Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2000-02-08COA\2000-02-08 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 8, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. W. Dahms and A. Galloway. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of January 11, 2000, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried O.A.C.A. & MUNICIPAL WORLD Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. W. Dahms, S. Kay, A. Galloway and P. Kruse be permitted memberships in the Ontario Association of Committee of Adjustment and Consent Authorities for 2000, at a total cost of $330.00. Carried Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. W. Dahms, S. Kay, A. Galloway and P. Kruse be permitted to attend the Ontario Association of Committee of Adjustment and Consent Authorities Annual Conference in Huntsville, Ontario, from May 28 to 31,2000, with the City to pay the normal expenses incurred. Carried Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs W. Dahms, S. Kay, A. Galloway and P. Kruse be permitted 2000 subscriptions to Municipal World, at a total cost of $241.30. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 81/99 Freure Developments Limited Chandos Drive Block 85, Re,qistered Plan 1692 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 35 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 The Chair advised that a request has been received from Ms. D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, to defer this application to the February 29, 2000 meeting. Submission No.: A 81/99(Cont'd) By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the meeting of February 29, 2000. CONSENT Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 50/99 Electrohome Limited 809 Wellington Street Part of Lots 32, 33 and 34, Re.qistered Plan 763 The Chair advised that a request has been received from Ms. D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, to defer this application to the February 29, 2000 meeting. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the meeting of February 29, 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 March 21,2000 meeting. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the meeting of March 21, 2000. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 2000-004 D5D Enterprises Limited/Brian Calder 4500 King Street East Lot 3, Re.qistered Plan 1744 Appearances: In Support: Mr. V. Labreche Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd. 379 Queen Street South Kitchener ON N2G 1W6 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None This application was previously considered by the Committee at its meeting held on January 11, 2000, at which time the application was deferred to allow submission of a revised site plan for further review by the Department of Business & Planning Services. The Committee was previously 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 36 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Previous comments from the Department of Business & Planning Services; Building Division; Submission No.: B 2000-004(Cont'd) Region of Waterloo Planning & Culture Department; and the Grand River Conservation Authority; as documented in the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting of January 11, 2000, were further considered this date. The Committee noted new comments from the Region of Waterloo Planning & Culture Department in which they reaffirmed that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns. Mr. V. Labreche provided the Committee with a copy of a revised site plan, together with a copy of a draft condition of approval. He advised that the revised site plan had been submitted for review by Planning staff and, in this regard, it was his understanding that all issues relative to the site plan have now been resolved, with the revised plan accepted by all parties. Mr. V. Labreche then referred to the draft condition of approval which reads: "That the final draft reference plan, detailing the area of the leased premises in excess of 21 years, be approved/accepted by the City's Principal Planner, prior to endorsement of the consent documents and registration of the reference plan." Mr. Labreche advised that he wished to change the phrase "be approved/accepted by the City's Principal Planner" to read "be approved by the Principal Planner" as he felt the word "approved" to be more appropriate. In addition, he advised that he would like to delete the phrase "prior to endorsement of the consent documents and registration of the reference plan" as he felt this phrase to be redundant. He pointed out that as a condition of approval it would be necessary to satisfy the condition prior to endorsement of the deeds. By general consent, the Committee agreed to these revisions. The Chair enquired if staff had anything further to add and Ms. J. Given responded that general concurrence of the revised site plan had been reached; however, she pointed out to the applicant that consent approval this date does not negate staff's right to final site plan approval and cautioned that the leased area may not coincide with that of the drive-through. The Chair enquired if access ways for vehicular and/or pedestrians was separated on the site or if there was a need to include right-of-ways for access purposes. Mr. Labreche responded that vehicular and/or pedestrian access was separated. In this regard, he pointed out that the drive- through area was exclusive to the proposed restaurant, together with one-way traffic in front of the proposed restaurant; however, all other areas on the site were open to the public. The Chair enquired if any other conditions were required and Ms. Given responded that the Committee may wish to impose the standard condition relating to payment of taxes and/or local improvements. Mr. Labreche referred to Ms. Givens' comments respecting final approval of the site plan and pointed out that the area of the lease may require some minor adjustments relative to the turning radius for the drive-through. In this regard, Ms. Given suggested that the Committee may wish to impose a condition that the consent be approved in accordance with the final site plan approved under the site plan application. Ms. S. Campbell stated that she was prepared to move approval of the application subject to the conditions discussed this date. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of D5D Enterprises Limited/Brian Calder requesting permission to lease lands for restaurant use for an initial term of 15 years, together with 4 options to renew for an additional 5 years each, for a total term of 35 years, which is in excess of the permitted 21 years, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 37 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 on Lot 3, Registered Plan 1744, 4500 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 3. Submission No.: B 2000-004(Cont'd) 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 the final draft reference plan, detailing the area of the leased premises in excess of 21 years, be approved by the City's Principal Planner. That the consent approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the final site plan approved under site plan application SP 98/31/K/GR. 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 February 8, 2002. It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE a) Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 13/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99 Ivan Biuk Construction Limited 1843 Old Mill Road and Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road Part of Lots 100, 101 and 102, Registered Plan 578, and Part of Drummond Drive (Closed), Part 1, Plan 58R-1149 b) Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 14/99 Diana Biuk Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road Lot 97, Re.qistered Plan 578 c) Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 15/99 Josip Babic Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road Lot 96, Re.qistered Plan 578 Mr. W. Dahms declared a pecuniary interest in these applications, as his law firm has acted on behalf of the applicants and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to these applications. Mr. Dahms left the meeting and Mr. A. Galloway Chaired the meeting during consideration of these applications and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, these applications were considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 38 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 In Support: Submission Nos.: Contra: Written Submissions: In Support: Contra: Mr. S. Cameron Simms Clement Eastman B 13/99, B 14/99, B 15/99, B 22 Frederick Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 578 Kitchener ON N2G 4A2 Mr. I. Biuk Ivan Biuk Construction Limited 1989 Old Mill Road Kitchener ON N2P 1E4 Ms. D. Biuk Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants Limited 5-745 Bridge Street West Waterloo ON N2V2G6 Mr. S. Grant Madorin Snyder P.O. Box 1234 235 King Street E. Kitchener ON N2G 4G9 Mr. & Mrs. M. Ferraz 1941 Old Mill Road Kitchener ON N2P 1E3 Ms. M. Corbett 68 Durham Street Kitchener ON N2H 2A1 Ms. U. Kruschel Ms. A. Kruschel 30 Amherst Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1C9 Mr. K. Heller Ms. T. Weiss 1837 Old Mill Road Kitchener ON N2P 1E3 Ms. S. Schneider 533 Mill Park Drive Kitchener ON N2P lV4 Mr. I. Biuk Ivan Biuk Construction Limited 1989 Old Mill Road Kitchener ON N2P 1E4 Mr. S. Grant Madorin Snyder P.O. Box 1234 235 King Street E. Kitchener ON N2G 4G9 16/99 & A 26/99,(Cont'd) Ms. S. Brennan 536 Mill Park Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1W1 Ms. P. Nippel 560 Mill Park Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1W1 Ms. V. Zietsma 1831 Old Mill Road Kitchener ON N2P 1E3 Mr. & Mrs. J. Moore 1834 Old Mill Road Kitchener N2P 1E2 Ms. G. Luciantonio Mr. R. Martin 20 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1B7 Ms. J. Haalboom 1165 Doon Village Road Kitchener ON N2P 1A7 Mr. F. Louwe Ms. J. Corrall 10 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1B7 Mr. & Mrs. M. Ferraz Mr. R. Martin COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 39 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 1941 Old Mill Road Kitchener ON N2P 1E3 20 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1B7 1. Submission Nos.: B 13/99, B 14/99, B 15/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99,(Cont'd) Mr. & Mrs. M. Snyder 34 Amherst Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1C9 Mr. S. Cameron, Sims Clement Eastman, appeared before the Committee and advised that he was in attendance to represent the applicants. Prior to further consideration of the applications, the Chair advised Mr. Cameron that, due to Mr. Dahms declaring a pecuniary interest in this matter, the applications would now be heard by the remaining two members. In this regard he pointed out that, if following consideration of the applications the two members were not in agreement, the applications would be lost on a tie vote. With this in mind, the Chair stated that he was prepared to provide the applicant with an opportunity to defer the applications to a subsequent meeting to allow arrangements to be made to have a majority of impartial members sitting. Following a brief consultation with his clients, Mr. Cameron stated that it was a difficult decision to make. He advised that he had been of the understanding that the members sitting would proceed to hear the applications and if the decision was split, the matter would not be lost but rather deferred. In this regard, the Secretary advised that her explanation to Mr. Cameron had not been clear and apologized for the misunderstanding. She pointed out that the Chair's comments with respect to a tie vote were correct. Following further consultation with his clients, Mr. Cameron stated that his clients were having difficulty making a decision. The Chair suggested that this matter be put aside until later in the meeting to allow further consultation and Mr. Cameron agreed with this approach. Accordingly, the Committee delayed further consideration of these applications and proceeded with the remainder of applications to be considered this date. 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 29, 2000 meeting. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of these applications would be deferred to the meeting of February 29, 2000. Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 2000-007 & A 2000-005 1184951 Ontario Inc. 537 Frederick Street Lot 39, Part Lots 13, 14, 15, 16 & 45, Re,qistered Plan 42 The Chair advised that a request has been received from Mr. M. Sandalj to defer these applications to the February 29, 2000 meeting. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of these applications would be deferred to the meeting of February 29, 2000. The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:15 a.m., in order to consider an application for a minor variance to the City of Kitchener's Fence By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:20 a.m. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 40 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 APPLICATIONS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 2000-003 Stephen B. Csiszar 270 Mausser Avenue Part of Lots 48 & 49, Subdivision of Lotl8, German Company Tra~ Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. Harris 39 Dickson Street Cambridge ON N1R 5W1 Father S. Csiszar 270 Mausser Avenue Kitchener ON N2M 3L1 Contra: Mr. J. Maziarz Royal LePage Sharf Realty 50 Westmount Road North Waterloo ON N2J 1P2 Mr. J. Bartoszewski 266 Mausser Avenue Kitchener ON N2M 3L1 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: Mr. J. Bartoszewski 266 Mausser Avenue Kitchener ON N2M 3L1 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached garage, 3.04 m x 6.09 m (10 ft. x 20 ft.), having an easterly sideyard of 0.27 m (0.9 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.9 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that this application represents a re-submission of an application approved last year (A96/99). The approval of application A96/99 was based upon a draft survey that the applicant provided which described the distance between the proposed garage and the side lot line as 0.514 metres. Based on this information, the Committee of Adjustment granted a minor variance to the applicant to allow for a side yard setback of 0.514 metres, instead of the 1.2 metres required by Zoning By-law 85-1. However, the final survey indicated that the side yard setback between the property line and the proposed garage is 0.274 metres, making it non-compliant with the Committee's decision. The applicant decided to apply to the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to the side yard setback as identified by the most recent survey, as the foundation for the garage has been poured. The subject property contains an existing one storey single-detached dwelling. The property is located on the north side of Mausser Avenue, being the sixth lot west of the intersection of Mausser Avenue and Stirling Avenue South. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 41 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 The applicant proposes to construct an attached garage addition on to the side of the single detached dwelling with a side yard setback of 0.274 metres, rather than the 0.514 metres approved by the Committee of Adjustment. The proposed garage addition will have an area of 18.58 square metres. The Building Code requires that garages be a minimum of 3.048 metres x Submission No.: A 2000-003(Cont'd) 5.4864 metres in size. To meet this requirement, the applicant cannot rely on the previous approval, and therefore must apply for a variance to the required side yard setback As indicated in the A96/99 submission, portions of the subject property's asphalt driveway are encroaching on the abutting property. As a condition of approval in the A96/99 submission, an encroaching utility shed situated in part where the proposed garage would be built was removed. It appears that the two properties are not functionally divided along the lot line, rather along a concrete retaining wall that separates the two driveways, marked with a chain link fence. The applicant has noted that this encroachment has been occurring since prior to 1973. The addition will be located completely on the applicant's lot. The garage addition will be located adjacent to the driveway of the abutting property. The impact of the addition will be relatively minor in nature. Although the proposed side yard setback is less than the previous approved submission, the proposed garage will not encroach onto the abutting property as the utility shed did. The "functional" yard will therefore increase. The addition will abut the driveway of the abutting property, and will have no adverse impact on the use or function of the abutting lands. The side of the single detached dwelling on the abutting property that faces the proposed garage does not have any windows on it. Furthermore, the garage addition is relatively similar in size and scale to the former utility shed, and will be located in the same general location. In conclusion, the addition is considered an appropriate development of the lands. Staff consider that the application maintains the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law and recommend the application be approved. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A2000-003, subject to the following condition: 1. That all drainage from the garage be directed only onto the applicant's property. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required for construction of the new garage; the wall located less than 2 ft. to the property line shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating, non-combustible cladding, and no openings; and, roof drainage shall not be directed onto adjacent property. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and 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 Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that the construction of an attached garage will enclose their meter. The policy of the Commission requires existing outside meters to remain outside and readily accessible to their staff. In order to maintain this policy, the meter must be relocated to an outside wall. 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. & Mrs. J. Bartoszewski in which they advised that they are the owners of 266 Mausser Street, which is the property affected by the Csiszar's request for a change in setback from 3.9 ft. to 0.9 ft. from the property line (which is shown on a December 20, 1999 survey to be that line between Part 1 and Part 2). We would not oppose said request on the following terms: that the Csiszar's, at their expense, prior to any further construction, erect a fence on the registered property line as indicated above, failing which, we do oppose said request for adjustment and we herein require the municipality due 3.9 ft. setback. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 42 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application. The Chair enquired of Mr. Harris if he had received the comments and had anything further to add. Submission No.: A 2000-003(Cont'd) Mr. J. Harris advised that the minor variance application before the Committee this date is actually a re-application of a previous submission approved by the Committee in 1999. He stated that a recent survey indicates the sideyard setback is less than what was previously approved by the Committee and, while there is some dispute with the adjoining property owner over the location of the property line, his client has re-applied for a variance based on the most recent survey. Mr. A. Galloway referred to the comments of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that the existing meter must be relocated to an outside wall to allow Hydro staff access to the meter. In this regard, Mr. Galloway enquired if the applicant had any concerns with respect to these comments. Father Csiszar responded that Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro had visited the site and, at that time, had indicated that the location of the meter was acceptable to them. Mr. A. Galloway pointed out that the letter received from Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro indicates that a site visitation was made and during that visit it was determined that the garage to be constructed would enclose the meter. Accordingly, Mr. Galloway advised that he felt relocation of the meter to an outside wall should be a condition of approval. Mr. J. Maziarz advised that he was appearing as agent for Mr. J. Bartoszewski who lives next door to the subject property. Mr. Maziarz advised that his client's concern was with respect to the distance between the proposed garage and his property line. He advised that Mr. Bartoszewski's property is at a lower grade and along the property line between buildings a small gap exists. He noted that when snow is shovelled from the subject property it drops over into the gap and the accumulation goes through a process of freezing and melting. In this regard, he pointed out that his client has concerns respecting drainage and possible rotting of the garage structure and, accordingly, is requesting that the Committee impose a condition requiring the applicant to erect a fence along the property line to prevent snow from accumulating in this area. In response to questioning, Ms. J. Given responded that staff are of the opinion that the area in question, which lies between the footings and a concrete wall, would not create problems with respect to rotting. The Chair enquired of Mr. Maziarz if Mr. Bartoszewski had discussed his concerns with the applicant and Mr. Bartoszewski responded that he had not. Mr. Harris pointed out that, if the property line were not in dispute, there would be no need for a minor variance application and questioned the validity of the concerns expressed by Mr. Bartoszewski. Mr. A. Galloway stated that the variance requested is addressed in the staff report and appears to be a valid application. He suggested that any dispute over the location of the property line was not a matter for this Committee to consider and it would be inappropriate to impose upon the applicant a requirement to build a fence along a property line which is in dispute. Mr. Maziarz stated that his client was attempting to address his concerns with respect to drainage problems and felt it would be prudent planning to require a fence to be erected to resolve these concerns. In this regard, it was pointed out that staff are recommending that a condition be imposed that would require all drainage to be directed onto the applicants property. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Stephen B. Csiszar requesting permission to construct an attached garage, 3.04 m x 6.09 m (10 ft. x 20 ft.), having an easterly sideyard of 0.27 m (0.9 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.9 ft.), on Part of Lots 48 & 49, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract, 270 Mausser Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new garage. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 43 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 That the garage wall located less than 0.61 m (2 ft.) to the property line shall have no openings; a 45 minute fire resistance rating; and, be clad with non-combustible material. 1. Submission No.: A 2000-003(Cont'd) 3. That all drainage from the garage shall be directed only onto the applicant's property. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried All interested parties respecting Consent Applications, Submission No.'s B 13/99 to B 16/99 and Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 26/99, re-entered the meeting at this time and discussions resumed with respect to deferral of these applications. UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission Nos.: B 13/99 to B 16/99 & A 26/99(Cont'd) Mr. W. Dahms declared a pecuniary interest in these applications, as his law firm has acted on behalf of the applicants and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to these applications. Mr. Dahms left the meeting and Mr. A. Galloway Chaired the meeting during consideration of these applications and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, these applications were considered by the remaining two members. Mr. S. Cameron advised that, while his clients would like to proceed, they felt it would be in the best interest of all concerned to have a majority of Committee members present to hear the applications. Accordingly, he advised that his clients have agreed to request a deferral. The Chair advised all parties present that an attempt had been made to contact another member of the Committee to attend this date to hear the matter; however, other members not present this date were unable to accommodate this request due to other commitments. The Chair stated that he believed under the circumstances deferral, until such time as a complete panel was able to be present, would benefit all parties having an interest in these applications. By general consent, it was agreed to defer these applications to the February 29, 2000 meeting. The Chair advised all parties present that those who had registered with the Secretary this date would receive further notice with respect to these applications. The Committee then returned to the regular agenda and resumed consideration of the remaining applications. MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 2000-006 Alpine Holdings Corporation 725 Ottawa Street South Block "A", Re.qistered Plan 1246 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 44 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Mr. A. Galloway declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his firm represents the applicant and did not participate in discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. Galloway left the meeting during consideration of this application and, pursuant to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the application was considered by the remaining two members. Submission No.: A 2000-006(Cont'd) Appearances: In Support: Mr. S. Head Dryden Smith & Head Planning Consultants Limited 54 Cedar Street North Kitchener ON N2H 2X1 Mr. A. Robins Alpine Holdings Corporation 1160-36 Toronto Street Toronto ON M5C 2C5 Contra: None Other: Ms. S. Goodwin 18 Flint Drive Kitchener ON N2E 1A2 Written Submissions: In Support: Mr. S. Head Dryden Smith & Head Planning Consultants Limited 54 Cedar Street North Kitchener ON N2H 2X1 Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition to the existing plaza having a 0 m sideyard, rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.), to allow for the expansion of the existing plaza without a building separation. The Committee noted the comments of the Business & Planning Services Department in which they advised that the owner of the plaza has been submitting applications intended to facilitate the completion of the plaza which has only been partially developed on this site. A site plan application for the construction of a free-standing restaurant has been considered by the City, along with consent applications (B28 & 29/99) to mortgage independently and grant rights of way and easements for access and services. This application seeks approval to allow the final stage of the building to be constructed 0 metres from the area over which the mortgage was granted in the earlier application. In considering consents to mortgage, building locations are regarded as if the mortgage were to default, in which a separate lot line is created. The standard yard setback would be 3.0 metres. This variance is minor given that the lot line would only actually exist in the event of default, and it allows the appropriate development of the site. The intent of the by-law, to allow a setback between buildings on separate lots is maintained, as it is a comprehensive development built in phases. The applicant advises that they wish to obtain approval of another variance to reflect recent revisions to the site plan for the restaurant. This variance is to permit parking spaces within the 3.0 metre setback from a road. The parking spaces are required to accommodate vehicles delayed in the drive through window and so allowing the variance is desirable and appropriate. The public right-of-way is unusually wide in this location, causing the need for the variance. Staff support the requested variance for 0 metres rather than 3.0 metres relative to a future mortgage line as well as the additional variance for parking spaces 0 metres from a road rather than 3.0 metres. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 45 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 That minor variance application A2000-006 be approved only as it applies to the site plan finally approved under site plan application SPR 99147101PB. Submission No.: A 2000-006(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 & 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 99-038, or any successor thereof and 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 Committee noted the written submission from Mr. S. Head, Dryden Smith & Head Planning Consultants Ltd., in which he advised that he had met with staff of the Planning Department, to discuss the plan for the construction of a McDonald's restaurant on the Alpine Plaza Site. Planning staff, in reviewing the site plan, suggested that an additional variance would be needed for a 3.0 metre setback from the property line abutting the lands owned by the Region of Waterloo. Staff suggested we ask for this additional variance to be added to the application filed in December 1999. Would you please add the following variance to our application: exemption to the 3.0 metre set back requirement from the property line to enable the two grill order waiting spaces to be constructed abutting the property line without any landscaping. The area abutting the two grill waiting spaces, shown on the attached plan, abuts lands owned by the Region of Waterloo and is surplus lands considered to be part of the Ottawa Street road allowance. These lands are landscaped and contain a City gas main and will not be developed. The agreement between the City and our clients provided for our clients to purchase these lands from the City of Kitchener but upon further investigation we found that the City did not own these lands. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application. The Chair enquired of Mr. Head if he had reviewed the comments and had anything further to add. Mr. S. Head responded that he had reviewed the comments and had no concerns. Ms. S. Goodwin stated that she was in attendance this date to obtain more detailed information with respect to what was happening on this site. In this regard, Mr. Head advised that the applicant has applied for consent to expand the existing plaza to include a restaurant use. He pointed out that the proposed expansion, referred to as Phase 3, will adjoin the existing structure across the back of the property with parking to be at the rear of the building and the existing fencing to remain in place. In addition, Mr. Head advised that the site plan is being revised to accommodate a restaurant use at the corner of Ottawa Street and Alpine Road. Ms. Goodwin enquired as to the proposed height of the addition as she was concerned with possible satellite interference. The Chair advised Ms. Goodwin that the height of the building was not within the jurisdiction of the Committee to decide. Mr. Head offered to show Ms. Goodwin the site plan and, following this review, stated that because of a change in grade where the addition was to be added, the structure would likely be lower than the existing building. The Chair referred to the site plan and, in particular, the area marked "C" and enquired if it was intended to construct a building in this area. Mr. Head advised that previous Consent Applications were approved by the Committee to sever mortgages for financing purposes and the severance line pursuant to the mortgage will go through the proposed building to be constructed in this area. He advised that it is intended to add onto the existing structure as a continuation with no separation between buildings. He further advised that there was confusion with respect to the previous consents, in that, he had been of the understanding that the consents granted would create new lots; however, as the consent applications were to sever mortgages for COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 46 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 financing purposes this, in effect, did not create new lots. Accordingly, another consent application has subsequently been filed, which will be considered by the Committee at a date in the near future, which will sever a parcel of land on the site located at the corner of Ottawa Street and Alpine Road. 2. Submission No.: A 2000-006(Cont'd) The Chair requested clarification that the lot line was to go through the proposed building and Mr. Head responded that was correct. He stated that as it is intended to have no separation between the existing structure and the proposed building the lot line resulting from the mortgage severance will go through the proposed building by approximately 10 ft. on one side. The Chair expressed concern with the building being constructed in this manner noting that if a mortgage was registered and defaulted on, the property could be sold up to the lot line, resulting in the building proposed to be constructed to potentially have two owners. Mr. Head responded that he did not believe this to be a concern as the lands in question are under entire ownership of the applicant who will hold the mortgage on the whole of the property. In response to questioning, Ms. J. Given advised that staff had not had benefit of the full building design when the two consents to sever mortgage were considered. She advised that under normal circumstances a lot line would not go through a building; however, she was of the opinion that in this case, it was not a matter of public interest but rather that of the owner. Mr. Head referred to Phase 3 of the development and stated that during initial discussions with staff it was indicated that a 10 ft. sideyard was required and that was why the consent line was placed as shown on the site plan. He further advised that the application being considered this date is now requesting a variance to the required 10 ft. setback as it is intended to construct the addition with no building separation. The Chair enquired if it was intended to have 3 free-standing parcels on the site and Mr. Head advised that had been the intent under the previous two consents; however, this would not be the case unless the mortgage was defaulted on. He advised that a severance application has been submitted for Phase 2 of the development with the balance of the site to remain as one parcel. Ms. S. Campbell stated that she agreed the problem with the lot line was not a matter of public interest but rather that of the owner and mortgagor. The Chair enquired if it was necessary to consider any form of easement or agreement between the existing structure and the proposed addition. In this regard, Mr. Head pointed out that under the previously approved consents the owner is required to enter into a joint maintenance agreement. The Chair enquired if staff had any concerns with the possibility of default on the mortgage with respect to the property line going through the building and Ms. Given responded that there was no other method to deal with the present circumstances and suggested the incremental approach to the expansion may have been the contributing factor; however, staff are of the opinion that the site plan as now proposed is appropriate. Mr. A. Robins advised that the short term plan for the site had been to re4inance the whole of the property with the exception of a parcel at the corner of Ottawa Street and Alpine Road. He advised that the lot line was not a concern to him as this part of the site was financed as one contiguous parcel. Ms. S. Campbell advised that she was prepared to move approval of the application; however, prior to doing so, the Secretary referred the Committee to the written submission of Mr. Head, dated January 19, 2000, in which a further variance was requested and enquired if the Committee intended to include this request in their decision to approve the application. Mr. S. Head advised that an agreement between the City and his clients provided for his clients to purchase a strip of land considered to be a part of the Ottawa Street road allowance. Following further investigation, he advised that the land in question was actually owned by the Region of Waterloo and, accordingly, his clients will not be purchasing the land. Mr. Head advised that two COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 47 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 grill order waiting spaces abut the Regional property line and, accordingly, staff have advised that a variance is required to permit parking spaces within the 3 m setback from the road. Submission No.: A 2000-006(Cont'd) In response to questioning, Ms. Given responded that staff have no concerns with the merit of the variance requested; however, the Committee may wish to consider whether or not sufficient notice has been given with respect to this request. The Chair requested confirmation that the Region is circulated with minor variance spplications and the Secretary responded that was correct. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. W. Dahms That the application of Alpine Holdings Corporation requesting permission to construct an addition to an existing plaza having a 0 m sideyard, rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.), and to allow parking spaces 0 m from the Ottawa Street road allowance, rather than 3 m (9.8 4 ft.), on Block "A", Registered Plan 1246, 725 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the variances as approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the site plan finally approved under Site Plan Application SPR 99/47/O/PB It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 2000-007 Debbie Areia 7 White Sands Court Lot 2, Plan 58M-63 Appearances: In Support: Ms. D. Areia 7 White Sands Court Kitchener ON N2E 3S4 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate two required parking spaces, one space for the existing residential dwelling and one space for a home business, in tandem (one behind the other), rather than side-by-side and for one of the parking spaces to be located ahead of the required 6 m (19.68 ft.) setback. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 48 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 The Committee noted the comments of the Business & Planning Services Department in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate two required parking spaces in tandem for a dwelling and a home business with one parking space located in front of the required 6 metre setback required for parking spaces. 3. Submission No.: A 2000-007(Cont'd) The proposed home business is a hair salon (personal service) and is permitted in the R-4 zone in a single detached dwelling provided all regulations of the by-law are met. The applicant has advised staff that she will not have an employee and the business attracts no more than one customer to the property at any one time. The subject property has an attached garage that would accommodate the legal off-street parking space for the dwelling. This variance is requested because the off-street parking space for the home business will be located in tandem with the existing off-street parking space and within the six-metre setback required from White Sands Court. The intent of the Zoning By-law regulation is to encourage a more aesthetically appealing streetscape by requiring a setback for all required parking. Also, the regulation is to permit all vehicles free and unencumbered access to the parking space. The By-law does not, however, prevent other vehicles from parking in the driveway, so the intent of the By-law is not compromised. Staff is of the opinion that the impact of the tandem parking would be minor and appropriate for the use of the property, as the business owner would not be using her vehicle when a client is at the property. As noted above, there would be a maximum of one customer to the property at any one time so the manoeuvring of vehicles is not necessary. It is noted that the submitted drawing does not indicate a measurement for the total width of the driveway. The applicant has been advised that the by-law permits a maximum driveway width of 4.5 metres (14.8 feet) for the subject property. Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the impact of the variance would be minor and the request maintains the general intent of the by-law and Municipal Plan. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of minor variance application A2000-007 relative to a personal service use only. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that they have no concerns with the proposed tandem parking. 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 99-038, or any successor thereof and 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 application. The Chair enquired of Ms. Areia if she had reviewed the comments and had anything further to add. Ms. Areia indicated that she had reviewed the comments and did not have anything further to add. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 49 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 That the application of Debbie Areia requesting permission to locate two required parking spaces in tandem for a dwelling and a home business, with one parking space located in front of the required 6 m (19.68 ft.) setback required for parking spaces, on Lot 2, Plan 58M-63, 7 White Sands Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, relative to a personal service use only. It is the opinion of this Committee that: Submission No.: A 2000-007(Cont'd) 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 2000-008 Waldemar and Hanna Bratek 126 Mountain Mint Crescent Part Block 5, Plan 58M-16, Reference Plan 58R-10916 designated as Parts 4, 56 & 57 on Appearances: In Support: Mr. W. L. Boehler Artindale & Partners 510-101 Frederick Street Kitchener ON N2G 4E6 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize existing concrete steps on the easterly side of an existing single family dwelling having a sideyard setback of 0.53 m (1.73 ft.), rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Business & Planning Services Department in which they advised that the applicants are requesting permission to legalize existing concrete steps on the easterly side yard of a single detached dwelling having a sideyard setback of 0.53 metres (1.73 feet) rather than the required 0.75 metres (2.46 feet). The applicants wish to legalize the existing steps which encroach 0.22 metres (8.8 inches) into the required setback for steps. The intent of the setback is to allow a sufficient distance between properties so that the privacy and enjoyment of abutting properties is not affected. The steps are located on the right sideyard that abuts a public walkway. Consequently the existing steps do not appear to adversely affect the enjoyment of the abutting property. Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the subject variance is appropriate development for the property and the impact of the variance would be minor as the request maintains the general intent of the by-law and Municipal Plan. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of minor variance application A2000-008 as shown on the survey prepared by Black, Shoemaker, Robinson and Donaldson, dated December 6, 1999, and submitted with the application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 50 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 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 Submission No.: A 2000-008(Cont'd) Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and 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 application and enquired if Mr. Boehler had anything further to add. Mr. Boehler responded that he had nothing further to add. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Waldemar and Hanna Bratek requesting permission to legalize existing concrete steps on the easterly side of an existing single detached dwelling having a sideyard setback of 0.53 m (1.73 ft.), rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.), on Part Block 5, Plan 58M- 16, designated as Parts 4, 56 & 57 on Reference Plan 58R-10916, 126 Mountain Mint Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the survey prepared by Black, Shoemaker, Robinson and Donaldson, dated December 6, 1999, as submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-008. 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 Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 2000-008 & B 2000-009 Nicholas & Wendy Svensson 723 Glasgow Street Part of Lot 5, Re.qistered Plan 693 Appearances: In Support: Mr. U. Svensson 73 Farringford Drive Brantford ON N3R6K6 Contra: Mr. W. Farhood Artindale & Partners 510-101 Frederick Street P.O. Box 996 Kitchener ON N2G 4E6 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 51 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Written Submissions: In Support: 1. Submission Nos.: Mr. W. Roberts 715 Glasgow Street Kitchener ON N2M 2N7 None B 2000-008 & B 2000-009(Cont'd) Contra: Mr. W. Farhood Artindale & Partners 510-101 Frederick Street P.O. Box 996 Kitchener ON N2G 4E6 Mr. & Mrs. I. Atkinson 743 Glasgow Street Kitchener ON N2M 2N7 Mr. & Mrs. B. Pyatt 733 Glasgow Street Kitchener ON N2M 2N7 Prior to consideration of these applications, the Chair advised that he had been informed that the applicant may wish to defer these matters and requested comment in this regard. Mr. W. Farhood advised that he represents Mr. W. Roberts, who resides next door to the subject property and who is objecting to the applications. In this regard, he advised that he had spoken with Mr. U. Svensson, agent for the applicants, who has indicated his agreement to a deferral to allow further discussions to take place with respect to the proposed development. Mr. U. Svensson advised that he was in agreement with deferral of the applications to allow an opportunity to meet with Planning staff and Mr. Roberts to resolve any issues of concerns. In this regard, he requested deferral of the applications to the February 29th meeting and asked the Committee to direct staff to arrange a meeting with himself, Mr. Roberts and his agent. The Chair advised that the Committee would agree with the request to defer as it is the Committee's desire to encourage discussions between all parties concerned prior to consideration of proposals; however, he advised that it was not within the Committee's jurisdiction to require that interested parties meet. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of these applications would be deferred to the meeting of February 29, 2000. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 2000-010 Small Fry Snack Foods Limited 3065 King Street East Part of Lots 31 & 33, Municipal Compiled Plan 986 The Chair advised that a request has been received from Ms. D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, to defer this application to the March 21, 2000 meeting. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the meeting of March 21, 2000. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 2000-011 Arcade Homes Construction Inc. 484 & 486 Ottawa Street South Part Lot 38, Registered Plan 791, Reference Plan 58R-12123 designated as Parts 1 &2on Appearances: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 52 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 In Support: Mr. R. Haalboom, Solicitor 304-7 Duke Street West Kitchener ON N2H 6N7 Contra: None Submission No.: B 2000-011 (Cont'd) Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide the subject lands into two lots, each to contain one half of an existing semi-detached dwelling. The lands being severed will have frontage on Ottawa Street South of 9.059 m (29.72 ft.), by a depth of 32 m (104.98 ft.), and an area of 289.11 m2 (3,112.05 sq. ft.). The lands to be retained will have frontage on Ottawa Street South of 8.01 m (26.28 ft.), by a depth of 32 m (104.98 ft.), and an area of 255.57 m (2,751.08 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands contain an existing semi-detached dwelling fronting onto Ottawa Street South. The applicant currently owns both dwellings and seeks to create two separate lots with one dwelling unit on each. The new lot line would bisect the building in two along the party wall between the two existing units. The applicants cannot apply for Part Lot Control, as the property is not in a Registered Plan. The existing Residential Six Zone (R-6) permits semi-detached dwellings. All setback requirements of the R-6 zone will be satisfied for both the retained and severed parcels. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Municipal Plan. The proposal conforms to the intent of this designation. Required parking for each unit is provided for in single garages. The two dwelling units have abutting driveways. The two units effectively function as two separate dwellings having separated rear yards for amenity areas. The creation of two lots for separate ownership from the existing semi-detached dwelling is appropriate. Accordingly, the Department supports the consent application. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B2000-011 be approved, subject to the following condition: That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for 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 Regional staff have reviewed the application and have the following comments. Staff have identified the need for a road traffic noise study pursuant to Policy 11.9.2 in the Regional Official Policies Plan. However, staff recognize the units are under construction and that any physical noise attenuation measures, if necessary, may not be possible. As such, staff will require a noise warning clause as a minimum. A detailed Grading and Drainage Control Plan must be submitted to the Regional Commissioner of Engineering for review and approval. A Regional Road Entrance Permit was issued on April 17, 1996 for a previous consent application (B 27/95) for two accesses to Ottawa Street South. The permit has expired and the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 53 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 applicant is now proposing accesses different from that permitted under the original permit. The existing curb cuts for the previous accesses onto Ottawa Street will have to be closed and new curb cuts created for the proposed access designs. A new Regional Road Entrance Permit will be required for the closures and new accesses. Staff have no objection to the consent application subject to the following conditions: 3. Submission No.: B 2000-011 (Cont'd) 1) That prior to final approval of the application, the owner enter into a registered development agreement with the Region (at the owner's expense) to include the following noise warning clause on the severed and retained lots: "Due to its proximity to Ottawa Street South (Regional Road 4), projected noise levels on this property exceed the Noise Level Objectives approved by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and may cause concern to some individuals." 2) That prior to final approval of the application, the owner submit a Grading and Drainage Control Plan to the Regional Commissioner of Engineering for review and approval. 3) That prior to final approval of the application, the owner obtain a Regional Road Entrance Permit to address required road access closures and openings onto Ottawa Street South. The Region further advised that any future development on the lands subject to the consent application will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof. Applicants are also advised that there may be a Regional fee assessed for development agreements if required. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of CN in which they advised that they have reviewed the application and have the following comments: The Owner is required to insert the following warning clause in all development agreements, offers to purchase, agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease and include in a Noise Impact Statement: "Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest has or have a right-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the rail facilities on such right-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNR will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid right-of-way." The Owner is required to engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and provide abatement measures necessary to achieve the maximum level limits set by the Ministry of Environment and Canadian National. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and enquired if Mr. Haalboom had anything further to add. Mr. R. Haalboom advised that the purpose of the application is to allow the existing semi- detached homes to be sold as separate lots rather than as one. In respect to the comments of the Region and CN regarding a noise warning clause, Mr. Haalboom indicated that the application does not represent new development and stated that he felt his client should not be required to incur the expense of entering into an agreement with the Region. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 54 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 The Chair enquired when the buildings were constructed and if all grading, drainage and road access issues had been covered at the time the building permit was issued. Mr. Haalboom responded that the buildings were constructed in 1999 and the issues referred to had been covered under the building permit. In response to questioning, Mr. Haalboom stated that the Region may have had opportunity to impose a noise warning clause through previous consents; however, he indicated that the consents would have been filed by previous owners and may have proposed larger lot sizes. Submission No.: B 2000-011 (Cont'd) Mr. A. Galloway stated that he wished to clarify if the applicants concern with the Regional condition was that the applicant did not wish to enter into an agreement if the condition has already been satisfied through granting of a previous consent and Mr. Haalboom concurred. Mr. Galloway further enquired if the driveway access for both buildings was already in existence and Mr. Haalboom advised that was correct. Mr. A. Galloway stated that it was his opinion the Regional comments have been mistakenly based on the premise that the buildings were yet to be constructed when, in fact, they already exist. In this regard, he suggested that the Regional comments should be put aside. The Chair agreed that the Regional comments seemed to be prefaced on new development and suggested that the comments of CN appear to have been based on the same premise. Mr. A. Galloway referred to Condition 2 of CN's comments and stated that he felt requiring the applicant to hire a consultant to analysis noise and provide abatement measures was too onerous and that a warning clause should be sufficient. In this regard, Ms. S. Campbell advised that she agreed with Mr. Galloway's remarks. The Chair advised that, in order to invoke the noise warning clause, it would require an agreement to be registered on title and stated that he questioned whether the agreement need be with the Region or if it could be with the City. He further enquired if the service connections for the buildings were on separate systems and Ms. Given advised that the buildings had been constructed to accommodate separate systems. The Chair referred to CN's comments in which they asked that the warning clause be included in all development agreements, offers to purchase and agreements of purchase & sale or lease. In this regard, he questioned if the Committee could impose the condition on this basis without the need for an agreement. Ms. Given advised that it would not be possible for the Secretary to determine if such a condition had been fulfilled within the required one year period. The Chair enquired if the City would enter into such an agreement and Ms. Given responded that there was some question of downloading of responsibility for noise from the Region; however, she stated that the appropriateness of the City entering into an agreement to cover liability for CN should be considered. Ms. S. Campbell stated that she was of the understanding the Committee had agreed not to consider the Regional comments because they appeared to be based on new development. In this regard, Ms. Given stated that she did not view the Regional condition respecting noise in the same light as that of CN as an opportunity for the Region to impose this condition did not previously exist. Mr. R. Haalboom stated that he felt the conditions of CN were impractical to impose upon a single lot. Ms. S. Campbell stated that she believed CN was asking to cover future development and questioned if the applicant should be prejudiced in this regard. She advised that she did not feel that it was appropriate for the City to enter into an agreement to protect CN from litigation, respecting future expansion. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was prepared to look at the comments of CN in the same manner as those of the Region as this application does not involve new development and was prepared to set these comments aside. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 55 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 The Chair enquired if it would be appropriate to impose a condition that would require the applicant to deliver a copy of CN's letter to the new purchaser and Mr. Haalboom responded that such a condition would only apply to one transaction. The Chair stated that he felt this issue would appear to be one of indemnity and Ms. Campbell agreed. Submission No.: B 2000-011 (Cont'd) Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Arcade Homes Construction Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having frontage on Ottawa Street South of 9.059 m (29.72 ft), by a depth of 32 m (104.98 ft.), and an area of 289.11 m2 (3,112.05 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 38, Registered Plan 791, designated as Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-12123, 484 & 486 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following condition: That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being February 8, 2002. 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 2000-012 Activa Development Corporation Activa Avenue Lot 28, Re.qistered Plan 58M-132 Appearances: In Support: Mr. P. Britton MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited 171 Victoria Street North Kitchener ON N2H 5C5 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land, as a lot addition to the westerly abutting property, by severing a parcel of land and retaining COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 56 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 a parcel of land having an area of 2.8275 ha (6.987 acres). The lands to be severed will have an area of 0.8184 ha (2.023 acres) and are proposed to be developed as multiple residential. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands presently comprise a portion of the future public elementary school site located at 245 Activa Avenue in the Laurentian Forest Subdivision. When the plan of subdivision for the area was draft approved, the Waterloo District School Board requested 4. Submission No.: B 2000-012(Cont'd) that a 3.649 hectare site be set aside for a future elementary school. At the time of registration, the School Board reduced its land requirements and made arrangements to acquire a smaller, 2.8275 hectare property. A 0.887 hectare multiple residential site fronting David Bergey Drive abuts the subject school site to the west. It is proposed that the excess 0.8186 hectares from the future school site be severed and merged with the abutting multiple site (Block 27, 58M-132) to create an expanded multiple block with a site area of approximately 1.7056 hectares. The applicant has also submitted Zone Change Application ZC O0/02/A/LM to rezone the lands to be severed from Institutional Zone (I-1) to Residential Six Zone (R-6). This zone change application would facilitate the development of the excess school lands with the abutting multiple site. In light of sanitary service capacity allocations in the Laurentian West Community, the applicants will be required to confirm that the proposed transfer of a 0.8186 hectare land area from a future institutional use to a future Iow rise multiple use will have no adverse impacts on this sanitary sewer allocation. In addition, the applicant will also be required to confirm that the resultant increase in impervious surface with the change to multiple residential land use will not require that additional lands be set aside for storm water management. Both of these items will be addressed through the zone change process. Accordingly, it is recommended that Consent Application B2000-012 be approved subject to Zone Change Application ZC O0/02/A/LM receiving final approval. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B2000-012 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Zone Change Application ZC O0/02/A/LM 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 lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands, legally described as Block 27, Registered Plan 58M-132, 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 50(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 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 consent application will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038, 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 do not object to the concept of the proposed lot addition, however they have a concern with the change in land use and associated stormwater management implications. In this regard, they have recently received a copy of the Stormwater Management Addendum (Stantec Consulting Ltd - January 28, 2000) prepared to address the impact of the land exchange on the functionality of the stormwater management facilities. They note that the revised COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 57 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 stormwater management concept necessitates a re-direction in the drainage from what was previously approved through the subdivision process. At this time, they have not had the opportunity to review the revised stormwater management concept. Therefore, they would recommend that the consent application be approved conditional upon: Submission No.: B 2000-012(Cont'd) Final approval of the Stormwater Management Addendum, dated January 28, 2000, prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application, subject to certain conditions, and enquired if Mr. Britton had reviewed the comments. Mr. Britton responded that he had reviewed the comments and had consulted with staff throughout the process. Mr. A. Galloway enquired if the applicant had any concerns and Mr. Britton responded that he was in support of the Planning staff recommendations. In regard to the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority, Mr. Britton pointed out that the lands to be severed are to be added to a parcel of land that will be subject to the site plan process and it was the applicants preference that the issue of stormwater management be dealt with through the site plan process. The Chair enquired if the site plan process would cover the concerns of the GRCA with respect to stormwater management and Ms. Given responded that was correct. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was prepared to move approval of the application subject only to the conditions recommended by Planning staff. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Activa Development Corporation to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to the westerly abutting property having an area of 0.8184 ha (2.023 acres), on Lot 28, Registered Plan 58M-132, Activa Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Zone Change Application ZC O0/02/AILM 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 lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands, legally described as Block 27, Registered Plan 58M-132, and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50 (3) and/or 50 (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. 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 February 8, 2002. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 58 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 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 2000-013 Activa Investment Corporation and Southstaton Holdings Limited Woolwich Street Part of Lot 124, German Company Tract Appearances: In Support: Mr. P. Britton MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited 171 Victoria Street North Kitchener ON N2H 5C5 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land consisting of 3 parts, with Parts 1 & 2 to be conveyed as a lot addition to the northerly abutting property for residential use and Part 3 to be conveyed to the City of Kitchener for road widening purposes. The lands to be retained will have an area of 1.92 ha (4.745 acres). The lands to be severed will have an area of 139.7 m2 (1,503.76 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that an application has been received to sever lands as part of a boundary adjustment in part of a recently approved Plan of Subdivision (30T-97005, Activa Investments Corp. & Southstaton Holdings Ltd.). The owners propose to convey a parcel of land 0.01 hectares in size to an abutting landowner immediately north (Mr. & Mrs. Sienna). At the same time, the owner proposes to retain an easement over part of the lands to be severed to allow for future road construction to serve the approved 200-unit subdivision. It is understood that the conveyance is also in settlement of a land titles claim with the abutting landowner. To match a condition imposed as part of the City's approval of subdivision 30T-97005, a road widening is to be conveyed to the City of Waterloo along the frontage of the subject lands. The subject lands presently contain parts of a shed, stone retaining wall and fence. The owner has submitted a draft reference plan with the application which indicates the following: Part 1 is immediately adjacent to a proposed street into the subdivision; Part 2 contains parts of the shed, wall and fence; and Part 3 includes the required road widening. Parts 1 and 2 are to be conveyed to the abutting landowner and Part 3 is to be conveyed to the City of Waterloo. Given the presence of the features on Part 2 and their apparent use by the abutting landowners, conveyance of Part 2 would provide for a logical addition to the lot immediately north. In addition, the conveyance of Part 3 to the City of Waterloo fulfils a requirement for a future road widening. The retention of an easement in favour of the owner over Part 1 is requested in order to allow adequate area to complete the grading and construction of the future street intended in this location. Once the street is conveyed to the City as required by the approval of the subdivision, the owner can quit claim their interest in Part 1. Based on the above comments, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that submission B2000-013 be approved subject to the conditions as outlined below. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 59 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission B2000-013 subject to the following conditions: That the owner convey to the City of Waterloo, without cost and free of encumbrance, a 3.904 metre road widening along the property's entire Woolwich Street frontage. 2. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. Submission No.: B 2000-013(Cont'd) 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 Regional staff have reviewed this application and have no concerns; however, any future development on the lands subject to the consent application will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038, 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 to the proposed lot addition to the northerly abutting property. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application, subject to certain conditions, and enquired if Mr. Britton had anything further to add. Mr. P. Britton advised that the application is in part to implement a Plan of Subdivision as approved by the Ontario Municipal Board and also in settlement of a land titles claim with the abutting landowner. Pursuant to the Board's Decision, Mr. Britton advised that his clients entered into discussions with the abutting property owner and are following through on agreements made. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Activa Investment Corporation and Southstaton Holdings Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to the northerly abutting property having an area of 139.7 m2 (1,503.76 sq. ft.), subject to and together with an easement over part of the lands to be severed which are designated as Part 1 on Schedule 1, as submitted with the application, in favour of the lands to be retained for the purpose of future road construction, on Part of Lot 124, German Company Tract, Woolwich Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall convey to the City of Waterloo, without cost and free of encumbrance, a 3.904 metre road widening along the property's entire Woolwich Street frontage. 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 the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. 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 February 8, 2002. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 60 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 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. Submission No.: B 2000-013(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.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 2000-014 Ray of Hope Inc. In Trust 31 Schneider Avenue Lot 82, Registered Plan Company Tract 435, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Mr. W. Dahms declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his law firm has acted on behalf of the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. Dahms left the meeting and Mr. A. Galloway Chaired the meeting during consideration of this application and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this application was considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Pountz 520 Queen Street South Kitchener ON N2G 1X1 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to an easterly abutting property, by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of 545 m2 (5,866.52 sq. ft.). The lands to be severed are to be used as green space and will have an area of 555 m2 (5,974.16 sq. ft.) The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the application of Ray of Hope, who own property at 15 and 19 Schneider Avenue and 530 Queen Street South seeks approval to sever the rear of the residential lot at 31 Schneider Avenue to add to the property fronting Queen Street. The application erroneously identified the lands to be severed as 37 Schneider Avenue. Ray of Hope recently purchased 31 Schneider Avenue with the intent of selling the retained lands to continue to be used for a single detached dwelling. The lot at 31 Schneider Avenue is deeper than the neighbouring lots, extending across the full width of 530 Queen Street South. Staff discussed the long term plans of Ray of Hope with the applicant to get a better understanding of the appropriateness and potential prematurity of this severance. The small residential care facility is located at 19 Schneider Avenue and its offices at 15 Schneider Avenue. The Queen Street property is primarily vacant, used for recreation associated with the residential care facility. It is intended that the severed lands be added to the Queen Street property to be COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 61 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 used as open space. The owners indicate that in the long term, it would be their intent to relocate the residential care facility to the Queen Street property, on which the zoning permits the use. The severed parcel is designated Low Rise Conservation and zoned R-5. The Queen Street property is zoned CR-3. If there is any intent on the part of Ray of Hope to use the severed lands in association with the Queen Street property, the zoning must be changed to a zone permitting the use. The Victoria Park Secondary Plan contains a general policy which allows such lot consolidations to occur subject to a zone change but without the necessity for a Secondary Plan amendment. Staff previously corresponded with Ray of Hope indicating that a zone change Submission No.: B 2000-014(Cont'd) should precede the submission of a consent. Given that the applicant has indicated that their intention is only to use the severed lands as open space in their present state, staff are prepared to recommend the consent but wish to make it clear that support for the consent in no way implies support for any future zone change which may be submitted on the severed lands. Such an application will be considered on its own merits in conjunction with a full zone change process, including neighbourhood circulation. The retained lands at 31 Schneider Avenue will comply with the R-5 zoning and be of a depth consistent with the neighbouring lot at 27 Schneider Avenue. The owner has advised that there is no intent to make use of the severed lands at this time. As such, staff are willing to recommend approval of the consent subject to the severed lands merging with the property municipally addressed as 530 Queen Street South. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission B 2000-014 subject to the following conditions: That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to these applications. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised Regional staff have reviewed the application and a preliminary archaeological assessment indicates a medium to high potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. Staff recognize there are no development plans for the severed parcel and that a structure exists on part of the lot. As such, an archaeological assessment will not be required. However, the applicant should be advised that if the severed parcel is developed at some future date and that should buried archaeological remains be found on the property during construction, the applicant is to notify the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation at (519)675-7742. Accordingly, Regional staff have no objection to the lot addition proposed. The Region further advised that any future development on the lands subject to the consent application will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99- 038, 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 this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application, subject to certain conditions, and enquired if Mr. Pountz had anything further to add. Mr. R. Pountz indicated that he had reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 62 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 Ms. S. Campbell referred to the Planning staff comments and, in particular, paragraph 3 in which staff advise that if there is any intent on the part of the applicant to use the severed lands in association with the Queen Street property the zoning must be changed to a zone permitting the use and support for this Consent Application in no way implies support for any future zone change which may be submitted on the severed lands. Mr. Pountz advised that he was aware of these comments and had no intention of applying for a Zone Change Application. Submission No.: B 2000-014(Cont'd) Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Ray of Hope Inc. In Trust requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to an easterly abutting property having an area of 555 m2 (5,974.16 sq. ft.), on Lot 82, Registered Plan 435, Subdivision of Lot 17, German Company Tract, 31 Schneider Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Section 50 (3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. 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 February 8, 2002. 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 ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 8th day of February, 2000. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment