Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2022-077 - A 2022-006 - 49 Lower Mercer StStaffeeport I KTbCi iENF-. Development Services Department www.kitchener.co REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: February 15, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Bateman, Brian, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7869 PREPARED BY: Zhang, Tara, Planner 519-741-2200 ext. 7760 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 2 DATE OF REPORT: February 1, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-077 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2022-006 49 Lower Mercer St Owner —April Patricia Manahan RECOMMENDATION: That minor variance application A2022-006 requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b) i) of Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow the required off-street parking for a semi-detached duplex to be located a minimum distance of 0 metres from the street line rather than the required 6 metres and requesting the relief from Section 38.2.2 of Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow a second pedestrian entrance for the semi-detached duplex dwelling on the street line fagade, be approved. Location Map: 49 Lower Mercer St *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 48 of 258 BACKGROUND: The property is designated as `Community Areas' on Map 2 — Urban Structure and `Low Rise Residential' on Map 3 — Land Use in the City's Official Plan. The property is zoned `Residential Four Zone (R-4)' with Special Regulation Provision 327R in Zoning By-law 85-1. The applicant is creating an additional dwelling unit in their half of the existing semi-detached dwelling. Minor Variance A2022-006 was deferred from January's Committee of Adjustment Agenda for the following reasons: 1. Concerns with the driveway width; 2. Insufficient public notice; and 3. The need for additional minor variance — Section 38.2.2 1. Driveway The current legal parking space, for the semi-detached dwelling unit, is the parking space in the garage. The applicant is proposing to widen the driveway to accommodate 2 parking spaces for the existing dwelling and the additional dwelling unit. Neither of these spaces in the driveway will be located a minimum distance of 6 metres from the street line necessitating the need for the minor variance. The proposed driveway width of 5.2 metres meets the Zoning By-law. Accordingly, no additional minor variances are required. 2. Lawn Sign Staff conducted a visit to the property on January 28th and found that the lawn sign to be visible to the public. A photo taken on site visit is shown on the next page. 3. Additional Variance The additional minor variance that is being requested is relief from Section 38.2.2 of the Zoning By- law to allow a second pedestrian entrance for the semi-detached duplex house to be located on the street line fagade. This additional variance was advertised, and a lawn sign notice was provided. REPORT: Planning Comments: In considering the four tests for the minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990 Chap. P 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments: General Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated `Low Rise Residential' in the City's Official Plan. Policy 4.C.1.6. states that "The City will identify and encourage residential intensification and/or redevelopment, including adaptive re -use and infill opportunities, including additional dwelling units, attached and detached, in order to respond to changing housing needs and as a cost-effective means to reduce infrastructure and servicing costs by minimizing land consumption and making better use of existing community infrastructure." Policy 15.D.3.4. states that "All new residential buildings, additions and/or modifications to existing residential buildings and conversions in predominantly low density neighbourhoods should be Page 49 of 258 compatible with and respect the massing, scale, design and physical character of the established neighbourhood and have both appropriate landscaped areas and parking areas provided on site." The proposed variance to facilitate an additional dwelling unit meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The intent of the zoning regulation requiring the legal parking space to be located a minimum distance of 6.0 metres from the street line is to ensure a vehicle can be safely parked on the driveway without affecting the City right-of-way and surrounding properties. The setback of the parking space also allows more clear lines of visibility exiting the parking space. One (1) parking space currently exists in the driveway without any issues. Staff are of the opinion that the requested variance to allow the required off-street parking space to be located a minimum distance of 0 metres from the street lot line meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of having one pedestrian entrance is to maintain the aesthetic of the front fagade. The applicant proposes to add a second pedestrian entrance in a new garage door within the existing garage door opening as shown in the photo below. Staff are of the opinion that as the second pedestrian door will be located within the existing garage door opening and will not create a new entrance on an existing wall of the semi-detached dwelling, the intent of the zoning by-law will be maintained. Is the Variance Minor? The requested variances are considered minor as the required off-street parking space can be accommodated within the existing driveway in a safe manner and the additional pedestrian entrance in the street line fagade will not involve any major changes to the overall aesthetic of the dwelling. Is the Variance Appropriate Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed variances are desirable and appropriate as they will facilitate a form of gentle intensification of the subject property, with the development of an additional dwelling within the existing dwelling, that is compatible with the neighbourhood and will make use of existing infrastructure. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on January 28th, 2022 Page 50 of 258 Street view of 49 Lower Mercer St Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variances. A building permit application has been submitted to develop the additional dwelling unit and is currently under review. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services can support a zero -meter parking setback from the required 6.0 -meter parking setback, as noted within the application. Heritage Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Engineering Comments: Engineering has no comment. Operations Comments: No comments. Environmental Planning Comments: No natural heritage. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Operating Budget. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Page 51 of 258 INFORM — This report has been posted to the City's website with the agenda in advance of the Committee of Adjustment meeting. 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. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. Page 52 of 258 Staffeeport I KTbCi iENF-. Development Services Department www.kitchener.co REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment DATE OF MEETING: January 18, 2022 SUBMITTED BY: Bateman, Brian, Senior Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7869 PREPARED BY: Zhang, Tara, Planner 519-741-2200 ext. 7760 WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 2 DATE OF REPORT: January 5, 2022 REPORT NO.: DSD -2022-043 SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2022-006 49 Lower Mercer St Owner —April Patricia Manahan RECOMMENDATION: That minor variance application A2022-006 requesting relief from Section 6.1.1.1 b) i) of the Zoning By-law 85-1 to allow the first required off-street parking for a semi-detached duplex to be located at 0 metres rather than the required 6 metres. 1) That the Owner applies for a Building Permit with the Building Division 2) That the Owner applies for a Driveway Permit with the Planning Division Location Map: 49 Lower Mercer St *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Page 53 of 258 BACKGROUND: The property is designated as Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan and identified as Community Areas in the Urban Structure Map. The property is zoned Residential Four with Provision 327R (R-4, 327R) in the By-law 85-1. The applicant is creating a duplex dwelling unit in the semi-detached dwelling. Following the publishing of the Notice of Hearing, it was determined that the structure was incorrectly recorded as a single detached dwelling where the building is a semi-detached. Staff have reviewed the matter and found the Notice to be adequate. REPORT: Planning Comments: In considering the four tests for the minor variances as outlined in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O, 1990 Chap. P 13, as amended, Planning staff offers the following comments: General Intent of the Official Plan The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the City's Official Plan. This designation places emphasis on compatibility of building form with respect to massing, scale and design in order to support the successful integration of different housing types. It also places emphasis on the relationship of housing to adjacent buildings, streets and exterior areas. The City will identify and encourage residential intensification and/or redevelopment, including adaptive re -use and infill opportunities, including additional dwelling units, attached and detached, in order to respond to changing housing needs and as a cost-effective means to reduce infrastructure and servicing costs by minimizing land consumption and making better use of existing community infrastructure. The proposed variance meets the general intent of the Official Plan. General Intent of the Zoning By-law The requested variance to legalize the off-street parking space 0 metres from the street lot line meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law. The intent of the regulation of the 6.0 metre required setback is to allow for a vehicle to be safely parked on the driveway without affecting the City right-of-way and surrounding properties. The current dimension of the driveway (6.5m x 3.8m) meets the minimum parking standard for one vehicle. The Owner will widen the driveway to accommodate a second parking space. Is the Variance Minor? The requested variance for parking is considered minor as it is the opinion of staff that the required parking space can be accommodated within the existing driveway in a safe manner. The requested setback will not present any significant impacts to adjacent properties or the overall neighbourhood. Is the Variance Appropriate? The proposed variance is appropriate for the development and use of the land as the proposed residential use is a permitted use in the Zoning By-law. The requested variance is not anticipated to impact any of the adjacent properties or the surrounding neighbourhood. City Planning staff conducted a site inspection of the property on January 4th, 2022 Page 54 of 258 Street view of 49 Lower Mercer St Building Comments: The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance. Application has been made to for the change of use to a duplex is currently under review. Transportation Comments: Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed application. Heritage Comments: No heritage planning concerns. Engineering Comments: Engineering has no comment. Operations Comments: No comments. Environmental Planning Comments: No natural heritage. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This report supports the delivery of core services. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Capital Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the Capital Budget. Page 55 of 258 Operating Budget — The recommendation has no impact on the 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 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. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property. PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES: There are no previous reports/authorities related to this matter. Page 56 of 258 January 27, 2022 Sarah Goldrup City of Kitchener 200 King Street West P.O. Box 1118 Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES 150 Frederick Street, 8th 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 (5) /BLOCK 129 30T 08204 TRUSSLER NORTH SUBDIVISION (7) /04 URBAN, 1768 OTTAWA STREET SOUTH REGION OF WATERLOO PUMP HOUSE Subject: Committee of Adjustment Meeting February 15, 2022, City of Kitchener Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and have following comments: 1) A 2022 - 006 — 49 Lower Mercer Street — No Concerns. 2) A 2022 - 011 — 43 Maurice Street — No Concerns. 3) A 2022 - 012 — 158 Forest Creek Drive — No Concerns. 4) A 2022 - 013 — 41 Moore Avenue — No Concerns. 5) A 2022 - 014 — 21-39 Benninger Drive — No Concerns. 6) A 2022 - 015 — 25 Brock Street — No Concerns. 7) A 2022 - 016 — 1768 Ottawa Street South — No Concerns. 8) A 2022 - 017 — 86 Cedar Street South — No Concerns. 9) A 2022 - 018 — 81 Shanley Street (Severed) — No Concerns. 10)A 2022 - 019 — 81 Shanley Street (Retained) — No Concerns. Document Number: 3937559 Page 1 of 2 Page 57 of 258 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 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 M Kristen Hilborn, City of Kitchener 2 Page 58 of 258 / Admrflrmq�r�a'don Ceinl.ire"� 40C) r lyde Ruud, F'0, `,c)x /29 C:am[n!d(.c,, (::)IU IU1 C3 .'M6 Phoirne;19 (M I X761 IFF fired 1 8(0 90U 41).2 v Rm 519 ()2 I 4844 www,grandriveirxa tionw, February 2, 2022 Via email February 15, 2022 CofA Meeting Sarah Goldrup City of Kitchener 200 King Street West Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 4G7 Dear Sarah Goldrup, Re: Committee of Adjustment Meeting — February 15, 2022 Applications for Minor Variance A 2022-003 53 Margaret Avenue A 2022-005 86 Chestnut Street A 2022-006 49 Lower Mercer Street A 2022-011 43 Maurice Street A 2022-012 158 Forest Creek Drive A 2022-013 41 Moore Avenue A 2022-014 21-39 Benninger Drive A 2022-015 25 Brock Street A 2022-016 1768 Ottawa Street South A 2022-017 86 Cedar Street South A 2022-018 81 Shanley Street (Severed) A 2022-019 81 Shanley Street (Retained) Applications for Consent B 2022-007 654 Rockway Drive B 2022-008 442 Old Chicopee Trail B 2022-009 114 Doon Valley Drive B 2022-010 113 Walter Street B 2022-011 44 Wilhelm Street B 2022-012 20 Breithaupt Street (Severed) B 2022-013 20 Breithaupt Street (Retained) B 2022-014 81 Shanley Street Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff has reviewed the above -noted applications for minor variance and consent. Mrairrb(_,r of (' nn Ia"y/d(k-)n On grin' Unarir':)`a 36 (.onsc,rvai_k,)n Au�llinri(ic,a C,i`a ncl A C dr)a(,fla .i l lc,rif vF3iv(r Page 59 of 258 GRCA has no objection to the approval of the applications listed above. The subject properties do not contain any watercourses, floodplains, shorelines, wetlands, valley slopes or other environmental features of interest to GRCA. The properties are not subject to Ontario Regulation 150/06 and, therefore, a permission from GRCA is not required. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at jconroy grandriver.ca or 519-621-2763 ext. 2230. Sincerely, Jessica Conroy, MES PI. Resource Planning Technician Grand River Conservation Authority Page 60 of 258 Page 1 of 6 For consideration regarding Application A 2022-006 to be addressed at the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Tuesday, January 18, 2022, Initial Discussion A 2022-006-49 Lower Mercer Street is asking, "Permission to convert an existing single family dwelling into a duplex having the 2 required off-street parking located Om from the front line rather than the required setback of 6m". 49 Lower Mercer Street is not a single detached dwelling, it is a semi-detached dwelling. Members of the community pointed out this inaccuracy in the posting of this Minor Variance Application, found both in the Waterloo Record and in the hard -copy sent to residents proximal to the requesting property. While we acknowledge that, "Following the publication of the Notice of Hearing, it was determined that the structure was incorrectly recorded as a single detached dwelling where the building is semi- detached.", we do not agree with the statement that, "Staff have reviewed the matter and found the Notice to be adequate." Many of the residents of Lower Mercer Street were confused by the notice and did not think it applied to this area, as single family dwellings do not exist on Lower Mercer. This confusion directly led to many residents disregarding the initial notice. Most, if not the majority of residents, only became aware of any concerns after proximal residents received the written notice in early 2022, which retained the incorrect information. As a result, there was very limited time, approximately 10 days, in which to search for the most currently amended and up-to-date version of the Zoning By-laws, make a determination of the R-4 zoning status of the street, find and understand the listed definitions of dwellings, have discussions in the community and determine the potential for impact this application could have on the residents, both proximal and distal to the applicant's property; and then, finally, to register to participate in the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for January 18, 2022. While city staff may be very well versed with the descriptive language used in this application for variance, generally speaking, the average citizen is not. The original notification with the incorrectly recorded type of dwelling listed, led to and exacerbated confusion surrounding this notification of application. No attempt was made by city staff to send out a corrected notification, which, in itself, would have heightened interest in and attention by, the community. Also, according to the Committee of Adjustment process, under Notice and Circulation, it is required that, "applicants will also need to post signs on the subject property'. By this statement there is an assumption that such signage would encourage members of the community the opportunity to inquire to the applicant, exactly what is being requested in the variance application. No such signage was ever posted by the applicant. Several community residents walk by this property several times a day, walking dogs, getting exercise, etc. None of the residents signing this request to deny the variance ever saw a sign posted on the property and therefore did not have the opportunity to inquire regarding the application and its intended outcome. Further to the inaccuracy in the notice of application, the notice itself was rather vague and uninformative to the average citizen. There was no plan attached or physical drawing which could have assisted in understanding exactly what the resident at 49 Lower Mercer intends by applying for the variance. In fact, of all the applications posted on Schedule A of the Committee of Adjustment Agenda, January 17, 2022 Page 61 of 258 Page 2 of 6 A 2022-006 was the shortest and least informative. The Committee for Adjustment application form clearly requires, under section 4.PLANS, that: 1. Boundaries and accurate dimensions of the subject land and all measurements must be shown in metric and to scale. Z. Size, location and type ofexisting and proposed buildings, structures oradditions onthe subject land, measured from the front, rear and side lot lines. 3. Location, width and name of any roads within or abutting the subject land, including all driveways and parking spaces. 4. Identify any natural features on the subject land (trees, streams, etc.) Again, without adequate information accompanying the application it is unreasonable to assume that there would be accurate understanding of the variance request and associated implications by residents in the community. Aspects of the Zoning By-law Inconsistent with newly adopted Policy of Residential Intensification The following definitions have been drawn from the most up'to'dateCity ofKitchener By -Laws (as available tocitizens on-line via the City ofKitchener website. —/neonsthe use gfobuilding divided vertically into two units (a.s the principal use of the building) byocommon wall which prevents internal access between dwelling units and extendsfrom the base of thefoundation to the rooffine, Each serni-detached dwelling unit shall be designed to be located onoseparate lot, Dwelling, Sin gle Detached— means the use of a building containing one dwelling unit as the principal use of the building, SIC -1 -ION 4---Definition-s. Page of 14 "Duplex Dwelling" means o building containing two dwelling units, but not including msemmi- detached dwelling. (By-low94-1,I,5/o}/ "Dwelling Un/t" shall /neon o nzo/n or suite of habitable nzo/ns w/h/ch� 0l is located it) obuilding; (i0 is occupied or designed to be occupied by a household as a single, independent and separate housekeeping establishment; A9y-6zw/91-196; ON contains both a kitchen and a bathroom used or designed to be usedfor the exclusive common use ofoccupants thereof; and, A9y-6zw/9.2`58,I3/(A/nende&By-low .2O18-1.2 �;I':3) fill) has a private entrance leading directlyfrom outside the building orfrom the common hallway or sto/rwoyhns/de the building, PAGE I I OF 14 "Serni Detached Dwelling" means a building dhlided verticafly into two serni-detached houses by a common wall January 17, 2022 Page 62 of 258 Page 3 of 6 distance off: not less than :5 percent off: the horizontaldepth off: the building Each .p erni. ,'JE C7 ION 4 ;age 1.2 of 14 ity off: Kitchenerr'on ing By-law 85-1 Office ca'onsolidatiow April .26, .20.21 deem hed house shall be designed to be located on a separate Not having individual vehicular ccc ss to an1frontagp on a street or lane, (1.3y - low 94_18..3, 5 .1,c. (Arn enc1e& By -low .201.2-0:34,,5,9) (Arn ens1e& OMB Order PL1400,!3g7, By -low .2013-149 (Arn �����s1�� d) ,'�.5) p p "",�J�'i'rni-�.,��''t;fi.�'d'w�"��'id House" means t;�"�fi. t part tl. f a,°.!n�'i'rni-`fi.��'i't;fi.�'d'w�"��'id dwelling ontl.:1�M' e side tl. f the common wall, which may contain one dwelling unit, (1.3y -Nonce 94-1831 5..21e.(Arn enc1e& OMB Order By -low .2013-149 (Amended), SA) Reasons for Obiection to proposed variance A 2022-006 As per the definitions listed above, 49 Lower Mercer Street was planned and built as a Semi -Detached House intended to contain one dwelling unit. All other properties on Lower Mercer street were similarly planned and built. According to By-law 94-1, S.5[a] a duplex cannot contain a semi-detached dwelling. These semi-detached buildings were never designed to be duplexes. This is not a MINOR variance! The current owners of semi-detached dwellings on Lower Mercer enjoy a quiet, tranquil community with easy access to the community trails. Approving this zoning request could negatively impact this community as it would: 1) change the intended use of the lot from a "one unit dwelling"; originally designed to be occupied by a household as a single, independent and separate housekeeping establishment, containing both a kitchen and bathroom used or designed to be used for the exclusive common use of the occupants thereof and, has a private entrance leading directly to the outside of the building or to a common hallway or stairway inside the building. Changing this intended use could potentially lead to overcrowding of the re -zoned "one unit dwelling" and decrease the market values of other "one unit dwellings" in the neighbourhood. 2) negatively impact the outside appearance of 49 Lower Mercer by, potentially, completely replacing the current green front yard with parking spaces; giving it the appearance of crowding and detracting from the current aesthetically acceptable appearance of the community by potentially, removing existing boulevard to provide access to the proposed enlarged parking space. Removing the boulevard would reduce the number of street parking spaces currently available as well as remove the tree. Does the city need to grant variance from the current By- laws to allow widening of the current parking spaces to accommodate parking of three vehicles (one in the garage and two on a widened driveway)? There are several examples on Lower Mercer where house -owners obtained legal permits from the city to accomplish the widening of their driveways (within By-law requirements) to allow two cars to be parked beside one another. 3) set a precedent for the Lower Mercer Street neighbourhood, thereby allowing any and all semi- detached properties to utilize the proposed and unnecessary zone changes, which would further deteriorate the harmony of the neighbourhood by a. overcrowding lots, and b. increasing traffic and overnight street parking, as well as c. removing even more boulevards and reducing even more street parking spaces as well as potentially further defoliating the street. Approving this variance is opposed by the residents who have attached their contact information to the bottom of this request for denial. This variance request, in the opinion of those attaching their contact January 17, 2022 Page 63 of 258 Page 4 of 6 information, is not MINOR in nature, it has the potential to open an avenue in the City of Kitchener Official Plan for greater density in this already planned community. Consider the impact on infrastructure for Lower Mercer Street. How will capacity of the water supply, sewage and garbage collection be challenged? At what cost to the neighbourhood and the City Services? The community surrounding Lower Mercer is desirable because it adheres to the principles of sound urban design and city planning. Creating greater density in areas such as Lower Mercer Street works against the very principles that impact the cohesiveness of this community. Generally, removing street scape (soft landscape) and trees is not agreeable, especially not for additional parking spaces. There are specific concern regarding 49 Lower Mercer itself in that above -ground cable and phone boxes and underground wiring may be compromised and exposed to ongoing damage if the proposed expanded driveway is approved. There is concern that a retaining wall may be required on the northwest side of 49 Lower Mercer's property line which would not be in conformance with the approved grading plan for the subdivision. Again, this is NOT a minor variance to the City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law. The Lower Mercer community would, originally, have had to pass an environmental assessment before development and building commenced, especially due to its proximity to the Grand River. What about the impact on ground water recharge and the potential, for water run-off from the proposed enlarged parking area, to flood neighbouring lots and/or drain into the Grand River? As well, what consideration has been given to the lack of proper snow removal from the proposed enlarged parking space? The snow would have to be piled on neighbouring front yards. The community would not be opposed to the same driveway expansion, adhered to by Section 6 of Zoning By-law 85-1, that other Lower Mercer street residents have undertaken by obtaining the required permits from the various city departments. This is to say nothing of the next steps. The building permits and the correct manner in which the proposed multi -unit dwelling must be renovated, in order to adhere to the Ontario Building Code and to prevent the spread of noise and fire within the existing one unit dwelling and to the adjoining semi- detached one unit dwelling. Not done correctly, with the appropriate permissions and inspections for electrical and mechanical upgrades/renovations and egress windows in basement apartments, this variance would pose an unreasonable threat to the intended rental occupants, a huge impact to the existing immediate neighbours and, to the entire street. For the above mentioned reasons, the A 2022-006 request for variance to the City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law should be denied. Respectfully requested: January 17, 2022 Page 64 of 258 0 M& L E Lm Ot OEM Page 5 of 6 January 17, 2022 Page 65 of 258 Page 6 of 6 *N.B. The opposition to the variance requested, from this owner, is specifically stated as, "I am against a paving of the whole front lawn which takes away from the design on the entire street. Most residents who wanted to have additional parking have found a compromise by adding paving or stonework up to their front porch. This then allowed space for two cars and the rest of the lawn remained green." January 17, 2022 Page 66 of 258 From: To: Committee of Adiustment (SM) Subject: [EXTERNAL] Written Submission for C of A meeting Feb 15, 2022 Date: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 2:46:58 PM For consideration regarding Application A 2022-006 to be addressed at the Committee of Adjustment meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 15, 2022. Initial Discussion A 2022-006 — 49 Lower Mercer Street is asking, "Permission to convert an existing single family dwelling into a duplex having the 2 required off-street parking located Om from the front line rather that the required setback of 6m". I would have to disagree with the from 6m to Om as the street was designed to have this distance of 6m no less to the front lot line as every other dwelling on Lower Mercer St. If approved this would allow the applicant to do anything with the driveway and that could change the streetscape as well as the possibility of losing on street parking. In my opinion this request is not minor in nature. A 2022-006 - 49 Lower Mercer Street (Amended) Permission to convert an existing semi-detached dwelling into a duplex having the 1 of required off-street parking spaces located Om from the front lot line rather than the required setback of 6m; and, to permit a second pedestrian entrance on the street line facade facing Lower Mercer Street whereas a second entry is not permitted by the By- law. From my understanding the second entrance would be located within the existing roll up garage door. This does not tie into the street scape and and curb appeal. Safety would also be a concern. A duplex dwelling does not allow an entrance through a garage door to access the actual entrance to the rental apartment. I have found many municipalities in Ontario that do not allow entry through a garage. "No more than one entrance to a house is contained within the front facade and the entrance to the basement apartment must not be located within a private garage." As per the bylaw I am against a secondary entrance. For the above mentioned reasons, the A 2022-006 - 49 Lower Mercer Street requests for variance to the City of Kitchener Zoning By -Law should be denied. Respectfully requested: Page 67 of 258 Page 68 of 258