minimum lot width on the retained lands to 9.2 metres. The variance approved was subject to
the development of a townhouse development as approved under Site Plan Application
SP94/41/PB.
The 1994 applications were appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. The appeal was withdrawn
after the applicant agreed to install three globe maples having a minimum 40mm calliper in the
location shown on the attached plan. The proposed townhouse design complies in all other
respects with the Zoning By-law, however, there is one additional change to the plan which
should be incorporated. The garbage enclosure should have a roof on it since it abuts a
residential use. The attached plan dated revised October 18, 1999 reflects the plan approved in
1994 and incorporates these two changes. Should the applicants choose not to develop in
accordance with the plan attached the minor variance approved under Application A146/94 would
be void and a new minor variance application would have to be submitted to reduce the minimum
lot width.
A Section 41 agreement was never registered on title. The agreement should be revised to reflect
the current standard City conditions and be registered on title on the retained lands once the
severance is final.
When the original severance was approved in 1994 the appropriateness of the severance and
minor variance was considered at that time. It was concluded that it was appropriate to retain the
existing dwelling to maintain a desirable streetscape and the Department maintains this position.
Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of
Consent Application B54/99, subject to conditions.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application
B59/99, be approved subject to the following conditions:
That the owner convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, a
3.9 metre road widening along the property's entire Woolwich Street frontage, for both the
retained and severed lands.
That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works, for the installation of any new service connections required for
the severed lands.
That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping
including street trees, curb and gutter and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed and
retained lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 354 OCTOBER 26, 1999
That the applicant shall make arrangements, to the satisfaction of the City's Department
of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of 1.5 metre sidewalk across both
the severed and retained lands.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
Submission No.: B 59/99(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and advise that this
parcel is within the area restricted to 300 units by Regional Council resolution in February 1996
as a result of the Bridge Street Transportation Study. City of Kitchener staff have confirmed that
this parcel and the 9 townhouse units proposed was considered in the updated study (summer
1998). As these are not additional units, Regional staff have no objection to the approval of B
59/99; 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 although the retained parcel is within 120 metres of a Provincially Significant
Wetland (part of the Melitzer Creek Wetland Complex), the Grand River Conservation Authority
has no objection to approval of the severance application. An approved site plan indicating the
location of all structures has been submitted and reviewed. The retained parcel is greater than
100 metres from the wetland. Staff have reviewed the site plan in conjunction with the buffer to
the wetland, and are satisfied that the development will not have a negative impact on the form
and function of the wetland. The site plan and the distance to the wetland will be sufficient as the
required Scoped Environmental Impact Statement on this site.
The Committee noted the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that
concerning Submission B 59/99, we request that approval of this application be subject to the
following conditions:
That the Applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
That the Applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wimot Hydro before the severances are granted.
The Chair reviewed staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to certain conditions and enquired if Mr. Schwegel had anything further to add.
Mr. K. Schwegel responded that he had reviewed staff comments and had nothing further to add.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. B. Dahms
That the application of Schwegel Contractors Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land having frontage on Woolwich Street of 30.48 m (100 ft.) and an area of 749.98 m2 (8,073 sq.
ft.), on Part Lot 59, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 1 and 2, Registered Plan 58R-
6508, 78 Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of
encumbrance, a 3.9 metre road widening along the property's entire Woolwich Street
frontage, for both the retained and severed lands.
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
General Manager of Public Works, for the installation of any new service connections
required for the severed lands.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 355 OCTOBER 26, 1999
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping
including street trees, curb and gutter and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed and
retained lands.
4. That the applicant shall make arrangements, to the satisfaction of the City's Department
of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of a 1.5 metre sidewalk across
both the severed and retained lands.
Submission No.: B 59/99(Cont'd)
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wimot Hydro before the severances are granted.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being October 26, 2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
Written Submissions:
In Support:
B 60/99
Richard and Elizabeth Rogers
14 and 16 Spadina Road East
Part of Lots 31 and 32, Registered Plan 230, Designated as Parts 1,
2~ 3~ and 4~ Reference Plan 58R-5378
Mr. T. Unruh
Giesbriecht, Griffin & Funk
Barristers & Solicitors
60 College Street
Kitchener ON N2H 5A1
None
None
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 356 OCTOBER 26, 1999
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide the subject
lands into two lots, each to contain one half of an existing semi-detached dwelling. The lands
being severed will have frontage on Spadina Road East of 15.64 m (51.33 ft.), by a depth of
24.954 m (81.87 ft.), and an area of 364.459 m2 (3,923.13 sq. ft.). The lands to be retained will
have frontage on Spadina Road East of 10.052 m (32.97 ft.), by a depth of 26.92 m (88.32 ft.)
and an area of 256.226 m2 (2,758.08 sq. ft.).
Submission No.: B 60/99(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that this application represents a re-submission of an application approved
last year (B57/98). The owners failed to complete the required conditions of consent prior to the
lapsing date.
The subject lands contain an existing semi-detached dwelling fronting onto Spadina Road East at
the corner of Winslow Drive. There are two separate driveways serving the dwellings, both
having access off Spadina Road East. The applicants own both dwellings and seek to create two
separate lots with one dwelling on each. The new lot line would bisect the building in two along
the party wall between the two existing units.
The legal description of the existing property is Parts one to four, Part of Lots 31 and 32,
Registered Plan 230. It is proposed to create one lot containing Parts 1 and 2, and the other
containing parts 3 and 4.
The existing Residential Four Zone (R-4) permits semi-detached dwellings. All yard requirements
of the R-4 zone will be satisfied for both the retained and severed parcels except that which
relates to the required lot width for the severed parcel. Zoning By-law 85-1 states that each semi-
detached house on a corner lot requires a minimum lot width of 15 metres. The proposed lot width
will be approximately 12.5 metres. As such, a minor variance will be required in order to
recognize this lot width. This is included as a condition of approval listed below.
The Department of Public Works commented on the previous application (B57/98) that water and
sewer connections serving the retained lands (14 Spadina Road East) are located partly on the
lands proposed to be severed (16 Spadina Road East). Therefore, a private easement across
the severed lands will have to be created in favour of the retained lands to ensure that these
services can be accessed for any necessary future maintenance.
The general area is characterized by single and semi-detached dwellings as well as apartment
buildings along this part of Spadina Road East. As such, the creation of two single dwellings from
an existing semi-detached dwelling would not be incompatible with neighbouring land uses.
Parking is already provided on two separate driveways for each dwelling. The two units
effectively function as two separate dwellings having separated driveways and rear yards for
amenity areas.
Based on these factors, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that
Consent Application B 60/99 be approved subject to conditions.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application
B60/99 be approved as revised to include the granting of an easement for water and sewer
connections over the severed lands, subject to the following conditions:
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any
outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That an application for minor variance to legalize the lot width for the severed lands be
finally approved.
That a draft reference plan showing the proposed easement be approved by the City's
Principal Planner.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 357 OCTOBER 26, 1999
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.
Submission No.: B 60/99(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the comments of staff, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
Consent Application and questioned if Mr. Unruh had anything further to add. Mr. T. Unruh
advised that he was confused with respect to the condition for a minor variance dealing with the
lot width and advised that he had asked for a copy of the most recent Zoning By-law prior to
submitting his application. He stated that he had received a copy of By-law 94-1 which appears
to be a different by-law than that referred to in the Planning staff report. He noted that the staff
report cites Zoning By-law 85-1 and requested clarification as to the difference between the two
by-laws. The Chair advised that By-law 85-1 is the City's comprehensive Zoning By-law which
may have been amended and requested staff to clarify. Ms. J. Given responded that By-law 94-1
is an amending by-law to By-law No. 85-1 and has been incorporated into the comprehensive
Zoning By-law (85-1).
Mr. T. Unruh advised that he was of the opinion, having reviewed By-law 94-1, that a corner lot
width of 12 m was acceptable if the width of the street was 18 ft. or less. Mr. Unruh questioned if
this would apply in this case. Ms. J. Given responded that the roads in this instance are wider
than 18 m and, accordingly, the higher lot width applies.
The Chair stated that because the corner lot is narrower than the by-law requirements a minor
variance would have to be applied for and questioned if Mr. Unruh had any objection to this
condition. Mr. T. Unruh responded that he did not object to this as a condition as it appears that
the 18 m or less road width does not apply in this case.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned if it was appropriate to approve the consent prior to the minor
variance application having been dealt with and questioned if a minor variance application had
been submitted. Mr. Unruh responded that he had not as yet submitted a minor variance
application.
The Chair questioned if approval could be granted subject to the minor variance being approved
to legalize the lot width and Ms. Given responded that typically the consent and minor variance
applications would be dealt with together; however, they have been done separately in the past
and staff are recommending that the minor variance application be submitted and approved as a
condition of consent approval.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Richard and Elizabeth Rogers requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land having frontage on Spadina Road East of 15.648 m (51.33 ft.), by a depth of 24.954 m
(81.87 ft.), and an area of 364.459 m2 (3,923.13 sq. ft.), subject to and together with an easement
over Parts 1 and 2, Reference Plan 58R-5378, in favour of Parts 3 and 4, Reference Plan 58R-
5378 for water and sewer connections, on Part of Lots 31 and 32, Registered Plan 230,
designated as Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4, Reference Plan 58R-5378, 14 and 16 Spadina Road East,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 358 OCTOBER 26, 1999
That an application for minor variance to legalize the lot width for the severed lands shall
be finally approved.
That a draft reference plan showing the proposed easement shall be approved by the
City's Principal Planner.
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.
Submission No.: B 60/99(Cont'd)
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 October 26, 2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1 A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 61/99
William & Elizabeth Nurse
400 Westwood Drive
Block C, Registered Plan 1273 and Lot 1 and Part Lot 2, Registered
Plan 1536
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. I. Rawlings
Cumming Cockburn Limited
180 King Street South
Suite 140
Waterloo ON N2J 1P8
Mr. & Mrs. W. Nurse
400 Westwood Drive
Kitchener ON N2M 2L6
Contra:
Ms. C. Weylie
279 Glasgow Street
Kitchener ON N2M 2M6
Written Submissions:
In Support:
None
Contra:
Dr. J. Chapman
11 Dayman Court
Kitchener ON N2M 3A1
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot
by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land, having an area of 4,037 m2
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 359 OCTOBER 26, 1999
(43,455.32 sq. ft.). The lands to be severed will have frontage on Dayman Court of 8.409 m
(27.58 ft.), by an average depth of 33.53 m (110 ft.) and an area of 718 m2 (7,728.74 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the owners of 400 Westwood Drive are requesting permission to sever
the property and create a new lot for residential purposes fronting onto Dayman Court. The
proposed severed lot will have a frontage on Dayman Court of 8.4 metres (27.56 feet) at the
street line, a lot width of approximately 14.5 metres (45.6 feet) at the building line, a depth of
33.53 metres (110 feet) and an area of approximately 832.5 square metres (3503.77 square
feet). The proposed severed lot is vacant but very densely treed.
3. Submission No.: B 61/99(Cont'd)
The proposed retained lot has a frontage of 49.9 metres (163.7 feet), a depth of 80.89 metres
(265.4 feet) and an area of approximately 3829.1 square metres (41,217.4 square feet). The
retained lot is developed with a large single detached dwelling which is also very densely
treed.
The owners currently reside at 400 Westwood Drive and wish to construct a smaller dwelling
fronting onto Dayman Court to which they wish to relocate. They acknowledge that a number
of trees will need to be removed for the construction of the dwelling, garage and driveway.
However, as they wish to relocate to the Dayman side of their property, they want to preserve
as many trees as possible in order to maintain the dense woodlot setting that currently exists.
Dayman Court is not totally completed as portions of the cul-de-sac require the abutting
landowners immediately to the north to dedicate a portion of their land to complete the
turnaround. No road dedication is required from the applicant's property as there is no 0.3
metre (1 foot) reserve and the owners have full legal access to the street. Public Works staff
has advised that the applicant had previously made payment for their share of the servicing
and road costs to the former developers of the subdivision lands. Public Works staff has also
advised that the portion of services and roadway across the frontage of the proposed severed
lot along Dayman Court can be extended and to permit access for the development of the lot.
The roadway, boulevard, and sidewalk will need to be extended across their entire frontage
and the owners' expense. Service connections can be made to the underground services that
are available at the end of the bulb.
The proposed severance of the lands is in compliance with the intent to complete the Dayman
Court cul-de-sac with the development of single detached dwellings. The Nurse's property and
the landowners on Glasgow Street which back onto the end of Dayman Court, as well as the
other two cul-de-sacs to the east, being Inadale Court and Gallarno Court, have property lines
located such that co-operation between landowners is required to jointly file consent
applications to create pie-shaped lots onto any of the three cul-de-sacs. This was
necessitated by the registration of the subdivision of the lands containing the three cul-de-
sacs which were left incompleted but relied on the future severances of the rear part of the
Glasgow Street property owners to complete the development to create 2-3 new single
detached lots at the end of each cul-de-sac. The City, through the approval of Stage 7 of the
Comprehensive Rezoning By-law in 1994, had established a depth of 33.53 metres (110.0
feet) under the R-3 zoning to allow for the development of single detached dwellings fronting
onto each of the three cul-de-sacs. As the Nurse's property is the only one which does not
have a 0.3 metre (1 foot) reserve across Dayman Court and is appropriately zoned R-3, they
are entitled to develop their property with a single detached dwelling subject to consent
approval.
The Department is of the opinion that the subject consent application is appropriate
development in compliance with the Zoning By-law. This proposal is considered good
planning and is appropriate and compatible with the character of the dwellings in the
neighbourhood. A Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan is required as a condition of the
consent approval to minimize the impact of the new construction and preserve the wooded
character of this severed lot, consistent with its surroundings.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 360 OCTOBER 26, 1999
Accordingly, the Department supports the severance application subject to the conditions listed
below.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B
61/99 be approved subject to the following conditions:
That the owners make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the
proposed severed land.
3. Submission No.: B 61/99(Cont'd)
That the owners make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard
landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the proposed
severed land.
That the owners make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works for the extension of the roadway, boulevard and sidewalk
across their entire Dayman Court frontage.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owners pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5 % of the value of the lands to be severed.
That the owners submit a Grading and Drainage Control Plan to the satisfaction of the
Chief Building Official.
That the owners enter into an agreement with the City which shall contain the following
condition:
"That the owners submit a Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan to be approved by the
City's Principal Planner, in accordance with the City of Kitchener Tree Management
Policy, prior to the endorsement of the deeds and prior to the issuance of any building
permits. Further, that an acceptable building envelope be identified by the City's
Principal Planner prior to the endorsement of deeds and prior to the issuance of any
building permits."
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. 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.
The Committee noted the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that
approval of this application be subject to the following conditions:
That the Applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 361 OCTOBER 26, 1999
That the Applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severances are granted.
Mr. I. Rawlings submitted a map outlining the proposed severance and retained lands and
provided an overview of his client's application. He noted that the subject land has a total of
50,000 sq. ft. fronting onto Westwood Drive. He further advised that the parcel to be severed will
front onto Dayman Court and will have an area of 8,478 sq. ft. Mr. Rawlings noted that, if consent
is granted, the severed parcel will be subject to R3 Zoning under which the minimum lot area
requirement is 464 m2 and the minimum lot width 13.7 m. He advised that the severed parcel will
meet these requirements with an area of 788 m2 and a lot width, while somewhat irregular
because of the requirement to be setback 6 m from the streetline, of 14.88 m. Mr. Rawlings
Submission No.: B 61/99(Cont'd)
pointed out that the property is densely wooded in character and, while this green area is
enjoyed, it does come with an obligation of maintenance. He stated that a large number of trees
exist on the property many of which are sick and becoming unsafe. He advised that a number of
trees have already been removed because of their poor and unsafe condition. In this regard, Mr.
Rawlings provided the Committee with several pictures. Mr. I. Rawlings advised that his clients
intend to relocate to the severed parcel so they may continue to enjoy their property but on a
smaller scale with less maintenance. He stated that he and his clients have reviewed the staff
reports and are in agreement with the recommendations contained therein.
Ms. C. Weylie advised that she was in attendance to represent Dr. J. Chapman. In this regard,
the Chair clarified that Ms. Weylie was not acting in her capacity as a member of Kitchener
Council but rather as a private citizen as agent for Dr. Chapman.
Ms. Weylie pointed out for the Committee's information that since the original subdivision plan
was put in place the side lot line of the subject property had been moved to accommodate a deck
which encroached on to Part of Lot 2, Registered Plan 1536.
The Chair questioned if the line is where the words "new property line" were printed on the sketch
attached to the application and Ms. Weylie responded that was correct.
The Chair enquired as to the location of Dr. Chapman's property in relation to the subject lands
and Ms. Weylie advised that Dr. Chapman's property was located approximately 3 or 4 lots below
the proposed severed parcel.
Ms. C. Weylie then read from Dr. Chapman's written submission in which Dr. Chapman advised
that there is a negotiated Plan of Subdivision from 1978/79 covering the original development of
the Munk property from which this current Nurse property derived. I was the neighbourhood
contact for the original Plan of Subdivision and am objecting both about the current proposed
severance and the process under which this current severance is being considered.
The negotiated settlement for the Plan of Subdivision of the Munk property came with the
following clause:
"4. Existin,q Conditions
The property being subdivided is at the corner of Glasgow Street and Westwood Drive.
The property will retain its Township Residential zoning which requires lots with a
minimum area of 0.20 hectares (one-half acre). The surrounding property is residential
with large lot development along Glasgow Street and Semi-Detached development along
Westwood Drive. The lot is heavily wooded."
The intent of this clause was to preserve the nature of development within the woods to be similar
by zoning category to adjacent wooded properties; this was protective of adjacent, or like, treed
properties in that it preserved the nature of treed development, not setting a precedent for high
zoning in future development.
While the final original diagrams do not indicate a severance line for the intended (even at that
time) eventual subdivision of the block of land now represented by the Nurse property, it was
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 362 OCTOBER 26, 1999
understood by both the developer and neighbourhood that this would likely take place sometime
in the future at a time when the (future) landowner decided how to split the property. There was
an understanding that the neighbourhood would not have grounds for objecting to such a
severance should it proceed exactly along the lines of the original Plan of Subdivision because of
the precedent set by the original subdivision. I have steadfastly reminded old, and informed new,
neighbours of this precedent and implications in several decades of neighbourhood work.
The zoning categories have changed through the years, but the developed lots from the original
Munk subdivision all now have an R2 zone (10, 000 square feet minimum; 0.223 acres), although
they, like the surrounding large treed lots, greatly exceed this minimum, ie. 1/2 acre lots are
21,780 square feet in size and many nearby properties are at least 1 acre in size.
Submission No.: B 61/99(Cont'd)
Zoning would be consistent with adjacent zoning if it was R2; therefore, the analogous
appropriate zoning for a severance of the Nurse property should be an R2 (10,000 square feet)
not an R3 (minimum 4,886 square feet or 0.1 acres).
Implications:
The current size (8,961 square feet; 0.2 acres) of property to be created by the severance
is closer to an R2 zone, but creates a property that is out of character by R3 zoning
category with adjacent treed properties, including those created and developed by the
original Plan of Subdivision. It would set the precedent for implementation of treed
development at an even smaller size throughout the area.
ii.
The current application for severance should be rejected, in favour of a severance that
creates an R2 lot. This would have the end result of following the intention of the original
Plan of Subdivision. The neighbourhood would be supportive of an expeditious
processing of any zone change application.
iii.
The development under an R2 zone may not only save trees in the current development
(ie. factors determining base of house and effect on trees will be other than those of house
size for R2 versus R3 zoning: soil conditions, drainage, tree loss, etc.), but would not set a
detrimental precedent for future development. It would be consistent with intent specified
in the negotiated Plan of Subdivision.
Given this is a last implementation of intent of the Plan of Subdivision which created the Nurse
property and the nature of the proposed severance, which departs from the intended character of
development under the Plan of Subdivision, the current process/framework (under the Committee
of Adjustment) for considering this changed intention of implementation of the original severance
is inappropriate.
The circulation was restricted to only those within a 200 foot (60 meter) radius of the Nurse
property.
ii.
I live two properties away from the 200 foot limit (well within the 120 meter limit for
Planning process circulation), and did not receive a circulation.
iii.
I also did not receive notification as the original neighbourhood negotiator for the Plan of
Subdivision which I would have under the Planning process.
These three facts resulted from the consideration of the subdivision as a straight forward
severance.
Had the departures from intent of original Plan of Subdivision been noted by Planning Staff, and a
Planning framework been implemented, I would have been included in the original circulation as
would others in the neighbourhood who were founding participants in the original Plan of
Subdivision. We have had relatively little change in residents of the adjacent lots in the over two
decades of implementation of the Plan of Subdivision.
Concluding requests as a result of the above considerations:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 363 OCTOBER 26, 1999
That you reject the current proposal for severance and either
Postpone approval of any severance, pending presentation of a severance which is in
character (R2 zoning) with the intent of the original Plan of Subdivision.
OR
Refer the proposal of subdivision/severance to a review through the Planning process,
where the changed nature in intent from the original plan may be considered by a broader
spectrum of residents, or the neighbourhood can support a zone change process to R2
Submission No.: B 61/99(Cont'd)
zoning, to maintain the intent of the original Plan of Subdivision. (Please note, that the
actual 0.2 lot size is closer to an R2 minimum of 0.223 acres than the R3 minimum of 0.1
acre; might the current proposed severance be viewed as an aberrant R2, if this was
supported by consensus of the neighbours as a desirable feature to protect the future of
precedent for adjacent trees.)
Mr. P. Kruse referred to staff comments which state: "approval of Stage 7 of the Comprehensive
Rezoning By-law in 1994 had established a depth of 33.53 m (110 ft.) under the R-3 Zoning to
allow for the development of single detached dwellings fronting on to each of the 3 cul-de-sacs"
and questioned if Stage 7 had considered exactly how these lots were to be developed and if the
public had been provided an opportunity to comment.
Ms. J. Given responded that Stage 7 of the Zoning By-law had undergone the required public
process and, as approved, had determined the course of development of the lots fronting onto
Dayman Court.
Mr. P. Kruse then referred to further comments of staff which indicate that the Nurse's property is
the only one which does not have a 0.3 m (1 ft.) reserve across Dayman Court and questioned
how this came about. Ms. J. Given responded that the 1 ft. reserve was required for cost
recovery of road construction and arrangements were already made with the applicants at the
time of purchase. All other property owners will be required to provide the 1 ft. reserve at the time
of road construction as previous arrangements have not been made.
Mr. P. Kruse referred to the comments of Dr. Chapman with respect to the Plan of Subdivsion for
the Munk property and questioned how Ms. Weylie viewed Stage 7 of the Zoning By-law as it
would appear to have addressed development of the cul-de-sac. Ms. Weylie responded that the
proposed parcel to be severed was actually missed during the process of Stage 7. She noted
that originally the lots in the area of Glasgow Street and Westwood Drive were Zoned R-1 and
through Stage 7 these were changed to R-2. At that time, she stated it was not realized that the
back portion of the subject lands was actually zoned R-3.
Ms. Weylie advised that previous owners had decided to withdraw a proposal for development of
the subject land because of the costs respecting the 1 ft. reserve and hooking into City services
and eventually sold the property to the current owners. She further pointed out that a number of
property owners have purchased small triangular pieces of land within the cul-de-sac, while
others have not, leaving some of these parcels land locked and undevelopable.
Ms. C. Weylie stated that Dr. Chapman's main concerns are that granting of the severance will
set a precedent out of character of the original Plan of Subdivision and the impact it will have on
the wooded landscape. Ms. Weylie stated that Dr. Chapman feels it would be more appropriate
to develop this property within the R-2 Zone of the original Plan of Subdivision.
The Chair referred to the sketch attached to the application and pointed out that it appears that
the rear Iotline of the proposed severance does not match up with the southerly sideyard of the
retained lands. In this regard, Mr. Rawlings pointed out that the drawings submitted this date was
revised so that the severed parcel now lines up with the side lot line of the retained parcel. He
pointed out that the severed parcel now has a depth of 33.53 m which will allow the severed
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 364 OCTOBER 26, 1999
parcel to meet the southerly sideyard of the retained parcel in as neat a fashion as possible so
that there will be no jogs in the rear Iotline.
The Chair referred to Dr. Chapman's comments with respect to the process followed for notice of
the severance and advised that under current regulations notices for severances are allowed to
be advertised and, as a courtesy, notices are also mailed within 30 m of the subject property. In
this regard, he advised Ms. Weylie that the Committee did comply with these regulations. Ms.
Weylie stated that she believed that Dr. Chapman was not questioning compliance with the
regulations but rather was of the opinion that this application should have been processed under
a higher form of planning process that would allow a wider circulation.
3. Submission No.: B 61/99(Cont'd)
Ms. J. Given clarified that the proposed depth of the severed lot at 33.53 m would still not
intersect with the southerly side Iotline of the retained parcel and a small sliver of the rear portion
of the severed parcel would be left in the R-2 Zone. She advised, however, that this would have
no impact with regard to the planning process.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that severance of the back portion of this property has always been the
intent. He noted that the 1 ft. reserve applying to all other properties does not affect the subject
lands as the owners have already complied and the owners are meeting the minimum
requirements for preservation of a woodlot. Accordingly, he advised that he would support
approval of this application.
Mr. P. Kruse also stated his support for the application and stated that he was prepared to move
approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report and those of Kitchener-Wilmot
Hydro.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of William and Elizabeth Nurse requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land having frontage on Dayman Court of 8.409 m (27.58 ft.) having an average lot width of 14.5
m (45.6 ft.) at the building line, by a depth of 33.53 m (110 ft.) and an area of 788.005 m2
(8,478.93 sq. ft.) on Block C, Registered Plan 1273 and Lot 1 and Part Lot 2, Registered Plan
1536, 400 Westwood Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following
conditions:
That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
General Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to
the proposed severed land.
That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
General Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard
landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the proposed
severed land.
That the owners shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
General Manager of Public Works for the extension of the roadway, boulevard and
sidewalk across their entire Dayman Court frontage.
That the
payment
charges.
owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
That the owners shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5 % of the value of the lands to be severed.
That the owners shall submit a Grading and Drainage Control Plan to the satisfaction of
the Chief Building Official.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 365 OCTOBER 26, 1999
That the owners shall enter into an agreement with the City which shall contain the
following condition:
"That the owners shall submit a Tree Preservation/Enhancement Plan to be approved
by the City's Principal Planner, in accordance with the City of Kitchener Tree
Management Policy, prior to the endorsement of the deeds and prior to the issuance of
any building permits. Further, that an acceptable building envelope be identified by the
City's Principal Planner prior to the endorsement of deeds and prior to the issuance of
any building permits."
=
Submission No.: B 61/99(Cont'd)
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severances are granted.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being October 26, 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
CHANGE OF CONDITIONS
APPLICATION
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
C 1/99 (B 79/98)
William & Verna Doucet
19-19A Horning Drive
Lot 14 and Part Lots 13 & 15, Re.qistered Plan 577
Mrs. V. Doucet
70 Catherine Street
New Hamburg ON
NOB 2G0
None
Written Submissions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 366 OCTOBER 26, 1999
In Support:
Mr. J. MacDonald, Manager
TD Bank Financial Group
385 Waterloo Street
P.O. Box 250
New Hamburg ON NOB 2G0
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to change the
conditions of the Committee of Adjustment decision for Submission No. B 79/98, granted on
November 17, 1998, so as to delete Condition Nos. 4 and 6.
Submission No.: C 1/99 (B 79/98)(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that this application seeks approval to change two conditions of approval
relative to Consent application B 79/98 which was approved on November 17, 1998 to
establish a separate lot for each dwelling. No new development is proposed.
Condition 4 requires the conveyance of a 2.904 metre (9.5 foot) road widening across the
property's entire frontage. The existing dwelling on the retained lands is set back 9.7 feet; the
lands to be severed do not have a building in close proximity to the front lot line. The road
widening requirement is typically imposed through consent applications to allow the future
widening of the road to comply with the road rights of way schedule set out in the Municipal
Plan. The Committee may wish to consider imposing the road widening on the severed lands
only, acknowledging that the actual widening may be a number of years away and that a such
time, the City may need to expropriate from the retained lands to obtain the necessary land for
the widened right of way.
Condition 6 is a standard condition requiring the installation of boulevard landscaping and
street trees on both the severed and retained lands and a paved driveway ramp on the
severed lands. The condition is worded such that it is required to the satisfaction of Public
Works, who look at each case individually. If, for example, street trees already exist and are
not removed by the installation of services, the installation of new trees would not necessarily
be required. The existing streetscape on Horning Drive has landscaped boulevards and
paved driveway ramps and through the consent process the City ensures the ongoing
improvements to the public space along the streets. On this basis, Staff do not support any
change to Condition 6.
The Department of Business & Planning Services recommends that no change to Condition 6
be granted, however, staff would not oppose the Committee modifying Condition 4 such that
the road widening requirement is deleted from the retained lands only.
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
with the deletion of Conditions # 4 and #6; 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 although the proposed severed and retained parcels lie entirely within the Regulatory
Flood Plain for the Grand River, the residential development of single residences already exists
on both parcels. On this basis, the Grand River Conservation Authority did not object to the
approval of the severance application B 79/98. The proposed changes to the conditions of the
Committee of Adjustment do not effect our initial comments. We have no objection to the
deletion of Conditions Nos. 4 and 6.
The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. J. MacDonald, Manager, TD Bank Financial
Group, in which he advised that he has reviewed the Committee of Adjustment report concerning
the above mentioned property and specifically item 4 dated November 17, 1998. As we hold a
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 367 OCTOBER 26, 1999
first mortgage on this property, it is our opinion that allowing for a road allowance of 2.904 metres
would leave virtually no room between the front of the house and the new roadway. With lack of
further information concerning sidewalks, green space etc, it would further be our opinion that the
marketability of the said property may be affected if such an allowance is made.
The Chair reviewed staff comments, noting that staff recommend no change to Condition 6 but
would not oppose modification to Condition 4. In this regard, Ms. J. Given clarified that staff are
not opposing modification to Condition 4 such that the road widening requirement is deleted from
the retained lands only.
The Chair enquired as to the impact Condition 4 would have on the subject property and Ms. V.
Doucet responded that if she were required to comply with the condition as originally written it
Submission No.: C 1/99(B 79/98)(Cont'd)
would leave the retained lands with virtually no front yard. She stated that only inches would be
left in front of the existing dwelling on the retained lands.
Mr. P. Kruse questioned if this would still be required at the time actual widening of the road took
place and Ms. J. Given responded that this was correct; however, the road widening may be a
number of years away and the City does have the option to expropriate the lands required for the
widening at the time of actual construction.
Ms. V. Doucet referred to Condition 6 which requires financial arrangements to be made with the
Department of Public Works for landscaping and pointed out that trees already exist on the
property. She stated that she did not wish to do further landscaping and questioned what would
be required to meet the standards for landscaping under this condition.
The Chair advised that Ms. Doucet would have to discuss this matter with staff of the Public
Works Department to determine what their requirements were in order to satisfy this condition.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that he was in agreement with staffs recommendation and advised that he
was prepared to move approval of modification to Condition No. 4 so that it applies only to the
severed lands and that there be no change to Condition No. 6.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of William and Verna Doucet requesting permission to change the conditions
of Provisional Consent B 79/98 on Lot 14 and Part Lots 13 & 15, Registered Plan 577, 19-19A
Horning Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, so that only the following conditions shall apply
to Submission No. B 79/98:
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the Kitchener Wilmot-Hydro for
the provision of separate electrical servicing to the lands to be retained and to the lands to
be severed.
That the owners shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro.
That the owners shall obtain final approval of an Application for Minor Variance for the lot
widths on both the severed and retained lands.
That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of
encumbrance, a 2.904 m road widening along the frontage of the lands to be severed.
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 368 OCTOBER 26, 1999
including street trees on the severed lands and retained lands and a paved driveway ramp
on the severed lands.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvements 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 October 26, 2001.
Submission No.: C 1/99(B 79/98)(Cont'd)
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1 A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 26th day of October, 1999.
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment