HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2000-04-11COA\2000-04-11
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 11, 2000
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. S. Kay, A. Galloway and P. Kruse.
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. S. Kay, Vice-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 February 29, 2000, be
amended as follows:
Page 79 to amend the Committee's Decision respecting Consent Application, Submission No.
B 65/99, by deleting from the first paragraph of the Decision the phrase "22.25 m (73 ft.), by a
depth of 61.3 m (201.14 ft.) and an area of 1,253.31 m2'' and substituting therefore the phrase
"17.98 m (59.0 ft.) by a depth of 61.3 m (201.14 ft.) and an area of 1,102.35 m2".''
Carried
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of February 29, 2000, as
amended, and March 21, 2000, as mailed to the members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINOR VARIANCE
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 May 30, 2000 meeting.
Ms. J. Given suggested that this application be deferred for a longer period of time as this
application is related to the Ministry of Transportation's Highway 7 Planning Study and,
accordingly, is likely to be delayed for some time. In this regard, she requested the Committee to
consider a 6 month deferral on the basis that the applicant may request the application to be
brought forward earlier should the issues relative to Highway 7 be resolved sooner.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That Consent Application, Submission No. B 50/99, as applied for by Electrohome Limited for
lands known municipally as 809 Wellington Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE DEFERRED to
the September 12, 2000, meeting of the Committee of Adjustment to allow an opportunity for
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 158 APRIL 11, 2000
1. Submission No.: B 50/99(Cont'd)
issues respecting the Ministry of Transportation's Highway 7 Planning Study relative to this
application to be resolved.
Carried
The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 9:45 a.m., in order to consider applications
for Minor Variance to the City of Kitchener's Fence By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:05 a.m.
APPLICATIONS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 2000-019
Eisa Long
14 Matthew Court
Lot 12, Plan 1413
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. E. Long
14 Matthew Court
Kitchener ON N2B 1W6
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached
garage having a sideyard setback of 0.61 m (2 ft.), rather than the required 1.21 m (4 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the subject property is located on the west side of Matthew Court, just south of
Matthew Street, and contains a one-storey single detached dwelling which was constructed in
1976. The applicant is proposing to construct an attached garage having a width of 3.65 metres
(12 feet), a length of 7.3 metres (24 feet), and an area of 26.7 square metres (288 square feet)
onto the southerly side of the existing dwelling.
A minor variance is required as the resultant setback of the attached garage from the southerly
side property line will be 0.6 metres (1.97 feet), whereas the R-4 zone requires a minimum side
yard setback of 1.2 metres (3.94 feet) from a side lot line for an attached garage.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, staff offers the following comments in relation to the
requested variance.
The impact of the reduced setback of the proposed attached garage will not be any greater than
the impact of a fully detached garage, which would be permitted to be located a minimum
distance of 0.6 metres from a side lot line without the need for a minor variance. Further, the
proposed side yard setback of 0.6 metres (1.97 feet) will still be sufficient to allow for
maintenance of the exterior of the attached garage.
An attached garage is a desirable and appropriate development of any residential property. The
increased width of the garage is desirable as it will provide extra space for the opening and
closing of a vehicle's door inside the garage. The extra width is also desirable as it will allow the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 159 APRIL 11, 2000
applicant to compensate for the space that will be lost inside the garage due to the location of a
chimney on the southerly exterior wall of the dwelling.
Submission No.: A2000-019 (Cont'd)
As the attached garage will meet all other zoning requirements and the effects of the variance will
be minor, the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan will be maintained.
Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the
requested variance for a reduction of the minimum interior side yard requirement in order to
permit the construction of an attached garage.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that minor variance application
A 2000-019, to permit a reduction of the minimum interior side yard requirement from 1.2 metres
(3.94 feet) to 0.6 metres (1.97 feet), to permit the construction of an attached garage, be
approved.
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 and the wall located less than 1.2
m to the property line shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating, and no openings.
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 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 and enquired if Ms. Long had anything further to add. Ms. E. Long advised that she
had reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add.
As no further questions or comments were forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Eisa Long requesting permission to construct an attached garage having
an interior sideyard setback of 0.61 m (2 ft.), rather than the required 1.21 m (4 ft.), on Lot 12,
Plan 1413, 14 Matthew Court, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following
conditions:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new attached
garage.
That the wall to be located less than 1.2 m (4 ft.) to the property line shall have a 45
minute 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
In response to questioning, the Chair advised Ms. Long that the application is subject to a 20 day
appeal period from the date of the decision, following which she may apply to the City's Building
Division for a building permit; provided no appeals are received.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 160 APRIL 11, 2000
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 2000-020
Wesley Schweigert
35 Pattandon Avenue
Part of Lot 24, Re.qistered Plan 727
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. W. Schweigert
35 Pattandon Avenue
Kitchener ON N2M 3S6
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition
onto the existing detached garage, having a sideyard setback of 0.397 m (1.3 ft.), rather than the
required 0.61 m (2 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the existing single detached garage structure complies with side yard setback
under the City's Vacuum By-law for accessory buildings, as the structure existed on or before
October 11, 1994. Since the applicant wishes to put an addition on the garage with the same
setback as the existing structure, they are required to seek permission from the Committee of
Adjustment.
The proposed addition will extend another 3.0 m (10 ft.) toward the rear of the property, and the
balance of the addition is to the interior of the lot. A 3.0 m (10 ft.) extension of the existing garage
will have little or no impact on the neighbouring property. The addition is to be constructed of
vinyl siding that will require little or no maintenance. The setback of 0.397 m (1.3 ft.) will still allow
access if maintenance should be required.
The expanded accessory building will not exceed the permitted 15% lot coverage. As the
sideyard for the proposed addition to the accessory building is consistent with that existing, the
variance can be considered minor in nature. The proposed garage addition would be an
appropriate use of the property and will maintain both the general intent and purpose of the City's
Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
2000-020.
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 addition and the wall located less than
0.61 m ( 2 ft.) from the property line shall have a 45 minute fire resistance rating.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 161 APRIL 11, 2000
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and inquired if Mr. Schweigert had anything further to add. Mr. Schweigert advised
that he had nothing further to add.
Submission No.: A2000-020 (Cont'd)
Mr. A. Galloway further pointed out that approval of the application is subject to the applicant
obtaining a building permit and the wall to be located less than 2 ft. from the property line shall
have a 45 minute fire resistance rating.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Wesley Schweigert requesting permission to construct an addition onto an
existing detached garage, having a sideyard setback of 0.397 m (1.3 ft.), rather than the required
0.61 m (2 ft.), on Part of Lot 24, Registered Plan 727, 35 Pattandon 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 addition.
That the wall to be located less than 0.61 m (2 ft.) from the property line shall have a 45
minute fire resistance rating.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 2000-021
Jeff & Ann Sills
9 Lark Street
Part Lot 7, Plan 675, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-
11391
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. A. Sills
9 Lark Street
Kitchener ON
N2K 1G2
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate two 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.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the proposed home business is a hair salon (personal service) and is permitted
in the R-3 zone in a single detached dwelling provided all regulations of the by-law are met. The
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 162 APRIL 11, 2000
applicant has advised staff that she will not have an employee for the business and the business
attracts no more than two customers to the property at any one time. The by-law permits a
maximum of three clients to the property at any one time.
Submission No.: A2000-021(Cont'd)
The subject property has a one-car attached garage located off of Schofield Drive that would
accommodate the legal off-street parking space for the dwelling. The salon would be beside the
existing garage in an area that used to accommodate a second vehicle in the garage. This
variance has been requested because it is proposed that the off-street parking space for the
home business be located in tandem with the existing off-street parking space and within the 6 m
setback required from Schofield Drive.
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 notes that the driveway located in front of the garage is wide enough to accommodate two
vehicles, so that second vehicle would not be required to park in tandem with the vehicle in the
garage.
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 applicant should be advised that an Occupancy Permit is required for the home business.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of minor variance
application A 2000-021 relative to the setback of the parking spaces for a hair salon 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 Project Co-ordinator in which he advised that
the Traffic & Parking Division has 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 and inquired if Ms. Sills had anything further to add. Ms. A. Sills advised that she had
reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add.
As no further questions or comments were forthcoming the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Jeff & Ann Sills requesting permission to locate 2 parking spaces, one for
the existing residential dwelling and one space for a home business (hair salon), 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, on Part Lot 7, Plan 675, designated as Part 1 on
Reference Plan 58R-11391, 9 Lark Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 163 APRIL 11, 2000
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
Submission No.: A2000-021(Cont'd)
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
The Chair further advised the applicant that application for an occupancy permit will be required
for the home business and the applicant concurred.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 2000-022
Michael & Mary Oasey
571 - 579 Park Street
Part of Lots 10, 11, and 12, Registered Plan 408, designated as Parts
1 to 5, inclusive, Reference Plan 58R-7552
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. M. Morrison
Barrister & Solicitor
151 Frobisher Dr. Suite 205
Waterloo ON N2H 6M6
Ms. C. Bauman
53 John Street West
Waterloo ON N2L 1B3
Mr. P. Ringrose
Ms. M. Vankatwijk
Family & Children's Services
of the Waterloo Region
200 Ardelt Avenue
Kitchener ON N2C 2L9
Mr. T. Howard
Ms. M. Ruby
75 Mt. Hope Street
Kitchener ON N2G 2J5
Contra:
Ms. L. Horton
64 Union Blvd.
Kitchener ON
N2G 2J9
Ms. J. Wilson
78 Wood Street
Kitchener ON N2G 2H6
Mr. H. Gleiser
109 Union Blvd.
Kitchener ON N2G 2K3
Ms. C. Schneider
21 Esson Street
Kitchener ON N2M 2V1
Ms. C. Hebel
590 York Street
Kitchener ON N2G 1T8
Mr. D. Kuske
Ms. M. Kuske
72 Wood Street
Kitchener ON N2G 2H6
Mr. B. Norcott
561 Park Street
Kitchener ON N2G 1N8
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate a group home a
distance of 51 m (167.32 ft.) from the municipal boundary, rather than the permitted 100 m
(328.08 ft.); and to legalize an existing office building having a 0 m frontyard setback from Union
Boulevard, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), and a sideyard setback of 5.364 m (17.59 ft.),
rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.); and to legalize an existing residential dwelling having a
sideyard of 0.3 m (0.98 ft.), rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 164 APRIL 11, 2000
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that an application has been received to permit a residential care facility (group
home) within 51 metres of the municipal limit of the City. Section 5.17 of Zoning By-law 85-1
Submission No.: A2000-022(Cont'd)
requires that any group home be located at least 100 metres to the municipal limit of the City. In
addition, a number of variances have been requested to the existing yards of a building on the
property.
The subject lands are located at the south-west corner of Park Street and Union Boulevard. The
subject lands contain two buildings. One building (No. 571 Park Street) located at the corner of
Park Street and Union Boulevard is currently being used as a family physicians office for 3
physicians. The other building (579 Park Street) is located towards the westerly end of the
property and has been used recently as a duplex. A total of 16 parking spaces are currently
provided for the health clinic and duplex. Surrounding land uses include the offices of Clarica
immediately across Park Street to the north, and single family dwellings to the south on Union
Boulevard, to the west along Park Street, and to the east across Union Boulevard. City staff
understand that 571 Park Street will be used as a group home and 579 Park Street will continue
to be used as a duplex. The I-2 zone permits both uses, though the group home is limited to a
maximum of 10 residents. Any group home within the City requires an occupancy permit and
must be registered with the City prior to opening.
In addition to the request for a group home 51 m from the municipal boundary, the application
includes a request for the following:
571 Park Street
A side yard abutting a street of 0.0 metres rather than the required 6.0 metres.
A side yard (south) of 5.364 metres rather than the required 6.0 metres.
In addition to the above variances, a variance will be required for a side yard abutting a street of
1.5 metres rather than the required 6.0 metres.
579 Park Street
1. A yard abutting a street of 0.3 metres rather than the required 6.0 metres.
The 100 m separation requirement originated as part of a City-wide review of institutional uses in
1992. The intent of the separation was to prevent group homes from locating at the periphery of
the City in close proximity to group homes in adjacent municipalities. Section 5.17 of the Zoning
By-law requires a minimum distance separation of 400 metres between group homes within the
City, and a 100 metre separation from the municipal boundary. From a review of the location
map of group homes within the City, there are no other group homes in the K-W Hospital area.
The nearest group home is located approximately 1.5 kilometres to the south-west on Westwood
Drive.
The City of Waterloo has commented that they have no concerns with the proposed group home
within 51 metres of the common boundary with Kitchener. It is understood that there are no
group homes in Waterloo in the immediate proximity (the closest group home is approximately
500 metres north-west of the group home proposed at 571-579 Park Street). In addition, the
Zoning By-law of the City of Waterloo contains an identical minimum distance separation to their
municipal boundary as contained in the City of Kitchener by-law; i.e. 100 metres. This separation
provides an additional buffer between group homes in this vicinity, and acts as a measure against
which additional group homes proposed at less than this distance can be reviewed. As a
clustering of group homes does not exist in this location along either of municipal boundaries, and
as the City of Waterloo have no concern with this application, staff consider that the application
meets the intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law, and is an appropriate use of the lands.
In addition, the 400 metre separation will apply to the proposed new group home ensuring no
concentration will occur in this area in the future.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 165 APRIL 11, 2000
The requested variances to the yard requirements listed above are considered relatively minor in
nature. The buildings in question have existed for many years and addressing the deficient yards
is appropriate. The deficiencies largely result from past road widening taken by the Region.
4. Submission No.: A2000-022(Cont'd)
The property is considered suitable for the intended use. The building at 571 Park Street has
been used as a health clinic for a number of years and the proposed group home is an
appropriate successor to that previous use. Surrounding land uses represent a mixture of office
and residential uses, and the proposed group home is considered compatible with these uses
and is permitted under the I-2 zoning on the lands. The continued use of 579 Park Street as a
duplex conforms to the permitted uses in the I-2 zone.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission No. A
2000-022, subject to the application being amended to include a yard abutting a street of 1.5
metres for 571 Park Street, and relative only to the buildings existing on the lands on April 11,
2000.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a
building permit is required to change the use of the building from medical office to residential
care facility.
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 comments of the City of Waterloo in which they advised that they have
no objection to the application to allow a group home within the 100 m separation distance
between municipalities. The lands surrounding the subject lands are zoned General Business
and Industrial and designated Office Commercial. The closest group home located within the City
of Waterloo is beyond the City of Waterloo's requirement of 300 m between group homes.
The Committee noted the written submission of CN, in which they advised that they have
reviewed this 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
vibration and provide abatement measures necessary to achieve the maximum level limits
set by the Ministry of Environment and Canadian National.
Mr. M. Morrison advised that he was the Solicitor for the Family and Children's Services who are
the proposed purchasers of the subject property. Mr. Morrison provided an overview of the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 166 APRIL 11, 2000
buildings on the site, noting that it is proposed to convert the existing doctor's offices for use as a
group home. In addition, he noted that the second building is currently used as a duplex and it is
proposed to continue this use. Mr. Morrison pointed out that the existing zoning and Municipal
Plan permit the proposed group home use; however, as the buildings have been in existence
prior to 1955, they do not conform to zoning regulations, resulting in the requested variances with
Submission No.: A2000-022(Cont'd)
respect to the minimum separation distance between municipal boundaries and front and side
yard setbacks. Mr. Morrison advised that he had reviewed the staff comments which recommend
approval and also pointed out that the City of Waterloo has advised that they have no objection
regarding the separation distance. He stated that the Family and Children's Services have
identified the need to find placement for children less fortunate and propose to house 8 children,
together with appropriate staff, at this site. Mr. Morrison further pointed out that the proposed use
will have less impact in terms of traffic than the existing doctor's offices; however, it is recognized
that neighbouring residents have some concerns and in this regard, the Family and Children's
Services have met with area residents.
The Chair inquired if the lands were presently on separate deeds and Mr. Morrison responded
that the property was merged in one deed. He pointed out, at this time, there are no plans for the
duplex; however, it may be possible that a severance application will be filed in future.
At this time, the Chair opened the floor to delegations.
Ms. C. Bauman stated that she was in support of the application and had attended the meeting
this date because she had received a flyer several days prior to the meeting which indicated area
residents object to the group home being located at this site. She stated that she wished to make
it known to the Family and Children's Services that not all of the residents in the area feel this way
and that she would welcome the group home within the neighbourhood.
Ms. L. Horton advised that she was not opposed to group homes in general; however, from a
safety point-of-view, she pointed out that most of the properties in this area are businesses and
she would be concerned with a group home being located in an area where there was no
Neighbourhood Watch Group. She stated that she hoped the Family and Children's Services
would carefully consider areas in which they are proposing to locate group homes.
Ms. C. Hebel advised that she was opposed to locating a group home at this site for safety
reasons as there are a number of single women living in the area and, in addition, expressed
concern with devaluation of property.
Mr. T. Howard and Ms. M. Ruby advised that they were in support of the application and were
also concerned with the negative content of a flyer received at their home. Mr. Howard stated
that this was an opportunity for the neighbourhood to become aware of the needs of children and
provide them with the safety and care they currently lack. In his opinion, rejection will leave the
impression of a cold and unfriendly neighbourhood and the children should instead be welcomed.
Mr. Howard also referred to property values and pointed out that a home located within three
properties of an existing detox centre in the area was recently sold of 109% of the asking price
and, accordingly, suggested that homes in this area are in demand because of the variety of
existing services.
Ms. J. Wilson advised that she had also received the flyer referred to earlier and had attended the
meeting this date to obtain more information. In this regard, she questioned if the children had
been involved in any criminal activity. She further stated that she assumed because of the age of
the children they would be going to school and questioned how they would be supervised to and
from school.
Mr. P. Ringrose advised that the Family and Children's Services has looked extensively for
appropriate sites and do have interest in other properties. He stated that the organization also
looks upon this site as a good opportunity. With respect to the children, he explained that they
have not asked to be placed but rather through unfortunate circumstances their families are not
able to provide for their care and safety. He noted that the eight children involved will be between
12 to 16 years old and will be in school during the day. The children will be involved in other
activities when not in school, with the main objective to be as normal a home environment as
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 167 APRIL 11, 2000
possible. In addition, he advised that the home will be staffed 24 hours per day with a minimum
of 2 staff. Mr. Ringrose stated that the children are not young offenders sentenced by the Court
but rather are wards of the Family and Children's Services; however, he recognized that there is
always the possibility they could get into trouble because many come from troubled backgrounds
and do have personal difficulties.
Submission No.: A2000-022(Cont'd)
The Chair enquired if the children could be placed as part of a probation order and Mr. Ringrose
advised that this was not likely; however, children subject to a probation order may possibly be
required to report in at a group home facility without actually being required to live there.
Mr. P. Kruse requested clarification as to staffing and Mr. Ringrose reiterated that a minimum of 2
staff members will be on duty 24 hours per day, which is more than the Government actually
requires.
Mr. H. Gleiser commended the Family and Children's Services for their efforts; however,
expressed concerns with the current deterioration of the neighbourhood and advised that he has
been the victim of theft and vandalism. Mr. Gleiser stated that he felt that the area was becoming
too over-crowded.
Mr. D. Kuske also expressed concerns relative to deterioration, as well as loss of residential uses
to commercial uses. He stated that he felt the neighbourhood was in danger of becoming non-
residential and also expressed concern with safety and traffic issues. Mr. Kuske further
suggested that the use proposed would not be allowed in numerous subdivisions, such as
Beechwood, and stated that while he was not opposed to services by the Family and Children's
Services he felt the area has already been impacted by too much commercial use, together with
traffic and parking problems.
Ms. M. Kuske enquired if it was felt the children would have a positive or negative influence on
other children living in the area. Mr. Ringrose responded that it would be difficult to answer such
a question; however, assured that the organization's goal is to minimize as much as possible any
negative impacts. He further stated that structured activities are part of the program and it is not
intended to allow children to wander about.
Ms. C. Schneider advised that she was opposed to the use as she has had previous experience
with children living in group homes. It was her opinion that such children were always in trouble
whether supervised or not. Ms. Schneider advised that she was concerned with the safety of her
own children and also with the increased traffic in the area.
Ms. M. Vankatwijk advised that the organization provides structured programming for the children
and the staff are well qualified individuals who work with the children. She stated that the children
are not left to roam about and she has had no experience of other children being unsafe living
near a group home.
The Chair enquired how many facilities the organization was currently running and Mr. Ringrose
advised there were 7 with similar programs.
Mr. B. Norcott questioned how much free time the children would be allowed and if they could
leave the property. Ms. Vankatwijk responded that down time is provided after school during
which time the children may be doing their homework or relaxing, or may go outside to participate
in outdoor activities such as shooting baskets. She further advised that they are allowed to leave
the property.
The Chair enquired if there was a set time that all children must be back in the home and Ms.
Vankatwijk advised they must be in by 10:00 p.m. unless pre-arrangements have been made with
staff. In such circumstances, staff are made aware of where the child is going and when they will
be back.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that while he appreciated the concerns voiced they go beyond what this
application is intended to address. He agreed that the concerns raised could be valid for
everyone in day-to-day life; however, the proposed use does not require rezoning and it appears
it will have less impact on traffic than the existing use. Mr. Kruse pointed out that anyone with
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 168 APRIL 11, 2000
any number of children could move into the area bringing difficulties of their own to the
neighbourhood. Accordingly, Mr. Kruse advised that he was prepared to move approval of the
application.
4. Submission No.: A2000-022(Cont'd)
The Committee was referred to the request of staff that the application be amended to include an
additional variance abutting a street of 1.5 m, rather than 6 m. The Chair requested clarification
as to which street the sideyard variance abutted and Ms. J. Given advised it would be abutting
Park Street. The Chair enquired of the applicant if they were prepared to amend the application
to include the additional variance and Mr. Morrison concurred.
Mr. H. Gleiser referred to reconstruction of Union Street to 4 lanes and again stated his concerns
with respect to traffic and safety issues.
The Chair advised that the use proposed is permitted under the current zoning and the
Committee's role in this application is to consider whether the variances pertaining to the existing
structures are minor in nature. He stated that the concerns raised really are the result of
evolution of the past number of years within the area and do not have any bearing on the merits
of the application. The Chair noted it is important to have a voice and the comments made have
been taken into consideration; however, he noted with interest that many of the opposing
comments were prefaced by recognizing the need for the service and support for the organization
but these statements were left trailing, suggesting an ending of "but not in my backyard". The
Chair concluded that he was in support of approving the application given that the use is
permitted and in his opinion, the variances requested are minor in nature.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Michael & Mary Casey requesting permission to locate a residential care
facility (group home) within 51 m (167.32 ft.) of the municipal limit of the City of Kitchener, rather
than the permitted 100 m (328.08 ft.); and to legalize an existing building having a 0 m frontyard
setback from Union Boulevard, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), a southerly sideyard
setback of 5.364 m (17.59 ft.), rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), and a sideyard setback
from Park Street of 1.5 m (4.92 ft.), rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.); and to legalize an
existing building have a sideyard of 0.3 m (0.98 ft.) setback from Park Street, rather than the
required 6 m (19.68 ft.), on Part of Lots 10, 11 and 12, Registered Plan 408, designated as Parts
1 to 5, inclusive on Reference Plan 58R-7552, 571-579 Park Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE
APPROVED, relative only to the buildings existing on the lands on April 11, 2000 and subject to
the following condition:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to converting the existing building from
the medical office use to a residential care facility.
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
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 169 APRIL 11, 2000
CONSENT
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 2000-022
Elaine McCutchen
141 Bloomingdale Road
Part Lot 71, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. F. Kirvan
Artindale & Partners
101 Frederick Street, Suite 510
P.O. Box 996
Kitchener ON N2G 4E6
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 2,115.24 m2 (22,769 sq.
ft.). The lands to be severed are proposed to be developed with a single residential dwelling
having frontage on Bloomingdale Road of 18.288 m (133.67 ft.), by a depth of 95.05 m (330 ft.),
and an area of 1,739 m2 (18,723 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 residential lot located on Bloomingdale Road
near Nelson Avenue. The property is 3,854.61 square metres in size, and has a 40.74 metre
frontage on Bloomingdale Road. The surrounding area, located near the City of Kitchener
boundary, is characterized predominantly by residential development within the City, and
agricultural use located outside of the municipal boundary.
The applicant is requesting consent to sever a 1,739 square metre parcel from the property for
the future development of a residential dwelling. The proposed severed parcel has an 18.29
metre frontage on Bloomingdale Road, and is currently vacant. The proposed retained parcel
contains both an existing single detached dwelling, and an accessory detached garage. It is
intended that the retained parcel of land would be 2,115.2 square metres in size, and have a
22.45 metre frontage on Bloomingdale Road.
The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Municipal Plan. The retained
lands contain an existing single detached dwelling, and residential development is proposed for
the severed lot. Both the severed and retained parcels of land have lot sizes and frontages that
are similar to other lots containing single detached dwellings in the immediate area. Also, the
proposal is consistent with the infill housing policies contained within the Municipal Plan. The
subject property is zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) in the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law 85-
1. Both the severed and retained lands comply with by-law requirements with respect to
minimum lot sizes, frontages, setbacks, and maximum lot coverages. Accordingly, Planning staff
supports this application.
The Department of Business & Planning Services recommends that application B2000-022 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 170 APRIL 11, 2000
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.
Submission No.: B 2000-022(Cont'd)
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.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that based on a preliminary archaeological assessment, Regional
information indicates that the subject property has moderate to high potential for the recovery of
archaeological remains. This potential is based on the site's proximity to a natural water source.
As such, the applicant will be required to submit a detailed archaeological assessment in
accordance with Policy 6.2.10 of the Regional Official Policies Plan.
The existing trucking facility located to the west of the property may be classified as a Class II
Industrial Facility, as outlined in Ministry of Environment (MOE) D-6 Guidelines - Compatibility
Between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive Land Uses. Such facilities are considered as
operations that generally involve outdoor storage, frequent movement of heavy trucks, and
occasional emissions of noise, odour and dust. Regional staff advise that the subject property is
within the 300 metre zone of influence for a Class II Industrial Facility and that such facilities have
a Minimum Distance Separation of 70 metres. The subject property is approximately 80 metres
from the operation, which exceeds the minimum distance separation of 70 metres. On this basis
staff have no concerns regarding land use compatibility.
At this location a 17 foot road allowance widening is required for both the severed and retained
lands to accommodate future asphalt, sidewalk and utility locations. Along with a registerable
deed for the road allowance widening and daylighting triangle, the applicant must provide a mylar
copy of the registered reference plan.
A Regional Road Entrance Permit will be required for access to the proposed severed lot. The
entrance to the property must be located at the extreme westerly limit of the property to maintain
separation from the Bloomingdale Road/Nelson Avenue intersection.
The owner will be required to submit a Grading and Drainage Plan to the Regional Commissioner
of Engineering for review and approval.
The owner will also be required to undertake a noise study to address any mitigation factors
which may be required related to traffic noise from Bloomingdale Road (Regional Road 20).
Staff have no objection to the approval of the proposed consent subject to the following
conditions being imposed on behalf of the Region:
1)
That prior to final approval the owner/applicant submit a detailed Grading and Drainage
Control Plan for the severed and retained parcels to the satisfaction of the Regional
Commissioner of Engineering.
2)
That prior to final approval of the application, the owner submit a road traffic noise study,
for the severed and retained parcels, to the Regional Commissioner of Planning and
Culture for review. The owner further enters into a registered Regional development
agreement to implement recommendations contained in the study. The costs associated
with completion and implementation of the study will be at the owner's expense.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 171 APRIL 11, 2000
3)
That prior to final approval the owner obtain a Regional Road Entrance Permit for the
severed parcel.
4) That prior to final approval the applicant convey a 17 foot road allowance widening along
the entire frontage of the severed and retained parcels. Along with a registerable deed for
Submission No.: B 2000-022(Cont'd)
the road allowance widening and daylighting triangle, the applicant must provide a mylar
copy of the registered reference plan to the Regional Commissioner of Engineering.
5)
That prior to final approval of the application, the owner submit an archaeological
assessment for the severed parcel to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation
for approval. A copy of the completed assessment must be forwarded to the Regional
Commissioner of Planning & Culture.
Regional staff further advised that any development on the subject lands subject to this
application is also subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038,
or any successor thereof and 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 concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that the application is recommended for approval
subject to certain conditions and inquired if Mr. Kirvan had anything further to add. Mr. F. Kirvan
advised that the applicant is proposing to transfer title to one of her children as part of Estate
planning and enquired if an agreement could be entered into with the City to allow the conditions
to be fulfilled at the time development takes place on the severed parcel as opposed to when
deed endorsement would take place.
Mr. A. Galloway requested staff to comment and Ms. Given responded that while the conditions
are not worded such that an agreement would be entered into the wording could be revised to
accommodate this request. She further pointed out that staff erred in not including a condition for
payment in lieu of 5% of parkland dedication and requested that this condition be added. Ms.
Given further pointed out that a similar agreement would have to be entered into with the Region
with respect to the conditions proposed by the Region.
Mr. A. Galloway referred to the Regional comments with respect to environmental issues and the
requirement for an archaeological assessment. Mr. Kirvan advised that the Region has
expressed no concerns with respect to environmental issues and his client was prepared to
proceed with obtaining an archaeological assessment immediately. Accordingly, he advised that
he was not requesting that the condition for an archaeological assessment be part of the
agreement.
Ms. J. Given pointed out that the condition requiring conveyance of a 17 ft. road allowance to the
Region would not likely be something the Region would defer to an agreement and Mr. Kirvan
stated that he had no concerns with proceeding to convey the road allowance. Accordingly, it
was agreed that the Regional conditions requiring an archaeological assessment and
conveyance of a 17 ft. road allowance widening would not be included in the agreement and
would be required to be satisfied prior to deed endorsement.
The Chair referred to the sketch submitted with the application which indicates a proposed road
widening of 17.73 ft. and, as the Regional condition states a road conveyance of 17 ft.,
questioned if this would create any difficulties for the applicant. Ms. J. Given responded that staff
have never encountered a situation where the applicant has voluntarily provided more width than
requested and was uncertain if this would create a problem. Accordingly, she suggested that the
Committee may wish to revise the wording of the condition to say a minimum conveyance of 17 ft.
The Chair stated that he would prefer the condition to refer specifically to the road widening as
shown on the sketch by Guenther Rueb Surveying Limited, submitted with the application, and
members of the Committee concurred.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 172 APRIL 11, 2000
Mr. P. Kruse enquired if the agreements would be registered against title of all the lands and Ms.
J. Given advised that was correct. Ms. J. Given further requested that the wording of the
condition to enter into an agreement include that the requirements of the agreement be fulfilled
prior to the issuance of any building permit.
1. Submission No.: B 2000-022(Cont'd)
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Elaine McCutchen requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having frontage on Bloomin~dale Road of 18.288 m (133.67 ft.), by a depth of 95.05 m (330
ft.), and an area of 1,739 m' (18,723 sq. ft.), on Part of Lot 71, German Company Tract, BE
GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be prepared
by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the General Managers of Public Works and
Business and Planning Services, and shall be registered on title of all the subject lands;
said agreement shall include the following:
a)
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 prior to issuance of any building permit.
b)
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 prior to the issuance of any building permit.
c)
That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu of park land equal
to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed prior to the issuance of any building
permit.
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 prior to the issuance of any building permit.
That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo, to be prepared by the Regional Solicitor to the satisfaction of the Regional
Commissioners of Planning and Culture and Engineering, and shall be registered on
title of all the subject lands; said agreement shall include the following:
a)
That the owner shall submit a detailed Grading and Drainage Control Plan for the
severed and retained parcels to the satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner of
Engineering prior to the issuance of any building permit.
b)
That the owner shall submit a road traffic noise study for the severed and
retained parcels to the Regional Commissioner of Planning and Culture for
review and shall enter into a registered Regional development agreement to
implement recommendations contained in the study prior to the issuance of any
building permit; the costs associated with completion and implementation of the
study will be at the owner's expense.
c)
That the owner shall obtain a Regional Road Entrance Permit for the severed
parcel prior to the issuance of any building permit.
That the owner shall convey a 17.73 foot road allowance widening along the entire
frontage of the severed and retained parcels, as shown on the sketch prepared by
Guenther Rueb Surveying Ltd. and submitted with the application, and shall submit a
registerable deed for the road allowance widening and daylight triangle, together with a
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 173 APRIL 11, 2000
mylar copy of the registered reference plan, to the Regional Commissioner of
Engineering.
That the owner shall submit an archaeological assessment for the severed parcel to the
Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for approval and shall provide a copy of
the completed assessment to the Regional Commissioner of Planning and Culture.
Submission No.: B 2000-022(Cont'd)
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being April 11, 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
1. a)
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 2000-023
Highland Park Shopping Centre Limited
525 Highland Road West
Part of Lot 21, Registered Plan 1004, designated as Parts 1
inclusive, on Reference Plan 58R-5638
to 4,
b)
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
B 2000-024 & A 2000-023
Imperial Oil Limited
491 Highland Road West
Part of Lot 20, Re.qistered Plan 1004
Ms. M. DesRosiers
D.G.F. Management Ltd.
1 Pingel Road
Markham ON L6B 1B7
Mr. D. Feltham
Highland Park Shopping Centre Limited
1 Pingel Road
Markham ON L6B 1B7
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 174 APRIL 11, 2000
The Committee was advised that the applicant for Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-
023, is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting property
by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land having an average area of 0.81 ha (2
ac). The lands to be severed will have an area of 6.17 m2 (66.4 sq. ft.) and are proposed to be
used for parking.
The Committee was also advised that the applicant for Consent Application, Submission No. B
2000-024 and Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-023, is requesting permission
Submission Nos.: B 2000-023, B 2000-024 & A 2000-023(Cont'd)
to convey a parcel of land to an abutting property by severing a parcel of land and retaining a
parcel of land having an area of 3,185 m2 (34,284 sq. ft.). The lands to be severed are to be used
for parking and an outdoor restaurant patio having frontage on Highland Road West of 39.68 m
(130.2 ft.) and an area of 366 m~ (3,940 sq. ft.). The applicant is also requesting permission for
mutual right-of-ways over the lands to be severed and retained in favour of each other for the
purpose of access, and to enter into a Reciprocal Parking and Development Agreement in excess
of the 21 years permitted under The Planning Act for a total of 99 years. In addition, the
applicant is requesting permission for the following variances:
· a reduced setback for 7 parking spaces fronting onto Highland Road West, ranging from 0 m
to 1.5 m (4.92 ft.), rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.);
· to erect a chain link fence to a maximum height of 2.43 m (8 ft.) along the rear property line,
rather than the required visual barrier; and,
· a minimum lot area of 3,000 m~ (32,292 sq. ft.), rather than the required 4,000 m~ (43,057 sq.
ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the owners of the subject properties at 491 and 525 Highland Road
West are requesting permission to each sever a small triangular piece of the property and
exchange the parcels. The purpose of the exchange is to facilitate the orderly development
pertaining to parking and driveway access of the existing neighbourhood commercial plaza at
525 Highland Road with the proposed development of another neighbourhood commercial
plaza at the corner of Highland and Westmount Roads.
In Consent Submission B2000-023, the owner of 525 Highland Road West is requesting
permission to sever and convey a 6.17 square metre (66.4 square feet) parcel of land which is
located internally on the site to the abutting owner at 491 Highland Road West as a lot
addition. The small parcel is vacant and intended to be used as part of the parking for the
proposed commercial plaza.
The retained parcel is approximately 0.8 hectares (2 acres) developed with a neighbourhood
commercial plaza with access to Highland Road.
In Consent Submission B2000-024, the owner of 491 Highland Road West is requesting
permission to sever and convey a parcel with a frontage of 39.68 metres (130.2 feet) along
Highland Road and an area of approximately 405.42 square metres (4,364 square feet) to the
abutting owner at 525 Highland Road West as a lot addition. The triangular parcel is currently
used as a landscaped area in front of the Swiss Chalet restaurant at 525 Highland Road West.
The retained parcel has a frontage of 54.83 metres (179.89 feet) along Westmount Road and
an area of 3,139.5 square metres (33,794.51 square feet) and is located at the intersection
with Highland Road West. The parcel is vacant and is intended to be developed with a
commercial plaza.
In both consent applications, the owners are requesting permission for mutual right-of-ways
over the lands to be severed and retained in favour of each other for the purpose of access.
The Department has no objection to the applicant's request.
In Minor Variance Submission A2000-023, the owner of 491 Highland Road West is requesting
permission to have:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 175 APRIL 11, 2000
a)
b)
c)
reduction in the setback of parking for 7 parking spaces from 3.0 m (9.84 feet) to a
minimum setback ranging from 0 m to 1.5 m (4.92 feet) along Highland Road West;
a chain link fence ranging from 1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 feet) in height rather than the
required solid wood visual barrier of 1.8 m (6 feet); and
a minimum lot area of 3,145.68 square m (33,860.98 square feet) rather than the
required 4,000 square m (43,057 square feet).
1. Submission Nos.: B 2000-023, B 2000-024 & A 2000-023(Cont'd)
The need for the reduced setback for the seven parking spaces which are located in front of
the Swiss Chalet restaurant is due to the limited distance of 12.5 metres (41 feet) between the
restaurant and the street line. The applicant desires to integrate the two parking lots between
the existing plaza and the proposed plaza with a driveway connection and provide adequate
parking. A minimum City standard of 12.2 metres (40 feet) is required for a proper functioning
driveway and parking combination. With a minimum 3.0 metre (9.84 feet) setback requirement
for parking from the street property line, there is inadequate room to provide proper parking
and a driveway. The proposed setback only pertains to seven parking spaces in front of the
restaurant and some landscaping is still possible near this entrance. The applicant is able to
meet the setback for the balance of the parking for the new plaza.
With respect to the minor variance request for the exemption of providing a visual barrier along
the rear property line, the applicant proposes to erect a chain link fence for security purposes.
As the proposed commercial building will be located to within 1.5 metres (5 feet) of the rear
property line, the applicant wishes to provide security to the rear of the property with chain link
fencing in order to avoid any hidden areas that could be created by the solid visual barrier.
The high rise apartment property immediately to the rear also has dense landscaping along the
property line that would contribute to the potential safety concerns created by its visual barrier
with the proposed commercial development. These safety issues were reviewed with the
Department's Safe City Co-ordinator and this minor variance is recommended as a safety
matter.
In addition, the applicant has requested for 491 Highland Road West a minimum lot area of
3,139.5 square metres (33,794.56 square feet) rather than the required 4,000 square metres
(43,057 square feet). The property is owned separately. The deficiency in the minimum lot
area requirement is not met if considered independently. However, the purchaser of the
property at 491 Highland Road West also owns 525 Highland Road West but will keep the
registered names of the properties in separate title. The owner's intent is to have both
commercial buildings function as one neighbourhood plaza. If the subject land at 491 Highland
Road West is considered together with the abutting lands at 525 Highland Road West and 563
Highland Road West as part of the Neighbourhood Commercial designation, the intent of the
Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are met, and the minor variance is supportable for a
reduced minimum lot area.
The Department is of the opinion that the subject consent and minor variance applications are
appropriate as they allow a more orderly development of the lands for a neighbourhood
commercial plaza in compliance with the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan.
Accordingly, the Department supports the severance and minor variance applications subject
to the conditions listed below.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor
Variance Application A 2000-023 without conditions.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that each Consent
Applications B 2000-023 and B 2000-024 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That Minor Variance Application A2000-023 receives final approval.
That satisfactory arrangement be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment
of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 176 APRIL 11, 2000
That each of 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.
1. Submission Nos.: B 2000-023, B 2000-024 & A 2000-023(Cont'd)
That the owners of 491 and 525 Highland Road West enter into an agreement, to
be approved by the City Solicitor, which will ensure that rights-of-way for access
are maintained in perpetuity, and provide confirmation that said agreement has
been registered against the title of both properties.
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 Department of Planning & Culture, Region of
Waterloo, respecting Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-023, in which they advise that
Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no objection to the conveyance.
The Committee also noted comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of
Waterloo, with respect to Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-024, in which they
advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have the following comments:
A 25 foot daylight triangle is required at the intersection of Highland Road and Westmount Road.
The developer is proposing to close the existing access to Highland Road and Westmount Road
and construct one new access to each road. The access to Westmount Road may operate as a
full movement access; however, some modifications to the existing northbound left turn lane on
Westmount Road at Highland Road to accommodate left turn movements into the proposed
access may be required at the developer's cost.
The access to Highland Road must operate as a right-in,
construction of a raised concrete median on Highland Road.
responsibility of the developer.
right-out only access through the
The cost for the median will be the
A Regional Road Entrance Permit will be required to reflect a 7.6 metre throat width and 6.0
metre radii for each access.
The Region of Waterloo will require a lot grading and a stormwater management report for this
development.
Regional staff understand the proposed development is subject to Site Plan Approval. As such,
the above-noted concerns may be addressed as part of that approval process.
In conclusion, Regional staff advised that they have no objection to the approval of Consent B
2000-024; however, any future development on the lands subject to both consent applications will
be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor
thereof and 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 concerns with respect to these applications.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of both
consent applications subject to certain conditions and approval of the minor variance application.
The Chair enquired if the applicants had anything further to add and Ms. M. DesRosiers advised
that the calculation for area with respect to the lands being severed from 491 Highland Road
West had been incorrectly stated and should be noted as 4,364 sq. ft. Ms. DesRosiers then
reviewed the requested variances for 491 Highland Road West, together with the right-of-ways
requested, and stated that the purpose of the development was to allow freedom of movement
between the 2 commercial properties for the benefit of their customers.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 177 APRIL 11, 2000
Mr. D. Feltham referred to the request to enter into a Reciprocal Parking and Development
Agreement in excess of the 21 years permitted under the Planning Act and advised that a similar
agreement exists between 525 Highland Road West and the adjacent property owners of the
Canadian Tire Store. Mr. Feltham referred the Committee to the sketch provided and identified
the area in question, noting that the property line will go through the middle of the driveway and,
accordingly, specific agreements are being requested.
1. Submission Nos.: B 2000-023, B 2000-024 & A 2000-023(Cont'd)
The Committee then reviewed the comments of the Region and Ms. DesRosiers pointed out that
the issues referred to by the Region will be addressed at the time of site plan approval.
Consent B 2000-023
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Highland Park Shopping Centre Limited requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting property known municipally as 491 Highland Road
West, having an area of 6.17 m2 (66.4 sq. ft.), on Part of Lot 21, Registered Plan 1004,
designated as Parts 1 to 4, inclusive, on Reference Plan 58R-5638, 525 Highland Road West,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-023, shall receive final approval.
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, known municipally as
491 Highland Road West, 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.
That the owners of 491 and 525 Highland Road West shall enter into an agreement, to be
approved by the City Solicitor, which will ensure that rights-of-way for access are
maintained in perpetuity and provide confirmation that said agreement has been registered
against the title of both properties.
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 April 11, 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 B 2000-024
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 178 APRIL 11, 2000
That the application of Imperial Oil Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land to an
abutting property known municipally as 525 Highland Road West, having frontage on Highland
Road West of 39.68 m (130.2 ft.) and an average area of 405.42 m2 (4,364 sq. ft.); and to grant
mutual right-of-ways over the lands to be severed and retained in favour of each other for the
purpose of access; and to enter into a Reciprocal Parking and Development Agreement in excess
of the 21 years permitted under the Planning Act for a total of 99 years, on Part of Lot 20,
Registered Plan 1004, 491 Highland Road West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to
the following conditions:
Submission Nos.: B 2000-023, B 2000-024 & A 2000-023(Cont'd)
1. That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-023, shall receive final approval.
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, known municipally as
525 Highland Road West, 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.
That the owners of 491 and 525 Highland Road West shall enter into an agreement, to be
approved by the City Solicitor, which will ensure that rights-of-way for access are
maintained in perpetuity and provide confirmation that said agreement has been registered
against the title of both properties.
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 April 11, 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
Minor Variance A 2000-023
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Imperial Oil Limited requesting permission to construct a neighbourhood
shopping plaza having a reduced setback for 7 parking spaces fronting onto Highland Road West
ranging from 0 m to 1.5 m (4.92 ft.), rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.); a minimum lot area of
3,139.5 m2 (33,794.56 sq. ft.), rather than the required 4,000 m~ (43,057 sq. ft.); and to erect a
chain link fence to a maximum height of 2.43 m (8 ft.) along the rear property line, rather than the
required solid visual barrier, on Part of Lot 20, Registered Plan 1004, 491 Highland Road West,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 179 APRIL 11, 2000
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
VALIDATION OF TITLE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
VT 2000-001
781254 Ontario Limited
851 Wilson Avenue
Lots 27 to 30, inclusive and Part Lot 34, Registrar's Compiled Plan
1525
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. M. Wilkinson
Corporate Counsel
Kuntz Electroplating Inc.
851 Wilson Avenue
Kitchener ON N2C 1J1
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
In Support:
Ms. M. Wilkinson
Corporate Counsel
Kuntz Electroplating Inc.
851 Wilson Avenue
Kitchener ON N2C 1J1
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is seeking to validate the title of the property
owned by Kuntz Electroplating Inc. at 851 Wilson Avenue. Lot 28, Registrar's Compiled Plan
1525 (formerly 825 Wilson Avenue) was conveyed from 781254 Ontario Ltd. to 884481 Ontario
Ltd. in 1993 (both companies are owned by the Kuntz families). The deed for Lot 28, however,
was not registered until April 11, 1996. Lot 27, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1525 (formerly 805
Wilson Avenue) was also conveyed to 884481 Ontario Ltd. and registered on April 11, 1996.
The solicitors of the applicants' bankers have reservations with respect to the validity of the
transfer of Lots 27 & 28 to 884481 Ontario Ltd. as previous consent was not obtained.
The Committee noted the written submission of Ms. M. Wilkinson dated March 16, 2000, in
which she advised that the purpose of the application is to request from the Committee of
Adjustment the validation of the transfer of Lot 28, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1525 (Instrument
No. 1288668).
The deed for Lot 28 was executed and delivered in 1993 but was not registered until 1996.
The companies involved (884481 Ontario Limited and 781254 Ontario Limited) are real estate
holding companies owned by the Kuntz families. The properties are leased from the real
estate holding company by Kuntz Electroplating Inc. and form part of the properties from which
Kuntz Electroplating Inc. carries on its business.
History of Lot 28 (formerly 825 Wilson Avenue)
781254 Ontario Limited purchased Lot 28 from Carl Flick and Anne (Zoll) Flick on July 27,
1988 which transfer was registered on August 23, 1988 as Instrument No. 957507.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 180 APRIL 11, 2000
781254 Ontario Limited sold Lot 28 to 884481 Ontario Limited by deed dated July 9, 1993
which transfer was registered on April 11, 1996 as Instrument No. 1288668.
History of Lot 27 (formerly 805 Wilson Avenue)
781254 Ontario Limited purchased Lot 27 from Zaicana Real Estate Limited on October 14,
1994 which transfer was registered on October 31, 1994 as Instrument No. 1235805.
Submission No.: VT2000-001(Cont'd)
781254 Ontario Limited sold Lot 27 to 884481 Ontario Limited by deed dated March 15, 1996
which transfer was registered on April 11, 1996 as Instrument No. 1288667.
Title Concern
Our bankers solicitors have reservations about the validity of the transfer of Lot 28 to 884481
Ontario Limited (Instrument No. 1288668).
The deed for Lot 28 was signed and delivered in 1993 and the consideration was paid for the
transfer to 884481 Ontario Limited in 1993. At that time 781254 Ontario Limited did not own
any abutting land. However, in 1996 when the deed transferring Lot 28 was registered,
781254 Ontario Limited did own abutting land (Lot 27). There was no consent for the transfer
of Lot 27 at the time the deed was registered in 1996. The bankers' solicitors are arguing that
the transfer of Lot 27 may not be valid because there was no consent to the transfer of Lot 28
(Lot 27 and 28 having the same registered owner at the time the deeds were registered). It is
the company's position that the transfer was completed in 1993 (registration at a later date
does not affect the date on which the transfer occurs) and therefore there was no need for a
consent since 781254 Ontario Limited did not own any abutting lands in 1993 and therefore
there was no breach of the Planning Act.
Current Situation
884481 Ontario Limited owns Lots 27, 28, 29 and 30 which lots have been merged and are
now known municipally as 851 Wilson Avenue. Kuntz Electroplating Inc. leases all of this land.
If there was in fact a breach of the Planning Act, it was a technical breach. The transfer of Lots
28 and 27 were in fact additions to the existing property held by 884481 Ontario Limited.
Therefore the transfer of Lot 28 did not breach the intent of the Subdivision of Land provisions.
The Committee noted a further written submission by Ms. M. Wilkinson dated March 24, 2000,
in which she advised that further to the application submitted by 781254 Ontario Limited the
solicitors for the bank have suggested that the validation should be with respect to the transfer
of both lots.
Lot 28 was transferred by unregistered deed in 1993. But when the transfers of Lots 27 and
28 were registered, the deed for Lot 27 was registered first. Therefore the bank's lawyers are
taking the position that the transfer of Lot 27 is improper (781254 Ontario Limited "owned" Lot
28 when it transferred Lot 27) since the deed for Lot 27 was registered first. Because of the
sequence of events, it would probably be easiest to have the transfer of both properties
validated.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that this application for Validation of Title pertains to Lots 27 and 28 of
Registrar's Compiled Plan 1525 which are used along with Lots 29 and 30 by Kuntz
Electroplating. The question of validity results from the transfer of Lot 28 from 781254 Ontario Ltd.
to 884481 Ontario Ltd. which was executed in 1993 but not transferred until 1996. At the time of
the execution, 781254 did not own any abutting land but in 1996 when the deed for Lot 28 was
registered, 781254 did own abutting land, Lot 27. As Lots 27 and 28 are not whole lots in a
registered plan and had the same registered owner when the deeds were registered, the validity
of both Lots 27 and 28 is uncertain.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 181 APRIL 11, 2000
No certificate may be issued under Section 57 of the Planning Act unless the certificate conforms
with the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. The lands are industrially used which complies with
the Heavy Industrial designation of the Municipal Plan and is a permitted use in the M-4 Zone.
With respect to compliance with all regulations, as a survey is not available, staff were able to use
only the building sketch provided with the application, which is without lot lines. As far as can be
determined, there is compliance relative to building location. Although the lot lines of Lot 28 likely
bisect the buildings, the Zoning By-law permits development over lot lines where the lots are held
in identical title. However, with respect to parking, this provision does not apply to separate lots
Submission No.: VT2000-001(Cont'd)
which are not merged. Parking must be provided on the same lot as the use or otherwise
legalized by a three party parking agreement between the two owners and the City. The parking
for uses located on Lot 28 is not provided on Lot 28, as most parking is provided on Lot 27.
Recent development over Lots 27, 28, 29 and 30 has been treated as one comprehensive
development and approached as though these lots are legally merged as one lot, which is the
legal position held by the Kuntz solicitor. The intent of this validation is to satisfy the bankers'
solicitor as to the historical validity so that the properties may be deemed to be merged today.
As Regulation 244/95 requires conformity with the Zoning By-law, staff cannot advise that without
merging, conformity is achieved, but support all efforts to merge the properties.
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 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 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 validation of title on the property owned by Kuntz
Electroplating Inc. at 851 Wilson Avenue.
Ms. M. Wilkinson provided a brief history of the transfer of Lots 27 and 28 and pointed out that
the solicitor for the applicant's bank has concern that the transfers were not valid. She stated
that the applicant purchased Lot 28 in 1993 and, by signed deed, transferred this lot to 884481
Ontario Limited. The deed, however, was not registered at that time. Subsequently, the
applicant purchased Lot 27 in 1994 and in 1996 transferred Lot 27, by signed deed, to 884481
Ontario Limited. Deeds for both Lot 27 and Lot 28 were registered in 1996, with the deed for
Lot 27 being registered first. Accordingly, this has created concern that the transactions may
have breached the Planning Act.
The Committee then entered into a discussion with respect to the turn of events, following
which the Chair requested staff to comment.
Ms. J. Given advised that the building location appears to be in compliance and, even though
the buildings are likely constructed over lot lines, the Zoning By-law does permit development
over lot lines if the lands are held in identical title. This provision, however, does not apply to
separate lots not having merged with respect to parking. Parking must be on the same lot as
the use or legalized by a third party parking agreement. She pointed out that the parking for
Lot 28 is not provided on the lot as most of the parking is provided on Lot 27. Ms. Given
advised that the ultimate purpose of the application is to ensure all of the subject lands have
merged.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that he believed the transfer of Lot 28 to be valid as transfer of land can
take place without registration of a deed. He pointed out that the purpose of registration of a
deed is simply to publicly notify of the transfer and, while non-registration can create
difficulties, he stated that with evidence of a properly executed deed one could defend their
position.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 182 APRIL 11, 2000
The Chair questioned if the applicant had given consideration to applying for a land severance
to convey Lot 28 as a lot addition which would also serve to resolve any parking issues. Ms.
Wilkinson advised that in consultation with the bank's solicitor the applicant had been advised
it would be easier to apply for validation of title.
The Chair agreed that in order to grant validation of title the Committee must be satisfied that
the transfer of Lot 28 was valid in 1993 and questioned if there is evidence of an executed
deed, together with a signed Land Transfer Tax Affidavit. Ms. M. Wilkinson advised that the
Submission No.: VT2000-001(Cont'd)
deed in question was signed by Paul & Robert Kuntz dated July 9, 1993 and the Land Transfer
Tax Affidavit was signed by Paul Kuntz on July 4, 1993.
The Chair stated that he was satisfied that the transfer of Lot 28, Registrar's Compiled Plan
1525 from 781254 Ontario Limited to 884481 Ontario Limited in 1993, and registered on April
11, 1996 as Instrument No. 1288668, was valid and the other members of the Committee
concurred.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of 781254 Ontario Limited requesting validation of title on Lots 27 & 28,
Registrar's Compiled Plan 1525, 851 Wilson Avenue (formerly known as 805 and 825 Wilson
Avenue), Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that the requirements of the Zoning By-law, the City of
Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan are being maintained on the
subject property.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:27 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 11th day of April, 2000.
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment