HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2000-02-29COA\2000-02-2g
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 29, 2000
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. W. Dahms and S. Kay.
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. W. Dahms, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
"That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of January 11, 2000, be
amended as follows:
Page 17 to amend the Committee's Decision respecting Consent Application, Submission No.
B 2000-001, by deleting from the second line of Condition No. 3 the phrase 'prior to any
development on the property' and substituting therefore the phrase 'prior to any development
on the retained lands'."
Carried
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of January 11, 2000, as
amended, and February 8, 2000, as mailed to the members, be accepted.
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
The Chair advised that a request has been received from Ms. D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, to
defer this application to the March 21, 2000 meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the
meeting of March 21, 2000.
CONSENT
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 50/99
Electrohome Limited
809 Wellington Street
Part of Lots 32, 33 and 34, Re.qistered Plan 763
The Chair advised that a request has been received from Ms. D. Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, to
defer this application to the April 11,2000 meeting.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 64 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
Submission No.: B 50/99(Cont'd)
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the
meeting of April 11, 2000.
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 2000-008 & B 2000-009
Nicholas & Wendy Svensson
723 Glasgow Street
Part of Lot 5, Re.qistered Plan 693
The Chair advised that a letter dated February 29, 2000 was received from the applicant, Mr.
Nicholas Svensson, advising the Committee that he is withdrawing Consent Applications B 2000-
008 & B 2000-009. Accordingly, the Chair advised that these applications will not be heard.
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
The Chair advised that a request has been received from Mr. R. Haalboom, Solicitor for the
applicant, to defer this application to the March 21, 2000 meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the
meeting of March 21, 2000.
a)
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 13/99, B 16/99 & A 26/99
Ivan Biuk Construction Limited
1843 Old Mill Road and Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road
Part of Lots 100, 101 and 102, Registered Plan 578, and Part of
Drummond Drive (Closed), Part 1, Plan 58R-1149
b)
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 14/99
Diana Biuk
Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road
Lot 97, Re.qistered Plan 578
c)
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 15/99
Josip Babic
Drummond Drive at Old Mill Road
Lot 96, Re.qistered Plan 578
The Chair advised that a request has been received from Mr. I. Biuk, Ivan Biuk Construction
Limited, to defer these applications to the March 21,2000 meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of these applications would be deferred to
the meeting of March 21,2000.
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 65~99 & A 121/99
Gary Schnarr
518 Caryndale Drive
Lot 11, Re.qistered Plan 1284
The Chair advised that these applications would be temporarily set aside to allow them to be
considered in conjunction with a new Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-020,
scheduled to be heard at 10:00 a.m. this date.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 65 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 2000-007 & A 2000-005
1184951 Ontario Inc.
537 Frederick Street
Lot 39, Part Lots 13, 14, 15,
16 & 45, Re,qistered Plan 42
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. M. Sandalj
c/o 1184951 Ontario Inc.
537 Frederick Street
Kitchener ON N2B 2A7
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
In Support:
None
Contra:
Mr. & Mrs. T. W. Matuszek
548 Frederick Street
Kitchener ON N2B 2A6
Mr. C. Del Cul
133 Ann Street
Kitchener ON
N2B 1Y2
Ms. E. Felder
563 Frederick Street
Kitchener ON N2B 2A7
Mrs. C. Gross
1036 Union Street
Kitchener ON N2A 6J7
These applications were originally before the Committee at its meeting held on January 11, 2000,
at which time they were deferred to the Committee's February 8th meeting to allow a detailed
review of a site plan. At the February 8th meeting the applications were again deferred at the
request of the applicant, to the Committee's 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 1,441.59
m2 (15,517.65 sq. ft.). The lands to be severed are proposed to be developed with 12
townhouse dwelling units, with the severed parcel having frontage on Frederick Street of 34.67
m (113.74 ft.), by a depth of 69.63 m (228.44 ft.) and an area of 2,449 m2 (26,361.68 sq. ft.).
The applicant is also requesting permission to develop the severed lands containing the
townhouse dwellings with the following variances:
a) a rearyard setback of 1.2 m (4 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.);
b) a reduction in the required parking spaces from 18 to 17 spaces;
c) an increase in the gross floor area for home business use to 40 m~ (430.57 sq. ft.), rather
than the permitted 15 m~ (161.46 sq. ft.); and,
d) to allow a maximum of 3 clients/customers to visit the premises for each unit.
The applicant is also requesting permission to construct a one storey addition with peak roof
onto the existing dwelling on the lands to be retained with the following variances:
a) a frontyard setback of 4.5 m (14.76 ft.), rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.);
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 66 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
4. Submission Nos.: B 2000-007 & A 2000-005(Cont'd)
b) a sideyard setback of 1.5 m (4.92 ft.), rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.);
c) a rearyard setback of 1.2 m (4 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.);
d) a reduction in the landscaped area to 10%, rather than the required 20%;
e) an increase in the gross floor area for a home business use to 40 m2 (430.57 sq. ft.), rather
than the permitted 15 m2 (161.46 sq. ft.); and,
f) to allow a maximum of 3 clients/customers to visit the premise.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services, dated
January 4, 2000, in which they advised that the owner is requesting permission to sever a lot from
lands located at 537 Frederick Street for the purpose of developing 12 townhouse dwelling units.
The subject lands presently have frontage onto both Frederick Street and Ann Street. The
severed parcel would front onto Frederick Street and the townhouse dwellings would be
accessed via a private driveway off Frederick Street. The retained lands presently contain an
existing single storey building and the owner intends to add a second floor onto the building in
order to create a total of eight dwelling units (a portion of the building has been used as a dwelling
unit).
The owner previously submitted a severance application for the development of 10 townhouse
dwelling units on the subject lands (file number B 51/99). The application was approved subject
to a number of conditions, including acknowledgement of a Record of Site Condition by the
Ministry of Environment and Energy for the severed and retained lands, conveyance of land for
road widening to the Region, and submission of a noise study to the Region, including entering
into an agreement for same. Since the approval of this application, the owner has developed
more detailed site plan concepts for the development of both the severed and retained parcels
which has resulted in the new applications being submitted.
The proposed development of the severed and retained parcels requires a number of minor
variances relating to reductions in yard requirements, parking, and landscape area requirements.
In addition, the owner has requested an increase in that part of the gross floor area of a dwelling
which may be used for a home business from 15 square metres to 40 square metres, as well as
permission to allow a maximum of 3 customers or clients to visit each dwelling on both the
severed and retained lands. Additional variances not requested on the application would also be
required for the severed lands in order to permit a minimum floor space ratio of 0.37 instead of
the required 0.6, as well as to permit a front yard setback of approximately 0 metres from the front
lot line with Frederick Street as a result of required road widening (a minimum setback of 3
metres is required by special regulation 202R).
It is understood that the owner will also be submitting a site plan application relating to the
development of both the severed and retained lands. To date, the site plan application has not
been submitted and staff have several concerns with the proposed site arrangement. Until a
detailed review of a site plan is completed and the plan is acceptable from a technical point of
view, the applications for severance and minor variance should be deferred.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Submissions B 2000-007
and A 2000-005 be deferred until the Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on February 8,
2000.
The Committee also noted revised comments of the Department of Business & Planning
Services, dated February 24, 2000, in which they advised that these applications were previously
deferred by Committee on February 8, 2000, pending the resolution of site plan details for the
development of both the severed and retained lands proposed to be created through this consent
application. An application for site plan approval was considered at the February 23, 2000, Site
Plan Review Committee and was considered generally acceptable from a technical standpoint,
although did not receive formal site plan approval given outstanding concerns related to this
minor variance application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 67 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
4. Submission Nos.: B 2000-007 & A 2000-005(Cont'd)
The owner is requesting permission to sever a lot from lands located at 537 Frederick Street for
the purpose of developing 11 townhouse dwelling units. The subject lands presently have
frontage onto both Frederick Street and Ann Street. The severed parcel would front onto
Frederick Street and the townhouse dwellings would be accessed via a private driveway off
Frederick Street. The retained lands presently contain an existing single storey building and the
owner intends to add a second floor onto the building in order to create at least six dwelling units
(a portion of the building is already being used as a dwelling unit).
The owner previously obtained approval of a severance for the development of 10 townhouse
dwelling units on the subject lands (file number B 51/99), however the severance line is slightly
modified by this application. The application was approved subject to a number of conditions,
including acknowledgement of a Record of Site Condition by the Ministry of Environment and
Energy for the severed and retained lands, conveyance of land for road widening to the Region,
and submission of a noise study to the Region, including entering into an agreement for same.
The proposed development of the severed and retained parcels requires a number of minor
variances relating to reductions in yard requirements, parking, and landscape area requirements.
The proposed variances are therefore as follows:
Severed lands (frontin.q Frederick Street)
1. A minimum rear yard of 1.2 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres.
Permission to allow that part of the gross floor area of a dwelling which may be used for a
home business to be increased from 15 square metres to 40 square metres, as well as
permission to allow the home business to a have a maximum of 3 customers or clients at
each dwelling unit at a time.
Variances will also be required to permit a front yard setback of 2 metres from the front lot line
with Frederick Street as a result of required road widening instead of 3.0 metres which is required
by special regulation 202R. In addition, a side yard at the south-westerly end of the townhouse
building of 0.6 metres is also deficient, as 1.5 metres is required. The application should be
amended to include these two additional variances. Finally, a variance requesting a reduction in
parking from 18 to 17 spaces is not required as the recently considered site plan has 11 units
where 12 were once proposed.
The requested variances to the rear yard, front yard and side yard are considered minor in nature
and appropriate for the development or use of the lands. The rear yard actually functions more
like a side yard so 1.2 metres is acceptable. The proposed 2 metre front provides sufficient
setback to the building. The side yard allows enough room for pedestrian access, which is all that
is required in this location. This variance is created by the unusual lot configuration in this
location.
However, staff have concern with the applicant's request for variances related to a home
business. The units proposed on these lands are cluster townhouses fronting onto a private,
internal driveway. A total of 17 parking spaces are provided, either in the form of a garage or a
surface parking space (in addition to one space in front of each garage). A minimum of 17
spaces are required by by-law. The Zoning By-law currently does not permit any customers or
clients to a home business in a multiple dwelling so as not to impact neighbouring residents by
customer activity. Increasing this number to three customers or clients would significantly
increase the demand for parking on site and could also be of detriment to the amenity of other
residents on the site. The current submitted site plan does not make provision for any additional
parking for customers or clients. Further, there is nothing distinguishing this site from other
multiple developments throughout the city.
A home business is intended to be secondary or accessory to the principal residential use in a
multiple dwelling. There appears to be no demonstrated need to increase the permitted gross
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 68 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
Submission Nos.: B 2000-007 & A 2000-005(Cont'd)
floor area for a home business in this case as there should be no customers or clients visiting the
home business and the currently permitted 15 square metres is considered sufficient to meet the
needs of the average home business. Staff therefore do not support the requested variances
related to the home business.
Retained lands (frontin.q Ann Street)
The proposed variances are as follows:
1. A minimum rear yard of 1.2 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres.
2. A minimum side yard of 1.5 metres rather than the required 6.0 metres.
3. A minimum landscaped area of 10% rather than the required 20%.
4. A minimum front yard of 4.5 metres rather than the required 6.0 metres.
Permission to allow that part of the gross floor area of a dwelling which may be used for a
home business to be increased from 15 square metres to 40 square metres, as well as
permission to allow the home business to have a maximum of 3 customers or clients at
each dwelling unit at one time.
The retained lands currently contain a 506.3 square metre single storey building. The applicant
intends to add a second floor to the building and convert the building to at least six apartments. A
total of 17 parking spaces are provided on the proposed site plan for the retained lands. Staff
have discussed the potential number of residential units that the building could accommodate
with the applicant and consider that, given the amount of parking proposed, a total of 6
apartments would be appropriate. Together with this number of units, staff consider that this
building might be appropriate for a more "intensive" type of home business than what would
currently be permitted by by-law, due to its present built form. The building currently contains an
office and an illegal car sales use. Converting the building to residential is both desirable and
would conform to the R-8 zone on the retained lands. Staff consider that a maximum of 1
customer or client would be appropriate in this instance, and that in addition, recognition of the
suitability of the building for such home business as an artisan's establishment, a maximum gross
floor area of 40 square metres would be acceptable. The presence of bay doors in a portion of
the building together with the relatively large residential units lend itself to suitable "live work"
space in this instance distinguishing it from other multiple dwelling sites and maintaining the intent
of the home business regulations.
In order to support the adaptive re-use of the building on the retained lands, the requested
variances for rear yard, front yard and landscaped area are considered minor in nature and
appropriate for the use or development of the lands. However, in order not to enable the existing
building to encroach further into the existing southerly side yard and be of detriment to the
amenity or the adjacent residential property, staff suggest that the requested 1.5 metre southerly
side yard be increased to the existing 2.4 metres. Finally, the Zoning By-law does not allow
parking between the facade and the front lot line as it relates to multiple dwellings. The proposed
site plan indicates three spaces in this location. In order to facilitate the adaptive re-use of the
building, and to accommodate additional parking to serve customers or clients to a home
business, staff consider it is acceptable to have three parking spaces in this location.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends:
A. 1. Approval of A 2000-005, as amended, to include the following:
For the lands to be severed:
a)
b)
c)
A rear yard of 1.2 metres rather that the required 7.5 metres.
A minimum front yard setback of 2 metres rather than the required 3 metres.
A minimum side yard adjacent the south-westerly corner of the proposed
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 69 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
multiple dwelling of 0.6 metres rather than the required 1.5 metres.
Submission Nos.: B 2000-007 & A 2000-005(Cont'd)
For the lands to be retained:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
A rear yard of 1.2 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres.
A southerly side yard of 2.4 metres rather than the required 6 metres.
A landscaped area of 10% rather than the required 20%.
A front yard of 4.5 metres rather than the required 6.0 metres.
A maximum gross floor area of 40 square metres for a home business in a
multiple dwelling unit rather than the required 15 square metres, and a
maximum of one client or customer to the home business at any one time.
a maximum of three parking spaces between the facade and the front lot
line.
The approval of A 2000-005 shall be subject to the retained lands having a
maximum of 6 dwelling units and applicable only to the site plan finally approved
under SP 00/06/F/GR.
Refusal of that part of A 2000-005 requesting a maximum gross floor area of 40
square metres for a home business in a multiple dwelling unit rather than the
required 15 square metres, and a maximum of three clients or customers to the
home business at any one time as it relates to the severed lands.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of B 2000-007,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Final approval of A 2000-005, as recommended above.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment
of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
The cessation of any illegal automobile sales or leasing activities being carried
out on either the lands to be severed or the lands to be retained, to the
satisfaction of the City's Principal Planner.
That the owner shall undertake a site assessment for both the severed and
retained lands in accordance with the Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites in
Ontario. A copy of the Record of Site Condition, acknowledged by the Ministry of
Environment and Energy shall be provided to the City's Principal Planner.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic Project Co-ordinator, Traffic & Parking
Division, dated January 6, 2000, in which he advised that this Division has reviewed the
applications and does not support the proposed parking deficiency due to the potential impact on
adjacent residential streets.
The Committee also noted revised comments of the Traffic Project Co-ordinator, Traffic & Parking
Division, dated February 23, 2000, in which he advised that this Division has reviewed the
applications and is prepared to support an increase in home business gross floor area for units
within the existing building closest to Ann Street. This support is conditional upon the provision
of one (1) parking space, in addition to the residential parking requirement, for each home
business unit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo,
respecting Minor Variance Application A 2000-005, in which they advised that they have reviewed
the application and note that it is also the subject of Land Severance Application No. B 51/99; the
conditions of approval of which have not been addressed. The Region further advised that any
development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development
Charge By-law 91-91, as amended by By-law 93-050, or any successor thereof. By-law 91-91
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 70 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
4. Submission Nos.: B 2000-007 & A 2000-005(Cont'd)
may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo,
respecting Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-007, dated January 7, 2000, February 3,
2000 and February 23, 2000 in which identical comments were relayed advising that in
accordance with the Region's delegated responsibilities to comment on development applications
on behalf of the Province (including the Ministry of the Environment), please be advised that the
Region's Contaminant Sources Inventory identifies the lands as having a high potential for
contamination based on an historic use on the property and adjacent properties. Regional staff
do not know if the contamination suspected on the lands would pose a health or safety risk to the
proposed use of the property. As the subject lands are not located within a Regional wellfield,
the Regional Municipality of Waterloo does not have a direct corporate interest which would result
in the Region requesting a Record of Site Condition be imposed on its behalf.
At this location, Frederick Street has a designated road width of 86 feet. The road allowance is
presently 60 feet, so a 13 foot road widening is required. Some widening has been conveyed on
the property previously. Prior to the approval of this application, a road widening of 8.75 feet at
the easterly limit of the property and 10.59 feet at the westerly limit are required to obtain the 13
feet across the entire property.
A noise study is also required to assess the impact of noise from Frederick Street and any
mitigation that may be required.
The applicant is advised that an access permit and lot grading plan will be required at the site
plan approval stage.
Regional staff have no objection to the approval of B 2000-007 subject to the following conditions:
1)
That the owner convey to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo a road widening across
the Frederick Street frontage of the property, consisting of 8.75 feet at the easterly limit of
the property and 10.59 feet at the westerly limit of the property to obtain the required 13
foot widening across the entire property.
2)
That the owner submit a noise study to assess the impact of noise from Frederick Street
and enter into an agreement with the Region to provide for any mitigation measures that
may be identified.
The Region further advised that any future development on the lands subject to the above-noted
consent application will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law
99-038, or any successor thereof. Applicants are also advised that there may be a Regional fee
assessed for development agreements if required.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority dated January 6,
2000, in which they advised that they have no objection to these applications.
The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. & Mrs. T. Matuszek, in which they advised
that a townhouse, residential project is very welcome, however, to properly assess the application
a detailed site plan showing more precise dimensions, should be made available. Setbacks
requested appear too minimal and more allowance for green space would enhance the project.
As this is to be a residential development, gross home business floor space should be only as
permitted, of 15 m2 (161.46 sq. ft.). Is the parking, as shown sufficient for the residences, plus
visitors, clients and customers?
The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. C. Del Cul in which he advised that, the
applicant has requested a change of ten variances to accommodate his intentions and he is
against too many amendments, and would like to see this areas present by-laws enforced.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 71 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
The Committee noted the written submission from Mrs. C. Gross in which she advised that she is
writing on behalf of her mother, Mrs. Elizabeth Felder who resides at 563 Frederick Street. She
Submission Nos.: B 2000-007 & A 2000-005(Cont'd)
advised that her mother has lived at this address for 39 years and is 90 years old and she has
gone through so many of these changes that have not turned out but she hopes someone will fix
this area according to the plans the City of Kitchener would like to see. Regarding the application
for the townhouses, she is unsure of the following:
1) What type of townhouse and how close will it come to her property.
2)
There is nothing in the application about a fence for this property. The existing fence, if
you can call it one, is hanging by a wing and a prayer and she really thinks a steel fence
would stand up much better and also look much nicer.
3)
Traffic is something no one says anything about and I'm sure with these extra townhouses
there surely will be more. If anyone has ever tried to get out onto Frederick Street at most
times of the day it is terrible and when I go to visit my mother it is a total mess trying to get
out into Frederick Street. The accidents at Frederick and Bruce have multiplied this year
so this is another factor. If there will be children in these townhouses it will be very
dangerous.
With regard to any of the other proposals, she does not understand what the applicant wants to
do and with regard to request for a one storey addition this is also not clear.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that the applications are recommended for
approval subject to the Minor Variance Application being amended to include two additional
variances relative to the severed lands relating to the frontyard setback and the sideyard setback
at the south-westerly end of the proposed townhouse development. The Chair enquired if Mr.
Sandalj was prepared to amend the Minor Variance Application to include the two additional
variances and Mr. Sandalj concurred.
The Chair further noted that staff are recommending refusal of part of the minor variance
application which requested a maximum of 40 m2 for a home business in a multiple dwelling unit
and a maximum of 3 clients/customers to the home at any one time as it relates to the severed
lands; however, are supporting the same variance requests for the retained lands, with the
exception that only one client/customer be allowed at the home at any one time. In this regard,
the Chair enquired if Mr. Sandalj had anything further to add.
Mr. Sandalj advised that, while he was satisfied with staff recommendations, he had asked for the
variances respecting a home business on the severed lands because the units to be constructed
would be larger than average and, from a marketing perspective, the home business use would
be desirable. He stated that the location of the property, being within the heart of the City, was
appropriate for this type of use and necessary for the marketability of the development.
The Chair requested staff to comment and Ms. J. Given advised that the proposed townhouse
development was typical of other examples in the area; however, she pointed out that the
variance requested for a home business goes well beyond the 15 m2 allowed and, as such, no
longer can be considered simply as an accessory use. In regard to the severed lands, the main
concern respecting a home business use relates to the issue of insufficient parking. In this
regard, she pointed out that no additional parking is being supplied over and above what is
required for the townhouse use and, accordingly, staff do not support the requested variance as it
has the potential to adversely impact the neighbouring residents by customer activity.
Mr. Sandalj advised that the townhouses are intended to be sold as freehold units with
purchasers to be apprised of the home business use. He stated that on this basis, it is hoped to
attract professional, business oriented buyers. He pointed out that he has been trying to develop
the lands for a long period of time with several previous proposals that had not worked out. He
further noted that this project was on a smaller scale in comparison to previous proposals. With
regard to parking, he advised that the units will have garages, with one space available in front of
each garage and six additional surface spaces located on the site.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 72 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
The Chair pointed out that it would appear the Traffic & Parking Division would not be in support
as their comments indicate support only on the basis of one additional parking space, in addition
Submission Nos.: B 2000-007 & A 2000-005(Cont'd)
to the residential parking requirement, for each home business unit being provided. The Chair
then referred to the conditions required by the Region and Mr. Sandalj advised that he was
prepared to comply with these conditions.
Mr. Sandalj enquired if it would be acceptable to reduce the variance request of 40 m2 to 30 m2 in
respect to a home business use for the townhouse development. The Chair requested staff to
comment and Ms. Given responded that staff had explored all possible options with the applicant,
resulting in the position taken. She stated that staff's position not to support a variance respecting
a home business use for the townhouse development remains the same.
A 2000-005
That part of the application of 1184951 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to construct 11
townhouse dwelling units on the portion of the subject lands to be severed having a rearyard
setback of 1.2 m (3.93 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), a frontyard setback of 2 m
(6.56 ft.), rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.), and a sideyard setback adjacent to the south-
westerly corner of the proposed multiple dwelling of 0.6 m (1.96 ft.) rather than the required 1.5 m
(4.92 ft.); and to construct a 1 storey addition onto the existing dwelling on the lands to be
retained having a rearyard setback of 1.2 m (3.93 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), a
southerly sideyard of 2.4 m (7.87 ft.), rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), a landscaped area
of 10%, rather than the required 20%, a frontyard setback of 4.5 m (14.76 ft.), rather than the
required 6 m (19.68 ft.), a maximum gross floor area of 40 m~ (430.57 sq. ft.) for a home business
in a multiple dwelling unit, rather than the permitted 15 m~ (161.46 sq. ft.) and a maximum of 1
client or customer to the home business at any one time, and a maximum of 3 parking spaces
between the facade and the front lot line, on Lot 39, Part Lots 13, 14, 15, 16 & 45, Registered
Plan 42, 537 Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the retained lands shall have a maximum of 6 dwelling units.
That the variances as approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the
site plan approved under Site Plan Application SP00/06/F/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
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That part of the application of 1184951 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to have a maximum
gross floor area of 40 m~ (430.57 sq. ft.) for a home business in a multiple dwelling unit, rather
than the permitted 15 m~ (161.46 sq. ft.) and a maximum of 3 clients or customers to the home
business at any one time, for the 11 townhouse dwelling units to be constructed on the portion of
the subject lands to be severed, on Lot 39, Part Lots 13, 14, 15, 16 & 45, Registered Plan 42, 537
Frederick Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE REFUSED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are not minor in nature.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 73 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
2. This application is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
4. Submission Nos.: B 2000-007 & A 2000-005(Cont'd)
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are not being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
B 2000-007
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of 1184951 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land to
be developed with 11 townhouse dwelling units having frontage on Frederick Street of 34.67 m
(113.74 ft.), by a depth of 66.82 m (219.23 ft.), and an area of 2,291.17 m2 (24,662.76 sq. ft.), on
Lot 39, Part Lots 13, 14, 15, 16 and 45, Registered Plan 42, 537 Frederick Street, Kitchener,
Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-005, as amended, 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.
The cessation of any illegal automobile sales or leasing activities being carried out on
either the lands to be severed or the lands to be retained, to the satisfaction of the City's
Principal Planner.
That the owner shall undertake a site assessment for both the severed and retained lands
in accordance with the Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. A copy of the
Record of Site Condition, acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment and Energy shall
be provided to the City's Principal Planner.
That the owner shall convey to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo a road widening
across the Frederick Street frontage of the property, consisting of 8.75 feet at the easterly
limit of the property and 10.59 feet at the westerly limit of the property to obtain the
required 13 foot widening across the entire property.
That the owner shall submit a noise study to assess the impact of noise from Frederick
Street and enter into an agreement with the Region to provide for any mitigation measures
that may be identified.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being February 29, 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
The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 9:55 a.m., and reconvened at 10:05 a.m.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 74 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
APPLICATIONS
CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 2000-019 & A 2000-017
Estate of Josef Kowalevski
25 & 31 Margaret Avenue
Part of Lots 188 & 189, Registered Plan 374 and Part of Lot 9,
Registered Plan 401
a)
b)
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. R. Lishman
266 Lakeside Drive
Kitchener ON N2M 4C5
Contra:
None
Other:
Ms. D. Kuehl
58 Ahrens Street West
Kitchener ON N2H 4B7
Written Submissions:
In Support:
None
Contra:
Mr. & Mrs. S. Cole
25 Margaret Avenue
Kitchener ON N2H 4H1
The Chair advised that Mr. George Voisin, designated agent for the applicant, was unable to
attend this date and had requested Mr. Richard Lishman to attend in his place. The Chair pointed
out that under the Planning Act written authorization from the owner appointing Mr. Lishman to
act as agent was required.
Mr. Lishman advised that he had only been advised late yesterday to attend the hearing this date
and did not have written authorization from the owner to act as agent.
Mr. S. Kay suggested that the applications be set aside, temporarily, to allow Mr. Lishman an
opportunity to contact either Mr. Voisin or the owner. Alternatively, the Chair advised that the
applications would be deferred to the Committee's meeting of March 21,2000.
By general consent, it was agreed to temporarily delay consideration of these applications, while
Mr. Lishman attempted to contact the office of Mr. Voisin.
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 65~99 & A 121/99
Gary Schnarr
518 Caryndale Drive
Lot 11, Re.qistered Plan 1284
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 2000-020
Armando & Jacquie Avelar & Gary Schnarr
512 Caryndale Drive
Lot 10, Re.qistered Plan 1284
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. G. Schnarr
518 Caryndale Drive
Kitchener ON N2G 3W5
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 75 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
Contra:
2. Submission Nos.:
None
B 65/99, B 2000-020 & A 121/99(Cont'd)
Written Submissions:
In Support:
None
Contra:
Mr. & Mrs. A. Sutcliffe
147 Chapel Hill Drive
Kitchener ON N2G 3W5
Mr. & Mrs. Z. Simofi
524 Caryndale Drive
Kitchener ON N2G 3W5
Mr. W. Kirkwood
146 Chapel Hill Drive
Kitchener ON N2G 3W5
Withdrawals:
Mr. & Mrs. A. Sutcliffe
147 Chapel Hill Drive
Kitchener ON N2G 3W5
Mr. & Mrs. Z. Simofi
524 Caryndale Drive
Kitchener ON N2G 3W5
Consent Application, Submission No. B 65/99, and Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A
121/99, were previously considered by the Committee at its meeting held on December 7, 1999,
at which time the applications were deferred to allow a concept plan to be prepared by staff and
to allow further discussion between the applicant and his neighbours.
The Committee was previously advised with regard to Consent Application B 65/99 & Minor
Variance Application A 121/99, that the applicant is requesting permission to create 1 new lot by
severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of 1,372.68 m2 (14,775.88
sq. ft.). A single-family dwelling is proposed for the lands to be severed which will have an
area of 1,059.44 m2 (11,404.09 sq. ft.) and an average depth of 61.31 m (201.14 ft.). In
addition, the lands to be severed and the lands to be retained will have frontage on Caryndale
Drive of 19.08 m (62.59 ft.) and 21.15 m (69.39 ft.) respectively, whereas the Zoning By-law
requires a frontage of 24 m (78.74 ft.) per lot and the applicant is requesting permission for
these variances.
The Committee was also advised with respect to Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-
020, that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to the
abutting property by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of
2,300 m~ (24,757.8 sq. ft.). The severed parcel will have frontage on Caryndale Drive of 4.27 m
(14.01 ft.), by a depth of 62.15 m (203.9 ft.), and an area of 104 m~ (1,119.48 sq. ft.); and is
intended to be added to an adjoining proposed new lot.
Previous comments from the Department of Business & Planning Services (dated December 3,
1999); Building Division; Region of Waterloo Planning & Culture Department (dated December 1,
1999); Grand River Conservation Authority; together with written submissions from Mr. & Mrs. A.
Sutcliffe and Mr. & Mrs. Z. Simofi (both dated December 6, 1999); as documented in the minutes
of the Committee of Adjustment meeting of December 7, 1999, were further considered this date.
The Committee noted revised comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services
(dated February 24, 2000) relative to Consent Applications B 65/99 and B 2000-020 and Minor
Variance Application A 121/99, in which they advised that the owners of 512 and 518 Caryndale
Drive are requesting permission to sever a portion from each of their properties to create a
new lot for a single detached dwelling. The proposed lot will have a frontage on Caryndale
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 76 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
Drive of 22.25 metres (73.0 feet), an average depth of approximately 61.3 metres (201 feet)
and an approximate area of 1,253.31 square metres (13,490.96 square feet).
2. Submission Nos.: B 65/99, B 2000-020 & A 121/99(Cont'd)
The original Consent and Minor Variance Applications under Submissions B 65~99 and A
121/99 proposed a smaller lot width of 19.08 metres (62.6 feet) rather than the required 24.0
metres (78 feet). This application was deferred at the December 7, 1999 meeting to allow
further discussions with neighbours and the presentation of a plan to the Committee showing
adjacent lot sizes.
The applicant revised the consent to increase the lot width resulting in less of a variance being
required. The proposed retained lot for B 65/99 at 518 Caryndale Drive has a revised frontage
of 22.25 metres (73.0 feet), an average depth of 59.6 metres (195 feet) and an approximate
area of 1,322.54 square metres (14,236.17 square feet). The proposed retained lot at 512
Caryndale Drive has a frontage of 35.98 metres (118.0 feet), an average depth of 63.84
metres (209.45 feet) and an approximate area of 2,296.9 square metres (24,725 square feet).
The lands to be severed under B65/99 contain the septic bed for 518 Caryndale Drive.
The large lots within the Caryndale community were created under the former Township of
Waterloo Zoning By-law 878A and zoned Residential which required a minimum lot area of
2,023 square metres (1/2 acre) and a minimum lot width of 40.23 metres (132 feet) to
accommodate a septic system as no municipal sanitary services were available at the time.
The lands in the Caryndale community are zoned R-2 to recognize the existing large lot
development and the use of septic beds. The existing lots in Caryndale are approximately
twice the size as currently permitted under the R-2 zone under By-law 85-1.
The owner of 518 Caryndale Drive wishes to sever his lot and create a new lot in order to take
advantage of the imminent installation of services on Caryndale Drive across his frontage. The
first stage of draft plan of subdivision 30T-87033 (Hearthwood Caryndale Developments Inc.)
has been registered and proposes 119 single detached dwellings. Fourteen of these lots will
front onto Caryndale Drive across from Caryndale community. Servicing of these 14 lots will
require the temporary closure of part of Caryndale Drive that is to occur in the spring.
At the time of rezoning and draft approval of the Hearthwood Caryndale Developments, the
lots on the west side of Caryndale Drive were zoned R-2 to conform with the lot sizes in the
Caryndale community. The 14 lots approved as part of the subdivision are approximately 27.5
metres (90.2 feet) in width and have a minimum lot area of 929 square metres (10,000 square
feet).
The proposed retained lot at 512 Caryndale Drive will have a lot width and lot area exceeding
the zoning by-law requirements. Both the proposed new lot and the retained lot at 518
Caryndale Drive are considerably larger in lot area than the minimum requirement in the R-2
zone and the proposed lots across the street in the Hearthwood Caryndale subdivision under
construction. The applicant at 518 Caryndale Drive has requested a minor variance to reduce
the lot width for both the proposed new lot and the retained lot by 1.75 metres (5.74 feet).
City staff recognize that Caryndale is a distinct community of large lots created many years
ago without municipal services. The Municipal Plan acknowledges this uniqueness and
recognizes the desire of the residents to maintain a cohesive village and permit new
development in harmony with the existing community. With recent subdivision growth nearby,
interest from within the community for land severances, and recent approvals of other future
lots on full municipal services along Caryndale Drive, staff is seeing more acceptance from
within the community to slightly smaller lots in the R-2 zone on full services. Staff is of the
opinion that the lots created by this application are compatible with the existing Caryndale
community. In 1999, the Committee of Adjustment supported a severance of land at 442
Caryndale Drive creating 6 new lots with slightly reduced lot widths of 22.25 metres (73 feet).
The community expressed no concern with the minor variance.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed new lot and retained lot are compatible with the
neighbouring lots and the intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is maintained, as the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 77 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
lots are substantial in size, allowing large dwellings with front and rear yards consistent with
the adjacent lots. The variance is minor given that a shortfall of 1.75 metres would have no
visible impact on lots of this size.
Submission Nos.: B 65/99, B 2000-020 & A 121/99(Cont'd)
Accordingly, the Department of Business & Planning Services supports the severance
applications subject to the conditions listed below.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends:
A. That Minor Variance Application A 121/99 be approved without conditions.
That Consent Application B65/99, as revised, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That Minor Variance A 121/99 receive final approval.
That the lands to be severed from Submission B 65/99 be taken in identical title
as those severed through B 2000-020. Any subsequent conveyance of the
parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning
Act, 1995.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
charges.
That the existing dwelling on the retained lot be fully hooked up to full municipal
services to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works, at no
cost to the City.
That the owner makes financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
General Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service
connections to the proposed severed lot.
That the owner makes financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
General Manager of Public Works to install, to City standards, boulevard
landscaping including street trees, paved driveway ramps, and a culvert (if
required) on the proposed severed and retained lots.
That the owner removes or fills the septic bed to the satisfaction of the City's
Chief Building Official.
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 prior to
endorsement of the deed.
C. That Consent Application B2000-020 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That Minor Variance A 121/99 receive final approval.
That the lands to be severed from Submissions B 2000-020 be taken in identical
title as those severed through B65/99. 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 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.
The Committee noted a written submission from Mr. G. Schnarr in which he outlined
modifications to Consent Application B 65/99 and Minor Variance Application A 121/99 relating
to the purchase of a strip of land from a neighbour to the north which will be added to the
proposed severance under Submission No. B 65/99.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 78 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
Submission Nos.: B 65/99, B 2000-020 & A 121/99(Cont'd)
The Committee noted revised comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of
Waterloo, dated February 24, 2000, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed
the above-noted application to permit the creation of a new lot on full municipal services and
have the following comments.
In discussions with Regional Health Unit staff, please be advised that while there are no
Regional policies requiring decommissioning of the existing septic system, the owner should
give consideration to hiring a septic installer/hauler to empty the septic system tank prior to
approval of the consent application. This will ensure that the tank is disconnected and the
contents of the tank disposed of properly. The tank itself should be either filled with fill material
or removed.
Regional staff have no objection to the approval of B 65/99 providing the lot is municipally
serviced (water and wastewater) as identified in the application submitted.
The Region further advised that any future development on the lands subject to the above-
noted consent applications 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.
In addition to the revised comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services dated
February 24th, the Committee also noted comments relating to Consent Application,
Submission No. B 2000-020, from the Building Division; the GRCA; and the Department of
Planning & Culture, Region of Waterloo; in which all agencies have advised that they have
reviewed the application and have no concerns.
The Committee noted an additional written submission respecting Consent B 65/99 and Minor
Variance A 121/99 from Mr. W. Kirkwood in which he advised that he could not understand
how a lot close to him could be severed without his knowing of the situation.
He further advised that the reason I have invested in my home quite substantially over the
years is because of the country appeal of the neighbourhood. Larger treed lots have provided
the privacy and lifestyle I desire. I strongly oppose the changes I've seen in my neighbourhood
in recent years. Beautiful frontages have become storage areas for wrecks of cars, transport
trucks, old sheds and junk. It appears that more than one property is operating a car repair
business from their garage. What was once a quiet neighbourhood is now one in which you
can be awakened after midnight by snowmobiles racing in the street, and in the summertime,
motorcycles racing in nearby fields. Lot severances - no way. I intend to become involved in
preventing an even further deterioration of my neighbourhood. If it means approaching City
Council or the OMB - Fine.
Mr. G. Schnarr advised that he had received letters from Mr. & Mrs. A. Sutcliffe and Mr. & Mrs.
Z. Simofi in which they advised that they are withdrawing their objection to the proposed
severances. Mr. Schnarr provided the Committee with copies of the letters of withdrawal.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
applications, subject to certain conditions and enquired if staff had anything further to add.
Ms. J. Given advised that the Committee had requested a concept plan showing the location of
the proposed severance and provided the plan to the Committee.
Mr. G. Schnarr advised that in obtaining the withdrawal from the Sutcliffe's he had agreed to
ask the Committee if it would be possible to include as a condition of approval a restriction that
any building constructed on the severed parcel not be built closer than 60 ft. to the rear lot line.
He stated that if this was not possible he had further agreed to make this a condition of
purchase and sale.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 79 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
The Chair pointed out that the letter of withdrawal had not been written with any condition
attached and enquired if Mr. Schnarr was voluntarily restricting his proposal further from what
would be required under the Zoning By-law. Mr. G. Schnarr advised that was correct.
Submission Nos.: B 65~99, B 2000-020 & A 121/99(Cont'd)
Mr. S. Kay advised that he was not prepared to impose such a condition of approval and the
other members of the Committee agreed with Mr. Kay's comments.
Submission No. A 121/99
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of Gary Schnarr requesting permission to create a new lot with both the
severed and retained lands having frontage on Caryndale Drive of 22.25 m (73 ft.), rather than
the required 24 m (78.74 ft.), on Lot 11, Registered Plan 1284, 518 Caryndale Drive,
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
Submission No. B 65/99
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of Gary Schnarr requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having
frontage on Caryndale Drive of 22.25 m (73 ft.), by a depth of 61.3 m (201.14 ft.), and an area
of 1,253.31 m2 (13,490.96 sq. ft.), on Lot 11, Registered Plan 1284, 518 Caryndale Drive,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 121/99, shall receive final approval.
That the lands to be severed from Submission B 65~99 shall be taken in identical title as
those severed through Submission B 2000-020. 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
payment
charges.
owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
That the
services
the City.
existing dwelling on the retained lot shall be fully hooked up to full municipal
to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works, at no cost to
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 proposed severed lot.
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
General Manager of Public Works to install, to City standards, boulevard landscaping
including street trees, paved driveway ramps, and a culvert (if required) on the proposed
severed and retained lots.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 80 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
7. That the owner shall remove or fill the septic bed to the satisfaction of the City's Chief
Building Official.
Submission Nos.: B 65/99, B 2000-020 & A 121/99(Cont'd)
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 prior to endorsement of
the deed.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being February 29, 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. B 2000-020
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of Armando & Jacquie Avelar requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land, as a lot addition to the abutting property known municipally as 518 Caryndale Drive, having
frontage on Caryndale Drive of 4.27 m (14.01 ft.), by a depth of 62.15 m (203.9 ft.), and an area
of 104 m2 (1,119.48 sq. ft.), on Lot 10, Registered Plan 1284, 512 Caryndale Drive, Kitchener,
Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 121/99, shall receive final approval.
That the lands to be severed from Submissions B 2000-020 shall be taken in identical title
as those severed through B 65/99. 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 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 satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being February 29, 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 81 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
Submission Nos.: B 65/99, B 2000-020 & A 121/99(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
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 2000-009
Avila Investments Ltd.
1144 Courtland Avenue East
Part Block H, Plan 1221
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. S. Rice
Department of Business & Planning Services
City Hall
200 King Street West
Kitchener ON N2G 4G7
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
free standing building (donut shop) having a sideyard setback from Shelley Drive of 6.8 m (22.3
ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing freestanding
building (donut shop) having a sideyard setback from Shelley Drive of 6.8 meters (22.6 feet),
rather than the required 7.5 meters (24.6 feet).
The variance application has resulted from a staff oversight at the time the site plan for the new
restaurant was approved. The site plan approved a sideyard abutting a street of 6.6 meters (21.6
feet), while the commercial zoning on the property required a setback of 7.5 meters (24.6 feet).
The building in question was erected in 1997 based on what had been approved on the site plan.
The reduction in setback of 0.7 meters (2.29 feet) is minimal. As the reduced setback is adjacent
to Shelley Drive, there is no impact on a neighbouring property and the site functions as was
intended by the site plan approval. The addition of the freestanding building to the existing plaza
was a proper use of the land, and this variance maintains the general intent of both the City's
Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law.
As well as the side yard abutting a street of 6.8 meters (22.6 feet) there is also a 3.0 meter (9.8
foot) boulevard separating this property from Shelley Drive. The location of the building does not
impact vehicular or pedestrian movement along Shelley Drive, and as such this variance can be
considered minor in nature.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 82 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
Submission No.: A2000-009(Cont'd)
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
2000-009.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and may require the payment of
Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised they have no objections to the application to legalize the existing free standing building
having a sideyard setback from Shelley Drive of 6.8 metres rather than the required 7.5 metres.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and enquired of Ms. Rice if she had anything further to add. Ms. S. Rice advised that
she had nothing further to add.
As no further questions or comment was forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Avila Investments Ltd. requesting permission to legalize an existing free
standing building (donut shop) having a sideyard setback from Shelley Drive of 6.8 m (22.3 ft.),
rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Part Block H, Plan 1221, 1144 Courtland Avenue
East, 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
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 2000-010
Imperial Oil Limited
491 Highland Road
Part of Lot 20, Re.qistered Plan 1004
The Chair advised that a letter had been received from Ms. M. DesRosiers, Property
Management Ltd., agent for the applicant, in which she advised that the application is being
withdrawn. Accordingly, this application will not be heard.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 83 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
Submission Nos:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 2000-011, A 2000-012 & A 2000-013
Norrich West Inc.
2 Bancroft Street; 171 Veronica Drive; 135 Veronica Drive
Lots 19 and 123, Registered Plan 58M-125; Lot 30, Registered Plan
58M-124
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. L. Haga
cio Norrich West Inc.
6783 Wellington Road 34
R.R. 22
Cambridge ON N3C 2V4
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate the driveway
access for single family dwellings located on Bancroft Street and Veronica Drive as follows:
2 Bancroft Street - driveway access to be located 9.6 m (31.49 ft.) setback from the
intersection of Bancroft and Veronica Drive, rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.);
171 Veronica Drive - driveway access to be located 9.6 m (31.49 ft.) setback from the
intersection of Veronica Drive, rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.);
135 Veronica Drive - driveway access to be located 10 m (32.8 ft.) setback from the
intersection of Veronica Drive and Bancroft Street, rather than the required 12 m (39.37
ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Business & Planning Services Department in which
they advised that these three applications request similar variances to the setback for driveways
from the corner, ranging from 9.6 to 10.0 metres. The current by-law requires a 12 metre setback
unless the two intersecting roads are less than 18 meters in width, in which case the setback can
be 9.0 metres.
As part of a larger review of regulations governing small lot singles, the Planning and Traffic staff
have reviewed this requirement in depth. Traffic staff have reviewed the requirements of a
number of other municipalities and found that compared to most municipalities, the City's
requirement exceeded that of other municipalities. It was concluded that it is reasonable to adopt
a revised setback requirement of 9.0 metres for all road widths. The Zoning By-law will formally
be revised in the near future to adopt this revision.
As such, staff find that these variances to setbacks of 9.6 and 10.0 metres to be minor, desirable
for the appropriate development of the lands and maintain the by-law's intent, for safe intersection
movements.
Accordingly, each are recommended for approval.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submissions A
2000-011,012 and 013 as submitted.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to these applications.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 84 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division in which they advised that
they have no concerns with the proposed driveway setbacks.
3. Submission Nos: A 2000-011, A 2000-012 & A 2000-013(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the applications and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and may require the payment of
Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to these applications.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of all three
applications and enquired if Mr. Haga had anything further to add. Mr. L. Haga advised that he
had reviewed the comments and had nothing further to add.
Mr. S. Kay referred to the comments of the Traffic & Parking Division and requested staff to
provide an explanation for the apparent change in policy, as it was this Committee's past
experience that the Traffic Division has always steadfastly objected to variances of this nature.
Ms. J. Given responded that a sub-committee consisting of Traffic & Parking staff, Planning staff
and representatives of the Home Builders Association, had recently met to review the 12 m
setback requirement. During this review, it was determined that the requirement exceeds that of
most other comparable municipalities and, following an in depth examination by Traffic staff
involving testing of stopping distances and other related safety issues, it was concluded that a 9
m setback for all road widths was acceptable. In this regard, Ms. Given advised that the City's
Zoning By-law will be formally amended to reflect this change in the near future.
Submission No. A 2000-011
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of Norrich West Inc. requesting permission to locate the driveway access for
a single family dwelling 9.6 m (31.49 ft.) setback from the intersection of Bancroft Street and
Veronica Drive, rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), on Lot 19, Registered Plan 58M-125, 2
Bancroft Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
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. A 2000-012
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of Norrich West Inc. requesting permission to locate the driveway access for
a single family dwelling 9.6 m (31.49 ft.) setback from the intersection of Veronica Drive, rather
than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), on Lot 23, Registered Plan 58M-125, 171 Veronica Drive,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 85 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
Submission Nos: A 2000-011, A 2000-012 & A 2000-013(Cont'd)
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
3. The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No. A 2000-013
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of Norrich West Inc. requesting permission to locate the driveway access for
a single family dwelling 10m (32.8 ft.) setback from the intersection of Veronica Drive and
Bancroft Street, rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), on Lot 30, Registered Plan 58M-124,
135 Veronica Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
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
The Chair advised that a request has been received from Ms. L. Winstel to defer this application
to the March 21, 2000 meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the
meeting of March 21, 2000.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 2000-015
John & Catherine Scott
213 Sheldon Avenue
Part Lot 127, Registered Plan 651
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. J. Scott
213 Sheldon Avenue
Kitchener ON N2H 3M2
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
In Support:
None
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 86 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an addition
having a sideyard setback from Fairmount Road of 3.04 m (10 ft.), rather than the required 4.57
m (15 ft.).
Submission No.: A2000-015(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct an addition having a
sideyard setback from Fairmount Road of 3.04 metres (10 feet) rather than the required 4.5
metres (14.76).
Staff note that the existing driveway does not comply with the regulations of the by-law. A
previous Committee of Adjustment decision A 163/77 approved reduced setbacks for a deck,
provided a legal off-street parking space was developed to the rear of the property behind the 6.0
metre setback. The deck now complies as result of the Vacuum By-law, however the parking
space was never properly developed. Staff have consulted with the applicant and recommend
that this variance be amended to include a request to legalize an off-street parking space located
0.30 metres (1 foot) from the lot line abutting Fairmount Road rather than the required 6 metres
(20 feet).
The addition consists of an enclosed porch and entryway as shown in detail on the submitted
drawings. The intent of the 4.5 metre setback requirement is to ensure there is a sufficient
distance between habitable space of a dwelling unit and public realm. The drawings indicate the
entryway encroaches into the required setback, as well as approximately 0.30 metres (1 foot) of
the bathroom and closet. The total area of the encroachment is a small floor space compared to
the overall lot size. Staff considers this acceptable, as the portion of the addition that encroaches
into the required setback is not used for "habitable" purposes (eg. living room, kitchen).
Consequently, as the floor space is not used for extended periods of time it would not appear to
be affected by pedestrian traffic in close proximity. In addition, the proposed addition will create a
more pleasing living space for the inhabitants. Therefore, staff considers the variance to be
desirable for the development of the property and to be minor in nature.
Regarding the parking space, staff note that the Zoning By-law requires that a parking space be a
minimum size of 2.58 metres wide and 5.49 metres in length and be located behind a 6 metre
setback. The intent of this regulation is to provide an attractive streetscape that is uncluttered
with vehicles parked in front of building line. However, it is noted that there is nothing to prevent
the owner from parking a vehicle ahead of the required setback. The existing deficiency for the
parking space has existed since approximately 1977. Should the owner have to relocate the
driveway to comply with the by-law, a driveway with a minimum length of 11.58 metres (38 feet)
would be required. It could only be located at the rear of the property behind the existing deck,
which would greatly reduce the enjoyment of using the rear yard amenity space. Therefore the
requested variance is seen to be more desirable for the development of the property.
Traffic Division staff have visited the site and have no concerns with the additional variance
request to legalize the existing parking space. It is noted that there is no sidewalk along this
portion of Fairmount Avenue and there exists a City-owned boulevard that sets the lot line back
from the paved portion of Fairmount Avenue approximately 5.7 metres (9 feet). Based on the fact
that visibility would not be a concern, and that the existing parking space is more desirable than
relocating it to the rear yard, it is staffs opinion that the variance is minor in nature.
It is the opinion of staff that the general intent of the by-law and Municipal Plan is being met and
the variances can be considered minor in nature and appropriate for the development of the
property.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance
Application A 2000-0015, as amended to include a legal off-street parking space located 0.30
metres from the lot line abutting Fairmount Road, as shown on the submitted drawings.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a
building permit is required for new construction.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 87 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and may require the payment of
Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Submission No.: A2000-015(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to the application being amended to include a request to legalize an off-street
parking space located 0.3 m (1 ft.) from the lot line abutting Fairmount Road, rather than the
required 6 m (20 ft.). The Chair enquired if Mr. Scott was prepared to amend his application as
requested by staff and Mr. J. Scott concurred.
As no further questions or comment were forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of John & Catherine Scott requesting permission to construct an addition
having a sideyard setback from Fairmount Road of 3.04 m (10 ft.), rather than the required 4.57
m (15 ft.), and to legalize an off-street parking space located 0.3 m (1 ft.) from the lot line abutting
Fairmount Road, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), on Part Lot 127, Registered Plan 651,
213 Sheldon Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new addition.
That the variances as approved in this application shall be in accordance only with the
drawings submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-015.
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:
Legal Description:
A 2000-016
lan Cook Construction Limited
640 Riverbend Drive
Part of Lot 59, German Company Tract, designated at Parts 1, 2 & 3,
Reference Plan 58R-10893
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
Written Submissions:
Ms. D. Biuk
Green Scheels Pidgeon
Planning Consultants Limited
5-745 Bridge Street West
Waterloo ON N2V2G6
None
In Support: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 88 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 2 storey
addition to the rear of an existing 1 storey office building. In this regard, the applicant is
requesting permission to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 36 to 35.
Submission No.: A2000-016(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the application is seeking approval to reduce the number of parking spaces
from 36 to 35 to allow a building addition to the rear of an office building.
The applicants are in the process of obtaining approval of a revised site plan. Traffic staff have
indicated their willingness to support the reduction. The application is considered minor as the
shortfall is only for one parking space. The parking needs of the business will largely be met by
the existing parking on site.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
2000-016.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that this
Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic Project Co-ordinator, in which he advised
that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and is prepared to permit the
proposed parking deficiency of one (1) parking space due to its expected minimal impact on
the surrounding area.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and may require the payment of
Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection to the application to reduce the required number of parking
spaces from 36 to 35. We have received a plan (January 25, 2000 - Green Scheels Pidgeon
Planning Consultants Limited) illustrating the location of the addition and the additional parking
spaces. While the subject property is regulated by the Conservation Authority, the proposed
location of the addition and additional parking spaces are outside of regulated areas. Therefore,
a Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Permit will not be required for the construction of
the additional parking spaces or the addition.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and enquired if Ms. Biuk had anything further to add. Ms. D. Biuk advised that she
had reviewed the staff comments and had nothing further to add.
As no further questions or comments were forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of lan Cook Construction Limited requesting permission to construct a 2
storey addition to the rear of the existing office building with a reduction in the number of required
parking spaces from 36 to 35, on Part of Lot 59, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 1,
2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-10893, 640 Riverbend Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 89 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
CONSENT
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 during consideration of this application and, pursuant to the Municipal
Conflict of Interest Act, the application was considered by the remaining two members.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. & Mrs. H. Schilling
734 Glasgow Street
Kitchener ON N2M 2N8
Contra:
Written Submissions:
Mr. S. Grant
Madorin Snyder
235 King Street East
Kitchener ON N2G 4N5
In Support:
None
Contra:
Mr. R. C. Sills
8-700 Glasgow Street
Kitchener ON N2M 2N8
Mr. S. Grant advised that he was in attendance to represent Mr. R. Sills, owner of 8-700 Glasgow
Street and President of the Briarpatch Homeowners Association, and also to represent Mr. D.
McAIpine, owner of 10-700 Glasgow Street. In this regard, he advised that his purpose for
attending this date was to request the Committee to consider deferring the application.
The Chair enquired if Mr. & Mrs. Schilling were agreeable to Mr. Grant's request for a deferral of
the application and they advised that they were opposed to the request.
The Chair requested Mr. Grant to explain his reasons for requesting the deferral and to clarify if
he was also representing the Homeowners Association.
Mr. S. Grant advised that he was unable to confirm at this time his representation of the
Homeowners Association as many of the members were away on vacation and were not yet
aware of the application. He stated that Mr. Sills had only himself recently returned from out of
the country and learned of the application only a few days ago. Mr. Grant referred to the
Planning Act which allows for every person interested to be heard and felt that even though due
notice had been provided, it was too much to presume that those who have not yet received
notice because they are away would not have any interest in this matter. He further referred to
the Planning comments which mistakenly refer to the residences at 700 Glasgow Street as a
condominium development and advised that they are, in fact, freehold units. In this regard, he
suggested that deferral should be considered to allow these homeowners an opportunity to
express their views.
Mr. S. Grant provided a sketch outlining 6 residences within the Briarpatch development that
would be adjacent to the proposed new lot. In addition, he provided several pictures showing
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 90 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
various view points from the properties shown on the sketch. Mr. Grant pointed out that Mr. Sills'
main concern relates to buffering and the aesthetic impact the severed parcel may have on the
adjacent properties. In this regard, he reviewed each of the photographs, following which he
advised that Mr. Sills and Mr. McAIpine would like an opportunity to meet with staff and the
applicant to discuss issues of concern prior to the application being considered. He further
Submission No.: B 2000-015(Cont'd)
advised that, if the Committee was not inclined to defer the application, then he would be
speaking in opposition to the proposal.
The Chair enquired if any transactions for sale of the proposed new lot were pending and Mrs.
Schilling indicated there were none. She pointed out, however, that Glasgow Street was
scheduled to be improved in the very near future and she had hoped to proceed with her
proposal in conjunction with the impending road work.
The Chair pointed out that, while staff are in support of the application, the Committee would have
to consider the comments of Mr. Grant and cautioned the applicants that they would risk the
possibility of their proposal being refused if Mr. Grant's arguments were persuasive to the
Committee. He further pointed out that, in the event the application was approved, there was
also the risk of an appeal being lodged. He stated that it was the Committee's general practice to
encourage discussions between neighbours prior to consideration of an application to allow an
opportunity for issues of concern to be addressed.
Mrs. Schilling advised that Mr. Sills was, in fact, a relative and she had made him aware of the
proposal in 1999. Mr. Grant confirmed that Ms. Schilling had contacted Mr. Sills last year;
however, he was not aware of when exactly the proposal would proceed. Having only become
aware of the filing of the proposal several days ago due to his absence from the country, Mr.
Grant advised that Mr. Sills was seeking an opportunity to review the proposal in detail with staff
and the applicant prior to its consideration by the Committee.
The Chair indicated that he was inclined to defer the application and Ms. S. Campbell agreed, as
she felt it would be in the best interest of the applicant to resolve any issues of concerns prior to
the application being considered.
Moved by Ms. S. Campell
Seconded by Mr. B. Dahms
That Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-015, as applied for by Cynthia Schilling for the
property known municipally as 734 Glasgow Street, BE DEFERRED to the Committee of
Adjustment meeting to be held on March 21,2000.
Carried
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 2000-016, B 2000-017 & B 2000-018
Jim Stickel & Ron Stickel
Smetana Drive
Lot 3, Re.qistered Plan 947
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. J. Stickel
Mr. R. Stickel
71 Penrose Avenue
Kitchener ON N2A 1G1
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
In Support:
None
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 91 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create three new lots
by severing three parcels of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of 403.6 m2
(4,344.45 sq. ft.). The lands to be severed are to be developed as single family or duplex
Submission Nos.: B 2000-016, B 2000-017 & B 2000-018(Cont'd)
dwellings. Each of the severed parcels will have frontage on Smetana Drive with dimensions as
follows:
1st lot (Parcel C) - a frontage of 11.14 m (36.54 ft.), by a depth of 33.545 m (110.05 ft.)
and an area of 373.6 m2 (4,021.52 sq. ft.);
2nd lot (Parcel D) - a frontage of 11.125 m (36.5 ft.), by a depth of 33.531 m (110.01 ft.)
and an area of 373 m~ (4,015.07 sq. ft.); and,
3rd lot (Parcel E) - a frontage of 10.973 m (36 ft.), by a depth of 33.526 m (109.99 ft.) and
an area of 368.2 m~ (3,963.4 sq. ft.)
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the owners of the subject property on Smetana Drive are requesting
permission to sever the property and create a total of four new lots for single detached or
duplex dwellings. A fifth lot is intended to be created from part of the proposed closure of
Rothsay Avenue which abuts the northerly side of the applicant's lands, not subject of these
applications.
The proposed retained lot (B - Parts 5 and 6) has a frontage on Smetana Drive of 12.039
metres (39.5 feet) and an area of 403.69 square metres (4,345.44 square feet).
The three proposed severed lots have a frontage and an area on Smetana Drive as follows:
C (Part 7) - B2000-016
D (Part 8) - B2000-017
E (Part 9) - B2000-018
Frontage: 11.14 metres (36.55 feet)
Area: 373.61 square metres (4,021.67 square feet)
Frontage: 11.125 metres (36.50 feet)
Area: 369.67 square metres (3,979.19 square feet)
Frontage: 10.97 metres (35.99 feet)
Area: 368.16 square metres (3,962.96 square feet)
Parts 1 and 2 of the proposed reference plan show the balance of Rothsay Avenue that will be
retained by the City for the purposes of a trail link system which exists along the Kolb Drain
Greenway as well as underground municipal services immediately to the north of the
applicant's lands. The City will need to formally close Rothsay Avenue for the portion of the
depth of 33.815 metres (110.94 feet) abutting the applicant's land. This portion of Rothsay
Avenue has never been physically built and serves no purpose to the City as an extension of
the road system in the immediate area. Council had declared the lands surplus to the City
needs and in its resolution of August 19, 1991 instructed that the southerly half be made
available for purchase by the abutting owner.
The subject property is void of vegetation and full services are available across the frontage of
the property.
The Department is of the opinion that the subject consent applications are appropriate as it
allows development in compliance with the Zoning By-law, the Grand River North Secondary
Plan and the Municipal Plan. Further, the lands behind the subject property are also zoned R-
4 with similar sized lots. The lands to the south and across the street are zoned R-3 with the
majority of the lots having a minimum lot width of 13.7 metres (45 feet) and are built with single
detached dwellings.
Accordingly, the Department supports the severance applications subject to the conditions
listed below.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that each Consent
Applications B 2000-016, 017 and 018 be approved subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 92 FEBRUARY 29, 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.
2. That the owners pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the severed lands.
Submission Nos.: B 2000-016, B 2000-017 & B 2000-018(Cont'd)
park
That the owners 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 owners 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.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he noted that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and may require the payment of a
Regional fee assessed for development agreements if required.
The Committee noted the comments of the Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro in which they advised that,
they request that approval of these applications be subject to the following conditions:
That the Applicant make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for the
provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
That the Applicant make arrangements for the granting of any easements required by
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severances are granted.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no object to the approval of the severance applications.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
applications subject to certain conditions. The Chair enquired if the applicants had anything
further to add and they indicated they did not.
Mr. S. Kay referred to the plan submitted with the application and requested clarification as to
the number of lots that were to be created and if Part 5 on the map was intended to be part of
the retained lands.
Ms. J. Given referred the Committee to the schedule attached to the application and confirmed
that Part 5, together with Part 6, was part of the retained lands and that 3 new lots were to be
created. She pointed out that 1 additional future lot is proposed; however, this is pending the
proposed closing of part of Rothsay Avenue.
Submission No. B 2000-016
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Jim Stickel & Ron Stickel requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land having frontage on Smetana Drive of 11.14 m (36.54 ft.), by a depth of 33.54 m (110.05
ft.), and an area of 373.6 m2 (4,021.52 sq. ft.), on Lot 3, Registered Plan 947, Smetana Drive,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 93 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
That the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
charges.
2. That the owners shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the severed lands.
Submission Nos.: B 2000-016, B 2000-017 & B 2000-018(Cont'd)
That the owners 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 owners 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 the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for
the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
That the owners shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required
by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severances are 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 February 29, 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. B 2000-017
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Jim Stickel & Ron Stickel requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land having frontage on Smetana Drive of 11.25 m (36.5 ft.), by a depth of 33.531 m (110.01
ft.), and an area of 373 m2 (4,015.07 sq. ft.), on Lot 3, Registered Plan 947, Smetana Drive,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owners 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 owners shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the severed lands.
That the owners 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 94 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
That the owners 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.
2. Submission Nos.: B 2000-016, B 2000-017 & B 2000-018(Cont'd)
That the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for
the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
That the owners shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required
by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severances are 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 February 29, 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. B 2000-018
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Jim Stickel & Ron Stickel requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land having frontage on Smetana Drive of 10.973 m (36. ft.), by a depth of 33.526 m (109.99
ft.), and an area of 368.2 m2 (3,963.4 sq. ft.), on Lot 3, Registered Plan 947, Smetana Drive,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owners 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 owners shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the severed lands.
That the owners 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 owners 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 the owners shall make satisfactory arrangements with Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro for
the provision of electrical servicing to the lands to be severed before the severances are
granted.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 95 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
That the owners shall make arrangements for the granting of any easements required
by Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro before the severances are 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.
Submission Nos.: B 2000-016, B 2000-017 & B 2000-018(Cont'd)
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being February 29, 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:
Legal Description:
B 2000-021
Alpine Holdings Corporation
725 Ottawa Street North and Alpine Road
Block A, Registered Plan 1246, designated as Part 7, Reference Plan
12073
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. S. Head
Dryden, Smith & Head Planning Consultants Ltd.
54 Cedar Street North
Kitchener ON N2H 2X1
Mr. A. Robins
Alpine Holdings Corporation
1160-36 Toronto Street
Toronto ON M5C 2C5
Mr. D. Conly, Development Representative
MacDonalds Restaurants of Canada Ltd.
MacDonalds Place
Toronto ON M3C 3L4
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create one new lot by
severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of 2.226 ha (5.5 acres).
The lands to be severed are to be developed for restaurant use and will have frontage on Ottawa
Street of 49.75 m (163.22 ft.), by a depth of 83.20 m (272.96 ft.) and an area of 4,063.4 m2
(43,739.5 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the applicant has previously submitted several applications to facilitate the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 96 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
completion of the existing commercial plaza, which has only been partially developed on this site.
The Committee has considered applications (B28/99 & B29/99) for two consents to mortgage,
and consent for rights-of-ways for access over these partially developed lands. It has also
considered minor variances (A2000-006) with respect to setbacks for this site. The City is
currently processing a site plan application for the development of a freestanding restaurant and
a future phase of the commercial plaza on this site.
Submission No.: B 2000-021(Cont'd)
This application seeks approval to sever a parcel of approximately 4063.4 square metres for the
construction of the freestanding restaurant. The lands proposed to be severed are similar to the
dimensions of the consent for mortgage granted under application B29/99. The proposed
retained lands are approximately 22,554 square metres in size. A new reference plan depicting
the exact dimensions of the severed and retained lands is being prepared since the reference
plan attached to the application does not correspond with the proposed site plan layout in the site
plan.
A right-of-way for access over Part 2 and Part 5 of the retained lands, in favour of the severed
lands, will be required to provide access to the severed lands. The application should be
amended to reflect this.
There are a number of municipal services that cross the severed and retained lands. The
applications should be further amended to include the establishment of two easements over
the severed lands, in favour of the retained lands for the existing storm sewer and watermain.
These rights-of-way were all requested through B29/99, however, as independent applications,
this consent must be addressed on its own as there is no guarantee that they will be
established through earlier approvals.
Currently, the retained lands contain a partially developed commercial plaza, while the lands to
be severed are vacant. Both the severed and retained lands must comply with the Zoning By-
law. A site plan application has been submitted which proposes a freestanding restaurant on
the severed lands. The proposed site plan, as it relates to the freestanding restaurant to be
constructed on the severed lands, complies with the Zoning By-law with respect to parking
requirements and all setbacks except for one. Committee approval was granted (A2000-006)
for a reduction in the parking setback requirement from 3.0 metres to 0 metres.
The retained lands, comprised of the existing plaza and the proposed phase II plaza
development, comply with Zoning By-law requirements. The proposed site plan, as it relates
to the phase II plaza development to be constructed on the retained lands, complies with the
Zoning By-law with respect to parking requirements and all setbacks except for one.
Committee approval was granted (A2000-006) to allow the phase II plaza development to be
constructed 0.0 metres from the area over which the mortgage was granted in the earlier
application. If the mortgage were to default, a separate lot line would be created which would
be less than the required 3.0 metre setback, hence the need for a variance.
The Region has identified that the subject lands have a high potential for contamination based on
the property's historic use and as a result the owner has been required to undertake a site
assessment for the lands. A site assessment has been undertaken, however no confirmation as
to whether or not the assessment is acceptable has been received from the Ministry of
Environment and Energy.
The Department of Business & Planning Services recommends as follows:
That Consent Application B2000-021 be revised to request the establishment of a right-
of-way over Parts 2 and 5 of Reference Plan 12073 in favour of the severed lands and
the establishment of two separate easements over the severed lands for existing storm
sewer and watermain services.
That Consent Application B 2000-021 to convey a lot and grant rights-of-way and
easements be approved subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 97 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
That the Draft Reference Plans showing the lands to be severed and the
proposed servicing easements be approved by the City's Principal Planner.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
charges.
Submission No.: B 2000-021(Cont'd)
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 all portions of the property and easements for
servicing are maintained in perpetuity, and to provide confirmation that said
agreement has been registered against the title of the severed and retained
lands.
That the owner shall undertake a site assessment for all of the lands in
accordance with the Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. A copy
of the Record of Site Condition, acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment
and Energy shall be provided to the City's Principal Planner.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning and Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have the
following comments. No additional access to Ottawa Street (Regional Road 4) will be permitted.
The owner will be required to provide the Region with a copy of the registered mutual access and
right-of-way documents.
The owner should be advised that a lot grading and drainage plan will be required at the site plan
approval stage.
In accordance with the Region's delegated responsibilities to comment on development
applications on behalf of the Province (including the Ministry of the Environment), please be
advised that the Region's Contaminant Sources Inventory identifies the lands as having a high
potential for contamination based on an historic use on the property and adjacent properties.
Regional staff do not know if the contamination suspected on the lands would pose a health or
safety risk to the proposed use of the property. As the subject lands are not located within a
Regional wellfield, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo does not have a direct corporate interest
which would result in the Region requesting a Record of Site Condition be imposed on its behalf.
Regional staff have no objection to the approval of B 2000-021 subject to the following condition:
That the owner provide the Regional Commissioner of Planning and Culture, a copy of the
registered mutual access and right-of-way documents pertaining to the site.
The Region further advised that any future development on the lands subject to the consent
application will be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038,
or any successor thereof. Applicants are also advised that there may be a Regional fee
assessed for development agreements if required.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to certain conditions and an amendment to include establishment of a right-of-
way and several easements. The Chair enquired if Mr. Head had anything further to add.
Mr. S. Head provided background information with respect to several previous applications on the
subject lands for severance of mortgages. Mr. Head advised that the original consent to sever
mortgage on the subject lands was based on the proposed restaurant leasing the lands; however,
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 98 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
this transaction was terminated. The new proposed purchaser wishes to own the lands outright
and, accordingly, a new application to sever the subject lands was filed. Mr. Head advised that
review of the site plan has revealed a slight variance in the severance lines from those shown on
the registered reference plan and provided the Committee with a sketch outlining the new
proposed severance lines in red.
Submission No.: B 2000-021(Cont'd)
In this regard, Mr. Head requested that the application be allowed to proceed and a revised
reference plan would be prepared once the site plan was finalized. Mr. Head referred to the staff
recommendations on Page 2 of the Planning report and requested that Paragraph A be revised to
include the word "access" in the first line ahead of the words "right-of-way" and the phrase "over
Parts 2 and 5 of Reference Plan 12073" be deleted and replaced with "on a Reference Plan". He
advised that it may be necessary to adjust the right-of-way to coincide with the severance lines.
In response to questioning, Mr. Head advised that the reference plan had been prepared prior to
site plan approval and technical errors in preparing the site plan had resulted in a slight variance
to the severance lines. Mr. Head suggested that Condition B.1 of the Planning recommendations
be revised to include that the access right-of-way also be approved by the Principal Planner.
The Chair enquired why it was not possible to leave the severance line abutting Part 5 and Mr.
Conly advised that the right-of-way would not angle properly.
Mr. Head also referred to Condition B.6 of the Planning recommendations and pointed out that a
Record of Site Condition acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment has already been
provided to the City. Accordingly, he asked that this condition be removed.
The Chair requested staff to comment and Ms. J. Given confirmed that Condition B.6 has already
been satisfied and could be removed. Ms. Given then referred to the new severance lines and
questioned the impact to the parking spaces required for both the severed and retained lands.
She advised that the line would have to coincide exactly to the end of each parking stall.
Mr. Head advised that was the intent and pointed out that 48 spaces are required with the site
currently having 50. He stated that the site has more than ample parking; however, if necessary
parking spaces can be adjusted to fit.
Ms. Given advised that the proposed changes have not been through site plan approval and it
would be difficult to determine at this time if the required parking could be accommodated. Mr.
Head advised that the site plan was to be reviewed on March 8th at which time the issue of
parking could be dealt with. Mr. Conly stated that the new severance line marked in red on the
sketch provided was to, his knowledge, the same line used in the previous consent application to
sever a mortgage; however, the registered reference plan did not match, resulting in a slight
variance.
Following further discussion, Ms. Given advised that she could not say the changes would
comply with respect to parking until site plan review had been fully completed.
Mr. S. Kay requested clarification that the issue was compliance of required parking for the
severed lands and Ms. Given responded that both the retained and severed lands could
potentially have a shortfall. She advised that the site plan for the severed lands was to have
been revised to show parallel parking and was subject to the retained lands remaining the same.
She pointed out that this was not shown on the sketch provided.
Mr. Conly advised that a site plan has been prepared to show parallel parking; however, parallel
parking was not desirable and it was intended to request a slight reduction in parking at the Site
Plan Review Committee meeting. At this time, the Chair pointed out that the discussions were
proceeding beyond what the Committee could consider.
Mr. S. Kay referred to Condition B.1 of the Planning recommendations and suggested that it be
amended to include that adequate parking be accommodated on both the severed and retained
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 99 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
lands. Ms. Given responded that it would have to include the entire site plan which may result in
the applicant not being able to satisfy the condition.
The Chair enquired if Condition 1 was amended to require site plan approval, if staff would feel
comfortable with proceeding. Ms. Given responded that site plan approval would be required in
any event and suggested that the Committee consider if it was satisfied in proceeding without
knowing where exactly the severance line was and the possibility that the site plan finally
approved may not match.
Submission No.: B 2000-021(Cont'd)
Mr. Head advised that he had concerns relating to the sale of the property, pending closing on
March 31 st, and he would prefer not to have approval tied to site plan approval.
Mr. Kay enquired if it was intended to sell the severed lands without site plan approval and Mr.
Head responded that the sale would be subject to approval of the consent application. Mr. Kay
disagreed that the sale would proceed without site plan approval and stated that he felt it should
be a condition of approval. Mr. Head advised that the owner has indicated to him that he was
willing to accept the condition of site plan approval and Mr. Conly also stated his agreement.
Mr. Kay referred to Parts 2 and 5 on the reference plan submitted with the application and
questioned if the reason for requesting revision to recommendation "A" was because the
applicant was not certain Parts 2 and 5 were located where he wanted them to be. Mr. Head
responded that was correct and, accordingly, that was the reason for requesting a change in
wording to "on a reference plan". Mr. Kay pointed out that the severance lines are required to be
shown on the sketch provided for consideration and suggested that the applicant draw the lines in
red on the sketch submitted this date.
Ms. Campbell questioned if this could have an impact on the parking requirements for the
retained lands and Ms. Given advised that until the lands are severed the property remains as
one lot and parking can take place anywhere on the property; however, when the severance
takes place parking will be required on both the severed and retained lands.
Mr. Kay suggested that the condition requiring site plan approval include that the Principal
Planner be satisfied with the parking for the retained lands.
At this time, the Chair recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 11:10 a.m. and the meeting
reconvened at 11:15 a.m.
During the recess, the parties to the application undertook to define the severance lines and the
access right-of-way on the sketch submitted this date, and provided the amended sketch, marked
as "Sketch 1", to the Committee.
The Chair requested the owner to sign and date the sketch and the owner complied.
Discussion was then entered into with respect to appropriate wording of the conditions to be
imposed.
Moved by Mr. S. Kay
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Alpine Holdings Corporation requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land having frontage on Ottawa Street South of 50.55 m (165.84 ft.), by a depth of 81.53 m
(267.48 ft.), and an area of 4,188.93 m2 (45,090.74 sq. ft.), and to grant an access right-of-way as
shown marked in red on "Sketch 1", as submitted to the Committee of Adjustment on February
29, 2000, over the retained lands in favour of the severed lands, together with easements for
servicing over the severed lands in favour of the retained lands, on Block A, Registered Plan
1246, designated as Part 7 on Reference Plan 12073, 725 Ottawa Street South and Alpine Road,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the Draft Reference Plans shall be prepared showing the severed lands and the right-
of-way as marked in red on the said "Sketch 1", as well as the proposed servicing
easements, and be approved by the City's Principal Planner.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 100 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
That the required parking for both the severed and retained lands be approved to the
satisfaction of the City's Principal Planner.
3. That final approval of Site Plan Application No. SPR 00/03/0/BH be given.
4. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Submission No.: B 2000-021(Cont'd)
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 all portions of the property and easements for servicing are maintained in
perpetuity, and to provide confirmation that said agreement has been registered against
the title of the severed and retained lands.
That the owner shall provide the Regional Commissioner of Planning & Culture, a copy of
the registered mutual access and right-of-way documents pertaining to the site.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being February 29, 2002.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE
1. Submission Nos: B 2000-019 & A 2000-017(Cont'd)
Mr. R. Lishman advised the Committee that he had contacted Mr. Voisin's office and was advised
that both Mr. Voisin and the owner of the property were out of the country. He further advised
that he had spoken with Mr. J. Cunningham, the proposed purchaser of 31 Margaret Avenue,
who has raised certain issues which require further review prior to consideration of the
applications. Accordingly, as he was not able to obtain authorization to act as agent, he
requested the Committee to defer the applications to the March 21 st meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of these applications would be deferred to
the meeting of March 21,2000.
CHANGE OF CONDITIONS
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
CC 2000-001
The General Church in Canada
262 Dodge Drive
Part Lot 3, Beasley's New Survey
Appearances:
In Support: Mr. R. Kauk
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 101 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
442 Caryndale Drive
Kitchener ON N2G
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
1. Submission No.: CC 2000-001(Cont'd)
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to change the conditions
of the Committee of Adjustment Decision for Submission No. B 88/98 granted on September 14,
1999, so as to revise Condition No. 6 to require:
i)
Require that the Owner enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, to be registered
against Parts 1 and 2, Reference Plan 58R-12152; and,
ii)
Clarify in Condition 6(a), that a 1.2 metre high paige wire fence be erected along the
southern boundary of Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-12152, as shown on the attached plan.
In addition, the applicant is requesting that the original Decision of the Committee be revised to
clarify that consent to establish a right-of-way over Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-12152 for the
purpose of access, was given.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the applicant, General Church in Canada, is requesting a change to condition
6 of Consent Application B88/98, approved by the Committee of Adjustment on September 14,
1999. In addition, the applicant is requesting that the decision for Consent Application B88/98
be modified to clarify that consent was given to establish a right-of-way over Part 2, Reference
Plan 58R-12152.
In support of the Consent Application, the applicant submitted an Environmental Impact
Statement (ELS) to establish the boundary of the proposed lot in relation to an adjacent
provincially significant wetland area associated with Blair Creek. Part (a) of Condition 6 of the
consent approval required the owner to enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to,
among other things, erect a fence between areas "A" and "B" as illustrated on Map 5 to the
ElS.
However, through Condition 8, the Committee required the owner to permit the Grand River
Conservation Authority (GRCA) to conduct a site visit after the completion of a survey for the
severed lands and confirm boundary through an addendum to the ElS. The purpose of
Condition 8 was to permit the GRCA to more accurately define the boundary of the proposed
lot in relation to the provincially significant wetland.
Upon conducting the required site visit with GRCA, the boundary of the proposed lot changed
to provide a better setback from the wetland area. This change resulted in a need to modify
Condition 6 regarding the new location of the required fence. In addition, it is appropriate to
also include the height and type of the required fence as well as the timing of its
implementation within the conditions. In this regard, the required fence should be a 1.2 metre
high paige wire fence and should be constructed prior to endorsement of the deed for the
severed parcel.
While an application to change the conditions of a provisional consent is not normally the
vehicle to be used when changes are requested for the boundary of a severed lot, it is clear
that in this instance the Committee anticipated that such a boundary change would potentially
be necessary upon closer scrutiny by the GRCA. Therefore, the change to the boundary of the
severed lands, and the requested change to Condition 6, are considered appropriate in this
instance. However, from an administrative perspective it is preferable to modify Condition 6 to
require an agreement to ultimately remove the laneway, but include a new condition requiring
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 102 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
the erection of the paige wire fence. This will ensure that the fence is constructed within one
year of the approval.
The existing dwelling on the severed property is currently accessed by way of a laneway
extending from Dodge Drive, through the provincially significant wetland. Because the
approved ElS recommended that the new lot be entirely outside of the wetland area, frontage
Submission No.: CC 2000-O01(Cont'd)
for the severed lands could not be on Dodge Drive and the existing laneway could not be
included with the severed lands. Accordingly, the severed lands were proposed with frontage
on Groh Drive, but with a right-of-way to enable the existing laneway to be used for access
until another means of access becomes available in the future.
While the Committee clearly approved the establishment of a right-of-way over the existing
laneway (now described as Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-12152), this right-of-way was
inadvertently omitted from the wording of the decision of Consent Application B 88/98. The
applicants are requesting that this be clarified in the new written decision to be issued so as to
avoid potential legal concerns in the future.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Change to Conditions of
Provisional Consent Application CC-2000-001 be approved.
The Department further recommends that Condition 6 to the approval of Consent Application B
88/98 be replaced with the following revised Condition 6:
That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be registered
against Parts 1 and 2, Reference Plan 58R-12152, in which the owner shall agree to
remove the existing laneway across the wetland once it is feasible and appropriate to
construct a new access into a future plan of subdivision."
The Department of Business and Planning Services further recommends that the following
new Condition 10 be added to the approval of Consent Application B88/98:
To erect a 1.2 metre high paige wire fence along a portion of the southern boundary of
Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-12152, as illustrated on the attached plan."
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning and Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed this application and have no
concerns; however, any future development on the lands subject to the consent application will
be subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any
successors thereof. Applicants are also advised that there may be a Regional fee assessed for
development agreements, if required.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they do not object to the proposed revisions of the conditions of the Committee of
Adjustment Decision.
The surveyed boundary delineating the severed parcel from the excluded lands appears to
confirm the location discussed at a site visit held October 15, 1999. The revision to Condition 6 ii)
confirms the on-site discussion that a paige wire fence would be erected to delineate the severed
parcel from the "no touch" zone. It also satisfies the recommendation of the Scoped
Environmental Impact Statement (prepared by Howes-Jones & Associates, dated August, 1999)
that the boundary between these areas be staked or fenced to prevent intrusion into the buffer
area.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 103 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application. He enquired if Mr. Kauk had reviewed the comments and had anything further to
add.
Mr. R. Kauk referred to the wording for Condition 6 as shown on page 2 of the Planning report
and enquired if that was the final wording. In this regard, he questioned if it would be clearly
understood by both the present owner and any future owner that the removal of the laneway
would be the responsibility of the existing owner; however, the construction of the new access
would be the responsibility of the new owner. The Chair advised that the Committee could only
impose conditions upon the current owner/applicant and it would be the responsibility of the
Submission No.: CC 2000-001(Cont'd)
current owner to provide any prospective purchaser with clear understanding with respect to the
new access.
The Chair enquired if staff had anything further to add, and Ms. J. Given pointed out that the
original approval of consent was intended to establish a right-of-way over the existing laneway;
however, it had inadvertently been omitted from the wording of the decision for Consent
Application B 88/98. In this regard, she requested that the granting of the right-of-way be
included in the decision made this date. Mr. S. Kay requested clarification that the right-of-way
was to be over Part 2 as shown on the sketch and Ms. J. Given responded that was correct.
Mr. S. Kay then referred to Condition 6 and requested clarification that the laneway was to remain
in place temporarily subject to the owner agreeing to remove it in future. Ms. J. Given advised
that was correct.
Ms. S. Campbell referred to the new condition, Condition 10, as outlined in the Planning report
and enquired if Mr. Kauk was in agreement with this condition. Mr. Kauk advised that he had
discussed this condition with staff and was in agreement.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. S. Kay
That the application of The General Church of Canada requesting permission to revise the
decision for Provisional Consent B 88/98 to clarify that consent to establish a right-of-way over
Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-12152 for the purpose of access was given and to change the
conditions of Provisional Consent B 88/98, on Part Lot 3, Beasley's New Survey, 262 Dodge
Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, so that the following shall now apply to Submission No.
B 88/98:
"That the application of The General Church of Canada requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land, completely outside the provincially significant wetland complex, containing a
single-detached dwelling, having an area of 1.8 ha (4.44 acres) and having frontage on
Groh Drive of 91 m (298.55 ft.), and to grant a right-of-way over the existing laneway,
described as Part 2, Reference Plan 58R-12152, in favour of the severed lands, on Part
Lot 3, Beasley's New Survey, 262 Dodge Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED,
subject to the following conditions:
That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 106/98, shall receive final
approval.
That the existing barn shall be removed, altered or relocated so as to comply with
the minimum side yard setback of 7.5 metres.
That a draft reference plan showing the proposed right-way shall be approved by
the City's Principal Planner.
That the owners of the retained lands and the severed lands shall enter into an
agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, which will ensure that rights-of-way
for access and a joint maintenance agreement for both properties are maintained in
perpetuity, and provide confirmation that said agreement has been registered
against the title of both properties.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 104 FEBRUARY 29, 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 owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener to be
registered against Parts 1 and 2, Reference Plan 58R-12152, in which the owner
shall agree to remove the existing laneway across the wetland once it is feasible
and appropriate to construct a new access into a future plan of subdivision.
1. Submission No.: CC 2000-001(Cont'd)
That the owner shall submit an archaeological assessment to the Ministry of
Citizen, Culture & Recreation.
That the owner shall permit the Grand River Conservation Authority to conduct a
site visit upon completion of surveying the boundary for Area "B", as illustrated on
Map 5 of the Environmental Impact Statement, to confirm its location; the confirmed
boundary shall be illustrated in an addendum to the scoped ElS.
That the statement "the foundation of the new barn be placed at least 5 m outside
the proposed boundary or in such a location so that minimal disturbance will take
place to Area 'B"', within the Environmental Impact Statement, shall be revised to
"the foundation of the new barn be placed at least 5 m outside the proposed
boundary", as requested by the Grand River Conservation Authority.
10.
That the owner shall erect a 1.2 metre high paige wire fence along a portion of the
southern boundary of Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-12152, as illustrated on the plan
submitted with Change of Conditions of Provisional Consent Application CC 2000-
001 ."
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being February 29, 2002.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 29th day of February, 2000.
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 105 FEBRUARY 29, 2000
Committee of Adjustment