HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 1997-10-07COA\1997-10-07
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 7, 1997
Messrs. J. Gothard, A. Galloway, W. Dahms, D. McKnight and S. Kay.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. J. Given, Senior Planner, Mr. R. Morgan, Co-ordinator Zoning
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Administration, and Ms. D. H. Gilchrist, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. J. Gothard, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m.
MINOR VARIANCE
APPLICATIONS
1.Submission No.'s A 131/97 & A 132/97 - Activa Development Corporation, 735
Bridge Street West, Waterloo Ontario
Re:Part of Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-20, being Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-10629, Corner of
Grey Fox Drive & Woodpoppy Court, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:Mr. J. Griesbaum
735 Bridge Street West
Waterloo, Ontario
CONTRA:NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:NONE
CONTRA:NONE
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting permission to locate a driveway 8.1 m (26.58 ft.)
from the intersection rather than the required 12 m (40 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development, with respect to
Submission No. A 131/97, in which they advised that the subject lands are located at the corner of
Woodpoppy Court and Grey Fox Drive in the newly developed Laurentian Forest neighbourhood. The
lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan are zoned Residential Six (R-6)
Zone according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The application is presently requesting approval of a reduction in
the distance required between the driveway and the intersection from 12 metres to 8.1 metres in order
that a semi-detached dwelling may be constructed.
The affected lot was created by Part Lot Control from a larger block. The Plan of Subdivision in which
this lot is situated was draft approved on March 21, 1996 with a number of "lotless blocks". The purpose
of creating lotless blocks is to allow the developer to re-subdivide those blocks into individual lots at a
later date in order to better respond to customer demand in terms of dwelling type and lot size. The re-
subdivision of the larger lotless blocks into individual lots then occurs by way of Part Lot Control after the
plan has been registered, in accordance with the Zoning By-law.
In order to reduce the timing between plan registration and the sale of lots to the ultimate consumer, the
developer "pre-serviced" the subdivision in accordance with City Council policy. In this particular
instance, engineering drawings for all underground services were prepared based on the land surveyor's
erroneous interpretation of the maximum number of lots able to be created under the zoning regulations.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT350OCTOBER 7, 1997
The engineering drawings were then submitted to and approved by the City's Public Works Department
and subsequently, all underground services were installed.
1.Submission No.'s A 131/97 & A 132/97 - Activa Development Corporation - cont'd
Upon submission of the Part Lot Control Application, it was determined that this corner lot could not
legally be created as it did not meet the zoning requirements for minimum corner lot width. Accordingly,
the developer submitted and received approval of Minor Variance Application A25/97 to reduce the width
of the lot to 12.5 metres rather than the required 15 metres.
A complication arises with the fact that when Minor Variance Application A25/97 was submitted by the
developer, it only requested variance from the minimum lot width regulation for single detached dwelling.
The Zoning By-law requires a minimum corner lot width of 22.5 metres for a semi-detached dwelling (both
sides) and a minimum corner lot width for a semi-detached dwelling unit of 15 metres, whereas a widths
of 20 metres and 12.5 metres respectively are now proposed. Since Minor Variance Application A25/97
did not seek relief from the corner lot width regulation for semi-detached dwellings, the Committee of
Adjustment's previous approval of a reduction in lot width is not applicable to the proposed semi-detached
dwelling.
The original Minor Variance Application A132/97 as submitted by the applicant did not request the
necessary reductions to the lot width regulations for semi-detached dwelling. As a result, the matter was
deferred at the September 16 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment in order to permit the applicant to
re-submit the application with the appropriate variances. At the request of staff, the applicant has re-
designed the proposed dwelling so as to achieve compliance with the minimum distance between the
driveway and the intersection for Parts 1 and 39 (58R-10629) but is still requesting the following
variances in order to develop the lot with a semi-detached dwelling:
Parts 1 and 39 (58R-10629)
·reduction in minimum corner lot width for a semi-detached dwelling from 22.5 metres to 20 metres;
·reduction in minimum corner lot width for a semi-detached dwelling unit from 15 metres to 12.5
metres;
Parts 2 and 40 (58R-10629)
·reduction in minimum distance between the driveway and the intersection from 12 metres to 11.2
metres.
Having reviewed this application together with the City's Traffic and Parking Division, the Department of
Planning and Development has determined that the construction of a semi-detached dwelling represents
the most practical development scenario and ultimately achieves the best possible compliance with the
zoning by-law given the location and configuration of the affected lots. The Department of Planning and
Development has no objections to Minor Variance Application A131/97 (Revised).
The Committee also considered the comments of the Department of Planning & Development concerning
Submission No. A 132/97, in which they advised that the subject lands are located at the corner of
Woodpoppy Court and Grey Fox Drive in the newly developed Laurentian Forest neighbourhood. The
lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan are zoned Residential Six (R-6)
Zone according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The application is presently requesting approval of a reduction in
the distance required between the driveway and the intersection from 12 metres to 8.1 metres in order
that a semi-detached dwelling may be constructed.
The affected lot was created by Part Lot Control from a larger block. The Plan of Subdivision in which
this lot is situated was draft approved on March 21, 1996 with a number of "lotless blocks". The purpose
of creating lotless blocks is to allow the developer to re-subdivide those blocks into individual lots at a
later date in order to better respond to customer demand in terms of dwelling type and lot size. The re-
subdivision of the larger lotless blocks into individual lots then occurs by way of Part Lot Control after the
plan has been registered, in accordance with the Zoning By-law.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT351OCTOBER 7, 1997
1.Submission No.'s A 131/97 & A 132/97 - Activa Development Corporation - cont'd
In order to reduce the timing between plan registration and the sale of lots to the ultimate consumer, the
developer "pre-serviced" the subdivision in accordance with City Council policy. In this particular
instance, engineering drawings for all underground services were prepared based on the land surveyor's
erroneous interpretation of the maximum number of lots able to be created under the zoning regulations.
The engineering drawings were then submitted to and approved by the City's Public Works Department
and subsequently, all underground services were installed.
Upon submission of the Part Lot Control Application, it was determined that this corner lot could not
legally be created as it did not meet the zoning requirements for minimum corner lot width. Accordingly,
the developer submitted and received approval of Minor Variance Application A26/97 to reduce the width
of the lot to 12.5 metres rather than the required 15 metres.
A complication arises with the fact that when Minor Variance Application A26/97 was submitted by the
developer, it only requested variance from the minimum lot width regulation for single detached dwelling.
The Zoning By-law requires a minimum corner lot width of 22.5 metres for a semi-detached dwelling (both
sides) and a minimum corner lot width for a semi-detached dwelling unit of 15 metres, whereas a widths
of 20.5 metres and 13 metres respectively are now proposed. Since Minor Variance Application A26/97
did not seek relief from the corner lot width regulation for semi-detached dwellings, the Committee of
Adjustment's previous approval of a reduction in lot width is not applicable to the proposed semi-detached
dwelling.
The original Minor Variance Application A132/97 as submitted by the applicant did not request the
necessary reductions to the lot width regulations for semi-detached dwelling. As a result, the matter was
deferred at the September 16 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment in order to permit the applicant to
re-submit the application with the appropriate variances. Accordingly, the applicant is now requesting the
following variances in order to develop the lot with a semi-detached dwelling:
Part 38 (58R-10629)
·reduction in minimum corner lot width for a semi-detached dwelling from 22.5 metres to 20.5
metres;
·reduction in minimum corner lot width for a semi-detached dwelling unit from 15 metres to 13
metres;
·reduction in minimum side yard abutting a street from 4.5 metres to 3.87 metres; and
·reduction in minimum distance between the driveway and the intersection from 12 metres to 10.9
metres.
Having reviewed this application together with the City's Traffic and Parking Division, the Department of
Planning and Development has determined that the construction of a semi-detached dwelling represents
the most practical development scenario and ultimately achieves the best possible compliance with the
zoning by-law given the location and configuration of the affected lot.
The Department of Planning and Development has no objections to Minor Variance Application A132/97
(Revised).
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division with respect to these applications in
which they advised that given the circumstances relating to the design and installation of underground
services for these lots, the Division has no objections to these applications. Normally, this Division does
not support reduced corner lot sizes as this creates problems in terms of driveway locations and restricts
the property owners ability to install privacy fencing.
1.Submission No.'s A 131/97 & A 132/97 - Activa Development Corporation - cont'd
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT352OCTOBER 7, 1997
Submission No. A 131/97
Moved by Mr. D. McKnight
Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms
That the application of Activa Development Corporation requesting permission for a minimum corner lot
width for a semi-detached dwelling of 20 m (65.61 ft.) rather than the required 22.5 m (73.81 ft.); a
minimum corner lot width for a semi-detached dwelling unit of 12.5 m (41 ft.) rather than the required 15 m
(49.21 ft.) and permission to locate the driveway 11.2 m (36.74 ft.) from the intersection rather than the
required 12 m (40 ft.) on Part Block I, Registered Plan 58M-20, Being Parts 1, 2, 39 & 40, Reference Plan
58R-10629, Woodpoppy Court and Grey Fox Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, .
BE APPROVED
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. A 132/97
Moved by Mr. D. McKnight
Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms
That the application of Activa Development Corporation requesting permission for a minimum corner lot
width for a semi-detached dwelling of 20.5 m (67.25 ft.) rather than the required 22.5 m (73.81 ft.); a
corner lot width for a semi-detached dwelling unit of 13 m (42.65 ft.) rather than the required 15 m (49.21
ft.); a minimum sideyard abutting Grey Fox Drive of 3.87 m (12.69 ft.) rather than the required 4.5 m
(14.76 ft.) and permission for the driveway to be located 10.9 m (35.76 ft.) from the intersection rather
than the required 12 m (40 ft.) on Part Block I, Registered Plan 58M-20, Being Part 37 & 38, Reference
Plan 58R-10629, Woodpoppy Court & Grey Fox Drive, Kitchener, Ontario .
BE APPROVED
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
2.Submission No. A 135/97 - Gregoris Asimis, 181 Wellington Street North,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re:Lot 85, Registered Plan 376, 181 Wellington Street North, Kitchener, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:Mr. G. Asimis
181 Wellington Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT353OCTOBER 7, 1997
2.Submission No. A 135/97 - Gregoris Asimis - cont'd
CONTRA:Messrs. C. Allen & D. Allen
183 Wellington Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
Mr. S. Wismer
180 Wellington Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
Ms. S. Hafermehl
178 Wellington Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:NONE
CONTRA:Mr. S. Wismer
180 Wellington Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
Mr. & Mrs. C. Allen
183 Wellington Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting to expand an existing legal non-conforming
automobile repair business by adding a car sales business to the property.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the applicant is requesting permission to operate a motor vehicles sales business in addition to the
existing legal non-conforming motor vehicle repair business, as a similar or more compatible use, under
Section 45.(2)ii) of the Planning Act.
Presently there is a single dwelling on the property where a hair salon home business is operating. The
existing motor vehicle repair business has operated since 1962 from the concrete buildings at the rear of
the property. The previous zoning for the property was Light Industrial according to Zoning Bylaw 4830.
The Light Industrial Zone permitted motor vehicle repairs, therefore since that use has been continuous to
date, it is considered legal non-conforming. The vehicle sales use requires permission because its a
different use than the existing vehicle repair business, which plans to continue as well. The sales office
22
will have a gross floor area of 153 ft. (14.21 m). The applicant intends to have no more than four
vehicles for sale at the premises at any one time.
In considering the appropriateness of the new use, staff have reviewed the on-site parking. The motor
vehicle sales business requires one legal parking space. The parking plan submitted with this application
has been amended with the agreement of the applicant. The plan, revised by Planning Department staff,
shows one legal parking space for the vehicle sales use, two legal parking spaces for the home business,
four display parking spaces for the retailing of the vehicles, and the required parking for the motor vehicle
repair use is unknown because the parking requirement under Bylaw 4830 was based on the number of
employees which was not recorded at that time.
The vehicle repair business has existed for many years without the Department having been apprised of
any neighbourhood concerns. It is the Planning Department's staff opinion that this additional related
motor vehicle use would not generate unreasonable vehicular traffic or adversely affecting the
neighbouring properties. There will be no physical expansion of the buildings on site to accommodate the
vehicle sales and therefore, would not have the effect of perpetuating the legal non-conforming use of the
property. For these reasons, the additional motor vehicle sales use is appropriate provided the site is
developed in accordance with the attached parking plan and the number of vehicles for sales at any one
time is limited to four.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the application subject to the
following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT354OCTOBER 7, 1997
2.Submission No. A 135/97 - Gregoris Asimis - cont'd
1.That the parking spaces be demarcated in accordance with the attached plan, to the satisfaction of
the Director of Community Planning, Development and Design, prior to April 15, 1998. No
extension to this completion date shall be granted unless approved in writing by the Director of
Community Planning, Development an Design prior to the completion date set out in this decision.
2.That a maximum of four vehicles be available for sale at any one time.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that, in order
to prevent vehicles from being parked/displayed right up to or overhanging the public sidewalk, it is
recommended that the parking/display places along the southerly lotline be physically separated from the
sidewalk with a landscape strip and also that the boulevard area be grassed.
The Committee considered the written submissions of the neighbourhood residents in opposition to this
application.
The Chairman noted the sketch attached to the application and questioned whether the 16 parking
spaces shown exist now. Mr. Asimis stated that there are actually four more parking spaces in the closed
lane. The Chairman questioned ???????????business on the site is located in the house and Mr. Asimis
answered that it is. The Chairman then questioned whether there are any other uses on the site and Mr.
Asimis advised that they also live in the house.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned staff as to whether the previous zoning would have aloud car sales and
service and Ms. J. Given advised that the previous zoning would have allowed that use and under the
current zoning the present automobile repair business is legal non-conforming.
Mr. C. Allen addressed the Committee advising that two owners previous to this one operated an
autobody repair business on this site. Now, there is a wall down the center of the garage and one side is
used for autobody repair while the other is for auto mechanic repair. He stated that there is also a
hairdresser in the house. Mr. Allen stated that there is not sufficient parking now; so there would not be
enough parking for people who wanted to come and buy cars. Mr. Allen advised that he is also
concerned about the hours of operation, the owner presently operates seven days a week. Further, Mr.
Allen advised that the neighbours across the street would be affected by any lights installed for the car
sales lot.
Mr. W. Dahms questioned staff as to whether the proposal has sufficient parking and whether there are
any restrictions to the times of operation. Ms. J. Given stated that staff are concerned about parking in
the matter has been discussed with staff of the Traffic & Parking Division. Ms. Given referred to the site
plan attached to the Planning & Development comments. She stated that the applicant has agreed to set
the parking back 20 ft. from the street and demarcat the parking spaces. She advised that there is room
on the site to provide sufficient spaces for all uses. Concerning the hours of operation, Ms. Given
advised that she was not aware if the by-laws governed that but there is a noise by-law.
Mr. Allen responded that he did not believe that there was enough space for the parking and room still to
provide a driveway to the garage itself.
The Chairman stated that there are no measurements on the parking spaces shown on the site plan. He
questioned whether the by-law regulates the size of parking spaces. Ms. J. Given responded that the by-
law requires parking spaces to be 8 1/2 ft. by 18 ft. but the aisle width is not a by-law requirement.
Mr. D. McKnight questioned whether signs could be located in the 20 ft. setback for parking and Ms. J.
Given advised that signs must be setback behind the front wall of the house. Mr. Asimis advised that
there is already an 8 ft. by 4 ft. sign on the lawn in front of the house. When questioned by the
Committee as to whether this sign would have to be removed, Ms. J. Given advised that she could not be
sure about the legal non-conforming status of the sign.
2.Submission No. A 135/97 - Gregoris Asimis - cont'd
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he has some concerns with the parking; as the depth of the lot is 156 ft. and
with 16 spaces and a 20 ft. setback, the parking would be 1 ft. off the rear lot line. Ms. J. Given
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT355OCTOBER 7, 1997
responded that staff new that the required parking could fit on the property, with the spaces being 8 1/2 ft.
wide.
Mr. W. Dahms suggested making any approval subject to site plan approval. Ms. J. Given suggested that
the conditions recommended by staff would, in essence, achieve site plan approval.
Mr. Allen questioned why, if parking is available for employees now, they are not parking there. Mr.
Asimis responded that he has one associate who parks on the street and this person has two other cars
parked on the site now.
Mr. W. Dahms suggested that the proposed parking complies with the needs of the use. Mr. S. Kay
referred to the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division. He then put forward a motion, which was
seconded by Mr. W. Dahms, to approve the application, subject to the recommendation contained in the
Traffic & Parking Division comments and the two conditions contained in the Department of Planning &
Development.
Mr. J. Gothard advised that he was opposed to the motion. He stated that the Committee must consider
the adverse impact on the neighbourhood. Further, it was his opinion that this is a new dimension and
not an existing legal non-conforming use which is being expanded.
Mr. A. Galloway spoke in opposition to the motion. He stated that this property has several uses carried
over from the time of the light industrial zone. These uses should not be perpetuated by adding another
industrial use.
The motion by Mr. S. Kay to approve the application was
voted on and lost.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight
That the application of Gregoris Asimis requesting permission to expand a legal non-conforming
automobile repair business by adding a car sales business on Lot 85, Registered Plan 376, 181
Wellington Street North, Kitchener, Ontario
BE REFUSED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that this application proposes a new use and not the expansion of an
existing legal non-conforming use.
Carried
4.Submission No. A 136/97 - Gail & Gary Grafe, 32 Hedgestone Crescent,
Kitchener, Ontario
Re:Lot 106, Registered Plan 1730, 32 Hedgestone Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:Mr. & Mrs. G. Grafe
32 Hedgestone Crescent
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA:NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:NONE
CONTRA:Neighbourhood Petition
Ms. A. Zister
43 Hedgestone Crescent
Kitchener, Ontario
4.Submission No. A 136/97 - Gail & Gary Grafe - cont'd
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT356OCTOBER 7, 1997
Mr. & Mrs. V. Huynh
36 Hedgestone Crescent
Kitchener, Ontario
The Committee was advised the applicants are requesting legalization of an existing deck having a
rearyard of 0 m rather than the required 4 m (13.12 ft.) and a left sideyard of 0 m rather than the required
1.2 m (4 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the applicants are requesting legalization of an existing deck, which is elevated at different levels
ranging from 1.2 metres (4 ft) to 1.5 metres (5 ft) above grade, having a rearyard of 0 metres rather than
the required 4 metres (13.12 ft) and a left sideyard of 0 metre rather than the required 1.2 metres (4 ft).
From examination of the submitted drawing, staff note that two additional variances exist and request that
this application be amended to include:
a)an existing above-ground pool with a gross floor area greater than 9.3 m² (100 ft²) that is setback
from the rear lot line 0.6 metre (2 ft) rather than the required 1.2 metres (4 ft); and,
b)an existing accessory building (shed) with a gross floor area of 13.4 m² (144 ft²) and a height of 3.6
metres (12 ft) which is located 0.48 metres (1.56 ft) from the rearyard lot line and 0.33 metres (1.08
ft) from the sideyard lot line rather than the required 1.2 metres (4 ft) from both the rear and side lot
lines. The applicant states that the shed was built in June, 1996. Staff note that the shed would
therefore not be covered by the vacuum by-law.
This variance application is the result of a complaint received by the Enforcement Division. All of the
subject structures (deck, above-ground pool, shed) were constructed without benefit of building permits.
The intent of the required setbacks for the deck and pool is to provide privacy between abutting
properties.
It is staff's opinion that the requested variance for the portion of the deck surrounding the pool is not minor
in nature as the impact on the surrounding properties is too great. The intent of the by-law is not being
met. The deck around the pool is elevated 1.2 metres (4 ft) from the ground and staff regard this as being
excessive considering its location adjacent to the side and rear lot lines. (Please note that the by-law
requires a sideyard of 1.2 metres and a rearyard of 4 metres.) Additionally, the visual impact of a deck of
this height located on the property line is too great and would provide little privacy for the neighbouring
properties.
The main deck is 1.52 metres (5 ft) from grade and is located directly off the back of the house. This
portion of the deck is located 0.89 metres (2.92 ft) from the side lot line rather than the required 1.2
metres (4 ft). Although this deck is raised one foot higher than the deck around the pool it is setback from
the side lot line 0.89 metres. This setback encroaches 25% into the required 1.2 metres setback which
can be considered minor in nature.
Additionally, it is noted that the applicant states there is a 1.98 metre (6.5 ft) fence which encloses the
backyard and the fence would provide some privacy for neighbouring properties from the main deck. In
this respect, the intent of the by-law is being maintained.
Regarding the shed, it is noted that the existing location, although not complying to the by-law setback
requirements, appears suitable for the lot as the existing setbacks still allow for the outside maintenance
of the structure. This accessory structure would not appear to adversely affect the enjoyment of the
abutting properties.
Additionally, it is noted that the location of the above-ground pool could be considered minor in nature. It
is setback 0.6 metres (2 ft) from the rear lot line rather than the required 1.2 metres (4 ft). This is half of
the setback
4.Submission No. A 136/97 - Gail & Gary Grafe - cont'd
that is required however it is not excessive and could be considered appropriate development for the lot.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT357OCTOBER 7, 1997
Additionally, the o.6 metres (2 ft) would allow for maintenance of the pool should it be required.
The shed, the pool and the main portion of the deck (which is located directly off the rear of the house
and located up to 0.89 metres (2.92 ft) from the left side yard lot line) for the reasons noted above can be
considered minor in nature and the intent of the by-law is being maintained.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends refusal of the portion of the deck which
surrounds the above-ground pool and is located up to the side and rear lot lines, as shown on the sketch
submitted by the applicant.
Staff recommend approval of the above-ground pool, shed, and only the portion of the main deck which is
located 0.89 metres from the side lot line, as shown on the sketch submitted by the applicant.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight
That the application of Gail & Gary Grafe requesting legalization of an existing deck having a rearyard of
0 m rather than the required 4 m (13.12 ft.) and a left sideyard of 0 m rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.)
on Lot 106, Registered Plan 1730, 32 Hedgestone Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE REFUSED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is not minor in nature.
2.This application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are not
being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
4.Submission No. A 137/97 - Monarch Construction Limited, P.O. Box 20089,
Pioneer Park Post Office, Kitchener, Ontario
Re:Part Lot 35, German Company Tract, Westforest Trail, Kitchener, Ontario.
At the request of the applicant's agent the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this
application to the meeting to be held on October 28, 1997.
5.Submission No. A 138/97 - Andrey Nikolasevic, 20 Munroe Street, Kitchener,
Ontario
Re:Part Lot 19, Registered Plan 861, 20 Munroe Street, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:Mr. A. Nikolasevic
20 Munroe Street
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA:NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:NONE
CONTRA:NONE
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing frame addition, which is
to be converted from a garage to living space, with a northerly sideyard of 0.39 m (1.3 ft.) rather than the
required
5.Submission No. A 138/97 - Andrey Nikolasevic - cont'd
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT358OCTOBER 7, 1997
1.2 m (4 ft.) and is requesting permission for one off-street parking space, in the existing driveway, with a
depth of 4.84 m (15.91 ft.) rather than the required 5.48 m (18 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the Committee of Adjustment agenda notes that the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing
frame addition, which is to be converted from a garage to living space, with a northerly sideyard of 0.39
metres (1.3 ft) rather than the required 1.2 metres (4 ft) and is requesting permission for one off-street
parking space in the existing driveway, with a depth of 4.84 metres (15.91 ft) rather than the required 5.48
metres (18 ft).
Staff have reviewed the submitted application and spoken with the applicant and with staff from the
building division. This application is the result of an application for a building permit to convert the 'frame
addition' into a separate dwelling unit. According to building staff the area is to contain a kitchen,
washroom, and living area which are separate from the main portion of the house. Relative to the zoning
by-law, this use would be considered a duplex. A duplex is permitted in the R-4, provided all regulations
of the by-law are met. Two legal off-street parking spaces are required. The parking spaces may be
situated in tandem and one required off-street space may be located on the driveway less than 6 metres
(20 ft) from the street line.
Based on the above comments staff recommend that this variance be amended to clarify the parking
situation, as follows: to request permission for two off-street parking spaces in the existing driveway, with
one parking space, to be setback 6 metres (20 ft) from the front lot line, to have a depth of 4.84 metres
(15.91 ft) rather than the required 5.48 metres (18 ft).
Regarding the requested right sideyard setback of 0.39 metres (1.3 ft), staff are of the opinion that the
variance is minor. The 'frame addition' structure was originally built in 1971 as a carport and storage area
and there have been no complaints or concerns since that time. In addition, the conversion of the carport
into living area would not encroach into the sideyard any more than it presently does. In this regard, the
impact of the conversion would be no more than what has existed for more twenty years for the single
family dwelling.
The zoning by-law permits off-street parking for a duplex to be arranged in tandem, which is the case for
the requested parking variance. The driveway is required to have a minimum depth of 11.58 metres (38
ft). This driveway length would accommodate one parking space behind the 6 metre setback and one
parking space in front of the 6 metre setback. The subject property has a driveway with a total depth of
10.95 metres (36.91 ft). The resulting deficiency of 0.63 metre (1.09 ft) is minor and the driveway would
still be able to accommodate two vehicles.
Based on the above it is noted that the impact of the variance is minor and is in keeping with the
appropriate development of the property. It is the opinion of staff that the variance is minor in nature and
the general intent of the by-law is being met.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submission A 138/97 applying
to the structure as shown on the sketch submitted by the applicant.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that it was
their concern that, by providing a shorter legal off-street parking space a precedent could be set. In this
particular case, the Division would be prepared to support encroachment of the legal off-street parking
space into the required setback as there is adequate area to accomodate a vehicle without blocking the
sidewalk or encroaching onto the Munroe Street right-of-way.
The Chairman read aloud the staff recommendation with respect to the amendment for the parking and
Mr. Nikolasevic requested permission to amend the application accordingly.
5.Submission No. A 138/97 - Andrey Nikolasevic - cont'd
Mr. A. Galloway questioned how large the addition is and Mr. Nikolasevic advised that it is 12 ft. by 47 ft.
Mr. Galloway then questioned staff as to whether this addition would comply with the size for a dwelling
unit and Mr. R. Morgan advised that staff are satisfied that it conforms with the building code requirement.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT359OCTOBER 7, 1997
Mr. W. Dahms questioned what is at the 1.3 ft. portion of the addition and Mr. Nikolasevic advised that
there are two brick pillars at that portion.
Mr. D. McKnight advised that he was concerned, as the staff report indicates that this started off as a
carport then became a garage. Mr. Nikolasevic advised the Committee that the garage, in its existing
state, was in exsistence when he bought the property.
Mr. W. Dahms questioned whether there were any windows in that side of the garage facing the side
lotline and Mr. Nikolasevic advised that there are three windows in that wall.
Mr. D. McKnight stated that he has concerns regarding violations of the zoning; however, this proposal
does not seem to affect the neighbours. He put forward a motion to approve the application, as amended
which was seconded by Mr. A. Galloway.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. D. McKnight
That the application of Andrey Nikolasevic requesting permission to convert an existing frame addition
into living space with a northerly sideyard of 0.39 m (1.3 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) and
permission for two off-street parking spaces in the existing driveway, with one parking space to be
setback 6 m (20 ft.) from the front lotline, to have a depth of 4.84 m (15.91 ft.) rather than the required
5.48 m (18 ft.) on Part Lot 19, Registered Plan 861, 20 Munroe Street, Kitchener, Ontario,
BE
subject to the following condition:
APPROVED
1.That the variances as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed development as
shown on the plan submitted with this application.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
6.Submission No. A 139/97 - Michelle Daley, 326 Erinbrook Drive, Kitchener,
Ontario
Re:Lot 73, Registered Plan 1770, 326 Erinbrook Drive, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:Ms. M. Daley
326 Erinbrook Drive
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA:NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:Ms. C. Cooke
331 Erinbrook Drive
Kitchener, Ontario
6.Submission No. A 139/97 - Michelle Daley - cont'd
Mr. & Mrs. A. Palimaka
51 Ridgeway Crescent
Kitchener, Ontario
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT360OCTOBER 7, 1997
CONTRA:NONE
The Committee was advised the applicant is proposing to conduct a home business, as a registered
massage therapist and is requesting permission to locate the parking space for the home business 2.4 m
(8 ft.) from the lot line along Erinbrook Drive, rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the applicant is requesting permission to operate a health office home business which requires
variance approval for parking.
One of the required parking spaces would be provided in the attached garage whereas the other parking
space would be located in the driveway setback 2.4 metres (7.87 feet) from the front property line rather
than the required 6.0 metres (20 feet) setback.
The applicant, who is a Registered Nurse and Registered Massage Therapist, intends to operate a one
employee registered massage therapy home business. The Bylaw requires two legal off-street parking
spaces, one space for the dwelling and one space for the home business. According to the applicant,
there will be no non-resident employees. There is a single garage attached to the dwelling which can
accommodate one legal off-street parking space. The Bylaw requires parking spaces for a home
business be setback a minimum of 6.0 metres (20 feet) from the front property line. It should be noted the
applicant will provide the two parking spaces in a side by side manner and the second parking space
ahead of the setback complies with the required parking space size. This arrangement will allow for
unobstructed vehicular movement either entering or exiting on the property and meets the intent of the
Bylaw.
The applicant has indicated that because she will only be having one client at the premises at any one
time, there would only be one customer parking at the property at a time as the format for her daily
appointment would not cause there to be two clients at the property at any one time. This operation
would eliminate the possibility of one client waiting to enter the property while the other client was still
parked in the driveway.
This small one person operation would appear to function suitably with the second parking space being
located ahead of the 6.0 metres (20 feet) required setback and can be considered minor in nature. This
parking space can be accommodated in the existing driveway and the reduced setback would not appear
to inhibit either the vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the property. In this regard, the intent of the Bylaw is
also being maintained.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the application as shown on the
survey plan submitted with the application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have
no concerns regarding the proposed location of the second parking space required for the home
business.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit
is required for any construction required to create the new home business.
Ms. Daley submitted two written submissions from neighbouring property owners in support of her
application.
Mr. S. Kay referred to the sketch attached to the application and questioned whether the second parking
space was paved and Ms. Daley advised that it has been graveled.
6.Submission No. A 139/97 - Michelle Daley - cont'd
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT361OCTOBER 7, 1997
That the application of Michelle Daley requesting permission to locate one off-street parking space, for a
home business, 2.4 m (8 ft.) from the lotline along Erinbrook Drive rather than the required 6 m (19.69 ft.)
on Lot 73, Registered Plan 1770, 326 Erinbrook Drive, Kitchener, Ontario , subject to the
BE APPROVED
following condition:
1.That the variance as approved in this application shall apply to the proposed parking only as
shown on the plan submitted with this application.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
7.Submission No. A 140/97 - Tallpines Health Centre Incorporated, 123 Pioneer
Drive, Kitchener, Ontario
Re:Parts 1 - 14, Reference Plan 58R-10809, 10 Pioneer Drive, Kitchener, Ontario.
At the request of the applicants' agent, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of this application to
the meeting to be held on October 28, 1997.
CONSENT
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.Submission No. B 59/97 - Edward (Ted) Simmons, 66 Fairmount Avenue,
Hamilton Ontario
Re:Part of Lot 3, Biehns Tract, 1226 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:Mr. E. Simmons
66 Fairmount Avenue
Hamilton, Ontario
CONTRA:NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:NONE
CONTRA:NONE
The Committee was advised the applicant is requesting to sever a parcel of land having a width on Doon
Village Road of 19.803 m (64.97 ft.) by a depth of 73.15 m (240 ft.) and having an area of 2.266.1 m²
(24,3918 sq. ft.). The use of the property is a single family dwelling.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the subject lands are located within the boundaries of the Upper Doon Heritage Conservation District
Plan, are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan, and are zoned Neighbourhood
Institutional Zone (l-1) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The lands are also governed by Special Policy
10 of the Municipal Plan which permits new lots at a net residential density of 4.94 units per hectare.
The property is approximately 1.1 hectares in size and is presently developed with a small church, a
parsonage and a single detached dwelling. The application requests consent to sever the existing single
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT362OCTOBER 7, 1997
detached dwelling from the remainder of the land holding and to establish a right-of-way over the severed
lands (single detached dwelling) in favour of the retained lands (church).
The Heritage Conservation District Plan requires that all new lots within the Heritage District have a
minimum lot area of 0.2 hectares and a minimum lot width of 30.5 metres. However, when the lands were
zoned i-1 through Stage 4 of the Comprehensive zoning By-law, special provisions to implement the
requirements of the Heritage District Plan were not added to govern the residential use. As a result the
present zoning permits new lots for a single detached dwellings to be created with a minimum lot area of
325 square metres and a minimum lot width of 12 metres.
At a density of 4.76 units per hectare and an area of 0.2 hectares, the proposed severance is within the
density limits set out in the Municipal Plan. In addition, both the lands to be severed and the lands to be
retained comply with all applicable zoning regulations. Further, while the width of the proposed lot to be
severed does not comply with the minimum lot width requirement set out in the Heritage District Plan, no
variance is required.
The intent of the Heritage District Plan it to ensure large lot sizes with a rural character while also
maintaining a variety of lot sizes to ensure a diversity in the landscape. The Heritage District Plan also
recognizes that reductions in the minimum space standards may be necessary to recognize and
accommodate existing situations. In this regard, the intent of the Heritage District Plan is maintained with
this proposal in that it complies with the minimum lot area and also ensures that a diversity in lot sizes is
achieved through the severance of an existing structure without additional impact on the streetscape.
The Upper Doon Secondary Plan also requires a minimum lot width of 30.5 metres, however the
secondary plan requirement was imposed to implement the requirements and intent of the Heritage
District Plan. for the same reasons indicated above, staff are of the same opinion that the intent of the
Upper Doon Secondary Plan is also maintained with the proposal.
The applicant has submitted an accurate drawing of the subject lands with the consent application. The
proposed lands to e severed are comprised of Parts 6, 7 and 8 while the lands to be retained are
comprised of Parts 1 through 5, inclusive. while not part of this application, the applicant has intentions of
severing Parts 1, 2 and 3 in the future as new building lots. At such time in the future as Parts 1, 2 and 3
may be severed, the applicant would be required to establish all of the required parking for the church
within Parts 4 and 5 with sole access being provided over Part 7. The driveway would be shared with the
residential use.
Recognizing the requirement for 30.5 metre lot widths in the Heritage District Plan, the applicant has
attempted to maximize the width of the severed lot by including the shared drive (Part 7) with the lands to
be severed. a right-of-way would be established over Part 7 to enable church patrons to access eventual
parking facilities to be provided at the rear of the church. With is proposal, the proposed lot to be severed
would have a lot width of approximately 19.8 metres. This lot width conforms with the requirements of the
Zoning By-law but falls short of the requirements of the Heritage District Plan.
In consideration of the applicant's future intention of severing Parts 1, 2 and 3 as individual residential
lots, staff have considered the most appropriate means of vehicular access to the rear of the proposed
church property. In this regard, staff suggest that Part 7 would most appropriately be included with the
lands to be retained (future church property) given the number of vehicles associated with the church use
as opposed to the single detached dwelling. Accordingly, the Department of Planning and Development
recommends that the application be revised to include Part 7 within the proposed lands to be retained.
The applicant has indicated to staff that he support this revision.
While this revision would increase the level of non-conformity of the severed lot width from the required
lot width as set out in the heritage District Plan, it would have no greater physical or visual impact. The
present location of the church and the single detached dwelling, together with the location of the existing
shared driveway, represent an existing situation which would remain unchanged regardless of whether or
not the proposed severance were approved. However, Staff are concerned that the potential for
construction of front yard fencing or the establishment of a new driveway on the lot to be severed could
further accentuate the visual appearance of the narrow lot. As such, the Department of Planning and
Development recommends that the applicant be required to enter into an agreement prohibiting front yard
fencing or a new driveway for the severed lot as a condition of approval.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT363OCTOBER 7, 1997
It should be noted that at such time in the future that the applicant may proceed to request consent to
sever Parts 1, 2 and 3 as additional building lots, staff will seek to achieve, if possible, a better and more
suitable access to the church and associated parking.
The application as recommended to be revised by staff, together with the recommended conditions were
reviewed and endorsed by Heritage Kitchener at its meeting of September 5, 1997.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends that Consent Application A 59/97 be revised
to include Part 7 on the attached plan dated September 4, 1996 within the lands to be retained, and
approved subject to the following conditions:
1.That satisfactory arrangements be made with he City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding
Municipal property taxes and/or local improvements charges.
2.That a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, be registered against the
title of both the severed and retained lands, to ensure that rights-of-way for access to both
properties are maintained in perpetuity.
3.To obtain approval from the Waterloo Regional Health Unit and the Grand River conservation
Authority for private sewage systems for the retained and severed lands.
4.To enter into an agreement, prepared to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and to be registered
on title of the lands to be severed, setting out that no additional driveway shall be permitted for the
lands to be severed and no new fencing, not existing as of the date of severance approval, shall
be construct within 15 metres of the streetline on the lands to be severed.
5.That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the city's General Manger of
Public Works, for the installation of any new service connections to the severed lands and retained
lands, including any required extension of municipal water.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms
That the application of Edward Simmons requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width
on Doon Village Road of 15.23 m (49.97 ft.) by a depth of approximately 73.15 m (240 ft.), together with a
right-of-way over the retained lands (shown on Part 7 on the submitted plan) on Part Lot 3, Biehn's Tract
(shown as Part 6 & 8 on submitted plan) 1226 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario
BE GRANTED
subject to the following conditions:
1.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.
2.That a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, be registered against the
title of both the severed and retained lands, to ensure that rights-of-way for access to both
properties are maintained in perpetuity.
3.That the owner shall obtain approval from the Waterloo Regional Health Unit and the Grand River
Conservation Authority for private sewage systems for the retained lands and severed lands.
4.That the owner shall enter into an agreement, to be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor
and to be registered on title of the lands to be severed, setting out that no additional driveways
shall be permitted for the lands to be severed and no new fencing, not existing as of the date of
severance approval, shall be constructed within 15 m of the streetline, on the lands to be severed.
5.That the owner shall make financial arrangements, to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works, for the installation of any new service connections to the severed lands
and retained lands, including any required extension of municipal water.
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 2
years from the date of approval, being October 7, 1999.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT364OCTOBER 7, 1997
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 this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the
Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
2.Submission No.'s B 82/97 & A 121/97 - Honsberger Lumber Inc., 57 Bridge
Street, Kitchener, Ontario
Re:Parts 1, 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-5837, 10 Stewart Street, Kitchener, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:Mr. D. Honsberger
57 Bridge Street
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA:Mr. N. Decker
22 Strewart Street
Kitchener, Ontario
Mr. P. Reidel
53 Uplands Drive
Kitchener, Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:Ms. K. Fraser
CN Rail
503-277 Front Street West
Toronto, Ontario
CONTRA:Ms. T. Kerr
74 Cotton Drive
Mississauga, Ontario
Mr. J. Richard
194 Weber Street East
Kitchener, Ontario
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a
2
width of 25.25m (83') by a depth of 54.85m (179.96') and an area of 1384.96m (14,908.08 sq. ft.). The
proposed use of the property is light industrial.
The applicant is also requesting permission for the setback of the building on the severed lands to be
3.97m (13') from Stewart Street (after widening) rather than the required 6m (19.6') and a portion of the
building on the retained lands to be 4.26m (13.96') from Stewart Street (after widening) rather than the
required 6m (19.6').
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the applications affect a large landholding of Honsberger Lumber which is accessed from Stewart
Street. The lands were previously used for a lumber business however the applicant now wishes to create
two parcels with the intent of eventually selling both the lands to be severed and retained.
The application proposes to sever a parcel of land from the easterly end of the property, having a width of
25.25 metres (83 feet) and extending the full depth of the property (outlined in yellow on the submitted
plan). Several buildings are located on the severed lands and lands to be retained. The lands to be
retained are irregularly shaped, having frontage and access on Stewart Street; a narrow portion of the
property extends to Park Street, although access to Park Street is to be closed. The severed lands
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT365OCTOBER 7, 1997
contain a 1 storey concrete building; two metal clad buildings exist on the retained lands, one of which
was proposed, by the owner, to be demolished.
The applications were deferred from the Committee's meeting of August 19 to allow the neighbours the
opportunity to clarify their concerns and make them known to the Committee in advance of the meeting.
On September 5, staff held a meeting with abutting property owners on Stewart Street, along with their
solicitor, the owners of the Honsberger Lumber property, tenants of the property, the Ward Councillor,
and City Property Standards/By-law Enforcement, Building, and Planning staff. Staff from the Fire
Prevention unit were unable to attend although they have been involved in the site through staff and
neighbourhood initiatives. The purpose of the meeting was to give the owner the opportunity to describe
the nature and purpose of the severance and future use of property; to provide the tenant with the chance
to describe their present and intended use of the property; to allow the residents to outline their concerns
with the use of the property, and to allow staff to advise all parties of the actions taken to date with respect
to inspections and enforcement.
The lands to be severed are currently vacant although the owner has received three Offers of Purchase.
The lands to be retained have been leased by the owner to an auto repair and vehicle inspection centre.
It is with respect to this tenant's use of the property that the neighbours have concerns relative to
potential fire hazards, building condition, derelict vehicles, parking on the street, late hour operations.
Staff advised those in attendance that the zoning by-law permits the sale and repair of motor vehicles but
does not allow the salvaging of motor vehicles. Staff also advised that By-law Enforcement staff had
already initiated enforcement action relative to a zoning infraction. The tenant has removed scrap
vehicles from the site and Enforcement staff advise that at the time of preparing this report, staff are
advised that the site now complies with the uses permitted on the property.
Several other planning related matters were discussed during the meeting, such as the need to provide
adequate off street parking and the desire for a visual barrier adjacent to the residential properties. The
auto repair tenants agreed with the need for a fence and advised that they have already initiated the
construction of a fence around the rear vehicle "compound".
With respect to the parking congestion and other site matters, staff are of the opinion that site plan
applications would be required for each of the severed and retained lands based on the changing use of
the property, prior to granting additional approvals, which will ensure full compliance with the zoning by-
law.
On September 2, an order to remedy unsafe condition was issued on the property from the City's Building
Division.
On September 17, the Committee of Adjustment deferred the application to the October 7 meeting at the
request of the applicant, to provide an opportunity to deal with some of the outstanding matters.
A final report from a structural engineer was received from the City's Chief Building Official on October 1,
reviewed and accepted. This report requires the demolition of portions of buildings on both the severed
and retained lands along with other remedial work. None of the required buildings to be demolished affect
the need for the minor variance approvals requested in this application.
With respect to the severance application itself, the existing 40 foot wide public right-of-way of Stewart
Street ends part way along the frontage of the lands to be retained. From that point easterly, access to
parts of the subject property and to the adjacent property is gained from a private roadway which is
located partially on the subject property and partially on a 15 foot wide right-of-way (registered under
Instrument Number 105328) forming part of the lot to the east, municipally addressed as 2-4 Stewart
Street. The zoning by-law requires that all lots front a public street, which is defined as a "public road
allowance having a minimum width of 12.19 metres (40 feet)." Without the extension of the public street,
the severed lands would not comply with the zoning by-law. Accordingly, in order to comply with the
zoning by-law, and to provide for the proper servicing of and access to the severed lands, the street
would have to be constructed over the full 40 foot width, requiring the conveyance of a 25 wide strip of
land from the severed and part of the retained lands, as well as the conveyance of a 15 wide strip of land
from the owners of 2-4 Stewart Street. The owner of the subject property would have to provide the City
with a registerable deed for that portion of the neighbour's property, as well as their own, prior to deed
endorsement. The applicants were asked to determine from the neighbouring property owner whether
they would be willing to give up this portion of property before this application was considered by the
Committee; the applicants indicated verbally that the adjacent property owner is willing to make their part
of the future right-of-way available through arrangements with the applicant.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT366OCTOBER 7, 1997
The owners are required to construct the road extension to the easterly limit of their property to full
municipal standards, including road, sewer, watermain, storm sewers, and driveway ramp all prior to the
endorsement of the deeds. Once constructed, the road would have to be opened by by-law prior to the
endorsement of deeds.
The extension of the public street will result in two front yard variances: the concrete block building on the
severed lands is 4.06 metres (13.34 feet) from the front lot line, as calculated from the survey whereas the
by-law requires 6.0 metres (19.6 feet). It is noted that the application seeks approval for a setback of 13
feet and the Committee should determine the actual variance it wishes to grant. Secondly, a small portion
of the existing metal clad building which it intended to be left standing on the retained lands would be at
variance to the by-law; where a front yard setback of 4.25 metres (13.96 feet) is existing, 6.0 metres (19.6
feet) is required.
Staff find that the minor variances are supportable and meet the tests of the Planning Act, given that they
relate to existing buildings and result from the proper extension of a public road.
Provided the conditions set out below are met, and the required minor variance applications receive
approval, the severance allows for the appropriate development or redevelopment of the lands. The
proposed lots comply in all other respects to the zoning by-law. The site development matters will be
addressed through the Section 41 Development Applications, including the requirement to install a fence
around the property adjacent to the residential properties, depending on the proposed use for the
properties. Further, the extension of the public street may also be of benefit to the adjacent property
owner in their future development activity. Staff are able to recommend in favour of the consent subject to
satisfying all of the conditions outlined below.
A. That Minor Variance application A-121/97 be approved without conditions.
B. That Consent Application B-82/97 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1.That final approval of Minor Variance application A-121/97 be given.
2.That the owner convey to the City, without cost and free of encumbrance, a strip of land
approximately 25 feet wide and 136 feet long, which is required to complete the extension of
Stewart Street from its present terminus to the easterly limit of the property. The owner shall also
make arrangements for the conveyance of a parcel of land approximately 15 feet wide and 136
feet long from the abutting property owner, in order to acheive the full right-of-way for a public
road, all to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works.
3.That the most easterly metal clad building on the retained lands be demolished to the satisfaction
of the City's Chief Building Official.
4.That all recommendations of the Building Audit relative to the 10 Stewart Street property, as set
out in the Felszegi Engineering Report dated October 1, 1997, be complied with to the satisfaction
of the City's Chief Building Official.
5.That the owner shall construct Stewart Street from its present terminus to the easterly limit of the
severed lands, to full municipal services, including the installation of sanitary sewers, watermains,
storm drains and paved driveway ramps, and shall make arrangements for the opening by by-law
of the extension of Stewart Street as 'public highway'.
6.That the extension of Stewart Street, from its present terminus to the easterly limit of the severed
lands, be open by by-law as "public highway".
7.That the owner submit and obtain approval of Site Plan applications under Section 41 of the
Planning Act, for both the severed and retained lands.
8.That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Submission No. B 82/97
Moved by Mr. W. Dahms
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT367OCTOBER 7, 1997
That the application of Honsberger Lumber Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a
width of 25.25 m (83 ft.) by a depth of 54.85 m (179.96 ft.) and having an area of 1,384.96 m² (14,908.08
sq. ft.) on Part of Part 3), Reference Plan 58R-5837, 10 Stewart Street, Kitchener, Ontario
BE GRANTED
subject to the following conditions:
1.That the owner shall obtain a Regional Road Entrance Permit for the closure of the Park Street
access.
2.That the owner shall receive final approval of Submission No. A 121/97.
3.That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, a strip
of land approximately 25 ft. wide and 136 ft. long, which is required to complete the extension of
Stewart Street from its present terminus to the easterly limit of the property. The owner shall also
make arrangements for the conveyance of a parcel of land, approximately 15 ft. wide and 136 ft.
long, from the abutting property owner, in order to achieve the full right-of-way for a public road, all
to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works.
4.That the owner shall demolish the most easterly metal clad building on the retained lands, to the
satisfaction of the City's chief building official.
5.That all the requirements set out in Order to Remedy Unsafe Condition, dated October 3, 1997
(order no. 554) and the Order Prohibiting Occupancy, dated October 3, 1997 (order no. 555)
relative to 10 Stewart Street, shall be met to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official.
6.That the owner shall construct Stewart Street from its present terminus to the easterly limit of the
severed lands, to full municipal services, including the installation of sanitary sewers, watermains,
storm drains and paved driveway ramps, and shall make arrangements for the opening, by by-law,
of the extension of Stewart Street as a "public highway".
7.That the extension of Stewart Street, from its present terminus to the easterly limit of the severed
lands, shall be opened by by-law as a "public highway".
8.That the owner shall submit and obtain approval of site plan applications under Section 41 of the
Planning Act for both the severed and retained lands.
9.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted
conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse 2
years from the date of approval, being October 7, 1999.
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 this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the
Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Submission No. A 121/97
Moved by Mr. W. Dahms
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of Honsberger Lumber Inc. requesting permission for the concrete building on the
severed lands to be set back 4.06 m (13.34 ft.) from the front lotline rather than the required 6 m (19.6 ft.)
and the existing metal clad building on the retained lands with a frontyard setback of 4.25 m (13.96 ft.)
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT368OCTOBER 7, 1997
rather than the required 6 m (19.6 ft.) on Part 1, 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-5837, 10 Stewart Street,
Kitchener, Ontario .
BE APPROVED
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1.The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2.This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3.The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Official Plan are being
maintained on the subject property.
Carried
APPLICATIONS
1.Submission No. B 109/97 - Norrich West Inc., RR 22, Cambridge, Ontario
Re:Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-9855, 815 Fairway Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:Mr. A. Artinger
R.R.#22
Cambridge, Ontario
CONTRA:NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:NONE
CONTRA:NONE
The applicant is requesting permission to sever two semi-detached dwellings so that each may be sold
separately. The severed parcel will have a frontage of 8.642 m (28.35 ft.) by a depth of 37 m (121.39 ft.)
and an area of 362.79 m² (3,905.16 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a property at 813-815 Fairway Crescent. The
proposed severed parcel will have a width of 8.64 metres (28.35 feet), a maximum depth of 37.05 metres
(121.56 feet) and an area of 362.79 square metres (3,905.17 square feet). The proposed retained parcel
will have a width of 8.64 metres (28.35 feet), a maximum depth of 39.32 metres (129.0 feet) and an area
of 382.59 square metres (4,118.30 square feet). The proposed use of both the retained and severed
parcels is a semi-detached dwelling unit.
The semi-detached dwelling units are only attached by a party wall along the garage. The main portion of
the building is separated by approximately .6 metres (2 feet) between each unit. The line of severance
coincides with the partition wall and would allow each dwelling unit to be held in separate ownership.
The severance provides for the proper and orderly development of the lands. Both the lot to be retained
and the lot to be severed comply with all regulations of the R-6 zone.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of the application B-109/97 subject
to the following condition:
1)That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT369OCTOBER 7, 1997
municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of Norrich West Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width
of 8.64 m (28.35 ft.) by a depth of 37.05 m (121.56 ft.) and having an area of 362.79 m² (3,905.17 sq. ft.)
on Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-9855, 815 Fairway Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario subject to
BE GRANTED
the following condition:
1.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted
conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse 2
years from the date of approval, being October 7, 1999.
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 this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the
Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
2.Submission No. B 110/97 - Mrs. Leona Hoy, 1471 Ottawa Street South, RR #4
Kitchener Ontario
Re:Part 13, Reference Plan 58R-9912, 1471 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:Mr. R. Mark
300-255 King Street North
Waterloo, Ontario
CONTRA:NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:NONE
CONTRA:NONE
The Committee was advised that applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a
frontage of 17.848 m (58.55 ft.) on Ottawa Street by a depth of 49.367 m (161.96 ft.) and an area of 849.9
m² (9,148.5 sq. ft.). The proposed use of the property is residential.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
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. At that time, the applicant requested and received consent to sever the lot
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT370OCTOBER 7, 1997
proposed by the current application in addition to four other properties (Consent Applications B66/97
through B69/97) at the rear of the former parcel and fronting on to what is now Grey Fox Drive. However,
as deeds for the parcel created by Consent Application B70/95 were not registered by the applicant within
two years of receiving approval, the consent lapsed. Accordingly, the applicant has re-submitted a
consent application.
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 Planning and Development recommends that Consent Application A110/97 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1.That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding
Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2.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.
3.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.
Moved by Mr. W. Dahms
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of Leona Hoy requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a frontage on
Ottawa Street of 17.848 m (58.55 ft.) by a depth of 49.367 m (161.96 ft.) and having an area of 849.9 m²
(9,148.5 sq. ft.) on Part 13, Reference Plan 58R-9912, 1471 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario
BE
subject to the following conditions:
GRANTED
1.That the owner shall receive approval of a Regional Road Entrance Permit.
2.That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Region of Waterloo to include the following
noise warning clause in all agreements of purchase and sale and/or rental agreements:
"Due to its proximity to Ottawa Street (Region Road No. 4), projected noise levels on this property
exceed the noise level objective approved by the Region of Waterloo and may cause concern to
some individuals."
3.That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
4.That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication equal to 5%
of the value of the lands to be severed, if not paid through the previous consent approval for this
land.
5.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.
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 2
years from the date of approval, being October 7, 1999.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT371OCTOBER 7, 1997
3.The use of the land in this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the
Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
3.Submission No. B 111/97 - Leokadie Weiland, 490 Campbell Street West,
Listowel, Ontario
Re:Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 1216, 72 Old Chicopee Road, Kitchener, Ontario. Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:Mr. P. Kruse
370 Frederick Street
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA:NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:NONE
CONTRA:NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever two semi-detached
dwellings so that each one may be sold separately. The severed lands will have a width of 9.9 m (32.48
ft.) by a depth of 39.62 m (129.98 ft.) and an area of 392.24 m² (4, 222.17 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that Application for Consent has been made which proposes the severance of a lot currently developed
with a semi-detached dwelling. Both the severed and retained lands would have a lot width of 9.9 metres
(32.48 feet) fronting onto Old Chicopee Drive and each parcel has a lot area of 392.24 square metres
(4222.17 square feet).
The existing semi-detached dwelling was constructed in May, 1968. Each dwelling was constructed with
an attached garage. The existing zone permits the use and each dwelling unit complies with the
applicable zoning regulations.
As each of the proposed lots comply with the regulations of the Zoning By-law, and the severance allows
the existing use to continue with each lot held in separate title, the Department of Planning and
Development has no concerns with the consent application.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Consent Application B-111/97,
conditional upon the following:
1.That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Moved by Mr. W. Dahms
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Leokadie Weiland requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a
frontage of 9.9 m (32.48 ft.) by a depth of 39.62 m (129.98 ft.) and having an area of 392.24 m² (4,222.17
sq. ft.) on Part Lot 2, Registered Plan 1216, 72 Old Chicopee Road, Kitchener, Ontario
BE GRANTED
subject to the following condition:
1.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted
conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse 2
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT372OCTOBER 7, 1997
years from the date of approval, being October 7, 1999.
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 this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the
Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
4.Submission No. B 112/97 - Marcia Ryan, 200 Waterloo Street, Kitchener, Ontario
Re:Part Lot 3, Registered Plan 386, 196 Waterloo Street, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:Mr. O. Wood
155 Frederick Street
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA:NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:NONE
CONTRA:NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever a parcel of land having a
width of 14.08 m (46.2 ft.) by a depth of approximately 94.48 m (310 ft.) and an area of 855.51 m² (9,209
sq. ft.). The existing and proposed use of the property is residential.
5.Submission No. B 113/97 - Scott Sinclair, 1 The Kirksway, Kitchener, Ontario
Re:Part of Lot 10, Beasley's Broken Front Concession and Part Lot 41, Registered Plan 782, 1 The
Kirksway, Kitchener, Ontario.
- and -
Submission No.'s B 114/97 - B 117/97 - Linda Knowles, Suite 800, 130 Bloor
Street West, Toronto, Ontario
Re:Parts of Lots 9 & 10, Beasely's Broken Front Concession and Lots 33, 34 & 42 and Part Lot 41,
Registered Plan 782, 100 Grand Hill Drive, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:Mr. D. McKay
171 Victoria Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA:NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:NONE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT373OCTOBER 7, 1997
CONTRA:NONE
6.Submission No.'s B 118/97 & B 119/97 - 1148386 Ontario Inc., 374 Hamilton
Road, P.O. Box 580, New Hamburg,
Ontario
Re:Part Lot 9, Municipal Compiled Plan 1021 and Part Lots 4 & 5, Municipal Compiled Plan 1022, 245
Strasburg Road, Kitchener, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:Mr. D. McKay
171 Victoria Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA:NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:NONE
CONTRA:NONE
7.Submission No.'s B 120/97 & B 121/97 - Mary Ann Sullivan, 177 Victoria
Street North, Kitchener, Ontario.
Re:Part of Lot 34, Registered Plan 393, 14 & 20 David Street, Kitchener, Ontario
Mrs. S. Kay declared a conflict of interest with these applications, as his law firm acts for the applicant,
and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to these applications.
APPEARANCES:
IN SUPPORT:Mr. P. Kruse
370 Frederick Street
Kitchener, Ontario
CONTRA:NONE
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
IN SUPPORT:NONE
CONTRA:NONE
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to sever the rear 65 ft. of the
properties at 14 & 20 David Street to be added to 69 Joseph Street, an autobody repair shop. The lands
to be severed have been used as the parking area for the autobody shop, and the use is proposed to
remain the same.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Development in which they advised
that the two subject properties were created by approval of consent applications B31/97 and B32/97
earlier this year. The two lots are
developed residential lots with frontage on and access to David Street. The applicant is requesting
consent to convey a portion of the rear yard of each lot as a lot addition to the lot containing auto repair
business at 69 Joseph Street (i.e. the retained lands in the previous applications).
The lands are designated Medium Density Multiple Residential in the Victoria Park Neighbourhood
Secondary Plan. Special policy #4 recognizes the existing service station and auto repair business at 55
and 69 Joseph Street. Holding Policy #13 restricts the use of existing buildings to service station/auto
repair and residential uses, until such time as the two properties are consolidated for redevelopment and
a site plan is approved. These policies are implemented in the zoning by-law by special use provision
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT374OCTOBER 7, 1997
169U and holding provision 25H which pertain to the auto repair lot, but not to the lands proposed to be
conveyed as lot additions. The auto repair use has legal non-conforming status on the lands to be
conveyed.
Staff did not support the previous severances as they were contrary to the intent of the Municipal Plan
and Secondary Plan. However, as the individual residential lots have now been created, the question
now is whether the original line of severance is more appropriate than the current proposal. As noted in
the previous recommendation, the inclusion of additional land to the rear of the auto shop would result in
a more regular configuration when ultimately consolidated with 55 Joseph Street. Although the proposed
line of severance does not line up with the boundary between 55 Joseph Street and the City's parking lot,
it does coincide with the established limit of occupancy by the auto repair business, provides improved
access to the overhead door at the rear of the building, and allows a larger storage area which will be
screened from Victoria Park, unlike the parking area at the front of the building adjacent to the Victoria
Park entrance.
The proposed configuration provides for a logical configuration for the redevelopment of the subject lands
in conjunction with the abutting lands. Furthermore, the additional land would allow such a
redevelopment to have additional residential floor space, whereas the retained lands fronting David
Street are now much less likely to be redeveloped
Along with the previous consents, a variance was approved granting relief from by-law requirements for a
visual barrier. The rationale for the variance was based primarily on the minimal rear yard of 0.77m. As
this would no longer be the case, and as the previous variance does not cover the current proposal, a
visual barrier is recommended to provide a screen between the rear yard and the abutting residential lots
and parkland.
The Department of Planning and Development recommends approval of Submissions B120/97 and
B121/97, subject to the following conditions:
1.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.
2.That the owner install, or make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Planning and Development for the installation of, a visual barrier, to City standards,
around the entire perimeter of the rear yard of the resulting lot.
3.That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Submission No. B 120/97
Moved by Mr. W. Dahms
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Mary Ann Sullivan requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width
of 16.39 m (53.78 ft.) by a depth of 19.82 m (65 ft.) and having an area of 324.85 m² (3,495.7 sq. ft.), as a
lot addition to 69 Joseph Street, on Part Lot 34, Registered Plan 393, 14 David Street, Kitchener, Ontario
subject to the following conditions:
BE GRANTED
1.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
relocation of the existing electrical service.
2.That the lands to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall
be taken in identical ownership, with any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed
complying with Subsections 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act.
3.That the owner shall install, or make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
General Manager of Planning & Development for the installation of, a visual barrier to City
standards, around the entire perimeter of the rearyard of the resulting lot.
4.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT375OCTOBER 7, 1997
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 2
years from the date of approval, being October 7, 1999.
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 this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the
Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Submission No. B 121/97
Moved by Mr. W. Dahms
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Mary Ann Sullivan requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a width
of 16.39 m (53.78 ft.) by a depth of 19.82 m (65 ft.) and having an area of 324.85 m² (3,495.7 sq. ft.), as a
lot addition to 69 Joseph Street, on Part Lot 34, Registered Plan 393, 20 David Street, Kitchener, Ontario
subject to the following conditions:
BE GRANTED
1.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
relocation of the existing electrical service.
2.That the lands to be severed in this application shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall
be taken in identical ownership, with any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed
complying with Subsections 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act.
3.That the owner shall install, or make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
General Manager of Planning & Development for the installation of, a visual barrier to City
standards, around the entire perimeter of the rearyard of the resulting lot.
4.That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-noted
conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse 2
years from the date of approval, being October 7, 1999.
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 this application conforms to the City of Kitchener Official Plan and the
Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
8.Submission No.'s B 122/97 - B 124/97 - The Congregation of The
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT376OCTOBER 7, 1997
Resurrection in Ontario, 265
Westmount Road North, Waterloo, Ontario
Re:Lots 5 - 7, Registered Plan 401 and Part Lots 6 & 7, Registered Plan 339, 100 Duke Street West,
Kitchener, Ontario.
The Committee was in receipt of a request to defer consideration of this application to allow for the
submission for an Application for Minor Variance on this property and the Committee agreed to defer
consideration of these applications to the meeting of November 18, 1997.
ADJOURNMENT
On Motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 7th day of October 1997.
D. H. Gilchrist
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment