Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-11-16COA\1999-11-16 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 16, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. W. Dahms and A. Galloway. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of October 26, 1999, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS 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 has 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 & 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 December 7th meeting. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the meeting of December 7, 1999. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 370 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 a) Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 13~99, B 16/99 & A 26~99 Ivan Biuk Construction Limited 1843 Old Mill Road and Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road Part of Lots 100, 101 and 102, Registered Plan 578, and Part of Drummond Drive (Closed), Part 1, Plan 58R-1149 b) Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 14/99 Diana Biuk Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road Lot 97, Re,qistered Plan 578 c) Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 15/99 Josip Babic Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road Lot 96, Re,qistered Plan 578 The Chair advised that a request has been received from Ms. D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, to defer these applications to the December 7th meeting. Ms. J. Given advised that a report respecting an application to amend Block Plan 65, which will show realignment of Drummond Drive, will not be presented to the Planning & Economic Development Committee until January 10, 2000, with subsequent Council approval on January 17, 2000. Accordingly, she advised that staff are requesting deferral of these applications to the Committee's meeting scheduled for February 8, 2000. She pointed out that the applicants are aware of the new dates, although they are not particularly supportive of them. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That Consent Applications, Submission Nos. B 13/99 to B 16/99 inclusive, and Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 26/99, as applied for by Ivan Biuk Construction Limited, Diana Biuk and Josip Babic, Drummond Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for February 8, 2000, to allow consideration of an application to amend Block Plan 65 to take place by the City's Planning & Economic Development Committee and, subsequently, by Kitchener City Council. Carried The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily at 9:45 a.m., in order to consider an application for minor variance to the City of Kitchener's Fence By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:20 a.m. APPLICATIONS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 111/99 Mario Budak 43 Bingeman Street Part of Lot 29, Re.qistered Plan 414 Appearances: In Support: Mr. M. Budak 43 Bingeman Street Kitchener ON N2H 2R7 Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 371 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Submission No.: A 111/99(Cont'd) Written Submissions: In Support: Mr. & Mrs. H. Prell 49 Bingeman Street Kitchener ON N2H 2R7 Ms. G. Udit 52 Bingeman Street Kitchener ON N2H 2R8 Contra: None The Committee was advised that this property is currently used as a duplex with two separate driveways located on either side of the dwelling. The applicant is requesting permission to legalize the existing westerly driveway on a lot having a frontage of 17.06 m (55.98 ft.), rather than the required 30.48 m (100 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property contains a duplex with a driveway on each side of the lot; the owner wishes to legalize the existing situation. The by-law only permits two driveways if the lot is 30 metres in width; the subject lot is 17 metres wide. The owner wants to continue to offer two driveways to allow independent parking for each unit, rather than requiring tandem parking, which the by-law permits. The situation has come to the attention of the City as a result of recent road reconstruction on the street. The two driveways have existed for many years, although legal, non-conformity is uncertain. Staff are not concerned with the presence of two driveways and acknowledge receipt of a letter of support from an abutting neighbour. However, in order to maintain the intent of the regulation governing the number of driveways, a number of modifications to the front yard would have to be implemented. Firstly, the total width of driveways on a lot are not permitted to exceed 50% of the lot width. The plan as submitted shows driveways exceeding 50%; staff will require that the width of the easterly driveway be reduced. The total width of driveways cannot exceed 27.9 feet, which is feasible. Further, it was observed during a site visit that the entire front yard of the property has been covered with gravel, making the parking areas undefined and lacking the desirable landscaped front yard treatment. As a condition of approval, staff will recommend that the front yard be reinstated to landscaping in accordance with the plan attached, which will respect the maximum driveway widths. Staff have discussed this requirement with the owner, who has no concern with undertaking such works. Provided the above noted terms are met, the intent of the by-law is maintained, to ensure front yards are not consumed by parking and that traffic entering and exiting the street is functional. The request is minor given that the situation has existed for a long period of time without neighbouring concern. Finally, it is desirable for the use of the property as a duplex, to allow independent access to each of the two spaces. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A111/99 subject to the following condition: That the driveways be defined and front yard landscaping be reinstated in accordance with the plan attached, dated November 9, 1999, to the satisfaction of the City's Principal Planner prior to June 15, 2000. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Principal Planner prior to the completion date set out in this decision. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 372 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed second driveway. Submission No.: A 111/99(Cont'd) The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection to this application. The Committee noted the written submission from Mr. & Mrs. Harald Prell in which they advised that the westerly driveway of 43 Bingeman Street borders onto their property, 49 Bingeman Street. They further advised that even before the roadwork started, actually since they moved into their home 10 years ago, this driveway was always present and the purpose of their written submission was to let the Committee know that they have no objection to this second driveway into the 43 Bingeman Street property. Mr. M. Budak provided the Committee with a sketch showing proposed landscaping for the subject property. In addition, Mr. Budak provided the Committee with a written submission from Ms. G. Udit, 52 Bingeman Street. The Committee noted the written submission of Ms. G. Udit in which she advised that the second driveway has always been part of the subject dwelling long before she was a neighbour across from Mr. Budak. She further advised that she sees no problem granting permission to use the existing driveway that all neighbours are used to seeing as part of his property. In her written submission, she states that she has no objection and is sure that all other neighbours agree with legalization of the second driveway at 43 Bingeman Street. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that approval of the application is being recommended subject to the condition that the driveways be defined and frontyard landscaping being reinstated in accordance with the plan attached to the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services, dated November 9, 1999. The Chair enquired of Mr. Budak if he was in agreement with staffs recommendations. Mr. M. Budak advised that the sketch provided this date shows proposed landscaping for the subject property which will include a circular foundation with various plants and shrubs. He advised that it is also intended to put in interlocking brick but because of the expense could not guarantee that the brick would be in place by the deadline of June 15, 2000. The Chair requested staff to comment and Ms. J. Given responded that the landscaping is to be done generally in accordance with staffs recommendations and staff will work with the applicant to ensure compliance with this condition. She asked that Mr. Budak provide her with a copy of the sketch submitted to the Committee this date with respect to the landscaping. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Mario Budak requesting permission to legalize the existing westerly driveway on a lot having a frontage of 17.06 m (55.98 ft.), rather than the required 30.48 m (100 ft.), on Part of Lot 29, Registered Plan 414, 43 Bingeman Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the driveways shall be defined and front yard landscaping be reinstated in accordance with the plan attached to the report of the Department of Business & Planning Services, dated November 9, 1999, to the satisfaction of the City's Principal Planner, prior to June 15, 2000. No extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Principal Planner prior to the completion dates set out in this decision. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 373 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Submission No.: A 111/99(Cont'd) It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 112/99 Broward Landev Corp. 160 Weber Street East Part Lots 10, 11, 14 and 15, Plan 233 and Part Lots 53, 54 and 55, Municipal Compiled Plan of Subdivision of Part Lot 2, German Company Tract The Chair noted that no one was in attendance to support this application and, in this regard, Ms. J. Given advised that staff are currently in discussion with the property owner regarding a proposed site plan for this site. Accordingly, staff are recommending that this application be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on December 7, 1999, to allow review of a site plan for the subject property to be undertaken. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 112/99, as applied for by Broward Landev Corp. for the property municipally known as 160 Weber Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on December 7, 1999, to allow review of a site plan for the subject property to be undertaken. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 113/99 Terrace Good 101 Mount Hope Street Lot 10 and Part Lot 11, Re.qistered Plan 287 Appearances: In Support: Mr. T. Good 101 Mount Hope Street Kitchener ON N2G 2J6 Contra: Ms. L. Hadland 129 Mount Hope Street Kitchener ON N2G 2J6 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: Neighbourhood Petition COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 374 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate two required parking spaces for a home business in tandem (one behind the other), rather than side-by-side as required. Submission No.: A 113/99(Cont'd) The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to provide two required off-street parking spaces in tandem, one space for a single detached dwelling and another for customer parking for a proposed home business, property management office. There are a number of general provisions in the Zoning By-law which regulate where parking for a home business can be located. The Zoning By-law requires that each parking space be accessible independent of the other. The general intent of this requirement is to avoid the potential necessity of vehicles being continuously moved or an excessive demand for on-street parking. Since the owner of the dwelling is the only employee of the business and must be home to receive customers, it is not imperative that each parking space be accessible without moving another vehicle. In view of this, the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is maintained. In consideration of the forgoing and since allowing parking in tandem eliminates the need to replace landscaping with asphalt, the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. The proposed variance is minor as there are no physical changes to the site proposed as a result of the variance which would impact the neighbourhood. The owner is advised that all other zoning regulations must be met and an occupancy permit is required. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A113/99 only applicable to an office. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed tandem parking spaces. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the neighbourhood petition in which neighbouring property owners advise that we understand that Mr. Terry Good, the resident at 101 Mt. Hope Street in Kitchener, is requesting permission (Submission No. A 113/99) to locate two required parking spaces for a home business in tandem (one behind the other), rather than side-by-side, as required by the current Kitchener by-laws. As residents on or near Mt. Hope Street, we currently experience the negative effects of Mr. Good's residential-based business, which he has operated for several years, and continues to operate, out of 101 Mt. Hope Street. We, the undersigned, hereby affix our signatures to this document in support of the following statements: · We believe that Mr. Good's residential-based business deals with several rental properties in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. · We believe that Mr. Good's residential-based business currently generates a great deal of traffic throughout the year on our street, especially at month-end when rent cheques are due. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 375 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 · We do not appreciate the extra risk imposed on the small children of our neighbourhood, from increased traffic. · We believe that a large portion of Mr. Good's customers are students, who tend to rent properties more than once a year. Submission No.: A 113/99(Cont'd) · We believe that Mr. Good's customers tend to park on the street, rather than in any driveway. We also believe that they sometimes illegally park on the wrong side of the street, while they drop off rent cheques. In addition, we believe that they sometimes use the driveways of other residents on the street, to turn around after visiting Mr. Good's residential-based business. · Mr. Good's residence (101 Mt. Hope Street) is almost directly across the street from an underground parking entrance for a very large apartment building. We believe that the traffic and street-based parking generated by Mr. Good's residential-based business, blocks the view of vehicles going into and out of this busy parking garage entrance, which we feel increases the risk of traffic accidents. For the above-mentioned reasons, we oppose the amendment of the current Kitchener bylaws. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that the application is being recommended for approval and enquired if Mr. Good had anything further to add. Mr. T. Good advised that his purpose in requesting permission for tandem parking was to preserve gardens and other landscaping features on the subject property. He stated that he has received complements with respect to the landscaping of his property from many of his neighbours and has been the recipient of an award from the Communities in Bloom Program. He pointed out that the driveway and parking is well screened from the neighbourhood and it was his opinion that the parking was non-intrusive. He advised that if tandem parking was not approved he would have to construct a new driveway on the opposite side which would result in loss of trees and create an inferior street frontage to what currently exists. Mr. Good pointed out that the parking lot on a property across the street is very large and the traffic coming and going from his own property in no way exceeds traffic utilized in this other parking facility. He also suggested that a white line should be placed down the centre of the roadway leading from the parking garage across the street as traffic entering and exiting do not always do so on the appropriate side of the road. He commented that he did not feel he should be penalized because some neighbours object to his proposal and that he was the only person on the street willing to assist an elderly neighbour. Mr. A. Galloway questioned if the driveway was already in existence and Mr. Good responded that was correct. Mr. A. Galloway noted that the variance requested was required because of a home business which he assumed had been in operation for some time and questioned what had initiated this application. Mr. Good responded that his home business has been in operation since 1976 and the application before the Committee this date was made as the result of a neighbour complaint with respect to the business. The Chair questioned what type of home business Mr. Good was operating and Mr. Good responded that he was a landlord of a number of properties. Mr. A. Galloway questioned if the home business complies with the Zoning By-law and Ms. J. Given responded that it did, provided all regulations were met. In this regard, she advised that Mr. Good has been given a copy of the regulations pertaining to his home business. The Chair referred to the plan attached to the application and requested clarification that the gardens and landscaping referred to was located on the west side of the existing dwelling and Mr. Good responded that was correct. Ms. L. Hadland requested clarification that Mr. Good was operating a home business with insufficient parking according to the by-law. Ms. Given responded that the by-law requires one parking space for the home and one parking space for the business which are to be independent of each other; ie. located side-by-side. In this instance, Ms. Given advised that the applicant is requesting that the parking be provided one behind the other. Ms. L. Hadland stated that she believed the driveway in question belongs to the dwelling beside Mr. Good's property and questioned if the business was operating legally or illegally. Ms. J. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 376 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Given responded that the by-law does allow a home business on the subject property; however, the parking for the home business as it currently exists is deficient. The Chair pointed out that the reason the minor variance application has been submitted is to allow parking to be in tandem rather than side-by-side. Submission No.: A 113/99(Cont'd) Ms. L. Hadland stated that her concerns are not related to the landscaping on the property but rather with the traffic generated by the home business. She stated that the type of business being operated, being a rental business, generates traffic from a large number of clients. She advised that traffic volumes are particularly heavy in summer months. She pointed out that the neighbourhood is currently undergoing revitalization with many new young couples moving in with children. For safety reasons, she advised that many residents of the area would prefer that the business be operated elsewhere. In this regard, she referred to an incident that resulted in personal injury to Mr. Good which has left many residents feeling uncomfortable with the nature of his clients and the security of their neighbourhood. In addition, she stated that traffic exiting the apartment building across the street often have to pull out a good distance around vehicles parked on the roadway attending Mr. Good's property in order to see around the vehicles before proceeding onto the roadway. Ms. J. Given pointed out that a home business is intended to be an ancillary use and staff would share residents concerns with respect to traffic congestion. In this regard, she advised that the by-law allows a maximum of three visitors to the business at any one time and, should this number be exceeded, it can be enforced on a complaint basis. The Chair enquired if on-street parking was allowed on Mt. Hope Street and Ms. Hadland advised that it was permitted during non-winter months. The Chair then enquired if Ms. Hadland had anything further to add and she stated that her main concern was traffic congestion resulting from Mr. Good's business. The Chair enquired if Mr. Good wished to respond and Mr. Good stated that he agreed that the traffic volume was heavy during the summer; however, during winter months traffic volumes drop significantly as he spends a large part of the time out of the country. He further stated that he receives, for the most part, post-dated cheques from his tenants and the office is only open for a few hours each day. The Chair pointed out that certain issues referred to by Ms. Hadland were beyond the Committee's jurisdiction and Ms. Hadland again reiterated that the main issues of concern relate to traffic and the impact on lifestyles. Mr. A. Galloway questioned if Mr. Good had opportunity to conduct his business elsewhere and Mr. Good responded that, if tandem parking was not approved, he would have an alternative option to relocate driveway access to the other side of his home and construct the new driveway so that parking would comply with by-law requirements which would allow the home business to continue operating from its present location. Ms. Hadland stated that it was not intended to stop the business from operating; however, it was preferred the business be operated elsewhere. The Chair stated that the home business must operate in accordance with by-law regulations and, if the business was in contravention with respect to the maximum number of visitors permitted, there are alternative avenues that can be pursued by residents. Ms. S. Campbell stated that it was not within the Committee's jurisdiction to stop operation of the home business. She pointed out that the Committee can only deal with the issue of parking required for the home business and, if the application is refused, the neighbourhood will probably be faced with construction of a wider driveway on the subject property which will bring the issue of parking requirements for the home business into compliance with the by-law. Ms. L. Hadland questioned what alternatives residents would have with respect to having the business cease and the Chair advised that the Committee could not counsel her in this regard and suggested that she speak further to staff. The Chair again re-affirmed that it is not within the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 377 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Committee's jurisdiction to stop the business from operating, and stated that, while Ms. Hadland's concerns were appreciated, similar parking situations for other home businesses have been approved in the past. Submission No.: A 113/99(Cont'd) Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Terrace Good requesting permission to locate two required off-street parking spaces, being one space for a single detached dwelling and one space for an existing home business, in tandem (one behind the other), rather than side-by-side, on Lot 10 and Part Lot 11, Registered Plan 287, 101 Mount Hope Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. 3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 62~99 Siekmann Capital Inc. 353 Manitou Drive Lot 5, Registered Plan 1489, designated as Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-2776 Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. Wright Siematic Canada Inc. 124 Bleams Road Kitchener ON N2C 2K5 Mr. M. Firek Ampacet Canada Company 101 Sasaga Drive Kitchener ON N2C 2G8 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land as a lot addition to the abutting property and retain a parcel of land having an area of 58,764.4 m2 (632,555.43 sq. ft.). The severed lands will have frontage on Sasaga Drive of 9.144 m (30 ft.) and an area of 10,121.7 m2 (108,952.63 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that this severance application affects a large industrial property at 353 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 378 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Manitou Drive and would have the effect of severing 10,121 square metres from the lot to add to an existing lot (Lot 6) containing Baron Colour Concentrates Ltd. at 101 Sasaga Drive. This would result in reducing the lot size of the Manitou property, which contains an industrial building, to 58,764.4 square metres. This application affects the same property as B-43/98 Submission No.: B 62/99(Cont'd) and B-44/98 which lapsed. The subject application is very similar to B-44/98, which was also a severance to facilitate a lot addition. The difference between the two applications is a minor change in the proposed severance line. The proposed lots comply with the regulations of the M-4 Zone. However, the property is subject to special regulation provision 49R which permits warehouse and wholesale operations with a minimum gross floor area of 6960.0 square metres or greater to use 10% of the gross floor area for accessory retail purposes. The standard minimum gross floor area in the M-4 Zone is 10,000 square metres of wholesale or warehouse before the 10% accessory retail component is allowed. This special regulation was applied to the whole of the lot as it existed in 1987 when the site was rezoned under By-law 85-1. The special provision was intended only to apply to the existing building and the benefit should not apply to the severed lands, which are being added to 101 Sasaga Drive. The 1998 application required that a Zone Change be approved to delete the special regulation provision from these vacant lands prior to the endorsement of deeds. In that case, there was more danger in the construction of a new building on the Manitou/Sasaga corner of the property (B-43/98), which could take advantage of the special regulation. While the regulation should not ideally apply to the lot addition, it is unlikely that its intent could be realized on the severed lands, and as such, staff will not require a zone change as a condition of this consent approval. Should the owners re-apply for the severance of the vacant corner property, however, a zone change would be imposed as a condition. Staff note that the effect of the severance would be to eliminate the 9.144 metre wide access from Sasaga Drive which the retained lands currently enjoy, between Lot 6 and the Bell Canada building. In reviewing the earlier applications staff note that there were uses in the Manitou Drive building which were of questionable legality and that occupancy permits had not been obtained to verify their legality. Staff understand that the existing use is the manufacturing of cabinets although an occupancy permit has not been obtained, as required. This will be imposed as a condition of approval to ensure the use of the building is now legal. The proposed lots comply in all other respects with the zoning and subject to compliance with the conditions below, would result in the creation of suitable lots for industrial purposes. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that B-62/99 be approved subject to the following conditions: That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands known as Lot 6, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1489. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. That Occupancy Permits be obtained for all uses located in the building at 421 Manitou Drive. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that the purpose of this application is to sever a parcel and convey it as a lot addition to an adjacent parcel. Regional staff advise that according to our information the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 379 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 retained lands are suspected of being contaminated and the lands adjacent to the severed lands are potentially contaminated. These lands are located entirely within the Parkway Wellfield. 1. Submission No.: B 62/99(Cont'd) Under the Region's Protocol for the Review of Development Applications on or Adjacent to Lands Which are Known, Suspected or Potentially Contaminated, approved by Regional Council on May 28, 1997, where a consent is proposed on or adjacent to lands which are identified as known, suspected or potentially contaminated, and the lands are located within a Regional wellfield the granting of the consent by the Committee of Adjustment will be subject to the completion of a Record of Site Condition (acknowledged by MOE). As well, a 7 foot road widening is required on Manitou Drive and 25 foot daylighting triangle at the intersection of Manitou Drive and Sasaga Drive. Regional staff recommend the following conditions with respect to B 62/99: 1) That prior to final approval of the consent, that the owner submit a Record of Site Condition to be acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment on the severed and retained lands. 2) That prior to final approval of the consent, that the owner convey a 7 foot road widening along the Manitou Drive frontage of the property and 25 foot daylighting triangle at the intersection of Manitou Drive and Sasaga Drive. In addition, Regional staff advised that any future development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93- 050, or any successor thereof. Applicants are also advised that there may be a Regional fee assessed for development agreements if required. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that the limited roadway access of this lot would make electrical servicing difficult and potentially expensive for the property owner. The Chair established that Mr. J. Wright was in attendance to act on behalf of the applicant and Mr. M. Firek represented the proposed purchaser. Mr. Wright and Mr. Firek both indicated that they were in support of the application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that the application is being recommended for approval subject to certain conditions. The Chair enquired of Mr. Wright if he had anything further to add. Mr. J. Wright referred to the report from the Department of Business & Planning Services and, in particular, Condition No. 2, that requires occupancy permits to be obtained for all uses located in the building at 421 Manitou Drive. In this regard, he pointed out that this address appears to be in error as the subject property is 353 Manitou Drive. Ms. J. Given acknowledged that this was a typographical error and that it should read 353 Manitou Drive. The Chair then referred to the comments of Kichener-Wilmot Hydro which indicate that electrical servicing will be difficult and potentially expensive for the property owner given the limited roadway access and Mr. Wright responded that he did not understand these comments as electrical servicing will not be required for either the remaining lands or the merged lands. Mr. A. Galloway stated that, in his opinion, the comments from Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro indicate that they misinterpreted the application as a request to create a new lot when, in fact, the intent is to sever the parcel as a lot addition to be adjoined to an abutting property. The Chair agreed with Mr. Galloway's assessment. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 380 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 The Chair then referred to the comments of the Region of Waterloo and pointed out that the Region suspects that the retained lands and the lands adjacent to the severed lands are potentially contaminated. Accordingly, the Region is requesting that a Record of Site Condition be required as a condition of consent approval. In this regard, Mr. Wright pointed out that he had Submission No.: B 62/99(Cont'd) only received the Regional comments this date and, had he been aware of this condition, he would have submitted a report prepared by XCG Environmental Consultants which has given the site a clean bill of health. He advised that the property had been purchased in May 1999 and that there was contamination on the site. Since that time, he advised that the contaminants have been removed and the site is now clean and the levels fall within Ministry guidelines. The Chair stated that the Region has been delegated the responsibility of ensuring that potentially contaminated sites are addressed according to Ministry of the Environment requirements and that this Committee has responsibility to ensure that this concern is met. He stated that it would appear that the bulk of work has been done toward completion of this condition and the report referred to by Mr. Wright should be submitted to the Region for review. Mr. A. Galloway referred to two additional Regional conditions, being a 7 ft. road widening along Manitou Drive and a 25 ft. daylighting triangle at the intersection of Manitou Drive and Sasaga Drive. In this regard, Mr. Wright indicated that he had concern with these conditions as the distance between Manitou Drive and the parcel to be severed is several hundred feet and does not come any where near the daylighting triangle. Mr. Wright stated that, in his opinion, it was inappropriate to make these conveyances a condition of the severance. He further pointed out that he believed the conditions to be a carry over from a previous severance undertaken by Mr. Rosen of Rosen Industries Limited which also included a proposed severance of a corner lot. In this instance, he stated that he could understand these conditions being imposed but did not feel they were reasonable for the severance before the Committee this date. The Chair stated that the Regional comments indicate that they are aware that the severance is a lot addition and suggested that the Region may be requesting these conditions in order to meet requirements of the Regional Official Policies Plan. The Chair further questioned if any structure was proposed to be built within the daylight triangle corner. Mr. Wright indicated that he did not see this happening and stated that his concern was not specifically with the daylight triangle but rather with the road widening. Mr. A. Galloway stated that the entire property is subject to this application and it is within the Region's authority to impose these conditions even though the severed parcel is not located near Manitou Drive. He stated that this may be the Region's only opportunity to obtain the road widening and it is fully within their right to request it. The Chair concurred with Mr. Galloway's comments and suggested that Mr. Wright may wish to consider deferral of the application to allow an opportunity to discuss these issues with staff of the Region. In response to questioning, Ms. J. Given advised that the Region would also have opportunity to obtain the conveyances if further development were to occur on the site or through future severances. In this regard, she suggested that the Committee may wish to address whether or not the timing for these conveyances is appropriate. The Chair questioned what detriment to the applicant would be caused by conveying the 7 ft. road widening and Mr. Wright responded that the difficulty with this condition was, in his opinion, that it is totally unrelated to this application. He stated that both the building and site were purchased in very poor condition and the applicant has put forward a major effort to clean up the site, including renovating the existing structure, all within a very short period of time. Given this effort, he stated that he felt it was unreasonable to impose these conditions at this time and pointed out that there is opportunity to obtain the road widening either through future development or severance application. The Chair stated that the Region could also obtain the conveyance through expropriation; however, if the Committee approved the severance without the road widening as a condition, the applicant may be faced with the Region appealing the Committee's decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 381 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 The Chair questioned if development were to occur in future if the City could impose a condition for the road widening at that time and Ms. Given responded that the City could impose the conditions on behalf of the Region at such time through a Section 41 Development Agreement. 1. Submission No.: B 62/99(Cont'd) Ms. S. Campbell stated that she believed it would be more appropriate to ask for the road widening conveyance at the time of future development; however, suggested that Mr. Wright should focus on the possibility of the Region appealing the Committee's decision if the road widening was not imposed as a condition of approval. In this regard, Mr. Wright advised that if the Committee was prepared to support approval without imposing a 7 ft. road widening as a condition, it would be desirable to proceed in this manner on the understanding that the Region may take further steps to have it imposed. He further stated that if the Region were to take further measures, the applicant may choose to accept and comply with the condition at that time. Mr. A. Galloway questioned if Mr. Wright was asking the Committee to approve the application without the condition of the road widening on the understanding that the applicant would bear any consequences and Mr. Wright responded that was correct. Mr. A. Galloway stated that, in view of Mr. Wright's comments, he was prepared to move approval of the application without the condition of the 7 ft. road widening. In this regard, the Chair pointed out that the process could be further delayed if the Region chose to appeal the Committee's decision. He further advised that if an appeal is lodged and the applicant then chooses to comply with the conditions, a reference plan showing the conveyances would be required to be submitted to the Ontario Municipal Board to resolve this issue. Mr. J. Wright requested clarification as it was his client's desire to close the sale of the severed parcel with some expediency and pointed out that the reason they did not wish to defer the application to the December meeting was to avoid unnecessary delay. Mr. A. Galloway pointed out that approval of the severance is subject to a 20 day appeal period and suggested that during this time the applicant should undertake discussion with staff of the Region to resolve the issue of the road widening. He advised that the earliest the applicant could proceed with closure of the sale would be following the 20 day appeal period on the assumption that no appeal was filed. Mr. J. Wright questioned if the 20 day appeal period would still be required if the application was deferred to December 7 and the Chair responded that whether or not approval was granted this date or on December 7th the 20 day appeal period would still apply. Mr. J. Wright then requested the Committee to support approval of the application without imposing the condition of the 7 ft. road widening and stated that he would undertake to 3ursue this issue with the Region. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Siekmann Capital Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to the abutting property, having frontage on Sasaga Drive of 9.144 m (30 ft.), by a depth of 133.759 m (438.84 ft.) and an area of 10,121.7 m2 (108,952.63 sq. ft.), on Lot 5, Registered Plan 1489, designated as Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-2776, 353 Manitou Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands known as Lot 6, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1489. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. That Occupancy Permits shall be obtained for all uses located in the building at 353 Manitou Drive. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 382 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 That prior to final approval of the consent, the owner shall submit to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo a Record of Site Condition to be acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment on the severed and retained lands. Submission No.: B 62/99(Cont'd) That prior to final approval of the consent, the owner shall convey to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo a 25 foot daylighting triangle at the intersection of Manitou Drive and Sasaga Drive. 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 November 16, 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. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 16th day of November, 1999. Carried J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment