HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2000-05-02COA\2000-05-02
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 2, 2000
MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. B. Dahms, A. Galloway and P. Kruse.
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. B. Dahms, Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:06 a.m.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of April 11, 2000, as mailed to
the members, be accepted.
Carried
Mr. B. Dahms declared a pecuniary interest in Submission Nos. A 81/99 and B 13/99 to B 16/99 and A
26/99, considered by the Committee of Adjustment on March 21, 2000 in his absence, as his law firm
has acted on behalf of the applicants.
APPLICATIONS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 2000-024
Peever Technical Services/John and Marie Peever
550 King Street East and 9 Cameron Street North
Part Lots 1 and 2, Registered Plan 100 and Part of Lots 9, 10 and 11,
Registered Plan 323; and, Part Lots 1,2 and 3, Registered Plan 100
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. A. Kutler
MHBC Planning Limited
171 Victoria Street North
Kitchener ON N2H 5C5
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an access
ramp to provide barrier free access to the existing rehabilitation clinic, having a sideyard setback
of 0 m, rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the subject property is 0.205 hectares in size, and located on King Street East
between Cameron Street North and Betzner Avenue North. The property contains a building
used as a plaza complex containing office, commercial, and professional uses. Recently, the
property located at 9 Cameron Street North was incorporated into the property at 550 King Street
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 183 MAY 2, 2000
East. The structure at 9 Cameron Street North is going to be used for uses considered 'Personal
Submission No.: A2000-024 (Cont'd)
Services' under Zoning By-law 85-1. The property is designated Service Commercial with
Special Policy 1 in the King Street East Neighbourhood Secondary Plan and is zoned CR-4 with
special regulation provision 285R and special use provision 145U. Special Provision 285R
details minimum sizes and numbers of parking spaces on site, and Special Provision 145U
details several uses that are prohibited on this site. The surrounding neighbourhood consists
primarily of two components, commercial along the King Street East corridor, and residential
along Cameron Street North and Betzner Avenue North.
The applicant is requesting a minor variance to permit the existing barrier4ree access ramp to be
located 0.0 metres from the side lot line, instead of the 0.75 metres required by Zoning By-law 85-
1. The location of this barrier-free access ramp is indicated on the attached site plan. The
requested variance would allow the owner to continue to provide barrier-free access to the
building that operates, in part, as a rehabilitation clinic.
The existing barrier4ree access ramp was constructed without site plan approval or a building
permit in 1997. The ramp provides the only barrier-free access to the building at 550 King Street
East. The main entrance to the two storey building, which was constructed around 1970, has
stairs leading up to the top floor and down to the bottom floor. There is no floor at grade. An
additional top floor doorway is located where the existing ramp ends its rise. Prior to the ramp
being constructed, cement steps leading to this doorway were used for access. These steps
remain; however, they are located underneath the ramp and are inaccessible. There is also a
stairwell leading down to the bottom floor along this side of the building, providing an emergency
exit.
The Zoning By-law requires that steps and access ramps have a minimum 0.75 metre setback
from side and rear lot lines. The intent of this setback is to allow for maintenance of buildings,
and ramps themselves, without the owner having to encroach on neighbouring property.
However, the location of the building in relation to the side lot line would not permit the
construction of a ramp having a setback of 0.75 metres. The building is approximately 1.2 metres
from the side lot line. The abutting property contains a single detached dwelling unit and an
accessory garage structure. The accessory structure is located along the lot line, having an
approximate 0.0 metre to 0.5 metre side yard setback. Aside from the main door, which is at
grade, fronting Betzner Avenue North, and the doorway currently being accessed by the ramp,
there are no other doorways on the other two sides of the building that could be used for barrier
free access.
Both the Municipal Plan and the Urban Design Guidelines and Standards approved by Council
support the development and retrofitting of sites to achieve barrier free access.
There have been no complaints from the public received by this Department to date regarding the
location or function of the access ramp. Given the location of the building with respect to the lot
line, the nature of the business, and the merits of providing barrier free access to buildings, staff
recommend that the application be approved. The proposal is minor in nature, an appropriate
development for the lands, and maintains the intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application
A2000-024, seeking a reduction in the permitted yard projection for a barrier free access ramp
from 0.75 metres to 0.0 metres, be approved.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the 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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 184 MAY 2, 2000
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.
Submission No.: A2000-024 (Cont'd)
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending that the application
be approved and enquired if Ms. Kutler had anything further to add. Ms. A. Kutler advised that
she had received the staff reports and was in agreement with the recommendation contained
therein.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. P Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Peever Technical Services/John and Marie Peever requesting permission
to construct a barrier free access ramp for the existing rehabilitation clinic, having a sideyard
setback of 0 m, rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.), 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
The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 10:10 a.m. in order to consider an application
for minor variance to the City of Kitchener's Sign By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:12 a.m.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 2000-025
Edmund Ferrage
313-317 Mill Street
Part Lots 46 & 47, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. E. Ferrage
185 Goulding Avenue
Toronto ON M2R 2P3
Mr. B. Buckley
200 Manchester Rd.
Kitchener ON N2B 1A2
Contra:
Mr. J. Dreger
28 Tamroth Close
Kitchener ON N2M 3T1
Mr. L. Turow
309 Mill Street
Kitchener ON
N2M 3R8
Written Submissions:
In Support:
None
Contra:
Mr. J. Dreger
28 Tamroth Close
Kitchener ON N2M 3T1
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 185 MAY 2, 2000
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct
townhouse dwelling units, with 10 (2 storey) units having a maximum building height of 7.31 m
Submission No.: A2000-025 (Cont'd)
17
(24 ft.) and 7 (3 storey) units having a maximum building height of 9.75 m (32 ft.); rather than the
permitted 7.01 m (23 ft.)
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the subject property is 0.376 hectares in size, and located near the intersection
of Mill Street and Heiman Street. The property currently contains a single detached dwelling.
The lands are designated Low Density Multiple Residential in the Mill Courtland - Woodside Park
Neighbourhood Secondary Plan contained within the City's Municipal Plan. The lands are zoned
R-7 with special regulation provisions 1R and 117R, according to Zoning By-law 85-1. Provision
1R requires that a Fill, Construction, and Alteration to Waterways Permit be obtained from the
G.R.C.A. prior to the erection of a building on the property. Provision 117R describes special
regulations which apply to multiple dwellings on the subject property, including a minimum rear
yard setback of 4.5 metres, a maximum building height of 7.0 metres, and a visual barrier to be
required along both the northerly and southerly lot lines.
The applicant has submitted a site plan application for the subject property that proposes the
demolition of the existing dwelling, and the construction of a 17 unit cluster townhouse
development. The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum building height of 7.0
metres permitted by special regulation provision 117R. An attached site plan depicts the three
townhouse blocks proposed for the site. The applicant proposes a height of 7.3 metres for Blocks
A and B, and a height of 9.75 metres for Block C. The requested variance would facilitate the
construction of a 17 unit cluster townhouse development on the subject lands.
There have been several redevelopment proposals for the subject property over the past 15
years. In 1988, an amendment to Zoning By-law 4830 added special regulation provisions to the
property that required a minimum rear yard of 4.5 metres, a maximum of 2 storeys in height, and
a planting strip or fence along the northerly and southerly lot lines. These regulations were
inserted to address concerns raised by residents of the surrounding neighbourhood. The primary
concerns identified by the residents at the Planning Committee and Council meetings were traffic
impact on Mill Street, and potential noise concerns. A site plan application proposing a 20 unit
maisonette style multiple dwelling was submitted concurrently with the zone change. This site
plan was approved, and a Section 41 Development Agreement was entered into on November 9,
1988. However, the proposed development did not proceed.
The passing of Zoning By-law 85-1 consolidated the special regulations applicable to the subject
property in special regulation provision 117R. Minor text changes, such as "a maximum two
storeys in height" to "a maximum 7.0 metres in height", occurred as a result of the by-law update.
Special regulation 1R was also added to the property, requiring a Fill, Construction, and Alteration
to Waterways Permit from the G.R.C.A.
The first component of this minor variance application, a request for an increase in the maximum
permitted building height from 7.0 metres to 7.3 metres, is required to permit construction of a two
storey townhouse with a peaked roof, shown as Blocks A and B on the attached plan. This
request maintains the intent of the original Zoning By-law regulation that restricted development
on the property to two stories in height, and is minor in nature.
The second component of this application, a request for an increase in the maximum permitted
building height from 7.0 metres to 9.75 metres, is required to permit construction of a three storey
townhouse with a peaked roof, noted as Block C on the attached plan. The owner has indicated
that Block C must be three stories in height to address the fact that no basements will be
permitted by the G.R.C.A. within this block due to the location of the Shoemaker Creek
Regulatory Floodline. This reach of Shoemaker Creek is a Two-Zone Policy Area, meaning that
the floodplain is divided into a floodway and a flood fringe. A portion of the subject property,
including part of Block C, lies within the flood fringe. New development is permitted within the
flood fringe provided that all habitable floor space is above the Regulatory Flood Elevation
(ground level).
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 186 MAY 2, 2000
The G.R.C.A. floodline mapping for this area was completed in 1994, after the special regulation
provision limiting height to two stories on site was enacted. The height restriction was
2. Submission No.: A2000-025 (Cont'd)
incorporated into the Zoning By-law to address neighbouring residents concerns regarding the
number of units that potentially could be developed on the subject property, and the density of the
development given that the zoning designation permitted multiple dwellings. The intent of the two
storey height restriction was to limit the density of the development and number of dwelling units.
The current proposed site plan proposes 17 units, which is three units less than the site plan
proposal that was approved in 1988.
The surrounding area is comprised primarily of residential development of varying heights. Single
detached dwellings are located immediately west of the subject property, while a three storey, 38
unit apartment building lies immediately east of the site. The subject property is zoned R-7, with
special regulations. The standard R-7 zone permits multiple dwellings to have a maximum height
of 24.0 metres. Other properties abutting the site have an R-5 zoning designation, which permits
a maximum height of 10.5 metres. A minor variance permitting a maximum height of 9.75 metres
for Block C maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law. The proposed development provides an
appropriate transition in height and density between the single detached dwellings and the 3
storey, 38 unit apartment building.
The Mill Courtland - Woodside Park Neighbourhood Secondary Plan designates the subject
property as Low Density Multiple Residential. The intent of this designation is to recognize
existing multiple dwellings and permit the development and integration of higher density multiple
residential uses while maintaining the overall Iow rise characteristics of the neighbourhood. The
proposed minor variance is in keeping with the intent of the Municipal Plan.
The proposed minor variance is minor in nature, appropriate for the development of the lands,
and maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan. Accordingly, the Department
of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A2000-
025.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application
A2000-025, seeking a maximum building height of 7.3 metres for Blocks A and B, and a
maximum building height of 9.75 metres for Block C, be approved only in accordance with the site
plan finally approved under application number SP99/21/M/FS.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has reviewed this application and building permits are required for
construction of the new townhouses.
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 proposed minor variance application. However, would
request the approval be conditional upon the submission and approval of a permit application
pursuant to the Grand River Conservation Authority's Fill, Construction and Alteration to
Waterways Regulation (Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98). We
note that we have provided comments on a site plan application dated April, 1999 prepared by
Buckley Design Ltd., however we have not received a revised site plan to address these
comments. A revised site plan in conformance with Two-Zone Floodplain Policy and lot grading
plans will be required in support of the permit application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and enquired if Mr. Ferrage had anything further to add. Mr. Ferrage advised that he
had reviewed the comments and was prepared to answer any questions. The Chair then invited
Mr. Dreger to address the Committee.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 187 MAY 2, 2000
Mr. J. Dreger provided the Committee with a written submission outlining his concerns and, in
conjunction with a small scale model and photographs, provided an overview of his concerns with
Submission No.: A2000-025 (Cont'd)
respect to this application. Mr. Dreger's concerns related to violation of an agreement with
residents in drafting Regulation # 117R by granting variances to height in excess of the 7 m
permitted under the regulation; inaccurate description in the staff report of the surrounding area;
close proximity to abutting properties; potential damage to existing trees; loss of sunlight to
abutting properties; potential hardship to a neighbour whose garden may be impacted from which
he provides food for himself; privacy and devaluation of property values; and the uncertainty of
the objectivity and impartiality of the Planning staff with respect to this application.
Mr. Dreger pointed out that his main concern with this project was the scale of the buildings
proposed to be 3 storeys in comparison to the surrounding neighbourhood. Mr. Dreger stated
that he understood the concerns relative to the GRCA's restriction not to allow construction below
the regulatory floodline elevation; however, felt that a 3 storey building was too large in terms of
scale. He further suggested that the building would block sunlight and pose a threat to healthy
trees in the area. Mr. Dreger also commented on the proposed rearyard setback of 4.5 m
suggesting this would place the building in too close proximity to the properties backing onto the
site, create crowded conditions and lower property values.
Mr. P. Kruse questioned if the applicant were to develop only 2 storey buildings on this site if this
would be acceptable to Mr. Dreger. Mr. Dreger stated that he could live with a 2 storey building;
however, was still concerned with the practicality of the proposed rearyard setback.
The Chair questioned if the only variance required was for the height of the buildings and Ms.
Given advised that was correct, pointing out that the rearyard setback of 4.5 m was already part
of the 117R regulation applying to the zoning of the subject lands.
Mr. L. Turow then addressed the Committee and advised that he was the owner of 309 Mill Street
where he has lived for a number of years. He stated that his main concern was with the height of
the buildings which will be abutting his property. Mr. Turow referred to a neighbouring property
on which a garage had been built exceeding the height requirements and was ordered to be
removed. In this regard, he questioned how the proposed buildings which would be higher could
be allowed. Mr. Turow also referred to a farm house that had previously been on the site which
was to have been removed as part of a previous proposal respecting this site. The proposal did
not proceed and, until recently, the vacant farm house remained despite neighbourhood
complaints that the house was in derelict condition and attracting rodents. Mr. Turow stated that
when the previous proposal was approved in 1987 for 20 maisonette units certain conditions
were imposed which required the second dwelling on the site to also be demolished and a
wooden fence to be erected as a buffer and questioned if these conditions would still apply. Mr.
E. Ferrage responded that the remaining building on the site would be demolished and a fence
would be erected.
Mr. Turow further questioned if the townhouses were to be rental units or sold. Mr. Ferrage
advised that the townhouses were to be sold and that he intended to construct high quality units.
Mr. Turow also pointed out that there had been traffic concerns with respect to the previous
proposal and that he still had similar concerns with respect to this application. Mr. Ferrage
provided a copy of the site plan for Mr. Turow to review and advised that he would like to build all
units with only 2 storeys as this would be less costly; however, because of GRCA regulations he
was not permitted to provide a basement for the units that are proposed to be 3 storeys.
Accordingly, the units will be constructed with a garage on the first level and 2 living space floors
above.
Mr. Dreger enquired as to the square footage of each unit and whether a noise study had been
undertaken. Mr. Ferrage responded that the units would be 1,200 to 1,300 sq. ft. and that a noise
study was not required.
The Chair stated that it was obvious the applicant and the neighbours present had not had an
opportunity to discuss the proposal prior to the meeting and questioned if Mr. Ferrage would
consider deferring the application to the next meeting to allow all parties to meet to discuss and
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 188 MAY 2, 2000
possibly resolve issues of concern. Mr. Ferrage advised that he wished to proceed and re-stated
the fact that he had wanted to build only 2 storeys; however, the GRCA regulations must be met.
Submission No.: A2000-025 (Cont'd)
Ms. J. Given pointed out as clarification that height is measured from the highest point which, in
this case, is to the peak of the roof and as such the height is only technically higher than the
permitted maximum.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned the rationale for the 7 m height requirement and Ms. Given
responded that the rezoning undertaken in the late 1980's suggests a height equivalent to 2
storeys; however, the by-law does not regulate by storeys but rather by height. She stated that it
appears that the visual aspects of the surrounding neighbourhood may have been a factor in
consideration of the height restriction. She further pointed out that normally 3 storeys are taken
into consideration with respect to height and 7 m would fall roughly in between 2 and 3 storeys.
Ms. Given advised that she could not definitively say why 7 m was determined to be appropriate;
however, suggested that it may have been related to the site plan for the previous proposal.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned if the only variance was from 7 m to 9 m in height and Ms. Given
responded that height variances also applied on the other 2 buildings proposed for the site which
are to be 7.3 m in height.
Mr. Galloway stated that he was familiar with the site and pointed out that the area contains a
variety of housing types including townhouses and apartments. In this regard, he stated that he
had no concern with the proposed variances.
Mr. J. Dreger requested the Committee to provide a legal definition as to what is considered to be
minor with respect to variances, maintaining that the proposed 3 storeys was out of scale. Mr. A.
Galloway advised that if the Committee approves the application it does so on the basis that it
considers the variance to be minor. The Chair further pointed out that the Committee determines
all factors, including presentations put forward, in making it's decision.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that while he was sympathetic to Mr. Dreger's concerns, he also understood
the applicant's dilemma in meeting the GRCA requirements and questioned if there was any
other alternative the GRCA would be satisfied with. Ms. J. Given advised that while she was not
involved in the discussions with the GRCA, their comments suggest there is not. Mr. B. Buckley
further pointed out that all options had been pursued with the GRCA and explained that the
purpose of the 3 storeys is to allow for a garage at the bottom level and then 2 living space floors
above.
Mr. J. Dreger questioned if the GRCA required 3 storeys to be built and Mr. Buckley responded
that the GRCA had only required that no basement be constructed.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was prepared to move approval of the application subject to the
conditions outlined by the Building Division, Planning staff and the GRCA. Mr. P. Kruse stated
that, because of the GRCA requirements, he felt that the applicant did not have a choice and that
the proposed townhouses were fewer in number than the previous proposal for 2 maisonette
units. On this basis, Mr. Kruse advised that he also was in support of the application.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Edmund Ferrage requesting permission to construct 17 townhouse
dwelling units, with 10 units (Blocks A & B) having a maximum building height of 7.3 m (24 ft.)
and 7 units (Block C) having a maximum building height of 9.7 m (32 ft.), rather than the
permitted 7 m (23 ft.), on Part Lots 46 & 47, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract, 313-
317 Mill Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
That the variances as approved in this application shall apply only in accordance with the
site plan finally approved under application number SP 991211MIFS.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 189 MAY 2, 2000
2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to the construction of the new
townhouses.
Submission No.: A2000-025 (Cont'd)
That the owner shall apply for and receive final approval of a Fill, Construction and
Alteration to Waterways permit from the Grand River Conservation Authority.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 2000-026
Connie Sachan
84 Newbury Drive
Lot 59, Re.qistered Plan 1542
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. C. Sachan
84 Newbury Drive
Kitchener ON N2N 2X6
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support:
Neighbourhood Petition
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate 2 required
parking spaces, 1 for the existing residential dwelling and 1 for a home business (hair salon), in
tandem (one behind the other) rather than side by side, and for 1 of the parking spaces to be
located ahead of the required setback of 6 m ( (19.68 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate two required parking spaces,
one for the existing residential dwelling and one for a home business (hair salon), in tandem
(one behind the other) rather than side by side, and for one of the parking spaces to be set
back 1.49 m (4.88 ft.) rather than 6.0 m (19.68 ft.).
The property has a single car garage which is the legal parking space for the dwelling. There
is a 6.98 m (22.91 ft.) driveway in front of the garage which is of adequate length to
accommodate a vehicle and still maintain a 1.49 m (4.88 ft.) setback from the front property
line. This will not compromise pedestrian or vehicular visibility. The applicant is suggesting
that the client would park in the driveway, while the property owner would park in the garage.
The property owner would not be leaving the premises while the client is there and therefore
will not create a problem with moving vehicles.
The 1.49 m (4.88 ft.) setback to be provided from the front property line will still provide clear
and unobstructed visibility for both pedestrians and vehicles, therefore the variance can be
considered minor in nature. The parking of a vehicle in the driveway will not affect
neighbouring property and the impact of the variance is negligible. Allowing a second parking
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 190 MAY 2, 2000
space on the driveway with a setback of 1.49 m (4.88 ft.) will still maintain the general intent of
both the City's Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan and is an appropriate use for this property
with the home business.
Submission No.: A2000-026 (Cont'd)
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission No. A
2000-026 relative only to a hair salon home business.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required for any new construction required to create the home business.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the
Traffic & Parking Division has no concerns with the proposed parking space, which is less than
the required 6.0 m behind the property line.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and may require the payment of
Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and enquired if Ms. Sachan had anything further to add. Ms. C. Sachan advised that
she had collected signatures of neighbouring property owners in support of her application and
submitted the petition to the Committee.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Connie Sachan requesting permission to locate 2 required parking spaces,
1 for the existing residential dwelling and 1 for a home business (hair salon), in tandem (one
behind the other) rather than side by side, and for 1 of the parking spaces to be setback 1.49 m
(4.88 ft.), rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), on Lot 59, Registered Plan 1542, 84 Newbury
Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, relative only to a hair salon home business.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
A 2000-027
Jafar Konoodi
744-746 Queen Street South
Lot 14, Re.qistered Plan 158
Mr. J. Konoodi
744-746 Queen Street South
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 191 MAY 2, 2000
Kitchener ON N2M 1A4
Contra: None
4. Submission No.: A2000-027 (Cont'd)
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a side
entranceway into the existing residential dwelling having a sideyard setback from Brock Street of
0.18 m (0.62 ft.), rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the subject property is located on the northeast corner of Queen Street South
and Brock Street and contains a two-storey brick building with an attached double-car garage
which was constructed in 1945 and 1952 respectively. A certificate of occupancy for the use of
the building as a single detached dwelling with a home business (hair salon) was issued on
November 18, 1999.
Since taking possession of the building in November of 1999, the applicant has submitted
Municipal Plan and Zone Change applications to redesignate and rezone the subject property
from "Residential Six Zone (R-6)" to "Convenience Commercial Zone (C-1)" with a special
regulation provision and special use provision. The purpose of the Municipal Plan change and
zone change applications is to permit the existing building to be used for two dwelling units, a
convenience retail use, and a personal service use (hair salon). A preliminary circulation of the
proposed amendments has been mailed to everyone living within 120 metres of the subject
property.
The applicant is requesting a minor variance to reduce the required setback for steps and access
ramps in the side yard in order to install a door to the basement. It is staff's understanding that the
Fire Marshall had previously placed an order on the subject property to have the door installed as
the basement was proposed to be used for an additional dwelling unit. The applicant is aware that
the basement cannot currently be used for an additional dwelling while still operating a home
business, but would like to proceed with the access ahead of the Municipal Plan and zone
change applications. The access is intended to provide a safe means of exit for family members
utilizing the basement and an alternate means of getting to the basement without having to pass
through the hair salon use on the ground floor. The Fire Marshall has indicated that although the
access is not required to meet code, it would be desirable to have an exit from the basement in
case of a fire.
The Zoning By-law requires a minimum setback from a side lot line for steps and access ramps of
0.75 metres (2.46 feet). As the existing building is setback 1.1 metres (3.62 feet) from the easterly
side lot line, and the steps need to be a minimum of 0.91 metres (3 feet) in width to meet Building
Code, the resultant setback of the steps will only be 0.19 metres (0.62 feet).
Staff recommends that the Committee consider a variance to permit a 0 metre setback for the
proposed access. This will give the applicant some flexibility and eliminate the need for any future
variance should a future survey of the subject property reveal that the access is located less than
0.19 metres (0.62 feet) from the Brock Street property line. The applicant should be advised that if
a variance of 0 metres is granted, it should not be construed as permission to encroach onto the
Brock Street road allowance.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act,
R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, staff offer the following comments:
Unlike the existing accesses to the building, the access steps to the basement will be below
grade and will not be visible from the street. The width of the proposed access will be similar to
the width of the existing stoop on the northeasterly side of the building, which is actually setback
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 192 MAY 2, 2000
0.15 metres (0.5 feet) from the Brock Street property line. Also, the proposed access will not
extend further into the side yard than the existing roofed porch, steps, and railing on the easterly
side of the building, which actually encroach onto the Brock Street road allowance. Therefore, the
4. Submission No.: A2000-027 (Cont'd)
variance to permit an external access to the basement will not adversely impact the Brock Street
streetscape.
The variance is desirable as it will allow the applicant to provide an access directly from the
basement to the outside, which will provide a safe and quick means of exit in emergency
situations. It will also provide an alternate means of access to the basement without having to
pass through the hair salon.
As the effects of the variance will be minor, the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal
Plan will be maintained.
Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of a
variance to permit the applicant to construct an access to the basement.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that minor variance application
A 2000-027, as amended, to permit a reduction of the minimum required setback from a side lot
line for steps or an access ramp from 0.75 metres (2.46 feet) to 0 metres, be approved.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a
building permit is required to construct the new entrance.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and may require the payment of
Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending the application be
amended to allow a 0 m setback from Brock Street rather than 0.18 m as requested in the
application. The Chair enquired if Mr. Konoodi was in agreement with staff's recommendation
and Mr. Konoodi advised that he was in agreement and had nothing further to add.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Jafar Konoodi requesting permission to construct a side entranceway with
steps or an access ramp into the existing residential dwelling having a 0 m sideyard setback from
the lot line adjacent to Brock Street, rather than the required 0.75 m (2.46 ft.), BE APPROVED,
subject to the following condition:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new entranceway.
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.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 193 MAY 2, 2000
Carried
CONSENT
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 2000-025, B 2000-026, B 2000-0027
Edmund Ferrage
140 Heiman Street
Part Lot 66, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. E. Ferrage
185 Goulding Avenue
Toronto ON M2R 2P3
Mr. B. Buckley
200 Manchester Rd.
Kitchener ON N2B 1A2
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create 3 new lots for
residential use by severing 3 parcels of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of
5,481.75 m2 (59,006.99 sq. ft.). The lands to be retained are proposed to be developed for
townhouse use with 14 units in total. The first parcel to be severed contains an existing single
detached dwelling, having frontage on Heiman Street of 15.24 m (49.97 ft.), by a depth of 31.66
m (103.87 ft.) and an area of 489.49 m2 (5,268.99 sq. ft.). The second and third parcels to be
severed are proposed to be developed with one semi-detached dwelling with each half of the
semi having frontage on Heiman Street of 7.62 m (25 ft.), by a depth of 31.66 m 103.87 ft.) and
an area of 241.24 m~ (2,596.77 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject property is located on the north side of Heiman Street
between Highland Road East and Lorne Avenue and contains an existing one and a half storey
single detached dwelling which was constructed in 1935. The surrounding lands are currently
developed with a variety of residential uses including single detached, semi-detached, and
multiple dwelling uses.
The applications for consent will have the effect of creating four separate lots as shown on the
plan of survey prepared by J. Daniel McLeod, O.L.S., dated February 16, 2000. One lot will be
created for a proposed 17 unit townhouse development (Part 1), another lot will be created for the
existing single detached dwelling (Part 2), and two lots will be created for two semi-detached
dwelling units (Parts 3 and 4).
Part 1, which is proposed to be developed with 17 townhouse dwelling units, will be an irregularly
shaped parcel of land having a frontage on Heiman Street of 15.24 metres (50 feet) and an area
of 4,518.3 square metres (48,636 square feet). The applicant has met with staff regarding the
requirements for the submission of a site plan application to permit the proposed townhouse
development.
Part 2, which is proposed to contain the existing single detached dwelling, will be a rectangular
shaped parcel of land having a frontage on Heiman Street of 15.2 metres (49.97 feet), a depth of
31.67 metres (103.9 feet), and an area of 480.8 square metres (5,176 square feet). The dwelling
on the severed parcel of land will meet all setback requirements, save and except for the
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 194 MAY 2, 2000
minimum rear yard requirement of 7.5 metres (24.6 feet). Although the dwelling itself meets the
minimum rear yard requirement, a roofed patio at the rear of the dwelling is only setback 4.5
metres (15 feet)from the rear lot line. The applicant has the option of either removing the roof
over the patio or applying for a minor variance in order to rectify this situation.
Submission Nos.: B 2000-025, B 2000-026, B 2000-0027(Cont'd)
The last two applications for consent, B2000-026 and B2000-027, are proposed to create Parts 3
and 4 as shown on the plan of survey. Staff is of the opinion that it is premature at this time to
create each of the semi-detached dwelling unit lots until the location of the party wall for the two
dwelling units is known. Accordingly, Consent Application B2000-026 should be amended to
reflect the creation of the whole of the semi-detached dwelling lot (Parts 3 and 4 combined). This
lot will have a frontage on Heiman Street of 15.24 metres (50 feet), a depth of 31.67 metres
(103.9 feet), and an area of 482.6 square metres (5,195 square feet). Once the foundation for the
semi-detached dwelling is poured and surveyed, the consent application to recognize the semi-
detached dwelling units as two separate parcels of land can be considered by the Committee.
This will ensure that the party wall between the two semi-detached dwelling units will be located
precisely on the property line. The applicant is agreeable to the amendment to Consent
Application B2000-026 and the deferral of Consent Application B2000-027 until such time as the
location of the party wall for the semi-detached dwelling units is identified by survey. The
applicant hopes to satisfy the conditions of the consent quickly and apply for a building permit for
the semi-detached dwelling. Therefore, it would be appropriate to consider Consent Application
B2000-027 on the July 18, 2000 Committee of Adjustment agenda.
As the proposed use and configuration of the lots will be in conformity with the "R-6" zone and will
be compatible with the existing residential uses in the surrounding area, it would be appropriate to
recommend approval of Consent Application B2000-025 and Consent Application B2000-026 as
amended.
B2000-025
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application
B2000-025 be approved, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, a
2.9 metre (9.5 foot) road widening along the property's entire Heiman Street frontage.
That the existing frame garage be removed or relocated.
That the roof over the patio at the rear of the single detached dwelling be removed or that
a minor variance for a reduction of the minimum rear yard requirement receive final
approval.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
B2000-026
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application
B2000-026, as amended, be approved, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication
equal to 5% of the value of lands to be severed.
That the owner convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of encumbrance, a
2.9 metre (9.5 foot) road widening along the property's entire Heiman Street frontage.
That the existing frame garage be removed or relocated.
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 severed
lands.
That the owner makes financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works for the installation, to the City's standards, of boulevard
landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands.
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 195 MAY 2, 2000
B2000-027
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application
B2000-027 be deferred to the July 18, 2000 meeting.
1. Submission Nos.: B 2000-025, B 2000-026, B 2000-O027(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and may require the payment of
Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections to the proposed severances. A small portion of the front of
the property appears to lie below the Regulatory Floodline Elevation of Shoemaker Creek. This
reach of Shoemaker is a Two-Zone Floodplain Policy area, meaning new development is
permitted in the flood fringe. The site is within the flood fringe of the floodplain. Please note that
it appears that there is developable area outside the floodplain. This should be confirmed with
the submission of a site plan illustrating the location of the Regulatory Floodline (322.27 metres
c.g.d.).
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of
Submission Nos. B 2000-025 and B 2000-026 subject to certain conditions and an amendment to
Submission No. B 2000-026 that would create the whole of the semi-detached dwelling lot, Parts
3 & 4 combined. The Chair further noted that staff are recommending deferral of Submission No.
B 2000-027 until the location of the party wall for the semi-detached dwelling unit is known.
The Chair enquired of Mr. Ferrage if he was in agreement with deferring Submission No. B 2000-
027 as requested by Planning staff and Mr. Ferrage concurred.
Accordingly, it was agreed to defer Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-027 to the
Committee's meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 18, 2000.
The Chair then enquired of Mr. Ferrage if he had anything further to add with respect to
Submission Nos. B 2000-025 and B 2000-026. Mr. E. Ferrage referred to Condition No. 3 with
respect to Submission No. B 2000-025 which required either the roof over the patio to be
removed or a minor variance to be applied for, to allow a reduction in the minimum rearyard
requirement. In this regard, Mr. Ferrage advised that the roof referred to is an aluminium canopy,
which he believes adds value to the existing dwelling and requested that he be exempt from
Condition No. 3 with respect to Submission No. B 2000-025.
Mr. A. Galloway pointed out that staff have advised that if the roof remains the applicant will
require a minor variance for a reduction in the rearyard requirement. The Chair advised Mr.
Ferrage that when a new lot is created any minor variance resulting from the creation of the lot
require an application to be submitted and approved. Accordingly, the Chair advised that
approval of Submission No. B 2000-025 would be conditional upon either the roof being removed
or a minor variance application being submitted and approved.
The Chair then enquired if Mr. Ferrage was in agreement with amending Submission No. B 2000-
026 to reflect the creation of the whole of the semi-detached dwelling lot (Parts 3 & 4 combined)
and Mr. Ferrage advised that he was in agreement with this amendment.
Ms. J. Given further advised that the applicant would have great difficulty in ensuring that the
party wall between the 2 halves of the semi was exactly on the severance line prior to the wall
actually being constructed. Staff feel that it would be in the applicant's best interest to defer
Submission No. B 2000-027 to allow location of the party wall to be properly identified by survey.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 196 MAY 2, 2000
1. Submission Nos.: B 2000-025, B 2000-026, B 2000-0027(Cont'd)
Consent B 2000-025
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Edmund Ferrage requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having
frontage on Heiman Street of 15.24 m (49.97 ft.), by a depth of 31.66 m (103.87 ft.) and an area
of 480.8 m2 (5,176 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 66, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract, 140
Heiman Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of
encumbrance, a 2.9 metre (9.5 foot) road widening along the property's entire Heiman
Street frontage.
2. That the existing frame garage shall be removed or relocated.
That the roof over the patio at the rear of the single detached dwelling shall be removed or
that a minor variance for a reduction of the minimum rear yard requirement 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.
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 May 2, 2002.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Consent B 2000-026
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Edmund Ferrage requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having
frontage on Heiman Street of 15.24 m (50 ft.), by a depth of 31.67 m (103.9 ft.) and an area of
482.6 m2 (5,195 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 66, Subdivision of Lot 18, German Company Tract, 140
Heiman Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
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 lands to be severed.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 197 MAY 2, 2000
That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, without cost and free of
encumbrance, a 2.9 metre (9.5 foot) road widening along the property's entire Heiman
Street frontage.
3. That the existing frame garage shall be removed or relocated.
Submission Nos.: B 2000-025, B 2000-026, B 2000-0027(Cont'd)
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to the severed
lands.
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General
Manager of Public Works for the installation, to the City's standards, of boulevard
landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp, on the severed lands.
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 May 2, 2002.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Consent B 2000-027
By general consent, it was agreed to defer this application to the Committee of Adjustment
meeting to be held on Tuesday, July 18, 2000.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 2000-028
Ivan Biuk Construction Limited
1843 Old Mill Road
Part of Lots 100 & 101, Re.qistered Plan 578
Mr. B. Dahms declared a pecuniary interest in this application as his law firm has acted on behalf
of the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application.
Mr. Dahms left the meeting and Mr. A. Galloway chaired the meeting during consideration of the
application and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act the application was
considered by the remaining two members.
Appearances:
In Support:
Ms. D. Biuk
53 Doon Valley Drive
Kitchener ON N2P 1B1
Mr. I. Biuk
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 198 MAY 2, 2000
Ivan Biuk Construction Limited
1989 Old Mill Road
Kitchener ON N2P 1E4
Submission No.: B 2000-028 (Cont'd)
Mrs. E. Emonts
1843 Old Mill Road
Kitchener ON N2P 1E3
Contra:
Mr. S. Grant
Madorin, Snyder
P.O. Box 1234
235 King Street East
Kitchener ON N2G 4G9
Ms. G. Luciantonio
20 Pinnacle Drive
Kitchener ON N2P 1B7
Mr. & Mrs. J. Moore
1834 Old Mill Road
Kitchener ON N2P 1E2
Mr. D. Oleskevich
1824 Old Mill Road
Kitchener ON N2P 1E2
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised 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 677.2 m2 (7,290 sq. ft.).
The lands to be severed contain an existing single detached dwelling having frontage on Old Mill
Road of 28.3 m (93 ft.), by a depth of 19.2 m (63 ft.) and an area of 544.3 m2 (5,859 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the owner of the subject property at 1843 Old Mill Road is requesting
permission to sever the existing single detached dwelling to allow it to be sold.
The proposed severed lot at 1843 Old Mill Road has a frontage 28.43 metres (93 feet), a depth
of 19.2 metres (63 feet) and a lot area of 544.30 square metres (5,859 square feet). The
proposed severed lot inadvertently merged with the remainder of lands owned by Ivan Biuk
Construction.
The proposed retained lot would have a frontage of 21.03 metres (69 feet) on Drummond
Drive, a depth ranging from 21.34 metres (70 feet) to 40.48 metres (132.8 feet) and an area of
677.24 square metres (7,290 square feet). The proposed retained lot is vacant and would gain
access from Drummond Drive, an unopened road allowance.
An identical severance as this application was previously approved by the Committee of
Adjustment under Consent Application B126/97 on January 6, 1998. The applicant did not
complete the conditions to endorse the deed on the new lot within the required time period and
the consent approval lapsed.
The subject property was recently considered by the Committee of Adjustment as part of
Consent Applications B13-16/99 to create four new lots on Drummond Drive. The application
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 199 MAY 2, 2000
dealing with 1843 Old Mill Road is B16/99. The Committee at its meeting of March 21st
refused approval of all the applications and said applications have been appealed to the
Ontario Municipal Board. However, it should be noted that the lands to be retained in this
application are 21.03 metres (69 feet) in width, whereas, the retained land of Consent
Application B16/99 has a width of 18.29 metres (60 feet) on Drummond Drive. Adjacent Lots
96 and 97 in Registered Plan 578 are each 20.15 metres (66.1 feet) in width.
Submission No.: B 2000-028 (Cont'd)
The proposed severed and retained lots comply with the current Zoning By-law 85-1.
The proposed severed lot at 1843 Old Mill Road is connected to municipal services along its
frontage. Development of the proposed retained lot will require full construction and servicing
of Drummond Drive. The applicant has indicated to planning staff that he wishes to install full
services along Drummond Drive from Amherst Drive via Local Improvement. The effect of this
severance will enable the development of the retained lands along with the development of
Lots 96 and 97 currently registered. As such, it is appropriate to require a subdivision
agreement to provide for both the construction and servicing of Drummond Drive and impose
appropriate conditions addressing the neighbours' concerns relative to water supply, tree
management and a landscaped buffer.
The subject lands fall with Block Plan 65, an area bounded by Old Mill Road, Durham Street,
Amherst Drive and Pinnacle Drive. The proposed severance conforms with Map 2 of Block
Plan 65 which was approved by City Council on August 15, 1977. The lands in the immediate
area of the subject property are also mostly zoned R-3 with similar sized lots and developed
with single detached dwellings.
The Department is of the opinion that the subject consent application is appropriate as it allows
the creation of a previously existing lot line and enables the existing dwelling to be separated
from the remainder of Ivan Biuk Construction holdings. Staff do not believe that consideration
of this application in any way jeopardizes the outcome of the Ontario Municipal Board appeal
since the contentious issues with neighbours was the number of lots fronting Drummond Drive.
This application in no way prejudges the outcome of any potential Board decision on this
matter, particularly as its retained lands exceed the width of lot sought through the appealed
application. However, should this application be approved, the appeal to B16/99 must be
withdrawn prior to deed endorsement to ensure that there is no impact on the Board's
opportunity to deal with the lands appealed.
Accordingly, the Department supports the severance application subject to the conditions listed
below.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B
2000-028 be approved subject to the following conditions:
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owners pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the retained land.
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 lands.
That the owner enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener to be
prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the General Managers of Public Works
and Business and Planning Services, and registered on title of the retained lands; said
agreement shall include arrangements for performance securities and municipal
engineering services and shall include the following specific requirements:
a)
That the subdivider shall pay 100% of the cost of the construction of Drummond
Drive to full municipal standards including the cost of constructing a walkway
from Drummond Drive to Old Mill Road, and excluding the cost of sidewalks on
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 200 MAY 2, 2000
Drummond Drive, all to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public
Works. In the event the cost of certain road construction requirements is
assessed to abutting property owners as a result of a successful Local
Improvement Act petition, then the Subdivider shall be responsible for paying his
assessed costs under the Local Improvement Act and only the cost of any of
2. Submission No.: B 2000-028 (Cont'd)
those works required above which are not able to be assessed under the Local
Improvement Act, if any.
b)
That the subdivider submit a Tree Management Plan for approval by the City's
General Manager of Business and Planning Services prior to any grading of the
lands, and agrees to implement all protection measures.
c)
That the subdivider prepare and submit a landscaped buffer plan affecting the
rear of the retained lot fronting Drummond Drive for approval by the City's
General Manager of Business and Planning Services prior to any grading of the
site. Such landscape plan shall include trees greater than 1.8 metres in height.
That the Owner shall be responsible for installing such planting prior to the
occupancy of such lots to first time occupants or in the event of winter conditions,
st
by June 1 immediately following the transfer of such title.
d)
Unless the construction of Drummond Drive occurs by way of the Local
Improvement Act, the subdivider agrees to provide a water supply to the
satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works at the subdivider's
cost for all affected properties currently relying solely on a private water system,
located in the vicinity of Drummond Drive and Old Mill Road, in the event the
existing private water supply is disrupted and cut off as a result of the
development within two years of the completion and acceptance of Drummond
Drive.
That the owner withdraws its appeal of Consent Application B16/99 and that the
Department of Business and Planning Services be in receipt of a letter from the Ontario
Municipal Board acknowledging withdrawal of the appeal to B16/99.
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,
dated April 27, 2000, in which they advised that Regional staff previously identified the need for
physical access onto a municipal road for the retained lot. This accessfirontage issue has now
been resolved. Staff also previously advised of the need to address archaeological potential and
odour from the Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant. With the understanding that the property
owners convey lands to the City of Kitchener as a public highway, staff have no objection to the
consent application subject to the following conditions:
1)
That prior to final approval of the application, the owner submit an archaeological
assessment for the severed parcel to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation
for approval. A copy of the completed assessment must be forwarded to the Regional
Commissioner of Planning & Culture.
2)
That prior to final approval of the application, the owner enter into a registered
development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide for the
following odour warning clause in all offers of purchase and sale and rental agreements for
the lots created:
"Due to its proximity to the Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant, projected odour levels
on this property may occasionally cause concern to some individuals."
The Committee also noted revised comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo, dated May 1, 2000, in which they advised that Regional staff have received additional
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 201 MAY 2, 2000
information on the subject property after discussions with Ms. D. Biuk on May 1, 2000. For this
reason, Regional staff wish to clarify the comments of April 27, 2000. An archaeological
assessment will be required on the retained parcel rather than on the severed parcel, as stated in
the April 27, 2000 comments. Staff's earlier comments regarding the potential of odour from the
Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant and the understanding that the property owner conveys
2. Submission No.: B 2000-028 (Cont'd)
lands to the City of Kitchener as a public highway still apply. Staff have no objection to the
consent application subject to the following conditions:
1)
That prior to final approval of the application, the owner submit an archaeological
assessment for the retained parcel to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation
for approval. A copy of the completed assessment must be forwarded to the Regional
Commissioner of Planning & Culture.
2)
That prior to final approval of the application, the owner enter into a registered
development agreement with the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to provide for the
following odour warning clause in all offers of purchase and sale and rental agreements for
the lots created:
"Due to its proximity to the Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant, projected odour levels
on this property may occasionally cause concern to some individuals."
The Region further advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions
of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and there may be
a Regional fee assessed for development agreements, if required.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objections with respect to this application.
Ms. D. Biuk advised that she was representing the applicant, her Father, and pointed out that she
was not representing the Planning Consultant Firm for which she works but rather was present to
represent family interests. She advised that prior to 1986 the subject lands were 2 separate lots;
however, title was taken in identical ownership at the time of purchase and, accordingly, the 2 lots
unintentionally merged into one. In 1998, she advised that the Committee had approved a similar
request for severance as that before the Committee this date, subject to 2 conditions which
included a minor variance application approval and that the taxes be paid. She noted that the
minor variance was approved and that the taxes were paid; however, her Father failed to provide
verification of payment of the taxes to the Secretary-Treasurer. Accordingly, he did not meet the
one year deadline to fulfil conditions resulting in the application deemed to be refused.
Mr. A. Galloway questioned if the minor variance previously granted would still apply given that
the severance did not proceed and Ms. J. Given responded that the variance granted would still
be valid.
Ms. Biuk advised that when it was discovered the severance could not proceed re-application
was made together with 3 new severance applications. She pointed out that all four severance
applications were considered by the Committee at its meeting held on March 21, 2000 and all
were refused. Ms. Biuk advised that the focus of discussion at the March 21st meeting had been
on the 3 new lots to be created rather than on the lands subject to this application. She further
pointed out that all four severance applications dealt with on March 21 st have been appealed to
the Ontario Municipal Board. Ms. Biuk stated that, in her opinion, this application in no way
prejudices the outcome of any hearing which may be held by the Board as they can still rule on 3
lots rather than 4 and this Committee is fully within its power under the Planning Act in
considering this application. She urged the Committee to keep in mind that it was only
happenstance that the proposed lots merged together. Ms. Biuk further advised that the existing
dwelling on the lands proposed to be severed is rented and the tenants have expressed an
interest in purchasing the severed parcel. She indicated that the tenants have patiently been
waiting for over 1 1/2 years while resolution to planning issues have been sought and pointed out
that one of the tenants, Mrs. Emonts, was also in attendance to support the application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 202 MAY 2, 2000
Ms. Biuk then referred to the staff report and advised that she was in agreement with the
recommendations contained therein with the exception of the condition relating to payment in lieu
of parkland dedication. She reiterated that this severance application was to recreate the
previously approved severance, pointing out that this condition was not applied in 1998 and
would be financially onerous to the applicant. She respectfully requested that this condition not
be applied should the application be approved. Ms. Biuk also referred to the Region's comments,
Submission No.: B 2000-028 (Cont'd)
noting that she had undertaken further discussions with the Region resulting in their revised
comments dated May 1, 2000. She stated that she was in agreement with the conditions outlined
in the Region's May 1st comments.
Mr. S. Grant then addressed the Committee and advised that he was representing a number of
residents in the area who were opposed to the application. He advised that the owner of a
neighbouring property at 1837 Old Mill Road, Mr. K. Heller and Ms. T. Weiss, were unable to
attend the hearing this date due to work commitments and Mr. Manuel Ferraz was also unable to
attend as he was out of the country at this time. Mr. Grant indicated that several other
neighbourhood residents were in attendance this date in opposition to the application.
Mr. Grant stated that, in his opinion, this severance application seeks to create the same parcel
that was considered and refused by the Committee at the March 21 st meeting. He pointed out
that he was not in agreement with comments of the Planning staff which imply that this
application was technically not the same as the retained parcel will now have a frontage of 69 ft.
as opposed to 60 ft. Mr. Grant provided a copy of a letter, together with maps attached, dated
January 28, 2000 from Mr. I. Biuk which was submitted for consideration relative to the
severances heard on March 21st. In Mr. Biuk's letter he advised that the applications had been
slightly revised and the equivalent severance, B 16/99, was also noted in the chart on Page 2 of
the letter. Mr. Grant invited the members to compare the plan submitted for severance
application B 16/99 with the plan submitted for the current application and suggested that both
were identical. Mr. Grant further stated that under the Planning Act, the appropriate course of
action if the applicant is not satisfied with the Committee's decision is to appeal to the Board,
which has been done. He further suggested that it is inappropriate for the applicant to continue to
seek a favourable decision from the Committee by re-applying until such time as that happens.
Mr. Grant noted that in the minutes of the March 21 st meeting the applicant's own Solicitor states
that B 16/99 is a reconfirmation of the previously approved severance and the applicant has
stated the same this date. In his opinion, he stated that bringing forward the same application
makes mockery of the Committee of Adjustment process and Mr. Grant suggested that the
application should not be dealt with; however, should the Committee decide to consider it, he
asked that regard be given to Section 51.24 (b) & (f) relating to prematurity of the proposed
subdivision and the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots. Mr. Grant expressed the
opinion that the application is premature in view of the appeal before the Board and to consider
this application would be prejudicial to the outcome of a Board hearing. If the application were
approved this date it would predispose 2 of the 5 lots and thereby limit the options of the Board in
consideration of the appeal. With regard to the dimension and shape of the lots, Mr. Grant
referred to slides and case law submitted at the March 21 st meeting and suggested that, while
the zoning permits the proposed lotting, the dwelling to be constructed on the retained lands
would be very close to the lot line and the configuration of the lots proposed are not compatible
with the existing area.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that he had participated in consideration of the applications heard on March
21st and recalled that one of the main concerns was that creating the proposed 4 lots would
impact development of lands on the other side of Drummond Drive as the owner of such lands
indicated he would have to also consider creating additional lots. Mr. P. Kruse stated that this
proposal seeks to create one new lot and did not see re-application as an abuse of the process.
Mr. Kruse indicated that he felt it would not prejudicially impact the appeal before the Board as
the Board would still have options for consideration.
Ms. J. Given referred to the previously approved minor variance and in terms of the depth of the
lot proposed, indicated that it was the same as all the others. She stated that this application is
really a technical severance to recreate the previously approved severance; however, staff are
treating the application as creating a new lot with applicable conditions to apply.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 203 MAY 2, 2000
Mr. P. Kruse requested staff to comment on the condition respecting payment in lieu of parkland
dedication and Ms. Given responded that when the first severance was considered additional
severances had been anticipated at which time parkland dedication would have been applied;
however, in hindsight staff should have applied this condition to the original severance. She
noted that the condition applies to each new lot created and it is clear that one new lot is to be
Submission No.: B 2000-028 (Cont'd)
created through this application. Accordingly, staff are of the opinion this condition is appropriate
for this application.
Ms. D. Biuk stated that she took exception to comments made by Mr. Grant that suggest re-
application makes a mockery of the process and assured that was not the intent of the applicant.
She referred to the comparison of plans and stated that they were not identical, pointing out that
while the severed parcel is the same the retained lands now have a 69 ft. frontage rather than the
previously proposed 60 ft. frontage. Again, she urged the Committee to keep in mind that it was
only by accident that, firstly, the two lots merged into one and, secondly, that the previously
approved severance lapsed. She asked that the applicant not be taken advantage of because of
these mistakes and stated that in reference to the previously approved severance the decision of
the Committee had been a logical one. Ms. Biuk advised that the severance application heard on
March 21st, being B 16/99, had been included in the appeal to the Board knowing that re-
application was to take place so as not to loose the opportunity for appeal. She further stated that
the proposed severance has no impact to Drummond Drive and misshapen lots are not
uncommon throughout the municipality. In an effort to develop a more regularly shaped lot, Ms.
Biuk advised that negotiations had been undertaken with the neighbouring property owner for
land exchanges; however, this was unsuccessful as the abutting owner had no interest in doing
SO.
Mr. A. Galloway recalled from discussions of the March 21st meeting that the area residents were
not in opposition to development based on the existing subdivision lines and questioned, if the
lots were developed as they now exist, if the residents would no longer be concerned. Mr. Grant
indicated this would be the case subject to adjustment to the rearyard of the lot directly west of
the property owned by Mr. Heller and Ms. Weiss. Ms. Biuk responded that to shift the rear lot line
southward would result in an even more misshapen lot and it was not practical to do so. She
pointed out that the Committee has already approved the rearyard and it is no different from other
corner lots having smaller frontages and larger sideyards or vice-versa. Ms. Biuk reiterated that
this is an historical lot previously approved by the Committee.
Mr. A. Galloway referred to Map 4 attached to the January 28th letter of Mr. Biuk and questioned
if that was the lot proposed. Ms. Biuk responded that the map showed the lot was 70 ft. across
the line abutting the retained lands plus an additional 23 ft. beyond in keeping with Block Plan 65.
Mr. Grant stated that Block Plan 65 only shows the basic configuration and pointed out that
Registered Plan 578 was the only legal document showing the lots on Old Mill Road. Mr. Grant
provided the Committee with a copy of the Registered Plan for review.
Ms. Biuk pointed out that the Registered Plan, while it is the only legal document, does not reflect
what was actually built on the site. She noted that the building, previously used as a church, was
very old and encroaches into the road allowance.
Mr. A. Galloway indicated that he had difficulty with conflicting opinions regarding the impact to
the appeals before the Board. Mr. P. Kruse stated that having heard all discussion he was
comfortable with the comments of staff, noting that all other lots have the same depth and that
trying to adjust the lot line would create an even less desirable lot configuration. Mr. Kruse felt
that approval of the application would not affect the appeals before the Board nor negate the
Board's ability to consider the appeals and was content to move approval of the application.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
That the application of Ivan Biuk Construction Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land having frontage on Old Mill Road of 28.3 m (93 ft.), by a depth of 19.2 m (63 ft.) and an area
of 544.3 m2 (5,859 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 100 and 101, Registered Plan 578, 1843 Old Mill Road,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 204 MAY 2, 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.
2. Submission No.: B 2000-028 (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 retained land.
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
General Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard
landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp on the severed lands.
That the owner shall enter into a modified subdivision agreement with the City of Kitchener
to be prepared by the City Solicitor to the satisfaction of the General Managers of Public
Works and Business and Planning Services, and registered on title of the retained lands;
said agreement shall include arrangements for performance securities and municipal
engineering services and shall include the following specific requirements:
a)
That the subdivider shall pay 100% of the cost of the construction of Drummond
Drive to full municipal standards including the cost of constructing a walkway
from Drummond Drive to Old Mill Road, and excluding the cost of sidewalks on
Drummond Drive, all to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public
Works. In the event the cost of certain road construction requirements is
assessed to abutting property owners as a result of a successful Local
Improvement Act petition, then the Subdivider shall be responsible for paying his
assessed costs under the Local Improvement Act and only the cost of any of
those works required above which are not able to be assessed under the Local
Improvement Act, if any.
b)
That the subdivider submit a Tree Management Plan for approval by the City's
General Manager of Business and Planning Services prior to any grading of the
lands, and agrees to implement all protection measures.
c)
That the subdivider prepare and submit a landscaped buffer plan affecting the
rear of the retained lot fronting Drummond Drive for approval by the City's
General Manager of Business and Planning Services prior to any grading of the
site. Such landscape plan shall include trees greater than 1.8 metres in height.
That the owner shall be responsible for installing such planting prior to the
occupancy of such lots to first time occupants or in the event of winter conditions,
by June 1st immediately following the transfer of such title.
d)
Unless the construction of Drummond Drive occurs by way of the Local
Improvement Act, the subdivider agrees to provide a water supply to the
satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works at the subdivider's
cost for all affected properties currently relying solely on a private water system,
located in the vicinity of Drummond Drive and Old Mill Road, in the event the
existing private water supply is disrupted and cut off as a result of the
development within two years of the completion and acceptance of Drummond
Drive.
That the owner shall withdraw its appeal of Consent Application B16/99 and that the
Department of Business and Planning Services be in receipt of a letter from the Ontario
Municipal Board acknowledging withdrawal of the appeal to B16/99.
That the owner shall submit an archaeological assessment for the retained parcel to the
Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for approval; a copy of the completed
assessment must be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Planning & Culture.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 205 MAY 2, 2000
That the owner shall enter into a registered development agreement with the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo to provide for the following odour warning clause in all offers of
purchase and sale and rental agreements for the lots created:
"Due to its proximity to the Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant, projected odour levels
on this property may occasionally cause concern to some individuals."
Submission No.: B 2000-028 (Cont'd)
Mr. S. Grant stated that the depths of the lots were not all equal and that the property directly
abutting the proposed lots has a frontage of 132 ft., rather than 63 ft. Ms. Biuk stated that the
majority of lots in the area have frontages of 63 ft.; however, this application proposes a frontage
of 93 ft.
Ms. J. Given advised that she wished to correct her earlier comments relative to the depth of the
lots, pointing out that a portion of the property at 1857 Old Mill Road juts into the retained parcel
with the remaining lots having a depth of 63 ft. Mr. Kruse indicated that this did not change his
opinion.
Mr. A. Galloway stated that he did not agree with approval of the application as he did not see
any difference from that which was refused at the March 21 st meeting and felt that the application
should be looked at in the context of the appeals to the Board. As the Committee appeared to be
split in its decision, Mr. Galloway enquired as to process. The Secretary advised that if the
decision was split, the motion would be lost on a tie vote and the application would be deemed to
have been refused.
Accordingly, the Chair declared the decision to be a tie vote and the application was deemed to
have been refused.
Ms. D. Biuk referred the Committee to Section 69.2 of the Planning Act which permits the
Committee to waive application fees and, as the decision was split, suggested that the least the
Committee could do would be to refund the fee and respectfully requested that the Committee do
SO.
Mr. A. Galloway requested staff to comment on Ms. Biuk's request and the Secretary advised the
Committee that costs to process this application had already been expended.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that he did not agree with Ms. Biuk's request as it was the applicant's choice
to bring the application forward and it was the responsibility of the Committee to make a decision.
In his opinion, Mr. Kruse stated that he believed the application had been considered
appropriately and there was no reason to refund the application fee. Mr. A. Galloway concurred
with Mr. Kruse's comments, noting that the applicant had proceeded knowing in advance that
only 2 members would hear the application and that this could potentially result in a split decision.
Accordingly, the Chair advised that the applicant's request for refund of the application fee was
denied.
Ms. D. Biuk questioned if the Committee's decision would have been different if the previous
Consent Application B 16/99 had not been included in the appeal to the Board and maintained
that consideration of this application was not a pre-emption of the matters before the Board. She
further advised that it was the applicants intent to completely withdraw Consent Application B
16/99 should this application be approved.
Mr. S. Grant respectfully suggested that the applicant was asking the Committee to reconsider its
decision and Mr. Galloway agreed, noting that the applicant had taken a risk in having the matter
considered this date knowing that only 2 members would be sitting to hear the application. Mr. P.
Kruse also agreed that it was a matter of choice by the applicant and that the Committee had
dealt with the application as best it could.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 206 MAY 2, 2000
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 2000-029
Alexandar & Lolita Paroski
140 Grand River Boulevard
Part Lot 7, Plan 868, designated as Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-
11136, also known as Part of Lot 53, German Company Tract,
designated as Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-11844
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. A. Paroski
140 Grand River Blvd.
Kitchener ON N2A4E3
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised 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 616.432 m2 (6,635.43
sq. ft.). The lands to be severed are proposed to be developed with a single detached dwelling
having frontage on Grand River Boulevard of 17.313 m (56.8 ft.), by a depth of 40.314 m
(132.26 ft.), and an area of 697.99 m2 (7,513.34 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 at 140 Grand River Boulevard are
requesting permission to sever the property and create a new lot for a single detached
dwelling. The proposed severed lot will have a frontage of 17.3 metres (56.8 feet) on Grand
River Boulevard and a lot area of 696.19 square metres (7,494 square feet). The proposed
severed lot is vacant.
The proposed retained lot at 140 Grand River Boulevard will have a frontage of 15.3 metres
(50.2 feet) and a lot area of 616.48 metres (6,636 square feet). The proposed retained lot is
occupied with a single detached dwelling. There are full services available on Grand River
Boulevard.
The Department is of the opinion that the subject consent application is appropriate as it allows
development in compliance with the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan. The lands in the
immediate area of the subject property are also zoned R-3 with similar sized lots and
developed with single detached dwellings. The property to the rear is zoned I-1 and is
developed with a religious institution.
Accordingly, the Department supports the severance application subject to the conditions listed
below.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B
2000-029 be approved subject to the following conditions:
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of
any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 207 MAY 2, 2000
2
That the owners pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park
dedication equal to 5% of the value of the severed land.
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 lands.
3. Submission No.: B 2000-029(Cont'd)
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 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 they have reviewed this application and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and there may be a Regional fee
assessed for development agreements, if required.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of this
application and inquired if Mr. Paroski had anything further to add. Mr. A. Paroski advised that
he had reviewed the staff report and had nothing further to add.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Alexandar & Lolita Paroski requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land having frontage on Grand River Boulevard of 17.313 m (56.8 ft.), by a depth of 40.314 m
(132.26 ft.), and an area of 697.99 m2 (7,513.34 sq. ft.), on Part Lot 7, Registered Plan 868,
designated as Part 1, Reference Plan 58R-11136, also known as Part of Lot 53, German
Company Tract, designated as Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-11844, 140 Grand River
Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
charges.
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 severed land.
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
General Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to
the severed lands.
That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's
General Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard
landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp on the severed and
retained lands.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 208 MAY 2, 2000
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being May 2, 2002.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
Submission No.: B 2000-029(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
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 2000-030, B 2000-031, B 2000-032
Activa Holdings Inc.
Strasburg Road at Huron Road
Lot 1, Registered Plan 1382, designated as Parts 1 to 5, Reference
Plan 58R-5114
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. M. Code, Consultant
50 Burnt Ember Court
Kitchener ON N2A3X4
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
Prior to consideration of these applications, Mr. M. Code advised the Committee that while he
was authorized as agent for Submission Nos. B 2000-031 and B 2000-032, he was not
authorized as agent for Submission No. B 2000-030. He pointed out that Mr. J. Griesbaum,
Activa Holdings Inc., had intended to be present this date to represent Submission No. B 2000-
030 but has been detained. In this regard, Mr. Code questioned, if it were possible for him to
have authorization faxed to the Secretary-Treasurer's office, if the Committee would consider
temporarily delaying consideration of these applications in order to allow Mr. Code to pursue this
option.
The Committee agreed with Mr. Code's request to delay consideration of the applications in order
to allow him an opportunity to obtain authorization to represent Submission No. B 2000-030.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 2000-033
1143836 Ontario Inc.
245 Strasburg Road
Part of Lot 9, Municipal Compiled Plan 1021 and Part of Lots 4 and 5,
Municipal Compiled Plan 1022, designated as Parts 1 and 2,
Reference Plan 58R-11063
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
None
None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 209 MAY 2, 2000
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
5. Submission No.: B 2000-033(Cont'd)
As no one was in attendance to support the application, the Committee agreed to defer this
application as requested by staff of Department of Business & Planning Services in their report
dated April 25, 2000. The reason for deferral is to allow staff an opportunity to resolve issues
relative to the site plan which will directly affect the appropriate severance lines.
By general consent, the Committee agreed to defer Consent Application, Submission No. B
2000-033, to the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 30, 2000.
The Committee then recessed the meeting, temporarily, at 11:50 a.m., in order to consider an
application for minor variance to the City of Kitchener's Fence By-law. This meeting reconvened at
12:10 p.m.
CONSENTS
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 2000-030, B 2000-031, B 2000-032
Activa Holdings Inc.
Strasburg Road at Huron Road
Lot 1, Registered Plan 1382, designated as Parts 1 to 5, Reference
Plan 58R-5114
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. M. Code, Consultant
50 Burnt Ember Court
Kitchener ON N2A3X4
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was provided with a letter from Mr. J. Griesbaum, Senior Vice-President and
General Manager, Activa Group, authorizing Mr. M. Code to act as agent for Consent Application,
Submission No. B 2000-030 on behalf of Activa Holdings Inc. Accordingly, the Committee
proceeded with consideration of all three applications.
With respect to Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-030, 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 49.7193 ha (122.85 ac). The lands to be severed will
have frontage on Strasburg Road of 371.48 m (1,218.76 ft.), by a depth of 398.249 m (1,306.59
ft.) and an area of 13.5278 ha (33.43 ac). In addition and with respect to Consent Applications,
Submission Nos. B 2000-031 & B 2000-032, the Committee was advised that the applicant is
requesting permission to create 2 new lots by severing 2 parcels of land and retaining a parcel of
land having an area of 2.3 ha (5.7 ac). The parcels to be severed will have frontage on Strasburg
Road and are proposed to be developed for business park use. The first parcel to be severed will
have frontage of 180.5 m (592.19 ft.), by an average depth of 460 m (1,364.83 ft.) and an area of
7.4 ha (18.3 ac). The second parcel to be severed will have frontage of 137 m (449.47 ft.), by a
depth of 244 m (800.52 ft.) and an area of 3.846 ha (9.5 ac). These applications are also in
conjunction with Consent Application B 2000-030.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 210 MAY 2, 2000
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject lands are located in the Huron Community, at the
northwest intersection of Huron Road and Strasburg Road, and are comprised of
approximately 63.25 hectares straddling the Middle Strasburg Creek. The lands immediately
abutting the Middle Strasburg Creek, including the creek corridor itself, provincially significant
wetlands, and a wooded area of pine plantation, are designated Open Space in the City's
Municipal Plan. The lands generally to the west and the south of the Middle Strasburg Creek
Submission Nos.: B 2000-030, B 2000-031, B 2000-032 (Cont'd)
are designated Low Rise Residential and the lands east of the creek, between the Open
Space designation and Strasburg Road are designated as Business Park.
Through application B2000-030, Activa Holdings Inc. is requesting consent to sever
approximately 13 hectares of land on the east side of the Middle Strasburg Creek, in order to
convey the parcel to Huron Woods Development Corporation for future business park
development. The proposed property boundary would generally follow the eastern boundary of
the woodland edge, as represented by the Open Space designation.
Through applications B2000-031 and B2000-032, Activa Holdings Inc. as current owner, on
behalf of the purchaser, Huron Woods Development Corporation, are requesting consent to sever
two smaller parcels from the initial severed parcel as shown on the attached plan. Parcel 1,
having a proposed area of 7.41 hectares would be sold to the City of Kitchener for future
business park development and Parcel 2, having a proposed area of 3.84 hectares would be
conveyed to Metokote Corporation for an industrial manufacturing use. Parcel 3, with a proposed
area of 2.31 hectares, would be retained by Huron Woods Development Corporation. Each of
the proposed severances conforms with the City's Municipal Plan and meets all requirements of
the Zoning By-law.
The boundaries of the proposed severed lots have been reviewed by the City and GRCA staff in
relation to the significant natural features associated with the Middle Strasburg Creek and
scheduled areas under the GRCA's Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation.
Of particular concern is the retention of a suitable buffer between future development and the
natural area, as well as the impact of future grading and site development activities on the
sensitive woodland edge. In this respect, the GRCA is recommending that the application be
revised so as to exclude a 0.0787 hectare portion from the northwest corner of the proposed
severed lands so as to provide a suitable buffer for the Provincially Significant Wetland.
Any future development on the proposed lots will require Site Plan Approval from the City of
Kitchener. As a condition of Site Plan Approval, the applicant will be required to prepare a Tree
Preservation/Enhancement Plan in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy and
Grading, Erosion and Siltation Control Plans for approval by the City. However, in order to
ensure that any grading that may take place in advance of a Site Plan Approval does not hinder
the ultimate protection of the woodland edge, it is recommended that a Detailed Vegetation Plan
be approved by the City's Principal Planner prior to any grading or construction on the lands.
The City of Kitchener will be completing the new alignment of Huron Road to the east of the
subject lands and re-constructing a portion of existing Huron Road adjacent to the subject lands
during the summer of 2000. In order to accommodate the ultimate lane configuration, intersection
design and road right-of-way for Huron Road west of Strasburg Road, a road widening will be
required to be dedicated to the City of Kitchener as a condition of the consent applications. The
extent of the proposed road widening is generally shown on the attached engineering drawing.
When Strasburg Road was constructed across the frontage of the subject lands, a portion of the
watermain service costs were front-end financed by Hallman Brierdale Limited, a nearby
landowner to the south of Huron Road. The Department of Business and Planning Services has
received a request on behalf of Hallman Brierdale Limited to impose a condition of approval for
the Consent applications, requiring the applicant to re-imburse Hallman Brierdale for a portion of
the non-development charge costs associated with those front ended services. However, it is not
the City's practice to collect for non-development charge related costs of services that were front-
end financed by developers who required such services in advance of the City's normal capital
budgeting process.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 211 MAY 2, 2000
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application
B2000-030, as revised to exclude a 0.0787 hectare triangle from the northwest corner of the
proposed lands to be severed, as shown on the attached plan, be approved, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Submission Nos.: B 2000-030, B 2000-031, B 2000-032 (Cont'd)
That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, if not already
completed as a condition for Consent Applications B2000-031 and B2000-032, to be
registered against the lands to be severed, in which the owner shall agree to prepare a
Detailed Vegetation Plan for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree
Management Policy to be approved by the City's Principal Planner prior to any grading or
construction on the lands or prior to the issuance of building permits.
To convey to the City of Kitchener, if not already completed as a condition of Consent
Applications B2000-031 and B2000-032, a road widening along the Huron Road frontage,
to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works.
The Department of Business and Planning Services also recommends that Consent Application
B2000-031 and Consent Application B2000-032, as revised to exclude a 0.0787 hectare triangle
from the northwest corner of the proposed lands to be severed, as shown on the attached plan,
be approved, subject to the following conditions:
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, if not already
completed as a condition for Consent Application B2000-030, to be registered against the
lands to be severed, in which the owner shall agree to prepare a Detailed Vegetation Plan
for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy to be
approved by the City's Principal Planner prior to any grading or construction on the lands
or prior to the issuance of building permits.
To convey to the City of Kitchener, if not already completed as a condition of Consent
Application B2000-030, a road widening along the Huron Road frontage, to the satisfaction
of the City's General Manager of Public Works.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which they advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to these applications.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of
Waterloo with respect to Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-030, in which they
advised that a preliminary archaeological assessment indicates the property shows a
moderate to high potential for the recovery of archaeological remains. In accordance with
Policy 6.2.10 in the Regional Official Policies Plan, an archaeological assessment will be
required on the part of the severed parcel that was not subject to an earlier archeological
assessment.
Regional staff understand the proposed severed lands are proposed to be developed as a
business park and that the lands proposed to be retained are subject to a plan of subdivision.
The lands proposed to be retained will require a noise study to address noise impacts from
Strasburg Road if a residential development is proposed in the future. For your information, if a
residential development is proposed on the retained lands in the future, Regional staff may have
concerns related to noise and land use compatibility.
Regional staff have no objection to the application subject to the following condition:
1)
That prior to final approval of the application, the owner submit an archaeological
assessment for the part of the severed parcel that has not been assessed to the Ministry
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 212 MAY 2, 2000
of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for approval. A copy of the completed assessment
must be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of Planning & Culture.
The Committee also noted comments of the Department of Planning & Culture, Region of
Waterloo, respecting Consent Applications, Submission Nos. B 2000-030 and B 2000-032, in
which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the above-noted application in conjunction
with application B 2000-030 and have no objection to these applications subject to the condition
required for application B 2000-030.
Submission Nos.: B 2000-030, B 2000-031, B 2000-032 (Cont'd)
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 and there may be a Regional fee assessed for development
agreements, if required.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority with respect to
Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-030 in which they advised that they recommend
that the application be approved conditional upon the submission of a revised severance sketch
illustrating the lot line adjustment as shown in a sketch dated April 27, 2000 prepared by Mel
Code, Consultant. The retained parcel contains a portion of the Strasburg Creek Wetland
Complex, Strasburg Creek and the Upper Strasburg Scheduled Area. We have previously
reviewed a Scoped Environmental Impact Study for the subject property prepared by Howes-
Jones & Associates (1198). We have conducted a site visit and have confirmed in the field the
appropriate wetland buffer required for the severed parcel. The north-western lot line for the
severed parcel will be at the "no touch" wetland buffer limit. The severed parcel will contain the
Upper Strasburg Creek Scheduled Area, therefore any placement of fill or grading will require the
prior issuance of a permit application pursuant to Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93,
669/94 and 142/98.
The Committee also noted comments from the Grand River Conservation Authority with respect
to Consent Applications, B 2000-031 & B 2000-032 in which they advised that they recommend
these applications be approved conditional upon the submission of a revised severance sketch
illustrating the lot line adjustment as shown in a sketch dated April 27, 2000 prepared by Mel
Code, Consultant. Parcel 1 is adjacent to the Strasburg Creek Wetland Complex. We have
previously reviewed a Scoped Environmental Impact Study for the subject property prepared by
Howes-Jones & Associates (1998). We have conducted a site visit and have confirmed in the
field the appropriate wetland buffer required for the severed parcel. The north-western lot line for
Parcel 1 will be at the "no touch" wetland buffer limit. Please note that it appears that a small
portion of the retained parcel will contain the Upper Strasburg Scheduled Area. In addition, a
small portion of the severed parcels will also contain the Upper Strasburg Scheduled Area.
Therefore, any placement of fill or grading on the retained or severed parcels will require the prior
issuance of a permit application pursuant to Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93,
669/94 and 142/98.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of all 3
consent applications subject to certain conditions and enquired if Mr. Code had anything further
to add. Mr. M. Code advised that he had reviewed the staff comments and was in agreement
with the recommendations contained therein.
The Chair requested clarification that the first severance, B 2000-030, was to sever the parcel as
a whole and the subsequent applications, B 2000-031 and B 2000-032 would be further
severances of the first parcel. Mr. M. Code responded that was correct.
Mr. P. Kruse stated that he was prepared to move approval of all 3 consent applications and
questioned if the Regional condition with respect to submission of an archaeological assessment
outlined in the Region's comments for Submission No. B 2000-030, should also apply to the
remaining two applications. In this regard, Ms. J. Given stated that it should apply to all 3 as it
was not guaranteed that Submission No. B 2000-030 would be completed ahead of the other 2
consents; however, she further suggested that the condition as attached to Submission Nos. B
2000-031 and B 2000-032 be modified to include wording to the effect "if not already completed".
The Committee concurred with this suggestion.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 213 MAY 2, 2000
Consent B 2000-030
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having frontage on Strasburg Road of 371.48 m (1,218.76 ft.), by a depth of 398.249 m (1,306.59
ft.) and an area of 13.5278 ha (33.43 ac), on Lot 1, Registered Plan 1382, designated as Parts 1
Submission Nos.: B 2000-030, B 2000-031, B 2000-032 (Cont'd)
to 5, Reference Plan 58R-5114, Strasburg Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, as revised
to exclude a 0.787 ha (1.94 ac) triangle from the northwest corner of the severed lands as shown
on the sketch submitted by Mel Code, Consultant, dated April 27, 2000, and subject to the
following conditions:
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, if not already
completed as a condition for Consent Applications B2000-031 and B2000-032, to be
registered against the lands to be severed, in which the owner shall agree to prepare a
Detailed Vegetation Plan for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree
Management Policy to be approved by the City's Principal Planner prior to any grading or
construction on the lands or prior to the issuance of building permits.
That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, if not already completed as a
condition of Consent Applications B2000-031 and B2000-032, a road widening along the
Huron Road frontage, to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works.
That, if not already completed as a condition of Consent Applications B 2000-031 and B
2000-032, the owner shall submit an archaeological assessment for the part of the
severed parcel that has not been assessed to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and
Recreation for approval; a copy of the completed assessment must be forwarded to the
Regional Commissioner of Planning & Culture.
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 May 2, 2002.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Consent B 2000-031
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having frontage on Strasburg Road of 137 m (449.47 ft.), by a depth of 244 m (800.52 ft.) and an
area of 3.846 ha (9.5 ac), on Lot 1, Registered Plan 1382, designated as Parts 1 to 5, Reference
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 214 MAY 2, 2000
Plan 58R-5114, Strasburg Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following
conditions:
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
1. Submission Nos.:
B 2000-030, B 2000-031, B 2000-032 (Cont'd)
That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, if not already
completed as a condition for Consent Application B2000-030, to be registered against the
lands to be severed, in which the owner shall agree to prepare a Detailed Vegetation Plan
for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy to be
approved by the City's Principal Planner prior to any grading or construction on the lands
or prior to the issuance of building permits.
That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, if not already completed as a
condition of Consent Application B2000-030, a road widening along the Huron Road
frontage, to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works.
That the owner shall submit, if not already completed as a condition of Consent Application
B 2000-030, an archaeological assessment for the part of the severed parcel that has not
been assessed to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for approval; a copy
of the completed assessment must be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of
Planning & Culture.
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 May 2, 2002.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Consent B 2000-032
Moved by Mr. P. Kruse
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Activa Holdings Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having frontage on Strasburg Road of 180.5 m (592.19 ft.), by an average depth of 460 m
(1,364.83 ft.) and an area of 7.4 ha (18.3 ac), on Lot 1, Registered Plan 1382, designated as
Parts 1 to 5, Reference Plan 58R-5114, Strasburg Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, as
revised to exclude a 0.787 ha (1.94 ac) triangle from the northwest corner of the severed lands as
shown on the sketch submitted by Mel Code, Consultant, dated April 27, 2000, and subject to the
following conditions:
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for
payment of any outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 215 MAY 2, 2000
That the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Kitchener, if not already
completed as a condition for Consent Application B2000-030, to be registered against the
lands to be severed, in which the owner shall agree to prepare a Detailed Vegetation Plan
for the severed lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy to be
approved by the City's Principal Planner prior to any grading or construction on the lands
or prior to the issuance of building permits.
Submission Nos.:
B 2000-030, B 2000-031, B 2000-032 (Cont'd)
That the owner shall convey to the City of Kitchener, if not already completed as a
condition of Consent Application B2000-030, a road widening along the Huron Road
frontage, to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works.
That the owner shall submit, if not already completed as a condition of Consent Application
B 2000-030, an archaeological assessment for the part of the severed parcel that has not
been assessed to the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation for approval; a copy
of the completed assessment must be forwarded to the Regional Commissioner of
Planning & Culture.
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 May 2, 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.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 2nd day of May, 2000.
Carried
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment