Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdjustment - 2000-12-12COA\2000-12-12 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CITY OF KITCHENER MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD DECEMBER 12, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. P. Britton, D. Cybalski and B. Isaac. OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ms. J. Given, Principal Planner and Ms. J. Billett, Secretary-Treasurer. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That Mr. S. Kay be appointed Chair of the Committee of Adjustment for a term to expire November 30, 2001. Moved by Mr. P. Britton Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That Mr. P. Kruse be appointed Vice-Chair of the Committee of Adjustment for a term November 30, 2001. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac Carried to expire Carried That Mr. P. Britton be appointed Acting Chair for the Committee of Adjustment meeting of December 12, 2000. Mr. P. Britton, Acting Chair, called this meeting to order at 10:08 a.m. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski Carried That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Committee of Adjustment of November 21, 2000, as mailed to the members, be accepted. A 2000-078 Oliver Berry 33 Campbell Avenue Part Lot A, Re.qistered Plan 40 NEW BUSINESS MINOR VARIANCE Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: Appearances: In Support: Mr. O. Berry COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 420 DECEMBER 12, 2000 Submission No.: 32 Costain Court A 2000-078 (Cont'd) Kitchener ON N2N 3A8 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the lands involved in this application are proposed to be developed as a church. The applicant is requesting permission to locate one of the required parking spaces setback 2.44 m (8 ft.) from the front lot line, rather than the required 3.05 m (10 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the lands are designated General Industrial in the North Ward Neighbourhood Secondary Plan of the City's Municipal Plan and are zoned General Industrial Zone (M-2) according to Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is requesting permission to locate one of the two parking spaces in front of the vacant industrial building 2.44 metres (8 ft.) from the front property line. Parking is permitted 3 m (9.84 ft.) from the front property line. As there is no survey plan of the property, the drawing submitted with the application is a copy of that approved by the Department of Business and Planning Services on April 22, 1970 and shows a building setback 7.62 m (25 ft.). There exists a 1.37 m (4.5 ft.) deep landing in front of the building. The applicant has shown one of the parking spaces to be in the area of the existing landing. Accordingly, to provide proper functioning parking spaces, both parking spaces will need to be shifted closer to the street by 1.37 m (4.5 ft.). This will result in the requested parking space setback being further reduced to 1.07 m (3.5 ft.) from the street line rather than the required 3.0 m (9.84 ft.). There is no defined property line at the front of the property as there is no sidewalk or any boulevard. The building is currently vacant and the applicant proposes a church and associated uses which is a permitted use under M-2 zoning. The building has a floor area of 234.4 square metres (2,523 sq. ft.). Staff have a concern with regard to the limited number of parking spaces provided. The parking requirement for a religious institution for this type of building with no fixed seating provided is based on one parking space for every 23 m2 of floor area involving the assembly of persons. Accordingly, this property requires 10 parking spaces to be provided. There is inadequate room on site to provide for the required parking. Staff are of the opinion that the minor variance should not be considered at this time given that the site cannot accommodate the required parking. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends deferral of Submission A 2000-078 to January 9, 2001. 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 no concerns with the proposed parking spaces; however, the parking spaces should be properly demarcated. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning and 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 421 DECEMBER 12, 2000 Submission No.: A2000-078 (Cont'd) The Committee noted the comments of the Ministry of Transportation in which they advised that the application has been considered in accordance with the requirements of our highway access control policies and the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. The Ministry does not anticipate a problem with its highway system as a result of this application. Based on the sketch provided with the application, the owner does not require a permit from the Ministry of Transportation before construction commences on the parking spaces. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending deferral of the application and enquired if Mr. Berry had anything further to add. Mr. O. Berry advised that it was intended to develop a church on the subject property and he had been unaware that the site would not accommodate the required parking. In this regard, he advised that he has had discussion with a neighbouring property owner who has agreed to allow him to use 7 parking spaces on the neighbouring property in order to meet parking requirements. The Chair requested staff to comment. Ms. J. Given advised that it has been determined the church will require 10 parking spaces and these cannot be accommodated on the subject property. Accordingly, staff are recommending that the application be deferred to allow an opportunity to discuss alternatives with the applicant. In addition, she pointed out that use of the neighbouring property for parking would require agreements to be entered into and suggested that all alternatives should be explored prior to the Committee giving full consideration to the application. The Chair enquired if Mr. Berry was in agreement with staff's recommendation to defer the application. Mr. Berry again referred to the proposal to use parking on the neighbouring property and advised that the church congregation is currently renting another facility. He stated that the church congregation would like to have a permanent home. The Chair stated that while the proposal to use parking on the neighbouring property maybe of assistance in resolving the parking concerns, he was in agreement with staff that further discussion of the issues should take place prior to a decision being made with respect to this application. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-078, as applied for by Oliver Berry for the property known municipally as 33 Campbell Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE DEFERRED, to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on Tuesday, January 9, 2001, to allow an opportunity for the applicant to have further discussions with staff of the Department of Business & Planning Services relative to this application. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 2000-079 Scott Fisher 60 Cameron Street North Part of Lot 4, Re.qistered Plan 126 Appearances: In Support: Mr. S. Fisher 16 Cameron Street North COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 422 DECEMBER 12, 2000 Submission No.: Kitchener ON N2H 3A1 A 2000-079 (Cont'd) Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a fire escape access to the upper floor of an existing multiple residential dwelling have a frontyard setback of 3 m (9.84 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.76 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject land is located on the westerly side of Cameron Street just south of Weber Street and contains a duplex dwelling with a covered front porch. The property has an area of approximately 317.7 m2 (3,420 sq. ft.) and 11.6 m (38 ft.) of frontage on Cameron Street. A second floor exterior door exists above the covered ground floor porch, but is currently inaccessible from the exterior since there is not a deck or staircase to allow entry or exit from the outside. This door is currently barricaded with an exterior, iron gate. The surrounding neighbourhood consists primarily of single detached residential dwellings, many of which have large covered porches. The applicant wishes to replace the existing front porch with a porch that extends across the entire facade of the building. Additionally, the applicant wishes to construct a similar second floor porch with a three-foot wide wooden staircase from the northerly side yard to the second floor. This deck and staircase would serve as a private entrance and fire escape for the second floor unit. To permit the proposed construction, the following minor variances will be required: a) A reduction in the required minimum front yard setback from 4.5 m (14.8 ft.) to 3 m (9.84 ft.) to permit the construction of the proposed ground floor and second floor porches at a height of 0.76 m (2.5 ft.) and 3.05 m (10 ft.) respectively. b) A reduction in the required side yard from 1.2 m (4 ft.) to 0.6 m (2 ft.) to permit the construction of the proposed 3.05 m (10 ft.) wooden staircase and upper level deck. The application should be amended to request this variance. The proposed porches can be considered desirable and appropriate given that many of the other homes in the neighbourhood have large covered front porches. The Cameron Street streetscape will not be negatively altered as many of the homes on this street already have large front porches with similar front setbacks. In addition, approval of the second floor porch is desirable in that it will allow the upper tenant use of the second floor door for entry and exit. The reduction in the sideyard to 0.6 m (2 ft.) rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.) for the wooden staircase and upper porch would not negatively impact the adjacent property. A paved parking area with access off of Cameron Street is located adjacent to the subject land. This parking area is located in the rear of the adjacent duplex dwelling fronting Weber Street. The construction of the staircase would not take away from the ability of the neighbouring property to enjoy their rear yard since, the entire rear yard is used as a parking lot and not as an outdoor amenity area. In addition, the 0.6 m (2 ft.) sideyard would continue to allow the applicant to have access to the rear yard without encroaching on the neighbouring property. Comments from the Building Division state that the proposed reduction in the side yard for the construction of a wooden staircase is not considered appropriate for the subject lands. The Building Code states that a structure constructed out of combustible material and greater than 0.6 metres in height must be located a minimum of 1.2 metres from the side lot line. Therefore, the COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 423 DECEMBER 12, 2000 entire staircase and those sections of the porches that are closer than 1.2 metres from the side lot line must be constructed, using non-combustible material. Submission No.: A2000-079 (Cont'd) Considering the requested reduction of the frontyard and sideyard setbacks would not negatively impact the existing streetscape or the adjacent properties, they are considered to be minor in nature and appropriate for the development of the subject land. The application also maintains the general intent of both the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Plan. Accordingly, the Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance Application A 2000- 079. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that minor variance application A 2000-079 be approved, to reduce the minimum front yard setback requirement from 4.5 m (14.8 ft.) to 3.0 m (9.84 ft.) to permit the construction of the proposed ground floor and second floor porches at a height of 0.76 m (2.5 ft.) and 3.05 m (10 ft.) respectively; and to reduce the side yard requirement from 1.2 m (4 ft.) to 0.6 m (2 ft.) to permit the construction of the proposed 3.05 m (10 ft.) staircase and upper level deck, provided non-combustible materials are used as required by the Building Code and generally in accordance with the plan attached to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new deck and stairs. The Committee noted the comments of 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. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no objection to the above noted application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and enquired if Mr. Fisher had anything further to add. Mr. S. Fisher advised that he wishes to replace an existing front porch that will include an upper floor together with a side staircase to be used as a fire escape for tenants occupying the upper floor of the building. Subsequent to filing the application, Mr. Fisher pointed out that a second variance has been identified relative to the sideyard setback of the proposed staircase. Mr. Fisher advised that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation, including the provision that non-combustible materials be used in construction of the new porch. In response to the Chair, Ms. J. Given advised that use of the existing building as a duplex was legal; however, she was uncertain how long the property had been used a duplex. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Scott Fisher requesting permission to construct a ground floor porch, together with a second floor porch, at a height of 0.76 m (2.5 ft.) and 3.05 m (10 ft.) respectively, having a frontyard setback of 3 m (9.84 ft.), rather than the required 4.5 m (14.8 ft.); and, to permit the construction of the second floor porch [3.05 m (10 ft.)] with adjoining staircase, having a sideyard setback of 0.6 m (2 ft.), rather than the required 1.2 m (4 ft.), on Part of Lot 4, Registered Plan 126, 60 Cameron Street North, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the variances as approved shall be generally in accordance with the plan submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-079. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new ground and second floor porches and staircase. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 424 DECEMBER 12, 2000 Submission No.: A2000-079 (Cont'd) That the second floor porch and staircase shall be constructed with non-combustible materials as required by the Building Code. 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 is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 2000-080 Ron Robertson 62 Ann Street Part of Lots 1,2 & 3, Re.qistered Plan 357 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Robertson 62 Ann Street Kitchener ON N2B lX9 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the lands involved in this application contain a single residential dwelling. The applicant is requesting permission to locate a parking space to be setback from the exterior side lot line (Ephraim Drive) a distance of 4.5 m (14.76 ft.), rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that a deck attached to the dwelling prevents the vehicle from having the extra setback required to meet the by-law. The intent of the by-law is to minimize the extent to which vehicles dominate the landscape, however, parking within this 6 m area is still permitted. Only a small portion of the vehicle will extend into this setback area, so the variance is minor. By approving the variance, the applicant is permitted to maintain the deck and is not required to remove outdoor amenity area in the yard to accommodate the parking. As such, it is the opinion of staff that the variance meets the Planning Act test and should be approved. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 2000-080 in accordance with the drawing submitted with the application. 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. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 425 DECEMBER 12, 2000 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 space. Submission No.: A2000-080 (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 Ministry of Transportation in which they advised that the application has been considered in accordance with the requirements of our highway access control policies and the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. The Ministry does not anticipate a problem with its highway system as a result of this application. Based on the sketch provided with the application, the owner does not require a permit from the Ministry of Transportation before construction commences on the widening of his driveway. 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 enquired if Mr. Robertson had anything further to add. Mr. R. Robertson advised that prior to purchasing the property a deck had been built over a portion of the driveway. Accordingly, he is requesting permission to park a single vehicle closer to the lot line than the by-law permits. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That the application of Ron Robertson requesting permission to locate a parking space having a setback of 4.5 m (14.76 ft.) from the exterior side lot line adjacent to Ephraim Drive, rather than the required 6 m (19.68 ft.), on Part of Lots 1, 2 & 3, Registered Plan 357, 62 Ann Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following condition: That the variance as approved in this application shall be in accordance with the drawings submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-080. 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 is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 2000-081 Tom Nemec 395 Margaret Avenue Lot 80, Re.qistered Plan 806 Appearances: In Support: Mr. T. Nemec 395 Margaret Avenue COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 426 DECEMBER 12, 2000 Kitchener ON N2H 4J9 Contra: None 4. Submission No.: A2000-081 (Cont'd) Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a detached garage, 9.7 m x 7.32 m (32 ft. x 24 ft.), having a maximum lot coverage of 15%, rather than the permitted 10%. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the lot coverage of the garage is actually 14% of the lot and suggest that the variance be amended to request permission to construct a garage with a lot coverage of 14% rather than the permitted maximum of 10%. In November of 1999 the owner inquired about the regulations concerning detached structures, as he was interested in purchasing the property provided he could construct a garage covering 15% of the lot area. At that time the regulations of By-law 85-1 permitted detached structures in a residential zone up to a maximum of 15% of the lot area and he received a letter stating that fact. Based on the City's confirmation, the applicant purchased the subject property in December of 1999. On May 29, 2000, the City passed By-law 2000-86 that reduced the permitted maximum lot coverage for detached structures to 10% of the lot area. The applicant then discovered he could not obtain a building permit for the garage he had intended to construct when he purchased the property. The intent of the 10% maximum area for detached structures is to prevent extremely large detached buildings from being constructed which would not be of a scale which is appropriate development for the neighbourhood. The proposed structure would be used for a garage and for the storage of items such as sports and lawn equipment. The applicant has stated in his application that he has made various home improvements to the property since buying it and that constructing the garage would further improve the property. The detached accessory structures shown on the survey (aluminium sheds) no longer exist and should the proposed structure receive variance approval, no additional accessory structures would be permitted. By having one structure the applicant is providing a tidier appearance to the rear yard and can provide storage area so that the rear yard is not cluttered. The applicant has advised staff that the structure will be 0.6 m (2 ft.) from both the side and rear lot lines. The garage complies with all other regulations of the by-law. Staff is of the opinion that the variance request would not appear to have an adverse effect on neighbouring properties. The garage is to be located at the rear of the property, which still provides a backyard amenity area for the residents of the property. An elevation drawing attached to the application indicates the garage to be constructed with a peaked roof and meets the maximum height restrictions for detached structures. The garage would appear to be appropriate development for the surrounding area. The application can be deemed minor in nature as the combined lot coverage of the house and garage is approximately 28%, which is well below the total maximum lot coverage permitted of 55%. Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the requested variance is minor in nature and the request maintains the general intent of the Zoning By-law. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 427 DECEMBER 12, 2000 The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Minor Variance application A2000-081, as amended and generally in accordance with the drawing submitted with the application. Submission No.: A2000-081 (Cont'd) The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that a building permit is required to construct the new garage. 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 approval of the application and enquired if Mr. Nemec had anything further to add. Mr. T. Nemec stated that when he had purchased the property it was his intent to construct a large garage in the rearyard and had been advised by staff that what he proposed would be acceptable. Mr. Nemec pointed out, however, that upon applying for a building permit he was advised that regulations governing lot coverage had changed and he would now require variance approval to permit what he proposed to construct. Mr. Nemec stated that if he were to construct the garage in compliance with the by-law it would not provide sufficient storage for his needs. In response to the Chair, Mr. Nemec advised that the garage would be large enough to accommodate 4 vehicles and pointed out that he owned several small sports cars. The Chair requested staff to comment with respect to the requirements for lot coverage and Ms. J. Given responded that the purpose of this regulation is to ensure that properties maintain a usable outdoor amenity space and also provides for reasonable aesthetics. Ms. Given pointed out that initially the requirement for maximum lot coverage was 15%; however, following review it was felt that 10% was sufficient and the by-law was revised. With respect to this proposal, Ms. Given advised that the combined lot coverage of the existing dwelling, together with the garage, is approximately 28% which is well below the total maximum lot coverage of 55%. In addition, the size of the rearyard is such that sufficient amenity area will remain and it is felt that the garage will not have an adverse effect on neighbouring properties. Ms. Given further advised that the lot coverage of the proposed garage is actually 14% and the application should be amended to request permission to construct a garage with a lot coverage of 14% rather than the permitted maximum of 10%. The Chair enquired if Mr. Nemec was in agreement with amending his application and Mr. Nemec concurred. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Tom Nemec requesting permission to construct a detached garage, 9.7 m x 7.32 m (32 ft. x 24 ft.) having a maximum lot coverage of 14%, rather than the permitted 10%, on Lot 80, Registered Plan 806, 395 Margaret Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the variance as approved in this application shall be generally in accordance with the drawings submitted with Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-081. 2. That the owner shall obtain a building permit prior to construction of the new garage. It is the opinion of this Committee that: 1. The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 428 DECEMBER 12, 2000 2. This application is desirable for the appropriate development of the property. Submission No.: A2000-081 (Cont'd) The general intent and purpose of the City of Kitchener Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan is being maintained on the subject property. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Le.qal Description: A 2000-082 Randy Bouchard & Paula Lemieux 50 Tradewinds Place Lot 10, Re.qistered Plan 1756 Appearances: In Support: Mr. R. Bouchard Ms. P. Lemieux 50 Tradewinds Place Kitchener ON N2N 3G4 Contra: Mr. F. Sonser 173 Rolling Meadows Drive Kitchener ON N2N 2H1 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: Mr. F. Sonser 173 Rolling Meadows Drive Kitchener ON N2N 2H1 Mr. G. Meincke 177 Rolling Meadows Drive Kitchener ON N2N 2H1 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting legalization of an existing rearyard deck attached to the south side of an existing swimming pool having a maximum height of 0.79 m (2.6 ft.) above grade with a rearyard setback of 0 m, rather than the required 4 m (13.12 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject property is located on Tradewinds Place south of Highland Road West and west of Westheights Drive. The property is legally described as Lot #10 on Registered Plan #1756 and it contains a single detached residential dwelling that was constructed in 1997. The surrounding neighbourhood consists primarily of single detached residential dwellings. The applicant is requesting a minor variance to permit the existing wood deck that exceeds 0.6 m in height above the finished grade level to be located 0 m from the rear lot line, instead of the 4 m rear yard setback for a deck that exceeds 0.6 m in height as required under Zoning By-law 85-1. The location of the deck is indicated on the attached drawing. It should be noted that a variance to the sideyard requirement is also required to permit a deck 0 m from the sideyard rather than the required 1.2 m. The requested variance would allow the owner to continue to use the deck in its current location. The rear yard amenity space of the subject property includes the deck, an in-ground pool, concrete patio, storage shed and a landscaped area. The side and rear yards of the property are currently fenced. The wood deck was constructed sometime between 1997 and 2000 and the applicant has indicated that the deck increases in height from approximately 0.56 m to 0.76 m above the finished grade level as the deck approaches the rear lot line. The owners of the subject COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 429 DECEMBER 12, 2000 property have indicated that the deck was built higher at the rear lot line since the property slopes downwards at the rear for a drainage swale. Construction of a deck that exceeds 0.6 m in height Submission No.: A2000-082 (Cont'd) requires issuance of a building permit, however there is no record of a permit being issued for the subject deck. The deck partially surrounds the existing pool and has been built with approximately a 0 m rear yard setback and a 0 m setback to one of the side yards. Some of the properties in the vicinity of the subject property have accessory structures that are located along the rear property line, having an approximate 0 m setback, however there are a limited number of properties in the area with pools or decks in the rear yard. 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 Zoning By-law requires that decks that exceed 0.6 m in height above finished grade have a minimum 4 m setback from the rear lot line and a setback of 1.2 m from the side lot line. The intent of the yard setbacks for decks is primarily for privacy, both for the property owner with the deck and for each of the surrounding property owners. If a deck is built greater than 0.6 m in height and with a 0 m setback to the lot lines, as is the case on the subject property, the activities of surrounding property owners are more easily viewed from the deck. Also, the level of usage and noise from the subject deck may significantly impact or disrupt surrounding property owners who would be able to view the activities of the deck given its height and location. The Committee should note that the subject application arose from a by-law enforcement matter and that letters of complaint have been received from the public regarding the height and location of the deck. One of the letters indicate that the deck is actually 1.2 m above the finished grade level at the rear of the property and not 0.76 m as specified by the applicant. The Zoning By-law specifically addresses decks and the associated minimum setbacks to property lines (based on height) in order to avoid any impacts on adjacent properties. The By-law identifies a specific height of deck above finished grade level whereby there must be a rear yard setback with the primary purpose of ensuring the privacy of the surrounding and subject property owners. Since the City of Kitchener's Fence By-law permits a fence to a maximum of 2.44 m, visual screening of such an elevated deck is not feasible. Although the deck was not built in accordance with the City's Zoning By-law, the By-law does allow decks less than 0.6 m in height to have no minimum rear and side yard setbacks. The difference between the existing deck height of 0.76 m (as identified by the applicant) and 0.6 m may be considered to be minor in nature. Although the application maintains the intent of the Municipal Plan and can be considered to be minor in nature, it does not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law which is to provide specific regulations to help ensure privacy for property owners nor is it appropriate for the development/use of the land due to the impact on surrounding property owners. Furthermore, given that there may be opportunity in the rear yard of the property to construct a deck so that it maintains a minimum 4 m rear yard setback with a 1.2 m side yard setback and that there may be opportunity to construct a deck that does not exceed 0.6 m in height above the grade level, staff recommend that the application be refused. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends that Minor Variance Application A2000-082, seeking a reduction in the rear yard setback from a minimum of 4 m to a 0 m rear yard setback and a sideyard variance of 0 m rather than 1.2 m for a deck that exceeds 0.6 m in height above the finished grade level, be refused. 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; COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 430 DECEMBER 12, 2000 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.: A2000-082 (Cont'd) 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 Committee noted the written submission of Mr. F. Sonser in which he advised that the following are his concerns against the legalization of the rearyard deck: The location of the deck is in the back part of the yard and ends on the rear property line. It is against my fence and may be attached which is against my wishes. The top of the deck (floor) is 4 feet 1 inch from the grade at my fence or property line. This placed the floor of the deck only two feet away from the top of my 6-foot fence. I was forced to add a 2-foot extension onto the fence to assure no one would fall into my rock garden. The placement of this deck has profound effect on my privacy. It is an invasion at the very least. When the deck is occupied there is no point of refuge or privacy for my family or me. If the deck were at ground level or at least no higher than 1.5 feet off the grade the privacy issue would not be totally resolved, but much better. Currently we feel totally exposed with nowhere to enjoy our back yard. I have a concern for the safety of the people using the deck. I have often seen people including children leaning against or looking over the addition onto the original 6-foot fence. It was not constructed to hold back the weight of people. It was an attempt to reduce the risk of people falling into my rock garden below and regain some privacy. I am concerned of the long-term effect of the deck against my fence. As time passes and the deck shifts, the force on the fence will move it or damage it. Also the fact that the deck may be attached to my fence is an intrusion. It is certainly an intrusion that lights and wiring have been attached to my fence. The owner of 50 Tradewinds is in the construction industry. He should have known the Building Codes or at the very least checked with the City of Kitchener before building the deck. I feel I was taken advantage of and imposed on. With the deck in its current location I am concerned that it will negatively affect the resale appeal and value of my property. The Committee noted a written submission from Mr. G. Meincke in which he requested to be registered as a delegate to appear before the Committee regarding this application and to be notified of the decision of the Committee. It is noted that Mr. Meincke did not attend the meeting this date. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending refusal of the application and enquired if Mr. Bouchard had anything further to add. Mr. Bouchard pointed out that the deck partially surrounds an existing pool and 3/4 of the deck has been constructed within the permitted 2 ft. above grade. A small portion of the deck is slightly higher than 2 ft. by up to approximately 8 inches. Mr. Bouchard advised that the rear of his property slopes downward for a drainage swale and in his opinion, the sloping of his property would not allow him to construct the deck in any other manner. Mr. F. Sonser advised that his property is immediately to the rear of the subject property and is opposed to the deck as constructed as it intrudes on the privacy of his backyard. In addition, he raised concerns with the safety of those using the deck, especially small children who may by accident loose their balance and fall into his yard. He pointed out if such an accident occurred the person would fall into his rock garden directly below. Mr. Sonser also stated that he was concerned with possible damage to his fence and was not certain if the deck was attached to the fence. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 431 DECEMBER 12, 2000 Submission No.: A2000-082 (Cont'd) Mr. R. Bouchard advised that his dwelling also has an overhead deck 10 ft. above grade and even if the deck around the pool was removed Mr. Sonser's privacy is still affected by the overhead deck. Ms. P. Lemieux questioned what relevance Mr. Sonser's concerns were in relation to the By- law requirements. The Chair stated that the Committee reviews each situation with impartiality and makes a decision based on the 4 tests under the Planning Act. He stated that the Committee has a number of options, one of which could be to defer this application to allow further discussion between neighbouring property owners to take place. In response to questioning, Ms. J. Given reviewed the by-law regulations pertaining to the deck and pointed out that staff had not measured the deck but rather taken the measurements included in the application at face value. She stated that there is some discrepancy in the height as the neighbour has indicated he believes the deck to be 4 ft. above grade and she was also uncertain if the measurements had been taken from the lot line or if they were taken by the pool. The Chair suggested that given the discrepancy with measurements that the application be deferred to allow City staff to obtain accurate measurements. He stated that it would also provide an opportunity for the two neighbours to undertake discussions to determine if a resolution could be reached. Mr. R. Bouchard pointed out that with the recent snowfall it may be difficult to obtain accurate measurements. In this regard, the Chair advised that if measurements could not be obtained for the next meeting of the Committee in January the application could be further deferred until such time as accurate measurements could be obtained. The Chair noted that deferring the application would not impose a hardship on the applicant as the pool would not be in use during winter months. Moved by Mr. B. Isaac Seconded by Mr. D. Cybalski That Minor Variance Application, Submission No. A 2000-082, as applied for by Randy Bouchard and Paula Lemieux for the property known municipally as 50 Tradewinds Place, BE DEFERRED, to the Committee of Adjustment meeting to be held on January 9, 2001, to allow accurate measurements with respect to the height of the deck above grade to be obtained and to provide an opportunity for the applicant to further discuss issues of concern with the neighbouring property owner. Carried Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: A 2000-083 Mark Snowden 91 Copperleaf Street Part of Block 20, Registered Plan 58M-132, designated as Part 93 on Reference Plan 58R-12162 Appearances: In Support: Mr. W. Boehler c/o Artindale & Partners 510-101 Frederick Street Kitchener ON N2G 4E6 Contra: None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 432 DECEMBER 12, 2000 Written Submissions: 6. Submission No.: A2000-083 (Cont'd) In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a single residential dwelling having a rearyard setback of 7.13 m (23.4 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the lands are designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Municipal Plan and are zoned Residential Three Zone (R-3) according to Zoning By-law 85-1 The applicant is requesting permission to legalize the existing 7.13 m (23.39 ft.) rear yard setback of the rear south east portion of the proposed house. The requirement is 7.5 m (24.61 ft.). The single detached dwelling with attached garage is currently proposed for construction. Abutting properties, which are designated Low Rise Residential, will be developed with single detached dwellings as well. The subject property is a reversed pie-shaped lot on the curve of the road. At the rear of the proposed house the southwest corner is setback 10.25 m (33.63 ft.), well in excess of the rear yard requirement of 7.5 m (24.61 ft.). The portion for which the applicant is seeking relief is the southeast corner, which is setback 7.13 m (23.39 ft.). This portion, which encroaches into the setback, covers a relatively small portion of the total rear amenity area. Further, given that the southwest corner is setback further than is required, the total amount of amenity area is not affected significantly. Based on the above comments, it is the opinion of staff that the subject variance is acceptable and the impact of the variance would be minor as the request maintains the general intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 2000-083. The Committee noted the comments of the Director of Building in which he advised that the Building Division has no concerns or comments with respect to this application. The Committee noted the comments of the Planning & Culture Department, Region of Waterloo, in which they advised that Regional staff have reviewed the application and have no concerns; however, any development on the subject lands is subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 99-038 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Committee noted the comments of the Grand River Conservation Authority in which they advised that they have no comments or concerns with respect to this application. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the applicant that ion and enquired if Mr. Boehler had anything further to add. Mr. W. Boehler 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. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Mark Snowden requesting permission to construct a single residential dwelling having a rearyard setback of 7.13 m (23.4 ft.), rather than the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft.), COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 433 DECEMBER 12, 2000 on Part of Block 20, Registered Plan 58M-132, designated as Part 93 on Reference Plan 58R- 12162, 91 Copperleaf Street, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED. Submission No.: A2000-083 (Cont'd) It is the opinion of this Committee that: The variance requested in this application is minor in nature. 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 is being maintained on the subject property. Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: Carried A 2000-084 Glascon Realty Management Limited 57 Queen Street North & 15 Weber Street East Part of Lots 3, 4 & 5, Registered Plan 388, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R-3019 Appearances: In Support: Mr. T. McCabe Green Scheels Pidgeon Planning Consultants 201-72 Victoria Street South Kitchener ON N2G 4Y9 Mr. G. Fleet 56 Nathaniel Court London ON N5X2N5 Contra: Ms. D. Kehl, President Civic Centre Neighbourhood Association 58 Ahrens Street West Kitchener ON N2H 4B7 Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: Mr. P. Bufe 35 Gordon Avenue Kitchener ON N2H 1N7 The Committee was advised that the applicant is requesting permission to reduce the required setback from an arterial road (Weber Street) from 12 m (39.37 ft.) to 0 m, to permit the development of a multiple residential building (apartments). The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that the subject lands are located at 57 Queen Street North and 15 Weber Street East and are currently being used as a commercial parking lot (57 Queen Street North) and a vacant two-storey building (15 Weber Street East). The lands are located at the corner of Weber Street East and Queen Street North. Weber Street is classified as a Primary Arterial Road in the City's Municipal Plan. All Primary Arterial Roads are under the jurisdiction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The Zoning By- law requires that any residential building or part thereof shall be setback 12 m from the street line abutting an arterial road. The intent of this regulation is primarily to address situations in suburban locations where properties are "backlotted" onto arterial roads and where an increased setback is desired for noise attenuation purposes. It should be noted that there is no setback requirement in COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 434 DECEMBER 12, 2000 the Zoning By-law in the D-4 zone for any use other than residential uses adjacent arterial roads or buildings abutting Duke Street. 7. Submission No.: A2000-084 Cont'd) In the case of the subject lands, a 12 m setback from Weber Street is not considered necessary. The lands are located in the Office District which is characterised by large office developments, some of which are located at, or near, the street line. The siting of the proposed multiple dwelling on the subject lands is consistent with the siting of other large buildings in this location. Furthermore, given the shape of the property (i.e. the longest lot line is parallel to Weber Street and the average lot width is 36 m), it would be difficult to site a new building and achieve a setback of 12 m from Weber Street. The City's approved Urban Design Guidelines require that new buildings respect the established setbacks in the neighbourhood. The guidelines were prepared in order to implement urban design requirements in the Municipal Plan. A setback of 0 m for a multiple dwelling will enable a building massing and siting consistent with other buildings in this location. With regard to the impact of noise from road traffic, it may be necessary for the developer to incorporate noise attenuation features in the construction of the building. For all the above reasons, staff consider that the application generally conforms to the intent of the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law and the variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land. The impact of the variance is also considered to be minor for the same reasons. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo has commented that a road widening will be required along Weber Street, and that the amount of the widening will be at least 6.75 ft. Additional road allowance may be required to accommodate a raised median and other works subject to the approval of a "functional plan" submitted with the site plan application for Weber Street. The Region has no objection to the proposed minor variance provided it is understood that a road widening will be required and that the exact amount of widening is unknown until the functional plan is completed and approved. In conclusion, the proposed minor variance will enable the development of a building consistent with the form of development in this location and will also facilitate the development of much desired residential accommodation within the City's Downtown. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of Submission A 2000-084. 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 reviewed the application at a pre-application meeting held on October 11, 2000 with the developer and City of Kitchener staff, and indicated that a minimum 6.75 foot road allowance widening on Weber Street and 25 foot daylight triangle at the intersection of Weber Street and Queen Street would be required to comply with our Official Plan. Regional staff indicated that since the developer was requesting an access to Weber Street, the access must operate as right-in, right-out only through the construction of a raised concrete median on Weber Street to be constructed at the applicant's cost. At the site plan stage of this development, the developer would be required to prepare a functional plan to determine if any additional road allowance widening beyond the 6.75 ft. would be necessary to accommodate the raised median and boulevard requirements. It is our understanding that the minor variance application is to allow a 0 m setback from the property line on Weber Street. Regional staff have no objection to this application provided it is understood that a minimum 6.75 ft. road allowance widening will be required at the site plan stage. Further road allowance widening may be required to accommodate the raised median and boulevard requirements on Weber Street subject to our approval of a functional plan to be prepared by the applicant. 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 may require COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 435 DECEMBER 12, 2000 the payment of Regional Development Charges for this development prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. Submission No.: A2000-084 Cont'd) 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 Committee considered the written submission of Mr. P. Bufe in which he had requested the Committee to refuse to hear the application as it constitutes a major rather than a minor variance to the Zoning By-law, being therefore beyond the mandate of the Committee of Adjustment. He submits that the scope of this variance (100% waiver of required setback and a resulting increase in the buildings allowed footprint by over 50%) should properly be dealt with as a zone change through the proper channels. The Chair reviewed the staff comments, noting that staff are recommending approval of the application and enquired if Mr. McCabe had anything further to add. Mr. T. McCabe reviewed the planning history leading up to the requirement for a 12 m setback from an arterial road for residential properties within the D4 Zone. Mr. McCabe suggested that this regulation had been inadvertently and incorrectly applied to the Downtown and pointed out that most streets within the surrounding area have minimum setbacks. He further pointed out that staff have given indication that it is their intent to revise this regulation in an upcoming housekeeping review of the Zoning By-law. Mr. McCabe advised that the purchaser proposes to develop a highrise apartment building and, because of constraints with respect to the configuration of the property, cannot proceed without approval of this minor variance application. Ms. D. Kehl requested clarification with respect to the 0 m setback and Mr. McCabe advised that the setback would be from the lot line which is approximately 1 ft. by the sidewalk; however, he pointed out that the lot line will be further recessed by the 2 m road widening required by the Region. Ms. Kehl further questioned if it was intended to have any green space and Mr. McCabe responded that while design specifics have not been completed, it is intended that the development will be aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Kehl stated that it was important to residents that the development fit within the streetscape and heritage aspects of a the neighbourhood. She pointed out that a major project involving the development of a Millenium Garden will be within close proximity to this development. Ms. Kehl also expressed concern with respect to traffic and parking issues. In response to the Chair, Ms. J. Given advised that the 12 m setback only applies to residential development and if the proposed development was to be an office building no setbacks would be required. She further advised that the intent of the 12 m setback was to be applied to new residential development within the D4 Zone to deal with such things as noise attenuation and appropriate green space. She pointed out that within the structural design of the proposed high- rise measures can be taken to protect against noise. In response to questioning, Mr. McCabe advised that, while preliminary, tentative plans are for 8 units per floor with 21 storeys, the first 3 of which will be used for a parking garage. He further advised that the projection of the balconies will be recessed so as not to be over the right-of-way. The Chair referred to the Regional comments with respect to preparation of a functional design and enquired if a plan had been undertaken. Mr. McCabe advised that a functional design plan has not yet been undertaken but will be dealt with as part of the site plan approval. The Chair suggested that it might be appropriate to apply a condition that the 0 m setback be subject to the functional design plan and Mr. McCabe responded that the applicant would have to comply regardless. The Chair then enquired if there was opportunity to require a noise study to be undertaken as part of the site plan process and Mr. McCabe stated that there was not. The Chair suggested that it might also be appropriate to implement a condition respecting the undertaking of a noise study. Mr. T. McCabe pointed out that a noise study has not been requested by any of the commenting agencies. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 436 DECEMBER 12, 2000 Mr. B. Isaac requested clarification with respect to parking on the site and Mr. G. Fleet advised that the site would have surface parking consisting of 3 levels. Mr. McCabe further pointed out that the developer is working with staff relative to the City's Urban Design Guidelines. 7. Submission No.: A2000-084 Cont'd) Ms. Kehl questioned if parkland and the need for community centres relative to the increased number of units had been taken into consideration. Ms. J. Given responded that Community Services staff have opportunity to comment when zoning reviews are undertaken and had there been any concerns Community Services staff would have made them known when the zoning in this area was applied. Ms. Given further advised that the City had no interest in purchasing this property for parkland purpose. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Glascon Realty Management Limited requesting permission to construct a multiple residential building (apartment highrise) having a 0 m setback from an arterial road known municipally as Weber Street, rather than the required 12 m (39.37 ft.), on Part of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Registered Plan 388, designated as Part 1 on Reference Plan 58R- 3019, 57 Queen Street North and 15 Weber Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, BE APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: That the variance as approved in this application shall be relative to the setback from the new lot line following the conveyance of the necessary road widening to the Region of Waterloo. That the owner shall submit a noise study to the City's Principal Planner to assess the impact of noise from Weber Street on the residential building, prior to the City's approval of a site plan and the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City prior to obtaining a building permit, to provide for any mitigation measures that may be identified, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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 is being maintained on the subject property. Carried CONSENT Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: B 2000-077 Monarch Construction Limited 10 Oregon Drive Part Lots 3 and 4, Biehn's Tract; Part Biehn's Tract Unnumbered; Part 2 Beasley's New Survey; Lot 14, Registered Plan 594 Appearances: In Support: Contra: Written Submissions: None None COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 437 DECEMBER 12, 2000 In Support: None Contra: None 1. Submission No.: B 2000-077 (Cont'd) As no one appeared in support of the application and staff are recommending deferral of the application, the Committee agreed to defer this application to its next meeting to be held on January 9, 2001. VALIDATION OF TITLE a) Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: VT 2000-003 Kevin Daub and Melvena Lyn Shaugnessy-Daub 421 Strasburg Road Part Block C, Registered Plan 1246, designated as Parts 1 & 2 on Reference Plan 58R-11647 b) Submission No.: Applicant: Property Location: Legal Description: VT 2000-004 Antonio and Lydia Margarita Barrios 423 Strasburg Road Part Block C, Registered Plan 1246, designated as Parts 3 & 4 on Reference Plan 58R-11647 Appearances: In Support: Ms. P. McLean Mr. R. Davidson Habitat for Humanity Waterloo Region Inc. 120 Northfield Drive East Waterloo ON N2J 4G8 Contra: None Written Submissions: In Support: None Contra: None The Committee was advised that the applicants are seeking validation of title for the above noted properties which each contain one half of an existing semi-detached residential dwelling. Consent to sever the 2 parcels was granted by the Committee on September 15, 1998 under Submission No. B 68/98, subject to two conditions, being payment of taxes and making financial arrangements for installation of boulevard landscaping. The applicant advises that the conditions were satisfied prior to the deadline date of September 15, 1999; however, failed to notify the Secretary-Treasurer accordingly. Consequently, Consent Application B 68/98 was considered to have lapsed according to Section 53(41) of the Planning Act. The Transfers/Deed of Land for the 2 parcels were erroneously registered without benefit of the Committee's consent stamp being applied thereto and, accordingly, validation of title is necessary. The Committee noted the comments of the Department of Business & Planning Services in which they advised that in 1998, the owner received consent approval to give separate title to each half of a semi-detached dwelling. Prior to transferring the deed, the owner failed to obtain the stamped deeds from the Secretary. It should be noted that the two conditions originally required to be satisfied appear to have been completed. Both properties comply with the Municipal Plan and Zoning By-law and therefore staff have no concerns with the validation. The Department of Business and Planning Services recommends approval of application VT 2000-003 and VT 2000-004. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 438 DECEMBER 12, 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 these applications. 1. Submission Nos.: VT 2000-003 and VT 2000-004 (Cont'd) The Committee noted the comments of the Planning and Culture Department, Region of Waterloo in which they advised that the subject lands have been identified as being potentially contaminated and adjacent to lands which are potentially contaminated. Regional staff do not know if the contamination suspected on the lands would pose a health or safety risk to the proposed use of the property. As the subject lands are not located within a Regional wellfield, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo does not have a direct corporate interest which would result in the Region requesting a Record of Site Condition be imposed on its behalf. If the Committee decides to impose a Record of Site Condition or other similar requirements, it should be imposed as a condition of the Committee, with the Committee, not the Region, responsible for its release. Regional staff have no objection to the validation of title. The Committee was also in receipt of a copy of the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held on September 15, 1998 relative to Consent Application B 68/98, applied for by Habitat for Humanity with respect to the subject properties. In addition, the Committee was in receipt of two e-mail transmissions, one from the Revenue Division advising that taxes had been paid in full for the years 1999 and 2000 on the subject properties; the other from the Public Works Department notifying that the owner had made satisfactory financial arrangements for the installation of boulevard landscaping. Ms. P. McLean provided a copy of the registered reference plan with respect to the subject properties. Following review of the plan, Ms. J. Given advised that the properties were in compliance with Zoning By-law regulations. The Chair referred to the comments of the Region of Waterloo with respect to possible contamination and it was pointed out that during consideration of the original Consent Application B 68/98, the Region had put forward similar comment. In this regard, the Committee considering the original consent did not impose any conditions relative to a Record of Site Condition. As there were no further questions or comments forthcoming, the Chair called for a motion. Validation of Title VT 2000-003 Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Kevin Daub & Melvena Lyn Shaughnessy-Daub requesting validation of title on Part Block C, Registered Plan 1246, designated as Parts 1 & 2 on Reference Plan 58R- 11647, 421 Strasburg Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED. It is the opinion of this Committee that the requirements of the Zoning By-law, the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried Validation of Title VT 2000-004 Moved by Mr. D. Cybalski Seconded by Mr. B. Isaac That the application of Antonio & Lydia Margarita Barrios requesting validation of title on Part Block C, Registered Plan 1246, designated as Parts 3 & 4 on Reference Plan 58R-11647, 423 Strasburg Road, Kitchener, Ontario, BE GRANTED. COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT 439 DECEMBER 12, 2000 It is the opinion of this Committee that the requirements of the Zoning By-law, the City of Kitchener Municipal Plan and the Regional Official Policies Plan are being maintained on the subject property. Carried ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:35 a.m. Dated at the City of Kitchener this 12th day of December, 2000. J. Billett Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment