Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1999-12-07COA\1999-12-07 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 7, 1999 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. S. Kay and A. Galloway. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That Mr. W. Dahms be appointed Chair of the Committee of Adjustment for a term to expire November 30, 2000. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway Carried That Mr. S. Kay be appointed Vice-Chair of the Committee of Adjustment for a term to expire November 30, 2000. Mr. S. Kay, Vice-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 November 16, mailed to the members, be accepted. UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 81/99 Freure Developments Limited Chandos Drive Block 85, Re.qistered Plan 1692 Carried 1999, as Carried By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the meeting of February 8, 2000. The Chair advised that a request has been received from Ms. D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, to defer this application to the February 8, 2000 meeting. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 384 DECEMBER 7, 1999 Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: 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 as Part 2, Appearances: In Support: Mr. A. Green 303 Stoneybrook Drive Kitchener ON N2M 4L8 Mrs. F. Filipitsch 215 Roxton Drive Waterloo ON N2T 1N7 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: Ms. J. MacKinnon 308-225 Old Carriage Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1H5 Contra: None This application was previously considered by the Committee at its meeting held on October 5, 1999, at which time the application was deferred to allow the applicant an opportunity to reconsider the submission and undertake further discussion with Planning staff. The Committee was previously 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.). Previous comments from the Department of Business & Planning Services (dated September 29, 1999); Building Division; Region of Waterloo Planning & Culture Department; Grand River Conservation Authority; and the written submission from Ms. J. MacKinnon; as documented in the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting of October 5, 1999, were further considered this date. The Committee also noted new comments from the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the application was deferred to allow staff and the applicants to discuss potential modification of the proposal. Staff have met with the applicants, who have agreed to reduce the gross floor area of the proposed dwelling by 1204 square feet. It became evident at the meeting that the information supplied on the application was incorrect. The existing gross floor area of the dwelling is 1765 square feet and the existing gross floor area of the detached garage is 448 square feet. The original proposed gross floor area of the dwelling should have been 4925 square feet, plus a gross floor area of 625 square feet for the attached garage. With the modified proposal, the gross floor area of the dwelling would be 3721 square feet, plus 625 square feet for the attached garage. In all other respects, the staff comments dated September 29, 1999 still apply. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 385 DECEMBER 7, 1999 2. Submission No.: A 103/99(Cont'd) Mr. A. Green advised that he was appearing on behalf of Mrs. F. Filipitsch and provided the Committee with a copy of his prepared statement, together with a revised plan. Mr. Green then read from his prepared statement in which he advised that on the advice of the Committee of Adjustment on October 5, 1999, we wish to amend our application for approval to undertake alterations and additions to our existing dwelling. Rather than construct a new house as originally requested, we wish to enlarge our residence which is a building presently used for a legal non-conforming purpose. Our current house has a cinder block foundation without a basement. It is situated only two feet from the property line with our neighbour. We desire to add a basement and move the present structure in order to fit this new foundation. The proposed basement will function primarily as a utilities room. This will enhance the safety requirement of the residence by relocating the furnace, water heater, electrical panel etc. from the main floor into the basement. Other alterations include a reduction in the length of the garage and what was originally the screened porch has now been modified to become an open deck. These adaptations are undertaken in order to provide closer adherence to the requirements of the Act. By taking the current building and extending it, as indicated in the earlier application, we wish to modify not only its complicity with the Act but particularly with regard to safety both for ourselves as well as our neighbours. The City Planning Committee in their report indicated that the Act does allow for the consideration of building additions to the current residence. In conclusion, we wish to take our home and modify it through the addition of a basement. This will be our permanent dwelling and it will have a closer alignment to the by-laws with regard to distance of the dwelling from our neighbour's property line. This desire to remodel the existing building has met with full approval from all our neighbours who see our plan to enhance this lot as increasing the value of their own properties. It is also our understanding that what is now proposed is in compliance with the Act. We shared this with staff of the City Planning Committee and as they had no further comment, we hope and trust that our new proposal meets with your approval. The Chair enquired of the delegation if he had reviewed the Planning staff report dated September 29, 1999 and Mr. Green responded that he had reviewed the report and the applicant has made an attempt to recognize the concerns noted therein by amending the application to modify the existing structure rather than constructing a new building. The Chair enquired if the modifications proposed would result in the existing building being in a different location on the property and if the proposed foundation was to be of a greater area than the existing structure. Mr. Green advised that it was proposed to excavate the foundation at a point on the property that would bring the sideyard into compliance and the existing building would be moved onto the new foundation. With regard to the area of the foundation proposed, Mrs. F. Filipitsch indicated that the area would be approximately double in size. Mr. S. Kay requested staff to comment and Ms. Given advised that staff comments dated November 30, 1999 were intended to highlight the amount of floor area proposed which is actually less than what was proposed in the original application. She pointed out, however, that staff do not view the revised proposal as an expansion of the legal non-conforming use as it is substantially larger than what presently exists. She noted that the Committee has allowed minor renovations on several other properties in the area; however, she pointed out that consideration should be given to whether or not this proposal is a move towards compliance or a perpetuation of the legal non-conforming use. Ms. Given stated that staff do not support approval of this application and ask that the Committee draw its attention to the extent of floor area proposed. The Chair commented that it would appear the existing structure would be approximately 1/3 of the new structure and suggested that consideration needs to be given as to whether the proposal amounts to renovation or new construction. He stated that he was inclined to agree with Planning staff that the proposal is more in keeping with new construction. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 386 DECEMBER 7, 1999 Submission No.: A 103/99(Cont'd) Mr. Green stated that he had just received the Planning comments dated November 30, 1999, this date and suggested that had he been aware prior to the meeting he might have been able to consider further modifications with respect to the floor area. He further stated that he understood the floor area did not generally apply as a whole, in that, the proposed modification relates to construction of a basement for placement of a furnace and other equipment normally placed therein for safety reasons. The Chair suggested that the delegation may wish to ask for a further deferral to allow time to consider the issue of floor area. Ms. J. Given advised that a meeting had been held with the property owner and Mr. J. Willmer, Manager of Development and Design, as directed by the Committee at it's October 5th meeting and the comments included in the staff report dated November 30, 1999, are a summation of what was discussed at this meeting. Accordingly, she stated that the property owners were made aware at that time that staff's position had not changed relative to their proposal. She further pointed out that Mr. Green's prepared statement was also received by Planning staff earlier this date and Mr. Willmer undertook to immediately telephone the property owner to again advise that staff's position had not changed. Mr. A. Green stated that he would have appreciated receiving the comments dated November 30th prior to the meeting, as in his opinion, it was easier to absorb and understand written documentation rather than having it explained over the phone. The Chair again enquired of the delegation if they would consider deferral of the application and Mr. Green responded that, as it would appear the Committee was uncomfortable with approving the application this date, he would consider deferral. Mr. A. Galloway commented that it would appear that deferral would not likely result in a substantial change to what is presently proposed and questioned the view of the applicant as to what might be accomplished by deferral. Mr. Green responded that he would like to have an opportunity to look at the issue of square footage, keeping in mind what constitutes renovations verses new construction. The Chair pointed out that Minor Variances previously approved in this area dealt with an addition of a sunroom in one location and in another the addition of a basement under the existing structure with no extension. He stated that in these instances the variances were felt to be allowable extensions of a legal non-conforming use; however, when the proposal, as it is in this case, amounts to 3 times that of the existing structure it becomes a proposal of a very different nature. Mr. Green stated that the modifications proposed require the building to be moved in order to comply with sideyard requirements and the Chair advised that he did not have difficulty with moving the building to comply with sideyard requirements; however, if this were to involve extensions it would not likely be acceptable. The Chair again enquired of Mr. Green if he wished to defer the application to the next meeting of the Committee and Mr. Green concurred. Ms. S. Campbell drew the delegations attention to comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority which deal with provision of a geo-technical investigation and suggested they also be cognisant of these comments in further consideration of their proposal. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the meeting of January 11,2000. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 387 DECEMBER 7, 1999 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 Appearances: In Support: Mr. H. Rotberg Broward Landev Corp. 61 Roy Street P.O. Box 2814 Kitchener ON N2H 6N3 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an 8 unit apartment building having a frontyard setback from Weber Street East of 2 m (6.56 ft.), rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), and having an easterly sideyard setback from the proposed balcony of 0.687 m (2.25 ft.), rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.) The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services dated November 9, 1999, in which they advised that the owner is proposing to construct an 8-unit apartment building with a setback of 2 metres from an arterial road (Weber Street) rather than the required 12 metres, in addition to requesting that a balcony be set back 0.687 metres from the side yard rather than the required 0.75 metres. The subject lands are 742.7 square metres in area and are currently undeveloped but being used to stockpile material from adjacent development. The subject lands represent the residual part of the development known as the "Townhomes of East Ward", a development which is comprised of street fronting townhouse dwellings along Cameron Street and Troy Street. Part of this development included the conveyance of parkland to the City which is located immediately east of the subject lands. The subject lands form the last undeveloped part of this larger development. The owner proposes to construct the apartment building close to the street and locate the parking at the rear of the building. Access to the site would be gained from a driveway accessing Weber Street. In order to provide sufficient turning room, parking space dimensions and aisle width for the parking, the apartment building needs to be sited close to the street line. Given the proposed site configuration, some of the balconies for the proposed apartment building will also project into the required 0.75 metre side yard as specified above. The intent of the 12 metre set back is to provide sufficient room for a buffer from regional road traffic and associated noise from such roads. In some cases a noise attenuation wall may also be required in this setback. Staff are currently in discussion with the owner regarding a proposed site plan for this site. Until the review of the site plan is completed and relevant City and Regional departments, as well as outside agencies are satisfied with the site plan from a technical point of view, it is recommended that this application be deferred. The owner is aware of this recommendation and is in agreement to the application being deferred. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Submission Al12/99 be deferred to the Committee meeting of December 7, 1999. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 388 DECEMBER 7, 1999 3. Submission No.: A 112/99(Cont'd) The Committee also considered comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services dated November 29, 1999, in which they advised that this application was deferred from the November 16, 1999, meeting to allow review of a site plan to be undertaken. Conditional approval was given to a site plan application on November 24, 1999, pending final approval of the minor variance application. In addition, they restated the intent of the proposal as previously outlined in their comments dated November 9, 1999, as noted above. In conclusion, they advised that staff consider that the requested variances meet the intent of the By-law and are appropriate in this instance. The subject lands are located in an inner-city neighbourhood where it is common for buildings to be located close to, or at, the street line. Furthermore, adjacent residential dwellings located on this side of Weber Street are located at or very close to the street line, and therefore the proposed 2 metre setback for the apartment building would be consistent with the location of these existing dwellings. The intent of the setback in the By-law is that new "greenfield" development be setback so as not to experience noise impacts from arterial roads. The requested side yard for a balcony is minor in nature and will have no negative impact upon neighbour amenity as the southerly side yard into which balconies project abuts parkland. Staff will support a variance applicable only to the southerly side yard. Staff consider that the requested variances meet the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law, are minor in nature and represent good planning. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application Al12/99 be approved as indicated below. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A112/99 applicable only to the site plan finally approved under SPR 99/60/W/GR. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the balconies must be of non-combustible construction. 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. Mr. H. Rotberg advised that he had reviewed the comments of staff and was in agreement with the recommendations therein. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Broward Landev Corp. requesting permission to construct an 8 unit apartment building having a frontyard setback from Weber Street East of 2 m (6.56 ft.), rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), and having a southerly sideyard setback from the proposed balconies of 0.687 m (2.25 ft.), rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.), on 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, 160 Weber Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the variances as approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the site plan finally approved under SPR/99/60/W/GR. 2. That the balconies shall be of non-combustible construction. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 389 DECEMBER 7, 1999 Submission No.: A 112/99(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 CONSENT Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 50/99 Electrohome Limited 809 Wellington Street Part of Lots 32, 33 and 34, Registered Plan 763 Ms. J. Given advised that a request has been received from Ms. D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, to defer this application to the February 8, 2000 meeting. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the meeting of February 8, 2000. 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 the Region of Waterloo has requested that consideration of these applications be deferred to February 2000. The Secretary advised the Committee that two dates are set for meetings in February, being February 8 and February 29, and requested clarification as to which date these applications would be deferred to. The Chair requested staff to comment and Ms. Given responded that the Environmental Impact Statement, required by the Region, will be considered by the Region's Planning & Culture Committee on January 18, 2000 and Regional Council on January 26, 2000. In view of the latter date, she was of the opinion that these applications should be deferred to the February 29, 2000 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of these applications would be deferred to the meeting of February 29, 1999. The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 9:55 a.m., in order to consider an application for minor variance to the City of Kitchener's Sign By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:05 a.m. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 390 DECEMBER 7, 1999 APPLICATIONS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 114/99 Italian Cortina Club 22 Kevco Place Part Lot 1, Re.qistered Plan 996 The Chair advised that a request has been received from Mr. F. Grespan, agent for the Italian Cortina Club, to defer this application to the January 11, 2000, meeting. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the meeting of January 11, 2000. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 115/99 P. & E. Investment Inc. 86 Cedar Street South Part Lot 13, Plan 390, Part Lot 49, Plan 393, and Part Lot 25, Plan 382, Designated as Parts 1, 2 & 3 on C.T.A., Plan 974, attached to Certificate of Title Instrument No. 464525. Appearances: In Support: Mr. C. Drewitz Drewitz & Wolf 82 Weber Street East Kitchener ON N2H 1C7 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to increase the number of apartment units from 76 to 77 by converting an existing ground floor storage area into a two-bedroom apartment unit without the required outdoor private patio area. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convert an existing storage area, within an apartment, to a dwelling unit and specifically relief from the requirement to provide an outdoor patio area. the applicant indicated in the Minor Variance Application that the existing apartment has a total of 76 dwelling units with 53 underground parking spaces and 24 surface parking spaces. Our records indicated that past approvals have been based on the apartment building containing only 75 dwelling units. The existing 77 parking spaces complies relative to 75 dwelling units only. The parking requirement for the two additional units, one existing and one proposed is based on the current parking requirement of 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit, which equates to three additional parking spaces. Therefore, an additional variance is required to reduce the required parking from 80 to 77 spaces for 77 units. The requirement to provide an outdoor patio for ground level units in multiple dwellings was introduced after a comprehensive Zoning By-law review and specifically with the approval of Stage 7 of Zoning By-law 85-1. The general intent of the regulation is to require outdoor patios for all new multiple dwelling developments with ground floor units. It was recognized that with the conversion of space within existing buildings this requirement would often be difficult to meet. The applicant advised that the area of the unit where the dining area is located, which is the area in which a sliding door would normally be installed is adjacent to an existing parking area. In view of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 391 DECEMBER 7, 1999 this, the applicant's request for relief from providing an outdoor patio area meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and is minor. In addition, the applicant has advised that Submission No.: A 115/99(Cont'd) the building is a controlled access building and for safety and security reasons they also do not want main floor units to have access via a door to the main floor. In view of the safety and security concern the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands. In addition to the variance requested, a reduction to the number of parking spaces from 80 to 77 spaces is required. The property currently has parking spaces that are not used by the existing tenants due to the property location and proximity to the downtown and transit service. The general intent and purpose of the parking requirement is to ensure adequate on-site parking. In view of the property's proximity to the downtown and availability of transit service and since the property has excess parking not utilized on site, the general intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained and the reduction is minor. The reduction in the parking requirement is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject lands to allow an additional unit to be constructed within an existing building since it utilizes the existing infrastructure, services and amenities. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A115/99, as amended. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to convert the storage room to a residential unit. 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 additional unit. While the additional unit will increase the parking requirement to 80 parking spaces, we feel given the close proximity to the downtown, transit use will be higher than normal, thereby reducing the number of used parking spaces. The existing 77 parking spaces should meet the demand. We note however that no other off-street parking spaces are available to accommodate any additional parking space, and there is no on-street parking to accommodate any future development or expansion. 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 Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that approval of the application is being recommended subject to the application being amended to include a reduction in the required parking from 80 to 77 spaces for 77 units. The Chair enquired if Mr. Drewitz was in agreement with the recommendation of staff. Mr. C. Drewitz advised that he had reviewed the comments of staff and was in agreement with the recommendations contained therein. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of P. & E. Investment Inc. requesting permission to convert an existing ground floor storage area, within the existing apartment building, to a dwelling unit without the required outdoor private patio area, and to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 80 to 77 spaces for 77 apartment units, on Part Lot 13, Plan 390, Part Lot 49, Plan 393, and Part Lot 25, Plan 382, designated as Parts 1, 2 & 3 on C.T.A., Plan 974, attached to Certificate of Title Instrument No. 464525, 86 Cedar Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 392 DECEMBER 7, 1999 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to conversion of the storage room to a residential unit. Submission No.: A 115/99(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: Le.qal Description: A 116/99 Chris & Karen Winters 124 Water Street South Part of Lot 23, Re.qistered Plan 47 Appearances: In Support: Mr. M. Petricevic 170 Louisa Street Kitchener ON N2H 5M5 Mrs. K. Winters 124 Water Street South Kitchener ON N2G lZ5 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached garage onto a proposed 2 storey addition, with the garage to have a westerly sideyard of 0.18 m (6 in.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that an application has been received in order to permit the construction of an attached single car garage with a side yard of 0.15 metres rather than the required 1.2 metres on a property located at 124 Water Street. The subject lands contains an existing 2-storey dwelling and detached garage. It is intended that the existing detached garage be demolished and that in addition to the new attached garage, a two-storey rear addition will also be constructed (the two-storey addition does not require any variance approvals). The property is located within the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District Plan and is designated under Part 5 of the Ontario Heritage Act. In accordance with the requirements of the Conservation District Plan, the owner has submitted a Designated Property Alteration application to the City which is scheduled to be reviewed by the Heritage Kitchener Committee at their meeting of December 3, 1999. Staff recommend that this application be deferred in order to obtain the comments/requirements of Heritage Kitchener regarding the Designated Property Alteration application. If Heritage Kitchener is in agreement with the proposed additions, or amendments to the plans are made which are acceptable to Heritage Kitchener prior to the December 7, 1999, Committee of Adjustment meeting, then a deferral may not be necessary. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 393 DECEMBER 7, 1999 3. Submission No.: A 116/99(Cont'd) Staff have concern with the proposed 0.15 metre side yard. This side yard allows very little room for maintenance of the southerly wall and eaves of the proposed attached garage. In effect, the proposed side yard would require any maintenance activity to occur partly on the property next door, namely 128 Water Street, unless an easement was provided over 128 Water Street in favour of 124 Water Street. It is recommended that this side yard be increased to at least 0.6 metres for this reason. Staff recommend that the application be deferred to the Committee meeting of January 11, 2000, to allow time for receipt of comments from Heritage Kitchener. The Department of Business and Planning services recommends deferral of Submission A 116/99 to the January 11, 2000, meeting in order to obtain the comments from Heritage Kitchener in respect of the Designated Property Alteration. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct a new garage and addition; the wall located less than 0.6 m to the property line shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating, noncombustible cladding, and no openings; and, roof drainage shall not be directed onto adjacent property. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, they advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection to the proposed minor variance to permit the construction of an attached garage onto a proposed 2 storey addition. While portions of the subject property are located within the floodplain of Schneider Creek, the proposed garage and addition are located outside of regulated areas. Therefore, the proposed works will not require a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98. The Chair reviewed the comments of staff, noting that deferral of the application is being recommended in order to obtain comments from Heritage Kitchener with respect to a Designated Property Alteration Application. It was further noted that the report indicates that the Designated Property Alteration Application was to have been considered by Heritage Kitchener at its meeting of December 3, 1999 and the Chair enquired of staff if there was anything further to report on this matter. Ms. J. Given responded that she did not have anything in writing from Heritage Kitchener; however, she advised that she had obtained verbal confirmation that Heritage Kitchener had approved the application, in principle, with the design details to be worked out at a later date. In this regard, she stated that staff are now in a position to recommend approval of the application provided it is amended to include a 2 ft. sideyard. The Chair enquired of Mr. Petricevic if he was willing to amend his application to reflect a 2 ft. sideyard. Mr. Petricevic responded that he believed he would be able to rework the design of the garage to conform to the 2 ft. sideyard and agreed to amend the application accordingly. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Chris and Karen Winters requesting permission to construct an attached garage onto a proposed 2 storey addition, with the garage to have a westerly sideyard of 0.61 m (2 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.), on Part of Lot 23, Registered Plan 47, 124 Water Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 394 DECEMBER 7, 1999 Submission No.: A 116/99(Cont'd) That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new garage and addition. That the wall located less than 1.2 m (4 ft.) to the property line shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating, and no openings. That the owner shall ensure that all drainage from the roof of the garage and addition shall be directed onto the subject property. 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. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 117/99 Jeff Goldsworthy 7 Clarence Place Block A, Lot 10, Re,qistered Plan 425 Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. Benninger 1446 King Street East Kitchener ON N2G 2N7 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to change a legal non- conforming chiropractic clinic use to a general office use. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property contains a building which was built as a residential structure, converted to a commercial building. Most recently, it was occupied by a health clinic, which existed when the residential (R-5) zone was placed on the property in 1994. The applicant proposes to change the legal, non-conforming use of the property as a health clinic to an office on the main floor (95 square metres). The upstairs (63 square metres), which had also been used for the health clinic, would be used for one dwelling unit. In considering the change in legal, non-conforming use, the issue is whether the change is more in keeping with the current zoning or more compatible with the permitted uses. The health clinic generated a high amount of vehicular traffic which often caused parking problems around the site. The demand for parking spaces for a general office is almost half of that of a health office, and therefore, staff see the change as a desirable one, which should have a positive impact on the neighbourhood. The deconversion of the upper floor to one dwelling unit reduces the demand for parking and moves toward compliance with the by-law, which permits one and two unit dwellings. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 395 DECEMBER 7, 1999 Submission No.: A 117/99(Cont'd) The site can easily accommodate the required parking for the proposed uses, however, the parking spaces are not demarcated on site. Proper identification of the spaces would improve circulation on site. Further, it is noted that a second driveway had been installed on the site which detracts from the residential character of the lot. It is recommended that this second driveway be removed as part of the move toward full compliance with the residential zone. Finally, an occupancy permit will be required for the office use following the final approval of the minor variance. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of a change to the legal, non-conforming health clinic at 7 Clarence Place to an office occupying only the first floor of the existing building (approximately 95 square metres), subject to the following conditions: That a plan showing the demarcation of the parking spaces and the removal of the westerly driveway and suitable landscaping of this area be approved by the City's Principal Planner prior to January 31, 2000. That the demarcation of the parking spaces and the landscaping of the former westerly driveway be undertaken to the satisfaction of the City's Principal Planner prior to June 15, 2000. No extension to this deadline shall be given except as approved in writing by the City's Principal Planner. 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 use at this location. 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 Chair reviewed comments of staff, noting that approval of the application is being recommended subject to demarcation of the parking spaces and removal of the westerly driveway. The Chair enquired of Mr. Benninger if he had anything further to add. Mr. J. Benninger advised that he had reviewed the comments of staff and was not in agreement with removal of the westerly driveway. He stated that the upper portion of the existing dwelling was to be converted to a residential unit and the bottom floor would contain the office use. He pointed out that the parking for the office use would be located at the rear of the building and would consist of 7 parking spaces, while the westerly driveway was intended to be used for the tenants of the dwelling unit, which will accommodate space for two vehicles. He further pointed out that, if the westerly driveway was required to be removed, 2 parking spaces would be lost and the 7 parking spaces at the rear of the building would have to accommodate both tenants of the residential unit and the office use. In his opinion, this would have a detrimental effect on parking for the subject property and noted that a duplex dwelling on the same street also had a second driveway. Ms. S. Campbell requested comment from staff and Ms. J. Given responded that, prior to a change in zoning in 1994 to residential use only, the existing building had been converted to a commercial use and the second driveway added. Accordingly, the use of the site was considered COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 396 DECEMBER 7, 1999 to be legal non-conforming. She pointed out that staff are of the opinion that the property should be reverted back to a residential use as much as possible and it is felt the second driveway Submission No.: A 117/99(Cont'd) detracts from the residential character of the lot. She further pointed out that the westerly driveway is connected by pavement to the parking area at the rear of the property and it is feasible that vehicles could make a complete circle of the building. Mr. J. Benninger pointed out that the parking area at the rear just accomodates 7 spaces and if all 7 spaces were in use circular movement would be blocked. In any event, he advised that it was not intended to be used for circular movement. Mr. A. Galloway stated that the only issue appears to be the driveway, which has been in existence for some time, and was inclined to agree with the delegation that it should be allowed to remain. The Chair stated that concern respecting the driveway relates to the visual impact on the subject property, which is to move toward compliance with the residential use, and parking of vehicles toward the front of the property is not in keeping. Ms. S. Campbell commented that, with the movement toward residential use, she did not see the need for a second driveway and was in support of the comments of staff. Mr. Benninger pointed out that, in his opinion, it was not unreasonable to expect the office use to make full use of the 7 parking spaces at the rear of the building and suggested that, if limited to a total of 7 spaces for both the office use and the dwelling unit, there could potentially be overflow parking on-street by visitors to both uses. Ms. J. Given advised that the by-law requires 3 parking spaces for the office use and one for the dwelling unit and, in her opinion, the 7 parking spaces at the rear would be more than adequate. The Chair enquired if it would be inappropriate to permit the driveway to remain provided it was modified to accommodate only one parking space with appropriate landscaping in this area. Ms. J. Given responded that this would be an improvement; however, the parking space would still be required to have the appropriate setback. Mr. A. Galloway enquired who would approve the layout for this parking area and Ms. Given responded that the City would have the right of approval in this regard. Ms. S. Campbell enquired of Mr. Benninger if he was in agreement with the suggestion to modify the second driveway to accommodate only one parking space with appropriate landscaping and Mr. Benninger stated that he would agree with this suggestion as he felt it was a better option. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Jeff Goldsworthy requesting permission to change a legal non-conforming health clinic to an office, occupying only the first floor of the existing building (approximately 95 m2), on Block A, Lot 10, Registered Plan 425, 7 Clarence Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That a plan showing the demarcation of the parking spaces and modifications to the westerly driveway to provide only one parking space and suitable landscaping of this area be approved by the City's Principal Planner prior to January 31,2000. That the demarcation of the parking spaces and the modifications and landscaping of the westerly driveway be undertaken to the satisfaction of the City's Principal Planner prior to June 15, 2000. No extension to this deadline shall be given except as approved in writing by the City's Principal Planner. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 397 DECEMBER 7, 1999 Submission No.: A 117/99(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 Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: Appearances: In Support: Contra: A 118/99 Karl Welker 195 Heiman Street Lot 3 and Part Lot 7, Re.qistered Plan 1100 Mr. K. Welker 195 Heiman Street Kitchener ON N2M 3M2 Mr. & Mrs. B. Habicher 57 Oneida Place Kitchener ON N2M 3E8 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition to the front of an existing garage, having a westerly sideyard of 0.39 m (1.3 ft.), rather than the required 0.6 m (2 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands are located at 195 Heiman Street and is located in a predominantly residential area. The applicant is requesting a reduction in minimum side yard setback from the required 0.6 metres for an accessory building to 0.38 metres. The purpose of the proposed variance is to extend the garage closer to the existing house. The existing garage was built in 1920 prior to the introduction of a Zoning By-law. Therefore, it is a legal non-conforming use with a minimum side yard setback of 0.38 metres. The extension of the garage is intended to maintain the same yard as the existing garage. The purpose of the side yard setback is to allow for an appropriate separation distance between adjacent properties and allow maintenance of the side of the building. The proposed reduction does maintain an adequate separation distance and is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The reduced separation distance would not have an adverse effect on the adjoining property and therefore, it can be considered minor in nature. Staff consider that the application is minor in nature, maintains the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law, is desirable for the appropriate development of the property, and recommend that the application be approved. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 118/99. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct an addition to the garage; the wall of the garage located less than 0.6 m to the property line shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating and shall have no openings; and, all roof drainage shall not be directed onto the adjacent property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 398 DECEMBER 7, 1999 Submission No.: A 118/99(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. Mr. & Mrs. B. Habicher advised that they were appearing on behalf of Mrs. R. Habicher, who was a neighbouring resident at 191 Heiman Street. Mrs. Habicher indicated that they would like to make enquiries as to the exact location of the garage as they were uncertain from the description given in the agenda. Mr. K. Welker pointed out that there were four backyards abutting his property on the side where the garage was located and Mrs. Habicher's property was located towards the front of his property, with her backyard ending before reaching the location of his garage. He further pointed out that one of the other abutting properties contained a pidgeon coup which was, in his opinion, aesthetically unpleasing and he wished to extend his garage to cover up this situation. The Chair reviewed the plan attached to the application with Mr. Welker and the Habichers and it was determined that, even with the addition to the garage, it would not appear to have a negative impact on Mrs. Habicher's property. During the course of these discussions it was determined that the description in the agenda citing the westerly sideyard was incorrect and that, in fact, the garage was located on the easterly sideyard. Following review of the plan, Ms. S. Campbell enquired of the Habichers if they had any objection to the application. Mr. B. Habicher responded that the addition to the garage appeared, in and of itself, not to be objectionable; however, he did have other concerns. In this regard, he questioned if Mr. Welker intended to expand his garage for any other reason than to cover up his neighbours pidgeon coup. Mr. K. Welker responded that his intent was to alleviate the situation with respect to the pidgeon coup and to improve upon the aesthetics of his own garage. Mr. A. Galloway commented that he believed Mr. Habicher was enquiring as to whether or not the garage would be used for personal use only as opposed to business uses and stated that he would only be prepared to approve the application on the basis that the garage would be used for personal use only. In this regard, Ms. J. Given advised that current zoning would allow use of the garage for a home business within the limits of defined regulations and Mr. K. Welker stated that he had obtained approval from the City to operate a home business. The Chair advised that, as a home business was a permitted use, it would not affect the application; however, he pointed out that if Mr. & Mrs. Habicher felt that any business being conducted on the property was inappropriate they could seek advice from Planning staff as to the legality of the business. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Karl Welker requesting permission to construct an addition to the front of the existing garage, having an easterly sideyard of 0.39 m (1.3 ft.), rather than the required 0.6 m (2 ft.), on Lot 3 and Part Lot 7, Registered Plan 1100, 195 Heiman Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the addition to the garage. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 399 DECEMBER 7, 1999 Submission No.: A 118/99(Cont'd) That the wall of the garage to be located less than 0.6 m (2 ft.) to the property line shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating and no opening. That the owner shall ensure that all roof drainage from the garage be directed onto the subject property. 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. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Mr. K. Welker enquired as to when he would be able to obtain a building permit and the Chair advised that the decision of the Committee was subject to a 20 day appeal period commencing from the date of the decision, following which Mr. Welker would be able to obtain a building permit provided no appeals were filed. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 119/99 Saulles Development Corporation 560 Queen Street South Lot 73, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: Mr. B. Hermsen MHBC Planning Limited 171 Victoria Street North Kitchener ON N2H 5C5 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition of approximately 93 m2 (1,000 sq. ft.) to the rear of Building "1", having a minimum floor space ratio of 0.1375, rather than the required 1.0. In addition, the applicant is requesting permission to legalize the westerly sideyard of Building "2" of 0 m, rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property contains two buildings, a 2-storey residential structure of 212 square metres (2,282 square feet) (Building 1) and a 1 ½ storey commercial building of 192 square metres (2,066 square metres)(Building 2). It is noted that there are a number of small accessory buildings on site as well. The lands are zoned CR-3 and designated High Density Commercial Residential, which allows for high density redevelopment to office, residential, or mixed uses. The applicants propose to expand Building 1 by adding 93 square metres (1,001 square feet) to the ground floor, to accommodate the reuse of the building for an office. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 400 DECEMBER 7, 1999 6. Submission No.: A 119/99(Cont'd) To achieve the high density objectives of the Secondary Plan, the Zoning By-law requires that buildings constructed after the application of the CR-3 zone (1994) shall have a minimum floor space ratio of 1.0. Additions to buildings are considered "buildings" under the Building Code, as such, the regulation applies to the proposed addition to Building 1. The existing floor space ratio of the buildings on site is 0.11, as the lot area is 3,612 square metres (38,889 square feet). With the minor addition of 93 square metres, the gross floor area on site would be 497 square metres (5,349 square feet) and the resulting floor space ratio would be 0.137. While this resulting floor area is far from achieving the minimum of 1.0, the minor variance must be seen in light of the ability to achieve the intent of the by-law over the long term. The existing floor space ratio of 0.11 is legal, non-conforming, and the minor addition is moving toward compliance by intensifying the built floor area. Further, the site would continue to remain viable for redevelopment at the density contemplated in the by-law, and therefore, the minor variance is desirable for the development of the property and maintains the intent of the by-law and Secondary Plan. The second variance requested is to permit Building 2 to have a sideyard of 0 metres whereas 1.2 metres is required. It is noted that this building and the existing road access to the parking area encroach onto lands now owned by the City, for which the applicant believes there is a lease arrangement in place. While the sideyard is likely to be legal, non-conforming, the evidence required to make such a determination is not available. Staff have no concerns with supporting the variance as the situation has existed for a number of years without concern, and is therefor desirable for the development of the property. The intent of the yard is that new development maintain a reasonable yard, and therefor, the intent of the by-law is also met. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 119/99 be approved. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division requires a building permit for the new addition. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and, at this location, Queen Street has an existing road allowance width of 60 feet and a designated road allowance width of 86 feet. Therefore a (86-60=26/2=13) 13 foot road allowance widening is required from this property. It may not be appropriate to acquire the road widening under this application, however, the applicant should be made aware that the 13 foot road widening will be a condition of any future development application. They further 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. Mr. B. Hermsen advised that he had reviewed the comments of staff and was in agreement with the recommendation contained therein. Mr. Hermsen further noted the comments of the Region of Waterloo, Planning and Culture Department, in which it is suggested that a 13 ft. road allowance widening is required from the property; however, these comments further indicate that it may not be appropriate to acquire the road widening under this application. Mr. Hermsen stated that he took this to mean that the Region was putting the applicant on notice for future development and was not requiring the road widening to be a condition of approval. He pointed out that, if it was made a condition of approval, it would conflict with the current configuration of Building 2, which is already closer than 13 ft. to Queen Street and has a white picket fence along the front property line which the applicant wishes to retain. For these reasons, he requested that the road widening not be a condition of approval. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Hermsen's remarks and was prepared to move approval of the application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 401 DECEMBER 7, 1999 Submission No.: A 119/99(Cont'd) Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Saulles Development Corporation requesting permission to construct an addition of approximately 93 m2 (1,001 sq. ft.) to the rear of an existing two storey residential structure (Building "1"), having a minimum floor space ratio of 0.1375, rather than the required 1.0, and to legalize the westerly sideyard of an existing 1 1/2 storey commercial structure (Building "2") of 0 m, rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.), on Lot 73, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract, 560 Queen Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition. 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 120/99 Grand River Hospital 835 King Street West Cemetery Lot and Part of Lot 285, Registered Plan 385 and Lot 19, Street and Lanes Appearances: In Support: Mr. P. Gaskin, Vice-President Grand River Hospital P.O. Box 9056 835 King Street West Kitchener ON N2G 1G3 Mr. R. Snell, Project Architect Parkin Architects Limited 73 Laird Drive Toronto ON M4G 3T4 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an acoustic screen, as required by the Ministry of Environment, to the roof of an existing 1 storey powerhouse to act as a buffer for the cooling tower, having a sideyard setback of 5.5 m (18.0 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.). COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 402 DECEMBER 7, 1999 The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an acoustic screen, as requested by the Ministry of Environment, to the roof of an existing one storey powerhouse Submission No.: A 120/99(Cont'd) to act as a buffer for the cooling tower, having a sideyard setback of 5.5 meters (18 ft), rather than the required 7.5 meters (24.6 ft). The applicant is seeking permission to add a 4.49 meter (14.75 ft) high noise barrier around an existing cooling tower on the roof of the existing powerhouse. The existing powerhouse structure has a setback of 5.5 meters (18.16 ft) from the side yard abutting a street (Park Street). The By- law requires a 7.5 meter (24.6 ft) setback. The existing structure pre-dates By-law 85-1 and under the previous Zoning By-law 4830, a 5.18 meter (17 ft) setback was required. The existing setback is now considered legal non-conforming. The proposed acoustic barrier on the roof of the powerhouse is to be constructed to match the brick work of the existing wall beneath. With the improved aesthetics and noise attenuation function this will provide, it can be considered an improvement for the surrounding properties in the neighbourhood, and as such, can be considered minor in nature and desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The impact of this variance will be negligible on the neighbourhood as the setback matches that which is existing. The addition of an acoustic screen within the required yard maintains the general intent and purpose of both the City's Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance application A120/99 as submitted. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has reviewed this application and a building permit is required to construct a new screen. 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 Chair reviewed the comments of staff, noting that approval of the application is being recommended subject to a building permit and enquired if Mr. Gaskin had anything further to add. Mr. P. Gaskin stated that he was in agreement with the comments of staff and had nothing further to add. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Grand River Hospital requesting permission to construct a 4.49 m (14.75 ft.) acoustic screen around an existing cooling tower on the roof of the existing powerhouse, having a sideyard setback of 5.5 m (18 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Cemetery Lot and Part of Lot 285, Registered Plan 385 and Lot 19, Streets and Lanes, 835 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new screen. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 403 DECEMBER 7, 1999 Submission No.: A 120/99(Cont'd) This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 63/99 Leona Hoy 1471 Ottawa Street South Lot 9, Registered Plan 820, Designated as Part 13, Reference Plan 58R-9912 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Mark Sutherland Mark Bumstead Flemming 300-255 King Street North Waterloo ON N2J 4V2 Contra: None 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 1,131.8 m2 (12,182.99 sq. ft.). the severed lands will have frontage on Ottawa Street South of 17.848 m (58.55 ft.), by a depth of 49.367 m (162.85 ft.) and an area of 849.9 m2 (9,148.54 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the applicant is requesting consent to sever a new residential building lot from the existing property located at 1471 Ottawa Street South. The subject lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan and Low Density Residential in the Laurentian West Community Plan, and are zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant was previously given consent to sever the proposed parcel in August, 1995 through Consent Application B70/95 and again in October 1997 through Consent Application Bl10/97. Both times, the applicant requested and received consent to sever the lot proposed by the current application. However, as deeds for the parcel created by both previous consent applications were not registered by the applicant within two years of receiving the respective approvals, the consents lapsed. The applicant has now re-submitted a third consent application in respect of the proposed lot. The proposed severance conforms with both the Municipal Plan and the Laurentian West Community Plan. In addition, the proposed lands to be severed and the proposed lands to be retained both comply with all applicable regulations of the Zoning By-law. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application A63/99 be approved subject to the following conditions: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 404 DECEMBER 7, 1999 1. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. Submission No.: B 63/99(Cont'd) That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5 percent of the value of the lands to be severed, if not already previously paid. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands and retained lands. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional Engineering staff advise that the access permit previously issued for this property has expired. Therefore, the applicant will be required to obtain an access permit for access to the proposed lot. As well, a lot grading plan was approved for this property on November 8, 1995. Regional staff have no information whether this grading plan is still applicable to the proposed lot and Regional staff will, therefore, require submission of a lot grading plan prior to final approval of the consent. Regional staff have no objection to the approval of B 63/99 subject to the following conditions: 1) Prior to final approval of the application, the owner will obtain a Regional Road Access Permit. 2) Prior to final approval of the application, the owner will submit a lot grading plan for approval by the Regional Commissioner of Engineering. 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 Chair reviewed the comments of staff, noting that approval of the application is recommended subject to certain conditions and enquired if Mr. Mark had an opportunity to review these comments. Mr. R. Mark stated that he had reviewed the comments and was in agreement with the recommendations contained therein. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Leona Hoy requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having frontage on Ottawa Street South of 17.848 m (58.55 ft.), by a depth of 49.367 m (162.85 ft.) and an area of 849.9 m2 (9,148.54 sq. ft.), on Lot 9, Registered Plan 820, designated as Part 13, Reference Plan 58R-9912, 1471 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5 percent of the value of the lands to be severed, if not already previously paid. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 405 DECEMBER 7, 1999 3. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands and retained lands. Submission No.: B 63/99(Cont'd) That the owner shall obtain a Regional Road Access Permit from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. That the owner shall submit a lot grading plan for approval by the Commissioner of Engineering for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 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 December 7, 2001. It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 64/99 Southstaton Holdings Limited 280 Woolwich Street Part of Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract, Designated as Blocks 3, 4, and 31 and Part of Block 28 Appearances: In Support: Mr. P. Britton MHBC Planning Limited 171 Victoria Street North Kitchener ON N2H 5C5 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land, as a lot addition, to the westerly abutting property and retain a parcel of land having an average area of 31.182 ha (77.05 acres). The severed lands are proposed for residential and public road use within Plan of Subdivision 30T-98205, having frontage on Woolwich Street of 10.193 m (33.44 ft.), by a depth of 302.257 m (991.65 ft.), and an area of 0.7157 ha (1.76 acres). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the lands to be severed are contained within Subdivision Draft Plan 30T- 98205, which has now received draft plan approval. Some portions of the retained lands are COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 406 DECEMBER 7, 1999 within Subdivision Draft Plan 30T-97005; other portions of the retained lands are proposed to be included within future subdivision applications. 2. Submission No.: B 64/99(Cont'd) Draft Plan of Subdivision 30T-98205 was a joint application of two land owners - Activa Holdings Inc. and Southstaton Holdings Limited. Lands within the plan total 11.8 hectares (29.1 acres) in area. 11.1 hectares are owned by Activa and 0.7 hectares are owned by Southstaton. The purpose of this consent application is to convey that portion of Southstaton's land which is included within Plan 30T-98205 as a lot addition to Activa's land. Planning Staff have no concerns with the requested consent, subject to the conditions specified. Road widening requirements for Woolwich Street are addressed in the conditions of draft plan approval. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission B 64/99, 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. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and have no concerns. It is our understanding that the consent will result in a new owner of the subject lands but that the configuration of the draft plans of subdivision are not affected. 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 objection to the proposed transfer of lands from Southstaton Holdings Limited to Activa Holdings Inc. The Chair reviewed the comments of staff, noting that the proposed severance is to be a lot addition to an abutting property and requested confirmation that title was to be taken in identical ownership. Mr. P. Britton advised that was correct. The Chair enquired if Mr. Britton had reviewed the comments of staff and Mr. Britton stated that he had and was in agreement with the recommendations contained therein. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Southstaton Holdings Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land, as a lot addition, to the westerly abutting property, having frontage on Woolwich Street of 10.193 m (33.44 ft.), by a depth of 302.257 m (991.65 ft.) and an area of 0.7157 hectares (1.76 acres), on Part of Lots 66, 124 and 125, German Company Tract, designated as Blocks 3, 4 and 31 and Part of Block 28, 280 Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 407 DECEMBER 7, 1999 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. Submission No.: B 64/99(Cont'd) 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 December 7, 2001. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1 A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. 2. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 65~99 & A 121/99 Gary Schnarr 518 Caryndale Drive Lot 11, Re.qistered Plan 1284 Appearances: In Support: Mr. G. Schnarr 518 Caryndale Drive Kitchener ON N2G 3W5 Contra: Mrs. B. Sutcliffe 147 Chapel Hill Drive Kitchener ON N2G 3W5 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: Mr. & Mrs. A. Sutcliffe 147 Chapel Hill Drive Kitchener ON N2G 3W5 Mr. & Mrs. Z. Simofi 524 Caryndale Drive Kitchener ON N2G 3W5 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 1,372.68 m2 (14,775.88 sq. ft.). A single family dwelling is proposed for the lands to be severed which will have an area of 1,059.44 m2 (11,404.09 sq. ft.) and an average depth of 61.31 m (201.14 ft.). In addition, the lands to be severed and the lands to be retained will have frontage on Caryndale Drive of 19.08 m (62.59 ft.) and 21.15 m (69.39 ft.) respectively, whereas the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 408 DECEMBER 7, 1999 Zoning By-law requires a frontage of 24 m (78.74 ft.) per lot and the applicant is requesting permission for these variances. 1. Submission Nos.: B 65/99 & A 121/99(Cont'd) The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the owner of 518 Caryndale Drive is requesting permission to sever the property and create a new lot for a single detached dwelling. The proposed severed lot will have a frontage on Caryndale Drive of 19.08 metres (62.60 feet), an average depth of approximately 61.3 metres (201 feet) and an approximate area of 1059.44 square metres (11,404 square feet). The proposed severed lot is vacant except for the septic bed for the single detached dwelling on the proposed retained lot. The proposed retained lot has a frontage of 21.15 metres (69.39 feet), an average depth of 59.6 metres (195 feet) and an approximate area of 1372.68 square metres (14,776 square feet). The retained lot has been legally developed with a duplex dwelling since 1979. The owner resides at 518 Caryndale Drive and wishes to sever his lot and create a new lot in order to take advantage of the imminent installation of services on Caryndale Drive across his frontage. The first stage of draft plan of subdivision 30T-87033 (Hearthwood Caryndale Developments Inc.) is soon to be registered and proposes 119 single detached dwellings. Fourteen of these lots will front onto Caryndale Drive across from the Caryndale community. Servicing of these 14 lots will require the temporary closure of part of Caryndale Drive that is to occur in the spring. The lands in the Caryndale community are zoned R-2 to recognize the existing large lot development and the use of septic beds. Caryndale has functioned as a unique local community for nearly 40 years. At the time of rezoning and draft approval of the Hearthwood Caryndale Developments lands on the west side, consideration was given to zoning the lots on the west side of Caryndale Drive R-2 to conform with the lot sizes in the Caryndale community. The 14 lots approved as part of the subdivision are 24 metres wide and have a minimum lot area of 929 square metres (10,000 square feet). The proposed retained lot will have an area of 1,372.68 square metres (14,776 square feet) and the proposed severed lot will have an area of 1,059.44 square metres (11,404 square feet) and will comply with the Zoning By-law. Both lots are considerably larger in lot area than the minimum requirement in the R-2 zone and the proposed lots across the street in the Hearthwood Caryndale subdivision under construction. The applicant has requested a minor variance to reduce the lot width for both the proposed severed lot by 4.92 metres (16.14 feet) and the proposed retained lot by 2.85 metres (9.35 feet). The large lots within the Caryndale community were created under the former Township of Waterloo Zoning By-law 878A and zoned Residential which required a minimum lot area of 2,023 square metres (1/2 acre) and a minimum lot width of 40.23 metres (132 feet) to accommodate a septic system as no municipal sanitary services were available at the time. The existing lots in Caryndale are approximately twice the size as currently permitted under the R-2 zone under By-law 85-1. With the current development of the Hearthwood Caryndale subdivision to the west, full municipal services are to be installed along Caryndale Drive across the entire frontage including the lots within the Caryndale community. This provides the Caryndale residents the opportunity to hook up their existing dwellings to municipal services and also allow for severances and additional lots to be created and connected to the City's municipal sewers. Accordingly, the need for a septic system is no longer required creating the potential for smaller sized lots on full services. A number of residents in Caryndale have recently expressed to Planning and Public Works staff an interest in having municipal services extended into their community as they do not have any more land for immediate further growth and have expressed interest in severing their lots. The subdivider of the Hearthwood Caryndale lands who is installing the services along Caryndale Drive has approached all the owners fronting Caryndale Drive and is willing to provide connections for their lands at the time of servicing the subdivision lands. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 409 DECEMBER 7, 1999 City staff recognizes that Caryndale is a distinct community of large lots created many years ago without municipal services. The Municipal Plan acknowledges this uniqueness and recognizes the desire of the residents to maintain a cohesive village and permit new development in harmony with the existing community. With recent subdivision growth nearby, Submission Nos.: B 65/99 & A 121/99(Cont'd) interest from within the community for land severances, and recent approvals of other future lots on full municipal services along Caryndale Drive, staff is seeing more acceptance from within the community to slightly smaller lots in the R-2 zone on full services. Staff is of the opinion that the lots created by this application are compatible with the existing Caryndale community. Earlier this summer, the Committee of Adjustment supported a severance of land at 442 Caryndale Drive creating 6 new lots with slightly reduced lot widths of (22.25 metres) (73 feet). The community expressed no concern with the minor variance. In light of the above, staff is of the opinion that the minor variance is desirable as the lots would be compatible with the surrounding development. The Department is of the opinion that the application is appropriate subject to approval of the minor variance. Staff feels that the proposed minor variance meets the four tests. This proposal is considered good planning and is appropriate and compatible with the character of the community. Accordingly, the Department supports the severance application subject to the conditions listed below, which primarily addresses bringing the lot into full municipal services. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 121/99 be approved without conditions and that Consent Application B 65/99 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That Minor Variance A 121/99 receive final approval. 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 a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Public Works, and registered on title of all the subject lands; said agreement shall include arrangements for performance securities and municipal engineering services and which agreement shall also include the following special conditions which shall generally state as follows: a) That the existing dwelling on the retained lot be fully hooked up to full municipal services to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works, at no cost to the City and completed prior to endorsement of the deed. b) 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 proposed severed lot prior to the endorsement of the deed. c) That the owner makes financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works to install, to City standards, boulevard landscaping including street trees, paved driveway ramps, and a culvert (if required) on the proposed severed and retained lots prior to the endorsement of the deed. d) That the owner removes or fills the septic bed to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official prior to the endorsement of the deed. e) That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5 % of the value of the lands to be severed prior to the endorsement of the deed. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 410 DECEMBER 7, 1999 The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that services must be installed and existing septic removed and disconnected prior to endorsement of deeds. 1. Submission Nos.: B 65/99 & A 121/99(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 above noted application to permit the creaton of a new lot on full municipal services and have the following comments. In discussion with Regional Health Unit staff, Regional staff advised that while there are no Regional policies requiring decommissioning of the existing septic system, the owner should give consideration to hiring a septic installer/hauler to empty the septic system tank prior to approval of the consent application. This will ensure that the tank is disconnnected and the contents of the tank disposed of properly. The tank itself should be either filled with fill material or removed. Regional staff have no objection to the approval of B 65/99 providing the lot is municipally serviced (water and wastewater) as identified in the application submitted. 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 these applications. The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. & Mrs. Alan Sutcliffe in which they advised that the community of Caryndale was developed about 50 years ago with all properties being at least a half acre in size. Over the past 13 years we have lived in this community, Chalon Estates Inc. have met with many interested developers of land abutting he community and requested that, when submitting plans to the City for approval, lots bordering Caryndale have 90 foot frontages, to maintain similar esthetic appeal. Our home backs onto the lands to be severed and we are not happy to think that two homes would now back onto our lot. The one home already hosts 2 families and with the R2 zoning in this community am told there would be nothing to stop the new home from housing 2 families, giving me four families in my backyard. This past summer, we redesigned our backyard with no idea a proposal was being put forward for a severance of lands. It was by chance that we found out about this appolication but, we are please we have an opportunity to protect our interests in this matter. We would have changed our backyard design had we thought a new home may be situated in the area we just developed in our yard. Most homes in our community have been staggered so one does not back onto another house, affording everyone a great deal of privacy. This would certainly change that situation. A new development "Hearthwood Hills" by "Sherwood Homes" is underway on Caryndale Drive. The new homes facing onto Caryndale Drive will all have 90 foot frontages in keeping with the Caryndale Community. If this variance were to be allowed, would Sherwood Homes also apply and be allowed to decrease the size of their lots bordering this community? How many others may apply for this variance? We are concerned of a precedence being set for something we have all tried to maintain over the years. Half acres lots, with lots of wide open spaces. We are concerned that this severance may adversely affect the price of our property and are prepared to do whatever is necessary to protect our interests, even if it means going to the O.M.B. The Committee noted the comments of Mr. & Mrs. Zigmond Simofi in which they advised that our home adjoins the land at 518 Caryndale Drive that has requested a severance. We are concerned about the proposed change of lot size from those that currently exist within our community. 518 Caryndale Drive has 2 families residing in it and they now wish to severe land to create another home. With the R2 zoning in this community we are aware this is allowed and COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 411 DECEMBER 7, 1999 another two families may choose to reside in a home built on a newly severed land. We received notification in the mail regarding this application and are pleased we have an opportunity to voice our concerns. Most of the homes in Caryndale back onto the open space of their neighbours yards creating a great deal of privacy for each family. Allowing someone to severe their property Submission Nos.: B 65/99 & A 121/99(Cont'd) with less than 90 foot frontage would definitely change this reality. Will this adversely affect the value of our home? "Hearthwood Hills" by "Sherwood Homes" is beginning it's construction and according to their building plans have 90 foot frontages facing Caryndale Drive. This is in keeping with the community design. If this variance were to be passed, we are concerned that this would open the door for others to make application for similar variances, changing the integrity of this community. We do not wish to see a precedence set for others to follow. Chalon Estates Inc., representing the homeowners of Caryndale have met over the years with developers who wished to build on surrounding lands. Chalons' request was always to keep the homes in closest proximity to this community, create lots as large as possible, sporting 90 foot frontages, to harmonize with the existing, well established community. We will go to the O.M.B. if necessary to protect the investment of our home. The Chair enquired of Mr. Schnarr if he was in receipt of a copy of the letters of objection and Mr. Schnarr advised that he had not received them. The letters of objection were provided to Mr. Schnarr for review. The Chair requested clarification with respect to the variance and Ms. J. Given responded that a variance is required for the proposed lot width of each of the severed and retained parcels. In this regard, she pointed out that the by-law requires a frontage of 24 m (78.74 ft.) whereas the severed lot will have a frontage of 19.08m (62.59 ft.) and the retained lands will have a frontage of 21.15 m (69.39 ft.). Mr. A. Galloway enquired if there was potential for similar applications to be brought forward by other property owners and Ms. Given responded that there may be a possibility of one or two others; however, because in most cases the homes that have been built are situated in the middle of the property, she felt it unlikely that there would be a proliferation of applications for severance. Ms. S. Campbell enquired if Mr. Schnarr had reviewed the comments of staff, noting that a number of conditions are recommended. Mr. Schnarr responded that he had reviewed the report and was in agreement with the recommendations contained therein. The Chair enquired if both the severed and retained lands would require sanitary hook-up and Ms. Given pointed out that Condition No. 3, subclauses a) & b), as contained in the Planning staff report, require that the retained lot be fully hooked up to full municipal services and that the owner make the necessary financial arrangments with the Public Works Department for installation of all new service connections to the severed lot. The Chair referred to the subdivision located across the street from the subject property and enquired as to the size of frontage for the lots contained therein. Ms. Given responded that this subdivision plan contains lot widths of 24 m (78 ft.) which complies with by-law regulations. Mr. A. Galloway requested clarification of the frontages as he was of the opinion that the lots across the street were to have frontages of 90 ft. Mr. G. Schnarr pointed out that the letters of objection mention a 90 ft. frontage; however, the lot sizes for the subdivision across the street are to be 78 ft. Mr. G. Schnarr further pointed out that he has lived at his present residence for the past 25 years and agreed in general that the original concept of this area was to have large lots. He stated that the 1/2 acre lots were originally proposed because of issues relating to such things as septic systems and the Veterans Land Act. He noted that some property owners had purchased in this area because of the country style setting, while others had located there because of the church COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 412 DECEMBER 7, 1999 and schools. He stated that, keeping in mind retirement years, he had deliberately constructed his home to the side of his property to allow for future development. 1. Submission Nos.: B 65/99 & A 121/99(Cont'd) In view of the objections received, the Chair enquired if Mr. Schnarr felt that approval of his application would divide the community. Mr. Schnarr responded that he did not believe this would happen and pointed out that he had discussed his proposal with one of the objectors who, at the time, had indicated did not have a problem with the proposed severance. He further indicated that he had discussed the possibility of a severance approximately 10 years ago with Mr. & Mrs. Sutcliffe who had indicated they were not in support of a severance taking place; however, he had hoped that over the past years their view may have changed. Ms. S. Campbell referred to the letter of objection from Mr. & Mrs. Sutcliffe respecting their comments pertaining to the Ontario Municipal Board and enquired if Mr. Schnarr was aware that this Committee was not the final adjudicator and that the Committee's decision to approve the applications could be appealed to the O.M.B. Mr. Schnarr acknowedged that he was aware that his application could be appealed to the O.M.B. Mr. G. Schnarr referred to the issue of division within the community and pointed out that the Holding Company, while it has not stated that it is in favour of the applications, neither has it stated any objection and was of the opinion that the Holding Company would not necessarily see this as a serious issue. Mrs. B. Sutcliffe entered the meeting at this point. Mrs. B. Sutcliffe advised that her property borders the subject property and had become aware of the severance application only recently. She stated that her concerns relate to property values and pointed out that homes within this community all have 1/2 acre lots. She pointed out that this was a factor considered when her property was purchased. She further advised that residents of the Caryndale Community have met with other builders bordering the Community who have been requested to maintain the integrity of the area by developing plans that include 90 ft. frontages. She stated that the subject property backs onto her own property and was concerned with the type of home that would be built on the severed parcel. She pointed out that she valued the privacy of her backyard and would not wish to have her privacy imposed upon by the building of a new home. She further pointed out that the Caryndale Community has fought a long time to maintain large lots in this area. The Chair enquired if Mrs. Sutcliffe was aware that the subdivision plan located across the street from the subject property would have lot frontages of 78 ft. and Mrs. Sutcliffe responded that she was not aware of this change and that she had been advised only several weeks ago that the frontages would be 90 ft. The Chair advised that current zoning in the area allows a minimum of 78 ft. for frontage and that the subdivision across the street will have frontages of 78 ft. He further pointed out that the severance being requested by Mr. Schnarr is legal and the only issue remains a variance with respect to the lot widths which will be slightly smaller than 78 ft. Ms. Sutcliffe pointed out that she had not received notice for these applications and had only been made aware of the proposal by another neighbour. In this regard, the Chair pointed out that legal notification for such applications is given by advertisement and it is also the City's policy to mail notices to property owners within 30 m of the subject property as a courtesy. Mrs. Sutcliffe pointed out that, as her property backs onto the subject property, she should have received notice by mail. The Secretary advised that the City had experienced difficulty at the time the mailing was to occur with its postage meter and that there may have been a problem with the mailing of notices; however, she advised that the City has met its legal requirement through advertisement of the notice. The Chair pointed out to Mrs. Sutcliffe that staff were of the opinion that there would not be a proliferation of further severances as most homes were situated in the centre of existing properties. In this particular instance, he pointed out that the home was built to the side of the property which does allow for a severance to take place. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 413 DECEMBER 7, 1999 Mrs. B. Sutcliffe responded that this particular severance was taking place adjacent to her property and that this past year she and her husband had considered whether or not to sell the property or stay and invest in the home by undertaking improvements. She stated that they had Submission Nos.: B 65/99 & A 121/99(Cont'd) made the decision to stay because they enjoyed the openness of their property and had made substanial improvements to the backyard. Mr. A. Galloway commented that the by-law requires a minimum lot width of 78 ft. and the Committee has previously approved a variance for a reduction in lot width on a parcel of land of 73 ft. With respect to the current application, he stated that the proposed lot width for the severed parcel would be approximately 62 ft. and the lot width for the retained lands approximately 69 ft. It was his opinion that the lot widths proposed for this severance application are substantially different and suggested that the Committee must consider how small is too small. He stated that he could not support the application unless the lot widths were brought closer to within the minimum requirement of 78 ft. Mr. G. Schnarr pointed out that the subject property has a maximum frontage of 132 ft. which restricts the size of frontages that can be achieved in severing the property. Ms. S. Campbell stated that, in view of the development across the street having frontages of 78 ft. and the frontages proposed in this severance application being considerably narrower, she was in support of the comments made by Mr. A. Galloway, in that, she did not believe the variances requested to be minor in nature. The Chair requested staff to comment as the report indicates that staff believe the variances requested to be desirable and compatible with the surrounding area. Ms. J. Given responded that, while she had not had an opportunity to read the letters of objection, she was aware of the community's desire to maintain the integrity of large sized lots. She pointed out, however, that Caryndale is a community in transition and that lot sizes do not necessarily need to be the same. She advised that she would like to take the concerns of residents into consideration and agreed that the question appeared to be how small was too small. In this regard, she suggested that staff could prepare a concept plan of the area to proportionately clarify how the severed parcel would fit into the community. Mr. G. Schnarr stated that he agreed that it may be helpful to actually see the location of the lot as it would be positioned and pointed out that the result of the severance would be 5 properties fronting Caryndale Drive rather than the existing four. In this regard, he stated that he did not believe the new property would be out of context with the lots having 78 ft. frontages across the street. Ms. S. Campbell stated that she would like an opportunity for the Committee, together with the applicant and neighbours, to view a concept plan that might put the effect of the severance into better context. The Chair stated that he was also in favour of viewing additional documentation as suggested by staff and, in addition, he pointed out that if it could be proven there was general acceptance of the majority of residents in the area, he would be more inclined to support the application. The Chair pointed out that, at this time, it appears the Committee is inclined to not support the applications and suggested that Mr. Schnarr may wish to consider deferral of his application. Mr. G. Schnarr stated that he appreciated the opportunity to request deferral and advised that he was in agreement with deferring the applications to allow a concept plan to be brought before the Committee and to have a chance to discuss the applications further with his neighbours. By general consent, it was agreed to defer consideration of these applications to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on January 11, 2000, to allow staff an opportunity to prepare a concept plan and to allow further discussion between the applicant and his neighbours. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 414 DECEMBER 7, 1999 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 7th day of December, 1999. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment