HomeMy WebLinkAboutDSD-2024-106 - 351 Blucher Blvd - A 2024-018
Development Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Committee of Adjustment
DATE OF MEETING: March 19, 2024
SUBMITTED BY: Tina Malone-Wright, Manager, Development Approvals
519-741-2200 ext. 7765
PREPARED BY: Arwa Alzoor, Planner, 519-741-2200 ext. 7847
WARD(S) INVOLVED: Ward 10
DATE OF REPORT: February 29, 2024
REPORT NO.: DSD-2024-106
SUBJECT: Minor Variance Application A2024-018 - 351 Blucher Blvd.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Minor Variance Application A2024-018 for 351 Blucher Boulevard requesting
relief from the following Sections of Zoning By-law 2019-51:
i) Section 4.12.3 g) to permit a building floor area of 53% (53.1 square metres)
instead of the maximum permitted 50% of the building floor area of the
principal dwelling (100.2 square metres) or 80 square metres whichever is
less;
ii) Section 4.12.3 h) to permit a lot area of 370.9 square metres instead of the
minimum required 395 square metres;
iii) Section 4.12.3 i) to permit a lot width of 12.2 metres instead of the minimum
required 13.1 metres; and
iv) Section 7.3, Table 7-2, to permit a lot coverage of 15.3% for an Additional
Dwelling Unit (ADU) (Detached) instead of the maximum permitted 15%;
to facilitate an Additional Dwelling Unit (Detached) in the rear yard of the subject
property, generally in accordance with drawings prepared by Dryden & Smith Head
Planning Consultants Ltd., dated January 22, 2024, with a revision to relocate the
required unobstructed 1.1 metre wide walkway, BE APPROVED.
And that the Variance in Minor Variance Application A2024-018 requesting relief
from Section 4.12.3 n) of Zoning By-law 2019-051 to permit an unobstructed
walkway to have a width of 0.59 metres instead of the minimum required 1.1 metres
BE REFUSED.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS:
The purpose of this report is to review minor variances to allow for an Additional
Dwelling Unit (Detached) in the rear yard of the subject property.
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
The key finding of this report isthat the requested minor variances meet the 4 tests of
the Planning Act with the exception of the minor variance to permit an unobstructed
walkway to have a reduced width.
There are no financial implications.
Community engagement included a notice sign being placed on the property advising
that a Committee of Adjustment application has been received, notice of the
application was mailed to all property owners within 30 metres of the subject property
s website with the agenda in advance of the
Committee of Adjustment meeting.
This report supports the delivery of core services.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located in the Mt. Hope Huron Park neighbourhood and is situated
south of Guelph Street and west of Lancaster Street West. It currently contains a two-
storey single detached dwelling.
Figure 1 - Location Map
Urban Structure and is
--law 2019-
051.
The purpose of this application is to review minor variances to facilitate the development of
an Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) (Detached) to be constructed in the rear yard. The
existing lot does not meet the minimum requirements for lot width and lot area to permit
the Detached ADU. In addition, the ADU Detached exceeds the maximum building floor
area, lot coverage for a detached ADU and does not have the required 1.1 unobstructed
walkway.
Figure 2 - Zoning Map
Figure 3 - Proposed Site Plan drawing
st
Planning staff conducted a site inspection on Friday, March 1, 2024.
Figure 4 - Front of the house showing the full driveway
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
This designation places
emphasis on accommodating a full range of low density housing type which includes
single detached dwellings, additional dwelling units, attached and detached. The city will
encourage and support the mixing and integrating of innovative and different forms of
housing to achieve and maintain a low-rise built form.
permit a stand-alone additional dwelling unit (detached), as an ancillary use to
single detached dwellings, semi-detach dwellings and street townhouse
dwellings. The following criteria will be considered as the basis for permitting an
additional dwelling unit (detached).
a) the use is subordinate to the main dwelling on the lot;
b) the use can be integrated into its surroundings with negligible visual impact
to the streetscape;
c) the use is compatible in design and scale with the built form on the lot and
the surrounding residential neighbourhood in terms of massing, height and
visual appearance; and,
d) other requirements such as servicing, parking, access, stormwater
management, tree preservation, landscaping and the provision of amenity
Based on the above, the proposed variances relating to lot area, lot width, lot coverage
and building floor area meet the general intent of the Official Plan.
In consideration of Section 11 - Urban Design and policies relating to afety, Policy
11.C.1.15 states that:
Development applications will be reviewed to ensure that they are designed
to accommodate fire prevention and timely emergency response.
The proposed sidewalk does not accommodate the emergency walkway for fire prevention
as it is shared with the parking space. Therefore, the proposed variance for the reduced
walkway width does not meet the intent of the Official Plan.
General Intent of the Zoning By-law
Lot area and lot width: The intent of the zoning regulations for the minimum lot width and
lot area for Detached ADUs is to ensure a property can function appropriately and still
provide sufficient amenity space, landscaped area, fire emergency access, and sufficient
parking. With the reduced lot area and width, the property will still have sufficient amenity
area, provide the required parking and the side yard setbacks of the principal dwelling will
be sufficient allow for parking and access as the unobstructed walkway can be
accommodated on the other side of the principal dwelling and not in combination with the
required parking spaces.
Lot coverage and Building Floor Area of ADU (Detached): The intent of the zoning
regulations for lot coverage and building floor area for the Detached ADU is to ensure that
it is subordinate to the principal building. The size of the ADU is less than the maximum
permitted 80 square metres and the increase in building area only exceeds the maximum
building area of the principal building by 3%. The 0.3% increase in the maximum permitted
coverage of 15% is due to inclusion of the covered porch in the calculation. This increase
will not be discernible and contribute to the elevation of the ADU.
-law.
Unobstructed walkway:The zoning regulation for the unobstructed walkway is to provide
a clear entry pathway for unit tenants and emergency services to the ADU. The required
width of an unobstructed walkway in the Zoning By-law was determined in consultation
with Fire Services. The walkway can not be combined with the driveway or required
parking space as it needs to be kept clear and unobstructed at all times. In this case the
required walkway to the ADU is proposed to be combined with the required parking space.
This variance, to permit a reduced width of an unobstructed walkway, does not meet the
intent of the Zoning By-law.
Is/Are the Effects of the Variance(s) Minor?
Lot area and lot width: The lot area is 370.9 square metres, which is only 24.1 square
metres less than the minimum lot area required for a detached ADU. The lot width is 12.2
metres, which is 0.9 metres less than the minimum lot width required
that these deficiencies would not be discernible.
Lot coverage and building floor area: The proposed lot coverage for the Detached ADU
is only 0.3% higher than the maximum permitted lot coverage and the building floor area is
53% of the principal building, which is 3% higher than the maximum permitted 50%.
It is the st above-mentioned variances may be
considered minor.
Unobstructed walkway: Part of the proposed walkway is to be shared with the required
parking spaces, and its width is less than the minimum required by 0.5 metres when
shared with the required parking. A 0.59 metre wide unobstructed walkway is not a
sufficient width to provide access to the Detached ADU and its reduced width could have
detrimental impacts in the provision of fire/emergency services.
It effects of the variance to permit a reduced unobstructed
walkway width are not minor.
Is/Are the Variance(s) Desirable For The Appropriate Development or Use of the Land,
Building and/or Structure?
Planning staff is of the opinion that the supportable 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 unit in the rear yard
Housing Pledge and will make use of existing infrastructure.
The minor variance to permit a reduced walkway width is not desirable for the appropriate
development or use of the property as it could impact the provision of fire/emergency
services.
Environmental Planning Comments:
No comments.
Heritage Planning Comments:
No heritage comment
Building Division Comments:
The Building Division has no objections to the proposed variance provided building permit for
the additional dwelling unit (detached) is obtained prior to construction. Please contact the
Building Division at building@kitchener.ca with any questions.
Engineering Division Comments:
No concerns
Parks/Operations Division Comments:
The rear property line abuts City owned land that accommodates an informal access to
Hillside Park. There are no inventoried City-owned trees along the common property line. All
required construction and grading should be accommodated and contained within subject
lands.
Transportation Planning Comments:
Transportation Services does not have any concerns with the proposed application.
The Region of Waterloo Comments:
There are no concerns/conditions for this application. However, the applicants are advised
that the existing and the proposed dwellings may have impacts from environmental noise
from stationary noise sources in the vicinity, and the owners are responsible for ensuring
that the proposed development does not have any impacts from the environmental noise
in the vicinity.
Grand River Conservation Authority comments:
GRCA has no objection to the approval of this application. The subject property does not
contain any natural hazards such as watercourses, floodplains, shorelines, wetlands, or
valley slopes. The property is not subject to Ontario Regulation 150/06 and, therefore
permission from GRCA is not required
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:
INFORM
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
i
Planning Division. A notice of the application was mailed to all property owners within 30
metres of the subject property.
PREVIOUS REPORTS/AUTHORITIES:
Planning Act
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020)
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020
Regional Official Plan
Official Plan (2014)
Zoning By-law 2019-051
February 26, 2024
Connie Owen
City of Kitchener File No.: D20-20/
200 King Street West VAR KIT GEN
P.O. Box 1118 (1) 12/ 628 NEW DUNDEE ROAD FUSION HOMES
Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7
Subject: Committee of Adjustment Meeting March 19, 2024, City of Kitchener
Regional staff has reviewed the following Committee of Adjustment applications and
have the following comments:
1) A 2024 - 017 31 Belmont Avenue West There are no concerns/conditions for
this application. However, the applicants are advised that the existing and the
proposed dwellings may have impacts from environmental noise from
environmental noise (transportation & stationary) in the vicinity, and the owners
are responsible for ensuring that the proposed development does not have any
impacts from the environmental noise in the vicinity.
2) A 2024 018 351 Blucher Boulevard There are no concerns/conditions for
this application. However, the applicants are advised that the existing and the
proposed dwellings may have impacts from environmental noise from stationary
noise sources in the vicinity, and the owners are responsible for ensuring that the
proposed development does not have any impacts from the environmental noise
in the vicinity.
3) A 2024 019 50 Falconbridge Drive No concerns.
4) A 2024 - 020 499 Forest Hill Drive There are no concerns/conditions for this
application. However, the applicants are advised that the subject lands are
located within the outer 6km of the airport zoning-regulated area and specifically
under the takeoff approach surface. Accordingly, the lands are subject to all
provisions of airport zoning.
5) A 2024 - 021 132 Dalewood Drive There are no concerns/conditions for this
application. However, the applicants are advised that the subject lands are
5ƚĭǒƒĻƓƷ bǒƒĬĻƩʹ ЍЏЊЌЍЊЍ
tğŭĻ Њ ƚŅ Ћ
located within the outer 6km of the airport zoning-regulated area and specifically
under the takeoff approach surface. Accordingly, the lands are subject to all
provisions of airport zoning.
6) A 2024 - 022 167 Forfar Avenue There are no concerns/conditions for this
application. However, the applicants are advised that the existing and the
proposed dwellings may have impacts from environmental noise (road traffic &
Railway, and stationary) in the vicinity, and the owners are responsible for
ensuring that the proposed development does not have any impacts from the
environmental noise in the vicinity.
Please be advised that any development on the subject lands is subject to the
provisions of the Regional Development Charge By-law 19-037 or any successor
thereof and may require 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. If a site
is subject to more than one application, additional comments may apply.
Please forward any decisions on the above-mentioned Application numbers to the
undersigned.
Yours Truly,
Joginder Bhatia
Transportation Planner
C (226) 753-0368
CC:
Mariah Blake, City of Kitchener
CofA@Kitchener.ca
2
March 7, 2024via email
Mariah Blake
Secretary-Treasurer
Committee of Adjustment
City of Kitchener
200 King Street West
Kitchener, ON, N2G 4G7
DearMs.Blake,
Re:Committee of Adjustment Meeting March 19, 2024
Applications for Minor Variance
A 2024-01731 Belmont Avenue West
A 2024-018351 Blucher Boulevard
A 2024-01950 Falconridge Drive
A 2024-020499 Forest Hill Drive
A 2024-021132Dalewood Drive
A 2024-022167 Forfar Avenue
Applicationsfor Consent
B 2024-004546-548 Peach Blossom Court
B 2024-005680 Frederick Street
Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) staff has reviewed the above-noted
applications.
GRCA has no objection to the approval of the above applications.The subject
properties do not contain any natural hazards such as watercourses, floodplains,
shorelines, wetlands, or valley slopes.The properties arenot subject to Ontario
Regulation 150/06 and,therefore,a permission from GRCA is not required.
Should you haveany questions, please contact meataherreman@grandriver.caor
519-621-2763 ext. 2228.
Sincerely,
Andrew Herreman,CPT
Resource Planning Technician
Grand River Conservation Authority
From:
To:Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subject:A2024-018
Date:March 8, 2024 2:39:48 PM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Good Afternoon,
This is in regards to the purpose of application for 51 Blucher Bld. (A2024-018)
I am against this application .A building ( tiny home) in this small back yard is not appropriate
for the yard or our neighborhood.
There is no room for more cars in the current driveway and that would mean putting in a
driveway pad on the front law, which will look horrible and ruim theasthetics of the
neighbourhood..
I am apposedto them accessing the path behind the houses. it will be destroyed by the vehicles
and probablyhave to remove some trees. i will be a mess back there.Families use that to
accessthe park .
I don't agree with Profit over privacy for our neighbours,who currently live on either side of
this house.If they don't have a large enough property to accommodatewithin the bylaw I don't
agree with special amendments. He is only doing this for profit..more money is his pocket.
I also believe it will devalue all of our properties.
Brenda NIckle
From:
To:Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Cc:
Subject:351 Blucher- Minor Variance Refusal
Date:March 11, 2024 10:31:48 AM
You don't often get email from. Learn why this is important
To whom it my concern,
It is with my sincere frustration that I am having to write this email. It has come to our
attention that our neighboring property has applied for a minor variance to build an Additional
Dwelling Unit, in their tiny back yard, in our tiny neighborhood.
The request is to increase the allowable bylaws on the size of the home, and bending the
bylaws for allowable access, simply because the lots are too small. Exceptions should not be
made for the greed of one landlord. If allowed, what will stop adjacent homes from doing the
same under the same allowances you create for this one landlord.
The impact of course, will be on neighbouring properties, both in the immediate and general
area. The primary issues are related to loss of sunlight, privacy, views, openness and overall
spacing. Other things to be considered are the removal of trees, parking, drainage, traffic and
noise. Which will all be affected by the shear mass and size of the requested building. These
type of building allowances are incompatible with the established form and character of the
neighborhood. It erodes the aesthetics of the surrounding homes, street scapes and more
specifically our property.
Aside from the sight of the proposed A.D.U, the fact that such variances need to be made to
accommodate what is deemed as a"tiny home" should be proof enough that this is quite
literally, not the right fit.While the builder can control the size of the building , as can the
city, no one can control the amount of stuff that comes with having a tenant. Maxing out
space for the building will remove available outside space for personal items. Which will in
turn clutter the lot, creating safety issues and increasing the already high rat population that
thrive in this unkept rental lot.
We have 3 vehicles, the current tenants have 3 vehicles and the home to the right of them have
4 vehicles. Street parking is already limited, creating safetfy issues for the children on the
street who play basketball.Without knowing the plans in full, the only way to accommodate
the new tenant parking will befront lawn parking. Which is the not the feel of our
neighborhood or esthetically pleasing to anyone who pays taxes to live here.
Our block of homes and neighbors is small home community that takes pride in the homes we
have bought and maintain. This will be the second tiny home this particular landlord will have
stuffed into our community. His other rentals have already made an impact on the formily
quiet, and well kept neighborhood. Certain bylaws are already not being met with the current
tenants such as; grass cutting, snow removal and having full mechanic operations in the drive
way, where engines are being removed and cars are being worked on, daily. All of which
stand out, proving this neighborhood is not the right fit for this type of expansion. An
argument can be made that we can call by law with any issues that may arise, but the whole
purpose of this is to avoid a world where we have to continuously call bylaw on our
neighbour's. We are not ones to complain and have accepted and dealt with a lot of
theconcerns we already have with the current renters.Rest assured, if this purposed A.D.U is
passed, we will not remain quiet and continuous calls to bylaw will be made, wasting
everyone's time and valuable resources.
Our lots are just as small as the homes them selves, leaving our already limited outside space
of the up most importance. We have put a lot of time and money to create a space for
ourselves, putting up fences and decks and installing back yard gardens. All of which will be
affected by the light and noise pollution, sight lines right into our back yard and everything
else that comes with craming 2 homes on 1 tiny lot. We have also invested a lot of money to
upgrade the inside of our home. While understanding the current need for homes, and letting
people have access to housing, we can't forget that this is steaming from greed and not to
assist renters out of the kindness of his heart. If so, the price of the rental wouldn't be
compariable to that of a full home. Our neighborhood is a perfect starter home community for
a new family, with surrounding parks and schools. Stacking investors rentals in back yards
will decimate the appeal and special feel of the surrounding homes. In this particular instance,
you will be allowing the greed of one landlord to trump the ability of a new home buyer to
have a fighting chance in the housing market. It could also have aneffect of the resale price of
our home as not very many people will be willing to have such an eyesore in their "private"
back yard.
While selfishly devastated by the impact it will have on our family and our home, it will create
a ripple affect of disappointment and let downs. Once this is approved, it will continue to
happen. Ruining this historically beautiful, small home community. Respectfully, I am asking
that we draw the line where it is clear and choose a more fitting neighborhood for these type
of expansions. After speaking with many of the surrounding homes, there's not one person
who agrees with what this specific landlord is doing to our block community and are already
fed up with the state of affairs and his current rentals. (Signed petitions to follow)
Thank you for taking the time to read over some of our concerns! Attempts are being made to
present at the meeting on March 19th at 10am but do to the time in which this meeting is being
held, we will have to get time off work.
Kind regards,
Andrea Oliver (
Josh Dietrich
From:
To:Committee of Adjustment (SM)
Subject:Re: Re:
Date:March 14, 2024 11:15:25 AM
So Connie my official statement is as follows:
The engineering department designed certain square footage to allow for a small home .
So when that square footage does not reach the requirements why do we even need to b
considering it.
The family that resides at the rented house was never given any knowledge to what the owner
planned on doing to their backyard that they signed a lease agreement. The owner obviously
has no consideration for thier rights or well being, It seems counter productive that the City
wants to create housing and in doing so throws a family out into the street to do it.
: Joe Halk