Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-10-05COA\1999-10-05 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 5, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. W. Dahms, S. Kay and A. Galloway. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of September 14, 1999, be amended as follows: Page 309 to amend the Committee's Decision respecting Minor Variance Application Submission No. A 100/99 by adding the following to the end of the first sentence of Condition No. 3: "prior to December 12, 1999. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Director of Planning prior to the completion date set out in this Decision". Carried Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of September 14, 1999, as mailed to the members, and amended this date, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 97/99 Ryan Wright 11 Shanley Street Part of Lots 401 & 402, Granges Survey, Registered Plan 376 Appearances: In Support: Mr. B. Wright 108 Bonnie Crescent Elmira ON N3B 3J8 Mr. R. Wright 11 Shanley Street Kitchener ON N2H 5N7 Contra: Ms. S. Keul 15 Shanley Street Kitchener ON N2H 5N7 Written Submissions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 319 OCTOBER 5, 1999 1. Submission No.: A97/99(Cont'd) In Support: None Contra: Ms. S. Keul 15 Shanley Street Kitchener ON N2H 5N7 The Chair noted that at the Committee's September 14, 1999 meeting, this application was deferred to allow the applicant an opportunity to consider alternatives and present further documentation/pictures in support of the application. The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a porch 1.01 m (3.33 ft.) in height, having a sideyard setback of 1.13 m (3.73 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93 ft.). Previous comments from the Department of Business & Planning Services; Building Division; Region of Waterloo Planning & Culture Department; Grand River Conservation Authority; and Mrs. S. Keul; as documented in the minutes of the Committee's September 14, 1999 meeting, were further considered this date. No additional written comments were received for consideration at this meeting. Mr. B. Wright advised that he was present to represent the applicant and presented the Committee with revised drawings and photographs. Mr. B. Wright advised that the applicant wishes to resolve the issue of access to the side door into the addition. He pointed out that when the home was purchased the existing addition and attached porch were in very poor condition and the applicant is in the process of making restorations to Building Code standards. He advised that the new addition is to be used as a bathroom and laundry room. Mr. Wright also noted that the access doorways when originally constructed were high off the ground and the Building Code requires a landing and steps for exterior exits with more than 3 risers. He further pointed out that it was never intended to be a sitting area as it would only be 3 ft. in width. Mr. S. Kay referred to the new drawings and questioned if it was now intended to construct a landing with descending stairways on either side. Mr. B. Wright responded that was correct. Mr. S. Kay referred to previous comments of staff in which they advised that they would support construction of steps and a small landing area in front of the doorway and questioned if what was now being proposed would be supported by staff. Ms. J. Given responded that staff would support the revised proposal as it provides the necessary access to the addition while ensuring minimum intrusion on the neighbouring property. During this discussion, Mrs. S. Keul entered the meeting and was provided with a copy of the revised plans to review. The Chair referred to the plan showing the location of the previous addition and roofed porch and enquired what the elevation had been in relation to the new renovations. Mr. B. Wright stated that the elevation was identical and that there had been stairs descending from the old porch out to the sidewalk. The Chair also enquired if the facade of the previous porch had been open or closed and Mr. B. Wright responded that it had been open. Ms. S. Keul stated that the door to the previous addition had been boarded up and the stairs removed because of neighbour opposition. Ms. Keul then provided the Committee with pictures and pointed out that the fence on her property had been built 1 ft. inside the property line because of the closeness of the two buildings and suggested that the applicant was now claiming the additional foot as his own. Mrs. Keul restated her opposition to the proposed access, noting that COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 320 OCTOBER 5, 1999 the by-law requires a setback of 4 ft. along the sideyard and, if a variance is approved, this would affect her privacy. Submission No.: A97/99(Cont'd) Mr. S. Kay questioned if Mrs. Keul agreed that the previous addition/porch looked as shown on the old survey. Mrs. Keul responded that it did but that it was not used as it had been boarded up. Mr. S. Kay suggested that the proposal under consideration this date would be preferable to viewing a boarded up door; however, Mrs. Keul stated that she did not agree as the door looks directly into her kitchen. Mr. B. Wright pointed out that the door to the addition actually aligns with the backyard of the subject property and it is the kitchen windows of both dwellings that are in direct line with each other. The Chair enquired if the location of the addition on the east sideyard complies with the requirements of the Zoning By-law and Ms. Given responded that it did. The Chair then enquired how the landing and stairs would be interpreted under the by-law and Ms. Given advised that the landing is considered as a deck or porch and a variance would be required to allow its construction. Mr. S. Kay enquired if the previous addition/porch enjoyed legal non-conforming status and Ms. Given advised that it had been covered as legal non-conforming under the Vacuum By-law. Mr. Kay then enquired if the new addition was considered legal non-conforming and Ms. Given advised that once a legal non-conforming structure has been removed the legal non-conforming status is lost. In this instance, she advised that the previous addition/porch was completely removed and, accordingly, legal non-conforming status no longer applies. Mr. S. Kay stated that, notwithstanding the requirements of the by-law, the Committee does have the authority to approve variances that are considered to be minor in nature. He stated that he felt the proposal to be minor in nature and was inclined to allow it in view of the fact that the applicant has compromised from his original proposal and the new structure would be more aesthetically appealing than what had previously existed. He further stated that indication is that the door does not align with the neighbouring kitchen window and he did not believe, in any event, that this would become a high traffic area. In view of the evidence provided, he stated that he was prepared to move approval of the application as amended. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he agreed with Mr. Kay's comments and would also support approval as he did not see a significant difference between what had previously existed and what was being proposed, other than the stairs descending a little further towards the sidewalk. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Ryan Wright requesting permission to construct a landing to a maximum of 1.01 m (3.33 ft.) in height and not more than 1.15 m (3.8 ft.) in width, together with stairs descending on either side of the landing, having an easterly sideyard setback of 0.1 m (0.3 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93 ft.), on Part of Lots 401 and 402, Granges Survey, Registered Plan 376, 11 Shanley Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the minor variance shall apply only to the stairs and landing generally as shown on the plan submitted at the Committee of Adjustment hearing held on October 5, 1999. 2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the landing and stairs. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 321 OCTOBER 5, 1999 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. Submission No.: A97/99(Cont'd) 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT 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 had been received from Ms. D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, to defer this application to the October 26th meeting. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the meeting of October 26, 1999. The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:05 a.m. in order to consider applications for minor variances to the City of Kitchener's Fence By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:25 a.m. APPLICATIONS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 102/99 Integra Homes Inc. 54 Bush Clover Crescent Part Lot 47, Plan 58R-10622 Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. Oliver Integra Homes Inc. P.O. Box 42021 Conestoga Mall P.O. Waterloo ON N2L6K5 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a covered porch attached to the front of the existing single family dwelling, having a frontyard setback from Bush Clover Crescent of 3.08 m (10.10 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands are an undeveloped lot located at the northeast corner of Bush Clover Crescent and Hackberry Street. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan and are zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 322 OCTOBER 5, 1999 The applicant, Integra Homes Inc., is requesting approval of a minor variance application to permit a covered porch within a front yard having a setback of 3.1 metres from the streetline. In 1. Submission No.: A 102/99(Cont'd) order to provide an attractive streetscape, Integra Homes is proposing to construct a covered porch on the corner lot. The Zoning By-law currently permits terraces, porches and decks within a side yard abutting a street provided they are not enclosed and are setback a minimum of 3.0 metres from the streetline. However, a covered porch has been interpreted as being "enclosed" for the purposes of implementing the Zoning By-law, resulting in a 4.5 metre setback requirement, and the need for approval of a minor variance application. The proposed covered porch is an architectural detail which will increase the habitable living area which abuts the street and is considered a positive feature which will add to the sense of community in the area. As part of a future amendment to the Zoning By-law, it is the intention of the Department of Business and Planning Services to recommend changes to the By-law that would enable covered porches within 3.0 metres of a streetline. This would then permit similar architectural details without the need for a minor variance. Based on the above, the proposed variance is considered to be minor in nature, appropriate for the development of the subject lands, and in keeping with the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 102/99, to permit an enclosed porch within a front yard, having a setback of 3.1 metres from the streetline. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has no concerns with the location of the proposed porch. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning and 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(s) 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 referred to staff comments, noting that the application is recommended for approval and that there were no agency concerns. Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Integra Homes Inc. requesting permission to construct a covered porch attached to the front of the existing single family dwelling, having a frontyard setback from Bush Clover Crescent of 3.1 m (10.17 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.), on Part Lot 47, Plan 58R-10622, 54 Bush Clover Crescent, 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 323 OCTOBER 5, 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 103/99 Frances & Walter Filipitsch 254G Woolwich Street North Part Lot 125, German Company Tract, Designated Registered Plan 58R-119, Rear Land with ROW Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: as Part 2, Appearances: In Support: Mrs. F. Filipitsch 215 Roxton Drive Waterloo ON N2T 1N7 Ms. J. MacKinnon 308-225 Old Carriage Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1H5 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: Ms. J. MacKinnon 308-225 Old Carriage Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1H5 Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a new single family dwelling on a lot which does not have frontage on a street, having a lot width of 22.86 m (75 ft.), rather than the required 60 m (196.85 ft.); having a lot area of 0.19 ha (0.47 acres), rather than the required 0.4 ha (0.98 acres); and having a westerly sideyard setback of 1.5 m (4.92 ft.) and an easterly sideyard setback of 2.7 m (8.85 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.). In addition, the applicant is requesting permission to construct an accessory building having an easterly sideyard setback of 0 m, 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 applicant requests variances to permit the construction of a new dwelling, to replace an existing dwelling, on a lot which does not comply with the Zoning By-law. The variances are to allow construction of a dwelling on a lot without frontage on a public street, to reduce the lot width requirement from 60m to 22.86m, to reduce the minimum lot area from 0.4ha to 0.19ha, to reduce the minimum side yards from 7.5m to 1.5m and 2.7m for the dwelling and zero for an existing accessory building. The lot is one of nine adjoining lots along the Grand River, having access from Woolwich Street by means of a right-of-way over a private lane. The distance from Woolwich Street to the subject property is approximately 700-800m. A small portion of the lot is within the flood plain of the Grand River; however, the existing and proposed location of the dwelling is above the flood line. The E-1 zoning is therefore not a factor. Southstaton Holdings and Activa Investments, owners of the private lane, have received subdivision draft plan approval, by oral decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, for a portion of their lands. The subdivision would extend a public street to within 140m of the lot; a subsequent subdivision on the remainder of the subdividers' land would extend a public street to within 35m of the lot. The draft plan design makes provision for the further extension of the public street across the front of the subject property; however further extension would be on land which is not owned by Southstaton/Activa and is not the subject of a subdivision proposal. In August 1998 the Committee considered and approved an application for the adjoining lot. There are some significant differences between the proposals. Submission A81/98 (254F Woolwich St.) was a proposal to enlarge a building used for a legal non-conforming purpose (i.e. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 324 OCTOBER 5, 1999 a dwelling on a zero frontage lot). The owner requested permission to construct a foundation beneath the existing dwelling, which was renovated/reconstructed without the living space being enlarged. Submission A103/99 does not request permission to enlarge the legal non-conforming Submission No.: A 103/99(Cont'd) building, as it is proposed to be demolished, but instead requests variances from the provisions of the Zoning By-law. The existing dwelling has a ground floor area of 1,204 sq. ft. and a gross floor area of 2,280 sq. ft. The proposed dwelling would have a ground floor area of 2,130 sq. ft. and a gross floor area of 2,825 sq. ft. The general intent of the A-1 Zone in this area is to be used as a holding zone until such time as the lands are proposed to be developed in their ultimate form, i.e. with full municipal services and with frontage on a public street. Notwithstanding that intent, the nine lots are obviously developed and functioning as a residential area, rather than agricultural. In that regard, there is no concern with the lot width, lot area, or side yard variances. Only the lack of frontage on a public street is of concern. The by-law states, "No lot shall have built upon it, a building for any purpose in any zone unless the lot abuts a street." The intent of the by-law is firstly that no new land locked, or zero-frontage, lots be created and that existing zero frontage lots be prohibited from being developed. The effect of this prohibition is to encourage either the consolidation of zero-frontage lots with abutting lands having public street frontage, or the construction of a public street to provide a proper standard of access and servicing. In this case the surrounding lot pattern is well established, so there is no reason to promote lot consolidation. The existing lane ultimately should be upgraded to a public street, and development of an entirely new dwelling is inappropriate until that time. In its report on Submission A81/98, staff wrote, "There is no doubt that a proposal to construct a new dwelling on a vacant zero-frontage lot would not be supported by staff; however, in this case the dwelling exists, and the purpose of the proposal is to allow it to be used as a permanent residence." The Planning Act provides for the continuation of legal non-conforming uses, and even allows for consideration of building additions, but this proposal to demolish the existing building and construct a new dwelling is essentially the same as the vacant zero-frontage lot referred to. If the vacant lot is to become a viable building lot, the owner should be made responsible for their share of constructing the public road across the lot's frontage. In the opinion of Planning staff, the requested variance to allow construction of a new dwelling on a zero frontage lot does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the by-law, which is that zero-frontage lots should not be developed. The proposed construction of a new dwelling in advance of public street construction is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of Submission A103/99. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required for any new construction. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and have no concerns; however, they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have now had the opportunity to review the above noted minor variance to permit the construction of a new family dwelling on a lot which does not have frontage on a street, having a lot width of 22.86 metres, a lot area of 0.19 hectares, westerly sideyard setback of 1.5 metres, and an easterly sideyard setback of 2.7 metres and to permit the construction of an accessory structure having an easterly sideyard setback of 0 m. We recommend that the minor variance application be deferred until the feasibility of the proposed single family and accessory COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 325 OCTOBER 5, 1999 structure construction is determined through the completion of a geotechnical investigation as completed as discussed below. 2. Submission No.: A 103/99(Cont'd) Information currently available at this office indicates the rear portion of the property lies below the Regulatory Floodline elevation of the Grand River. In addition, a large portion of the property is within the Grand River Scheduled Fill Area. We note the rear portion of the property contains steep slopes. Consequently, the subject property is regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority under Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98. Due to the presence of steep slopes located at the rear of the property, the impact of the proposed construction on the stability of the slope must be addressed prior to approval of the minor variance. Therefore, a geotechnical investigation must be completed in order to determine the feasibility of the proposed development in relation to the stability of the slope. The Grand River Conservation Authority's Bank Erosion Policy emphasizes a non-structural approach for maintaining slope stability. In areas of proposed development along steep, eroding or unstable banks, a geotechnical study is required in order to define the parameters that determine a safe setback from the top of bank where development can take place. This setback is made of three components; the erosion setback, the stability setback, and the structural setback. The erosion setback is used where a stream acts at or near the toe of the slope and is equal to the amount of erosion that it is estimated would occur in 100 years. The stability setback is equal to the setback required for the slope to reach a stable slope inclination. The GRCA usually applies a 15 metre structural setback from the top of the bank to avoid bank overloading and drainage problems. In summary, we require the following information in order to provide further comment on the minor variance application. Submission of a geotechnical investigation to determine if the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the stability of the adjacent steep slope. Submission of a site plan in conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical study. The site plan should indicate the location of the proposed dwelling, accessory structure, driveway and septic system. Please note that in construction of the single family dwelling, there should be no openings lower than that of the Regulatory Floodline for this section of the Grand River. This elevation is 1001.57 feet/305.3 metres C.G.D. Upon review of the site plan and geotechnical investigation, we will be able to provide further comments on the minor variance application. Please be advised that if the minor variance is considered appropriate, a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98 may be required from the Grand River Conservation Authority for the construction of the dwelling and accessory structure. Ms. J. MacKinnon advised that Mrs. Filipitsch is her Aunt, who has a medical condition which makes it difficult for her to speak for any length of time. Accordingly, she advised that she had been asked to make a presentation to the Committee of Adjustment on behalf of Mrs. Filipitsch. Ms. MacKinnon then read from a written statement in which she advised that the property in question is one of nine properties situated by the Grand River. Seven of these have permanent, year round residences. One, a twelve year old house, is very large with over 5100 sq. ft. of living space. The others are either new homes or very well kept, older homes. The dwelling presently on Lot 254G is 60 years old. It was built as a cottage, not as a home. It has no basement. It is only partially winterized. The windows, which are mostly single panes of glass, make it extremely difficult to heat in the winter. Our permanent year round dwelling needs to offer us warmth, security and comfort, which the cottage that exists cannot give us. Unfortunately, the previous owners allowed the existing building to fall into disrepair. It needs extensive repairs not only to the basic structure and roof but to the plumbing, and most importantly, to the wiring. It is very definitely a fire hazard. The electrical system has been modified and repaired by amateurs and electrical outlets are not affixed to walls. Because the existing cottage is situated too close to the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 326 OCTOBER 5, 1999 property line, the current master bedroom window faces the neighbour's house, which is only 6 ft. away. Ms. J. MacKinnon then presented pictures to the Committee and pointed out that the neighbouring property had torn down the existing house and rebuilt in exactly the same position Submission No.: A 103/99(Cont'd) on the old foundation. She also pointed out the location of the river and laneway access in relationship to the subject property. Mr. S. Kay questioned if any variances had been required with respect to the neighbouring property and Ms. J. Given responded that she believed the Committee had approved an extension to a legal non-conforming use in 1998. In addition, she advised that the Committee had recently approved a sunroom addition to another neighbouring property in this area. Ms. Given pointed out that these approvals were modifications rather than replacement of existing structures. Mr. A. Galloway stated that his recollection was the same as that of staff in that the approvals granted related to structural changes that were minor in nature and not replacement. Ms. J. MacKinnon then continued with presentation of her written submission in which she advised that our new home will leave a safe distance between the two buildings. In the condition that the building is currently in, and because it is situated so close to our neighbour's new house, it denies privacy and creates a very unsafe situation. For these reasons, it is totally impractical to make renovations in order to make the cottage a year round home. Our very strong desire is to build, on this beautiful lot, a home into which we can retire. We wish it to respect the environment of the river as well as to enhance the properties of the other seven owners. The Committee of Adjustment has reported that construction of a new dwelling in advance of a public street is not desirable. However, the entire area is being considered by City Council for a Zoning By-law change for all the land near us. There will be over 700 new homes built in the immediate area, and the developers have already agreed to provide water to the existing nine properties along the private lane. When this occurs, this lane currently in use by all nine property owners for the past 60 years will become a public street used by some of these new residents. The fact that this is currently a private lane though, has not hindered other residences along the river from being built or further improved. In fact, seven of the nine homes along the river have been either upgraded or completely rebuilt without a public road. Given this precedent, it is difficult to understand why now a public road has to be in place first before our new, enhanced dwelling can be constructed. The Committee of Adjustment states that "construction of a new dwelling in advance of a public street is not desirable for the appropriate development on the land". We submit that approving our development plan is very appropriate. First, our new home will conform more specifically with the requirements of setbacks from property boundaries. The existing buildings do not conform on the eastern and western side yards. The new plan complies with the GRCA'S ruling which requires a minimum of 35 feet setback from the river. Our home will be a minimum of 55 feet from the river. Secondly, our new home will enhance the quality of the property by fitting in more appropriately with the houses on either side of it. We want to build a brand new home, designed specifically for that lot by the river, taking into account existing homes and property values. Currently there is a dilapidated garage and lean-to encroaching on the easterly boundary line. As indicated in the house plan submitted to Council, this eye-sore of a building will be completely removed. In its place, the garage/storage area will become part of the new house - further enhancing the appearance of the property. Thirdly, and most importantly, the new plans provide a safe dwelling which doesn't threaten the security of our neighbours. Thus, it makes total sense to upgrade the property as soon as possible. It will be more in keeping with future development in the area as well as past development along this private lane, and our plans meet with warm approval from our neighbours. In conclusion, we do respect the desire of the various authorities to protect the environment and future residential development of this area. However, we strongly argue that the reasons for denying permission to build a new home on Lot 254G are not valid. The existing structure cannot be renovated. By-laws will be more faithfully adhered to regarding side yards and setbacks from the river. The safety of our neighbours as well as ourselves will be assured. Finally, there is no doubt in our minds that the home we want to build will increase the potential value of the properties along the Grand River without in any way compromising the environment. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 327 OCTOBER 5, 1999 The Chair enquired where the water supply would come from if the new house was built. Mrs. F. Filipitsch advised that it is intended to be supplied through agreement with the developers and permission has been given by the neighbouring owner to go through his property to make the connection. Submission No.: A 103/99(Cont'd) Mr. A. Galloway questioned if it is was intended to upgrade the existing septic system and Mrs. Filipitsch responded that would be done pending connection to the City's sewer system. The Chair referred to staff comments noting that they are recommending refusal of the application as the property does not have frontage on a public street for access and servicing. Mrs. Filipitsch stated that the subject property has a right-of-way over a private lane, together with eight other properties, all of which pay to keep the lane open. The Chair requested staff to comment and Ms. Given advised that staff consider this application to be premature as lands in this area are still private and no formal application for Plan of Subdivision has been received by the City. She stated that it is unknown at this time when development will occur in the area. She further advised that when development does take place the matter of service connections to the property would be undertaken through Plan of Subdivision. Ms. Given also pointed out that staff did not recommend approval of the modifications that the Committee approved with respect to the neighbouring property and staff believe this application to be substantially different as the existing structure will be demolished and totally rebuilt. She stated that, in her opinion, this application did not meet the standards of the Planning Act, especially with regard to the issue of frontage on a public street. The Chair questioned if the area was to be developed in future and Ms. Given responded that eventually it was planned to develop the area; however, this may not take place for a number of years. Ms. Given then provided the Committee with a sketch of the draft plan for future extension of the public road and pointed out that the ultimate extension would end at a cul-de-sac very close to, but not in front of, the subject property. Mr. S. Kay stated that it would appear that even if the application were approved and the possible extension of the public road were to take place the road would still not extend to this property. Ms. J. Given advised that at the time the extension of the public road was undertaken provision for access to this property would be dealt with. Mr. A. Galloway referred to the applicant's reference to residences along this stretch of the lane having been torn down and replaced and questioned if staff had any records to this effect. Ms. J. Given responded that she was not sure of what the applicant was referring to unless they were speaking of the property next door. Ms. J. MacKinnon stated that they were referring to the property next door and advised that only a small portion of the existing house had been left with the majority of the home being rebuilt. Mrs. F. Filipitsch further stated that they had put in a foundation which did not previously exist. Ms. J. MacKinnon also pointed out that the proposed road would only be 35 ft. from their property and, in her opinion, would be serviceable to this property. Mr. A. Galloway requested clarification that the existing structure on the subject lands was to be torn down and replaced and Mrs. Filipitsch responded that was correct. Mr. A. Galloway pointed out that the new structure was proposed to be 3,000 sq. ft. which is much larger than what exists now and Mrs. Filipitsch responded that the lot is 75 ft. in width which will accommodate the proposed dwelling. She further advised that the dwelling on the neighbouring property, at 5,100 sq. ft., was much larger than that proposed in this application. Mr. A. Galloway questioned if the dwelling on the neighbouring property had been added onto and Mrs. Filipitsch responded that the owner had combined two lots on which two existing cottages had been torn down and the new house built. She stated that at the time this took place the lands were still located within the Township boundary. That being the case, it was pointed out to Mrs. Filipitsch that the property in question would have been under the jurisdiction of the Township at the time demolition and rebuilding had taken place. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 328 OCTOBER 5, 1999 The Chair stated that the Committee was having difficulty in approving the application because it was very different from what was proposed on an adjacent lot in 1998. He stated that this application provides for demolition of the existing structure rather than modifications which would negate any legal non-conforming status the property now has. He stated that in this situation the Submission No.: A 103/99(Cont'd) by-law requires access onto a public street which may in future be the case through plan of subdivision; however, the timing for development is not yet known. He stated that it is difficult to judge the degree of prematurity of the application without more concrete evidence of the timing for future development. Mrs. F. Filipitsch stated that timing was an issue for her as the home is intended to be for retirement and, given her age, did not have time to wait 10 to 20 years for development to take place. Mr. S. Kay stated that staff are opposed as they do not want to enhance a situation whereby a legal non-conforming use becomes more permanent. He stated that if it were known that access to a public street would occur within 3 years, it might be reasonable to extend the legal non- conforming use; however, access may not occur for a much lengthier period of time. He stated that in the fullness of time access to a public street will allow the applicant to do what is proposed; however, he did not feel the Committee should anticipate the future based on a pending retirement. He further stated that this Committee has only approved variances on adjacent properties within the confines of existing structures which is not what is being proposed in this application. Mr. A. Galloway agreed and stated that if the property were vacant at this time the owner would not be able to obtain a building permit as the property does not have access onto a public street. He advised that the existing structure is only allowed because it enjoys legal non-conforming status which would be negated by demolition. Mrs. F. Filipitsch again referred to the neighbouring property in which the structure was torn down and rebuilt and the Chair responded that staff have assured the Committee that the City has not approved replacement, only renovation. The Chair agreed that unless a definitive timeline could be given respecting access to a public street, which would allow the Committee to consider the situation of extending a legal non- conforming use to be short term, it would be difficult for the Committee to approve the application based on the evidence presented and staff comments. Mr. S. Kay stated that he sympathized with the applicant and suggested that, in view of the Committee's difficulty with approval of the application, Mrs. Filipitsch considered deferral to allow her an opportunity to reconsider her submission and undertake further discussion with Planning staff. He stated that this would leave the application open for further consideration by the Committee following a reassessment of the application. Alternatively, he stated that it would appear the Committee was inclined to refuse the application. Mrs. F. Filipitsch responded that she agreed with the suggestion to defer the application and a date for re-consideration was determined. By general consent, the Committee agreed to defer this application to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on December 7, 1999. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le,qal Description: A 104/99 St. Philip's Church 236 Woodhaven Road Part Block B, Plan 849 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Leis 48 Southwood Drive COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 329 OCTOBER 5, 1999 Kitchener ON N2E 2H1 Contra: None Written Submissions: Submission No.: A 104/99(Cont'd) In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a detached garage having a sideyard setback of 0.76 m (2.5 ft.), rather than the required 6.09 m (20 ft.) and having a rearyard setback of 4.57 m (15 ft.), rather than the required 7.62 m (25 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting a reduction in the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 4.5 metres and a reduction in the easterly side yard setback from 6.0 metres to 0.76 metres. The proposed variances will allow the construction of a storage garage, which is proposed to replace a small shed on the property that is being removed. The institutional zones do not have regulations pertaining to accessory structures and as a result, the same setback requirements that are applied to the main building are applied to accessory structures. The general intent and purpose of the 7.5 metre rear yard and 6.0 metre side yard setbacks are to allow for a greater separation distance from adjacent properties for large institutional buildings. The setback requirement for a similar accessory structure on the abutting lands that are zoned R-3 is 0.6 metres for the side yard and 1.2 metres for the rear yard. In view of the forgoing the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is maintained since there would be no adverse impact on the residential property. The proposed variances are minor in relation to the size and the nature of the proposed structure. The proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands since the proposed structure is a small accessory structure, proposed to be used for storage purposes only. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of a Minor Variance Application A104/99, without conditions. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has reviewed the application and a building permit is required to construct the new garage. The wall of the garage to be located less than 4 ft. from the property line shall have no openings, shall be of non-combustible construction with non-combustible cladding and a 1 hour fire resistance rating. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Chair reviewed the comments of staff, noting that the application is recommended for approval. He requested clarification that the location for the proposed garage was at the rear easterly corner of the property and Mr. Leis responded that was correct. The Chair questioned if the variance was being requested because the proposed garage was located between the parking lot and the property line. Mr. Leis responded that if the by-law requirements were followed the garage would have to be constructed on the parking lot and, accordingly, it is proposed to construct the garage closer to the sideyard and the rearyard than is permitted. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 330 OCTOBER 5, 1999 The Chair referred to the Building Division comments and Mr. Leis advised that he had spoken with staff of the Building Division and was in agreement with their recommendation. Submission No.: A 104/99(Cont'd) Moved by Mr. S. Kay Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of St. Philip's Church requesting permission to construct a detached garage having a sideyard setback of 0.76 m (2.5 ft.), rather than the required 6.09 m (20 ft.) and having a rearyard setback of 4.57 m (15 ft.), rather than the required 7.62 m (25 ft.), on Part Block B, Plan 849, 236 Woodhaven Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new garage. That the wall of the garage located less than 4 ft. from the property line shall have no openings, shall be of non-combustible construction with non-combustible cladding and shall have a 1 hour fire resistance rating. 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 105/99 Prosperity Homes Limited Orchid Crescent Part of Block 16, Registered Plan 1822, Designated as Part 100, Plan 58R-9950 Appearances: In Support: Mr. G. Brophey Prosperity Homes Limited 203 Simpson Crescent London ON N5V 5E1 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate a driveway 6.9 m (22.63 ft.) from Orchid Crescent, rather than the required 9 m (29.52 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands are currently vacant and are located at the curve of Orchid Crescent. It is therefore a corner lot. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 331 OCTOBER 5, 1999 The applicant proposes to construct a driveway to the garage of a proposed house, which would be located 6.90 metres from the intersection of the lines of Orchid Crescent. Since the subject lands comprise a corner lot and because the width of Orchid Crescent is 18 metres or less, the required distance from the intersection of the lines of Orchid Crescent is 9.0 metres. 4. Submission No.: A 105/99(Cont'd) By providing the relief, the driveway can be constructed in front of the house and suit the character of the remaining houses on the street. The driveway will not have any adverse impact on the use or function of the abutting lands and can therefore be considered minor. There are no Traffic concerns because there is no obstruction of major sightlines, therefore, the intent of the By-law is met. Staff consider that the application is minor, 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 A105/99. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division is prepared to support the proposed reduced setback for this corner from 12 meters to 6.9 meters. Traditionally, the 12 meter setback is required at an intersection, and the subject property is at a curve in the road. While this still technically is considered to be an intersection, it has fewer possible vehicle conflicts than that of a four legged intersection, and is considered to be a Iow volume road. Augmented with a 15 meter corner restriction, sight lines should be kept clear. We would note that it is only because of the aforementioned circumstances that we are recommending approval of the reduced setback, and that similar requests in the future will require such stringent analysis. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning and Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Chair reviewed the comments of staff, noting that the application is recommended for approval. The Chair enquired if the driveway was to be constructed as shown on the sketch attached to the application and Mr. Brophey responded that was correct. Mr. A. Galloway referred to comments of the Traffic & Parking Division, noting that under normal circumstances the Committee would not support this type of request; however, he was prepared to support approval of the variance due to the uniqueness of the subject property as outlined in the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of Prosperity Homes Limited requesting permission to locate a driveway 6.9 m (22.63 ft.) from Orchid Crescent, rather than the required 9 m (29.52 ft.), on Part of Block 16, Registered Plan 1822, designated as Part 100, Plan 58R-9950, Orchid Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 332 OCTOBER 5, 1999 The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 4. Submission No.: A 105/99(Cont'd) The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 57/99 1340454 Ontario Inc. 34 Fourth Avenue Lot 80, Re.qistered Plan 254 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Lutzer P.O. Box 1582, Station C Kitchener ON N2G 2B4 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide this property into two new lots and to construct a new dwelling on each lot. The lands to be severed and the lands to be retained will each have a frontage on Fourth Avenue of 10.07 m (33.03 ft.), by a depth of 40.41 m (132.58 ft.), and an area of 406.88 m2 (4,379.77 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the owner of 34 Fourth Avenue is requesting permission to sever the property and create a new lot for residential purposes. Both the proposed severed and retained lots will have a frontage of 10.07 metres (33.03 feet), a depth of 40 metres (132.58 feet) and an area of 406.82 square metres (4379.12 square feet). The proposed severed lot contains a new single detached dwelling under construction replacing the old dwelling that was demolished in the spring of this year. The proposed retained lot contains an old garage from the former single detached dwelling and the owner proposes to erect a new single detached dwelling on the retained lands. The subject property was the consideration of a previous consent application under Submission B 52/98 and approved by the Committee of Adjustment on April 21, 1998. The approval of the application was subject to the fulfilment of a number of conditions of which only one was completed. As the balance of the conditions was not fulfilled within the required time frame of one year, the application lapsed. Accordingly, the owner has filed a new consent application with the same objective of creating an additional lot based on the same dimensions as the previous consent application. Both lots will comply in all respects with the Zoning By- law and represent an appropriate infill development and as such, are appropriate. As the proposed severance application is identical to the previous approval to these lands, the conditions of approval will be similar. One condition of the previous approval was fulfilled, requiring the demolition of the former single detached dwelling; the detached garage still remains. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 333 OCTOBER 5, 1999 Staff notes that in the consideration of the previous severance application, residents expressed concerns relating to the minimum front yard setback and lot width requirements permitted under the current Zoning By-law, compared to the actual setbacks of the surrounding dwellings and the potential effect this could have on the sight lines or enjoyment of views relative to the abutting property owners. The applicant had agreed to develop the lots with a minimum front Submission No.: B 57/99(Cont'd) yard setback of 7.62 metres (25 feet) to be consistent with the surrounding dwellings to address neighbourhood concerns related to sight lines or views. The applicant has constructed the single detached dwelling in compliance with the neighbourhood's wishes. The revised condition relative to the setback will therefore only apply to the retained lands. The Department supports the severance application subject to the conditions listed below. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B 57/99 be approved subject to the following conditions: That the owner makes financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the retained lands. That the owner makes financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed and retained lands. 3. That the existing garage be demolished. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the owner enter into an agreement to be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and registered on title of the lands to be retained, agreeing that no building shall be located on the property within 7.62 metres (25 feet) of the front lot line. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that they have reviewed this application and have no concerns. In addition, they advised that any future development on the lands subject to the above-noted consent application will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended 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. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was familiar with the previous Consent Application and was prepared to move approval of this application subject to the conditions outlined in the comments of Planning staff. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of 1340454 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having frontage on Fourth Avenue of 10.07 m (33.03 ft.), by a depth of 40.41 m (132.58 ft.), and an area of 406.88 m2 (4,379.77 sq. ft.), on Lot 80, Registered Plan 254, 34 Fourth Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 334 OCTOBER 5, 1999 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 retained lands. Submission No.: B 57/99(Cont'd) That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works for the installation, to city standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed and retained lands. 3. That the existing garage shall be demolished. That satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the owner shall enter into an agreement to be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and registered on title of the lands to be retained, agreeing that no building shall be located on the property within 7.62 metres (25 feet) of the front lot line. 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 5, 2001. It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried CONSENT & MNOR VARIANCE: = Submission Nos: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 58/99 & A 106/99 MS Custom Contractors Limited 180 Zeller Drive Part of Lot 119, German Company Tract, Upper Block, Part 1, Plan 58R-5473 Appearances: In Support: Mr. D. Bennett MHBC Planning Limited 171 Victoria Street North Kitchener ON N2H 5C5 Mr. & Mrs. M. Suljak MS Custom Contractors Limited 50 Susan Crescent Kitchener ON N2A4A8 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 335 OCTOBER 5, 1999 Contra: None 2. Submission Nos: B 58/99 & A 106/99(Cont'd) Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of 2.11 ha (5.21 acres) for future plan of subdivision. The lands to be severed contain an existing single family dwelling and detached garage. The applicant is also requesting permission for the following variances affecting the lands to be severed: a) frontage on Zeller Drive of 36.74 m (120.53 ft.), rather than the required 60 m (196.85 ft.); b) a minimum lot area of 0.174 ha (0.43 acres), rather than the required 0.4 ha (0.98 acres); and, c) a westerly sideyard setback of 3.6 m (11.81 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 lands to be severed contain an existing dwelling and detached garage. The dwelling is serviced by a private well and sewage disposal system located on the lot intended to be severed. Surrounding land uses include open field immediately to the north and west of the lands to be severed, woodlands to the east and open land across Zeller Drive to the south. A large wooded area (ESPA 24 - Natchez Hills) is located to the north of the retained lands. The retained lands are the subject of an application for Plan of Subdivision. The applications request the following: B58/99 - To sever a lot with an area of 0.174 Hectares. A106/99 - To permit a lot in the Agricultural Zone (A-l) with an area of 0.174 Hectares rather than the required 0.4 Hectares, a lot width of 36.74 metres rather than the required 60 metres, and a side yard of 3.6 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres. The consent application represents a revised application which was last considered at the Committee of Adjustment meeting of August 17, 1999 (the previous application number was B73/98). The previous application was deferred at the August meeting pending resolution of the development of the north portion of the subject lands. The application for a Plan of Subdivision for the development of 15 single detached dwellings on an extension to Janet Court, as well as a future development block containing a maximum of 3 single detached dwellings was granted draft approval by Council on September 20, 1999. A by-law rezoning the lands to R-3 was also passed on September 20, 1999. Provided there are no appeals, the by-law zoning the subject lands R-3 will be in effect on October 21, 1999. However, in advance of the registration of the Plan of Subdivision, the owner wishes to create the proposed lot, and at this time the lands are still zoned A-1. Should the deed be endorsed following the coming into effect of the by-law, the minor variance would not be required. Planning staff consider that the requested variances are relatively minor in nature given the reason for the A-1 zone and the upcoming change in zoning. The subject lands are located in an area which is largely already developed for single detached dwellings or is slated for future residential development i.e. on lands immediately to the north and west as part of the owners COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 336 OCTOBER 5, 1999 lands and on land to the east and south on lands being part of another application for Plan of Subdivision. The lands are also designated Low Rise Residential in the Municipal Plan. In these circumstances, the A-1 zone was applied not because the lands are of agricultural value, but as a type of "holding zone" until subdivided and rezoned. The required lot area and lot width in the Agricultural zone are not relevant to this situation. The requested side yard of 3.6 metres is appropriate for the long term use of the lands i.e. residential, and consistent with the minimum side yard of dwellings located in the R-3 zone i.e. 1.2 metres. It should be noted that an Submission Nos: B 58/99 & A 106/99(Cont'd) additional variance will be required to permit the garage to be located 0.6 metres from the side yard and 3.30 metres from the rear yard, rather than the required 7.5 metres and 10 metres respectively. In addition, a condition of any approval of the consent application should be that the storage shed attached to the garage be removed so as to provide additional space surrounding the garage and so as to comply with the regulations for accessory buildings in the intended R-3 zone once the minor variance is approved. The proposed lot area of 0.174 hectares is also considered appropriate for the reasons cited above i.e. the long term use of the lands will be for residential purposes and the proposed regulations allow development which is desirable for the long term development of the property. In conclusion, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that applications B73/99 and A106/99 be approved subject to the conditions outlined below. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of submission A106/99 subject to the application being amended to include a request to permit an existing garage with a side yard of 0.6 metres and rear yard of 3.30 metres. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of submission B58/99 subject to the following conditions: 1. That minor variance application A106/99 be finally approved or a zone change rezoning the lands to R-3 be in final effect. 2. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal Property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 3. That the existing storage shed attached to the garage be removed. 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 with respect to Consent Application B 58/99 in which they advised that they have reviewed this application and have no concerns. All issues pertaining to the retained lands will be addressed through Plan of Subdivision 30T-99201. In addition, they advised that any future development on the lands subject to the above-noted consent application will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge by 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 Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, with respect to Minor Variance Application A 106/99, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional development charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection to the severance or minor variance application. A portion of the retained parcel is located within Scheduled Fill Area 11 for the Grand River, however it does not affect the severance of the existing home and has been considered through GRCA draft approval of the plan of subdivision, 30T-99201. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 337 OCTOBER 5, 1999 The Chair referred to comments of staff, noting that the applications are recommended for approval, subject to certain conditions and subject to the Minor Variance Application being amended. The Chair enquired if the purpose of the applications was to have the property included in the Plan of Subdivision and Mr. Bennett responded that was not correct. Mr. Bennett stated that the Submission Nos: B 58/99 & A 106/99(Cont'd) intent of the application is to allow the property to be sold prior to the Plan of Subdivision being implemented. He advised that a rezoning application had been applied for with respect to this property and would be in effect within approximately 3 weeks, pending no appeals. The Chair enquired if the applicant was prepared to amend Minor Variance Application A 106/99 as recommended by staff and Mr. Bennett indicated his clients were prepared to amend the application as requested. Mr. A. Galloway questioned if the existing structure was the original house. Mr. Bennett stated that this was not the original house and the age of the existing structure was approximately 33 years. Mr. A. Galloway pointed out that the houses adjacent to this property were to be built closer to the road and questioned what was proposed for this property. Mr. Bennett responded that the applicant would follow the City standard. Mr. Galloway noted that there was an existing hedge between this property and the neighbouring plan of subdivision and stated that his concerns may be addressed provided the hedge remained to act as a buffer. Mr. A. Galloway also requested clarification that ownership is to be retained and the lands are not to be incorporated into the Plan of Subdivision. Mr. D. Bennett responded that was correct. The Chair referred to the sketch attached to the severance application which shows two septic tanks and questioned if staff were fully satisfied as to the location of the septic bed. Ms. J. Given responded that this issue was not raised during consideration of the application and no comment in this regard was forthcoming from the Chief Building Official. She stated that staff had presumed that the location was acceptable based on the size of the lot. The Chair stated that a condition has been imposed in the past that the applicant provide sufficient documentation that determines the location of the septic bed to the satisfaction of a qualified City official. He stated that such a condition would ensure that the septic bed was not located on the severed property. Mr. D. Bennett confirmed that the septic bed are located on the subject property. Mr. S. Kay enquired how such documentation could be provided and the Chair stated that the applicant could provide a plan of survey or obtain the services of a septic installation company to provide the necessary documentation. Mr. A. Galloway enquired if it was intended to connect to services being provided for Zeller Drive and Mr. Bennett responded that was correct. Mr. A. Galloway questioned if there were any requirements with respect to the location of the septic bed and Ms. Given responded that there were no requirements with the exception of those referring to water. The Chair stated that it would be preferable to include a condition with respect to the septic bed and Ms. Given suggested that a condition be included that would require satisfactory plans to be given and approved by the Chief Building Official with respect to the location of the septic bed. Mr. S. Kay referred to a strip of land along the east side of the subject property, as shown on the sketch, and questioned what this was to be used for. Mr. D. Bennett responded that its primary purpose was to provide emergency access; however, it would also function as a walkway. Mr. A. Galloway questioned if this walkway would extend around the perimeter of the property and Mr. Bennett responded that it would extend only to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Galloway further COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 338 OCTOBER 5, 1999 questioned if the walkway would have access onto the cul-de-sac and Mr. Bennett confirmed that it would as shown on the plan. The Chair pointed out that the walkway appears to bend inward to connect to the cul-de-sac and Mr. Bennett advised that it was necessary to have the bend inward to protect an adjacent environmentally sensitive area. 2. Submission Nos: B 58/99 & A 106/99(Cont'd) Submission No. A 106/99 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of MS Custom Contractors Limited requesting permission to create a new lot containing an existing single family dwelling and detached garage, having frontage on Zeller Drive of 36.74 m (120.53 ft.), rather than the required 60 m (196.85 ft.); a minimum lot area of 0.174 ha (0.43 acres), rather than the required 0.4 ha (0.98 acres); a westerly sideyard setback of 3.6 m (11.81 ft.) and an easterly sideyard setback of 0.6 m (1.96 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.); and, a rearyard setback of 3.3 m (10.82 ft.), rather than the required 10 m (32.8 ft.); on Part of Lot 119, German Company Tract, Upper Block, Part 1, Plan 58R-5473, 180 Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No. B 58~99 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. S. Kay That the application of MS Custom Contractors Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land containing a single family dwelling and detached garage, having frontage on Zeller Drive of 36.74 m (120.53 ft.) and an area of 0.174 ha (0.43 acres), on Part of Lot 119, German Company Tract, Upper Block, Part 1, Plan 58R-5473, 180 Zeller Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That Minor Variance Application A106/99 shall be finally approved or a zone change rezoning the lands to R-3 shall be in final effect. That satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. 3. That the existing storage shed attached to the garage shall be removed. That the owner shall submit, for the review and approval of the City's Chief Building Official, a geotechnical investigation completed by a professional engineer confirming the suitability of the severed lands to adequately accommodate the existing private in-ground sewage disposal system. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 339 OCTOBER 5, 1999 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 5, 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. Submission Nos: B 58/99 & A 106/99(Cont'd) 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 11:20 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 5th day of October, 1999. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment