Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2000-03-21COA\2000-03-21 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MARCH 21, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. S. Kay, A. Galloway and P. Kruse. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner, Mr. Z. Janecki, Intermediate Planner, Ms. D. Ross, Principal Planner, Region of Waterloo, Mr. C. Gosselin, Manager of Environmental Planning, Region of Waterloo and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary- Treasurer. Mr. S. Kay, Vice-Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of February 29, 2000, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried UNFINISHED BUSINESS 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) c) Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 14/99 Diana Biuk Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road Lot 97, Registered Plan 578 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. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in these applications, as he has acted on behalf of the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to these applications. Mr. Kay 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 three members. Appearances: In Support: Mr. S. Cameron Sims Clement Eastman 22 Frederick Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 578 Kitchener ON N2G 4A2 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 106 MARCH 21, 2000 Submission Nos.: Contra: Written Submissions: In Support: Contra: B 13/99, B14/99, B 15/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99(Cont'd) 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 Ms. V. Zietsma 1831 Old Mill Road Kitchener ON N2P 1E3 Mr. M. Makarchuk 24 Amherst Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1C9 Mr. A. Waterfield 53 Doon Valley Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1B1 Ms. S. Grant Madorin Snyder P.O. Box 1234 235 King Street East Kitchener ON N2G 4G9 Mr. & Mrs. M. Ferraz 1941 Old Mill Road Kitchener ON N2P 1E3 Mr. & Mrs. J. Moore 1834 Old Mill Road Kitchener ON N2P 1E2 Mr. K. Heller Ms. T. Weiss 1837 Old Mill Road Kitchener ON N2P 1E3 Ms. G. Luciantonio Mr. R. Martin 20 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1B7 Ms. P. Nippell 560 Mill Park Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1W1 Mr. & Mrs. D. Oleskevich Mr. R. Szydlowski 1824 Old Mill Road Kitchener ON N2P 1E2 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 East Kitchener ON N2G 4G9 Mr. & Mrs. M. Ferraz 1941 Old Mill Road Kitchener ON N2P 1E3 Mr. F. Louwe Mr. J. Corrall 10 Pinnacle Drive Mr. & Mrs. M. Snyder 34 Amherst Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1C9 Mr. & Mrs. J. Moore 1834 Old Mill Road Kitchener ON N2P 1E2 Ms. P. Nippell 560 Mill Park Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1W1 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 107 MARCH 21, 2000 Kitchener ON N2P 1B7 Submission Nos.: B 13/99, B14/99, B 15/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99(Cont'd) Mr. R. Martin 20 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener ON N2P 1B7 Neighbourhood Petition These applications were originally considered at the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on February 16, 1999, at which time the applications were deferred to provide an opportunity for City Council to consider an amendment to Block Plan 65 with respect to road access. These applications were based, in part, on the road access being changed from Amherst Drive to Old Mill Road. The Committee was previously advised that the property owners are proposing to convey land to the City of Kitchener to open Drummond Drive, at Old Mill Road, as public highway. Once the lands for the road have been conveyed to the City, the owners of 3 properties fronting the new Drummond Drive are asking permission to create 4 new building lots from the 3 lots they currently own. Also, the owner is asking permission to convey a lot addition to 1843 Old Mill Road so that, once the road widening is taken, the lot will still comply with the minimum lot area requirements of the Zoning By-law. In Submission No. A 26/99, the owner of 1843 Old Mill Road is requesting permission for the sideyard adjacent to the proposed Drummond Drive. The sideyard would be 2 m (6.44 ft.) rather than the required 4.5 m (14.77 ft.), once the road widening is given to the City of Kitchener. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services, dated February 4, 1999, in which they requested deferral of the applications for the above-noted reasons. Deferral was agreed upon by all parties. Various requests for deferral were received over a period of one year, with the last request being at the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on February 29, 2000 to defer the applications to the March 21, 2000 meeting to allow a majority of Committee members to be present to conduct a full and impartial hearing. The Committee noted revised comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services, dated February 3, 2000, in which they advised that the owner of properties on Drummond Drive and 1843 Old Mill Road is requesting permission to create a total of four new lots intended for single detached dwellings. Three of the lots are intended to be created from the severance of Lots 96 and 97, Registered Plan 578 on Drummond Drive which is an unopened road allowance. The fourth lot, also fronting Drummond Drive is to be created from the severance of 1843 Old Mill Road. The subject lands are located within Block Plan 65 which was adopted by City Council August 15, 1977, covering the block bounded by Old Mill Road, Durham Street, Amherst Drive and Pinnacle Drive. The Block Plan shows Drummond Drive designed as a cul-de-sac from Amherst Drive and a 20 foot (6.1 metre) wide pedestrian and servicing access to Old Mill Road. Portions of the former Drummond Drive were closed and conveyed to implement the block plan. These Committee of Adjustment applications were originally premised on the basis of the cul-de-sac being reversed, so that Drummond Drive would intersect Old Mill Road rather than Amherst Drive. The owner had requested an amendment to Block Plan 65 to redesign Drummond Drive so as to intersect Old Mill Road instead of Amherst Drive. Several public meetings were held with residents during 1999 to review this request. The consents were deferred pending resolution of this matter. The matter was considered at the public meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting on January 24, 2000. The Committee recommended against the requested change to the block plan and Council endorsed the refusal on January 31, 2000. One of the issues arising out of the public involvement is the number of lots intended to be created. The applications propose to create four new lots fronting onto Drummond Drive. The residents voiced their preference for either 2 or 3 lots. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 108 MARCH 21, 2000 1. Submission Nos.: B 13/99, B14/99, B 15/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99(Cont'd) Block Plan 65 shows four proposed lots to be created along the west side of Drummond Drive. The applicant had initially intended to create three 13.7 metre (45 foot) wide lots and one 20.15 metre (66.1 foot) but has revised his submission to request three 14.33 metre (47 foot) wide lots and one 18.28 metre (60 foot) wide lot. The revised submissions would implement Block Plan 65 exactly and exceed the lot width requirement of the R-3 zone, which is 13.7 metres (45 feet). Minor Variance Application, A 26~99, requested by the owner to reduce the side yard abutting the proposed Drummond Drive from 4.5 metres to 1.96 metres (14.76 feet to 6.43 feet) for the corner property at 1843 Old Mill road is no longer required as there will not be any road access provided to Old Mill Road. The owner intends to initiate a petition under the Local Improvement Act for the construction of Drummond Drive. If the applicant is unsuccessful in getting a certified and acceptable petition to construct the road then he is prepared to upfront the full costs of the construction through the subdivision agreement. The lands on the east side of Drummond Drive are held in fragmented ownership, between this owner and Manuel Ferraz. At such time as these lands are consolidated for development, the owner of such lots would be required to reimburse this owner on a proportional frontage basis prior to obtaining building permits for the lots on the east side. These lots are separated from the road allowance by a 0.3 m (1 foot) reserve held in the City's ownership. The proposed four lots abut a property designated under the Heritage Act on Pinnacle Drive immediately behind the subject lands. To preserve the integrity of the heritage property, staff are recommending that a landscaped buffer be planted along the rear of the lots to the satisfaction of the City. In addition, staff are requesting a Tree Management Plan to protect as many trees located on these proposed lots as possible, taking into consideration the road alignment, grading and drainage, building envelope and driveway locations. With respect to the park dedication requirement, there are two legally established Lots 96 and 97, Registered Plan 578. Through the division of these two lots one new lot is created. Furthermore, the severance of the rear portion of 1843 Old Mill Road also creates a new lot. Accordingly, since the applicant is entitled to building permits for two lots, therefore, only the two new lots are subject to parkland dedication requirements. Staff are of the opinion that the proposed development with appropriate buffering is compatible with the character of the area and is appropriate development within Block Plan 65. The subject consent applications conform with the Municipal Plan and the R-3 zoning and implement Block Plan 65. On the basis of the above, the Department supports and recommends approval of the revised applications, as follows: 1. That Minor Variance Application A 26~99 be refused if not withdrawn. 2. That Consent Applications B 13-16/99 be 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 the subdivider pay to the City of Kitchener, a cash-in-lieu of park land equal to 5% of the value of two lots to be severed. That the subdivider make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvements charges. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 109 MARCH 21, 2000 1. Submission Nos.: B 13/99, B14/99, B 15/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99(Cont'd) That the owner enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the General Managers of Public Works and Business and Planning Services, and registered on title of all the subject lands; said agreement shall include arrangements for performance securities and municipal engineering services and shall include the following specific requirements: a) That the subdivider shall pay 100% of the cost of the construction of Drummond Drive to full municipal standards including the cost of constructing a walkway from Drummond Drive to Old Mill Road, and excluding the cost of sidewalks on Drummond Drive, all to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works. In the event the cost of certain road construction requirements is assessed to abutting property owners as a result of a successful Local Improvement Act petition, then the subdivider shall be responsible for paying his assessed costs under the Local Improvement Act and only the cost of any of those works required above which are not able to be assessed under the Local Improvement Act, if any. b) That the subdivider submit a Tree Management Plan for approval by the City's General Manager of Business and Planning Services prior to any grading of the lands, and agrees to implement all protection measures. c) That the subdivider prepare and submit a landscaped buffer plan affecting the rear of the four lots fronting Drummond Drive for approval by the City's General Manager of Business and Planning Services prior to any grading of the site. Such landscape plan shall include trees greater than 1.8 metres in height. That the Owner shall be responsible for installing such planting prior to the occupancy of such lots to first time occupants or in the event of winter conditions, by June 1 immediately following the transfer of such title. d) Unless the construction of Drummond Drive occurs by way of the Local Improvement Act, the Subdivider agrees to provide a water supply to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works at the subdivider's cost for all affected properties currently relying solely on a private water system, located in the vicinity of Drummond Drive and Old Mill Road, in the event the existing private water supply is disrupted and cut off as a result of the development within two years of the completion and acceptance of Drummond Drive. The Committee noted the previous comments of the Director of Building, dated February 2, 1999, in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to these applications. No further comments were forthcoming from the Building Division with respect to these applications. The Committee noted previous comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst, Traffic & Parking Division, dated February 16, 1999 in which he advised that the Division concurs with the Planning staffs recommendation to defer the applications. No further comments were forthcoming from the Traffic & Parking Division. The Committee noted previous comments from the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, dated February 10, 1999, respecting Minor Variance Application A 26/99, in which they advised that they had reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. No further comments were forthcoming from the Regional Engineering Department with respect to Minor Variance Application A 26/99. The Committee considered previous comments from the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, dated February 10, 1999; July 14, 1999; September 9, 1999; November 9, COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 110 MARCH 21, 2000 1999; February 3, 2000 and February 24, 2000; however the Committee relied upon the most recent comments from the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo, dated March Submission Nos.: B 13/99, B14/99, B 15/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99(Cont'd) 16, 2000, in which they advised that Regional staff previously identified the need for physical access onto a municipal road for the proposed lots. This access/frontage issue has now been resolved. Staff also previously advised of the need to address archaeological potential and odour from the Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant. With the understanding that the property owners convey lands to the City of Kitchener as a public highway, staff have no objection to the consent applications subject to the following conditions: 1) 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. 2) That prior to final approval of these applications, the owner enter into a registered development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide for the following odour warning clause in all offers of purchase and sale and rental agreements for the lots created: "Due to its proximity to the Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant, projected odour levels on this property may occasionally cause concern to some individuals." The Region further advised that any future development on the lands subject to the consent applications will be 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 previous comments from the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated February 1, 1999, with respect to Consent Applications B 13/99 to B 16/99, inclusive, in which they advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to these applications. The Committee also noted previous comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated February 5, 1999, respecting Minor Variance Application A 26/99, in which they advised that they have no objection or concern with respect to this application. No further comments were forthcoming from the Grand River Conservation Authority with respect to these applications. The Committee noted the following documentation with respect to the amendment to Block Plan 65, namely: Department of Business & Planning Services Staff Report BPS/99/122, dated December 22, 1999 Department of Business & Planning Services Staff Report BPS/00/17, dated February 3, 2000 Planning & Economic Development Committee Minutes dated January 24, 2000 Planning & Economic Development Committee Minutes dated February 7, 2000 Council Minutes dated January 31, 2000 Various written submissions respecting amendment to Block Plan 65 The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. I. Biuk, Ivan Biuk Construction Limited, dated January 28, 2000, in which he advised that the original applications have been slightly revised as a result of City Council's refusal to amend Block Plan 65 with respect to road access. He pointed out in his written submission that the number of lots proposed has not changed from the original submission; however, the lots have increased in size to a minor degree and provided a summary of the changes. Mr. Biuk also provided revised sketches detailing the changes proposed. The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. S. Grant, Madorin, Snyder, in which he advised that he represents a number of residents of the Doon Pioneer Ward who have signed a petition in opposition to the applications. In his submission he provides background information, together with the reasons for the objections, based on Section 51 (4) of the Planning Act, which include: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 111 MARCH 21, 2000 Submission Nos.: B 13/99, B14/99, B 15/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99(Cont'd) a) b) c) d) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of Provincial interest as referred to in Section 2 of the Planning Act; whether the proposed subdivision is premature; whether the plan generally conforms to the Official Plan and adjacent Plans of Subdivision, if any; and, the dimensions and shape of the lots. The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. M. Ferraz in which he outlines his concerns with respect to the amendment to Block Plan 65, together with grading and drainage concerns relating to the proposed development under these applications. The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. & Mrs. M. Snyder in which they advised that they are opposed to the current and proposed lotting for Block Plan 65 and consider Registered Plan 578 to be the only choice. The Committee considered the written comments of Mr. F. Louwe and Ms. J. Corrall in which they advised that they wish to have the original 66 ft. lots maintained on Drummond Drive. The Committee considered the written comments of Mr. R. Martin in which he advised that he is the owner of 20 Pinnacle Drive which is a designated heritage property. His concerns relate to incompatible development adjacent to his property and the lots on the opposite side of Drummond Drive. The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. & Mrs. J. Moore, owner of 1834 Old Mill Road, in which they advised that they disagree with the proposed applications as they would significantly alter the secondary plan for the Lower Doon area and ultimately affect their property. The Committee noted a neighbourhood petition signed by approximately 200 signatories, in which they advise that they are opposed to the creation of 4 lots from the current 3 lots on Drummond Drive for the following reasons: 1) 2) 3) 4) The Lower Doon Secondary Plan states that single family residential lots should have a frontage of 50 ft. or greater. If this request is allowed, the owner of the properties on the other side of Drummond Drive will be forced to create 3 lots out of 2. These changes will increase the density of this small area by 40%. The current lot configuration behind the houses on Old Mill Road is already irregular to allow the creation of an extra lot on Drummond Drive. The lots in question should be aligned with the lots behind them. Mr. S. Cameron advised that he represented the applicants and provided the Committee with a sketch of Block Plan 65, together with an assessment map of the area. He advised that he had reviewed the staff report and was generally in support; however, would be asking for a revision to one of the conditions. Mr. Cameron advised that the property was connected with the Lower Doon Secondary Plan and Block Plan 65, which had been developed in 1977 following significant input, analysis and debate. Mr. Cameron then provided an overview of the history of the property and advised that the applications being considered this date had been deferred for the past year to allow consideration of an application to revise Block Plan 65 to permit access to take place from Old Mill Road rather than Amherst Drive. Mr. Cameron referred to Planning Staff Report BPS/00/17 considered at the Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting on February 7, 2000, which details that in 1995 the property was rezoned to Residential Three Zone (R-3) which permits frontages of 45 ft. In considering engineering matters and costs, he advised that his client decided to make application to re-address the road access. The application was refused by City Council, who chose to re-affirm Block Plan 65. As a result, the minor variance requested is no longer required as access will be from Amherst Drive and the variance applied to access from Old Mill Road. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 112 MARCH 21, 2000 Accordingly, Mr. Cameron advised that his client is formally withdrawing Application, Submission No. A 26/99. Submission Nos.: B 13/99, B14/99, B 15/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99(Cont'd) Minor Variance Mr. Cameron advised that Consent Application, Submission No. B 16/99, is a re-confirmation of a previous consent granted in 1997 which lapsed as a result of conditions not being fulfilled within the required 1 year period. Consent Applications, B 13/99 to B 15/99, inclusive, are all lot additions to create the 4 lots proposed. He advised that City Council has deemed Block Plan 65 to be appropriate and, accordingly, the proposed severances are to be implemented exactly according to the Block Plan. He noted that the proposal will create 3 lots with frontages of 47 ft. and the remaining lot with 60 ft. Mr. Cameron stated that the sensitivity of the area is appreciated and advised that a letter of support from area residents has been obtained. The letter, together with a map outlining the properties of those who had signed the letter, was submitted to the Committee. Mr. Cameron stated that he believed those who signed the letter to be those most affected by the proposals. Mr. Cameron advised that the lapsed consent had been supported by staff, subject to two conditions relative to final approval of a minor variance application and payment of taxes. He pointed out that staff are now asking for a payment of parkland dedication of 5% of the value of 2 lots to be severed. Mr. Cameron advised that his client is requesting this be amended to apply to only 1 lot to be severed. Mr. Cameron stated that the lots proposed serve what has been planned since 1977 and the lands have been owned since approximately 1968 by the applicant, who has been involved throughout all planning processes. Mr. Cameron then provided a collage of pictures demonstrating the type of housing in the area and identifying lots both smaller and larger than 45 ft. In conclusion, he stated that the proposed development is in keeping with the existing housing. Mr. P. Kruse requested staff to comment with regard to the payment of parkland dedication. Ms. J. Given advised that park dedication is compared to the number of building permits. She pointed out that 2 new lots requiring building permits will be created facing Drummond Drive through severance of Lot 96 and 97 and the rear portion of 1843 Old Mill Road. She pointed out that under the previously approved consent staff did not impose parkland dedication on the retained lands as staff were aware that further severances were planned. She advised that it was a deferral of part of the parkland dedication as opposed to it not being required. The proposal this date is to create 4 lots which results in 2 more lots than originally proposed through the previous consent. Ms. S. Campbell enquired that, if a picture of the proposed lotting were placed over a copy of Block Plan 65, would the two lotting plans match exactly and Mr. Cameron advised that was correct. Mr. R. Martin advised that he was the owner of 20 Pinnacle Drive which is adjacent to the proposed new lots. He provided a sketch of the lots on Block Plan 65 and raised concerns with respect to the process through which Block Plan 65 was developed. For clarification, Mr. P. Kruse requested Mr. Martin to point out his property on the plan and Mr. Martin complied. Mr. Martin advised that the proposed 3 lots having 47 foot frontages would be located directly to the rear of his property which has a frontage of 132 ft. He pointed out that his home was built in 1858 and was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. He advised that he was concerned that the proposed development would result in overcrowding and change the spacious character of the neighbourhood. He stated that the overcrowding had begun with variances approved with respect to the front and rearyards of 1843 Old Mill Road and the rearyard of 1837 Old Mill Road. He further expressed concerns with the proposed angling of several of the lots. Mr. Martin stated that Block Plan 65 was not a legal document and was in contrast to the Lower Doon Secondary Plan which allows for 50 ft. frontages. He pointed out that neither was a legal document but were to be used as a guideline. Mr. Martin stated his preference for the original lotting that would create only two lots directly behind his property rather than the 3 proposed. In conclusion, he stated that he was aware that development was proposed for this area and was not against development; however, he did not agree that this proposal was appropriate. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 113 MARCH 21, 2000 Submission Nos.: B 13/99, B14/99, B 15/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99(Cont'd) Ms. S. Campbell referred to the staff report which provides a condition of approval that appropriate buffering, together with a Tree Management Plan, be provided. In this regard, she enquired if Mr. Martin had reviewed the staff report and if these conditions would satisfy his concerns. Mr. Martin advised that he had read the staff reports; however, did not feel the conditions referred to would address his concerns as there was no guarantee that future owners would properly maintain buffers or not cut down trees, and it also did not address the issue of overcrowding. Mr. S. Grant advised that he represented the signatories to a petition of approximately 200 residents opposed to the applications and also provided a map to the Committee. In reference to the letter of support submitted by Mr. Cameron who indicated included most of the affected property owners, Mr. Grant pointed out that 2 of the properties are owned by the applicant, being 1843 and 1831 Old Mill Road. Mr. Grant stated that in eliminating these 2 properties, it left very few of the properties directly affected in support. Mr. Grant then reviewed the comments in his written submission, using overhead slides, to address issues under Section 51.4 of the Planning Act relating to historical features; the prematurity of the development, conformity to Official Plans and adjacent Subdivision Plans; and, the dimensions and shapes of the lots. In his review of the heritage impact he provided slides and a history of heritage homes in the area and stated that his clients want to ensure the heritage of Doon is preserved. He pointed out that staff are not requesting a Heritage Impact Assessment which his clients would like to have done to address heritage impact concerns. In reference to the prematurity of the proposal, Mr. Grant advised that while the issues of Block Plan 65 have been dealt with, the issue of grading and drainage without due consideration to the vacant lots on the east side of Drummond Drive remains a concern. He stated that staff have suggested that the proposed development could proceed without impact in this regard; however, he disagrees. He advised that there are properties whose sole source of water is through private wells and there is concern that the wells will be affected. He pointed out that staff recognize this as a concern in providing a condition of approval that the owner enter into an agreement in which, among other things, agrees to provide water supply to an affected property owner relying solely on a private water system in the event disruption takes place. Mr. Grant suggested that this approach was a reversal of proper order and provided the Committee with a copy of case law in which the Ontario Municipal Board ruled prematurity based on conflicting evidence. Ms. S. Campbell requested Mr. Grant to point out within the case law where reference was made to the ruling of prematurity and Mr. Grant referred the Committee to various sections of the case law. Ms. S. Campbell enquired if Mr. Grant was suggesting that there was conflicting evidence before the Committee and Mr. Grant responded that he was pointing out that residents have raised the issue which the City has recognized as a concern by imposing the condition referred to; however, the condition allows for the problem to occur prior to the owner being required to do anything about it. In reference to conformity, Mr. Grant advised that only two lots containing semi-detached dwellings were less that 62 ft., with the average lot size in the area being 93 ft. In this regard, he suggested that the proposed 47 ft. lots did not conform to the neighbouring properties. Mr. Grant pointed out that Block Plan 65 and the Lower Doon Secondary Plan were both policy statements that conflicted with each other with regard to lot sizes. He pointed out that neither had legal status but were to be used as a guideline and it would be up to the Committee as to which of the two conflicting policy statements, if either, they would rely on. He pointed out that the only legal document was Registered Plan 578 which provides for 60 ft. lots on Drummond Drive and suggested this would be more appropriately relied upon. Mr. Grant recognized that emphasis has been placed on the zoning permitting 47 ft. lots; however, suggested that zoning should not be the only deciding factor. In support of this, Mr. Grant provided a copy of another case law in which the Ontario Municipal Board ruled that it was not sufficient to show compliance with zoning COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 114 MARCH 21, 2000 Submission Nos.: B 13/99, B14/99, B 15/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99(Cont'd) as regard must also be given to the existing frontages, type of homes and appearance of the streetscape. In reference to the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots, Mr. Grant referred to the odd angling of several parcels and suggested that the proposal would create overcrowding. In conclusion, Mr. Grant stated that his clients were not against development; however, wished the Committee to have regard to heritage preservation and consider all matters relative to the Planning Act. Mr. K. Heller advised that he was the owner of 1837 Old Mill Road and was concerned that the proposed lots would be developed with semi-detached rental units, creating additional overcrowding and noise. Mr. A. Galloway enquired if the zoning would permit semi-detached dwellings and Ms. J. Given responded that, while semis would not be permitted, duplexes were a permitted use under the R- 3 Zoning. Mr. M. Ferraz advised that he was the owner of 1941 Old Mill Road and was concerned with grading and drainage issues. He suggested that these issues should be dealt with during the site plan review process. In addition, he stated that he viewed 4 lots as too many and would prefer 2 lots to be developed in keeping with the east side of Drummond Drive. Mr. P. Kruse referred to the 2 lots on the east side of Drummond Drive and enquired if it was being suggested there was a possibility of developing more lots and creating a higher density. Ms. J. Given advised that the lots in question would fall 0.47 of a foot short in achieving 3 lots having frontages of 45 ft. Mrs. V. Zietsma advised that she was the owner of 1831 Old Mill Road and has student borders. She referred to the suggestion that there were properties in the area relying solely on wells for water supply and questioned the validity of this suggestion. Mr. Grant confirmed that there were several households whose sole supply of water was through a private well. Mrs. Zietsma stated that she would like to see smaller lots developed and was in support of the proposed development. She further stated that the residents of the heritage home at 20 Pinnacle Drive had sufficient room on their property to put up buffers and did not understand why it should be the responsibility of the owner of the proposed development. Mr. M. Makarchuk advised that he was the owner of 24 Amherst Drive and did not have any concerns with the 4 lots proposed; however, was concerned only with the amount and type of fill that would be used in grading to create the road access onto Amherst Drive. Ms. P. Nippell advised that she was the owner of 560 Mill Park Drive and provided the Committee with a written submission. Ms. Nippell read from her prepared statement in which she advised that she was opposed to the applications based on the negative impact on the abutting heritage properties and detriment to the surrounding neighbourhood aesthetics; the reliance on the goodwill and stewardship of present owners to preserve significant heritage landmarks; environmental impacts; planning precedence; prejudice to other land owners; and, neighbourhood opinions. Ms. G. Luciantonio advised that she was the owner of 20 Pinnacle Drive and submitted several heritage pamphlets. She advised that she wished to make the Committee aware that an application has been made to designate Lower Doon as a Heritage Conservation District. Ms. S. Campbell enquired of staff if they agreed with Mr. Martin and Mr. Grant that the provision of appropriate buffering and tree management would not satisfy their concerns. Ms. J. Given advised that the condition is structured the same as that used in subdivision/condominium planning. Plantings are required; however, she advised that nothing is placed on title to ensure COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 115 MARCH 21, 2000 maintenance protection. The City relies on the goodwill of the property owner, who she pointed out are usually desirous of maintaining their properties. 1. Submission Nos.: B 13/99, B14/99, B 15/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99(Cont'd) Ms. S. Campbell questioned why a Heritage Impact Assessment was not required. Ms. Given advised that the General Manager of Business and Planning Services considered this matter and concluded there was nothing to be gained as there is an existing registered plan, in conjunction with Block Plan 65; the zoning permits the development; and conditions are being applied to address heritage concerns. Ms. S. Campbell referred to concerns respecting grading and drainage and enquired of staff what their knowledge was with respect to homes relying on private wells. Ms. Given responded that to her knowledge, two homes rely solely on private wells for their water supply, with others using both wells and municipal services. She also advised that this situation exists in other communities within the municipality. Ms. S. Campbell referred to the condition relative to water supply and questioned if a local improvement petition was unsuccessful if the owner would then be required to provide the water supply to affected properties. Ms. Given responded this would be the case only if disruption to the private wells occurs within two years of the completed development. She further advised that this was the only way to determine if disruption would occur. In response to questioning respecting the 2 lots on the east side of Drummond Drive, Ms. Given advised that development would be treated in the same manner with a final site plan having to be submitted and approved. Ms. Campbell questioned if this was the case regardless of the number of lots to be developed and Ms. Given responded that was correct. Ms. J. Given advised that she wished to correct an earlier figure given with respect to the 2 lots on the east side of Drummond Drive. She pointed out that, instead of 0.47 of a foot, these lots would fall 2 feet short of achieving frontages of 45 ft. She further pointed out that the total frontage of the 2 lots is 133 ft. and 135 ft. is required to achieve the 3 lots with 45 ft. frontages. Mr. A. Galloway requested clarification as to the status of Block Plan 65 and Ms. Given responded that the plan is a policy statement adopted by City Council and, as such, does not have formal status. Mr. A. Galloway enquired if staff were satisfied that the planning, lotting and conditions of approval were enough to permit the development and Ms. Given advised that staff had some concerns; however, following full consideration of all the issues felt the proposal could be supported. Mrs. J. Oleskevich advised that she was the owner of 1824 Old Mill Road and her sole supply of water was through a private well. She expressed concern with the potential impact to her well and the expense of switching over to municipal services should disruption to the well occur. Mrs. Oleskevich further advised that she had signed the neighbourhood petition in opposition to the applications, however, due to student error, her name was shown as both supporting and opposing the applications on a subsequent summary document. She requested that her name be removed as being in support. In this regard, Mr. Grant acknowledged that Mrs. Oleskevich's name was not included in the Letter of Support submitted by Mr. Cameron this date. Ms. D. Biuk, applicant of Consent Application, Submission No. B 14/99, advised that she wished to address several issues raised by Mr. Grant. In reference to the Letter of Support, she pointed out that Mrs. Zietsma is the owner of 1831 Old Mill Road, rather than Mr. I. Biuk, who is also an applicant to the proposals. She further advised that the property at 1843 Old Mill Road, owned by Mr. Biuk, was rented and it had been the tenants who signed the Letter of Support and who have indicated an interest in purchasing the property. In addition, Ms. Biuk clarified that the variances to 1843 Old Mill Road referred to by Mr. Martin, were undertaken under former Township of Waterloo Zoning By-law 878A, at which time, front and rearyard variances and septic system were required; however, she advised these no longer apply with the exception of a rearyard variance. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 116 MARCH 21, 2000 Ms. S. Campbell stated that she could not support the applications based on the concerns raised respecting potential heritage impact; buffering and tree management not being adequate to address heritage concerns; case law providing that zoning alone should not be the decisive Submission Nos.: B 13/99, B14/99, B 15/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99(Cont'd) factor; conflicting policy statements; and, the irregular dimensions and shapes of several of the lots proposed. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he also could not support the applications for the same reasons expressed by Ms. Campbell. Mr. P. Kruse stated that he found it difficult to ignore the concerns raised and the fact 200 residents signed a petition in opposition. He further stated that case law to the contrary of that submitted by Mr. Grant with respect to zoning has not been provided. In his opinion, the proposal goes beyond the character of the existing neighbourhood and he was in agreement that the proposals not be supported. Minor Variance A 26~99 Withdrawn Consents B 13/99 and B 16/99 Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That Consent Applications, Submission Nos. B 13/99 and B16/99, as applied for by Ivan Biuk Construction Limited for Part of Lots 100, 101 and 102, Registered Plan 578, and Part of Drummond Drive (Closed), designated as Part 1, Plan 58R-1149, 1843 Old Mill Road and Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are not being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in the application does not conform to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried Consent B 14/99 Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That Consent Application, Submission No. B 14/99, as applied for by Diana Biuk, for Lot 97, Registered Plan 578, Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are not being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in the application does not conform to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 117 MARCH 21, 2000 Carried 1. Submission Nos.: B 13/99, B14/99, B 15/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99(Cont'd) Consent B 15/99 That Consent Application, Submission No. B 15/99, as applied for by Josip Babic, for Lot 96, Registered Plan 578, Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road, BE REFUSED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are not being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in the application does not conform to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. 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 Appearances: In Support: Ms. D. Biuk Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants Ltd. 5-745 Bridge St. W Waterloo ON N2V 2G6 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: Ms. D. Biuk Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants Ltd. 5-745 Bridge St. W Waterloo ON N2V 2G6 Contra: Mr. P. Elkerbout, President Waterloo Condominium Corporation No. 211 16A-165 Chandos Drive Kitchener ON N2A 4A2 Mr. G. Jolicoeur Member of the Board of Directors Waterloo Condominium Corporation No. 211 9C-165 Chandos Drive Kitchener ON N2A 4A2 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 118 MARCH 21, 2000 This application was originally considered at the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on August 17, 1999 at which time the application was deferred to provide an opportunity for further discussion between the applicants, City staff and concerned neighbours. 1. Submission No.: A81/99(Cont'd) Subsequently, continued requests for deferral resulted in the application being deferred for consideration this date. The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct 56 townhouse dwellings having a minimum distance between buildings of 3.5 m (11.48 ft.), rather than the required 8 m (26.24 ft.), and having a westerly sideyard of 9.5 m (31.16 ft.), rather than the required 13.5 m (44.29 ft.). The Committee noted previous comments from the Department of Business and Planning Services, dated August 12, 1999, in which they requested deferral of the application. The Committee also noted revised comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services, dated March 15, 2000, in which they advised that this application was last considered at the Committee meeting of October 26, 1999, and the application was deferred at that time to allow submission of a site plan application and technical review of matters relating to that application. The application had also previously been considered by Committee at the August 17, 1999, meeting, for the same reason. The owner is requesting permission to reduce the minimum distance separation between buildings which contain windows from 8.0 meters to 3.5 meters and to reduce the westerly sideyard setback from 13.5 metres to 10.5 metres. The application incorrectly states 9.5 metres, and should be amended. Special regulation 168R was imposed on the lands in 1989 at a time when the owner had proposed a townhouse development with a different site layout and including two storey units rather than bungalow units as currently proposed. The 13.5 metre sideyard was intended to provide additional protection to at least part of the treed area on the property. The minimum 8.0 meter building separation was imposed in order to provide a view "shed" towards the Grand River for the residents on Tinatawa Court and ensure that the proposed two-storey townhouses would not block residents' views. The owner has completely revised the originally approved site plan which, while still including a total of 64 units (the maximum permitted by special regulation 168R), now includes a series of driveways, three points of access to Chandos Drive, and bungalow-style townhouses with the rear of all units facing the Grand River. At the August 17, 1999, Committee meeting, residents of Tinatawa Court expressed concern regarding the revised site plan, loss of treed area on the property and the long term maintenance of the City's park block. Since that committee meeting, staff convened two neighbourhood meetings, one on October 5, 1999, and the second on February 23, 2000. Most of the residents questions and concerns have been addressed. The location and height of the bungalow units are such that they should not restrict views of the Grand River for residents of Tinatawa Court. It should be noted that the City's park block, which is 15 metres in width, contains mature White Pines which already to a large degree block the views. The proposed reduced sideyard is considered acceptable given the large separation already offered between the rear of the lots fronting Tinatawa Court by the City's treed, park block and the fact that the townhouses will be at a considerably lower grade than the lots on Tinatawa Court. For these reasons, staff consider that the proposed variances are relatively minor in nature and are appropriate for the development and use of the lands. The variances also maintain the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. The two remaining issues with the residents relates to the proposed relocation of the community trail within the City's park block, which residents now generally support, and the timing for the removal of vegetation on the property. Both of these matters are related to the site plan application and not the minor variance application. Said issues are being addressed through the site plan application process. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 119 MARCH 21, 2000 While the site plan application for the revised development has not yet been approved, staff are supportive of the minor variance application as the location of the proposed townhouse units is now generally supported and acceptable. Considerable supporting documentation has been prepared by the owner's consultants over the past few months (geotechnical study, grading plans, storm water management report), and technical review of the site plan has been Submission No.: A81/99(Cont'd) undertaken during this time. Such work is continuing, including the preparation of detailed plans and supporting documentation relating to the re-alignment of the City's community trail, which, as referenced earlier, remains an issue of interest to local residents. Subject to the resolution of this issue, and any remaining minor technical matters, it is likely that the site plan application will receive approval shortly. Given the above comments, staff recommend that the minor variance application A 81/99 be approved. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 81/99, as amended to include a westerly sideyard of 10.5 metres, and subject to the following condition: That approval of application A 81/99 be in accordance with the site plan as approved under site plan application SP 99/43/C/GR. The Committee noted which he advised that application. No further previous comments of the Director of Building, dated July 29, 1999, in the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this comments were forthcoming from the Building Division. The Committee noted previous comments of the Engineering Department, Region of Waterloo, dated August 10, 1999, in which they advised that they had reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the Regional Development Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law-91-91 may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. No further comments were forthcoming from the Regional Engineering Department. The Committee noted previous comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated August 16, 1999, in which they advised that their mapping indicates a large portion of the subject property contains the Grand River Scheduled Area and therefore, they recommend the application be deferred due to the lack of detailed information regarding the above noted property. No further comments were forthcoming from the Grand River Conservation Authority. The Committee noted the written submission of Ms. D. Biuk, dated July 20, 1999, in which she advised that Freure Development is proposing to develop 56 townhouses within a draft plan of condominium on the subject property. Eight existing townhouses have been built and sold to date for a total of 64 units. The first purpose of this application is to seek relief from Site Specific Regulation 168 (f) of the by- law in order to reduce the minimum distance between buildings from 8.0 m to 3.5 m. The site's topography has dictated the building design and siting of the proposed townhouse blocks on this property as there is a large grade difference between the west and east boundaries. As a result it has been very difficult to achieve an 8.0 m distance between the blocks. Regulation 168 (b) also limits the number of unites per block to four. This requirement also reduces the space available between the units. The intent of the 8.0 m separation distance is to protect the privacy of the occupants in the end units. It should be noted that in almost every instance where the distance cannot be achieved, the windows of the facing walls are off-set, thereby reducing the ability to see directly into a unit from a window on the opposite side. In order to protect privacy between units, other design features will be built into the proposed units. Such features include using frosted panes for bathroom windows, setting the windows higher, and off-setting the facing windows as much as possible. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 120 MARCH 21, 2000 The second purpose of this application is to reduce the required sideyard on the westerly boundary of the property from 13.5 m to 9.5 m. This request is based on a combination of the site's sloping topography and the proposed unit design for this property. 1. Submission No.: A81/99(Cont'd) The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. G. Jolicouer, dated August 6, 1999, in which he advised that he wished to state in writing his objection to the request of the applicant for the variance requested under A 81/99 for the following reasons: The request to reduce the minimum between buildings to 3.5 m from the original 8 m as well as a reduction on the westerly setback of 9.5 m from the original 13.5 m create a residence density which is significantly greater than what exists today. Both units 9D and 16A in the Promontory condominium are highly disadvantaged by having new dwellings that significantly encroach what is currently an acceptable distance of 8 m. Residents of our existing condominium originally purchased their dwellings from set distance allowances that were then acceptable to the owners of the residences, the builder Freure Homes as well as the City of Kitchener. The increased density will have a serious and adverse impact on the resale value of the existing dwellings that form the Waterloo Condominium No. 211. The resale value of units 9D and 16A are especially impacted negatively. The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. P. Elkerbout, dated August 6, 1999, in which he advised that he wished to state in writing his objection to the request of the applicant for the variance requested under A 81/99, for the following reasons: The request to reduce the minimum between buildings to 3.5 m from the original 8 m as well as a reduction on the westerly setback of 9.5 m from the original 13.5 m create a residence density which is significantly greater than what exists today. Both units 9D and 16A in the Promontory condominium are highly disadvantaged by having new dwellings that significantly encroach what is currently an acceptable distance of 8 m. As the owner of 16A our condominium was originally purchased with the knowledge of set distance allowances that were then acceptable to ourselves and the builder Freure Homes as well as the City of Kitchener. Our unit, 16A is an end unit with our main entrance to the home on the side of the dwelling. A 3.5 m variance to the next unit is just not acceptable. The increased density will have a serious and adverse impact on the resale value of the existing dwellings that form the Waterloo Condominium No. 211. The resale value of units 9D and 16A are especially impacted negatively. The Committee noted a further written submission from Mr. P. Elkerbout, dated March 12, 2000, in which he advised that he wished to state in writing his objection to the notices being given to defer the meeting to a future date. I have a position in Toronto, and I can only find out that the meeting is rescheduled the morning of the meeting. This creates a major problem for me because lhavetotaketimeofffrom work. Prior to the hearing date, is it possible for the developer to notify us, the people who have objections, or questions on this variance. This is now the 7th time that it has been moved. This issue is very important to me since my main entrance is to the side of the building, a change from 8 m to 3.5 m in space between the building would make my front entrance an alley. Ms. D. Biuk advised that she had reviewed the staff report and was in agreement with the comments contained therein. Ms. Biuk advised that the site plan for this property originally COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 121 MARCH 21, 2000 accomodated 2 storey townhomes; however, a lull in the market necessitated a new strategy. Accordingly, she advised that the original site plan has been revised to create bungalow style townhouses to which the purchaser hopes to attract empty nesters and seniors. She pointed out that the unit design necessitates the need for the variances being requested. In addition, Ms. Biuk advised that several neighbourhood meetings were held to address concerns raised by Submission No.: A81/99(Cont'd) neighbouring residents which are believed to have been resolved for the most part. She pointed out that the applicant is continuing to work with the residents in addressing concerns related to relocation of a community trail and the timing for removal of vegetation on the property which will be addressed through the site plan application process. As no questions or further comment was forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Freure Developments Limited requesting permission to construct 64 bungalow style townhouse units having a minimum distance separation between buildings containing windows of 3.5 m (11.48 ft.), rather than the required 8 m (26.24 ft.), and having a westerly sideyard of 10.5 m (34.45 ft.), rather than the required 13.5 m (44.29 ft.), on Block 85, Registered Plan 1692, 165 Chandos Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditon: That approval of Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 81/99, shall be in accordance with the site plan as approved under Site Plan Application SP 99/43/C/GR. 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 2000-014 Liane Winstel 24 Rosemount Drive Part Lots 125 & 126, Re.qistered Plan 773 Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. Winstel 24 Rosemount Drive Kitchener ON N2B 1R1 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None This application was originally considered at the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on February 29, 2000, at which time the application was deferred to allow an opportunity for the applicant to prepare and submit elevation drawings. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 122 MARCH 21, 2000 The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached carport, together with a utility room, having a 0 m sideyard, rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.). The Committee noted previous comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services, dated February 23, 2000, in which they requested deferral of the application for the reasons noted above. Submission No.: A2000-014(Cont'd) The Committee also noted revised comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services dated, March 16, 2000, in which they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached carport, together with a utility room, having a 0 metre sideyard, rather than the required 1.2 metres (4 feet). Staff notes that under the building code a structure that is enclosed 60% or more is considered to be a garage. As noted in the submitted drawings the structure is totally enclosed at the side by a concrete block wall and at the rear by a utility (pump) room. It is only open at the front, as it has no door. Therefore the proposed structure is actually a garage and staff recommends that the variance be amended to accurately reflect the type of structure being proposed. The applicant would require permission for an attached garage, together with a utility room, having a 0 metre sideyard, rather than the required 1.2 metres (4 feet). It is noted that the existing concrete block wall was constructed last year and extends from the front of the building to the rear lot line, as shown on the submitted drawing. As a wall only, the concrete blocks are permitted relative to the City's Fence By-law providing the height does not exceed 2.44 metres (8 feet). The intent of the required sideyard setback for an attached garage is to provide privacy between abutting properties as well as to provide a sufficient setback so that exterior maintenance of the building can be made without encroaching onto the neighbouring property. As indicated on the survey for the subject property, the house is set back from the left side lot line 5.2 metres (17.17 feet). This provides a sufficient distance to develop a one-car garage with the required 1.2 metre setback. However, the applicant notes that she wishes to construct a two-car garage. The requested variance is not minor in nature as no sideyard is being proposed. It is staff's opinion that the requested variance for the garage does not maintain the intent of the by-law as the privacy and enjoyment for the neighbouring property is being compromised. The building on the abutting lot is only 1.13 metres (3.7 feet) from the lot line and consequently from the concrete block wall. The garage would not maintain the intent of the by-law as exterior maintenance of the structure could not be maintained without encroaching on the neighbouring property. As well, the variance is not considered appropriate development of the property. The intent of the by-law is not being met, as the visual impact of constructing a garage on the lot line is great, resulting in little visual separation between buildings. The request is not necessary to permit a garage to be built as a garage could be built which complies with the 1.2 metre required setback. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of Minor Variance Application A 2000-014. The Committee considered previous comments from the Director of Building, dated February 8, 2000, in which he advised that a building permit would be required for the new carport and utility room; the wall located less than 2 ft. to the property line shall have no unprotected openings, a 45 minute fire rating and non-combustible cladding; and all roof drainage is not to be directed onto the adjacent property. No further comments from the Building Division were forthcoming. The Committee considered previous comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, dated February 8, 2000, in which they advised that they have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 123 MARCH 21, 2000 provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. No further comments from the Regional Planning & Culture Department were forthcoming. The Committee noted previous comments from the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated February 23, 2000, in which they advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to Submission No.: A2000-014(Cont'd) this application. No further comments were forthcoming from the Grand River Conservation Authority. The Committee noted previous comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, dated February 22, 2000, in which they advised that they have reviewed the application, made a site visitation, and have concluded that construction of the attached carport, together with the utility room will enclose the hydro meter. They further advise that it is the policy of the Commission to require existing outside meters to remain outside and readily accessible to their staff. In this regard, they advise that in order to maintain this policy, the meter must be relocated to an outside wall of the new structure. No further comments were forthcoming from the Kitchener-Wimot Hydro. Mr. J. Winstel advised that drawings for the proposed carport were first undertaken in 1975 and in order to have a double carport he felt it would require building up to the lot line. With the carport on the lot line, he stated that he would be unable to construct a fence and in 1999 decided to install a concrete block wall along the lot line to the rear of the property. He pointed out that when he applied for a building permit for the carport and utility room, he was advised that he would have to make application for minor variance. Mr. Winstel advised that he had reviewed the staff report which recommends refusal of the application. As a result, he advised that he has changed his drawings and the proposal now allows for a 2 ft. setback from the lot line and further open space has been provided to the rear of the carport between the existing house and the proposed utility room. The revised drawings were submitted to the Committee for review. Mr. A. Galloway enquired if staff had received the revised plans and Ms. Given responded that she had. In this regard, she advised that the proposed construction is now more acceptable as it will be setback from the lot line and there is more open space on the one side which allows it to be viewed as a carport under the Building Code. While she still has concern with the visual impact of a 2 ft. setback, she stated that she believed maintenance could be achieved as no solid structure would be in place to prevent access along the sideyard. Mr. A. Galloway referred to the comments of the Building Division with respect to the wall that is to be located less than 2 ft. to the property line and suggested that this may no longer apply as the wall will be 2 ft. from the property line. Mr. A. Galloway then referred to the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro with respect to the meter and Mr. Winstel advised that, if necessary, he will move the meter to make it accessible for Hydro staff. Ms. J. Given suggested that the Committee may wish to include a condition that the minor variance be approved only in accordance with the revised drawings submitted this date. Members of the Committee concurred with this suggestion. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Liane Winstel requesting permission to construct an attached carport, together with a utility room, having a sideyard setback of 0.61 m (2 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.), on Part Lots 125 & 126, Registered Plan 773, 24 Rosemount Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the variance as approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the drawings submitted to the Committee of Adjustment at its meeting held on March 21, 2000. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 124 MARCH 21, 2000 That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new carport and utility room. That, if required, the wall located 0.61 m (2 ft.) to the property line shall have no unprotected openings, a 45 minute fire rating and non-combustible cladding. 4. That the owner shall ensure that all roof drainage is directed onto the subject property. Submission No.: A2000-014(Cont'd) That the owner shall ensure that the hydro meter is relocated to an outside wall of the new structure to ensure access by staff of Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro. 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 UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONSENT 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 Appearances: In Support: Mr. D. Olson Giffen Lee 50 Queen Street North Commerce House, Suite 500 P.O. Box 2396, Station B Kitchener ON N2H 6M3 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: Mr. D. Olson Giffen Lee 50 Queen Street North Commerce House, Suite 500 P.O. Box 2396, Station B Kitchener ON N2H 6M3 Contra: None This application was originally considered at the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on January 11, 2000, at which time the application was deferred to provide an opportunity for staff to make a site inspection of the subject property to resolve tree saving issues. The parties to the application agreed with this deferral. Subsequently, the applicant requested a further deferral to the meeting to be held this date. The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land, as a lot addition to an abutting property, and to retain a parcel of land having an COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 125 MARCH 21, 2000 area of .6428 ha (1.58 acres). The severed parcel is proposed to be used for warehouse/office use and will have an area of 0.0843 ha (0.209 acres), by a depth of 18.288 m (60 ft.) and a width of 49.739 m (163.18 ft.). The Committee noted previous comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services, dated January 4, 2000, in which they requested deferral of the application for the reasons noted above. Submission No.: B 2000-002(Cont'd) The Committee noted revised comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services, dated February 18, 2000, in which they advised that this application was deferred from the January 11, 2000 meeting. The applicant was proposing to sever a parcel, 18.288 metres deep and 49.739 metres wide from the rear of the property municipally addressed as 1850 Glasgow Street. The land to be severed is for the purposes of a lot consolidation with an industrial office and warehouse use municipally addressed as 1644 Highland Road West and legally described as Part of Lot 38, GCT, Part 1, Plan 58R-3467 and Part 2, 58R-4944. The land to be severed is wooded and the application was deferred so that staff could assess the quality of the trees and determine the impact of the severance on the trees. The trees are currently protected through a Section 41 Development Agreement that is registered on title as Instrument Number 1423620 on title of 1850 Glasgow Street. The retained lands will have a frontage of 56.166 metres and a depth of 134.749 metres. The retained land is currently developed with a residential dwelling and an industrial building used for manufacturing purposes. The trees on the lands to be severed are part of a larger wetland and treed area and although not recognized in the Region' s or the City's Municipal Plan, there is a desire to retain all of the trees in the wetland. Staff and GRCA staff had concerns with the severance as originally proposed and met with the applicant to see if a resolution could be worked that would meet their needs and satisfy the environmental concerns. The applicant intended on purchasing the lands to use only a small portion of the severed land for access. A small strip of property is gravel and has historically been used by the current and previous owners for many years. The applicant wants simply to purchase these lands and a small triangle of land to allow for truck access around an existing building. In view of this both staff and GRGA agree that the revised consent showing only existing gravel area and the small triangle of land needed for truck access as the severed lands. A few trees will be taken out to accommodate the gravel area needed for truck access. However, the impact is minor and the owner has agreed to install a chain link fence to establish the limit of his property and ensure that there will be no further encroachment into the wetland or trees. The actual severance line will be established on site with the aid of City staff and the Grand River Conservation Authority. In view of the foregoing the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Consent Application B 2000-002 as revised undercover letter dated February 25, 2000. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B 2000-002 be approved, as revised subject to the following conditions: That the proposed severance be approved as generally illustrated on the attached plan dated February 18, 2000 with the final draft reference plan to be approved by the Grand River Conservation Authority and the City's Principal Planner. That the owner install a chain link fence along the full width of the severed property between the severed and retained lands to the satisfaction of the City's Principal Planner and Grand River Conservation Authority. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 126 MARCH 21, 2000 That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. No further comments were forthcoming from the Department of Business & Planning Services. 1. Submission No.: B 2000-002(Cont'd) The Committee noted previous comments of the Director of Building, dated January 5, 2000, in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. No further comments were forthcoming from the Building Division. The Committee noted previous comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, dated January 7, 2000 and February 3, 2000 in which they advised that they had reviewed the application and have no concerns. In addition, the Committee noted revised comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, dated March 16, 2000 in which they re-affirmed that they have no concerns with respect to this application; however, any future development on the lands subject to this consent application will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and there maybe a Regional fee assessed for development agreements, if required. The Committee noted previous comments from the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated January 6, 2000, in which they advised that they recommend the application be deferred until the resource concerns on the site have been satisfactorily addressed. The subject lands and adjoining lands contain a wetland. A scoped Environmental Impact Study is required as the severance is anticipated to place development pressure on the severed parcel. In this regard, GRCA staff will determine the wetland boundary and an appropriate buffer between the wetland and the warehouse/office use. At that time, we will be in a position to comment further on the appropriateness of the severance application. Please note that any construction in or adjacent to the wetland will require a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98. If a permit is required, further assessment of the wetland by the applicant may be necessary to support the application. No further comments were forthcoming from the Grand River Conservation Authority. The Committee noted a written submission from Mr. D. Olson, Giffen Lee, in which he advised that the size of the lands to be severed has been reduced. In this regard, he noted that the frontage and the depth on one side of the parcel of land remain the same; however, the area of the lands to be severed has been greatly reduced. A revised plan dated February 18, 2000 was attached to Mr. Olson's written submission. Mr. D. Olson advised that the application initially severed a portion of the rear of the subject lands 50 m wide by 18 m deep. He pointed out that the Grand River Conservation Authority raised concerns with respect to the preservation of trees and wetlands and, as a result of discussions, the applicant has agreed to amend the application to reduce the area of the lands to be severed. He referred to his written submission to which he had attached revised plans and pointed out that the triangular portion of the lands to be severed is being included to legalize encroachment of a gravel parking area utilized by the abutting property owner for truck access. Mr. Olson advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and was generally in agreement; however, with respect to Condition No. 2 in the Planning staff report he requested that it be modified to reflect that installation of the required fence will not take place until the lands are actually severed, and the responsibility for installation of the fence will be that of the abutting owner. He further advised that staff had suggested that they could request an undertaking from the abutting property owner to ensure compliance with this condition. In this regard, Ms. J. Given suggested that the condition be revised to require an agreement to be entered into and registered on title of the lands to be severed that will require installation of the fence prior to August 31, 2000. Members of the Committee agreed with this suggestion. Mr. S. Kay enquired as to the identity of the abutting property owner acquiring the lands to be severed and Mr. Olson responded that the adjacent property owner was Trussler Properties COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 127 MARCH 21, 2000 Limited. In this regard, Mr Kay suggested that the identity of the abutting property owner should be included in Condition No. 3 and members of the Committee agreed with this suggestion. As no further questions or comment was forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Submission No.: B 2000-002(Cont'd) Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Dorinda & William Baker requesting permission to convey a parcel of land, as a lot addition to an adjacent property, having a width of 49.739 m (163.18 ft.), by an average depth of 18.288 m (60 ft.), and an area of 352.56 m2 (3,795 sq. ft.), on Part of Lot 38, German Company Tract, Being Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-6375, 1850 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the proposed severance shall be approved as generally illustrated on the attached plan dated February 18, 2000, with the final draft reference plan to be approved by the Grand River Conservation Authority and the City's Principal Planner. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to require that a chainlink fence shall be installed along the full width of the severed property between the severed and retained lands to the satisfaction of the City's Principal Planner and the Grand River Conservation Authority, prior to August 31,2000. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands owned by Trussler Properties Limited, known municipally as 1644 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 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 March 21, 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 2000-010 Small Fry Snack Foods Limited 3065 King Street East Part of Lots 31 & 33, Municipal Compiled Plan 986 Appearances: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 128 MARCH 21, 2000 In Support: Ms. D. Biuk Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants 5-745 Bridge Street West Waterloo ON N2V2G6 Submission No.: B 2000-010(Cont'd) Contra: Mr. A. Van Gastel Van Gastel Real Estate 20 The Crestway Kitchener ON N2P 2J2 Mr. B. Reinhart 28 The Crestway Kitchener ON N2P 2J2 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None This application was originally considered at the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on February 8, 2000 and, at the request of the applicant, was deferred to the meeting this date. The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of 1.36 ha (3.3 acres). The lands to be severed are proposed for office use and will have frontage on King Street East of 25.3 m (83 ft.) and an area of 2.31 ha (5.7 acres). The applicant is also requesting permission for a right-of-way for the purpose of access over the retained lands in favour of the severed parcel. The Committee noted previous comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services, dated February 1, 2000, in which they advised that the subject property is 4.05 hectares in size and is located near the intersection of King Street East and Fairway Road South. The property currently has 41.3 metre frontage on King Street East, with the rear portion of the site abutting Provincial Highway # 8. Immediately west of the subject property is a rail line. A Hydro Corridor runs parallel to the southeast edge of the property. It is intended that a 2.32 hectare parcel be severed from the property for the future development of an office building. The owner of the subject property has submitted Zone Change Application ZC99/27/K/BH, which if approved would have the effect of permitting 100% office use of a building's gross floor area, up to a maximum 0.5 floor space ratio. The retained portion of the property is comprised of Parts 2, 3, and 4, totalling 1.74 hectares. Part 3 is 1.36 hectares in size, and abuts Provincial Highway #8. It contains an existing office building currenlty used as the head office for Small Fry Snack Foods Limited. Access to the retained lands from King Street East is maintained by 16.0 metres of frontage on King Street East. The severed parcel has a 12.97 metre frontage on King Street East, however the proposed access to the severed parcel would be through a right-of-way in favour of the severed parcel over Part 2 of the retained parcel. The subject property is designated General Industrial in the Municipal Plan, and due to its proximity to the interchange of Provincial Highway #8 and Fairway Road, is subject to the suburban office policies of the Municipal Plan. These policies permit free-standing office use in suburban areas. The existing office located on the subject property was considered an accessory use to the processing plant on the site before it was demolished. The demolition of the processing plant has created a legal non-conforming use with respect to the existing office building. The proposed Zone Change will have the effect of legalizing the existing building, and COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 129 MARCH 21, 2000 will provide an opportunity for redevelopment on the subject property that is consistent with Municipal Plan policies. As a result, the requested severance and associated Zone Change application are consistent with the policies set out in the Municipal Plan, and will facilitate the redevelopment of the site to a more intensive use. Both the retained and severed lands comply with the zoning regulations. The right-of-way is adequate to provide access to the severed lands. Accordingly, the consent to create the lot and establish a right-of-way is appropriate. Submission No.: B 2000-010(Cont'd) The Department recommends that application B 2000-010 be approved subject to the following conditions: That a draft reference plan showing the proposed right-of-way be approved by the City's Principal Planner. 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 and retained lands. 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 and retained lands. That a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, be registered against title of both the severed and retained lands, to ensure that rights-of-way for access to both properties are maintained in perpetuity. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvements charges. No further comments were forthcoming from the Department of Business & Planning Services. The Committee noted previous comments of the Director of Building, dated January 18, 2000, in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. No further comments were forthcoming from the Building Division. The Committee noted previous comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, dated February 3, 2000, as revised in comments dated March 16, 2000, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have the following comments. Staff indicated concerns related to the proximity of the access to the railway line and the operation of the access due to traffic volumes on King Street East. Transportation Planning staff are in receipt of a traffic impact study related to this re-development proposal and have not completed their review of the study. If capacity problems are found at the access, the applicant may have to consider an alternative location for access such as a connection to the proposed street in the Heffner development to the south. As such, staff are recommending that the application be deferred until such time as the traffic concerns noted above have been addressed. King Street East at this location has an existing road allowance of 60 feet and a designated allowance of 80 feet. Although the applicant has initiated the required documentation for the Region to acquire the widening, it has not been finalized at this time. The applicant should be advised that a Grading and Drainage Control Plan and Stormwater Management Report will be required as part of the site planning process. These should be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Engineering for review and approval. The Committee also noted revised comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo dated March 21, 2000, in which they advised that further to the Region's comments dated March 16, 2000, staff wish to provide updated comments for consideration. A 20 foot road allowance widening was required at this location. Staff confirm this widening has been obtained and that no further widening is required. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 130 MARCH 21, 2000 Transportation Planning staff have completed their review of the Traffic Impact Study submitted in support of the application. The applicant appears to be proposing to relocate the existing access from King Street to this property to the southerly limit of the property. The Region's access policy states that the access must be a minimum of 13 metres from an adjacent rail line. This criteria is satisfied if the access is relocated to the extreme southerly limit of the property. 2. Submission No.: B 2000-010(Cont'd) King Street from Fairway Road to River Road is scheduled to be widened this year. Staff are recommending that the roadway be widened to accommodate a centre left turn lane along the entire length of the project. If this recommendation is accepted by Regional Council on April 12, 2000, the applicant will not be required to provide any costs for road improvements associated with the redevelopment of the subject site. If however, the centre left turn lane is not accepted by Council or is modified such that a northbound left turn lane into this site is not constructed on King Street, the applicant will be required to fund the construction of the left turn lane. This requirement could be imposed at the site plan stage. The Traffic Impact Study indicates that vehicles exiting the property and turning left onto King Street will experience delays in the pm peak hour until River Road is extended west of King Street with ramp connections to Highway 8. The River Road extension is currently scheduled for 2005-2006 in the Region's 10 Year Capital Forecast. However, the extension is contingent upon the Ministry of Transportation widening Highway 8 in this area and could be subject to change. Staff recognize that exiting vehicles attempting to turn left to go northbound on King Street will experience delays with this movement especially in the pm peak hour. With construction of the centre left turn lane, these vehicles would be able to wait in this lane to merge with through northbound traffic. Staff are prepared to issue a Regional Road Entrance Permit for the access provided the access is located at the extreme southerly limit of the property. The access must be constructed with two outbound lanes and one inbound lane. Staff are also concerned that exiting vehicles turning left to go north on King Street may not see the railway warning signal on King Street. Staff believe it is imperative that the rail authority comment on the application relating to the proposed access location and railway warning signal. The applicant should be advised that a Grading and Drainage Control Plan and Stormwater Management Report will be required as part of the site planning process. These should be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Engineering for review and approval. Any future development on the lands subject to this consent application will be subject to the provisions of 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 previous comments from the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated February 3, 2000, in which they advised that they do not object to the proposed creation of one new lot, however, have concern with future development and impacts on the adjacent watercourse that may be dealt with through site plan approval. Please be aware that the subject property is adjacent to a watercourse. According to Provincial Natural Heritage Policy 2.3.1 b), development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands to fish habitat if it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or the ecological functions for which the area is identified. With respect to fish habitat, the Province recommends that adjacent lands are those within 30 metres of fish habitat. At some points, the subject property is within 30 metres of the watercourse. In this case, we recognize the existing vegetated slope may act as a buffer to future development, and is protected by the existing fence. However, further to a site visit, we note the presence of eroding drainage swales on the stream banks. Due to the proximity to the watercourse and the existing erosion issue, there is a concern of how drainage, water quality and sediment and erosion controls will be dealt with on the subject COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 131 MARCH 21, 2000 property. As shown on the severance plan, the access lane on Part 2 will be immediately adjacent to the property line. It is our understanding a new driveway will be constructed at this location. In order to address the above noted concerns, we would appreciate the opportunity to comment on the site plan application upon its submission. We would recommend that the following information be submitted to support the site plan application. Submission No.: B 2000-010(Cont'd) Grading and Drainage plans to ensure drainage will not impact the existing erosion situation. Sediment and Erosion Control Plans A stormwater management concept which provides for proper water quality measure to ensure the adjacent fish habitat will not be negatively impacted. Please be advised that if a new outlet to the watercourse is proposed, a permit application pursuant to Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98 will be required. No further comments were forthcoming from the Grand River Conservation Authority. The Committee noted previous comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, dated January 28, 2000, in which they advised that approval of this application be conditional upon the following; That the applicant make suitable arrangements for the relocation of the existing electrical service wires to the remaining lands presently crossing the proposed severance. That the applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severance is granted. No further comments were forthcoming from the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro. Mr. S. Kay referred to the sketch attached to the application and questioned if the parcel of land in the top corner marked "residential" was in fact a residential property and Ms. Biuk stated that was correct. Mr. S. Kay requested clarification as to the lands to be severed and where the right-of-way for access was to be located. Ms. D. Biuk advised that Part 1 as shown on the sketch attached to the application is to be severed and the lands to be retained are shown as Parts 2, 3 & 4. She further advised that the right-of-way will be over Part 2 in favour of Part 1. Ms. Biuk also advised that a Zone Change Application has been submitted to the City which will be heard at the Planning & Economic Development Committee meeting to be held on Monday, March 27, 2000. She stated that the purpose of the Zone Change is to allow development of freestanding offices on the lands to be severed. She further pointed out that the applicant intends to construct an addition on that part of the retained lands shown as Part 3. Mr. S. Kay requested clarification that the right-of-way for access was to be from Old King Street East and Ms. Biuk stated that was correct. Ms. S. Campbell stated that it appeared Part 1 has frontage on Old King Street East and questioned the need for a right-of-way over Part 2. In this regard, Ms. Biuk advised that access cannot be attained from the Kings Highway No. 8 and access to the property has historically been from King Street East. Mr. Van Gastel enquired if any revisions had been made to the original application and Ms. Biuk responded that no changes had been made. Mr. S. Kay reviewed the purpose of the application with Mr. Van Gastel, noting that Part 1 is to be severed and the right-of-way is over Part 2 in favour of Part 1. Mr. Van Gastel questioned if the roadway was to be widened and Ms. Biuk advised that the Region of Waterloo has secured lands for the purpose of road widening. In addition, she advised that a Traffic Impact Study has been submitted to the Region to be considered by Regional Council on April 12, 2000. She noted that, if Regional Council approves a recommendation that the roadway be widened to accommodate a centre left turn lane along the entire length of the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 132 MARCH 21, 2000 project, the applicant will not be required to provide any cost for road improvements associated with redevelopment of the subject site; however, if the recommendation is not accepted or is modified such that the northbound left turn lane into this site is not constructed on King Street the applicant will be required to fund the construction of the left turn lane, which would be imposed at the site plan stage. 2. Submission No.: B 2000-010(Cont'd) Mr. Van Gastel again referred to the road widening and was advised that the Region has already obtained a 20 ft. road widening. Mr. Van Gastel expressed his concern with the amount of land taken as he had been told it would be only 12 ft. and this may have an affect on his client's property. Ms. D. Biuk provided Mr. Van Gastel with a copy of the severance sketch and suggested that he bring his concerns to the attention of the Region of Waterloo. Mr. A. Galloway agreed that Mr. Van Gastel's concerns were not relative to this application, noting that the road widening has already been secured by the Region. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Small Fry Snack Foods Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land to be used for office use, having frontage on King Street East of 25.3 m (83 ft.) and an area of 2.31 ha (5.7 acres); and to grant a right-of-way for the purpose of access over that part of the lands to be retained, shown as Part 2 on the sketch attached to the application, in favour of the lands to be severed, shown as Part 1, on Part of Lots 31 & 33, Municipal Compiled Plan 986, 3065 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That a draft reference plan showing the proposed right-of-way shall be approved by the City's Principal Planner. 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 and retained lands. 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 and retained lands. That a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, shall be registered against title of both the severed and retained lands, to ensure that rights-of-way for access to both properties are maintained in perpetuity. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvements charges. That the owner shall make suitable arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the relocation of the existing electrical service wires to the remaining lands presently crossing the proposed severance. That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severance is granted. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being March 21, 2002. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 133 MARCH 21, 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 2000-010(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 2000-015 Cynthia Schilling 734 Glasgow Street Part of Lot 33, German Company Tract, Designated as Parts 1, 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-10171 Mr. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his law firm has acted for the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. Kay left the meeting and Mr. A. Galloway Chaired the meeting during consideration of the application and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the application was considered by the remaining three members. Appearances: In Support: Mr. & Mrs. H. Schilling 734 Glasgow Street Kitchener ON N2M 2N8 Contra: Mr. S. Grant Madorin Snyder 235 King Street East Kitchener ON N2G 4N5 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: Mr. R. C. Sills 8-700 Glasgow Street Kitchener ON N2M 2N8 This application was originally considered at the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on February 29, 2000, at which time the application was deferred to allow discussions to take place between the applicant and area residents to resolve any issues of concern. The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create a new lot by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of 0.53 ha (1.31 acres). The lands to be severed are to be developed with a single family dwelling having frontage on Glasgow Street of 38.1 m (125 ft.), by a depth of 30.48 m (100 ft.) and an area of 940.3 m2 (10,120.7 sq. ft.). The Committee noted previous comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services, dated February 22, 2000, in which they advised that the subject property is a large wooded lot, approximately 0.624 hectares (1.542 acres) in size and located on the north side of Glasgow Street between Fischer-Hallman Road and Aberdeen Road. The lands are designated Low Rise COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 134 MARCH 21, 2000 Residential in the City's Municipal Plan and are zoned R-2 according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is presently developed with a single detached dwelling. The applicants are proposing to quit claim a portion of an existing right-of-way on the westerly side of the property and to create a new lot fronting Glasgow Street. The existing right-of-way is in conjunction with a corresponding right-of-way for the neighbouring property to the west (744 Glasgow Street) and provides for a mutual driveway access to both properties. The right-of-way on the subject lands is currently 2.1 metres wide and 47.2 metres long. The applicants are 3. Submission No.: B 2000-015(Cont'd) proposing to quit claim approximately 14.3 metres, shown as Part 3 on the attached severance sketch, thus reducing the length of the right-of-way to approximately 33 metres. It is recommended that the request to quit claim Part 3 on the attached severance sketch be deferred until further information is provided by the applicant as to the reason for the quit claim and a similar application is submitted by the property owners of 744 Glasgow Street. The proposed new lot to be severed would have a frontage of 38.1 metres (125 feet) and an area of approximately 0.093 hectares (0.232 acres) which exceeds the minimum width and area regulations of the R-2 Zone. The proposed lot width is also similar or greater than the majority of nearby lots on Glasgow Street although the depth and overall lot area is significantly smaller than most. However, because of the relatively shallow depth of the proposed lot, any future dwelling will be located much closer to the street than other single detached dwellings in the vicinity. Normally, the creation of a new lot that is substantially smaller than neighbouring lots or would require a new dwelling to be built substantially closer to the street than neighbouring dwellings would not be supported. However, the proposed severance is considered appropriate for the following reasons: · The width of the proposed lot is similar to or greater than the majority of existing properties along this section of Glasgow Street. · The treed nature of the lot is such that the relatively shallow depth of the proposed lot will not be apparent for the street. · The physical topography of the site is such that the proposed lot can be severed and developed with minimal grading. · The location of the proposed lot, at the extreme southeast corner of the existing lot, is adjacent to an existing condominium development with relatively small lots, constructed closer to Glasgow Street than the majority of other dwellings in the area. However, while the proposed severance is considered appropriate, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that a tree saving plan be required to be approved to maximize the number of trees to be maintained. The continued preservation of the existing treed area is major objective of the Department. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that the request to quit claim a portion of an existing right-of-way as set out in Consent Application B 2000-015 be deferred until August 29, 2000. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that the requested conveyance as set out in Consent Application B 2000-015 be approved, subject to the following conditions: That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 3. That a Tree Preservation Plan be prepared in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 135 MARCH 21, 2000 building envelope and vegetation to be preserved, with such Plan to be approved by the City's Principal Planner. 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. 5. 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. Submission No.: B 2000-015(Cont'd) That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works for the proportional share of the sanitary sewer. The Committee also noted revised conditions submitted by the Department of Business & Planning Services at the meeting this date in which they advised that they recommend the request to quit claim a portion of an existing right-of-way as set out in Consent Application B 2000-015 be deferred until August 15, 2000, and further, that the requested conveyance as set out in Consent Application B 2000-015 be approved, subject to the following conditions: That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be registered against the lands to be severed, in which the owner shall agree to prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy to be approved by the City's Principal Planner prior to the issuance of building permits, with such Plan to include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved, including street trees. 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. 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 if appropriate given existing vegetation, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands. That the owner make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works for the proportional share of the sanitary sewer. The Committee noted previous comments of the Director of Building, dated February 8, 2000, in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. No further comments were forthcoming from the Building Division. The Committee noted previous comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, dated February 24, 2000, and re-confirmed in revised comments dated March 16, 2000, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have the following comments. A preliminary archaeological assessment indicates the property shows a moderate to high potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. In accordance with Policy 6.2.10 in the Regional Official Policies Plan, an archaeological assessment will be required on the severed parcels. Regional staff have no objection to the approval of B 2000-015 providing the lot is municipally serviced (wastewater) as identified in the application submitted and the following condition being imposed: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 136 MARCH 21, 2000 1) 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. The Region further advised that any future development on the lands subject to the consent application 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. Submission No.: B 2000-015(Cont'd) The Committee noted previous comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated February 23, 2000, in which they advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to this application. No further comments were forthcoming from the Grand River Conservation Authority. The Committee noted the previous comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, dated February 21, 2000, in which they advised that they request approval of this application be subject to the following conditions: That the Applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the provision of underground electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are granted. That the Applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severances are granted. No further comments were forthcoming from the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro. The Committee noted the previous written submission from Mr. & Mrs. R. Sills, dated February 28, 2000, in which they advised that they are the owners of Unit 8 at 700 Glasgow Street, Kitchener. Unit 8 is the most westerly unit of a cluster of four townhouses and the closest unit to the subject property. Ours is one of 19 units in the Briarpatch community which are not condominiums. Although we were aware that Mrs. Schilling was contemplating a severance application, we have been out of the country since February 12 and were unaware of the hearing scheduled for February 29 until our return on February 26. A neighbour has obtained and provided to us a copy of the Comments of Municipal Officials with respect to which we wish to comment as follows: We have no concerns with respect to the quit claim of easement between 734 and 744 Glasgow Streets. We have not been provided with a copy of the severance sketch regarding the creation of the proposed new lot. Contrary to the statement of planning staff, the 19 units comprising the "Briarpatch" development are not condominiums. Each unit is in freehold title with common wall agreements. There are four clusters of four units each and one cluster of three units. The street (Briarpatch Lane), the walkthroughs between the clusters of townhomes, a perimeter strip of five to fifteen feet around the outside of the 19 units and the large bush area of mature trees at the west end of our community and immediately to the rear of 734 and 744 Glasgow Street, constitute a commonly held area held 1/20 by each of the 19 units, plus 1/20 owned by the incorporated Briarpatch Homeowners Association. I am president of the Homeowners Association. As indicated, I have just learned of the particulars of the proposed severance. The owners of units 5 and 7 (both within our cluster) are out of the country until April, along with the owner of Unit 9, which is also directly behind the proposed new lot to be severed. These homeowners are, to the best of my knowledge, totally unaware of this application. In this regard we suggest an adjournment of this part of the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 137 MARCH 21, 2000 severance application is appropriate in order to give these homeowners an opportunity to express their views of this proposed new development. For ourselves, while we recognize the right of Mrs. Schilling to develop her property within the parameters of the Zoning By-law, we also suggest that our property is entitled to the protection of the Planning Act and the zoning and building regulations associated with our property. Each of the 19 units in the Briarpatch development is required to pay annual municipal taxes of approximately $4,500 to $4,800 and consequently are deserving of assurances that such protection is afforded to them. 3. Submission No.: B 2000-015(Cont'd) The four units in our cluster (number 5-8) and units 9-11 in the adjacent cluster are directly to the rear of the lot proposed to be created. The grade level of all of these units is a least 10 to 12 feet below the grade of the proposed new lot. The proposed new lot is separated from our four units (5-8) by an eight-foot post stake fence but any dwelling constructed on the new proposed lot would overlook all four units and seriously impact on the privacy of our units unless adequate screening is provided. Although it is true that the cluster of units, numbers 1 through 4, are quite close to Glasgow Street, our cluster of units 5 through 8 is angled away from Glasgow to the extent that our particular unit (number 8) is at or close to the rear of the 100-foot depth of the proposed new lot. This configuration was designed to protect the building lines of other properties on Glasgow Street, including number 734 Glasgow and is not as described in the report of the planners at the top of page two of their report, i.e., closer to Glasgow Street than to majority of other dwellings. Another factor impacting on the development of the proposed new lot is the widening of Glasgow Street and the proposed redevelopment of that street. The municipality will require the taking of at least 10 feet along the 125-foot frontage and this will have the effect of pushing the building envelope and area of the new lot further towards our home. A further factor is that a substantial portion of the rear of the proposed new lot is covered by a significant portion of the bush lot, which extends along the rear of all the properties on both sides of Glasgow Street. Any approval of the building lot shall provide for visual and privacy protection of the homes in the Briarpatch development. In this regard there is a line of mature trees along the fence which separates Briarpatch from the proposed new lot and it is absolutely essential that this line of trees be retained and that further screening along this line be provided. Any second storey level and indeed the main floor level of a new dwelling will impact directly on the second floor levels of units 5 to 8 in our community. The redevelopment of Glasgow Street, which has undergone almost two years of extensive study in consultation with the residents on Glasgow Street (and is still ongoing) should militate against the creation of this new lot. The consideration of planning staff that the proposed severance is appropriate for the reasons given at the top of page two of the report indicates to me the staff have not reviewed this project from the perspective of neighbouring lands such as the Briarpatch development and, before approval is granted, it is suggested that such review take place. It is important to know whether a bungalow or a two storey dwelling is to be permitted on the proposed new lot and what windows or other openings are to be permitted in the walls facing the existing development. Alternatively, it should be determined what screening will be required between the Briarpatch properties and whatever building is to be developed on the proposed new lot site. The foregoing is presented for the Committee's consideration. Although it is impossible for either myself or my wife to be at the meeting at 10:00 a.m. on February 29, given our employment commitments, we will be represented by Mr. Stephen Grant, or his designate from the law firm Madorin, Snyder. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 138 MARCH 21, 2000 The Committee also noted the previous sketch and pictures submitted by Mr. S. Grant at the Committee's meeting held on February 29, 2000. Mr. H. Schilling advised that he and Mrs. Schilling had met with staff and area residents in the Briarpatch Community to address concerns relative to preservation of trees on the subject property that will provide appropriate buffering for the Briarpatch Community. He advised that an agreement was reached and one of the conditions of approval has been revised to reflect what was agreed to. Mr. A. Galloway referred to the Regional comments in which they require the owner to submit an archaeological assessment and Mr. Schilling advised that he had no concerns with this condition. 3. Submission No.: B 2000-015(Cont'd) Mr. S. Grant advised that he represented Mr. R. Sills and, as a result of the meetings referred to by Mr. Schilling, Mr. Sills was now content that his concerns have been addressed through the revised condition. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That part of the application of Cynthia Schilling requesting permission to convey a parcel of land to be developed with a single family dwelling, having frontage on Glasgow Street of 38.1 m (125 ft.), by a depth of 30.48 m (100 ft.), and an area of 940.3 m2 (10,120.7 sq. ft.), on Part of Lot 33, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 1, 2 and 3, Reference Plan 58R-10171, 734 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be registered against the lands to be severed, in which the owner shall agree to prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy to be approved by the City's Principal Planner prior to the issuance of building permits, with such Plan to include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, landscaped area and vegetation to be preserved, including street trees. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed lands. That 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 if appropriate given existing vegetation, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works for the proportional share of the sanitary sewer. That the owner shall submit an archaeological assessment for the severed parcel to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for approval; a copy of which must be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Planning & Culture. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the provision of underground electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severance is granted. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 139 MARCH 21, 2000 That the owner shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severance is granted. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being March 21, 2002. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. Submission No.: B 2000-015(Cont'd) 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 Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That part of the application of Cynthia Schilling requesting permission to quit claim a portion of an existing right-of-way, as set out in Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-015, BE DEFERRED, until August 15, 2000. Carried Mr. P. Kruse left the meeting at this time and the remainder of the agenda was considered by the remaining three members. UNFINISHED BUSINESS CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 3/99 & A 12/99 Mary Arlene Beckman 390 Pinnacle Drive Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Haalboom Barrister & Solicitor 7 Duke Street West, Suite 304 Kitchener ON N2H 6M7 Mr. B. Green Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants Limited 5-745 Bridge Street West Waterloo ON N2V 2G6 Mr. C. Kitchen Ecoplans Limited 81 Hollinger Crescent Kitchener ON N2K2Y8 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 140 MARCH 21, 2000 Contra: Written Submissions: Mr. & Mrs. R. Beckman Mr. A. Beckman 390 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener ON N2G 3W5 None Submission Nos.: B 3/99 & A 12/99(Cont'd) In Support: Ms. K. Balija 418 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener ON N2G 3W5 Mr. J. Vos The Sunbeam Lodge 389 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener ON N2G 3W5 Mr. & Mrs. E. Irvin 414 Pinnacle Drive Kitchener ON N2G 3W5 Contra: None These applications were originally considered at the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on January 26, 1999, and at that time it was agreed to defer the applications to allow preparation of an Environmental Implementation Report to be submitted for review by the Region of Waterloo. Subsequently, numerous requests to defer the applications were received resulting in these applications being referred for consideration to the meeting this date. The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide the subject land into 2 lots, each to have an area of 0.389 hectares. The retained lands will contain the existing single family dwelling and the severed lands will be developed with a new single family dwelling. The lot areas of 0.389 hectares do not meet the by-law requirements of 0.4 hectares and the applicant is requesting approval of these variances. The Committee noted previous comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services dated, January 22, 1999, in which they requested deferral of the application for the above noted reason. The Committee also noted revised comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services, dated February 25, 2000, in which they advised that the applicant requests permission to sever a parcel of land having a frontage on Pinnacle Drive of 48.29 metres (158.42 feet) and an area of .3894 hectares (41,920 square feet). The applicant proposes to erect a single detached dwelling. The proposed retained parcel will have a frontage of 61.14 metres (200.59 feet) and an area of .3894 hectares (41,921 square feet). The applicant is also requesting a minor variance for both the proposed severed and retained parcels to have a lot area of 0.3894 hectares (41,920 square feet) rather than the required 0.4 hectares (43,054.1 square feet). Both parcels are located within a very heavily wooded area of Pinnacle Hill. The existing single detached dwelling at 390 Pinnacle Drive was erected prior to the annexation of these lands into the City of Kitchener in January, 1973. The applicant wishes to erect the building in COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 141 MARCH 21, 2000 a clearing on the lands to be severed and locate his disposal septic system and well near his house. The subject property is located within ESPA No. 35 (Doon Pinnacle Hill). It was zoned R-1 in recognition of the existing single detached dwelling. The Municipal Plan and Daan South Community Plan designate the land as Open Space. Further, Policy 5.21 of the Community Plan states: "That development within or contiguous to any Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area shall be subject to the requirements of the Regional Official Policies Plan and the City's Municipal Plan. Accordingly, any Environmental Implementation Report (EIR) required by the Daan South Management Plan shall also satisfy the Regional policy requirements with respect to Environmental Sensitive Policy Areas." Submission Nos.: B 3/99 & A 12/99(Cont'd) To satisfy the City of Kitchener Official Plan and Regional Official Policies Plan requirements, the applicant submitted an EIR to the Region for review. The proposed single detached development and EIR was considered by the Region's Environmental and Ecological Advisory Committee (EEAC). Regional staff have recommended that the application be refused based on EEAC's sub-committee report which recommends refusal based on the adverse environmental impact on the integrity of ESPA 35, as it will result in an unacceptable fragmentation of the ESPA, severs the last natural link across Pinnacle Drive and poses a risk to the remaining Eastern Hemlock grove of trees. While it is the Region's jurisdiction to decide on the appropriateness of development within an ESPA, City staff concur with the Region's position. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of the Minor Variance Application A12/99 and Consent Application B3/99. The Committee noted previous comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the applicant will be required to retain the existing septic system and well on the retained lands for the house also located on the retained land; ensure that the septic tank and distribution piping for new and existing septic systems are a minimum 3 m from all property lines; and, obtain a septic permit required for the new septic system from the Building Division. No further comments were forthcoming from the Building Division. The Committee noted previous comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, dated January 21, 1999, in which they also requested deferral of the application to allow submission of the Environmental Implementation Report. The Committee also noted revised comments dated from June 2, 1999, through to and including February 24, 2000; however, the Committee relied upon the most current revised comments, dated March 16, 2000, in which the Region of Waterloo advised that Regional staff have reviewed the consent application and recommend refusal in accordance with Section 4.3.15 e) of the Regional Official Policies Plan. The purpose of the consent application is to create a lot within an Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area (ESPA). An Environmental Impact Statement was submitted as required by ROPP Policy 4.3.13. Regional staff in consultation with EEAC have reviewed the ElS and have determined that the creation of the lot will have a serious adverse impact upon the environmentally significant features and functions of ESPA 35 (Pinnacle Hill). Specifically the proposed severance would pose an adverse impact to the integrity of ESPA 35 for the following reasons: 1) 2) 3) it would further fragment the ESPA, it would sever the last direct linkage across Pinnacle Drive between the eastern and western halves of the ESPA, and it would pose a further risk to a notable grove of Eastern Hemlock trees within the ESPA. Based on the review of the ElS, Regional staff recommend that the Kitchener Committee of Adjustment refuse the application for consent as it does not conform to the ROPP. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 142 MARCH 21, 2000 The Committee noted previous comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated January 27, 1999, in which they advised that they recommend completion of Environmental Impact Statement to support the severance in the woodlot of the ESPA 35. The subject property is not associated with Natural Hazard constraints. The woodlot and habitat and Regional ESPA features are to be considered. No further comments were forthcoming from the Grand River Conservation Authority. The Committee also noted that an Environmental Implementation Report was prepared by Ecoplans Limited to the Region of Waterloo; a copy of which had been provided to the Secretary. The Committee noted written submissions from Ms. K. Balija; Mr. J. Vos, The Sunbeam Lodge; and, Mr. & Mrs. E. Irvin who expressed their support for the applications. Submission Nos.: B 3/99 & A 12/99(Cont'd) The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. R. Haalboom, Solicitor for the applicant, in which he provided various documentation relative to the proposed applications and the Environmental Implementation Report. Mr. R. Haalboom provided an overview of the applications, noting that the property is just under 2 acres in size and located on Pinnacle Drive. Mr. Haalboom referred to Tab 1 of his written submission which provides a sketch of the subject property. He pointed out that the subject property is not part of the ESPA 35 lands but rather is adjacent to them. He advised that the property, prior to annexation into the City of Kitchener, was used for residential purpose and this use has continued to date. Mr. Haalboom then referred to Tab 5 of his submission and outlined a previous decision respecting a Consent Application on another property on Pinnacle Drive undertaken in 1987. The previous consent permitted 4 lots to be created. Specifically, he referred to Condition 3 of the decision which required the applicant to "await approval of an amendement to the Doon South Secondary Plan incorporating the lands as being designated Low Density Residential" and to Opinion No. 3 of the decision which states "the use of the land in this application conforms to the Official Plan of the City of Kitchener and the intent of the Regional Official Policies Plan". He pointed out that his client's land was double the size with only 1 new lot for residential purposes proposed. He further advised that City staff have now indicated they consider the subject property to be an open space designation. Mr. Haalboom then referred to Tab 3 of his submission which outlines the current zoning of the property, being Residential One Zone (R-l). He stated that the zoning is the only legal restriction applying to the land and the lands are in conformity with the Municipal Plan. Mr. Haalboom then referred to Tab 7 of his submission outlining the requirement for an Environmental Implementation Report (EIR) and the process followed. Mr. Haalboom advised that the EIR was submitted to the Regional Ecological and Environmental Advisory Committee (EEAC) for consideration. A vote was taken on a motion which he understood was in favour of his clients; however, Regional Planning staff subsequently ruled the motion had been lost. Accordingly, Regional staff are recommending to the Committee of Adjustment that the severance application be refused for the same reasons outlined in EEAC's lost motion. He pointed out that Regional staff are basing their refusal on Section 4.3.15 of the Regional Official Policies Plan (ROPP) which allows that where an EIR indicates a severance to have a serious adverse impact the Region may recommend refusal. Mr. Haalboom pointed out that the EIR is in favour of the severance and Regional staff should be making recommendation under Section 4.3.14 of the ROPP. In this regard, Mr. Haalboom asked Mr. Green to make further explanation. Mr. B. Green stated that the EIR was undertaken in accordance with Section 3.2 of the ROPP. He pointed out that, while the applicant could have done a scoped down EIR, a full EIR was submitted. Mr. Green then summarized Sections 4.3.13, 4.3.14 and 4.3.15 of the ROPP. It was Mr. Green's opinion that notwithstanding the EIR process, the approval authority has limited jurisdiction, in that, it must rely on the findings of the EIR. Mr. A. Galloway enquired as to the conclusions of the EIR and Mr. Kitchen responded that his report had concluded the proposed severance would not have an adverse impact. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 143 MARCH 21, 2000 Mr. Green stated that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the EIR report should be accepted. He further suggested that any concerns the EIR has raised with respect to the provisions of the ROPP should be dealt with by Regional Council apart from the severance application. Mr. C. Kitchen provided an overview of his EIR report, pointing out that in addition to concluding in favour of the severance, he had made several recommendations outlining mitigation measures which would further reduce the impact. Mr. Kitchen referred to the Region's reasons for refusal, noting that he disagreed that the severance would cause fragmentation as fragmentation has already taken place and the property did not represent the last natural linkage from east to west of the ESPA as other connections exist. Submission Nos.: B 3/99 & A 12/99(Cont'd) Ms. S. Campbell enquired where the other linkages were located and Mr. Kitchen provided several examples. Mr. Kitchen further advised that a growth of Eastern Hemlock on the property identified in an earlier document as environmentally sensitive, has been recognized and what remains of the growth is intended to be fully retained. He stated that the issue remains that the Region's recommendation is contradictory to the EIR report. In response to questioning, Mr. Kitchen advised that the EIR is to consider if the severance would have a serious adverse impact. He pointed out that there will be some impact; however, in his opinion the impact of the proposed severance will not pose a serious adverse impact. Mr. A. Galloway enquired as to the number of residential homes permitted under the R-1 Zone and Mr. Beckman indicated 4. Mr. Galloway enquired as to the status of a Plan of Subdivision to north of the applicant's property in the area of New Dundee Road. Mr. Green advised that the Plan of Subdivision had been registered several years ago and roads have been constructed, with several industrial/commercial uses in place. Mr. Green further advised that the zoning map provided in Mr. Haalboom's submission was outdated and provided a copy of a current zoning map. He pointed out that lands to the west, known as the Vos property, is zoned Residential Six Zone (R- 6) which underwent a similar EIR process. In this case, Regional approval was obtained. He advised that there is a history of development applications around the edge of the ESPA which have all followed through the appropriate process with favourable results and suggested that this application was no different. Mr. S. Kay enquired as to the composition of EEAC and the process that is followed. Mr. Kitchen advised that Mr. C. Gosselin is a Regional staff member and there are an additional 4 members who are volunteers. The process undertaken involved an on-site meeting and a subsequent meeting of EEAC during which the report was reviewed and presentation was made by Mr. Haalboom and himself. He further advised that Mr. Gosselin made presentation at the EEAC meeting on behalf of the Region; however, the main presentation was by a sub-committee of EEAC. Ms. S. Campbell requested clarification that EEAC did not accept Regional staff's recommendations and Regional staff are bringing forward the same concerns. Mr. Gosselin reviewed the process for the EIR, noting that a sub-committee of EEAC reviewed the environmental assessment and made a site visit. He stated that the general feeling of the sub- committee was that the proposal should not go forward. The sub-committee presented recommendations to the November 1999 meeting of EEAC and following considerable discussion a vote was taken. He pointed out that the vote was 5 in favour, 2 opposed and 3 abstentions. He further advised that the recording Clerk misinterpreted the meaning of abstentions and declared the motion passed; however, subsequent discussions among Regional staff concluded that abstentions are, in fact, a "No" vote and, accordingly, the motion was overturned. He advised that EEAC is an Advisory Committee which makes recommendations; however, the delegated approval authority is the Regional Commissioner of Planning & Culture. The Regional Commissioner was in agreement with the staff recommendation, which has been forwarded to COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 144 MARCH 21, 2000 the Committee of Adjustment. Ms. D. Ross further explained that EEAC's role as an Advisory Committee is as a commenting organization rather than as an approval authority. Mr. S. Kay enquired if the position of Regional staff is based on EEAC's recommendation and Mr. Gosselin advised that the Region's position is based on that of the sub-committee of EEAC and clarified that Regional staff are in opposition to the proposed severance. Ms. Ross pointed out that Section 4.3.15 of the ROPP allows that where an EIR indicates a serious adverse impact the approval authority may recommend refusal. She stated that in reviewing the information provided to Regional staff and EEAC, staff are of the opinion their recommendation of refusal is appropriate. Mr. Galloway pointed out, however, that the EIR report indicates that the proposal does not pose a serious adverse impact and suggested that it is a matter of interpretation. He requested clarification from City staff that the property was Zoned R-1 when annexed and Ms. Given concurred. He further enquired if the same applied to the lands to the south and Ms. Given Submission Nos.: B 3/99 & A 12/99(Cont'd) responded that these lands were Zoned R-1 after annexation. Mr. Galloway enquired if there was any zoning issue that would prevent approval of the application and Ms. Given responded that the residential use proposed is permitted under the current zoning. In this respect, Mr. Galloway stated that it was his opinion that the only issue of concern is the EIR. Ms. Given referred to the Planning staff report and advised that consultation with the City's Environmental Planner was undertaken and, as a result, City staff came to the same conclusion as Regional staff. In recognition of the Region's roll to review environmental assessment matters, City staff deferred to the Region's recommendation. In response to questioning, Mr. Gosselin advised that an initial report was reviewed by Regional staff and the applicant was advised that it would be highly unlikely to receive approval. Subsequently, a more detailed report was submitted. Mr. Kay stated that it would appear that there is no report in opposition to Mr. Kitchen's EIR report. Mr. Gosselin advised that Regional staff have not prepared a report in opposition; however, do disagree with the conclusions in Mr. Kitchen's report based on the report of the sub- committee of EEAC, and have outlined their concerns in their comments provided to the Committee dated March 16, 2000. Ms. D. Ross further pointed out that it is not usual practice for Regional staff to prepare an opposing report. Ms. S. Campbell stated that, with due respect to Mr. Kitchen's profession, he had been retained by the applicant to prepare the environmental assessment which was reviewed by himself and the applicant's lawyer and it would appear that EEAC has come to a different conclusion. Mr. Kitchen responded that was correct. Mr. A. Galloway enquired if any condition could be incorporated into approval of the consent that would satisfy the Region's concern and a negative response was received. Mr. S. Kay referred to Mr. Kitchen's report in which he made several recommendations and Mr. Kitchen reviewed these recommendations with the Committee. Mr. S. Kay stated that the main concern with the environmental assessment appeared to be whether or not it would pose a serious adverse impact, with the emphasis on the word "serious", and assumed that the lay members of EEAC may have the same difficulty this Committee was having in understanding the technical aspects of an EIR. He questioned if it was possible that a property of this size proposed to be severed to create only 1 new lot could ever have a serious adverse impact. Mr. Kitchen responded that if a specific species was only found to exist on the property, then such a proposal would have a serious adverse impact. He stated that this was not the case with this property, noting that Eastern Hemlock exists elsewhere. In response to questioning, Mr. Kitchen pointed out that he had used Eastern Hemlock only as an example and it was not an issue as the applicant is committed to retaining the grove on his property. Aerial photographs of the subject property were also provided to the Committee at this time. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 145 MARCH 21, 2000 Mr. R. Haalboom pointed out that in reference to Tab 7 of his submission, he also had concern with Regional staff recommending refusal even before the EIR was presented for review by EEAC. Mr. Haalboom pointed out that the property is not considered a woodlot under the Regional Tree By-law as it is less than 2 acres in size and, accordingly, the applicant could construct accessory buildings and cut down any number of trees on the site. He advised that there is already a linkage owned by the Region which cuts across Pinnacle Drive and does not agree that his client's property represents the last natural linkage between the east and west sides of the ESPA. He questioned that, if this was such a concern, why it was not included in the ROPP. Ms. D. Ross provided the wording within the ROPP for the definition of "adverse", noting that, among other matters, this includes reference to long term, irreversible damage. Mr. S. Kay pointed out that the recommendation refers to a serious adverse impact and requested definition of the word "serious". Ms. Ross indicated that the ROPP only contains a definition for the word "adverse" and the wording referred to by Mr. Kay is within the policy. Mr. Submission Nos.: B 3/99 & A 12/99(Cont'd) Kay suggested that, as the policy says a "serious" adverse impact, it is not enough to base their recommendation on the definition of "adverse" alone. Ms. Ross advised that Regional staff do not share the same interpretation. Mr. Gosselin further pointed out that the policy wording was outdated. He advised that the definition of "adverse" is more current having been included in the ROPP through an amendment in 1988 in response to the new Provincial Policy Statement. Mr. E. Irvin advised that he was a builder with Irvin Homes and had conducted a site visit. In his opinion, he stated that he could guarantee that a home could be built on the site without adverse impact. Ms. S. Campbell enquired if Mr. Irvin had been retained to construct the new home and he responded that he had not. Ms. Campbell then questioned his ability to make such a guarantee and Mr. Irvin responded that his expertise in the construction field permitted him to do so. He further stated that there was sufficient building footprint to accommodate a home without cutting any trees. Mr. Gosselin advised that a complaint had been received with regard to tree cutting on the subject property which had been investigated. The trees cut were generally in conformity on the one side of the property; however, on the other side trees were cut to create a clearing, some of which were questionable as to conformity. Following discussions, Mr. Gosselin advised it was determined that the property did not fall under the Regional Tree By-law as it was less than 2 acres in size; however, the result of the tree cutting was a fair sized clearing. Mr. A. Galloway questioned if Mr. Gosselin was implying that the applicant was already preparing for construction of the new home and Mr. Gosselin stated that this appeared to be the case. Mr. S. Kay referred to the fact that the property was not subject to provisions of the Regional Tree By-law and questioned if the applicant would have the right to cut all trees on the property even if the severance was not granted. Mr. Gosselin stated that it would be a matter of interpretation regarding the provisions of the required 2 acres in size to constitute a woodlot. He pointed out that he has been advised that if it could be demonstrated that the trees are part and parcel of a larger woodlot a case could be tested through the Courts. Mr. R. Haalboom pointed out that the trees cut by his client were initially inspected and marked by staff of the Ministry of the Environment. Mr. Gosselin stated, however, that he had discussed this with Ministry staff, who had a different interpretation of what took place. Mr. A. Galloway requested a copy of the recommendations outlined in Mr. Kitchen's EIR report, which was provided. In response to questioning, Mr. Green advised that the Committee has the right to weigh all issues presented; however, he cautioned that he felt it would be inappropriate for the Committee to attempt to interpret the ROPP. In this regard, Mr. Galloway stated that they must rely on Regional staff. Mr. Green stated that he felt reliance should be on ROPP Policy 4.3.14 that states where an EIR indicates there is no adverse impact it would be appropriate for approval. He pointed out that this Committee is the final decision maker as EEAC and Regional staff are only COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 146 MARCH 21, 2000 making recommendation to the Committee. He further suggested that if the Region did not agree, they have the avenue of appeal. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was inclined to move approval of the applications; however, was in a dilema with respect to conflicting conclusions between the Environmental Planners. Mr. S. Campbell pointed out that, while the zoning permits the use proposed, they had received information during consideration of another application this date that indicates the Ontario Municipal Board does not consider zoning to be necessarily decisive. She stated that she did not accept Mr. Kitchen's view that because there has already been incremental destruction that this proposal would not have adverse impact and advised that she could not support the applications. Mr. S. Kay advised that he was inclined to approve the applications; however, would like to see conditions of approval that might mitigate concerns respecting the environmental assessment. He questioned if the parties involved would be agreeable to a deferral to allow appropriate 1. Submission Nos.: B 3/99 & A 12/99(Cont'd) conditions to be developed. Ms. Campbell stated that she would be more comfortable with this approach and suggested that it may result in changing her views. Mr. S. Kay stated that he felt deferral would be in the best interest of the applicants. He pointed out that he was of the opinion the applications should be approved without condition as the policy says a serious adverse impact but there is no definition of the word "serious" and no evidence to the contrary with regard to the findings of the EIR. He further expressed concern with the negative response given by Regional staff to the applicant prior to consideration of the EIR, which alludes to a pre-disposition of the matter. He indicated that he would like to approve the applications; however, wished to address the Region's concerns through a condition of approval. He requested comment from the parties involved with respect to the possibility of deferral. Mr. A. Galloway, however, stated he disagreed with deferral and pointed out that the Committee composition would not necessarily be the same when the applications were re-considered. He felt deferral would not serve any purpose and the Committee should proceed to make a decision. Mr. S. Kay and Ms. Campbell agreed and the Committee proceeded with its discussions. Mr. A. Galloway questioned if the applicants would agree to a motion approving the applications subject to any applicable recommendations contained in Mr. Kitchen's EIR report being incorporated and any other conditions City staff deemed appropriate. Mr. Green and Mr. Haalboom questioned the word "any" and felt they could not agree to this wording. Mr. S. Kay questioned if the parties would agree to putting the applications aside until later in the meeting to allow the parties an opportunity to discuss the matter and come to an agreement on appropriate conditions. Mr. Gosselin stated that he was always open to discussions even though considerable discussion has already taken place. He further advised that he wished to clarify Regional staffs position taken from the outset. He advised that the Region encourages potential applicants to talk with them before an application is filed to identify issues and if staff feels strongly against the proposal, will advise the applicant upfront to avoid wasting time and costs. In addition, in reference to a number of development applications which have been processed around the boundary of the property, he felt it was important to note that this property was in the centre, allowing for the best linkage between the east and west sides of the ESPA. He asked that the Committee give careful consideration, as Regional staff feel it would not be appropriate to allow the proposal in this location. Mr. A. Galloway questioned staff as to what, if any, conditions they would wish to include if he were to put forward a motion to approve the applications. Ms. J. Given responded that there would be several standard conditions relating to payment of taxes/local improvement charges, septic permit, parkland dedication, financial arrangement with Public Works for driveway paving etc., approval of the minor variance and a tree management plan. She pointed out that the latter would be subject to review by the City's Environmental Planner and ultimately approved by the Principal Planner, which may involve agreement between the applicants, the City and the Region. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 147 MARCH 21, 2000 Mr. A. Galloway pointed out that, in providing these conditions, it in no way implies that City staff support approval of the applications. Mr. R. Haalboom stated that he could agree to the conditions proposed provided any agreement required was between his clients and the City of Kitchener. He stated that they have already gone through the Region and do not desire to go that route again. The Committee agreed with this request. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was prepared to recommend approval of the applications subject to the conditions outlined by City staff and incorporation of any applicable recommendations as contained in Mr. Kitchen's EIR report. Mr. S. Kay questioned if staffs conditions negate the necessity to include Mr. Kitchen's recommendations. Mr. Galloway advised that he intended that any of Mr. Kitchen's recommendations that were felt to be applicable would be included. 1. Submission Nos.: B 3/99 & A 12/99(Cont'd) Mr. R. Haalboom referred to Tab 5 of his submission and suggested that the wording of condition 2(c), as referenced, be used with the exception that it not include EEAC. Ms. J. Given stated that this wording was too out-of-date and she would prefer to use more current wording. In this regard, she provided an example of wording that could be used. She further pointed out that she could see only one recommendation in Mr. Kitchen's report and requested clarification as to what was intended to be included. Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was referring to Page 21 of the report which outlines the conclusions. Ms. Given pointed out that the actual recommendation is contained on Page 22 of the EIR report. In this regard, Mr. Galloway enquired if there was nothing to be included from Mr. Kitchen's report and Ms. Given suggested that the motion be worded to include the matters as set out in Section 10 of the EIR. All parties agreed with this suggestion. Consent B 3~99 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Mary Arlene Beckman requesting permission to convey a parcel of land to be used for a single detached dwelling, having frontage on Pinnacle Drive of 48.29 m (158.42 ft.), by an average depth of 75.61 m (248.08 ft.), and an area of 0.3894 ha (41,920 sq. ft.), on Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, 390 Pinnacle Drive, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 12/99, 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 owner shall submit, for the review of the City's Chief Building Official, a geotechnical investigation completed by a professional engineer confirming the suitability of the severed lot for a private in-ground sewage disposal system. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the lands to be severed. 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 lands to be severed. That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be registered against the lands to be severed, in which the owner shall agree to prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy to be approved by the City's Principal Planner prior to the issuance of building permits, with such Plan to include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 148 MARCH 21, 2000 building envelope/work zone acceptable to the City, existing and proposed grades, landscaped or amenity area and vegetation to be preserved; and, including the matters as set out in Section 10.0 of the Environmental Implementation Plan Report. 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 March 21, 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. Submission Nos.: B 3/99 & A 12/99(Cont'd) 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 12/99 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of Mary Arlene Beckman requesting permission to convey a parcel of land to be used for a single detached dwelling, with both the severed and retained lands having a lot area of 0.3894 ha (41,920 sq. ft.), rather than the required 0.4 ha (43,054.1 sq. ft.), on Part of Biehn's Unnumbered Tract, 390 Pinnacle Drive, 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. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 2000-019 and A 2000-017 Estate of Josef Kowalevski 25 and 31 Margaret Avenue Part of Lots 188 and 189, Registered Plan 374 and Part of Lot 9, Registered Plan 401 Appearances: In Support: Mr. D. Sneddon Co-Executor - Estate of J. Kowalevski 400 Erb Street West, Unit 4 Waterloo ON N2L 1W6 Mr. J. Cunningham 112 Archer Place COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 149 MARCH 21, 2000 Kitchener ON N2B lC5 Contra: Written Submissions: In Support: None None Contra: Mr. & Mrs. S. Cole 25 Margaret Ave Kitchener ON N2H 4H1 Submission Nos.: B 2000-019 and A 2000-017(Cont'd) Other: CN Property Planning and Development 277 Front Street West, 8th Floor Toronto ON M5V 2X7 These applications were originally considered at the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on February 29, 2000 at which time the applications were deferred to allow either the owner of the subject property or an agent, having written authorization from the owner to act on his behalf, to be present. The Committee was previously advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide the subject lands into 2 lots, each containing an existing triplex dwelling. The lands being severed will have frontage on Margaret Avenue of 15.968 m (52.38 ft.), by a depth of 36.58 m (120.01 ft.) and an area of 587.8 m2 (6,327.23 sq. ft.). The lands to be retained will also have frontage on Margaret Avenue of 20.059 m (65.81 ft.), by a depth of 52.078 m (170.86 ft.) and an area of 1,030.2 m2 (11,089.34 sq. ft.). The applicant is also requesting permission for a 1.52 m (5 ft.) easement over the retained lands in favour of the severed lands for the purpose of maintenance. In addition, the applicant is requesting the following variances which apply to the severed parcel: a reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 3 spaces to 1; a frontyard setback of 3.9 m (12.79 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.); and, an easterly sideyard setback of 0 m, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.) The Committee noted previous comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services, dated February 22, 2000, in which they advised that these applications seek approval to recreate two separate lots from this property such that each dwelling is situated on a separate lot. The lands to be severed contain a building municipally addressed as 31 Margaret Avenue. This is a large, 2-storey building built approximately 1885 and used historically for 1-3 units, although adequate parking was not provided on the site for the duplex or triplex uses. As a result of the severance and the intent to use the building at 31 Margaret Avenue for 3 dwelling units, the following variances are requested: A reduction in the parking spaces provided, from 3 to 1 A reduction in the front yard from 4.5 metres to 3.9 metres A reduction in the setback of the garage from the front lot line, from 6.0 metres to 4.9 metres (the application should be amended as it requests 0 metres) The retained lands contain a large 2-storey dwelling addressed as 25 Margaret Avenue which the application indicates is also intended for use as a triplex dwelling. This lot would fully comply with the zoning regulations for a triplex provided all parking spaces are developed in accordance with the by-law requirements. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 150 MARCH 21, 2000 Finally, the application seeks approval to establish a 1.52 metre maintenance easement over the retained lands in favour of the severed lands to permit the new lot at 0 metres from the westerly sideyard for 31 Margaret Avenue. The subject applications will facilitate the sale of these properties, permitting more attention to their maintenance, following the passing of their previous owner. An Order to Comply relative to property standards violations is outstanding at 31 Margaret Avenue. It is hoped through the consent and sale of the property that these matters will be properly resolved. The minor variances for the setback from the street of the main dwelling and of the garage are required only to legalize the existing situation which is not covered by the Vacuum By-law by virtue of the creation of new lots. Their approval is desirable and minor as they recognize an existing situation. The requested parking variance relative 31 Margaret Avenue is to reduce the parking from 3 spaces to 1 space. The dwelling contains a small attached garage 3.0 metres in width but Submission Nos.: B 2000-019 and A 2000-017(Cont'd) insufficient in depth to accommodate a vehicle. The property has historic violations for front lawn parking, which is evident by viewing the site. A vehicle could be accommodated between the garage and the lot line but this location is ahead of the 6-metre setback and insufficient in length, being approximately 4.9 metres (16 feet) whereas 5.4 metres (18 feet) is required. One of the Planning Act tests for approval of a minor variance is that the intent of the Official Plan is met. The intent of the Low Rise Residential-Preservation District in the Civic Centre Secondary Plan is to retain the existing single detached residential character of the neighbourhood. The district permits the conversion of existing dwellings to 3 units "only where the site is capable of providing adequate off-street parking in accordance with by-law requirements". In this case, the reduction in the number of parking spaces does not maintain the intent of the Official Plan, which is to maintain the integrity of the existing buildings and streetscape. Staff reviewed this application together with Traffic staff, who have very serious concerns with not meeting the by- law requirements. On the basis that the proposed reduction in parking from 3 to 1 space does not meet the intent of the Official Plan and is not desirable for the neighbourhood given potential spill-over on street parking demand, staff recommend refusal of the parking variance. One option to enable the by-law to be met would be to establish a right-of-way over 25 Margaret Avenue (and over the property adjacent to 25 Margaret Avenue) in favour of 31 Margaret Avenue and to provide rearyard parking spaces. Alternatively, the lot could be legally used as a single detached dwelling if a minor variance for parking 0 metres from the Iotline rather than 6.0 and 4.9 metres in depth rather than 5.4 were supported. A variation to this option would include the removal of the garage to accommodate one parking space. The removal of the garage to facilitate some options was discussed with the applicant before submitting the application and at that time, staff were concerned that as the building is on the Heritage Inventory that the removal of the garage would not be desirable. Having reviewed the situation with the City's Heritage Planner, it is apparent that the removal of the garage would not adversely affect the heritage value of the building and given its poor state of repair, would be an improvement to the building. Planning and Traffic staff would favour the removal of the garage, which would afford the property an adequately sized parking space. If this were undertaken, the minor variance for sideyard would not be required, nor would the establishment of a maintenance easement. The easement is legally required in the Zoning By-law where 0 sideyard development is to be provided, and as such, can be recommended if the owner chooses not to remove the garage. The Zoning By-law provides for a maximum eave encroachment of 0.3 metres into the adjacent lot. Prior to the endorsement of the deeds, the reference plan should be amended to show the eave encroachment, if any to ensure they do not exceed the by-law maximum. To ensure this, the draft reference plan must be approved by the City's Principal Planner prior to the endorsement of the deeds. The decision of the Committee should specify the granting of an easement having a maximum of 0.3 metres for eave encroachment and a minimum of 1.5 metre easement for maintenance. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 151 MARCH 21, 2000 The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends: 1. That the request to approve 1 parking space rather than 3 be refused. 2. That the request to approve the setback of the dwelling and garage for a single detached dwelling (or multiple dwelling provided parking requirements are met) be approved. 3. That Submission B 2000-019 to establish a maximum 0.3 metre easement over 25 Margaret Avenue for eave encroachment and a 1.5 metre easement for maintenance, in favour of 31 Margaret Avenue, and consent to convey 31 Margaret Avenue, be approved subject to the following conditions: a) That Minor Variance Application A 2000-017 be finally approved, relative only to building location. Submission Nos.: B 2000-019 and A 2000-017(Cont'd) b) That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. c) That the City Solicitor approve the easement documents. d) That the easements be granted together with the deed endorsement for the consent to sever. No further comments were forthcoming from the Department of Business and Planning Services. The Committee noted previous comments from the Director of Building, dated February 8, 2000, in which he advised that the Building Division as no concerns or comments with respect to these applications. No further comments were forthcoming from the Building Division. The Committee noted previous comments of the Traffic Project Co-ordinator, Traffic and Parking Division, dated February 23, 2000 in which he advised that the Traffic and Parking Division has reviewed these applications and cannot support the proposed parking deficiency. Two possible options would be: That a right-of-way arrangement over the 25 Margaret Avenue property be made permitting access to the rear of 31 Margaret Avenue where a minimum of two (2) parking spaces can be provided in addition to a single parking space located at the existing garage location. That 25 Margaret be developed as a single family residential unit with the one (1) parking space located at the existing garage location. Due to the demand for on-street parking in this area, it is essential that these residential uses provide the required number of parking spaces. No further comments were forthcoming from the Traffic and Parking Division. The Committee noted previous comments from the Planning and Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, with respect to Minor Variance Application, Submission A 2000-017, dated February 8, 2000, in which they advised that they 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. No further comments were forthcoming from the Planning and Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, with respect to Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-017. The Committee noted previous comments of the Planning and Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, respecting Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-019, dated February 24, 2000, re-affirmed in comments dated March 16, 2000, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, any future development on the lands COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 152 MARCH 21, 2000 subject to the consent application will be subject to the provisions of 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. No further comments were forthcoming from the Planning and Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, with respect to Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-019. The Committee noted previous comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority, dated February 23, 2000, in which they advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to these applications. No further comments were forthcoming from the Grand River Conservation Authority. The Committee noted the previous written submission from CN, dated February 21, 2000, in which they advised that they have reviewed the application and request the following clause be inserted in all Development Agreements, offers to purchase, agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease and include in a Noise Impact Statement: 2. Submission Nos.: B 2000-019 and A 2000-017(Cont'd) "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." No further written submissions were received from CN with respect to these applications. The Committee noted the previous written submission of Mr. & Mrs. S. Cole, dated February 27, 2000, in which they advised that in the best interests of the neighbourhood, and in the spirit of the Civic Centre Secondary Plan, they respectfully insist that this variance be denied. The plan is very clear (13.1.2 Land Use Designations) saying "Residential conversions will be permitted only where there is sufficient floor area for the conversions, where the site is capable of providing adequate off-street parking in accordance with by-law requirements and...". The intent of the plan is clearly intended to retain the existing single detached residential character of the neighbourhood including the integrity of the existing buildings and the streetscape. This application does not maintain the intent of the Official Plan. As you are aware there is insufficient parking for this intended use, as there is no access to the rearyard to provide off-street parking. Apparently, the building has been used on and off as a multiple unit dwelling (although not in the last year), but adequate parking was never provided. As a result, the site was abused (frontyard is evidence) from a parking perspective and the neighbourhood suffered as a result. Cars were illegally parked ruining the character and streetscape. The property has historic violations for front lawn parking, as noted in the staff report. If this variance is approved, the fear is that parking abuse will continue to the detriment of the neighbourhood. In addition, as the purchasers of 25 Margaret Avenue (firm and binding contract), our concern regarding the parking variance is great. We intend to renovate this building as our home, and improve the yard and the closely surrounding streetscape. We would not consider any request to provide a right-of-way over the lot at 25 Margaret Avenue in favour of 31, as it would destroy the rear/side yard. Our fear is that of continued parking abuse, which will negate our efforts. We are not asking for special consideration, just the peace of mind that the official plan will be upheld and encourage continued improvement to the area. Currently the neighbourhood is a mix of single and multiple family residences. This is a pleasant mix when the appropriate by-laws are followed, allowing for proper off-street parking which does not adversely affect the neighbourhood or streetscape. This area is a heritage gem, and every opportunity should be taken to protect it. In the spirit of the official plan, and in support of the staff COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 153 MARCH 21, 2000 report, we ask for the refusal of the parking variance. No further written submissions were received from Mr. & Mrs. Cole with respect to these applications. The Committee noted a written submission from Mr. G. Voisin, Voisin, Lubczuk Law Firm, agent for the applicant, in which he advised that the purchasers of 25 Margaret Avenue will not grant the purchaser of 31 Margaret Avenue any easement over their property in order to develop both properties as a triplex. As no agreement can be reached, we have no alternative but to accept the City's No. 2 recommendation and develop 31 Margaret Avenue as a single family dwelling. The Committee noted a further written submission from Mr. G. Voisin, dated March 13, 2000, in which he requested the Committee to ignore his correspondence dated March 9, 2000 and advised that the purchaser of 31 Margaret Avenue has submitted to Ms. J. Given a proposed plan which would allow access to the backyard for parking upon the removal of the garage. Provided allowance is at least 8.6 ft., Ms. Given would recommend approval of the proposal. This would mean that we no longer require amendment to the parking requirements, variance of the sideyard Submission Nos.: B 2000-019 and A 2000-017(Cont'd) nor the maintenance easement. We will be withdrawing these from the original application. A copy of the revised plan was attached to Mr. Voisin's submission. Mr. D. Sneddon advised that he was the Co-Executor of the Estate of Josef Kowalevski. He advised that an agreement could not be reached with respect to parking issues as there is concern parking would be extended to the front of the property. He stated that, as a result, the applicant accepts Condition No. 2, as outlined in the Planning staff report, and will demolish the garage to allow for additional parking. Mr. A. Galloway enquired if the intent was to use the existing dwelling as a single dwelling rather than a triplex. Ms. J. Given advised that she understood the applicant wanted a triplex. Mr. Galloway questioned if this would be permitted and Ms. Given responded it would. Mr. Galloway enquired if the minor variances were still required. Ms. J. Given advised that only one of the variances was still required, being the frontyard setback. Mr. Sneddon agreed to withdraw the variance requests for a reduction in parking and a reduction in the setback of the garage from the front lot line. Mr. S. Kay enquired if a permit would be required to demolish the garage and Mr. J. Cunningham, proposed purchaser of 31 Margaret Avenue, advised that he would be applying for a demolition permit. Mr. Kay enquired if a condition relative to obtaining a demolition permit should be included in the decision and Ms. Given responded that the proposed purchaser would not be able to comply without demolition of the garage and it would be a matter of course in obtaining the demolition permit. Mr. J. Cunningham requested clarification with respect to classification of the residential use. Mr. S. Kay advised that under the R-5 zoning a triplex use would be permitted provided the frontyard setback is approved and the parking requirements were met. Ms. J. Given also advised that an occupancy permit would be required. Consent B 2000-019 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell That the application of the Estate of Josef Kowalevski requesting permission to convey a parcel of land to be used as a triplex, having frontage on Margaret Avenue of 15.968 m (52.38 ft.), by a depth of 36.58 m (120.01 ft.) and an area of 587.8 m2 (6,327.23 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 188 and 189, Registered Plan 374 and Part of Lot 9, Registered Plan 401, 25 and 31 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-017, shall receive final approval, relative only to building location. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 154 MARCH 21, 2000 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 required parking for the severed lands shall be approved by the City's Principal Planner. 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 March 21, 2002. 2. Submission Nos.: B 2000-019 and A 2000-017(Cont'd) 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 2000-017 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Ms. A. Campbell That the application of the Estate of Josef Kowalevski requesting permission to convey a parcel of land containing an existing residential dwelling to be used as a triplex, having a frontyard setback from Margaret Avenue of 3.9 m (12.79 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.), on Part of Lots 188 and 189, Registered Plan 374 and Part of Lot 9, Registered Plan 401, 25 and 31 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried APPLICATION MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 2000-018 Aberdeen Homes Ltd. 382 Brembel Crescent Lot 20, Reference Plan 58M-31 Appearances: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 155 MARCH 21, 2000 In Support: Ms. D. Biuk Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants Limited 5-745 Bridge Street West Waterloo ON N2V 2G6 Ms. P. McLean, Executive Director Habitat for Humanity, Waterloo Region Inc. 120 Northfield Drive East Waterloo ON N2J 4G8 Contra: None Submission No.: A2000-018(Cont'd) Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling having a westerly sideyard of 3.55 m (11.6 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) and to locate the driveway access 10.406 m (34.1 ft.) setback from the intersection of Brembel Crescent and Brembel Street, rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property is a vacant lot located at the southeast corner of Brembel Crescent and Brembel Street. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan and are zoned R-6 according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting a reduction to the required sideyard abutting a street from 4.5 metres to 3.55 metres and a reduction in the required driveway setback from an intersection from 12.0 metres to 10.406 metres. The requested variances would facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling on the subject lands. The configuration of the existing lot is such that it is considerably more narrow at the rear than at the front, making it difficult to fit an average sized dwelling with the established building envelope. The requested reduction is required only for the rear corner of the dwelling and is considered minor in nature and appropriate for the development of the subject lot. Zoning By-law 85-1 currently requires driveways to be setback a minimum of 12 metres from intersections except in the instance where both streets have a width of 18.0 metres or less, in which case a setback of 9.0 metres is required. This requirement has become a relatively significant concern in the last several years with the increase in the number of narrow lots being created and the demand for 1-1/2 and 2 car garages. The result has been an excessive number of applications being submitted for minor variance approval. During the last year, the Department has conducted a full review of the small lot zoning regulations and has established new regulations which will be incorporated into the Zoning By- law through an amendment to be considered by the City's Planning and Economic Development Committee in the coming months. The Department, together with the City's Traffic and Parking Division, is recommending that the driveway setback from an intersection be reduced to 9.0 metres in all cases. This reduction is consistent with the requirements in most other jurisdictions and still represents a sound policy in terms of vehicular safety. In view of the recommended changes to the Zoning by-law, the proposed reduction in the driveway setback from 12.0 metres to 10.406 metres is considered to be minor in nature, appropriate for the development of the subject lands and in keeping with the general intent of COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 156 MARCH 21, 2000 both the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan. Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 2000-018. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 2000-018, seeking a reduction in the sideyard abutting a street from 4.5 metres to 3.55 metres and a reduction in the driveway setback from an intersection from 12.0 metres to 10.406 metres, be approved. 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 and Parking Division in which they advised that the Traffic and Parking Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed driveway setback. 1. Submission No.: A2000-018(Cont'd) The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection and no resource concerns with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning and Culture, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that they 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 Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that the application is recommended for approval and enquired if Ms. D. Biuk had anything further to add. Ms. D. Biuk advised that she had reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add. Moved by Ms. S. Campbell Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Aberdeen Homes Ltd. requesting permission to construct a single family dwelling having a westerly sideyard of 3.55 m (11.6 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.), and to locate the driveway access 10.406 m (34.1 ft.) setback from the intersection of Brembel Crescent and Brembel Street, rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), on Lot 20, Reference Plan 58M-31,382 Brembel Crescent, 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. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 21st day of March, 2000. J. Billett COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 157 MARCH 21, 2000 Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment