HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2000-01-11COA\2000-01-11
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD JANUARY 11, 2000
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. W. Dahms, A. Galloway and P. Kruse.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Ms. D. Ross, Region of Waterloo, Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J.
Billett, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of December 7, 1999, as mailed
to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
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
Mr. A. Green
303 Stoneybrook Drive
Kitchener ON N2M 4L8
Contra: None
This application was previously considered by the Committee at its meetings held on October 5,
1999 and December 7, 1999, at which time the application was deferred to allow the applicant an
opportunity to reconsider the submission and undertake further discussions with Planning staff.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 2 JANUARY 11, 2000
1. Submission No.: A 103/99(Cont'd)
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 and November 30, 1999); Building Division; Region of Waterloo Planning & Culture
Department; Grand River Conservation Authority; and the written submissions from Ms. J.
MacKinnon and Mr. A. Green; as documented in the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment
meetings of October 5, 1999 and December 7, 1999, were further considered this date.
The Committee noted new comments from the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that we have provided comments dated September 29, 1999 with respect to the above
noted minor variance application. During a recent conversation with Mr. and Mrs. Filipitsch, they
have expressed concern that our requirement for a geotechnical investigation may delay approval
at the upcoming meeting in January.
Please be advised that we would not object to approval of the minor variance application,
conditional upon:
1. Completion and approval of a geotechnical investigation to ensure the proposed
development will not adversely impact the stability of the adjacent slope.
Submission and approval of a permit application pursuant to Ontario Regulation 149 as
amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98, if necessary, for any grading and/or placing of fill
within the Grand River Scheduled Area.
We recognize that there is sufficient area on the lot for development. However, please be aware
that the location of the proposed development may change as a result of the geotechnical
investigation. As part of the submission, we require a site plan in conformance with the
recommendations of the geotechnical study. The site plan should indicate the location of the
proposed dwelling, accessory structure, driveway and septic system. Please not that in
construction of the dwelling, there should be no openings lower than that of the Regulatory
Floodline for this section of the Grand River. This elevation is 1001.57 feet/305.3 metres C.G.D.
The Chair noted that this application had been deferred on several occasions and referred to the
Planning staff reports dated September 29 and November 30, 1999. The Chair enquired of staff
if there were any additional comments and Ms. J. Given advised there were no further written
comments.
Mr. A. Green again advised that he was appearing on behalf of Mrs. F. Filipitsch and read from a
prepared statement in which he advised that this is not our first appearance before the Committee
of Adjustment. When we appeared in October with the plan of our home, you advised us that the
Committee would not approve a new building on this property because a new house could not be
built on a private lane. At that time we were totally unaware of this by-law. However, you did give
us hope by recommending we defer our request for consideration until December. This was to
give us time to redesign our plans. When we appeared before you last month, with what we
sincerely thought to be acceptable modifications, we were surprised by statistics given by the
Planning Services to the effect that the renovations we wanted to put in place were considered
too extensive and could be constituted as a new dwelling. But, you still gave us hope by
reassigning our petition to this day. For this consideration we are sincerely grateful. At first we
had been told by the Planning Committee, that the main issue was building on a private lane. At
this time we were told that the major issue was not the size but how it would be incorporated into
the present building. As mentioned we were surprised to find minutes before our presentation in
October that, in fact, our calculations of the house size had been used as an argument to deny
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 3 JANUARY 11, 2000
our request for an addition. This was based on the fact that there was too much of a discrepancy
between what was on the property and what we wanted to build. After that meeting we met,
Submission No.: A 103/99(Cont'd)
briefly, with the City Planning representative. We wanted to know what that Committee would
consider an acceptable size for a renovation. However, this person declined to give any specific
indication as to what her department would approve or find acceptable as an addition on that site.
Surprisingly, she also indicated that moving our home to a more central position on the lot to
assure greater safety both for ourselves and our neighbours, is not an issue, even though it is to
us and to our neighbour. In light of the above we respectfully submit the following. We request
the adjustment of the by-law to allow us to:
Construct a partial basement that will house the furnace, utilities, etc. At the moment our
house is perched on cinder blocks.
In addition, we need to modernize the over 60 year old residence. The windows are single
pane; and the roof needs repairs. Our hydro bill for the month of December was $304.00
even though the thermostat was at its lowest setting. The size of our home is
approximately 2,200 sq. ft. This includes the upstairs and the ramshackle shed serving as
a garage. Using parts of the present building we have revised our house plans to a
bungalow that is 2,000 sq. ft. with a partial basement plus a two-car garage.
We have honestly tried to conform to what we perceive to be the Planning Committee's
expectations. We have scaled down our addition to respect the concerns of the
Committee of Adjustment. Although we recognize that there is a fine line between what
constitutes an addition and what is a brand new house, we have tried to honour the advice
given at the December meeting. With regards to the Grand River Conservation Authority
they have been contacted and we have been given their permission to proceed with our
plans as long as we fulfill their requirements. A copy of this letter was faxed to the
Planning Department and a copy is here for your perusal. Our intent from the beginning
has always been to enhance the safety, appearance and quality of the current building.
Our situation is quite unique as the Planning Committee has readily agreed. We
understand that the Committee of Adjustment has the power to change the by-law in this
particular case. We have adapted our plans twice in order to minimize the difference
between what we want and what we perceived to be allowed. We trust that this will now
meet with your approval.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he had been in attendance at the previous two meetings and noted
that the Committee had asked for a revised proposal. Mr. Galloway referred to the plans and
stated that he could not see what had changed.
Mr. A. Green advised the Committee that a new concept plan dated December 30, 1999, had
been drafted and submitted this revised plan to the Committee for their review.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that the original proposal had indicated the size of the dwelling to be 60 ft.
x 68 ft. and the new revised plans received this date only show a slight reduction in size to 60 ft x
51 ft. Mr. A. Green advised that the original proposal had also included a second storey and the
new revised proposal is for a bungalow.
Mr. A. Galloway enquired if staff had seen the new revised plan and Ms. Given responded that
she had not received a copy. She stated that the original footprint of the existing dwelling was
much smaller than the new proposal, being 35 ft. x 37 ft. She advised that, although the plan has
been scaled down, the new proposal would still not be supported by staff.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he felt the proposal was more in keeping with construction of a new
dwelling rather than renovations to the existing structure. He noted that the proposal calls for a
substantial increase in floor area and that it appeared very little of the existing dwelling would
remain. Mr. Galloway stated that he suspected that the existing dwelling was to be demolished
and, in this regard, questioned what would remain of the existing structure. Mr. Green responded
that a portion of an existing wall would be incorporated into the new structure. He further stated
that, while the proposal represents a radical change, the changes were for the betterment of
safety and quality, noting that the existing dwelling was in very poor condition.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 4 JANUARY 11, 2000
Submission No.: A 103/99(Cont'd)
Mr. A. Galloway stated that some renovation to the existing dwelling would be allowable;
however, he felt the present proposal goes beyond what can be considered minor in nature.
Mr. A. Green stated that he did not understand what would be acceptable or what the perimeters
were and pointed out that when they had approached staff of the Department of Business &
Planning Services to determine what would be acceptable staff declined to give any specific
indication. Mrs. F. Filipitsch added that she had contacted the Building Division to enquire what
percentage of floor space increase would normally be acceptable in terms of obtaining a building
permit and was advised that 40% was usually acceptable.
The Chair pointed out that the Committee does have authority to grant minor variances or
enlargements/extensions of legal non-conforming uses. He noted that the subject property lacks
frontage on a public road with no immediate plans of subdivision proposed to provide such
access and suggested, in this regard, the proposal was somewhat premature. He further noted
that the Committee must consider the degree of enlargement proposed which, in this case,
appears significant with most of the existing structure to be torn down. He acknowledged the
efforts of the applicant in working towards an acceptable proposal but felt the current proposal to
be beyond what could be considered minor.
Mr. A. Green enquired if the Committee could be specific as to what would be acceptable and the
Chair advised that the Committee could only respond to proposals as they are presented.
Mr. A. Galloway referred to other applications involving property along the laneway that were
approved and pointed out that minor renovations to the existing building to ensure its structural
soundness would be acceptable.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that he had difficulty with the Committee becoming involved in determining
the extent of renovations that would be acceptable. He pointed out that residents have lived
along this lane for a long period of time and did not see this changing. He stated that he could
not see what harm the proposal would cause if approved. Mr. Kruse further commented that he
believed this proposal to be positive and, as he did not see any value in refusal, he would support
it.
Mr. A. Green again pointed out that the intent of the proposal was to enhance the quality and
safety of the property. He further stated that the existing structure is only 2 ft. away from the
neighbouring property which has hindered their ability to obtain fire insurance.
The Chair advised that, while he appreciated the applicant's comments, he still had difficulty
supporting the proposal in light of staff comments respecting the lack of access onto a public
roadway. He pointed out that if a plan of subdivision were to be developed in the near term that
would provide such access the Committee could be somewhat flexible; however, that was not the
case.
Mr. Green stated that if the Committee would not agree to any change it would leave a significant
property along the Grand River in very poor condition.
Mr. A. Galloway again pointed out that the applicant does have the option of renovating the
existing building.
In response to questioning, Ms. J. Given advised that numerous meetings were held with the
applicants who were informed as to the nature of legal non-conforming uses. She further advised
that staff have reviewed previous applications along this stretch of lane with the applicants, noting
that they had not been in favour of the expansion on the neighbouring property. Ms. Given
indicated that renovations can be approved; however, it would not be appropriate for staff to give
advice as to what extent would be acceptable. She further noted that staff have been very up
front from the beginning with the applicants with respect to the seriousness of their concerns. Ms.
Given also pointed out that there were ways of making changes, such as minor additions;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 5 JANUARY 11, 2000
however, this proposal asks for a new structure significantly larger than the existing dwelling
which staff cannot support.
Submission No.: A 103/99(Cont'd)
Mr. P. Kruse referred to the comments made by Mrs. Filipitsch with respect to the Building
Division suggesting that a 40% increase in square footage would be acceptable and asked staff
to comment. Ms. Given responded that she was unaware of who had made the comment or
where the figure had come from; however, she believed that it would not have been made in the
context of a legal non-conforming use.
Mr. P. Kruse further commented that he did not understand the comments of staff relating to
access to a public roadway as the renovations were not changing the existing use. In this regard,
the Chair referred to the September 29, 1999, staff report which points out that the proposal is to
demolish the existing building and reconstruct a new building, which would negate the legal non-
conforming use.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was of the opinion that the legal non-conforming use was to be
removed and replaced with a new dwelling substantially larger than that of the original footprint.
Mr. A. Green enquired if it would be acceptable to put in a basement and he was advised that he
would have to consult with staff in this regard.
As there were no further questions, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms
That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 103/99, as applied for by Frances & Walter
Filipitsch for the property legally described as Part Lot 125, German Company Tract, designated
as Part 2, Registered Plan 58R-119, Rear land with ROW, and known municipally as 254G
Woolwich Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. That the variances requested in this application are not minor in nature.
2. This application is not 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 not being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 114~99
Italian Cortina Club
22 Kevco Place
Part Lot 1, Re.qistered Plan 996
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. F. Grespan
64 Fairfield Avenue
Kitchener ON N2H 6C1
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
In Support:
Mr. W. Hartleib
HTS - Hartleib Transportation Systems
34 Kevco Place
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 6 JANUARY 11, 2000
Kitchener ON N2C 2G5
Contra: None
2. Submission No.: A 114/99(Cont'd)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition,
3.04 m x 12.19 m (10 ft. x 40 ft.), having a westerly sideyard of 0.6 m (1.9 ft.), 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 lands are located at 22 Kevco Place in a predominantly industrial
area. The existing building on the site is used for an ethnic social club. The applicant is
requesting a reduction in minimum side yard setback from the required 1.2 metres to 0.6 metres
to allow for an addition to the kitchen of the Cortina Club.
The existing kitchen is located on the southern portion of the building. The 37 square metre
addition is proposed to be constructed adjacent to the kitchen. 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 appears to maintain an
adequate separation distance. The construction of the addition is desirable for the appropriate
development of the property and will not have adverse impacts on the abutting property.
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
114/99.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division requires a building permit to construct a new addition and the wall located less
than 1.2 m to the property line shall be of noncombustible construction with a 1 hour fire
resistance rating and no openings.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning and Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo in which they advised that they have reviewed this application and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof.
By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. W. Hartleib, Hartleib Transportation Systems,
in which he advised the property of the Italian Cortina Club is contiguous to our lot all along the
northern flank. We own and operate from our lot a Transportation Company at 34 Kevco Place.
We understand the said Club is applying to you to build an addition to their building on their
twelve (12) foot side yard along up to two feet of our northern flank. This is our notice to
appropriate City authority to the effects that our company had no objection to their application and
we support it as a good neighbour.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that the Building Division requires a building
permit prior to construction of the new addition, together with the wall to be located less than 1.2
m to the property line to be of non-combustible construction with a 1 hour fire resistance rating
and no openings. The Chair enquired of Mr. Grespan if he had reviewed the comments and had
anything else to add.
Mr. F. Grespan advised that he had reviewed the comments and had nothing further to add.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 7 JANUARY 11, 2000
2. Submission No.: A 114/99(Cont'd)
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of the Italian Cortina Club requesting permission to construction an addition,
3.04 m x 12.19 m (10 ft. x 40 ft.), having a westerly sideyard of 0.6 m (1.9 ft.), rather than the
required 1.2 m (4 ft.), on Part Lot 1, Registered Plan 996, 22 Kevco Place, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition.
That the wall located less than 1.2 m to the property line shall be of non-combustible
construction with a 1 hour fire resistance rating and no openings.
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
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
The Chair advised that a request has been received from Mr. G. Schnarr to defer these
applications to the February 8, 2000 meeting.
By general consent, is was agreed that consideration of these applications would be deferred to
the meeting of February 8, 2000.
The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:15 a.m., in order to consider an
application for minor variance to the City of Kitchener's Sign By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:20
a.m.
The Chair advised those in attendance that the numbering system used in the notice given for this
meeting must be changed to conform to Provincial Legislation. Accordingly, he advised that the initials
"MV" for Minor Variance Applications will be changed to "A" and initials "CN" for Consent Applications
will be changed to "B".
APPLICATIONS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 2000-001
Ana& Vasilica Anton
115 Glencliffe Court
Lot 19, Re,qistered Plan 58M-45
Appearances:
In Support: Mr. K. Hillis
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 8 JANUARY 11, 2000
Submission No.:
Black, Shoemaker, Robinson & Donaldson Limited
351 Speedvale Avenue West
Guelph ON N1H1C6
A 2000-001 (Cont'd)
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
single family dwelling having a rearyard setback of 7.36 m (24.14 ft.), rather than the required 7.5
m (24.6 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing single family
dwelling having a rear yard setback of 7.36 meters (24.14 ft) rather than the required 7.5
meters (24.6 ft).
The property contains a new single detached dwelling which had the foundation situated on the
lot with a slightly reduced rear yard setback. Due to the configuration of the lot, the variance only
affects a small portion of the rear yard as the opposite side has a rear yard setback of
approximately 15 meters (49.2 ft).
The property still has ample outdoor amenity area, and the minimal reduction in rear yard setback
will not affect the neighbouring property. The use of the property is desirable and appropriate,
and maintains the general intent and purpose of both the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
As such, the variance can be considered minor in nature.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of minor variance
application A 2000-001.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns;
however, 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 they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application. The Chair enquired of Mr. Hillis if he had received the comments and had anything
further to add.
Mr. K. Hillis advised that he had reviewed the comments and had nothing further to add.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Ana and Vasilica Anton requesting permission to legalize an existing
single family dwelling having a rearyard setback of 7.36 m (24.14 ft.), rather than the required 7.5
m (24.6 ft.), on Lot 19, Registered Plan 58M-45, 115 Glencliffe Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 9 JANUARY 11, 2000
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
Submission No.: A2000-001(Cont'd)
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 2000-002
Frank Lipnicki
183 Ottawa Street South
Lot 239, Plan 262
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. F. Lipnicki
183 Ottawa Street South
Kitchener ON N2G 3T3
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission for a convenience retail
or personal service use, having a gross floor area of 2,300 m2 (24,757.80 sq. ft.) with 0 parking
spaces, rather than the required 11 spaces for convenience retail or 5 spaces for personal
service. In addition, the applicant is requesting permission for a convenience retail or personal
service use within a multiple dwelling having 3 dwelling units, rather than the required 20 and
having a gross floor area of 70%, rather than the permitted 20%.
The Committee noted the comments of the Business & Planning Services Department in which
they advised that the property is located at the corner of Ottawa Street and Bedford Avenue and
contains a retail store on the main floor and 3 apartment units on the second floor. The owner
previously applied to legalize the retail use, which was not supported and the City's Enforcement
Section is active in ensuring the use ceases. The second floor is legally occupied by 3 dwelling
units.
The owner is endeavouring to sell the property and is seeking approval for relief to certain zoning
requirements to enable these uses to legally occupy the building. The previous committee
decision under application A74/98 approved the building location relative to any permitted use.
This application seeks approval for relief to two provisions in the Zoning By-law.
The first relief sought is to the requirement that personal services and convenience retail uses be
restricted to locating only within a multiple dwelling having a minimum of 20 units and not
exceeding 20% of the gross floor area. The request is to permit them in a building containing
three dwelling units and occupying up to 70% of the building's gross floor area. The Department
of Business and Planning Services is making City-wide changes to this zoning regulation in CR
zones to allow small buildings to be reused for such purposes in a freestanding manner. The
regulation is intended to govern the proportion of commercial uses in new buildings and as such,
the intent of the by-law is maintained. The minor variance would allow the reuse of the building
with respect to this regulation, provided all other regulations are met.
The second request is for relief to the parking requirement. The site can provide only one legal
parking space, in the garage at the rear. The second floor of the building is occupied with 3
dwelling units, two are legal, non-conforming for parking and the third unit is allocated the one
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 10 JANUARY 11, 2000
legal parking space. Staff met with the owner to discuss the potential for parking relief to certain
limited uses. The application requests relief to the parking requirement for convenience retail and
personal services. At present, part of the main floor of the building is used for the furniture
Submission No.: A2000-002(Cont'd)
business. The entire main floor has a gross floor area of 2300 square feet (213 square metres)
which, if fully occupied, would require 11 spaces for convenience retail uses and 5 spaces for
personal services. The owner is willing to limit the floor area devoted to the use to 600 square
feet (55 square metres), the floor area of the front room of the main floor, leaving the majority of
the main floor for storage. Staff discussed the request in detail with the Traffic staff, who cannot
support the reduction in parking due to the potential impact on the residential neighbourhood, as
vehicles would use Bedford Avenue for parking and shortcutting.
While staff are sympathetic to the need to consider some relief to allow the reuse of the building,
we are not in a position to argue that this request would meet the four tests under the Planning
Act and recommend refusal of this request.
As alternatives, the by-law provides for off-site parking subject to a parking agreement or the
owner could assemble abutting properties for parking. There may be specific proposals that staff
could favourably support, such as the conversion of the main floor to a dwelling unit without
parking, but without a specific intended use to discuss and tailor regulations around, the potential
impact of the traffic makes the request unsupportable.
That the request to permit personal service or convenience retail uses in a multiple dwelling
containing 3 units and occupying 70 % of the gross floor area be approved and that the request to
grant relief to the parking requirement be refused.
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 Project Co-ordinator, Traffic & Parking
Division, in which he advised that this Division has reviewed this application and does not support
the proposed provision of zero (0) parking spaces for either commercial retail or personal
services uses due to the impact of parking on adjacent residential streets and resulting
generation of traffic through this residential area.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning and Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo, in which they advise that Regional staff have reviewed this application and have the
following concerns:
At this location Ottawa Street has an existing road allowance width of 66 feet and a designated
width of 86 feet. Therefore a (86 - 66 + 20 / 2 = 10) 10 foot road allowance widening is required
from this site. A standard 25 foot daylighting triangle is required at the intersection of Bedford
Road and Ottawa Street.
Although requiring the above-noted conditions as approval of this application may not be
appropriate, the applicant should be made aware of the road allowance deficiencies.
The Region 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 or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the uses
as requested; however, staff are also recommending that relief to the parking requirement be
refused. The Chair enquired of Mr. Lipnicki if he had reviewed the comments and had anything
further to add.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 11 JANUARY 11, 2000
Mr. F. Lipnicki stated that he was unsure of what to do with this building as anything he has
applied for has been turned down. He advised that he had never received any complaints with
regard to the previous use, being a piano store, and that he did his best to maintain the building.
Submission No.: A2000-002(Cont'd)
He further advised that he had lost several prospective purchasers for the property because of
by-law restrictions on what can be done with the property. He stated that without approval he
would be left with an unusable, vacant building.
Mr. P. Kruse referred to the comments of staff regarding off-site parking and questioned if there
was any requirement with respect to proximity. Ms. J. Given responded that an off-site parking
facility would have to be within 300 m of the subject property and would involve an agreement
between the owner of the property supplying the parking area, the business and the municipality.
Mr. P. Kruse enquired if Mr. Lipnicki had opportunity to obtain an agreement for off-site parking
and Mr. Lipnicki responded that he would have difficulty obtaining an agreement as there is
resistance to having such an agreement registered on title of the property supplying the parking
area.
The Chair enquired of staff if such an agreement would have to be registered on title and Ms.
Given advised that would be correct.
In response to questioning from Mr. A. Galloway, Mr. Lipnicki advised that the most recent
business operation was for retail of solid wood furniture and prior to that it was a retail store for
pianos and related services. He further advised that these businesses were operated over a
period of approximately 3 years and the building was now vacant. In addition, he advised that the
only parking available was in the existing garage on site or on a City lane behind the building.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned if approval of the uses proposed without parking would help Mr.
Lipnicki and Mr. Lipnicki responded that he did not believe so as parking would remain an issue
with prospective purchasers.
The Chair enquired as to what type of business had been in operation prior to Mr. Lipnicki
purchasing the property and Mr. Lipnicki advised that it had been an automobile supply and
engine repair shop. It was further noted that Mr. Lipnicki had purchased the property in 1982.
Mr. P. Kruse referred to the comments of staff which note that 11 parking spaces are required if
the entire main floor is occupied and that the owner is willing to limit the floor space occupied to
600 sq. ft., with the remainder to be used only for storage. In this regard, Mr. Kruse enquired how
many parking spaces would be required if the floor space to be occupied was reduced to 600 sq.
ft. Ms. J. Given responded that 5 spaces would be required for the convenience retail use and 3
spaces for personal service.
Mr. A. Galloway pointed out that the property has existed for a number of years and appears
never to have had parking facilities.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that he was sympathetic to the frustration of the applicant in trying to make
use of the site and conveyed his support for approving the personal service use with a reduced
floor space to 600 sq. ft. without the required 3 parking spaces.
Ms. J. Given advised that the parking requirements relative to a reduced floor space of 600 sq. ft.
given earlier were incorrect and it should be noted that the correct requirements are 3 spaces for
convenience retail and 1 space for personal service. She further advised that the rest of the main
floor would then remain unusable.
The Chair enquired if legal non-conforming use had been lost due to the changes in business
operations and Ms. Given responded that was correct. She advised that Mr. Lipnicki had
previously applied for approval to operate the furniture store; however, the application was not
approved.
In response to further questioning by the Chair, Ms. Given advised that zoning of the property had
changed in 1994 with the intent to allow some non-retail commercial uses.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 12 JANUARY 11, 2000
Mr. P. Kruse again stated that he felt approval of the uses with a reduced floor space of 600 sq. ft.
without the required parking could be supported and he was prepared to approve the application
on this basis.
Submission No.: A2000-002(Cont'd)
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Frank Lipnicki requesting permission for convenience retail or personal
services uses to locate within a multiple dwelling containing a minimum of 3 units instead of 20
units, and with 0 parking spaces on Lot 239, Registered Plan 262, 183 Ottawa Street South,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, provided the convenience retail or personal service use
does not occupy more than 55.74 m2 (600 sq. ft.) of the building's gross floor area.
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
CONSENT
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 2000-001
Pieter Vos Limited
405 Pinnacle Drive
Part of Part 1, Registered Plan 58R-5770, Biehn's Unnumbered Tract
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. T. Marsman
Rembrandt Homes Inc.
1560 North Routledge Park
London ON N6H 5L6
Mr. J. Westgate
Rembrandt Homes Inc.
1560 North Routledge Park
London ON N6H 5L6
Mr. J. Redmond
9b-270 Morrison Road
Kitchener ON N2A3Y1
Contra:
None
Other:
Mr. E. Irvin
414 Pinnacle Drive
Kitchener ON N2G 3W5
Mr. & Mrs. M. Ljubisic
422 Pinnacle Drive
Kitchener ON N2G 3W5
Ms. K. Balija
418 Pinnacle Drive
Kitchener ON N2G 3W5
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 13 JANUARY 11, 2000
Submission No.:
Mr. R. Musselman
410 Pinnacle Drive
Kitchener ON N2G 3W5
B 2000-001 (Cont'd)
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new block
by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land, having an average area of 6.64 ha
(16.4 acres). The severed parcel is proposed to be used for multi-family condominium
townhouse dwellings with frontage on Pinnacle Drive of 215.27 m (706.26 ft.), by a depth of
239.84 m (786.87 ft.), and an average area of 4.82 ha (11.91 acres).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the owner of 405 Pinnacle Drive is requesting permission to sever the
property and create a new lot for multiple residential purposes eventually fronting onto Autumn
Ridge Drive instead of Pinnacle Drive. The proposed severed lot will have, for now, a frontage
on Pinnacle Drive of 215.27 metres (706.26 feet), a depth of 239.84 metres (786.88 feet) and
an area of approximately 4.82 hectares (11.91 acres). The proposed severed lot contains an
abandoned building at the rear. The majority of the land is located within the Environmentally
Sensitive Policy Area (ESPA) #35 and is very densely treed.
The proposed retained lot has a frontage on Pinnacle Drive, of approximately 43.52 metres
(142.78 feet), and an area of approximately 6.64 hectares (16.4 acres). The retained lot is
also located within the ESPA #35 and is also very densely treed. The retained and severed
parcels surround other lands owned by the owner, containing his residence and the Sunbeam
Lodge.
The owner wishes to convey the severed parcel to a builder who wishes to construct a 45 unit
town house development. The prospective purchaser has submitted a Site Plan Application
SP 991521AIZJ for processing. The applicant proposes to develop bungalow style town houses
in a clearing that was recently rezoned to R-6 to permit this type of development. As the
subject property is located within the ESPA, the owner had filed an Environmental Impact
Statement (ELS) with the Regional Department of Planning and Culture during the zone
change process and received approval through the rezoning of lands to develop multiple
residential within the area zoned R-6, surrounded by the ESPA. Consideration of the details of
the town house development will be reviewed during the site plan process.
The proposed severance line will cross through the treed ESPA area. The location of the
severance line is appropriate given the configuration of the development area and the location
of adjacent lot lines.
It is intended that eventually the severed parcel merge with Block 55, 58M-82 which has
frontage on Autumn Ridge Drive from which this development will have its access. As the City
and Region wish to preserve the woodlot, only emergency access will be provided to Pinnacle
Drive.
With respect to the retained lands, the owner intends to maintain it in its current state. A
number of options exist for the owner, including adding portions of the retained lands to each
of the abutting lots, however, the owner has made it clear to staff that there is no intent to
introduce any type of development into the retained lands. As such, the owner has indicated
should the Region wish to request a condition requiring a conservation easement, that they
would likely support it as it is consistent with their intent and values.
The Department is of the opinion that the subject consent application is appropriate as it allows
development in compliance with the Zoning By-law, maintains the recommendations of the ElS
and allows the protection of the ESPA through the conservation easement. A Tree
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 14 JANUARY 11, 2000
Management Plan will also be required as part of the Site Plan approval process in order to
minimize the impact of the new construction and preserve the wooded character of the
severed lot and maintain the integrity of the remaining woodlot.
1. Submission No.: B 2000-001(Cont'd)
Accordingly, the Department supports the severance application subject to the conditions listed
below.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B
2000-001 be approved subject to the following conditions:
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
2
That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands described as Block 55,
58M-52 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.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no comments or concerns with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning and Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and advised that
much of the proposed severed parcel and all of the proposed retained parcel are within ESPA
#35. Regional staff cannot support the proposed severance at this time. Regional staff are
aware that there is a site plan proposed to develop townhouses on the severed parcel and
comments on conformity to the Regional Official Policies Plan, including impact on the ESPA,
relating to the development proposal will be identified through the site plan process. However,
Regional staff are concerned with the potential adverse impact on the ESPA if an additional lot is
created through this application.
While certain uses are permitted on the property through the P-2 zoning, Regional staff feel that
the potential for additional uses on the property which could impact the ESPA could be increased
if the lands are severed into two separate ownerships. If the owner has a specific use proposed
for the retained lands, Regional staff would want to review an Environmental Impact Statement on
a specific proposal prior to consideration of the consent.
However, the application indicates that there is no proposed use for the severed parcel at this
time. Regional staff recommend deferral of the application until we have had an opportunity to
meet with the applicant and obtain more details on the proposed future use of the site. If the
Committee were to consider approval of the consent at this time Regional staff would require a
condition that the owner provide a conservation easement, in favour of the Region, over both of
the severed and retained woodlands, prior to final approval of the application. In this way
Regional staff can ensure appropriate uses on the severed and retained lands in relation to ESPA
#35. For the severed parcel, the specific requirements of any proposed conservation easement
will be determined through the site plan approval process.
The Region further advised that any future development on the lands subject to the above-noted
consent application will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law
91-91, as amended By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. Applicants are also advised that
there may be a Regional fee assessed for development agreements if required.
The Committee also considered revised comments from the Planning & Culture Department,
Region of Waterloo, dated January 11, 2000, in which they advised that further to our comments
of January 7, 2000, Regional staff have had an opportunity to discuss this application with the
owner's agent. The owner has advised Regional staff that there is no development proposed for
the retained lands at this time and that the consent application is for the purpose of establishing a
parcel for development of a future condominium site on the severed lands. The retained lands
are entirely within ESPA #35.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 15 JANUARY 11, 2000
ROPP policy 4.3.13 requires an Environmental Impact Statement to be submitted where a
development application, such as a consent, is proposed within an ESPA. The applicant has
indicated that an ElS could not be submitted at this time as there is no specific development
1. Submission No.: B 2000-001(Cont'd)
proposal to address within the ElS. Regional staff's preference would be to have the lot
conveyed as a lot addition to the adjacent lands if there is no development proposed.
If the Committee were to give consideration to the creation of a new lot within an ESPA, as
proposed in this application, Regional staff offer two options.
1)
The first option would be for the Committee to require a conservation easement over the
retained lands, in favour of the Region, to ensure that no uses are permitted on the lands
which would have an adverse impact on the ESPA.
2)
The second option is to require the owner to enter into an agreement with the Region, prior
to final approval of the consent, to provide an ElS prior to any development on the property
including lot grading, tree cutting or building permit issuance. The agreement would
specify that there is the potential that an ElS may result in no development being permitted
on the lands, other than ESPA.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that the lot is not regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority under Ontario
Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98. However, if deemed appropriate by
the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, we recommend the completion of an Environmental Impact
Statement to support the severance. The lot is within the boundaries of the Doon Pinnacle Hill
ESPA (ESPA 35). Regional staff will determine the requirements of the Environmental Impact
Statement.
The Committee noted the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that
concerning Submission B 2000-001, they request approval of this application be subject to the
following conditions:
That the Applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
That the Applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severances are granted.
Mr. T. Marsman advised that he was representing Rembrandt Homes Inc., the proposed
purchaser of the severed lands. He stated that the lands to be severed contain a total of 19 acres
of which approximately 12 will be severed and 7 retained. He advised that the lands to be
severed are currently zoned to allow condominium development to take place on approximately 4
acres. He further advised that he had reviewed the comments of staff and the various agencies
and was of the understanding that Regional staff were in attendance to speak to the Region's
comments.
The Chair referred to the sketch attached to the application and requested clarification as to
whether or not the too small sites shown just above the lands to be severed were to be included
in the lands to be retained. Mr. J. Redmond responded that these two sites were owned
independently with one being the Sunbeam Lodge and the other being the residence of Mr. J.
Vos, who is the administrator for Sunbeam Lodge.
Ms. J. Given advised that, since the drafting of the Planning staff report, additional discussion has
taken place between the applicants, their agents and the Region. She pointed out that the
Regional comments have changed to some degree; however, the Planning staff comments
remain the same.
Ms. D. Ross, Principal Planner, Region of Waterloo, advised that the original comments from the
Region requested this application to be deferred. She pointed out that, following drafting of the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 16 JANUARY 11, 2000
Region's comments, additional discussion did take place primarily with Mr. J. Redmond. She
noted that the main concern relates to the retained lands and the requirement in the Region's
Official Policies Plan for an Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) to be submitted for a
development application, such as a consent, when proposed within an ESPA; of which the lands
Submission No.: B 2000-001(Cont'd)
to be retained in this application are entirely located within ESPA No. 35. She stated that the
applicant has advised that no development is proposed for the retained land and, accordingly,
questions the relevance of this requirement at this time. Ms. Ross further advised that, in view of
there being no development plans for the retained lands, the Regions preference would be to
have the lot conveyed as a lot addition to the adjacent lands; however, she outlined two additional
options should the Committee consider approving creation of a new lot within an ESPA being,
firstly, the requirement of a conservation easement over the retained lands in favour of the
Region or, secondly, requiring the owner to enter into an agreement with the Region to provide an
ElS prior to development taking place; such agreement to include a clause specifying that an ElS
may result in no development being permitted on the lands, other than ESPA.
Mr. J. Redmond advised that, of the alternatives provided by the Region, Option 2 to enter into an
agreement with the Region would be preferred. He stated that the applicant is willing to work with
the Region if any development is to take place on the lands in future and suggested that the
Committee consider implementing the second alternative as a condition of approval to which his
client would agree.
In noting that the lands to be severed are subject to a condominium proposal, the Chair enquired
if any thought had been given as to what would happen with the retained lands. Mr. J. Redmond
responded that as a result of various studies, including the Doon Municipal Plan Amendment,
indications are that this piece of property would eventually be on its own. He stated that this area
has been extensively studied; however, there is no indication of anything other than the 7 acres
referred to in this application being involved in the condominium proposal. He advised that the
property has been owned by Mr. Vos for approximately 30 years and was originally part of a
larger property, of which part was conveyed to the City. He stated that what would become of the
retained lands would be entirely up to the owners with any number of possibilities that could be
considered; none of which he believed would adversely affect the ESPA.
Mr. E. Irvin advised that he was a resident of Pinnacle Drive and stated that residents are
concerned with the traffic flow resulting from this proposal. He advised that the speed at which
traffic travels along Pinnacle Drive is of concern especially in regard to the safety of children and
residents of Sunbeam Lodge. In this regard, he requested clarification with respect to the number
of units, which direction the condominiums would face and whether or not traffic would use
Pinnacle Drive to and from the development.
The Chair enquired of staff if the current zoning of the property does permit condominiums to be
developed and Ms. Given responded that was correct. She advised that a portion of the property
had been zoned R-6 in 1997 which does allow condominium development. She further advised
that access to and from the proposed development will be from Autumn Ridge Trail rather than
Pinnacle Drive.
The Chair advised that as the zoning does allow condominium development the Committee must
consider the application and Mr. Irvin responded that he was not opposing the application;
however, there was some confusion as to access to the development as the notice states
frontage will be on Pinnacle Drive. In this regard, Ms. J. Given provided a copy of the site plan
which was reviewed by the residents in attendance.
Mr. J. Redmond advised that the applicant is willing to meet with all residents to discuss
subsequent design features and, in addition, advised that the legal frontage of the severed
property will be on Pinnacle Drive; however, the access for traffic to and from the development
will be on Autumn Ridge Trail.
The Chair encouraged the residents in attendance to approach the applicant to discuss details of
the site plan application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 17 JANUARY 11, 2000
Mr. A. Galloway referred to Condition No. 2 required by the Planning staff and requested
clarification as to the location of Block 55 in relation to the lands to be severed. Ms. J. Given
advised that Block 55 is located immediately to the west of the lands to be severed, shown
outlined on green on the sketch attached to the application.
Submission No.: B 2000-001(Cont'd)
The Chair enquired who owned the proposed access to this development and Mr. T. Marsman
responded that the access proposed belongs to the Monarch Subdivision and the applicant does
have an agreement with the developer to permit use of this access.
As there was no further discussion, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Pieter Vos Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having
frontage on Pinnacle Drive of 215.27 m (706.26 ft.), by a depth of 239.84 m (786.87 ft.), and an
average area of 4.82 ha (11.91 acres), on Part of Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-5770, Biehn's
Unnumbered Tract, 405 Pinnacle Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the
following conditions:
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 the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands described as Block
55, 58M-52 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 the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Region, prior to final approval of the
consent, to provide an ElS prior to any development on the property including lot grading,
tree cutting or building permit issuance. The agreement shall specify that there is the
potential that an ElS may result in no development being permitted on the lands, other
than ESPA.
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severance is granted.
That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severance is granted.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being January 11,2001.
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
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 18 JANUARY 11, 2000
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 2000-002
Dorinda & William Baker
1850 Glasgow Street
Part of Lot 38, German Company Tract, Being Part 1, Reference Plan
58R-6375
The Chair advised that a request has been received from Mr. D. Olson, Giffen Lee, 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.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 2000-003
Canadian Pacific Railway
Hayward Avenue & Courtland Avenue
Lot 2, Registered Plan 757, Designated as Part 2, Reference Plan
58R-720
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. A. Pike
Goodman Phillips & Vineberg
250 Yonge Street, Suite 2400
Toronto ON M5B 2M6
Mr. J. Walmsley
Graybar Electric (Ontario) Limited
509 Mill Street
Kitchener ON N2G 2Y5
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 2.93 ha (7.24 acres).
The lands to be severed will be used for electric wholesale warehouse/distribution centre with
frontage on Hayward Avenue of 99.944 m (327.9 ft.) and on Courtland Avenue of 65.745 m
(215.69 ft), and having an area of 1.78 ha (4.39 acres).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the subject property is approximately 0.71 hectares in size located near the
southwest intersection of Courtland Avenue and Hayward Avenue, having frontage on each. The
property has been owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway since the 1950's with the intention of
establishing a truck transport terminal to be operated in conjunction with the rail line abutting to
the southwest.
It is now intended that the property be severed into two parcels to facilitate the purchase and
development of the severed lands (1.78 hectares) along with the adjacent lands immediately at
the corner for an electrical wholesale warehouse and distribution centre. The severed lands have
99.9 metres of frontage on Hayward Avenue, to which access would be considered, along with
other matters, through a future site plan application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 19 JANUARY 11, 2000
The retained lands would consist of approximately 2.93 hectares of land extending southerly to
the right of way of the future Block Line Road extension. No specific use is contemplated at this
time. Access alternatives to this lot would be limited to Courtland Avenue depending on the
design of the Block Line Road extension relative to the crossing of the existing rail line to the
south. The lot is physically separated from other access alternatives by the rail line to the south
Submission No.: B 2000-003(Cont'd)
and the adjacent City sports fields. Consideration of access to this lot would be part of the
consideration of future site plan applications.
The consent will allow for the appropriate development of these industrial lands in a suitable
lotting configuration and as such, the consent is supported. The consolidation of the severed
lands with the corner property is further encouraged so that proper and safe access to the lands
can be considered.
The Department of Business & Planning Services recommends that application B 2000-003 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works, for the extension of the existing sanitary sewer main from its
present terminus on Hayward Avenue to the easterly limit of the property.
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 and Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo in which they advised that the purpose of this application is to create a new lot for light
industrial use. Regional staff advise that according to our information the subject land is
suspected of being contaminated. These lands are located entirely within the Parkway Wellfield.
Under the Region's Protocol for the Review of Development Applications on or Adjacent to Lands
Which are Known, Suspected or Potentially Contaminated, approved by Regional Council on May
28, 1997, where a consent is proposed on or adjacent to lands which are identified as known,
suspected or potentially contaminated, and the lands are located within a Regional wellfield the
granting of the consent by the Committee of Adjustment will be subject to the completion of a
Record of Site Condition (acknowledged by the MOE).
As well, a 10 foot road widening is required on Courtland Avenue (Regional Road #53) and a 25
foot daylight triangle at the intersection of Hayward Avenue and Courtland Avenue.
A Traffic Impact Study is required prior to final approval of the proposed development. The study
must address access to the property and any potential improvements which may be required on
the surrounding road and/or traffic signals to accommodate this development. If the traffic impact
study determines an access to Courtland Avenue is warranted, consideration should be given to
a mutual access to the retained property. The applicant will be responsible for the cost of any
required road improvements.
Finally, a lot grading and drainage plan must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Regional
Commissioner of Planning and Culture prior to final approval of this application.
Regional staff recommend the following conditions with respect to B 2000-003:
1)
That prior to final approval of the consent, that the owner submit a Record of Site
Condition to be acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment on the severed and retained
lands.
2)
That prior to final approval of the consent, that the owner convey a 10 foot road widening
along the Courtland Avenue frontage of the property and a 25 foot daylight triangle at the
intersection of Courtland Avenue and Hayward Avenue.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 20 JANUARY 11, 2000
3) That prior to final approval of the consent, that the owner complete a traffic impact study
for approval by Regional Engineering staff and provide the financial and physical
resources to the Region to complete any road improvements and/or signals required as a
result of the study.
Submission No.: B 2000-003(Cont'd)
4)
That prior to final approval of the consent, that the owner submit a lot grading and
drainage plan to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning and Culture.
The Region further advised that any future development on the lands subject to the above-noted
consent application will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law
91-91, as amended by 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 also considered revised comments from the Planning & Culture Department,
Region of Waterloo, dated January 11, 2000, in which they advised that Regional staff now
recommend the following conditions with respect to B 2000-003.
1)
That prior to final approval of the consent, that the owner submit a Record of Site
Condition to be acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment on the severed and
retained lands.
2)
That prior to final approval of the consent, that the owner convey a 10 foot road widening
along the Courtland Avenue frontage of the property and a 25 foot daylight triangle at the
intersection of Courtland Avenue and Block Line Road.
3)
That prior to final approval of the consent, that the owner complete a traffic impact study
for approval by Regional Engineering staff and provide the financial and physical
resources to the Region to complete any road improvements and/or signals required as a
result of the study. The owner has the opportunity to enter into an agreement with the
Region to submit the study prior to site plan approval, if Regional staff deem a study to be
necessary after being advised of the specific use proposed on the severed and retained
parcels.
4)
That prior to final approval of the consent, that the owner submit a lot grading and
drainage plan to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning and Culture.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that the Grand River Conservation Authority has no objection to the proposed severance.
The severed parcel is not regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority. A portion of the
retained parcel is within the floodplain of Schneider Creek, however, there is sufficient
developable area outside of the floodplain.
Ms. A. Pike advised that she was representing the potential purchasers of the severed parcel and
acting as agent for the applicant. She advised that it is intended to sell the severed portion to
Graybar Electric Limited in order for them to locate an electrical distribution centre on the site.
She stated that Graybar Electric currently has an electrical distribution centre on Mill Street;
however, they wish to relocate this to the severed parcel. In addition, she advised that Graybar is
looking into purchasing the corner lot with the intent of incorporating both parcels into one. With
respect to staff comments, Ms. Pike advised that her client is willing to accept the conditions
recommended; however, she would like to enquire further with respect to the Regional conditions.
The Chair referred to the sketches submitted and requested clarification as to the lands to be
retained. Ms. Pike advised that, subsequent to filing the application, additional sketches were
submitted and noted that the lands to be retained are marked on the additional sketches.
Ms. A. Pike referred to the first condition within the Regional comments relating to submission of
a Record of Site Condition for both the severed and retained lands and questioned why this
condition included the retained lands. Ms. D. Ross advised that the Region has a protocol for
review of development applications for lands known or suspected to be potentially contaminated
to be identified to the Ministry of the Environment. She pointed out that the Consent Application
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 21 JANUARY 11, 2000
affects the entire lands and, accordingly, both parcels must be dealt with to ensure that such
identification is known prior to additional development taking place.
Submission No.: B 2000-003(Cont'd)
Ms. A. Pike stated that, as it is a standard protocol of the Region, this condition would be
accepted and stated that, while there may be some issues to resolve, there would be an
opportunity to address these issues prior to final approval of the severance.
Ms. D. Ross pointed out that the Region had revised several of the conditions and the Chair
enquired if the applicant had received a copy of the Region's letter dated January 11, 2000. Ms.
Pike responded that she had not received the new comments. Ms. Ross provided a copy of the
letter and reviewed the revisions with Ms. Pike.
Ms. A. Pike referred to revised Condition 2 of the Region which requires a 25 ft. daylight triangle
at the intersection of Courtland Avenue and Block Line Road and advised that she has not had
an opportunity to consult with Canadian Pacific Railway with respect to this issue. She stated that
development is not proposed for the retained lands and, accordingly, no consideration has been
given to the area in question, which would necessitate negotiation with Canadian Pacific Railway.
Ms. Pike questioned if this would be the Regions only opportunity to attain the daylight triangle
and suggested that if the retained lands were to be developed in future this may be an alternative
for the Region to obtain the daylight triangle. Ms. D. Ross advised that it is the Region's practice
to obtain the daylight triangle at the consent application stage which allows them an opportunity
to utilize the widening prior to future development. Ms. A. Pike suggested that if Canadian Pacific
Railway were to develop the retained lands in the future this issue could be addressed prior to
site plan approval. The Chair pointed out, however, that in this instance an agreement would be
required to be registered on title of the retained lands prior to finalization of the severance. The
Chair stated that he appreciated the difficulty in contemplating acceptance of this condition and
suggested that discussion should take place with Canadian Pacific Railway. Ms. Pike stated that
she would prefer to move ahead with the application and would try to deal with this issue prior to
final endorsement of the severance.
Mr. A. Galloway pointed out that the Region is also requiring a 10 ft. road widening along both the
retained lands and the severed lands and enquired if Ms. Pike was in agreement with this
condition. Ms. A. Pike stated that she understood this condition and was in agreement.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Canadian Pacific Railway requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having frontage on Hayward Avenue of 99.944 m (327.9 ft.) and an area of 1.78 ha (4.39 acres),
on Lot 2, Registered Plan 757, designated as Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-720, Hayward Avenue
and Courtland Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works, for the extension of the existing sanitary sewer main from its
present terminus on Hayward Avenue to the easterly limit of the property.
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.
That prior to final approval of the consent, the owner shall submit a Record of Site
Condition to be acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment on the severed and
retained lands.
That prior to final approval of the consent, the owner shall convey a 10 foot road widening
along the Courtland Avenue frontage of both the severed and retained lands and a 25 foot
daylight triangle at the intersection of Courtland Avenue and Block Line Road.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 22 JANUARY 11, 2000
Submission No.: B 2000-003(Cont'd)
That prior to final approval of the consent, the owner shall complete a traffic impact study
for approval by Regional Engineering staff and provide the financial and physical
resources to the Region to complete any road improvements and/or signals required as a
result of the study. The owner has the opportunity to enter into an agreement with the
Region to submit the study prior to site plan approval, if Regional staff deem a study to be
necessary after being advised of the specific use proposed on the severed and retained
parcels.
That prior to final approval of the consent, the owner shall submit a lot grading and
drainage plan to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of Planning and Culture.
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 January 11,2001.
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:
Le.qal Description:
B 2000-004
D5D Enterprises/Brian Calder
4500 King Street East
Lot 3, Re.qistered Plan 1744
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. S. Patterson
Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd.
379 Queen Street South
Kitchener ON N2G 1W6
Contra:
None
Other:
Mr. R. Vanderwerff, President
Pinegrove Neighbourhood Association
24 Marquette Drive
Kitchener ON L0H 1G0
Written Submissions:
In Support:
None
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 23 JANUARY 11, 2000
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to lease the subject
lands for restaurant use for a period of time in excess of the 21 years permitted under the
Planning Act. The proposed term of the lease is for 15 years, together with 4 options to renew
for an additional 5 years each, for a total of 35 years.
4. Submission No.: B 2000-004(Cont'd)
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 lease a portion of a site to be
developed for a drive-through restaurant located at 4500 King Street East for a period in excess
of 21 years. The restaurant, proposed to be a Burger King, is part of a re-development proposal
for the subject lands which currently contains the Tu-lane Restaurant. The subject lands are
located on the north side of King Street East, at the intersection of Tu-lane, and directly east of
the existing Cost Co store. Section 50(3) of the Planning Act requires that a consent must be
granted where it is intended to lease land for a period of 21 years or more.
An application for site plan approval to develop the site for two drive-through restaurants and an
area for a phase two "big box" use is currently being reviewed by the Department of Business and
Planning Services. A major consideration of this review is the amount of vehicle stacking spaces
required in the drive-through aisles for both restaurants. At the December 15, 1999, Site Plan
Review Committee meeting, the application was deferred to allow the owner an opportunity to
revise the site plan so as to provide additional stacking spaces in the drive-through for the Burger
King, as well in the drive-through for the other restaurant proposed on site, a Williams Coffee
Pub. Until a revised site plan is received, further review of the site plan is completed, and the site
plan is considered generally acceptable from a technical point of view, consideration of this
application is premature given that the area over which the lease is intended may need to be
revised.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that consideration of
submission B 2000-004 be deferred to the February 8, 2000, Committee of Adjustment meeting.
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 and Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and have no
concerns; however, any future development on the lands subject to the above noted consent
application will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91,
as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successors 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 or concern with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending that the application
be deferred to the February 8, 2000 meeting. The Chair enquired if Mr. Patterson was in
agreement with the deferral.
Mr. S. Patterson stated that the applicant was in agreement with the deferral as they are still
working with Planning staff with respect to issues relating to the drive-through.
Mr. A. Galloway enquired if Mr. Vanderwerff was appearing in support of the application and Mr.
Vanderwerff advised that he agreed with the deferral and does support some form of
development.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the
meeting of February 8, 2000.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 24 JANUARY 11, 2000
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 2000-005
Jared Westover
1014-1026 Guelph Street
Part Lot A, Plan 40, Desi,qnated as Part 3, Reference Plan 58R-6894
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. J. Westover
464 Sunset Beach Road
Richmond Hill ON L4E 3J2
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 1,157.31 m2
(12,457.6 sq. ft.). The lands to be severed are proposed to be used for general industrial with
frontage on Sereda Road of 54.71 m (179.5 ft.), by a depth of 54.24 m (177.95 ft.) and an area
of 2,967.41 m2 (31,942.02 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject property is a large parcel located at the northeast corner of
Guelph Street and Sereda Road and is presently developed with a 12 unit multiple dwelling
fronting Guelph Street, which appears to have legal non-conforming status. The lands are
designated General Industrial in the North Ward Secondary Plan and are zoned M-2 according
to Zoning By-law 85-1.
The applicant is requesting consent to sever the vacant portion of the lands from the existing
12 unit multiple dwelling. The lands proposed to be severed have an area of approximately
0.3 hectares and a frontage of approximately 55 metres on Sereda Road. The lands to be
retained have an area of approximately 0.12 hectares and a frontage of approximately 24
metres on Sereda Road and a flankage of approximately 47 metres on Guelph Street. The
existing multiple dwelling is oriented to Guelph Street.
The lands are located within a large industrial area that contains a number of heavy industrial
uses, including a nearby scrap yard and a large slaughter house and meat processing plant.
In addition the lands are adjacent to the K-W Expressway. The long term intent for the
development for the area, as set out in the North Ward Secondary Plan, is for industrial
purposes.
Due to the location of the lands immediately adjacent to the K-W Expressway and in close
proximity to surrounding heavy industrial uses, the lands are not considered to be suitable for
residential uses. New residential uses are not permitted and the creation of a new lot for the
existing 12 unit multiple dwelling would perpetuate a legal non-conforming use. It is the
opinion of the Department of Business and Planning Services that the subject application is
contrary to the Municipal Plan and premature as long as the non-conforming residential use
exists. Accordingly, the Department recommends refusal of the consent application.
It should be noted that a similar previous application to sever the subject lands was made in
1989 through Consent Application B3/89. The Department recommended refusal of the
consent application at that time for similar reasons, although the application was ultimately
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 25 JANUARY 11, 2000
approved by the Committee of Adjustment. However, since the conveyance of the severed
lands was not completed within the required time frame, the previous consent approval lapsed.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B
2000-005 be refused.
5. Submission No.: B 2000-005(Cont'd)
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 and Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and Regional
information indicates that there may be some potential risk of contamination on sites adjacent to
this property located on the opposite side of Sereda Road and Guelph Avenue. Regional staff do
not know if the contamination suspected on these lands would pose a health or safety risk to the
proposed use of the property. As the subject lands are not located within a Regional wellfield, the
Regional Municipality of Waterloo does not have a direct corporate interest which would result in
the Region requesting a Record of Site Condition be imposed on its behalf.
The Region further advised that any future development on the lands subject to the above-noted
consent application will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law
91-91, as amended by 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 this application.
The Chair reviewed the comments, noting that staff are recommending refusal of the application
and inquired if Mr. Westover had any comments.
Mr. J. Westover stated that he understood the reasons for recommending refusal as staff are
trying to elimiate residential uses on a property that is now zoned for industrial use. He advised
that the previous owner had applied for severance of the property several years ago and the
severance was granted; however, the severance was never implemented. He stated that he had
purchased the property with the understanding that the lands were severable and that, if he was
not able to retain the residential dwellings, he would loose his investment in the property. He
stated that his intent was to renovate the apartments and clean-up the property and suggested
that the City could not afford to lose more housing stock. In addition, he believed the property to
be of historical significance and pointed out that the building is not suitable for any other use other
than what it is being used for now. Mr. Westover also referred to a condition of the previous
severance with respect to the payment of costs associated with the lifting of the 1 ft. reserve
across the severed property's entire Sereda Road frontage and stated that he believed that these
fees had been paid by the previous applicant. He voiced his concern with respect to having to
pay these fees as they would potentially negate the feasibility of the severance.
Mr. P. Kruse questioned if the applicant had investigated the possibility of severing the property
prior to purchasing it. Mr. J. Westover responded that the property was being sold as a severed
parcel and, in fact, there were two separate listings; one for the apartment site and one for the
vacant lands. He advised that he had purchased both on the assumption that they would be
severable. He further advised that the vendor had stated in the offer that the property was
severable and he had seen the documents pertaining to the previous severance application. Mr.
Westover stated that, in his opinion, he had undertaken due diligence.
Mr. P. Kruse questioned if severance of the property was a condition of the purchase and Mr.
Westover advised that it was not a condition; however, the property was presented by the vendor
as severable.
Mr. P. Kruse referred to the previous consent application and enquired of staff if any
circumstances had changed since the approval of that severance. Ms. J. Given responded that
nothing had changed.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 26 JANUARY 11, 2000
The Chair enquired if the property has the same designation under the Zoning By-law as was in
place in 1989 and Ms. Given advised that under an earlier Official Plan the property was
designated industrial and then heavy industrial and now is currently zoned general industrial.
She further advised that the property, to the best of her knowledge, is not designated as a
heritage dwelling.
5. Submission No.: B 2000-005(Cont'd)
Mr. A. Galloway questioned if the applicant would be able to establish an industrial use without
the need for a severance and Ms. Given responded that nothing precludes development within
the current zoning. Mr. A. Galloway further questioned if the existing buildings would have to be
removed in this instance and Ms. Given advised that they would not.
The Chair pointed out that if the applicant were to construct an industrial use on the site without
benefit of a severance he would have to sell the land as a whole and he did not believe anyone
would want to live on the same property as an industrial use. He further pointed out that, if the
severance was allowed, they would be perpetuating a legal non-conforming use.
Mr. A. Galloway referred to the issue of the existing buildings being of historical value and
suggested that this may be an avenue for the applicant to consider, in that, if the property were
designated as a residential building it may give more credance to his request for severance.
Mr. P. Kruse pointed out that the site could be developed with a commercial/industrial use without
destroying the existing residential dwellings and any subsequent purchaser would have to be
aware of the potential for industrial development. He stated that he had difficulty in refusing the
application and suggested that the residential use will only continue as long as there is a desire
for people to live there. In this regard, Mr. P. Kruse indicated his support for approving the
application and questioned, if the application were approved, if any conditions would need to be
applied.
The Chair stated that he was not in support of approving the application and enquired if there was
sufficient support on the Committee to approve it. In this regard, Mr. A. Galloway stated that he
would support approval of the application.
Mr. J. Westover stated that he did not understand what was meant by the perpetuation of the
legal non-conforming use as, in his opinion, the severing of the property did not constitute a
perpetuation. The Chair stated that he believed that it did help to perpetuate the legal non-
conforming use as severing the existing residential use to a smaller parcel of land would make it
more marketable.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that he was prepared to move approval of the application and again enquired
of staff as to what conditions, if any, should be imposed.
Ms. J. Given outlined a number of conditions and noted that she would prefer to also include the
condition relating to the costs to lift the 1 ft. reserve from the entire Sereda Road frontage as she
was uncertain whether or not staff could verify if these funds had already been paid. She stated
that the condition could be imposed with additional wording to indicate "unless previously paid".
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was prepared to second the motion to approve and enquired if the
applicant was satisfied with the conditions as outlined by Ms. Given.
Mr. J. Westover again stated his concern with respect to the fees relating to the 1 ft. reserve in
that, the fees would amount to approximately the whole of the property value and this would
adversely affect his investment.
In response to questioning from Mr. A. Galloway, Ms. J. Given advised that the City had front-
ended the costs for the extension of Sereda Road on the basis that these costs were to be paid
back by the property owners and to the best of her knowledge these funds have not been paid for
this property.
Mr. A. Galloway again stated that he was prepared to approve the application subject to the
conditions outlined by staff.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 27 JANUARY 11, 2000
Mr. J. Westover again reiterated his concerns with respect to the condition relating to the frontage
fees for Sereda Road.
The Chair stated that it appeared the applicant had the support of the majority of the members to
approve his application provided the conditions requested by staff were included. Ms. J. Given
Submission No.: B 2000-005(Cont'd)
pointed out that the Committee did have an option to defer the application; however, the Chair felt
that the application should be dealt with and a decision made.
Mr. P. Kruse agreed that the Committee should make a decision and stated that it is not the
Committee's place to look at the merits of the investment. He pointed out that, should the
conditions imposed prove to be too onerous, the applicant had the option of not proceeding with
the severance.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Jared Westover requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having
frontage on Sereda Road of 54.71 m (179.5 ft.), by a depth of 54.24 m (177.95 ft.) and an area of
2,967.41 m2 (31,942.02 sq. ft.), on Part Lot A, Registered Plan 40, designated as Part 3 on
Reference Plan 58R-6894, 1014-1026 Guelph Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject
to the following conditions:
That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of
encumbrance, a 2.38 metre road widening along the property's entire Guelph Street
frontage.
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
3. That the owner shall fulfil one of the following:
(a)
to undertake a site assessment for both the severed and retained lands in
accordance with the Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. A copy
of the Record of Site Condition, acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment and
Energy shall be provided to the City's Principal Planner; or
(b)
to provide a written acknowledgement from the Ministry of Environment and Energy
that a Record of Site Condition is not required.
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.
That a plan showing the demarcation of parking spaces be approved by the City's
Principal Planner prior to July 11, 2000. No extension to this deadline shall be given
except as approved in writing by the City's Principal Planner.
That the applicant shall be responsible for all survey and legal costs associated with the
lifting of the one foot reserve across the severed property's entire Sereda Road frontage;
said reserve shall not be lifted by the City until the outstanding frontage charges for the
municipal road and service costs, previously paid for by the City, are paid to the
Department of Public Works, in the amount of $140.00 per foot frontage of the severed
lands, unless already paid. Both the payment of outstanding frontage charges and the
lifting of the one foot reserve are to be completed prior to the endorsement of severance
documents for registration.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 28 JANUARY 11, 2000
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 January 11,2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
5. Submission No.: B 2000-005(Cont'd)
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 2000-006 & A 2000-004
Sidney Katz
567 Weber Street East
Lot 11, Re.qistered Plan 656
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. H. Rotberg
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 create one new lot
by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land, having an area of 339 m2 (3,649.08
sq. ft.). The lands to be severed will contain a single family dwelling having frontage on
Sydney Street of 15.849 m (51.99 ft.), by a depth of 15.24 m (50 ft.) and an area of 241.54 m
(2,600 sq. ft.). In addition, as a result of the severance, variances are required on the retained
and severed lands for which the applicant is requesting permission as follows:
a)
The retained lands will have a rearyard setback of 6.096 m (20 ft.), rather than the
required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.); and,
b)
The severed lands will have a frontyard setback of 3.96 m (12.99 ft.), rather than the
required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) and a rearyard setback of 5.18 m (16.99 ft.), rather than the
required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), together with an attached garage having a frontyard setback of
5.48 m (17.97 ft.), rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.) and a rearyard of 3.96 m
(12.99 ft.), rather than required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject property is located at the corner of Weber Street East and
Sydney Street and is municipally addressed 567 Weber Street East. The subject lands are
designated Low Density Multiple Residential in the King Street East Secondary Plan and are
zoned Residential Seven Zone (R-7) according to Zoning By-law 85-1.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 29 JANUARY 11, 2000
Subsequent to submitting the consent and minor variance applications, the applicant has
provided a surveyed sketch of the property (attached) with more accurate information. These
comments reflect this current information.
1. Submission Nos.: B 2000-006 & A 2000-004(Cont'd)
The Applicant is proposing to sever a new residential lot, with a frontage of 16.46 metres on
Sydney Street, from the existing property. In order to facilitate the proposed severance, the
applicant is also requesting approval of the following minor variances:
Retained Lands - Reduction of required rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 6.72 metres.
Severed Lands
- Reduction of required rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 3.97 metres
(attached garage).
- Reduction of required rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 5.19 metres
(dwelling).
- Reduction of required front yard from 4.5 metres to 3.96 metres.
- Reduction of required setback of off-street parking space from 6.0 metres
to 5.48 metres.
The requested severance is consistent with the King Street East Secondary Plan which
encourages infill housing opportunities and further, the proposed lot exceeds both the minimum
lot width and minimum lot area regulations of the Zoning By-law. However, due to the shallow
depth of the proposed lot, a number of minor variances are requested to allow for the construction
of an average sized single detached dwelling with an attached garage.
The applicant has requested approval of minor variances relating to the minimum rear yard
setback for both the attached garage and the main dwelling. Since an attached garage is
considered part of the main dwelling, only one variance is necessary, that being the smallest
distances between the building and the rear lot line. Therefore, the application should be revised
to delete the requested variance to the rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 5.18 metres and also
to reflect the more accurate information on the surveyed sketch.
All of the requested variances still allow for adequate setbacks that achieve their intended
function. Specifically, the proposed rear yard setbacks for both lots provides for ample rear yards
and maintains an adequate separation of the dwellings from the rear lot lines. Further, the
proposed front yard setback on the severed lot is similar to other dwellings in the immediate area,
and the proposed setback of the off-street parking space allows a second average sized vehicle
to be parked in the driveway without encroaching on the street right-of-way.
Therefore, based on the above, the requested variances are considered to be minor in nature,
appropriate for the development of the subject lands, and in keeping with the general intent of the
Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning
Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 2000-004 and approval of
Consent Application B 2000-006 and, subject to conditions.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application
A 2000-004, as revised, be approved.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B
2000-006 be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. That A 2000-004 receive final approval.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 30 JANUARY 11, 2000
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.
1. Submission Nos.: B 2000-006 & A 2000-004(Cont'd)
That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
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 these applications.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo, respecting Minor Variance Application A 2000-004, in which they advised Regional
staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, any development on the
subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91,
as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the
payment of Regional Development charges for this development prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo, respecting Consent Application B 2000-006, in which they advised that Regional
staff have reviewed this application and advise that a 25 foot daylight triangle is required at the
intersection of Weber Street and Sydney Street (retained lands) prior to final approval of the
consent.
Regional staff have no objections to the approval of B 2000-006 subject to the following
condition:
1)
Prior to final approval of the consent, the owner convey a 25 foot daylight triangle at the
intersection of Weber Street and Sydney Street.
The Region further advised that any future development on the lands subject to the above
noted consent application will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development
Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. Applicants
are 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.
Mr. H. Rotberg advised that he had reviewed the comments and was in agreement with the
recommendations of City staff. He noted that the applicant had applied for two rearyard setbacks
on the severed parcel and only one is needed; staff have recommended that the application be
amended to reflect the smallest rearyard setback. He stated that the applicant was in agreement
with this amendment. Mr. Rotberg then referred to the Regional comments which require a 25 ft.
daylight triangle to be conveyed at the intersection of Weber Street and Sydney Street. He
advised that he had no concerns in providing the daylight triangle; however, he advised that it
may affect the setback of the existing dwelling on the retained parcel. He stated that he was
uncertain if this would necessitate another variance as there appeared to be approximately 5 m
that would be left from the front corner of the building. He advised that Ms. Given indicated that a
variance would be required.
In this regard, Ms. J. Given advised that the setback from Weber Street would be closer to 3.65 m
and a variance would be required.
Mr. H. Rotberg requested that the Committee's decision be structured with a setback of 3 m or
3.5 m so that if the scale of the plan was slightly off he would not have to return for an additional
variance.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 31 JANUARY 11, 2000
The Chair requested clarification with respect to the location of the daylight triangle and Ms.
Given advised that she had drawn the daylight triangle on her copy of the survey. In this regard,
she provided her copy of the plan to the Committee for review. Ms. Given pointed out during
review of the survey that the lot area of the retained land would be slightly reduced as a result of
1. Submission Nos.: B 2000-006 & A 2000-004(Cont'd)
conveyance of the daylight triangle to approximately 300 m2. She further requested that the
Committee grant the frontyard setback relative only to the existing building.
A brief discussion was undertaken with regard to the size of the setback and it was agreed that
the figure to be used as the front yard setback for the retained lands would be 3.25 m.
Ms. J. Given pointed out that the application should be amended to include the frontyard setback
of the retained lands, together with the reduction in lot area resulting from the conveyance of the
daylight triangle. The Chair enquired if Mr. Rotberg was in agreement with the amendments to
the application, including the deletion of the rearyard setback of the severed lands.
Mr. Rotberg responded that he was in agreement with the amendments; however, he clarified for
the Committee that the application was being amended to delete only one of the rearyard setback
requests for the severed land and that he would still require a rearyard setback to be measured
from the garage to the rearyard lot line. Mr. Rotberg further requested that the Committee's
decision reflect the measurements as provided on the revised plan prepared by Martinus
Vorsteveld Inc.
Submission No. B 2000-006
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Sidney Katz requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having a
frontage on Sydney Street of 16.46 m (54 ft.), by a depth of 15.25 m (50.05 ft.) and an area of
250.9 m2 (2,700.75 sq. ft.), on Lot 11, Registered Plan 656, 567 Weber Street East, Kitchener,
Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That Minor Variance Application A 2000-004 shall receive final approval.
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.
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.
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
That prior to final approval of the consent, the owner shall convey a 25 foot daylight
triangle at the intersection of Weber Street and Sydney Street.
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 January 11,2001.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 32 JANUARY 11, 2000
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.
Submission Nos.: B 2000-006 & A 2000-004(Cont'd)
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. A 2000-004
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Sidney Katz requesting permission to construct a single detached dwelling
on the lands to be severed having a frontyard setback from Sydney Street of 3.96 m (12.99 ft.),
rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.), a rearyard setback of 3.96 m (12.99 ft.), rather than the
required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), and a setback of 5.48 m (17.97 ft.) for an off-street parking space, rather
than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.); and to legalize an existing single detached dwelling on the lands
to be retained having a rearyard setback of 6.72 m (22.04 ft.) rather than the required 7.5 m
(24.66 ft.), a frontyard setback from Weber Street of 3.25 m (10.66 ft.), rather than the required 12
m (39.3 ft.), and a sideyard setback from Sydney Street of 3.83 m (12.56 ft.), rather than the
required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.), on Lot 11, Registered Plan 656, 567 Weber Street East, Kitchener,
Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the variances as approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the
sketch prepared by Martinus Vorsteveld Inc. for Minor Variance Application A 2000-004.
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 Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 2000-007 & A 2000-005
1184951 Ontario Inc.
537 Frederick Street
Lot 39 and Part Lots 13, 14, 15,
16 and 45, Re,qistered Plan 42
Appearances:
In Support:
None
Contra:
Mr. T. Matuszek
548 Frederick Street
Kitchener ON N2B 2A6
Written Submissions:
In Support:
None
Contra:
Mr. & Mrs. T. Matuszek
548 Frederick Street
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 33 JANUARY 11, 2000
Submission Nos.:
Kitchener ON N2B 2A6
Ms. C. Del Cul
133 Ann Street
Kitchener ON
N2B 1Y2
B 2000-007 & A 2000-005(Cont'd)
Ms. E. Felder
563 Frederick Street
Kitchener ON N2B 2A7
Mrs. C. Gross
1036 Union Street
Kitchener ON N2A6J7
The Chair noted that no one was in attendance to support the application. The Secretary pointed
out that Planning staff are recommending deferral of the applications to the February 8, 2000
meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of these applicatons would be deferred to
the meeting of February 8, 2000.
The Chair advised Mr. Matuszek that, as the applicant was not present, the Committee has
deferred the application to the February 8, 2000 meeting and invited Mr. Matuszek to attend on
that date to voice his concerns.
Mr. Matuszek indicated that he had several questions with respect to the applications and the
Chair directed Mr. Matuszek to speak with staff of the Department of Business & Planning
Services.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 11th day of January, 2000.
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment