HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2000-05-30COA\2000-05-30
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
CITY OF KITCHENER
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD MAY 30, 2000
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. S. Campbell and Messrs. B. Dahms and A. Galloway.
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Mr. L. Masseo, Intermediate Planner, Mr. G. Richardson, Planner, Mr. J.
Willmer, Manager of Development and Design and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-
Treasurer.
Mr. B. Dahms, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of May 2, 2000, as mailed to the
members, be accepted.
Carried
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
CONSENT
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 & 5,
Municipal Compiled Plan 1022, Parts 1 & 2, Reference Plan 58R-
11063.
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. B. Toderian
MHBC Planning Limited
171 Victoria Street North
Kitchener ON N2H 5C5
Mr. P. Griffis
c/o 1143836 Ontario Inc.
462 Wellington Street West
Unit 401
Toronto ON M5V 1E3
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
At the Committee's meeting held on May 2, 2000, it was agreed to defer this application to the
meeting this date at the request of staff of the Department of Business and Planning Services to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 217 MAY 30, 2000
allow issues to be resolved relative to the site plan which may directly affect the appropriate
severance lines.
Submission No.: B 2000-033 (Cont'd)
The Committee was previously advised that the lands involved in this application were also the
subject of previous Consent Applications B 118/97 & B 119/97, allowing for the creation of 3
separate parcels on the subject lands as approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. The applicant
is now requesting permission to create 1 additional new lot by further severing a parcel of land
from 1 of the 3 parcels to be created under the 1997 applications. The lands involved in this
application are bounded by the K-W Expressway (ramp) and Ottawa Street South, with the lands
to be retained located closest to the Expressway ramp and having an area of 3.873 ha (9.57 ac).
The lands to be severed are proposed to be developed for restaurant use with frontage on
Ottawa Street South of 90.105 m (295.62 ft.), by an average depth of 58 m (190.28 ft.) and an
area of 0.407 ha (1.006 ac). In addition, the applicant is requesting several shared right-of-ways
for the purpose of access to both Ottawa Street South and Strasburg Road over both the lands to
be retained and the lands to be severed, in favour of each other and each of the other parcels to
be created under the 1997 applications.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services dated
April 25, 2000, in which they requested deferral of this application for the reasons stated above.
The Committee noted revised comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services
dated May 25, 2000, in which they advised that staff previously provided comments on this
application (dated April 25, 2000) for consideration at the May 2, 2000, meeting. The application
was deferred at that meeting pending resolution of site plan issues. The severance plan
submitted with the original application has been modified by letter and severance plan dated May
23, 2000, to indicate a revised location of the proposed lot lines and rights-of-way and
easements. Staff provide the following comments based on this revised application.
The owner proposes to sever a property for the development of a restaurant, more specifically
known as a "Montana's". Approval is also being requested for a number of rights-of-way and
easements in favour of the retained lands and other lands created through past consent
approvals.
The subject lands form part of a larger property intended for the development of a large
commercial development, including a food store, hardware store, and future uses. The lands
were the subject of Ontario Municipal Board hearings on November 22, 1999, and February 14,
2000, which dealt with a Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law amendment, as well as two consent
applications (file no.'s B 118/97 and B 119/97). As a result, the Board approved the proposed
use of part of the subject lands as a food store with a maximum gross floor area of 7500 square
metres and approved the creation of three separate lots for the food store, hardware store, and
future commercial uses. Endorsement of the deeds relative to these lots has yet to be
completed, so the lots do not yet exist.
Since the May 2, 2000, meeting, the owner has refined the site plan relative to the boundaries of
the proposed lot. Review of the site plan for the retained lands is on going and it is expected that
this site plan will be finalized shortly.
Rights-of-way and easements are intended to be provided across several parts as shown on the
revised severance plan dated May 23, 2000, and detailed in the following list (clauses a to b are
parts requested by the owner; clause c is an additional part recommended by staff):
a)
The proposed lot to be severed would comprise Parts 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, and have an area
of 0.413 hectares. Rights-of-way for access in favour of the retained lands (Parts 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5) will be provided across Parts 7 and 8. Rights-of-way for access will also be
provided for the retained lands (Parts 1 through 5 inclusive) and Parts 11 through 16 (two
other parcels on the plaza site) across Part 9. The severed lands will have an area of
0.413 hectares. Part 10 represents a servicing easement in favour of Parts 14 to 16.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 218 MAY 30, 2000
Submission No.: B 2000-033 (Cont'd)
b)
The proposed lot to be retained would comprise Parts 1 through 5, inclusive, and would
have an area of 3.792 acres. Rights-of-way for access in favour of Parts 6 through 16 will
be provided across Part 2. Rights-of-way for access in favour of Parts 11 through 16 will
also be provided across Part 3. Finally, rights-of-way for access will be provided in favour
of Parts 6 through 10 across Part 4. Part 5 represents a servicing easement in favour of
Parts 14 to 16.
c)
In addition to these rights-of-way, staff recommend that an additional right-of-way be
provided across Parts 12 and 13 in favour of Parts 6 through 10. This would allow access
for the restaurant from Strasburg Road, as well as to Ottawa Street.
Road widening is required to be conveyed to the Region in order to accommodate necessary
road improvements. Parts 17 and 19 on the lands to be retained, and Part 20 on the lands to be
severed must be conveyed to the Region for this purpose. It is intended that these parts be
conveyed to the Region as part of the site plan approval process.
Recent discussions with the owner reveal that the site plan proposed for the restaurant and
hardware store have reached a stage where the configuration of the lot lines for the restaurant
site are now well established. While typically staff and committee prefer all site plan details to be
finalized prior to any committee decisions, staff consider that approval of the severance
application and accompanying rights-of-way and easements should not compromise the final
stages of the site plan process. The only likely revision that may still occur is to the precise
configuration of the easterly limit of Part 4, and in this respect, this portion of the part has not
been precisely dimensioned to allow for minor changes if necessary subject to approval of the
Principal Planner.
The revised proposed consent application provides for an additional, appropriate use of the
subject lands, allows for the logical configuration of access and parking, and provides required
rights-of-way for access and easements for servicing. Staff recommend that submission B 2000-
033, as amended, be approved.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission B
2000-033, as amended by letter and severance plan dated May 23, 2000, subject to the following
conditions:
That a draft reference plan for the proposed right-of-ways for access and easements for
servicing be prepared in accordance with the 'Severance Plan' dated May 23, 2000, as
detailed in the comments of the Planning Division dated May 23, 2000, and that the draft
reference plan be submitted to the City's Principal Planner for approval and subsequently
deposited on title.
That a draft reference plan reflecting easements for servicing between the severed lands
and any other lands be submitted to the City's Principal Planner for approval and
subsequent deposit on title.
That any documents related to the creation of the rights-of-way and easements shall be
submitted to the City Solicitor for approval prior to registration.
That a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, be registered
against title of all the severed and retained lands, and other lands created under
Submissions B 118/97 and B 119/97, to ensure that provision is made for the maintenance
of all common services and accesses and that the rights-of-way for access and easements
for servicing are maintained in perpetuity.
That the deeds relative to Submissions B 118/97 and B 119/97 be first endorsed and the
lots registered prior to the endorsement of the deed for Submission B 2000-033.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 219 MAY 30, 2000
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
1. Submission No.: B 2000-033 (Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building dated April 18, 2000, in which he
advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
No further comments were forthcoming from the Building Division.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning and Culture Department, Region of
Waterloo, dated April 27, 2000 and as reiterated in their comments dated May 25, 2000, in which
they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application for the creation of one additional
lot and right-of-way and understand that the appropriate access right-of-way appear to be
undertaken through this application. For your information the majority of the transportation issues
related to the development of these lands are being addressed through previous applications.
Regional staff have no concerns with the application provided that the appropriate access right-
of-way issues are addressed. Any future development on the lands subject to the above-noted
consent application will be subject to the provisions of Regional Development Charge By-law 99-
038, or any successor thereof. Applicants are also advised that there may be a Regional fee
assessed for development agreements if required.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority dated April 27,
2000, in which they advised that they have no objections or concerns with respect to this
application. No further comments were forthcoming from the Grand River Conservation Authority.
The Committee noted the written submission of Mr. B. Toderian dated May 23, 2000, in which he
advised that since our original application, the applicant has been having ongoing discussions
with City staff and tenants relating to the site plan for the commercial development on the subject
property. These negotiations with staff have required reconsideration of issues relating to access,
easements, property lines and shared rights-of-way, and corresponding amendments to our
original application. I am writing to make the Committee of Adjustment aware of the requested
changes.
The revised severance sketch shows the new lot to be severed (Parts 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) with a
new area of .413 hectares. Parts 7 and 8 will act as a rights-of-way in favour of the ownership of
Parts 1 through 5 (the lot to be retained). Part 9 represents a shared right-of-way in favour of
Parts 1 through 5, as well as Parts 11 through 16. Part 10 represents a servicing easement.
The new lot to be retained (Parts 1 through 5) will have an area of 3.792 ha. Part 2 will be a
shared right-of-way in favour of the ownership of Part 6 through 16. Part 3 will be a shared right-
of-way in favour of the ownership of Parts 11 through 16. Part 4 will be a shared right-of-way in
favour of the ownership of Parts 6 through 10. Part 5 represents a servicing easement.
Overall, Parts 2, 3, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 relate to rights-of-way allowing general access
throughout the site in question, and facilitating movement from various parts of the overall existing
property to both Ottawa Street and Strasburg Road. Parts 4, 7 and 8 relate to shared rights-of-
way for access lanes to be shared by the lot to be severed and the lot to be retained through this
severance application.
The Committee noted a further written submission from Mr. B. Toderian dated May 29, 2000, in
which he advised that since our letter to you dated May 23, 2000, our client has had additional
discussions with the intended purchaser of the lot to be retained (Parts 1 through 5 on the May
23, 2000 and May 29, 2000 severance plans). These discussions have resulted in a further
revision, which I am advised will be the last, as the purchaser is now satisfied with the site plan
design. I apologize to the Committee of Adjustment for the "fluid" nature of this application and
beg the Committee' s indulgence at your meeting on May 30th so that we may fully explain the
nature of this final severance plan.
I have attached a revised severance plan dated May 29, 2000. This plan shows the lot to be
severed as Parts 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 with a total area of 0.412 hectares. Parts 7 and 8 will act as
rights-of-way in favour of the ownership of Parts 1 through 5 (the lot to be retained). Part 9
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 220 MAY 30, 2000
represents a shared right-of-way in favour of Parts 1 through 5, as well as Parts 11 through 16.
Part 10 represents a servicing easement for storm water management overland flow in favour of
the ownership of Part 14.
Submission No.: B 2000-033 (Cont'd)
The new lot to be retained (Parts 1 through 5) will have an area of 3.793 hectares. Part 2 will be
a shared right-of-way in favour of the ownership of Parts 6 through 16. Part 3 will be a shared
right-of-way in favour of the ownership of Parts 11 through 16. Part 4 will be a shared right-of-
way in favour of the ownership of Parts 6 through 10. Part 5 again represents a servicing
easement for storm water management overland flow in favour of the ownership of Part 14.
In addition to the above, in keeping with the previously approved consent by the Ontario
Municipal Board, Parts 12 and 13 (not subject to this application) will act as rights-of-way in
favour of Parts 1 through 10, and Part 14 through 16.
The Chair referred to the May 29th written submission of Mr. B. Toderian, received this date, and
requested Mr. Toderian to provide explanation as to the details of the revised request.
Mr. B. Toderian made apologies to the Committee for the last minute revisions; however, advised
that the proposal now before the Committee was representative of a great deal of hard work and
detailed planning through numerous discussions with City staff regarding the site plan. He further
advised that the applicant is satisfied with the site plan and no further revisions are proposed.
The Chair requested clarification of the two sketches submitted with the May 29th letter and Mr.
Toderian advised that the sketch labelled "Severance Plan" and dated May 29, 2000, was the
final version of the proposed severance to this application. The second sketch labelled "Site
Plan" was provided to assist the Committee in obtaining a better sense of the parcel of land
involved in the severance in deference to the subject lands as a whole.
The Chair enquired if the newest revisions had been discussed with staff and Mr. Toderian
advised that they had, pointing out that a member of Planning staff, Mr. G. Richardson, was also
in attendance this date to assist with any questions the Committee may have.
Mr. B. Toderian then provided a brief history of the subject site, pointing out that previous
consents dating back to 1997 had been approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in March 2000.
This approval created one lot to be retained and two new lots to be severed. He advised that the
application this date is to further sever one of the two previously severed parcels, with the lot to
be retained identified as Parts 1 to 5 inclusive on the severance plan and the parcel to be severed
as Parts 6 to 10 inclusive. Mr. Toderian pointed out that a number of rights-of-way and
easements are also proposed, which were reviewed in detail with the Committee. Mr. Toderian
further advised that the servicing easements over Parts 5 and 10 should be revised to be in
favour of Parts 11 to 13 inclusive as well as Parts 14 to 16 inclusive.
The Chair enquired if staff had any concerns with respect to private easements and Mr.
Richardson advised that the Region requested the easements as proposed as they do not want
the easements to be contained within the right-of-way (Ottawa Street).
The Chair referred to the original severance plan submitted with the application and noted that
the shape of Part 4 has changed as detailed on the May 29th severance plan. The Chair
enquired if it was intended to amend the application to reflect the May 29th severance plan and
Mr. Toderian responded that was correct.
Mr. G. Richardson advised that he wished to revise the May 25th comments of the Department of
Business and Planning Services to reflect the revisions proposed as a result of the May 29th
severance plan. Accordingly, the following revisions were noted for the record:
· Paragraph 5 on Page 1 of the report is revised by changing the date in the second line from
May 23, 2000 to May 29, 2000.
Subclause a) on Page 1 of the report is revised by changing the figure 0.413 ha in the second
last line to 0.412 ha and by adding the phrase "Parts 11 to 13 and" ahead of the phrase "Parts
14 to 16" in the last line.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 221 MAY 30, 2000
Submission No.: B 2000-033 (Cont'd)
Subclause b) on Page 1 and 2 is revised by changing the figure 3.792 ac in the first line on
Page 2 to 3.793 ac and by adding the phrase "Parts 11 to 13 and" ahead of the phrase "Parts
14 to 16" in the last line on Page 2 of the report.
· Condition 1 on Page 2 of the report is revised by changing the date in the third line from May
23, 2000 to May 25, 2000.
Mr. Richardson advised that all other conditions remain the same and that, while approval has not
yet been given, staff are satisfied with the site plan as now proposed. Accordingly, staff are
comfortable with supporting approval of this application. Mr. Richardson pointed out that a further
request is also to be made to the Ontario Municipal Board to consider an amendment to the
previously approved consents respecting Part 14; however, this has no impact on this application.
The Chair enquired if the Committee should impose a condition of approval with respect to this
matter and Mr. Richardson advised this was not necessary as the Ontario Municipal Board had
authority to deal with the matter.
The Chair further enquired if the Committee should impose a condition of approval relative to the
site plan being finally approved and both staff and the applicant agreed to including this as a
condition of approval.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of 1143836 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to convey a parcel of land
having frontage on Ottawa Street South of 111.7 m (366.47 ft.) and an area of 0.412 ha (1.018
ac); and to grant the following rights-of-way and easements, namely:
rights-of-way for access over:
Parts 7 and 8 in favour of Parts 1 to 5 inclusive;
Part 9 in favour of Parts 1 to 5 inclusive and Parts 11 to 16 inclusive;
Part 2 in
Part 3 in
Part 4 in
Parts 12
favour of Parts 6 to 16 inclusive;
favour of Parts 11 to 16 inclusive;
favour of Parts 6 to 10 inclusive;
and 13 in favour of Parts 6 to 10 inclusive;
with all parts as shown on the severance plan dated May 29, 2000;
servicing easements over:
Part 10 in favour of Parts 11 to 16 inclusive;
Part 5 in favour of Parts 11 to 16 inclusive;
with all parts as shown on the severance plan dated May 29, 2000;
on 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 on Reference Plan 58R-11063, 245 Strasburg Road,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
That a draft reference plan for the proposed rights-of-way for access and easements for
servicing shall be prepared in accordance with the severance plan dated May 29, 2000,
as detailed in the comments of the Planning Division dated May 25, 2000, and that the
draft reference plan shall be submitted to the City's Principal Planner for approval and
subsequently deposited on title.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 222 MAY 30, 2000
That a draft reference plan reflecting easements for servicing between the severed
lands and any other lands shall be submitted to the City's Principal Planner for approval
and subsequently deposited on title.
1. Submission No.: B 2000-033 (Cont'd)
That any documents related to the creation of the rights-of-way and easements shall be
submitted to the City Solicitor for approval prior to registration.
That a joint maintenance agreement, to be approved by the City Solicitor, shall be
registered against title of all the severed and retained lands, and other lands created
under Submissions B 118/97 and B 119/97, to ensure that provision is made for the
maintenance of all common services and accesses and that the rights-of-way for access
and easements for servicing are maintained in perpetuity.
That the deeds relative to Submissions B 118/97 and B 119/97 shall be first endorsed
and the lots registered prior to the endorsement of the deed for Submission B 2000-033.
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 approval of Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-033, shall be in
accordance with the site plan finally approved under Site Plan Application No. SP
99/38/S/GR.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being May 30, 2002.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
The Committee then recessed the meeting temporarily, at 9:45 a.m. in order to consider applications for
minor variance to the City of Kitchener's Fence By-law. This meeting reconvened at 10:05 a.m.
APPLICATIONS
MINOR VARIANCE
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 2000-028
Walter Guderian
235 Louisa Street
Part of Lots 324 & 325,
Reference Plan 58R-9500
Plan 376, designated as Parts 3 & 4 on
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. W. Guderian
c/o Delta Elevator Co. Ltd.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 223 MAY 30, 2000
97 St. Leger Street
Kitchener ON N2H 6R6
Contra: None
1. Submission No.: A2000-028 (Cont'd)
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to change the existing
legal non-conforming use on the subject property from Auto Repair Service to Tradesman or
Contractors Establishment, Warehouse or Repair Service.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject property has historically been used for various
industrial/commercial uses when the property was zoned Light Industrial, prior to 1994. The
present zoning is Residential Six (R-6). The only legal non-conforming use the property still
enjoys is "repair of motor vehicles", which has existed continuously since the property was
rezoned to residential.
The lot contains two buildings, a 1 storey stucco building and a stucco "barn" which are unsuited
to conversion to residential uses. In 1994, the property received consent approval to sever it from
231 Louisa Street, to the west.
The key considerations in determining the appropriateness of a change in legal, non-conforming
use are the extent to which the new use is more compatible with the neighbourhood or more in
keeping with the permitted uses and the extent to which it may perpetuate the legal, non-
conforming status of the property. The owner has indicated that the property has been for sale
for some time and he is having considerable difficulty in selling it for a permitted use. The
application is requesting consideration of a few options: tradesman or contractor's establishment,
warehouse or repair service in hopes of attracting a purchaser. He has indicated that any of
these uses would be well suited to the buildings. Staff are of the opinion that any of the proposed
uses are more desirable from neighbourhood impact perspective than auto repair, which has
associated noise and odour issues. One qualification to that point is that the repair of certain
types of motorized equipment could pose a noise problem in a residential area, and as such, staff
would limit the type of goods which could be repaired.
Further, each of the uses have relatively Iow parking requirements (warehouse is extremely Iow)
for which the required parking can be accommodated on site. The property enjoys the benefit of
having access from both Louisa Street and a rear lane.
Finally, the conversion of the property to a use permitted in R-6 is not jeopardized by the change
to these uses. If anything, its occupancy by "cleaner" uses may make it more appealing for the
installation of a dwelling unit within one of the buildings, affording it to be operated as a type of
"home business"/"incubator industry".
Accordingly, staff would recommend approval of permitting a change in legal, non-conforming
use on the property from auto repair to tradesman or contractor's establishment, warehouse or
repair service as limited in the recommendation below.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
2000-028 to change the legal, non-conforming use from "motor vehicle repair" to "tradesman or
contractor's establishment", "warehouse" or "repair service (save and except the repair of those
goods having a combustion engine).
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no comments or concerns with respect to this application.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 224 MAY 30, 2000
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and may require the payment of
Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Submission No.: A2000-028 (Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised they have no comments or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending the application be
approved and enquired if Mr. Guderian had anything further to add. Mr. W. Guderian advised
that he had received the staff reports 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 Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Walter Guderian requesting permission to change the existing legal non-
conforming use from motor vehicle repair service to tradesman or contractor's establishment,
warehouse or repair service (save and except the repair of those goods having a combustion
engine), on Part of Lots 324 and 325, Plan 376, designated as Parts 3 & 4 on Reference Plan
58R-9500, 235 Louisa Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 2000-029
Rick Soetemans
1121 Glasgow Street
Part Lot 70, Plan 1780, designated as Parts 9, 11,
Reference Plan 58R-10275
16 & 20
on
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. R. Soetemans
1121 Glasgow Street
Kitchener ON N2N 3H4
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a deck at the
rear of the dwelling together with a walkway having an easterly sideyard setback of 0.45 m (1.5
ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the subject property located on the southerly side of Glasgow Street, east of
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 225 MAY 30, 2000
Resurrection Drive and west of Fischer-Hallman Road, in the area commonly known as Glasgow
Heights. A two-storey single family dwelling with a walkout basement was built on the property in
the spring of 1999. On the easterly side of the dwelling, a side door was installed 2.4 metres (8
feet) above the finished grade. The height at which this door was installed makes it currently
inaccessible from the outside.
Submission No.: A2000-029 (Cont'd)
The applicant wishes to construct an elevated deck at the rear of the house, which would wrap
around the easterly side of the house to provide access to and from the side door. The proposed
side deck would be approximately 1.2 metres (4 feet) in width, 2.4 metres (8 feet) above the
finished grade and built with an approximately 1.5 metre (5 feet) privacy rail. A staircase with a
width of 1.2 metres (4 feet) would be constructed from the back easterly corner of the deck to
ground level.
Application for minor variance is required, as the resultant setback from the easterly side lot line
of the proposed side deck would be 0.46 metres (1.5 feet) whereas the R-4 Zone requires a
minimum side yard requirement of 1.2 metres (3.94 feet) for a deck greater than 0.6 metres (2
feet) in height.
In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in the Planning Act, staff offers the
following comments in relation to the requested variance.
The raised side deck is appropriate development for the subject property with respect to its
proposed location next to the adjacent dwelling. The easterly adjacent property (117 Glasgow
Street) has been constructed with a 0.10 metre (0.3 feet) setback from the shared lot line and has
a 1.5 metre (4.9 feet) maintenance easement on the applicant's property. The proposed side
deck would not interfere with the neighbour's ability to access the maintenance easement since
the deck would be located to the rear of the easement (towards the backyard). The side deck
would be located next to the open rear yard of the neighbouring property and would be
constructed with a 1.5 metres (5 feet) privacy rail. The proposed deck, therefore, would not have
a greater impact on the neighbouring property than a raised deck with the proper setbacks.
The construction of the proposed deck is desirable from the perspective of the owner, to provide
access to and from this side door. As the proposed side deck meets all other zoning
requirements and the effects of the variance will be minor, the general intent of the Zoning By-law
and Municipal Plan will be maintained.
Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of a
variance to permit the applicant to construct an elevated side deck with a side walkway on the
easterly side of the dwelling.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that minor variance application
A 2000-029 be approved, to permit an elevated side deck with a reduction of the minimum interior
side yard requirement from 1.2 metres (3.93 feet) to 0.46m (1.5 feet).
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building
permit is required for construction of the new deck and walkway.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and may require the payment of
Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised they have no comments or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending the application be
approved subject to a building permit being obtained and enquired if Mr. Soetemans had anything
further to add. Mr. R. Soetemans advised that he had received the staff report and had nothing
further to add.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 226 MAY 30, 2000
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Submission No.: A2000-029 (Cont'd)
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Rick Soetemans requesting permission to construct an elevated side deck
having a sideyard setback of 0.46 m (1.5 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93 ft.), on Part Lot
70, Registered Plan 1780, designated as Parts 9, 11, 16 & 20 on Reference Plan 58R-10275,
1121 Glasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to the construction of the new deck and
walkway.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 2000-030
The Corporation of the City of Kitchener
36 King Street West
Part of Lot 2 marked "Germain" and Part of Lot 4 marked "Hoffman",
Registered Plan 383; Lot 170, Streets and Lanes; and Part of Lot
marked "Parts of 2 & 7", D. Weber's Survey, Registered Plan 401,
designated as Parts 1 & 2 on Reference Plan 58R-6358; and, Part
Lot 5, Registered Plan 383 and Part of Lot marked "Parts of 2 & 7",
D. Weber's Survey, Registered Plan 401, designated as Parts 1 & 2
on Reference Plan 58R-10020.
Appearances:
In Support:
Contra:
Written Submissions:
Mr. L. Carter
Architecture Incorporated
490 Dutton Drive, Suite B-1
Waterloo ON N2L 6H7
Mr. S. Scadron-Wattles
P.O. Box 876
Kitchener ON N2G 4C5
None
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an
entertainment facility (live theatre) having 35% of the area of the ground floor facade devoted to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 227 MAY 30, 2000
faCade openings, rather than the required 50%, and a horizontal distance between faCade
openings of 7.15 m (23.45 ft.), rather than the permitted 4 m (13.12 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Business and Planning Services Department in
which they advised the applicant proposes to provide 35% of the area of a ground floor fa¢ade
for display windows or entrances rather than the minimum required 50%, and to provide a
Submission No.: A2000-030(Cont'd)
horizontal distance between display windows or entrances of 7.15 metres rather than the
maximum 4.0 metres, in order to construct a new theatre on the subject lands.
Theatre and Company have an agreement of purchase and sale with the City which is currently
scheduled to close on June 2, 2000. The currently proposed faCade design was the subject of
Council review in January of this year. A condition was imposed on the offer to purchase
providing the City with the opportunity to review the faCade design prior to closing. Council
approved the design although a proper review of Zoning By-law compliance had not been done at
the time. Staff now calculate the percentage of display windows and entrances to be
approximately 28%, not the 35% requested. This discrepancy should be noted in any decision of
approval.
The requirements specified in the Zoning By-law relating to ground floor facades in the Retail
Core Zone (D-l) are intended to ensure that such facades are visually stimulating for pedestrians
and avoid long, blank walls in the streetscape. Staff have met in April with representatives of the
applicant and expressed a concern that, notwithstanding Council's approval of the currently
proposed faCade, a large portion of the faCade at ground floor level lacked any display windows
or entrances (left side of faCade when facing building). The applicants explained that the reason
for not including any display windows or entrances in this location was due to the need to avoid
noise from street traffic entering the building during a theatre performance. Staff recognize that
this is a relevant concern of the applicant. Attached to these comments is correspondence from
an Engineer, the theatre's Artistic Director, and an Architect explaining the need for a faCade
design to mitigate street noise.
In view of the theatre's objective to offer a theatre environment free of street noise, and coupled
with the fact that a number of other "openings" are proposed on the ground floor elevation i.e.
display window, doors, vertical windows, staff consider that the general intent of the Zoning By-
law is being maintained. Also for the same reasons, the variance is considered minor in nature
and is desirable for the development of the land. However, staff will continue to work with the
theatre in order to attempt to achieve some visual interest, other than display windows or
entrances, on this section of the faCade as part of the site plan approval process.
While a site plan application has only just been submitted and has therefore not yet been
reviewed and approved, staff consider that approval of the proposed minor variance application
has little bearing overall on the site plan and therefore will not prejudice staff's review of the site
plan.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A
2000-030, subject to the application being amended to reflect a minimum faCade opening of 28%,
and subject to the following condition:
That approval of Minor Variance Application, Submission A 2000-030, shall be in
accordance with the site plan as approved under Site Plan Application SP 00/16/K/GR.
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 228 MAY 30, 2000
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no comments or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to the application being amended to reflect a minimum faCade opening of
28%. The Chair enquired of Mr. Carter if he was prepared to amend the application accordingly
Submission No.: A2000-030(Cont'd)
and Mr. Carter advised that he was in agreement with staff's recommendation. The Chair
enquired if Mr. Carter had anything further to add and Mr. Carter responded that he did not.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of the Corporation of the City of Kitchener requesting permission to construct
an entertainment facility (live theatre) having 28% of the area of the ground floor faCade devoted
to fa¢ade openings, rather than the required 50%, and a horizontal distance between fa¢ade
openings of 7.15 m (23.45 ft.), rather than the permitted 4 m (13.12 ft.), on Part of Lot 2 marked
"Germain" and Part of Lot 4 marked "Hoffman", Registered Plan 383; Lot 170, Streets and Lanes;
and Part of Lot marked "Parts of 2 & 7", D. Weber's Survey, Registered Plan 401, designated as
Parts 1 & 2 on Reference Plan 58R-6358; and, Part Lot 5, Registered Plan 383 and Part of Lot
marked "Parts of 2 & 7", D. Weber's Survey, Registered Plan 401, designated as Parts 1 & 2 on
Reference Plan 58R-10020, 36 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to
the following condition:
That approval of Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-030, shall be in
accordance with the site plan as approved under Site Plan Application SP 00/16/K/GR.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 2000-031
Dalpha Technologies Inc.
650 King Street East
Lots 75, 76 & 77, Subdivision of Lot 2, German Company Tract
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. A. Dhesi
664 King Street East
Kitchener ON N2G 2M3
Contra:
None
Written Submissions:
In Support:
None
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 229 MAY 30, 2000
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing
vacant commercial building having a sideyard setback from Pandora Avenue of 0 m, rather than
the required 3 m (9.84 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that after reviewing the requested variance staff have determined that another
variance exists and recommends that this variance application be amended to also request
permission for a building within the corner visibility triangle.
Submission No.: A2000-031 (Cont'd)
The subject property actually consists of three buildings that were on three separate lots but that
have now merged into one lot, as stated by the applicant. This variance deals with the building
addressed as 650 King Street and located on the corner of King Street and Pandora Avenue.
City records cannot confirm when the structure was built, although maps available to staff, and
dated 1924, do not indicate the structure existed at that time. Between 1924 and 1994, the
required setback from Pandora Avenue was a minimum of 2.44 metres (8 feet). From 1994 to
the present the minimum setback requirement is 3 metres (9.8 feet).
The building appeared to be considered legal non-conforming in the past but has lost that status
since the structure has been vacant for many years. The new owner proposes to use the building
for the "sale, service and repair of business machines" which is permitted in the current zoning.
Making use of the vacant building is seen to be an improvement for the lot and is deemed
desirable for the appropriate use of the land.
The intent of the 3 metre setback and corner visibility triangle is to allow a complete view of
oncoming motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic by other such traffic entering the intersection.
Regarding this point, staff notes that the building has existed for many years and visibility has not
been a concern in the past. It is noted that the building is the minimum required distance from
King Street and that staff notes there appears to be no visibility concern for traffic using this
intersection to either exit from, or enter onto, King Street.
For the record, staff note that it is unclear as to whether the rear yard or left sideyard of the
property comply as some of the structures shown on the survey would have to have existed prior
to 1962.
Based on the above noted comments, it is the opinion of staff that the impact of the variance is
minor and the request maintains the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of minor variance
application A 2000-031 as amended to permit a building within the corner visibility triangle.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the
Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and while the building infringes into the
daylight corner visibility triangle, we recognize that this is an existing condition, and short of
having the building altered, this will not change.
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 subject to an amendment to permit a building within the corner visibility triangle. The
Chair enquired if Mr. Dhesi was in agreement with the requested amendment and Mr. A. Dhesi
responded that he was in agreement with staff's recommendation.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 230 MAY 30, 2000
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Submission No.: A2000-031 (Cont'd)
Moved by Mr. A. Galloway
Seconded by Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of Dalpha Technologies Inc. requesting permission to legalize an existing
vacant commercial building located within the 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) corner visibility triangle at the
intersection of King Street East and Pandora Avenue and having a sideyard setback from
Pandora Avenue of 0 m, rather than the required 3 m (9.84 ft.), on Lots 75, 76 and 77,
Subdivision of Lot 2, German Company Tract, Kitchener Ontario, BE APPROVED.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variances requested in this application are m~nor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 2000-032 & A 2000-033
M&M Meat Shops Ltd. & M&M Meat Shops Ltd. (In Trust)
640 & 654 Trillium Drive
Part Lot 14, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1471, designated as Parts 17
& 18 on Reference Plan 58R-5840
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. R. Grant
Barrister & Solicitor
1003-55 King Street West
Kitchener ON N2G 4W1
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicants are requesting permission to construct an
enclosed walkway for the purpose of connecting the two subject properties, with each property to
have a 0 m sideyard, rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93 ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the property located at 640 Trillium Drive contains the M&M Meats head office
and warehouse operations, and is owned by M&M Meat Shops Ltd. The property located at 654
Trillium Drive contains a building formerly owned by RPS. This property is now owned by M&M
Meat Shops Ltd. (In Trust). The two sites have different registered owners even though they will
be operating in tandem. This ownership variation prevents the two properties from legally
merging together. The subject properties abut each other, and are 1.124 acres and 1.169 acres
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 231 MAY 30, 2000
in size respectively. The properties are located within the Huron Business Park. The lands are
designated Business Park within the City's Municipal Plan, and zoned B-1 according to Zoning
By-law 85-1.
The applicant has received site plan approval for a reconfigured parking lot layout, and for the
proposed location of a link, subject to approval by the Committee of Adjustment, between the two
buildings at 640 and 654 Trillium Drive. This link will cross the lot line that separates the two sites.
Accordingly, the applicant is requesting two variances to the minimum side yard setback of 1.2
Submission Nos.: A 2000-032 & A 2000-033(Cont'd)
metres required by Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant proposes a side yard setback of 0.0
metres for both the westerly side yard of 640 Trillium Drive, and for the easterly side yard of 654
Trillium Drive. These minor variances are required to permit a link connecting the two buildings
while maintaining the separate ownership of the two sites. To construct the link without a
variance, the applicant would need to place both parcels of land in the same ownership. This
would cause the properties to merge and eliminate the lot line that divides the two lots. M&M
Meat Shops Ltd. has indicated that it wishes to keep the lots in separate ownership in case it
does not require the building at 654 Trillium Drive in the future. If the lots were to be
consolidated, M&M Meat Shops Ltd. would need consent to sever the land at 654 Trillium Drive
for any future sale. The attached approved site plan depicts the location of the proposed link
between the two buildings.
The intent of the 1.2 metre side yard setback is to allow a property owner to maintain any
buildings on site without having to encroach on neighbouring property. The proposed variances
maintain this intent, as the link connecting the buildings does not impede the maintenance of the
two buildings along the lot line.
The proposed minor variances are minor in nature, appropriate for the development of the lands,
and maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan. Accordingly, the Department of
Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Applications A2000-
032, and A2000-033.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance
Applications A2000-032 and A2000-033, seeking a minimum side yard setback of 0.0 metres for
the westerly side yard of 640 Trillium Drive and the easterly side yard of 654 Trillium Drive, 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 building and the new connection between
buildings and a firewall shall be created where the connections cross 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 applications and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and may require the payment of
Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and enquired if Mr. Grant had anything further to add. Mr. B. Grant advised that he
was the solicitor for M & M Meat Shops and having reviewed the staff reports had nothing further
to add.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Minor Variance A 2000-032
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 232 MAY 30, 2000
That the application of M&M Meat Shops Limited requesting permission to construct an enclosed
walkway, to be connected to a similar structure on the abutting property known as 654 Trillium
Drive, having an westerly sideyard setback of 0 m, rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93 ft.), on
Part Lot 14, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1471, designated as Part 17 on Reference Plan 58R-
5840, 640 Trillium Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to the construction of the new enclosed
walkway.
Submission Nos.: A 2000-032 & A 2000-033(Cont'd)
That the new enclosed walkway connection and firewall between 640 Trillium Drive and
654 Trillium Drive shall be created where the connections cross the property line.
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
Minor Variance A 2000-033
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of M&M Meat Shops Limited (In Trust) requesting permission to construct an
enclosed walkway, to be connected to a similar structure on the abutting property known as 640
Trillium Drive, having an easterly sideyard setback of 0 m, rather than the required 1.2 m (3.93
ft.), on Part Lot 14, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1471, designated as Part 18 on Reference Plan
58R-5840, 654 Trillium Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following
conditions:
That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to the construction of the new enclosed
walkway.
That the new enclosed walkway connection and firewall between 640 Trillium Drive and
654 Trillium Drive shall be created where the connections cross the property line.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature.
2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property.
The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan
are being maintained on the subject property.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
A 2000-034
Martin Somerton
22 Farrier Place
Lot 39, Re.qistered Plan 1376
The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a letter dated May 16, 2000, from Mrs. M.
Somerton advising that the applicant wishes to withdraw this application and, accordingly, the
application was not considered by the Committee.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 233 MAY 30, 2000
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
A 2000-035
Fran & Walter Filipitsch
254G Woolwich Street North
Part Lot 125, German Company Tract, designated as
Reference Plan 58R-119, Rearland with R.O.W.
Part 2 on
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. & Mrs. W. Filipitsch
215 Roxton Drive
Waterloo ON N2T 1N7
Mr. B. Turnbull
28 Dorset Street
Box 575
Waterloo ON N2J 4B8
Mr. M. Van Dongen
64 Walnut Drive
Guelph ON N1E 4B5
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the existing residential dwelling located on the subject property
is a legal non-conforming use as the lot has no frontage on a public street. The applicant is
requesting permission to expand the legal non-conforming use by adding a basement and by
additions to the main floor and the second storey loft, increasing the building floor area by
approximately 22.38 m2 (241 sq. ft.) or 12.5%.
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which
they advised that the applicant requests permission to extend or enlarge the existing building
which has legal non-conforming status. The subject property does not comply with the Zoning
By-law requirement for frontage on a public street. A previous application (A103/99) to demolish
the dwelling and construct a new and much larger dwelling was refused by the Committee. The
current application differs in that the proposal is to retain and enlarge the existing legal non-
conforming use, and in that the proposed dwelling is not as large as previously proposed.
The current application has many similarities to Submission A81/98 (B. Goudy, 254F Woolwich
St. N.) which also requested permission to enlarge an existing legal non-conforming dwelling by
adding a basement; that application was approved by the Committee. The Committee also
approved Submission A100/99 (D. Dick, 254B Woolwich St. N.) which requested permission to
add a sunroom addition to an existing dwelling.
Planning staff comments are much the same as for Submission A81/98, owing to the similarities
between the proposals.
The lot is one of nine adjoining lots along the Grand River, having access from Woolwich Street
by means of a right-of-way over a private lane. The distance from Woolwich Street to the subject
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 234 MAY 30, 2000
property is approximately 700-800m. A portion of the lot is within the flood plain of the Grand
River and is zoned Existing Use (E-l); however, the existing and proposed location of the
dwelling is above the flood line.
The existing dwelling was constructed in approximately 1931. It is a one storey wood frame
structure, with a partial second storey loft, mounted on blocks. The applicant proposes to
temporarily move the dwelling, construct a basement, place the dwelling on the new foundation,
renovate the dwelling, and construct an addition. The existing dwelling has a ground floor area of
Submission No.: A2000-035(Cont'd)
1,150 square feet, a 419 square foot loft, and a 362 square foot detached garage. The proposal
is to add a 968 square foot basement, add 110 square feet to the main floor, add 131 square feet
to the loft, and add a two-car carport.
On eight of the nine river-front lots, the original seasonal cottages have been upgraded or
replaced by year-round homes. In some cases, building permits were issued in compliance with
Township of Waterloo By-law 878A, which remained in effect until 1994 and permitted expansion
of a legal non-conforming residence by up to 25% of its floor area. In other cases, variances
were approved to allow expansions by more than 25%. Variances were approved by the
Committee of Adjustment for the Township of Waterloo in 1967 for 254C Woolwich Street, and in
1971 for 254G Woolwich Street. These approvals may have been used as the basis for building
permits on other adjacent lots without further Committee approvals. In 1978 a variance was
approved by Kitchener's Committee of Adjustment for a 45% expansion of 254E Woolwich Street.
Subdivision draft plan approval has been granted to Southstaton Holdings and Activa
Investments, owners of the private lane. The draft approved subdivision would extend a public
street to within 145m of the lot. The draft plan design makes provision for the further extension of
the public street across the front of the subject property; however such lands are not the subject
of any subdivision application.
When considering requests for permission to enlarge a building used for a legal non-conforming
purpose, consideration must be given to the compatibility of the use and whether the permission
would have the effect of perpetuating the legal non-conforming use.
In this case there is no issue of incompatibility, as the adjoining lots are also occupied by
dwellings, and the proposal represents an improvement to the value of the dwelling.
Approval of the proposal would certainly have the effect of perpetuating the existence of the
dwelling. The provision of a permanent foundation, together with insulation and other renovations
not requiring the Committee's permission, would allow the dwelling to be occupied year-round,
rather than seasonal use only.
There is no doubt that a proposal to construct a new dwelling on a vacant zero4rontage lot would
not be supported by staff; however, in this case the dwelling exists, and the purpose of the
proposal is to allow it to be upgraded and expanded so that it can be used as a year-round home
rather than as a cottage.
The issue is whether perpetuation of the dwelling's existence, without frontage on a public street,
represents good planning.
Planning staff cannot support the proposal as it has the effect of allowing for the replacement of
an existing building having very limited value, and an apparently limited lifespan, by a new
permanent dwelling. It is acknowledged that other dwellings on the same lane have already been
given permission for substantial expansions, although the Zoning By-law at the time permitted as-
of-right expansion, whereas the current by-law does not. The only approvals under the current
by-law were the minor expansions for the Goudy and Dick properties noted above. It is further
acknowledged that the lot is likely to have public street frontage at some time in the future,
although there has been no indication that the abutting owner to the west intends to develop.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of Submission A 2000-
035.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 235 MAY 30, 2000
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a
building permit is required for renovation and the new basement for the existing house. There
shall be no opening in a wall located less than 4 ft. to the property line. The basement is not
permitted unless a permit is given by the GRCA if the building is within the regulatory flood
line.
7. Submission No.: A2000-035(Cont'd)
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the 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 now had the opportunity to review the application. As you are aware, we
have provided comments to the Committee of Adjustment with respect to a previous minor
variance application (A 103/99) on the subject property. The current application requests
permission to expand the legal non-conforming use by adding a basement and by additions to the
main floor and the second storey loft. Please be advised that we recommend deferral of the
application at this time for the reasons as discussed below.
Information currently available at this office indicates the rear portion of the property lies below
the Regulatory Floodline elevation of the Grand River. In addition, a large portion of the property
is within the Grand River Scheduled Fill Area. We note the rear portion of the property contains
steep slopes. Consequently, the subject property is regulated by the Grand River Conservation
Authority under Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98.
Due to the presence of the steep slopes located at the rear of the property, we had previously
requested that a geotechnical investigation be completed prior to our final approval of the
previous minor variance application. The geotechnical investigation was to determine the
feasibility of the proposed development in relation to the stability of the slope, and to determine a
suitable geotechnical setback from the top of the slope for the new dwelling. Please be advised
we have received a geotechnical investigation prepared by Naylor Engineering Associates Ltd.,
dated April 2000. Unfortunately, we have not completed our review of the investigation at this
time. However, the basis of the geotechnical report was that the existing cottage would be
removed, and a new single family dwelling would be constructed outside the recommended
geotechnical setback from the top of the Grand River slope crest.
It is our understanding that the current plan is to add a basement and construct a minor addition.
This is inconsistent with the plan that the geotechnical investigation was based upon. Therefore,
we cannot support the application at this time. We will require a revised geotechnical study to
investigate the impact of the current proposal on the stability of the slope.
We will also require a site plan indicating the location of the proposed additions to the existing
building, all accessory structures, the driveway and septic system. The site plan should be in
conformance with the recommendations of the revised geotechnical report.
Please be advised that if the minor variance is considered appropriate, a permit pursuant to
Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98 may be required from the
Grand River Conservation Authority for the proposed works within the Grand River Scheduled
Area. We will require the submission of a lot grading plan to support the permit application.
In summary, as the current proposal differs from the plan discussed in the submitted geotechnical
report, we recommend deferral of the application. It is premature to comment on the feasibility of
adding a basement and additions to the main floor and second storey loft prior to the submission
of a revised geotechnical report to investigate this proposal.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that Planning staff are recommending refusal of
the application, the Building Division requires several conditions including a building permit to be
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 236 MAY 30, 2000
imposed should the application be approved and the Grand River Conservation Authority is
requesting the application to be deferred to allow a revised a geotechnical study to investigate the
impact of the current proposal on the stability of the slope to be submitted and reviewed by the
Grand River Conservation Authority.
Mr. B. Turnbull advised that he had been of the understanding that the Grand River Conservation
Authority's concerns had already been addressed and questioned if the letter received from the
GRCA was dated May 25, 1999. The Chair advised that the date referred to was correct;
Submission No.: A2000-035(Cont'd)
however, the Secretary pointed out to the Committee that the FAX log located at the top of the
Grand River Conservation Authority's letter indicates that the letter was faxed May 25, 2000. In
this regard, the Chair stated that it appears the Grand River Conservation Authority has
resubmitted their previous comments dated May 25, 1999 for consideration at the meeting this
date.
Mr. B. Turnbull questioned if the letter made reference to the Naylor Engineering geotechnical
study and the Chair advised that the GRCA's letter does refer to the report as having been
received and dated April 2000.
In this regard, the Chair suggested that it would appear that the GRCA has in fact submitted new
comments but failed to change the date of their letter. The Chair further advised that the GRCA
states that they have not completed their review of the investigation and, as the current plan with
respect to this application is inconsistent with the plan that the geotechnical investigation was
based upon, the GRCA cannot support the application at this time.
Mr. B. Turnbull advised that he was of the understanding that the Naylor report had given the
subject property a clean bill of health and was not aware that the GRCA had further concerns.
He stated that it would appear that further discussions with the GRCA would be necessary.
The Chair advised that the applicant could request deferral of the application to allow further
discussion with the GRCA or the Committee could proceed to make a decision on the application
this date. The Chair suggested that it may be in the best interest of the applicant to defer the
application to resolve concerns raised by the GRCA and Ms. S. Campbell agreed, pointing out
that her concerns primarily were with the comments of the GRCA rather than those of Planning
staff and the applicant may wish to resolve the GRCA'S concerns prior to proceeding with the
Committee's consideration.
Mr. B. Turnbull agreed that discussions should be undertaken to resolve the GRCA's concerns
and requested the application be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.
By general consent, it was agreed that Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-035,
would be deferred to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on June 20, 2000, to allow
further discussions to take place between the applicant and the Grand River Conservation
Authority.
CONSENT
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 2000-034
The Trustees of Kitchener - Waterloo Korean Presbyterian Church
130 Duke Street East & 79 Weber Street East
Part of Lots 7, 8 & 28, Registered Plan 364, designated as Parts 1, 2,
3 and 4, Reference Plan 58R-11457
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. R. W. Reinhart
202-450 Frederick Street
Kitchener ON N2H 2P5
Contra: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 237 MAY 30, 2000
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
1. Submission No.: B 2000-034 (Cont'd)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide this land into 2
separate lots. The lands to be retained contain an existing church fronting onto Duke Street East
with an area of 2,688.26 m2 (28,937.13 sq. ft.). The lands to be severed contain an existing
residential dwelling/office use having frontage on Weber Street East of 17.73 m (58.16 ft.), by a
depth of 40.14 m (131.72 ft.) and an area of 711.68 m2 (7,660.71 sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the subject lands are located approximately mid-block between Scott
Street and Cedar Street and have frontage on both Duke Street East and Weber Street East. The
easterly portion of the subject lands, municipally known as 79 Weber Street (Parts 1 and 2, on
Reference Plan 58R-11457), contains a single detached dwelling which is currently vacant. The
westerly portion of the subject lands, municipally known as 130 Duke Street East (Parts 3 and 4,
on Reference Plan 58R-11457), contains a church and meeting room which is presently occupied
by The Trustees of Kitchener-Waterloo Korean Presbyterian Church.
In 1998, the previous owners of the subject lands, the Salvation Army, made application for
consent to sever the church portion of the property, municipally known as 130 Duke Street East,
from the portion of the property municipally known as 79 Weber Street East. The severance was
granted by the Committee of Adjustment on June 30, 1998. Subsequently, the severed parcel of
land was conveyed to the present owner on September 30, 1998. In December of 1999, the
present owner also acquired the retained parcel of land, for use as a residential dwelling in
conjunction with the church property.
The applicant would like to sell the residential property on Weber Street East in order to acquire
funds to help service the church debt and expenses. Due to an anomaly in the Planning Act, the
applicant cannot sell the retained parcel of land, which contains the residential dwelling, ahead of
the severed parcel of land, which contains the church. Consequently, the owner has made
application for consent.
The application for consent is technical in nature in that it will recognize 79 Weber Street East and
130 Duke Street East as two separate parcels of land. Both the lands to be severed and the lands
to be retained will continue to comply with all regulations in the Zoning By-law. Accordingly, the
Department of Business and Planning Services has no concerns with this application for consent.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application
B2000-034 be approved, subject to the following condition:
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and at this location,
Weber Street has an existing road allowance width of 60 feet and a designated road allowance
width of 86 feet. Therefore, a 13 foot road widening would normally be required from this
property to ensure conformity with the Regional Official Policies Plan. Since Weber Street has
been widened to 4 lanes and there is an existing porch encroaching onto the required widening,
the road widening is not required at this time. Regional staff advise that any future re-
development application of this property will require road dedication to the Regional Municipality
of Waterloo. Regional staff further advised that they have no further concerns and no objection to
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 238 MAY 30, 2000
approval of this application; 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 objections to this application.
Submission No.: B 2000-034 (Cont'd)
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application and enquired if Mr. Reinhart had anything further to add. Mr. R. Reinhart advised that
he had received the staff reports and had nothing further to add.
As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of the Trustees of Kitchener-Waterloo Korean Presbyterian Church
requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having frontage on Weber Street East of 17.73
m (58.16 ft.), by a depth of 40.14 m (131.72 ft.) and an area of 711.68 m2 (7,660.71 sq. ft.), on
Part of Lots 7, 8 and 28, Registered Plan 364, designated as Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4, Reference Plan
58R-11457, 130 Duke Street East and 79 Weber Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED,
subject to the following condition:
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being May 30, 2002.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
Appearances:
In Support:
B 2000-035
K-W Physicians Supply Company Inc.
696-710 and 712-732 Belmont Avenue West
Part of Lots 11 & 14, Re.qistered Plan 343
Mr. A. Morscher
Morscher & Morscher
905-101 Frederick Street
Kitchener ON N2H 6R2
Written Submissions:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 239 MAY 30, 2000
In Support: None
Contra: None
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide the subject
lands into 2 lots. Both lots will front onto Belmont Avenue West. The retained lands contain an
existing combined retail/residential apartment use having frontage of 48.768 m (160 ft.) and an
Submission No.: B 2000-035 (Cont'd)
average area of 7,437 m2 (24,400 sq. ft.). The severed lands contain an existing retail
commercial use having frontage of 67.97 m (223 ft.) and an average area of 10,306 m2 (33,813
sq. ft.).
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services ~n which
they advised that the subject lands are located in Belmont Village, on the north side of Belmont
Avenue between Claremont Avenue and Union Boulevard. The lands are designated
Community Commercial Core in the City's Municipal Plan and are zoned C-4 according to
Zoning By-law 85-1. The property at 696-710 Belmont Avenue is currently developed with a
pharmacy building and another retail building with associated parking area in between. The
property at 712-732 Belmont Avenue is currently developed with an 8 unit commercial plaza
together with 18 second floor dwelling units. Both properties also have additional associated
parking areas to the rear, located on a strip of land situated between Belmont Lane and the
Grand River Railway tracks.
The subject lands are illustrated on the plan attached to the application. The property at 696-
710 Belmont Avenue would be considered the severed parcel and the property at 712-732
would be considered the retained parcel.
The two separate properties have for many years been owned by the same interest but were
once held in different ownership. However, a number of years ago, for financing and taxation
purposes, titles to the properties were taken in identical ownership. In order to prevent the two
separate and distinct properties from merging due to the ownership situation, the owners
requested and received a Part Lot Control Exemption By-law from City Council. By-law 90-
239, exempting the subject lands from part lot control, was passed by City Council on
December 17, 1990 and was eventually registered as Instrument Number 1414870 on April 15,
1999.
Although the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law has no sunset clause, the City wishes to
repeal the by-law in the near future, being it is over one year since registration of the by-law.
The owner has advised that the two properties must retain their separate identifies for
business reasons, but also must be held in the same name. Therefore, rather than transferring
ownership of the two properties into different title, the owner has requested consent to sever
so that the properties will forever be prevented from merging.
Both properties comply with, or are legal non-conforming to, all regulations of the Zoning By-
law, including parking requirements. Since the properties are currently separate lots and could
be prevented from merging by transferring ownership at this time under the existing Part Lot
Control Exemption By-law, there is no real impact of the severance. Accordingly, the
Department of Business and Planning Services has no concerns with the approval of Consent
Application B 2000-035.
It should be noted that the applicant will have to complete the severance within two years by
conveying the property, even to the same owner, within the two year period of the consent
approval. Upon being notified by the applicant that the severance has been completed, the
City will repeal Part Lot Control Exemption By-law 90-239.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B
2000-035 be approved, subject to the following condition:
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 240 MAY 30, 2000
The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the
Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that there are Regional well fields located on the subject lands. For your
information, the Region is currently working on a draft policy for groundwater protection areas. As
such, Regional staff also advise that the policy may be applicable to the subject lands in the
Submission No.: B 2000-035 (Cont'd)
future. Regional staff have no objections to approval of this application; 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 objections with respect to this application.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to payment of property taxes and enquired if Mr. Morscher had anything
further to add. Mr. A. Morscher advised that he had received the staff reports 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 Ms. S. Campbell
That the application of K-W Physicians Supply Company Inc. requesting permission to convey a
parcel of land having frontage on Belmont Avenue West of 67.97 m (223 ft.) and an average area
of 10,306 m2 (33,813 sq. ft.), on Part of Lots 11 and 14, Registered Plan 343, 696-710 and 712-
732 Belmont Avenue West, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following condition:
That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the
payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement
charges.
Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above-
noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision.
Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall
lapse two years from the date of approval, being May 30, 2002.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
Submission Nos:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 2000-036 & B 2000-037
Polatsek & Weiland Holdings Limited
30, 40, 50 and 60 Alpine Court
Part of Lot 6, Registered Plan 1022, Part of Lots 3 and 4, Registered
Plan 1023, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-5369 and
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 241 MAY 30, 2000
Parts 2 & 3 on Reference Plan 58R-2570 and Parts 4, 5 and 6 on
Reference Plan 58R-1380
Appearances:
In Support:
Submission Nos:
Mr. K. Hanbidge
Shortt, Hanbidge, Snider, Richardson & Welch
7 Union Street East, Box 550
Waterloo ON N2J 4B8
B 2000-036 & B 2000-037(Cont'd)
Contra: None
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
Contra: None
With respect to consent B 2000-036, the Committee was advised that the applicant is
requesting permission to divide the subject lands into 2 lots. Both lots will have access from
Alpine Court and contain existing warehousing and storage uses. The retained lands (30 & 40
Alpine Court) will have frontage of 51.51 m (168.99 ft.) and an area of 3,140 m2 (33,799.78 sq.
ft.). The severed lands (50 & 60 Alpine Court) will have frontage of 38.1 m (125 ft.) and an
area of 4,529 m2 (48,751.34 sq. ft.).
With respect to consent B 2000-037, the Committee was advised that the applicant is
requesting permission to divide the subject lands into 2 lots. Both lots will have access from
Alpine Court and contain existing warehousing and storage uses. The retained lands (40
Alpine Court) will have frontage of 18.28 m (59.97 ft.) and an area of 1,343 m~ (14,456.4 sq.
ft.). The severed lands (30 Alpine Court) will have frontage of 21.15 m (69.39 ft.) and an area
of 1,379 m~ (14,843.91 sq. ft.)
The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in
which they advised that the two consent applications seek approval to create three separate lots
from one larger parcel. Application B2000-036 proposes to sever property addressed as 50 and
60 Alpine Court from 30 and 40 Alpine Court and B2000-037 proposes to create two lots from 30
and 40 Alpine Court.
The severed lands of B2000-036 are described as Parts 2 & 3 of Plan 58R-2570 and contain two
buildings, containing Red Carpet Coffee Service and a vacant building. The purpose of the
consent is to convey the lands to Waterloo Region Foodbank for warehouse purposes. The
retained lands are described as Parts 4, 5, and 6 of 58R-1380 and are developed with Kissner
Milling and Twin City Moving. No change is contemplated on these lands.
As both the severed and retained lands comply with the Zoning By-law, are independently
serviced and fully developed, staff have no concerns with the proposed consent.
Application B2000-037 proposes to further subdivide the retained lands of B2000-036 so as to
create two independent lots. The severed lands are known as 30 Alpine Court and the retained
lands are 40 Alpine Court. Each are independently serviced and functioning and comply with the
M-2 Zone. As such, staff have no concerns with this severance. It should be noted that the deed
will have to first be endorsed for B2000-036 before this endorsement or 40 Alpine Court would
merge back with 50 and 60 Alpine Court.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission B
2000-036 subject to the following condition:
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 242 MAY 30, 2000
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission B
2000-037 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.
2. That the deed for consent application B2000-036 be endorsed.
3. Submission Nos:
B 2000-036 & B 2000-037(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 these applications.
The Committee noted the comments with respect to Consent B 2000-036 of the Planning &
Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that the subject lands are
adjacent to lands that have a history of industrial and manufacturing uses. As such, there is a
moderate to high potential that the subject lands have been impacted.
As the approval authority for this application, the Committee of Adjustment is responsible for
ensuring that the proposed lot complies with the Health and Safety provisions under the
Planning Act. Considering the health concerns associated with the adjacent industrial and
manufacturing uses, Regional staff recommend that the Committee of Adjustment's approval of
the application be subject to:
the completion of a Record of Site Condition for the lands subject to the application
acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment; or
ii)
the submission of a remedial work plan certified by the consultant and the owner (as
reviewed and approved by Regional staff and/or, where appropriate, the Ministry of the
Environment, which demonstrates that the site can be appropriately remediated to
permit the proposed use, with the stamping of the deed subject to the completion of the
Record of Site Condition (acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment).
If the Committee decides to impose this requirement, it should be imposed as a condition of
the Committee, with the Committee, not the Region, responsible for its release. No further
action will be taken by the Region provided any future decision by the Committee specifically
indicates that our comments on this application were considered during the decision making
process. Regional staff have no objection to approval of this application.
The Committee further noted comments with respect to Consent B 2000-037 from the Planning
& Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have reviewed this
application and have no concerns.
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 objection to these applications.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments noting that staff are recommending approval of both
applications; however, pointed out that the Region has concerns with respect to possible
contamination of the subject lands and enquired if Mr. Hanbidge had anything further to add.
Mr. Hanbidge advised that he had received the staff reports and wished to address the
comments of the Region.
Mr. K. Hanbidge advised that the lots subject to these applications were originally separate
and had amalgamated under the current ownership. In regard to the Region's suggestion that
the Record of Site be a condition of approval, Mr. Hanbidge advised that the Food Bank of
Waterloo Region, proposed purchaser of 50 & 60 Alpine Court has already undertaken Phases
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 243 MAY 30, 2000
1 & 2 of an environmental assessment. In addition, he pointed out that the tenant operating a
fineblanking/stamping operation has since moved out of the site. This operation required a
number of pits for its operation which were filled in and assumed to be cleaned up; however,
Phase 2 of the environmental assessment has determined that two of the pits contain a level of
hydro carbons which exceed the Ministry of Environment standards. The Engineer conducting
the study is doing further testing and has indicated that the levels are still Iow enough that it is
likely remediation processes will not be required as the contaminants are located under the
building beneath a concrete base and there is no water table issue.
Submission Nos: B 2000-036 & B 2000-037(Cont'd)
Mr. Hanbidge suggested that to impose a condition requiring a Record of Site Condition would
be too onerous for the applicant to undertake and asked that the Committee consider waiving
this condition. Mr. Hanbidge further advised that he would have a better idea of the condition
of the site in approximately 2 weeks time and would like an opportunity to further negotiate with
the Food Bank. The Chair enquired if Mr. Hanbidge also intended to talk with Regional staff
and Mr. Hanbidge advised that he would.
The Chair enquired if Mr. Hanbidge was requesting deferral of the applications and Mr.
Hanbidge advised that he was considering do so. The Chair stated that given the fact the
proposed purchaser would be storing food on the site, he would have concerns with not
imposing the Region's condition and Ms. Campbell advised that she was in agreement with the
Chair's concerns.
Mr. A. Galloway further pointed out that if the condition was not imposed by the Committee the
applicant may be risking an appeal by the Region to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Mr. Hanbidge stated that he appreciated the Committee's due diligence given the fact the
Committee has been placed in the role of responsibility for this issue through downloading by
upper tier governments. Ms. Campbell expressed the opinion that given downloading and the
responsibility resting with this Committee, she would require a level of comfort with respect to
the condition of the site and suggested it may be in the applicants best interest to defer the
applications to allow an opportunity to resolve this issue with the Region.
Mr. Hanbidge agreed and requested the applications be deferred to the Committee's next
meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that Consent Applications, Submission Nos. B 2000-036
and B 2000-037, would be deferred to the Committee's next meeting to be held on June 20,
2000.
Submission No.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Le.qal Description:
B 2000-038
Dominic & Antoinetta Petrolo
120-122 Church Street
Part Lot 6, Re,qistered Plan 367
Appearances:
In Support:
Mr. J. Irvine
Kay Bogdon
177 Victoria Street North
Kitchener ON N2H 5C5
Contra:
Mr. S. Harrison
107 Church Street, Apt. 1
Kitchener ON N2G 2S3
Written Submissions:
In Support: None
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 244 MAY 30, 2000
Contra:
Ms. C. Smith
Cedar Hill Community Group
cio MilI-Courtland Community Centre
216 Mill Street
Kitchener ON N2M 3R2
Submission No.: B 2000-038 (Cont'd)
The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to divide the subject
lands into 2 lots, each containing one half of an existing semi-detached dwelling. Both the
severed and retained parcels will have frontage on Church Street of 6.096 m (20 ft.) by a depth of
24.384 m (80 ft.) and an area of 148.64 m2 (1,600 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 Church Street, between Eby
Street and Cedar Street and is presently developed with an existing semi-detached dwelling. The
property is designated Medium Density Multiple Residential in the Cedar Hill Secondary Plan and
is zoned R-8 according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicants are requesting consent to sever
the existing semi-detached dwelling along the common party wall in order to create a separate lot
for each dwelling unit.
The intent of the Medium Rise Multiple Residential designation is to recognize existing Iow rise
housing and allow for infilling and re-development for appropriate medium rise multiple residential
housing. Consent applications of this nature are generally considered in the context of whether
the resulting lot fragmentation would jeopardize future re-development of the area. In this
instance, the subject lands and abutting properties are developed with relatively good quality,
stable residential housing and re-development for multiple housing is not considered imminent
and is not expected in the foreseeable future.
The Secondary Plan designation and the R-8 Zone permit existing semi-detached dwellings only,
therefore there are no regulations applicable to the creation of new semi-detached lots. New
semi-detached lots in other zoning categories would normally require a minimum area of 235
square metres and a minimum width of 7.5 metres whereas the applicants are proposing a lot
area of approximately 150 square metres and a lot width of approximately 6.1 metres for each
proposed lot. Although the proposed lots are somewhat smaller than the minimum sizes
permitted in other zones they essentially represent an existing situation. The property is presently
comprised of only one lot, but is developed in such a way as to appear as if two lots exist. For
this reason, the proposed lot sizes are considered appropriate.
Normally, each new residential lot to be created would have to provide a minimum of one off-
street parking space in accordance with the applicable zoning regulations. One parking space is
currently provided at the street line for each existing dwelling unit, neither of which conforms with
current zoning regulations. However, the existing semi-detached dwelling was constructed prior
to 1924, which pre-dates the implementation of the City's first Zoning By-law. Therefore, there is
no requirement to provide an off-street parking space for either dwelling unit and the existing
parking spaces, while not suitable for required off-street parking, may be legally used.
Based on the above, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that
Consent Application B2000-038 be approved with conditions.
The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application
B2000-038 be approved, subject to the following condition:
That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for payment of any
outstanding Municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 245 MAY 30, 2000
The Committee noted the comments of the Building Division in which they advised that a party
wall shall be verified that it is continuous from basement through attic to ensure continuity for fire
separation at the property line.
The Committee noted the comments of the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the
Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed this application and has no concerns with the proposed
parking spaces ahead of the building line. There is sufficient space between the building and the
property line to accommodate a parked vehicle.
The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo
in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns;
however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional
Submission No.: B 2000-038 (Cont'd)
Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and there may be a Regional fee
assessed for development agreements, if required.
The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they
advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to this application.
The Committee noted the written submission of Ms. C. Smith on behalf of the Cedar Hill
Community Group in which she advised that they wish to express strong opposition to the
application for variance to allow the severance of the property, 120-122 Church Street.
The primary basis for our objection is the lot size and, in particular, the fact that it is too small to
comply with zoning requirements. It is important that the Committee understands the reasons for
the Community's concerns. This property is one of the few remaining "fragile" properties in our
community. It has suffered in good part because of the unwillingness of absentee landlords to
bring it up to any kind of liveable standard particularly inside. As a result, there have been
chronic problems obtaining and retaining decent tenants. The property itself was on the market
for several years before it was finally sold in the past year. The current owner has done no
further work to improve the quality of the building but is now, apparently seeking to make a quick
return by severing the property.
There are good reasons why it is important to maintain lot sizes prescribed by Zoning By-laws
even in older areas where lots are often irregular (sometimes eccentric). These by-laws have
been carefully defined to ensure that communities evolve according to good planning principles.
Allowing a severance in this case serves no planning or community purpose. If this owner is
truly concerned about recouping his investment, he would now be undertaking the maintenance
and upgrades required to make the property into decent housing that he could then either rent or
sell. Landlords and owners in Cedar Hills who have acted as responsible property owners have
had no difficulty following these strategies.
If the Committee agrees to this owner's request the Community is very concerned not only for the
consequences for this particular property but also the precedents that will be set. In the past 10-
15 years it has been a difficult battle to ensure that the message has gone out to property
speculators that this is not a neighbourhood for making a quick return on virtually zero
investment. For many years we had to live with the consequences of owners who believed they
should do no property upgrades or basic maintenance. The cost to the City of Kitchener in terms
of enforcement processes has been immense. The last thing either the City or Cedar Hills now
needs is a signal that once more, "make money quick" schemes - here in the form of a severance
that fails to comply with zoning requirements - are ripe for the picking in our community.
Should the Committee not be persuaded by our arguments, we would ask that a condition be
imposed such that, prior to any severance and the sale of either property, this property be
inspected by the relevant officials of the City of Kitchener and that it be certified to comply with all
by-laws and regulations that impact it both internally and externally.
The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the
application subject to payment of taxes and clarification that the common party wall is continuous
from basement to attic for fire safety reasons. In addition, the Chair noted a letter of opposition
from the Cedar Hill Neighbourhood Group and enquired if Mr. Irvine had anything further to add.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 246 MAY 30, 2000
Mr. J. Irvine advised that he wished to address concerns raised by the neighbourhood group and
noted that the letter suggests the lot size does not comply with zoning regulations. In this regard,
he referred the Committee to the Planning staff report which states that the lot is zoned R-8 under
which existing semi-detached dwellings are permitted and, therefore, no regulations are
applicable to the creation of new semi-detached lots. Mr. Irvine suggested that, while concerns of
the area residents should be recognized, this concern was not applicable to this application. Mr.
Irvine stated that he believed the proposal would have beneficial effect for the neighbourhood by
creating affordable owner occupied dwellings. He further pointed out that an owner is more likely
to take pride in the property and this proposal would cease past trends of absentee landlords.
Mr. Irvine pointed out that Planning staff are of the opinion that the surrounding area contains
good quality stable residential housing. He stated that the dwelling on this site is also in relatively
Submission No.: B 2000-038 (Cont'd)
good condition from outside appearance, and while he could not speak from first hand
knowledge as to the condition of the interior dwelling, suggested this also was not relevant to the
application. Mr. Irvine again stated his opinion that the proposal will have a positive impact with
respect to owner occupied units.
Mr. S. Harrison stated that he could agree with Mr. Irvine's comments respecting owner occupied
units but only if the dwelling is brought up to code standards. Mr. Harrison advised that this
property has a history of speculative purchasers and mortgages have been difficult to obtain
because the main beams inside the dwelling are decaying and part of the rear of the dwelling is
rotting. Mr. Harrison stated that he would have no objection to the proposal provided the dwelling
met code standards, as it would not be fair to pass along a dwelling in poor condition to new
owners. Mr. Harrison expressed the opinion that without significant investment by the current
owner to improve the condition of the home it would not be desirable for new owners of the
quality suggested.
Ms. S. Campbell noted that Mr. Harrison's comments seem to be in conflict with staff's opinion
and Mr. L. Masseo advised that Planning staff rely on the Building Division for advice as to
structural soundness and staff do not share the same concerns as Mr. Harrison, nor do staff of
the Property Standards Division.
Ms. S. Campbell questioned if the party wall exists and Mr. Masseo advised that this is yet to be
verified. He pointed out that the applicant will be required to meet this condition and if the party
wall does not exist will have to invest in the home to rectify the situation. He further pointed out
that the proposed severance will not go forward unless this condition is met. Mr. Irvine stated that
to the best of his knowledge the party wall does exist; however, the applicant is willing to comply
with this condition.
The Chair pointed out that the overall lot size would not change as the severance effects division
of an existing semi-detached dwelling and agreed that it would be beneficial to the neighbourhood
to have owner occupied units. The Chair again referred to the letter from the Cedar Hill
Neighbourhood group in which they have requested that approval be conditional upon the
property being inspected and certified to comply with all by-laws and regulations. He pointed out
that this request is very broad in nature requiring all regulations to be met and the Committee's
jurisdiction to impose such a condition is questionable.
Ms. S. Campbell expressed the opinion that the condition relative to the party wall would address
some of the concerns and it has not been past practice to require an inspection as a condition of
approval. The Chair agreed pointing out that the issue of an inspection would be better
approached through Property Standards and prospective buyers have some responsibility to
investigate what they are purchasing. Mr. Harrison advised that he was acquainted with a former
prospective purchaser who had a professional inspection of the interior completed and this is how
he had become aware of the condition of the interior of the home. He restated his willingness to
accept the proposal provided the current owner makes the dwelling liveable so that it will attract
good purchasers.
Mr. A. Galloway pointed out that if the party wall has to be constructed or replaced/repaired this
will require an inspection when completed. Mr. Harrison expressed the opinion that the home
had originally been constructed as a single family dwelling and moved to its present location;
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 247 MAY 30, 2000
however, Mr. Masseo advised that City records dated back prior to 1924 suggest that the dwelling
has always been semi-detached.
Moved by Ms. S. Campbell
Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway
That the application of Dominic & Antoinetta Petrolo requesting permission to convey a parcel of
land having frontage on Church Street of 6.096 m (20 ft.), by a depth of 24.384 m (80 ft.) and an
area of 148.64 m2 (1,600 sq. ft.), on Part of Lot 6, Registered Plan 367, 120-122 Church Street,
Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
4. Submission No.: B 2000-038 (Cont'd)
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 party wall shall be verified that it is continuous from basement through attic to
ensure continuity for fire separation at the property line.
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 30, 2002.
It is the opinion of this Committee that:
A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the
municipality.
The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the
retained lands.
The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and
the Regional Official Policies Plan.
Carried
CONSENT & MINOR VARIANCE
Submission Nos.:
Applicant:
Property Location:
Legal Description:
B 2000-039 & A 2000-036
Thayer Developments
80 Westmeadow Drive
Part of Block 1, Registered Plan 58M-118, designated as Parts 47,
48, 49, 50 and 93 on Reference Plan 58R-11976
The Chair advised that the Committee was in receipt of a letter dated May 29, 2000 from Mr. K.
Hillis, BSR&D Limited, requesting deferral of these applications to the Committee's next meeting.
By general consent, it was agreed that Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-039 and
Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-036 would be deferred to the Committee's
meeting to be held on June 20, 2000.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m.
Dated at the City of Kitchener this 30th day of May, 2000.
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 248 MAY 30, 2000
J. Billett
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment