Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2021-57 - A 2021-031 - 660 Avondale Avenue (Redacted)'Staff Report ` De velo hent Services Departrnent www. kitchener. ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: May 18, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Pinnell, Andrew, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 8 DATE OF REPORT: May 9, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-84 SUBJECT: A2021-031 - 660 Avondale Ave Owners: Purewal, Varinder; Chatha, Rajvinder Approve Subject to Conditions RECOMMENDATION: 1) That Minor Variance Application A2021-031, for 660 Avondale Ave, requesting relief from Section 37.2.1 of By-law 85-1 to allow a minimum rear yard setback of 6.0 metres, rather than the required 7.5 metres, to facilitate the construction of a new single detached dwelling, be approved, subiect to the following conditions: 1) That the new dwelling to which the variance applies shall be constructed in general accordance with the site plan drawings, building elevation drawings, and floor plans attached to Report DSD -2021-84, to the satisfaction of the City's Chief Building Official and Director of Planning. 2) That in light of the treed nature of the property and the proximity of trees in shared ownership, the owner shall prepare a Tree Preservation Plan for the lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to be approved by the City's Director of Planning and where necessary, implemented prior to any demolition, tree removal, grading or the issuance of building permits. Such plans shall include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, building elevation drawings, landscaped area and vegetation to be removed and/or preserved. The owner further agrees to implement the approved plan. No changes to the said plan shall be granted except with the prior approval of the City's Director of Planning. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Figure 1. Aerial Photo of Subject Property, in Context REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to recommend conditional approval of a minor variance to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling with a reduced rear yard setback. • This report supports the delivery of core services. • There are no financial implications to the City. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: This report is being brought forward to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling with a reduced rear yard setback. Figure 2. View of subject property from Avondale Avenue REPORT: The subject property is located on the east side of Avondale Avenue, between Claremont Avenue and Glasgow Street, in the Westmount Planning Community. Belmont Village is located to the east. The property contains a single detached dwelling, constructed in approximately 1952. The immediate neighbourhood contains mainly low-density residential uses, including primarily one, one -and -a -half, and two storey single detached dwellings. The dwelling immediately to the north has a two-storey form, while the property to the south has a 1.5 storey form. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned R-3 in By- law 85-1 (the property is currently not subject to By-law 2019-051). City Planning staff conducted several site inspections of the property. The photos within this report were taken on April 8, 2021. It should be noted that this property is within an area that is subject to Appendix H.- Residential :Residential Intensification in Established Neighbourhoods Study (RIENS) Area of By-law 85-1. Properties in this area are subject to minimum front yard requirements that are based upon the average of the front yards of the abutting lots, minus 1.0 metre, rather than on a set distance. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single detached dwelling (Planning staff notes that this will require Demolition Control Approval from the Planning Division, in addition to a Demolition Permit from the Building Division) and to construct a new single detached dwelling in its place. To facilitate the construction of the new dwelling, the applicant is requesting a variance for relief from the required 7.5 metre minimum rear yard setback. The application was deferred at the April 20, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting until the May 18, 2021 Committee meeting, to allow additional time for staff to review a tree preservation plan. It should be noted that on May 5, 2021, the applicant changed the application to lessen the severity of the requested rear yard setback from 4.7 metres to 6.0 metres. The requested variance now requests relief from the R-3 Zone to allow a minimum rear yard of 6.0 metres, rather than the required 7.5 metres (a variance of 1.5 metres). The applicant also provided numerous plans and drawings that show the proposed development that would be facilitated by the variance, including site plan drawings, elevation drawings, and floor plans. These drawings show that the only portions of the dwelling that would encroach into the 7.5 metre rear yard setback are a 1.5 metre deep by approximately 10 metre long swath of a main floor dining room and main floor covered amenity area. All upper storey portions of the dwelling are set back more than the required 7.5 metres from the rear lot line. In addition, the large set of upper storey windows facing the rear yard do not have a view of the rear yard (they simply allow light down to the main floor). The only other upper storey rear facing window is a bathroom window that is set back 13.5 metres from the rear lot line. In addition, at the request of Planning staff, the applicant provided a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by an arborist. City Urban Design staff has reviewed and signed -off on this plan. Staff is recommending a condition to ensure implementation of the plan. In addition, any removal or pruning of trees in common ownership will require consent from the adjacent property owner. The proposed dwelling complies with all zoning regulations, except the rear yard setback requirement for which relief is being sought. The proposed dwelling complies with the maximum building height, maximum lot coverage, and the RIENS-specific minimum front yard setback requirement (calculated at 9.08 metres): The City received 15 letters from the community in opposition to the proposal. The main concern expressed by the community is the large size of the proposed dwelling and that it is not in character with the surrounding neighbourhood. Other main concerns identified were loss of natural light in adjacent rear yards, loss of privacy, loss of `sense of open space', and inconsistency with heritage neighbourhood. It must be emahasised that the arimary issue at hand is not determinina whether the aroaosed dwellina is aaaroariate. but rather determinina whether the reauested rear vard setback is setback appropriate. While these two issues are related, they are not the same. The following sections focus on the four tests for minor variances as they relate specifically to the request for a reduced rear yard setback. General Intent and Purpose of Official Plan Test A number of Official Plan policies are applicable to the requested variance, for example: Section 4. C.1.8. Requirement Provided I Compliance? under R-3 Zone Proposed Min Lot Area 411 s .m. 669 s .m. Yes Min Lot Width 13.7m 18.3m Yes Min Front Yard 9.08m 9.08m Yes for lands Identified on A endix `H' Max Front Yard 11.08m 9.08m Yes for lands Identified on A endix `H' Min Side Yard 1.2m 1.8m Yes Min Rear Yard 7.5m 6.Om Reason for Variance Max Building 10.5m 10.49m Yes Height Max Lot 55% 47.5% Yes Coverage Off -Street 1 space 2 spaces Yes Parkin The City received 15 letters from the community in opposition to the proposal. The main concern expressed by the community is the large size of the proposed dwelling and that it is not in character with the surrounding neighbourhood. Other main concerns identified were loss of natural light in adjacent rear yards, loss of privacy, loss of `sense of open space', and inconsistency with heritage neighbourhood. It must be emahasised that the arimary issue at hand is not determinina whether the aroaosed dwellina is aaaroariate. but rather determinina whether the reauested rear vard setback is setback appropriate. While these two issues are related, they are not the same. The following sections focus on the four tests for minor variances as they relate specifically to the request for a reduced rear yard setback. General Intent and Purpose of Official Plan Test A number of Official Plan policies are applicable to the requested variance, for example: Section 4. C.1.8. Where ... minor variance(s) is/are requested, proposed or required to facilitate residential intensification or a redevelopment of lands, the overall impact of the special zoning regulation(s) or minor variance(s) will be reviewed, but not limited to the following to ensure, that: a) Any new buildings and any additions and/or modifications to existing buildings are appropriate in massing and scale and are compatible with the built form and the community character of the established neighbourhood. b) ... C) ... d) New buildings, additions, modifications and conversions are sensitive to the exterior areas of adjacent properties and that the appropriate screening and/or buffering is provided to mitigate any adverse impacts, particularly with respect to privacy. e) The lands can function appropriately and not create unacceptable adverse impacts for adjacent properties by providing both an appropriate number of parking spaces and an appropriate landscaped/amenity area on the site... In this case, the only portion of the dwelling that requires zoning relief is a 1.5 metre deep swath of the main floor dining room and covered amenity space. Planning staff does not anticipate any unacceptably adverse impacts to result from such an insignificant encroachment. Notwithstanding, implementation of a Tree Preservation Plan will help to ensure a visual buffer along the rear property line. In addition, there are no overlook issues as a result of the house design for the upper storey. Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance meets the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. General Intent and Purpose of Zoning By-law Test In this case, the only portion of the dwelling that is proposed to encroach into the rear yard setback is a 1.5 metre deep by approximately 10 metre long swath of the main floor. The uncovered porch, located immediately beside the covered porch, does not form part of the dwelling and complies with the Zoning By-law. Except for minimum rear yard setback, the proposed dwelling will comply with all zoning regulations. One reason for the minimum rear yard requirement is to provide rear yard landscaped / amenity area. As a result of the large lot width, the amount of outdoor, rear yard amenity space proposed is approximately 125 square metres, which exceeds the amount that could be provided if the minimum R-3 zoning requirements were implemented (i.e., 13.7m x 7.5m = 102.75 sq.m.). Also, the covered rear porch provides an additional 15 sq.m. of amenity area in the rear yard. Another reason for the minimum rear yard requirement is to ensure adequate privacy and buffering between dwellings. As aforementioned, the 1.5 metre deep swath of main floor building is the only encroachment. Overlook is not a concern. It should be noted that through Stage 2 of the City's Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By-law (CRoZBy), the following regulation is proposed, which, if effected would render compliant the covered rear porch: "...covered decks attached to the principal building, and unenclosed, may be located within a required rear yard provided that they are located a minimum of 4 metres from the rear lot line and meet the side yard setback regulations required for the dwelling in the applicable zone." Planning staff is of the opinion that the requested variance meets the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. "Minor" Test The variance is minor in that they will not create unacceptably adverse impacts on adjacent uses or lands. The proposed setback is adequate for privacy and buffering purposes, especially if staff's recommended condition for implementation of a Tree Preservation Plan is approved. Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance is minor. Desirability for Appropriate Development of the Land Test The variance will facilitate construction of a single detached dwelling, which is a permitted use in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The dwelling will accommodate an elderly parent to move in on a full-time basis. Apart from rear yard setback relief, the dwelling that would be facilitated by the subject variance complies fully with the Zoning By-law. Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land. For the abovementioned reasons, Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance request is justified, subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendation section of this report. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the new single detached house is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division @ building@kitchener.ca with any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed application. Engineering Services Comments: Engineering has no comments. Environmental Planning Comments: Environmental Planning has no comments. Heritage Planning Comments: There are no heritage planning concerns. The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS serves to establish an inventory and was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. The property municipally addressed as 660 Avondale Avenue is located within the Westmount East & West Neighbourhood CHL. The CHL Inventory does not have formal status under the Ontario Heritage Act and there are no CHL -specific policies or guidelines in place within the Westmount East & West Neighbourhood at present. The owner and the public will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan, and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. Timing to undertake a review of the Westmount East & West Neighbourhood is not known at this time. Staff's focus to date has been on the CHLs located within the City's central neighbourhoods within the Secondary Plan areas. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget or Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice was also placed in The Record. In addition, notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Section 45, Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P.13 ATTACHMENT: Attachment A — Revised Site Plan Drawings, Elevation Drawings, Floor Plans Attachment B — Tree Preservation Plan May 5,2021 To City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustments, In regard to the minor variance application for 660 Avondale I hereby formally request a rear yard setback of 6.0 metres rather than 4.7m as originally proposed on the application submitted Sincerely, Jon O'Malley s. Tzazi Tz�-aa�Torarimq\��-os� ssA A -, Aye - - q -.l.g IITE PLAN s- y- 1 1. 11. 11 11 8.29m [60� EX SHRUBS 6.00m6mZONNOR OS(M VARIANCE 50m _ 7.5m ZONING SETBACK w 13.51m r---- COVERED UNCOVERED PORCH PORCH Q EXTENTS OF 2nd FLOOR w O N Y L- _ v E m PROPOSED DWELLING Im ,6 N F.F. 339.80 w n n T.F. 339.50N \ o U.S F36336.66 Iz \ N, I IE EX HOUSE to #664 � I a EX HOUSE J I� I #652 I � GARAGE I COVERED 1ia0m - 1.asf,l PORCH _ _ _ 9.08m ZONING SET 0 10.83m 3 9.3 m0 9.08m _ w 18.29m 60] w Ek HEDGE EX SIDEWALK EX 0.3 DIA. DEC EX LIGHT STANDARD EX BACK OF CURB ❑ EX EDGE OF ASPHALT S IN V. 336.14 EX 250mm SANITARY SEWER INV, 336.410 A V 0 N D A L E A V E N U E eR`N� SITE PLAN PCI r �0 660 AVONDALE AVENUE O{ • • >, REGION OF WATERLOO CITY OF KITCHENER Y SITE INFORMATION JOa NUMBER O O 11,71w LOT AREA: 6702 Aq.m- SCALE 21-08] K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITED NOOSE AREA 475 sq.m. COVERAGE : 3182% GATE .1c>H.ANNF C'L S CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS SITE BENCHMARK SITE MAY 6, 2021 N� R710(3 NT AT SWWCORNER OF AVONDALE TO OF FIRE AAVENUE 4m 0 1:200 KITCHENER SUDBURY oanwlrvc rvurvem ELEA 340.049 1 OF 3 s. Tzazi Tz�-aa�Torarimq\��-os� ssA A -, Aye - - q -.l.g IITE PLAN s- y- 1 1. 11. 11 11 I 111 1-11 e 1,. — 11-19 11- awg [x 11. NEI s— y— 1 1. sa. 11 11 18.29m [60'] 6m ZONING SETBACK MINOR VARIANCE _ Z5m ZONING SETBACK ---- __COVERED I COVERED I UNCOVERED PORCH PORCH I EXTENTS OF 2nd FLOOR I I I o YI L — _ _ U E E PROPOSED I< O HOUSE n EXISTING HOUSE ENCROACHES 0.11m n #660 L vi INTO SIDEYARD ZONING SETBACK Z EX HOUSETO z \ o BE REMOVED F EX HOUSE NII VE X664 EX HOUSE #/652 GARAGE I I 1.Sm 1.85m COMEK 1.2m 0.87m =F ORCH 9.08m ZONING SETBA K I� ai Q � o EXISTING HOUSE ENCROACHES 0.33m } > INTO SIDEYARD SETBACK Q o w > Iwo 18.29m 60'] A V 0 N D A L E A V E N U E Lt "` EXISTING VS. PROPOSED SIDEYARD SETBACKS Pc� r �0 660 AVONDALE AVENUE 0C4.{ >, REGION OF WATERLOO CITY OF KITCHENER y .C; JOB NUMBER O�1 y SCALE 21-083 AViyO K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITED DATE J11H.SNNF CUIMAI2AL:S CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS MAY 6, 202 N� fr71063 KITCHENER SUDBURY 0 1.200 Orn o—l- rvuNem 3 OF 3 I 111 1-11 e 1,. — 11-19 11- awg [x 11. NEI s— y— 1 1. sa. 11 11 ........................... 57M R -10N 30099 27559 ....................... ...................................................................................... . A, .....................................................-- 5 511.8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 355.6 04 A,, UNEXCAVATED .................................................................................. A A - ................ ................................................................... • 4:' A,•, .............................. ................................... ..... .... .... .... ... ......... ..................... .......... ... .. . . .......... .. ... 77 ... ............................. A 0 UNEXCAVATED 6902.5 3 633 3119.5 ............. ............... a ............................ A, "R . . ................................ ............................ UNEXCAVATED ........................... ............. ........... ............. ................... . ................ ........................... 3 7M 4 3 850 1 5748 9812 1 15. 3 556 — . 505.2 14 53 04 N -E. OTIESIMSE ALL I I NOTED IS, ALL INTERIOR A'S (.UNLESS NOTED OTHEI-ISE ALL STEEL ANGLE LINTELS 3-112"s3-112"— JULE-N-E.CTIE111, AE"UNSSLTUE_SEN T ED ILL STRUCTURAL LINTELS TO D — LE 0 131LENIU—N— TINT1,11ATE—.- Aj MAIN FLOOR LAYOUT 2260 SQ. FT. 1"aLE.-T.NI ,ER�000N ei���� e�,�2y=® 6 D19.8 8 610.6 3009.9 3009.9 24384 4032.3 2140 ------------------------------- e COVERED PORCH UNCOVERED PORCH aa DINING ROOM 14'_8 x 12' 0" 13,_6" x 12,_0" M 18._0"x 12_U' ,__________ --------------------- p U -------------- ❑ ---------------- GREAT 23,-6"x 18'-6! m, Y m oe, 0 z mwA—Eiurvo __ _ ----- ----- LINE ur uaaEre r�uure ---------------- -------- ., OL � IN OWORKSHOP 1r-1a°x1T_O" MUD ROOM BEDROOM . oEt>i� -----------------' FOYERGARAGE OPEN TO ABOVE 23'-0" x 21'-0"(21 '_0") OFFICE '- 12'-0" x 14'-5" COVERED PORCH m —12 2 095.5 2 095.5 1447.. 1 447.8 2 019.3 20193 1 524 19812 4 191 2 895.6 4 033.6 3 505.2 146304 MAIN FLOOR LAYOUT 2260 SQ. FT. 1"aLE.-T.NI ,ER�000N ei���� e�,�2y=® UPPER FLOOR LAYOUT 1467 SQ.FT. ,�TExINMo a =T' TEl—aN �� 'I 1",��a22 , 7 Dass 7 aazz 085.8 5 981 7 5 302 3 2140 HIGH LEVEL WILLOVI OPEN Ll BELOW ENSUITE 11'-0" x 12'-1" D C� 0 ».— V/ _ MASTER SUITE - 14'-0" x 17-10" -H N 11TINI-1 F��oROR.„ ___________________181.6 _________________-o e FT� OPEN 10 BE—V BEDROOM#3 11'-2"x.13'-0" BEDROOM #2 11' 6" x 12'-8" 1574.8 14418 2N 9.3 2 019.3 1 524 1111.2 39243 30226 40385 3 505 2 145304 UPPER FLOOR LAYOUT 1467 SQ.FT. ,�TExINMo a =T' TEl—aN �� 'I 1",��a22 , 9 99L Z OOZE £Z9L E 9W89L Z " TME '85 8'85£ 989L Z COZ£ £Z9l E 'rte COZ 9'2922 E'Z9LE 2 H 9 291 Z L OZ£ EZ9L £ 9 89G z L OZ£ E z96 E '9s TREE PROTECTION FENCE \ 14m HIGH WHITE SPRUCE (WITH 4m DRIPLINE) IN FAIR/POOR CONDITIONS TO BE REMOVED :X 10m HIGH ASH SPECIES (WITH 4m DRIPLINE) IN POOR CONDITION TO BE REMOVED X 8m HIGH WHITE SPRUCE (WITH 3m DRIPLINE) IN GOOD CONDITION TO BE REMOVED EX HOUSE #664 I City of Kitchener Planning Division TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED 1 KITCHEP ER Signature: sandrob Date: 05/07/2021 EX SIDEWALK EE PRESERVATION AN PREPARED BY: rly Van Daele k Certified Arborist ON -2346A vandaele@gmail.com EX 8m BLUE SPRUCE (WITH 2m DRIPLINE) IN GOOD CONDITION TO REMAIN EX 7m HIGH ORNAMENTAL FRUIT TREE (WITH 5m DRIPLINE) IN FAIR CONDITION TO REMAIN 8.29m [60 TREE PROTECTION ZONE tt EX SHRUBS / 7.5m ZONING SETBACK _ _ _ COVERED I UNCOVERED PORCH PORCH Y EXTENTS OF 2nd FLOOR O U� L E m= PROPOSED w= n N HOUSE 0: #660 zi z o= N N o i GARAGE w Z COVERED _PORCH • 9.08m ZONING SET •....... �' w... *....... LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION C TREE PROTECTION FENCE w _ 18.29m 60'] ED 0.3 DIA DEC A V 0 N D A L GENERAL NOTES 660 AVONDALE AVENUE ALL PRUNING IS TO BE SUPERVISED BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST, MITIGATION MEASURES ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST FOR ALL VEGETATION TO BE RETAINED AND NOTED ON THE TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ALL VEGETATION ARE TO BE IMPLEMENTED AS PER CURRENT INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE STANDARDS UNDER ARBORIST SUPERVISION, NOTES FOR TREES BEING RETAINED THIS PLANA TO TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY. ALL REMOVALS MUST BE FELLED INTO THE WORK AREA TO ENSURE THE DAMAGE DOES NOT OCCUR TO THE TREES WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE, TREES LOCATED JUST OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION FOOTPRINT THAT ARE TO BE PRESERVED WILL HAVE TREE PROTECTION FENCING INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY SITE ACTIVITY. THE TEMPORARY PROTECTION EX LIGHT STANDARD EX 10m HIGH BLUE SPRUCE (WITH 3m DRIPLINE) IN FAIR CONDITION TO BE REMOVED EX HOUSE #652 EX 10m HIGH BLACK WALNUT (WITH 5m DRIPLINE) w IN GOOD CONDITION TO REMAIN E A V E N U E FENCE WILL BE REMOVED ONCE CONSTRUCTION HAS ENDED, SOILS ARE STABILIZED AND ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED. AREAS PROTECTED BY FENCING SHALL REMAIN UNDISTURBED AND WILL NOT BE USED FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE, PLACEMENT OR EXCAVATION OF FILL, TOP SOIL, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT, OR DEBRIS. IF WORK MUST BE CONDUCTED WITHIN A TREE PROTECTION ZONE THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION AND MECHANICAL ROOT DAMAGE BY APPLYING 15 — 30 CM OF MULCH TO AREA, UPON COMPLETION REMOVE EXCESS MULCH LEAVING A 10 CM DEPTH LAYER OF MULCH. AVOID CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS OF TREES TO BE RETAINED WHEN POSSIBLE; IF ROOT PRUNING IS UNAVOIDABLE, SEEK FURTHER DETAILS. ANY LIMBS DAMAGED OR BROKEN DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE PRUNED CLEANLY. Ltz"` TREE PRESERVATION PLAN r �0 660 AVONDALE AVENUE 0{ >, • • REGION OF WATERLOO CITY OF KITCHENER � Y SITE INFORMATION JOB NUMBER O O a LOT AREA: sTz 54. m. SCALE 21-DaT K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITED HOUSE AREA: 318.2 1— DATE COVERAGE: 47.5% .111H.ANNR CUIMA0 L S CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS SITE BENCHMARK MAY 6, 2021 N� R710(3 NT AT SIN CORNER OF AVONDALE TO OF FIRE AAVENUE 4m 0 1:200 KITCHENER SUDBURY oanwirvc rvurrem ELEV. 340.049 2 OF 3 s:\2121\21-111YD-1119\21-151 111 11.11 e — - 1-119 Pia 1, Taff PaESEaVATT1N s- Y- 1 2:1122 P1 i Staff Report �T R Dbvelo n7entServicesDepartment www. kitchener.ca REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: April 20, 2021 SUBMITTED BY: von Westerholt, Juliane, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7157 PREPARED BY: Pinnell, Andrew, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7668 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 8 DATE OF REPORT: April 13, 2021 REPORT NO.: DSD -2021-57 SUBJECT: A2021-031 - 660 Avondale Ave Owners: Purewal, Varinder; Chatha, Rajvinder Approve Subject to a Condition RECOMMENDATION: 1) That Minor Variance Application A2021-031, for 660 Avondale Ave, requesting relief from Section 37.2.1 to allow a rear yard setback of 4.7 metres, rather than the required 7.5 metres, to facilitate the construction of a new single detached dwelling, be deferred to provide an opportunity for the owner to prepare and submit a satisfactory Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan, in advance of a decision by the Committee of Adjustment. Figure 1. Aerial Photo of Subject Property, in Context *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. REPORT HIGHLIGHTS: • The purpose of this report is to recommend deferral of a minor variance requesting relief from a minimum rear yard requirement, to allow an opportunity for the owner to prepare and submit a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan, in advance of a decision by the Committee. • This report supports the delivery of core services. • There are no financial implications to the City. • This report supports the delivery of core services. BACKGROUND: This report is being brought forward to recommend deferral of a minor variance requesting relief from a minimum rear yard requirement, to allow an opportunity for the owner to prepare and submit a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan, in advance of a decision by the Committee. Figure 2. View of subject property from Avondale Avenue REPORT: The subject property is located on the east of Avondale Avenue, between Claremont Avenue and Glasgow Street, in the Westmount Planning Community. Belmont Village is located to the east. The property contains a single detached dwelling, constructed in approximately 1952. The immediate neighbourhood contains mainly low-density residential uses. The property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and zoned R-3 in By- law 85-1 (the property is currently not subject to By-law 2019-051). City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on April 8, 2021. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single detached dwelling and construct a new, larger single detached dwelling in its place. To facilitate the construction of the new dwelling, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a rear yard of 4.7 metres, rather than the required 7.5 metres. Planning staff is concerned that not enough information has been provided with the application to justify support for the application. More information is necessaryto understand how the proposed dwelling (and reduced rear yard) would impact on -property trees and adjacent, off -property trees, before a decision is made. Among other considerations, such trees may assist in providing an adequate buffer for adjacent properties — one of the purposes of the minimum rear yard setback regulation. The above concern is directly related to the requested variance. Accordingly, in light of the treed nature of the property and the proximity of trees in the rear yard, Planning staff requests the application be deferred to provide an opportunity for the owner prepare and submit a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan (TP/EP) for the lands in accordance with the City's Tree Management Policy, to the satisfaction of the City's Director of Planning. The TP/EP should include, among other matters, the identification of a proposed building envelope/work zone, building elevation drawings, all treed vegetation to be removed and/or preserved, including species, condition, size (height and DBH) and precise location including driplines, and the methods to be employed in retaining trees to be protected. It should be noted that after reviewing a TP/EP, it is possible that Planning staff may continue to have concerns with the requested variance, such that staff cannot recommend support. At this time, Planning staff is of the opinion that the variance request is premature and should be deferred, pending satisfactory submission of a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan. Environmental Planning Comments: Environmental Planning does not support the reduction in rear yard setback as mature trees in this location will be adversely affected by the proposal. With this reduced setback the mature trees located in the rear yard near the property limit will likely be impacted and decline, leaving neighbours in this mature community no visual buffer. At a minimum, the standard MV condition to complete a Tree Preservation / Enhancement Plan prior to demolition, grading, BP etc. should be required. And owners should be advised ASAP that once exact tree locations at rear are surveyed and trees assessed, that a change in house plan to stay out of the root zones may be required. Heritage Planning Comments: There are no heritage planning concerns. The Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (CHLS) dated December 2014 and prepared by The Landplan Collaborative Ltd. was approved by Council in 2015. The CHLS serves to establish an inventory and was the first step of a phased Cultural Heritage Landscape (CHL) conservation process. The property municipally addressed as 660 Avondale Avenue is located within the Westmount East & West Neighbourhood CHL. The owner and the public will be consulted as the City considers listing CHLs on the Municipal Heritage Register, identifying CHLs in the Official Plan, and preparing action plans for each CHL with specific conservation options. Building Division Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for the new single detached house is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the Building Division @ building@kitchener.ca with any questions. Transportation Services Comments: Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed application. Engineering Services Comments: Engineering has no comments. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget or Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. A notice was also placed in The Record. In addition, notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. A notice sign was placed on the property advising that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received. The sign advises interested parties to find additional information on the City's website or by emailing the Planning Division. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: • Section 45, Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. P.13 Region of Waterloo April 07, 2021 Holly Dyson City of Kitchener 200 King Street West P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, Sth Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4A Canada Telephone: 519-575-4400 TTY: 519-575-4608 Fax: 519-575-4449 www. reg i o n ofwate r l o o. ca File No.: D20-20/ VAR KIT GEN (6) 53 COURTLAND, 80 COURTLAND AVENUE EAST 2441912 ONTARIO INC. (9) 53 FAIRWAY, SEC WOOLNER TRAIL AND FAIRWAY ROAD NORTH WCDSB Dear Ms. Dyson: Re: Committee of Adjustment Applications Meeting April 22, 2021, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following updated comments: 1) A 2021-019 — 30 Waterbow Trail — No Concerns. 2) A 2021-026 — 11 Whitney Place — No Concerns. 3) A 2021-027 — 573 Guelph Street — No Concerns. 4) A 2021-028 — 11 Springdale Drive — No Concerns. 5) A 2021-029 — 20 Munroe Street — No Concerns. 6) A 2021-030 — 80 Courtland Avenue East — No Concerns. 7) A 2021-031 — 660 Avondale Avenue — No Concerns. 8) A 2021-032 — 81 Waterloo Street — No Concerns. 9) A 2021-033 — Fairway & Woolner — No Concerns. 10) A 2021-034 — 59 Carisbrook Drive — No Concerns. Please be advised that any development on the lands subject to the Applications noted above are subject to the provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 14-046 or any successor thereof and may require the payment of Regional Development Charges for these Document Number: 3616590 Page of 2 developments prior to the issuance of a building permit. The comments contained in this letter pertain to the Application numbers listed above. If a site is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply. Please forward any decision on the above mentioned application to the undersigned. Yours Truly, Joginder Bhatia Transportation Planner C (226) 753-0368 2 Docs #3573963 April 8, 2021 Administration Centre: 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1 R 5W6 Phone: 519-621-2761 Toll free: 1-866-900-4722 Fax: 519-621-4844 www.grandriver.ca Dianna Saunderson Via email only City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7 Dear Ms. Saunderson, Re: April 20, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Applications for Minor Variance A2021-019 30 Waterbow Trail A2021-026 11 Whitney Place A2021-027 573 Guelph Street A2021-028 11 Springdale Drive A2021-029 20 Munroe Street A2021-030 80 Courtland Avenue East A2021-031 660 Avondale Avenue A2021-032 81 Waterloo Street Applications for Consent B2021-015 83 Elmsdale Drive B2021-016 83 Second Avenue B2021-017 82 Pattandon Avenue B2021-018-020 942 Doon Village Road B2021-021-023 654 Rockway Drive The above -noted consent applications are located outside the Grand River Conservation Authority areas of interest. As such, we will not undertake a review of the applications and plan review fees will not be required. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 519-621-2763 ext. 2228 or aherremana-grand river. ca. Sincerely, Andrew Herreman, CPT Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority `These comments are respectfully submitted as advice and reflect resource concerns within the scope and mandate of Page 1 of 1 the Grand River Conservation Authority. Member of Conservation Ontario, representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities I The Grand — A Canadian Heritage River 660 Avondale Minor Variance Request To: Committee of Adjustments Re; Minor variance application It is our opinion that the request does pass the 4 -part test for a minor variance 1. Does the variance meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan? The location of the house in an area low rise residential area consisting of many different types of houses to achieve a low-density area. The variance we are asking for will not change the City official plan of the area of low rise residential housing. The request of reducing the rear yard set back to allow for mainly outdoor living space with only a small portion to be used for indoor habitable space and only be on the main floor. 2. Does the variance meet the general intent of the purpose of the zoning by-law We believe it does meet the general intent of the bylaw. The intent of the bylaw is to maintain outdoor amenity space in the rear yard. Of the 438 square feet that we are building into the set back 58% will be used for out door amenity space with 180sgft being used for indoor living space and no part of the 2nd floor will protrude into the 7.5m setback 3. Is the variance minor (does it cause unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent properties? We believe the variance is minor in nature for several reasons. Primarily the house as it currently sits does not conform to current zoning set back requirement in the side yard and front yard setbacks, as you can see on the attached site plan. The current house encroaches neighbouring properties and is located only 0.87m from the property line on left side and 1.09m on the right side. The new house will be approximately 1.85 and 1.8 from the property line thus creating more space between the 2 houses that would impacted the most by the proposed new dwelling and well within the 1.2m required setback and it can be argued that this will have a positive impact on those properties by creating more space. The rear yard reduction will also have minor impact on the houses abutting the property in the rear yard as no part of the 2nd storey will be outside the 7.5m requirement and the majority of the proposed dwelling that is protruding into the rear yard setback will be used as outdoor amenity space. The proposed building will only cover 47 % of the property when 55% is allowed. Also the house will now conform to front and side yard set backs as well not exceed the maximum height allowance. 4. Is the variance appropriate? We believe the variance is appropriate as the use of the land is a permitted use in the zoning by-law and a reduction in the rear yard setback will not negatively impact the character of property of the surrounding neighbourhood as they proposed new residence will conform with current zoning by- laws then it currently does by provided more space in between the house of both next door neighbours. The design of the proposed residence will be that of traditional design with many stone gables and timber framing detail, that is seen throughout the neighbourhood. In the report issued by the planning department, they have requested we submit a tree enhancement/replacement plan. We became aware of this request on April 13th. We were able to expediate getting this completed and have submitted it along with this written submission. So based on the submission of this report and the responses to the guidelines of meeting minor variance above we ask the committee to approve out minor variance request on the condition that the Environmental planning department approves our submitted Tree enhancement/ Preservation study. In conclusion, I realize redevelopment can be a sensitive issue for many people, but it is essential part to a growing community. As the builder, and someone who lives 1 street away, I will provide neighbours with my contact information to address any issue that arise, I will take every step possible to minimize the impact on the neighbours, including maintaining proper fencing of the property, grading to maintain water run off control and keep the site in a respective manner. Sincerely, Jon O'Malley Agent/Applicant of Owners EX 8m BLUE SPRUCE (WITH 2m DRIPLINE) IN GOOD CONDITION TO REMAIN EX 7m HIGH ORNAMENTAL FRUIT TREE (WITH 5m DRIPLINE) IN FAIR CONDITION TO REMAIN 18.29m [60'] (WITH 4m DRIPLINE) N U E / THIS PLAN IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY, IN FAIR/POOR CONDITIONS ALL REMOVALS MUST BE FELLED INTO THE WORK AREA TO ENSURE THE DAMAGE DOES NOT OCCUR TO THE TREES WITHIN N Y ■ TO BE REMOVED oil cf/ FENCE WILL BE REMOVED ONCE CONSTRUCTION HAS ENDED, SOILS ARE STABILIZED AND ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT HAS U ■I U LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION PLACEMENT OR EXCAVATION OF FILL, TOP SOIL, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT, OR DEBRIS, 7 IINU 6ETB. (MINOR VARIANCE) PROPOSED :X 10m HIGH ASH SPECIES MULCH LEAVING A 10 CM DEPTH LAYER OF MULCH. . . ....:.:.:.... AVOID CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS OF TREES TO BE RETAINED WHEN POSSIBLE, IF ROOT PRUNING IS UNAVOIDABLE, SEEK E (WITH 4m DRIPLINE) i ■ E Ltz"` IN POOR CONDITION COVERED I UNCOVERED i ■ ■ Z TO BE REMOVED ■ PORCH PORCH Z Z ■ Z SITE INFORMATION ■ Z , O 7.5m ZONING SETBACK JOB NUMBER EX 10m HIGH BLUE SPRUCE X 8m HIGH WHITE SPRUCE ■ ■ ■ (WITH 3m DRIPLINE) (WITH 3m DRIPLINE) K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITEDsq.m. NOOSE AREA: IN FAIR CONDITION IN GOOD CONDITION 471%670.2 COVERAGE : 4T.1� TO BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED �! CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS ■. ED 0.3 DIA DEC EX LIGHT STANDARD A V 0 N D A L E A V E N U E NOTES FOR TREES BEING RETAINED THIS PLAN IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY, ALL REMOVALS MUST BE FELLED INTO THE WORK AREA TO ENSURE THE DAMAGE DOES NOT OCCUR TO THE TREES WITHIN N Y ■ TREES LOCATED JUSTOUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION FOOTPRINT THAT ARE TO BE PRESERVED WILL HAVE TREE oil PROTECTION FENCING INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY SITE ACTIVITY, THE TEMPORARY PROTECTION FENCE WILL BE REMOVED ONCE CONSTRUCTION HAS ENDED, SOILS ARE STABILIZED AND ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT HAS U ■I U O PLACEMENT OR EXCAVATION OF FILL, TOP SOIL, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT, OR DEBRIS, IF WORK MUST BE CONDUCTED WITHIN A TREE PROTECTION ZONE THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION m PROPOSED m MULCH LEAVING A 10 CM DEPTH LAYER OF MULCH. AVOID CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS OF TREES TO BE RETAINED WHEN POSSIBLE, IF ROOT PRUNING IS UNAVOIDABLE, SEEK E � i HOUSE ■ E Ltz"` TREE PRESERVATION PLAN ■ 660 ■ ■ Z 7 REGION OF WATERLOO CITY OF KITCHENER �p M Z Z ■ Z SITE INFORMATION ■ Z , O JOB NUMBER O O ■ SCALE �1-08X K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITEDsq.m. NOOSE AREA: E ■ ■ E 471%670.2 COVERAGE : 4T.1� .I(>H.SNNF CUIMA0 LS CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS EX HOUSE j ■ AT SW#CORNER OF AVONDALETO OF FIRE HYDANT AVENUE #664 KITCHENER SUDBURY oanwirvc rvurrem ELEV. 340.049 EX HOUSE 1 OF 1 ■ ■ #652 J i GARAGE ■I ■ COVERED i ■ PORCH i ■J ........ . 9.087 ZONNG SETBACK.. EX 10m HIGH BLACK WALNUT (WITH 5m DRIPLINE) w IN GOOD CONDITION w _ 18.29m 60'] TO REMAIN EX HEDGE EX SIDEWALK ED 0.3 DIA DEC EX LIGHT STANDARD A V 0 N D A L E A V E N U E NOTES FOR TREES BEING RETAINED THIS PLAN IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TREE PROTECTION PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY, ALL REMOVALS MUST BE FELLED INTO THE WORK AREA TO ENSURE THE DAMAGE DOES NOT OCCUR TO THE TREES WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION ZONE. TREES LOCATED JUSTOUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION FOOTPRINT THAT ARE TO BE PRESERVED WILL HAVE TREE PROTECTION FENCING INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY SITE ACTIVITY, THE TEMPORARY PROTECTION FENCE WILL BE REMOVED ONCE CONSTRUCTION HAS ENDED, SOILS ARE STABILIZED AND ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED, AREAS PROTECTED BY FENCING SHALL REMAIN UNDISTURBED AND WILL NOT BE USED FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE, PLACEMENT OR EXCAVATION OF FILL, TOP SOIL, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT, OR DEBRIS, IF WORK MUST BE CONDUCTED WITHIN A TREE PROTECTION ZONE THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION ANDMECHANICAL ROOT DAMAGE BY APPLYING 15 — 30 CM OF MULCH TO AREA, UPON COMPLETION REMOVE EXCESS MULCH LEAVING A 10 CM DEPTH LAYER OF MULCH. AVOID CUTTING SURFACE ROOTS OF TREES TO BE RETAINED WHEN POSSIBLE, IF ROOT PRUNING IS UNAVOIDABLE, SEEK FURTHER DETAILS. ANY LIMBS DAMAGED OR BROKEN DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE PRUNED CLEANLY, Ltz"` TREE PRESERVATION PLAN Pc r UGN 660 AVONDALE AVENUE O w, "if >, • • REGION OF WATERLOO CITY OF KITCHENER Y SITE INFORMATION JOB NUMBER O O LOT AREA: sq. rn. SCALE �1-08X K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITEDsq.m. NOOSE AREA: onTe 471%670.2 COVERAGE : 4T.1� .I(>H.SNNF CUIMA0 LS CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS SITE BENCHMARK APRIL 19, 2021 N� R710(3 AT SW#CORNER OF AVONDALETO OF FIRE HYDANT AVENUE 1:200 4m KITCHENER SUDBURY oanwirvc rvurrem ELEV. 340.049 1 OF 1 TREE PROTECTION PLAN - 660 AVONDALE AVENUE INTRODUCTION This memo outlines the Tree Protection Plan in support of redevelopment at the residential dwelling of 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener. An inventory was completed for all trees greater than 10 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) within the construction footprint, and adjacent areas within the property, which have the potential to be impacted by disturbances associated with the proposed construction. INVENTORY RESULTS Table 1: Summary of Trees Inventoried by Species Effective DriplineTHeight Tree Species DBH (m) (m) Condition Status Comments (cm) JI White Spruce* 16 3 8 t Good Remove Some exposed roots, located within footprint Blue Spruce 24 3 10 Fair Remove Lean towards house, located within footprint Ash species* 21 Poor Remove Trunk wounds, insect damage, 4 10 located within footprint White Spruce* 45 Fair/Poor Remove Dead branches, minor dieback 4 14 Blue Spruce 17 2 8 Good Retain Frost crack at unions Ornamental fruit 28 5 7 Fair Retain Water sprouting, woodpecker ree holes r Black Walnut* 22 Good Retain N/A 5 10 *Denotes native species TREES TO BE REMOVED Based on the design drawings a total of 3 trees are to be removed to accommodate the proposed development and servicing and 1 tree is proposed to be removed due to fair -poor health conditions. TREES TO BE RETAINED Three trees are proposed to be retained. The following recommended Best Management Practices should be employed, where applicable, to protect the health, and future health of the trees are to be retained: • All removals must be felled into the work area to ensure the damage does not occur to the trees within the Tree Protection Zone • Trees located just outside of the construction footprint that are to be preserved will have tree protection fencing installed prior to the commencement of any site activity. The temporary protection fence will be removed once construction has ended, soils are stabilized and all of the equipment has been removed • Areas protected by fencing shall remain undisturbed and will not be used for temporary storage, placement or excavation of fill, top soil, construction materials or equipment, or debris. • If work must be conducted within a tree protection zone the contractor should minimize soil compaction and mechanical root damage by applying 15 — 30 cm of mulch to area. Upon completion remove excess mulch leaving a 10 cm depth layer of mulch. • Avoid cutting surface roots of trees to be retained when possible. If root pruning is unavoidable, seek further details. • Any limbs damaged or broken during the course of construction should be pruned cleanly CONCLUSIONS This Tree Saving Plan memo minimizes the number of trees that are to be removed and provides recommended actions to protect and retain the maximum number of trees in good condition. The owner and/or contractor shall follow the recommendations within this memo to the best of their abilities. Carly Van Daele ISA Certified Arborist ON -2346A 18.29m [60'] A V 0 N D A L E A V E N U E �C'l�LGRlArC` r Q,C yov J(>HANNF. GUIMARAL:S \L_L71063 EXISTING VS. PROPOSED SIDEYARD SETBACKS 660 AVONDALE AVENUE REGION OF WATERLOO K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITED CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS KITCHENER SUDBURY CITY OF KITCHENER OB NUMBER SCALE zi—oar ® DATE APRIL 19, 2021 0 1:200 4m oRnwirvc rvuNem 111 1-11 e nye — 11-19 11-I,Eg Ex 11 NEI 11-11e-21 2:11 11 11 I 4.7m ZONING SETBACK (MINOR VARIANCE) COVERED UNCOVERED I PORCH _I_PORCH_ 7.5m ZONING SETBACK I EXISTING HOUSE ENCROACHES 0.11m I INTO SIDEYARD ZONING SETBACK o aI la oN N I mI PROPOSED I E E I HOUSE I 0 co c� I z #660 I_ M ,i q L o ml EX HOUSE E TO BE EX HOUSE -I REMOVED ##664 �I EX HOUSE #/652 GARAGE COVERED 1.Sm 1.85m 0.87m I PORCH 1'2m 9.08m ZONNG SETBACK I� ai Q � o } > EXISTING HOUSE ENCROACHES 0.33m INTO SIDEYARD SETBACK Q < w > w BE 18.29m 60'] A V 0 N D A L E A V E N U E �C'l�LGRlArC` r Q,C yov J(>HANNF. GUIMARAL:S \L_L71063 EXISTING VS. PROPOSED SIDEYARD SETBACKS 660 AVONDALE AVENUE REGION OF WATERLOO K. SMART ASSOCIATES LIMITED CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS KITCHENER SUDBURY CITY OF KITCHENER OB NUMBER SCALE zi—oar ® DATE APRIL 19, 2021 0 1:200 4m oRnwirvc rvuNem 111 1-11 e nye — 11-19 11-I,Eg Ex 11 NEI 11-11e-21 2:11 11 11 5 755.8 8 610 .5 3009.9 2755.9 a..................................................... 5 511.8 .a .._.,......_....._.._.._....._......_.A..._.._.._....._...------..._.._.._ 356.5 D e'd j4 eo4 UNEXCAVATED end D e�d D4 ba ur e. eod h UP D d ed a 1 r Yf r eo4 eo4 .................... D e 0 a ------------- ----------------- TI eed d D p o ❑ UNEXCAVATED O od 5 902.5 od 3 683 3 219.5 a ........................... ' 'ee So�.Po, . .. UNEXCAVATED D .. ....... .... ... .... ... o..... ,e ' 33528 1 ]2]2 19812 1524 13910 3 708.4 3 505.2 J�S-E 14 639.4 FOUNDATION PLAN LLCONCRETE WALLS 10 THICK UNLESS NOTED OTHER -SE ALL ANGLED MILLS 45 DEGREES (1'.1 ) UNLESS NOTED OTHER -ISE ALLINTERIORWALLS-913— UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ALL ANTEL'STEEL3112 x31.2"111 U ISE ALLSTRUCTURALLINTELSTOSE 2-2210 UN LESS OTHERra ISE NOTED V n= a MLE leu LEx NCT TERLOo oN /r,\ LS J� rr�o.-,eo-AV I—EKIIIIue N-Ervea - - MAIN FLOOR LAYOUT 2260 SQ.FT. imn'a TER o0 oN oral lElUl 111 -HEI -1 6 919.8 8 619.6 3 009.9 30099 2438.4 4 032.3 2 149 COVERED PORCH UNCOVERED PORCH DINING ROOM 14'-8" z 12'-0" 13'-6" x 12'-0" .__________18'_0"x12'_0" �: ®' N U ❑ GREAT ROOM, 23'_6" x 18,_6"', w .2T�—IE HQ Y OPEN TO ABOVE iex ,FAuz eEwNO Daus 1,2 O\P/ ' PANTRV ON OWORKSHOP s r. _________�-_� 11'-10"x17-0„ 71 ell, MUD ROOM m - 10'_10" x T-8" BEDROOM 11'-8" z 14'-7" TN—„m oet+iL____-- FOYER GARAGE OPEN TO ABOVE 23,_0„x21,_0"(21'-0„) OFFICE 12'-D” x 14'-5" COVERED PORCH 21, 11 2095.5 21911 1 447.8 1 447.8 2019.3 2 019.3 1 524 1 981.2 4 191 2 89Sti 40386 3 505 2 146304 MAIN FLOOR LAYOUT 2260 SQ.FT. imn'a TER o0 oN oral lElUl 111 -HEI -1 UPPER FLOOR LAYOUT 1467 SQ.FT. ,.a�ExNQ>�Aa--" TEB�aoaN A2 7 099.3 3 416.3 33862 1 966.8 6032.5 0� W.I.C. 11'-0" x 15'-7" OPEN TO BELOW ENSUITE 11,-0" x 12,-1" _____ = D C� 0 - MASTER SUITE - 14'-0" x 17-0" -PEN E — �. , "u, •N O s.. Li -------------------5181 6-----------------_� o 0 OPEN TO BE—V BEDROOM 43 11'-2" x 13'-0" BEDROOM #2 11'-6" x 12'-8" ------------------------ 1574.81447.8 2019.3 k s� 2019.3 1524 1981.2 39243 3 022.6 40386 3505.2 14 630 4 UPPER FLOOR LAYOUT 1467 SQ.FT. ,.a�ExNQ>�Aa--" TEB�aoaN A2 jo 04ALLEY ice A3 d—, ",-3 Dianna Saunderson From: Amy Stahlke Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 10:06 PM To: Dianna Saunderson; Committee of Adjustment (SM) Cc: Andrew Pinnell Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Register to submit comments for committee of adjustments Hi Dianna, Thank you very much for the information. I would like to have the following brief comments submitted to the Committee regarding the application for A 2021-031-660 Avondale Avenue: I've lived at IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAvondale Avenue since 1997. While I am not directly impacted by the proposed minor variance at 660 Avondale, I do want to express my opposition to the reduction of the rear yard set back from 7.5 meters to 4.7 meters. There appears to be a trend in the Westmount neighbourhood to tear down existing homes to build new, larger dwellings. This trend is likely to continue and I'm concerned about the precedent a reduction in setbacks would have going forward, allowing for large homes that almost completely fill the lots, more in keeping with what you see in newer neighbourhoods. The size of the lot at 660 Avondale Avenue is large enough to accommodate a home of a reasonable and yet still considerable size in comparison to other homes on the street, without having to reduce the rear yard setback. If this was being proposed next to or behind my house, I would be concerned about a reduction in my property value because of the close proximity of such a large home. I'm assuming the setback exists to preserve space and privacy between houses, allowing residents to have a sense of open space, to allow better natural light in backyards - all things I value and wouldn't want to lose. Approving variances of this nature to accommodate large new builds will change the character of this mature neighbourhood to the detriment of existing residents, particularly immediate neighbours. Allowing a reduction in the rear setback also wouldn't be fair to the neighbours who expect that existing requirements will be enforced. Perhaps a more equitable approach would be for the new owners of 660 Avondale Ave to have to gain approval for the variance from the properties impacted by the proposed reduction to the setback? I hope their opinions will be sought and heard as part of this process. Many thanks for allowing me to make this submission in writing. Amy Stahlke IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAvondale Avenue Kitchener, Ontario Garry Smith Glasgow Street, To whom it may concern Re; A2021 — 032 - 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, minor variance To the Committee of Adjustment My name is Garry Smith, residing atMlasgow Street, Kitchener, Ontario. In regards to the minor variance requested above, at 660 Avondale Avenue, we strongly object against changing the setback from 7.5 meters to 4.7 meters. We are truly blessed to be surrounded by properties that have a large urban landscape in proportion to the building structure, in and around our surrounding properties. The proposed building structure is out of character with the neighborhood. It is not a desirable change and will negatively impact the privacy and enjoyment we all enjoy within old Westmount. Sincerely yours; Garry Smith Glasgow Street. Kitchener Date April 15th 2021 April 15, 2021 The City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment Notice of Hearing RE: A2021-032 - 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON To the Committee of Adjustment, My name is Dan Reid and I am the current homeowner at M Earl St., Kitchener, ON Regarding the minor variance application for 660 Avondale Avenue requesting a setback of 4.7m rather than the 7.5m required as stated under Zoning By-law 85-1 and Crozby Zoning By-law 2019-051 (approved in 2019), 1 object to granting this variance for a number of reason stated herein. I submit to the Committee of Adjustment that the current application does not meet the standards set out in the above by-laws. 1. Does it conform to the intent of the Official Plan? The Official Plan Policies are very clear in ensuring compatibility within existing neighbourhoods (R-3 under Zoning By-law 85-1 and Res -3 under the new Crozby Zoning By-law 2019-051 - of which both by-laws are in effect. Under Section 11, Part C of the official Plan: Neighbourhood Design 11.C.1.28. Neighbourhoods in the City can be characterized as either suburban or central neighbourhoods. The Urban Design Manual provides design direction with respect to character, built form and amenities in both typologies of neighbourhoods. a) In the Central Neiahbourhoods the City's primary focus will be to ensure that new infill development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood. Building Design, Massing and Scale Design 11.C.1.31. The City will ensure new buildings are designed, existing buildings are redeveloped, expanded, converted or renovated to enhance pedestrian usability, respects and reinforce human scale, create attractive streetscapes and contribute to rich and vibrant urban places. 11.C.1.33. The City will encourage the following: a) provision of attractive building forms, facades and roof designs which are compatible with surrounding buildings: Section 11 Part C City of Kitchener Official Plan: A Complete & Healthy Kitchener 11-7 b) Infill development to complement existing buildings and contribute to neighbourhood character and minimization of adverse impacts on site, onto adjacent properties. We would submit that the application for minor variance does not conform to the INTENT of the Official Plan and contravenes these Official Plan policies regarding the required set -back from the back property lot line and provide a reasonable backyard amenity. RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener DAN REID M EARL ST., KITCHENER 1 of 5 2. Does it conform to the intent of the Zoning By-laws? We argue it does NOT conform The lot at 660 Avondale enjoys a much larger frontage than most of the other lots on Avondale. A variance to increase the building size, on what is already a large lot, would make the larger building disproportionate to the existing homes on the street. The proposed new building at 660 Avondale would be 2.5 times larger than 652 Avondale and nearly 60% larger than 664 Avondale - effectively dwarfing both homes (see photo below of 670 Dunbar). The current available footprint for a home at 660 Avondale provides more than sufficient space to remain within the zoning by-law and still build a large home that will be significantly larger than current homes within close proximity. Zoning By-law 4830 approved in 1964 has a rear -yard setback of 7.5m (25 ft) and has remained in effect for 60 years. The same setback standard has been approved within the Crozby By-law. Almost all municipal Zoning By-laws in Ontario have residential rear yards of minimum 7.5m as a standard. The requested variance to enlarge the building footprint on one of the largest lots on Avondale is in contradiction to the current zoning by-laws and should not be approved (see chart on last pg). The proposed building is simply too large for the current space within the permitted zoning by-laws. Approving a minor variance to enlarge an already large home is counter to the INTENT of the current Official Plan policies - which are to ensure compatibility within existing neighbourhoods. 3. Is it minor in nature? The request is to reduce the minimum set -back from 7.5m to 4.7m. We argue this is NOT a minor request for a variance for several reasons. The intent is to place a very large home on an already large lot without taking into consideration the impact of the homes immediately adjacent to the property. Homes on either side of the proposed home would be dwarfed by the size of the proposed new build, even if it was to remain within the current by-laws. Homes backing on to 660 Avondale would be significantly impacted by a loss of privacy within their backyards. The proposed change would have the dining room within 15.42 feet of the back property line. To put this into perspective, this is similar in size to a small back deck in depth. We believe the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are designed to ensure that homeowners have a right to optimize the footprint of their home within Official Plan and Zoning By-laws, while providing neighbouring homes the opportunity to enjoy a sense of privacy within their own setting. To suggest that a larger building, which is significantly larger than the neighbouring homes at 664 Avondale and 652 Avondale would not encroach on the privacy of both adjacent homes is nothing less than gaslighting. There are three homes that back onto 660 Avondale: 17 Earl, 23 Earl and 27 Earl. Each of these properties abuts a portion of the backyard at 660 Avondale. Each of these homes will be negatively impacted if the proposed dwelling at 660 Avondale is allowed the requested minor variance. RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener DAN REID M EARL ST., KITCHENER 2 of 5 (View of the impact of a recently built home at 670 Dunbar, Kitchener, next to existing home.) The privacy and enjoyment within the backyards for both 17 and 23 Earl St will be severely affected, as they are directly exposed to the backyard of 660 Avondale. The proposed height of the new home and close proximity to the back lot line would cast significant shadows on both of these properties, impacting the privacy and enjoyment of both residences. Specifically, backyard gardens at 17 Earl would receive less direct daylight in the late afternoon. 664 Avondale will also be directly impacted by shadows cast from the proposed new build significantly reducing early and mid-morning light. We would argue that the INTENT of this development is definitely NOT a minor request for a variance. 4. Is it desirable? In 1924, the City of Kitchener passed a town planning by-law establishing Kitchener as the first Ontario Municipality of any size to adopt a comprehensive town plan and to enact an associated Zoning By-law 1823 that controlled exactly how a neighbourhood could be developed. Over the past 97 years, Westmount, the first modern subdivision to be developed in Ontario, is recognized as a unique and desirable neighbourhood. What makes it unique is that many of the original homes were designed and built in the 1930s, 40s and 50s. Today, intensification is putting more pressure on existing neighbourhoods, especially older neighbourhoods where lots can be larger. This has driven builders and homeowners to purchase large lots with the intent of knocking down existing homes and replacing them with significantly larger homes with the intent of maximizing the usable square footage of the lot. This was not the logic behind intensification, but has led to a trend that is changing established neighbourhoods, and not necessarily for the better. Susan Mavor (author of the book: Westmount - The Ties That Bind The Twin Cities) concluded: RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener DAN REID M EARL ST., KITCHENER 3 of 5 "Westmount can be described as one of the first modern suburbs, inspired by the ideas of the contemporary "Garden Suburb" or "City Beautiful" movement in planning back in the early 201 century. Boulevards, curved streets, green spaces, trees, and the physical contours of the land were preserved." Today, unfortunately, that legacy is in danger. Q: Why is Old Westmount so sought after as a place to live? For many, it's the uniqueness of the neighbourhood. The near 100 -year history that has been preserved in the unique homes that are a legacy to our past. The quaintness of the tree -lined streets and easy access to Belmont Village and a short walk to both downtown cores for both Waterloo and Kitchener. Old Westmount is a unique community. One with a history that dates back to the 1920s. It attracts people from across Canada, who have a desire to enjoy the many amenities of the tree -lined streets. We argue the history of Old Westmount is worth preserving. Why build massive homes here, when that alters what makes Old Westmount unique? Q: When is enough, enough? Google Map aerial showing 660 Avondale Ave. as well as 17, 23 & 27 Earl St. It also begs the question: Why do we have an Official City Plan and urban design policies if these policies are continually challenged based on the expectations of builders and individual citizens who push the limits in order to maximize their investment? If not the City of Kitchener, then who will be the guardians of our unique heritage? And, the heritage of our children. RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener DAN REID 17 EARL ST., KITCHENER 4 of 5 Chart of exterior square footage and lot size square footage of homes on Avondale and Earl (Source: AboutMyProperty.ca) STREET ADDRESS HOME Exterior Sq Footage LOT SIZE Sq Footage 652 Avondale 1445 sq ft 5400 sq ft 660 Avondale Proposed 3,700 sq ft 7200 sq ft 664 Avondale 2159 sq ft 6960 sq ft 670 Avondale 1940 sq ft 5640 sq ft 653 Avondale 1769 sq ft 5520 sq ft 657 Avondale 1668 sq ft 6360 sq ft 663 Avondale 1961 sq ft 6360 sq ft 671 Avondale 1620 sq ft 7,500 sq ft 675 Avondale 2159 sq ft 7800 sq ft Earl Street Lots abutting 660 Avondale Avenue Lot 17 Earl St 2462 sq ft 4800 sq ft 23 Earl St 2082 sq ft 4800 sq ft 27 Earl St 1939 sq ft 4800 sq ft In summary, we argue the INTENT of this minor variance for a rear yard reduction is NOT DESIRABLE and not good planning for the neighbourhood. Sincerely, Daniel C. Reid RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener DAN REID M EARL ST., KITCHENER 5 of 5 Dianna Saunderson From: Ron Donaldson < > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 11:25 AM To: Committee of Adjustment (SM); Dianna Saunderson Subject: [EXTERNAL] Committee of Adjustment - A2021-031 - 660 Avondale Avenue Good morning, I live at M Claremont Avenue at the corner of Avondale Ave and Claremont, 4 houses from 660 Avondale. I would like to express my opposition to granting the variance proposed for the construction of the new infill home at 660 Avondale Avenue in Kitchener. The houses in the vicinity of 660 are modest, charming homes, most with large backyards that have been enjoyed by the countless families that have called the neighbourhood home for the last many decades. The request to reduce the rear yard setback for the new construction at 660 is an unwanted precedent that places all of our homes in this community at risk of having "monster homes" built next to us. The new backyard will be a fraction of the existing yard and will visually impact the adjacent yards. The proposed new home will be many times larger than other homes in the neighbourhood, a disturbing and unnecessary build that will negatively impact the character of this neighbourhood, and is not consistent with the OP that expects compatibility with the neighbourhood. It is inevitable that the current home was going to come down. Given that the property is wider than many on the street a larger home can surely be constructed without the need for reducing the size of the rear yard. This would be consistent with the zoning by-law setback standards that are applied throughout the city. Thanks, Ron Donaldson The City of Kitchener April 16, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Notice of Hearing RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON To the Committee of Adjustment, I am writing in response to the minor variance application for 660 Avondale Avenue requesting a setback of 4.7m rather than the required 7.5m. As a resident at W Earl St., Kitchener I am asking that you decline this request. If people choose to live in homes of this size, I feel they need to find property that will allow for the size of their desired home without encroaching on the rights and privacy of others. My neighbours and I chose to live in this neighbourhood because of the character of the neighbourhood and with the assumption that zoning bylaws would be protective of that character. When people make significant investments in their gardens, they need to be able to trust that their rights to sunlight and privacy will be protected. I have witnessed how my neighbours, directly behind this proposed site, completely redesigned their back gardens over the past 2 years, putting in an inordinate number of hours, sweat labour and financial resources into their garden. They based their choice of plants and design on the assumption that a rebuild would be within the existing zoning bylaws. More and more people are planting vegetable gardens in their back yards, gardens which require sunlight. When others encroach on their sunlight, by applying for variances, it is limiting the usefulness of their land and limits the choices they can make on their own property. If granted, this request for this minor variance will result in a building which will dwarf the homes next to this property. It is completely out of character for the neighbourhood and impacts on the privacy of adjacent homes. It is not a desirable solution. Having been a part of groups in the past who have been asked to submit input into the Region's Official Plan, it is my experience that Official Plans and urban designs policies are developed with collective input considering the needs of the collective and were meant to protect us. I ask that you be very cautious about agreeing to the needs of an individual when it has such a significant impact on their neighbours. Such decisions can create tensions, undermine neighbourliness and a sense of community. In my experience Earl Street is a remarkable community in its depth of caring for one another. I ask that you protect and preserve our community spirit. It is my hope that you will decline the variance and instead support and protect the character and livability of Old Westmount, which is why so many of us bought homes in this neighbourhood and why we love living here. Respectfully, Joy Finney Resident of W Earl St. April 16, 2021 Julie Robinson M Earl Street The City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment Notice of Hearing Committeeofadj ustment@kitchener.ca RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON To the Committee of Adjustment, This letter is in opposition of the variance application for 660 Avondale Avenue requesting a setback of 4.7m rather than the 7.5m. I object to granting this variance for a number of reason stated herein. Earl Street is the direct backyard neighbour of the home at 660 Avondale Avenue. As a result, my property and my home will be directly affected by this decision. I would submit to the Committee of Adjustment that the current application does not meet the standards set out in current by-laws. 1. Does it conform to the intent of the Official Plan? The variance does not conform to the intent of the official plan and will negatively impact my property, my backyard, and my home. Transitioning from a one storey home, currently on the site, to a two storey much larger home will negatively impact the amount of sunlight and privacy of my property. Additionally, building the home so close to the property line is going to further shade my backyard and adversely impact the enjoyment of my backyard and deck space as well as the inside of my home due to privacy issues. I I.C.1.33. The City will encourage the following: a) provision of attractive buildingf, fagades and roof designs which are compatible with surrounding buildings; Section 11 Part C City of Kitchener Official Plan: A Complete & Healthy Kitchener 11-7 b) Infill development to complement existing buildings and contribute to neighbourhood character and minimization of adverse impacts on site, onto adjacent properties. For this reason, I oppose the variance request. 2. Does it conform to the intent of the Zoning By-laws? The variance request does not conform to the intent of the Zoning By -Laws. Zoning By-law 4830 approved in 1964 has a rear -yard setback of 7.5m (25 ft.) and has remained in effect for 60 years. The same setback standard has been maintained within the Crozby By-law at 7.5m. There is no justification for making the building at 660 Avondale longer than the by-law permits. For this reason, I oppose the variance request. 3. Is it minor in nature? This variance request is not minor in nature. The request is to reduce the minimum set -back from 7.5m to 4.7m. This a difference of 2.8m which represents 37% of the 7.5m requirement, which is significant and not minor in nature. The intent is to place a very large home on an already large lot without taking into consideration the impact of the homes immediately adjacent to the property. This would result in an intrusion to the rear yard. My home, at 23 Earl Street, backs onto 660 Avondale and would be significantly impacted by a loss of privacy within my backyard. The privacy and enjoyment within the backyards for both 17 and 23 Earl St will be severely affected, as they are directly exposed to the backyard of 660 Avondale. The proposed height of the new home and close proximity to the back lot line would cast significant shadows on both of these properties, impacting the sunlight, privacy and enjoyment of both residences. For this reason, I oppose the variance request. 4. Is it desirable? The variance is not desirable. The proposed home is too large for the existing lot. It is undesirable to lose the privacy that I value in the Old Westmount neighbourhood. The majority of my time and my families' time is spent at the rear of our home — in our kitchen, master bedroom, on the back deck and in the yard. All of these spaces will be negatively affected and impacted by having a very large 2 storey new building erected within 15 feet of the property line. Additionally, the current landscaping at 660 Avondale has many mature trees that will likely be removed as a result of the construction, further negatively impacting the privacy and sightlines to myself and my family. For this reason, I oppose the variance request. Sincerely, Julie Robinson M Earl Street Kitchener The City of Kitchener April 16, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Notice of Hearing RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON To the Committee of Adjustment, My name is James McCormack and I currently reside at M Earl St., Kitchener, Ontario. I have lived at this residence for 38 years. Regarding the minor variance application for 660 Avondale Avenue requesting a setback of 4.7m rather than the 7.5m required as stated under Zoning By-law 85-1 and Crozby Zoning By-law 2019-051 (approved in 2019), I object to granting this variance for a number of reason stated herein. I would submit to the Committee of Adjustment that the current application does not meet the standards set out in the above by-laws. 1. Does it conform to the intent of the Official Plan? The Official Plan Policies are very clear in ensuring compatibility within existing neighbourhoods (R-3 under Zoning By-law 85-1 and Res -3 under the new Crozby Zoning By-law 2019-051 — of which both by-laws are in effect. Under Section 11, Part C of the official Plan: Neighbourhood Design II.C.1.28. Neighbourhoods in the City can be characterized as either suburban or central neighbourhoods. The Urban Design Manual provides design direction with respect to character, built form and amenities in both typologies of neighbourhoods. a) In the Central Neighbourhoods the City's primary focus will be to ensure that new infill development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood. Building Design, Massing and Scale Design 11.C.1.31. The City will ensure new buildings are designed, existing buildings are redeveloped, expanded, converted or renovated to enhance pedestrian usability, respects and reinforce human scale, create attractive streetscapes and contribute to rich and vibrant urban places. I I.C.1.33. The City will encourage the following: a) provision of attractive buildingf, facades and roof designs which are compatible with surrounding buildings; Section 11 Part C City of Kitchener Official Plan: A Complete & Healthy Kitchener 11-7 b) Infill development to complement existing buildings and contribute to neighbourhood character and minimization of adverse impacts on site, onto adjacent properties. We would submit that the application for minor variance does not conform to the INTENT of the Official Plan and contravenes these Official Plan policies regarding the required set -back from the back property lot line and provide a reasonable backyard amenity. 2. Does it conform to the intent of the Zoning By-laws? We would argue that it doesn't. The lot at 660 Avondale enjoys a much larger frontage than most of the other lots on Avondale. A variance to increase the building size, on what is already a large lot, would make the larger building disproportionate to the existing homes on the street. The proposed new building at 660 Avondale would be 2.5 times larger than 652 Avondale and nearly 60% larger than 664 Avondale — effectively dwarfing both homes (see photo below of 670 Dunbar). The current available footprint for a home at 660 Avondale provides more than sufficient space to remain within the zoning by-law and still build a large home that will be significantly larger than current homes within close proximity. Zoning By-law 4830 approved in 1964 has a rear -yard setback of 7.5m (25 ft) and has remained in effect for 60 years. The same setback standard has been approved within the Crozby By-law. Almost all municipal Zoning By-laws in Ontario have residential rear yards of minimum 7.5m as a standard. The requested variance to enlarge the building footprint on one of the largest lots on Avondale is in contradiction to the current zoning by-laws and should not be approved (see chart at the end). The proposed building is simply too large for the current space within the permitted zoning by-laws. Approving a minor variance to enlarge an already large home is counter to the INTENT of the current Official Plan policies — which are to ensure compatibility within existing neighbourhoods. 3. Is it minor in nature? The request is to reduce the minimum set -back from 7.5m to 4.7m. We would argue that this is NOT a minor request for a variance for several reasons. The intent is to place a very large home on an already large lot without taking into consideration the impact of the homes immediately adjacent to the property. Homes on either side of the proposed home would be dwarfed by the size of the proposed new build, even if it was to remain within the current by-laws. Homes backing on to 660 Avondale would be significantly impacted by a loss of privacy within their backyards. The proposed change would have the dining room within 15.42 feet of the back property line. To put this into perspective, this is similar in size to a small back deck in depth. We believe the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are designed to ensure that homeowners have a right to optimize the footprint of their home within Official Plan and Zoning By-laws, while providing neighbouring homes the opportunity to enjoy a sense of privacy within their own setting. To suggest that a larger building, which is significantly larger than the neighbouring homes at 664 Avondale and 652 Avondale would not encroach on the privacy of both adjacent homes is nothing less than gaslighting. (Example of recently built home at 670 Dunbar, Kitchener next to existing home.) There are three homes that back onto 660 Avondale: 17 Earl, 23 Earl and 27 Earl. Each of these properties abuts a portion of the backyard at 660 Avondale. Each of these homes will be negatively impacted if the proposed dwelling at 660 Avondale is allowed the requested minor variance. The privacy and enjoyment within the backyards for both 17 and 23 Earl St will be severely affected, as they are directly exposed to the backyard of 660 Avondale. The proposed height of the new home and close proximity to the back lot line would cast significant shadows on both of these properties, impacting the privacy and enjoyment of both residences. Specifically, backyard gardens at 17 Earl would receive less direct daylight in the late afternoon. 664 Avondale will also be directly impacted by shadows cast from the proposed new build significantly reducing early and mid-morning light. We would argue that the INTENT of this development is defmitely NOT a minor request for a variance. 4. Is it desirable? In 1924, the City of Kitchener passed a town planning by-law establishing Kitchener as the first Ontario Municipality of any size to adopt a comprehensive town plan and to enact an associated Zoning By-law 1823 that controlled exactly how a neighbourhood could be developed. Over the past 97 years, Westmount, the first modern subdivision to be developed in Ontario, is recognized as a unique and desirable neighbourhood. What makes it unique is that many of the original homes were designed and built in the 1930s, 40s and 50s. Today, intensification is putting more pressure on existing neighbourhoods, especially older neighbourhoods where lots can be larger. This has driven builders and homeowners to purchase large lots with the intent of knocking down existing homes and replacing them with significantly larger homes with the intent of maximizing the usable square footage of the lot. This was not the logic behind intensification, but has led to a trend that is changing established neighbourhoods, and not necessarily for the better. Susan Mavor (author of Westmount — The Ties That Bind The Twin Cities) concluded that Westmount can be described as one of the first modern suburbs, inspired by the ideas of the contemporary "Garden Suburb" or "City Beautiful" movement in planning back in the early 20th century. Boulevards, curved streets, green spaces, trees, and the physical contours of the land were preserved. Today, unfortunately, that legacy is in danger. Ask yourself why Old Westmount is so sought after as a place to live? For many, it's the uniqueness of the neighbourhood. The near 100 -year history that has been preserved in the unique homes that are a legacy to our past. The quaintness of the tree -lined streets and easy access to Belmont Village and a short walk to both downtown cores for both Waterloo and Kitchener. Old Westmount is a unique community. One with a history that dates back to the 1920s. It attracts people from across the Canada, who have a desire to enjoy the many amenities of the tree -lined streets. We would argue that the history of Old Westmount is worth preserving. Do we really want to build massive homes that alter what makes Old Westmount unique? Ask yourself. when is enough, enough? It also begs the question why we have an Official City Plan and urban design policies if these policies are continually challenged based on the expectations of builders and individual citizens who push the limits and want to maximize their investment. Who will be the guardians of our heritage? Chart of exterior square footage and lot size square footage of homes on Avondale and Earl (Source: AboutMyProperty.ca) Street Address Exterior Sq Footage of Lot Size Sq Home Footage 652 Avondale 1445 sq ft 5400 sq ft 660 Avondale Proposed 3,700 sq ft 7200 sq ft 664 Avondale 2159 sq ft 6960 sq ft 670 Avondale 1940 sq ft 5640 sq ft 653 Avondale 1769 sq ft 5520 sq ft 657 Avondale 1668 sq ft 6360 sq ft 663 Avondale 1961 sq ft 6360 sq ft 671 Avondale 1620 sq ft 7,500 sq ft 675 Avondale 2159 sq ft 7800 sq ft Earl St abutting 660 Avondale lot 17 Earl St 2462 sq ft 4800 sq ft 23 Earl St 2082 sq ft 4800 sq ft 27 Earl St 1939 sq ft 4800 sq ft We would argue that the INTENT of this minor variance for a rear yard reduction is NOT desirable and not good planning for the neighbourhood. Sincerely, James McCormack April 17, 2021 The City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment Notice of Hearing RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON To the Committee of Adjustment, Regarding the minor variance application for 660 Avondale Avenue requesting a setback of 4.7m rather than the 7.5m required under Zoning by-laws, we object to granting this variance for the following reasons: 1. The building design, massing and scale are not compatible with the neighbourhood (in particular its adjacent homes) and its character. 2. The intent of the zoning by-law is not respected. The current available footprint for a home at 660 Avondale provides more than sufficient space to remain within the zoning by-law and still build a large home that will be significantly larger than current homes within close proximity. People should not be encouraged to buy lots in desirable neighbourhoods and then reduce the desirability for others by building homes which out of proportion and impact the quality of their neighbours. 3. The request to reduce the minimum set -back from 7.5m to 4.7m is NOT a minor request for a variance. The intent is to place a very large home on an already large lot without taking into consideration the impact on nearby properties. Homes on either side of the proposed home would be dwarfed by the size of the proposed new build, even if it was to remain within the current by-laws. The proposed height of the new home and close proximity to the back lot line would cast significant shadows on adjacent properties, impacting the privacy and enjoyment of these residences. 4. Our Official City Plan needs to mean something and therefore should be used to preserve unique neighbourhoods like Old Westmount. Why do we have an Official City Plan and urban design policies if these policies are continually challenged based on the expectations of builders and individual citizens who push the limits in order to maximize their investment? This may just be "one house on one lot" but it sets a dangerous precedent that could erode the very fabric of this neighbourhood t and what makes it desirable. The City has an obligation to enforce the zoning and keep minor variances minor. Minor/reasonable variances are meant more for additions/renovations of existing structures. New builds should comply with the zoning. Sincerely, Michele Cadotte & Ed McCarron @ M Earl St., Kitchener ON Dianna Saunderson From: Colleen Boehmer < Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 3:36 PM To: Dianna Saunderson; Juliane vonWesterholt Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition for request: Committee of Adjustments Hearing for A 2021-03 on April 20, 2021 Hello Diana and Juliane, Please forward my letter below to the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment for the Hearing for A 2021-02 on April 20, 2021. Thank you, Colleen Boehmer April 17, 2021 The City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment Notice of Hearing RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON To the Committee of Adjustment, I am writing to you to express my opposition to the request for a rear yard setback for 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener. (A 2021-031) I am a homeowner � Earl St. Kitchener. My neighbours at Earl will be negatively impacted by this large home looming over their backyards eliminating any sense of privacy. I am very concerned for them and also for the precedent this would set for the future new builds in our neighbourhood. The request is to reduce the minimum setback from 7.5m to 4.7m. I would argue this is NOT a minor request for a variance for several reasons. The intent is to place a very large home on an already large lot without taking into consideration the impact of the homes immediately adjacent to the property. Homes on either side of the proposed home would be dwarfed by the size of the proposed new build, even if it was to remain within the current by-laws. Homes backing on to 660 Avondale would be significantly impacted by a loss of privacy within their backyards. The proposed change would have the dining room within 15.42 feet of the back property line. To put this into perspective, this is similar in size to a small back deck in depth. The beauty and charm of the neighbourhood of old Westmount is in jeopardy with this kind of new build forever changing the continuity and aesthetic that has made it one of the most desirable neighbourhoods in Kitchener. Giant new homes way bigger than those around them do not fit in! If you are going to allow new homes to be built on old properties, please ensure that they are built within a reasonable size to those they surround. Homeowners who have lived here for decades and who bought their homes specifically because it was an area of established homes with interesting and unique architecture must now panic every time a house is sold wondering if a new huge home will be built there. If you allow large homes to be built taking up most of the property and towering over other homes, you have changed the rules of the game and it is completely unfair to those who have already bought homes here. I submit that the application for a minor variance does not conform to the INTENT of the Official Plan and contravenes the Official Plan policies regarding the required setback from the back property lot line and provide a reasonable backyard amenity. Please act as guardians of the unique heritage of this neighbourhood and deny the request for 660 Avondale Avenue. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Colleen Boehmer M Earl St. Kitchener The City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment Notice of Hearing April 16, 2021 Troy Daniel Glover =Avondale Avenue Kitchener, Ontario RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON Dear Committee of Adjustment: This letter registers my formal opposition to the minor variance application for 660 Avondale Avenue and its request for a setback of 4.7m for its proposed infill development. I strenuously object to this variance for the reasons expressed below. First, the variance fails to conform to the intent of the City's Official Plan. Unambiguously, the Official Plan requires compatibility within existing neighbourhoods (see R-3 under Zoning By-law 85-1 and Res - 3 under the new Crozby Zoning By-law 2019-051). Under Section 11, Part C of the Official Plan, the document states, "In the Central Neighbourhoods, the City's primary focus will be to ensure that new infill development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood" The setback requested in the application, however, would establish a glaring anomaly relative to those existing housing structures in the neighbourhood and jeopardize the aesthetic of the neighbourhood and the privacy of its adjacent households. The Official Plan establishes the expectation that any infill development will "minimize adverse impacts on site, onto adjacent properties." These principles seem more than reasonable, yet absent from the variance application. Second, the application for variance fails to conform to the intent of the City's Zoning By -lows. The variance to increase the size of the house on 660 Avondale would make the size of property conspicuously disproportionate in relation to the other homes on Avondale. As I understand it, the proposed new building will be 2% times larger than 652 Avondale and nearly 60% larger than my own property, 664 Avondale, effectively dwarfing the two homes adjacent to it. The City's Official Plan, however, makes clear the City will encourage the "provision of attractive building forms, facades and roof designs which are compatible with surrounding buildings." The current available footprint at 660 Avondale enables more than enough space to remain within the already generous zoning by-laws for the property and still allow for a sizable home that will still be significantly larger than current homes inclose proximityto it. Approving the variance would make the property even more incompatible with the existing neighbourhood. Third, the application for variance is not minor in nature. A reduction in the minimum set -back from an already, frankly, surprisingly generous 7.5m to an absurdly paltry 4.7m will undoubtedly impact my privacy as one of the homeowners next door to the proposed infill development. In my view, the 2.8 m difference is not a minor change whatsoever. Effectively, the proposed new build will fill the existing lot at 660 Avondale with an enormous structure that will extend well past its current structure, effectively changing my sense of privacy tremendously, as the new build next door will have full view of my backyard and significantly reduce my exposure to early and mid-morning light. If the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws are genuinely designed to ensure that homeowners have a right to enjoy a sense of privacy within their own setting, this variance should not be approved. I do not wish to constrain the property owners from optimizing the footprint of their new home within Official Plan and Zoning By- laws, but I do expect the City to respect my privacy as a homeowner, consistent with the principles outlined in the Official Plan and zoning by-laws. Fourth, the application for variance is not desirable. If approved, it would result in the construction of an even bigger monster house than already generously permitted by existing zooming and by-laws. The precedent set will inform the inevitable infill developments that follow in Old Westmount, with buyers purchasing large lots in the neighbourhood with the intent to knock down existing homes and replace them with absurdly larger homes. This trend is unlikely to abate, but left unchecked it has the ability to jeopardize the uniqueness of the neighbourhood if handled poorly. The character of Old Westmount is worth preserving, in my view. As noted already, existing zoning and by-laws are more than generous to enable the new property owners at 660Avondale to build a much larger house, but also show some respect to their new neighbours by making it compatible with existing neighbourhood properties to retain the character of our amazing neighbourhood. I have no ambition whatsoever to block any efforts by my new neighbors to build a house that would remain within existing municipal restrictions. I presume such restrictions are in place for a reason and ought to be respected. Given the arguments I offer above, I oppose the application for variance for 660 Avondale Avenue. Should you wish to speak with me further about my concerns, I will be present at the planning meeting on April 201h to offer any clarification. Thank you for considering my perspective. Sincerely, Troy D. Glover, Ph.D. Name: Barb Trotter Address: =Avondale Ave. Kitchener ON N2M 2W4 Phone number: Email: Re: Application A 2021-031 for a minor variance for 660 Avondale Avenue Hello. I'd first like to convey my gratitude and to commend the Committee for sending out the courtesy letter to advise neighbours of the minor variance application. It's refreshing to encounter the spirit of the law being acted on rather than just the letter. Thank you so much. I'd like to take this opportunity to strongly object to application A 2021-031 for a minor variance for 660 Avondale Avenue. Kitchener has a less than illustrious history of failing to preserve many of the charming historical features that attract both visitors and prospective residents. The City has, however, compiled a list of areas to be considered Cultural Heritage Landscapes whose character should be preserved. As one of the most esteemed and valued older communities in the City, Westmount Neighbourhood is on that list. An important feature that contributes to its appeal is the size of the lots and the consequent breathing space between neighbours. Larger yards also cumulatively provide a significant amount of green space. Approving this variation would result in losing some of that green space and replacing it with concrete and glass. While the magnitude of this particular loss might seem small, taken as part of a collective change and as a precedent for even more extensive backyard shrinkage, I feel it should not be ignored on the basis of the size of the individual green space to be lost. We ourselves have first-hand experience of the result of a similar reduction in the backyard setback allowance, and in this case the courtesy of a letter was not provided. Instead, we are now quite literally faced with the effects of a done deal about which we had no input. The new, blockhouse -style residence, which extends very close to the property lines, impinges on our enjoyment of our own backyard, creating a sense of claustrophobia and the oppressive feeling of a prison exercise yard. I'd also like to note that the Environmental Protection Act specifies consideration of cultural and social impact, also including a requirement for a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment for some initiatives. While those provisions might not directly apply to this particular small-scale project, they do offer testimony to an even broader view of the positive weight given to the worth and benefit of areas such as Westmount. Since major stated goals of the City of Kitchener are to increase green space and to create a livable city, it seems to me that as City representatives, your mission ought to include the responsibility to protect and preserve districts like Westmount that are both livable and green. Permitting "monster" houses to encroach on the space surrounding the dwellings in this neighbourhood will have the eventual effect of converting the older -world -atmosphere of this breathable neighbourhood into the soulless feeling that typifies a newer Mississauga suburb. I implore you not to let that happen on your watch, to recognize the importance of the Westmount Cultural Heritage Landscape, and to uphold the regulated 7.5 metre setback for 660 Avondale Avenue. Again, I very much appreciate this opportunity to express my views, and I thank you for your attention. Barb Trotter Submission to the Committee of Adjustment, City of Kitchener Re: Application 2021-031 660 Avondale Avenue From: Frank Millerd, = Avondale Ave., Kitchener ON N2M 2W3 I object to granting this variance for the reasons given below 1. The variance does not conform to the intent of the Official Plan From Kitchener's Official Plan: 11.C.28 a) In the Central Neighbourhoods the City's primary focus will be to ensure that new infill development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood 11.C.1.33 b) infill development to complement existing buildings and contribute to neighbourhood character, particularly if located within close proximity of a recognized cultural heritage resource or Heritage Conservation District; The intent of these two sections of the Official Plan is that infill development be compatible with the existing neighbourhood and complement existing buildings. The development at 660 Avondale may be considered to be infill development since the current building on the property is to be demolished and the new development will start with a vacant piece of property. Clearly the proposed development is not compatible with the existing neighbourhood and does not complement existing buildings. The proposed development is 60 percent larger of one adjacent home and 150 percent larger than the other, dwarfing the neighbouring homes. Westmount is not an official heritage district but has the flavor of such a district; the proposed development would not be compatible with that heritage. There is also the issue of creating a precedent. Approval of this variance would provide an argument for approval of similar variances. This is not necessarily a limited case. Infill is sometimes regarded as increasing the population density in an area; but this is only a four bedroom home. Other four bedroom homes in the area did not require zoning variances. This development will not increase the population density in the area. 2. The variance does not conform to the intent of the zoning by-laws The current back yard zoning requirement provides privacy and enhances the `green' characteristics of residential neighbourhoods. Reducing the back yard setback by 37 percent, as requested, would significantly reduce the privacy provided by the current requirement. The smaller back yard would also have much less of the greenery the neighbourhood is known for. 2 As the staff report states: "Some trees could be affected. Mature trees in this location will be adversely affected by the proposal. With this reduced setback the mature trees located in the rear yard near the property limit will likely be impacted and decline, leaving neighbours in this mature community no visual buffer." The variance does not conform to the intent of the current zoning by-law. With the reduced setback, much of the benefits of the current zoning would be lost. 3. The variance is not minor in nature This is not a minor variance. First, a significant change in the rear setback is required. Second, it will have a major impact on adjoining properties. The proposed development will be much larger than adjoining properties and reduce the privacy of neighbours. Developments of this type will greatly change the character of the Westmount neighbourhood. 4. The variance is not desirable There are benefits to the applicant but the costs to those living nearby and the neighbourhood clearly outweigh the benefits. If the variance is approved adjoining houses will be dwarfed, neighbours will lose privacy, and trees and greenery will be threatened. This is not a desirable variance. The current zoning requirements have resulted in a very desirable neighbourhood. The home owners in this neighbourhood very much appreciate the qualities of the neighbourhood. It is a neighbourhood which has been preserved and well cared for by its residents. The older homes of the neighbourhood have not been allowed to deteriorate. Kitchener does not have an abundance of well -cared for older neighbourhoods. It is important for the health of the neighbourhood and the city that the attributes of the neighbourhood be preserved. Allowing over -sized houses will detrimentally alter the character of the neighbourhood. April 17, 2021 Name: Cameron Trotter Address: =Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, Ontario N2M 2W4 Phone Number: Email: Re: Application A 20121-031 for a minor variance for 660 Avondale Avenue. This letter encompasses my objection to application A 2021-031 for 660 Avondale Avenue. We have lived on Avondale for 45 years and have enjoyed the nature of the wide and deep lots. The homes, varying in size, do not cover the majority of the lot, thus leaving large areas of green space for outdoor enjoyment and gardening. I recognize that a neighbourhood will evolve over time and that we cannot stay in the past. However, we have experienced the erection of a large home, covering most of the lot behind our property. This monster home is so close to the rear lot line that it overlooks our next-door neighbour's backyard pool and deprives her of some afternoon summer sun as well as evening sun. By allowing this application, the rear neighbour on Earl Street behind 660 Avondale will be faced with the same problems. The current green area of the backyard at 660 will be reduced to a tract virtually no larger than the boulevard fronting the property. I understand that one of the goals of the City is to retain and create as much green space as is possible. With the City receiving in lieu payments instead of insisting on the retention or creation (by developers and others) of green space, the City is falling short of its stated goal. It is well recognized that people are healthier when they are not surrounded by concrete. In addition to the aforementioned property behind us, we have seen other properties being sold and the house located thereon being torn down and replaced by a monster home that reduces the green space available. As the City progresses in this fashion, we will see development that results in a streetscape that looks like areas in downtown Toronto where similar developments eliminate any significant green area. I am also concerned that the Westmount Cultural Heritage Landscape philosophy is not being adequately followed and that the Westmount Neighbourhood will become an undesirable place to reside. Please include me in future notices including any meetings and for presentation to Council. Cameron Trotter April 19, 2021 The City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment RE: A2021-032 — 660 Avondale Avenue, Kitchener, ON To the Committee of Adjustment, We object to the granting of the requested variance at 660 Avondale. � Let us begin by saying that we are happy to have new owners at 660 Avondale and welcome them to the neighbourhood. We appreciate that the existing dwelling at this location is in suboptimal condition and we understand the owners' wish to build a new home of their own design on this site. A new house on this property has the potential to improve the streetscape and even to benefit the neighbouring properties. To do so, however, the design must respect the existing neighbourhood plan, harmonize with the scale of the surrounding homes, and allow the neighbours to continue to enjoy the privacy and full use of their own properties in all the ways that residential zoning bylaws are intended to protect. We have read the eight submissions that have already been submitted to the City about this proposal, and note that each of these objects to granting the variance. We agree fully with the many arguments outlined in those submissions and with the basic point that the proposed plan does not meet any of the four standards set out in the City's Official Plan. We will not repeat those arguments here. Instead we would like to raise one additional issue that can complement the points already raised. Our concern is about street infrastructure and stormwater runoff. Avondale Avenue is still on the original storm drains and water mains from when the street was first laid down. The planned infrastructure upgrade for Avondale keeps getting delayed, and we understand that 2025 is now the earliest possible date being coinsidered for the infrastructure upgrade. The proposed building design for 660 covers a much higher percentage of the lot than the current dwelling does and, if the requested variance is approved, this property will have a vastly- reduced backyard (in addition to a smaller front yard because of a double garage and driveway). What are the risks of flooding to neighbouring properties if rainwater — that has until now been safely consumed by the large green lot — will instead be captured by an enormous roof and diverted to downspouts between the homes and into the street? And how much more groundwater will be displaced by a much larger (and potentially deeper) basement? Our own backyard sits approximately three feet lower than the backyard at 660, so the question of where the water will go is not an abstract concern for us. We should note, too, that 660 already has a deep pool of standing water that covers the driveway apron after heavy (and even not so heavy) rainfall. The properties on either side of 660 have these standing pools of water covering their driveway aprons as well. The City's directive to the owners (dated April 13) to prepare a Tree Preservation and Enhancement Plan (TP/EP) is welcome, as it raises concerns that the scale of the design eliminates too much of the existing tree cover and green space. While the arguments in that report frame the problem in terms of privacy and greening principles, we would like to add the water issue to the list of potential concerns. We fear that the reduction of green space between 660 Avondale and its adjacent properties, and the replacement of permeable with impermeable surfaces over so much of the space, may result in stormwater and groundwater problems for us and for other neighbours. Our understanding is that a minor variance is intended to provide a way for homeowners to solve a specific problem that prevents them from enjoying the full use of their property. That is not the case here. The requested variance does not solve any unusual problems for the owners, and it is not required to enable them to enjoy their property. The lot at 660 Avondale is one of the largest in this part of Westmount, and zoning bylaws —that is, without the variance — already permit the construction of a very large house on this lot. At 3700 square feet the proposed house would be more than twice the average house size on this block of Avondale Ave. Sincerely, Eva Plach & Robert Wallwork=Avondale Ave. Kitchener N2M2W3 Dianna Saunderson From: Susan Munro Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 2:52 PM To: Dianna Saunderson; Juliane vonWesterholt Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 660 Avondale Ave Categories: Committee of Adjustment Revised msg w Contact info added below. Thank you Sue Munro Begin forwarded message: From: Susan Munro Date: April 19, 2021 at 1:04:11 PM EDT To: Dian na.Saunderson@kitchener.ca Cc: Juliane vonWesterholt <juliane.vonwesterholt@kitchener.ca> Subject: 660 Avondale Ave To the Committee of Adjustment We are writing to express our concerns and objections regarding the requested variance for 660 Avondale Ave. We believe the proposed, much larger house will negatively impact not only its neighbours on all sides but also the neighbourhood. It will overpower adjacent homes with its size, block light, and endanger trees either by affecting their root structures or by threat of removal. Allowing such variances results in permanent changes to the character of this old established neighbourhood. There are already examples of two enormous builds on Earl and Dunbar where the new houses use up the entire lot and exceed the height of the homes nearby. It is excessive and unnecessary and heartbreaking for those who live next door! Why does the city allow this? Words like 'compatibility' and 'in keeping with' should apply but do not!! Please do not let this trend continue -you have the power to protect the character of our neighbourhood! Thank you, Sue & Hugh Munro M Earl St, Kitchener N2M 2V5 Sent from my iPhone