Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2000-08-15COA\2000-08-15 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. S. Kay, P. Kruse and A. Galloway. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner, Ms. T. Mallone-Wright, Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. S. Kay, Chair, called this meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of July 18, 2000, as mailed to the members, be accepted. Carried Mr. A. Galloway declared a pecuniary interest in Submission No. B 2000-042 considered by the Committee of Adjustment on June 20, 2000 in his absence, as his firm acted on behalf of the applicant. UNFINISHED BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE 1. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 2000-045 1361959 Ontario Inc. 900 Doon Village Road Part of Lot 2, Biehn's Tract Mr. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in this application, as his law firm has acted on behalf of the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. Kay left the meeting and Mr. P. Kruse chaired the meeting during consideration of this application and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this application was considered by the remaining 2 members. Appearances: In Support: Mr. B. Nimer 1361959 Ontario Inc. c/o Sonwray Property Management Inc. 48 Queen Street East, Unit 3 Cambridge ON N3C 2A8 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: Mr. A. D. Barron Barrister & Solicitor 385 Frederick Street, Suite 209 Frederick Mall COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 293 AUGUST 15, 2000 Submission No.: Kitchener ON N2H 2P2 A 2000-045 (Cont'd) This application was originally scheduled to be considered by the Committee at its meeting held on July 18, 2000 at which time it was agreed to defer the application at the request of the applicant. The Committee was previously advised that the lands involved in this application are being developed with 26 freehold townhouse dwellings and the applicant is requesting permission to allow tandem parking (one behind the other) to accommodate the required number of parking spaces, rather than providing these spaces side by side. The Committee noted previous comments dated July 11, 2000 of the Department of Business & Planning Services; however, relied upon revised comments dated August 10, 2000 in which the Department of Business & Planning Services advised that the subject property, which is 1.03 hectares (2.54 acres) in area, is located on the northerly side of Doon Village Road, just east of Bechtel Drive, and is currently vacant. The applicant is proposing to develop the subject property with 29 townhouse units, rather than 26 townhouse units as previously indicated in the submission of the minor variance application. Staff is currently processing site plan application SP 00/18/D/TMW to facilitate this development, and a revised site plan, dated August 1, 2000, was recently considered at Site Plan Review Committee on August 9, 2000. As a result of the Site Plan Review Committee meeting, the applicant has agreed to revise the site plan to incorporate an additional 11 parking spaces. Consequently, the applicant no longer requires the minor variance to permit tandem parking spaces to be used to meet the parking requirement on the site. The applicant still however requires a minor variance to permit a reduction of the minimum rear yard requirement to facilitate the development of four units at the north-easterly portion of the site. Instead of the required 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) setback, the applicant is proposing a setback of 2.6 metres (8.53 feet). In considering the four tests for minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990 Chap. P. 13, as amended, staff offers the following comments in relation to the requested variance. The subject property is unique due to its rolling and sloping topography and it has a significant number of strong and healthy trees and other types of vegetation in the southeasterly portion of the site. Consequently, the amount of developable land is limited. The applicant has been working with staff in an effort to save the treed area while still being able to develop the site in the context of the difficult grades. The deficiency in the rear yard setback relates to a portion of the side wall of a block of 4 townhouse dwelling units at the northeasterly end of the site. Although this yard will function as a side yard in relation to the townhouse dwelling, it is technically a rear yard for the site as a whole in terms of the Zoning By-law. Consequently, a 7.5 metre rear yard setback is applicable rather than a 2.5 metre side yard setback. A 2.6 metre setback in this location is appropriate and sufficient, given that this yard will function as a side yard and an amenity area, 7.5 metres in length, will be provided at the rear of the proposed townhouse block. Also, the reduced rear yard setback of the townhouse block will not adversely impact the abutting property to the northeast, as the side wall of the proposed unit will abut the open yard of the school property. As the proposed development will meet all other zoning requirements and the effects of the variance will be minor, the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan will be maintained. Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of the variance to facilitate the development of the site with townhouse units. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 2000-045, as amended, to permit a reduction of the minimum rear yard setback requirement COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 294 AUGUST 15, 2000 from 7.5 metres (24.6 feet) to 2.6 metres (8.53 feet), condition: Submission No.: A2000-045 (Cont'd) be approved subject to the following That the minor variance is only applicable to the site plan as finally approved under Site Plan Application SP 00/18/D/TMW. The Committee noted previous comments dated July 10, 2000 from the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. There were no further comments forthcoming from the Director of Building. The Committee noted previous comments dated July 12, 2000 from the Traffic & Parking Analyst in which he advised that the Traffic & Parking Division has reviewed the application and in consideration of legalizing the accessory parking space in the driveway, one must realize the potential that the homeowner may in fact choose not to use their legal parking space (in the garage) to park their vehicle. As a result, their vehicle will be parked in the driveway. With the driveway length less than 11 m, a second vehicle cannot legally park in the driveway. The reality is, that many homeowners will have a second vehicle and there will be no parking space for this second vehicle. In conclusion, we cannot support the application as proposed. No further comments were forthcoming from the Traffic & Parking Analyst. The Committee noted previous comments dated July 6, 2000 from the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that they have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. No further comments were forthcoming from the Region of Waterloo. The Committee noted previous comments dated July 14, 2000 from the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no concerns or objection to the application. No further comments were forthcoming from the Grand River Conservation Authority. The Committee noted a previous written submission dated July 14, 2000 from Mr. A. Barron in which he advised that he assumes this property adjoins his property at 942 Doon Village Road, Kitchener. Mr. Barron states that he is opposed to tandem parking as it encourages parking on the shoulder of the road and a previous developer agreed to erect a fence along the mutual boundary line at least 5 ft. high to ensure that children do not come on his lands as he has dogs. He further advised that it was agreed that the development of the property would not damage the mature spruce trees on his property close to the boundary line. Accordingly, he asked that the development agreement require a fence and steps to be taken to prevent damage to the spruce trees. No further written submissions were forthcoming from Mr. Barron. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to an amendment to permit a reduction of the minimum rearyard setback from 7.5 m to 2.6 m. The Chair inquired if Mr. Nimer had anything further to add. Mr. B. Nimer provided the Committee with a copy of a revised site plan dated August 15, 2000. Mr. Nimer pointed out that the original application had been for a development of 26 townhouse units requiring variances to allow parking in tandem. Since deferral of the application, Mr. Nimer advised that the site plan has been revised to now include development of 29 townhouse units. He stated that meetings had been held with the GRCA with respect to the sloped areas and the most appropriate way in which to maintain the treed area on the property. Through redesign of the site it had been hoped to eliminate all parking variances; however, Mr. Nimer advised that the site requires a total of 51 spaces and the new revised plan provides 50 spaces. Accordingly, he requested that the Committee consider a variance for 1 parking space to be in tandem as well as the rearyard variance for Unit 1. In response to questioning, Ms. J. Given advised that staff of the Traffic & Parking Division prefer that all 51 spaces be provided; however, staff of the Planning Division are of the opinion that the only area left in which to provide the 51st space is not suitable and support either a reduction of 1 parking space or for 1 parking space to be in tandem. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 295 AUGUST 15, 2000 1. Submission No.: A2000-045 (Cont'd) Mr. A. Galloway stated that as staff were in support of the request, there were no other concerns from outside agencies and no one was in attendance objecting to the application he was prepared to move approval of the application, as amended, to provide for 1 parking space to be in tandem and a rearyard setback from Unit 1 of 2.6 m. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of 1361959 Ontario Inc. requesting permission to develop 29 freehold townhouse dwellings with Unit 1 having a rearyard setback of 2.6 m (8.53 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), and to allow 1 required parking space to be in tandem, on Part of Lot 2, Biehn's Tract, 900 Doon Village Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the minor variances approved in this application shall be in accordance with the site plan as finally approved under Site Plan Application SP/00/18/D/TMW. 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 CONSENT Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 2000-015 Cynthia Schilling 734 Glasgow Street Part of Lot 33, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 1, 2 & 3, Reference Plan 58R-10171 Mr. S. Kay declared a pecuniary interest in this application as he has acted on behalf of the applicant and did not participate in any discussion or voting with respect to this application. Mr. S. Kay left the meeting and Mr. P. Kruse chaired the meeting during consideration of this application and in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, this application was considered by the remaining two members. Appearances: In Support: None Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 296 AUGUST 15, 2000 This application was initially considered at the Committee's March 21, 2000 meeting at which time part of the application requesting permission to quit claim a portion of an existing right-of-way was deferred to this date. 1. Submission No.: B 2000-015 (Cont'd) The Committee was in receipt of a letter from the Secretary-Treasurer dated June 5, 2000 addressed to the applicant advising that the deferral had been for the purpose of providing additional information to staff of the Department of Business & Planning Services as to the reason for the quit claim and to allow a similar application to be submitted by the property owners of 744 Glasgow Street, Kitchener. The letter further advised the applicant that consideration of this matter would be heard at the Committee's meeting to be held this date. The Committee was advised by the Secretary-Treasurer that no further response has been forthcoming, nor has a further application by the owners of 744 Glasgow Street been submitted. Accordingly, the Committee agreed that the application should be deferred one more time to provide the applicant with an opportunity to follow through and should there be no further response the Committee would then consider dismissing this part of the application. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the Committee's meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 3, 2000. 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 and Sign By-laws. This meeting reconvened at 10:30 a.m. APPLICATIONS MINOR VARIANCE Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 2000-046 Antonio Lopez Lena 106 Briarmeadow Crescent Lot 1, Plan 58M-38 Appearances: In Support: Mr. A. Lopez Lena 106 Briarmeadow Crescent Kitchener ON N2A 1C5 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a 3.35 m x 3.65 m (11 ft. x 12 ft.) sunroom addition having a rearyard setback of 5.09 m (16.7 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property is a single detached dwelling located on Briarmeadow Crescent. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan and is zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) according to Zoning By-Law 85-1. The applicant seeks approval to construct a sunroom attached to the rear of the dwelling having a depth of 3.35 metres and 3.65 metres wide. The R-4 zone requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres whereas only 5.1 metres would be provided. Accordingly, the applicant has requested a COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 297 AUGUST 15, 2000 minor variance to reduce the minimum rear yard requirement from the required 7.5 metres to 5.1 metres. This variance can be considered to be minor in nature, as it will not greatly impact on abutting properties. There is no development to the rear of the property and the remaining rear yard is still Submission No.: A2000-046(Cont'd) sufficient for most activities. Further the dwelling will continue to be within the maximum 45% lot coverage. As such, the proposed variance would be considered to be appropriate for the subject lands and would maintain the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-Law. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 2000-046. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division requires a building permit to construct the new sunroom. 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 approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Lopez Lena had anything further to add. Mr. Lopez Lena advised that he had reviewed 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. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application of Antonio Lopez Lena requesting permission to construct a 3.35 m x 3.65 m (11 ft. x 12 ft.) sunroom addition having a rearyard setback of 5.09 m (16.7 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), on Lot 1, Plan 58M-38, 106 Briarmeadow Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: 1. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new sunroom. 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 2000-047 Julius Sepa 86 Ross Avenue Part Lot 69, Re,qistered Plan 765 Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. Sepa 86 Ross Avenue COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 298 AUGUST 15, 2000 Kitchener ON N2A lV3 Contra: None Written Submissions: Submission No.: A2000-047 (Cont'd) In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to legalize an existing garage having a sideyard setback of 0.427 m (1.4 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 is located on the west side of Ross Avenue east of Shantz Lane, west of Wilfred Avenue, south of Prospect Avenue, and north of Weber Street. The land is zoned Residential Four Zone (R-4) and is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan. Application for minor variance has been received for the reduction of the minimum side yard requirement from 1.2 metres (4 feet) to 0.41 metres (1.33 feet) for the construction of a 9.14 metre (30 feet) garage. The Committee of Adjustment approved a minor variance application in August 1991 for a reduction in the minimum side yard requirement from 1.2 metres (4 feet) to 0.16 metres (0.53 feet) to permit the construction of a 4.8 metre (16 feet) attached carport. Comments of the Commissioner of Planning and Development included that the carport was to have all 3 sides open except for the dwelling wall side. Presently, the carport is enclosed on all sides therefore it can no longer be considered as a carport but rather as an attached garage. In addition the structure has been constructed with a 4.3 metre (14 feet) addition to what was approved in 1991. The existing structure is therefore, not legal. Some confusion exists regarding the desired minimum side yard setback for the construction of the garage. The application states that a 16-inch side yard requirement is necessary, whereas the carport as approved by the Committee of Adjustment has a 0.16 metre setback. It is assumed that the applicant wishes to apply for the same reduction in the minimum side yard requirement for construction of the garage, therefore, the following recommendation will be based on a 0.16 metres (0.53 feet) setback. The garage with a 0.16 metre side yard is not considered appropriate development for the subject land. An enclosed garage with a side yard of 0.16 metres (0.53 feet) does not provide for access to the rear yard. Additionally, the 0.16 metre (0.53 feet) does not provide for the maintenance of the northerly side of the garage and roof. Contributing further to this maintenance problem is the existing wooden fence running immediately beside the northerly wall of the garage. The fence obstructs the accessibility of the northerly side wall for maintenance purposes. Staff is of the opinion that the application is not minor in nature, nor appropriate for the development of the lands, and does not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law or Municipal Plan. Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of a minor variance to permit the applicant to construct an attached garage 0.16 metres (0.53 feet) from the property line. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 2000-047 be refused, for the reduction of the minimum side yard requirement from 1.2 metres (4 feet) to 0.16 metres (0.53 feet). The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new attached garage and the wall to be located less than 2' to the property line shall have no openings, have a 45 minute fire resistance rating and non- combustible cladding, and the applicant must ensure that all roof drainage is not directed onto the adjacent property. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 299 AUGUST 15, 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 2. Submission No.: A2000-047 (Cont'd) 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 refusal of the application and enquired if Mr. Sepa had anything further to add. Mr. J. Sepa provided the Committee with photographs of before and after pictures of the carport/garage, noting that he had purchased the home in June 1999 following which he had closed in the carport and added an additional 14 ft. to the rear. In response to questioning, Ms. J. Given clarified that a previous minor variance application had been applied for in 1991 at which time a variance to the sideyard with respect to a carport had been approved. In addition, she advised that if the Committee refused the current application the applicant would be required to at least remove 3ortions of the garage in order for the structure to comply as a carport. The Chair noted that the Committee has previously approved garages with the structure being located in close proximity to the sideyard provided that the wall along the sideyard is constructed maintenance free and requested staff to comment. Ms. J. Given advised that typically approvals have not been recommended for sideyards closer than 2 ft. and there was some question as to whether or not the eaves on the structure would encroach on the neighbouring property. Mr. Sepa stated that he believed that the structure does not encroach on his neighbour's property and that he has approximately 11 inches left from the side of the garage. Mr. A. Galloway requested clarification as to access requirements for rear yards and Ms. Given responded that rearyard access is typically provided by the sideyard; however, noted that access to the rearyard is not the main concern whereas the close proximity to the sideyard is. The Chair enquired if Mr. Sepa had access to his rearyard without going through the house and Mr. Sepa advised that there is a door in the rear of the garage that provides access to the backyard. Following further discussion with respect to concerns that the structure may encroach on the neighbouring property and, as constructed, the applicant cannot maintain that side of the garage without entering onto the neighbouring property, the Chair suggested that the Committee allow Mr. Sepa to defer his application to provide an opportunity for him to obtain a proper survey clearly identifying the location of the garage on the site. The Chair further suggested that it may be in Mr. Sepa's best interest to attempt to obtain a letter from the neighbouring property owner stating they have no objection to the location of the garage. Mr. Kruse and Mr. Galloway concurred with these suggestions. The Chair advised Mr. Sepa that the only other option the Committee felt they had would be to refuse his application following which he would be required to tear down portions of the garage in order to have it comply as a carport. The Chair offered Mr. Sepa the option of deferring his application to allow him an opportunity to obtain a proper survey, ensure that the side of the garage along the property line is constructed in a maintenance free manner and attempt to obtain a letter from the neighbouring property owner stating that they have no objection to the garage. The Chair further advised that providing the additional information would not guarantee approval of the application. Mr. Sepa advised that he would agree to deferral of his application and attempt to follow through on the requests of the Committee. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 300 AUGUST 15, 2000 By general consent is was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the Committee's meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 3, 2000, to allow Mr. Sepa sufficient time to explore the options suggested by the Committee. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 2000-048 Christa Streicher 1097 Queen's Blvd. Part of Lot 4, Registered Plan 786 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Dresler 165 Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3T2 Ms. C. Streicher 368 Albert Street Waterloo ON N2L 3Vl Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to locate a residential care facility on the subject lands having a maximum of 10 residents, rather than the permitted 8. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business and Planning Services in which they advised the subject property is located on the south side of Queen's Boulevard between Belmont Avenue and Blueridge Avenue. Pioneer Youth Services have purchased the property with the intent of establishing a group home of 10 residents whereas the R-6 restricts the number of persons to 8. An occupancy permit has been issued for 8 residents, in accordance with the R-6 regulations. The property has historically been used as a 12 resident lodging house. When the property was zoned R-6 through the City's residential stage of the comprehensive Zoning By-law, a special provision was placed on the property permitting a 12 resident lodging house since the general lodging house regulations would permit only 8 lodgers. In 1992, the City introduced City-wide amendments to the residential care policies which defined the small and large group homes as "3-8 residents" and "more than 8 residents" respectively. By definition, a group home contains a maximum of 10 residents, as set out in Provincial legislation. The Low Rise Residential Municipal Plan designation permits residential care facilities of up to 8 residents to locate in all residential districts, including the R-6 zone. Residential care facilities in excess of 8 residents shall be permitted in Medium and High Rise Residential Districts. The distinction between small and large group homes is based on the ability of 8 or fewer residents to be able to easily integrate into any residential neighbourhood and occupy the standard dwellings in all residential which would have a typical maximum of 4 bedrooms. Further, the parking required for the staff required for small facilities (2 spaces) could be accommodated in many residential properties without the need for any variances. The 8-10 resident group homes were deemed to have more of a multiple residential characteristic by their required building size and greater number of employees requiring parking. The parking required for a large group home is 3 spaces plus 1 for every three employees in attendance at any one time. The proposed Pioneer Youth Services facility has 8 employees although it is not known how many would attend the site at any one time. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 301 AUGUST 15, 2000 The building was designed to accommodate 12 residents so it may be argued that the property is well suited to 10 group home residents without any exterior changes or visual impact on the neighbourhood and so the intent of the Zoning By-law may be maintained. However, the Municipal Plan also contains the numeric distinction between the small and large group homes and clearly indicates that large homes shall be located in Medium and High Density Residential categories. Staff are of the opinion that the intent of the Municipal Plan is not met. Further, since the site has only 2 parking spaces, staff are of the opinion that the variance to permit additional residents and reduced parking is not desirable for the appropriate development of the property as Submission No.: A2000-048 (Cont'd) it cannot accommodate the parking required to operate the facility, which would be at least 4 parking spaces, requiring an additional parking variance. As the variance fails to meet all Planning Act tests for a minor variance, staff recommends refusal of the application for a 10 resident group home. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends refusal of Submission A 2000- 048. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division requires a building permit to change the use of a building from residential to institutional, and for any construction required to accommodate the new use. 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 comments or concerns with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending refusal of the application and inquired if Mr. Dresler had anything further to add. Mr. R. Dresler advised that he was the owner of Pioneer Youth Services and the brother of Christa Streicher. Mr. Dresler pointed out that he believed there was an error in the Planning staff report with regard to the number of parking spaces on the site and provided the Committee with several pictures pointing out that at least 4, if not 5, cars could be parked and moved individually without obstruction. The Chair, together with Mr. A. Galloway, noted that while this may be the case, the parking spaces would not be considered legal as cars were parked ahead of the required setback. Mr. Dresler advised that prior to purchasing the home they had investigated the zoning of the property and were advised that it was licensed as a lodging house for 12 occupants. After the home was purchased, he was advised that there was an error and that they could have only 8 occupants. He further advised that originally 9 nuns were living in the home and the situation with the parking had been ongoing for some time. He noted that the Planning report indicates residential care facilities in excess of 8 residents are only permitted in medium and high rise residential districts and pointed out that in the area there are numerous townhouses and high rise apartments and he considered the area to be at least medium density. He further advised that none of the residents would ever have a drivers licence or a vehicle and the only persons parking on the site would be staff. He pointed out that staff work in shifts and there is only a maximum of up to 3 persons at a time working. Mr. P. Kruse requested staff to comment on the previous lodging house and Ms. J. Given advised that when the property had been rezoned to R-6 the property was already being used as a lodging house with 12 occupants and a special regulation was applied to recognize the existing situation. Mr. Kruse pointed out that the lodging house could have continued indefinitely, as it would be considered legal non-conforming and Ms. Given concurred. Ms. Given further advised that the Municipal Plan Policies are very specific in regulating residential care facilities, allowing only up to 8 residents in Iow rise residential areas and in excess of 8 residents only in medium and high rise residential districts. In this regard, Ms. Given provided a zoning map showing the property is within a Iow rise residential area. Ms. Given advised that she did not disagree that the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 302 AUGUST 15, 2000 site was a suitable location for the residential care facility and suggested that the applicant would have the option of applying for an amendment to the Municipal Plan which staff would most likely support. The Committee then entered into a discussion with respect to their authority to deal with this variance as it would appear the request is regulated by the Municipal Plan Policies and the Committee does not have delegated authority with respect to the Municipal Plan. Submission No.: A2000-048 (Cont'd) During this discussion, Ms. Given advised that one of the four tests the Committee is to consider in making its decision is whether or not the general intent and purpose of the Municipal Plan is being maintained. Staff are of the opinion that this application does not meet that test. Following further discussion, Mr. P. Kruse stated that it would appear that the Committee could not deal with this application and that the proper process for the applicant would be to apply for a Zone Change and Municipal Plan amendment. Mr. Dresler stated that he had spoken with staff of the Planning Division and was advised that he should apply for a minor variance application. Mr. Kruse stated that it appeared the applicants had been given incorrect advice by Planning staff and stated that he was prepared to refund the application fee. Moved by Mr. P. Kruse Seconded by Mr. A. Galloway That the application fee in the amount of $286.00 submitted by Ms. Christa Streicher for Minor Variance application, Submission No. A 2000-048, 1097 Queen's Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario be refunded. Ms. J. Given advised that discussion had been undertaken with the applicant with respect to the zoning requirements and pointed out that, while staff provided the option of applying for a minor variance, the applicants were advised that staff would not be supportive. She stated that it was staff's opinion that it was not their decision to make but that of the Committee as to whether or not the application was valid. Mr. A. Galloway and Mr. P. Kruse were of the opinion that as the Municipal Plan policies clearly set out specific numbers allowed, staff should have so advised the applicant. The Chair pointed out that the issue of the Municipal Plan policy is only one of the four tests and suggested that if the application meets the remaining 3 tests, the Committee may wish to consider if that is sufficient enough to approve the application. Following further discussion, Mr. A. Galloway advised that he was prepared to move approval of the application based on the fact that he felt the application did meet the remaining three tests. Mr. P. Kruse agreed and, accordingly, formally withdrew his previous motion. Ms. J. Given pointed out that if the Committee was prepared to move approval of the application, it should address the parking situation. Discussion was then undertaken with respect to the parking issue and it was agreed that approval would be given for parking to be in tandem to create the required 4 spaces. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Christa Streicher requesting permission to locate a residential care facility having a maximum of 10 residents, rather than the permitted eight, and to allow 2 required parking spaces to be in tandem, on Part of Lot 4, Registered Plan 786, 1097 Queen's Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the owner shall obtain a building permit required to change the use of the building from residential to institutional and for any construction required to accommodate the new use. It is the opinion of this Committee that: COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 303 AUGUST 15, 2000 1. The variances requested in this application are minor in nature. 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law is being maintained on the subject property. Carried A 2000-049 loan Razvan Dumbrava 51 Connelly Drive Part of Lot 104, Registered Plan 1448, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-6050 Appearances: In Support: Mr. I. Dumbrava 51 Connelly Drive Kitchener ON N2N 2T7 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct an attached carport having a sideyard setback of 0.61 m (2 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 is located on the north side of Connelly Drive, south of Highland Road and north of Rolling Meadows Drive. A 2-storey semi-detached dwelling built in 1988 currently occupies the site. The lot has 9.14 metres (30 feet) of frontage on Connelly Drive and has a 3.9 metres (12.75 feet) driveway located on the northern side of the property. The applicant wishes to construct a carport on the northerly side of the property, 2 feet from the side lot line. Application for minor variance is required to reduce the minimum side yard requirement from 1.2 metres (4 feet) to 0.6 metres (2 feet) to permit the construction of the carport. The existing driveway leads into the northerly side yard, thereby providing a space for parking at the side of the house. The proposed carport would be constructed over the existing side yard portion of the driveway and be attached to the dwelling unit. The roof of the carport would be supported on the northerly side by five 6x6 wooden posts on concrete peers. Since the carport is not completely enclosed, access to the rear yard from the front yard will remain possible. The carport would not interfere with the ability of the northerly neighbours to enjoy their own side yard. The driveway of the neighbour's property is located immediately adjacent to the applicant's driveway. The carport would therefore remain approximately 4 metres (13 feet) away from the neighbouring dwelling. In addition, the 0.6m (2 feet) side yard set back would still provide sufficient space for the maintenance of the northerly side of the carport. Staff is of the opinion that the application is minor in nature, appropriate for the development of the lands, and maintains the intent of the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A 2000-049 be approved, for the reduction of the minimum side yard requirement from 1.2 metres (4 feet) to 0.6 metres (2 feet) to permit the construction of a carport on the northerly side of the property only, in accordance with the plan attached to this application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 304 AUGUST 15, 2000 The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division requires a building permit to construct the new carport and the applicant must ensure roof drainage is not directed onto the adjacent property. 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 4. Submission No.: A2000-049(Cont'd) Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection or concerns with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and inquired if Mr. Dumbrava had anything further to add. Mr. Dumbrava advised that he had reviewed the staff report and had nothing further to add. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of loan Razvan Dumbrava requesting permission to construct an attached carport on the northerly side of the subject property, having a sideyard setback of 0.61 m (2 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.), on Part of Lot 104, Registered Plan 1448, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-6050, 51 Connelly Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: That the variance as approved in this application shall be in accordance with the drawings submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-049. 2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new carport. 3. That the owner shall ensure that all roof drainage is directed onto the subject property. 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 CONSENT Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 2000-047 Doug & Dianne Sullivan 133 Ripplewood Crescent Part Lot 264, Registered Plan 946 Appearances: In Support: Mr. J. Sorbara Flynn & Sorbara 300 Victoria Street North Kitchener ON N2H 6R9 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 305 AUGUST 15, 2000 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None 1. Submission No.: B 2000-047 (Cont'd) The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a small parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting property known municipally as 129 Ripplewood Crescent. The lands to be severed will have an average width of 2.43 m (8 ft.), by a depth of 18.28 m (60 ft.) and an average area of 22.29 m2 (240 sq. ft.). The lands to be retained contain an existing residential dwelling having an area of 984.66 m2 (10.599.16 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the owners of the subject property at 133 Ripplewood Crescent are requesting permission to sever a small parcel of land on the easterly side of their lot. The purpose of the severance is to convey the land parcel to merge with the abutting lands to the east at 129 Ripplewood Crescent. The parcel of land proposed to be severed is located in the rear yard, has a depth of approximately 18 metres (60 feet), a width ranging from 0 metres (0 feet) to 2.4 metres (8 feet) at the rear lot line and an area of approximately 20.4 square metres (220 square feet). The parcel currently contains a wide 2.5 metre (8 foot) high hedge and a 1.8 metre (6 foot) high chain link fence. The parcel of land proposed to be retained is pie-shaped in size and contains a single detached dwelling. It has a frontage of approximately 17.6 metres (58 feet) along the front yard setback of Ripplewood Crescent and an area of approximately 1,320 square metres (14,232 square feet). The property at 129 Ripplewood Crescent contains a single detached dwelling, and will slightly increase in size with the merging of the proposed severed parcel. There is a significant slope between both properties at the side property line. The previous owner at 133 Ripplewood Crescent had planted a hedge along the top to the slope to enclose its backyard even though the side property line ran generally along the bottom of the slope. The owner at 129 Ripplewood Crescent had installed a chain link fence at the bottom of the retaining wall and the lower part of the slope enclosing their swimming pool and flower garden over the property line and onto the abutting lands at 133 Ripplewood Crescent. Accordingly, since the slope lands benefit the owner at 129 Ripplewood Crescent, both property owners have agreed that to resolve this encroachment and conveyance of the proposed severed land parcel from one owner to the other would be appropriate. The Department is of the opinion that the proposed lot addition is appropriate as it would allow for the conflict between ownership and use of the lands to be resolved. Accordingly, the Department supports the severance application subject to the conditions listed below. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B 2000-047 be approved, subject to the following conditions: That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 306 AUGUST 15, 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 Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no objection to the proposed lot addition; 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. Submission No.: B 2000-047 (Cont'd) The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objections to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to certain conditions and inquired if Mr. Sorbara had anything further to add. Mr. J. Sorbara advised that he had reviewed the staff reports and was in agreement with the recommendations contained therein. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Doug and Dianne Sullivan requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting property known municipally as 129 Ripplewood Crescent having an average width of 2.43 m (8 ft.), by a depth of 18.28 m (60 ft.), and an average area of 22.29 m2 (240 sq. ft.), on Part of Lot 264, Registered Plan 946, 133 Ripplewood Crescent, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands, known municipally as 129 Ripplewood Crescent, and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. 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 August 15, 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: Le.qal Description: B 2000-048 & B 2000-049 The Estate of James Albert Harding 66 Nine Pines Road Lot 4, Re.qistered Plan 734 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 307 AUGUST 15, 2000 Appearances: In Support: Mr. H. Truong Shuh Cline & Grossman Barristers & Solicitors 17 Weber Street West Kitchener ON N2H 3Y9 Submission Nos.: B 2000-048 & B 2000-049 (Cont'd) Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create 2 new lots by severing 2 parcels of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of 674.321 m2 (7,258.56 sq. ft.). Both parcels to be severed will have frontage on Nine Pines Road and will be developed with single residential dwellings. The first parcel to be severed will have frontage of 21.182 m (69.49 ft.), by a depth of 34.036 m (111.67 ft.) and an area of 720.95 m2 (7,760.5 sq. ft.). The second parcel will have frontage of 15.24 m (50 ft.), by a depth of 40.994 m (134.49 ft.) and an area of 624.748 m~ (6,724.93 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the owner of the property at 66 Nine Pines Road is requesting permission to sever the property and create two new lots for single detached dwellings. The first proposed severed lot (Part 2) being a corner lot would have a frontage of 21.182 metres (69.94 feet) on Nine Pines Road, a depth of 34.036 metres (111.67 feet) and a lot area of 720.95 square metres (7,760.5 square feet). This parcel is currently used as a vegetable garden. The second proposed severed lot (Part 3) would have a frontage of 15.24 metres (50 feet), a depth of 40.994 metres (134.49 feet) and an area of 624.75 square metres (6,724.96 square feet). This parcel is also used as a vegetable garden. The proposed retained lot (Part 1) at 66 Nine Pines Road would have a frontage of 19.812 metres (65 feet), a depth of 34.036 metres (111.67 feet) and a lot area of 674.32 square metres (7,258.5 square feet) and is occupied with a single detached dwelling. The proposed retained and severed lots comply with the R-3 zoning and the Low Rise Residential District in the Municipal Plan. The zoning along Nine Pines Road is R-3 and the existing lots range in width from 15 metres (50 feet) to 21 metres (69 feet). The proposed severed and retained lots are similar in width and will fit in with the character of the street. The five large evergreen trees located on the property are situated such that it would appear that they will not need to be removed and can be saved as there appears to be adequate room for the location of the two new single detached dwellings and associated driveways. Accordingly, the Department supports the severance applications subject to the conditions listed below. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Applications B 2000-048 and B2000-049 be approved subject to the following conditions: That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 308 AUGUST 15, 2000 That the owners pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of each of the severed parcels. That the owners make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works, for the installation of all new service connections to each of the severed lands. 2. Submission Nos.: B 2000-048 & B 2000-049 (Cont'd) That the owners make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees, and a paved driveway ramp on each of the severed lands. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to these applications. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the applications and have no objection to the creation of the two new lots; 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 these applications. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application subject to certain conditions and inquired if Mr. Truong had anything further to add. Mr. H. Truong advised that he had reviewed the staff reports and was in agreement with the recommendations contained therein. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Consent B 2000-048 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of The Estate of James Albert Harding requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having frontage on Nine Pines Road of 21.182 m (69.49 ft.), by a depth of 34.036 m (111.67 ft.) and an area of 720.95 m2 (7,760.5 sq. ft.), on Lot 4, Registered Plan 734, 66 Nine Pines Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the severed parcel. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works for the installation of all new service connections to the severed parcel. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees and a paved driveway ramp on the severed parcel. Pursuant to Subsection 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the applicant shall fulfil the above- noted conditions within one year of the date of giving notice of this decision. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 309 AUGUST 15, 2000 Pursuant to Subsection 43 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, the decision of this Committee shall lapse two years from the date of approval, being August 15, 2002. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. Submission Nos.: B 2000-048 & B 2000-049 (Cont'd) The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried Consent B 2000-049 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of The Estate of James Albert Harding requesting permission to convey a parcel of land having frontage on Nine Pines Road of 15.24 m (50 ft.), by a depth of 40.994 m (134.49 ft.) and an area of 624.748 m2 (6,724.95 sq. ft.), on Lot 4, Registered Plan 734, 66 Nine Pines Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the owner shall pay to the City of Kitchener a cash-in-lieu contribution for park dedication equal to 5% of the value of the severed parcel. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works for the installation of all new service connections to the severed parcel. That the owner shall make financial arrangements to the satisfaction of the City's General Manager of Public Works for the installation, to City standards, of boulevard landscaping including street trees and a paved driveway ramp on the severed parcel. 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 August 15, 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. 3. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried Submission No: B 2000-050 Applicant: Waterloo Condominium Corporation 211 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 310 AUGUST 15, 2000 Property Location: Legal Description: 165 Chandos Drive Block 85, Registered Plan 1692, Parts 3 and 5 on Reference Plan 58R-8315 Appearances: In Support: Submission No: Mr. C. Pidgeon Green Scheels PidgeonPlanning Consultants Limited 201-72 Victoria Street South Kitchener ON N2G 4Y9 B 2000-050(Cont'd) Contra: Mr. Gary Windsor 302-600 Greenfield Avenue Kitchener ON N2C 2J9 Written Submissions: In Support: Mr. C. Pidgeon Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants Limited 201-72 Victoria Street South Kitchener ON N2G 4Y9 Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting property by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of 6,249.39 m2 (67,270.07 sq. ft.). The lands to be severed are to be added to an adjoining townhouse project and will have frontage on Chandos Drive of 26.632 m (87.37 ft.) and an area of 1,050.92 m2 (11,312.38 sq. ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands are comprised of two separate properties, which are together known as 165 Chandos Drive. The lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan and are zoned Residential Six Zone (R-6) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. Both properties are shown on the attached severance plan. The applicant is requesting consent to sever a portion of the small property, identified as Parts 3 and 5 on the severance plan, so that they may be conveyed as a lot addition to the abutting larger property, owned by Freure Promontory Limited. The small property is presently developed with an 8 unit townhouse condominium development, registered as Waterloo Condominium Corporation 211. The larger property is presently vacant, but is intended to be developed with a 56 unit townhouse condominium development in accordance with the approved site plan (attached). Both properties will ultimately function as one site and eventually, the two condominium corporations will be merged. The proposed lot addition will facilitate the full development of the existing vacant property as set out in the approved site plan. Specifically, a portion of the internal Road No. 2 and Building Block 10, as shown on the attached site plan, are located within the lands proposed to be severed (Parts 3 and 5). In reviewing the consent application, it has been determined that the retained lands would not comply with the minimum lot width requirement of the R-6 Zone. Since the effect of the consent application would be to alter the "outside lot lines" of a registered lot, being the retained lands owned by Waterloo Condominium Corporation 211, the non-compliance is not covered by Section 5.21 of the Zoning By-law which addresses non-compliance with internal lot lines created by the phased registration of a condominium. As such, concurrent approval of a minor variance application for the retained lands will be required. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Application B 2000-050 be deferred until the September 12, 2000 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment to COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 311 AUGUST 15, 2000 allow the applicant an opportunity to submit an appropriate application for minor variance for the retained lands. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. Submission No: B 2000-050(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 objection to the proposed lot addition; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and there may be a Regional fee assessed for development agreements, if required. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection to the approval of the severance application to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to the adjoining townhouse development. While both the severed parcels and retained parcels are regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority under Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98, any outstanding issues pertaining to the townhouse development will be addressed through the site plan approval process and the GRCA permit process. The Committee noted a written submission from Mr. C. Pidgeon, Green Scheels Pidgeon, in which he advised that a slight modification to the application is being requested. He noted that Planning staff were suggesting deferral of the application pending submission of a minor variance application for a reduction in the lot frontage of the retained parcel and, alternatively, he asked the Committee to consider a revised severance concept which provides the retained parcel with the required frontage of 15 m by slightly shifting one of the boundaries with the severed parcel. He advised that he has confirmed that such an alternative would meet the requirements of the Zoning By-law and would be acceptable with Ms. Carla Ladd, the Planning Director. The revised concept was attached for review. The Chair reviewed the staff comments and in reference to the suggestion by Planning staff that the application be deferred pending submission of a minor variance application, the Chair inquired if Mr. Pidgeon had anything further to add. Mr. C. Pidgeon referred to his letter dated August 14, 2000, in which he requested that the Committee consider a revised severance concept that would provide the retained lands with the required frontage. Mr. Pidgeon provided a coloured concept plan for the Committee's review. The Committee concurred with the requested amendment. Mr. G. Windsor advised that he was a resident of the area and wished more information with respect to what is proposed as many in the neighbourhood were unsure of what was taking place. The Chair explained that the intent of the severance application was an internal land exchange between the existing condominium development and the adjacent larger vacant parcel which is to be developed with a number of townhouse units. The Chair inquired if the vacant parcel had site plan approval and Ms. J. Given advised that approval has been given in principle. Mr. C. Pidgeon further explained that final approval of the site plan is pending successful outcome of the severance application. He advised that a number of meetings had been held with area residents and one more was pending to deal with issues relevant to the trail development. Mr. Windsor stated that the proposal appears to be significantly different from what was originally proposed, noting concerns relating to traffic impact, and questioned if there would be opportunity for further neighbourhood input. Ms. J. Given pointed out that a previous minor variance application relative to this site had generated a number of neighbourhood meetings during which area residents expressing COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 312 AUGUST 15, 2000 concerns had been involved. She expressed the opinion that the site plan as proposed was the result of an extensive consultative process. Mr. Pidgeon further advised that notices of the neighbourhood meetings had been hand delivered to area residents in the immediate vicinity on Tinatawa Court and Chandos Drive and, while no meeting date has yet been coordinated, there is a requirement for one more public meeting relative to the trail development. Submission No: B 2000-050(Cont'd) Mr. A. Galloway stated that he was satisfied that due public process had been undertaken and was in support of approving the application. The remaining members of the Committee concurred. Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of the Waterloo Condominium Corporation No. 211 requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting property having frontage on Chandos Drive of 24.632 m (80.81 ft.) and an average area of 1,050.92 m2 (11,312.38 sq. ft.), on Block 85, Registered Plan 1692, designated as Parts 3 & 5 on Reference Plan 58R-8315, 165 Chandos Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. 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 August 15, 2002. It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 2000-051 Humpty Dumpty Snack Foods Inc. 3065 King Street East Part of Lots 31 & 33, Municipal Compiled Plan 986 The Chair advised that a letter dated August 9, 2000 has been received from Ms. Diana Biuk, Green Scheels Pidgeon, in which she requests deferral of the application. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 313 AUGUST 15, 2000 By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of this application would be deferred to the Committee's meeting scheduled for Tuesday, October 3, 2000. Submission Nos.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 2000-052 to B 2000-062 inclusive Cydev Holdings Inc. 63-67 Woolwich Street Part of Lot 59, German Company Tract, designated as Parts 1 to 11 inclusive on Reference Plan 58R-12493 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Sutherland Sutherland Mark Bumstead Flemming 300-255 King Street North Waterloo ON N2J 4V2 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to create 11 new lots by severing a parcel of land and retaining a parcel of land having an area of 0.979 ha (2.42 ac). The lands to be severed are to be developed with 11 townhouse dwellings all having frontage on Woolwich Street. The first severed parcel will have a frontage of 8.644 m (28.36 ft.) and an area of 321.1 m2 (3,456.4 sq. ft.). Parcels 2, 3, 6 and 7 will have a frontage of 6.312 m (20.7 ft.) and an area of 234.1 m2 (2,519.91 sq. ft.). Parcels 4, 5, 8 and 9 will have a frontage of 7.41 m (24.31 sq. ft.) and an area of 274.8 m~ (2,958.02 sq. ft.). Parcel 10 will have a frontage of 6.337 m (20.79 ft.) and an area of 228.9 m~ (2,463.94 sq. ft.). Parcel 11 will have a frontage of 21.712 m (71.23 ft.) and an area of 356.1 m~ (3,833.15 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 westerly side of Woolwich Street just north of Hill Crest Lane. In March of 1999 the Committee of Adjustment considered and approved an application for minor variances to the minimum Floor Space Ratio and minimum interior side yard requirements to permit the development of the lands abutting Woolwich Street with 11 townhouse units. Approval of a site plan showing the location of the proposed townhouse units was given in October of 1999. The purpose of the consent applications is to create the 11 individual townhouse lots to facilitate the sale of each of the townhouse dwellings. In reviewing the applications for consent, staff conducted a zoning analysis to determine if each of the proposed townhouse lots would meet zoning requirements. It would appear that at least five of the proposed dwellings will not comply with maximum lot coverage requirement. Also, It was determined that the site was not developed in accordance with the approved site plan drawing. As the minor variances approved under application A107/98 only applied to the townhouse development finally approved under Site Plan Application SP 98/51NV/Z J, the minor variances as they relate to the minimum required Floor Space Ratio and interior side yard are no longer valid. The applicant has been advised that minor variances to the minimum FSR, maximum lot coverage, and minimum interior side yard requirements, will be required in order to bring the proposed townhouse lots into compliance with Zoning By-law 85-1. It would not be appropriate at this time to consider these applications for consent in the absence of an COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 314 AUGUST 15, 2000 application for minor variances. Accordingly, staff recommends that these applications be deferred to the September 12, 2000 agenda. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Consent Applications B2000-052 to B2000-062 be deferred to the September 12, 2000 meeting to enable the submission of a minor variance application to be dealt with concurrently. 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. 5. Submission Nos.: B 2000-052 to B 2000-062 inclusive (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 objection to the proposed development; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and there may be a Regional fee assessed for development agreements, if required. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection with respect to these applications. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that Planning staff are recommending deferral of the applications to enable the submission of a minor variance application to be dealt with concurrently relative to variances to the minimum floor space ratio, maximum lot coverage and minimum interior sideyard requirements. The Chair inquired if Mr. Sutherland had anything further to add. Mr. R. Sutherland advised that he had reviewed the staff reports and was in agreement with deferring the application to the Committee's next meeting to be held on September 12, 2000. He further advised that a minor variance application had been filed that morning in the Clerk's Division. By general consent, it was agreed that consideration of these applications would be deferred to the Committee's next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 12, 2000. a) Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 2000-063 Shirley Filiatrault 84 Maple Hill Drive Part of Lots 10 & 11 , Re,qistered Plan 877 b) Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: B 2000-064 Westmount Golf & Country Club Limited 50 Inverness Drive Part of Lots 3 & 4, Re,qistered Plan 794 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Sutherland Sutherland Mark Bumstead Flemming 300-255 King Street North Waterloo ON N2J 4V2 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 315 AUGUST 15, 2000 The Committee was advised that the lands involved in these applications comprise the Westmount Golf & Country Club (WGCC) and an abutting residential property. The applicants are proposing each to exchange a small parcel of their lands as a lot addition to the other. The lands to be severed from 84 Maple Hill Drive and added to 50 Inverness Drive (WGCC) will have a lot width of 10.22 m (33.54 ft.), by an average depth of 26.1 m (85.63 ft.) and an area of 266.81 m2 (2,872.03 sq. ft.); with the lands to be retained having an average area of 4,712.18 m2 (50,723.14 sq. ft.). The lands to be severed from 50 Inverness Drive and added to 84 Maple Hill Drive will have an average lot width of 4.04 m (13.25 ft.), by an average depth of 59.02 m (193.62 ft.) and an area of 238.44 m~ (2,566.64 sq. ft.); with the lands to be retained having an average area of 70.82 ha (175 ac). 6. Submission Nos.: B 2000-063 & B 2000-064 (Cont'd) The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised these two consent applications propose to adjust the lot lines between a residence on Maple Hill Drive and the Westmount Golf and Country Club. Application B 2000-063 proposes to sever a small corner from the Filiatrault property which is used by the golf course as part of its cart path, to be added to the golf course holdings. As part of the residential lot, the land to be severed is zoned R-2 and as such, cannot be used for a golf course. A zone change would be required to rezone this part of the property to P-4 before the endorsement of a consent. Staff would be prepared to recommend the consent conditionally upon the final approval of the zone change, however, given that the applicants have only 1 year to fulfil the consent conditions, the applicants may choose to defer the consideration of this application at least until a zone change application is submitted by the golf course. The processing would take approximately 4 months. The complimentary application, B2000-064 seeks approval to sever a wedge-shaped parcel from the golf course lands to be added to the residential property to increase the rear yard, which is only about 7.5 feet at the closest point. The lot addition would add another 13.25 feet at its widest point, bringing the rear yard more into conformity with the by-law requirements. Again, the severed lands are not zoned the same as the lands to which they would be added, as they are zoned Golf Course Zone (P-4), however, the applicant has indicated that the lands would not be used for any residential buildings, but remain vacant as outdoor amenity area. As such, staff would not require the rezoning of the severed lands to be added to the residential lot. The applicant has expressed a desire to proceed with the consent without the rezoning of the parcel. Staff caution that the residential landowner would be unable to construct any accessory building within this part to be added. In both lot addition applications, a 1 foot reserve owned by the City of Kitchener which surrounds the golf course must be modified to reflect the lot line adjustments. The proposed severance plan shows the new 1 foot reserves which would be given to the City in place of the existing ones surrounding the golf course lands. In summary, staff are able to support both lot line adjustments with a condition relating to the final approval of the zone change required for B2000-063. If, however, the applicant wished to defer this application to allow the zone change to be submitted to ensure the time limit for fulfilling conditions does not expire, staff would support this. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission B 2000-063 subject to the following conditions: 1. That final approval of a zone change to rezone the severed lands to R-2 be given. That the draft reference plan showing the revised 1 foot reserve be approved by the City's Principal Planner. That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City Solicitor to lift the existing 1 foot reserve and replace it with a relocated 1 foot reserve. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 316 AUGUST 15, 2000 That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission B 2000-064 subject to the following conditions: That the draft reference plan showing the revised 1 foot reserve be approved by the City's Principal Planner. Submission That satisfactory arrangements be made with the City Solicitor to lift the existing 1 foot reserve and replace it with a relocated 1 foot reserve. Nos.: B 2000-063 & B 2000-064 (Cont'd) That the lands to be severed be added to the abutting lands and title be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Sections 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to these applications. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed these applications and have no objection to the proposed lot additions; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038, or any successor thereof and there may be a Regional fee assessed for development agreements, if required. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection to these applications. A portion of the retained parcel (Westmount Golf & Country Club) contains the Clair Creek Scheduled Area and is consequently regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority under Ontario Regulation 149 as amended by 69/93, 669/94 and 142/98; however, the proposed lot additions are outside of regulated areas. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the applications subject to certain conditions. The Chair inquired if Mr. Sutherland had anything further to add. Mr. R. Sutherland reviewed the proposed land exchanges, noting that the parcel identified as "B" on the plan submitted with the application is being transferred from the Westmount Golf Course to the Filiatraults and Parcel "E" is being transferred from the Filiatraults to the Westmount Golf Club. Mr. Sutherland advised that there is an existing agreement between both parties for use of the lands involved in the exchange which is to expire in the year 2007; however, the purpose of the land exchange is to give proper title of the parcels respectively to Westmount Golf Club and the Filiatraults. In addition, Mr. Sutherland pointed out that existing 1 ft. reserve in favour of the City shown as Parcels "A" & "F" on the plan will be replaced with those identified as Parcels "C" & "D". The Chair referred to the conditions relating to the 1 ft. reserve in the Planning staff report and suggested that the conditions be modified to clearly identify the exchange of reserves by their designated letter. Similarly he suggested that the condition relating to the severed lands being taken in identical ownership clearly identify which property owner the lands were being given to. The Committee concurred with these suggestions. Ms. J. Given pointed out that the reserves as shown on the draft reference plan may need minor modifications and suggested that as the descriptions were being cited specifically, the words "generally shown as" be added to give staff latitude to make the minor modifications, if required. The Committee concurred with this suggestion. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 317 AUGUST 15, 2000 Mr. R. Sutherland also advised that a zone change application will be required for the lands being exchanged from the Filiatraults to the Westmount Golf Course and Planning staff have suggested that the applicants may wish to consider deferral of the application pending the outcome of a zone change amendment rather than proceeding at this time. Mr. Sutherland advised that the applicants wish to proceed with the severance application at this time and are agreeable to consent being conditional upon a zone change application being finally approved. Mr. P. Kruse inquired if Mr. Sutherland had any concerns with regard to the timeline for fulfilling conditions and Mr. Sutherland stated that he had no concerns. 6. Submission No.: B 2000-063 & B 2000-064 (Cont'd) Consent B 2000-063 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of Shirley Filiatrault requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting property, known municipally as 50 Inverness Drive, having a lot width of 10.22 m (33.54 ft.), by an average depth of 26.1 m (85.63 ft.) and an area of 266.81 m2 (2,872.03 sq. ft.); and to allow relocation of a 1 ft. reserve owned by the City of Kitchener, on Part of Lots 10 & 11, Registered Plan 877, 84 Maple Hill Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That final approval of a zone change to rezone the severed lands to Residential Two Zone (R-2) shall be given. That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the draft reference plan showing the revised 1 ft. reserve shall be approved by the City's Principal Planner. That satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City Solicitor to lift the existing 1 ft. reserve identified as "A" and "F" and replace it with a relocated 1 ft. reserve generally shown as "C" and "D" on the plans submitted with Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-063. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands, known municipally as 50 Inverness Drive (Westmount Golf & Country Club Limited), and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Section 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. 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 August 15, 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 318 AUGUST 15, 2000 The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried Consent B 2000-064 Moved by Mr. A. Galloway Seconded by Mr. P. Kruse That the application of the Westmount Golf & Country Club Limited requesting permission to convey a parcel of land as a lot addition to an abutting property, known municipally as 84 Maple Hill Drive, having an average lot width of 4.04 m (13.25 ft.), by an average depth of 6. Submission No.: B 2000-063 & B 2000-064 (Cont'd) 59.02 m (193.62 ft.) and an area of 238.44 m2 (2,566.64 sq. ft.); and to allow relocation of a 1 ft. reserve owned by the City of Kitchener, on Part of Lots 3 & 4, Registered Plan 794, 50 Inverness Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: That the owner shall make satisfactory arrangements with the City of Kitchener for the payment of any outstanding municipal property taxes and/or local improvement charges. That the draft reference plan showing the revised 1 ft. reserve shall be approved by the City's Principal Planner. That satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the City Solicitor to lift the existing 1 ft. reserve identified as "A" and replace it with a relocated 1 ft. reserve generally shown as "C" on the plans submitted with Consent Application, Submission No. B 2000-064. That the lands to be severed shall be added to the abutting lands, known municipally as 84 Maple Hill Drive (Shirley Filiatrault), and title shall be taken in identical ownership as the abutting lands. Any subsequent conveyance of the parcel to be severed shall comply with Section 50(3) and/or (5) of the Planning Act, 1995. 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 August 15, 2002. It is the opinion of this Committee that: A plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The requirements of the Zoning By-law are being maintained on the severed lands and the retained lands. The use of the land in the application conforms to the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 15th day of August, 2000. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 319 AUGUST 15, 2000 J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment